The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 05/17/1989 - 30702� CITY OF FRIDLEY PL�iNNING COMMISSION MEETING� MAY 17, 1989 •11MMMMMM�YMMMMIrNIYNN�Y MMMMti M.VMMM�Y�YMMMMN.YMMM�wwM.YIrIYIrMMMMMMM�rMM�Y�Yw�w�MAM CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the May 17, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Dan Sullivan, 1161 Regis Lane Pam Hengel, 5932 - 6th Street N.E. Keith Poppenhagen, Keith's Auto Body Mike Thompson, 10501 Fillmore St. N.E. R. W. Parkinson, Phillips 66 L. E. Leiker, Phillips 66 ^ Arlin Allison, Phillips 66 Jim Filippi, North Star Eng. - Phillips 66 (See attached list) APPROVAL OF MAY 3. 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the May 3, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N HETZO?�D DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S. #89-01. SULLIVAN'S OVERLOOK: Being a replat of that part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 8; thence westerly along the North line, 255 feet; thence southwesterly 62 degrees 14 minutes 40 seconds, deflecting to the left, to the South line of said Lot 8 and there terminating. Together with that part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 9; thence south along the East � �� PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING. MAY 17, 1989 - PAG� 2 line of said Lot 9, a distance of 49.4 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence deflect to the right in a northwesterly direction, along a line to its point of intersection with the North line of said Lot 9, said point being 335.8 feet west of the Northeast corner of said Lot 9 and there terminating, generally located at 1161 Regis Lane N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-1, Residential Dwelling District. The petitioner is proposing to plat and split part of Lots 8 and 9 to create two lots. A house and fenced pool exist on Lot 1 of the proposed plat, and his daughter plans to build a house on Lot 2 of the proposed plat. Ms. McPherson stated there is a ravine with mature oak trees in the northeast corner of Lot 2. The neighbor to the northeast is concerned that there be little alteration of that ravine in the construction process, so one of the stipulations for the preliminary plat limits construction to above the 952 foot contour. She stated Regis Lane curves up to the intersection of Regis Drive to the east, so the Engineering staff is recommending the driveway to the new single family home be placed as close to the westerly lot line of Lot 2 as possible to increase the sight distance and improve the sight lines to the Regis Lane/Regis Drive intersection. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of P.S. #89-01 with the following stipulations: 1. 2. There shall be no grading below the 952 foot contour on the northeast corner of Lot 2. The access to Lot 2 shall be toward the westerly side of the lot and shall be hardsurfaced. Ms. McPherson stated the rear yard setback for the new lot is about 33 feet so that should run pretty close to the 952 foot contour. Mr. Sullivan stated he lives on the front part of the lot. His daughter will be constructing a single family home on the second lot; however, she has no house plans at this time. He stated he has one complaint and that is that Regis Lane is not shown on the City's half section maps. Because of that, he had to pay more money to have his property surveyed. He stated that, after 20 years, it is about time the City put Regis Lane on the map! r'� � �'1 PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETINa. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 3 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 7:45 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #89-01, Sullivan's Overlook, being a replat of that part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 8; thence westerly along the North line, 255 feet; thence southwesterly 62 degrees 14 minutes 40 seconds, deflecting to the left, to the South line of said Lot 8 and there terminating. Together with that part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 9; thence south along the East line of said Lot 9, a distance of 49.4 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence deflect to the right in a northwesterly direction, along a line to its point of intersection with the North line of said Lot 9, said point being 335.8 feet west of the Northeast corner of said Lot 9 and there terminating, generally located at 1161 Regis Lane N.E., with the following two stipulations: ' l. 2. There shall be no grading below the 952 foot contour on the northeast corner of Lot 2. The access to Lot 2 shall be toward the westerly side of the lot and shall be hardsurfaced. QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated at their June 5th meeting, the City Council will probably establish a public hearing date of June 19th for the final plat. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-07. BY PAUL J. HENGEL• Per Section 205.07.01.C(1) of the Fridley City Code to allow a second accessory building on Lot 7, Block 4, Bonny Addition, the same being 5932 - 6th Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:46 P.M. PLANNING_COMMI88ION MLETIATG. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 4 �� Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-1, Residential Dwelling District. Because the petitioner wishes to construct an accessory building over 240 sq. ft., he must request a special use permit. She stated that in addition to the attached single car garage, there is a 10 ft. x 10 ft. or 12 ft. x 12 ft. metal storage building in the rear yard. Ms. McPherson stated construction of the accessory building will include removing three mature trees, one of which is an oak tree. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the driveway be joined to the neighbor�s driveway to the south so there is not a 1-2 ft. area in which to try to maintain grass. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval with the following stipulations: 1. The access to the accessory building shall be hardsurfaced and shall join the neighbor's driveway to the south. The access shall be hardsurfaced by September 1, 1989. 2. The accessory building shall be architecturally ^ compatible with the existing house. Mr. Barna asked if the neighbor's driveway is at zero lot line. For example, if the neighbor's driveway is 2 ft. from the lot line, then they cannot ask the petitioner to hardsurface 2 ft. of the neighbor's property. Ms. McPherson stated that visually it appeared that the neighbor's driveway is at zero lot line, but it would probably have to be surveyed. Mr. Barna stated he would be more comfortable with saying the driveway should be built to the zero lot line. Mr. Betzold agreed and stated there might even be some easement problems associated with using a common driveway. Ms. McPherson stated there is a 5 ft. drainage/utility easement which the petitioner is definitely honoring. He has plans to build the garage 6 ft. from the rear line and he does have the 3 ft. side yard setback. Ms. Pam Hengel stated she is representing her son, Paul Hengel. She stated having the driveway hardsurfaced by Sept. 1, 1989, (stipulation #1) will be difficult financially. She stated there ^ are quite a few trees that will have to be removed and that will be costly. The new garage at this time will only be used for the PLANNING COMMI83ION MI�ETINa. MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 5 i� storage of a boat, and they would like to have the hardsurface requirement postponed until next year. The Commissioners had no problem with Ms. Hengel's request and agreed to extend the hardsurface stipulation from Sept. 1, 1989, to June 1, 1990. Mr. Betzold suggested that if the petitioner does not know where the lot line is in relation to the new driveway that he have the property surveyed. Ms. Dacy stated that because the Code provides that driveways must be located 3 ft. from the lot line, the petitioner must have permission from the adjacent neighbor to put the driveway at zero lot line. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to ^ City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #89-07, by Paul J. Hengel, per Section 205.07.01.C(1) of the Fridley City Code to allow a second accessory building on Lot 7, Block 4, Bonny Addition, the same being 5932 - 6th Street N.E., with the following two stipulations: l. The access to the accessory building shall be hardsurfaced and shall be placed at the zero lot line. The access shall be hardsurfaced by June 1, 1990. 2. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing house. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CSAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: COATSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �89-08, BY KEITH'S AUTO BODY• Per Section 205.17.01.C.(9) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a repair garage on that part of the East 46 acres of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 46 acre tract distant 623.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 46 acre tract; thence South along the West line of said East 46 acre ^ tract 161.63 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract 538.98 feet, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 65; thence PLANNING_CONIl�iISSION MEETING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 6 ,� Northerly along said Westerly right-of-way line 161.63 feet, more or less, to the intersection of a line drawn from the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract; thence West parallel with the said North line 538.73 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, the same being 7570 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Ms. Dacy stated this property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. To the north and west is M-1 zoning (Lampert Lumber), to the south is R-4 (mobile home park), to the east across Highway 65 is a mixture of C-3, Commercial, and M-1 zoning. Ms. Dacy stated this property has an extensive building permit file. There are a number of code compliance issues that staff has been trying to work on with the property owner. Also, the ownership issue plays a role in this case in that the property has changed ownership on a number of occasions in the last six years. � In fact, there have been repair operations in the second building toward the rear of site since 1983, and the file contains correspondence from City staff to property owners at that time to make them apply for a special use permit for a repair garage as required by the M-1 district. Ms. Dacy stated Keith Poppenhagen, the petitioner, of Keith's Auto Body, was unaware of the special use permit application process. Upon coming to the office for a routine visit, staff discussed with him the necessity of having a special use permit. Staff also contacted the owner of the property who is represented at the meeting. Ms. Dacy stated the main issue with this property is the number of code compliance issues that need to be conducted on the site: 1. There are no paved or hard surface areas between the two buildings on site. 2. There are a number of piles of junk and debris, not necessarily related to the repair operation. 3. There are setback issues. 4. There is pavement in front of the building all the way � up to the lot line on the sides and to the front. � � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 7 Ms. Dacy stated that also of major concern to the City is that the property is serviced by a septic tank, and the drainfield for that septic tank is located in front of the first building. In 1984, Anoka County determined that the septic system was failing. At that time, the property owner worked with the City to look at connecting the property to City sewer. There are three alternatives to doing that: 1. Sewer exists to the south within the mobile home park; however, these sewer lines are private and permission must be granted by the mobile home park. Further, the proposed length of extension from the mobile home park to the two existing building may be too long for a simple service connection. A larger line and manholes may be necessary. 2. A connection across the Lampert Lumber property to the north is the second alternative. An eight inch line and manhole is located between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco property. An easement would need to be obtained from Lampert Lumber and their pavement would have to be reconstructed and replaced. 3. The third alternative is from the manhole betwee station to the Highway 65 the service road to the The estimated cost for Approximately $10,000 of the bituminous mat of th to extend the eight inch line n Lampert Lumber and the Amoco service road, then south along front of the subject property. this alternative is $27,000. this work would be to replace e service road. Ms. Dacy stated staff has tried to put together a list of stipulations that would bring the property into compliance with the ordinance and to work with the property owners to achieve a timetable for compliance. The current property owner states he is willing to agree to a timetable but wants to prioritize the necessary building improvements before doing any site improvements. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP #89-08 with the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1990. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking �,.,� setback requirement by August 1, 1990. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. ^ PLANNING_COMMI88ION MEETING� MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 8 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed by September 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by June 1, 1990. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and � landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on an annual basis. 9. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. Ms . Dacy stated that because they do not know the status of the septic system, staff is proposing a holding tank be installed and pumped on a regular basis so they would not have to be concerned about the effluent coming out of the drainfield. Then, looking at a long term approach, of eventually connecting to the sanitary sewer. Ms. Dacy stated the owner, 7570 Incorporated, is at the meeting to explain the complications with the fee ownership because that has an impact on when they can achieve the site improvements. Mr. Poppenhagen stated his business has been in this building since November. When he was in the process of buying the site, he called � the City to see if he needed a permit, and he was told he did not. It was not until he came into the City offices that he found out he did need a special use permit. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa� MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 9 � ^ Mr. Mike Thompson, 7570 Incorporated, stated the person who leased the building before Mr. Poppenhagen applied for a permit but did not follow through. There are vehicles outside the building from the previous tenant that Mr. Poppenhagen is trying to get rid of. There are no certificates of ownership on these vehicles so it has been difficult. Mr. Thompson stated the whole building is a mess, and it is going to take a year to get everything straightened out. He stated he is one of the o�aners, but there are some real problems on who really owns the building. He stated they bought the building from a company that went defunct. The company that had the building has a C.D. on it. The first mortgage is handled by Midwest Federal, and the C.D. is owned by a company that went bankrupt. Since Midwest Federal has the first mortgage on the property, it is being handled by United Mortgage; F.D.I.C. is handling the first mortgage, and anyone who wants to buy the building has to go through F.D.I.C. to say they own it. That is what they are up against now. He stated that at this point they do not know who owns the building, and after being told what needs to be done to the building, he is not sure they want the property with all these stipulations. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Thompson if there were some stipulations he did not agree with. Mr. Thompson stated the first thing they would like to do is make the offices and warehouse space livable--putting on a new roof, new garage doors, painting the building. The new sewer is absolutely mandatory, and new electrical service into the front building. So, they are looking at $100,000-130,000 for just the building improvements. Mr. Thompson stated he was at the meeting with Mr. Poppenhagen to get the special use permit, and they will have to let the courts decide who owns the building. Mr. Betzold stated if 7570 Incorporated did get clear title to the building, are there any stipulations that are problems? Mr. Thompson stated before he can look at any of the stipulations, they need to know who owns the building. If the building comes back to them, then they are going to do the improvements to the building he mentioned earlier. As far as the debris, Mr. Poppenhagen will help take care of some of that. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Poppenhagen if he was willing to clean up the area around the building and put up a new fence. �� PLANNINa COMMI88ION ME�TINa. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 10 � Mr. Poppenhagen stated he would get that corner cleaned up, although the fence might be a little more of a problem. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending until September 1, 1989, to have the area cleaned up of debris, inoperable car parts, pallets, semi-truck trailers removed, and a six foot fence installed (stipulation #3). So, the petitioner has almost the entire summer to get it done. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARINa CLOBED AT 8:22 P.M. Ms. Sherek stated she thought there were two different issues here. This whole area is a disaster, and Keith's Auto Body has little control over the whole building. She thought all the stipulations should be struck except stipulation #3. The rest of the code enforcement issues should be pursued with whoever the owners are. Mr. 5aba stated he thought the stipulations should all be there, but that the timetable be pushed out farther than August 1, 1990, �, so it gives some time to get the ownership issue settled. Ms. Dacy stated she understood what Ms. Sherek is saying that Keith's Auto Body by itself is not causing the code compliance issues, but the necessary parking and landscaping improvements are all typical requirements for the operation of any establishment for any special use permit. Keeping the stipulations with the special use permit will help the City keep track of the code compliance issues. One year from now if the property owners cannot make the deadlines, they can always request an extension from the City Council. Staff is strongly recommending the nine stipulations remain with the special use permit request. Ms. Sherek stated the only stipulation of immediate concern is the septic tank issue and the timetable of January 1, 1990, for the installation of a holding tank. It might not be a big issue if this is another dry year, but it could be a big issue if they have a wet year. Mr. Thompson stated they have been pumping the septic tank on a regular basis, and it seems to have cured the immediate problem. He agreed that last year was an exceptionally dry year; and if this is a wet year, they will have to pump it weekly. If the City wants the septic system removed and a holding tank installed, that is a lot of capital. '� Mr. Saba stated he did not want any stipulations removed, but maybe they should put some priorities on the stipulations. He saw r"1 � PLANNINa COMMISBION ME�TING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAaE 11 stipulations #3 and #5 as high priorities. He sympathized with Mr. Thompson's situation, and he did not think they should force all these improvements by the dates set forth by the stipulations. Mr. Thompson stated he wants Mr. Poppenhagen to get his special use permit. He wants the building occupied, and he wants the ownership issue settled. The roof repair has to be done right away, because they are losing a tenant because of the leaking roof. He cannot see putting $50,000-60,000 into site improvements and letting the building go empty. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in order to allow Mr. Poppenhagen to operate his repair business and to allow Mr. Thompson time to attempt to find out who does own the building and resolve the issue, it might be prudent for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the special use permit. He did not think they should eliminate any of the stipulations, but they should establish some dates that can be responded to once something has been resolved with the ownership of the building. However, some monies will need to be expended before the ownership situation is settled. He thought the septic system should be dealt with prior to 1991 in some manner, either by pumping the tank on a regular basis or the removal of the old tank and installation of a new tank that will be pumped on a regular basis. Or, the septic system should be investigated to see if there is a potential health hazard. He would like to see the date for stipulation #3 sooner than September 1, 1989. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Dahlberg. following timetable for the stipulations: Stipulation #1: Stipulation #2: Stipulation #3: Stipulation #4: Stipulation #5: August 1, 1991 August 1, 1991 As soon as possible January 1, 1991 Same as recommended He recommended the or August 1, 1991 by staff Mr. Saba stated he agreed stipulation #5 with the sanitary has high priority. Ms. Sherek stated she thought an evaluation of the present septic tank system should be done right away. Ms. Sherek stated regarding stipulation #8, she would recommend the special use permit be reviewed by City staff on Oct. l, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. Mr. Betzold stated he had some real misgivings about this special � use permit request, even though he is sure Mr. Poppenhagen and Mr. Thompson are doing the best they can to make a bad situation work. He stated he did not think the owner situation is going to be � � � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 12 cleared up quickly, and the potential owners such as Mr. Thompson are not going to want to pour money down a hole in the interim. He stated he is prepared to vote against the special use permit, because he believes that in this case the City's best interest might be served by trying to force the issue--shutting the building down and, if needed, condemning the property. He did not feel any optimism at this time of getting any of these code violations cleaned up. Ms. Sherek asked if the City Building Inspector had inspected the site, particularly for things like the leaking roof, the substandard wiring, bad furnace, to the point where the building might have to be tagged with an eye towards condemnation. She thought that should be done right away, and this special use permit request tabled until such an inspection is done. Mr. Barna agreed. He stated he is very uncomfortable with this substandard property. It could easily be a health hazard and a fire hazard, and it is located very close to the mobile home park. He is uncomfortable with any businesses being in the building without knowing the condition of the building. He stated the ownership is unknown, and no one is going to put money into improvements at this point. A possible condemnation action might straighten the mess out. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to table Special Use Permit, SP #89-08, by Keith's Auto Body, and to direct staff to complete an on-site inspection of the property at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. for a full determination of the code violations and safety hazards on the property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, HETZOLD, SHERER, BARNA, SAHA, DABLHERG VOTING AYE� RONDRICR VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED HY A VOTE OF 5-1. Ms. Dacy stated this item will probably be back before the Planning Commission in one month. New notices will be mailed to the neighborhood. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-09, BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY• Per Section 205.18.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley City Code to allow commercial retail, with a motor fuel station/car wash, on Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, the same being 7295 University Avenue N.E. MOTIOAT by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMODBLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:50 P.M. r'"� PLANNINa_COMMI88ION MEETING� MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 13 Ms. Dacy stated this property is located on the southeast corner of University Avenue and 73rd Avenue and consists of 2.3 acres. The property and the property now known as the Northco Business Park has been zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, since 1958. The M-2 district permits an automotive service station as a permitted use; however, this special use permit is to put retail sales in an M-2 District. In this case, the automotive use is a permitted use and the special use permit is needed for the retail sales of grocery items within the building. Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner submitted a site plan which shows the gas pumps, the building where the cashier and grocery store are located, as well as a free-standing car wash to the south of the proposed structure. To evaluate the creation of commercial uses in an Industrial district, the Code has set up some standards by which to evaluate them: 1. The maximum ctross floor area cannot exceed 30� of the buildina's total floor area with no such individual tenant exceeding 5.000 square feet The total area of the gas pump island and service building is approximately 5,940 square feet. The proposed retail area at 400 square feet is 14� of � the total square footage. 2. The �arking supply shall be in compliance with the reauirements of the City Code and shall be sufficient to su�port full occupancy of the buildin� The traffic generated by the gas pumps is accommodated by the parking surface around the gas pumps. The total square footage of the building along is approximately 750 square feet. Five parking spaces are required and the site plan indicates six parking spaces. 3. Onlv wall mounted signs subject to limitations of the Citv Code. shall be permitted The petitioner does not propose any wall signage for the convenience retail use. Signage is proposed on the canopy and a free standing pylon sign is proposed for the automotive use. It should be noted that the ordinance requires a maximum height of 25 feet. The plan indicates 30 feet. The proposed sign area is 91 square feet. The ordinance permits a maximum of 80 square feet. 4. ,�1 intersections. The traffic attributable to the convenience retail is smaller than the traffic that will be generated by the permitted use of the automotive service station. Entrances are proposed onto 73rd Avenue and on the , � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 14 University Avenue service road. A median exists in 73rd Avenue, thus causing the proposed entrance to act as a right- in and a right-out. The location of the intersection meets the 75 foot intersection separation requirement of the zoning ordinance generated from the retail use or the automotive service station will not affect the level of traffic which will cause the traffic counts on 73rd Avenue or the service road to exceed their capacity. 5. The pro�osed use, in the opinion of the City Council shall be comAatible with the area in which it is �roposed to be located. The property is bounded on the east by the Northco Business Park, on the west by University Avenue, and commercial uses on the west side of University Avenue. Duplexes and single family zoning are located north of the site across 73rd Avenue. The zoning ordinance requires a 100 foot building setback when the property is adjacent to residential districts. The building and canopy are located approximately 68 feet from the property line. The structure must be shifted to the south in order to meet the setback requirement. Several changes to the landscape plan should also be made in � order that more native species are proposed to coexist with the existing vegetation on the site and to improve screening. The following changes to the landscape plan are recommended: A. Locust species should not be used. B. The 12 inch Ash and 14 inch Boxelder on the north boulevard must be removed. C. Gro-low Fragrant Sumac shall be used instead of the Spirea in front of the car wash area. D. Southerland Juniper should be used instead of the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce. E. Bur Oak should be used as a boulevard tree instead of the Sumit Ash. Eight Bur Oaks should be planted along 73rd Avenue and the University Avenue service road, planted 60 feet on center, instead of the proposed Locust trees. The Bur Oak species is proposed in other areas along the bikeway. F. Clusters of Quaking Aspen should be used on the south side of the parking area toward the existing vegetation stand. The Gro-low Fragrant Sumac should be mixed with the proposed Juniper plantings. G. Six inch shredded bark mulch should be used for ground cover area. H. Multi-colored stones should not be used. I. Section 205.18.07.D.(4).c requires a continuous 36 inch � planting strip must be provided between the parking area and abutting streets. The proposed junipers shall therefore be connected around the east, north and west PLANNING COMMI88ION MSETING� MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 15 ,� - 6. sides of the proposed hardsurface area. A 2 to 3 foot berm combined with the proposed planting strips would also be appropriate and may be more effective to screen the traffic activity on the site. industrial use. This standard is applicable to a multi-tenant building situation and is not applicable to this case. Ms. Dacy stated Phillips 66 wants a car wash included in the development. She stated that in the agenda is a memo from the City Attorney, Virgil Herrick, dated May 3, 1989. Mr. Herrick proposes that, based on staff's interpretation of the Code, a car wash is not a permitted use nor a special use permit within an M-2 district; therefore a car wash cannot be constructed. Ms. Dacy stated two items came up after the writing of the staff report: 1. There was the question as to whether or not the area on site does contain a protected wetland. The site has accepted runoff from adjacent properties for a number of years, and � there is a portion of the site that is listed on the National Wetland Inventory Map; however, it is staff's understanding that the size is below one acre. If it is below one acre, then the Army Corps of Engineers reviews the plan; however, any filling of the property is covered under the nationwide permit. If the filling of the wetland is over one acre, then an Army Corps permit would be required. Staff has added a stipulation that, if necessary, the Army Corps of Engineers be obtained prior to construction. 2. In regard to the proposed bikeway/walkway along the south side of 73rd Avenue, the City is requesting an easement along the south property line. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit subject to eight stipulations: 1. The site plan shall be revised such that the canopy and building meet the 100 foot setback. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. Locust species should not be used. � b. The 12 inch Ash and 12 inch Boxelder on the north boulevard will have to be removed. PI,ANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 16 �� c. Gro-low Fragrant Sumac shall be used instead of the Spirea in front of the car wash area. d. Southerland Juniper should be used instead of the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce. e. Bur Oak should be used as boulevard tree instead of the Sumit Ash. Eight Bur Oaks should be planted along 73rd Avenue and the University Avenue service road, planted 60 feet on center, instead of the proposed Locust trees. f. Clusters of Quaking Aspen should be used on the south side of the parking area toward the existing vegetation stand. The Gro-low Fragrant Sumac should be mixed with the proposed Juniper plantings. g. Six inch shredded bark mulch should be used for ground cover area. h. Multi-colored stones should not be used. i. A continuous 36 inch planting strip must be prov�ded between the parking area abutting streets. A combination of berming and planting is also acceptable. 3. A car wash is not permitted. ^ 4. There shall not be outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts, or service pits or the outdoor display of inerchandise. The display of petroleum products between pumps or the temporary display of merchandise within four feet of the station building is permitted. 5. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of wrecked, abandoned, or junk motor vehicles, or the sale or display of used motor vehicles. 6. The site plan shall be revised to comply with the standards of the sign ordinance. 7. The petitioner shall convey a 15 foot bikeway/walkway easement along 73rd Avenue N.E. 8. Petitioner shall obtain Army Corps of Engineer permit prior to issuance of building permit. Mr. Betzold stated the Commissioners had received a copy of a memo from the City Manager regarding a proposal from Council Member Billings which could result in the closing of the University Avenue service road on the west side of University. How might this impact this proposed development? n Ms. Dacy stated that at this point it is just an item that staff has been asked to look at. This is only an information item. '"'� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGS 17 Mr. Arlin Allison stated he is with Phillips 66 out of Chesterfield, Missouri. He stated they are proposing to construct an automobile service station at the southeast corner of 73rd and University. The site is 2.39 acres with approximately 560 ft. of frontage on University Avenue and 284 feet of depth on 73rd Avenue. He stated they have prepared a video which shows the site and similar service stations in other locations. Mr. Allison handed out a brochure entitled, "First Impressions��, which is utilized by Phillips 66 for their independent marketers. The brochure shows a representation of the type of construction and configuration that is proposed for this particular location. Mr. Allison stated he would first like to address the car wash issue. He stated the Zoning Code, as written, is a flexible document not unlike the U.S. Constitution where interpretation is added to the document to give it an equitable and fair means of guidance to the City in its development and for projects presented by developers. The Zoning Code cannot possibly list every possible use pattern under every classification. The staff report in reference to the car wash has followed the memo from the City Attorney stating that the words �'car wash" are not listed under the ^ M-2 zoning classification. He agreed with Mr. Herrick that those words are not listed, but the Code gives several instances of guidance that will allow the flexibility of this document to allow the construction of this car wash either as a permitted use, an accessory use, or following the provisions for the special use. Mr. Allison stated in reference to their position in maintaining that the car wash is allowed by right, they are going back to the definition of automobile service stations which is a place for fuel and other essential services related to the operation of motor vehicles or retail directly to the public. The term "essential" basically meaning something necessary, fundamental, or basic. They maintain that a basic service for the operation of a vehicle is the cleaning of the vehicle and taking care of the condition of the vehicle. Mr. Allison stated that going back to the development of the car wash in a service station, historically, one of the bays was utilized as a car wash area and cars were manually washed. That evolved into having the one of the bays dedicated to having an automated car wash where customers would drive into the stall, the car wash machine would operate, the customer would back out, and go on their way. That was modified further by the removal of the back wall of the bay allowing the customer to drive into the car wash bay, get the car washed, and drive through. The modern day service station, as constructed by a majority of the major' oil �� companies--Shell Oil, Texaco, Phillips 66, Amoco, Mobile--have car washes in conjunction with their service stations where the size PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. MAY 17. 1989 - PAaE 18 � of the property allows it. In Fridley, they are mainly seeing convenience stores as opposed to service stations such as the 5uperAmerica and Jet Mart convenience stores. He stated other cities have started to define their definition of service stations. One jurisdiction in the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, has ruled that a single bay roll-over car wash, when associated with the sale of gasoline, is an accessory use and has granted it by right. Mr. Allison stated that under the definition of a service station use, Section 205.18.01.A.(1), a principal use is that which is deemed not to be "dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity and will not impair the use or value of any property but not including any uses excluded hereinafter". The definition of "service use" is the cleaning, washing, adjusting, repairing, rebuilding, overhauling, or finishing of manufactured products. The M-2 classification specifically allows, as a permitted use, repair shops, heavy duty repair shops, body shops which, in their activity, will clean vehicles prior to repair. Under this Code, they would have the right to have a car wash for that type of operation. He is maintaining, therefore, that the M-2 classification would allow a car wash. Phillips 66 maintains a single bay roll-over car wash is a principal use under the definitions of "automobile service ,� station" and a permitted use and would request the Planning _ Commission give a favorable ruling as by right. In the alternative to it being by right as a permitted use, they believe it is an accessory use basically, under the definition of "service use" for the servicing of a manufactured product. The definition of "accessory use" is a subordinate use which is located on the same lot as the principle building or use and is necessary or incidental to the conduct of the principle building or use, "incidental" being a minor or secondary activity, but usually associated. Mr. Allison stated Phillips 66 maintains that the principal use of their facility is for the sale of gasoline products, and that is evidenced by their advertising. No one will see Phillips Petroleum Company advertising their car wash, other than by having a sign underneath the pricing sign saying the car wash is free with a gasoline fill-up. Mr. Allison stated the definition of a car wash establishment is also important to take into consideration. The facilities he has noticed in Fridley that fall under that definition are the car wash operation on the northwest corner of University Avenue and 73rd Avenue and Riverside Car Wash at East River Road and Mississippi where the principal use is the retail sales of car wash as a service, with associated gasoline sales at both locations. Mr. Allison stated another indicating factor that their principal '� use is for the retail sale of gasoline is that on a 2.3 acre tract, if the principal use was to be a car wash, it would be improbable PLANNINa COP�IIBBION MEETINQ. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGB 19 ^ - that they would dedicate a 25 ft. x 48 ft. building as the principal use and also make it secondary access to this point. Traditionally, car wash establishments take up the full lot. Therefore, they are maintaining in the alternative, if the Planning Commission does not rule that they have the car wash by right under the definition of ��automobile service stations", that they are allowed an accessory use under the terms of the Code. Mr. Allison stated, finally, dealing with the special use permit, Section 205.05.04.A listed the purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. The special use provision listed in M-2 under which they fall under is under Section 205.18.01.C.3 which states that commercial/retail service users, Class II restaurants within office and/or industrial buildings, including those with the drive-through components (their car wash is a drive-through component), banks, cleaners, photo shops, fast food restaurants, and similar uses (the only connection between any of these items being the drive-through component and the retail aspect) shall be considered a special use permit on an individual basis. In reference to what is specifically excluded under the M-2 designation under Section 205.18.02.H, it states that ,� all uses are excluded unless a special use permit is obtained. When reading that in conjunction with Section 205.18.02.A which basically states that all uses unless specifically listed are excluded, therefore, the City is not allowing uses that are in other designated categories, it becomes clear that the intent of the Code is to allow the flexibility for the Planning Commission and City Council to rule on this on an individual basis based on the impact on the general welfare and public health and safety. Staff listed performance standards which Phillips 66 staff has gone over in reference to the inside sales, and, basically, Phillips 66 has met these standards: 1. The maximum aross floor area cannot exceed 30� of the buildincr's total floor area with no such individual tenant exceedinq 5.000 sq ft Mr. Allison stated that in this situation, the structure utilized for the car wash is 1,155 sq, ft. and going in conjunction with the determination of the gross floor square footage, not taking into reference the canopy area which is approximately 5,900 sq. ft., it comes out as a 190 ratio.. 2. The narkina su�ot�lv shall be in compliance with the rea�irements of the City Code and shall be sufficient to su�AOrt full occuAancy of the building � Mr. Allison stated the site plan indicates six desi ated spaces as well as the abilit to � parking y park along the side of the store � PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEBTING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 20 or beside the service station on either end, also at the pump islands, and it allows adequate stacking space for vehicles waiting to go through the car wash. 3. Onlv wall mounted signs subject to limitations of the Citv_ Code. shall be permitted. Mr. Allison stated that, as far as wall mounted signs, the only thing envisioned is the words "car wash" and conceivably a "Phillips�� ID shield on the structure. 4. inzersections. Mr. Allison stated that, basically, the customers coming into the service station and utilizing the pump islands will then be going back through the car wash. He estimated approximately 85-90� of the vehicles coming through will be coming and going through the car wash as opposed to people coming directly for car wash use. Therefore, the level of traffic service is not impacted by the n incidental or accessory use. 5. The pro�osed use in the opinion of the City Council shall be com�atible with the area in which it is proposed to be located. Mr. Allison stated the property is to the east of the Northco property which will be developed, basically, as a wholesale/ industrial office type business park. The property to the north is the single family and duplex residential area. The property on the northwest corner of University/73rd Avenue is the car wash establishment with associated gasoline sales, and there is an office building on the southwest corner of University/73rd Avenue. The use proposed by Phillips 66 is similar to the Amoco Station on Osborne/University in which a car wash is associated with the sale of gasoline and is located directly across from a residential area. In reference to the compatibility with this location in conjunction with other locations, the proximity of the car wash establishment at the northwest corner of University/73rd Avenue to the duplex across University Avenue is approximately 385 ft. Under the Phillips 66 proposal, the proximity of their car wash to the residential structure across the street is 138 ft. He is trying to show the Planning Commission that this type of use in conjunction with other residential areas has, on other cases, even a closer proximity to the residential area; therefore, the impact ,� and the compatibility of location is evidenced. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING� MAY 17. 1989 - PAaE 21 � Mr. Allison stated that regarding the landscaping, they will take into consideration the recommendations made by the City on landscaping. Mr. Allison stated that in reference to the setback issue, under Section 205.18.03.D. (1) , a front yard depth of not less than 35 feet is required for all permitted buildings and uses, except there is another provision dealing when any other industrial district is adjacent to or joins any other district, permitted buildings and uses shall not be closer to the street right-of-way abutting a residential district than 100 ft. In this situation, City staff has interpreted this to mean that the south right-of-way line of 73rd Avenue is where the 100 ft. line would come from. Phillips 66 maintains that the south property line does not abut residential; it abuts a heavy industrial district. The only right- of-way that abuts a residential district is the north right-of-way line of the University Avenue service road, because everything in between that is Public Facilities Zoning. They maintain they are in compliance with the setback requirements. Ms. Dacy stated it is her understanding that in the heavy industrial district and in the light industrial district, the 100 ft. setback is also to create more of a campus approach. In this n area they have Target and the new Northco Business Center. Historically, it is her understanding these buildings across from residential were set back from the road right-of-way 100 ft. so there would be more of an open air, campus-type approach. Mr. Allison stated the City is applying a stricter standard on these type of buildings than the lesser intensive use necessarily of a service station. They put the service station as a permitted use, and then applied the industrial standards. That is why he is saying there is room for interpretation of the Code. Mr. Allison stated in reference to the inside sales, he would like to draw a distinction between the Phillips operation and what a SuperAmerica or Jet Mart operation in reference to the issue of what is indicated to be a retail space. Saying 400 ft. for actual retail area is slightly exaggerated when they look at what is included in the standards SuperAmerica or Jet Mart store in terms of retail space. Mr. Betzold asked what would happen if the City Council concurs with the opinion of the City Attorney and says "no" to the car wash. Mr. Al.lison stated if they thought they did not have the ability to go in under the M-2 zoning, they would probably come back with n a rezoning to C-3 zoning. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 17. 1989 - PAG$ 22 �� _ Mr. Jim Filippi, North Star Engineering Consultants, stated there is a 15 ft. bikeway/walkway easement on the north side of this property that was given to the City in 1980 and is already recorded as one of the documents. Mr. Saba asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Allison stated they are proposing a 24 hour operation which includes the car wash. Mr. Dahlberg asked if Mr. Allison had discussed either with City staff or the City Attorney prior to their reports the interpretation of all the items he has outlined to the Commission. Mr. Allison stated that when they began the project, in a discussion with staff, there was an indication they would be able to apply for building permits and start right away. After further review of the plans and further discussion with staff, it evolved that the staff was going to recommend that a special use permit was needed for the car wash as well as the retail sales. Ms. Dacy stated when Mr. Filippi came into the office, she informed him that the automotive station was a permitted use, but there was � some question of the retail sales and it would require a special use permit. She was not aware of the car wash issue until later in the process. Once she was aware of the car wash, she consulted with� the City Attorney, and he wrote the memo the Commission members had received. Mr. Betzold stated the Commissioners had received a copy of a letter addressed to Barbara Dacy dated May 16, 1989, from Bruce Carlson of the Northco Corporation. In the letter, Mr. Carlson stated that Northco is opposed to the development of the Phillips 66 station. They feel another service station is a negative and adds nothing to the community that is not already present in abundance. They would prefer this corner to be built into office, a bank, a medical center, or professional or community-related use. They are also concerned about the wetland area and what might happen to the smaller portion of the property left over after the service station is developed. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive into the record the letter dated May 16, 1989, from Mr. Bruce Carlson of Northco Corporation. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. � Mr. Allison stated they are below the requirements for securing permits for the wetland area. He would like to address the issue of what could be deemed as excess property. He stated they have PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 23 r'�1 no plans for the development of this property, other than for a Phillips 66 service station, and they are not trying to market the property. Ms. Kay Harrison stated she represents the owner of the property, Soo Line Railroad. She stated they marketed the property for about 1/2 years seeking an activity of the kind of prospects Mr. Carlson of Northco had mentioned in his letter. A medical use seemed to be feasible. She stated they approached physicians in the area and Unity Hospital. They also has a proposal by a bank to develop the site into a two-story facility. In going through the process, they discovered there were soil problems on the site, substantial enough to deter some of the uses and make it economically unfeasible for a lot of the uses. Other unsolicited calls of interest were from smaller users who wanted to divide the site into two parcels. When Phillips 66 approached them, the economic feasibility seemed to be there for them. Ms. Harrison stated there are a lot of "see through" (empty) office buildings across University Avenue, and it soon became clear to them that this is not a good site for speculative office. A resident living across the street from the proposed service !� station stated he did not see the need for another convenience store in the area, much less a car wash. There is a car wash across University Avenue that doesn't do that much business. He did not think any variances on setbacks should be given to Phillips 66. If they want to be here, then they should follow the regulations that exist. Mr. Pat Maxey, 7388 Symphony, stated they cannot stop the gas station because it is an allowed use in M-2 zoning, but he did not think another gas station is needed. There are already plenty of gas stations in the area. And, he did not believe another car wash is needed in the area. He would like to see another use for this property as suggested by Northco. Mr. Maxey stated he is also concerned about the safety of the corner of University/73rd Avenue. There is a lot of traffic at that intersection, particularly in the morning. What kind of traffic situation is a service station on the corner going to cause, plus the additional traffic into the business park that is being developed? He stated he is totally against another service station, convenience store, and car wash. Mr. Ron Mattson, 7324 Symphony, stated he attended several meetings with Northco Corporation. He stated the Northco people were very cooperative and interested in working with the neighborhood, the n Planning Commission, and City Council. In fact, they made several modifications to the development to accommodate the people. But, at this meeting, it is a different story. Phillips 66 seems PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGB 24 � determined to put in the service station with the convenience store and the car wash no matter what, and they are telling the Commission and the neighbors how it is going to be done. He stated he did not like this kind of attitude. Mr. Matson asked if any marketinq study has been done regarding the need for this particular business in this area. When this business fails, the neighborhood is going to be left with a boarded-up eyesore like they had with the Phillips 66 service station on University/Mississippi for many years. So, what happens when this business fails, and no one wants to buy it? Mr. Allison stated they did conduct a market study of this area, and the study indicated that the economic climate is sufficient to support this station as well as other stations in the area. In reference to other Phillips 66 stations that have failed, they were probably not company-owned and operated stations. They were probably independent business people and the stations could have failed for a variety of reasons, other than the demand for gasoline in the area. A neighbor expressed concern about the safety and the traffic. She stated there are a lot of young children in this area. The service �-,, road coming out onto 73rd Avenue is going to present problems. She is also concerned about a service station being a place for people to loiter. Has Phillips 66 given any thought to that problem? Mr. Allison stated that with the type of operation they are proposing for this location, with the lighting they will have on site, and with the management, they do attempt to keep all loitering off the property. Anyone suspected of loitering is asked to leave the property. Mr. Allison stated Phillips 66 representatives are prepared to sit down with the neighbors at any time to discuss this proposal. Now is a good time to discuss the neighbors� concerns before the City Council meeting. A neighbor expressed concern about another entrance off 73rd Avenue. A neighbor expressed concern over the 24-hour operation. He would prefer a professional-type business on this property. Mr. Allison challenged the neighbors to visit another Phillips 66 station at another location to see how it is managed and to talk to the neighbors around the station to see if they have similar concerns/problems. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 25 � A neighbor stated a traffic flow study should be done before this service station is built. Mr. Betzold stated traffic is a concern in this area, but he would be more worried about how much traffic will be generated after Northco and this property are developed. Mr. Allison stated in reference to the concern about the longevity of the car wash across University Avenue, they are basically appealing to a different clientele than the Phillips 66 car wash. It is an adequate car wash but not the same as automatic car washes. They have stations that have the automatic car wash establishments located behind Phillips 66 stations (two locations in St. Louis), but both are flourishing because of the different clientele they appeal to. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Kondrick stated Phillips 66 can certainly put the service ^ station in if they want; however, in all deference to the people who make the laws and interpret them, he would vote in favor of the special use permit with all the stipulations presented by staff, and that the car wash not be permitted. He felt the petitioner should honor the setbacks because other developers have been asked to honor the setbacks. � Mr. Saba agreed. He stated he would strongly urge the neighbors to meet with representatives from Phillips 66 to present their views and input before the City Council meeting. Mr. Barna stated the issue of the car wash is up to the City Council. He stated he felt strongly about the 100 ft. setback. Mr. Dahlberg stated he is also concerned that a 24 hour service station operation at this location is not the most desirable or most appropriate use. It is not unreasonable to expect that this lot could remain vacant until there is a use better suited to the site. Ms. Sherek agreed with Mr. Dahlberg. She stated 73rd Avenue is in her neighborhood. She drives that street many times a day, and is a lot of traffic on it. She drives past this area and then past the SuperAmerica on Highway 65/73rd Avenue, and it is a disaster. To put another disaster less than one mile from the SuperAmerica is not a good idea. She stated she agreed with Mr. Dahlberg that a service station is not necessarily an appropriate use for this site. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 26 �, - Mr. Betzold stated in looking around the City, there is not much that can be done with these type of small lots, and they usually end up with service station-type business on them. He recognized the sensitivities of the neighborhood, but since the service station is a permitted use, they cannot prevent it from being developed. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #89-09, by Phillips 66 Company, per Section 205.18.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley City Code to allow commercial retail, with a motor fuel station/car wash, on Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, the same being 7295 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The site plan shall be revised such that the canopy and building meet the 100 foot setback. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. Locust species should not be used. b. The 12 inch Ash and 12 inch Boxelder on the north boulevard will have to be removed. �"1 c. Gro-low Fragrant Sumac shall be used instead of the Spirea in front of the car wash area. d. Southerland Juniper should be used instead of the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce. e. Bur Oak should be used as boulevard tree instead of the Sumit Ash. Eight Bur Oaks should be planted along 73rd Avenue and the University Avenue service road, planted 60 feet on center, instead of the proposed Locust trees. f. Clusters of Quaking Aspen should be used on the south side of the parking area toward the existing vegetation stand. The Gro-low Fragrant Sumac should be mixed with the proposed Juniper plantings. g. Six inch shredded bark mulch should be used for ground cover area. h. Multi-colored stones should not be used. i. A continuous 36 inch planting strip must be provided between the parking area abutting streets. A combination of berming and planting is also acceptable. 3. A car wash is not permitted. 4. There shall not be outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts, or service pits or the ^ outdoor display of inerchandise. The display of petroleum products between pumps or the temporary display of PLANNINa COMMISBION MSETING. MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 27 � merchandise within four feet of the station building is permitted. 5. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of wrecked, abandoned, or junk motor vehicles, or the sale or display of used motor vehicles. 6. The site plan shall be revised to comply with the standards of the sign ordinance. 7. If necessary, the petitioner shall obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to the issuance of a building permit. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, RONDRICR, SABA, BARNA� VOTIN(� AYE, DAHI,BERG AND BHERI,R VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 9-2. Ms. Dacy stated this item will go to City Council on June 5. 5. RECEIVE MAY 1. 1989 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the May � 1, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTS � ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THF MOTION CARRILD �IJJANIMOIISLY. Mr. Kondrick stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission is very concerned about the ongoing problem with geese at Moore Lake and Harris Lake and are asking the Planning Commission to concur with the Parks and Recreation Commission�s concern and that the City explore the possibility of participating in the DNR's Goose Control Program. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to concur with the Parks and Recreation Commission's concern about the goose problem and to request City staff to contact the Department of Natural Resources about the City of Fridley participating in the DNR Goose Control Program. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTIN(� AYE � CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBI�Y. 6• RECEIVE MAY 4 1989 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the May 4, 1989, Hwnan Resources Commission minutes. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETINa. MAY 17. 1989 - PAGE 28 �^-� � 7. RECEIVE MAY 9, 1989. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the May 9, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICL VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Cbairperaon Betzol8 declared the May 17, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Res ctfully subm' ted, C�� Lyn Saba Reco ding Secretary � � �`1 � n � � / --d-�-'--� -�l`_�r�!�i ��-- -�'l! /-�1�� _ �, � _ - ;— � -- e,�� e� __ _P�f .lt <G _ ,, � � — -- d� � c1 _ l.1, w�10 s----- -�'��_ �N i�/�s, � �� j( --{� --___7__�� ,5�.�.,,!�o�, - __ ; �J - -- � - -.�"� s � _ _� �... A� � ao � ; ��,� � �a�n ti � -� : l��s _ i e b. ; _�►�., , � ---�1�- � - R�-� r - - -- � • M ___ _� \ � � �' - - - �� s�', ' ` _ -- -/ �� 7"� V ,��-- F� -- � r -s��,--- 7 ��___�r�P,�� y s?- -- _ - - _73�Ls�r�Q�u�3'� N� �� u S _ --- -- � 3 �! �r�� -;��`rJ� _ - a�'- - -- - - `� _ yM p��,, � ._ S� �� - �✓ Ks� �-fhD _ � 3 7 8 S y�+► /',y,�� s d. _-�� . �� __ -,3�� _ :� 5�`- /�/ � _ _ L - , � - •�-- . , �--_- -� -7� � � _ y ��Qny s << ��-�.. ��.�;�.� ��1_ � � �,Y.��: 6",�� , -_ �- _ � �!� �yA,, _____a1� � _ � � � �.r, _ = - -- - — --._ �l y�G_ s!�Ye �-�4�e� J�G�� o��j� � - ---- —_ /oSq/ r��,,,,�-,�,/ ,y.�_�/�;,�t �— --- — —_--- � �►i� .� � ! . - _ � �+ �-- - - _ _ _ ��1'+-------�1is�-� -�� _ �_r_ � 1J� TT -- _ _ T� _, ------ - q�� .►�,_� � ---- -- -- _---- -- -- _ __'_._._ _�.__ ... -__- .______ __. ��►'�.►�_ - --_ --_-__-___ -- ��.� -__ _ ___ _ __ _____ __ _ _ _____ __ ��?��__ -__ _ -��-�� _s.��-l--__ __ 0 ---- -�.30� �� ° -1�-� ---- . - -- ___ - �-- -��3-� ----- - - - D�--�I �--s.o,�— ---_ -- ---- - - ��2 ��t�� s ---1� � --- -- --- _ _�'-��-� �. ��,__ ---- - -- --