PL 10/21/1987 - 30673CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLAP�NING COM�1ISSION P�EETING, OCTO�ER 21 , 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the October 21, 1987, Planrting Commission meeting
to order at 7;30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Billings, Donald Betzold, Maynard Nielsen (for Rich Svanda),
Bruce �ondow (for,D�an Saba)
Plembers Absent: Dave Kondrick, Sue Sherek
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Jock Rdbertson, Community Development Director
John Glynn, 825 - 502 Ave. N.E.
Robert Kudla, 14030 Underclift St. N,W., Anoka
Bill Jensen, 6875 Highway 65 N.E.
Allen Westfall, P.S.I.
Kurt Plarke, 251 60 2 Ave. N. E.
Steve P9anu�1, 462 97th Lane N.E., Blaine
Tony Palaia, 1200 Osborne Rd. N.E.
^ Jerry Jackson, 1150 Osborne Rd. N.E.
Wayne Dahl, 7699 Highway 65 N,E.
John Nelson, Bloomington, P1n.
Narold Anderson, 203 Cooper Ave., St. Cloud
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 7, 1987, PLANNING COP�P9ISSION PIIPJUTFS:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BONDOW, TO APPROVE THE OCT. 7, 19E7,
PLANNING COMMISSION MIIVUTES A5 WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPE.RSOA1 BILLINGS DECLARED TN� MOTION
CARRIED UlVANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: COPdSIOERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERNIIT, SP #87-18, BY
JO N GLYPJN:
Per Section 205.05.4 of the Fridley City Code to allow a different commer-
cial use in an S-1 zoning district (special zoning district for Hyde Park)
located on Lots 27 and 28, Block 12, Hyde Park, the same being 5�73 - 3rd
Street N.E.
MOZ'I�IV BY NII2. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BONDOW, TO ' W13IG'E 2'FI.E �'�RM�L READIIVG
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING 1VOTICE AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE
� MOTION CAR.RIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M.
__ �
r.,� PLANNI��G COP1P1ISSIO�J P1EETING, OCTOBER 2l , 1987 PAGE 2
P�r. Robi•nson stated the special use permit was to allow a copy sales and
service business in the S-1 (Spgcial Zoning District for Hyde Park). The
Hyde Park zoning overlay was crea�ed-to,chanx�e-a legal non-confnrming status
that some of the residential dwellings had in the neighborhood prior to its
enactment. One of the unique things about the ordinance was that it does
not have a provision for commereial deveTopment, altheugh there are at least
three corrunercial developmeRts in the area, other than residential apartments.
In the past, the Planning Commission and City !;ouncil have used the special
use permit process wheneve�^ ther� is a proposed change in commercial use �•in
the district. The special use perMit prflcess is i�tilized to ensure that the
new development is�compatible with the neiqhborh�od and also to set
stipulations for the quality of the development.
�1r. P,obinson stated this particular property at 5973 3rd St, was the subject
of a special use permit in October 1�85, which was granted by the City Council;
however, the petitioner never took occupancy of the building and the operation
was never finalized.
Mr. Robinson stated P1r. Glynn's operat�,i��x �tas :a lower� intensity use than what
was proposed in 1985 in that there wi11 be fflur or fewer parking spaces
required at any one time. He believed there were approximately three employees,
not all full-time, so there would not be the need for a parking lot expansion
� as was envisioned with the last proposal.
F4r, Robinson stated the site plan, which was approved in 1985, was for an
expanded ]ot area., �he proposa) was to lease from the ��ty slinht7y over
1600 sq. ft, of Lot 29. Both Lot 29 and Lot 30 are held by the City of Fridley
and were acquired for the slip-off from University Aven. At that time, a
lease was proposed and appro.ved by the City.
Mr. Robinson stated that at this time, they do not envis.i:on�a parking lot
l i ke that proposed i n 1985, but rather woul d uti 1� Ze' tir+�� ex='rsti ng bl acktop
area. It 4rould be sufficient for four cars, so the parking requirement which
was part of the previous proposal was not part of the current proposal.
P�r. Robinson stated Staff has worked with P1r. Glynn to come up�with improve-
ments to the prop.erty. Ti�ese would include:faeade impe�nvements. They have
not yet arrived at what they fee7 is the mos�t'appropriate plan for the
building; however, they have loaked at some opportunities such as addfng some
cedar tr�im.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Building facade improvements, subject to staff approval, to be
completed by Oct. 31, 1988.
2. Landscape improvements, as per City plan dated Oct. 21, 1987, to
be installed by Oct. 31, 1988. Location of pl.antings on north
,^ subject to Council determination.
�..� PLANIdIPJG COPIPIISSION �REETIP�G, OCTQ�ER 21 , 1987 PAGE 3
3. Parlcing situation to be reviewed i•n two ye�rs (or sooner if
necessary) to determ'irte adequacy ��f exis���g��parking lot. If
additional stalls are required,,pQtitioner will install expanded
parking with concrete curbing as -p.�r Oct. �1, 1987, drawing.
Contingent upon Council approval of lease of �pprox. 1,604 sq. ft.
of Lot 29, Block 1�, Hyde Park.
4. Petitioner agrees�that any future reuse.of th.e_�uilding is subject
to fi ndi ng, through a spe�i al ws:e -pe�r�i t�xrocess, -that the reuse
would be compatible with,the surroufl ding neighborhood.
MOTION BY MR, BETZOLD, SECONDED BY M1�. BONDOW, TO CLOSE THE PU�`LIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV BILLINGS DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 7:39 P.M.
MOTION.BY MR. BETZQLD, SEGONDED.BY MR. BONDOW., TO R�COMMEND.,T.Q..CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF 5PECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #87-18, BY JOHN GLYNN'p'PER SECTION
205.05.4 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW A DIFFE.REN.T.�OMMERCIAL USE IN
AN S-1 ZONING DISTRICT (SPECIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR li�'D�'.FARK): LOCATED ON
LOTS 27 AND 28, BLOCK 12, HYDE PARK, THE.SAME BEING 59�3 -.3RD ST.REET N.E.
W�2�H "THE FO,LLOWIIVG STIPULATIQNS.:
� 1. BUILDING FACADE IMPROVEMENTS., SUBJECT TO.STgF'F APPROVAL, TO BE
COMPLETED BY OCTOBER 31, I988.
2. LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, AS PER CIT.Y PLAN DATED OG?'_ 21, 1987, T0
BE INSTALLED BY OCT. 3Z, 1988. LOCATION OF PF,ANTINGS ON NORTH
SUBJECT TO COUNCIL DETERMIIVATION.
3. PARKING SITUATION TO BE REVIEWED IN TWO YEARS (OR SOQNER IF
NECESSARY) TO DETERMINE ADEQUACY OF EXISTING PARKSNG LOT. IF
ADDITIONAL ST.�LL, ARE R�QUIRED �;PETIZ'�ONE,R ,W:Z'LL . INSTALL EXPANDED
PARKING WITN C011iCRETE_CURBING A5 PER. QCT. �1, Z987, DRAWING.
CONTINGENT UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LEASE OF APPROX. Z,604 SQ. FT.
OF LOT 29, BLOCK I2, HYDE PARK.
4. PETITIONER AGREES THAT ANY FUTURE REUSE OF THE BUILDING IS SUBJECT
T'O FINDING, THROUGH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, THAT. THE REUSE
WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
UPOIV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to �ity Council an PJov. 9,
2. PUELIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PEPS",IT, SP #87-19, BY
RO�ERT KUDLA:
e r�Secti'on 205.24,4.2 of the Fridley City Code to allow a garage in an
0-1 (Overlay District) on Lots 33-36, �lock U, Riverview Heights, the same
being 688 Fa�rmont Street N.E.
�
� PLMINIPdG C0�1P1ISSION PIEETING, OCTOBER 21, 1987 PAGE 4
MOTION BY MR. BET20Li), SECOND� �iZ� ��?. �"JiEL,5EN, TO WAIVE THE FORMAL READING
OF THE PUTBLIC HEARI111G NOTICE AIVD TO OPEN THE .PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTIOIN
CARRIED UNANIMQU3LY AND THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG OPEN AT 7:41 P.M.
P1r. Robinson stated tf;is proposal.w�.s t�a aonst�uct�a garage on the property.
The property was located in the Ouerlay District, 0-1 District, which has to
do with the flood sAne. Any eonstruction in this zone required a special
use permit. In this particular case, because it was not a habitable struc-
ture, the requirements were less stringent than they normally would be.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was zoned single fam.ily, and was desi�nated
as flood fringe in the 0�erlay District. The garage would be lac�ted Qn�the
rear of the.lot, and there.;w��e no�p'robiems�wTth set6acks. The stipu]a�ions
were as follows:
1. Propo�ed garage shall be firmly anchored to pr�vent flotation.
2. Propos�d garage shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the
State Building Code.
�.., 3. A hard surface driveway shall be installed within one ye�r of
building permit authorization.
4. Facade of garage to be compatible with house.
MOTION BY MR. BET�OLD, SECONDED BY MR. 1VIELSEN, TO CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE
PUBLIC IiEARING CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BONDOW, TO RECOMME111D T0 CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #87-19, BY ROBERT KUDLA, PER SECTION
205.24.4.2 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW A GARAGE IN AN O—L (OVERLAY
DISTRICT) ON LOT5 33-36, BLOCK U, RIVERVIEW HEIGHT5, THE SAME BEIIVG
688 FAIRMONT STREET N.E. , 6t%ITH TFIE FOLLOWING STIPIZLATION5:
1. PROP05ED GARAGE SHALL BE FIRMLY ANCHORED TD PREVENT FLOTATION.
2. PROPOSED GARAGE SFiALL BE FLOOD—PROOFED lN ACCOIdDANCE WITH TNE
STATE BUTLI7ING CODE.
3. A HARD 5URFACE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF
BUILDING PERR?IT AUTHORIZATIOIO.
4. FACADE OF GARAGE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH HOU5E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on Nov. 9.
�
,..,,\ PLANNIP�G COP1MISSION MEETING, OCTO�EP, 21, 1�387 PAGE 5
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERA�ION OF A REZONIClG ZOA #87-04, BV JAPIES �ENSON:
To rezone from C-2 General Business to P�- Light Tndustrial on Lot 4,
Block 1, A& R Second Addition and Lot 3, Block 1, A g, R Addition, the same
being 7651 Highway 65 �J.E.
1�IOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, 5ECOATDED BY N1R. NIELSEN, TO WAIVE TFIE FORMAL READING
OF THE PUBLIC HEARI111G NOTICE AND TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VDI�E VOTE, ALL-TTOTING AYE, CFIAIRPER50N BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSiY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:46 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was located just south of Osborne and east
of Highway 65 and was a combination of a parcel wMich was part of A& R
Addition and A� R Second Addition. The proposal was to rezone f rom C-2
existing to M-1 zoning. The property just to the east was P1-1, to the south
it was �1-1, and the corner property was C-3, the heaviest comme�cial zonin4.
Mr. Robinson stated the
which was classified as
industrial zoning.
rezoning was needed to facilitate the mini-storage
warehouse in the City Code and was allowed only in
Mr. Robinson stated the property was previously zoned all C-3. The C-2
zoning was sought by the developer of the plat s, both Dave Harris and John..Ne?son;
�'' in order to accommodate the smaller commercial develo ment the �
P y�ariti ci pated an
the property. The development they adea^e seeking would have been'jt�in�ered
by setbacks and lot areas un�er the C-3 zoning, �o th� C-2 was approv�d for
the plat of A& R Addition in August 1986 and for the plat of A& R Second
Addition in February 1987,
Mr. Robinson stated the City's desire and intent for quality developments
for both the plats and the rezonings were expressed.in stipulations which
called foreomprehensive design elements such as linh�ing and l�n�scapir�q.
An area map demonstrated the current state of the developed area.
Mr. Robinson stated that besides the request for rezoning, there were variances
which went to the Appeals Commission on Oct. 13. The status of those have
changed. The original setback vari.ances were for a building setback from 35 ft.
to 15 ft, on the east, a building setback from 35 ft, to 30 ft� on the north,
a green space buffer from 15 ft. to 5 ft, on the north, a hard surface setback
from 5 ft, to 0 ft, on the east, and a parking stall reduction fr�m 26 stalls
to 3 proposed.
Mr. Robinson stated that since the Appeals Commission meeting, the developer
has revised his plans and there currently is 10 ft, of buf�er space on the
north so they are 5 ft, closer to the 15 ft, required. They now meet the
building setback on the north, the building setback on the east would remain
the same, and the hard surface requirement was met on the east. The parking
stall - remained the same.
P'�
Mr. Robinson stated in addition to r-ezoning and the variances, there was also
the need to vacate a street and utility easement which was required at the
�
,� PLANNI��G COP1PIISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 21, i987 P,�GE 6
time of the A& R Second Addition plat. These easements were required due to
the fact that there are two large lots which were cor�bined into one parcel
v�i th W:e�ry "] i r�i ied �cEess to the curve on Vi ron Road, so a sti pul ati on of the
A& R Second Addition Plat was that the street easements were to be imple-
mented and they are in place today.
P1r. Robinson stated one of the strongest points for the development was that
it has a fairly low intensity of traffic genEration. There will probably
b� 10 or fewer vehicles per day visiting the site according to the developer.
^�r. Robinson stated on the negative side, they might expect a higher intensity
commercial developmen�t, ma�!be more compatible with the commercial development
in the area, if the easements were maintained and the road was put in place.
In addition, the Police Department feels this particular location does p��sent
some security problems because it is fairly well tucked away with poor
views into the site.
Mr. Robinson stated the westerly elevation wQiitd include a bricF, facade with
concrete columns. The rest�of the development would be a metal panel construc-
tion with overhead doors. There would also be a residence on the site for the
caretaker.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
�
1. Developer agrees to covenant, through recorded document, that the
rezoning of the property to M-1, Light Industrial, is for a mini-
stora�e �facility only. Any reuse of the property is subject to
Council approval,
2. Developer will further covenant that the building and grounds will
be maintained consistent with approved plans and stipulations of
the rezoning.
3. Developer to supply final details for storm drainage, landscaping,
and lighting for Staff approval by Nov, 10, 1987,
4. All green areas to have automatic sprinkling.
5. Security fence along eastern and western pe�rimeter to have tubular
vinyl screening slats and vines planted four feet on center.
6. North elevatiofl facades of all buildings to be of brick material.
�. Proposed security system specifications to be supplied for police
review by Nov. 10, 1987,
8. Proposed storage leasing terms and conditions to be suppTied for
Staff review by Nov. 10, 1987,
�,
„..,� PLANNIPJG: COMP1ISSION IMEETING, OCTO�ER 21 , 1987 PAGE 7
9. Developer agrees to accept assessment for fair share of proposed
comprehensive lighting project.
10. Developer to sup.ply a performance bnnd or letter of credit to
cover all outside improvements prior to construction.
11. Dumpster to be fully screened from off-site view.
12. Rezoning is contingent upon approval of street ea�ement vacation.
13. All outstanding park fees ta be paid prior to canstruction.
14. Developer to submit drawings indicating pylon sign size, height,
and location by Nov. 10, 1987.
Mlr. Billings aske.d what would happen if the vacation was not granted. Would
everything just get moved over 25 ft.ta the east?
Mr. Robi.nson stated the developer has stated they are already below industry
standards in terms of the amount of lot coverage on the site in order to make
the project financially feasible, If he had to respect these �asements, he
would not be able to make the storage facility go.
�`' P9r. Bi 11 i ngs asked P•1r. West�al l'to -d�scri be what the north facade of the
buildings would look like and the security fencing on the north side.
P�r. Westfall stated on the north elevation, they have agreed with brick with
the exception of the cent�r bu.ilding where th�re is a glass d��r front, 8 ft.
wide, On Building A elevation, the�r have agreed to use brick on its north
face and i.ts west face. The seeurity fencing on the north side was wrought
iron. There was a pad key entry with a multiple digit entry each tenant
receives and the tenants must enter and exi�: wi�th t�hat number. Jwst to the
left of the entry, all along the north line, approx. 20-30 ft, centered, were
6 ft. high, 2 ft, by 2 ft. brick columns matching the building with wrought
iron fencing. The caretaker residence was on the north end of Building A,
the westerly-most building.
Mr. Westfall stated that regarding the stipulations, the only stipulation he
had a problem with was Stipulation #5: "Secr��i:ty f��rce along e�stern and
western perimeter to have tubular vinyl screening slats and vines planted
four feet on center.”
Mr. Westfall stated they had no prrib�l�em complying with the stipulation along
the east property line, but they disagreed with that along the west property
line. Having over 700�of these mini-storage facilities and maintaining them
on an ongoing�basis, if they have visibility from outside the :�acility, it helps
facili�tate the police driving by to be able to ob'�erve th� facility.
�°'� P�r. W�stfall stated he fel� the west was probably the most potential area
for the police to have any visibility to the back-end of their project,as
all that expanse of open space might pose a natural avenue for vandalism.
They think this stipulation will impose a security problem on their property,
,� PLANNIPIG COP1P1ISSIOP! N�EETING, OCTOBER 21 , 1987 PAGE 8
and they would prefer not to do any screening on the �vest side.
P�r. Robinson stated��;tMe Poli�e Chief has indicated there is going to be a
security problem anyway becaase of the fact that there is no rcad that
circles the property and there are poor views, irrespective of the slatting.
P�r. Westfall stated that bec�a�se there does not seem to be a place for their
mini-storage facility in the Code because they technically fall under the
classification of warehouse, they are asked to build in an M-1 zone. He
stated 8D-85% of their tenant base is homeowners. They are a commercial
use. There are an industry that is only 17-18 years old, and this type of
facility is just not addressed in most cities.
Mr. Billings stated that regarding Stipulation #12, "Reaoning Ts contingent
upon approval of street easement vacation ", evEn with -�he vacation, the site
seems to be marginally cost effective.
Mr. Westfall stated they have their minimum standards for the numb�r of units
on a lot�this size. If they drop another building, there would nQt be enough
income from the rental of the units to justify the expense af building the
storage facilities.
� P1r. Billings asked if this �'n�any way gave an indication that maybe this
� isn't the right site for this project,
P�r. Bill Jense�, an Engineer with Suburban Engineering rep�esenting PSI,
stated they have to recognize that the easement r�as a ve-ry-recent thin�, and it
was in response to what was recognized as a possible future problem. He
thought that probiem was really coming to a head and was going to be recognized
for its genuine and practical questions at this time.
Mr. Jensen stated he had a copy of a composit.e drawing of the County's haif
section map overlaid over a 1985 aerial photo. At the .-time of the A& R
Second Addition plat, it was recognized that the street in this location
might be a necessary thing in order to provide access to these lots that
are somewhat buried from the public road, and the possibility of some sort
of additional access be�°.ng necessary on the Anderson development plat to the
east. At this time, with the proposal by PSI to make p�e of this site, because
of the fairly low traffic impact and finding the narrow access point at the
corner of Vi�on Road to be very suitable for their pr�rposes, the need for this
road was reduced substantially. Of course there was still the question of the
Anderson development, but he believed there were prohably other accesses that
could be provided for that area without impacting the A& R Add�i°tion and the
A & R Second Addition.
Mr. Jensen stated they think also that the Commission should note on the
aerial photo that the road in this location runs right into Strite Artderson's
building. The building is 20 ft, from the line, and the road easement
� provided on A& R Addition and A& R Second Addx:tion butt5 right into that
building. That apparently is a cul-de-sac situation of substantial length
that is greatly in excess of what the ordinance provides for.
�,.� PLANNIPJG COh1P�1ISSI0N MEETING, OCTOBER- 21 , 1987 PAGE 9
P�r. Robinson stated that when the City acquired the easements, it was in
response to the fact that what was �raginally a fairly smal] 1ot, a little
over an acre, with this fairly poor access now needed to be combined with
another lot of adequate size to create a three acre parcel. At that time,
as a condition, the City said they need�d the street easements and they
were acquired all the way to Osborne Road. The City's proposal, which was
future-oriented, was to have a road connect to Old Central in either of
two locations. They realized it was not gaod planr�ing to just butt the
road up against a building, but there was the opportunity for additional
street right-of-way with the development of the proper,ty to the east which
was almost all vacant, with the exceptian of the trucking company.
Mr. Betzold stated he was a little cancerned that they should preclude any
future access i nto the Anderson devel opment.: Tf�y � ha�v� -aa �r�ad�r seen a 1 ot
of ch�an�e� in this area., �nd he was h-esitant ta vacate those easements,
especially when the City was very specific about getting them put in.
Mr. Robinson stated N1r. Dave Harris, a developer of the plat, was not able to
be at the meeting so he had sent a letter to the City.
MOZ'ION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BOiVDOW, TO RECEIVE MR. HARRIS' LETTER
DATED OCT. 2Z, I987.
�� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTT�G AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTIOIV
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated tfiat in the letter, P1r. Harris had stated he wanted thE
Commission to favorably consider the vacation of the road easement on the
easterly portion of the property in question. �Ar. Robinson stated P�r. Harris
had stated that at the time A& R Sesond Addition was platted, City Staff had
advised him that it would be necessary to provide for an easement on the
easterly part of the A& R development and the westerl,� part of the Anderson
property in order to provide adequate acce:ss to the Anderson property.
Because of Staff's insistence, he reluctantly agreed to the eas�ment. He also
stated that at the time this took place, he �uas not aware th�re� was an exist-
ing plat on the Anderson prope�ty. This plat does not provide for a street
along the boundary of the A& R and Anderson property. The plat does provide
for adequate access without this easeme�t. P1r. Harris had stated the easement
was a detriment to the A& P, property, and he felt he was not fully advised by
Staff and their statement that this easement �ras needed for access was in error.
P1r. Robinson stated it was made very clear to P1r. Harris that the reason for
the easement was that they did have thre� acres of property with poor access,
in addition to the fact that they did need access for the Anderson property.
This was all on record.
P�r. Jensen stated the idea�of looping this road out to Old-Central does
eliminate an overly long cul-de-sac; however, there v�as also another option
r"�, in the way of correcting the access problems that might exist in the southwest
corner of the Anderson property. The�e--�r� sti11 vacant parcels, and there
could be a roadway between Lots 2 and 3 and looping out similar to those
options illustrated by the City. In that instance, there would be no negative
,,-.,, PLANNING COP1P4ISSIOPd P1EETIPJG, OCTOBER 27 , 1987 PAGF 10
impact on the proposed use by PSI-and arc�uld serve the Anderson development
reasonably well. He was only suggesting that there were some other options
and what those are should be left up to the future developers.
Mr. Tony Palaia, Palaia Construction, stated he was constructing the two
buildings facing Osborne Road. With him at the meeting were Jerry Jackson,
owner of the Dental Lab, and Wayne Dahl from the Fridley Chiropractic Clinic,
and P�r. Anderson, from Anderson Trucking.
Mr. Palaia stated this pr�perty has b�ee�n sitting vacant for some time,
and when it was rezoned to C-2, all of a sudden four lots were immediately
developed. At the time he came to the City to request the c,onstruction of
th�ge two buildings, it was made.extremely clear to him by City Staff that
the concerns of the City were that this area be d�evelop�d in an orderly fashion
and that these were to be extremely nice looking buildings. He stated they
have gone to considerable expense to do that. The green areas have been
strictly adhered to. BetweQn the two buildings facing Osborne Road, they are
spending in excess of $30,000 to adhere to the City's requirements.
(Mr. Palaia stated the vacation of the 25 ft, easement was made mandatory of
him to be added to the 25 ft, or 30 ft, easement at the time of future
develo�ment of the Anderson property. It was made very clear to him that if
� there were no eas�m�nts, there wor�ld be no building permits. He had no
problems with the easement if it was going to be made to the entire plat, not
only to the A& R plat, but also to the �nderson plat. The development of
the entire area was put forth as a nice coRanercial development, and now all
of a sudden they are being asF;ed to go along with a vacation of an easement
and restrictions that were put on them that are not being asked and adhered
to with the development of the mini-storage facility. He had strong reserva-
tions about this type of facility going in on this property.
Mr. Palaia stated he was oppo�ed.to both the rezoning and the �acation. The
reason for that was he felt the development would not enhance the Anderson
property with what looks to be a very developable piece of land for commercial
use, t�s far as the road coming in on the west, he had no problem with that.
Mr. Jensen-stated there was an indication that the use of the Anderson
property was commercial. He stated the zoning of the prape.rty to the east
of the Anderson development and the property to the south were all zoned P9-1.
He just wanted to make that clear.
P1r. Harold Anderson, President of Anderson Trucking, stated he owned the
Anderson Property, He stated he was in agreement with the street easement
in that they would share with the developer to the west in that easement,
His concern was that if that easement is vacated and upon future development
of his property, he did not want to end up paying the full exper�se of a road
if a road was needed in this area. He stateti the-rezaning joins his P9-1
property, and they would like the property zoned for what was the highest and
�"� best use for that property. If C-2 was the best zoning and would service the
community better, then that is what it should remain.
� PLANNIPdG COPIP�ISSIOPd M'.EETIPJG, OCTOBER 21, 1987 PAGE 11
Mr. John Nelson stated he owned the parcel of land betyueen the Strite
Anderson Building and the Bass Pro Shop: He stated he was a commercial
real estate broker and developer. He looked at this type of development
as an asset, not necessarily a detriment, to his property and would venture
to say that it could be an asset to the property owners around it. The
development was a very low traffic generator. They could have some other
kind of commercial use on that property such as an office building that
could create considerably more traffic than was proposed for the mini-
storage facility. He thought access to the project through the corner was
limited to a degree and if there was a r�ore intense user, there would
probably be some traffic problems. That, in effect, was what the easement
onto Osborne was all about--to create a secondary point of access in the
event a develop�nent was built that would create a traffic problem. What was
happening was just the reverse. They are getting a development that is very
handsome, and �ha� wo�ld,n�� �cau�e any traffic problems; therefore, there
really was not a need for the easement.
P1r. Nelson stated PSI was �he largest mini-warehoase business in the U.S.,
and he has seen some of their developments throughout the country. He
stated they are very handsome developments. PSI are the professionals in
the industry. He stated that regarding his own vacant property, he would
personally like to see the public storage project be completed, because that
� creates activity for his lot and the other lots around and increases the
value of his lot and the desirability of what possibly could happen to his
property. In his estimation, this project would certainly not decrease the
value of the other properties around it.
Mr. Nelson stated that as the project related to the road system for
Mr. Anderson's land, from a development standpoint, he has developed properties
in the past and until he knew exactly what was going to go onto the land, he
really did not know where the roads were going to be. From a practical stand-
point, the road system is really something that has to be addressed in the
future when the Anderson property is ready to be developed.
Mr. Nelson stated he agreed with P�r. Westfall that the zoning required in
an industrial zone was not really fitting to the use. He felt this type of
facility was more a commercial type use than an industrial type use.
�r. Ne3son stated that as a landowner adjacent to this property, he would be
in�favor of the rezoning and the request of a vacation of the road easement
for PSI.
Mr. Wayne Dahl stated he owned the Fridley Chiropractic�Clinic. He stated
he appreciated the nice appearance of the proposed buiTdings; however, as he
understood it,titer^e were going to be 30 ft, stalls in these buildings.
As a boat owner, he knew boat owners would desire a 30 ft, stall because
that was what about a 25 ft. boat and trailer required. However, he could
not imagine maneuvering his boat around the Viron Road loopback and the
!"�. corners to a 30 ft, wide road and try to get the boat into the storage area.
The narrow aisles could potentially be a problem.
� PL_/WNIIVG COMPqISSION P�EETING, OCTOBER 21, 7987 PAGE 12
Mr. Dahl stated it �uas interesting to note that on one hand they are talking
about landscaping that would potentially hide the development, and on the
other hand they are ta�king about the beauty of a mini-storage facility.
He was concerned that when they do have future development that the appear-
ance of this mini-storage facility could reflect on the future development
of the area. They have beautiful buildings-along Highway 65. He would like
to see that theme carried throughout the wh�le area. As far as traffic, he
personally would rat�rer see a nice office building go in that would be the
"jewel" of the area that would create a traffic flow into the area and would
draw people into the area. Trying to keep traffic down and being overly
concerned about that should no� be a consideration.
Mr. Dahl stated he was definitely not in favor of this particular project
for the reasons he had stated. He was in favor of any kind of access that
w�s-��eeded for t�e development that best fits the neighborhood: His problem
was with this development in particular.
Mr. Westfall stated he would like to comment regarding the prop.erty and its
affect on the surrounding properties. He stated he had a summary of a full
report which was a valuation study done on a propos�d self-starage facility
in Denver, Colorado, immediately adjacent to P,-4 multi-fami�ly. The purpose
of the study was to determine the affect, if any, o�f�the public storage on
� the surrounding properties. This valuation was done prior to the development
in proposed stages and was followed up on one year later. He stated the full
report could,be made available if it was needed.
Mr. Westfall quoted the following excerpt from page 6 of the summary prepared
by Van Court & Co. of Denver,.Colorado:
"In summary, we have selected a self-storage development for study
that can isolate its effect on the two multi-family residential
projects (both owner rather than renter occupied) that are adjacent.
We have then compared sales of idential units within the two projects,
some overlooking the mini-storage facility and some not, and we found
no market evidence to suggest that residentia' values in these two
projects are advers�ely affected by the self-storage facility. It is
our conclusion that a well plan�r�d`and constructed and attractively
landscaped pubiic storage facility does not diminish the value of
nearby single and multi-family residential prap�rties."
Mr, Westfall stated that as stated by Mlr. PJelson, they are the largest
development company in self-storage in the U.S. They are opening up
approximately two of these projects per �eek nationally. They are spending
a lot of money--over $30,000 in trees and plants on a develoment much
similar to this. They are restricted because of easements, detention ponds,
as to where they can place their buildings and still have value to the
development. The impact on the area is very minimal. So, for effective
use of the property to its highest and best value, they are not idly invest-
� ing in this property.
�\ PLANNIN� COP�P�ISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 21, 1987 PAGE 13
Mr. Jerry Jackson stated he owned the Dental Lab on Osborne Road. Some time
ag0 when he was purchasing the land for his building, it was made very clear
to him that this property was going to be zoned only commer�ial. At that
time, if there had been any daubt in his mind that there would be some other
ki nd of use other than , commer.�i al on �the� �p�oposed. -pr��.rty, he woul d have
l�oked�for~pro�erty elsewhere. He stated he has spent a lot of money on his
building, and he was totally opposed to this development as far as access to
the road. He had no problem with the easeroent and a road going th�ough there
in the future.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. N:�'EZSEN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV BILLINGS DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLO5ED AT 8:55 P.M.
P1r. Billings stated in stipulation #12, they are saying the rezoning was con-
tingent upon the vacation, but yet in stipulation #1, they are saying they
will rezone to P1-1 for the mini-storage-and any u�s�e� in the -futttre was subject
to City Council approval. To him that was saying that some time down the
line if there is no longer a mini-storage facility, the property could be
used for something else, Since they do not know what that "something else"
is and the reason they established the easemeaat in the fi�st-place was to
provide access, from the standpoint of good planning, he was in a quandary
^ as to how that good planning could have changed so radically in the few short
months since this was done. They are sitting here trying to look at what is
going to happen to that land 5, 10, 20 years from now, and that is a very
difficult thing to do. He was concerned that if they vacate the street ease-
ment and something happens in the future where the mini-storage is not the
best use of the land and something else wanted to go in on tfi at site, have they
precluded proper developmer�t because they do not have that access?
Mr. Billings stated that in 1986 when they imposed certain restrictions on
the property, it was primarily in terms of the rezoning, and the bulk of the
stipul�ations were for landscaping, street lighting, etc. At that time, certain
petitioners came in to rezone from C-3 to C�2 and do�a new plat, and the
presentations at that time surrounded the fact that the best use of this
property was going to be �ommercial development. He respected the petitioner's
argument that the City Code says this particular use fits into the industrial
character, but he was not sure this was the type of commercial/industrial
use they wanted to ��_i-n on this property. He thought the long range plan that
the City envisioned in 1986 was for smaller commercial type development in
ti�i.s_entire area.
Mr. Betzold stated it was not very long ago that they considered the rezoning
from C-3 to C-2; and it was not too long ago that this was virtually an empty
field. Now they must make sure they are not stuck with something they will
rQgret. Until they really know how they want that property developed, they
should keep the street easement. He was not sure if this particular develop-
� ment would or would not fit in, The petiti�oners have indfcated there was not
a zoning classification that this mini-st�orage facil�ity �fit into, and he
would agree with that, but he was not sure if this type of facility even
belonged in this particular neighborhood. He just did not think this project
�.,1 PLANNI�JG COF1P�ISSION P�EETII�G, �OCT�BER 21, 1987 PAGE 14
was what he envisioned for this property. He would not be in favor of
either changing the zoning or vacating the easement.
Mr. Bondow stated he was concerned about two things: (1) The security. He
felt they should be concerned about the additional burden on the City and
Police Department, and he thought because of the limited access to it,
there will be a concern for surveillance and for security. (2) If they do
rezone and do the vacation, he was concerned they might have precluded the
land from any other`future use. There really was no going back once they
ha-ve given up the vacation of the eas�ment. Ffe stated he would oppose the
vacation of the easement as well as the rezoning.
Mr. Billings stated that as mini-storage facilities go, the petitioner has
an excellent looking facility; and if it were not for the location it was
proposed in, he thought it would be a very attractive amenity to the City
of Fridley.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BONDOW, TO i2ECOMMEND T0 CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF REZQNING, ZOA #87-04, BY JAMES.BENSDN, T.O REZONE.FROM. C-2 (GENERAL
BU5INESS) TD M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ON LOT 4� BLOCK 1, A& R,4EGOND ADDITION
AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, A& R ADDIT20111, THE SAME BEING 7651 HIGHWAY 65 N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION
'� CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
4. COPaSIDERATION OF A VACATIO��, SAV #87-10, BY JAP1ES BEP�SON:
o vacate the East 25 eet of Lot 3, Block 1, & R A ition, and the East
30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, A& P Second Addition, and beginning at the north-
east corner of Lot 1, Block 1, A& R Addition; thence south along the
east line of said Lot 1 to the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence we.st
along south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 25 feet; thence north along
a line parallel with and 25 feet west of, as measured at right angles to,
the east line of said Lot 1 a distance of 198 feet; thence deflect to the
left in a northwesterly direction 45 degrees to the north line of said Lot 1;
thence east along said north line to the point of beginning, all generally
located at 7651 Highway 65 N.E.
MOZ'TON BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. NIELSEN, TO RECOMMEND TO CSTY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF A VACATIOIV, SAV #87-ZQ, BY.JAME5 BENSON, TO VACATE THE EAST
25 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, A& R ADDITION, AND THE EAST 30 FEET OF LOT 4,
BLOCK 1, A& R SECOND ADDI'1'ION, AND BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
LOT 1, BLOCK Z, A& R ADDITION; THENCE SOUTH ALONG TNE EAST LIIUE OF SAID
LQT Z TO THE SOUTHEA5T CORNER OF SAID LOT Z; THENCE WEST ALONG SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT Z� Z'HENCE l�E5T ALpNG SDUTH LINE OF_SAID LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF
25 FEET; THENCE NORTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 25 FEET WEST OF, AS
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT l A DI5TANCE OF I98
FEET; THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT IN A NORTNWESTERLY DIRECTIQN 45 DEGREES TO
THE NORTH LINE OF 5AID LOT 1; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF 5AID
r`�'�, LOT 1; THENCE EAST AIANG SAID NORTH LINE TO TIiE POINT OF BEGINNING, ALL
GENERALLY LOCATED"AT 765I HIGHWAY 65 N.E.
� PLANNIPdG COP-1r�ISSIO�! P�EETING, OCTOBER 21 , 1987 PAGE 15
UPO1V A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CFIAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED U1VAIVIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated the variances, rezoning, and vacation requests ��ould
all go to the City Council at a public hearing on Nov. 23. No action
would be taken until Dec. 7.
5. CONSIDERATION OF 1988 PLANNING COP�R�ISSION M�fTING DATES:
Mr. Billings recommended this item be held over until the next meeting when,
hopefully, more regular m�mbers would be present.
6. REGEIVE SEPTEMBER 10, 1987; HOUSING & R�D.��IELDPS�,ENT AUT�NOR�TY P4INUTFS:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY A9R. BONDOW, TO RECEIVE THE SEPT. 10, 1987,
NOUSING & REDEVELOPMEPIT AUTHOI�ITY 1KINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE OCTOBER 5, 19&7, PARKS & RECR€ATIOfI� COPqP1ISSI0PJ P�INUTES:
� MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BONDOW, TO RECEIVE THE OCT. 5, 1987,
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSON BILLING5 DEGLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE OCTOBEf; 13, 1987, APPEALS COPIMISSION P1INUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BONDOW, TO RECEIVE THE_OCT. Z3, Z987,
APPEALS COMMI5SION MINUTE5.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. BOIVDOW, TO ADJOURN THE MEE2'ING. UPOPI A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSDN BILLING� DE�LARED THE OCT. 21, 1987,
PLANNI111G COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
yn e aba
Recording Secretary
�
� ' .
,� ��
�� �l� ����
��
l� �J' I r ��
1 ���
�/
/
� �/ i �
� 1 �
� , � � � ��
1. ;, � �
. `
� � y�v�c� ��-5` s v � r-�u� � �
C'� L c��l /�� �i �� �� S
` , ,�
r
� �, / �. �
/
���,��.
�
.��P�s��
��G/oZ/
� �5 � � � '`�' /��, ��
��,'�� r��
�
�
�� �� �
���7������,
��=� ��: �
%�-o� �S�a�. �4�0� �� �. `
�ie-r d G �-c� , M � � .�S`f3 Z
%�� v �,s ����� �� �. �
�l���� ���t� ���'���.
,
C��,��.� G��.�L i`� ��
�
�n��1
��
s�`�32
u — 1 1
���/ui. /. `-. ._.__ _._ _. __s _ --_t .__._ _.._.
d/�� ' — -
l..Y°�. �% l��� _ _ -
- - - - — -
.
/��if �i�� � -- -- - - -
_ -- -��.N1'-0—F3' ` � �__ . _ - -- — ___
�
�
- - r''�►1