The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 09/13/1989 - 7101PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 7:30 P.M. Barbara Dacy Planning Coordinator City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: �PPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 30, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-12 BY ASHLAND OIL CO. (RAPID OIL�: Per Section 205.14.O1.C.5 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service on Lots 1 through 3, Block 6, City View Addition, the same being 5701 University Avenue N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-13 BY WAYNE DAHL• Per Section 205.07.O1.C.1 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building to exceed 240 square feet on Lot 20, Block 1, Sandhurst, the same being 177 Hartman Circle N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-14 BY TED HAINES AND DIANE JORGENSON FOR CITY SPORTS: Per Section 205.14.O1.C.3, to allow enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure; per Section 205.14.O1.C.8, to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment, located at 7191 Highway 65 N.E. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION SAV #89-04 BY DAVID LARSON: To vacate the west 27 feet of a 57.5 foot existing east/west easement on Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Onaway Addition, generally located at 7890 Hickory Street N.E. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #89-05 BY WAYNE DAHL: To vacate the south five (5) feet of a ten (10) foot utility easement in Lot 20, Block 1, Sandhurst, the same being 177 Hartman Circle N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1989 RECEIVE THE MINiJTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 22 1989 OTHER BUSINESS� ADJOURN: b � r CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNINd CO1rIIriI88ION MEETINC;, AIIGIIST 30, 1989 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the August 30, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg, Bradley Sielaff Sue Sherek Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF AUGUST 16, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the August 16, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIIBLY. l. CONSZDERATION OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING REOUIREMENTS Ms. McPherson stated the proposed landscape stahdards are for ad�ption in industrial and commercial districts and will standardize City requirements for developers and businesses. When developers come in with their site plans, etc., the City must tell them what is required. There are currently three lines in the ordinance to cover landscaping and screening. This language is taken from a proposed ordinance for Champlin. The proposed standards need to be worked on to see if they match some of the other requirements, ie. how much is required for parking vs. how much is left over for green areas. Mr. Barna asked if staff had considered a type of parking lot paver which would allow the grass to grow through the block. Mr. Dahlberg stated the concrete block has been tried in this part of the country but doesn't seem to do that well. They can work where the grass does not get as much trampling. The problem is that in the winter the grass will not survive if it is plowed, because the frost will penetrate de�per. If there is a lawn area that is exposed in the winter, the frost will go six to seven feet deep. With a snow cover, the frost depth will be more like three feet and the grass will survive. PLANNINa COMMI88ION KEBTINQ. AIIaIIBT 30, 1989 PAGE 2+ Mr. Barna stated he was considering the times when an industry does not need as much parking as is required by the City code and that this could be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Dahlberg stated some cities use "proof of parking". If the property owner or business can show that they have only a few employees, but the code requires 25 parking spaces, they can show they will not need that many spaces. A portion of the site can then be set aside for proof of parking so that it can be added if needed. Ms. McPherson stated several ordinance amendments would be coming through the commission. Councilmember Billings is preparing language about a reduction in the parking stall size, and she and Ms. Dacy had discussed adding language concerning the number of employees and employee parking needed. Mr. Dahlberg stated proof of parking is a bit peculiar and may not want to use the interpretation of the parking. A building could be used as a warehouse requiring few employees and few parking places. However, in the future, it could become a manufacturing facility. That is why there must be proof that there is parking space available if needed for a different use. Mr. Barna stated this is what is done here through proving there is a certain amount of square feet. This could be done through a special use permit. A business may not the amount of parking as required by code, but should have the space available for additional parking if needed. Mr. Dahlberg stated you can run into difficulties when you start to sway. Everybody needs to understand that as a manufacturing facility so many parking spaces are required. However, there should be potentially a means for a development to conform to landscaping by not putting the entire site into bituminous when they are not going to use it. He would like to incorporate a statement into the landscape ordinance that says a business may need to pave this area later, but in the meantime, the City would like to see landscape materials. The City can not foresee everything that will occur but it can allow for less bitwainous and more landscape. Mr. Barna referred to agenda page 1G, D, 3, indicating this statement should take into consideration the planting season. Mr. Betzold asked if Ms. McPherson knew how these ordinance guide- lines conform to what has been required in recent stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated berming is pretty standard. As far as plant sizes, which are on page 2, those are what the City requires now except for coniferous trees which are usually five to six feet tall. Ms. Dacy and she calculated that in an industrial district �PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 30. 1989 PAGE 3 on a minimum lot, which is 1/2 acres, subtracting that which can be parked on and allow for setbacks, etc., that leaves approximately 12$ of the lot for green space. Eight-eight percent of the lot can be covered by bituminous. Twenty-five percent for commercial and industrial may be high unless the City changes its standard on how it calculates lot coverage. Lot coverage is currently calculated by building only, not by impervious surface. Some other municipalities do not requi,re lot coverage. They let building and parking setbacks determine that. Other cities have almost a 90� lot coverage for both parking and building. The City would either have to change setback requirements for parking or change the percentage to meet current standards. The City could reduce it to 12� or leave it at 25�. Mr. Betzold stated it would be important to look at what the City already has. Ms. McPherson stated the Chamber of Commerce has started a new policy of reviewing City Council and Planning Commission agendas before the meetings, and they were concerned about how this would work. There are some things that need to be worked out. Staff is trying to help developers by presenting them with a set of standards regarding plant sizes, numbers, etc. This also incorporates a section which will help preserve existing trees through a replacement policy which the City does not have now. The City has no way to require developers to replace a ratio of trees that are taken out. Staff cannot say that for every 8" tree that is cut down, it has to be replaced with two trees, because it is not in the code. Mr. Betzold asked if the Chamber of Commerce had seen the proposed ordinance. Ms . McPherson indicated two persons who are part of the Chamber had seen the proposed ordinance. One was a representative from McDonald's came to see what would be done. She did not expect this item to get started at the public hearing level until next year. Mr. Betzold stated, as due process, the commission could take a look at the proposal and see how consistent it is. Ms. McPherson stated that many times staff has been asked to cut back on the number of trees. This will help in the future, if there is not a landscape architect on staff, to have guidelines to go by. Mr. Sielaff asked if Ms. McPherson currently looks at plans. Ms. McPherson stated she did, but without a knowledge of plants materials, it is difficult to make an objective determination on the quality of the plants. It is arbitrary. This will help. pLANNING COMMIBBION MBBTINd, A�QIIST 30, 1989 PAGE 4 °°• � Mr. Sielaff asked if staff would look at plans. If so, then the ; request would not come before the Planning Commission. , Ms. McPherson stated that not everyone who applies for a building permit and comes in with a plan is required to come before the — Planning Commission. For those who do not come before the commission, staff will be able to check off those things that are required. The language is cairrently vaque and non-specific. Staff has been very consistent in the last two years in the size of the trees. Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff had gone through an evaluation of landscape ordinances other then Champlin's. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Almost all "500" cities have been called. Champlin's proposed ordinance is the most comprehensive landscape plan yet seen. Many cities have what Fridley currently has. Eden Prairie has a comprehensive plan and a shoreline ordinance. Mr. Sielaff asked how many cities have instituted a landscape plan and do not have a professional on staff. Ms. McPherson stated she did not know how many cities employed landscape architects. Mr. Dahlberg stated most cities do. Almost every city he has dealt with had one landscape architect on staff. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, as an architect trying to get projects approved, there are some communities in the metro area that are too restrictive or too subjective. Ms. McPherson stated that this language is setting up the number and standard sizes of trees. It still allows the developers to use any species they want. A landscape architect can help with proper placement of plants or providing suggestions for better plants in an area, but not necessarily following the ordinance requirements. Mr. Dahlberg recommended that this not be excessive. When a project is proposed or a developer wants to do a building, the landscaping is the last thing they want to consider. It is not necessarily right, but that is just the way it is. Every project should have something that is going to add to the environment; however, excessiveness in terms of the requirements does not make sense. Mr. Kondrick stated there should be cooperation on the project on the part of the developers. Mr. Betzold felt it was better to have written standards. This is a step in the right direction. There will be criticisms along the L PLANNINa COMMIBSION 1dE8TING, AIIaIIBT 30, 1989 PAGE 5 way and there will probably be modifications along the way, but this is better than what we have now. Mr. Dahlberg suggested, if someone states they cannot put that much money into landscaping, the City should be willing to do some compromising, and say that this is ultimately what the City wants to have done on the property, and by the time of the occupancy permit, half should be done and by the next planting season, the rest should be done. He thought the City should be flexible to a certain extent, but not forget entirely, and work with the individual to get the required landscaping done in a reasonable period of time. However, he did not think this should be part of the ordinance but it should be an internal policy to be flexible according to our requirements. Mr. Sielaff felt this should be keyed into the required process. Compliance schedules can be put in which require a landscape plan to be submitted and reviewed. This requires a staff person to do the review, but this also gets the landscape plan into the process. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, if a plan is required early enough in the process, the developer and owner understand that there is a certain .amount of dollars required for the property. For example, in Plymouth, when a project is submitted, the developer is required to provide building, site, landscape, and utility plans before it will go to the Planning Commission; and even though most people despise working in Plymouth because it is so restrictive, they know what is required. If staff can require everything before it is considered, it may help. Many times the Planning Commission is not working with a lot of information when someone comes before the Planning Commission in Fridley. If it was outlined that certain things are required before coming before the Planning Commission, everyone will understand what is required. This would not necessarily need to be part of the landscape ordinance, but should be a part of the ordinance requirements for submittal for review. Mr. Betzold stated he would also like to see from the developer, which staff could get all at once, the developer's timetable and when the developer plans to install. That way, the City would know what their priorities are. Mr. Barna stated, that in the past, there have not been excessive landscape requirements. When sites have designed a landscape plan, it has repeatedly occurred that the builders and/or owners wanted to put money into the building, not trees. If it is in the ordinance at the pre-planning level, this will not happen. Mr. Sielaff asked if the City would require an inventory on existing plants. Ms. McPherson stated she specifically asked for an inventory from pLANNINa COMMISBION MEBTINQ. A�OIIBT 30. 1989 PAG$ b; Northco, but it is not currently in the code. Mr. Dahlberg stated an inventory is part of the Plymouth ordinance. The inventory requires to have so many caliper inches of trees on the development. If you leave trees on the site, then the caliper inches of the existing trees are credited toward required landscape. Every property is required to have a survey done. Ms. McPherson stated there is a credit for existing trees. She �ill go back to check that those numbers that are in the proposed ordinance are being requested are consistent with other cities. Mr. Dahlberg asked about credits for trees and if there is some formula for retaining existing trees. If a developer retains a good percentage of existing trees, why would they need to add new trees? Perhaps adding shrubs would be enough. Mr. Sielaff stated that many times it is ignorance on the part of the developer. Mr. Barna stated there are sites in the City that at one time had existing trees and that are now bare. Ms. McPherson stated she will review the proposed ordinance and will discuss with Ms. Dacy the percentage requirements. Then, it will come back to the Planning Commission to make sure nothing has been missed and then go back to the City Council. Mr. Dahlberg asked about irrigation. He was not sure this was enough description or explanation. Ms. McPherson stated irrigation is one of three things the City does require. One of the issues of irrigation is, if there is another drought, should we require drought tolerant plants, and how to enforce the use of irrigation. If it is installed, how can the City be sure that it will be used? Mr. Dahlberg asked what would happen if there is a watering ban. Mr. Barna stated the aquifer level is dropping. If there is ar►other drought, it is possible that irrigation will be banned. Mr. Dahlberg felt the water supply was sufficient. Irrigation does go back into the soil and will qet back into the aquifer. He felt they could work together. His concern about statement is that it should be more specific. Does the City require that a developer irrigate only lawn or landscape materials? Developers can irrigate sod areas only and shrubs die, which looks worse. Should the language be more specific? Mr. Dahlberg also referred to the statement that irrigation shall be required in all industrial and commercial districts and � n . t �. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, llIIa08T 30. 1989 PAaE 7 developments with more than three units per building. He asked if this was residential. Ms. McPherson stated this was R-3 zoning. Currently, every building is commercial and industrial and is required to have irrigation so that language should be changed to encompass consistent standards. Mr. Sielaff stated that.many people have their own wells for irrigation. Mr. Barna stated this was not forbidden to have a shallow well as long as the water is not brought into the house and will not run through the public water system. Mr. Sielaff stated that if irrigation is required it will take from the municipal water system. Will this level be significant? Ms. McPherson stated the technology is changing fast enough that companies are designing water efficient sprinkler heads that are designed to conserve water. Mr. Sielaff stated he could see irrigation as a problem. Mr. Sielaff stated concerns about erosion control. 1, D, mentions erosion control, but felt it should be part of a plan. This could be part of a landscape plan. Mr. Dahlberg stated that engineering require grading and drainage plans. Ms. McPherson stated that grading and drainage plans will specify where and by what means erosion will be controlled. This is usually standard practice. Mr. Dahlberg stated there are grading and drainage plans prepared by civil engineers. However this is not always done correctly. Ms. McPherson did not know that this would be the case. She would say civil engineers are consistent in using those standard. Mr. Dahlberg stated the language should be something relative to slope. Mr. Sielaff also recommended material used. Mr. Dahlberg stated this should not only incorporate sodding, but if you are seeding, you need some kind of mulch or mesh, and a general measure necessary of grading. Engineering is a good source of information. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER pLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINd. AIIaIIST 30, 1989 PAGE 8� Ms. McPherson stated staff is still working with the current comprehensive plan. Much of what is in the outline included with the agenda is included in the current plan except that it has been rearranged and expanded. The wetlands portion has been expanded to include location. Fridley has the official wetland maps for the watershed districts: Rice Creek and Six Cities. The City has maps for Fridley and staff is mapping those wetlands which exist and which are gone. Staff has also added the regulatory agencies that oversee those watersheds. A section was added on air quality. The current plan does not have an inventory of unique features on vacant parcels so staff has chosen to inventory those. Staff has decided to have a section that discusses the various threats that can occur to the natural resources and which are occurring. Mr. Sielaff asked why does the City have regulatory functions over wetlands and air quality, but nothing over water bodies. If staff is going to look at regulatory functions, groundwater and surface water should be included. Under threats to resources, he suggested the inclusion of pollution as a topic and that water pollution be separated into groundwater and surface water. It is important to look at what is being impacted and what kind of waste is the problem. Ms. McPherson stated that is how staff thought about it. Mr. Sielaff felt it should be looked at as how the resources will be impacted. Mr. Dahlberg stated it was nice to see this work going on and thought it is a step forward to look at all these things. Mr. Kondrick agreed, and felt it is good to look at specifics rather than generalities. Ms. McPherson stated there currently are no policy objectives. Those will be developed later in the process. Solid waste was not included because it will be given its own chapter in the comprehensive plan. - 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 10. 1989 Mr. Kondrick stated that on Page 4, there is a motion recommending to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, that the City not lease or sell any portion of Edgewater Gardens Park to Redeemer Lutheran Church for parking purposes. The church is located on Mississippi Street just east of East River Road. They have a parking lot to the north and east of the church. Adjacent is the park, bounded by parking lot on one side, railroad tracks on the other side. The church wants to expand its parking lot. After much discussion, the commission's concensus was not to do this because it would set a precedent and because this is not needed. 2 PLANNIN(i COMMIBBION MEETING. AIIaIIBT 30. 1989 PAaE 9 - Nothing was done by the church to offer other services. There are no major parking problems. The Parks & Recreation Commission is looking for concurrence from this commission. Mr. Betzold state the park was to provide a place for recreational purposes. He agreed that if we sell part of the park here, it will set a precedent. Mr. Barna also agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Dahlberg asked for clarification of the statement that the church is requesting the use of the land but that they really don�t need it. Mr. Kondrick stated the church said they needed more parking spaces for some times of the year. He felt the church would like to expand the church. The Commission asked why, since they have people going to different services, they could not have more services. The Commission was told that people would not go to the service. He stated He was not real sympathetic to this request, because the church did not make a real attempt to add a service. There is more to a park than playground equipment. He did not feel they needed the space. The church can have other services, and such a decision to give park land could set dangerous precedent. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the neighbors were involved. Mr. Kondrick stated they were and that the bulk said they did not want changes to the park. The church also contacted the neighbors. Mr. Dahlberg stated this is a captive neighborhood. Mr. Kondrick stated this is not a big park either. OTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, that the Planning Commission concur with the recommendation of the Parks & Recreation Commission that the City not lease or sell any portion of Edgewater Gardens Park to Redeemer Lutheran Church for parking purposes. IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTINQ AYE, CHAIRP$RBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of July 10, 1989. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Mr. Betzold stated this item would be before the City Council on September il. LANNING COMMIBSION MEETINa AIIGIIBT 30 1989 PAQE 1Q ' 4. DUMPSTER ORDINANCE UPDATE Ms. McPherson stated this is an update. The charts included in the agenda indicate the places that are multi family, industrial businesses, commercial businesses that have dumpsters, whether or not they have screening, and if so, what type? The information was presented to the City Council prior to the meeting and has been tabled until it can be scheduled before the Council conference meeting. The City's Public Works department has been instructed to screen the City's dumpsters prior to this item going back for a public hearing. Mr. Betzold asked what conclusions were drawn as a result of this information. Staff concluded that 69� of establishments surveyed are not screened. Mr. Barna stated tha� those who had conformed had a special use permit or variance. Ms. McPherson stated that the current code requires screens. �ased on this information, the City could send out many letters notifying of code violations. Mr. Dahlberg asked what conclusions were drawn. Ms. McPherson stated this was presented as an information item and asked for direction. Some recommendations were made. One is that the City screens its own dumpsters, look at recycling containers, ask for clarification of screening material types, in addition to several other recommendations and/or directions. All staff could conclude was that no one is complying except those with a special use permit or a variance or if they are required to keep inside. Basically 69� are not complying with current code let alone if we adopt a new code. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is difficult from the enforcement. standpoirnt of Ms. McPherson stated that the Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the proposed dumpster ordinance. In a letter to their people there was a question if it also included the top of the dumpster. Ms. Dacy stated it did not, that four sides are to be screened, not the top. °pLANNINa CO��II+iI88ION ME$TINa, �DdIIBT 30. 1989 PAGE 11 ADJOURNMENT OM TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINGi AYE, CSAIRPBRBON BBTZOLD DECLARED THE JDNE 21, 1989, PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETINa ADJOIIRNED 7►T 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary , � � � _ STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE �,�� QF pLAMMV(' COMu1SSION DATE : S e p t emb e r � 3, 19 8 9 FRIDLEY c;mr couNa� oA� � ��= REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZON�VG ADJACENT LAND USES $� Z�i� ��$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FlNANCIAL NViPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREFENSNE PLAN COMPA� WITH ADJACENT USES � ZONNG av�/�ot�n+�Ei�ri� CONSDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION �LANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SP ��89-12 Ashland Oil Company A special use permit to allow a motor oil and fuel dispensing establishment within a C-2, General Business. 5701 University Avenue N.E. N/A N/A C-2, General Business C-2 to the north and south; R-2 to the east; University Avenue to the west. On site N/A Within a proposed HRA redevelopment area Yes Yes Potential soil and ground water contamination Approval with stipulations. C Staff Report SP #89-12, Rapid Oil Page 2 REQUEST ' Ashland Oil is proposing to reconstruct their motor oil changing station located at 5701 University Avenue N.E. The original application encompasses Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 6, City View Addition. The petitioner also applied for two variance requests (side corner building setback and lot area). Because the petitioner owns the adjacent lots, staff advised the petitioner to utilize Lot 4 in order to remove the need for the variances. Ashland Oil has therefore applied for a rezoninq of Lot 4, which is currently vacant and zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling to C-2, General Business. The rezoning will allow Ashland Oil to combine Lot 4 with Lots 1, 2 and 3 and create a building site which will conform to the current zoning code. SITE The site is currently occupied by an existing Rapid Oil Change station. Ashland Oil will demolish this station and rebuild a new oil changing station which will be similar to the one built at the corner of 73rd Avenue and Highway 65 in Fridley. This site is within a proposed HRA redevelopment area. This site is zoned C-2, General Business, with additional C-2 to the north and south of the site�. R-2, Two Family Dwelling, is located to the east, and University Avenue borders the site to the west. ANALYSIS Because this request is to demolish the existing building and reconstruct a new building and because no special use permit has been issued for the property, a special use permit is required (Section 205.14.O1.C.(5)). The special use permit will bring the site into conformance with the current zoning code. The site is currently being tested for soil and water contamination. Testing is also being done on adjacent parcels across University Avenue, specifically on the Hardees Restaurant eite. Two of the four existing curb cuts are proposed to be closed. This will improve access and help control traffic exiting from the site onto 57th Avenue. This will also reduce traffic conflicts for cars accessing University Avenue to go either north or south. The petitioner is preparing a site plan to include the extra 40 feet provided by I�ot 4. With the additional 40 feet from Lot 4, the petitioner can shift the building to the east to comply with the building setback requirements. This will then allow the petitioner to also meet the hardsurface setback requirement; allowing room for the curb cut for access onto 57th Place to be shifted to the east. L C Staff Report SP #89-12, Rapid Oil Page 3 Through the special use permit and rezoning processes, Ashland Oil will be bringing the site into conformance with current zoning codes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the special use permit, SP #89-12, with the following stipulations: 1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to be approved by the Engineering staff prior to issuance of a building permit. . Ashland Oil shall�record the easement and restrictive covenant required from the previous special use permit process for the site at 73rd Avenue and Highway 65� 3. The petitioner shall combine Lots 1, 2 and 3 with Lot 4 into one tax parcel. 4. Approval of the special use permit shall be contingent upon the approval of the rezoning application of Lot 4. 5. No building permit shall be issued until the contamination clean-up has been completed and satisfied MPCA standards. � t�TY OF FBID1.� `; �' � 4 91 UI�UV�RBtT'� �1�E. � �1,8. A � � _ FAIDLEY. �1N ��'a '� � ,� � � ` `�a � z�aa 1-s�� - .� �� - � � �. ; £ - � � �, � : �. �- . �. - i �.��ID '� �� .� r� {,. �,� f � - �. ';'� �:1�1� �� °� - ' �. . �- _ � �� . � .,�h - ; -- �1,. t�E PF.RMIT SP # �:: �� r�.�. �i;, ' �- � s4� r �� _ �,:.a a� �� v ��- �Z P� �31�� r- �s _ �5� �C° 2 ,19'8q �R�3PERTY �NFORMATIl�N _ : � . _ � � x sA� � ; _ -� �- � F � l �: : �� r �,n�s ��Q'i �� i� t�s��' � �,r�� - - i I.I�AL �.S�tIP.��: . , : ; � ; , �. ;- . . ., . �. i . : ; LOT � ;� ffi�OCK � � '1RAC.�/AD�7.'�1 . �RESFNT ZOlJIL� - :�A�F�GE SP£C.[AL DSE P�MI'T BEIl�iG �lPH,IED `EDR: . i..,. , . . ! _ �'1 . � _ • 1 �� . _ _ . • _ „ , �� E ��: �� . o r . c-. � - *******��***�*��*��,��****** FEE �OWNER 11�F10RMATftiN �.: . � �`-�� ,� •��. l.� � .� ` _J,.� ' # 827— 2�41 ' s1GA�uRE �r�' i.�r� � l � ` � �i� �. �tk° �re !r� 4 �t *a! � � f�s' #�aR �r� * �t �r �rt !r�'#�r �#��r=!rt ir �'�c�rs t�r� � tk ,t � � � „ _ _ � - , „< k `� �ETITI�?NER 1NF4RMA�3N ; � . £- - - '� ; _ �� t� -s�.. �s � ��+� . �e � � ,. �s _ _ _ � _ 3 a` k F p,,, •.- _ � �� - . - � 1 '.-� � .- . * �- . . .. . ._ . - ...., - . _ - , _ _ , _} '� # � � �r ":3 # iR # # . �` 11r #� <# # �r �t �. # # r� = � � # # � '�f �ic � � �R :�Y # iMt 'IZ �tk # 4 � tk � t �. ,' n , .�: s > ` — � , - �� ' � _ �f , .,* .,� , s�az �s -7+ F�p �v � ; .�"' � - .§ � , - .� ' - rr ' r ,..wrrs�.' �� .� '"�� irrii��e�i�s��- � � �.. �. . -`i�A�ifA! - � `r,.;t-� .��' .- � I I ra �et;�A +`i 6'1f �v' ?�;�(. X' � `� _ � k�. �; r+ � ` a c PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, September 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #89- 12, by Ashland Oil Inc. (Rapid Oil), per Section 205.14.O1.C.5 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service on Lots 1 through 3, Block 6, City View Addition, the same being 5701 University Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: August 30, 1989 September 6, 1989 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. SP �i89-12 Ashland Oil Co. Robert Mi_kulak Ashland Oil Co. , Inc. 3041 - 4th Avenue South Misuieapolis, NfV 55408 Ashland Oil C,anpany 5701 thziversity Avenue TJ.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Ashland Oil Oanpany 3499 Dabney Drive Lexington, iCY 40509 Ashland Oil C.aanpany 348 - 57th Plaoe N.E. F'ridley, NN 55432 �anas 7�rson 360 - 57th Avenue N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Glen Pet�exson 380 - 57th Plaoe N.E. F'ridley, NN 55432 Iianko Sdiuur 5755 Llniversity Avenue N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 MAILING LIST Planning Council Ri.c��ard Miller 799 Timber Iake Drive Eden Prairie, NN 55433 William Fbgarty 349 - 57th Plaoe N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Resident 353 - 57th Plaoe N.E. Fridley, N�1 55432 Edward Daw 359 - 57th Plaoe N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Residexit 5800 - 4th Street N.E. Fridley, NN 55432 Margaret Hendley 118 CYaig 4�1ay N.E. �Yidley, Md 55432 8oliday Stati� Stores 5807 Univiersity Avenue N.E. FYidley, riJ 55432 �liaay station stores Box 1224 Blaaningtran, M�I 55440 8/25/89 Frank Gabrelcik 5740 University Avenue N.E. FYidley, NN 55432 F..dward Dr�w 312 East 32nd Street Sioux Falls, SD 57105 Planning Commission Chair City Council Members � / 0 � �'� � � � � � �� , � � � � � �� . � �i� � � � � � - �� , �1 � � �" � � � o � �i� � � � 1!� �� 1�! �'f �i � � t� ae� � �# N �/2 SEC. C/TY G 21� ' � I �� -- - ---- ..f 6� f�rf«uf . '• • �` . . - • . r. • __. _.. . :� � � • �+ i � � • f ' �� , `� ', . • • � • i _` � �._� � S �. • •' � �' • Y �► ! • • . � �+ � rr . • r _ � '�a � ` �. . r► r . +� _ � -- � � ' ' r _ �' � • ... . -Yi �' - 1 • .►'�' � • • ... . �.j i.� - — s ' ,.1 '- ' - - �p TM �vEwuE . . ,�•-; . .. • . � ;: . :; . , ,: . ::; M _= F : , _ . � - - - y ' - N. � i.. . :r.. � .f �� .. ;�y -- � ._ �. �,, I � i • � t • ' I , � •` • ' � �.t�.+� W ` -• �+ , � J. � r � ,t. •� • � i W � z ' i i . . J yj = � �r �� J. _ •(• ' f S � _ S • 'ar�.. � �. JLr� .� • + 1I ' I • ! Y j • � � • � � ' ' . �� . • � •�� , f • • . � :� � � - ..j• � -"'� r ' � ��. ry �� ..i � '� � .' . , r v �, p . �� Q . N • �y.�'�f► � • � • , ,_ . , 1 � , MUE M.E. � ... , ��. i . � • �i[1 Cri � `��Iti[�_ ll�O 0�� -��i � � '� �� - �� - � �1 �1 �il �� ! C�� \� �'1� R Lr !�! !� � �DI !� d Li.�.w �� rr � � � � i�1:� Q_'� !�"� �A Eaa� � fS�% r�l r' ,T� 11�7�\ 1m� �7� � � a � � � � � � Q�� 11 � � /m,�� we � �ri � �;� �+ s�r �+ � �+��e �+w �� at � .6■�- °�iA i� �rii � � � � � � � � � �� a.�_� �� ia v � •� ' � �, � � � � � w ��;.�,.•.�.�• ::��t r• t�r:f ,. I ' v s . . r� TM � • - • � '�•1',��'I�i i;t�1�1�1 i� 1�1��•1 i�, _;s. --�- � � `? .. � .. . _ � : y-. '�'� r i: � ' � �... . r. � ' . � � � - • 9 TM ' � ' vE' •' . i .. �• .�� .y �• � ' ' .~�' , � �� . ,� , �, J� . ..• � .� .' �.. �_y �� ` � �� j �. .. . ' � _ .�. t '� '' _ . • � j ' _ � • / . f � • � I ' � - • •� �+ •�� w� I�,- •. • � � AVE M.E " � � � �� . '� _. .± � . ..•i �. � 1 v. 7 l�! • •� �� .��- . .I • ;� • - r •� � � ' ' � N . y, i � � .y ` , R , � ; � �� i___ . • . " ,' � ►��cE •� .. �` .,. i . � .� / ,1 s � ..,��. , . � . . �. t� r. �.� '��- • - ' 'T � �,•� � ,� 1' �' ' ..'. 2 � ,. , � I ,� �, �+w�^ ^�.. �� i �� LOGA11V1�1 M�►r C� . � - � . = � � i `, : � i �•� - — •- __ �w .t+�+�+y � �s -- + . 1�+ �n �wlwn r�r � _ — '�/'IL , / I 1 �� . , � � � • � G �� -- � I� ' i ' o 'i � i � . � .f I �� . � .` � � K �\ 1 �� ,' � �� =�� `tMtl��ss_. (�'�R�. � �w'�'1. - - �•�K—_ � � °� 4 � I � � i ��e � ��' I � � ; . �� . � � f r70 .M yv — — � ��l s'rM�1M ��t I i � � , i�� -- -- .---=---; � � � i � i LR► M�+ �1iMMf fM�s � �L S� ,�t — � � �- ar � � a � vo : � 0 a � s � , � l PROPOSED SITE �IAPROVEMENTS � �' ♦ -- � _ � � � - - j�+w+� .LLrw � it�us --- � � __ --- _ a. � a — _��-- _. , � � :� . � . , ;� . � � t J 7 +-� • O i �� --� .. � � � � . � t � � �� I• . � � � . : -, i � � : � J � + � �'. -:�_= II O � 2 . � , i \ � � I � � � � I i Z I —R �� S� z I EXISTING SITE PLAN _ PLANNING DNISION . � MEMOR,ANDUM unroF fRlDLEY DATE: September 8, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator SUBJECT: Special Use Permit and Vacation Requests for Wayne Dahl; 177 Hartman Circle N.E. � Attached is the petitioner's request to table the special use permit and the vacation applications for a second accessory building. The Planning Commission should table both requests. We will notify the adjacent property owners as to when the matter will be rescheduled. BD/dn M-89-544 � � � Wayne E.Dahl 177 Hartman Circle Fridley, MN. 55432 September 1,1989 City Of Fridley Appeals Commission Barbara Dacy 6431 University Avenue Nottheast Fridley, MIv. 55432 Dear MS. Dacy, Pursuant to our conversation of September 1, 1989 this correspondance will serve as formal notice to table my variance request #89-18 until further notice. My thanks for verbally notifying Mr. Hayford today of my notification. I have notified the Guddings and will expedite copies of this letter to the rest of the mailing list you provided me with. Sincerely, �i� /� `%e�� 1 - j' ` /f��C�- Wayn� E. Dahl � cc: mb/City Of Fridley mai�ing xist 6 � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE ��N QF PLAN�NV('; CONMSSION DATE : S e p t emb e r � 3, 19 8 9 F��.� CITY COi�dCIL DATE AUTHOR BD/dn REQUEST PERMIT I�IMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONMIG ADJACENT LAND USES 8� ZONNG •��E$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS f ��►I_�.L�L��!�r.l�� •�.�� CONFORMANCE TO COMPRE�IVE PLAN CON�ATB�ITY WITH ADJACENT USES d� ZONNG EM/q�ONMEtVI'AL CONSiDERATIONS STAFF F�COMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLAI�VNG COMMISSION REC.ONI�IIENDATION SP 4�89-14 Ted Haines and Diane Jorgenson To allow outdoor display and exterior storage 7191 Highway 65 N.E. 1.4 acres N/A C-2, General Business M-1 to the north and south; R-3 to the east; Highway 65 and:Targe�=Warehouse to the west Available to the site N/A N/A Yes Yes Property owner has complied with MPCA requirements regarding hazardous waste clean up on the site in 1984. Approval with stipulations. Staff Report SP #89-14, Ted Haines Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject property was rezoned to C-2, General Business, on July 24, 1989. The Planning Commission considered the rezoning request on June 21, 1989. The Planning Commission's recommendation included a stipulation there be no outdoor storage or outdoor display of materials. After the Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner requested an opinion from the City as to whether or not that stipulation could be imposed on the rezoning request. The City Attorney (see attached memorandum) analyzed the Planning Commission minutes and determined that the recommendation prohibiting outdoor display and outdoor storage was not proper. Because the zoning ordinance permits these uses as a special use, the Attorney stated that the petitioner had the right to apply for a special use permit for these uses. REQUEST The petitioner is requesting approval for outdoor display of up to four "units" or vehicles during store hours, and for exterior storage of materials. ANALYSIS outdoor Display The petitioner is proposing to locate four vehicles (snowmobiles or jet skis, depending on the season) at the southwest corner of the building. The petitioner is proposing to extend the sidewalk in front of the building four feet to provide extra room for the overhang of parked cars as well as to make room for the four vehicles to be displayed. The petitioner has indicated that the vehicles will be confined to the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the curb island at the southwest corner of the building. The petitioner wants to display these vehicles during store hours. Store hours will be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 to 5:00 p.m. Saturday. The curb island contains two Ash trees and arborvitae shrubs. The commercial districts require a special use permit for a variety of uses involving outdoor display: car dealerships, recreational vehicle sales, outdoor display of inerchandise affiliated with automotive service stations and mobile home sales. The SuperAmerica use, just north of the subject property, exemplifies the display of inerchandise affiliated with a service station (and SuperAmerica also displays products immediately adjacent to the building). Al1 Seasons Mobile Home Sales displays four mobile homes just south of the subject property. Viking Chevrolet is located within one mile of the site to the north. The City Staff Report SP #89-14, Ted Haines Page 3 approved a special use permit in 1984 for a boat and patio display area for The Lift at 6319 Highway 65 N.E.; however, the petitioner did not pursue the display of inerchandise as permitted. Given that the character of the area has more intensive display uses, the display of four vehicles as proposed should not have an adverse impact to the appearance of the corridor. Outdoor display activities can pose a visual and aesthetic nuisance. The City should pursue a policy of improving the appearance along a maj or arterial such as Hiqhway 65 . However, this request should not detract from the area. The front of the building will be rem�deled and the existing landscaping will be maintained. r Exterior Storage The petitioner is proposing to create two storage areas at the rear of the building. These areas will be contained by an eight foot chain link fence with vinyl slats. The petitioner has also indicated that he would like to install two strands of barbed wire along the top of the chain link fence for security. The storage area at the rear of the building will enclose snowmobiles waiting for repair. The storage area at the rear of the lot, or to the east, will be for trailer and water toy storage. The building serves as an effective screen of the storage area immediately behind the building from Highway 65. A six foot wood fence is currently in place along the north lot line at the rear of the building to the curb opening from 72nd Avenue. The storage area at the rear of the lot will be partially screened by the building, given the sight lines traveling northbound on Highway 65. The chain link fence and the slats will serve to screen the storage yards from the public right-of-way along 72nd Avenue as well as the sight lines as one travels south on Highway 65. Mature Oak trees exist along 72nd Avenue; however, there is a 20'- 30' distance along 72nd Avenue which should be filled with additional landscaping. A landscaping plan should be submitted to address this gap. Some of the vegetation along the 72nd Avenue boulevard appears to be dead or dying. Engelman ivy should be planted along the north fence line which is exposed to 72nd Avenue. While staff understands the necessity to have the barbed wire for security purposes, the appearance of the barbed wire does not add to the image of the area. Staff recommends that the barbed wire not be permitted. � Staff Report SP #89-14, Ted Haines Page 4 Site Plan The creation of the storage areas will reduce the amount of parking spaces from 51 to 45 spaces. Given the amount of display and office area, the amount of remaining spaces exceeds the amount of required parking (21 versus 45). If the building is reused, the storage area at the rear can be removed. The angle parking on the south side of the building must be five , feet from the building (Section 205.14.05.D.5.(d)). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a special use permit, SP #89-14, for outdoor display of no more than four vehicles, and the exterior storage of materials, subject to the following stipulations: � �, �� < 1. The display vehicles shall be �e 'at,he sou hwest corner of the building on the sidewa �., � 2. The storage areas shall be screened with an eight foot chain link fence with slats. � . 3. The materials to be stored shall not exceed the height of the fence. � 4. The petitioner shall submit a landscaping plan to include the installation of ivy plantings along the chain link fence line exposed to 72nd Avenue, and trees and shrubs to replace any dead or dying vegetation along the 72nd Avenue boulevard and to provide additional screening along the street. 5. The parking spaces along the south side of the building shall be five feet from the building. � i„ e 6. Permissio to display�four v' -'- � s oa s or recrea e ic e. �� P � �� 1 � � �� -�i�'� � �� S � , '�► a4$�- ua�v�srnr ��r�,z�.�. �fy - � F y ; FRIOLEY. �uN ��#�t.� � � ��L �&E ��MIT �P # � �I-/� � �e��a��-s;�o �� ,. , x � ,��> � �, �� .� � . ,� - . z � y � a $' ��. �' - � - -* • � ` - ?� ��,� � i��r� 335r�y F , � G.� . . .. .. S ._ ...- �.�� . ._ . -.,;,. . �=� -� °Tjf��1$�U C�i1�S�1 l . �� , . <. _ - 4�S � � w+�?}l�.� ��!1� �1,. � �� . - - � - .. �, .. ;� k+ i-4 . � �� k. � ' S � � i- ` �Rt�ERT� ��IF�RMAT��H .:. � :'� � � � � � � � � � � :: r , ' _ _ ,'r. , - � - ' _ - �[ �S S _ _ I.I�1�iL �QtIPPI�N: . ° - _ � � .. � , ; ,. LOT �� _ , =�TJ`ADD�T�1 .. . PRESIIiPr ZOldIl� tJ�� ' �° �tFAGE ; _ SPECIAL IISE PERr�T BEIlNG APH�IE� i�R: D�[�AoaR ��_�iLA�y/ oP .SNOrr,hot��le,I��D W�'T�� y'oy� A�,�:,a6 ��id,atss l��s. �! a.�7s wNt.� ;,a StAs•�• • _�r Dea�t s ro��o+ A ��AS, i SL+� �! : w� t.1� ��s �i �. '��oRAG�? SR�7CT?LRJ 0�' THS ��: j N� p�a AN F• R �scD ��ps � f.t..T F�r¢ Tle A��-t�, A�+ � u/N 7t /� � * � � ,r * * * * * �t * * * a� � ,t rr � ,x �t ,� �t t ,t * * # �r �t � . � t t t �r * � � FEE OMINER II�FORMATiON � ` � * �� _ . � � _ �� a a • aa�� f � �;� �.:�-� s�� Nota to Contract �trchaeers; - �*��,�,�#�f:�� .: . �. � t� �ETIT R iNFOR - f 3':. �y-.- _ � . .� . � � � � - ' , -.:'� �- � _ ,� ,,, � � � � ` �, � �� y� : � � - - - �a-. �t�_�.�-��#:#�`�.��*.� f "- . �i��r��%�P�� tG/, i.i� � �' - �� "'� � v"'�! e�- � �' � � � � e*�=;� �e�$� �°��"�i'��t�r $r��s'��4� * f * � �N � �� .. . . � � �.�-+r�-�- Y , � # �°�a ' � a-� � �� , _ ;� .�/ �l� � � �: — - . ' �. -�t.��e��`��r�t�e��f�t'��r��ae,s�� S�'` ., .�'?�'_�-�� t� �.' .��',►:�� : � .. � �_ _ . � ��- �±t� Q�: ��_� - � t ..�.� _` . . ...; _ � 4��•. :`. � ` �� --� � �, � ',} � _ 3 x � �ilY� ,.�.........+..��: _ 4 � � „. F` p �, ' , . ._ " � . � , - .. +�t, . .. '. _ s� 4 �F a _ � ` � _ 5` � � 4 i �� - - . � --< _ _ �. _ _� _. � �:P,��r► � � �,_1�i�d.i'ii ,�- - "' � . . . �� , � i Y ° . � � _ PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COI+II�+IISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, September 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #89- 14, by Ted Haines and Diane Jorgenson for City Sports, per Section 205.14.O1.C.3, to allow enterprises having merchandise in the open and not within an enclosed structure; per Section 205.14.O1.C.8, to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment, located at 7191 Highway 65 N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an oppertunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: August 30, 1989 September 6, 1989 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. SP 4�89-14 Diane Jorgenson Diane Jorgenson 708 Lowry Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 Kurt Manufacturing Co. 5280 Main Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Target Stores Inc. 7120 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Target Stores Inc. 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 Determan Welding 1241 - 72nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 James Determan 1780 - 118th Avenue Blaine, MN 55434 Randy Crowell 7312 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55330 Randy Crowell/Resident 1237 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ashland Oil Co. 7299 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ashland Oil Co. P.O. Box 1400 Lexington, KY 40510 Hydraulic Specialties 1131 - 72nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Kowalke 1152 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning 8/25/89 MAILING LIST Council Charlotte Gray Harstad Office Bldg. 1170 Norton Avenue N.E. 7101 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Rory Anderson 7091 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Rory Anderson 809 Ridge Street St. Paul, MN 55116 Ellsworth Berkstrand 1200 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Rosecrans 1163 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Phuoc Tran 1175 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Thaddeus Hyatt 1215 Norton Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edric Associates Edward Anderson 1200 - 72ad Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Edric Associates Edward Anderson 5024 Normandale Court Edina, MN 55435 Tillie Berglund 7112 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Harstad 7151 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Wade Norton 835 Columbus Road Minneapolis, MN 55420 Gerald Koskiniemi 7101 Highway b5 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Comm. Chair City Council Members Mardis Haines 7191 Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 � � �,/� �,Tr ~`" 32 �3 ne '--°,::�— �— � I L� __ ,;. ... . ` . . � -��; ", � • — • �. • /s� ; - �p ,r :�, � �,Z h� m 0� �s i � ` .� . t� � ; ' i Na�� •. �.� � Z p d! � � ''- . � I +; t'' 1�0 �� j � ^�, ` � Qv t ' ""' f, � ; �,y;:i�. � � � Vnrrr p � a � ' e..... � �, � � �, �� - Q/ . i ; . �... .....�. � } .,. '�' , ia� � wV , ...., 3 i - 0.nw i � � r • .r�r � ' ' ' y�� _ /„ N .� ! . JW , �.,:;,,, a ., w -,., 0 a '° —°=� — � ^ �� ♦ `` �n. ' /1 �� w i�rr ��. rrr R _ �_' ,• • ' � i II r.iw - � =a- . . . : • z • " ic' _ � �. � O I • , _ • a f ! p�rN.i � � - i • � v _ � � � Y �� _ QV =""–,. = t–_; ....,. . � i � t.� " 2 ,., w H ` a.,.. • � � I � i . ..�. ' ------ _� _I, ) ,., ,., � � _..._ ...�. � � .... �...... Loc�t• � �+ � i-. Por�t _ � ~ �� nn r.�.xn R L. S I M�7 Kp / i � � / C.4 ♦ ` " _ " � "� ir� A L �� ` � L r ' _ - �� y � i+r � �►�+r f r =� I r =�� a r r ri�r '� � :... r... � ..... 31 SEC. /2 oF f �2 ennr� stc. a J , � � ;r � ; — k I : .. � ' 34 t ar ca►�rw 7 14 LOCATION MAP j /I /� ' / / ` � ' I � M � � � i C ;��,^�-. •��,,.. � � r� c�'i — _ • • • • ••• • Q�� i i�i *�• l':�. :Y�.�'��••�`• :rL-ii�-�.�v�: � % / � � e . b � n � � � 's c *- s N � � � � �, � � � v o � IM � �' G � � � � $ � o � � r s a v r _ � � � � � � � �� - .► . / � � / � � � �� (,S�,L� �'f,�C� , 0 SITE PLAN � PLANNING DIVISION � . - - MEMOR,ANDL[M- unroF � F�� DATE: June 27, 1989 TO: Virqil Herrick, City Attorney FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator SUBJECT: Stipulation on Proposed Rezoning, ZOA #89-03, Ted Haines The Planning Commission at the June 21, 1989 meetinq considered a rezoninq request for the Kurt Manufacturinq buildinq and property at 7191 Hiqhway 65 N.E., from M-1, Light Industrial and R-3, General Multiple Dwelling to C-2, General Business. The petitioner, Ted Haines, proposes to operate a snowmobile dealership and showroom. As a stipulation of approval, the Planning Commission required that there be no outdoor storage or ourdoor display of materials. The petitioner has since contacted me and has requested an opinion from the City as to whether or not such a stipulation can be made since exterior storage of property is permitted by the zoninq ordinance as a special use permit. Durinq the discussion of this item, the Planninq Commission referred to the Crysteel special use permit approval as a similar example. However, upon reviewinq the minutes for that case, the stipulation passed was as follows: "No display (for eale or otherwise) of trucks or equipment will be permitted outside the storaqe yard on this property or any ad j acent property . " Please prepare a written opinion to determine whether or not the stipulation recommended by the Planninq Commission is legal. Our interpretation is that because exterior storaqe (205.14.O1.C.8) and outdoor display (205.14.O1.C.3) is permitted as a special use, the City cannot deny the property owner's right to apply. I have attached a copy of the draft of the Planninq Commission minutes as well as the Crysteel minutes. BD/dn l�l-89-359 V'irgil C. Herrick James D. Hocft Gregg V. Herrick llf Cuunsel I)a.•id P. Ne��man T0: FROM: DATE: RE: � �� T��S ��a�� --- ---�,, ATTORNEYS AT LAW MEMORANDUM Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator�� Virgil C. Herrick, City Attorney June 29, 1989 Stipulation on Proposed rezoning, ZOA #89-03, Ted Haines This Memorandum is in response to your inquiry on the above subject dated June 27, 1989. I have reviewed your Memorandum and the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated June Z1, 1989. I have also reviewed the Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 1988 and the Council t�linutes of February 8, 1988 as they pertain to AB Systems, Inc. It is my understanding that Ted Haines has applied to rezone the subject property from M-1 and R-3 to a C-2 zoning. I understand that he intends to establish a snowmobile dealership and showroom in the building and that he might also include watercraft and motorcycle parts. In addition it appears that a portion of the building will be leased to a company that will be doing lettering of sports garments. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the zoning, subject to the provision that there shall be no outside storage or display by the owner or the tenants. Following the action of the Planning Cor►�nission the applicant has requested an opinion as to whether this is a proper condition to be placed on the recommendation for rezoning. Fridley city code, in the portion relating to the C-2 district, authorizes outside storage of recreational vehicles, boats, etc., upon obtaining a special use permit (205.14 1C3). The code also states that exterior storage shall be fully screened so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or adjoining property of a different district (205.14 762). 205.14 7D provides the requirements for screening of outside storage. Suite 2OS, fi401 t'ni��ersity Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432, 612-571-3R50 3E m MEMORANDUM T0: Barbara Dacy FROM: Virgil C. Herrick DATE: June 29, 1989 It is my opinion that because the code provides for outside storage, either with a special use permit or if the stored materials are screened, that a prohibition against all exterior storage would subject the city to a claim that this property was being singled out for more restrictive treatment than other C-2 property. If the city were to require a total prohibition there would have to be a factual showing that this property is different than other C-2 properties in the city. The Planning Commission made reference to what it termed a similar condition that was imposed on AB Systems, Inc. (SP 88-01). I think there are two significant differences in that case and the present case. Number one, in the AB Systems case, the party was before the Planning Commission on a request for a special use permit to permit outside storage. In the present case the party is before the Planning Commission with a requesi for a rezoning. The second difference is that in the AB Systems case the Planning Corrnnission recommended, and the Council later approved, a special use permit for exterior storage with the limiting condition that no display of trucks or equipment will be permitted outside the storage yard of that property. In the present case the Planning Cormnission has recommended that there be no exterior storage on the Haines property. It is my recommendation that the City Council not include the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding exterior storage. The request for rezoning should either be approved without that condition or it should be denied. It should be noted, however, that even if it is denied the property owner would have the right to request exterior storage on the M-1 property. The City can deal with the possibility of exterior storage at a later date. If the owner wishes to have outside storage on the property he would have to apply for a special use permit and restrictive condition could then be imposed just as they were imposed on the request of AB Systems, Inc. (SP 88-01). VCH/lal � � STA�F REPORT APPEALS DATE ��N � PLAMrNC COAA�IISSION DATE � September � 3, 1989 FRiDLEY CITY COUVqL DATE �Hpq MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT 1�1MBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONNVG ADJACENT LAND USES �► Z�i�:�i UTL�E$ PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FNANCIAL MPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO C.OMPREhENSNE PLAN COMPATBtLRY WITH ADJACENT USES � ZONNG EMVp�ONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF I�COMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLAI�VNG COMMISSION REC.OMAAENDATION SAV ��89-04 David Larson To vacate the west 27 feet of an east/west drainage and utility easement. 7890 Hickory Street N.E. N/A N/A M-2, Heavy Industrial M-2 to the north, east and south; Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to the west On site N/A N/A Yes Yes No Approval with stipulations. Staff Report SAV #89-04, David Larson Page 2 REQUEST David Larson, owner of Minnegold Inc., is requesting that 27 feet of an east/west drainage and utility easement be vacated in order to construct a 7,300 square foot addition to his existing business located on Lots 1 through 12, Block 4, Onaway Addition, the same being 7890 Hickory Street N.E. SITE The site is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, with additional M-2 zoning located on the north, east and south of the site. The Burlington Northern Railroad runs north/south along the west property line. The area within whiph the addition will occur has not been landscaped due to the proposed future expansion. ANALYSIS Mr. Larson is planning to construct a 7,300 square foot addition south of his existing building. A drainage and utility easement extends into the area of the proposed addition. The drainage and utility easement extends into the property approximately 57.5 feet. The Engineering Department has stated that this easement was dedicated at the time Hickory Street was vacated. After Hickory Street had been vacated, a decision was made to actually construct Hickory Street and the easement has existed since that time. Within the easement exists a sewer line and a manhole to service it. The sewer line dead-ends approximately 24 feet into Mr. Larson's property. The manhole exists to allow City sewer workers to access the sewer line for maintenance and cleaning purposes. The Engineering staff has stated that they do not foresee a future need to further extend this sewer line. After the 27 feet of the easement is vacated, 30 feet will still exist allowing the City to have access to the manhole and the sewer line. There will remain approximately 11 feet between the manhole and the building, which should allow adequate access for City and/or private machinery to access the manhole and sewer line. RECOr�NDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the vacation request, SAV #89-04, with the following stipulations: 1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for Engineering staff's approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A landscape plan should be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. �• CITY OF FRIDLEY � e d4S1 UNIVER8ITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY� MN a64aZ ` (d 1 Zi671-94b0 REZONING REQUEST ZOA � � VACATION REQUEST SAV # �� _�t�- PLATTING REQUEST P,S. # x�cl�r � .�o �x � x��r � 3 3�9e2- s��m �n�c wr�+ass�ox �rnac n�� 9 3�� `• }� .7� •v �_ y!__'�-�+ ��: �� W PROPERTY INFORMATION �D�+R� ��►►5 �O /� fi�C�Orv S�i_ V.E . LF�AL DESQtIPrION: L�0'I'J-�� BLOCK� TRACT/ADDIT�N ��ta..+.i4... i�cfd.T�on PRESENT ZQVIlVG 1►'►- L. R�UF�'I`ID ZONIl�IG REAS�I �R R$�UEST: A site plan sfiowing the proposed future use is required for all rez oning. ��.� Te. wes7 oi7 �T. o'f- axrsTin9 e0.sT wasT �dsme.tf en h 1�T7+P %.�e..ld L.it.. �to ,�✓r e�n s.dn(.7�on On To C�STin'-� hu��d ..y tk�k*ak**tk�nkat*****tttk***tklr**tk**tk�klklctk*#*tktktktktk*7k***tktlrtkdr*ak**�ktk�nttk�***tk*****tkaktk**tktk*tk**tk***tk* FEE OWNER INFORMATION NAI�� (pl ease pr im ) D a.v � cf 3 L.a. r-sa n PHONE #� s�b'- / q z r w s ��- s 7 G 7 .,�. �. S�a�iN�+ an ✓/�rlr.. mn. �� t* **tktktk�k****�kirit�ctktR'9t**�k**tk*tk* PETITIONER INFORMATION _ � N� (please print) Da�►�{. �. �.0..-son P90NE # s88-rv2i "' s7i-s�e� � �.� � �. SIG1�4ZtTi *t******�*�irit*****�,t�*****�t*f******�r******t***t,r**�*****,it�*****:�r*********** *�* Pi�ANNII� Q1I��Q.SSION : AP�ROUrID �T�D L1ATE QTY � : APPROVID �1IED nATE ` STIFULATID�IS: � _ C� I I VI FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER •(r331 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55=132 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (61_'1 �71-1?�+7 Auqust 23, 1989 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Fridley Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing on a request for a vacation, SAV �89-04, by David Larson, to vacate the west 27 feet of a 57.5 foot existing east/west easement on Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Onaway Addition, generally located at 7890 Hickory Street N.E. Anyone who wishes to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 1989 at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E., at 7:30 p.m. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION . � SAV ��89-04 David Larson David Larson 4521 Culver Road Golden Valley, MN 55422 Hauser Corporation 55 - 77th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Leslie Kohanek 25335 Hasson Parkway Rogers, MN Roger Forslund 7831 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Minncast Inc. 7893 Elm Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Minncast Inc. 7891 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Hickory Properties 88] Pandora Drive N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Resident 7851 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 CNC Manufacturing 7849 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Ft. Dodge Labs 7853 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Furniture Placement 7855 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 MAILING LIST Planning $/25/89 City Council Micro Matic 7871 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Five Sands Development Co. 7825 East River Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Five Sands Development Co. 7100 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Barry Blower Co. 99 - 77th Way N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Snyder General Corp. 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Richard Carlson 7900 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Larson 7890 Hickory Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Park Construction 7900 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Commission Chair City Council Members L E 3 T. 30, R. 2 4 �� K.�°w"'� °`.�C .. fN1' Y/f�f M 11f �MOk� COt�v'r � dPL6.IifEQWG 1M �� llO�r�. 1� �r'wG 4 TO �I IAfC , • „a tli[QU/Cf q�6 Mp IMf CC1Urr•. FR/OLEY b � �. �..H. • - � cuR.a�s �wr.�r cv.r. _ 41 53903 5 , __ ; _ � >� - � ! //1 CORNE�7 SfC ! �v � I • � � �: �. ,. .� _ � �.I ! i I�F �-� ---- �_r.=�.r.'- � I ►-1 �n�. °'.-' , w M ; � • '� ain� ' I 6�, ,� ----- --', 4 c _! 'r .« �-��N.:�' y'v : � '�tI•�s I. • i � i�'•}': �� r .�'1►pr -p. i � �I �y ; ,� r .; I : �. .r � I � t i ,, : 1 ¢ ; ` y'� i � '' � : '� ' . � STRE : "• j .,: I ,�, ,. �f 'ei e. ,f � ' ' � � 'C � i 1 • - - � i •. ' ' � � �^•� Yi'Wr. j, .� w�.Y�. s.�.•.(f� L� J�. ♦ � �'l•' 1 �I' �{.i/ � ; — .. •�' A i �T •'�.��M� .�\ 1 y y � I; � , •I �.: 'ir "' y Z � ��.f � j�� •��; , !� ci � wl___-__ __- _ _ 'I .►i � i� v, +w��v i I, y� ti•_ i p.t•a R� �" 1. _ . •�� ,��•,�. �';y � � � � r � — �--� •----- -_ I., ? .'STREET � ��—:� —� -------�7 � �: � l��` i . � �i . �------=`'�-=----- ' t .r � '+Ir i' �;r� 1'M. Q �rl'' r ~ �{` Y �� 1 .r�+.r ..�nS,/ � .W,� wwr'r%' � 'b'`., � up�„�. _ e ,�. . .i � y +� i .�' �� 4* 'r�F � � ��' M 00 w.' � .', -A � �{� � i � i • �r. c '�{!Vti4 � ��.�j. ''� s..�. �. . s I :. �� .Y. a � �!.- ' �,: � i �. ' � `�" i p «STREET ` --i . i zs I � '_ . . . � . � ••: i.r �. I � �. p� b� •\ � y�• { � �7r � �+.�+Y�•��ii i� r��:i. a , �wr�r�lYN'IrW.�'>, ri^r:rlli ,�: � � � ' �. . ... , �'� �! �I _ . � -,r- u� I r � �; .� � .. �. _..... rw _'� , �' V'• � 1� l ' ! . , .` •1 _ f�,�_,' � •MY �• +L'Nr� ��l�. I� �;y�`� �ji M.4�� l/.3�' ,� � � �— � � % . �— . � (� ` � T Y � � . '"' . I � � � � � a _".. —"_ __ . . —__________� ``=ID.___ _—____J _� � �f J .�. �r P .) , � i � � / 5�� :q A/EA �` ��- /�a ' i �,��r• ".'�° . ��. /ST ' � � ,�� ,\ � � W , i� i `f'i '•! ' \ \ •u� +'• r' r" ` �. . ` ��"�•'r x� n'��' �t. � •� t�� ;� 'M�L • �" P�AR' �' .R• � • .'�' `� � �. � .�� :e�. r'� . i (� :�� , �? .� . � � _ ,�� . w aa►rr� •: rc � � V / 43 '\ �\ :1 ADD. � • - -__ :i.�.- - \ o ---Ti. - c�i � a r� .�.�... 2N0,,�~ -• \ �aov. I �\'. F ,I.f�r't '' /♦ �p 1: J� 9 i I/�. 5 s � ff � it r S r c I r. a 1c � I �P .i't �In i lI iJ �� : f � '/ _ . •!! i� P PD�w . . r `.t [.� �� •1. .t• AVENUE � M.E I �� s� ,�` � ,/�' '�:� a, � s .,� , s : rr^ _ rz. - — V.l! � •! .�pi. 'C- �' l� 9 J� y :� t � : lJ': �e '!L '.r�� j+ 2i- . � 0 : `' �. Oi � �°LT'TTiiiTGLI� i �r� ' sc� {.,, ` "' w. � •. . +.. • ,, � • L ♦�• i 1�•'� .w . ... it. •�� . • ri� iui�� LOCATION MAP � . -- � � � Z � . , �` � Y�� . t:►i � . �' �. L� a�, . � ZONING MAP .. r s�� 'a � �s- �_� :�� Y�� . a��o t ".1- - �� i � � i � � . . .. . .. —((i i � 1, �� . � 1 ��'o .- � _ `° � - , . , o��= - _ �-� �� . i 'J � ��; J�� - �� A�� ., ° �� ' � v �� £�t�� _ r A � p� r . i ,. � 4 1 I � 1 c��l ; L ---r- ��, _ =j�" -. �� :s: -` - � *, • •,_', . �` - - : c :u i t �" ip• � s :... :_j:� - s =:;=; : � ��; � t�.� � . ��$ a��. V � � ``' � . �v .�.�y �� ,��:,..:. .�,., � , ,�_.=Y`- - :�t ;�3 ,;� o #.,• '77/ iV �/ �� ; � �� 3 � i��.� a � i�� l��9 � ��m��.c � � � � �� p� �� I � ��I�IO�m01 ��E , � , �i .}�� ;}f��?�� :�� i l�:i=j i� 4t 1 1 �" iii�iifl��ii�� a��i�is "ss!��`=��11 ee!lEEIe.eEn� 11 �:il1�2eF �e[�nlc.�zhFn � _� �f'� � _ _ � ��:�i� �j5��, ii!! 5,��.i;S��liE+ii !��j�! �r �:��:2��t��Yi11j�i:at�iet::::i,i:�ifbFF�! �iL.��ufs!lD4i1:1�i:.Yii�rfFEa��:S(al::E�e 1lI1 c 1 �3��;::, � �� i '- i jgl� �S � � +d �_ � ��a;� � ��itiiitl�,l�rr � �� ij � - j-��i:t. t��t,::�i:,��i�i�� ii�fiE �Illilt ii:::J au �ua - f�ii�uclEE!lEI�llielQ QElipF� iltn�i111iS� ��. � � �. �� 1, ;�j � _ � �: :';.� �, i� ��i'�:: ��'ai�:t{ �i ii�� !i1 ��f�t�� 3��3F��I�iiipl_--°i3jii�lili�lliiiiliii�l� saas.��6s.e�s�3�..el:96�ilivHi�:ili00�165niI _ } .i . , i�t- ,�.,s h; i=i�� ' j��-1 �1f� ' �?:l�ii�r�ia��i:�li! �;�j��lliii�ii'��i � ell�el�Elele!l��sird i�ol tEiiidilit� �In � � �� :: � '��,� �� :�i�� i�ii �#� ii y�!j:��;j!!p;�!�� a�aaa��uaa� ito::::s! 1 �}i� t ��Ii��}�i'E' E'��liiitltu.tlia�ird��litlil6iifle!!t 1 � ; � �� 1 � � !�� ?i!i ;s i -g�'- ��{:i�{�,� ti �1; , � �� li�� t��i��::��if11111iii��i1�}� 'j � �� A6Lau aeell.a�alelilael�IfS6�IEEte��i� �� a� i�_ �;;�: t � � ; !, . SITE PLAN i. . i / I � I I I ; r � I � � I � ' `, �' '� � s.se,.r...,. � -�-' ---'-'----T- � �-iofs� � �` `• % i � /'r{+l 1 �l�I � � . �� ,� , , - - - . : �.+_r_' — - `��.� � � � `: `� ' ,\ `��'T ` `-��,` •e•: _ \ ` ` � ,` � \ 1 � ,� \ -" ' � i ',Ph, ;1 . "�`°' \ , �1 b � . " OT ' �! T'� +'Tt, `` O � ' \ , ` , 1 ` 1 � � � Iw .� •V \ 1 � \ ,,,,� � b_ 1 . \ � ,l �� ' ; ' �\ � ` �, ` � � � 1 �� •� . ` \ , � h � � � 1 � � � � 1 `1 \1 ,� 1 � lt �`' l ; ��r :\ �',`', ��; i� d� \ � �� r N '�� . S ` � � �� .. � � /I�Li � ` � �,�� d1i � �_ � � '�`w� �'�1: ' • • �� Q/ 1 � � �� 1. � � �tf �h � � �a�� !iy � � � i rr, � iv ��► ��1 .� �i � � ' --- � a � z j ��'-\ - �. �° �ti+� � . � . , 4 4 �� .1 r� o �11 � ' � . a `, � `'' � � Y Q, -` �� ,: � �1 � (� �`.\ \. ` A� , � .:► � � ;: i�+' � �. ��_ ��j�� ii , =s{$= i - is '�' b�j�i �i f� � }�_ � a s �+ •- =jEp rs�el= z3 _ ��.. r � L ��r �•rr: sE.sf i � F ` ��/ _ :. � � 'ti \ O �� `�� ; � m ,� p � wl \ � � _ � � i� t i ' ti � ".r \ ' ¢�` � �'_ \�l . � �, � � � � '. � 1 �" � � -:' � --� tt 1 \ � � ii � � C�^ _J ' po�C1oN oF EA6El�tE1•tT-' TD � ��-�D � � � 0 SITE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION � � MEMOR.ANDUM unroF F� a� DATE: September 8, 1989 TO: Planninq Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator SUBJECT: Special Use Permit and Vacation Requests for Wayne Dahl; 177 Hartman Circle N.E. � Attached is the peti�tioner's request to table the special use permit and the vacation applications for a 6econd accessory building. The Planning Commission should table both requests. We will notify the adjacent property owners as to when the matter will be rescheduled. HD/dn M-89-544 0 e . Wayne E.Dahl 177 I-iartman Circle Fridley, MN. 55432 September 1,1989 City Of Fridley Appeals Commission Barbara Dacy 6431 University Avenue No�theast Fridley, MN. 55432 Dear MS. Dacy, Pursuant to ou1� convei�sation of S��tembei- 1, 1989 thi � correspondance will serve as formal notic� to table my variance 'request #89-18 until further notice. My thanks for verbally notifying i�i�. Hayford today of my notification. I have notified the Guddings and will expedite copies of this letter to the rest of the mailinq list you provided me with. Sincerely, `�`.�ti � ��/��/ _ , Way�E. Dahl GC: mb/City Of Fridley mai��.n� �ist I l l_ � CITY OF FRIDLEY HOIIBING � REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING, AIIGQBT 10, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Schnabel called the August 10, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Virginia Schnabel, Duane Prairie, John Meyer, � Walter Rasmussen Members Absent: Larry Commers Others Present: Jock Robertson, Executive Director of HRA William Burns, City Manager and Director of HRA David Newman, HRA Attorney Julie Burt, Finance Officer APPROVAL OF JUNE 8 1989. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the June 8, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authurity minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON BCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR STINSKI/HILLWIND CENTRE OFFICE BUILDING: Mr. Robertson stated that at the April 13, 1989, meeting, the HRA approved the conceptual outline for the Stinski/Hillwind project. Because so much time has passed, staff felt it was important for the HRA to review the development agreement before ex�cution of the final agreement. The staff is satisfied that the development agreement meets the general direction made by the HRA in April and recommend approval. Mr. Newman stated this is direct land writedown of $109,500. Construction has already started, even though the Development Agreement has not been signed, and the developer will receive the money when the project is completed. The attorney for the developer is in agreement with the recommended changes. � HOIISING AND REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING PAGE 2 Ms. Schnabel asked if the developer deviates from the plans and specifications, does the contract with the HRA become null and void? Mr. Newman stated that is correct. Mr. Robertson stated the HRA previously directed Mr. Commers and himself to sign the agreement. Unless the HRA members have any objection, staff will proceed as directed. The HRA members were in agreement that Jock Robertson and Larry Comers should proceed to execute the final development agreement as previously directed. 2. CONSIDERATION OF ELECTRONIC SECURITY AND ANTI-GRAFFITI SEALER FOR FRIDLEY PLAZA RAMP: Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Burns has expressed an interes� in security cameras and wanted the HRA to reconsider what was previously discussed last fall and winter in addition to getting cameras and monitoring equipment for some of the holding areas in the Pol ice De}�artment . Mr. Burns stated a few weeks ago they found that the cameras for the Police Department were not in the package for audio visual in the Council Chambers, and they sought quotes for six cameras in the Police Department. While they were doing that, it was his suggestion to seek an alternate quote for a camera somewhere in the doorway area of the lower level of the ramp. He thought it might be a good idea to have at least one camera that might serve a dual purpose of screening the traffic that is coming into the Police Department and perhaps screening what is going on in one of the darker, secluded areas of the ramp. Mr. Burns stated that in discussions with Bill Hunt, Tim Turnbull, and himself, they came to the conclusion that in addition to a camera, some sound protection devices are also needed. As the HRA members recalled, the last time electronic security for the ramp was discussed, the Police Department objected to having cameras because they would have to have a staff person monitoring tYae TV monitor, and they did not have a person to do that. Mr. Burns stated that with the sound devices, however, the person in the Police Department need not devote full attention to the monitor. Perhaps they could have the sound devices that would be activated by a cry for help or a loud pitched disturbance. They ultimately came up with a plan to mount approximately six speakers that have the capability of hearing any level of voice or noise in the ramp, depending on how they are set for loudness. The quotes came in at approximately $3,500-3,600 for the camera and � t �, 80DSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING PAGE 3 approximately $7,000 for the speaker system. Total estimated cost is $10,000-11,000. Mr. Prairie asked if having this camera and sound system would reduce the cost of insurance needed for the ramp. Mr. Burns stated they have had the risk management company look at this, but they do not believe it will impact the insurance in any way. The City Attorney, Virgil Herrick, thinks that in ternas of liability, it is a discretionary matter. Mr. Newman stated $11,000 is pretty cheap compared to a legal suit sometime in the future. Mr. Meyer stated having the extra security will give people some piece of mind. Mr. Burns stated that the lower level will be a little darker in the wintertime because of snow storage by the chain link fence, and he thought a camera and sound device will give people a better sense of security. Ms. Schnabel stated that at an earlier meeting, Mr. Turnbull had said that people should not feel secure just because there is a camera, as a camera can give people a false sense of security. Mr. Burns agreed, however, he stated the camera may also act as a deterrent to a potential perpetrator. Mr. Burns stated he is concerned that the camera be mounted inside Lexan or something that will protect the camera so it cannot be easily stolen or vandalized. Mr. Rasmussen asked if the company that installs the camera has any kind of policy whereby they will maintain the camera and sound device. Mr. Burns stated that is something that will have to be taken into consideration, and maybe they can have a maintenance contract with the company. There would be some additional expense for a maintenance contract. O�! TION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to authorize the HRA staff to advertise and receive bids on the camera and monitoring equipment to be reviewed by the HRA at the September HRA meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BCSNABEL DTCLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIIBLY. , HOIIBING AND REDEVELOPMENT AIIT80RITY MEETING - PAGE 4 Mr. Robertson stated that even though the HRA earmarked funds for painting the lower level white, the Public Safety Director, Jim Hill, and the Public Works Director, John Flora, feel the lighting level is adequate. However, John Flora, pointed out that it would cost less money to paint a sealer on the lower level which would reduce maintenance costs in the future if there are acts of vandalism and graffiti. Staff is recommending that the HR�, use part of the money earmarked for painting the interior white to be used instead for a concrete sealer which will make any future graffiti easier to remove. Ms. Schnabel asked if the sealer comes in colors. Mr. Robertson stated he believed a pigment can be added to the sealer. Ms. Schnabel stated that if the sealer comes in colors, maybe the ramp could be painted with a white sealer. Mr. Robertson stated he had asked that question, and was told it would increase the costs significantly back to the level of just buying the white paint. Ms. Schnabel stated that if in the future it is determined that the walls should be lighter, can paint be applied over the sealer? Mr. Meyer stated he believed they could apply a pigment sealer over the original sealer in later years. Mr. Robertson stated another thing to think about is if they apply a color, either paint or a pigment sealer, then where do they stop when painting the columns? Do they paint one side or all four sides of the column? If they are satisfied with the natural concrete color, then it has an architectural unity because they are not creating different surfaces. OM TION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize the Public Works Director to advertise and receive bids and accept the low bid for applying a clear anti-graffiti sealer to the lower level ramp, unless the bid exceeds the amount originally earmarked for white paint. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Mr. Robertson stated he would like to call the HRA members' attention to the last paragraph of Mr. Flora's memo on agenda page 2-B regarding the light fixtures that were not purchased. Right now they have temporary wooden bases covering up the electrical system. He would propose the HRA wait on this, because they are going ahead with the TV monitoring. The HRA might decide they want � � �OIISINa AND REDEVELOPMENT AOTHORITY MEETINGi PAGE 5 decorative metal caps in the future, and it is not necessary to act on this at this time. Ms. Schnabel asked that regarding the stress cracks that have appeared in the main joists of the ramp, can they be assured that the parking ramp structure is sound? Do they need another opinion on the stress cracks? Mr. Meyer stated he would be willing to take a look at the cracks and see if there is any reason to solicit another opinion on the soundness of the ramp. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO RETROFIT EXISTING GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY AT 5755 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E. Mr. Robertson stated that in December 1986 when the redesign of the Hathaway/Hackmann/Hillwind/Central intersection was approved, it was pointed out that Mr. Flaten's driveway would have to be rerouted. At that time, Mr. Flaten agreed to that and was directed to get some bids for changing the orientation of his garage from the north to the south. Staff had hoped to include the driveway paving in this year's street project. The Public Works Department took another look at the original proposal and decided there would be a savings in constructing the new driveway by taking the driveway out on the west elevation rather than on the south elevation. Mr. Robertson stated staff has proceeded and have the low bid for the retrofit of the garage of $2,475. Staff recommends the HRA authorize the payment of $2,475 to Mr. Flaten towards the reconstruction of his garage and authorize the Public Works Director to remove the existing driveway and construct a new driveway from Hackmann Avenue to the garage at a cost of $3,500. Also, staff recommends the HRA consider granting the excess property indicated on agenda page 3-A to Mr. Flaten after the new intersection is constructed in return for his agreement to maintain said property. OM TION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to authorize the payment of $2,475 to Mr. Flaten towards the reconstruction of his garage and authorize the Public Works Director to remove the existing driveway and construct a new driveway from Hacl�nann Avenue to the garage at a cost of $3,500. Also, the HRA agrees to grant the excess property to Mr. Flaten after the new intersection is constructed in return for his agreement to maintain said property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOIISLY. e HOIIBING AND REDEVELOPMENT AtJTHORITY MSETING - PAGE 6 4. ZNFORMATION ON THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ON SENIOR HOUSING: Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Meyer and Mr. Commers attended the July 31, 1989, Council Conference meeting concerning senior housing policy. On July 31, the Council discussed potential policies regarding senior housing and directed staff to research the types of financial tools that are available to assist senior housing. Mr. Robertson stated that he assumes that on specific senior � housing proposals, the Council's direction to the HRA is to wait for City Council direction. Mr. Burns stated he feels the City Council needs to have some informal discussions soon and make some decisions on timing and policy. He stated he did not think staff has a clear sense of direction at this point from the City Council. 5. INFORMATION ON COUNCIL CONFERENCE ON CENTRAL AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT• Mr. Robertson stated that at the July 31, 1989, City Council Conference meeting, the Council also reviewed a first draft of the proposed long range plan for the renovation of Central Avenue, primarily from Moore Lake Commons north past Onan, Medtronic, and the junkyards to Osborne Road. This wculd be one of the components of the updated Comprehensive Plan. A number of economic development, land use conflicts, and sign issues have come up over the last couple of years, and there is an urgent need for some consistent long range vision as to how to treat some of �hese proposals in this area. Mr. Robertson stated that as a result of this, the plan identified a number of potential redevelopment projects in the area, the idea being that as Moore Lake Commons begins to draw traffic into this area, this may trigger other development proposals. However, there are a number of potential, very expensive projects,'both in public works, landscaping, and boulevard treatments on either side of Central Avenue, as well as redevelopment projects such as relocating and redeveloping the junkyards. The sense of the City Council, Mr. Commers, and Mr. Meyer was to send the staff back to produce a scaled-down version of the original long range plan which would stress those components of the original draft which are doable and financeable in the foreseeable future. Mr. Prairie stated he would like to see them get their priorities straight. He stated University Avenue is the most visible to the community. Iie would not like to see them get 20-30� done on 2-3 projects without finishing one project. �, � 1 � 80IISINa AND REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING PAGE 7 Mr. Burns stated he believed that was Mr. Commers' concern also. On the other hand, there is not much developable land left in Fridley, so it makes sense to have some policies in place to guide development in this area. Mr. Robertson stated he hopes to have a draft of the proposed long range plan for Central Avenue at the September HRA meeting. 6. INFORMATION ON 57TH PLACE ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AND RAPID OIL: Mr. Robertson stated he spoke with the geologist from Delta Environmental who is performing tests on the site. Based on what the geologist found, there is sufficient indication of potential ground water contamination and Delta Environmental is requesting three more testing wells. Mr. Robertson stated Dave Newman, the HRA's attorney, is advising that the HRA take no further action on the proposed redevelopment of the larger 57th Place area until the results of this report are available. Mr. Robertson stated the HRA should also be aware that Ashland Oil has submitted an application for a special use permit and variances to redevelop the site. The site does not include the single family lot to the east previously purchased by Rapid Oil Change. Ashland Oil is proposing to build a two bay drive-through facility very similar to the one at 73 1/2 Avenue/Highway 65. 7. ESTIMATE: GREENMASTERS - LAKE POINTE MAINTENANCE MOTION by Mr. Prairie, seconded by Mr. Meyer, to approve the estimate to Greenmasters in the amount of $4,644.14. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERBON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED QNANIMOIISLY. 8. �STIMATE: ROYAL ELECTRIC - EAST MOORE LAKE IRRIGATION OTION by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, to approve the estimate to Royal Electric in the amount of $2,221.96. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINd AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON BCHNAHEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 9. CLAIMS j1916-1931): OTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to approve the check reqister dated August 10, 1989. IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTINQ AYE, VICE-CHAIRPER80N BCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. HOIIBING AND REDEVELOPMENT AIITHORITY MEETING - PACE 8 Ms. Burt gave the HRA members a copy of the Financial Report for December 31, 1988. 10. OTHER BUSINESS: a. BBF Development Corporation Mr. Robertson stated the HRA members had received a copy of a letter from SBF Development Corporation addressed to him dated August 4, 1989. SBF Development Corporation is proposing the redevelopment of the Cub Food store site on the southwest corner of Osborne Road/University Avenue. Contrary to their expectations and their reassurance to the City Council that they would be able to secure total financing for the project, they are asking the City to examine the feasibility of using its T.I.F. program to underwrite about 10�� of what is represented as a$5 million project. Mr. Robertson stated he had asked Jim Casserly to analysis of what alternatives are available to the HRA such a mechanism of underwriting part of the primary That analysis was just received that morning, and staff time to review it. He is suggesting that staff Casserly's alternatives and have a recommendation for their September meeting. prepare an if there is financing. has not had review Mr. the HRA at b. Proposed Pro Enqineerinq Manufacturinq Facility Mr. Robertson stated the HRA had also received a copy of a l�tter from Pro Engineering, Inc., addressed to him dated August 9, 1989, and a memo he had written to the HRA dated August 9, 1989. Pro Engineering is outgrowing its existing facilities in Maple Grove and is considering relocating in Fridley. They are proposing a 24,000 sq. ft. expandable building on the north side of Fireside Drive between Viking Chevrolet and American Service Corporation. Mr. Robertson stated this is very similar to the Metal-Tek proposal reviewed and approved by the HRA last winter (which subsequently fell through). The total cost of land and building are about $1,000,000. There is no soil correction, but it will bring in about 20-30 new jobs and tax base. It is a classic T.I.F.-type project where there is a minimum type of exposure. They would accept a second mortgage of 10-15� of the total project costs. Mr. Robertson stated staff will analyze this proposal further and will bring a proposal back to the HRA at their September meeting. � HOIIBING AND REDEVSLOPiSENT AIITHORITY MEBTING PAQE 9 c. Ron Clark Construction Mr. Robertson stated the HRA had received a copy of a letter from Ron Clark Construction, Inc., addressed to him dated August 8, 1989. This developer is interested in the southwest corner of Mississippi/University Avenue. They are interested in pursuing a proposal of approximately 50,000 sq. ft. of retail and a three- story, 100-unit apartment building. Total development costs are $10,000,000. It is in the same price range as the Tanurb proposal, but the mix is different; therefore, he believed taxes on apartments are about 60� of what they would be on commercial floor area. Mr. Robertson stated he will have a quick analysis done comparing this proposal with the general parameters of the Tanurb proposal of what kind of increment would be available and what kind of assistance would be available. He hoped to have this information for the HRA at their September meeting also. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mr. Prairie, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Vice-Chairperson 8chnabel declared the Auqust 10, 1989, Housinq � Redevelopment Authority meetinq adjourned at s:5o p.m. Respectfully subm' ted, _ �,�C- '-fi�- Lynn �, aba Recording Secretary 9 0 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Barna called the August 22, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Alex Barna, Kenneth Vos Diane Savage Larry Kuechle, Jerry Sherek, Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Keith Poppenhagen, 7570 Hwy. 65 Don Selger, 2389-132 Ave. NW, Coon Rapids Bill Hartman, 7691 Old Central Avenue Ken Tigue, 1141 Lynde Drive Barbara Tigue, 1141 Lynde Drive Sherman Hanson, 7691 Old Central Avenue Peter Ludwig, 617-81st Avenue NE, Spring Lake Park Thomas Larson, 362-57th Avenue NE David Larson, 360-57th Avenue NE APPROVAL OF AUGUST 1 1989. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the August 1, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #89-14, BY ASHLAND OIL COMPANY �RAPID OIL): Pursuant to Section 205.14.03.A of the Fridley City Code to reduce the required minimum lot area from 20,000 sq. ft. to 16,942 sq. ft.; and pursuant to Section 205.14.03.C.(2).(b) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 35 feet to 15 feet, to allow the construction of a new oil changing facility, on Lot 1, 2, and 3, Block 6, City View Addition, the same being 5701 University Avenue N.E. Ms. McPherson stated that variance request, VAR #89-14, had been withdrawn prior to the meeting. This item will be going through a rezoning. c APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 2 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE RE UEST VAR �89-16 BY KENNETH A. TIGUE: Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(1) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet to allow the construction of a new home on Lot 10, Block 2, Riverwood Park, the same being 7110 Riverwood Drive N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the variance request was being made to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 30 feet to allow construction of a new home on Lot 10, Block 2, of Riverwood Park. This was a fairly recent plat and the site of the former Riverwood Elementary School. It was located in an R-1, Single Family, zoning district. There exists a 35-foot drainage and utility easement at the back of the lot, and the rear property line was approximately in the center of this drainage easement. This easement was more stringent than the rear yard setback required by Code. The petitioner has several options in addition to the variance, all of which have been discussed with the Engineering and Planning staffs. If the house were to meet the 35 foot setback, the house would have to be shifted back about 5 feet. The petitioner could then vacate the easement in two ways. A line could be drawn across the rear of the lot to vacate 5 feet of the easement. They could also vacate the easement in such a way to follow the boundary of the rear of the house. The petitioner could also file a letter of indemnity for any damage to the house if the City needed to go in and do any repair work, or they could build a smaller house with a smaller footprint. The petitioner has requested a variance for 5 feet. Approximately 5 feet of the southwest of the garage would encroach into the front yard setback. It was pointed out in the staff report that the 30 foot setback from the right of way was approximately equal to the 35 foot on the adjacent lots. This was due to the curve in the road when the road was platted. Staff recommended the Appeals Commission deny the variance on the basis that the petitioner has three alternatives that would allow him to meet Code. Mr. Barna stated that the building footprint appeared to be 43 feet. If you follow further the drive easement from the front and the drainage in the rear, this seems to be a short area for a house. He questioned if a house could be built within an area that small. Principally, the developer, the HRA and the City came up with the finished lots. He found it hard to find against the petitioner. He did not think one could fit a house on this lot that was compatible with this neighborhood. Ms. McPherson stated that two lots to the south and west of the APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 3 petitioner there was a 2-story homes with a tuck-under qarage. The qarage does not come forward as far as the one proposed. It was possible to build a house with a smaller footprint that would be compatible with the neighborhood. Dr. Vos stated the reason for a front yard setback was to allow for off street parking without encroaching on public property, and the second reason was for the line of sight. It was difficult for line of sight when there was a curve in the road. If you look at off street parking, the garage was pretty close and the residents will have to come out at an angle any haw. Ms. McPherson stated there have been no variances for this area. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Bill Hartman stated he came to City Engineer and Planning Department to solve problems with this particular lot. Mr. Tigue has lived in Fridley for 31 years and wanted to remain here. It was difficult to find a lot in Fridley. He chose this lot because it fit his idea of a good lot for him. According to the elevations for the ponding area in the rear of the house, the Appeals Commission can see that a 2-story house would put the basement below the level of the pond. A split was better suited. The house was pushed back as far as possible, and the petitioner then asked for the City's solution to the problem because the petitioner originally asked to vacate the easement to the back. They suggested the variance because it would not block sight lines and felt parking would not be a problem. The petitioner was not satisfied with the long process of vacating the easement which would be difficult in platting out and setting up on the deed. Another option was to cantilever the back of the house over the easement and give the City the right to destroy the back of the house if repairs were necessary. That left the owner too vulnerable. Mr. Tigue did not feel comfortable with ponding area there and a house with a full basement. The lot was well suited for a split, and the petitioner was surprised at the denial of the Planning Department. Mr. Barna asked if there had been any playing with the design of the house. Mr. Hartman stated they had tried. Mr. and Mrs. Tigue decided to have few stairs because this was intended for a home after retiring. Mr. Hartman felt that the curve created a hardship on this property. It was a unique situation. Another area of concern was that the petitioner had talked with the neighbors, had explained what they were trying to accomplish, had put preliminary 9 0 APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 4 . stakes on the property, and they have had no objections from any of the neighbors. The stakes which were placed were as accurate as they could get. Dr. Vos asked if a deck was proposed at the back. Mr. Hartman said a deck was proposed, but it would be to the side of the house. Dr. Vos stated a deck to the rear would be acceptable, but if it was enclosed, does that affect the easement. Ms. McPherson stated she was unsure and would have to check with City Engineer and legal staff. Ms. McPherson stated a deck was allowed to be built in Riverview Heights that projected into the easement. Dr. Vos asked how realistic was it to have the 35 feet to the back. Was it arbitrary? Mr. Barna asked if there were figures on water levels and/or the flood plain. Mr. Hartman presented a drawing with contour levels. A 2-story puts it close to the high water mark in the basement level. Most homes in the area were multi-level with no full basement. Mr. Kuechle asked what would be wrong with changing the easement. Ms. McPherson stated the issue with vacation was that the process would be longer than the petitioner would like in order to have the house built this fall. The vacation process would be considerably longer than the variance process. There was also the issue of title and legal description. The vacation of the easement would impact neighboring properties because the line of intersection would change on the properties to the east and west. Mr. Hartman stated there were a number of different ways to solve the problem to the satisfaction of the owner and the City; and Mr. Hartman felt he had come up with best solution to the problem. Mr. Ludwig stated he works with the fire department, and he bought the lot in November planning to build a 2-story home with a walkout. When he bought the lot, he did not know about the easement. When he first decided to build, the fire station had not been planned on the north end. Now, the City had decided to build a second satellite fire station, and he decided to purchase a lot in that area. Mr. Ludwig could not have the walkout basement he wanted. Therefore, he wanted to sell the lot which was hard to sell because of the easement. When Mr. Tigue approached him, Mr. Ludwiq did not know about the 35 foot easement. Mr. Ludwig then decided to buy another lot, thinking he would get his money right c y APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 5 away. He then received a call that the there were problems and he now has two lots. Mr. Ludwig still owns the lot in Riverwood Park. Mr. Tigue is trying to buy the lot. Mr. Ludwiq approached the Planning Department and asked if staff could settle this. Mr. Ludwig thought staff would approve this. The Appeals Commission stated they did not like to grant variances on new property. This was the only lot undeveloped and neighbors want a house there. Mr. Ludwig was told that when the back easement was drawn, the engineers drew a straight line and Mr. Ludwig questioned if that easement needed to be that big. He needed the money as soon as he could get it out. Mr. Ludwig wanted the process to get going one way or the other so he could also proceed. Mr. Tigue stated he was trying to buy the lot. In looking at the map, he did not see that the variance would be that much of a problem. He had talked with the neighbors who were anxious to get a house on the lot.t They were not concerned about a 5 foot encroachment. In response to some of the alternatives, moving the house further back puts it into the pond area. A 2 story puts it deeper into the ground. A smaller house would be an insult to neighborhood. This was a modest home but he felt it would fit nicely in the neighborhood. Mr. Barna asked the number of square feet. Mr. Tigue stated 1220 square feet. Mr. Kuechle asked if anyone had seen the water there last night after the rain. Mr. Barna stated he was trying to visualize where the back yard would be in relation and felt the water would have come very close to the back door. Mr. Sherek stated that the easement was then practical. Mr. Tigue thought the easement was practical. He felt that going forward was the way to go. OM TION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Sherek felt that considering the lay of the land, some of the neighbors that he had talked to, and the ponding, he thought it would be unwise to move the house back in that area. He would recommend to the City Council to approve this variance. Mr. Kuechle stated he would tend to disagree. There are a fair number of options to reduce the encroachment of 5 feet. He found m APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 6 it hard that they couldn't come up with a plan that would fit on the lot, provide the proper setbacks, and still get 1200 feet with a different house plan. Particularly he disagreed since it was so recently platted. Dr. Vos thought there was a hardship due to the easement and the curvature of the road. If the street were designed differently, there would not be a problem. He did not what else could be done there. There was a definite hardship. Mr. Barna stated he found a hardship with the utility easement in the way it was originally platted and approved. He did agree with Mr. Kuechle that there were other designs that could fit. This was a small footprint area and the petitioner planned to put in a very nice house. It was easier and a shorter process to ask for a variance. He would tend to vote in favor. Dr. Vos asked the longest dimension that could be built on the lot. Ms. McPherson stated, after measuring the lot and allowing for side yard setbacks, that approximately 67 feet would be the biggest house that could be built across the lot. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend to the City Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-16. UPON A VOICE VOTE, VOS, SHEREK, AND BARNA VOTING AYE, AND KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Barna stated that the minutes of this request would go to Planning Commission at their next meeting, and to the City Council on September il. Dr. Vos stated the request would have gone to the City Council even if we had not approved, because staff had recommended denial. Mr. Hartman asked if the staff had recommended approval, would the petitioner have been okay. Mr. Barna stated that was correct. Dr. Vos stated that, unfortunately, since staff did not recommend approval, the City Council must consider. Even if one neighbor had objected, the City Council would had to review. 3. �ONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #89-15. BY KEITH'S �AUTO BODY �KEITH POPPENHAGEN): Pursuant to Section 214.12.02.E of the Fridley City Code to reduce the required sign setback in the side property line from 10 feet to 0 feet, to allow the construction of a free- standing sign at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. � � f APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 7 MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLP�RED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:10 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated that Mr. Poppenhagen had just received Planning Commission approval for a special use permit for an auto body shop at 7570 Hiqhway 65. This will go before the City Council on August 28. It was an M-1, Liqht Industrial, district. Keith would like to advertise his business with a sign and was proposing � to place the sign on the north side. The site plan presented was proposed and not current. The Planning Commission required new pavement and curb and planting areas. Keith would like to place the sign on the north side within 10 feet of the side property line. There was currently a grassy area there, but no pavement. This would be on the side of driveway. Staff has recommended that, even though there was no landscaping there, there was still an opportunity to place the sign 10 feet from the line. Bollards could be placed around the sign to protect it. The sign as proposed was within the square footage allowed in the sign ordinance. Mr. Barna asked how far to the north was Lampert's Lumber sign. Ms. McPherson stated she did not measur_e. She thought the sign was in the lower south half of the parcel near the boulevard. Mr. Poppenhagen stated this sign was straight out the front entrance of Lampert's. Ms . McPherson stated there was currently a service road to the east that ends approximately in the center of the parcel. Mr. Poppenhagen's business was located in the second building toward the rear of the property. The sign did not come up as an issue during the special use permit process. Potentially the owners should be required to have a comprehensive sign pla� because they potentially could have more than three tenants. Dr. Vos asked if the owners would have more signs in addition to this sign. Ms. McPherson stated that a development was allowed only one free standing sign. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that the tenants in the front building advertise in the window in front of that building. Ms. McPherson stated signs are allowed on the structure. Dr. Vos felt the proposed siqn was a small sign. � APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 8 � Mr. Barna askPd if the billboard was on south property line. Ms. McPherson stated the billboard was along the south property line. There were also lilac bushes and other vegetation from the trailer court. Mr. Sherek asked if this would only be until the improvements are made. Ms. McPherson stated yes, the petitioner would be required to comply with Sign Code when the landscape improvements are completed. Mr. Sherek asked why such a long time period was being recommended. Ms. McPherson stated there was currently uncertainty as to who owns the property. Mr. Michael Thompson was one of the owners. There was an issue over whether the bank owns the property, whether Mr. Thompson and partners own it, or whether the mortgage company owns it. There were many parties involved in this issue. This parcel has had a history of many code enforcement problems. The Planning Commission approved to have certain improvements stretched out over two years. There was reluctance by current owners to put more money into the site if they did not get title. Mr. Barna stated the position of Planning Commission was to allow time to clear the title. Mr. Sherek asked if someone other than Mr. Poppenhagen would be doing the improvements. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Ms. Sherek stated that, if no one did improvements, the City would then have a sign. Ms . McPherson stated this was an issue and that this issue had been discussed by the Planning Commission and included in the stipulations for the special use permit. Mr. Sherek asked if Ms. McPherson had been by the property in the last few days. Ms. McPherson stated that she had been by the property about 2 weeks ago. The property was looked at when the special use permit came up and then again about two weeks ago. Mr. Sherek asked if the property had been cleaned up. Ms. McPherson stated there has not been much activity as far as clean up of the site. The trailers have not been removed. , APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 9 Mr.Poppenhagen stated that the sign will run east and west so it can be seen when coming up Highway 65. If it was put in the middle, due to shrubs and the billbt�ard there, customers would not see the sign until they were just about on it. There was a telephone pole a short distance from where the proposed sign would be. Zf electricity was needed, it could be run from the pole. If the sign was in the middle, it would be necessary to qo through the building for electricity. Mr. Poppenhagen thought it would look better in that corner because the business was in the rear. Standard Oil has two siqns on each side right on the corners. He would be better to move to the front. He was investing some money in the sign, and it was nice looking sign. It used the most modern technique for signs that there was, and he felt it would be the best looking thing on that lot. In the 5-foot grassy area, he felt the sign would not look out of place, especially with the telephone pole there. If he went 10 feet, the sign would be in the driveway. Dr. Vos asked if Lampert Lumber was using that area for storage of utility sheds. Mr. Poppenhagen stated these sheds are displayed outdoors for advertising purposes. Ms. McPherson stated there was a wooden fence where Lampert has storage and there was a chain link fence which was at the rear of the first building. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that, regardless of any improvements done in the front, he still has to drive by to get to his business. Ms. McPherson stated the sign could still be placed in the island 10 feet from the driveway. Mr. Barna stated that one reason Lampert was granted a variance with regard to signage was the hardship of customers looking for a business and not seeing it until they were there. He believed the same hardship would apply to this business even more so. He thought the further to the south you get with a sign the harder it was going to be for someone coming north to find it. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed sign was 18 square feet, the allowable was 80 square feet. Mr. Poppenhagen stated the sign was not big but it was quite colorful. Mr. Sherek asked if Mr. Poppenhagen wanted the sign to be temporary. Mr. Poppenhagen stated he would like the sign to be permanent. He would like to have the sign go up on the north side. There was now parking there. 0 � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 10 � Mr. Sherek asked if Mr. Poppenhagen was turned down, what would he do. Kr. Poppenhagen stated he was not sure that he would remain in business. Businesses without signs have few customers. Mr. Sherek asked if the Appeals Commission gave temporary permission to put the sign up and remove it by 1991, what would he do. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that, assuming he was still there, he would have to move it. iie would like to put the sign in and have it reviewed every year when the permit was reviewed. If, for whatever reason it was necessary to move the sign, then he would have to move it. r Dr. Vos asked if this was an annual review. Ms. McPherson stated it was because of the licensing for automotive use, the case would be reviewed on a regular basis. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that, when he bought that business, he checked with the City and was told there was no licenses needed. He then came in for a state used car dealership license to be signed for M-1 commercial area and then was told a special use permit was necessary. He followed through, and this has gone on all summer. There was also the question of clearing the property. Why do so if no permit was to be issued. Now, according to the stipulations, this must be done by November 1. Ms. McPherson stated, with the issue of review, stipulation #8 of the special use permit states that it shall be reviewed by staff on October 1, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. If staff felt there was a problem with the parcel, it would come back to the City Council. Mr. Poppenhagen stated that, if he left the area, he would take the siqn with him. Dr. Vos asked if there was a possibility of a traffic hazard. Mr. Poppenhagen did not think so because there was a pole there. Ms. McPherson stated that traffic patterns are such that people know where the driving lanes are, follow the lanes, and do not get that close to the property line. Mr. Barna asked if the face of the siqn would be north and south. Mr. Poppenhagen stated this was correct. The sign dimensions are 27 inches X 8 feet. � � � • APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 11 Mr. Barna stated there was a proposed 20 feet deep island, so if the sign were placed within the island, it would fit within the Code. Ms. McPherson stated the Code does not stipulate what part of the sign needed to be 10 feet from the driveway. Mr. Barna stated the sign could still go east and west and it would be pretty close. Ms. McPherson felt there should be a fair amount of room. Mr. Kuechle asked if staff had talked to Lampert's. Ms. McPherson stated they were sent a notice and the City did not receive any calls or comments. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:33 P.M. Mr. Kuechle stated he was in favor of granting the variance as requested. It seemed that with the unsure state of when the improvements were going to appear there, Mr. Poppenhagen was in a poor situation to put a sign in an island that did not exist and may not exist until 3 to 4 years down the road. Since there was nothing close to the north property line and that would provide the site with the best information for where his business was, it seemed the best location. One objection was the proximity to the highway and the clutter of signs, but since it was equal to the others in the area, he would allow it to be placed in the upper area. Mr. Sherek stated he was uncomfortable about the general plans or lack of concrete plans for improvements. Based on the plan, he saw no problem with putting sign on the island and had no problem with the sign being offset and back from the highway. It was meant to be a temporary sign until the improvements were made. He thought it would be best to make him put the sign in the final position. Dr. Vos agreed with Mr. Kuechle. He questioned whether the island would ever exist and felt the sign should be on the north side of the site. Mr. Barna stated that the feeling of the Planning Commission was, in addition to the problems of who owns the property, do they recommend not havinq any business there or get some kind of inGOme coming in from the property to provide incentive to improve the property. It seemed better to have businesses in the buildings APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 12 rather than having disrepair. He also agreed that with the title situation it could be far into the future before the island was put in. Lampert's was qiven a variance on the size and location of their sign and the auto dealership was also given a variance. He would be comfortable with the sign in the proposed new curb cut. He would be uncomfortable that, if the island was built, the sign be moved there but not to put a time on it. Mr. Kuechle asked if the plantings were there at this time. Ms. McPherson stated all plantings are proposed with a deadline of 1991 to complete. There was currently no landscaping or curb and gutter. Dr. Vos felt it should require that the petitioner will have the variance upon meeting the stipulations in the special use permit or he will not do. Ms. McPherson stated the owners are required and responsible for improvements, not Mr. Poppenhagen. Dr. Vos asked if this was the first time the City had had stipulations attached to the property. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Kuechle asked, if the stipulations were not met, the owners would lose the permit and not be able to operate there. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. This was why the permit must be reviewed by staff. The petitioner or owners would have the right to re-negotiate the time limits. In the worst case, the City Council could pull the permit which would disallow Mr. Poppenhagen to operate the auto establishment on this parcel. Ms. McPherson stated, if the Commission felt uncomfortable that Mr. Poppenhagen would vacate the premises and the Commission felt uncomfortable that sign would continue to be, the motion could state that this variance be for this sign and this business only. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to the City Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-15, that this be for this sign and this business only, subject to approval of special use permit #89-08. Mr. Ruechle stated the motion did not pick up the matter that, if in 1991 the site plan was completed according to the special use permit, that the sign be moved. UPON A VOICE VOTE, VOS, BARNA, AND KUECHLE VOTING AYE, SHEREK VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. � �-� .. " APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1989 PAGE 13 Mr. Barna stated this matter will be received by the Planning Commission and then to City Council at their September 11 meeting. Mr. Poppenhagen stated he would like to complete the process as soon as possible. It would take 6 weeks after orderinq to get the sign and he would like to install the sign before the found freezes. ADJOURNMENT: O ON by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE AUGUST 22, 1989, APPEAIS COMMISSZON MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary