PL 09/28/1977 - 6618City of Fridley
AGENDA
PLANNING C0�7MISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1977
CALL T0 ORDER:
ROLL CALL•
APP80VE PLANNING COhMiI5SI0N MINU7ES: SEPTEMBER 14 1977
RECEIVE APPEALS COt4MI5SI0N MINUTE�: SEPTEMBER 2Q 1977
1. � CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTEkANCE CODE
2. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN
3. -0THER 6USINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1-22
23 - 41
SEPARATE
SEPARATE
, A M E N D E D
y of Fridlep
A6ENDA
PLANNING COtM1ISSI0N MEETIN6 SEPTEMBER 28, 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 14, }977
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 20, 1977
, .
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
�"� �- -
_ �y
23 - 4i
1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SP � 77-12 NASEEM A. ANSARI: As per ction �5.T�T,
3, A, 10, of the Fridley City Code, to allow a public
auto repair center use on the Southerl.y 805 feet of the
Easterl.y Half of the Northeasterl.y Quarter of the South-
easterl.y Quarter of Section 3, T-30, R-24, except the
Westerl.y 328 feet, accordinq to the plat thereof, subject
to the easement agreement of April 12, 1474, the same
being 7900 Maie Street N.E.
Public Hearing open
2. CONTINttED: PROPQSED MAINTENANCE CODE
3. COMTINUED: VARKS & dPfN SPACE PLAN
4. OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
- =.�r.._
Material in
9i14/77 Agenda
SEPARATE
SEPARATE
_�-�-
�
' � CITY OF FRIDL$Y 3
PLANNING COM�ffSSION MBETING �
• SEPTE!ffiSR 28, 1977
�
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the regular September 28, 1977, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7;45 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members present: Shea, Bergman, Harris, Suhrbier, Gabel, Langenfeld
Members Absent; Peterson (Ms. Suhrbier was his representative)
Schnabel (MS. Gabel was her pepresentative)
Others Present; Ruben Acosta, Planning �►ide
APPROVE PLANNING CO2�4�IISSION MINUTES: SBPfShffi&H 14, 1977:
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the September 14, 1977,
Planning Coumission minutes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVS At�iDBD AG&NDA:
lYYfIOli by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Shea, to approve the amended agenda
as mailed out by the City. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried-unanimously.
RSCEIVS APPSALS COPAffSSt�ON MLNUTES: SSPfSlIBER 20, 1977:
MOTION by M6. Gabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, to receive the Appeals Commission
minutes of September 20, 1977.
Chairperson Aarris asked Ms. Gabel to clarify Item 3 regarding a variance
to reduce the rQquired minimum square footage for a house to waive the single
stall garage requirement and to allow the construction of a house without a
garage at 7163 Sast River Road.
Ms. Gabel atated that, basically, the problem was because gon Holden had
been on vacation; and when they were doing the Laying of the house on the
lot, Staff had neglected to realize that the owner needed a side yard variance,
also. Because there was a time element involved and the people would lose
financing, the Appeals Co�ission worked hard to find a way to handle this.
T6r�y dec3ded they would go ahead and approve the requeat and that Staff would
work with the petitioner to notify the listed persons that were required to
be notified to see if there were any probl�ms in order to make the time
requirement. The problem had evolved through a Staff error, but if it could
not be handled this way, then it would go on to City Council.
UPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, THB MOTIO� CAHIIED UNANiMWSLY.
�
PLANNING COMt�ffSSION MBBTING, SEYfEMB&B 28, 1977 PAGE 2
1. TABLSD: PUBLIC HEARING: RBQUEST FOB A SPBCIAL USE PERMIT, SP � 77-12,
NASS&M A. ANSARI: As per Section 205.131, 3,A, L0, of the Fridley City
Code, to allow a public auto repair center use on the Southerly 805 feet
of the Easterly Half of the Northeasterly Quarter of the Southeasterly
Quarter of Section 3, T-30, R-24, except the Westerly 328 feet,according
to the plat thereof, subject to the easement agreement of April 12, 1974,
the same being 7800 Main Street N.E.
AfOTI�1 by Me. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to remove this item from the
table. Uponra voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. I�ir. Harris explained
to Mr. Ansari that at the September 14th Planning Couimission meeting,
Mr. Boardman had explained the mode of operation and the general location in
the building in which this operation was to take place. He said there had
been several questions by the Coum�ission members which Mr. Boardman was unable
to answer so action was tabled until Mr. .e,nsari could be present.
Me. Shea suggested that Mr. pnsari read pages 9-10 of the September 14th
Planning Co�ission minutes to familiarize himself wi.th what took place at
that meeting.
Ms. Gabel asked if Mr• Ansari would be providing the oil and the tools needed
or if the customezs would bring these things in themselves.
Mr. Ansari stahed that it was very difficult at this time to really outline
in minute detail what would happen. He referred to the September 14th
Planning �ommission minutea in w hd:¢h someone had mentioned that some of these
facilities had opened in the past few years and had failed. Mr. .Qnsari said
the reasons were numerous, but what they had done was not available to him.
}Ie had been spending considerable time on this project and either he had been
getting a dead end wherever he went, or he had not been able to get to some-
one really involved in this type of operation. Pir. Ausari stated he would
try different things until samething worked.
Ms. Gabel asked if it was Mr. Ansari's intention to provide parts and sell
them,
P&'. pnsari stated it was not, that there were numerous auto parts businesses.
They did not claim to lcnow that kind of business and,at the same time, try
to get this business off the ground.
Ms. Suhrbier stated she was c�cerned about the liability. There would be
people of all ahilities coming in and there would only be one person super-
vising. What was the liability to the City?
Mr. Ansari stated there was no model plan on which he could base his answers.
He had asked his insurance people if insurance coverage would be available
for this facility and the insurance people had assured him it would be.
$ince people would be working on their own cars, it was understandable that
liability would be two-part; (1) 3mjuries inflicted by persons upon them-
selves; and (2) responsibility of the garage when someone slipped, for
e�a .- �
— — �- — �- i� E^ -_-
3A
3B
PLANNLNG COt�AffSSION MEETING, SEPT&MBER 28, 1977 PAGE 3
example, '�hat kind of liability existed in every building and with the
owner of the facility.
Mr. yangenfeld read from Zoning Ordinance, Section 205.131, Item 10,
requesting a apecial use permit. He asked Mr. pnsari that of the follow-
ing, what would be allowed in the garage: gasoline service stations,
aezcessory greasing, servicing, cleaning � washictg of automobiles, minor
adjustments and repairs but not general repairs, overhauling, rebuilding,
demolition or spray painting?
Ms. Ansari stated that he would not have gasoline servicing, cleaning &
washing of automobilea, or demolition or spraypainting. He would have
accessory greasing, servicing, minor adjustmenta � repairs but not general
repairs, overhauling, and rebu3lding.
Chairperson Harris asked if the request was for 9,000 square feet or
13,OQ0 square £eet.
Dir. .�nsari stated it would depend on the availability of space. At first,
13,000 square feet had been available, hut uow he did not Imow how much
would be available as Mr. Brama of Bryant-Franklin Corporation could not
hoid that amount of space for Mr. Ansari until Mr. Ansari had received
approval from the City and could get started.
Chairperson Harris stated the reason he had asked that question was because
he waidered if there would be a physical setaining wall or a separation
wall.
Mr. pnsari stated that if they got into this facility, instead of leaving
bays, they would remove the partitions and leave one unrestricted area.
In the contiguous bays they occupied, they would remove the separating
walls so there would be a better free flow of cars and better supervision.
I�► that particular building, the walls were temporary walls in every bay.
Another change he wwld like to make was that in the Planning Commission
minutes it ha& said there would probably be no hoists, but Mr, pnsari
stated he vould like to have quite a few hoists to raise cars up and down.
Theae would probably be electxic, rather than hydraulic. There would be
personnel on duty to help with these hoists. pa discussed, their people
would bring the cars from the parking lot into the building, put the cars
on the hoists, and then the customers could work on the3r cars.
Ms. Suhrbier sCated she was concerned about the danger with one large open
space with no confinement of dust, etc. If it was partitioned, it would
help protect people working nearhy.
�ttairperson Harris asked what section of bays Mr. Ansari would be using.
3C
PS,ANPI�NG COZIIIISSION MBETING SSPTEMB$R 28, 1977 PAGE 4
AUr, Ansari stated he would have Bay #3 on. Mr. Brama had been reluctant
to sublet the first two bays. Mr. Brama had said if the operation was
succeasful, Mr. Ansari may get the first two bays also which would put
this operation on Main and 79th, the south corner.
Ma, i3abel asked if the custamers would be responaible for Caking away their
own ail.
Mr. �ynsari stated that-the customers would not be responsible, that he and
his people would have utensils in which to collect the oil.
Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. pnsari if he had talked to any people who had
had success with this type of operation,
Mr. Ansari stated that, to his knowledge, no one had been successful on
the scale he was going on. Operationa had been auccessful when there were
only two or three stalls. gut, he felt there was a need for his type of
operation and that it would work.
Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Ansari if he felt there would be peak seasons
and poor seasons, thinking of the cold weather in January and gebruary.
Mr. Ansari stated that it definitely would be a seasonal business. It ,
would be a challenge to make it a permanent business. They would have to
pramote and come up with services for the entire year because cars were
driven year around.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. pnsari intended to put in an exhaust system.
Mr. Aneari stated they would have to, especially in same areas where the
car engines c.rould be allowed to run continuously for Long periods of time.
They would not need an exhaust system for the cars in for routine maintenanue.
He said it was going to be very difficult to keep the building warm in the
winter and there would be a lot of heat loss.
Chairperson Harris asked how many attendants would run the operation.
Mr. Ansari atated he wouLd have at least two people--a mechanic who would
guide people on how to do things and another pereon to bring the cars in
and out of the facility. These attendaats would be on duty at all times.
Mr. Ansari stated they were planning on being open 10 houra a day, the
peak hours being 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m., at Least Co begin with.
Mr, Langenfeld stated he was interested to know how r1r. pnsari planned
to charge for people working in this garage. His concern was that they
might have to charge quite a s� to oake money and hire a mechanic.
3D
PLANBiI,�iG COh1MISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 5
Mr. pnsari stated he would probably charge on an hourly basis and on a
per-job basis. He stated it had to be a paying proposition; but if these
rates were equated with the going rates at a regular garage, there was
quite a bit of room.
Chairperaon Harris asked if there wotild be any outside storage of vehicles
and Mr. Ansar3 stated there would not--juat a waiting period in the
parking lot if the building was full.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning
Conmission close the public hearing on the gequest for a Special Uae
Permit, SP $ 77-12, Naseem A. Ansari; ps per Section 205.131, 3, A,
10 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a public auto repati center use
on the Southerly 805 feet of the gasterly Half of the Northeasterly
Quarter of the SouYheasterly Quarter of Sectioii 3, T-30, R-24, except
the Westerly 328 feet, accord3ng to the plat thereof, subject to the
easement agreement of April 12, 1474, the same being 7900 Main S[reet N.E.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the public
hearing closed at 8;10 p.m.
Mr. Ansari stated that this operation was really a trial measure. This
was a highly apecialized use of a building and this particular building
was not the real answer to this kind of venture. Ie �1'ou��aeaka a',�at
sfiombdey�toogatinpcfihe�pnpp�r:;�aaggef�a¢iit�ycabh�d s��ald be�u�ed�o�e_
�mspmntegt�taas €ecf�ptqhis operation in this kind of building for a
short time;and if it was successful, have his own building which would
meet city code, special requirements, etc.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. ghea, that the Planning Co�ission
reco�end approval to the City Council of the request for Special Use
Permit, gP $ 77-12, Naseem A. Ansari: �►s per Section 205.131, 3, A, 10,
of the Fridley City Code, to allow a public auto repair center use on
the Southerly 8Q5 feet of the Easterly Half of the Northeasterly �uarter
of the Southeasterly Quarter of Section 3, T-30, R-24, except the
Westerly 328 feet, according to the plat thereof, subject to the ease-
ment agreement of April 12, 1974, the same being 7900 Main Street N.E.,
with the following stipulations;
1. With the understanding that all codea, ordinances, and
other applicable regulations be met;
2. That for purposes of this special use permit, a space
limitation of 15,000 square feet be understood as a
part of thia reccmmendation.
Mr. LBngenfeld stated he would like to add for the record that due concern
for unnecessary noise and improper disposal of oil, etc., be regulated.
Mr. Langenfeld said Mr. Bergman enca�passed this when he stated that all
regulations would be met.
UPON A VOICB VOTS, ALL VOTING AYE, THS M(YPION CARRIED UNpNiMOUSLY.
3E
PLl�`tDt�itG CO2MfISSION MBETING. SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 6
�Thairperson Harris told Mr. Ansari that this request for special use
permit would go before City Council on Monday, October 3, 1977.
Chairperson Harris declared a 10 minute recess at 8;40 p.m.
CONTINUED: PRUPOS&D MAINTSNANCE CODH:
220.43 Compliance
Mr. Bergman stated that it looked to him that a compliance order may be
served on the occupant unless the occupant was also the owner. Legally
or otherwise, it did not make sense. He thought the owner was the liable
pezson and �perhaps the papers must be served only to the owner.
Chairperaon Harris stated that the problem may be the occupant's fault
and not the owner's.
No. 4 under 220,43 Compliance was changed to read as follows; "Be served
upon the owner or agent and the occupant, as the case may require, such
noCice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent,
and upon any such occupant, if a copy thereof is."
Chairperson Harris stated that even if there was another type of violation
that was the owner's responsibility, at least telling the occupant that
the City was doing something about it was a good idea. But, supposing
it was the occupant's responsibility for the care, custody, and control
of the property? Mx'. Harris stated that pexiiaps the city aCtorney should
give some guidance on how thisslaould be rewritten.
The Coa�ission members agreed . to �c automatically eliminate the words,
"his" and "him" wherever they appeared and replace them with "said pets a1!'.
Mr. Langenfeld suggested that No. 4, Item C, be changed to read: "Uegal
Action will be taken."
Chairperson Harris stated thaC this was another part that he thought the
city attorney should look at for the proper wording.
The Co�ission members agreed to elimiaate the words, "and Enforcement"
from 22A,40 and add them to 220.43 to read; "Compliance and Enforcement"
/
220.44 Emergency Cases
Mr. Bergman stated that under emergency stipulations the code should
give the city the authority to take action if the case required. This
did not do that.
Ms. Shea stated this was another item she felt the city attorney should
look at.
3F
PLANN'f�G COI�ffSSION MEETING, SEPTSMBSR 28, 1977 PAGE 7
Chairperson Harris stated he felt the City should face the situation
where people are living in a building and are ordered out and have
not Che means to procure other habiCation. It then should become
encumbent upon the City to take care of these people.
Mr, pcosta agreed to look in the codes to find where it was listed
about a building being condemned and the tenants are ordered [o leave.
He would also look to see if 220.44 could be more expliciC and would
discuss this with Mr. Herrick on the legal aspects.
Chairperson Harris atated they did not want people to suffer because
of exrant landlords.
220.45 Unfit for Human Hebitation
Mr. Bergman stated that he did not read anything in this aection where
the public was protected from hazardous situations by action by the City.
It did not i�ediately remove the hazard from endangering the public,
The Commiasion members agreed to add the Eollowing at the end of No. 3,
'Secure Uufit a¢d Vacated Dwelling;' of 220.45: "Intt$e judgment of the
guilding Inspection Department, if the dwelling is of a hazardous nature,
the City sha11 take immediate steps to remedy the situation at the
expense of the property owner."
220.46 Sxecution of �ompliance Orders by Public Authority
This section was changed to read as follows: "Upon failure to comply
with a compliauce order within the time set and no appeal having been
taken, the City Council may by resolution cause Che cited deficiency
to be �emedied as set Porth in the campliance order. The cost of such
remedy shall be allayed against the subject property and may be levied
and collected as a special assesament in the manner provided by
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429."
220.47 Fight of ApPeal
The question was raised of why the City Council was acting as the Board
of Appeals 1n this case when they did not for public hearing notices.
This section was reworded as follows; "When it is alleged by any person
to whom a ccmpliance order is directed that such compliance order is
based upon erroneous interpretation of this ordinance, such person may
appeal the compliance order thrwgh the appeals process. Such appeals
must be in writing, specify the gtounds for the appeal, be accompanied
by a filing fee of $15.00 in cash or caahier's check, and be filed with
the�City Clerk within ten (10) days after service of the compliance
order. The filing of an appeal ghall stay all proceedings, unless such
a stay would cause imminent peril to life, health, or adjacent property.
-
3G
PLANt�'1NG CO1�AffSSION MBBTING, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 8
220.48 Board of Appeals Decision
This secYion was changed as follows: "With at least five business days
prior notice to the appellant of the appeals process, the Appeals
Commission shall hold a hearing."
220.49 Restrictions on Transfer of Ownership
The Co�ission members agree that the way this was written was against
the law. It was agreed it should be reworded somewhat as follows; "The
owner ahall be required to inform any proegective buyer or new owner of
any compliance order on the property."
MOTIO�I by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to continue discussion
on the MainCenance Code at the next meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unamdunously.
PARRS & OPEN SPACE PLAN:
MOTION by Mr.B�srgman, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that discussion on
the Parks 6 Open Space Plan be continued at the next meeting. UPon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJWR2II�NT •
NIO�ION by'Mr. L$ngenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to adjourn the Planning
Commission meeting at 10;36 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Lyn Sgba
gecording Secretary
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTF3SBER 14. 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairpersott Harris called the September 17�, 1977 Planning
Commission meetin� to order at �:3y. P�M.
ROLI, CA2�L•
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 COMNIISSION MIPiUTLS: AUGII5T 17 1977
Ms. Schnabel requested that the last paragraph on Page 11
be eliminated.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, to anprove the
minutes of the August 1'], 19?7, meeting as amendea. Upon a
voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Peterson, to susnend
the rules to accept the Appeals Commission meeting minutes
as the next item on the agenda. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by t;r. Oquist, to suspend
the rules to accept the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting
minutes after the acceptance of the Appeals Coramission meeting
minutes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
1. RECEIVE; APPEAI,S COMMISSION riE�,TING MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 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 meeting. Chairperson Harris
requested Ms. Gabel to be available to ans�ver any questions
that may arrise regarding Iten �1 of the August 23, 19�7,
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 tiaent on to expZain
that the proposed plans tinauld eliminate some of the potential
hazards because the Comvany �vould enclose the rear docks.
She indicated that in the past several fires had been set in
the dock area by children playing crith matches.
�i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTF�IB�R 14, 1977 Pa�e 2
Ms. Gabel explained that in the past the Company had leased
the buildzng and that they had recently bought the building;
thereby, creating a"pride of ovmership�� situation. She said
that another concern of the nei�hborhood had been the
screening that vrould be used as a means of landscaping.
She said that after seeing the Plans of the proposed
building, most of the neighbors �vere satisfied with the
way the building would eventually look.
Ms. Schnabel wanted to see the Plans that Ms. Gabel had
referred to.
Mr. Boardman sho�ved
plan. He explained
as of Sept 14, 1977.
the Planning Commission the original
that the plans had not been approved
The members of the Planning Commission revie«ed the plans.
Mr. Boardman explained all that tivas being planned.
Ms� Gabel indicated that she had ta7.ked to ris. L. Snorre
and that her biggest concern �vas still the landscaping/
scxeening plans.
Chairperson Harris indicated that the landscaping/screening
�vas basically a concern of Staff, He said that the
Planning Conmission, etc. had to first be sure that the
proposed building and improvements vrould meet all the codes.
Mr. & P4rs. A1 Toet�s, Mr. & Mrs. Arne Toerrs,
Mr. Ralph Officer, h4rs. Ralph Officer,
were all present at the Planning Commission meeting regarding
the request for variances by Industrial Spray Painting
Company.
Mr, Toe�vs indicated that the reason he had appeared at
the meeting cras because at the Appeals Commission there had
been a petition that had been against the granting of the
variances. He rranted to be sure to be at the meeting in
the event that the netition would have been presented to
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Gabe1 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 talking vaith ihe Toews�, he felt that the
plan tivas good and he utanted to take the petition back to
the people that had origina21y signed it and explain
exactly what rras being planned for that building,
There uras no petition presented to the Planning Commission,
PLANNING COMMISSION MELTZNG - SEPTII�(BER 14� 1977 Pa�e
The neighbors that were at the Planning Commission meeting
were in favor of the proposed plans.
UPON A VOIC�, VOTE� all voting aye� the minutes of the
August 23r 1977, Appeals Commission Meeting were received.
2.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive
the minutes of the Au�ust 22, 1977, Parks & Recreation
Commission meeting.
Mr. Peterson pointed out Item B of page 2. He informed
Mr. Harris that tti�o nevr tennis courts ivould be built in
the Rivervievr Aeights area.
UPON A VOIC� 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 �vas removed
from the Tahle at '7:52 P.M.
Mr. Boardman explained that the lot in auestion i:�as a
very long lot� wYiich the petitioner wan£ed to split into two parcels.
Mr. Boardman explained that the 4Yesterly 130 foot measurement
tvas from the center of the street to the lot line. 105 feet
of the 130 feet is the actual lot. Ae said that that had
been the confusion at the previous meeting tivhen 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 115-71� �'�ay Nr, indicated that the
structure �vas in the process of being moved.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTI�IBER 14 1977 Pa�e�
Mr. Boardman said that the City did not need any easements.
He explained that the lot would be served by Alden Circle.
Mr. Boardman explained that the Planning Commission had
the authority with a Lot Split, that when the lot split
was approved a variance would automatically be granted.
He said that this authority v�ould have to be exercised
in the reauest since the resulting lot would be
less than 9,�D0 square feet.
Mr. Boardman tivent on to explain that the variance rvould
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 �arcvld face Alden Circle.
Mr. Boardman said that it �vould be possible to build the
house facing Alden Circle that trould not reauire any
additional variances.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the Planning Commission �vas seeing
a verified survey.
Mr. Boardman indicated that it rras a verified survey.
Chairperson Harris had questions regarding the street
right-of-vray that Mr. Boardman tivas able to adequately
ansraer.
MOTION by Mr. PetersonT seconded by t�is. Shea, that the
Planning Commission recommend the granting of the Lot Split
request: L.S. �7?-08, Ron Neilson: Split off the vresterly
130 feet of Lot 31, Auditor's subdivision P:o. 77, subject
to street easemenis, to make a ne��r building site on the
corner of 71� j;lay NE and Alden Circle NE. (Existing house
on balance of lot - 115 71� �VaY n`E.} Upon a voice vote,
a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
4.
1JJ:JV11V1v v/�.�.
ESTABLISHr1ENT I
BI,OCK l , TARG:.T
AVr'�`iUL NE,
MOTION by Dis. Shea,
public hearing. Ubn
carried unanimousl.y
at 8:01� P.M.
RODrILY�BR�INNON: PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE
3H TO ALLQ�,1 AN AUTOAIOBII,E CAR uJASH
N A C-2S (GEPir,RAL SHOPPING) ON LOT 2�
ADDITION THE SAME BEING 775-53rd
seconded by Ms, Schnabel, to open the
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
and the Public Hearing yras opened
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTII�fBER 14, 1977 Page 5
Mr. Boardman showed the Planning Commission a design plan
of v�hat the automobile car e�ash establishment vrould 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 rras planned to be completed by Spring 1978.
Chairperson Harris questioned the.grading involved betr�een
Embers and the proposed Car �lash.
Mr. Boardman said that at the Appeals Com�nission, the Brannon's
had agreed to reduce the size of each bay in an attempt to
have the car vrash as far atiray from the hillside as possible.
Mr. Peterson asked if Target owned the property in auestion.
Mr. Albergotti explained that the property belonged to
Dayton Hudson Properties and that theBrannon�s raould be
purchasing the property.
Mr. Rodney Bran.non of 1622 t�lest Innsbruck Parkrray exolained
that he �•rasn�t planning to construct the "typical" type
car ti�ash. He said that he planned to purchase the best
equipment possible and honed to have his car r�ash be a
model car wash for the State of t�tinnesota. He said that
the car rrash vrould be maintained from 6:30 4.t•4, until
11:00 P.ri.
pir. Peterson asked if the car �ash vrould be opened if the
attendant «as not present.
Mr. Brannon said that originally they had planned to have
the car c�ash open 24 hours; hoti:�ever, he said that they have
since decided to only have the car �vash open for business
nrhen an attendant vrnuld be present.
Chairperson
maintaining
property.
Harris wanted to knorr Mr. Brannon�s plans of
the one-to-one slope that would exist on his
rtr. Brannon explained that he would be considering land-
scaping the hill using some type of ground cover such as
some type of rose bush and/or Russian Olive trees,
PLANNING COMMISSION M�ETING - SEPTa'IBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 6_
Chairperson Harris requested that the landscaping details
be crorked 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 �vash. Ae felt that it t�rould only be in his
best interest to be sure that the entire lot ti��as maintained
properly at all times.
Some questions arose regarding the serrer systems in the
area and vrere they large enough and adequate enough to
handle a car ivash.
Mr. Boardman indicated that there ti��as an adequate se�ver/
water system in the area.
Mr. Boardman expressed a concern he had regarding the
request for a special use permit. He made ihe statement
that once a car ��rash, is a car crash, 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 tvould go bankrupt or if
it is discovered that the particular lot vaa.s not a good
location for a car <<rash� the City 1rould be ��stuck�' r�ith
a building that rrould have to be maintained. He said that
the building actually could only be used for a car ��rash
business.
Mr. Brannon indicated that he hoped the car rrash �vould be
a future livelihood for him and his family. He said that
they had talked to many peo�le in the car i•rash business
and they thought that the particular location in puestion
vfas an excellent site for a car vaash. 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
recyele the vrater used in the business,
Mr. Brannon said that he ��,as looking at holding tanks that
vrould be necessary to recyc7.e the i-�ater. He said that the
actual recycling of the l�ra.ter still had a fe�v "bugs" that
had to be r�orked on. Ae said that as soon as those problems
�qere solved, he vrould probably be able to go right into
recycling the water.
Ms. Schnabel indicated that from the environmental standpoint
it i�ould be somethin� that should be looked into.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the Brannon's had plans to build
solar banels on the roof of the car vrash to assist in the
heating of the ��rater.
�
PLAN�FING COMt4ISSI0PI ML''.x�"fING - S�TIII�IBER 14, 1977 Pat;e 7
Ms. Schnabel said that a problen in the vrinter could be
caused by cars leaving the car ��rash without r�iping the
excess rrater from the car. This vrater t�rould then be
deposited on the streets in the area, thns creating an
ice hazard.
• Mr. Brannon said that they rrould have a system installed
that contained an air-dry cycle that could be used to
blo��� most of the excess wrater off the car.
Mrs. Brannon said that there rrould be infrared heaters
inside the doors of each bay. She said that that :rould
help dry the cars al.so. She also explained that the
lights in every trao units rrere separate. Therefore, she
said that at the time business lvas slo.v� the lights could
be turned off in the bays that i�ere not in use, thereby
saving energy.
Mr. Brannon said that they rrould use a five foot high sign
to advertise the car tivash.
Mr. Oauist asked hora many carscould be backed up behind each
�a.Y.
Mr. Brannon said that they could be backed up three deep.
Chairperson Harris asked if the Brannon�s plarined to sell
any oil products.
Mrs. Brannon said that they c�ould sell no oil products.
bis. Shea asked �ahen they erould plan construction.
Mr. Brannon said that they Nou1d like to start construction
as soon as possible.
Mr. Albergotti said that Target and Dayton Audson Properties
both felt thzt the Brannon�s crould keep both the building
and the property ��ell maintained.
Mr. Oquist asked i�rho ivould be responsible for the roadvrays,
Mr. Albergotti said that Target rrould maintain the roadrrays
and the other businesses would pay an annual fee to Target.
r1s. Schnabel asked Mr. Brannon to explain the exact traffic
flow to her.
rtr. Brannon exrolained on the plan exactly how the traffic
rrould flort.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION M�ETING - SLPTL'�'iB�R 14, 1977 Page 8
MOTIOPI by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms� Schnabel� to close
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, a7.1 voting aye, the
Public Hearing �vas closed at 8:35 P.P'I.
Ms. Schnabel said that she was concerned about the large
traffic flotiv problem that already existed in the area.
She felt that the car crash could only contribute to that
problem.
Ms. Shea indicated that that had been her first thoughts
qhen she had read the request. Ho��ever, she said that
since then she had decided that the car crash did have a
good design� it rras a good location; and, if the road
improvenents saere done as planned, it really �vouldn't
pose any additional problems for the area.
Mr. Albergotti said that since there cras already a traffic
problem in the area, the street improvments cauld only
improve the overall traffic problems.
i4r. Boardr�an pointed out that Dayton Findson Properties
had contracted the sar,ie peoale to do the service road
project that rrere doing the 53rd Avenue imnrovements,
He said that the •,•rork v�ould all be clone at -the saMe time.
bi0TI0Td by Ms. Shea, seconded by P4r. Peterson, that the
planning Commission recor�mend the apbroval of the reouest
for Special Use Permit, S,P. #77-11, by Rodney t3rannon:
Per Fridley City Code Sectaon 205, 101 3�i to allol�r an a.uto�obile
car �vash establishment in a C-2S (General Shonping) on
Lot 2� �lock 1, Target �lddition, the same being 775-53rd
Avenue i�TL. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion
carried unani�ously. (Ms. Schnabel gave a reluctant aye.)
(Ms. Schnabel tvas reluctant because she felt that
Dayton Hudson Properties should proceed ti�rith their internal
improvements ahead of the 53rd Avenue Project).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTF3,IBER 14, 1977 Pa�e 9
5. PUBLIC HEARING: RE(�UEST FOR SPECIAL USE PER•IIT.
�—��']=12 NAS��I A, ANSARI: As per Section 205.�3�
�A� OF HE FRIDL� CITY CODE, TO ALLOI'7 A PUBLIC
AUTO REPAIR CENTER USE, ON THE SOUTHERLY 805 FEET
OF THE EASTERLY � OF THr. NORTH�ASTERLY w OF THE
SOUTHEASTERLY � OF SECTION 3-T30-R21�, EXCEPT THE
WESTERLY 328 FELT ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
, (SIiBJECT TO THE EASII�fENT AGREEt4ENT 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
motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing was
opened at 8:46 P,M.
Mr. Boardman expla3ned that Mr. Naseem A. Ansari �+as not
able to attend the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the request Has to enable the
use of 13,000 square feet of bay area in one of the Bryant-
Franklin buildings at 7900 t�fain Street NE to have a self-
serve type of garage space. He said that rir. Ansari's idea
was to provide the space, tools, racks, etc, for people
to do their o��m work on their cars charging them on a time
basis,
Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Ansari felt that that type of
business ���as not around the area and that there rras s�pport
for that type of facility. He said that Mr. Ansari felt
that the location cvas a good location for that type of
service.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the building was already divided
into bays
Ms. Schnabel asked if the building would be divided into
more bays.
Mr. Boardaan said that Mr. Ansari was going to use the
existing bays.
Mr. Oquist asked if there rrould be an attendant on duty
at the bay area.
Mr. Boardman indicated that there �rould 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 �vould basically
be providing garage �vork-space for some people Nho didn't
have a�arage or enough garage space to do the rainor repair
Work on their cars such as oil changes, minor tune ups, etc.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING = SEPTII�SIiER l4. 1977 PaPe }0
Mr. Oquist asked if there would 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 Blnd. commented that
a division of a big Corporation had established severaZ
buildings in other parts of the country for the purpose
of seZF-serve service centers, He said that many had
to be closed dovm because o£ a lack of acceptance.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if that type of occupancy tivould be
compatible v�ith the other type of occupancies in the area.
Mr. Boardman said that it tivas orobably more compatible in
an industrial area than in any other type of area. He
explained that there ti�ras no place in the ordinances that
allo�red for automobile repair facilities. He said that
that 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 ans�Jer the questions that the members had.
MOTION by t4r. Peterson, seconded by r'Ir. Langenfeld, that
the Planning Commission table the re�uest for Special
Use Permit, S,P, #77-12, Naseem A. Ansari: As per
Section 205.�3� �3�A,10) of the Fridley City Code, to alloti�r
a public auto re air center use, on the Southerly $05 feet
of the Easterly � of the Northeasterly 4 of the Southeasterly
4 of Section 3-T30-R24, Except the b'Jesterly 328 feet according
to the plat thereof (subject to the easement agreement of
y/12/74) the same being 7900 Ntain Street NE. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris indicated that the item vaould be tabled
until such time that hir. Naseem A. Ansari could speak before
the Planning Commission. He said that the Public Hearing
would remain open.
6.
! �h 1 • IY � l Y � i • �
..Cl. tt%7� �
.: 0 H�ASTERLY 30 FEET �F LOTS 7-4�
B7�CK A� RIVERVIEI7 HEIGHTS ADDITION AND ADD THF�I TO
LOTS 5-6, BLOCK A� RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION TO MAK�
T4Y0 BUILDING SITE5.
Mr. Boardman indicated to the Planning Commission on the
• map which lots were being discussed.
The person representing Heights Builders Inc. sa3d that he
owned Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & b. He indicated that Lots
1,Z,3, & 4 ran east and erest and Lots 5& 6 ran north and
south. He also indicated to the Commission the lots and
area that Anoka County orrned. He said that he vianted to
make ttiro buildable lots.
Chairperson Harris asked if he had any of the vacated
street that r�as indicated on the map.
The person representing Heights Builders Inc. said that he
did not.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the City rrould not require any
additional easements on the lots.
Ms. Schnabel asked if he intended to build the homes on the
tevo lots or rrould he sell the lots.
The person representing Heights Builders Inc. said that he
vrould build the homes and that they v�ould be priced in the
$55-60,000 area.
Ms. Schnabel pointed out that the lots would be less than
the required 9,000 square feet.
Chairperson Harris indicated that one lot rrould be 8,160
square feet and the other lot would be approximately
8�y.66 square feet.
Mr. Peterson said that the request r�ould be consistent
with the Cityts present housing codes to encourage housing
that peorole could afford and he said it Nas one way to
utilize the lots.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend
the approval of I,ot 5plit Request L,S. ;{'7'7-10 by Heights
Builders Inc.: Split off the easterly 30 feet of lots 1-4,
Block A, Riverviecr Heights addition and add them to Lots
5-6� B1ock A, Rivervieiv Heights addition to make trro building
sites.
PLANNING COtR4ISSI0N MEETING - SEPT�IBER 14 1977 Pa�e 12
Mr. Boardman indicated that the acCess and all utilities would
be off of Hugo Street.
UPON A VOZCE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimously.
7.
���
�
r. •a : •
+ V � YLVVLI L'
EAST R14NCH ESTATES 2ND ADDITION IN ORDER TO Mt1KE T�NO
BUILDING $ITr.S.
Mr. Boardman indicated that there ti��ould be a building on
lots '7 & 8 and that Lot 6 vJas bresently being built on�
He said that the reason PRr. Schroer wanted ihe lot split
�vas because he had tr�o buyers for the lot. He said the
proposed buildin� �+rould be back-to-back buildings that
vtould meet all reauirements. He said that basically all
Mr. Schroer needed lvas a lot split.
t4r. Boardman said that the only problem that could be seen
was the question as to hotv service would be gotten into the
back properties.
Mr. Schroer said that the area had been discussed many tir�es.
He said the main concern vras on Lot 3, B1ock 3. He indicated
on diagrams ta the Planning Comr�ission the exact location of
the lot being discussed. He indicated that one of the plans
could be to go bettiveen lots 5& 6���ith a cul-de-sac to
service lot 3. He said that there could also be a cul-de-
sac of£ Ranchers Road to serve Lot 4,
Ais. Schnabel asked if Lot !� could receive its access from
the one cul-de-.sac betrreen lots 5& 6.
Mr. Schroer said that it could, but it r�ould depexid on
rrhat i��ould be built on the lot.
Mr. Schroer said that there tivould be a possibility of
Lot 4& 5 going to the same buyer, thereby eliminating many
problems. Ae also pointed out that i£ Lots 3, 4� & 5 vrent
to the same buyer, all the problems vrould be eliminated.
A4r. Boardman indicated that the concern v�as, hotiv the City
Mould service the tr�o lots in question.
Dir. Schroer said that he had basically show�i. the Planning
Commission horf he could access the lots properly. He said
that there rrould be several alternatives as to erhat could
be done, including a dead-end turn-around type street.
He said he eras sho�ving hol�r alI the lots COULD 6e accessed,
if all the lots �vere bought and built-on by separate buyers.
Mr. Boardman explained the different areas of the lots in
auestion.
PLANNIPIG COAIMISSION MELTING - SEPTF�SBER il�. i977 Page 1
Chairperson Harris suggested.holding the road easements as
a private roadway.
. Mr. Boardman said that even if it r�as maintained as a private
roadway, it would have to be built to city standards to handle
any problem in the future, if the o��mer decided they didn�t
• want to maintain it any longer and would want the city to
maintain it.
Mr. Boarc;man indicated that the Code read that the
back-to-back buildings ivould not require a special variance.
He said ihat the buildings could be back-to-back r�ith the
written agreement from both property orrners.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to
recommend apAroval of Lot Split Reouest, L,S, r'%'%-11, by
Robert H. Schroer; Split off the southerl;� 157z Feet of
Lot 6, Block 2, East Ranch �states 2nd Addition in order
to make trro building sites ti�ith the stipulation that
access be provided to Lot 3 by easeraent over Zot 5 and
that no portion of that easement tivould go onto Lot 6.
Mr. Schroer said that the Cul-De-Sac ��ould be tivhatever
the City �iould require if it r�ould be City Maintained.
Mr. Board�an said that before the City r�ould issue a building
permit, they ;aould require a definite plan.
Mr, Schroer said that he felt that anyone building on Lot 3
�vould ivant a City Street and not a Private Street.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimously.
RECr.SS :
A recess rras called by Chairperson Harris at 9:39 P.Ai.
REGONVENED•
Reconvened at 9:L�9 P,M, Shea, Oquist, Harris, Schnabel,
Langenfeld �vere all present. Mr. Peterson had to leave
due to personal reasons.
�LANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEt4BER 14� 1977 Pa,�,,e 14
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to amend
the agenda and add Item 10A, Receive Human Resources Commission
Meeting Minutes of September 1� 197�. Upon a voice vote,
aZl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to
receive the letter from NaegeZe Outdoar Advertising Company
of the Ti�ain Cities� Inc. to Mayor Vdilliam J. Nee and to
receive the riemorandum from Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney
to Richard Sobiech, Director of Public '�yorks, regarding
the Billboard Ordinance. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously. The letters vJere
received at 9:51 P�M.
8. REVI�t'J PROPOSED SIGN 0?�DINPSTCE
Mr. Boardman explained that it had been the intent that the
City Cauncil onlq reviei�� the Sign Orflinance. He said that
the Ordinance had not been ready for the First Reading.
Mr. Boardman said that he had some problems 1aith the
memorandum from Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney, in that
throughout the memo he had given a 1ot of statements but
had given no legal ideas as to ho��r to change it.
Chairperson Harris said that he had gone to the City
Council meetino on 09/12/77 to get an idea tivhere the
City Council tvas on this item. He said that the
City �ttorney had indicated that he ��as rtilling to
assist in the c�riting of the legal ve'rbage into the
Ordinance, r4r. Harris said that since t:r. Herrick had
raised the questions, the Commission had best anstiver them.
Ms. Schnabel said that she had gone through the memorandum
and had made notes on her copy of the Ordinance along �aith
notes of her otm. She nroceeded to go through the Ordinance
indicating possible changes.
Ms. Schnabel said that the first Section 21y..01 PURPOSE
vras okay as �vritten,
Section 211�.02 DEFINITIONS, A. Abandoned Signs, Ms. Schnabel
felt rras proper in that it helped the Zoning Administor.
Ms. Schnabel, evith agreement from the other members� felt
it arould be proper to remove the Examples that tvere listed
in item B. �lccessory Use.
t3s. Schnabel crent on to discuss item G. Banners and Pennants.
She felt that the statement
(incZuding small p2astic flags, grand opening signs� or
special announcements) should be deleted.
PLAMdI2dG COtdMISSION MEETING - SEPTF�iBER 14, 1977 Page 15
,�r
Ms. Schnabel next discussed H. Bench Signs. She felt
that the crords "such as a bus stop" should be deleted since
later in the text of the Ordinance it was stated that
Bench Signs vrould be prohibited except at the bus stops.
Ms. Schnabel suggested that the r�ording of Item I. Billboard
be chansed to read, ��BILLBOARD means an advertising sign
v�hich directs attention to a business, commodity, service,
or entertainment v�hich is conducted, sold or offered ��
elseti��here than on the prenises of ti�rh3ch the sign is located.
It ti�as decided to put a auestion mark next to Ttem J. CANOPY
signs. :ds. Schnabel said that if the definition �ras to be
left in the section 21y.02, then the term Canopy Sign
had to be used in the text of the ordinance.
Chairperson Harris thought that somerahere in the text it
�vas referred to as to the differences of roof signs and
canopy signs.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the terv�inology ha.d been used to
clarify roof signs versus canopy signs versus ���hatever other
type of sign.
The discussion next rras on K. CHANG�ABLE COPY SIGAIS.
Ms. Schnabel needed clarification as to exactly ti�rhat a
Readerboard l�as.
Mr. Boardman suggested leaving out the i.e., reader boards
rrith changezble letters or changeable pictorial nanels,
from the definition.
Ms. Schnabel then referred to Items S and V. She said
that item S. IDENTIFICATIOn� SIGNS and letter V. INSTITUTIONAL
SIGNS� r�ere the same definition and meant the same thing.
She sai.d that they crere r�orded somevrhat different but did
say the same thing.
Mr. Boardman said that that had been done to define the
differences bet��leen Institutional Signs and �dvertising Signs.
He explained that an Institutional Sign t*ras an advertising
sign; hocrever he said that there e�ere parts of the text that
would allo�v an institutional. sign of certain s�uare footage
rather than just an advertising sign.
It �vas decided to leave the trro definitions as they read.
Item Z. PORTIIBL� SIGN r�as next discussed. Ms. Schnabel
said that the ��ording tivas confusing.
Chairperson Harris suggested the r�ording to be changed to
read, �'POh'Tt1fiLE SIGN means a sign so designed as to be
movable from one location to another and vJhich is not
permanently attached to the ground, a si�n structure� or
a buildin�.'�
PLANNING COMt4ISSI0N M�ETING - SEPTF�I}3ER 14, 1977 Pa�e 16
Ms. Schnabel asked if there was a specific sign ihai vras
called a PORTA-PANEI,.
Mr. Langen£eld said that the �vords t'back-to-back" made the
sign different from a PORTABLE SIGN.
Mr. Boardc�an said that it had to be listed in the definitions
because in the text portable si�ns c�ere not being prohibited,
but porta-panels rrere being prohibited.
Ms. Schnabel asked for an exanple of exactly tirhat a R�ADER
BOARD t�as.
-T
Chairperson Harris said ttcat Bob�s Produce had a Reader Board.
Mr. Boardman suggested eliminating the definition for
Reader Boards because the only place they are mentioned
vras under Signs Allovred r�ith Specia2 Use Permits.
Mr. Oauist sai.d thai before any of the iiems v�ere removed
that it �ras verified that the items were not actually
mentioned some blace in the text.
Mr. Oquist didn�t really agree that an Ordinance could ever
have too many definitions.
Ns. Schnabel said that Item GG SIGN AR�� ��as too �zrordsy
and cumbersome.
t�ir. Boardman suggested that the item be ivorded, ��SIGN ARr�A
means the total area of tne sign, including the border and
the surface erhich bears the advertiseMent; or in the case
of inessages, figures, or symbols attached directly to the
builcling� it is that area vthich is included in the smallest
rectange t•rhich can be nade to circumscribe the message,
fi�ure, or symbol disnlayed thereon. The stipulated
maxinum sign area for a free standing sign refers to a
single facing.��
Ms. Schnabel q_uestioned item NN. UNLA'�VFUL SIGNS. She
tivanted to knoi� if the Ordinance �ras giving too much poi�Jer
to one person in authority to make the determination of
unlarJful signs.
Chairperson Harris said that there �vas no provision for
due process.
rir. Boardman suggested that the vrording be changed to,
"UnL�1L`/FUL SIGN means a sign crhich is in conflict ivith this
ordinance.��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPT�IB�R 14, 1977 PaPe 17
Ms. Schnabel next discussed item B under,Section 214.031
SIGNS PROHIBIT�D IN 11LL DISTRICTS, She wanted to knovr
who made the decision as to 1rhat vaould be obscene, pornographic,
or immoral character� or vrhat crould be untruthful advertising.
' Chairperson Harris said that the Courts had to make the
decision as to tivhat is pornographic.
� Mr. Oquist asked if he could appeal to the Courts if the
Sign Administrator allo�rs a sign that he felt rras 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 1*Jhat vras false or untruthful advertising and
that part oi tne item B should be taken out.
Ms. Schnabel suggested rerrording E to be, "Signs e�hich
resemble an official traffic sign or signal (excebt
directional signs on private pronerty)."
t3s. Schnabel next discussed item I. She felt if that
item etas left in the text� ti►en an additional Item "0"
should be added and ET,ASHING SIGPdS should be included.
I�is. Schnabel suggested that Item I be re�7orded to,
"Illuminated sign rrhich changes in either color or in
intensity of light or is aninated, She said that
Item 0 titould cover Flashing Signs.
Nis. ,5chna.bel indicated that item J tiras confusing to her.
Chairperson Harris said that in speaking to the
City Counci2 there had been a lot of resistence to
Item J, irhich included billboards.
Mr. Langenfeld said that he personally felt that the
Qrdinance c�as curt�iling rights. He felt that a precedent
Nas being set and that it r�as a form of censorship and
he said that it should be hanclled very carefully.
Ms. Schnabel said that her personal feelinbs tivere that if
City Council r�ould override rrhat the Sign Comr�ittee had
done� then she hoped that the Council v�ould take the
action to limit the number of signs allowed in the community.
Chairperson Aarris brou�ht up the subject that some
communities are drive-thru communities and others are
ti�rallz-thru communities and the iypes of signs and
advertising are dependent on that aspect also.
�LANNING COMMZSSIODi rt�PTING - SL'PTLT4BER 1 tf, 1977 Pat�e 18
Chai.rpercon Harris pointed out that when he talked to the
City Council it had been their feeling that the Ordmance
r�as too restrictive and that it ti�ras abolishing some things
that they felt shouldn't be abolished. He said that by
discussing the items again it could be said that it vras
the Commission�s consensus that it rras lvhat ti�ras rranted.
Mr. -0ouist said that he crould rather have something too
restrictive than too loose; tirhich tvas the current
ordinance's problems - too loose.
Chairperson Harris said that it had been the consensus
of the Planning Commission to leave item J under section
214.031 as it read.
Chairperson Harris said that �he attachment to the letter
from iVaegele Out@oor Advertising Company rtas totally
unacceptable.
Chairperson Harris commented on item C of section 21t�,032
SIGNS PLRt�fITTED IP� �'II.L DISTRICTS, He said that the
Fridley City Code had an ordinance regarding the display
and use of the American Flag� entitled, ��TfIE FLAG OR�I21^�ICE��,
There ivas much discussion re�arding the use of the U,S. Flag
as a means of advertising. In particular they discussed
kow City could contro2 Perkin�s use of the U.S. Flag.
Ms. Schnabel asked if there irould be a possibility af
limiting the size of the Flag to the si2e Of the bui7.ding.
rir. Boardman said that since there �rras no permit required to
display the U.S. Flag, it rrould be hard to contro3.
Chairperson Harris said that it could be vossible to
lirait the height of the rlag pole. Iie asked rir. Boardman
to determine ti�hat a good height for a flag vole rrould be.
The next item that rras discussed was Section 214.032, H,
5. Ris, Schnabel said that there should be an Item 5a and
and item 5b. 5a crould be Banners and Pennants commemorating
a special event not connected viith a business and must be
removed lvithin five days follocring the event; and 5b vrouid be
Banners or pennants for businesses i�rill be allo��ed for
grand openings of businesses only for a ten day ma�cimum
veriod.
PLANNIPiG COt�4ISSI0N ME�TING - SEPTT�[BER 11�z 1977 PaP,e 19
24s. Schnabel said that Section 211�.0l�2, B should actually
be sho��m under Section 211�.032 SIGNS P�Fd�IITTED IN ALL
DISTRICTS� H(Temporary Signs)� 2(Rea1 Estate Signs),
and should be listed as item c) Vacancy Signs: etc.
M�r. Boardman felt that there should be some type of
control on Vacancy Signs.
Ms. Schnabel said that vrhen a person had rental units,
there rtas more response to a sign on the rental unit than
any other type of advertising.
Ms. Schnabel felt that the Ma.Yimum three square feet in
area r�as sometimes not an adequate sign.
14r. Boardman felt that the large apartment complexes
didn't necessarily need any type of sign, since they
almost alrrays either had a vacancy or else they hac:
the rental offices ivhere a person could inauire as to
a vacancy or at least put tneir names on a rraiting list.
Mr. Boardman said that the sc�aller units that
have a rent�l office could utilize the three
sign to �n advantage, since it lvould be large
advertise that they had a vacancy.
did not
sauare foot
enough to
Mr. Boarcinan vointed out that many times in Section 21t�.0y.4,
21y..0y.5, and Section 214.Ot�6 ite� D. ':`7a11 Signs, should
read� ��D. '�Ja11 Si�n: 1. '�lall sign area shzll not exceed
15 tines the sauare root of the crall length on rrhich the
sign is to be placed�'.
Ms. Schnabel suggested that under Section 211�.Ot�S, B, 2,
the crord ��t�Iaximun" should be added so that the item rnould
read, ��2. pia,Yi�aum of eighty (80) square feet per development,��
Air. Boardman suggested that iten B, 1� under sections
214.0l�4, 214.045, and 21y..01�6 should read, "4. Mini�aurs
height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished
ground leveZ rrhen �vithin 25 feet of a drive�ray�'.
Pis. Schnabel said that Mr. Herrick questioned the item
A� 2 under Section 21y..05.
Mr. Boardman said that he liked the ti•rording of the item.
He said that since all the conditions placed on a sign
by the Zonin� Administrator tirere subject to appeal, he
felt that that r�ould be control enough.
rir. Boardnan explained that any person could aAneal.
any decision that mas made in the City of Fridley.
PLANfiIDTG COMMISSION t4E,�TING - SEPTF�fE�R 14, 1977 Pa�e 20
Ms. Shea left the Planning Commission meeting at 12:05 A.M.
due to illness.
Chairperson Harris said that a City Policy should be set
up regarcling the informing of people of their right of
regress.
Ms. Schnabel said that Section 2T4.05, ?�, 3, should be
rerrorded to, "3. Temporary signs erected by a non-profit
organization are not exempt from obtaining a bermit for
signs� but the City m,.,�,a* r�aive the fee requi.ement."
Ms. Schnabel suggested that some of the items in Section
214.05, A, 4 shou2d ha.ve been listed separately.
t�ir. Boardman said that in the retyping of the Ordinance
the different types of si�ns t�rould be listed separately.
Ms. Schnabel said that item E, Exemptions under
Section 21l�.05 should read, "The exemntions perraitted by
Section 21Q.05� :s, y., shall arooly only to the requixement
of a permit anc2/or fee� and shall not be constxued as
relieving the installer of the szgn, or the oirner of the
property on cvhich the sign is located, from conforming vrith
the other'provisions of this chapter. "
Mr. Boardman suggested that Section 21y..05, itet� F, 1,
should be revrorded to, "1. �very sign shall be maintained
in a safe condition at all times.��
Ms. Schnabel said that under Section 21t�,05, item F, 3
should be i�rritten in the Section 211�.06 ETvFORC�'•4L3dT
Ms. Schnabel said that Section 211�.05, G, Z� a, 1) should
read, ��1)The si�n is altered in any �•ray in structure or
copy (except for changeable copy and normal maintenance)
�rhich makes the sign less in compliance rrith the re�uirements
of this ordinance than it �;ras before the alterations; or
2) The sign is relocated; or 3) etc.f'
ris. Schnabel suggesteci that under Section 214.05, item G, 2,
A)? y), should be entirely left out. She said that it ti��as
non-constitutional.
PL{1NNING COD'{MISSION MFI'TIP1G - SEPTFMBER 14� 1977 Pa(�e 21
t4r. Eoardman suggested the erording of Section 211�.05,
item G� 2, a), 5, should be recrorded to, "If the sign
became 50"/o delapitated, it had to be removed or brought
totally into compliance. ' If a sign is brou�ht 50;o into
compliance, then it had to be brought into total compliance".
Chairoerson Harris Selt that the item tended to discourage
sign ic�provements.
Ms. Schnabel said that Section 211�.06, A� should be
changed to be, "A. The Zoning Ad�inistrator or agents shall
be responsible for the �enforcement of this chapter'�. She
said that the other items i•rould be lettered B, C� D, & E.
Ms. Schnabel said that under 2iotificat'on of Violation
of Code under Section 211F.06, the sixth line, the vrord
HE should not remain. Also the rrord HIS in item 2 under
Notification of Violation of Code should also be removed.
Mr. Boarciman said that Section 214,06, C, 2, should be
rerrorded to, "The Zoning Adninistrator vr agent may
cause any sign or other a�vertising structure t��hich is
an i�ediate public hazard to be removed sum�arily and
r�ithout noticei'.
Chairperson Harris said that the aavertising structure
that crould be removed ��rould be handled the sarie as
` junk cars. They srould be held in storage for X number -
of days and if not picked up in that ar.�ount of tine, it ti•rould
go into public auction.
MOTION by hir. Langenfeld, seconded by t.s. Schnabel, to
submit to City Council the Proposed Sign Ordinance ��rith
changes indicated. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye,
the motion carried un�ninously.
9. CONTINUED: PROPOS�� P4AINTT�'�PI:�NCE COD�:
t�fOTION by his. Schnabel, seconded by P�Ir. Langenfeld, to
continue the %4ai.ntenance Code. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye� the motion carried unanimously at 12:31 A,M,
10. CONTINU�D: PARIiS & OP�N SPACE PI,AN
Di0TI0N by tls. Schnabel, seconded by h4r. O�uist, to
continue the Paxi;s and Open Space Plan. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye� the raotion carried unanimously.
PLANNING CONIMISSION M�PTING - SEPTT�3�SBr^.R 14. 1977 Pa�e 22
11.
MaTIOPd by P4r. Langenfeld, seconded by P4s. Schnabel, to
receive the minutes of the Environmental Commission
meeting of l�ugust 16� 1977.
Mr, LangenfeZd 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. Langenfeld said that the subject of noise pol2ution
rras really interesting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimous2y.
12. REC�ZV.G: HUI'411PT Ra,SOURCES COP'P�IISSIOP? Ai2NLITES. OI�'
t40TI0N by 3•is. Schnabel, seconded. by Mr. I,angenfeld, to
receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting
of Septe�ber 1, tg77. Uvon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Schnabel said that since the Code of Ethics had been
adopted by the City Council, erouZd a form be deveZoped
that the members of the Commissions could fill out so as
to be sure a21 the information r�ould be provided.
Mr. Boardraan said that a forra �aas in the process of being
developed.
ADJOURNP4ENT:
pi0TI0N by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oauist, to
adjourn. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously and the meeting ��ras
adjourned at t2:t�6 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�� � r
P�iar�arhil
Recordino Secretary
�—.�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 20, 1977 _
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Schnabel called the September ZQ, �977�
Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:37 P.M.
Rt7LL CALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Kemper, 5chnabel, Gabel, Sarna
Plemel
Ron Holden, Building Inspector
APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 23, 1977
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve
the Appeals Comraission minutes of August 23, 1977, as
written.
Chairperson Schnabel indicated to the Commission that
the Variance Requests by Industrial Spray Painting Company
had gone before the Planning Commission, She said that
several neighbors had attended the meeting but there had
been no additional coraments, She indicated that the minutes
of the meeting had been received by the Planning Commission
and they would be sent along to the City Council,
DPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
1.
MOTION BY Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr, Barna, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened
at 7:40 P.M.
��
APPEALS COMMISSIoN MEETING - SF�'PTEMBER 20, 1977 Pa�e 2
� ;t� ADMTNISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLTC PURPOSE SFRVED BY REAUIRII�IENT;
1. Section 205.053, 4, (B,1) requiring a 10 foot
side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 Zone.
Public purpose served by this section of the code
is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living
areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet bet�veen
garage and living areas in adjacent structures to
reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. Also
to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas
around residential structures.
2. Section 205.�53, 4� (B,5�B) requiring a 25 foot
setback for a corner lot.
Public purpose served by this section of the
code is to reduce the traffic hazards presented
by an entrance too close to an intersection,
$. 5TATED HARDSHIP:
1. The family is converting the existing attached
garage into a living area which is novr �.5 feet
from the side property line.
2. The site for the nevr garage is to be on half of
the present concrete slab area �vith the back
half becoming a patio. This leaves the new
opening for the garage 20 feet from the corner
line.
C. A7k�lINISTR�TIVE STAFF REVIE'.J:
t. 7Lhe existin$ garage is 4.5 £eet from the property
line. Conversion of this area into a living area
would leave 11.75 feet between them and their
neighbors garage.
2. The intersection of 68th Street and Kennaston Drive
is an interior traffic crossing in a residential
area.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - S�TE�IBER 2d, 1977 Page 3
,.:
Mr. Berry indicated that he wanted to construct a detached �` `
garage at the rear of his home that would exit onto 68th Avenue.
He said that the existing garage, that �vas attached to the
house would be made into a family room. He explained that
a variance �aas needed because the family room ti��ould bring
the home livin� area closer to the property line. He
said that the other variance �vas needed to enable them to
construct the Karage and be able to leave space for a
patio at a future date.
Chairperson Schnabel asked about the cement slab that rras
shovm on a picture that the Conmission had of the property.
Mr. Berry said that all the presently existing cement slab
would be removed.
Mr. Holden suggested that the Commission study the survey.
He said that it would make it easier to understand exactly
<<rhat the Berry's vaere planning.
Mr. Holden asked exactly hovr large the garage ivould be.
Mr. Berry said it r�ould be 24� x 24�,
Chairperson Schnabel asked if rir, Berry had communicated
rrith the neighbors to the L7est.
Mr. Berry said that he had talked to the neighbors and that
they had no objections.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if there was presently a drive-
way exiting onto Kennaston Drive.
Mr. Berry said that there �vas nresently a driverray, but
that it e�ould be removed entirely once the construction
was completed.
Ms. Gabel asked if Mr, Berry rras planning any onening on
the South side of the proposed family room.
Mr. Berry said there v�ould be no openings on the South side,
He said that the existing South vrindow �rould be removed.
Chairperson Schnabel asked that in terms of building the
netiv garage and making the existing garage into a family
room� rrhat hardships might have existed.
Mr. Berry said that presently he only had a single car
garage. He said that they ormed ttivo cars and he v�anted
more storage space. He said thai the family really needed
more garage/storage space than they needed the extra
living space.
�� .
,
APP�ALS COMMISSION MEETING - SEPT13�iBER 20, 1977 Pa�e 4
«.:-. i 2l7 � � .
- Mr. Barna wanted to know how wide the prop�d family
room tivould be.
Mr. Berry said that it would be 11� feet vride.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if Staff felt that there
would be any problems e�ith the garage being sethack in
terms of line-of-sight.
Mr. Holden indicated that there was a substantial
boulevzrd in the area and that there shouldn�t be any
problems tivith the line-of-sight.
Chairperson Schnabel asked t�hen Mr. Berry planaed
to start construction,
Mr. $erry said that they planned to start the
garage as soon as possible. Fie said that very likely
they wouldn't start on the Family Room until Spring.
Mr. Barna asked if there u�ould be an exterior entrance
to the family room.
rir. Berry said that there i�rould be an exterior
entrance to the faraiZy room at the rear of the house. He
said that the existing garage door facing Kenr.aston Drive
�vould be eliminated,
Mr. Barna pointed out that as soon as the garage rtas
completed� the existing drivevra}r vJOUld have to be removed.
Mr. Berry rJas in agreement.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was
closed at 7:55 P.ri. '
Ms. Gabel said that since there vould still be
11.75 feet bet<<reen the living areas, she could see no
problem.
There r•�as some discussion regarding the exact distances -
the structures �vere from the property lines, tir. Holden
said that he didn�t have the exact distances. He said that
they did have the exact distance bet��reen the structures�
from taall to 1�ra11� and that tvas 11,75 feet.
MOTIC�N by Mr. Kemner, seconded by PIs. Gabel, that the
Appeals Comr�ission ap�rove the reauest for variances to the
Fridley City Code as follo<<rs: Section 205.053, B, 1, to .
reduce the reauied ten foot side yard setback for living
areas to t�.5 feet, and sectian 205.�53e 4, B i5b) to reduce
the required 25 foot side yard setback for any attached or
unattached accessory building �vhich opens on side street
to 20 feet, to allo��r the construction of a house and garage
locateci on Lot ], Block 3, Meadoi•r2ands second addition the
same bein� 6750 Kennaston Drive N.�., Fridley, Minneso�a.
APPEALS COMMISSIOPI biEE'fIPIG - SEPTII�IBER 20, 1977 Pa�e 5
UPON A VOIC� VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Chairperson 5chnabel indicated that Mr. Berry could
apply for his Building Permit.
2.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to ooen the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing
tiras opened at 8:01 P,M,
ADMINISTRATIV�' STkFF ?Lti'PORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSL S�,R`T'D BY RF�UIR�d�."NT:
Section 205.053, !� (B, 5, B) reouiring a 25
minimum side yard setbzck for ariy attached
accessory building r�hich opens on the side
corner lot.
�
foot
or unattached
street of a
Public purpose served by this section of the code is
to allorr for off-street parking ti��ithout encroaching
on the public right-of-vray. Also the aesthetic
consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the building
line of site encroachment into the neighbor's front yard.
STATLD HARDSHIP:
None given.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVI;47:
If the garage entrance rrould be off of North Danube Road
instead of 17est Danube Road then the setback requirement
would be met under Section 205.053, �. (B, 5, A).
Honrever, the better locztion for the entrance from a
traffic safety standpoint is off of �'Jest Danube Road.
It is further a�ray from the corner and has a 15 foot
boulevard making the building 33 feet away from the
curb.
6
� �..
��
APPEALS COMt4TSSI0N MFETING - S�PTFMBPR 20, 1 77 Pa�e 6
, Mr. Holden explained that originally the plans were
�.�,...• .�or the garage entrance to be on ATorth Danube Road, He
said that no variance rrould have been requixed. idr. Holden
said that the suggestion had been made to move the garage
entrance to be off of iVest Danube Road both for a safety
factor and that it cJOUld be more aesthetically pleasing
not to have the garage entrance located at the front of
, the house.
Chairperson Schnabel questioned all the utility
easements that ti��ere required on the lot in question.
Mr. Ficek of i393 16th Ave N17 indicated that most
of the easements vrere for drainage.
Mr. Barna said that the entire area in question was
swampy land. '
The Commission discussed the plans that Mr. Ficek had
of the house he proposed to construct. They also discussed
the land types that vrere in the area.
Mr. Kemper asked tvhat the square footage of the house
vtould be.
Mr, Ficek indicated that there tivould be 2,400 square feet
compl.eted plus the basement.
Chairperson Schnabel•asked if Mr, Ficek had a buyer
for the hnuse.
Mr. Ficek said that there vaas a buyer for the proposed
house.
MOTION by Mr. Kemper, seconded by r1r. Barna, to close
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing vras
closed at 8:12 P.M,
Chairperson Schnabel said that in vieiv of the amount
of easements that �a�ere reauired, it ti�ould be difficult
to place a house any other ivay on the lot and to come
v�ithin the variances.
Mr. Kemper said that the plan to have the garage
entrance off of iJest Danube vras really a much safer plan.
APP�AI,S COMT4ISSIOPI MFPTING - SEPTEMBER 20, �77 Pa�e 7
MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the '
Appeals Commission grant the request for variance of ��
Section 205.053, 4, Bi5b), Fridley City Code, to reduce •
the required 2j faot minimum side yard setback for any
attached or unattached accessory building v�hich opens on
the side street of a corner lot to 18 feet, to allocr the
construction of a house and attached garage on Lot 7,
Block 2� Innsbruck Pdorth Addition, the same being
1424 North Danube Road N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. Unon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3.
MOTION by Mr, Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the
Public Hearin�. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was
opened at 8:16 P,2•f,
ADP4INISTRATIVE STAFF R�F'PO?2T
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERV�D BY R��UIRE��III�1T:
1. Section 205.054, 2 requiring a minimum of 1020
square feet of living area in a house on a lot in
excess of 9,000 square feet.
Public purpose served is to provide for adequate
house size and living area in residential buildings.
2. 5ection 205.055, 2, A requiring a single stall
garage for all lots having a minimum area of
9s000 squre feet.
Public purpose served is to provide adequate
off-street parking area and storage during
inclement r�eather as crell as to house goods and
materials tivhich 1°�ould otherti��ise cause visual
pollution.
�o
��
APPEALS COMMISSIOPT MFETING - SEPTEMB�R 20, 1977 Pa�e 8__
�w
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
1. A 912 84uare foot home is the largest house size
that the family can qualify for financing.
2, At this time the family cannot afford to build
a garage.
C. �1DhiINISTRATIV� STAFF REVIy,Y:
1. The area_•has houses of similar size.
Ms. Gabel asked if this request was under the riFHA financing
plan.
Mr. Tim Munn of t�722 42nd Avenue North, indicated that
it ��aas for a house to be constructed and the loan v�ould be
a Conventional Loan. It lvas not under any special
government assisied financing plan.
Mr. Tim Munn indicated that he vJOUld be selling the
�ot to Dr. & Mrs. B. �ussell Eby
Nlrs. Eby said that the house �JOUld be a pre-fab�ause
that rtas being purchased through .Zaeston HoMes
that the house �ras the only one they qualified for. She
said that if they had to go to a larger plan, it vrould be
an additional $5,000 and they vaould not qualify for the
7,oan. She also said that, at that time, they could not
afford to add on the cost of a garage, She said that they
definitely ���ould be building a garage at a later date.
She said that it v�ould be a detached garage, built to the
rear of the house.
In anstiver to a question from Chairperson Schnabel,
Mr. Holden said that the lot in question �rias an R-1 Iot.
Mr. Holden indicated to the Commission and to
Dr. & AIrs. Lby that a Staff error had taken place. He
sai.d that r�hen the request hzd been received in City Hall,
it had been erroneously overlooked that the lot rtas a
corner lot, He said that because of that fact� they would
have to maintain a 17.5 foot side yard setback, in addition
to the 10 foot common side yard setback. He explained
that because they proposed to huild a 24 foot cride house
and their lot was 50 feet �ride, they crould need to apply
for another variance of 1.5 feet. He told them that they
�vould have to again appear before the Appeals Commission.
It �mas apparent that this r�as going to cause problems. ,
APPEALS COMMISaION MPT'TIPIG - SEPT3�IB�R 20� 1977 Pap�e 9
Mrs. Eby indicated that they had a delivery date to a�l
meet. She said that if they didn't agree to that
certain date, the Company tivould not guarantee the price
that Dr. & hSrs. �by had agreed to pay. She explained that
the price of the homes had gone up on.July l, 1977, and
they had signed the contract at the lovrer price dependent
on a delivery date before October 1, 1977.
rlrs. Eby rJent on to exvlain that because the builder
had been sloc� getting the plans to the bank, they
had only verbally agreed to give the !?.by's a couple additional
r�eeks, but t•irs. �by said that they did not have that
agreement in rrriting.
Chairperson Schnabel explained that the property
oi7ners in the area rrould have to be notified regarding
the 1.5 foot variance reauest. 5he asked Nirs. Eby �vhen
they irould have to take delivery.
Mrs. �by s�id that the only date they had ti�ras
��end of September". She aa9.d that the Company had been
&lot7 delivering the plans to the bank to �et the mortgage
through and that they had only been told verhally tnat
they vaould be alloc•red a couple extra vreeks.
Ms. Gabel said that the Eby�s could lose their
financing if the price of the nouse �rould go uro.
There tivas some discussion at the time regarding
the plans for A4eyers Street.and Hillcrest. It �^�as
basically decided that there rrere no immediate plans
for the developing of either street.
T'ir. Holden explained that the City v�as bound by the
ten-day notificati.on to the surrounding neighbors,
He sai.d that to make it valid any other ���ay r�ould be to
have trritten responses frora each property ovmer that
they Frould have no objections.
Mr. Munn said that the only discussion he had ever
heard �ras some neighbors concern regardino a garage, He
said that as long as the Eby's agreed to add the garage
in the near future, he felt there �aouldn't be any problems.
After nuch discussion regarding the fact that the
problem i�;as because of a Staff error and Chairperson
Schnabel didn�t eaant to jeopardize the �hy's from
qualifying for the loan, thereby not being able to purchase
a liome, it t:as decided that the �ppeals Commission t•rould
act on all three variance requests and in the interim
Staff �rould assist the petitioner in recont�.cting a11 the
property or,mers that cJOUld be concerned and the item tivould
be put on the agenda for City Council on October 3� 1977.
APPFALS COMMISSIOid ME�TING - SFPTII�4BrR 20. 19p7 Par�e 10
�� Chairperson Schnabel read a note into the minutes
��• from Mrs, Lby explaining that they �vould like the variances
fOr that particular house to be constructed because at
that time they could not financially handle a larger
mortgage. She exrolained in the note that Mr. Eby vras
3n his second year of residency to be a doctor and that
once his residency vtas completed they ���ould be in a
better financial situation and vrould be constructing a
garage.
Chairperson Schnabel explained that the Appeals
Commission e�as limited as to being able to make last
minute judgements and that i�ras ��lhy they decided to handle
the re�auest by having the City Council consider the
reouest. She said that normally the Appeals Commission
could have acted on the item erithout the request going
onto the City Council.
r4r. Holden exnlained that if everyone that had
to be renotified agreed in vrriting that they lvould have
no objections to the third variance reauest, then as
soon as the City received their agreements� the req_uest
would not have to go to City Council and tne building
permit �rould be issued im�nediately. I�o�rever, he said
that if there rrould be some objection or alI the people
couldn't be contacted, then the item t�rould appear before
the City Council.
Mr. Holden said that he 1+ouid give the petitioners
a list of the names of the people that �vould have to be
contacted and exactly t�rhat t�ould have to be agreed upon.
hfOTION by h•fs. Gabel, seconded by P�Ir. Barna, to close
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unaninously, The Pv.blic Hearing vras
closed at 8:54 P.T•1.
Ms. Gabel said that since it e•ras in Fridley's plans
to encourage Iower housing costs and that tke �by�s do
intend to add a garage once their income increased, she
didn't crant to see them heZd back from having their home
notr.
Mr. Holden said that because of the lot sizes in the
area� the house rrould aesthetically fit into the area.
rir. Barna saic2 that he irould have no objections,
He said that it vaould be difficult to construct a house
ti*rith over 1,000 square feet on the 50 foot lot. He
pointed out to the people that East River Road eras a very
trave3ed road and that thexe cias much traffic problems
on the Road.
lIPPEALS CO}�iISSION M�^TIPdG - ST'PT13�iBER 20, 1977 Pa�e 11
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper; that the
Appeals Commission approve the request for variances to the
Fridley City Code as £olloti�s: Section 205.054, 2, to reduce
the required minimum square footage for a house from 1,020
square feet to 912 square feet; and Section 205.055,2,A to
rraive the sin�le stall garage re�uiement for lots v�ith a
minimum area o£ g,000 soure feet; and Section 205.053�
4b� 5a, to reduce the required 17,5 foot side yard setback
to 16 feet, to allorr the construction of a house r�ithout a
garage� on Lot 16, Block 1, Hillcrest Addition, the same
being 7165 Last River Road 21,�, � I'ridley hSinnesota, ��rith
the stipulation that the petitioner notify the listed persons
that are reauired to be notified of the third variance; and
if they receive rrritten consent from the narties concerned,
they ��:ould be allovled to build. Otherrrise, the petitioner
r�ould have to appear before the City Council on
October 3, 1977.
Chairperson Schnabel indicated that the reason for
the above motion �:ras because of a Staff error in not
recognizing that there rfould be a corner lot side yard
set back that r�ould require a 1,5 foot variance, She said
that the Appeals Commission felt that since it had been
a Staff oversight, they did not �rant to put any undue
financial hardship on the netitioner rrho had to meet a
deadline for the nurchase of the house in order to avoid
a substantial increase in the price of the house,
UPON A VOICE VOT�,� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Chairgerson Schnabel told Dr.
contact vrith Nfr. Holden and that he
rshat they rrould have to do,
G.
v
a�.i��� i•nL��L::,:� i•ili��_v�:,,�vi:�. \n
ac son ree .L., Fri
& Mrs. F,by to get in
t7ould explain exactly
F�
uest ny �l'imm v Lovaas,
ey, Piinnesota 5543Z).
MOTION by Mr, Kemper, seconded by A4r. Barna, to open the
public hearing. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearino rras
opened at 9:1Z P.rI.
��
J�
APPEltLS COMMISSIOPT MEETING — SEPTF�NIB�:R 20, 197� Pa�e 12
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
6631 Jackson Street NE
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED QY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4, B, 5, B requiring a corner lot side yard setback
of at least 25 feet for any attached or unattached accessory building
which opens on the side street.
Public purpose served is toa1lowfor off-street parking without
encroaching on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consideration
of the neighborhood to reduce the building line of site encroachment into
tfie neigh6or's �ront yard: � '' �
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
Converting present garage into living area and adding a 23 foot by 32 foot
garage to the present house on the north.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The side yard curves around providing a property line to proposed building
addition distance of 15 feet to 22.5 feet.
Mr. Lovaas explained that there rras a curved street
involVed and that vras rihy different distances ti�;ere listed,.
He said he �vanted to build a 23' x 32' gara_ge, fi e said that
he �vould convert the existing garage into living area,
Mr. Lovaas indicated that they tvould like to leave the
presently existing driveeray in. He said that they would
totally eliminate the existing garage door iahen they made
the area into living space, but that they erould like to
use the drive�vay as extra parking space,
Chairperson Schnabel said that there vras a. City
Ordinance that ivould not aZloi�� that request. She said
that they eaould have to apply for a separate permit to
leave the drive vray.
Mr. Holden said that it ���ould be difficult to get the
permit since he tvas already adding a 2 stall garage onto
the house.
.� �
APPEALS COMt4ISSI02d MEETTNG - S�PTF'ESIlER 20, 1977 Pa�e 13
Mr. Kemper asked why they were building such a large " �
��'age.
Mr. I,ovaas said that they had ttivo cars and plan to buy
a boat that they rrould like to be able to store inside.
Mr. Kemper asked if Mr. Lovaas had the plans for the
garage.
Mr. Lovaas said that he didn't have plans as yet. He
said that it would be a constructed garage and not a pre-fab.
Chairperson Schnabel asked about the roof line,
Mr. Lovaas explained hor� the roof line tivould be and
that it r�ould be the same style that was presently on the
house. He also said that the exterior of the house and the
�arage ti��ould be the same.
Chairperson Schnabel said that a fire �vall and fire
door tivould be requirements bet�reen the living area and the
garage.
Chairperson Schnabel asked vrhy a garage door opener
had been suggested,
Mr. Holden said that since the garage v�ould be less
than the 35 foot setback, it rrould enable the petitioner
to get into the garage faster and out of any line of sight
since the house raas located on a corner lot. He pointed
out that it had just heen a suggestion.
Chairperson Schnabel asked �;rhat size garage door
Mr. Lovaas planned to have installed,
Mr. Lovaas said that there �rould be ane single and
one double garage door.
Mr. Kemper said that at the closest point, the garage
tivould be 26 feet from the street. He asked hotiv big the
boulevard �9as.
Mr. Holden said that it �vas approximately 11 feet,
MOTION by t4r. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to close
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing �vas
closed at 9:28 P.M,
Mr. Kemper said that from a safety standooint� he
could see no problem. He thought that it was a very
imposin� garage since it �vas almost as big as the house.
APPEALS COMMISSION MFETING - SPPTP�NIBtsR 20, 1977 Pat�e 1!{
E•.--� �� Chairperson SchnabeZ said that if the neighbors to the
North had had living area facing the proposed gara�e, there
could have been some problems, Hol�rever, she said that since
there c�as no correspondence from the neighbors she could see
no problems.
MOTION by A4r, Ke�per, seconded by Mr. Barna., that the
Appeals Commission approve the reauest for variance of
Section 205.o53v 4, � i5.b) Fridley City Code, to reduce
the side yard setback on a corner lot from 25 £eet to
distances from 15 feet to 22,5 feet� to allo�.i the construction
o£ an addition to a house located on Lot 1, Block i,
Meadorrlands Second Addition� the same bein� 663t Jackson
Street id.E.� Fridley, hiinnesota. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairberson Schnabel said that t�ir.
to apply for his building permit. She
the existing drive��ray vrould have to be
construction vras completed.
5.
Lovaas tvas free
reminded him that
removed once
MOTIOAT by P4r, Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, �11 voting aye, ihe
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearino was
opened at 9:33 P.I'�.
(P10TE: Ms. Gabel left the meeting at 9:30 P.t�4.)
ADMINISTIL'�TIV�' STAFF R�0�2T
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVFD BY R�nUIREM:r�TtTS:
Section 205.053� 4, A� requiring a front yard setback
of 35 feet,
Public Purnose served is to allow for off-street
parking i��ithout encroaching on the nublic right-of-
way. 11so for aesthetic consideration to reduce the
��building line of sight" encroachment into the
neighbors front yard.
APPEALS COMMISSION ML�TING - SEPT�IB�R 20, 1977 Pa�e 15
�, , a�'�
�
C.
STATED HARDSHIP:
Vlants to save two extremely large trees vrhich also
keep a steep bank from washing down on the property.
ATR+(INISTRATIV� STAFF R3VIE�7:
Removal of the trees might pose a potential hazardous
situation because of the steep slope behind them.
The proposed garage vrould be 25 feet from the front
property line and the trees rrould be saved.
Mr. tdaloy said that he rranted the variance in order to
protect the tti�ro trees and also if the house r�ould have
to be built further back on the lot, he rfould have to
go into extensive landscaping that �vould require terracing
almost the entire hillside,
Mr. Holden explained that most of the houses on the
east side of the hi11 had been pulled for�vard on the lots
because of the grading of the lots.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if the house r�as being
built on a speculation.
rlr. t4aloy said that he <<rould be building the home
foT himself. He said that it rras not speculation,
He said that he presently lived in Coon Rapids� but 4•ranted
to move because of their tax rates.
Mr. Holden said that the entire block had a lot of
trees and that it really looked nice. He said that there
v�ould be no problems with traffic visibility.
Chairperson Schnabel commented on a note that hac2
been e�ritten on the Commission �pplication Revier�,
"After revie�rin� trees and proposed garage location and
anticinated elevations, it appears there might be extensive
root damage during excavation and c�ith the existing �ro�vth
slant and condition of the trees, it might pose a potential
hazardous situation. Suggest that the Piaturalists Department
do a revier� and confirm."
Mr, t•Saloy comnented on the statement. He said that
rather than digging, he rrould be using land fill. He felt
that, if the reQUest raere granted, the construction rrould
be for�°rard enough to avoid going near the trees.
Chairperson Schnabel said that it vrould be best not
to t�per raith the trees at all.
Mr. rialoy said that the main reason for requesting
the variance tras to enable him to save the trees. FIe said
that he ���ould do all he could to avoid tampering v�ith the
trees.
APP�ALS COMf�IISSIOPt ML;PTING - SPPTF,NIBF.R 20, 1977 Pa�e 16
'��,$ Tir. Holden said that it vJOUld be possible to p�t some
fi11 around the trees. He only reminded Mr. Maloy that he
had been made avrare of the problem.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, to close
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed
at g:46 P.t�,
Mr, Barna said that the house and garage �aould be
further back on the lot than most of the houses in the
area even if the variance r�ould be granted,
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kemper, that
the �Lppeals Commission approve the request for variance of
Section 205.053, t�� 4� Fridley City Code, to reduce the
reauired front yard setback of 35 feet to 25 feet� to allo���
the construction of a garage, located on Lots 22, 23, 2y
and 25, Block K, Riverviet� Heights, the same being
8051 Broad Iivenue �I.y., rridley, PQinnesota. Upon a voice
vote� all votin� aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel said th�t the variance reauest
had been approved and that i1r. I�4aloy rras free to zpply
for a building permit.
6. R��U�ST FOR Vl1RI1Ln:'Cy OF S �CTION 205,103� t�� l� FRIDLEY
CIP't C �, T(, ;,� *_� �� , t:.�� r�� rt�!, _ L
Idi!_,S0'.�.i. (Renuest by Rcaney Br�nnon,
nnsbruck Parkiaay, Columbia xeignts, rirJ 5542� ).
MOTIORT by Mr. Barna, seconded by P•ir. Kemper� to open the
Public Hezring. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The PubZic Hearing rras opened
at g:49 P.Pi.
AlR1INISTRATIVy' STAFF RLPORT
A. PUBLIC PUR°OST' SERVT'D BY R^1UIR�icNT:
5ection ?05.103, y., A reauiring a 35 foot minimum
front y�rd setback in a C-2 Zone.
Public Purpose served by this section of the code is
to provide desired front yar� space to be used for
green areas or access and add to the attractability
of a commercial zone.
APP�ALS COMt°tISSION MTPTIPIG - SEPTT�IB�R 20. 1977 Page 17
�
�
C.
ST!!TED HARDSHIP:
Extreme financial hardship.
ADt4INISTRaTIVE STAFr REVI_�17:
The petiioner iaishes to reduce the front yard setback
from 35 feet to 27,5 * feet. Since there tri].1 be no
parking in the £ront yard, the staff has no objections
to this request.
Chairperson Schnabel said that there had been a typing error
and that actually the request ��as for a variance of
Section 205,103, 4, A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the
required 35 foot front yard setback to 26„�feet...
Ms. Brannon said that they had talked to all the
adjacent land o��mers and they had no objections to the
request. She said that by moving the building forevard, they
would be increasing the rear yard thereby getting further
away from the hillside.
Air. Brannon explained that they vrere talking about
an approximate �250,000 investment and that at thzt point
they v�ould definitely e�ant the eight bays.
Mr. Brannon explained that there ���ould be eight
15 foot bays and a 1�. foot utility room. Ee said that
that �vould result in a 134 foot building.
Mr. Kemper said that since a 15 foot rear yard had
already been agproved, he could see no problem Mith the
request to incre ase the rear yard more.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the front yard rrould
be conpletely landscaped and that there ��rould be no
parking allo�led.
The Brannon�s agreed taith her statement.
Nir. Brannon informed Chairperson Schnabel that the
internal improvements (that she had been concerned about)
would be done by this fall.
Chairperson Schnabel mas most pleased to hear that netivs.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if there �rould be any
encroachment agreement betti�een the Brannon�s and Target since
the drive��ray r�euld be partial.ly on the Brannon�s property
and partially on Target�s property.
APPPALS COMMISSION rtrPPING - SFPTEMB�R 20, 1977 Pat�e 18
'�� Ms. Brannon said that the encroachment agreement e�ould
_„ be part of their contract for the propertyy She said it
would be included in the purchase agreement.
Mr. Kemper asked if the venture ��rould be a full-time
thing for t4r. Brannon.
Mr. Brannon said that there i^rould be a full-time
maintenance person at a1Z times. He said the business
�vould operate from 6:o0 11�Pi, until 1 1; 00 P,I�4,
Ms. Brannon said that the business rrould be ocmed
and run by their family. She said that this rras the
first business venture for the farnily and that it ti��as
indeed a great learning experience.
M�TIOPT by i•4r. Kemper� seconded by P4r. Barna, to close
the Public fTearing. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing !aas closed
at 10:07 P,t�i,
Chairperson Schnabel said that a new notice �rith the
correction rrould have to be sent to the adjacent property
o�rners.
MOTIOPT by P1r. Ker�per� seconded by P�Ir. Barna, that the
�lppeals Co�raission approve the req_uest for variance of
Section 205.103, 4, A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the
required 35 foot front yard setback to 26.5 feet, to allo•rr
the construction of a carlrash, to be located on Lot 2,
Block 1� Targe Addition� the same being 775 53rd tAvenue .T.E.,
Fridley� t:innesota. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairroerson Schnabel indicated that the item ivould go
to the Planning Commission on September 28, 1977� and then
on to City Council.
T�1r. Brannon said that they ��ere on the agenda for
City Council on September 26, 1977.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the particular item
that had just been handled �.vould not get to City Council
that quickly� She said the minutes of the meeting r�ould
first have to be received by the Planning Comc�ission e:hich
rrould not meet until September 28} 1977, and then go to
City Council after that date.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - SI�PTP�fAER 20, 1977 Pa�e 19
Ms. Brannon asked if a partial permit could be granted �c�:
so that they could �et the blacktopping project started.
She indicated that they needed to get that project completed
before Pdovember 1� 19��, or else they rrould have to �nait
until Spring and that rrould not be economically desirable.
Chairperson Schnabel suggested that the Brznnon�s
call City Hall to confirm that they �rere on the Agenda
for the September 26, 1g77� City Council meeting and to
find out e�hich items r�ould be discussed.
rir. Holden said that if the City Council tJOUld hear
the Special Use Permit request on Monday� Sentember 26� 1977�
and approve it in some rray rather than to table it, then
City Hall vrould be able to alloi� excavation to begin.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the �revious t�ao items
could be on the Septerr�ber 26th City Council 9genda. She
told the Brannon's to inform the nerson they ta.lk to that
there had been another variance request that tne :�ppeals
Comnission haa recommended approva7. on and find out ,•rhat
could possibly be ��rorked out.
Chairperson Schna.bel encouraged the Brannon�s to be
sure to contact the City r?anager's office and exalain
the rrhole situation to them.
9DJOURTT1�1dT
rfOTIO�T by h1r, T3arna� seconded by p�ir, Ker�per, to
adjourn the September 20, 1977, �v�eals Commission neeting,
Upon a voice vote, all voting z,ye, the motion carried
unaninously. The meeting r�as adjourned at 10;17 P.f�i,
Respectfully submitted,
��� ���
PiaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
.