PL 06/03/1987 - 30665_��`,
�;"\,
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLA�JNING COMMISSSON MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the June 3, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Bil'9ings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Don Betzold, Richard Svanda
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Daryl Morey, Planning Assistant
Jerome & Janet Meyer, 7531 Lyric Lane N.E.
Jim Benson, 620 Mer�delssohn, Golden Valley
Randy McPherson, 6880 Sunny slope Dr.
Nancy PqcNaghten, 620 Mendelssohn, Golden Valley
Roland Benjamin, 7810 University Ave. N.E.
Bob Schroer, 490 Rice Cre�k Blvd.
See attached list
APPROVAL OF PiAY 20, 1987, PLANNING COP=1P�IISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by f�r. Kondrick, seconded by Mr.. Saba, to approve the May Z0, 1987,
P^Tan �ng Commission minutes as written. ,
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chair�erson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
1. PUB�.IC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERNIIT, SP #87-10, BY
J ROME A D J NET EYER:
er Section .., C, 1, of the Fridley City Code to allow a second
accessory building on Lot 15, Block 3, Melody Manor 4th Addition , the
same being 7531 Lyric Lane N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to open the public
e�ar ng.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
public hearing open at 7n34 p.m.
�I�,..ftobertson stated Jim Robi.nson, Planning Coordinator,was on vacation.
He stated he would.like to introduce to the Commission Daryl Mlore�,Planning
Assistant.
Mr. Morey stated the request was for a second accessory building, a detached
,� garage, to be located in the rear yard. The property� was located on Lyric
_ Lane between P�adison and.5th St. The property was zoned R-1, single family
residential.
PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. More,y stated that existing on the site was a concrete driveway which
leads to an existing 480 sq. ft. attached garage. There was a back door in
this garage and that provided access to the rear yard and also to the proposed
garage. Presently, a concrete apron extended out the back from the existing
garage to the rear of the property. A hard surface extension would be necessary
to connect the existing apron to the proposed garage. This was listed as a
stipulation.
Mr. Morey stated there was also an �xisting 6 ft. high solid wood fence around
the entire back yard.
Mr. Morey stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1.
2.
A hard surface driveway be installed to the new structure.
Garage materials, siding, and roofing to match existing house.
3, Garage to be located at least 6 feet from the rear lot line due to a
6 foot draina�e and utility easement running the length of the property,
and 3 feet from the side lot line.
4.
� 5.
6;
�
PJo repair of vehicles other than the owner's vehicles is permitted.
Metal shed to be removed upon completion of garage.
Garage not to exceed 480 sq. ft.
Mr. Morey stated stipulations #5 and #6 were added by Staff so that the lot
coverage would not exceed 25%.
Mr. Billings stated that at the meeting, the Commission members had received
copies of two letters, one from Mr. Frank Gams, Jr.,�7517 Lyric Lane, and
Mr. Leon Mayer, 7523 7empo Terrac�, stating they were opposed to the construction
of a second garage at 7531 Lyric Lane.
MOTION by P�r. Kondr.ick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to rece�ve the letters from
��ms and Mr. Mayer.
Upon a voice vote, all votting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Ms. Janet Meyer stated the reason they want to build the second garage was
beca�se last fall they bought two cars for lnvestment purposes. They were
able to store these cars-in a pole shed at her mother's place in St. Cloud.
Her mother passed away suddenly and because the property was being sold, they
needed a place to store these cars by late fall. They want to build this
second garage as basically a storage shed. There would be no business there,
no repair work. The building would be idle from about Oct. 1 to April 1,
because the cars are stored during the winter and they do not move them during
that time. So, there would not be any traffic back and forth during those
,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 3
i j
months. They had originally proposed a larger garage but have agreed to go
along with the square footage recommended by staff in order to stay within
the 25% lot coverage limit. There would be no noise after 10:00 p.m.
because that was city ordinance in a residential area.
Ms. Meyer stated they do have a 6 ft. fence around their yard so the garage
would not be seen very easily. They have decided to go with a 2/12 pitch
or 3/12 pitch so the roof stays fairly flat and so it will not be very visible.
Ms. Meyer stated there would be one entrance to their back yard and that was
through the existing garage. That was closest to tbe home of Linda Faye Dunn,
7535 Lyric Lane. Ms. Dunn has written a letter stating she had no problem
with the addition of a second garage.
MOTIOPJ by �r. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to receive the letter dated
June , 1987, fro� Linda Faye Dunn, 7535 Lyr.ic Lane, stating she had no
objection t=�th�e' proposed garage.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
Ms. Meyer stated if the Commission wanted to stipulate that the building would
be used for storage only, that would be agreeable to them. "
��,
Mr. Betzold asked how this proposed second garage was going-to affect the
marketabi 1 i ty of thei r house.
Ms. Meyer stated that was a good question, but they did not foresee moving
in the near future. There was not much stor.age in the city, and they have
seven cars to keep o�'f the street.
Mr. Betzold asked about a private storage facility to store the two cars in.
Ms. Meyer stated a private storage faciiity would cost about $1,000/year; and,
then, whenever they want to work on a car, they have to bring it home and
th�n take it back.
Mr. Betzold asked what the petitioners would do if the City denied their plan.
Ms. Mey�r stated most likely they would try to get a larger shed and put that
in the back. She stated they would have liked to.put the garage in the south-
west corner of the lot, because it would have.been nicer to go from the
existing garage into the new garage, but there was a power line in that corner
of the lot.
Mr. Betzold asked if Mr. & Mrs. IMeyer had any problem with the stipulations.
Ms. Meyer stated they did not.
�"'�
,.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 . PAGE 4
r
Mr. Billings stated the application was for a special use permit in a resi-
dential area. This was an acceptable use of the pa^�perty with a special use
permit. What grounds did the City have for denying a special use permit?
Mr. Robertson stated the City Code stated: "If a special use permit is granted,
conditions must be met in order to protect the public hea���, safety, and
general welfare."
Mr. Morey stated in a memo several years ago about special use permits,
Mr. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, stated: "A denial would be arbitrary if
it was established that all the standards specified by the ordinance and the
conditions for granting the permit have been met."
Mr. Saba asked what so much hard surface area.in the back yard was goinq to
do with drainage. Will it cause some �ater problems for the neighbors? He
was concer-ned about this much hard sur.face driveway and if there was a heavy
rain or a winter melt, where was that water going to go?
Mr. Robertson stated he belie�ed the soil was quite sandy and drained well,
but maybe the petitioner could address this concern.
Mr. Jerome Meyer stated their property was the highest point. The front yard
d�ained to the street, and the back was fairly flat, and everyone else's yards
�'^`� sloped to the back fence. The home directly behind them was higher than them.
He stated he has never had water standing in his backyard.
Mr. Saba stated he questioned the wisdom of so much hard surface area in the
back yard, and maybe there should not be a stipulation requiring a hard surface
driveway to the new structure (stipulation #1).
Ms. Sherek stated with the hard surface areas, it came to over 5Q1 lot coverage
wi th the bui 1 di ngs . She woul d�ree wi th P1r. Saba that� w�ey� not 6e� requi red
to.- har�d surface the dri veway to the new structure, and she would -��i ke to see
a stipul.ation that the garage would b�`�s�d for storage only.
Mr. Saba stated if the new garage was going to be used as a.garage and they
were going to rrrove vehicles in and out of there constantly, then the hard
surface was the way to go; but since it was really going to be used for a
storage facility, then there was no need for so much hard surface.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there was any way to have the power line moved from
the south to the north side of the yard or underground. He felt it would be
much nicer,if it was not too expensive, to_put that garage behind the existing
garage. There was already a nice concrete slab from the existing garage.
Ms. Meyer stated that was an option they had thought.about, but with the
power line, they did not think they could put the garage there. They had not
con�tacted NSP to see if it was possible-to.move the power line or how expensive
�, it would be. She stated it would be fine if they did not have to put in more
hard surface area. Whatever goes in the garage will be there from Oct. to
May anvway.
� PLANNIPJG CO�MISSION MEETIPJG, JUNE 3, ]987 PAGE 5
Ms. Judy Zimmerman, 7518 Tempo Terrace, stated they own the property in the
back of the Meyer's lot. She stated they spend a lot of time in their
backyard, and she felt this second garage would be an eyesore to them. She
felt it would depreciate their property value. She felt there would be noise
back there. She stated they have lived in their home for 19 years. It is
a very nice residential neighbor.hood. She felt this building would make the
property look more like commercial property than residential property. The
existing plan left very little backyard.
Ms. Zimmerman asked if the stipulations recommended by Staff would also be
in affect for new owners of the property some day if the special use permit was
approved.
Mr. Robertson_stated the stipulations were a repeat of the zoning ordinance, so
the stipulations would run with the property.
Mr. Billings asked if repair work or any other kind of occupation would be
allowed in the garage.
Mr. Robertson stated home occupations were only allowed within the living part
of the structure, not in accessory buildings.
Ms. Zimnterman stated she had contacted 26 people within the surrounding
� immediate area 200 ft. from.the pi�ti�ioner's home. She had a petition signed
by 25 of the 26 people, and she also had letters from some of these people
with reasons for not wanting the second garage.
Mr. Billings read the petition which stated those who signed the petition
were opposed to the special use permit.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive Petition No. 2-1987.
Upon a voice vote, a71 votir�g aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously. -
Ms. Zimmerman stated Meiody.Manor_was a very. nice area, and another thing they
thought about was that 7� would set a precedent for others to build second
garages or other storage buildings in their backyards. With an existing slab
already and then another driveway to a new gar.age would leave little yard
1 eft.
Mr. Billings stated that the suggestion had.been made that the garage be
moved to the north side of the lot where.the concrete slab was. He asked
Ms. Zimmerman if that would lessen the "eyesore" effect. The garage would
also be there to buffer some of the sound.
Ms. Zimmerman stated that if they added onto the back of the garage, she
could understand that more--if it was part.of the existing structure which
^ would at least look pleasant, but she did not think a separate building would
add to the value of the property.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 6
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Meyer if he had explored the possibility of having
the garage up closer to the existing garage.
Mr. Meyer stated that if the garage was put there, it would be too close
to their addition. It would be only about 6 ft. between the garage and
the ad�ition. They have sliding patio door.s that go out onto the concrete
slab.
Mr. Ronald Kloyda, 7522 Tempo Terrace,.stated he has lived in his home for
19 years. About 8-10 ft. of their property was on the southeast corner of
the.Meyer's property. The property lines did not line up on the opposite side
of the block. He stated he was opposed to the constr.uction of a second build-
ing because he felt it would create a more crowded effect that would affect
the property evaluation in the area. Histarically, when the builder of this
area started building, the property owners were told they had to limit the
size of their houses to fit the size of the praperties. He stated they did
adhere to that. When they moved in, they had a two car garage. When the
Meyer's moved in, their first gar�ge was a single garage, then they expanded
he believed with a special use permit, to a double garage. Since then, the
Meyer's have also added to the back of the 6ouse. They put the garage door
in the back of the garage and put in the concrete slab.
IMr. Kloyda stated it was his concern that �:-coiild�-see-.t��:;possibility of the
� second garage being used for the storage of not only the two cars, but also
the materials used in the Meyer's craft business. Whether this would happen
or whether it was even permissible under city code, he did not know, but
it was his coneern.
Mr. Kloyda stated right now there are two automobiles, but would there be even
more auto�6biles in the future? Would this.garage be used as a part of an
automobile res�oration project that would become a separate business?
Mr. Kloyda stated his primary concern, however, was-the effect this would
have on the property valuation, that this_second garage would limit the resale
value of not only the Meyer's property, but.also.his own property.
Ms. Meyer stated they have lived in their home for 19 years also. When they
originally moved z�nto the house, there was no garage because they �ouldn't
afford it. They got an easement in or-der to put in a single car garage one
year after they moved in. They put the addition on two years ago and put on
alumnimum siding so the garage and the house matched. This second atorage
garage �ould not be used for the storage of her c.raft supplies because she
does wood craft work. It was a hobby. She works with the Children's Hospital
and other charity work. There was no way in an unheated garage that she could
st�re this wood. Also, they could not do any type of repair that would require
electrical equipment, because there will be no electricty to the structure.
She stated she hoped this helped answer some of the concerns expressed by the
neighbor�.
��
� PLANNING COM�ISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 7
MOTiON by P�s. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing closed at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Kondrick stated he felt if many of the,������ who had signed the petition
had come to the meeting to learn about tbe building and what would be done
with the building, it might have helped eliminate some of their fears and
concerns. He felt the major concern was that the building would be used as
a business, and that was not allowable by code. In all honesty, he would
rather see the garage moved to the north side. He stated he really had no
problem with the building, especially with a 6 ft. high fence surrounding
the backyard.
M�. Svanda stated he was_. not be too crazy about the garage in the proposed
location either, but it seemed the Planning Commission had no choice but to
approve the special use permit with the stipulations based on the reading of
the ordinance and the legal opinion by the City Attorney.
Mr. Saba stated he definitely felt the stipulati�n about the hard surface
driveway should be deleted. The size of the structure was reduced sonsiderably
from the original proposal. He agreed if there was any way the structure
could be moved to the other corner of the lot, it would be more aesthetically
�' pleasing. He would recommend they add a stipulation that the�structure be
used for storage only.
Mr. Betzold stated there were a number of things about this proposal that
bothered him. There were a lot of neighbors who signed a petition saying
they were opposed to the second garage, but yet, for whatever reason, only
a few had come to the meeting, He had heard a common complaint that this
garage would be used for a business, but obviously it coul� not. However, he
could not really say that all the neighborhood.opposition would have dissi-
pated if all the neighbors had been at the meeting.
Mr. Betzold stated obviously the petitioners were engaged in a hobby that
was quite expensive--trying to maintain a couple of classic automobiles.
Yet, they were complaining ahout the expense of storing the cars somewhere
else. But, that was the nature of having 7 cars, 2 of which were c]assic.
He felt the best plan would be to expand the existing garage, even though
that was not the proposal before the Planning Commission. He stated he could
not go along with the plan as proposed.
Ms. Sherek stated that in looking at the yard and the plan, her first choice
would have been to check with NSP to see about burying the power line and
putting the new garage in line with the existing garage. It was going to be
costly anyway to put the garage in the proposed location, and another $300-
500 to bury the power line was not really that outrageous. The concern by
the neighbors that the garage would be used for a busTness, if that should
�, happen, the neighbors have a legitimate complaint, but there was also a
legitimate remedy.
�`1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JU�E 3, 1987 PAGE $
Ms. Sherek stated she did not see that the Planning �Commission had any
grounds for denying the special use permit, but she really felt the option
of putting the new garage in line with the existing garage should be explored.
She stated the petitioner was asking for something extraordinary, and if they
meant they have to move their patio door, then they might have to do that.
Mr. Billings stated the petitioner was covering a lot of ground on this lot
with structure and driveways. This was a fairly well designed neighborhood,
and they were adding a lot of garage and concrete that was going to create
the ratio of green space to.lot size on this lot to be considerably smaller
than that on most, if not all, of the other lots in the neighborhood. He
would question whether or not they did have the grounds to deny the special
use permit because of what the ordinance said. He would also encourage the
�tTtioner to explore the possibility of undergraund elect.rical and moving
the garage to the other side of the lot and/or closer to the house prior to
the City Council meeting.
Mr. Billings stated if the Planning Commission does recommend approval to
the City Cou�c91, he would like to see a stipulation that the garage would
be used for storage of the automobiles and related yard equipment only. He
would like to see a stipulation about not paving the area between the exist-
ing slab and the new garagec-that the area not be paved at this time, but that
the stipulation be reviewed in one year and if there are ruts or tracks in
the area in the sumrnertime, then maybe some consideration could� be given to
�� paving in the future.
Mr. Billings stated he would vote against approval of the special use permit.
He felt the term "general welfare" was a pretty ambiguous term, and �n terms
of the development itself and the nature and character of the neighborhood, he
did not think this much concrete, blacktop, and garages was in keeping with
the char�acter of the neighborhood. He did not feel this plan was the best
plan for the site or for the neighborhood.
Mr. Svanda stated that after hearing the reasons fMr. Billings had cited
for denial of the special use permit, h� agreed with Mr. Billings and stated
he, too, would vote against a motion to approve the special use permit.
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council
enia of Special Use Permit, SP #87-10, by Jerome and Janet Meyer, per
Section 205.07.1, C, 1, of the Fridley City Code to allow a second accessory
building on Lot 15, Block 3, Melody Manor 4th Addition, the same being
7531 Lyric Lane N.E.
Upon a voice vote, Billings, Betzold, Sherek, Svanda, Saba voting aye,
Kondrick voting nay, Chairperson Billings declared the motion carried by a
vote of 5-1.
Mr. BetzoTd stated this recommendation was based on the proposed plan by
the petitioner. �The City Council could take whatever action they felt
�, appropriate, or the City Council could refer it back to the Planning Commission
if the petitioner were to change or modify the plan.
Mr. Billings stated this would go to City Council on June 15.
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 9
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PER�IT, SP #87-11, BY
J. BE SO A G. B B
Per Section 205.15.1, C, 4, of the Fridley City Code to allow a repair
garage on Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, the same
being 7710 University Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to open the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing open at 8:35 p,m.
Mr. Robertson stated this was a very complex case. The next three items
were inter-related. He stated the first action was for a special use permit
for a repair garage along University Ave, on the west side, north of Osborne
Road. The property was zoned C-3, heavy industrial. A repair garage was
a use allowed in C-3 �nly with a special_use permit. In conn�ction with this,
agenda item #3 was for a lot split which was part of a split and a recombina-
tion of existing parcels in order to get sufficient lot size for the auto
repair facility (item #2).
Mr. Robertson stated item #4 on the agenda was a vacation of two existing
easements: (1) a 20 ft, drainage and utility easement; and (2) 1/2 of a 30 ft.
street and utility easement. This must be dQne because the existing sewer
'� line would have to be relocated which runs currently along the rear property
line to a point west of it. (Item #2)
Mr. Robertson stated he met with one of the petitioners, f�r. Jim Benson,
and there were two issues Staff felt should be brought to the attention of
the Planning Comm�ssion: (1) the fact that there is no reeord of an ease�ent or
dedicat�nn for a road con�ectinn to Ranchers Road,.a]t�ough it was the �etitioner's
unders��n��n�.,that they do:�ex�s�t._ The lack af ;�his piece would make access .�o these
���� ?�i'`�����'�7��� i f not i mpossi bl e, thereby i nadvertently creati ng l and-
locked parcel which was not in the best interest of the owner o�F the City.
(2) the position of the piece of property that was left to the north--an
awkward left-over parcel which might, in fact, be of little value to anyone
unless the petitioner has some kind of development plan or staging plan
that addressed the ultimate development of that piece.
Mr. Benson stated he was the developer working with the company, ABRA,
who will be building the building.
Mr. Berason stated that currently none of the.property, Lot A and Lot B, was
landlocked because it was all owned by Bob Schroer. The piece of land that
Mr. Robertson had referred to was now owned by Mr. Schroer. So, today what
they were talking about was putting the new repair facility on the eastern
part of Lot C and Lot D and the balance:of the property was owned by Mr. Schroer.
The questionable �iece was �� ��rthern part of Lot A, and they do not want to
���� 'rt� - b��� �� a�t;dl ocked .
�
Mr. Robertson �tated Staff.was recommending the following stipulations:
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETI�G, JUNE 3�, 1987 PAGE 10
' 1, No outside storage of damaged vehicles or any parts or equipment allowed.
2. Provide praof of permits from Anoka County to handle hazardous wastes.
3. Eliminate one overhead door on the east side of the building.
4. All overhead doors and man doors to be tan colored to match buildTng,
5. Supply building facade ma�erial samples for staff approval prior to
permitting.
6. Provide additional evergreen screening of overhead door areas. To be
incorporated on landscape plan by 6/29/87.
7. All green areas to have automatic sprinkling.
8. Provide concrete curbing 5 foot seiback off building where no overhead
doors are planned.
9. Provide plans and specifications for odor mitigation equipment. flown
:� �:dra�t .fi-1 trati on system or better requi red.
10. Dumpster to be stored inside or. in a masonry enclosure compatible with
structure.
11. All roof to p equipment to be screened from view.
Mr. Benson stated Randy McPherson who was Presi�ent of ABRA and
Roland Benjamin who owned Northtown Nissan a�r'd who was aYsa p�rt of the
project were in �he audience.
Mr. Benson stated they have a problem with stipulation #3 regarding the
� elimirration af the one overhead door on �the� �east sidE of th.e�, buflding. He
stated AgRA was a.national franchise. This would be their,natio,nal proto-
type bui 1 di ng. A1 ot of thought has gon� °intQ the bUi 1 di n�.,F and; �they have
worked with the City Tn�terms of the ma'��ri�als for"the� building.� He stated
ABRA was in the a�tvbody refinishing business, and their wfm1� concept was
` to take the auto body refinishing business from the '"back�yard": type business
into a first-class customer-oriented type of business�. They 'are currently
located on 81st and University. He sta'te� �fie flow of the business was such
that 'the +cars go in one door and therr the fi-nished product :��mes out the
other door. He stated these doors are in the front of=th� bu�il�ding, but
they are not sitting open for the.public to see. Th'at se�cond ��do'r was only
open to take the car out of the facility�and then it was closec� again, because
' th'at was a cri ti cal are�a when the cars �ome' out of `the pai nt room. Thi s door
was also a second exit for`car�s that are being held for repair i�nside during
inclemen� weather. ��
�
Mr. Benson stated eliminating either one of the doors almo.st 'rendered the
entire building unuseable. They have tried to mitigate the impact of the
r,,., PLANNING COMMISSIO� MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 11
doors in front. The doo.rs were only 10 ft. by 10 ft. The striping of the
material and the combination of bricks and the �esign will go straight
through the doors. He believed the doors as they were situated with the
landscaping as proposed for the front of the building and the fact that these
doors are opened very seldom would make these doors less visible to the
public.
Mr. Robertson stated wi.th the_upgrading of the University Avenue Corridor,
it was the City's general policy to limit any potential unsightly building
fronts. So, they are asking for the same th-ing from all developers along
University Ave, in order to enhance the appearance.of University Ave.
Mr. Benson stated they would have no problem with putting heavier landscaping
with evergreens in front of the overhead doors.
Mr. Benson stated they�also had a problem with stipulation #9 regarding the
requirement of a down draft filtration syster� or better. He stated he would
let Mr. McPherson describe their equipment.
Mr. McPherson stated they do not incorporate down drafts, but use a"cross
flow" and it was all OSNA approved. Everything they do is OSHA approved.
They just had OSHA through their present building in:Fridley about six months
ago, and everything was checked.
Mr. Billings stated maybe stipulation #9 could be changed to read: "Provide
plans and specifications for odor mitigation equipment. Draft filtration
system to be approved by Staff."
Mr. M�Pherson stated he believed as strongly as the City that this should be
a goad looking building. They are really trying to set the standard for this
type of industry. This plan will be their national role model. He wanted to
bring people f rom all over. the country to see what-they have done here in
Fridley. He hoped in a couple of years to build a corporate facility and
training facility in Fridley, so they plan to stay in Fridley and be good
neighbors. The one big problem was they could. not eliminate the one over-
head door. If he could do ar�ything about it, he would. One reason they have
the doors to the south was because of the restaurant to the north. He did
not think people using the restaurant should have to see cars coming in and
out.
MOTION BY Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the public
hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Kondr.ick, to recommend to City Council
approval of Special Use Permit, SP �#87-1T, by J. Benson and G, Bradbury, per
Section 205.15.1, C, 4, of the Fridley City Code to allow.a repair garage on
� Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, the same being 7710
University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
� PLANNI�G COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 12
1. No outside storage of damaged vehicles or any parts or
equipment allowed.
2. Provide proof of permits from Anoka County to handle
hazardous waste.
3. All overhead doors and man donrs to match building.
4. Supply building facade material samples for Staff approval
prior to permitting.
5. Provide additional evergreen screening of overhead door areas.
To be incorporated on landscape plan by 6/29/87.
6. All green areas to have automatic �prinkling.
7. Provide concrete curbing 5 foot setback off building where
no overhead doors are planned.
8. Provide plans and specifications for odor mitigation equipment.
Draft filtration equfpment system to be approved by Staff.
9. Dumpster to be stored inside or in a masonry enclosure
compatible with structure.
10. All roof top equipment to be screened from view.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the
motion carried unanimously.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. �87-04, BY J: BENSON AND G. BRADBURY:
� Sp it of parts of ot 3 an , B oc , East Ranc Estates 2nd A ition,
to create three parcels to 6e added to existing tax parcels, generally
located at 7710 University Avenue N.E.
Mr. Robertson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Parcels A and B to be added to Lot l, Block l, East Ranch Estates
First Addition to preclude landlocking remaining vacant property.
2. Parcel C to be combined with Parcel D for new development and
recorded with lot split.
3. Any further subdivisions of vacant property to require a replat of
the area. -
4. Legals for lot split, L.S. #87-04, subject to County approval; if not
approved, a plat will be required as per County direction.
5. A park fee of approximately $2,841 to be paid prior to recording
split. Exact amount equal to square footage X.023.
Mr. Benson stated they did not haue any problems with the stipulations.
r",
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 13
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council
approval of Lot Split, LS #87-04, by J. Benson and G. Bradbury, to split
off parts of Lot 3 and 4, Block Z, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to
create three parcels to be added to existing tax parcels, generally located
at 7710 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. P�rcels A and B to be added to Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch
Estates First Addition to preclude landlocking remaining
vacant property.
2. Parcel C to be combined with Parcel D for new development and
recorded with lot split.
3. Any further subdivisions of vacant property to require a replat
of the area.
4. Legals for Lot Split, L.S. #87-04, subject to County approval; if
not approved, a plat will be required as per County direction.
5. A park fee of approx_. $2,841 to be paid prior to recording
split. Exact amount equal to square footage X.023.
Upon a voice vote, all..voti.ng aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
4. COfdSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #87-04, BY J. BENSON AND G. BRADBURY:
o vacate easements on ot , oc 2, ast Ranc states, Secon dition,
described as follows: (1) a 20 foot drainage and utility easement over the
'�`' West 20 feet of the East 183 feet of the North 160 feet and (2) the East
half of the 30 foot s�reet and utility ease�ent lying west of the East 200
feet of the North 160 feet, generally located at 7710 University Avenue N.E.
Mr. Robertson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Developer responsible for all costs associated with relocation of
8 inch sanitary sewer line.
2. New utility easements to be provided on north and south'�' property
to accomnodate relocation of sewer line.
Mr. Billings stated one thing that did not appear to be consistent was.
Mr. Benson's statement earlier that the street was previously vacated.
Mr. Benson stated he believed the street was vacated, but the easement was
retained for utilities.
Mr. Billings stated one of his concerns was that if there is a street ease-
ment there, that they are not doing something that was going to create
problems in the future. Since Mr. Schroer owned all of the other property and
this was phase 1 of a long range development, he did not think the City had
to worry too much about a street that would only service Mr. Schroer's
property.
�, Mr. Robertson stated Staff would continue to research the accuracy of this
street easement before the City Council meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 3, 1987 PAGE 14
Mr. Billings stated that in the vacation description it said, "a 20 foot
drainage and utiTity easement over the West 20 feet of the East 183 feet",
so that was a strip 20 ft. wide between 163 and 183. Then there was "the
east half of the 30 ft. street and utility easement lying west of the East
200 feet", so that was from 2Q0 to 230 ft., so one was not on top of the
other according to the description. It might be a concern but was something
that should probably be researched by Staff.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council
approval of Vacation, SAV #87-04, By J. Benson and G. Bradbury, to vacate
easements on Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, described
as follows: (1) a 20 foot dra_inage and utility easement over the West 20
feet of the East 183 feet of the North 160 feet and (2) the east half of
the 30 foot str.eet and utility easement lying west of the East 200 feet of
the North 160 feet, generally located.at 7710 University Avenue N.E., with
the fo�lowing stipulations:
1. Developer responsible for all costs associated with relocation
of 8 inch sanitary sewer line.
2. New utility easements to be provided on north and south of
property to accor�nodate relocation of sewer line.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the motion
,�"�
carried unanimously.
��. -�E�EIVE MAY 26, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the May 26, 1987,
pp�ea s CorrunTSSion minutes.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson..Billings declared the motion
carried unanimously.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
Reminder: June 17th meeting changed to June 24th, 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all e ting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the June 3, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Res ectfully sub itted,
Z
yn Sa a
Recording Secretary
r"�
�
� �i,/rx'Q--
� ` ` ` �.
�� � ���
�� ����
���� �����o�
v/�1 L�������
-� a� w� �� ������
���-2 -� � r
�
� �
_ � `�G�
I �L ,
�
�i'yr1 ���Z Gic� , uJ�J�
� �� s���Y.slo�e, �/l�.
G� d �y�ir���,�,,� �, �, �
�, a--o YV�m �5���r } G .v .
7S'�3/ � �' � ����e /�� .
�� i� i� �,
�� �� �< �C
c y� 1(
,
7 d /� �i�/� � �� �l/�
�
�
�
� .
r -
� �%��72.�
� �, / �a �
� ��� ���
i� ��1ltj�
,�-, - --
�
�- a ��
� �
� �
� si� �� � ��
�`�/� o��i�a `�°
`1� 13 ��o
7�t3
��� �7� ��e /� � r-'���
,