PL 05/07/1986 - 30649CITY OF FRIDLEY
�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 7, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
yice-Chairperson Oquist called the �ay 7, 1986, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:35 p.m. '
ROLL �ALL:
Mem6ers Present: LeRo� Oquist; Dane Kondrick, Dean Sa6a, Sue Sherek,
Donald Betzo7d
Mero6ers A6sent: Pat Ga6e1, Wayne l�le7lan
Others Present: �im RoGinson,-.planning Coordinator
JocfcRobertson, Community Development Darector
Terry�Barrett, 1463 w�ndemere Circle�W.
�,lenn & Gayle Ahlgren, 6562 Anoka St. N.E.
Ray Janey, 6595 Anoka Street N.E.
L. l�, KoFwnek, 25335 Nussan Parkway
APPR011AC OF ApRIC 9., 1986, PLANNING COMMISSION�MINl1TES:
MOTION BY 1�7R. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROITE THE APRIL 9� .I986,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUi'ES AS ftlRITTEN.
UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTIN� AYE, iTlCE-CHAIRPERSOPI OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONSIDERATION 0� A LO7 SpLIT REQU�ST, L.S. �86-04, BY TERRY BARRETT:
Split off the northerly 23 feet of Lot 5, Block 4, Oak Grove Addition and
ddd to Lot 4, Block 4, Oa(c Grove Addition to create a separate 63 foot lot.
The southerly 17 feet of Lot 5, Block 4, Oak Grove Addition will remain
�[ith lots 6 and 7, Blocfc 4, Oak Grove Addition to create a separate 97 foot
lot, the same being 6562 Anoka Street N.E.
P1r. Robinson stated the property was located north of Mississippi St, an
Anoka St. and consisted of four 40 ft. lots. The petitioner was requesting
to split off the northerly 63 ft. of the property in order to make a location
for a�iouse which he is planning to move from New Brighton. The existing
_[w�se at fi265 Anofca St, overlaps onto Lot 5 6y 7 ft. With the required 10 ft.
sideyard setbac[c plus tfie 7 ft., tFie one 1ot becomes 97 ft., leaving a balance
of �3 ft. for the new lot. City code requires 75 ft. width for all new lots
in Fridley and 9,000 sq. ft, in lot area. The proposed lot was 8,127 sq, ft.
I�r. Ro6inson stated most of tFie lo�ts zn tFie neigFib�rhood are 80 ft. in width
or greater. He stated that if this request was approved, Staff would
recoTmnend the following stipulations:
.�
�
PLANNING COMP�ISSION��EETING; MAY 7; 1986 PAGE 2
1. Park fee of $750 to be paid prior to issuance of building permit and
moving permits.
2. A ne� doufile garage compati6le with house facade to be constructed and
a_F�rd surface driveway to fie installed to the new garage prior to
1�svance of 6u'tlding and moving permits for the house.
3� Lot split to fie recorded at Anoka County prior to issuance of building
and moving perrax�s. ..
4. Nariances for lot areas from 9,Qa0 sq, ft, to 8,127 sq, ft, and lot
width from 75 ft, to 63 ft, to 6E approved with lot split.
Mr. Ro�inson stated tFie ov�ners of tEie property, l�r. &�Irs. AF�lgren, and the
petitioner, P�Ir. Barrett, were in tFie audience.
(�s. Sherek stated that regarding stipulation #2, she would be concerned about
�e. petiti.oner installing a hard�surface driveway and then moving the house
�hic�i ►�ould proba67y firea� up tFie driveway.
M�!. Oquist stated there would 6e a profilem RritFi 6ackfilling if tFie driveway
was already in place.
N1r. Ro6inson stated an alternative could 6e to hane tfie petitioner post a
performance bond for tfie completion of the drive�ay after the house was in
place.
i"� The petitioner, NJr. Barrett, stated �ie had no pro6lem with the stipulations.
He stated the house would fie compatifi]e with the houses in the area. It was
a 12Q0 sq. ft., 2 fiedroom ram�7er, 6uilt in 1956.
Mr. Ray Janey, 6595 Anoka St., stated Fie lived just across the street, and he
w�as jus�t interested in what tFie Fiouse loofced li'ke and the conditi:on of the
house.
M�. $o6inson stated the City has inspected the house, and it was in reasonably
good shape, kle showed Mr. Janey a rea7 estate picture of the house. He
stated tfie 6_ouse was presently located at 1560 29th Ave. N.IJ. He encouraged
I�r. Janey to 7ook at the Fiouse and if he had any..further comments, he could
voice them at the City Council meeting on l�ay 19.
f9r. Kondric[c stated tElat since there seemed to be adequate square footage,
the house was coropati6le..with the neigh6orhood, and no neigh6ors were objecting
to the lot split request, he would be in favor of approving it.
1�?O�Z'ION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROSIAL.OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #86-04, BY TERRY BARRETT, TO 5PLIT OFF
THE 1VOR27iERLY 2 3 FEET OF LOT 5� BLOCK 4, OAK GROVE ADDITION AND ADD TO LOT 4,
BLOCK 4� OAK GROVE ADDITI�N TD CREATE A SEPARATE 63 FOOT LOT. THE 30UTHERLY
17 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 4, OAK GROVE ADDITION WILL REMAIN WITH LOTS 6 AND 7,
BLOCK 4, OAK GROVE ADDITION TO CREATE A SEPARATE 97 FOOT LOT, THE SAME BEING
6562 ANOKA STREET N.E,, WITH THE FOLLOWIN� STIPULATIOIVS:
/� -
�--�
PLANNING COP'�1ISSION h9EETING, MAY 7, 1986 PAGE 3
1• PARK FEE OF $7SO TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMIT AND MOI7ING PERMITS.
2. A NEW DODBLE GARAGE COMPATIBLE WITH i�0U5E FACADE TO BE
CON�TRUCTED AND THAT THE PETITIONER POST A.PERFORMANCE BOND
FOR THE COMPLETIOIU OF THE DRIVEWAY AFTER THE HOUSE WA5 I1V
PLACE.
3. LOT SPLIT TO BE RECORDED AT ANpKA COIINTY PRrOR TO ISSUANCE
OF BUILDIN� AND MOT7ING PE�7ITS� •
4. iIARI�1 NCES FOR LO�+:- AREAS FRDM 9� OOQ- •�Q . ET . TO 8,12 7 SQ. FT .
AAiD LOT WIDTH FROM 75 FT. TO 63 FT. TO BE APPROVED WITH
LOT SpL.Zfi.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VTCE-CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED TFiE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
N9r. Oquist stated this item would go to City Council on May 19.
2. CONSIDERATION O��A���ACATION REQl1EST, SA11 #86=01, BY CESCIE KOHANEK OF
.� i S, 1��.:
Vacate an easement for drainage and utility purposes over that part of
the west half of the vacated �umwood Street lying 6etween Block 5 and 6,
Onaway and bounded on tFte north 6y tFie �testerly extension of the north line
of B1oc[c 6, Onar�ay and 6nunded on tfie-soath 6y the westerly extension of the
soutfi line of � Block 6, Onaway, the same 6eing 55 - 77th Way N.E.
��
Mr. Ro�inson stated t�is property was located on Gumwood St, between 77th
and 78th, just east of tfi_e railroad tracks. TFie property was zoned M�2,
heavy industrial, and was consistent witFi tfie otFier properties in the area.
TFe proposal was to vacate the utility and drainage easements which remain
over tfie western Fialf of the vacated Gumwood St. All the 'ra�d r°�ght-of-�vays
. have 6een vacated in subsequent vacation proceedings. The reason for
the vacation was hecause the petitioner was proposing to construct a warehouse/
manufacturing type fiuilding to the south of the existing building which would
encroach into tfie easeinent and up to the property line.
(Nr. Robinson stated the utility companies have 6een contacted. (There is a
gas ]ine and an electrical-]ine.� l�innegasco has indicated that the gas line
is strictly a private line, and tfiey have no interest in maintaining an
easement. NSP fw s a line, 6ut they are willing to work with the petit�oner
�1�� a private ease�nent� a'nd _th�y �wi'l l be doi ng some rel-o�cati 6n �of �tha_t 1 i ne .
Mr. Robinson stated there u�as a variance associated with this project which
would go to the May 13th Appeals Corrunission meeting and a special use permit
for outside storage whicFi would go to the next Planning Comrnission meeting.
The vacation request, �ariance reqaest, and special use permit request would
all go to City Council on June 2.
fi�r. Ro6inson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
r"1
n,
PLANNING COMMISSIO� MEETING;�P�AY�7,�1986�'����� PAGE 4
1. Petitioner to provide proof of private easement with NSP over the
easter7y 10 ft. of tF�e �est half of Gumwood St.
2. Fina7 vacation approval contingent upon approval of side yard
set6ack variance.
3. Ihe east u�all of tfie proposed 6uilding must 6e a four hour, full
fire �cal l wi� no openings.
The petitioner, �Jr. KoFianek, stated the reason they selected the location for
the 6uilding in front of the existt'rg 6uilding instead of at the rear of the
extsting 6ui7ding was they wanted t�ie loading docks facing south because of
lnclement w�tFier. Tt woa7d all 6e fenced and enclosed.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� 5ECONDED BY MR. SAHA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY CDUlVCIL
APPROTIAL OF VACATION REQUE5T, SAV #86-01, BY LE5LIE KOHANEK OF TEST
TECHNOLO�IES� INC.� TO T7ACATE AN EASEMEIVT FOR DRA.INAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES
O�R THAT pART OF THE WTEST HALF OF THE VACATED GUNIWOOD STREET LYING BETWEEN
BLpCK 5 AATD 6� ONAWAY'AND BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE WES�'ERLY EXTENSION OF
THE NORTK LINE OF BLOCFC 6, ONAf�AY,AND- �BUUNDE'D �N THE SOUTH BY THE WESTERLY
EXTENSrON OF THE �OIITX LINE OF BLOCK 6, ONAWAY, TXE SAME BEING
55 �- 77TK WAY N.E. ,'WITH THE FOLLOWING 5TIPULATIOIUS:
1. PETITIONER TO PROVIDE PIdOOF OF PRIVATE EA5EME'NT WITH NSP OVER THE
E`ASTERLY 10 FEET OF THE WEST KALF OF GUMGiTOOD ,ST .
2. P'INAL VACATION A�PROVAL CONTINGENT UPOIIT APPROVAL OF 5IDE YARD
n SETBACK VARI'ANC.�.
3. THE EAST WALL.OF THE PROPOSED Si7ILDING MUST BE A FOUR HOUR, FULL
FIRE WALL hirTH NO OPENIN�S.
UPON A]'IOICE VOTE� ALL VOTlN� AYE� VICE—CHAIRPERS�ON OQUIST DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIE'D UNAIVIMOUSLY.
3. RECEIVE APRIC 3, ]986s HUMAN RESOURCES COI�IWIISSION MINUTE$:
MO�T�o1N BY M5. SHEREK� SECONDED BY NIR. BETZOLD, TO RECEIVE TNE APRIL 3, 1986,
A,PPEAIaS COMMIS3I�N MINUTE3.
UpON A VOICE VOTE� ALL IiOTIN�. AyE� ?7ICE..CHAIRPER.40N OQUZ'ST DEC.LARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE APRIL 10 ]986 HOUSING & REDEVECOPNIENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MO�Z'I�N BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR, BFs'TZOLD, TO RECE.IVE THE APRIL 10, 1986,
HOUSIN� & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
UPON A I10ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING APE, VICE—CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
MOTION CAR.RIED UNAIVIMOUSLY.
�
n,
PLANNiNG COM�iSSION�MEETiNG; MAY�7;�1986�� ��� pAr,E 5
5. RECEI�E APRIL 15, 1986; APPEALS�C(��I�'IISSION��INUTES:
MO�TION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECO11iDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TD RECEIVE THE APRIL 15� Z986,
AP�EALS COMNII�STOIV 1�IINU2'E,�.
UPON A VOICE r70T.�� ALL T70T�1V� AY�� TI.rCE--CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED THE
1�IOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU�LY.
6. RECEIVE APRIL 29; 1986;APPEACS COINMISSION I�INl1TES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR, KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE APRIL 29� 1986,
APPEALS CQMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A I70I'CEr VOTE� ALL VOTIN(; �lYL�', T7ICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE
�lOT.ZON CARR.IED UIVANIMDUSLY.
_ _
7. RECEIl1E APRIL � 3�; 19$6; EN]1TRON1�ElV1'AL QUALITY CONI�IISSI�N MINIJTES:
MOPION BY MR. BETZOLD� ,�ECONDED SY1�?R, KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE TXE APRIL 3D, 1986,
ENilIR011IMENTAL QUALITY' COMMIS'SION �IINUTES.
UPON A I10ICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN� AYE, T7I'CE-CHAIRP�RSOIV OQUIST DECLARED THE
1]OTrON CARIRED UN.�1NIly0USLY. '
� Mr. Ro6inson stated that on page 3 of tFie EQC minutes, there was a motion
"to approve the expenditure of $Z00 per month-to Mr. Earl Frank to compensate
Fiim for maintaining and operati'1�g t�ie S.O.R.T. Recycling Center".
Mr. Sa6a stated that since tFiere t�as now curbsade recycling throughout
Fridle.y, maybe there was no need for tFie S.O.R.T, Recycling Center, l�Jhat
�[�ind of volume of recycla6les v�as S.O.R.T, taking in now �hat there was
cur_.6side recycling? He stated he did no� mind the City su6sidizing the
faci7ity if it was still 6eneficial, 6ut tFie Commissioners really needed
some more questions ans��rered 6efore tfiey could mafce any fcind of recommendation
on this motion.
�r• Oquist stated that regarding the motion on page 4 of the EQC minutes
("that the income from the sale of waste oil go into the recycling program
budget and not to Mr. Frank and not to the General Fund") maybe it made more
sense to have tfie oil recycling money go to help pay the �200 subsidy to
��r. Frank, ratFier tFian putting al l tfie oi l recycl ing money i nto the recycl ing
program 6udget.
�7r. Ro6inson suggested tFie Commission continue tFiis item until the next
meeting when Mr. 4�ellan, CFw �rperson of tFie EQC, was present to answer the
Commissioners' questions.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK,.TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION
OF THE TWO MOTIONS MADE BY THE EINVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION UNTIL THE
� NEXT PLANNING C01yMISSION MEETIN�.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL I10T=ZNG AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OpUIST DECL,�RED 2'HE
MOTION CARRIED UN.z1NN.I1y0USLY.
PLANNIPJG COh1P�ISSION P�IEETING, MAY 7, 1986 PAGE 6
�
8. OT{�E,� �B�I�I�S I�SS :
a. Sign Ordinance
Mr. Rofiinson stated that in the past, tFi�re have 6een many discussions
regarding the Sign Ordinance. Presently, the Code allows only an
80 sq, ft, pylon sign regardless of the size of business or zoning.
At the Jan. 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed
fd�ora�ly some recomroendati:on to ma[ce tFie sign code more consistent to
Fiui,lding size. Ho�rever; tFie Appeals Commission was of t[ie opinion that
tFi-e 8Q sq. ft. �tas somet�ii�g the City had gotten used to, tfiey were
comforta6le with tFiat size, and t�ey felt t�iey sfiould stay with the
80 sq, ft, limitation and then handle each variance from that code size
on a case�-6y�case 6asis.
Mr. Ro�inson stated no� some City Council mera6ers have expressed a desire
to again ]oofc at the sign code and maybe come up with a way to make it
more reasonaCle.
i9r. Ro6tnson stated��Ewt at tF�ie meeting,_the Commissioners had received
a sheet ent�t''t7ed, °Sign Comparison: Retail Space Compared with Area of
Free Standing Sign", along w-ith some recommendations proposed by Staff.
,,� The first recorrnnendation was:
"To relate sign area with the building size, we have looked
at existing sign example�s in Fridley and various other cities.
From tFiose findings a proposal has 6een made for these require-
ments.
1. 6uild�ngs up to 8,QQ0 sq, ft, and all industrial buildings:
maximum sign area 80 sq, ft.
2. Buildings 6et�reen 8,QOQ - 20,000 sq, ft, or small strip
centers witFi over three tenants who don`t meet require-
ments for square footage: maximum sign area 120 sq, ft.
3. Huildings over 20,000 sq. ft.: maximum sign area 180 sq, ft."
The second recolrunendation was:
"�. Free Standing Signs
A. Maximum size of 80 sq, ft, in area per development in
all C-1 zones and in C-2 and C-3 zones wh�re building
area is less than or equal to 8,000 sq, ft.
B. Maximum size of 120 sq, ft, in area per development in
,--� C�2 and Cr3 zones where 6uilding area is greater than
_ Bp�QQ $Q; f't. f1Ut �2SS.`thdp 2�'��� Sq. 'Ft.
C. Maximum size of 180 sq, ft, in area per development in
all C-2 and C-3 zones where building area is greater
than 20,000 sq. ft.
�'-�
�
PLANNING COh1P�ISSION � ��EETING; �19AY � 7; 1986 � � � � ' � PAGE 7
The Commissioners t�ere in favor of tFie second recommendation because
it tied the maximum square footage of signage to the zoning code.
Mr. Beizo7d stated tFie Appea7s Commission discussed this su6ject briefly
at their last meeting. They have recognized that the larger develop-
ments that have come 6efore the Appeals Commission have used the rationale
that they are big and need sometFiing 6igger than an 80 sq. ft. sign.
Both the Appeals Commission a�d the City Council have been a little sympa-
�Fie�ic in granting larger signs in those situa�tions. T{aere are not that
-�any re.al ]y _6ig devel opments in tFie City tFiat tFiey need to worry about.
NJr.Betzold s�tated what the Appea7s Commission keeps getting hit with are
t6e smaller fiusinesses that keep coming 6acfc wanting a 6tgger sign because
tFteir neigh6nr down the street Fia�.�a 6igger sign, or they want visibility,
etc. ThQ Appeals Commission �ould like to fiave some quidelines they can
enforce; howevev�, he suspected that even if they have guidelines, people
are still going to come in v�ith reasons wfiy they need bigger signsa
l�r. Ro6inson stated he would recommend tFia� the Planning Commission
act on this at tFiis meeting, tFie Appea].s Commission would make its
recommendation at its �]ay 14tFi meeting, and tfien 6oth sets of recommenda-
tions would go to tFie City Council on l�ay 19th.
,� MOZ'IO1V BY MR . KONDRI CK, 5ECONDED BY MR . SABA � TO RECOMMEND Z'O CITY
� COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE FOLTAWIN� GUIDELINES PROPOSED BY 5TAFF:
� 2. FREE 5TANDING SIGNS
A. MAXIMUM 5IZE OF 80 5Q. FT; IN ARF;A PER DEVELOPMENT
IN ALL C-�Z ZONES AND IN.C-2 AND C-3 ZONES WHERE
BI�rLD.�fA1� ARE�I.IS �8,� TH�1N-OR EQUAr, TO 8�000 SQ. FT.
B. NIAXIMUM SSZE OF 120 ,�Q. FT. IN AREA PER DEVELOPMENT
IN C-2• AND C--.� ZONES WHERE BU.ILDING �AREA IS GREATER
THAN B�OOO SQ. FT. BUT LESS THAN 20�000 SQ. FT.
C. MAXIMl71u! SIZE OF � 80 : rs` �,, �'T, IN AREA PER �DEVELOPMENZ'
IN ALL G�-2 AND C•-3�ZONES WHERE BUILDING AREA IS GREATER
THAN 20.�QOQ.��. FT. �
UPON A 110.ZGE VOTE�.OQUIST, KONDRICK, SABA, SAE.REK VOTlNG AYE� BETZOLD
AE5�1'AS1�1IN�� •VI'CE--CXAIRPERu�OAI OQU2�T DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A
Y/OTE OF 4-,.Z .
Mr. Betzo]d stated fie had abstained in order to not influence the
Appeals Commission in tFieir recommendation.
ADJOl1R�JI�ENT:
MO�'ION BY MR. KONDR�'CK, 5EGONDED BY MS. 5HEREK� TO ADJOURN THE.MEETING. UPON A
VOSCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MAY 7� 1986,
PLANNING COMMIS5ION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.
'� Respectfully submitted,
lyn Sa a, Recording Secretary