Loading...
PL 09/14/1977 - 6617�. ��, , � p1MINING C4?LMISSI6N MEE7ING AGENOA SEPTEMBER 14, 1977 7:30 P,M. CALI 70 OP.DER: . . PAGES ROLL CAl,L: MPROVE PLANNING C0�•�1ISSION �4INUTES: AUGt1ST 17, 1477 • 1 - 12 7. LO'f SPLIT REQUEST: l..5. N77-O8, RON NEILSON: {table) S�lit off Z� _ 23 the Westerly 130 feet of Lot 31, ud�tor's Subdivision tlo. 77, subject Lo street easements, to.make a new building site on the corner of 71 1/2 4lay NE and Alden Circle NE. (Existing house on balance of lot - li5 7l 1/2 Way NE) 2. PllBLIC HFARIFl6• REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USe PEP.MIT, S.P.�77-11, 8Y 24 - 28 R4DyEY ER;,;�?:OiJ: Per Fridley City Code 5ection 205.101 3H to allow an autoTObile car wash establishment in a C-23 {Generai Shopping), on Lot 2, Block 1, Target Addition the same being 775-53rd Avenue NE. �3.r P08LIC HEARIflG: REOUEST FOR SPECIAL U5E PERPiIT, S.P, n77-12, ��-�` NASEEFS A. ANSARI: As per Section 205.131 3,A,iG of the 6ridley ity Code, to alloar a Public Auto Repair Center use, on the Southerly 805 fieet of the Easteriy 1/2 of the Northeasterly 1/4 of the South- easteriy i/4 of Section 3-T30-R24, Except the ��iesterly 328 feet aecording to the p7at thereof (Subject to the easement agreement �f 4/12/74) the same being 7900 t4ain Street NE. -� 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L.S. �77-10, BY NEIGNTS BUILDERS IKC.: Split off the Easteriy 30 feet of Lots 1-4, Block A, R�verv�eti•i Heights Addition and add them io Lots 5-6, Block A, Riverview Hei9nts Addition to make ttiao building sites. � 5, LOT SPLIT -il. BY R06fRT H il�e JUlll.11C1-1y ID/ �/G �cc� v� �.v� vy u�a��n �-s ��� 2nd Addition in order to make two building sites. 6. REVIEW PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE. 7, C(i��(TIM1UED: PROPOSED MAINTEPJAWCE CODE. $. C0�7TI1dUED: PAFKS & OPEN SPACE P�AN : Split off nch Estates $, RECEIVE: PARiCS b RECREAiIOiV Cui�iiKIS510N MlRU7E5 UF AUGUST 22, 1977 i0. RECEIVE: ENVIROIu�IENTAL COPIMISSION PiINUTES OF AUGUST lb, 1977 . l/� ��� �� d�� �' . � r3 j� % aoaouRNr�� : �� �.,,,, �,,�- / ' /S 7 7 •� � � � � � ,� �, l� 1 ' ► ,,��� 29 - 34 35 - 38 39 - 41 42 - 51 � . ��� � _ , . ._ �� _�_ � �-_ . -��... HUMAN RESOURCES COt�Aff SSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 t�ffiMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Shea, Ned Storla, Grace Lgnch, David Thiele MEMBERS ABSENT: Harold Belgum CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Shea called the meeting to order at 7;30 p.m. Ms. Shea welcomed Mr. Thiele to the Commission. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 4, 1977, HUMAN RESOURCES COMhLLLSSION MINVTES: Ms. Lynch stated that on page 2, paragraph 3, the second sentence should read; "Even if the Commission did have that authority, the complaint would have to be filed with either the local Coumiission or with the State, but not with both." MOTION by Ned Storla, seconded by Grace Lynch, to approve the August 4, 1977, Human Resources Commission minutes as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RF'PORT ON TEEN CENTER: Mr. Storla stated that they had gone before the City Council and it looked like they would be lobbying on September 13, 1977, at Gardena Elementary School because the Hayes School Annex would make an excellent teen center. The School Board had a Citizenry Advisory Report which said two or three schools should be closed in the next two years. So, the xeen Center people, City Council, or city officials were . planning to go and ask the School Board to give the city the Hayes School Annex and the city would recondition it and use it as a Teen Center. Ms. Lynch stated they would need a good show of support and she was offering trans- portation to any who wished to come and help support this. RECEIVE LETTER FROM THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: MOTION by David Thiele, seconded by Grace Lynch, to receive the August 9, 1977, letter irom the League of Minnesota Human Rights Cou�ission regarding Coum�ission membership with the League. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried enanimously. HUMAN RESOURCES COMhffS5I0N MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 PAGE 2 Ms. Shea stated she would write a-letter to the League expressing the Commission`s reasons for not wishing to continue membership with the League. OTHER BUSINESS: TENANT/LANDLORD COMMITTEE; Ms. Shea stated she would try to get in touch with Mr. Larry Dobson before the next Commission meeting to see what was being done by the Tenant/Landlord Coamiittee. AD,TOIIRNMENT: MpT20N by Ned Storla, seconded by Grace Lynch, to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 g.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, � /% � ,/ ��'( L�� `�U .�-,i,i -;, 'x.r' � � Lynrie' Saba � Recording Secretary FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 16, 1977 I�IBERS PRESENT: J�es Langenfeld, gruce Peterson, Lee Ann Sporre, Connie Metcalf, Dave Sabistina MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Lon Loken, Environmental Health Specialist, City of Bloomington Renneth grennan, 6716 - 7th St. N.E. Barbara Hughes, 548 Rice Creek Terrace CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Langenfeld called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. APPROVAI, OF JULY 19, 1977, FRIDLES' ENVIROATMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES: ' Mr. Langenfeld stated that under "Others Present", Pat Gabel's name should be added and Carroll Kukowski's title "Council-pt-Large" should be added. He stated that on page 3, Sth paragraph, the sentence should read: "Mr. Langenfeld asked Ms. Blomquist to give the legal aspects of how the M.P.C.A. became involved with noise pollution." He aiso indicated the correct spelling of Mr. Lon Loken on page 5. MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Dave Sabistina, to approve the July 19, 1977, Fridley Environmental Commission minutes as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON NOISE POLLUTION SEMINAR: Mr. Langenfeld introduced Mr. Lon Loken, the Environmental Health Specialist for the �ity of Bloomington to the Commission members and others present. MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to receive the packet of documents on Noise. Upon a voic� vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr, Langenfeld stated that at this time the Commission was attempting to find its feelings into the possibility of seeking a noise ordinance for the City of Fridley, and that was one of the main reasons for having Mr. Loken attend the meeting. He asked Mr. Loken to give a brief su�ary of how Bloomington became involved with a noise ordinance and the controversy it had created, if any. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONAiCSSION MEETING AUGUST 16, 1977 PAGE 2 Mr. Loken stated that about two yeaxs ago, the City of Bloomington had enacted the Comprehensive Noise Code as well as the Air Pollution Code. He stated that it was rather difficult to explain whaC had actually happened as this had gone on before ae was employed by the City of Bloomington. Ha said he thought,it all happened as a result of the number of complaints that were coming to the Environmental Service gection via the police. AL1 of a sudden, there had been the need for some type of control on noise pollution. So, through the City Council, the code was passed. Aiong with this, a Staff had also been provided to enforce the Code which was a rather essentia: part to go along with the Code. He said that in April of 1976, a Comprehensive Ncise Survey had been done for the city by a Mr. Bob Larson. This survey set up a pilot study area in the northeast corner of Bloomington which entailed industrial source�, motor vehicle noise, ehe airport, and just about anything a city by the airport wc_1d experience. This survey defined the problem for Bloomington and proposed several abatement measures: quiet the source, provide a barrier between the noise and the receiver, or remove the receiver. The three main physical problems they wanted to address were annoyance, speech interference, and sleep interference. They felt th=_ levels that were stated in the Noise Code addressed these problems. Mr. Loken stated that apparently there had been some federal funds requested to dc the noise study and to set up a motor vehicle noise enforcement program, but that had been turned down except for a barrier that was placed between a residential area and an industrial area. The barrier was provided through federal block grant funds. The barrier had just been installed and they had not had time to check on �ts effecti-:>_aess, although they feZt it wa; effective a; they had not r�ceived ar.y complaints. 'Phen, the City Council had appropriated money for the noise program in October of 1975, , especially the Motur Vehicle Noise Snforcement Program,which he believed was thros�n federal block grant funds. Mr, Loken briefly went through the Bloomington Noise Code with the Commission. fi= statec gloomingtan had adopted O.S.H.A• standards. He said a very important part of a c:de was setting up the noise levels for specific areas--industrial, commercial, or resideLtial. The�normally took the noise measurements on tke property line of the receiver, alt'r.ough Bloomington's noise code was a source code and the state standards were reeeiver rzquire- ments. He felt when adopting a noise code, it should be made receiver-oriented. i:e stated they had a provision Eor noise impact statements. He said he felt the section on Central Air Conditioning Equipment (Section 10.29.05) was very important. The �ain point was to have very close cooperation with the electrical inspectors. He state3 that Section 10.29.07 on Operational Limits was interesting in that it outlacaed a�y actions between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In Section 10.30, Public NLisance Noises Prohibited, he stated that public nuisance noise was considered anything t,at bothered two or more people. He stated that he felt their code was a fairly equicable, comprehensive, and enforceable code. The code had become an ordinance in Septembar 1975. Mr. Loken stated that Che Motor Vehicle Enforcement Program was one of the more esciting parts of the program they were into at this time. That had begun in October 1976 with the budgeting by City Council to provide funds for it in which they were allocated some- where in the amount of $31,000. They had a half-time police officer, half-time environmental services technician, parY-time suvmier help, equipment, and pnblic educatiea. FRiDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 16, 1977 PAGE 3 Mr. Loken stated they had made up 40 signs and erected these on the streets at every major entrance. Then, they went to on-street enforcement after about a month of public information. For the enforcement, they set up a technician with a sound level meter a specific distance from the source. The technician had communication with an officer about a block away. As soon as a violation was recorded, the officer picked up the violator and tagged him for operating a vehicle beyond the limits specified. He said they had issued 52 tags and 25 warnings in about the last six weeks, and averaged 1-2 hours per day of actual enforcement. After issuing a tag, the violator was requested to come to what was called a"Compliance Center". The violator had to come to the technician for a"stationary run-up procedure". This procedure would give an accurate indication of whether the muffler had been fixed properly. If if had not been fixed, it was evident right away. If the violator passed the"stationary run-up procedure," the violator paid a fine of $10; if he failed, he went to court. Mr. Loken stated that the Cospliance Center was a very essential part of the program, but it was new and they did not know how long they could maintain it. He said their objective was to get quiet vehicles; that was the reason for the Compliance Center. The Compliance �enter forced people to realize what levels they had to reach. Statistically, 70% cf the violators were from Bloomington, so it was a local problem that had to be handled by the local cou�unity. Ms. Metcalf asked about the young person who had just bought an o1d car with a bad muffler and could not afford to replace it. Mr. Loken stated that was an un£ortunate part of this, but could people afford to have � noisy cars driving by their houses? It �aas weighing a noisy vehicle that would cost someona something against somebodp's enjoyment of their property. People's enjoyment of their property could not be put in monetary terms. He said he had run into ore or two instances wnere a young person had just bought a car and cosld not afford the muffler and they had made provisions for that. They were just trying to direct them- selves at those people who deliberately increased the noise of their cars. �s. Hughes stated the reason she had come to the meeting was because of the young neople in her neighborhood who had noisy mufflers that were terribly irritating, part�cularly on weekends. She found it extremely annoying. She hoped ttie Co�ission would pursue s�e kind of noise abatement program in the City of Fridley for noisy cars, first of a11, and, secondly, for sirens that went continuously. With all the major thoroughfares in the City of Fridley and the hospital, she was sure the sirens would not have to be used as much as they were. There were a number of cou�unities that had cut down on the use of sirens and found they did not need them so much. She stated that she felt noise had increased in Fridley had increased over the past few years. pys. Metcalf stated she could see an ordinance where there was deliberate noise making by people, young and old. She would like the ordinance to be there for protection zgainst such noise nuisances, but to deliberately catch the passerby whose automobile was noisy was more than she would want. Mr. Loken stated that was the whole idea of the program. Motor vehicle noise was the most pervasive noise and affected so many people. In Bloomington's study, sanewhere around 43% of the people in Bloomington were affected by some noise in some fashion. He said they felt by just sitting on the street and having many people come up and express gratitude in wha[ they were doing convinced them they were doing the right thing. He said there was no reason for people to have noisy vehicles. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENfAL COP44ISSION MLETING AUGUST 16, 1977 PAGE 4 Ms. Sporre asked Mr. Loken if Bloomington had any way of regulating the use of emergency vehicles. Mr. Loken stated that he really did not know if they had a procedure; but it was probably more of a cooperative-effort type of thing. Mr. Loken stated that the key to the whole program was the noise meter and callibrator. ge said the police had expressed appreciation in having actual numbers when tagging violators. MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Dave Sabistina, that the following two forms be included as part of the record; "A Noise Citation" and "Expenditure Analysis" from the City of Bloomington's Noise Control Program. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mx. Loken stated that by looking at the Bloomington and St. Louis Park ordinance and synthetizing everything, the Commission could come out with a very workable oYdinance. Mr. Loken said he felt the St. Louis Park ordinance was more graphic--it really told where the authority was and what could and could not be regulated. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the Cammission certainly appreciated Mr. Loken's coming to the meeting. Mr. Langenfeld told the Commission that Mr. Loken had indicated he would be willing to come before the Com�ission at another time to discuss this topic. The Commission members agreed that they would like Mr. Lokea to be invited back at a later time after they had read and digested some of the material. Ms• Hughes stated that Fridley was not alone in this ef£ort. There were a fair amount of activities on neise ia suburban areas; some were adopting the N.P•C. standards or working on their own ordinances. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the Commission members go through the document entitled "Sound & Noise" before going into the other ordinances so they could make up their minds as to which ordinance was most applicable to the City of Fridley and if Fridley actually needed a noise ordinance at this point. In his opinion, he felt Eridley did need a noise ordinance. MOTION by Lee A� Sporre, seconded by Dave Sabistina, to pdopt the N.P•C. 4 yotand pehicle Noise Limits,as this would address the vehicular roblems in the Cit , that the Commission review the St. Louis Park, Bloomington, and other noise pollution control ordinances to adopt a noise pollution control ordinance for the City of Fridley for those areas eligible for local enforcement. Mr. Peterson and Ms. Metcalf questioned the need for the motion to adopt the N,P.C. 4 regulations as these regulations would be part of the whole ordinance anyway. UPON A VOICE VOTE, LANGENFELD, SPORRE, SABISTINA, PETERSON, VOTING AYE, MBTCALF VOTING NAY, THE MOTION CARRIED. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 16, 1977 PAGE 5 MOTION by gruce Peterson, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, that based on this information, Staff be directed to begin putting together a preliminary draft for a noise ordinance applicable to the City of Fridley. Mr. Langenfeld stated that when they got started on this, he hoped they could move faster than they were able to with the mining ordinance. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Langenfeld called a 10 minute recess at 9;25 p.m. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN: Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the Co�issianers go through the Plan page by page and make any changes or covm�ents they felt were necessary. The Commission members concurred with all the following changes. pn page 1, paragraph 3, Ms. Sporre changed the second sentence to read; "This increase in participation and recreation has been specially noted in the areas of outdoor recreation." Ms. Sporre felt a statement shouid be included about the energy crisis so the following sentence was added at the end of the last paragraph on page i: "This demand will increase even further because of the energy crisis." Mr. Langenfeld stated that he got the fzeling from some of the content of the Parks & ppen Space Plan that this plan was just fulfilling a requxrement and that was it. pn page 2, last paragraph, first sentence, the werd "Act" should be inserted after �'Mandatory Planning". pn page 3, first paragraph, first sentence, the word "park" should be changed to "parks" in the third paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to read: "Finally, policies define the means that shall be used to achieve the objectives." pn page 3, 4th paragraph, second sentence, the word "complete" should be changed to "completely". Ms. Sporre felt there were some things that had been brought up that were important objectives in the park design speaking to cultural identity of the city through its park system, speaking to effective utilization of space, and speaking to the ornamenta- tion of the parlc system. These things were important but were not included in the objective under Parks, page 3. She asked the Commission members if they felt these items were included later in the Plan; if they were, it would not be necessary to have them in the objectives. Mr. Langenfeld stated that if cultural identity, historical consideration, orientation of park plan, and utilization of space were not used in the entire document, they should be done so at [his time. FRIDLEY INVIRONMENTAL COI�R4CSSION MEETING, AUGUST 16, 1977 PAGE 6 Ms. Sporre requested that the following facts be stressed; "That every park syste� should allow for culture. Facilities such as historical places or structures, mu�eums, statues, fountains, gardens, theatres, etc., are often found in or are themselves aarks. These parks can be very restrictive, enclosed, or open spaces. The enciosed spaces can be either structural (man-made) or physical (natural} consisting of earth forms aL3 vegetative growth. The open spaces can be as expansive as each respective site is adaptable to use. These facilities, enclosed or open, can convey either an active or passive mood that will be supplemental and complementary to the total park system." Ms. Metcalf suggested that the Goal on Page 3 be reworded as follows: "PROVIDE �EQUATr PARK FACILITIES, RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, AND A QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR T:� RESIDENTS." Under Objective 1 under PARKS, page 3, the words "an order of" were deleted from the sentence. Objective 2 under OPEN SPACE, page 4, should be changed as follows; "Provide for conservation which requires management and interpretation. It is imperative that conservation of natural resources be one of the primary thrusts of parks and open space system." pn page 5, second paragraph, second sentence, the ward "have" should be changed te "has" and a co�a should be inserted after "major traffic". Referring to the Facilities Map, Ms. Sporre stated that Locke Park and Moore Lake shou�= be included as Regional FaciliCies. . The Co�ission members agreed that the definition ior "Regional Park" should be c;:ar.ged and that acreage should not be the criteria for a regional park; it should be basad on usage. The Commission members made the following change in the definition for "Regional ?ark" on page 22: "An area of natural quality for nature oriented outdoor activities e.�::ich serves a population larger than the local community. Regional parks usually contain at least 100 acres." Ms. Sporre stated that the statistical usage patterns on Moore Lake and Locke Par: justified them to be reclassified as regional facilities and, therefore, would ensble them to receive regional funds. p1r. Langenfeld stated that the following facilities which the Islands of Peace P=rk had at this time were not included on the Facilities Map; bike racks, fishing, picnic canopies, restrooms, shelters, ski areas, and hiking trails. Mr. Peterson stated that he felt the definitions for "Special Use", "Regional", �nd "Community" should be finalized first before the Coc�miission could consider reclassifyin_ any of the parks. These classifications did not fit the definitions. ge felt se�e parks cuuld even be multi-purpose and be classified in more than one category. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING AOGUST 16, 1977 PAGE 7 Mr. �angenfeld stated that here again, it looked like Lhis document was just to fulfill requirements and that was all. Ms. Sporre asked if the purpose of this document was to see how to spend the City's money or to identify how to fulfill Che needs of the urban population? She said this whole plan was developed around a neighborhood concepC rather than a user c mcepC. Mr. Peterson stated that this Commission had not had the time to go over this plan adequately to make the necessary changes that they felt were necessary to make this a workable and useable document. The Coumiission members expressed an interest in knowing what percentage of land in Fridley was committed to public land, pys, Metcalf stated that was a fact thaC should be in the plan right now. Ms. Sporre stated that this Co�ission felt that the past, present, and projected usages of the parks should be one of the primary indicators in categorizing; i.e., special use, regional, covcnunity, neighborhood, etc. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that each Coa�ission member come back to the next meeting with their ideas of how each definition should read. MOTION by Bruce peterson, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to conCinue discussion on the Parks � Open Space plan until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. (TABLED JULY 19, 1977) DISCUSSZON OF EAST RIVER ROAD: The Commmission insl-ructed Ms. SPorre to find out the current status on the East River Road Project Committee. Ms. Sporre stated that she would do this and would contact lir. John Fessenden to see if he would take over the chairmanship of the co�ittee. She stated she would report back to the Co��mission at the next meeting. MOTION by gruce Peterson, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to continue discussi�n of East River Road at the next meeting. UPon a yoice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION OF TIOORE LAKE: Mr. Langenfeld stated that since Mr. Leek was not at the meeting, they would have to waiC until Mr. Leek was present to get an update of where the City stood with regard to the tests on Moore Lake. MOTION by gruce Peterson, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to continue discussion on Moore Lake at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all vo[ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETIN6 AUGUST 76, 1977 PAGE 8 � CODE OF ETHICS {Report by Mr. Langenfeld): Mr. LangenfeZd read two paragraphs frwn the August 3, 1977, Planning Coirmiission minutes regarding the Code of Ethics and the statements made by the Environmental Commission members regarding the Code of Ethics. He stated that the Plaaning Covm�ission had voted in favor of the Code of Ethics. MOTTON by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to receive the report and concur with the report regarding the Code of Ethics from Mr. Langenfeld. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mo[ion carried unanimously. AD.TOURNMENT: MOTION by Connie Metcalf, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to adjourn the meeting at 12;01 a.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. gespectfully subm�tted, (,�SCif'kr+t.�% � LYd�'e Saba Recording Secretary �^..� Y .»yr" `� CITY OF FRIDLEY Appr,ALS COMMISSIdN MEETING - AUGUST 23, 1977 CALL TO ORD�R• Vice-Chairwoman Gabel called the August 23, 1977, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 P.M, ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Plemel, Kemper, Gabe1, Barna Schnabel Ron Holden, Building Inspector APPROV� APPEALS CO:�INSISSION MINUT�S: AUGUST 9, 1977 ����� ��� ..; i% Mr. Barna requested that the third para�raph on Page 4 be changed to read, "r1r, Barna said that as lcng as Staff and Section 2Q5,072, 1� A, (lzst line in the paraorapii), nax determined it could be handled by the �lbpeals Commissicn, he said tnat tne Appeals Commission should act u�on the re:;kest. �� MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by 2�Ir. Kemper� to approve the Appeals Commission minutes of August 9, 19?�, as anended, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. t. CF TH� FRIDI,EY CITY GODE AS U :7EiER� e� tii s�.i L 'cr S � ':i.u� ' 1 � t� . :iir\�u r�rr�; _ y uii : y : L _ 1 Gi L' ' o ylil' i i`. .:1: h_,�l 1' it .i'v 1: Si �Y G:iT Oi� i'I :YuLII'�?i; v: 'i''. :: G;;�: ^` i��,� ,cI:��i RA� ';idY 0��1Pf.iil • T::::��C:, .� ��t L`���I.UP:" a� D_ 1- 0: �'J �Y t:.' 7U `1'S :v' � �.., t.i �.;_.'1'ii �ri� .� ll e 1'_;:c �R ���SION Spray Fainting Company, 200 Ironton Street P1.L. Fridley, Minnesota� 55432). F" APPEALS COMt•4ISSION ME�TIPiG - AUGUST 23, 1977 " Pa�e 2 MOTION by I�r. Barna, seconded by thr. Kemper, to Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing 7:38 �.M, A. EZ! :, C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT open the aye, the opened at PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRE,T4ENT: Section 205.�34, 4r A requiring a front yard.setback of 35 feet in an industrial area. Public purpose serned is to provide adeauate open space around industrial structures for aesthe£ic and fire fighting purposes. Section 205.�34, 4� C, requiring a rear yard setback of 25 feet. Public purpose served is to provide adequate space around industrial structures for aesthetic, fire fighting and aacess purposes. STATED HARDSHIP: Variance request ta 0 feet back of building abutting Burlington Northern R.R, to accommodate covering oaer existing loading dock to provide enclosed facility for material handling, incor�ing and outgoing, and provide protected area for skids etc, and vehicles to conform to Fridley Planning Commission desires. Refusal of variance would create a hardship in that it �ould curtail our utilization plans for total space needed for appearance and storage. Variance to front yard setback from 35 feet to 14 feet to allot! construction of a 6' X 14� enclosed entry. ADNiINISTRATIVL STAFF REVIEi'J: The rear yard zero lot line reauest involves mainly Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The petitioner wants to enclose the rear loadino dock area, add an area to the north for loading dock purposes, and install a vestibule entry on the front. The existing building is 29 feet from the curbing on Ashton Avenue. Please note tkat Staff requires a more complete landscape plan before any permits could be issued for this project. APPnAL5 COMMISSION ME�TIhTG - AUGUST 23, 1977 Pa�e 3_ Mr. A1 Toevrs representing Industrial Spray Painting Company explained to the Commission and the Audier.ce that the Company was in the process of buying the building and in so doing, planned to completely iinish the construction. He said that they planned to clean the rear area by building over the dock completely, enclosing rrhat presently existed in the dock area. He said thai they wanted to add on to the supplies room and to hard surface the outside area and completely fence the building property. He said that all the necessary landscaping vrould also be done at that time. Vice-Chairt�roman Gabel asked if prior to this time, had Industrial Spray Painting Company just l.eased the building. Mr. Al Toei�rs said that they previously leased the building and urere nor� in the process of buying the building. Ae pointed out that closing vrould be August 31, 1977. Vice-Chairwomai Gabel asked if there had been problems with the previous otivners. tdr. A1 Toe�t�s commented that the previous o�:rner had never finished the existing building. He said that the previous ormer had money problems and never compl�tely finished the buildin�. rtr. A1 Toe�ts said that the main thino r�as that the Comnany had to do something because children had been getting into the building and disrupting things. He said that the Comnany had to do something to nrotect the area and he felt +hat the 6est way ���ould be to cover the entire area of building and loading dock and fencing in the property. Vice-Chair��roman Gabel asked where the fencing rrould be located and rSr. Toeivs indicated on the plan the exact ,location of the fencing. Mr. Ralph Officer of 315 Hugo Street N.E., Fridley, asked if all the planned projects required a variance. Mr. Holden indicated on the plan the areas that would require a variance. Mr. Officer questioned the statement made on the variance request that was on the Public Hearing Ptotice that stated, ��the setback from the reauired 35 feet to 1y feet so that a six foot a�dition could be added". Fie said that 14 plus 6 did not edual 35 feet. He ti�ranted to knovr if the City had established a different setback here by putting a street in. APP�ALS C01tMISSION M�PTING - F.IIGUST 2 1 Pa e Tir. Holden explained that by putting in the street, immediately the building uould be non-conforming. Mr, Arnie Toerrs of 12y.9 N� 96 Lane (also representing Industrial Spray Painting ComAany) questioned the putting in of Ashton 5treet. He tivanted to ItROW r�hy the street couldn�t be moved over more so that the Company i�rould be a conformin� building. Mr. Holden (guessed) that at the time the street r�as planned, there rras probably enough space in the front of the building to conforn to the existino setback requirements. Mr. Arnie Toevrs asked if the setbaclt reauirer�ent of 100 feet applied to 8oth sides of the street. Mr. Holden expl�ned that the setback reauired of the 2d-1 zoned buildin was different than the setback requirements of an R-1 zonin� �•,ahich is l�rhat exists across the street from the Industrial Snray Painting Company)� He rrent on to say that technically the setback iaas 10� feet because the Company ��as adjacent to R-1 housing. Atrs. M. Sporre asked ivhat. the builciing vrould look like after it tizras completed. Mr. A1 Toeti�as explained as best he could exactly hotr the building would apnear. Mrs, t•4argaret Sporre af lII0 Hugo Street N� indicated that her main concern i�ras the presence of fire hazards. Mr. A1 Toetvs indicated that at least four occasions mhere there had been a fire had resulted from children playing ti�ith matches at the rear of the bui2ding� Vice-Chair�voman Gabel asked if once the dock area rras enclosed ivould that improve their ability to control the number of fires that the Company had experienced in the past. Mr. Holden and Air. A1 Toer�s both agreed that it �aould greatly help the problem. Mrs. Sporre asked Mr. ToeWS about the fires inside the building. 1Vhat would be done to con�rol t&ose fires. Mr. Arnie Toerrs indicated that the Company had rrorked on that problem and he said that it rvas under control. He said that they had installed fire prevention equipment. APPLALS COI;�4ISSI0?i MI',�TIT?G - AUGUST 23� 1977 Pa�;e 5 hir: Ker�per asked if the fire department had inspected the building. Mr. Holden said that it had been inspected many times by the Fridley Fire Depa_�tment. He pointed out that the building t�ras very ti�rell constructed. He said that if the building tras not the type of construction it rfas, it rrould have been leveled aany tiraes from fires. Mr. Plemel asked if there r�as discrepancies found by the Fire Department, did the Company have to co�ply. Mr. A1 Toer;s said that anything the k'ire Departr�ent indicated, the Company al:•;ays corplied. fie �ointed out that many areas of the building are nresently totally poti�rdered sarinl�].ed, He said that that �;ras a r�ost advanced means of fire preventic�. Vice-Chairrroman Gaoel asYed h1r. Toe�ls if this eras a recent improvement. Air. A1 Toerrs said that it had been done in the last six months. PZr. Holden said that because of the number of fires, ` he figured the Insurance co�pany 1�tould make sure they rrould have all the most up-to-date preventions. Mr. A1 Toet;�s pointed out that since �958 the Company had one large fire and one spray booth _ fire. He di�n't feel tkat that rras such a l�ge amount of fires, Vice-Chairrton�an Gabel asked if the fires had decreased since they had ir�proved tne building, Mr. Al Toeias indicated that since they had had only t�vo fires since� 1958, it r�as rather hard to decide if the fire hazard had decreased. Airs. Sporre �,nanted to knorr ivhy the Fire Department ti7as altvays goino to the building. Mr. A1 Toet�s indicated that they rrere called to put out "nuisance" fires set by children ulaying rrith matches at the rear of the building or along the railroad trackso APP°ALS COfiII�iISSI�PI i4�ETING - AUGUST 2�1977 Pat�e 6 Mr. Sporre indicated that a petition had been circulated through the neighborhood that was against the granting of the variance. Ae said that the majority of the nei�hborhood had signed the petition against the variance. He suggested that the item be tabled until the next meeting so that the petition could be broudht back to the people that had signed it to get input to them to better explain exactly �rrhat 1�ras being planned. He requested that the Toevrs' get some type of sketch to soMeerhat shota ti�rhat the buildin� arould look 1ike. He explained that he preferred not to present the petition to the Commission until the neighbors rrere better informed as to rrhat was being proposed. He said that by having some adc3itional information neither Industrial Spray Painting Companynnr the neighborhood v�ould have hard feelings. Mr. A1 Toetivs pointed out that some of the items they vrere doing had been specified by the City of Fridley as having to be done. FIe didn�t feel that any petition could stop some of the improvements that they evere planning. t4rs. Ralph Officer indicated that she had been approzched by a person that had come to her home to have her sign a petition that the oerson kner� nothing about. Mrs. Officer said that the person couldn't ansr�er any of the questions that she had asked her. - Vice-Chairvoman Gabel said that perkaps there had been some misconception and that naybe if the neighborhood could see that the plan crould be a vast improvement, they might not be so reluctant about it. Mr. Barna pointeci out that the Abpeals Commission yaas not the final bod.y on the matter. He said that if the Commission anproved or disapproved, it vrould still g� to the Planning Com.�nission and then to the City Council. Mr. Sparre said that some of the apprehension had been the fear of the expansion of the factory. He explained that over the course of.the year� the neighborhood had some unfortnnate and alarming incidents•tivith people leaving the factory in the eray they had conducted themselves; driving throu�h the resida�iial streets and he said that this r,�as maybe ��rhy the neighborhood had reacted in such a harsh manner. He said that the neighborhood ��rould ti�rant to see exactly rrhat i�r&s being planned. APPEALS COA4IISSION ME?'TING - AUGUST 2.3, 1977 Page 7 Vice-Chairsvoman Gabel indicated that Mr, Sporre: had asked about tabling the item and going bzck to.the neighbors and better explaining to them what exactly v�hat vras being planned; hotivever, she said it would be entirely uo to the petitioner since he had been .the one to make the variance request. Mr. Arnie Toews indicated that they didn�t want any more delay in getting started on the project. He requested that the Commission proceed on the request, Mr. Kemper suggested polling the people that tivere present as to their feeling after hearing exactly rahat the plan encompassed, Ms. L. Sporre said that she �•rould �vant to bring the petition back to the people that had signed it and better explain to them exactly ���hat vras being planned, She didn't feel that the naraes on the petition should be totaZly disregarded, She felt that the matter should be tabled until the next meeting at erhich time, she v�as almost sure, the neighborhood vrou3d give the Toe�vs' their support on the proposal. She, herself, s�rould support the proposal with certain qualifications placed on it such as tne screening, landscaping, traffic control, parking, curbs, and the kind of ventilation system that would be reauired. She indicated that there �vas a problem that existed r�ith the present ventilation system. 'She said that ��rhen a person walked dovm Ironton Street to visit the Nature Center there raas an offensive odor in the air, She �vould like td see that the ventilation system be brought up to standard. She indicated that there e�as concern about the industrial encroachment on the surrounding residential property. Ms, Sporre said that the simple fact cras that the codes appreciate the value that industry provides and customarily it was an industrial requirement to set back from the residential. She said that very close attention had to be given to the type of quality construction that drould be done on the addition. She indicated that she would be 1�rilling to present the information to the people that had originally signed the petition. She said she would present this information in a very positive manner. She said that she would prefer that the matter be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Plemel asked <<rhat Ms. Sporre meant as to the encroachment on the surrounding residential pronerty. Ms. Sporre said she felt it was more desirable to have the 100 foot setback rather than the 25 foot setback that was being proposed. " She said that tkat setback would affect nroperLy value. She indicated if what �vas planned vrould be aesthetically pleasing, then perhans it t�rould not be so disagreeable to the residential p:operty oi��ners. APP�ALS COhiMISSIOPd r1Lc.TIPiG - AUGIIST 23, 197'7 pa�e 8 Several of the people present agreed �vith Ms. L. Sporre. Several of ,proposai. They only be delayed happen. the neighbors felt very positive about the indicated that by tabling the item, it would and the improvements would take longer to Mr. Ralph Officer said that he v�as also a businessman in the City of Fridley as i�rell as living 13 blocks from the Company. Iie said that he had confidence that the Fridley building inspectors, Fridley Fire Department, the Fridley Public 6Vorks Dire ctor, and the Fridley Parks and Recreation people all rrere familiar srith the situation at hand as far as vrhere the street .vas located and �✓ith the fact that the building ivas present before the residential people ivere. He said that the only thing located in the area before the Company ti�ras the r�ilroad. Mr. Officer commented about Ms. Sporre�s comment regarding the offensive odor vrhile �ralking do��m Ironton to the Nature Center. �3e pointed out that if a person �valked dorrn Ironton to the Nature Park the,y r;ere rralking on private property that belonged to the Railroa3 and Industri=.1 Snray Painting Company, He said that there rras an easement dov�n Ironton that enabled people to 1ralk into Coon Rapids �'rom the Askton extension. He said that no berson had ever been stopped from vlalking into the Nature Parl� by the property oe,mers. :�e felt that the original petition should be presented to the Comnission so that it would go on record that those people had signed a petition that they knec� nothing about. He said that he ��as sure that the City of� Fridley t^rould insure that it w�ras a proper buildin�� that it rrould be vrell-built, t��ell maintained, and up to all the codes. He didn't feel that the citizens really �rould have much influence as to the design of the building. He said that it vrould be done to improve the appearance of the building, at the request of the City, He indicated that tiRhat ��ras being proposed ti�ias a variance that ���ould enclose the front doors. He said that the addition mould do two things; first it vfould direct thepedestrian =: traffic into the building from improved parking lots; and secondly, it vtould be an energy saving idea. Vice-Chairr�or�an Gabel suggested that the Toeti�rs' sit dolvzi ��aith the neighbors and sho�v them �vhat they were planning to do. She said that the item rrould go to the Planning Cor�mission on September ly., tg']7. 9he said that normally the Planning Commission would only receive the minutes; i�o�tever� the item could be opened to discussion should an5rone feel it rrould be necess�sy to express same concern or rrant further discussion. Dis. Gabel also �vent on to say that it i��ould also go before the City Council, at s�hich time they could again be heard. APP�ALS COMhtISSIOPI MEPTIriG - AUGIIST 23 1977 PaFe 9 ris. L. Sporre asked if the fire records �vere public records. Vice-Ghairtiroman Gabel said that they �vere not. Mr. Arnie Toerrs indicated that since Industrial Spray Painting Company had 'neen deeded Ir�nton Street they ��ill consider fencing in their entire property unless the continual lighting of fires on their property ceases. He said if they would be forced to do that, then the entire area v�ould be off-limits to all foot traffic. rir. A1 Toerrs said that as far as offensive orders; he indicated that the building r�as constructed according to codes. He said that it rras built according to all pollution stzndards� ne said they �>>ere i�rithin all fire codes, insurance codes and he felt that rras the best they could do. Mr. Plemel asked if they irere inspected by OSHA. Mr. Al Toel�rs indicated that they i�ere. He pointed out that most of the inprovements l��ere recom�ended by the City of rridley. Ms. Lee Gasner of 361 Ironton 5treet riE expressed concern on the setback. She said that it r�ould affect the value of the property if the lot is too close to an in@ustrial building. She indicated that even if the person purchasing tne home didn�t mind,. many times the loan companies s�rould make that a consideration. ' Vice-Chair��oman Gabel said that if the Com�any put on the mansard roof �nd adds an entry way to the front of the building and generally cleaned un the appearance of the building, it should be aesthetically r�ore pleasing as v�ell as non-detracting fron P�is. Gasper�s property, Mr. Holden pointed out that there vras 86�000 souare feet and the Company could espand to the North and South tivithout any variance�. Ms. L. Sporre ouestioned if a request for a building permit ca�e in, r�ould the City place £he reauirements for proper screening and landscaping on it. Mr. Barna said that the screenin�, plantings, and parking lot reauirenents irere as a matter of fact because they had been cited as not being up to the present codes. He said that the building as it stood eras not up to the present buildin� codes for loolcs. He explained that it rras a matter of an Ordinance that the Company make the proposed improvements. :PPi:AL:i CC��fi�1Iti°I021 ?4 �?TII�iG - 11UGUST � 19%% Pa�*e 10 Ms. L. Sporre asked that v�hether or not the Company made any changes, �zould they have to make the improvements. Mr. 3arna said that the CoMnany ivould HAVE to make the ic�provements. He ex.plained that even if they r�ere not expandin�, they erould still have to improve the appearance of the building. t�is. L. Sporre asked rrhat a mansard roof looked like, Mr. A1 Toer�s shocred her as best he could tiahat a mansard roof looked.like, He indicated that the professiona.11y dravm plans rrould be available by ;lednesday, August 31 � 197'7, Mr. Holden asked that P�Ir. Toerrs got a copy to the City of I'ridley Planning Department as soon as they could. Vice-Chairrroman Gabel suggested that the neighbors talk vrith the representatives of the Industrial Spray Painting Company betvreen noti and the September lyth Planning Commission meeting so that they better understand trhat the proposed buildin� improvements r�ould look like. Mr. A1 Toerrs invited the neighbors to come to the Company at any time. Mr. Barna asked if the petition ���as going to be presented to the Conmission. Mr. Sporre said that he didn�t ti��ant to do anything on a negative basis at that time, MOTION by Mr. Ba.rna, seconded by rir. Kemper, to close the Public Heaxing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the public hearing closed at 8:31 P.M. Mr. Barna commented that he lived 2z blocks fron the building in question. He didn't feel that any of the improvements pointed out on the drai�ring would detract from the building. Ae felt that all the items rrould improve the building and he 1�rould have no objections to the variances. Mr. Plemel said that all the items seemed to be an improvement. Vice-Chair��oman Gabel sug�ested that P4r. A1 Toe���s and Mr. Arnie Toei:�s appear at the Plannin,�, CoMmission meeting. �1PP�ltLS COtdMISSION i4:�.TIi;G - AUGUST 23, 1977 Pa�e 11 Mr. Barna commented that the statement had been made of the possibility of the petitioner fencing off Ironton Street and he said that he ���as one of the people that had trespassed crhi2e going to the Nature Park, He said he 1��ould lilse to see the �treet kent open by the neighborhood and the businesU staying on a friendly basis, tirorking closely to�ether to keen that access to the Nature Center open, Pir. Kemper said that recognizing the C;.t;�+s desire to clean-up the building and the fact that there rrould stiZl be te�o opportunities for the public to be heard regarding tiiis subject (the Plannin� Comr�ission �neeting and the City Council �eetin�), he MOVED. that the Appea7.s Corunission approve the request for the variances as stated. Mr. Barna seconded the motion� and motioned that the original motion be amended to say, "TYtat the Ap�ueals Coramission apnrove tne reouest for a variances of tne Fridley City Code as :ollo�:s: Section 205.�34, 4, �?, to reduce the �ront yard setback from the required 100 feet, r�here adjacent to anotner zoning district, to 14 feet, and, Section 205.�34, 4s C, to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to zero feet, to allo!•� the construction of a 6 foot by 11� foot enclosed entry and loading c:oc� to an existing industri�l buiZ�ing, located on all that part of the S:J 4 of the Pd�. ; of Section 3, T-30, :�-2t�, described as follo•rrs: Be�inning at a point on the rasterly extension of the South line of Ironton Street as nlatied Herrral 9d:lition, distant 260 feet �a_st of the l�est line of said quarter; thence Last and parallel t�rith said ',lest line for a distGnce of ?�15 feet; thence �.�ast and parallel ��rith the said Easterly.extension of Ironton Street to the Southerly right of +.•�ay line of the Great Northern Railti•ray Company; thence Northrresterly along said right of rray line to its intersect on tfith the said :asterly extension of the South Line of Ironton Street; thence tiJest to the point of beginning, the sar,ie beino 200 Ironton Street N.E� Fridley, Minnesota� and that the landscape Alans� screening� curbing� blacktoppin�, and all innrovements be part of the recommendation. Mr. Barna's motion to amend the originaZ motion, cJas seconded by t�ir. Kemper. UPON A VOICE VOTL OF THs FIRST DiOTTON� all veting aye, the notion carried unanir�ously. UPON A VOICE VOTE OP TH� AP•1LPTDPD PSOTION, all votin� �ye, the amended motion carried unaniMOUSly. � xrr�yL'a wMr115s1UN M��TING - AUGUST 2. 1977 paPe 12 2. A � ixequesL oy r2r, & Mrs. Tilomas E, Joseph Jr „ 126-9�th Avenue NE, Blaine, Minnesota 55434.) MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by P4r, Plemel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at $;41 p,t4, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas E. Joseph, Jr. were present at the meeting, A, i� C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Ri'PORT PUBLIC PURPOSr� SERVED BY REaUIRr."NIENT: Section 205.o53e 4a B4� requiring a side yard setback of 5 feet from an attached garage in an R-1 zone, Public purpose served is to provide open snace bettiveen structures to reduce conflagration of fire, to provide access to the rear yard in emergencies and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential neighborhood, STATED HARDSHIP: "t4y hardship is that I need a 24 foot wide garage instead of a 22 foot v�ide garage; because after tvro � cars are parked side by side, the extra t�vo feet v�ould be for storage. Also to provide easier mobility in garage for safety reasons,�� ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEPl: The adjacent structure to the south is 34 feet from the property line. The petitioner is requesting a variance to construct his garage at 24 feet. The plans submitted are drati�m for a 22 foot wide garage. Mr. Joseph explained to the Commission tivhat they planned to da. He indicated that ���hat they ti�ranted to do was add two feet onto the garage v�hich was dravm up as a 22 fooi :�iide garage, He tvanted to extend the garage width to 2y feet wide by requesting a variance to reduce the side yard from the required five feet to tYiree feet. He expZained that the additional space �vould tie used for storing a snor� blo�ier, for a small kennel they would like to build, and for space to build a v�ork bench at the rear of the garage, APPi;1�LS CO"�t4I�SIC'' 24� �'TI"'G - AUGiJ:�T 23. 197'7 Pa�e 1 3 Mr. Prt•ediiisof 6031 Benjamin Street NE expressed concerr: because oi the amount of excavation being done to the area to the rear of the proposed house. He felt that Mr. Joseph was getting very elose to the rear hilL Mr. Josepl2 explained that they were not going back any further, he said that they ivanted to add to the side of the garage and vrouldn't be adding anything to the rear. Mr. prieditis� Sazd that he r�ould like to see Mr. Joseph's builder's p1ans. He inclicated that his main concern �vas the bank of earth that tirould be rignt against Mr. Joseph's garage, Mr. Joseph said that the bank next to nis oarage would be terraced all the rray to the end of his lot, Mr. .Prieditis explained that �eopZe ilere making drastic ch2siges to tha geology in tne area. He said that there vras a State Code that said that the slope of that hill should be no steeper than three horizontal to one vertica.l, T�Ir. Holden indicated on a map exactly �•�here the propose�. house �rould be located. He also shovred v�here the other lots in the area �arould be, �ie then explained t�Ir. Priedint s lot in relations to the Joseph's lot, Mr. Holden i�rent on to ext�lain that there «a.s a grading plan that has been approved by tne City in regards to tne grading of tihe hill that idr.prieditis� is concerned about. He said that that plan did not effect the petitioner that much because his request tivas for a garage setback oi 35 feet, Mr. Holden said that the grading of the hill in questio= in respect to the aoproval of the Zander's first addition was a grading plan that vras submitted and aoproved, He said that if there rras a problem ��rith regards to the grading plan, then that should be taken up r�ith the City Manager. He explained that the ouestion of the grading plan should not be discussed or heard at the Appeals Commission. Vice-Chairvroman Gabel said that the question that ��as to be addressed that night vras the request for a variance. Mr. priediti's said that he vaanted to go on record that he objects to any furthar grading changes. Mr. Joseph explained that Pir, Hoti�rard Thorson vtould do the terracing of the land, He said that that had been an agreement ��rhen he purchased the land. Mr. Kemper said that he felt that the concern for the gradin� of the land ��as a valid concern. 1Ir. IIolden shorred the audience and the Cone�ission the approved grading plan. APPEALS C01�4ISSIOII t•SEyTING - AUGUST 2 1977 Pa�e 14 Vice-Chair�rQr�an Gabel said that whether he gets that variance or not he wbuld still have " that terracing. Mr. Joseph Uaid that the cost of the lots included the terracing, Mr. Barna asked Mr.Prieditis if now that Mr. Joseph understood the building situation, did he still have any objections. Mr. Priedih said that he �rouldn�t have any objections He said that his c�ain concern ti+ras rrith the developer and the grading project. MOTION by Mr. Kemper� seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the Public f:earing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing ti�ras closed at 9:Oi� p�M, Mr. Barna said that looking at the public purpose served as to provide open space betrreen the structures to reduce conflagration of fire, he said that the additional trro feet •a.�ould be concrete block irregardless and he said that there ��rouldn't be access to the rear yard along that side rrhether he added the tr�o feet or no�, and since the neighborhood residence c�as jy. £eet from tha lot line and since the petitioners had been informed of the building difficulties� he �:rould have no objections to the variance. Mr. Kemper said that he really didn�t see much of a hardship involved, but because of the large space that would be het��een the petitioners home and the neighborhood reaidence, he ivould reluctantly go along with granting the variance. Mr. Plemel said that if there �rould have been objections, he lvould have recomraended denial. of the variance since tvro feet rrould not have really made great difference. any a MOTION by Mr. Barna� seconded by Mr. Plemely to approve the request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4� B4, Fridley City Code, to reduce the szde yard adjoinino an attached garage fro�a the required five feet to three feet, to a11orJ the construction of a house and garage, located on Lot 3, Block 1, Zanders First Addition, the sa�e being 603l� hlcKinley Street, Fridley, Afinnesota, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Vice-Chaireroman Gabel indicated that Mr. R Mrs, Joseph tvere free to apply for their building permit. 11PP�ALS CON'�4ISSIOt1 ::��TIitG - AUGUST 23, 1977 Pa�e 15 3. Rodney Brannon, 16Z2 �!e Minneapolis, t4.r 55421) . TS.� (Request by Parkrray, MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel to oAen the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voiing aye� the motion carried unaniraously. The Public Hearing e�as opened at 9;09 P�M, Mr. & rfrs. Brannon and 1dr, E�nmett R. Albergotti, Jr. ��ere present at the meeting. ADMIi�;ISTR9TIU� STAFF R�PORT A. PUBI,IC PURPOSE S�RVED BY RE9UIRT�'..NIENT: Section 205.103, 1�, (C-2), req_uiring a rear yard setback of 25 feet in a commercial zone. E�! C. Public purpose served is to provide for open areas around commercial structures, maintain clear access for fire fighting and reduce conflagration of fire. STfiTED iiARDSHIF: We are reouesiing a variance to build up to ten feet from the east �roperty line for the folloering reasons: 1) The equipment t�e ���ill be purchasino is designed for an eight bay c� tivash; 2} To create architectual balance an� aesthetic design for the buildin�; 3) To be able to provide maxir�um service to the customer. Therefore, since ��re are limited by a 35 foot setback on the rrest end, it makes it necessary to request a variance to construct the building ten feet from the east property line. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF R:VIEL'7: This property is located to the �est of Embers on Aighrray ;`65 and south of the nevr Pop Shoppe. The rear (east) property line is located pn a steep enbankment at the edge of Ember�s Parking lot. Structural as erell as proper landscape measures vrould be required to build next to this enbankment. Access to this property is via the Target Store�s outer drive. .�=,v APPi'ALS C(�t11�tISSIOTI 14�,'.TITdG - AUGUST 23. 1977 Pa�e 16 Mr. 111bergotti, Jr., of Dayton Hudson Proroerties, explained to the Commission that ��rhat they i�rere planning to do before the actual Car V�ash project r�as started, He said that they :^�anted to plan an access system that v�rould serve the parcel of land in question and the remaining parcels of land. He indicated on a plan where all the parcel of land rrere located and vrhat, if anythin�, existed on those parcels. He explained ti�rhat the proposed traffic flovt tvoulc� be once the 53rd Avenue improvements v�ere in, Dtrs. Brannon explained that a Car l'lash �ras being planned for the pa.rcel in question, She had a picture of t�rhat the broposed Car 'sJash srould look like c�hen it �rras completed. Vice-Chair!��oMan Gabel asked rrhat hours the Car l'�ash erould be open. Mr. Brannon said that the Car VJash ti�rould be oroen 24 hours a day; hortever, he said that a maintenance nerson eJOUld 'oe available from 7:00 A.ri. until 1 1; 00 P.N:, Tir. 3rannon indicated that they ��rere trying to put together a"c�odel�� car vrash for the entire State. Vice-Chairrror�an Gabel noted that the Brannon's vaould be encountering a problem as far as havino to dig into a very steep hill. Mr. fiolden explained that the property line per se came at the crest of the hill and it sloped do��n the hill at rou�hly a 3 to 1 s7.ope so that the bottom of the hill crould be about 30 feet from the property line. Vice-Chair�aoman Gabel 1�ranted to knoi•r v�here the eighth stall tivould be on the picture. Mr. Holden said that it 1•rould be ten feet dovrn hill. He had a picture that shov�ed the lot that cias being discussed. Mr. Bannon said that there ��rould be a retaining vrall across the property. He said that it crould be landscaped along the �rall to make it very pleasing to the eye. Vice-Chairrroman Gabel auestioned the reasons for the Bannon's ��ranting eignt stall.s. � �_ 11PPEAL"a COt�II�iIS",ION rt�;TII�G - AUGII5T 23, 197i Pa!�e 17 Mr. B�nnon explained that they vranted to provide maximum service to the peonle and he felt that in the tvinter they ti�ould nee4 all eight stalls to accomplish that type of service. :ie also said that the equip�ent and systems vrere set up in �odules of trro. He also felt that the design �:as more aes�hetically pleasing vrith eight stalls. Mrs. Bannon felt that to remove t�to bays, resulting in just six car �rash stalls rrould not be economically profitable, i•Sr. Brannon indicated that several different ;�ays of laying out the pl an had been tried, Ho'.•rever, he said that the �resent plan :izs the only rray the oroposed Car �7ash could be done. c:e said that the traf°ic flo•r: ;�ras better e.ccomplished rrith the plan at iland. There •rtas a brief discussion about the traffic problems on 53rd Avenue and the �ro�osed inprovements that ctere goin� to be done to the street. Mr. Bannon said that they planned to type of screenino ai tae top of the nill aesihetic and safety reasons, out in some for �oth t•4r. Barna suggested they consider somethinb on tne order of a r.lulti-floral rose hedge. :ie eaplaineci tnat that particular hedge r;as very dense and rrould discourage anyone from cralking inrough the �ro�osed screening. Mr. Bannon said that they �rould rather consiner some type of hadge for screenin� rather than a fence. r1r. Holden indicated that iror� a building stzndpoint there ��rould ha_ve to be a tF2 inch guard rail reauired under City Co:le along all the areas that the slope rras not at the recuired 3 to 1 s1oAe, He explained that because the 3annon�s •,•�ere develouing the land, they rrould be responsible for the installation of the guard rails, hir. Kemper asked if there t��ould be any provision to alleviate the ��rater runoff from the cars in the r�inter that could result in ice forming on the streets near the car r�ash. Mrs, Bannon said that they t�rere consic',erin� the installation �f an air-dry cycle that ��ou1d be installed into the systems that rrould nrovide a certain �ount of time•of just air that could be used to blorr the excess l�tater off the cars a;ter they had beea� :�rasned. She did point out that the feature �vould only be a matter of choice. $he said that it �•�ould be offered 'uut it ti:ould be up to the customer rriiether he used ii or not. � APP?�,ALS COtd?�fISSIOPI i�;rTING - AUGUST 23, 1977 Pa�e 18 Mr.. Kemper asked if the number of stalls rrere reduced to seven, erould there be a need for the variance, and would a retainin� tivall have to be built. Mr. Aolden said thzt the retaining �vall �vould not be necessary. Mr. Kemper said that as best he could figure, they also wonld not need the variance. Iie f3gured they e�ould meet all the setback requireuients. rir. Albergotti indicated that seven stalls rrould not be economically feasible to the 3annon�s, 2dr. Kemuer said that he vras having trouble accepting tke idea of a ten foot retaining irall tirith the necessity of a guard rail and hedge screening. He felt that the area of the nedge and guardrail would become a catch-all for debris and he said he vrould be more confortable rrith the idea of only seven stalls,thereby alleviating the necessity of the wall and hedges, etc. Mr. Bannon suggested that they could take six inches off each stall and he eJanted to kno��� if by doing so� ��rould it eliminate some of the problems� Mr. Holden sazd that the further the builc3ing �aas a�ray fron the hill� the better. He said that they ��ould still have to maintain the hillside. Vice-Chair�noman Gabel asked if the Bannon's rrould agree �rith the 15 foot nuraber, t1r, Bannon said that the equipment room could be made 13 feet and each bay could be made 15 feet. He said that the one rra1Z l�ould be made one foot thicker thereby creating a retaining tivall, t�OTIOPd by i4r. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the Public Hearing, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, The Public Hearing was closed at 9:1�2 P,t�i� ,' APPyALS COAif4ISNI0P1 Iic:�TIPdG - P,UGIIST 23, 197'7 pa� �q r, Mr, Plemel felt that it �vould be an acceptable com- promise cto 'reducethe variance request from ten feet to fifieen feet. Mr. Kemper said that he still �vasn�t comfortable with the slope. He t��as sti11 concerned with the safety factor. Mr. Holden explained that the slope v�as roughly a 3 to 1 slope. He said that one had to theorize ivhat exactly it irould look like. Vice-Chair:�oman Gabel said that there vrere definite advantages to havino the rear yard setback at 15 feet rather than 10 feet. She said that not having to build a large concrete �,•ral7. and having to have barriers and all at both ends made the compromise very reasonable. Mr. Kemper said that because of the economic hard- ship of having one-eighth of the equipnent non-operative in having only a seven-stall car irash, he rrould go along t�ith tfle request.that allo��ed for the eight-stall car viash, Mr. Basna said that the economic feasibility of having eight stalls rather tiian seven stalls because they vrould be increasing their incor�e by t/g, •rihich v�ould then, over a period of time, cover the cost of the improved site preparations. I�Ir. Holden suggested that i4r. & Mrs. Bannon and the o�vners of �sabers oet to�ether and decide some improvements that could be done to elininate any potential safety hazards that could result. P4r, Bannon said that they would get together ��rith the owuers of Embers. MOTIOPT by Mr. P1eme1, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission atiprove the reouest for a variance of Section 205�103, 4, (C,2), to reduce the rear yard setback from the renuired 25 feet t�here no alley exists, to 15 feet, to allo�•r the construction of an automobile car �vash esiablishment on Lot 2, Block 1, Target Addition, the aavoicelvote,5allrvotinguaye��the1motion�carriedaunanimously. �--. , APPE11L5 CoP�1T:ISSIOTd I^�`L'IiIG -!IUGUST 23� 1977 Pa�;e 20 . � Vics-Chair�sroman Ga.bel indicated that the item wouZd ap�ear'befors the P3anning Commission on September 11�, 1977. ADJOURI�4E�T1T tdOTION by i�:r. Ken�er, seconded by P•4r. Plemel, to adjourn the 4u�ust 23, 1977, t�>nneals Commission meeting. Ugon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. ^ihe tteeting �,ras adjourned at 9:4g P.ii. Respectfull� Submitted, �.��ti������ MarS�Lee �arhill Recording Secretary �� . y•T'� +'.+�� � .�� .. �^ . . J����� �����. ���� � M. . . . , •. �. , Oa� Wascoe Jt.- ., .. Grove He[ghts elimiaated their s}f Wdtqr ;� minimum reqnirement ot 1,I00 °�<. square teet for a ncw single•fam�ly �pose Burnsvllle, Dayton, Edina house and used the stace standard � St' Anthony po ionger re- of 629 to 708 square fcet insteaa? ited two-car garages with every qv,home. • Wouid the price of new houses �•. , ` come down if such ateps were ,�neSonlcapermitted new taken across the seven-county u��on o[s of to 40Q aiea? - .. . �. gr�.re feet instea� of 1t9 mininwm, 16,7100 squaze teeQ The Metropolitan Council and thc Association of Metropolitan Mu- hs�i �f: Burasville.: snd Inver nicipalities aren't surc, but they ,�. ., � � � . _ . . ..:.::' . � . . z s�. � . -. .... . . .. . . s.w--�..;-.._'.....,��_._...J...�'......,._.....v_�_:_,e�._� _.,..,..,, ._�._..:...,....... � r����� Contjuned lrom Page lA' ifre, ghrages, becauSe tAey add ties that are developing fas_ t� om 55,500 to �4,750 to the pur- ' �ase price of a new house. They � No mioimum floor areas should re not necessary to. protect be required Icealiy, because the ealth, safety or genera! weifare, state's building code adequately v(:are amenities that can be add- provides for health, safety aad S,lafer. Lncal regnlations thus general welfare. The state's m- !ay requlre placement of houses quirement is estimated ut 624 � lots to pezm3t such future con- square feet for a two-bedraom ri�ction. A recent survey showed home a��d 708 for a three-Sedroom iat 14 communities of 81 exam- home. . �d in t6is erea require Aaza�es t �. ` . •' .. � "�''�� � �o��� n���� ��� �:� .�€I� are a6out to lssue new guldelines merit'!.'hy Trudy i43rFa1{,. d�;�� for such zoning standards. 7'hey of.tAe counciPs housing dfi�isl� hope the effoA wiil"enhance the "Thls may well be the [irst time opportunities tor the construction ihe country thnt locul �overn�t ot housing that is affordable for a and a regional agency hn greater number o[ fumllies." reached agreement on such a s� stUve subject," ahe sald. • The association represents 56 com-.. -� munities thut comprise about 80 A jolnf report by the two organk perceht of the T�v7n Citiq area's tions recommends that: population, said a spukesman. The ` ' ugreement between those munici- � Local ordinances shoWd not palities and the councit is de- scribad as "� remarkable achieve- Zoning continued on page 12A ' ' ! ..i - . . . . � .. � - � _ � � - . .. .. . . , ., � . . . � . - �f .. , _._ __.. .- ._.. . _...., � ��....�_.. . . ._. :�....,5 .r- _ ._ ...._ . . . . _ . . r _ . The human resources wmmittee of tde Metropolitan Council approved the repod Monday night, it will go ' before t6e tull council Tharsday. T6e report qualifies its recommen- dations for communities witit par- ticulaz soil or topography condi- tions that make higher density housing undesirable. "Adoption of the advisory stan- dards (by municipalities) would not necessarily mean tbat buitders wwtd bnifd homes to the mini- mum stendards," says the report. "Ho�vever, it would eaable build- ers to be more responsive to the present and future housing de- mand, and to build smaller, mod- est-cost homes. If a market exists for such homes." The repoR notes that household � eize has declined in tt�is area, from � 3.3 people In 1960 to 2.9 in 1976. � That could lead to a dercnnd for f fewer� bedrooms, less lloor area � •and smaller houses, the report says. But communities wlth rela- Nvely high menimum. house sizes may {ack the flexibility to respond ! to those potentisl demands, the I � report says. . . ,. ' , tts MANAGEMENT COMPANY . . ': �; � 3005 �TTAWA AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 July 15, 19�7 ![r, Richard Harria (�airman, Planning Co�isaion Fridley Citq Hall Pridleq, Minnesota Dear Ifr. Harria: I sm enclosing aa artiicle for your perusal that yrou might find of interest. I appeared before you last Wedaeaday, July 13, 1977, petitioning my cutting a large lot into two, which was doae and deeply appreciated. Since this article pertains to lots in the future having to be smaller I thought perYiaps you wuld be interested. Very eruly yousa, .� � � —_ llie Baratz ��� � % 2B/fm Encl. Telephone 927-4261 .� F., _ ....-- a !� • '� DRAFT ?OR DLSCUSSIOY PURPOSES ONLY �,{���-G� 1t7 u. K, /f�_ :;. ORDINANCE N0. , AN ORDINtV`ICE ESTABLISHING A CODE OF ETHICS FOR CITY OPFICIALS THE CITY COWCIL OF THE CITY OF FitIDLEY DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 30.01 Polic Subdivision 1. General Declaration oF Policy. It is necessary that all persons acting in the public service not only maintain high standards of ethical conduct in theit transact�on ot public business but that such standards be clearly defined and kna•.�m to the pubiic, as well as Lo the perscns acting in publ.ic sen�ice. In recognition o� this goal, there is hereby established a code of ethics for public officials, elected and apoointed, and for top level city employees. The purpose of this code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for such officials and city employees by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with tbe best interests of the city and by directing disclosure by such persons of private, financial, or other interests in matters affect- ing the city. Subdivision 2. llefinition of Top Level City Employees. As used in this chapter, the term top level city employee shall include the city manager, the city attorney, department heads, and any other city employees designa[ed by the city manager. Subdivision 3. Definitition of Financial Znterest. As used in this chapter, the term financial interest shall be deemed to fnclude ownership of more than 5% of: The outstanding stock in a corporation, an interest in a partnership, proprietoiship, or ' other business entity, or an interest in rea2 property. Financial interest shall apply to real or personal properties owned by the person making the disclosure and by said person's spouse, children, mother or father. Subdivision 4. Definition of Personal Interest. as used in this chapter, the tenn pezsonai interest shall be deemed to apply lJiIY.R— ever a person required to make a disclosure under this code of ethics shall be associated with a business as an employee, ofEicer, director, trustee, partner, advisor or consultant. SECTION 30.10 Scope of Persons Covered �. The provisions of the code ot c�thics sha11 be applic:+ble to a11 nembers of the city couttcil and tho followiug advisory Uodie�: (here list all commis- sions, boards, or commitCe.es LhaL are subject to th'is ordinance). SECTION 30.20 Fair �uid 1:2�a1 Treatmen[ Si�clivision l. SuUject Co thc provisions of subdivis.ion 2 beloco, no peryon covered by this code oE etLics sl�all particip�Ce in the e , ,_ Page 2 # - `� �� discussion of, or vote on, any issue in which he or she has any financial interest. Subject to the provisions of subdivision 2 below, no top level city employee shall recommencl, advise, or in any manner infiuence the vote of. the city council or any advisory body on any issue in which he or she has a financial interest: Subdivision 2. No person covered by this code of ethics shall take any official action with respect to a matter in which he or she has a financial or personal interest, provided that participation in the decision-making process on his or her behalf as a private citizen shall no[ be proscribed by this code of ethics, and provided fur[her that he or she may participate in matters leading up to or preliminary to official action to the extent that he or she disciosed any such direcC financial or personal interest as he or she may have in the same and to the ex[ent that he or she has no discretiun to u�ake a final controlling judgment or vote on the same. Disclosure of any such financial or personal interest shall be made to the council, commission, board, or committee of which the person is a member or, in the case of a top level city employee, to the city manaoer, when the item appears on the agenda. Such disclosure shall he recorded in the minutes and shall become a matter of public record. Subdivision 3. No person covered by this code of ethics shall, without proper legal authorization, disclose confidential informa- tion concerning the property, government, or affaizs of the city, nor shall he or she use such information to advance the financial or other private interests of any person. Subdivis:ion 4. No person covered by this code of ethics shall directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift of substance, whether in the form of money, services; loan, travel, entertainmeat, hospitality, promise or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably inferred that the gift was intended to influence him or her ot could reasonably be expected [o influence him or her in the performance of his or her official duties or was inCended as a reward for any official actioa on his or her part. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to political gifts that conform to the limitations prescribed by "tinnesota Statutes for said gifts. Subdivision 5. Except as specifically authorized by Section 471.88 of the Minnesota Statutes, no person covered by this code of ethics who is authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in his or her official capacity shall h:ive a direct finaneial interest in Chat sale, lease, or contract or per- sonally benefit financially therefrom. St:CTION 30.30 Public Di_scl.osurc_Uy (_ity Council tiuhdivision 1. Idithin 70 days after the. eEfective date oF this code oL ethics, cach member of thc ciCy cotu�cil sl�all ti1e, as a public record in thc oFfice o( thc city cicrk, a signed s[atement disclosiuF th�� follo�oin�: � � -�- v �� �� � .i r:. Page 3 (1) A list of the n�mes of all business corporations, partnerships, other business enterprises, or governmental agencies doing business with the City of Fridley or located within the City of rridley: (a) with which he or she has a financial interest, or (b) with which he or she has a personal interest; (2) A list of the non-homestead real property located within the City of Fridley in which he or she currently has a financial interest; (3) A list of the non-homestead real property located within the Gity of Fridley in which he or she had a financial interest within the preceding three years; (4) A list of the names, and nature of business, of all corpora- tions, partnerships, or other business enterprises with which he or she has a financial interest and in which one or more other persons covered by this code of ethics also has a financial interest of more than 10 percent of the controlling interest of said enterprise. This list shall indicate the name or names of such other person or persons having an interest in said enterprise. Subdivision 2. Each person who files as a candidate to become a memher of the city council, or is filed as a candidate for city council on the effective date of this code of ethics, at the time of filing as � candidate or within 30 days of the effective date of this code of ethics, shall also file the disclosure statement required by this Section 30.30. � � Subdivision 3. Within 3� days after each anniversary date of an initial filing, each person required to make such a filing under this Section 30.30 shall file a new disclosure statement setting forth the information required hereby as of the time of the new statement. Subdivision 4. Material changes in financial interest or in positions held shall be disclosed by filing an amended disclosure statement within 30 days after such interest is obtained or such changed position occurs. SECTIOY 30.31 Public Disclosiire bv Members of Adviso n� Bodies Subdivision 1. Within 30 days after the effective date of this code of ethics, each member of any commission or commi[tee shall file, as a public record in the oEfice of the city clerk, a sioned statement disclosino the Lollowing: (1) A.list ot the names of all bLisiness corpora[ions, partnerships, other business enterprises, or governmental agencies doin� busiuess with the Citp of Fridley or located wi[hin the City oL Fri.dlcy: (a) with which he or she has a f.inancial interesC, or (b) with which he or stie lias a personal interesc; (2) A list of the non-homestead real property l.ocated within ' the City of Fridley in which he or she currently has a financial interest; Page 4 Subdivision 2. Each person who is appointed or reappointed to an advisory body which is included in this code of ethics shall file the disclosure statement �aithin 30 days of such appointment. Subdivision 3. held shall be within 30 days occurs. . �'.... � I Material changes in financial interest or in positions disclosed by filing an amended disclosure statement after such interest is obtained or such changed position SECTION 30.32 Public Disclosure by Top Level City Employees, Except the City Attorney Subdivision 1. Within 30 days after the eEfective date of this code of ethics, and annually thereafter, the city manager, depar[meat heads, and other employees designated by the manager, except the city attorney, shall file in the office of the city clerk a signed statement disclosing the following information: (1) A list of the names of all business corporations, partnerships, other business enterprises, or governmen[al agencies doing business with the City of Fridley or located within the City of Fridley: (a) with which he or she has a financial interest, or (b)• with which he or she has a personal interest; (2) A list of the non-homestead ceal propexry located within the City of Fridley in which he or she currently has a financial interest; (3) A list of the names, and nature of business, of all corpora- tions, partnerships, or other business enterpr'.ses with which he or she l�as a financial interest and in which one or more other persons covered by this code of ethics also has a financial interest of more than 10 percent of the controlling interest of said enterprise. This list shall indicate the name or names of such other person or persons having an interest in said enterprise. Suhdivision 2. Each newly-hired manager or department head, except the city attorney, shall within 30 days of the hiring date, and annually thereafter, file the disclosure sCatement required by this Section 30.32. Suhdivision 3. PI.3terial changes in financial. inturest or in positions held shall be disclosed by Ciling an amended disclosure s[atement withi.n 30 days aEter such ll]LL'I'CSG is oUt�ined or such chan�ed positian occurs. SIiCTION 30.33 Public Disclnsure by City At[orney Subdivision l. Wi[hin 30 dciys aftcr the effecti.ve da[e of. this code of ethics, and annually thereaf[er, clie city attorney shall fi.le in �i6 .,. '__ _. :ii Page 5 the office of the city clerk a signed statement disclosing the follow- ing information: (1) A list of the names of all business corporations, governmental agencies, companies, firms or partnerships, or other business enterprises doing business with the City of Fridley, or located within the City of Fridley, in which he or she has any financial interest, except tha[ clients of the city attorney's private law practice shall be excluded from the list, providel that no other business relationship except that of attorney/client exists; (2) A list of the non-homestead real propert;� located within the City of Fridley in which he or she currently has a financial interest. Subdivision 2. The city attorney, or members of his or her law firm, shall not appear before the city council, commission, or committee for the purpose of representing any client, except Che City of Fridley or employees of the City of Fridley, when such latter representation is in connection with their official duties as city employees. Subdivision 3. Any person who is appointed or hired as city attorney shall, within 30 days of said appointment, and annually thereafter, file the disclosure statement required by this Section 30.33. Subdivision 4. Diaterial changes in financial interest or in property holdings shall be disclosed by filing an amended disclosure statement within 30 days after such change occurs. SECTION 30.40 Exclusions This code of ethics shall not he construed to require the filing of any information relating to any person's connection with, or interest in, any professional society or any charitable, religious, social, fraternal, educa- tional, recreational,.public service, civic or political organization, or any similar organization not conducted as a business enterprise, nor shall disclosure be required hereby where prohibited by professional or business association ethics promulgated by any state ageacy. SECTION 30.50 htethod of Filino The city manager shall inform each person required by this code of ethics to file a disclosure statement of the time and place for filino. The city clerk shall prepare the necessary forms for the disclosure statements. The city manager shall made available to the city council, or individual council members, copies of all disclotiure statements filed caithin 14 days �fCer said filing. The city manager shall noti.Fy the c:ity council whenever a person who is required by this chapter to file a disclosure fails to do so. SECTION 30.60 Violations Any violation of thc provisio�is of this chaptcr is n misdcmaauor and is subject to all penalties provided for sucl� violations under [he provisions of Ch:ipter 901 of the Friclley City Code. _,� PASSED AND ADOYTED AY THE CITY COUNCZL OI' TH� CITY OP PRFDLEY THIS DAY OF _ , 1977. ATTEST: CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE Page 6 _--� � :. ,' . 1.� :� , '; �, --�'• TO: &ichard Sobiech, Director of Public Works FRpM: Virgil C. Herrick, City Attoruey RE: Billboard Ordinance IaATE: Septe�er 9, 1977 At your request, I have reviewed the draft of the proposed new ordi- nance relating to signs and billboards. I have the following comments. SECTION 214.02 DEFINITIONS There seems to be an inordinate number of definitions. Please check to make sure that all of the terms that are defined are used in the body of the ordinance. On ACCESSORY USE and BANNERS AND PEA'NANTS, I would suggest eliminating the material after the word "examples"'and the material that appears within the parentheses. It appears to me that the definitiona of IDENTZFICATION SIGN and INSTITUTIONAL SIGN are repetitive and they could be combined. The use of the words "sales display device" in the definition of PORTABLE SIGN is,confusing. The words "or in the case of inessages, figures, or symbols attached, directed to any part of the building" contained in the definition of SIGN AREA are confusing. In the definition of UNLAWFUL SIGN, bnaad discretion is given to the administration to declare certain signs unlawful without providing any procedure to notify the owners of the signs. SECTION 214.031 SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS Section B relating to obscene, pornographic, immoral, or untruthful advertising is extremely broad. Who is to make the determination as to vhether the advertising falls within these areas? Section E prohibits signs which resemble traffic signs or signals. It con[ains the words "or bears the words 'stop, go, slow' or similar words used for traffic control". I feel that the quoted material should be elimi- nated, as it is overly broad. Section J relating to advertising signs is difficult to interpret. �:r;� . . � � • J R �, ��� ''l� SECTiON 214.032 STGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS I question the need or authority to have a section relating to the United States flag. Section H relating to temporary signs permits a temporary construction sign for developments of 10 or more residential units. I do not see any corre- sponding authorization for developments of fewer than 10 and believe that this differentiation might well be considered arbitrary. The por[ion of this section ielating to construction signs and the portion of this section relating to real estate signs seem to be a duplication. The same comments relating to 10 or more units are contained in the portion of the section relating to real estate signs. � The provision requiring [he removal of a sign when the project is 95� completed seems to be arbitrary. In the section on political signs, I question the authority of a city to prohibit erection of political signs before the closing of filing. In the section on banners and pennants, the first sentence is incomplete. Zs it the intention to permit banners and pennants only ior grand openings? SECTION 214.042 SIZES SETBACKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR R-3 and R3A This section limits the vacancy sign to three square feet. Ls this adequate for a large apartment complex? SECTION 214.05 GENERAL REQUIRE�SENTS The provision permitting addiLional conditions at the discretion of the zoning administxator is extremely broad. No permit is required for temporary signs. Nothing in the ordinance indicates how long a temporary sign may be erected. The section on maintenance is poorly wnrded and extremely subjective -- very difficult to enforce. The provision indicating that the zoning administrator shall be respons- ible for the enforcement of Che chapter does not belong under the section on maintenance. In the section on loss of legal non-confirming status, item 1 relating to alteration of structure or copy is difficult to interpret. Item 2 should be limited to "the sign is relocated". The test of the language should be stricken. Item 4 providing that non-conforming status is lost if there is a change ia owner is unconstitutional. Item 5 is very confusing and should be rewritten. SECTION 214.06 ENFORCEMENT The section authorizing the zoning administrator to zemove signs which are a public hazard wiChout na[ice could very well subject the city to lawsuits. �",� . � ✓ Dick Sobiech: Please review and take appropriate aetion. ""� CC: City Council , � NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTtSING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES, INC. 1700 WEST 78TH SiREET. MlNNEAPOLIS, MiNNE$OTA 55 423 /612-8663381 August 22nd, 1977 Mayor William J. Nee City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Dear Bill: We are quite disturbed w-th the proposal to prohibit outdoor advertising in Fridley. we have been a member of your business community for many years and have provided a vital service to the businessmen. It would be unfair to suddenly ban outdoor advertising from your city and take away our services to the businessmen. It is our hope that with a better understanding of our industry the City will adopt an ordinance that is fair to the peogle, the busir.essmen and our industry. In order to better understand outdoor advertising it is important to look at both the positive and negative sides of the question and then look at what the Federal and State laws contain. As an advertising media we are necessary to the business community, especially to the small local merchants who•can use outdoor far more efficiently than any other medium. We also provide money to the community by way of property taxes and lease payments. We contribute onr boards to various civic and charitable qroups and governmental units for public service messaqes. Last year we contributed space to American Diabetes Assn., Biq Brothers, Catholic Appeal, CathoZic Education Center, Cystic Fibrosis, Drug Education for Youth, Inc., Departm2nt of Community Educational Services, Fight Dutch Elm Disease, Goodwill Industries, Tvrin Cities P}�blic Television, Piinnesota Multiple Schlerosis, Unitefl Way and manp other organi2ations interested in promoting ideas and events of public concern. Finally, it's important to remember that �ny industry creates jobs. Directly or indirectly, outdoor advertising means work for thousands of people. If a community prohibits the outdoor advertising industry from doing business ... it is taking jobs away from peop2e. Today, as always, it is important in our free society to allow a person to pursue whatever legitimate vocation he chooses. �� , � Mayox William J. Nee Page 2 August 22nd, 1977 Unfortunately, many times when outdoor advertising is beinq discussed, only the neqative aspect, visual clutter, is cansidered. Aesthetics thus seems to be the basic underlying factor in strict or prohibitive legislation, yet aesthetics in itself is a very difficult idea to govern. What may be aesthetically pleasing to one may be 8istasteful to another. So it would seem that some type of middle ground should be established. The "bil2board alleys" that were created in the past are part of visual clutter and should not be allowed. Prohibition of outdoor advertising, on the other hand, is equally unfair. Hopefully, the answer lies in a restrictive ordinance that allawa a legitimate business to cantinue to function, yet creates no visual clutter. In our proposals we believe that we have accomplished this purpose. It is also important to understand the position of the Federal and State Governments concerning outdoor advertisinq. In 1965 the origirial Federal Hiqhway Beautificatian Act was passed. In 1971 the State of biinnesota passed a Beautification Bill bringing the State into compliance with the Federal Bi21. There have been some modifications since then, but the essential intent remains the same. The two governments recognize outdoor advertising as a legitimate business with a riqht to do business; but Iike all businesses, are subject to ceztain restrictions, i.e., zoning, spacinq and sizinq. Outdoor advertising is allowed in al! Commercial anc3 Tndustrial zones, the structures must be spaced either 100 feet or 500 feet from another outdoor structure (depending on the road classification), and is allowed up to 1,Q00 square feet in size. Outdoor advertising is a leqitimate, viab2e business attempting to do the best job possible for everyone concerned. We, at Naegele, believe that we have been a qood member of the Fridley business community and hope that we can continue our good relationship. Attached are our recommendations for the sign ordinance in Fridley. By adopting these recommendations, outdoor advertising would be located only where other businesses are found and would be correctly spaced and sized. With these regulations Naegele Outdoor �dvertising and the people of Fridley can continue to live and work in harmony. Thank you for yaur time. Sincerely, ���G �-�-�.� hraig A. Lofquist, Director Community Relations KAL:bap Enelosure cc: Covncil Members � �Y . FRIDLEY 5PECIAL REGULATIONS FOR ADVERTISING SIGNS A. Outdoor advertising structures and billboards which ' advertsse products or business not connected with the site or building on which they are located shall be permitted as separate uses on property which is zoned C2, C23, M-1, M-2. • B. 5ize 1. The maximum size per facing of a freestanding advertising sign shall be three hundred (300) square feet in area except along the freeway where it may be increased to seven hundred fifty square feet (750) in area. Two (2) facings per structure shall..be the maximum permitted, and double-faced signs shall be attached back to back or "V" shaped. 2. A maximum height of forty feet (4Q} above the lot grade is permitted. However, in such case as viewing £rom a highway is intended, this distance may be computed above the center line elevation of the traveled highway. C. Siting 1. The minimum lineal distance between advertising signs on the same side of street shall be five hundred (500) feet. No lineal distance need exist if sign units are separated by visual barrier. 2. The minimum setback from stree� right-of-way lines shall be thirty (30) feet. 3. The minimum setback distance from an intersection, residential district, park, playground, school or bui2dinq used for religious purposes sha11 conform to building setback requirements. D, Specifications The structure of the sign sha11 be all metal. Such metal shall be either painted or treated in such a manner as to prevent deterioration. Siqn facing and border may, how- ever, be constructured or finished in wood. Iv �.�VAG�MENT COMPANY ,b - „ fir � � 3005 OTTAWA AVE E SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS,_ MINNE50TA 55k 16 � July 15, 1977 Hr. Richard Harris Chairman, Planaing Co�+ission . Fridley Citq Hall Fridley, Minnesota Dear Mr. Aarris: I am enclosing an article for qour penisal that yon might find of interest. I appeared before you last Wedaesday, Julp 13, 1977, petitioning mq cutting a large lot into two, which was done and deeply appreciated. Since this article pertains to lots in the future having to be smaller I thought perhaps you would be interested. Very trulq qours, ;`� ' � -- ! C k� �llie Baratz � ZB/fm fincl. Telephone 927-4261 i:3 ,� " �.n � sd�� ��l�,u�.J�. �l�%c�l�� fl�� �� �r� �u �,uJ�1J��!.,�'�� �1;,4 ,.,; `• , . . �. +` � �:�� . �WascoaJr: Grove Ncights cllminutcA their ere about to issue new guidelSnCS. ment'�. bp ?R!dy L1CPal1, dlrrci Wdter ,� � minimum requirement of 1,100 for cnch mning stAndarAs. They of.the eouncil's housin� dir�si� �-• square fect for a new single-fmnily fiop2 thc effoR will °enhunce thc "7'his may wcll 6e th� tirs? ,ime �se Burnsville, Day[on, Fdina house nnd used the stute standard opportuniGes [or the construction the country that loccl �orcrnme it. Anthony no longer re- of 624 to 7Q& squarefcet instcaa? of housing Ihat Is nffordable for a an�i n regional a�;ency ha I two-car garages with every � grenter number of tnmllics." reaehed a,;reemr,nt on such a s� ome. • Would the price of new houses sitive subject," ahe said. • • � ' eome down if such steps were The association represents 56 com- • ' iC �4!cinetonLa permitted nr,w taken across the seven-county munities lhat comprise about BO A joint report by the two or�anl s on lots or n. ,� ro �q area? percent ot the T«•in Ciliea area's [ions recommends thnt: . � feet instca of I[s minimmn, � populaiion, said a spolcesman. The � i�aquaze tcet. The Metropolitan Council and thc ngrcemEnt betwecn thnse munici- � Locai ordlnances should not Assoclation cf bletropoli[an Mu- palities and the council is de- , 11; $urnsville end Inver nicipalities aren't sure, but they scrihed as °� remarkable nchieve- Zoning continued on page 12A. tl ' �'+:' � ,* t� . . . . _. . . _ . .. .. . . . ...-.._-.... : ._ . __•._._-.-._—'._..-...w_^1 ..__ . ..�. �., ___ ....._...:..,�: ,...�.. .. . _._ ..... _..... � . .. �3 �i�� Continued from Page lA - . � ' . : gerages, because thsy add ttes that are developing faste�st. ' . S"s.500 to i4.759 to the pur- ` � - : price of a r.ev,. house. They t3 No minimum floor areas should - _ not necessary to protett Isa required locoily, because the �. _ h, safety or general �veifare, state's buildir.g coda adequ�tely � re amemties tha[ can be add• provides for health, safety and � � i[Ci. IAC51 regulations thus general welfare. The state's- rc- . �� � . - , requlre pl�cer:.ent of honses qnirement is estimated at 624 ' ts 10 pezmit sech future con• sqiiare feet tor a twat�edroom tlon. A recent sunrey shoH�ed hams and 7Q8 for a thme-Sedroom � � 14 communiH?s of 81 exam- home. . • ' � . 1n this nrea require garages � ��. ' single•family houses. . The human resources committee of - - . tAe Metropolitan Cour.ci3 approved � � e: : . ,.:. . 9 'j . �.r the report Afonday night. It will go bafore the full council Thursday. The report quaiifies its recommen- dations for comrnwiities �.vith parv ticulns soil or tepug,raphy condi- tions t6at make higher density housing undesirnble. "Adoption of the advisory• stan- dards (by mttnicipalities) would not necessarily mean tha[ bui:ders .. qroul8 build homes to the mini- . mum standnrds," snys the report. , "Ho�vever, ii would en�b'.e l�uild- ers to be more responsive to tFe present and futurc housing de- mand, and to build smaller, mod- eat-cost homes, if a market eaists for such homcs." The report notes that household •- aize has dcchncd in this urca, from � 8.3 people in 1�JG0 to 2.9 Sn 197f. That conld lend to n drrr.und for I fewer� h^_dcoouis, tess tluor nren � •pnd smaller honses, the report says. IIut communiNcs with reta- Nvcly high minimum. huuse sizcs iney iack the flexi6ility to respund i to ihose potenu�d demnn�is, the I ;ieport says ��. �. - . . • . •' u � . , tlt . ''� I .�� S I G N- I N MAME � i .l � �! .,�..J!1!11� �,/_�1_.. ADDRESS /6o t �� CGi�P. i%!� �i�il�LkY — - /�012 Ct1 . ��h�ti�� ,.�s--r - ,� � � �r ���0 ��,..t� w r �J�� �% GJ �_�Jl�e.b1�2.�, /���.��l,�i�� �A�e, ��� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSI�N MEETINC� SF�TE�SBER 14. 1977 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the September it�, 1977 Planning Commission mesting to order at 7:3L� P.M, ROLL CALL� Members Present: Shea, Oquist, Harris, Peterson, Schnabel Mr. Langenfeld arrived at 8:30 p.M, Members Absent: Bergman (Mr. Oquist was his representative) Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGIIST 17, 1977 Ms. Schnabel requested that the last paragraph on Page 11 be eliminated, MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, to approve the minutes of the August 1'], 1977, meeting as amended. IIpon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� seconded by Mr. Peterson� to suspend the rules to accept the Appeals Commission meeting minutes as the next item on the Agenda. Upon a voice vote, all votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr, Oquist, to suspend the rules to accept the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting minutes after the acceptance of the Appeals Commission meeting minutes. Upon a voice vote� all voting aqe� the motion carried unanimously. 1, RECEIVE: APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 23j 1977 MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea� to receive the minutes of the August 23, 1977, Appeals Commission Meeting. Ms. Pat Gabel was present at the meetin�. Chairperson Harris requested Ms� Gabel to be available to answer any questions that may arrise regarding Item #1 of the August 23� 1g77, Appeals Commission meeting. Ms. Gabel indicated that the biggest concern of the neighborhood had been the amount of fires that had occurred at the Industrial Spray Painting Company. She went on to explain that the proposed plans would eliminate some of the potential hazards because the Company would enclose the rear docks. She indicated that in the past several fires had been set in the dock area by children playing with matches. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 14� 1977 Page 2 Ms. Gabel e3rplained that in the past the Company had leased the buiiding and that they had recently bought ihe building; thereby' creatittg a"pride of ownership�� situation, She said that another concern of the neighborhood had been the screening that would be used as a means of landscaping. She said that after seeing the Plans of the proposed building, most of the neighbors were satisfied with the way the bnilding would eventually look. Ms. Schnabel wanted to see the Plans that Ms. Gabel had referred to. Mr. Boardman showed plan. He explained as of Sept 1t�� 1977. the Planning Commission the original that the plans had not been approved The members of the Planning Commission reviemed the plans. Mr. Boardman explained all that was being planned. P9s. Gabel indicated that she had talked to Ms. L. Sporre and that her biggest concern was still the landscaping/ screening plans. Chairperson Harris indicated that the landscaping/screening was basically a concern of Staff. He said that the Planning Commission� etc. had to first be sure that the proposed building and improvements would meet all the codes. Mr. & Mrs. A1 Toews� Mr. & Mrs. Arne Toews, Mr. Ralph Officer, Mrs, Ralph Officer� ' _ were all present at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the request for variances by Industrial Spray Painting Company. Mr. Toews indicated that the reason he had appeared at the meeting was because at the Appeals Commission there had been a petition that had been against the granting of the variances. He wanted to be sure to be at the meeting in the event that the petition would hane been presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel indicated to the Planning Commission that Mr. Ken Sporre had had a petition at the Appeals Commission meeting that he chose not to present to the Commission� because after talkin� with the Toews�, he felt that the plan was �ood and he wanted to take tha petition back to the people that had originally signed it and explain exactly what was being planned for that building. There was no petition presented to the Planning Commission. .� PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING - SEPTF�IBER 14 1977 Pa�e The neighbors that were at the Planning Commission meeting were in favor of the proposed plans. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the minutes of the Au�ust 23e 1977: Appeals Commission Meeting were received. 2, MOTION by Mr. Feterson, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the minutes of the August 22, 1977, parks & Recreation Commission meeting. Mr. Peterson pointed out Item B of page 2. He informed Mr. Harris that two new tennis courts would be built in the Riverview Hei�hts area. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the minutes of the August 22, 1977, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting were received. 3. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr, Peterson, to remove the item from the table. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. The item was removed from the Tab].e at 7:52 P,M. Mr. Boardman explained that the lot in question was a veTy long lot. which the petitioner wanted to split into two parcels. Mr. Boardman explained that the 4Vesterly 130 foot measurement was from the center of the street to the lot line, 105 feet of the 130 feet is the actual lot, He said that that had been the confusion at the previous meeting when the item had been tabled. Chairperson Harris asked about the existing structure that would be split by the new lot line. Mr. Don Nielsen of 115-']t} Way NE indicated that the structure was in the process of bein� moved. PLANNING COMMZSSION MEETING - SEPTIIJIBER 14. 1977 Pa�e 4 Mr. Boardman said that the City did not need any easements. He expl.ained that the lot would be served by Alden Circle. Mr. Boardman explained that the Planning Commission had the authority with a Lot Sp1it, that when the lot split was approved a variance would automatically be granted, He said that this authority would have to be exercised in the request sinee the resulting lot would be less than 9�000 square feet. Mr. Boardman went on to explain that the nariance would only be granted regarding the lot size and not for the type or size of house that could be constructed on the lot. The buyer of the property indicated that he proposed to construct a house that would face Alden Circle. Mr. Boardman sai.d that it would be possible to build the house facing Alden Circle that would not require any additional variances. Ms. Schnabel asked if the Planning Commission was seeing a verified survey. Mr. Boardman indicated that it mas a verified survey. Chairperson Harris had questions regarding the street right-of-way that Mr. Boardman was able to adequately answer. MOTION by Mr. Peterson� seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend the granting of the Lot Split request: L.S. #77-08, Ron Neilson: Split off the westerly 13Q feet of Lot 31p Auditor's subdivision No. 77� subject to street easements� to make a new building site on the corner of 71�- Way NE and Alden Circle NE. (Existing house on balance of lot - 115 71� Way NE.) Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. �P J-11 BY RODNEY BRANN�N; PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE SECTION 205.101 3H TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOBILE CAR WASH ESTABLI5AMENT IN A C-2S (GENERAL SHOPPING) ON LOT 2� BLOCK 1, TARCfET ADDITION THE SAME BEING 775-53rd AVENUE NE, MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Ms. Schnabel� to open the public hearing. Upn a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing was opened at 8:01� P,M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETSNG - SEPTEMBER 1!}, 1977 Pa�e 5 Mr. Boardman showed the Planning Commission a design plan of what the automobile car arash establishment would look like. He explained where it would be located in relationship to Target and the Pop Shoppe. He explained that a system of service roads was being planned for the area. Mr. Oquist asked when the proposed island would be constructed, Mr. Albergotti' Jr., of Dayton Hudson Properties� said that it was planned to be completed by Spring 1978. Chairperson Harris questioned the grading involved between Embers and the proposed Car Wash. Mr. Boardman said that at the Appeals Commission� the Brannon�s had agreed to reduce the size of each bay in an attempt to have the car wash as far away from the hillside as possible. Mr. Peterson asked if Target owned the property in question. Mr. Albergotti explained that the property belonged to Dayton Hudson Properties and that the Brantton�s would be purchasing the property. Mr. Rodney Brantton of 1622 West Innsbruck Parkway explained that he wasn�t planning to construct the �'typical" type car wash. He said that he planned to purchase the best equipment possible and hoped to have his car wash be a model car wash for the State of Minnesota. He said that the car wash wouZd be maintai.ned from 6:3o A.M, until 11:00 P.M. Mr. Peterson asked if the car wash would be opened if the attendant was not present. Mr. Brannon said that originally they had planned to have the car wash open 2y. hours; however, he said that they have since decided to only have the car wash open for business when an attendant wnuld 6e present, Chairperson Harris wanted to know Mr. Brannon's plans of maintaining the one-to-one slope that would exist on his groperty. Mr. Brannon explained that he would ba considering land- scaping the hil.l using some type of ground cover such as some type of rose bush and/or Russian Olive trees. pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTII•IBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 6 Chairperson Harris requeated that the landscaping details be worked out by Staff to prevent the possibility of shabby appearances in the Area, Mr. Brannon explained that he had a big investment involved with the car wash. He felt that it would only be in his best interest to be sure that the entire lot was maintained properly at all times. Some questions arose regarding the sewer systems in the area and were they large enough and adequate enough to handle a car wash, Mr. Boardman indicated that there was an adequate sewer/ water system in the area. Mr. Boardman expressed a concern he had regarding the request for a special use permit. He made the statement that once a car wash, is a car wash, is a car tivash, etc. He said that if for some reason the Brannon�s didn't make it in the car wash business and would go bankrupt or if it is discovered that the particular lot was not a good location for a car wash� the City would be "stuck" with a building that would have to be maintained. Ae said that the building actually could only be used for a car wash business. Mr. Brannon indicated that he hoped the car wash would be a future livelihood for him and his family. He said that they had talked to many people in the car wash business and they thought that the particular location in question was an excellent site for a car wash. He said that he had every intention of making his car wash business GOOD. Ms. Schnabel asked if Mr. Brannon had any plans to try to recycle the water used in the business. Mr. Brannon said that he was looking at holding tanks that would be necessary to recycle the v�ater. He said that the actual recycling of the water still had a few +'bugs" that had to be worked on. He said that as soon as thoee problems were solved, he would probably be able to go right into recycling the water. Ms. Schnabel indicated that from the environmental standpoint it would be something that should be looked into. Mr, Boardman indicated that the Brannon's had plans to build solar panels on the roof of the car wash io assist in the heating of the water. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETII3G - SEPTa+iBER 14. 1977 Pa�e 7 Ms. Schnabel said that a problem in the winter could be caused by cars leaving the car wash without wiping the excess c�ater from the car, This water would then be deposited on the streets in the area, thus creating an ice hazard. Mr. Brannon said that they would have a system installed that contained an air-dry cycle that could be used to blow most of the excess water off the car. Mrs. Brannon said that there would be infrared heaters inside the doors of each bay, She said that that would help dry the cars also. She also explained that the lights in every two units were separate. Therefore, she said that at the time business was slow, the lights could be turned off in the bays that were not in use, thereby saving energy. Mr. Brannon said that they would use a five foot high sign to advertise the car wash. Mr. Qquist asked how many carscould be backed up behind each �aY. Mr. Brannon said that they could be backed up three deep. Chairperson Harris asked if the Brannon's planned to sell any oil products. Mrs. Brannon said that they would sell no oil products. Ms. Shea asked when they would plan construction. Mr, Brannon said that they would like to start construction as soon as possible. Mr. Albergotti said that Target and Dayton Hudson Properties both felt that the Brannon�s would keep both the building and the property well maintai.ned. Mr. Oquist asked who would be responsible for the roadways. Mr. Albergotti said that Target would maintain the roadways and the other businesses would pay an annual fee to Targ�et. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Brannon to explain the exact traffic flow to her. Mr. Brannon explained on the plan exactly how the traffic would fl.ow. PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING - SF�TEI�IBER 11�s 1977 Page 8 MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice note3 all voting aye, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 p,M. Ms� Schnabel said that she was concerned about the large traffic flow problem that already existed in the area. She felt that the car wash could only contribute to that problem. Ms. Shea indicated that that had been her first thoughts when she had read the request. However, she said that since then she had decided that the car wash did have a good desi$n, it was a good locationi and� if the road improvements were done as planned� it really tivouldn't pose any additional problems for the area. Mr. Albergotti said that since there was aJ.ready a traffic problem in the areaa the street improvments could only improve the overall traffic problems, Mr. Boardman pointed out that Dayton Hudson Properties had contracted the same people to do the service road project that were doing the 53rd Avenue improvements. He said that the work would all be done at the same time. MOTION by Ms. Shea� seconded by Mr. Peterson� that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the request for Special Use Permit, S.P. �77-11� by Rodney Brannon: Per Fridley City Code Section 205.101 3H to allow an automobile car wash establishment in a C-ZS (General Shopping) on Lot 2, B1ock 1, Target Addition, the same being 7'75-53rd Avenue I3E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. (Ms. Schnabel gave a reluctant aye.) (Ms. Schnabel was reluctant because she felt that D�}rton Hudson Properties should proceed with their internal improvements ahead of the 53rd Anenue Project). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - S�TIIiBER 14. 1977 Page 9 5. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR SPECIAL USE PEid�fIT �, -12 NASF.F�I A, ANSARI: As per Section 205.131 �A� 0 OF THE FRID CITY CODE� TO ALLOW A PUBLIC AUTO RII'AIR CINTER USE� ON THE SOUTHERLY 805 FEET OF THE EASTERLY -� OF THE NORTHEASTERLY } OF THE SOIITHEASTERI,Y � OF SECTION 3-T30-R2�� EXCEPT THE WESTERI,Y 328 FEET ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF (SIIBJECT TO THE EASEMENT AGREE:MENT OF 4/12/74) THE SAME BEING 7900 MAIN STREET NE. MOTION by Ms, Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motioa carried unanimously and the Public Aearing was opened at 8:46 P,M. Mr. Boardman explained that Mr. Naseem A. Ansari was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Boardman indicated that the request was to enable the use of 13,000 square feet of bay area in one of the Bryant- Franklin buildings at 7900 Main Street NE to have a self- serve type of garage space. He said that Mr. Ansari�s idea was to pronide the space, tools, racks, etc. for people to do their own work on their cars charging them on a time basis. Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Ansari felt that that type of business was not around the area and that there was support for that type of facility. He said that Mr. Ansari felt that the location was a good location for that type of service. Mr. Boardman indicated that the building was already divided into bays Ms. 5chnabel asked if the building would be divided into more bays. Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Ansari was going to use the existing bays. Mr. Oquist asked if there would be an attendant on duty at the b ay area. Mr. Boardman indicated that there would be a maintenance- type person at the building. Mr. Oquist asked if there would be any hoists available in the bay area. Mr. Boardman indicated that the project would be more of a minor repair type of space. He said it would basically be providing garage work-space for some people who didn't have a garage or enough garage space to do the minor repair work on their cars such as oil changes� minor tune ups, etc. .r. PLANI3ING COMMISSION MEETING = SEPTF�tBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 10 Mr. Oquist asked if there mould be a fire hazard for that type of business. Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Ansari would have to meet all the Fire Code requirements for that type of use. Mr. Robert Schroer of 490 Rice Creek Blvd, commented that a division of a big Corporation had established several buildings in other parts of the country for the purpose of self-serve service centers. He said that many had to be closed down because of a lack of acceptance. Mr. I,an$enfeld asked if that type of occupancy would be compatible with the other type of occupancies in the area. Mr. Boardman said that it was probably more compatible in an industrial area than in any other type of area. He explained that there was no place in the ordinances that allowed for automobile repair facilities. He said that thai type of business had to be handled by Special Use Permits. Mr. Boardman suggested that the item be tabled until such time that Mr. Ansari could appear before the Commission and answer the questions that the members had. MOTION by Mr. Petereon, seconded by Mr. I,angenfeld, that the Planning Commission table the request for Special Use Permit, S,P. #77-�2� Naseem A. Ansari: As per Section 205.131 (3,A,10) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a public auto re air center use, on the Southerly 805 feet o£ the Easterly � of the Northeasterly � of the Southeasterly � of Section 3-T30-R2L�, Except the Westerly 328 feet according to the plat thereof (subject to the easement agreement of 4/12/7y) the same being 7900 Main Street NE. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Ch&i.rperson Harris indicated that the item would be tabled until such time that Mr. Naseem A. Ansari could speak before the Planning Commission. He said that the Public Hearing would remain open, • •�h � •ulu •� u �� �' ' � 6. LOT SPLIT RE UEST L.S. #77-�0 BY IiEIGHTS BUILDERS 1 .: OF F��FI� AST Y 3 F'EET OF LOTS 1-4 � �BL�LK A� RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION.AND ADD THEM TO LOTS 5-6, BLOCK A� RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITTON TO MAKE TWO BUILDING SITES. Mr. Boardman indicated to the Planning Commission on the map which lots mere being discussed. The person representing Heights Builders Inc. said that he owned Lots 1, 2� 3, y., 5, & 6. He indicated that Lots 1,2�3� & 4 ran east and west and Lots 5& 6 ran north and south. He also indicated to the Commission the lots and area that Anoka County owned. He said that he wanted to make two buildable lots. Chairperson Aarris asked if he had any of the vacated street that was indicated on the map. The person representing Heights Builders Inc. said that he did not. Mr. Boardman indicated that the City would not require any additional easements on the lots. Ms. Schnabel asked if he intended to build the homes on the two lots or would he sell the lots. The person representing Heights Builders Inc. said that he would build the homes and that they would be priced in the 855-60,00o ai'81� Ms. Schnabel pointed out that the lots would be less than the required 9�000 square feet. Chairperson Harris indicated that one lot would be 8,160 square feet and the other lot would be approximately 8�466 square feet. Mr. Peterson said that the request would be consistent with the City�s present housing codes to encourage housing that people could afford and he said it was one may to utilize the lots. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend the approval of Lot Split Request L.5. #77-10 by Heights Builders Inc.: Split off the easterly 30 feet of lots 1-y, Block A, Riverview Heights addition and add them to Lots 5-6, Block A, Riverview Heights addition to make two building sites. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTII�IBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 12 Mr. Boardman indicated that the access and all utilities would be off of Hugo Street. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimausly. 7. EAST RANCH ESTATES 2ND BUIZDING SITES. -11, BY ROBERT H Vy V1 LLVVLl L' ION IN ORDER TO MAKE TWO Mr. Boardman indicated that there would be a building on lots 7& 8 and that Lot 6 was presently being built on. He said that the reason Mr. Schroer wanted the lot split was because he had two buyers for the lot. He said the proposed building would be back-to-back buildings that would meet all requirements. He said that basically a11 Mr, Schroer needed was a lot split. Mr. Boardman said that the only problem that could be seen was the question as to how service would be gotten into the back properties. Mr. Schroer said that the area had been discussed many iimes� He said the main concern was on Lot j, Block 3. He indicated on diagrams to the Planning Commission the exact location of the lot being discussed. He indicated that one of the plans could be to �o between lots 5& 6 with a cul-de-sac to service lot 3. He said that there could also be a cul-de- sac off Ranchers Road to serve Lot y.. Ms. Schnabel asked if Lot 4 could receive its access from the one cul-de-sac between lots 5& 6. Mr. Schroer said that it could, but it would depend on what would be built on the lot, Mr. Schroer said that there would be a possibility of Lot 4& 5 going to the same buyer, thereby eliminating many problems. He also pointed out that if Lots 3, y., & 5 went to the same buyer, a11 the problems would be elimittated, Mr. Boardman indicated that the concern was, how the City would service the two lots in question. Mr. Schroer said that he had basically showii. the Planning Commission how he could access the lots properly, He s�id that there would be several alternatives as to �vhat could be done, including a dead-end turn-around type street. He said he was showing how all the lots COULD be accessed� if all the lots were bought and built-on by separate buyers. Mr. Boardman explained the different areas of the lots in question. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTF�iBER 14. 1977 Pa�e 13 Chairperson Harris suggested holding the road easements as a private roadway. Mr. Boardman said that even if it was maintained as a private roadway� it would hane to be built to city standards to handle any problem in the future� if the owner decided they didntt want to maintain it any longer and would want the city to maintain it, Mr. Boardtnan indicated that the Code read that the back-to-back buildings would not require a special variance. He said that the buildings could be back-to-back with the written agreement from both property owners. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld� to recommend approval of Lot Split Request, L.S, #77-11� by Robert H. Schroer: Split off the southerly 157� Feet of Lot 6, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition in order to make two building sites with the stipulation that access be provided to Lot 3 by easement over I,ot 5 and that no portion of that easement would go onto Lot 6. Mr. Schroer said that the Cul-De-Sac would be whatever the City would require if it would be City Maintained. Mr, Boardman said that before the City would issue a building permit, they would require a definite plan. Mr. Schroer said that he felt that anyone building on Lot 3 would want a City Street and not a Private Street. tIPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. RECESS• A recess was called by Chairperson Harris at 9:39 P.M, RECONVENED• Reconvened at 9:49 P.M. Shea, Ogt�isty_Eiarras, Schnabel� Langenfeld were all present. Mr. Pe�erson had to leave due to personal reasons. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTII�IBER 14 L1�77 Pa�e 14 MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to amend the agenda and add Item tOA, Receive Human Resources Commission Meeting Minutes of September 1, ig77, Upon a voice vote, all votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the letter from Naegele Outdoor Advertisin$ Company of the Twin Cities, Inc. to Mayor William J. Nee and to receive the Memorandum from Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney to Richard Sobiech, Director of Public Works, regarding the Billboard Ordinance, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The letters were received at 9:51 p,M. 8. REVIEW PROPOSED SIGN ORDTNANCE Mr. Boardman explained that it had been the intent that the City Council only review the Sign Ordinance. He said that the Ordinance had not been ready for the First Reading. Mr. Boardman said that he had some problems with the memorandum from Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney, in that throughout the memo he had given a lot of statements but had given no legal ideas as to how to change it. Chairperson Harris said that he had gane to the City Council meeting on Og/12/77 to get an idea where the City Council was on this item, He sai.d that the City Attorney had indicated that he was willing to assist in the writing of the legal verbage into the Ordinance. Mr. Harris said that since Mr. Herrick had raised the questions, the Commission had best answer them. Ms. Schnabel said that she had gone through the memorandum and had made notes on her copy of the Ordinance along with notes of her own, She proceeded io go through the Ordinance indicating possible changes. Ms. Schnabel said that the first Section 21y..01 PURPOSE was okay as written. Section 21�..02 DEFINITIONS� A. Abandoned Signs� Ms. Schnabel felt was proper in that it helped the Zoning Administor. Ms. Schnabel, with a�reement from the other members, felt it would be proper to remove the Examples that were lieted in item B, Accessory Use. Ms. Schnabe� went on to discuss item G. Banners and Pennants. She felt that the statement (including small plastic flags� grand opening signs� or special announcements) should be deleted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTFMBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 15 Ms. Schnabel next diacussed A, Bench Signs. She felt that the words "such as a bus stop" should be deleted since later in the text of the Ordinance it was stated that Bench Sig;ns would be prohibited except at the bus stops. Ms, Schnabel suggested that the wording of Item I. Billboard be changed to read, ��BILLBOARD means an advertising sign which directs attention to a business� commodity� service, or entertainment which is conducted� sold or offered „ elsewhere than on the premises of which the sign is located. It was decided to put a question mark next to Item J. CANOPY signs. Ms. Schnabel said that if the definition was to be left in the section 21c�.02, then the term Canopy Sign had to be used in the text of the ordinance. Chairperson Aarris thought that somewhere in the text it was referred to as to the differences of roof signs and canopy signs. Mr. Langenfeld said that the terminology had been used to clarify roof signs versus canopy signs versus whatever other type of sign. The discussion next was on K, CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS. Ms. Schnabel needed clarification as to exactly what a Readerboard was. Mr. Boardman suggested leaving out the i.e., reader boards with changeable letters or changeable pictorial panels, from the definition. Ms. Schnabel then referred to Items S and V. She said that item S. IDENTIFICATION SIGNS and letter V. INSTITUTIONAL SIGNS� were the same definition and meant the same thing. She said that theq were worded somewhat different but did say the same thing. Mr. Boardman said that that had been done to define the differences between Institutional Signs and Advertising Signs, He e�cplained that an Institutional Sign was an advertising sign; however he said that there were parts of the te�t that would allow an institutional sign of certain square footage rather than just an advertising sign. It was decided to leave the two definitions as they read. Item Z, PORTABLE SIGN was next discussed. Ms. Schnabel said that the wording was confusing. Chairperson Harris suggested the mording to be changed to read� "PORTABI,E SIGN means a sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and which is not permanently attached to the ground� a sign structure, or a building.�� PIsANNII3G COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER il� 1977 Pa�e i6 Ms, Schnabel asked if there was a specific sign that was called a PORTA-PANEL. Mr. Langenfeld said that the words "back-to-back" made the sign different from a PORTABLE SIGN. Mr. Boardman said that it haci to be listed in the definitions because in the text portable signs were not being prohibited, but porta-panels ivere being prohibited. Ms. Schnabel asked for an example of exactly what a RFADER BOARD was, Chairperson Harris said that Bob's Produce had a Reader Board. Mr. Boardman suggested eliminating the definition for Rsader Boards because ihe only place they are mentioned was under Signs Allowed with Special Use Permits. Mr. Oquist said that before any of the items were removed that it was verified that the items were not actually mentioned some place in the text. Mr. Oquist didn't really agree that an prdinance could ever have too many definitions. Ms. Schnabel said that Item GG SIGN AREA was too wordsy and cumbersome. Mr, Boardman suggested that the item be worded, "SIGN AREA means the total area of the sign, including the border and the surface which bears the advertisement; or in the case of inessages, figures, or symbols attached directly to the building� it is that area which is included in the smallest rectange v�hich can be made to circumscribe the message, figure� or symbol displayed thereon. The stipulated maximum sign area for a free standing sign refers to a single facing.�� Ms. Schnabel questioned item NN. IINLAWFUL SIGNS. She wanted to know if the Ordinance was giving too much power to one person in authority to make the determination of unlawful signs. Chairperson Harris said that there was no provision for due process. Mr. Boardman suggested that the wording be changed to, "UNLAWFUL SIGN means a sign which is in conflict with this ordinance." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTE�IBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 17 Ms. Schnabel next discussed item B under Section 211�.031 SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS. She wanted to know who made the decision as to what would be obscene, pornographic, or 3mmoral character, or what would be untruthful advertising. Chairperson Harris said that the Courts had to make the decis3on as to what is pornographic. Mr. Oquist asked if he could appeal to the Courts if the Sign Administrator allows a sign that he felt was obscene. Chairperson Harris said that the Public could appeal any decision made by the City Administrator. Chairperson Harris said that the State Attorney General determined wkat was false or untruthful advertising and that part of tne item B should be taken out. Ms. Schnabel suggested rewording E to be, "Signs which resemble an official traffic sign or signal (except directional signs on private property),17 Ms. Schnabel next discussed itsm I. She felt if that item was left in the text, then an additional Item ��0" should be added and FLA,SHING SIGNS shouZd be included. Ms. Schnabel suggested that Item I be reworded to, "Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in intensity of light or is animated. She said that Item 0 wauld cover Flashing Signs. Ms. SchnabeZ indicated that item J was confusing to her. Chairperson Aarris sai.d that in speaking to the City Council there had been a lot of resist�ence to Item J, which included billboards, Mr. Langenfeld said that he personally felt that the Ordinance tivas curtailing rights. He felt that a precedent rras being set and that it was a form of censorship and he said that it should be handled very carefully. Ms. Schnabel said that her personal feelings were that if City Council would override what the Sign Committee had done� then she hoped that the Council would take the action to limit the number of signs allowed in the community. Chairperson Harris brought up the subject that some communities are drive-thru communities and others are walk-thru communities and the �ypes of signs and advertising are dependent on that aspect also. PL1�,�NNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTII�'IDER 1 i�, 1977 Pa�e 18 Chairperson Harris pointed out that when he talked to the City Council it had been their feeling that the Ord�nance was too restrictive anc3 that it was abolishing some things that they felt shouldn't be abolished. He said that by discussing the items again it could be said that it was the Commission�s consensus that it was what was wanted. Mr. Oquist said that he would rather have something too restrictive than too loose; which was the current ordinance's problems - too loose. Chairperson Harris sai,d that it had been the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave item J under section 211�.031 as it read. Chairperson Harris said that the attachment to the letter from Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company v�as totally unacceptable. Chairperson Harris commented on item C of section 214.032 SIGNS PEfd�IITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS. He said that the Fridley Gity Code had an ordinance regarding the display and use of the American Flag� entitled, ��THE FZAG ORDINANCE". There was much discussion regarding the use of the U,S� Flag as a means of advertising. In particular they discussed how City could control Perkin's use of the U.S. Flag. Ms. Schnabel asked if there would be a possibility of limiting the size of the Flag to the size of the building. Mr. Boardman said that since there was no permit required to display the U.S. F1ag� it would be hard to control. Chairperson Harris said that it could be possible to limit the height of the Flag pole. He asked Mr. Boardman to determine what a good height for a flag pole would be. The next item that was discussed was Section 21LF.032, H, 5. Ms. Schnabel said that there should be an Item 5a and and item 5b. 5a would be Banners and Pennants commemorating a special event not connected with a business and must be removed �vithin five days following the event; and 5b would be Banners or pennants for businesses will be allowed for grand openinge of busineases only for a ten day m�imum period, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - S�TEMBER 14, 1977 Page 19 Ms. Schnabel said that Section 211�.042, B should actually be shown under Section 291�.032 SZGNS PEFd�fITTED IN �T,L DISTRICTS! H(Temporary Signs), 2(Real Estate Signs), and should be listed as item c) Vacancy Signs: etc. Mr. Boardman felt that there should be some type of control on Vacancy Signs. Ms. Schnabel said that when a person had rental units, there was more response to a sign on the rental unit than any other type of advertising. Ms. Schnabel felt that the Maximum three square feet in area was sometimes not an adequate sign. Mr. Boardman felt that the large apartment complexes didn�t necessarily need any type of sign, since they almost always either had a vacancy or else they had the rental offices where a person could inquire as to a vacancy or at least put their names on a waiting list. Mr. Boardman said that �he smaller units that did not have a rentaJ. office could utilize the three square foot sign to an advantage, since it would be large enough to advertise that they had a vacancy. Mr. Boardman pointed out that many times in Section 211�.044� 214.o45, �d Section 211��046 item D. Wal1 Signs, should read, �'D. �'lall Sign: 1. 4Va11 sign area shall not exceed 15 times the square root of the wall length on vrhich the sign is to be placed��. Ms. Schnabel suggested that under Section 21y..0�.5, B� 2, the word ��Maximum" should be added so that the item would reac3, ��2. Maximum of eighty (80) square feet per development,�' Mr. Boardman suggested that item B„ 4 under sections 214.�44� 214.0�-5� and 211�.01�6 should read, "�. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished ground level when within 25 feet of a driveway��. Ms. Schnabel said that Mr. Herrick questioned the item A� 2 under Section 214.05. Mr, Boardman said that he liked the wording of the item. Ae said that since all the conditions placed on a sign by the Zoning Administrator were subject to appeal, he felt that that would be control enough. Mr. Boardman explained that any person could appeal any decision that vaas made in the City of Fridley. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPT�'IHER 14, 1977 PaRe 20 Ms„ Shea left the Planning Commission meeting at 12:05 A.M, due to illness. Chairperson Harris said �hat a City Policy should be set up re�arding the informing of people of their right of regrees. Ms. Schnabel said that Section 21y..05� A, 3, should be reworded to, "3, Temporary signs erected by a non-profit organization are not exempt from obtaining a permit for signs� but the City m�y tivaive the fee requizement." Ms. Schnabel suggested that some of the items in Section 21y.05, A� y. should have been lisied separately. Mr. Boarclman said that in the retyping of the Ordinance the different types of signs would be listed separately. Ms. Schnabel said that item E. Exemptions under Section 21t�,05 should read, ��The exemptions permitted by Section 214.05, A, 4, shall apply only to the requi�ement of a permit and/or fee� and shall not be construed as relieving the instalZer of the sign� or the ovrner of the property on which the sign is located, from conforming with the other provisions of this chapter. " Mr. Boardman suggested that Section 21y.05, item F, 1, should be reworded to, "1, Every sign shall be maintained in a safe condition at all times.�� Ms. 6chnabel said that under Section 211�.05, item F, 3 should be svritten in the Seotion 211�.06 ENFORCr"�IENT Ms. Schnabel said that Section 211�.05� G� 2� a, 1) should read, ��1)The sign is altered in any way in structure or copy (except for changeable copy and normal maintenance) which makes the sign less in coarpliance with the requirements of this ordinance than it ��ras before the alterations; or 2) The sign is relocated; or 3) etc.+� Ms, Schnabel suggested that under Section 211�.05, item G, z, a), y.), should be entirely left out. She said that it was non-constitutional. PLANNING COMMISSION ME�TING - SEPTEMBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 21 Mr. Boardman suggested the wording of Section 21y.,05, item G, 2, a), 5, should be reworded to, ��If the sign became 50% delapitated, it had to be removed or brought totally into compliance. If a sign is brought 50'� into compliancea then it had to be brought into total compliance�', Chairperson Harris felt that the item tended to discourage sign improvements, Ms, Schnabel said that Section 214.06, A, should be changed to be, �'A. The Zoning Administrator or agents shall be responsible for the +enforcement of this chapter«. She said that the other items would be lettered B, C, D, & E. Ms. Schnabel said that under Notificati_on of Violation of Code under Section 21y.06, the sixth 1ine� the word AE should not remain. Also the word HIS in item 2 under Notification of Violation of Code should also be removed. Mr. Boardman said that Section 21y.06� C� 2, should be reworded to, "The Zoning Administrator or.agent may cause any sign or other a�vertising structure which is an immediate public hazard to be removed summarily and without notice". Chairperson Harris said that the advertising structure that vrould be removed would be handled the same as junk cars. They would be held in storage for X number of days and if not picked up in that amount of timea it would go into public auction„ MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld� seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to submit to City Council the Proposed Sign Ordinance with changes indicated. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 9. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE: MOTION by Ms. Sahnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to continue the Maintenance Code. IIpon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously at 12:31 A.M. 10, CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue the Pa�cs and Open Space Plan. Upon a voice vote' alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTE�IBER 14. 1977 PaKe 22 11. RECEIVE: ENVIRQNMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES OF A GU MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Commission meeting of 1}ugust 16� 1977. Mr. Langenfel.d suggested that the members pay particular attention to Page 2, paragraph 3, and Page 3, the bottom paragraph, He indicated that the Commission had much discussion on the Open Space Plan, He felt that the Plan needed overhauling in order to be adaptable to the City. Mr. I,angenfeld said that the subject of noise pollution was really interesting. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 72. RECEIVE: HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION M.i�iuTES. OF • MOTION by Ms. Schnabel� seconded by Mr. Langenfeld� to receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of September 1, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslya Ms. Schnabel said that since the Code of Ethics had been adopted by the City Council, would a form be developed that the members of the Commissions could fill out so as to be sure all the information would be provided. Mr. Boardman said that a form was in the process of being developed. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn, Upon a voice note� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 12;46 A.M. Respectfully submitted� �p� :� �..�'� Recording Secretary , appropriate action. CC: Ctty Council NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERiISI�7G CO^APANY OF THE TWIN CITIES, INC. 1700 WESi 78TH STC1EEi. FA;M1:WEAPOLIS. W1iNN�50TA 55423/G12•865-33E1 August 22nd, 1477 Mayor William J. Nee City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, t4innesota 55432 Dear Bill: We are quite disturbed with the proposal to prohibit outdoor advertisinq in Frid2ey. i:e have been a member of your business community for many years and have provided a vital service to the businessmen. It would be unfair to suddenly ban outdoor advert3sing from your city and take away our services to the businessmen. It is our hope that with a better understanding of our industry the City will adopt an ordinance that is fair to the people, the buair.essmen and oux industry. In order to better understand outdoor advertising it is important to look zt both the positive and negative sides o£ the question and then look at what the Federal and State latias contain. As an advertising media �oe are necessary to the business community, especially to the small local merchants zvho�can use outdoor far more efficiently than any other medium. We also provide money to the conununity by way o£ property taxes and lease payments. We contribute our boards to various civic and charitable groups and governmental units for public service messages. Last year ��e contributed space to AmeYican Diabetes Assn., Big Brothers, Catholic Apoeal, Catholic Education Center, Cystic Fibrosis, Drug Education for Youth, Inc., Department of Community Educational Services, Fight Dutch Elm Disease, Goodwill Industries, Tc•:in Cities P�rblic Television, PSinnesota ,�SUltiple Schlerosis, United Way and many other organizations interested in pr.omoting ideas and events of public concern. FinGlly, it's important to remember that any industry creates jobs. Directly or indirectly, outdoor advertising means c•�ork for thousands of people. If a com,munity prohibits the outdoor advertising industry from doing business ... it is takinq jobs away from people. Today, as alcaays, it is important in our free society to allo�a a person to pursue whatever legitimate vocation he chooses. . � Mavor William J. Nee Page 2 1�ugust 22nd, 1977 Unfortunately, many times when outdoor advertising is being discussed, only the negative aspect, visual clutter, is considered. Aesthetics thus seems to be the basic underlying factor in strict or prohibitive legislation, yet aesthetics in itself is a very difficult idea to govern. What may be aesthetically pleasing to one may be distasteful to another. So it would seem that some type of middle ground should be established. The "billboard alleys" that were created in the past are part of visual clutter and should not be allowed. Prohibition of outdoor advertising, on the other hand, is equally unfair. Hopefully, the answer lies in a restrictive ordinance that allows a legitimate business to continue to function, yet creates no visual clutter. In our proposals we believe that we have accomplished this purpose. It is also important to understand the position of the Federal and State Governments concerning outdoor advertising. In 1965 the original Federal Highway Beautification Act was passed. In 1971 the State of ::innesota passed a Beautification Bill bringing the State into compliance �vith the Federal Bill. There have been some modifications since then, but the essential intent remains the same. The two governments recognize outdoor advertising as a legitimate business with a riqht to do business; but like all businesses, are subject to certain restrictions, i.e., zoning, spacing and sizing. Outdoor advertising is allor�ed in all Cor.unercial and Industrial zones, the structures must be spaced either 100 feet or 500 feet from another outdoor structure (depending on the road classification), and is allowed up to 1,000 square feet in size. Outdoor advertising is a legitimate, viable business attempting to do the best job possible for everyone concerned. We, at Naegele, believe that we have been a good member of the Fridley business community and hope that we can continue our good relationship. Attached are our recommendations for the sign ordinance in Fridley. By adoptinq these recommendations, outdoor advertisinq would be located only where other businesses are found and �vould be correctly spaced and sized. �9ith these regulations Naeqele Outdoor I�dvertising and the people of Fridley can continue to live and work in harmony. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, �yS��� G Gx''��� i:raig A. Lofquist, Director Community Felations �:AL: bap Enclosqre cc: Council Members , �.. �' • FRIDLEY SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR ADVERTISING SIGNS p,, Outdoor advertising structures and billboards which advertise products or business not connected with the site or building on which they are located shall be permitted as separate uses on property which is zoned C2, C2S, .M-1, bi-2. • g, Size 1. The maximum size per facing of a freestanding advertising sign shall be three hundred (300) square feet in area except along the freeway where it may be increased to seven hundred fifty square feet (750) in area. Two (2) facings per structure shall be the maximum permitted, and double-faced signs shall be attached back to back or "V" shaped. 2. A maximum height of forty feet (40) above the lot gracie is permitted. However, in such case as viewing from a highway is intended, this,distance may be computed above the center line elevation of the traveled highway. • C. Siting 1. The minimum lineal distance between advertising signs on the same side of street shall be five hundred (500) feet. No lineal distance need e:cist if sign units are segarated by visual barrier. 2. The minimum setback from street right-of-way lines shall be thirty (30) feet. 3. The minimum setback distance from an intersection, residential district, park, playground, school.or building used for ieligious purposes shall conform to building setback requirements. D. Specifications The structure of the sign shal.l be all metal. Such metal shall be either painted or treated in such a manner as to prevent deterioration. Sign facing and border may, how- ever, be constructured or finislied in wood. i ` , I9.'MORANDUM TOs Richaxd Sobiech, Director of Public Works FROM: Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney RE: Billboard Ordinance DATE: September 9, 1977 At your request, I have reviewed the draft of the proposed new ordi- nance relating to signs and billboards. I have the following comments. SECTION 214.02 DEFINITIONS There seems to be an inordinate number of definitions. Please check to make sure that all of the terms that are defined are used in the body of the ordinance. On ACCESSORY USE and BAI�TNERS AND PENNANTS, I would suggest eliminating the material after the word "examples" and the material that appears within the parentheses. It appears to me that the definitions of IDENTIFICATION SIGN and INSTITUTZONAL SIGN are repetitive and they could be combined. The use of the words "sales display device" in the definition of PORTABLE SIGN is confusing. The words "or in the case of inessages, figures, or symbols attached, directed to any part of the building" contained in the definition of SIGN AREA are confusing. In the definition of UNLAWFUL SIGN, b�aad discretion is given to the administration to declare certain signs unlawful without providing any procedure to notify the owners of the signs. SECTION 214.031 SIGNS PROHZSITED IN ALL DISTRICTS Section B relating to obscene, pornographic, i�oral, or untruthful advertising is extremely broad. Who is to make the determination as to whether the advertising fa11s within these areas? Section E prohibits signs which resemble traffic signs or signals. I[ contains the words "or bears the words 'stop, go, slow' or similar words used for traffic control". I feel that the quoted material should be elimi- nated, as i-t is overly broad. Section J relating to advertising signs is difficult to interpre[. �� , : _ . s _2_ SECTION 214.032 SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRZCTS I question the need or authority to have a section relating to the llnited States flag. � Section H relating to temporary signs permits a temporary construction sign for developments of 10 or more residential units. I do not see any corre- sponding authorization for developments of fewer than 10 and believe that this differentiation might well be considered arbitrary. The portion of [his section relating to construction signs and the portion of this section relating to real estate signs seem to be a duplication. The same co�ents relating to 10 or more units are contained in the portion of the section relating to real estate signs. The provision requiring the removal of a sign when the project is 95% comple[ed seems to be arbitrary. In the section on political signs, I question the authority of a city to prohibit erection of political signs before the closing of filing. In the section on banners and pennants, the first sentence is incomplete. Is it the intention to permit banners and pennants.only for grand openings? SECTION 214.042 SIZES, SETBACKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR R-3 and R3A This section limits the vacancy sign to three square feet. Is this adequate for a large apartment complex? ' SECTION 214.05 GENERAL AEQUIREMENTS The provision permitting additional conditions at the discretion of the zoning administrator is extremely broad. No permit is required for temporary signs. Nothing in the ordinance indicates how long a temporary sign may be erected. The section on maintenance is poorly worded and extremely subjective -- very difficult to enforce. The provision indicating that the zoning administrator shall be respons- ible for the enforcement of the chapter does not belong under [he section on maintenance. Zn the section on loss of legal non-confirming status, item 1 relating to alteration of structure or copy is difficult to interpret. Item 2 should be limited to "the sign is relocated". The rest of the language should be stticken. Item 4 pxoviding that non-confonning status is lost if thexe is a change in owner is unconstitutional. Item S is very confusing and should be rewritten. SECTION 214.Db ENFORCEMENT The section authorizing the zoning administrator to remove signs which are a public hazard without notice could very well subject the city to lawsuits. �_ r , CITY OF FRIDLEY PLAt1N1NG COMMISSION MEETING August 17, 1977 CALL TO ORDBR: Chairperson Sergman called the Auguat 1T, 1977 Planning Co�ission meeting to order at 7;44 P. M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ber�an, Schnabel, Shea, and Langenfeld Members Absent: Harris and Peterson Others Present: Ray Leek APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION I�IINUTES: AUGUST 3, 1977: Ms. Schnabel stated Chat Ms. Gabel had asked her to make the following correct- ians to the August 3, 1977 minutes: Page 10, LOth paragraph� to read as iollows; "Ms. Gabel said the Sign Com- mittee believed there was no system for maintenance and without it, there � was no need to write a new ordinance". Page 13, 7th paragraph to read as follows: "Ms. Gabel indicated that the Sign CommitYee felt most maintenance was good, but where it was bad, it was really bad", page 14, 9th paragraph to read as follows: "Ms. Gabel indicated that it had been OBVIOUS to the Sign Project Co�ittee which people were not maintaining their signs because they were really looking for it". Mr. Langenfeld requested the following correction be made: Page 163 4th paragraph� line 11: Eliminate the word "the" before the word "Staff" and substitute the words "top level". MOTICN by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the minutes of the August 3, l977 meeting as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. AJBLIC IiEARII3G: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP 4k77-10, BY JILL ZAK: Per Fridley CiCy Code, Section 205.131� 3(A3), to a11ow a sclioo of gy�astics and exercise in Pt-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), on the North 240 feet of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 3, the same being 8290 Main Street N. E. � MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld Co open the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Schnael. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously and the public hearing opened at 7:50 P. M. PI.ANN]NG COMMISSION MEET]NG - AUGUST 17� 1977 PAGE 2 Chairperson Bergman stated the usual procedure is to have City staff advise . them and present background information regarding this request for a specia]: use permit. Mr. Bergman stated the City Planner, Jerrold $oardman, had called and stated he would be late for the meeting, however, the Commission aould proceed, Ms. Jill Zak appeared before the Co�isaion regarding her request for a special use permit. She explained her plans for a gyumastics and exercise achool and stated it is not possible for her to have this school in coTmnercial office space because her apparatus and equipment require additional ceiling height. Ms. Zak stated she plans to lease space in a warehouse building presently under construction at 8290 Main Street N. E. for her school of gy�astics and exercises. She explained the school would be for both boys and girls from pre-school and elementary level to junior high and beginning advanced levels. Ms. Zak gave the Commission some of her background and stated she is a physi- cal education teacher and has taught for ten years. Ms. Zak presented a letter of recommendation from Dr. Dean Albertson, Frittcipal of Hayes Element- ary School in Fridley. MOTSON by Mr. Langenfeld to receive the letter oE recommendation from Dr. Dean Albertson. Seconded by Ms. Shea. Upon a voice vote, al2 voting aye, the motion carried unanimonsly. � Ms. Schnabel questioned what other types of businesses would be going into this warehouse building and if they would be a compatible use with the gymiastics school. She stated her concern was if there will be truck traffic which might be a potential hazard for children attending the school. Ms. Zak stated� she believed, children would be dropped off and picked up and doubted there would be many walking around in the parking lot. Ms. Schnabel stated because of the use of that area for heavy industiial, it migizt be a hazard ff students would be coming to the schoo2 on their bicycles. Ms. Schiiabel questioned the hours of the buainess. Ms. Zak stated it would be mainly 4 p. m. to 9 p, m. and probably Saturday mornfngs. Mr, Langenfeld asked Ms. Zak if she imew the approximate area of the building she would be occupying� in terms of percentages. Ms. Zak stated she couldn't even guess how many bays there would be, but that she would be occupying otte bay out of possibly 20. Mr. Bergman asked if this business presentlq exists at another location. Ms, Zak stated it wonZd be a new business. Mr. Bergman questioned if washroom facilities would be available. Ms. Zak • stated there are two sets of washrooms in the building and two lunchrooms and felt this would 6e satisfactory for her needs. PLANNIN G COMMISSION MEETIN G- AUGUST 17� 1977 PAGE 3 � Mr. Bergman asked if Ms. Zak had signed a conditional lease. She indicated that she had-not at this time. Mr. Bergman stated a special use permit is issued to the property owner rather than the tenant. He was concemed with issuance of a special use permit to the owner to allow him to establish a use for the interested tenant� without no co�itment as yet by the property owner. Ms. Zak explained the owner� Mr. Brama� was not willing to sign any lease until the building is completed. She stated she has been talking with him since last January and he is aware of her interest in leasing the space. Ms. Zak stated, as far as a commitment on her part, she presented a brochure for her proposed school which has the address listed as 8290 Main Street N. E., FYidley. Mr. Bergnan stated he could see Ms. Zak's point where she would need a build- ing with higher ceilings for her school and which is not normally found in a conmaerical building. Ms. Schnabel stated her only concem would be safety for persons coming to the building. She felt there might be a slight problem with the restroom facilities heing available� but felt it was something the builder had to make a determination on and she assumed he is working with the City inspec- tor on this. 'i Mr. Langenfeld asked if proper exits were bei.ng considered in case of fire. Ms. Zak stated she would check into this to find out the proper route to take in case of an emergency. Mr. Langenfeld questioned if the special use permit shouldn't be issued to the property. He stated, due Co the size of the building, there wi11 be several subdivisions within the building, one of which would be the gyrmias- tics school, and the other p�tions could go industrial as designated, Mr. Bergman stated the others would be in the intent of the original zoning, if [hey are industrial. Mr. Bergman felt� in general, the special use permits are treated a little too loosely and if this is reco�ended for approval, it should be for a specific use to a particular applicant and for a number of square feet. He indicated he would not favor merely recommending approval with no perimeters on the intent of their motion. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out there may be State requirements which Ms, Zak would have to adhere to as far as her equipment and safety procedures. Mr. Dick Yakel stated it was mentioned about restricting the number of square feet and wondered if Ms. Zak wished to expand her business, if it would be necessary to obtain another special use permit. . Mr. Bergman felt iC would depend on how the motion is worded by the Co�ission. � PLANNING COIII�ffSSIOPi MEETIIJG - AUGUST 17, 1977 PAGE 4 Ms. Schnabel felt by specifying the amount of apace, it may be too restrictive. • She stated the special use permit gnes to the prnperty and can understand specifying this special use permit being approved for the specific use of this petitioner and for this type of business. Mr. Bergnan stated Ms. Schuabel's comment� may be:pertie�ca�t,ia this case, however, his cotrmtents were to special use permits in general. Mr. Langenfeld stated he really is not against the proposal for the gynmastics school. He indicated he was concerned that the building was not even completEd as yet and felt some sort of preliminary plan may have been helpful. Ms. Zak stated she has seen the building layout a number of times and lmows the square footage and how the equipment will be placed for her particular section. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would be int=rested to know where her particular area would be located within the entire building. Ms. Schnabel suggested perhaps these types of drawings be available when this item goes to the City Covncil. Ms. Zak explained the construction of the huilding which is pre-stressed concrete with block walls to the ceiling to separate the bays. Mr. Langenfeld felt perhaps this application was a bit premature since the � building is not, as yet, completed. Mr. Yakel stated the fqotings are fn and felt construction would go quite quickly. Mr. Bergman indicated he would probably feel more comfortable with some plans, but•, on the other hand, the question is if this type of activity should be allowed in that particular zoning. He felt the type of materials used in construction was not pertinent to the request for the special use permit. Mr. Langenfeld stated, if this was a pre-fab building, the element of safety enters into the picture. Mr. Bergman stated the buiiding codes will have to be met and that a buildir.g that is safe for a warehouse should be safe for people. Mr, Bergman questioned for what period of time Ms. Zak planned to sigi the lease and she stated it will probably be for one year. She indicated she would like more space than what she is starting with and hopes to expattd, depending on how the business progresses. Mr. Langenfeld questioned the proposed opening date and Ms. Zak stated she wauld Iike to open this fa11. Mr. Allen Mattson wondered why the special use permit couldn't be issued to • one specific person and if plans didn't niaterialize, the permit would be null and void. He stated he could see Ms. Zak's point where she and the owner weuldn't want to enter into a contract without knowing if the special use permit would be approved. PLANNING COMMISSI�l MEETING - AUGIJST 17, 1977 pAGE S � Ms. Sctmabel stated the code does provide, for instance, if the building is not completed� the special use permit would Lapse and become void. Ms. Schnabel felt the decision should be made on whether or not to allow a gyffitastics and exercise school in an industrial zone. Mr. Yakel pointed out the hours of the school are normally after work hours and didn't feel there would be a problem with traffic. No other persons in the audience spoke for or against this request for a special use permit. MOTIIN by Ms, Schnabel to close the public hearing. Seconded by Ms. Shea, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing was closed at 8:33 P. M. Ms. Schnabel stated her only concern would be the traffic through the area and saiety factor and would have no other problems that she can see, at this point, in granting the special use permit. Ms. Schnabel stated she assumes the petitioner has looked at many places to lease for this type of business as it obviously requires certain specifica- tions which are not easily found in other buildings. Mr. Bergman staCed he agreed with Ms. Schnabel's remarks. He indicated he • was familiar with warehousing operations and the amount of traffic going in and out really isn't that great. He stated it was interesting to note the hours of the school are from 4 p.m. to ? p.m. which are primarily after the hours of the warehousing activity. Mr. Bergman pointed out that space on the end of the building would be in Iess conflict with the traffic and felt the pzoperty owner might want to take this into consideration. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea to recommend approval of Special Uae Permit� SP �k77-10, by the requester Jill L. Zak, £or a special use of property at 8290 Main Street N. E. for the purpose of a recreational- commerical facility in an M-2 zone. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr: Langenfeld questioned if there should be any other conditions. Ms. Schnabel felt the special use permit was issued to Pfs. Zak specifically and for a recreational use and that was all that was necessary. Mr. Bergman suggested Ms, Zak check with the City staff when this item will be oa the Council's agenda, RECESS• ` Recesa called by Chairperson Bergman at 8:40 P, M. RECONVIiN ED : Reconvc:ned at 8;45 P. M. Schna�el, Shea, Bergman and Langenfeld were all present. I. � PLANN]N G COMMISSICN MEETING - AUGUST 17� 1977 PA GE 6 Mr. Bergman stated he had been agked to call Jerrold Boardman, the City Planner,� and he wi11 be unable to attend the meeting this evening. He stated another staff inember will be coming to the meeting to take Mr, Boardman's place. 2. i.OT SPLIT REQUEST, L, S, d�77-O8, RON NIELSEN: Split off the Westerly 130 feet of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, aubject to street easements, to make a new building site on the corner of 71-1(2 Way N. E. and Alden Circle N. E. (Existing house on balance of the lot - 115 71-1/2 Way N. E.) Mr. Don Nielsen appeared before the Co�nissfon regarding this request for a lot split. He stated the application should read that they are requesting 105 feet to be split off the Westerly side of Lot 31. He pointed out the agenda description states 130 feet. Ms. Schnabel questioned if the drawing on Page 28 of the agenda book was accurate. Mr. Nielsen stated the lot split line is correct, but isn',t in proportion to where the building is located. He poittted out the storage shed has been removed since the lot was surveyed. Mr. Nielsen stated he cannot understand the 130 feet, as his intention is only to split off 105 feet from the West side of Lot 31. Ms. Schnabel questioned when the survey was made and Mr, Nielsen stated in 1973. Mr. Nielsen stated� since the survey was made, there has been quite a bit of alteratians. Mr, Bergman stated the survey should be current for purposes of reviewing this lot split request. Mr. Ron Nielsen stated the line has been drawn in on the 1973 survey where they would like the lot split to be, that is, 105 feet from the West line of Lot 31. He poi.nted out the storage shed wou2d be removed. Ms. Schnabel asked if it was their intentions to construct a home on that Westerly portion. Mr. Ron Nielsen stated there will be a home constructed, however, he is in the process of selling the property for this purpose and would need the lot split, Ms. Sctmabel asked iE the property was zoned R-1. Mr, Ron Nielsen stated he assumes it is single family because that ia what is in the Henderson plat. In figuring the square footage for this lot, it was pointed out that the minimum square footage requirements wou2d not be met, therefore� a person wishing to build on the lot may have to apply for a variance if they are unable to meet setback requfrements and square footage re�uirements. � • i � :—. ,.�--' . � . PIJfNNING COMMISSICN MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977 PAGE 7 Mr. Don Nielsen stated, when they dedicated 25 feet to the City for Che roaZ, they were informed the City did not want to Leave them with an unbuildable lot. Ms. Schnabel pointed out that if they split off 110 feet, it would give thet additional square fooCage and closer to the 9,000 square feet required. Mr. Don Nielsen felt, if this was done, it would give him hardly any yard at all. Ms. Schnabel stated she appYeciated Mr, Nielsen's cancem, however, if the lot split was approved as he requested, they would be creating an unbuildable lot. She felt this may have been the reason for the change to 130 feet, instead of the 105 feet, in order to make this a buildable lot. Mr. Ron Nielsen questioned if the requirements would be met if the house faced on Aldzn Circle instead of 71-1/2 Way. Ms. Schnabel indicated they could prob- ably meet seiback requirements, but not s.�uare footage requirements. Mr. Bergman felt he had inadequate information to take action this evening. He stated there was lack of an up-to-date map and the description, in rlr. Nielsen's view, is wrong. Mr. Don Nielsen stated he would like the Co�ission to consider the 1�5 feet as no one could have built without them giving up the 25 feet for the road. Mr. Bergman stated, when he gave the 25 feet, it wasn't necessarily condit- ioned on anything else but Co provide the necessary accessways for the pro- perty. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out if the lot split was granted and the buyer of the Iot was aware the iot was substandard, he felt it would only create a worse situation. Ms. Schnabel questioned if it would be agreeable with the applicant to table this item to the next Coffinisaion ueeeting so input can be received from staf� in terms of the lot size and come to an understanding of what is required on the square footage. Mr. Don Nielsen stated the sale of theproperty could be subject to the lot split, however, he did not want to stall the buyer indefinitely. Mr. Langenfeld indicated the Cov�3ssion could send this to Council without a reco�endation and have staff supply input at the Council level. Mr, Bergman felt this could be sent to Council, without a recommendation, but would vote against it as he felt they had a job to do. Mr. Ron Nielsen stated, as far as the survey shows, the original plat Lines for the whole lot are correct. He stated the only prdblem now is where the line would go. •�v�;: PLANNIN G COMMISSION MEETIN G- AUGUST 17, 1977 PAGE �• Mr. Don N ielsen stated when this was discussed with the staff, it was pointed • out tliat it would be 105 feet and this figure was written in at that time. Ms, Schnabel stated she wondered why the staff had changed it to 130 feet and felt possibly it has something to do with the 25 foot dedication. Ms. Shea questioned if the 25 feet is the actual street. Mr. Don Nielsen stated it may be part of the houlevard area, Mr. Bergman stated� he may be getting a little technical, but the map on Page 28 is not a survey ag it is not stamped� no one has signed it and he didn't know where it came from. Mr. Don Nielsen stated the garage shown on the d�awing is his old garage which has been torn down and he has bought an additional 10 feet to the East of his lot. He stated the drawing isn't at all like the lot presently exists and is not really up to date. Ms. Schnabel felt, if Mr. Nielsen did not have any strong objections, it would probably be better to table this item to the September 14 meeting. Mr. Don Nielsen felt this would be acceptable with him. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, secor.ded by Ms. Schnabel to table this item to the next meeting of the Commission for the proper•information from staff. L'aon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. �_ Mr. Bergman suggested to Mr. Nielsen that he meet with Jerry Boardman of the City staff regarding the discussion this evening and in order to bring things up to date and clarified for the next meeting. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L. S. 4k77-09, DE GARDNER REALTY: Split Lot 1, B1ock 1, Marion Hills Second Addition� and Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Hi11s, into t•wo parcels: PARCEL A, The West 100` of Lot 1, Block 1, Marion Hills 2nd Add3tion, together with that part of the west 100 feet of Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Hills Addn.� on file in the office of the County Recorder, �noka County� Minnesota as Document No. 455241, Bk. 889, Pg, 221. Subject te a utility and drainage easement over the above described properties as Document 339804� the same being 1335 SZnd Avenue N. E. PARCEL B. Lot 1, Block 1, Marion Hills Znd,Addition, except the West 100 feet thereof, t;- gether with that part of Lot 12, Block 1, Marion Aills Addition, on file as Document 455241, B1.880, Pg. 221, except the West 100' thereof. Sub- ject to a utility and drainage easement over the above described pro- perties as Docum�t 339804, the same being 1345 52nd Avenue N. E. Mr. Allen Mattson, representfng DeGardner Realty� appeared before the Co�ission regarding this request for a Lot split. Mr, Mattson stated this land was bought as a tax forfeit piece of property and the City was contacted to see if the property could be split into two buildable lots. • �n ' PI,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 17� 1977 pAGE 9 � He stated staff advised them that it may have to 6e platted, However, after checking with the City Attorney, staff iadicated it wouldn't be necessazy to plat the property, but to apply for the lot aplit. Mr. Mattson explained the total area is 26,200 square feet and this would be split into two lots. Ms, Sctuiabel qvestioned if [his lot split would create any problems in terms of the easement as they cannot build over it, Mr, Mattson iedicated it would not create any problems as they wouldn't be building over the easement. Mr. Bergman questioned the._10'..foot easement. Ms. Schnabel felt it was evid- ently all part of the whole easement as it is referred to as part of the docu- ment. Mx. Langenfeld felt the easement was a continuatio-t of the drainage and utility easements. Mr. Bergnan questioned the terrain and Mr. Mattson stated it pitches to the West. Mr. Bergman stated it would make sense then that this is the con[inu- ation of the easement. MOTIQ3 by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr, Langenfeld, to reco�nend approval of Lot Split #77-09, as requested by DeGardner Realty. Upon a voice vote, all � voted. aye, and the motion carried unanimously. ADDITI�] TO THE AGENDA: N�TI�1 by Ms. Shea, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to add Item 3A, Receiving Minutes of the Appeals Commission of August 4, 1977 and Item 3B, Receiving Minutes c_ the Human Resources Commission of August 4, 1977. Upon a voice vote, a11 vcCed aye, and the motion carried unanimously. 3A. RECEIVING bIITIUTES OF THE APPEALS COrIMISSION MEETING OF AUQJST 9 1977: MOTION by Ms. Schnab2�, secatded by Ms, Shea to receive the minutes of the Appeals Co�ission of August 9, 1977. Upcn a 3oice vote, all voted aye, and the motion carried unanimously. 3B. RECEI�ING I�IINUTES OF THE NUAfAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGfJST 4, 1977 ; MOTIQ� by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld•to receive tlie minutes of the Human Resources Cou�ission of August 4, 1977. Upon a voice vote� all voted aye, and the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Shea stated she would like to bring to tt:e attention of the Council the co�mnents of the Human Resources Coffinission regarding the Liquor Ordinance on � Page 4 of the minutes. pLANNING COMMISSIQV r]EETING - AUGUST 17, 1977 RECESS: PAGE 10 � MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms, Shea to ca12 a recess. Upon a voice vote� all voted aye� and the motion carried unanimously. Recessed at 9;55 P. M. RECONVINED: Chairpexson Bergman reconvened the meeting at 10:10 P. M. Schnabel, Shea, Bergman and Langenfeld were present as well as the staff representative, Ray Leek. 4, REVIEW PROPQSED SI(N ORDINANCE: MOTIQQ by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to table this item until staff brings in a further report. Upon a voice vote, all voted aye� and the motion carried unanimously. 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTINANCE CODE: MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Shea to table this item. Upon a vofce vote, all voted aye, and the motion carried unanitm usly. 6. PARKS tSND OPEN SPACE PI,AN : • Mr. Leek stated Mr, Boardman asked him to come this evening to provide farther information on the Parks and Open Space.plan. � Mr. Langenfeld stated the Environmental Quality Co�nission had a very lengthy discussion on this plan and there was deep concern by the members on the urgency of accepting it. He stated they began,to review the plan page by page, but didn't get very far. He indicated the general conclusion of the Commission is that past, present and projected uses of the parks hinges solely on proper definitions. He stated the Commission felt this was a very important document and they couldn't even consider acceptance at this time until the definit3ons are clarified. Mr. Leek stated, in 1976� the State Legislature passed the Mandatory Land Pla�ing Act requiring a satisfactory Land Use P1an which means the City has to update this plan. He stated one element of this is the Comprehen- sive Parks and Open Space Plan. Mr. Leek stated, in order to apply for any funding, the City must have a docament that is formally approved by the City Council. He felt, i€ the plan isn't adopted so that they can make appLication this year, the City may lose out on future opportunities. Mr. Leek felt it would be "nip and tuck" meeting the schedule and there is also a period for exchanging this document with school districts, the county and surrounding cities for their co�mnents. Mr. Leek indicated the Parks and Open Space Plan is only one element and � there are a multitude of other planning items such as the Critical Areas Study, Transportation Plan, Housing Plan, etc. . PLANNING COP4IISSION MEETING - AUGUST 17, 1977 PAGE 11 � Mr. Langenfeld stated he understoad the u;genty as far as obtaining funding. He felt they should have received the plan sooner and that, if it is adopted, it wouldn`t be a complete document and would have to be reviewed again. Mr. Leek stated any planning document has to be reviewed on a continuing basis, He indicated the primary reason why the plan wasn't given to the Cotmnission sooner was to put together, as carefully as they could, what materials and information the staff had. Mr. Leek stated he has his own question as to how much time is enough to review it, but the question is if the plan is acceptable as a policy docu- men t. Mr. Leek stated the Parks and Recreation Co�ission has met four times on this document and will be meeting again next Monday night. He stated they have been working with the Co�nission and checking with the Director to interpret his i.nput from the Co�ission. Mr. Leek stated, he understands, the Parks and Recreation Commission will reco�end �pproval of this plan to the Planning Co�ission. He stated there has been a lot of discussion in reviewing this document and revisions have been made. Mr. Leek stated the Parks and Open Space Plan is a preliminary document and was taken to the Co�nissions for theia to either reco�nend approval or not to approve and forward their reco�endation to the Planning Con¢nission. . Mr. Leek stated the purpose of submitting this to the Planning Commission is for them to review the plan and take action in the near future. He stated, it is hoped, this can be submitted to Council in Septe�ber. Ms. Schnabel pointed out there is only one more Planning Co�ission meeting before the end of September, and didn't laiow if this was realistic in obtain- ing their recommendation by September. Mr. Langenfeld stated the beginning of the "problem" occUrred at the Environ- mental Quality Commission meeting when tl�e Con¢nission read part of the report on Page 2 which stated that this plan is a supplement to the City's Comprehen- sive Plan and fulfills the mandatory requirements of the parks and recreation in the City's planning. The Co�ission felt it was being thrown together to meet a zequirement and obtain funds. Mr. Langenfeld then read the definition of a"regional Park". He stated the Environmental Quality Co�ission suggested a change in that definition. He indicated it was the Commission's hopes they could at least clarify the de£initions and the rest of the elements would fall into place. Mr. Leek then presented slides taken in various parts of the metrppolitan area which showed park design, signing, landscaping and uses of parks relating to placement of tennis courts, tot lots, etc. Ms. Schnabel stated it seemed the proposal on the existing parks relates to � the ability of the land where the perk now exists or to dedicated park area. � PLPNNING CON@tISSIUN MEET]NG - AUGITST 17, 1977 pAGE I2 � d Mr. Leek explained the City is very.Zimited to the avwunt of land they have, � The total area for the City is 10.2 square miles and total park acreage is 451 acres. Mr. Leek stated in comment to Mr. Langenfeld's remark that the Environmental Qualihy Commission felt this document wag thrown together in order to obtain funding, he poittted out that work had begun on this plan over a year and a fialf ago before the Mandatory P2anning Act was passed and before monies were available for funding. He stated they began putting together materials for this plan last spring and at that time, examined what needed to be incorpor- ated to meet the concerns of the Planning Act, Ms. Schaabel. asked what type of funds the City has received to date. Mr. Leek stated� to date, the only funds received were for mandatory planning. Ms. Schnabel asked when they would anticipate any implementation funds. Mr. Leek stated the deadlines are within two weeks and those agencies to which they are applying will make a decision within two months, He stated, if the plan is adopted, .the City:will•be'working wi'th the neigh- borhoods to put togather some designs for the parks. He indicated this would be a separate docuruent for each neighhorhood. Mr. Bergman thanked Nfr. Leek for his presentation to the Commission. � 8. OTHER BUSINESS• None. ADSOURN NI�N T : MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to adjourn. Upon a voice vote, all voted aye, and the motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:12 P. M. Respectfully submitted� -� �-� ,�/��e Carole Haddad Recording Secretary � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICANT:�}"�,y� ,� j � �� SE� �1 ADDRTSS: i/ � �.`r�.�., 1^f �cJ I�'�/ 7�� �r� - Street City Zip Code m�,E�oxE � "��i_� �, � �Y ilome Business PROPERTY 04II�IER(S� ci'' � � i C� 5'� WIGn ADDRESS(ES �:�. ��,}�, i'� SE;r� . � .,�!_ Fo�t r,TmY r.�� o���•r Applicant's IJar..c Lot Split 'I'--;"' -- Date Piled• Fee:$'-�A�eceipt 1fS'��hl� Council Action:Bate RFT4AFtKS: TELEPHONE #(S Home Business Property Location on Street • or EScact Street Address (IF Ai7Y) 7j �/7 t�`Ci• i l.'c 3 � ��� F r1 i� � t��� F__ Legal Description o£ Property: Vd �.a.�'.�'� .�,� Lo7- �� �'� d *�' 2.,7 <�l, f of� �9 � � -Y--- Reason for Lot Split: . The undersigned representations correct. . ft. caiion hereby declares that all the facts and stated in thi� application are true and DATE� % e .�,� _r PELO[J FOR CITY IISF ONTY � Ct1ECKGD BY STAFF D.1TE Kemasks: ! �/ (See reverse side for additional i.nstructione � PLANNInTG CON,�•tISSION: Date of Consideration - Remarks• CITY COiR1CTL: Date of Consideration - Remurks: . ,"�-o � -o A � 6� -°�?rt � � � � � �' :� ��...� . � � � � �� � ' . '� -a �-�-t_' � �' �� � �f o I--� t . t� .-6 ""[r � j , � d �, � � . � `� � d c '_ .� �- o F :`� C.��r GY � '�r• C ' � i ` o. ? c.Ni� � S -'O O _ O �^"� �„_fl � o � �-+'�O� c cO a . i � i- C -- T O � �� T L -` _-r� � �' 'a L v '� O --�� 4� ��+V � O l \ � � \ � � �C 1�--' 6 . G / .a � �_n � _� � C� _.n � 0 � � c -a v .� c� J 0 C T d S i.. L \., o � 0 r- � � 1 1 ' 5 � 1 1 � �S') 1 .� � v; �� �� �� Jy: 1 � 1 1 � , —11•15— } - q, � � ;6� : - � L�LL z-`.' r CL a _ a 'lf , �`.� 6�L sf S:J�..d� .:��.l.� '•`i a as ��> �o_ � � � I $8'1 e 4t'52 . - _ _ [� m o, � tG+ ��.. < ' � � • � l6 �TI —4" uo�. - --- � �� ,r � f� -------------� i/"L9 � -----it't�---- � s � d a � 6 i �°, fi �r• 1 �Si � C �y � ---------------- ��j r��� � �N�IJ ! � , � h _.L___�: �-- J ' — �6'DS — �_���� t�a� ar_' � J 0 .� _'/"! � s _3 ls � � � � �� ' rJ� � � � � I� i � . � � I N� � cw a �� _i .� 1 �. � .� � � ��,.d�� I _... . F :' :t2 _._- c S er o � � o � � "� r U r a 0 a fl ' � . � �Y • —1 �� �'� � � �_? - -o o� ° � �_�, �s- � o, �. �� � d � � a c--+- ° � � o ,� y O � -}.�,- � d-ZS � d �- °) Q �°+� �r �i d L� � Ly G o• � s� T .� o y � � d --c� �---- a � °' -r-. L�-�' r' c-� °_t'-' " t �- 6 0 _J t :. s�� , � � cirv o:- Pii117L6Y,! — MfIVNTo90TA `! I SUBJECTj. Ct3711J1�J1l�S1LlN A�PALD�AT101'V i��VIEW - - . .. •' INambn jy �� ar � r�qa APP�wed Gy . CQNIQLETE qEV1EW• C}!SC}�LiST FIETURIV Tf� ALAh17VWp • . - r. t � : : ;�� � � - _ ! : i � c� : � FIL�/ ADCA899 ��.c.l� � %i ��Y �� �' /A � r,._, i1 D�t� Fi�e oare 7 �z �� oue ra . _ � ., � i.�t� 13 � x 19 •g a.�2. .��iiV �ic�,� ---- z, los � ,��,ac� �c� Z � � � �� ����;, r�.a.� � �.5. :� �. . i{��.�.•.'r�5 ��3 (, 8, S.*��7 a«p� xc� �! a.��z�' c. �...R.�v6 . � ��%� � %� �,�„Q ��i3o' i,z '� e� � «�a�� . m � PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a public Hearing of the Planning Comnission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6531 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, September 14, 1977 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 PM for the purpose of: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #77-11, by Rodney Brannon, per Section 205.101 3, H, of the Fridley City Code, to allow an automobile Gar Wash Establishment, on Lot 2, Block 1, Target Addition, located in the South Half of Section 23, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at 775-53rd Avenue N.E. � Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Publish: August 31, 1977 September 7, 1977 �� RICHAR� H. HARRIS CHAIRtMN PLANtdING COMMISSION l _ :c;� Mr. Emnett x. aibergotLi, �r. 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapol is, 11P! 55402 � E, John Zavitz 785 53rd Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 Target C/0 D Houck • 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 � Chet M. Herringer ' 4121 Stinson Blvd Minneapolis, MN 55421 Q Petroleum Corporation . 6500 Barrie Road ' Minneapolis, MN 55435 Q Petroleum Corporation � 5300 Central NE . Fridley, t4N 55432 o� i i` _ .G:� --•--��r� � ci�nr or rninLLV rnr;N�soTn �-�' 3.� • /J.� � pLANNIKG hND ZONINC r01lM . NUM6CR "i � % �- �� MAPPLICAN7''S SICIA7URG ' .� . . Address 1f�22 'r!est Tnnshruck arkway Telephonc Number 574-0292 'PROPERTY Olt'NCR'5 SIC�iA'fl . �1'�z:U rdt')�-+L� Telcphone Numbcr �")O — S.S7�7 Street Location of Pzoperty ��5}, p�� TaroP��rkirr lot near 53rd and Centra2 Legal Description of Property!�L"� _`.�;i�,�'���l��Lt 2, �; , �,,. . .�t 1YPB OF RGQUC•ST Rezoning ✓� .Special Usc Permit Approval of Pre�in- inary $ Final Plat Strcets or Allcy Yacations Other c- Fee �?.L1•°''�Rcccipt No.�'� � 1 Block 1, TarFet Addition Present Zoning Classification C2S Existing Use of Property emoty Acreage of Property 184'x1h0� Describc briefly the proposed zoning classi£ication • or ,type of use and improvement proposed Special Use Pernit to construct a car wash � . . . Has t'r.e present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or • variance or special use nennit on the subject site or part of it? yes x no. What was requested and wlien? � - The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residen�s and o�+ners of property within 300 fezt (3S0 feeL for rezoning) must be atLached to this application. (b) This application must be sifined by all owners of ihc property, or an caplanation given �rhy this is not the case. {c) r.os>>on5�t�ii�ty for any defect in the procee;lings resulting from the f:ulurc tu list the nanes and addresses of all reside�rts and pxoperty oi.�ncrs of pronerty in question, belongs to thc tmdcrsigned. , A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drati��i and attached, showing thc folloNing: 1. Korti� Oirection. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. llimensions o£ properiy, proposed stre�cture, and front and side setbacks. .' 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use oL adjacent exisLing buil�ings (t:ithin 300 feet). 7'he undersigned hereby declares tliat all tlic facts and represcntations.stated in this application are truc and corrcct. ., -� � .,.- ; ! , �/ �TB � �%! i' % SIG:VA7'URE i..'1 .' /1 c' �:.i `-% ! /'� `i . � iz<'-- , ' . — (APPLICAN"1') !� Date Filed Dat.c of ticarittig � � Plamiinr Commission Ap�roved City Council Approvcd ..._.__. .. . . .. _ .. . . �� z v n a � > 2 -� � ! � �,�\ � r N � . ^ � � ' J � � /02 w e `�. . i � � ~u � � �'. .� O � � y O ` � � .. .� _� �y _ � - 1� o . j� , : . ;ab��l � � � v ',� M It � *-� ? � y ,s ,. ° .,�` '� � �l � v Id ' d �r 3 4 � i1. ♦ E�� ... Fx.. !w t°' e r �.� --..-.. �h ' ` � ! -.."..T!%/O � � flV se v �i�``�,� :'.. • zY�,.� o ,.. �; ��-- �,.= ; �, I ' ,_,. _, ..,. ; .-...- r ; e ``...Ge, . t,�51 f' / i ,_,,: ,�, / ��c., , :�;..._: 'i . �. � �; ��:.i. . e � ' -'fi:: ` � h' s'. '�� .. ., � � �'a / ��: � 1 M.. Pk� � � 1 . t \, '���Q� v�[ } _ �4 � ' --:-i' ��4. ; : ' :�' : � ' � . �. .��,_'`v� i ; � � , � ; � le.p.�if — . ' ' ' 1 ; � `' ' i 1. . ' i � !K - • � I O � ::� � n �`�'�'-�RU�fK FffGf�1KAY--°NO 65 tCEflfTRAL �#lfE. -N.E .,, a�,.� . � � F;�:� � .':�-;-��b Z L'--- � —_ ---- ------+�� . � 5.::,�' °''�y ^1 —°� ' �� . � �� ��`� a �� \\ . . �;;� , � ''� \ ..wov g; . � . 1Y47.,�� _ - _� ti�"��^ . . - v �� � �a v . '� � ; =' - _. .t��: � GITY OF FAIDL6Y.� S�BJECT� . ..----- MINN680TA I CCiMNi1SSID7V A�p3�LICA7IDJV A�Vi�EW .�, - Ueparr n1/ is'om . _ . .. . .. . .. .. N„r^� � � tv Naqa q `.. J CWwed DY ' � Dols FILH NO/ AOORtE9S _„� � FII�$jf�Y7e , COMPLETE RSVIEW CHEClCL1ST 7�// d- � ' RSTUAN TO PLANiVINO ' - � , �J `53'�l�'"� �� � /% / Kw _ �� �3i D4T G.... . ��s �; . S 1!� ' '+�� � ■ =�3= � m. �V L� w�/�w �vyv .� � �d L'a� �+R � 8�G'Pu�,�,;,� S�t � v A rz �,�N� � ���"'�"'"'�' � aw�-� ceN�c:v�� a,vw��. co.��a�.�;f� � � �� G✓k aq � Q/1 �t /lZQ�'i�et 0� � Oi�� ,,ci�.+,.yil, ���S 1+•3 /:%�/r �sc e er at � !� � 4.ash • T�aahre.a�•/� r�a«9's �j �a.d �v ht ,�a,.��a,�.�� /rss. � TO 41HOM IT �MY CONCERN: PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, Septem6er 14, 1977 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M, for the purpose of: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #77-12, by Bryant-Franklin Corporation, per Section 205.131 (3,A, 10), of the Fridley City Code, to allow a Public Auto Repair Center use, on the Southerly 805 feet of the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 3-30-24, Except the West- erly 328 feet according to the plat thereof (Subject to the Easement agreement of 4/72/74), City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. � 6enerally located at 7900 Main Street Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNIN6 COhAfISSION Publish: August 31, 1977 September 7, 1977 September 14, 1977 � : _ :; c,., �� Rice Creek Associates 5274 University Ave�ue NE � Minneapolis, :1t� 55432 " 7alco Incorporated 7835 ��E 11ain St. �iinneapolis, t9N 55432 Nenn Federal 818 I".arquette Ave. Ninneapoiis, f�iN 55402 CP Elm Street Partnership 7880 Elm St. Fridley, f9W 55432 � M A Edson & D Hodsdon 7805 Beech St. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Donald C Hodsdon & Fiaynard A Edson 78II0 t�lain St.NE Fridley, h1N 55432 F1idwest Federal 801 Nicollet Mall ifinneapolis, MN 55402 Ronald R& Denise L Smith 7593 Elm St. Fridley, hSN 55432 � ti�i i� � n u --�- --� ----- ---- ___. _ ____ __ �ORt�N , w,� y � �o�iRRp _ _ _- - G�yPA�L --- -- - ------ ��, �= �;.: � y� �Q�'-- �— �� � �- .�r `�o �— �� �� �-oc�' �� Q� � �`� / -- _ _ _ - --- - __ _ _ i E � : ; ;t • I, `� 1 t . . t. � �� � i'.'2OJ : :, . , . �� ,. ., � �� . ��� �--. ,, � . � � ` : x " . ,. . :. _ �;.�..r:_.,�:_ - -- ,_ �._ .. .�- -- - . -- . , . - -�,�; � ;; � ,' �yj '1�� ' 'i�;;; � � ' , 1 �; .- �,�:: i i .��. t `", � ' � 1 � = ` : � •-----7�7. I `' ' �' 1Y'.:if1J � ,1 � ' 4 L � y'�l� ': �� � I �' � ;'�'• �, � � � � y ` ' " � ;', . ,�__ 1 ;s� � \ _ .-t.. t - - ' ,� J � ' I '•`.. _. � � – - ..- – -- -- - � r � � r�.s-- � � � - -- t � , , ,.. _ ia � . r � �i v ' ° iI � �` i : ;� �.,�_}, �� ; ��.- . /^ y r ' . i^' I= � ° „ � - � ?;.1 1 --r - 7 7-- .. _ � �.. r I- . . -. � ty� ...� y _:�' ! i 1' wy... � � �ri :.�,+ � �� ___� :-- 'r'� '� � � . : _ :i ,--� i j- �. . __ `---,.--- .4 � _ . _ . ----, r t . , � _. - i � �. , r _ ;.,.. r' � ; � � --�� _ � ��- --•� 1 ._ ; ; j .._a . __ I �__�.�_ , . :-- �: . � � •• • � , ; i � 1 :� „� ,i`= � � .: �� • =. , �. �� �l , 1 �'� ; F �' � :1 -�. "..�2 ,,:�._.'."'"_' �, :I i; '� i `'. I� !` 1 { �� i �: � h' � ( . %1 . ,� ;; � f . .' � �- �� \ �3 .._-:.ijlel. � ; � ::-- :s3'�—rI �`' , i _ `� j 1 �3 e�; ` �- 1 ,,,.v I _ .iy ....- .. t ._.. w: �. . .� � :i 1� � :ss S ��^ �. . f. S .. -iJ .. � �� ,'` ;. � ir:; _ _ —� � --- - - -- -- — — — - �f��F •i•.v��. n � a -, ' •\'�� C .yL.'r1'�-. / � = ^ � / 6 -, , � ; z � � �-?' i° i"�i >y �M .;''�' ..__ . _.—._.'.;�_'_ _ . .. } �� � l"° �r 6 � � � ti . ��'' , :r a�' i P A� / I': : • � ' _ = --, --- � t ..-.. �:. ;�, ' �J�--�: � , � � � :t"+ � `. � z ' A���' �'• � � ;.� ; � . : '�� 1� °�'; - �e � � �` .s�• t . 1 Q ? x '!�s'1 O i �,+ t' t= ' ` - -- � - " ... �� � � �. ;. i.-� - _ __ . .�::' �'.t y� :�iC i y � :� = `. •. •a Gi ; � ;,�� ; 7�`I crrv oF �c�ia�sv, SUBJ£CT; r�' i M1NNESOTA COMMISSION AQPLICATION �_ j � REVIEW ia�meN/Umsrom� �NumCCr �/ kev ruqa Apprwea by pate PLANNING �l1� FILE NO/ AOOREBS COIVIPLETE FtEV1EW CHECKLIST S.P. #77-12 RETURN TO PLANiVING '� BY'yaflt FY'allkl lil Corp. 7900 Main St. � ������ COMMENTS r. ��ir� �� �� /"�� �� ���� �� . � �,�� .�--� ��; ���� c�„►� �— � °�' I � � l? d_����"+�'+� � �;�+v �.�'.. .. ����{�'�.�, �:� €�-._`,,' ,� C�>3 �,��*'�7� 3� FILE DA�TjE 8� �[l � oue onr —Z — % % � �:vt/� o� � .i-+ T e; n � y � � �mw ��� w �+ � o � � s+ +� �n' w��� ���� � m m o�-°i m �.�i m .-� � m � � N � � � � a �n +� _ �, CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLI AP1T: / ��� /C1`i f.s /Jc•'� L�"-�� `_I�-c' � �!<• ADDRE�,S: �.� rS"/ ��"����r �� L;� �1� .� y' �� Street City Zip Code TELjPi1011E � ? �% - � � �!--' ''�-- �' =— Home Business I PROPEftTY Ol�INER(S� A.� ��� t.c� � ' •M ::� . n�r., n`^,� .. Applicant' � Il�::.s � Lot 5plit � - 3"`' �� Date F" le�l:_�_. Fee:� �Rece�pt �f; ,� 7= Council Actior.:Date RIIfiARYW : ADDRF.SS(ES� Zip Cale Street City Street City Zip Code TELEPHONE #(S� Business Home Froperty Location on Street or Exact Street Address (�F Legal Description o£ Property: � n GO TS � r �f"!r(L' "/- /✓c-/_�< ,,,r> ,�� : -- ,� Sv l�.�/!� /�� Sit��.r�'f �L� i o 1��'lls'��/� r� S The undersigned hereby declares representations stated in this correct. DATE: � '- � � r RELOW FOR CIi^[ US�' OIdLY CIlEC1�D BY STAFF Remarks: DATE that all the facts and application are true and (See reverse side for additional instruatio � PLANNING COP44ISSION: Date of Consideration - Remarks: CITY COUNCIL: Dete of Consideration - Remarks• ----�--^ sr i :: f •_ _ iSt� ; , ! �� r i�ls6i ` � � � . ,.,�-.�— y..r " � �¢y� i/ � � �� P • _ � 1. r o _� F. b ^ , G�� �1 . ' �,�.!/ ' �����i' � `i � � . r�f � r/ �/� � . f � `V . / , � �% � A� j' �\~ %// 1 ��z,rlJO 9��� 4 ce fy ; . I, 1 ; 51��� �•� n � . .R' QF �\� � , � ; C; � Y (� . _ j� ^ F RQPEQS ' ' `, 3a'3�,� p% �� ♦ IIOO{F. • _'_'_lfSJ.29__'__ \\ .._ :' ' 1. t " fj\p . w � D: V • =-" "'"._itSe.f9'...._ 1 . � SI • � �.A �"� •i.re.rs-... ( ' � � `� .6is.tf:.. � ir i . :c` 5 . . .-° . .tc�.i%�... . --`-��,"'^�&.� , �p , Y.. �� /.'' :'_ - N� I t _ . Y' � ... ;,_ • _ ,- a� v ; ± - .�� � axs3 ��'�Y oF '� ; , � �� i ., I � ,, � 3,,y�� �� °�° �;3 `e k� ,., ,>.a. ;��cp 4�EY r ` °` w �U3D. ' �,O:IOs � ��-,s• + ,i� o-,.�;.r, �f' f��. �:.r sro! 'rr ' :3 y2� ���� .. .�, ..:.,;� . ,_a` . EV. ��f,.�AUD.� ; :. ` ";�> 3 _ � � � �y w F...a.-e,, � ti ,� ..: -n l": , . EET � � " �5,� . 825 5 �^ � � 9a. , rx. l4 K � � ;ra� � . {a " . � . �R ��B �j1°f�AF`.. � �, �. vr :� � � �c� � .ntaJ ' � � C ..� � / , i r} e� 'go5 t5t' `�v �' - ` sr F�e �38Sr.• (p-.•;9• q r�� "I 2 �Z.�G�C.S �. � •' 3 0 � � i � � 391 �� x a 'OoroH � " G � � � ` - . c 3.,` .113 �0 .. � 2."�. 4.L.m .�' 1/2 � t! v�f{D�ns brd+'� ° b\ � 33S 9�9 !3,C� 3= .:9� 2f ' � ro � :'s J 4il ?� h �� �AfNemo 3 , ft i :e c� • ' �• � ' . io g 2 g: � ��°.,'�• 4k �'�- _ :40� Q L/. j � 2� ; liso� �.s..r iis� � � ° �&�O ICk r'�,/' 2Jt �j ��• J � � . � � 5 r � `� . � n" . C �pTTS G e. ' .- ` 6 �39 ` J s _1 v ,., :,,«ONT{)F1 � e„ " e,. t�� ,�'o .2e � � g'CRE�� ''''3p,,e-�°�y = g ��= j � � ��'CK U/Nl��?Q��.: '7`'r� a ��R �� L � 'p'pl T/�N . • . � _ V� Q ' �� 4 � � R C i '. � � � w. 5 p �` S� �, « • . \ ` 8251 9 • 7 .o,�, ti . % �T. 4- sr.. � . .' .. Ey , ' `�: �` F ° ' �.I ' � ' . ��� i tkj. � � N '�'M�✓'s�.. � ., . " �.. +, . . � - " '.. .. . . . � '� 2�N °9oq� w: :� ff'`:- £2 ��.4n:u J,7<�77'v;x r ' '��� � 2] 3 5 3�� z9S �144 � ��' `� s,. "� e -'� P� 1 i a9 3a� .����� 369 35S 3dl , � 3 - e'J*�c 5��, :: .� _ � » ��f. 1 . _ t 1�ZoJ9 � 52 \'. . ` '�x ' -°. + .... . , . . ��. t . " 3`a 3cG � 2��-- .' s`M,f y� Z a1'^ . �. �.:�n.f � g0 20 � �•�• M 3� f� � � ' tJ� f�l�� ?� i►Jfu . 5poj._, • ` - ' � .i- 6 ,E ��9 c� i � i I » f i I���n� ��Sr� 1: . . . ^ , 40�5 ,;z 5 � � t1�1 � � � „ �M � � ly _', j xi _ .. . .!..�I. -!• • ��1 ��` � I .'_. ,�....' . .8.7�: 5 Y o �" �.f -`'. t_ c lt0 � �. B�9\ Z r I. p5g Sl� � - . . .� r..n'_ �4 tB\ . . . i� 9 \. �. = I 6141eQ sn'nrv �, }r � ; ��S l B\fl�. � N._ - .. • .,-� $�bl � � + . ; . � w. ,,• � ' r ,�✓G g: . � g a i x P 8181 0 . c :� ,,�t� a � • ; 1'� J3 `5°„�� :�e' °� o .- ,n 815�� a M N r ,+ � `'� 8 � • �� .U�"�`TN '=�.t � �AO � t ' � � �4�9 4_\ � !�. � Y ��� , +,w n �` `.r- �; 4 ri. 6^ � ' � �T 53°'S?_5• �1 � s '1'��`^ .G e.; FCIIRIROf•��•.� ..81��}; �.,� t ° �i �I�V �bo• �� : S 9�,. �R� ,"� Oa� " _� p'—'�a t p' p5 B� � B.' � o �+ • �L <v„ „a,Y � � a0118 . B. i , 6, � �'J .16 S26 '2 ,l�., �- � • •'1: / 811 z 8 p�° - � i � E-�. S � - " y � 40 . t • � S F � i � // _ 6�35 'T 6� \ . j ti 1�e =8tt4 � J.�J, � 1 ` .. s 7 S � 549 `'46 5 p8 S' l ) �•. � t " o ' $� . '71 '� M b r.r' �i i `4i .t '• s - i� • ,�" , 5 ° t � .:.. "``SZ� s'� a9 ��;" � ��,'� Bt` f �atob 8101 : �j� �� H 8�2s � e`2` � � � ,.��. ' . "� 5,1'�ij ` Jr� \ i�'Y ° e � t �fi104 j 8 4� u t 81 � . ♦ `� f . , g `' ..� . ,t' . 4 cYJ . . $0 �'� '.�.+-- � �• ,., . " 5'I,A I,c'� �. '6NfS` ^n . � i.� � v� ' Fr... 56.�5r1`.9�{ F�� �... �` E� ,.�,��� , � .1• ��..:CIRCLE,,: - F�r�'/'} [/f� '��.066� =CIRCLE :..,: Y' . �'( G . J i � . � '� '. r n s � !'C V. : k. "u �. � �d� .. . .�, ofiF� - ��" W1 ' �� •. '. 81 •.. � �� -'D, �� ` � N g0c17 e 'N= � '' •� � _. . � 0 1 t :..r Q •M� 3t .P{ .Q,O .... � Q: c � n � ° �.i +Y''r'- Y: � ti- ' � , ° � 8i 11 i 2� Sqs _��tP��,� 2 ...., \o ; p gos i.. So�� :y : r � go i 6 �,, „' � ...��:,. . � • \ '� Z „� �J 0 ar�xa: � r ...»n - � • �' - • �8 oirv o:- �a�a�.�v,� SUBJECT� _ � nn��Nesosa COMM1S51DN APPLICl�T10J\i . ---- _ I R�V1SW . _ leporimc � . . �Numb� av apa ADprwed bY � Da)s �'�'o��,,.,,� . . . .. �, C011APLETE qEV1EW• CHSCKtIST pETLJFiN TQ PLANNliVp ' • � � `��''�"� �+ NO/ AOOAE99 /�r���� � � %7-�J �-1 i �` 7 � H! s- ��9-J'i � � �,�"�"�"� ❑ _ �� � �, . . rrt; ' � �,, fF S�t,�t CuM.uiw. k1EV�,� �� Q.So � j1 �, `' ���,'d'�. A.ro a�rr P4nct� �.,o.+.d bE 4d0 �ufa ��°!l�liA� '� NC �T�.Rft ]4 Crs�cin�T W p� D C1Ac9Tip �Mi� Ei f1 A.� C','r+. Gno 'ei91 7�t n►I?Y Naw 36 • Aco�.o 7a Ty�c Odauo � Ldf SPo �'f Ge•,r3 � - �D . ��. �..:.��. ��„�.� . mQ� be se��.-� �rob1�.N. o� P��e+--� a�w�e�sy�p BY �►��, C�.�-r,r � . . 0 :� orm ��5-68 LOT SPLIT APPLICATION � CITY OF FRIDLEY ADDRESS: �7d J�r�'� Cf:d�; (1�vL� S_�YSt Street City Zip Code TII.EPHONE �� S7Y- `! 5�/r S7 /- � G�..� Home Business PROPEftTY OWNEft(S) � ^,��.T �� • JC,�i'�� ADDRFASS(ES ��. • �ip �.-... �4i ,;�s LoL Split �7�J- // Date Filed: ft-�l-77 Fee:S3at�0 Receipt �^ '�"�i Council Action:Date RII�iARY.S: Street City Zip Code iness Property Location on Street � or EScact Street Address (IF ANY) 77T/-� .} ��• �if�i�J J�oJ� _ �ur (i� , �i�/c �. ` ��rh�.�✓p� Reason £or Lot Split: '. i . S„ ..•� �, ffi i�� /� r-s r-��.N �r, , /5 fsc i l,C Ffiii✓t1� 4,C �l..vu� � � U�: �,o . /7 L a u 4 a( ftN�/�C/,'I !1. r�0 Total Area o£ Property ��:3b'� sq. £t. Present Zoning Classiiication '? 1 The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this appl'cation axe true and correct. •� � DATE: �3% 7 SIGNATURE ; � BLI,OW FOR CITY [ISF OtTI,Y CHIiC1:ED FiY STAFF DATE Hewarks (Se� xeverse side fox additional instructions • PLANNING CONIMISSION: Date of Consideratio.n - •Remarks: CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration - Remarks• ' . .. . �v_./ . " ..-.• ..••X � . F •.✓ f : Yl ".� • ';'l:� •. l� • ' - .. V � ,v• .. -..0 '. � V � � � . � ,• { . � _ .. � � W a` �y. :� � %�; �' '� ��v' �. �- . •. •: � � p �• . f' W � .vti. - :, � /1/ar !. � -- . - . � � , 3 <... ..��.-ya-Lii �I ; J � 3 Os iI � � y � � � N t` \ � � y+ . ( J • .• V � N *' 11` ; . Q , � , � � � N O rn n ��� • _ . � '' °'' , - - - - - - - - - � ��M . T� . � � ":5.• ` O ROAQ � � -- - . . �NCHERS ' . : ,_.,- �..•� -a:: .r: � . .. �J J � � J�.t� v i. i3 � � r'1�� . . � b cJ,,, � v� �' -. �` - u, � '' � � . � ,� � _ i ��� is r :.�sx ��n. �. . � . � �'�HN � • . " _ . . - ' .. 1I.✓. � y:'.Y 1 i [ R �' A� � - i •' \� � � � � � i ;,i � � - r�� . .� � �� ,; � O .�. i J � � - �� . . .����i � °�. -.i w �- `, t f� � ° i � •' •� r �..' . •'6-�-1,:j."" ' , ... y� . _ . i 3` V J �.�' n, ' �;,r.4 � ..• •`-- �,� � y J � � ; � . *'::�' ` . ' �• O � � .�-�`£ J p •.i"':D, � W �". . '; � �,• � ,t,�i' �� � � Q �- t � 2. 0,i O, ��r..,c�/ n�>`f ' - � � - .- ..�! �.'n" �� a' .: . . �, !•�f m.. , � . . �. „+Iy �� � `i . � EST SERVtCE ••", <" DRIVE ; e•�. . .., . ,. �- __� . . Vl! K - � . . r p' L f' M � . . . . . . .s �Ji•'� f3. � ��..ln J.ir.a�! .. � � �����CORPORATE LIMIT S2E_ � --� —�FEt�E' FR �`� � • H�G�waY >TATE TRUNK ` :�,-.----___ _.:: yr `:4. � �� " ��� -- -' .. -`° `: SERVICE y .,.., _ ., � , 9, . M . .. ; � � ; = : � : : � � „ � : ' � � •; �O : � y � , (n 3 � - �� � - s,. ,... >,,, m '�-.� - . .,. �. • . :•-,, p ; - ."� : t :. � � D 'a. �a ' � ^ °• � v , �, � �? ' � . . ' � a.` ; ^ �v� , w. . ,� i, ._ . _ . ,.� -, ���' . . .� . � ' � , D '' � \ n, • + 9 : . .» .. 1 � C� �" __ . - 4� ' % j'L' .Ci ; � -�- - � �- �. l. i !.. � i i C" � L,,: . Wcs� �inc �'!h� SW �a�lheS.���qnSec}ion 2,�"�,unsh�p 30,Ran$¢ 24. N. o- 02' �s' v.c . ' 133�.02 � !I .' ! �_ `t/��t.c-o � � . � > � �5�,� � _�o_/'.�e� � ----3t5.o0 ----- -- ---- - -- PLO•04'IS'W.--------- '� �`S S 9a t}� �oF`� � °d Z � � �J O Q O f �s�.s' ,,.00 �i, �� �" c „• I {„()T JRL1T�,11:6 •1� '� � (z � � G I' �'�_.,�o�s,� ' �.�o _ 9�od ' '�w �� � " I �Dro�nu$e { U}i i�y Eosemen} � 31 .00--- -----� -------- N.o•oZ'i5-w.. ----� I I ,2, �J, e �2 6_ �.s's� , � ^ G`'�O{Ai ' q �.Nc I �°O.� I� 315.00 �� ''" RANCi-��RS , i°J�" zNS.ai • �: � ��opra' � z •. a - _,Fs c e � .p0o - . „ . „J c.r ,��; =' �315.�0 )3 , � a..P,,,{`J� �a ,_, i� o� l� 0 '� 315.00 �. � I ',3 _ ��,J pss_ SS ' ,O L `� I �G�ad I • i I I � � ---- --- ---3t5.O,o ----------- � -- n.v-�,�c �n .�..------' � Ga�, I �%� �'� ,e� , i . I �-Clea I a �� 1 I I I �' s.o°o2•�s^e. - //99. 83 - _ ' — � �� �'s �s� _= 315.00 II � I i i ,� � � �. im I p �1 �I N o' �O I � C� ��, - ' `is� #S � ,!o.s�.�� �- �2e G .i ' ORDINANCE N0. • r � - ��� AN ORDIN�NCE ADOPTING LHAPTER 214 ENTITLED SIGNS, AND RfPEALING PRIOR CHAPTER 214 ENTITLED SIGNS AND BILL60AR�S The Lity Coundl of Lhe City of Frid7ey does ordain as fotlows: SELTION 214.01 PURPOSE The yurpose of this chapter is to protect and prortate the general wel- PURPOSE fare, health, safety and order aithin the City of Fridley through the establishment of a canprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations and procedures governing the erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols serving as a visual commmicative media to persons situated within or upon public rights of way or properties. The provisions of this chapter are intended to encourage creativity, a reason- able de9ree of freedan of choice, an oDPortunity for effective communi- cation, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing, disptaying, or otherwise utilizing needed comnunicative redia of the�types regulated by this chapter; while at the same time, assuring that the public health and rrelfare is not eodangered. SECTION 214.02 DEFINITIONS The foltowing definitions shall apply in the interpretation and appli- DEFINITIONS eation of this chapter and the foltowing words and terms wherever they occur in this chapter are defined as follows: A. ABANDONED SIGN means a sign which no longer carrectly directs or exhorts any parson, advertises a bona fide business, lessor, owner, product or activity conducted or product available an the premises where such sign is displayed. B. ACGESSORY USE means a use which is subordinate to the principal use being made of a parcel of land. lfii: -_• ,__'i�y�iriof�= '� C. ADVERTISING SIGN means a sign which is used to advertise products, goods or services. D. ADORE55 SI6N means a sign with identification numbers only, whether Mritten or in numerical iorm. E. ALTERATION refers to any major change to a si9n, excluding routine maintenance, painting or change of copy of an existing sign. F. AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN means a sign which identifies the name of a netghborhood, a residential subdivisian, a multiple residential complex, or a business area. G. BANNERS AND PENNANTS means attention 9etting devices of paper, cloth, or Vlastic-like consistency and which are of a temporary nature j�--�; H. BENCH SIGN means a sign which is affixed to a bench, r.r�er. I. B711BOARD means an advertising sign which direct5 attention to a business, conmodity, service, or entertainment,�p' °^' "-' `" --- --- - - - e�lerlri�e� which is conducted, sold or offered elsewhere than on the preaiises of which the si9n is located. '� J C{WOPY mea�rs'a roof-ll� structure ptsJ�ct�ng over any entrance of wet • ��ore,_buTldingf„or_y#�ce of esseu�y; '��"' K. CHANGEABLE GOPY SIGN (MANUAL) means a sign which copy is changed manually in a field, ' - � L. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN (AUTOMATIC) means a sign such as an electronically � or electrically controlled time, temperature and date sign message center or reader board, where different copy changes are shown on the same 7amp Dank. � M. CONSTRUCTION SIGN n�eans a sign placed at a construction site, identifying the project or the name of the architect, engineer, contractor, .w f'' � � Ordinance No. Lhapter 214, Signs flnancier or other invotved parties. -2- N. DIRELTIONAL SIGN means a si9n erected on public or private proDerty which bears the address and/or name of a business, institution, church, or other use or activity, plus directional arrow forinformation on location. 0. DISTRICT refers to a specific zaning district as defined in the fridley Zoning Ordi�ance. P. FLASHING SIGN means an illuminated si9n ahich contains intermittent lights or exhibits noticeable changes in color or light intensity. Q. FREE STANDING SIGN means a si9n whith is securely attached to the ground and not affixed to any part of any other structure. R. GOVERNMENTAL SIGN means a sign which is erected by a governmental unit for the purpose of directing or guiding traffic or other public inform�tion. S. IOENTIFICATION SIGN�means a sign which states the name or address or 6oth of the occupant or occupants of the lot or building Mhere the sign is piaced. T, ILLIRIINATE� SIGN means a sign which is illuminated by an artificial light source. U. INFORtMTION SIGN means a sign giving information to employees, visitors, or delivery vehicles, but containin9 no advertising or identification. Y. INSTITUTIOttAL SIGNS means a sign or bulletin board which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution on site where the sign is located. N. MOTION SIGN means a sign which revolves, rotates, has moving parts, or gives the illusion of moti�n. Y. NON-CONFORMING SIGN means a sign which laNfully existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, but does not coniorm to the newly enacted requirements of this ordinance. � Y. PERMANENT SIGN means a sign which is intended to be used for an Sndefinite period of time• Z. PORTABLE SIGN means a sign so desi9ned as to be movable from one location to another and h'c is not permanently attached to the ground, :_,___y....,_., a.....;� �cturebrwb��. ' M. PORTA-PANEL means a back to back, mobile advertising device, mounted on wheels and used for coim�ercial as well as civic promotions. BB. PROJECTING SIGN means a sign, other than a wall sign, that projects fran a building structure. DD. ROOF SIGN means a sign which is erected, constructed, or attached nholly or in part, above the roof of a building, except where the roof is an extended facade. EE. RUMMl1GE/GARAGE SALE SIGN means a temporary sign which advertises or directs the public to an infrequent sale of generally used merchandise sold from a private residence. FF. SIGN mea�s a lettered board, or other display, and its support struc- ture, used to advertise, direct, identify, inform, or convey a message to one who views it. . GG. SIGN dREA means the total area of the sign, includin9 the border and f{ �� the surface which bears the advertisement� or in the case of inessa9es/ �. ftgu�es, or sym6ols attached hirect; to any part of the building,�at � ' area Which is included in th�smalles�rectangle which can be made to �+. .. � � ! !1 � � � , Ordinance No. Chapter 214, ign3' s -3- elrcumscri6e the message, f5gure, or symbol displayed thereon. The stipu- lated maximum sfgn area for a free standing sign refers to a single facing. NH. SJGR STRUCTURE means any structure which supports, or is capable of supporting, any si9n. Said definition shall not include a building to which the.sign is attached. II. SHOPPING CENTER/14ULiIPLE USE BUILDING �ans a building planned and developed for nwitiple occupancy use as commercial or industrial enter- prise. JJ. TEMPORARY SIGN means any sign, banner, pennant, valance, or adver- tising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, or cardboard, wallboard, or other light maierials with or o�ithout frames; intended to be displayed for a limited yeriod of time only. KK. NALL SIGN means a sign which is affixed to the wall of any building. LL. WALL GRRPHICS means a 9raphic design or decorative mural not intended tor identification or advertising purposes, which is painted directty on an exterior wall surface. MM. NINDOW SIGN means a sign installed inside a windrn+ for the purposes of vSewing from outside the premises. This term does not include merchandise located in a window. NN. UNLAWFUL SIGN means a sian rihich is in conftict with this ordinance ar SECTION 214.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL The following provisions 214.031 - 214.033 shall apply in all districts. PROVISIONS 214.031 SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS A. Permanent si9ns other than 9overnrtental signs erected or temporarily SIGNS plated within any street right of way or upon any public easement. PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRIGTS B. Signs or wall 9raphics that contain words or pictures of obscene, pornographic or immoral character, °- «"�• _--_-_. .--._ .,,c,n ,e„e.._ L' `�i�. C. Signs painted directly on buildings. D. Portable signs (except for those provided for under "Uses Permitted in all Zoning"). E. Signs which resembte an official traffic sign or si9nal or.iriws�M� (except directional�signs on private property). F. Signs which by reason of size, location, movement, content, coloring, or manner of illumination, may be confused with a traffic control si9n, signal, or device, or the light of an emergency or road equipn;ent vehicle, or Nhich hide from view any traffic, street sign, signal or device. 6. Projecting signs. H. Motion signs. . I. Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in intensity of light ��� o� is animated, or has flashing or intermittent lights. �,,�.tJ1� �/'f. J. Advertising signs (except window signs� allowed onty in C-1, C-2, CR-1, CR-2, L-15 and C-2S Zanin9 Districts, or franchise trademarks pertinent to the business). K. Signs located Nithin corner setback requirements, Section 205.154 (3). � �' ��„wsMSq` S�'wa ��. . . � y. 1. �� Oedinance No. Chapter 214, Sign— s — �L.—"Roof signs. �4- `?F. Revolving beacons, zip ftashers, and simiTar devices, including any sources of Tight which change in intensity. —M„ Porta-Panels. 214.032 SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS A. Rddress Signs: Each dwelling, business, or buildin9 must have a minimum of one address sign, minimum of 3'�' high, maximum of 18" high, illuminated or reflective, attached to the dwelling and visible from public right-of-way. If the attached address sign cannot be visible fran the public right of way, the address must be either on the curb or on the mailbox. �` .. SIGNS PERMITTED 7N ALL DISTRICTS ADDRESS SIGNS B. Bench Signs: To be permitted only at bus stops; cannot be any larger than, or extend 6eyond, any portion of the bench. BENCH SIGNS C. United States Flag: Follow Title 36, Section 173-378 of the United UNITED STATES States Code, State Flag, Gorporate Flag. � tyb��s ��� hl1�, FLAG � D. Directional Signs: (Public & Private) ' ' 1. Maximum four (4) square feet per facing. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS 2. Minimum ten (10) feet from street right-of-way. 3. Except that a sign directing the public to a hospital may be a naximum of twenty-four (24) square feet in area. E. Institutional Signs: l. Maximum twenty-four (24) square feet. 2. Nininann ten (10) feet frnm street right-of-way. � 3. Except a hospital emergency sign which is lacated on the premises may be one hundred (100) square feet in area. F, Area Identification Si9ns: (see individual district regulations). 6. Standard Safety Identification Signage as used by public utilities, 8 . highway departments. H. Temporary Signs: INSTITUTIOIJAL 516NS 1. Construction Signs TEMPORARY � SI6NS a) Developments: Temporary construction signs may be erected for the purpose of promoting a project of ten (10) or more rnsidential dwelling units, ten (10) or more mobile homes, three NEW CONSTRUCTION (3) or more multiple dwellings, or a 6usiness. 1) Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area. 2) One (1) sign per street frontage• 3) Sign shatl be removed when project is completed. 4) Sign shall not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to an existing building structure outside of the develop- a�nt. b) Individual Lots or Buildings: 1) Sign shall not exceed six (6) sqvare feet in area. � . 2) One (1) sign pe� street frontage. 3) Si9n will be removed upon completion. 2. Real Estate Signs a) Developments: .Temporary reat esWte signs nay 6e erected REAL ESTATE SIGNS �� •*e.f�. .. . . . . ... . _ . . � .�� Ordinance No. Chapter 214, Signs -5- for the purpose of setting or promotinq a project of ten (10) or rtare residential Caetling units, ten (10) or more mobile homes, three (3) or more multiple dNeitin9s, or a business. 1) Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area, 2) One (1) sign Per street frontage, 3) Sign sha17 be removed Nhen projett is ninety-five (95) percent canpleted, sold or leased. 4) Sign shall not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to an existing building structure outside of the develop nent. 6) Individual Lots or Buildin9s: 1) Sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. 2) One (1) sign per street frontage. 3) Extra "open house" signs to be a7loNed only during day of open house. [ �1'.'� 4) Sign will be removed within five (5) days following sale or lease. r�be c� w�.y �.�, � � ,� 2►a .ou2 ce� 3. Political Signs POLITICAL SIGNS a) Maximum si2e shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. b) Signs shall not be erected before closing of filing date. e) Signs shalt be removed within five (5) days followin9 the election. � d) A fifteen (515) dollar deposit will be deposited with the City prior ta the erection of signs and retained until the signs are removed. lf signs are not removed, the deposit wilt be used to defray the cost of removal. Any additional cost will be billed to the party posting the original deposit. � e) Any political sign larger than three (3) square feet must be placed three (3) feei from public right-of-way. 4. 6arage or Rummage Sate Signs a) Maximum size shall be three (3) square feet_ b) Must be removed within three (3) days following end of sale. GARA6E OR RUF4MGE SAIE SIGNS e) If not remaved, removal costs will be levied against the occupant at the address of the advertised sale. N! ��5�' l��,�w..1�l�r1 s 5. Banners or Pennants s�� � KM��d , BANNERS OR ENNAN S �,Banners or penn conmemorating a special event not connected with a business 1i�hners or pennants for businesses wiil be �!'w� .�:L atlowed for gran openings of business only for a ten day maximum � period. 214.033 S1GN5 ALLOWE� WITH SPEC[AL USE PERMIT Manual and/or automatic changeabie signs wouid be allowed in all dis- ricts, except R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts, and then only with the tssuance of a special use permit, subject to the conditions of the specific zoning district requirements (Section 214.04 of this ordinance). SIGNS ALLOtdEU MITH SPELIAL USE PERMIT •!Af Ordtnance No. _6. • _ . ��„ Chapter 214, g2�ins — , k �`�. . , 0 SECTION 214.04 DISTRICT REOUIRENENTS In addStion to those signs permitted in all districts, the following signs DISTRILT � are permitted in each specific district and shall be regulated as to REQUIREFIENTS size, location and character according to the requirements herein set forth. 214.041 SIZES, SET6ACK5 At�D OTHER REOUIREMENTS FOR R-1 R-2 AND R-2A �R-1, R-2 8 R-2A REQUIRE- A. Area identification Sign: HENTS 1. One (1) sign per development. � 2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet. 3) Minimum ten (10) feet fran public right•of-way. 214.042 SIZES, SETBACKS AND DTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR R-3 AN� R-3A R-3 ANU R-3A REQUIREMENTS A." Area Identification Sign: .� 1. One (1) sign per develapment. 2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet. � 3, Minimum ten (10) feet from public right-af-way. � � B. Vacancy Signs. 1. Mazimum three (3) square feet in area. ' � 2. Hinimum ten {10) feet from public right-of.way. 2I4.043 SIZES, SEiBACKS AhD OTHER RfQIfIREMEWTS-F8R H-4. A. Area Identification Sign: 1. One (1) sign per develop�nt. _..:,+-'. , . : �,-', .._ - 2. Naximum size twenty-four (24) square feet. 3. Hinimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-way. 214.044 SIZES, SETBACKS AND OTHER REQUIREh1ENT5 f'OR C-1 C-2 CR-1 CR-2 A B. Area Identification Sign: l. One (1) sign per development. Free Standing Si9ns: 1. One (l) per street frontage. 2. Maximum eighty (80) square feet per development. 3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet above finished ground level. 4. Minimum height ten (10) feet fro bottom of sign to finished ground level. r.►iil�:� Z�S'�{�►�j�►sw/M�. 5. Minimum ten (10) feet from property line ar driveway. C. Nindow Signs: 1. Forty (40) percent of window area, excluding merchandise. D. Wall Signs: � . 1. Wall sign area shall not exceed �S times the square root of the rrall are�on which the sign is to be ptaced. 1 E. 6as Statie o�� i. 6as price signs are ailowed onty as an integrat part of the Sdentification sign or pump island. R-4 REQUIRE- MENTS C-1, C-2, CR-1, CR-2 REQUIRE- MENTS .. -r+►-- OMinance No. Chapter 214, Signs -7- 214.045 SIZES. SETGACKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR C-1S AN� C-25 A. Area IdentiHcation Sign: . 1. One (1) area identification si9n a1loHed per development. B. Free Standing Signs: � � 1. One (1) sign per street frontage. ��t��i9hty (80) square feet per devetopment. 3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet a6ove finished ground level. 4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottan of sign to finished ground levelwi�biti LS• � e► �il�rtwsy 5.� Minimum ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. C. Window Si9n: 1. Forty (40) percent of window area, excluding merchandise. D. Nall Sign: � 5 1. Nall sign area shall not exceed i.ietimes the square root of the ttatl�raa�on which Lhe sign is to be placed. � . .. �� C-1S ANO C-2S REQUIREMENTS A. Free Standing Sign: 1. One (1] free standing sign per building or multiple use building M-1 AND M-2 REQUIRENiENTS 2, Maximum eighty (80) square feet per development: 3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet fran finished ground level. 4. Mininum hei9�t ten (10) f et f om bottan of sign to finished ground level Wi`W:�v� 23 `� 0.���evxty r-.1 B. Nall Sign: i. Maximum two (2) wall signs per business allowed on different walls. 2. Wall sign area shall not exceed u times the square root of the wall �w on which the sign is to be placed. �:Dn�1:�► • 274.047 P AY� PD DISTRICTS Sign requirements in P and PD areas would be controlled by the City Council when the development is planned. 214.048 SHOFPING CENTER/MULTIPLE USE BUILDINGS A. Nithin sixty days (60) of the adoption of this code, aTl owners of shopping centers and multiple use buildings of three or more businesse5, must submit a cmnprehensive sign plan for their center or buildin, to the Zoning Administrator for approvat. 6. Ail future permits within the shopping center and multiple use buildin9 areas shall conform to the conditions of the sign plan and may be subject �to conditions other than those in the district regulations in order to pranote a uniform combination of sign. P AND PD DISTRICTS SHOPPING CERTERS 8 MULTIPLE USE BUILDINGS .. -pw7- r � �� � Ordlnance No. Chapter 214, igns SECTION 214.05 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Permits: _g. c --_ ..- �F..} 6ENERAL REQUIREMENTS l. Before a sign may be displayed in the City of Fridley, the owner or lessee of the premises on which the sign is located shall file application with the City Zoning Administrator far permission to display Such Si9n. Permits are required for all existing, new, relocated, nodified or redesigned signs except those.specifically exempt under Section 214.05 A, 4. 2. The Sssuance of a permit may also be subject to additional con- ditions in order to promote a more reasonable combination of signs artd to promote confonnity yrith the character and uses of adjoining propeYty. The conditiars will be subject to the discretion of the Zoning Administratar. 3. Temporary signs erected by a non-profit organization are not exempt frwn obtaining a permit for signs, but the Gity �S+aive the fee requirement. "7 4. No permit is required under this section for the following signs: a) A windoN sign,�ddress sign. d� Signs erected by a governmental unit or public school district, �ited State�lag�,bench signs. Memorial signs or tablets containing the names of the bvilding, its use and date of erection, when cut or built into the walls of the building and constructed of bronze, brass, stone or marble, �) Signs Nhich are completely within a building and are not isible from the outside of said building. 4) Temporery signs (214.032,H), 6. Application; 7. Application for permits shall be made to the Zonin9 Administrator. 2. tf 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 Oepartment. 3. The 2oning Administrator may require other information concerning safety. C. Fees; Permit fees and expiration dates shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code. 0. License, Fees, eond; PERMIT APPLILATION FEES LICENSE, FEES. BOND No person, firm or corporation shall engage in the business of erecting signs under this chapter unless licenses to do so are approved by the Council. Such license may be granted by the City Council after written appli- Cation to the City Clerk. The annual license fee and expiration date shall be as provided in Chapter il of the Fridley City Code. No license shall take effect until the licensee shall file with the City Clerk a corporate surety band in the sum of 51,000 and conditioned that the licensee shall conforin to all the provisions of this chapter and indemmify and hold the City, its offiters and agents, harmless fran any damage or claim resulting from, or related to the erection or maintenance of any si9n in the City, by the licensze. A license and � bond shall not be required of any applicant who is not engaged in the . business of erecting si9ns, who chooses to construct and erect their am sign on their own property. ._ _ Ordinance No. '9' Chapter 214, Signs E. Exemptions: The exemptions permitted by Section 214.05, A, 4, shall appiy only to the requireinent of a permit and/or fee, and shall not be construed a�lieving the instalter of the sSgn, or the owner of the property ich the si9n is�located, fram con- formin9 with the other provi'�ions of this chapter. �- . �i� f. Naintenance: �r►�,� Every sign shall be maintained in a wrFr'pl'!S , EW" MAINTEIUINLE �j ��.i.' "���lill i�ii r;mac i�'�����TC. � «M►�1� � 2. It shall be deemed a violation of this chapter when a sign becomes twenty-five (25) percent in need of repair. ��3 T o ng . in� ator a e -��� �O � f C t t ' �-cha — S. Existing Signs: � � 1. Signs Eligible for "Legal Non-conforming" Status• EXISTIKG SIGNS a} Any sign tocated within the City limits on the date of adoption of this ordinance which does not conforin 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 si9n was covered by a si9n permit on the date of the adoption of this ordinance if one was required under appli- table law, or 2) IF no sign permit was required unde� applicable law for � . the sign in question, the sign was in-all respects in compliance with applicable law o� the date of the adoption of this ordinance. 2, Loss of regal No�-conforming Status: a � y� a) A legal non-conformin9 sign shall irtmediately lose its legal non-conforming designation, if: 1) The sign is altered ia any way in structure or copy (excent for changeable copy and normal maintenance) which �yis�r makes the sign less in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance than it was before the aitera- tions; or 2) The sign is relocated 3) The si9n is replaced;w► �4) Nhe here ' a chan 'n ow , tenan r leSSe �e le al o co orm ng gn w ll ecom egal id sign mu e ught in compliance with the ordinance. �• � THE �4U < <j�5) "`-°�-'^r"'�6etomes fifty (50) percent dilapidated or �� the remainder of t e e signa9ris to be�brought into compliance�a}es p� '�� �e s��n ��9���{ ��O F� i�oue� o�' ��o Co mpl:amce '�e re�•�e� e r 3. Abandoned Signs oE -�o �y�h �s �o be ►row��t �n10 Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, any sign which �q�P����� identifies a business that has stopped operation for a period of . three months or niore., or any si9n which Dertains to a time, event, or purpose whith no longer applies, shall be 6eemed to fiave been abandoned. Permanent si9ns applicable to a Dusiness temporarily - suspended because of a change of ownership, or managenient of such a business, shall not be deemed abandoned unless the pr.operty remains vacant for a period of three months or more. An ahandoned sign is prohibite� and shall be renaved 6y the owner of the sign or the owner of Lhe premises. P'y" � � Or6inance No. Chapter 214, Signs SECTION 214.06 ENFORCEMENT ;� Viotations of Code; �� ` . 3 -lo- ' . � �y� ��tt. �ZM�wry��w. �—f-' 1. Any sign that does not canply with the provisians of this ordinance. 2. A sign that is a hazard to tAe safety and welfare of the public. � Notification of Violation of Lode: 1. If the Zoning Administrator or agents, shatl find that any si9n regulated by this chapter is unsafe, insecure, or is a menace to the public; or has been constructed or erected without a permit first bein9 granted to the owner of the property upon w.hich said sign has been erected, or is in violation of any other provision of this chapter, ��,�,shall give v�ritten notice of such violation to the owner or permit ,,, r- fiolder 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 follo�ain9 receipt of said notice, such si9ns may be removed by the City. The cost of this removal, including City expenses, shall be as a special assessment against the property upon rhich the sign is located. 2. The Zoning Administrator or �ir�agent�ay cause any sign or other advertising structure which is �public hya�rd to be removed summarily and Nithout notice. pry� �tdi��t� 3. When the City sends the notice of violation, they will send a copy to both the permit holder and the landowner, if they are different. � Penalty for Violation of Code: . 1. Ar�Y violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the Drovisions of Chapter 901 of the Fridley City Code. Each day the violation con- tinues in existence shall be deemed a separate violation. A1l 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 chapter to pay a fee or acquire a permit. � �' Appeals: 1. io provide for a reasonable interpretation 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 before the Appeals Commission. The Commission shall hear and make their reconmendations to the City Council who has final action. SECTION 214.07 REPEAL Chapter 214 of the Fridley City Code as it existed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF ATTEST: 1977. City Clerk - Marvin C. Brunsel F1rst Readin9 Second Reading Publish....... ayor - itliam J. Nee ENFORCEMENT REPEAL 7� -e+; �w..�,; �r PARKS $ RECREATION COFB4ISSION MEETING AUGUST 22, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Peterson, Leonard Moore, Betty Ann Mech, Robin Suhrbier MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Seeger OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Boudreau, Parks & Recreation Director Jack Kirk, Program Supervisor Rickie Bergquist, Program Supervisor Frank Hart, F.Y.F.A. President Ray Leek, Planning Aide CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Peterson ca7led the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. APPROVAI OF JULY 25, 1977, PARKS & RECREATION COMPIISSION MINUTES: Mr. Moore stated on page 4, paragraph 3, the wording should be changed to read: "Mr. Boudreau stated. . . " MOTION by Leonard Moore, seconded by Betty Ann Mech, to approve the July 25, 1�Parks & Recreation Commission meeting minutes as amended. Upon a voice � vote, all voting aye, the motion carried.unanimoulsy. APPROYAL OF AGENDA: ;: � The follwoing items were added to the agenda: Code of Ethics - Item B under "New Business" MOTION by Betty Ann Mech, seconded by Leonard Moore, to approve the agenda with the above addition. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. DIR€CTOR'S REPORT A. Sumner Program Re-cap Mr. Jack Kirk, Program Supervisor, was introduced to the Commission to give a summer prugram re-cap. Mr. Jack Kirk showed a series of slides depicting the su�r playground operation and the various programs offered by the Park & Recreation Qepartment during our seven week period of sumner operation. It was a general census of opinion that the comnrssion receive the report with the exoressed feeling that�commission was very happy with the directiorl'of the summer program and the wide variety of activities offered to the children in the residence in tne City Fridley. PARKS & RECREATIQN COMMISSIOM MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1977 ._ __ PAGE 2 B. A � it read in part, "Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed park � improvementf for Riverview Heights. I am very pleased, as are many peopleo Naturaily, there are few people canplaining, but I think the biggest comptaint is tfiat we will be losing winter recreation, namely, an ice rink. I know you have heard this from me before, but I'm very serious about the combination rink and tennis court system that Columbia Heights has. The last time I talked �a�the Parks Superintendent of Columbia Heights, which I 6elieve was about S year ago, they were so pleased with the one they had, they were hoping to add another. According to the superintendent, the combination rink and tennis court is almost maintenance free. The secret being a good base for the Dlack top. I realize this entales more money, but in the tong run to our advantage. I think it would be to the advantage of the City of Fridley to pay attention to what other cities do, and how they solve their problems. Again, thank you Chuck for your concern for our neighborhood. On the whole, the people are very pleased with your proposals for the parks and are fully in hope that the City Council wi11 be in agreement. We all hope this will 6e a realization soon. Sincerely, Mrs. Margare�'Eastman," Mr. Boudreau did reply to the co�nission that the department does with other cities and also professional literature on keeping up the new and changing aspects of park maintenance and facilities. C. Mr Boudreau reported on Co1or Coating work closely to date on Mr: Boudreau reported that they had recently completed the color coating of several hard surface areas throughout the city and that in an attempt to upgrad� the appearance of some of our park areas, we have gone with a blue chevron spec on color coating. Although there has been some negative reaction, this is on a very limited nature and most have been very positive as to the new appearance of the hard surfaced areas located within the different parks. It was also reported that fencing has been canpleted at the Moure Lake 8each tennis caurts and at the Camnons tennis courts, so these are now completely enclosed. D. Mr Boudreau reported comments on Facilities in City Director Boudreau reported that there were some thirty four (34) in the State Softball Tournament the past weekend_and there were comnents and remarks received from all of the'teams and all of t the excellent condition and shape of the faciiities in the City teams entered many positive ie players about �f Fridley. E. Senior Citizens Newsletter Rickie Bergquist reported that'she has begun a Senior Citizens Newsletter which witt go out monthly to alT seniors in the City of fridley in an attempt to increase participation for this age group. She also reported that in a cooperative agreement wiih Canmunity Education, that the City has been granted permission to use two (2) rooms in the Parkview Elementary School during the day time for�Seqior �itizens Programming. � Rickie also covered some'of the different programs plans for the cdning year and also the various prbgrams that the Par.k and Recreation Department will be offering to everyone in the c�nmunity for the fall session of our progrart�ning. �. � PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIQN MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1977 PAGE 3 2. OLD BUSINESS: A. Approval of the Coroprehensive Parks & Open Space Plan r�=„ After brief preliminary remarks by Mr. Ray Leek and a general discussion of the importance of this plan, Commissioner members and Chairman Peterson expressed their sincere thanks to Mr. Ray Leek, Mr. Jerrold Boardman and the rest of the Planning.Department for doing an excellent job in preparing, editing and �revising the Canprehensive Park & Open Space Plan. MOTION by Mr. Moore, seconded by Robin Suhrbier to accept the Comprehensive Parks & Open Space Plan as presented in concept and pass this on to other necessary commissions. -Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. NEW BUSINESS: A, Plan for F.Y.F.A.'reported by Mr. Hart Mr. Frank Hart, of the Fridley Youth Football Association (F.Y.F.A,) was present to give a brief report on this years plan for the Football Association activity. Mr. Hart stated that there would be very few changes in the teague rules and the system of the league. He noted that their registration was down from the past years, and he expected to have a total of three hundred (300) to three hundred and fifty (350) boys registered for the boys program and an equal number of girls registered for the girls football program. � Mr. Hart thanked the conmission for their continued support and the continue upgrading a# the football field located at Comnons Park. It was discussed that possible there was a need for the F.Y.F,A. and the Park & Recreation Department to further cooperate on resodding of the football field area, due to the fact that Soccer is now being played in this same area and the concern for the wear and tear on the turf. Mr. Hart, the F.Y.S.A., and Mr. Boudreau will work on this problem in the future. Chairman Feterson made the board aware that Mr. Hart has spent much time and effort in the cause of youth sports in the City of Fridley and for his time and efforts, Mr. Nart, was awarded the Viking Ring for contribution to sports and athletics, which is given to one person each year. This is a great honor for a resident of Fridley to receive: He thanked Mr. Hart for the continued time, effort and energy spent hy himself in the benefit of youth sports and athletics in the City of Fridley. B. Proposed Code of Ethies for City of Fridley Commissions and full-time Staff After a brief discussion of the document as presented, there was a generai concensus by the members, that being; Mr. Moore had no objections to the document as presented and thought that in general cases where there might be a possible conftict that this would be a good measure to demonstrate to people that there is some trust and ethical conduct in local govermnent. There was some concern � by the other three members as to the phraseology on page 30 of the document. The section that refers to spouses, mothers, children, etc. With these concerns voices, it was decided that no official action wc>uld be taken. However, ... . � - �7E�' :R:.J -.�„ PARK� & RECREA7ION COMMISSION MfETING AU6UST 22 t977 PAGf 4 these feelings should be noted in the minutes to make the other cortmissions and the City Council aware of the Park & Recreation Comnissions concerns with respect to the Code of Ethics. MOTION by Leonard Moore, seconded by Robin Suhrbier, to adjourn the meeting • at 9:55 p.ro. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respeetfully submitted, ' G • �. ��e.�..�..�...� CHA LES A. BOUDREAU Parks & Recreation Director CAB/bak �� �� U