The URL can be used to link to this page

10/07/1991 - 5111OFFICIAL CITY COONCIL AGENDA COONCIL MEETING OCTOBER 7� 1991 � i= CIiYOF FRIDLE.Y FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ATTENDENCE SHEET Monday, October 7, 1�91 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLYj ADDRESS ��l UYt.�_. .. . � � ITEM NUNlBER �� FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL F� � OCTOBER 7, 1991 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION: Fire Prevention Week October 6-12, 1991 APPROVAL OF MINIITES: City Council Meeting of September 30, 1991 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORIIM, VI3ITORS: (Consideration of items not on agenda - 15 minutes) NEW BOSINESS• Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 18, 1991: ....... 1- 1.70 A. Establish a Public Hearing for October 21, 1991, for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Change the Definition of a Kennel ....... 1 - 1.04 ....... 1.22 - 1.25 OF OCTOS�R 7, 1991 raQe z NEW BOSINESS (CONTINIIED): Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 18, 1991 (Continued): B. Establish a Public Hearing for October 21, 1991, for a Rezoning Request, ZOA #91-02, by Thomas Brickner, to Rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 Feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to Allow the Construction of an Apartment Building, Generally Located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. ... 1.07 - 1.19 .... 1.26 - 1.70 Receive an Item from the Appeals Commission Meeting of September 3, 1991: ....... 2- 2J A. Variance Request, VAR #91-28, by Richard Peterson to Increase the Height of a Fence in the Front Yard from 4 Feet to 6 Feet on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, the Same Being 7939 East River Road Receive Items from the Appeals Commission Meeting of September 17, 1991: ....... 3- 3Y. A. Variance Request, VAR #91-29, by Kenneth Speltz and Rich Kleinow, Skyline Veterinary Hospital, to Reduce the Required Front Yard Setback from 80 Feet to 48 Feet to Allow the Construction of an Addition, on Lot 2, Block 1, Herwal Second Addition, the Same being 6220 Highway 65 N.E. ....................... 3 - 3M OCTOBER 7� 1992 rage 3 NEW BUSINE88 (CONTINOED): Receive Items from the Appeals Commission Meeting of September 17, T991 {Continued): B. Variance Request, VAR #91-30, by Bruce and Suzanne Hanley, to Reduce the Required Rear Yard Setback from 25 Feet to 18.7 Feet, to Allow the Construction of a Three-Season Porch, on the West 130 Feet of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, the Same Being 132 Alden Circle N.E. .. 3N - 3Y Resolution Authorizing Construction of a Garage Within a Utility Easement Over the Vacated Al1ey East of Lots 25 and 26, Block 5, Hyde Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4D Resolution Renaming Viron Road to Highway 65 East Service Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5E Resolution Designating Polling Places and Appointing Election , Judges for the November 5, 1991, � General Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6B Approval.of Lease Agreement with Recycle Minnesota Resources, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7E FRIDLEY CITY COIINCiL MEETiN� �� i��K 7, 1991 Yaqe 4 NEW BIISINE88 (CONTINIIED): Approval of Agreement with On-Land Environmental Opportunities, Inc. (OLEO) ; and Approval of Addendum to Agreement with Nash Disposal, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 8G Approval of Change Order No. 2, Skywood Lane Water Extension Project No. 220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9C Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 12 B Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ADJOURN: ♦ Fire Prevention Week October 6 - 12, 1991 William J. Nee Mayor Fridiey, MN �vVV9f��,��I,S, appro�imately 80 percent of alf fire fat.c�ities occur in our homes; and tiV�f��,��fS, most resicfentia� fires are preventadfz dy using safe cookin� practices, �,eeping matcFi.es and otFcer ignitad(z materials from childnen, and dy proper�y storing fuels, so�vents, atcd paper; and ryV�f��,��IS, in the event of fire, few peopfe are awa�,ened dysmo�,e arcc�if they we�, wouldnot d e ad �e to d reathe or see tFirough the noxious smo%,e; and tiV�f�7�,��tS, proper pfacen�ent and regu�ar maintena.nce of earfy warning systems suck as smo�,e detectors can stop tragic fire deaths; and �X��,��(S, t,(ie City of �ridfzy annuaf�y uses �ire Prevention week, to renew community awareriess of tke dargers of fire J1�0`IN, 7�f��,��02�,�, B� I77Z,�'.SOL7�"ED that I`Wif.�'zam�. �ee, 9►-fayor of the City of �ridley heredy proclaim Octoder 6-12,1991 as Fire Prevention Week in the City of �"rid(zy witFi tFiis year's tFieme, "�ire can't wait -- PlarT your escape n and corzC� invite aQ�r'uf(zy citizerrs to visit our3 fire stations on Octoderl2 from 1 to 5 pm. Specia�programs wi(.�de FceCcfat the Zlniversity�Lvenue �ir�station ircc�uding fire e�tinguisFi.erdemorrstrations, how to plarc a safe escape from your house, a smo�,ey escape dri(� for childreii, videos, cuid much more. I� ryVI2��SS `YV�-f��,�0�, I have set my Fiand and caused t�ie seaf of t�ie City of �ridley to de affixed this 7th day of Octoder, 3991. WILLIAM J. NEE, MAYOR THB MINIITES OF T8E FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEBTING OF SEPTEMBER 30� 1991 THE MINIITES OF T8E REGIILAR l�iE$TING OF THE FRIDL$Y CITY COIINCIL OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Nee. pLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE: Mayor Nee led the Councilmembers and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL• MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilwoman Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Fitzpatrick MEMBERS ABSENT: None �RESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION: SHOREWOOD DAYS SEPTEMBER 25 - OCTOBER 15, 1991: Mayor Nee issued a proclamation proclaiming September 25 - October 15, 1991 as Shorewood Days in the City of Fridley in recognition of twenty years of service that the Shorewood Restaurant has given to the community. He stated that at one time this building was owned by the City, and the present owners have turned the facility into a successful establishment and he complimented them on their progress. ,APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 9, 1991: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. $RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1943� 9LD BUSINESS: PAGg 2 1. ORDINANCE NO 977 TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF �'RIDLEY MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (REZONING REOUEST ZOA #90-01. BY MURPHY OIL COMPANY): MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 977 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Schneider stated that construction has begun on this site and questioned whether this should be allowed before the final reading of the rezoning ordinance. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that only a portion of the parcel was rezoned, and the entire site received a special use permit and variance for construction of the facility. She stated that a permit was issued to begin clearing and grading of the site, but the County wanted a storm sewer connection to the proposed pond. She stated that the City has received a letter from Murphy Oil petitioning for these storm sewer improvements, waiving their right to a public hearing, and agreeing to pay the assessments for the project. Councilman Schneider stated that his concern was if the rezoning was denied, what would happen to the construction that has already been completed. Ms. Dacy stated that if this happened a stop work order would have to be issued. She stated that in this case all stipulations were in order, and staff did not foresee this type of problem. Councilman Schneider stated his concern is that a precedent may be set by allowing construction to begin before the second reading of the rezoning ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated that in the future, staff will make sure this does not happen. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PETITION NO. 5-1991 FROM MURPHY OIL DATED SEPTEMBER 18 1991 REGARDING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive Petition No. 5-1991 from Murphy Oil regarding storm sewer improvements. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Ir FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF BEPTEMBER 30. 1991 AGE 3 2. ORDINANCE NO. 978 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A MORATORIUM 9N THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND E4UIPMENT AND ROCK CRUSHING ACTIVITIES IN THE M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND PROHIBITING THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE CITY WHILE THE MORATORIUM IS IN EFFECT: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 978 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3. �1UISANCE ABATEMENT AT 64TH WAY AND ASHTON AVENUE (TABLED �,/9/91) ; MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that this property is located in the northeast corner of Ashton Avenue and 64th Way. She stated it is requested that Council abate certain nuisances on the property includinq removal of the tree house, removal of the piles of debris, removal of vegetation two inches and smaller, and cutting the grass and weeds on the property. Ms. Dacy stated residents were property. She regarding police the nuisance. that at the last Council meeting neighboring present, and staff presented a video of the stated that a report was requested by Council activities and an estimate on the cost to abate Ms. Dacy stated that Council has received a printout of police activities in the area; however, it is difficult to determine if calls are directly attributable to this vacant lot. She stated that the Police Department has on record one police call in the last two years that they can directly relate to this property. She stated that the lot is adjacent to the railroad tracks, and it is known that hobos may frequent the site. Ms. Dacy stated that it is estimated it would cost $4,351.84 for the City to undertake the abatement of this nuisance. She stated that two private contractors were contacted, and their estimates were $3,750.00 and $4,250.00 to remove the tree house, debris piles, and veqetation two inches and smaller. Ms. Dacy stated it is requested that Council authorize the abatement of this nuisance, and staff recommends the hiring of a private contractor to accomplish this task. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if a private contractor was hired, if administrative costs would still be added. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF 8$PTEMB$R 30. 1991 AP GE 4 Ms. Dacy stated that she believed administrative costs would be added to cover staff's cost for assessing the property. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, asked if these costs were submitted to the property owner. Ms. Dacy stated she cannot verify that the owner has received this information. Mr. Herrick asked if the property owner or representative was present this evening, and there was no response. Ms. Karen Hendricks, 20 63-1/2 Way N.W., stated that she has lived at this address for 24 years. She stated that during this time the City has received many complaints on this lot, and she has personally spoken with Mayor Nee, Steve Barg, and Commissioner Kordiak. Ms. Hendricks stated that she had a man step out in front of her car from the dark, vacant lot at 11:30 in the evening, which really frightened her. She stated that there is an immense amount of prowling in this neighborhood, and someone could hide in the underbrush on this property. She stated that there are chil.dren across the street playing, and the lot is a potential hazard. She asked that the underbrush, debris, and tree house be removed. She stated that she has seen transients sleeping on the lot. She stated that over the last eight years she has called to have this property cleaned up. Ms. Mavis Vitums, 6390 Ashton Avenue, stated that she has had people come out of this lot and turn on her outside faucets. She stated that she has also witnessed drug dealers on this property and juveniles smoking in the area. She stated that she has an adult foster care home with wlnerable adults and has to keep them indoors in the evening because the area is not safe. She stated that children are also getting their feet cut because of the broken glass on the lot. Ms. Vitums stated that she would like the lot cleaned, and she also stated that a street light is desperately needed on the corner. She stated that she cannot understand the police report which indicates there have not been any calls, as she herself has called. Ms. Betty Dornbusch, 40 64th Way N.E., stated that the lot is a potential hazard, and that she has spoken with Steve Barg and he concurs it is a problem. She stated that there are children in the area, and there have been reports of people with drug problems hanging around this property. She stated that she has called the police, that she is angry with the situation, and that something should be done. She stated that they do not want the lot bulldozed but the underbrush removed. FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETINQ� OF SEPTEM88R 30, 1991 GE 5 Mayor Nee stated that the question is if the owner is willing to cooperate. He stated that he felt there is a violation of the weed ordinance, and a detenaination will have to be made whether this is a nuisance. � Ms. Jan Unglaub, 6425 Ashton Avenue N.E., stated that she lives next door to the property in question and has never had any problem. She stated that there have been deer and pheasant on the property, and younger children built the tree house a,few years ago. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick that the Council find that a nuisance does exist on this property. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that the lot can be declared a public nuisance, but asked what would insure that this would not happen again. Ms. Dornbusch stated that the other residents are forced to maintain their property and felt this property owner should do the same. She stated that the City has mowed the property, but has not done so in eight years so she felt the City is also at fault. She stated that cars pull up to the lot and honk, and someone comes out, hands them a bag, and they take off. Ms. Hendricks stated that over the last eight years, she has called the police regarding problems with this property. She stated that Ms. Vitums called the police on two men in her back yard. She stated that the lot provides a good hiding place. Councilman Billings stated the motion finds that a nuisance exists, but felt it should be more clear exactly what constitutes a nuisance. He stated that if Council determines that trees two inches and smaller also constitute a nuisance, this should be stated. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that there is evidence the lot harbors transients, which he believes is the greatest part of the nuisance. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that he is satisfied there is sufficient evidence,to constitute the finding of a nuisance, but is not convinced the City has given the property owner adequate notice. He stated that he would suggest if the Council determines it is a nuisance and decides what has to be done to abate the nuisance, that notice should be given to the property owner on what has to be abated, the costs, and a time to accomplish this task. He stated that if action is not taken by the owner, the City may proceed to have the nuisance abated and assess the property for the cost plus a 25 percent administrative fee. �RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30. 1991 Ap GE 6 y Mayor Nee stated that the question is the finding of a nuisance and the nature of the abatement. Councilman Billings stated that he wanted to make sure that it is clear what should be done to abate the nuisance. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that if it has taken over eight years to have this property cleaned up, she did not want the same thing to be repeated again in the future. Mayor Nee stated that he felt there was control under the City's Weed Ordinance. Ms. Hendricks felt that once the property owner is notified and if nothing is done, then it is in the City�s hands to take care of the problem. She felt that the City should follow through to make sure this lot does not again become a nuisance. Councilman Billings stated that there seems to be a multitude of problems on the site and the use of this lot as a dumping ground. He asked if the City can require that "no dumping" signs be placed on the property spelling out the penalties for violation. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that it was not his intention to make a motion on the direction of the abatement as he fe2t the City has the power to take action. Ms. Dacy stated her understanding is that Council wants the tree house removed, the debris removed, as well as the vegetation below two inches in diameter. Mr. Herrick stated that he wanted to make sure the City gives adequate notice to the property owner so th�t any special assessment on the property would be upheld. He felt that a more specific notice has to be given to the property owner on what needs to be done to abate the nuisance. He felt that the costs sh�ould be given to the owner and a certain amount of time given to remove the tree house, debris, cut the grass, and remove the trees below two inches in diameter. Councilman Billings stated his concern is that there are ordinances to cover the cleanup of the property and cutting the grass; however, there is not an ordinance saying that all trees below two inches in diameter have to be removed. He stated that from a practical standpoint the lawn cannot be mowed without removing these trees. He felt that there needed to be a finding of fact that they are a nuisance. He stated that if there is no response from the property owner, the City may be faced with a lawsuit for FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL IdEETZNG OF SEPTEMBER 30, t991 PAGB 7 removing the �trees. He stated that he wanted to make sure the City is covered so as not to get into unnecessary litigation. Mayor Nee stated that rank vegetation is prohibited by the ordinance, but there is no reference to saplings. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she would propose the following motion which she felt clarified the City's position. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson that due to the lack of mowing, trees up to two inches in diameter have sprung up thus prohibiting the effective mowing and removal of trash, the tree house, and litter. This has contributed to the public nuisance of the property at 64th Way and Ashton Avenue, Lots 13-16, Block 13, Fridley Park. Staff is directed to abate the public nuisance and notify the property owner, Anna Marie Huston, of the charges that will be assessed against her property. Ms. Huston will be given fifteen days to respond to the abatement. If there is no response or the abatement has not commenced, the City will begin abatement. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. �1EW BUSINESS• 4. I,OCKE LAKE DISCUSSION: Ms. Mary Vasecka, 6909 Hickory Drive, stated that she has received a letter from Mr. Flora regarding their concerns relative to the clean up of Locke Lake. She stated that the Locke Lake Homeowners Association will be meeting, and they will respond with their plans. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that Ms. Vasecka submitted a letter regarding the Rice Creek Watershed District's preliminary report and the Locke Lake Homeowners Association concerns. Mr. Flora stated that the City has reviewed the report and found it to be feasible with some reservations. He stated that as far as alternatives to reduce the cost, alternative materials were reviewed. He stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District was asked to fund another study for a straight structured dam which they approved and this study should be completed in the near future. He stated that the sedimentation will be checked, and it probably will be several weeks before data is received. Mr. Flora stated that as far as the cost of the project, those were preliminary figures and he felt the ballpark numbers are some that can be used. He stated that as far as other funding sources, Representative Simoneau has provided a means of some support through the Department of Natural Resources' dam project; however, he stated it was felt that there would not be any additional . FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF SSPTEMBSR 30, 1991 A E 8 support other than the grant. He stated that Anoka County is interested in a canoe portage, and some funding may be provided. Ms. Vasecka asked if there was a time limit on the grant. Mr. Flora stated that he did not believe so, and the grant was for $150,000 and another $150,000 loan. . Mr. Flora stated that the City plans on replacing the dam if the residents support it. He stated that he has been assigned to be the coordinator for the City, and the earliest time frame is a year's construction. He is not sure when this would begin. He stated that once plans are finalized, there will be public hearings and some assessment and taxation hearinqs. He stated that upon approval of the project, plans and specifications will need to be prepared. Ms. Vasecka stated that the Locke Lake Homeowners Association really appreciated the Council's and staff's assistance. She . requested a written time frame. She stated that the study was suppose to take ten weeks, and it took ten months. She stated that she felt it was important to obtain a time frame. She stated that they want to keep moving on this project in a timely fashion. Councilman Schneider stated that bureaucracy does move slow, and projects which he felt would be completed in two or three years ended up taking eight to ten years. He felt that the City would be going out on a limb to predict a time frame, as it is very difficult to try and predict a date. Ms. Vasecka stated that she would be happy if it only took eight to ten years as, theoretically, this started in 1977. Ms. Vasecka stated that the Locke Lake Homeowners Association would do whatever they could to get the project started and would assist Mr. Flora and Council in any way possible. Mr. Flora stated that he did not think he could give a date for the project to begin. He stated that the Rice Creek Watershed District has never undertaken a project of this magnitude. He stated that they are determining how to obtain funding for this project. He felt that it was beneficial for the Locke Lake Homeowners Association to attend the meetings of the Watershed District to answer any questions. Ms. Vasecka asked if a two-year time frame was realistic. Mr. Flora stated he felt that, realistically, som�thing could happen next year assuming everything continues to proceed. He stated that he is in contact with the RCWD engineer for updates almost on a daily basis. FRZDLEY CITY COZTNCIL MEETING OF SSPTEMBER 30. 1991 . GE Ms. Vasecka asked if something could be done about the weed problem in Locke Lake. Mr. Flora stated that the lake cannot be harvested, as the State wildlife personnel are looking at this as a wildlife refuge. Ms. Vasecka stated that she felt the Homeowners Association should come back to Council in three months for another update. Mr. Flora stated that as information becomes available it will be presented to the Locke Lake Homeowners Association. 5. FRIDLEY BUS COMPANY DISCUSSION: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that Mr. Bruce Lundberg, 230 Rice Creek Terrace, appeared before the Council at their September 9, 1991 meeting regarding their concerns on operations at the Fridley Bus Company. She stated that Mr. Lundberg stated the neighborhood wants the City to pursue enforcement of all the stipulations attached to the 1973 building permit. Ms. Dacy stated that she and the City Attorney, Mr. Herrick, met with the owner of Fridley Bus Company, Mr. Butch Voigt, and his legal counsel, Mr. Barrett Colombo on September 17, 1991. She stated that, previously, Mr. Herrick sent them a letter outlining the City's position. She stated that the letter advised them that (i) Storage and parking of buses within the 100 foot setback is not permissible according to the M-1 district; (2) Clearance of vegetation violated the condition of the 1973 variance approval; (3) Any change to the parking lot must be approved by the City; (4) An overall plan of the parking area shall be submitted along with a letter from the owner of the Stylmark property regarding use fo the area; (5) Cooperate in any noise or air pollution tests; and (6) Cooperate with the Fire Department and MPCA regarding above and below ground fuel storage tanks. Ms. Dacy stated that Fridley Bus Company's response was as follows: (1) They believe screening today is better than what existed. The fence will be double slatted. Further, they will submit plan to add evergreens on the east side of fence toward the neighborhood; (2) They believe the building permit and variance stipulations are not enforceable, because the screening is better today, they want the ability to park cars in the cleared area and store four school buses between the fuel storage tank and building; (3) Mr. Voigt submitted a letter stating no paving is to occur (if newly created storage/parking area is used, the ordinance requires it to be paved); (4) They agreed to submit a letter from Stylmark; (5) They are willing to cooperate; if no "selective enforcement." They are proposing to install plug-ins to heat engines of buses stored outside (a resident did report waking up from rewing engines at midnight); and (6) The above ground fuel storage tank meets the �RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF 88PTEMBER 30, 1991 Fire Code requirements; leak inspection is in underground tanks. PAGE 10 process for Ms. Dacy stated that the neighborhood is requesting enforcement of the building permit and variance stipulations versus Fridley Bus Company wanting to use the newly created area for automobile parking, to park four buses between the fuel storage tank and the building, double slat the fence, and plant additional evergreens. Ms. Dacy stated that the issues for Council are enforcement of the original building permit and variance stipulations to prohibit any activity within 85 feet of the lot line versus accepting the notion that screening today is better than the original vegetation and permit Fridley Bus Company's proposal, and that a paving and drainage plan would be required. Ms. Dacy stated that Fridley Bus Company stated they did not wish to attend the meeting this eveninq. Mr. Bruce Lundberg, 230 Rice Creek Terrace, thanked Council for responding to their request. He stated that the neighborhood still wants the original stipulations enforced. He stated that he believed the 1973 stipulations are enforceable, because the Minnesota law that required all stipulations be put on the title was passed after 1973. Mr. Lundberg fence and it stated that fence, and activities. stated that Mr. Voigt has started to double slat the is better, but not what they consider acceptable. He Mr. Voigt is saying the screening is better with a the neighborhood feels it draws attention to his Mr. Lundberg stated that the noise ordinance does not usually get enforced unless there is a complaint from the neighbors. He stated that he believed the neighborhood was tolerant when this was a small school bus company; however, they now want the stipulations enforced. " Councilman Billings asked what kinds of things Mr. Lundberg would like done so that it looks similar to what it was in the past. Mr. Lundberg stated that the easterly 70 feet of the property should not be disturbed, and all vegetatian should be kept in tact and the trees replaced. He felt that possibly planting some other bush, such as lilacs, may also be helpful. He stated that another big issue is the outside storage of the buses, which is probably as great an issue as the plantings. He stated that the diesel buses are causing the noise and smell. Ms. Dacy stated that they propose to store the four school buses between the tank and the building, and the diesel buses would be Y �RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF BEPTEMBER 30, 1991 �AQE 11 stored where they are now. She stated that Mr. Voigt stated he stores the majority of the school buses inside the building. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that 20 to 25 school buses are stored inside the building, and four small school buses are stored outside between the tank and the building. He stated that the diesel buses are stored,.basically, on the Stylmark property. Mr. Wagner, 181 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that the original stipulations stated that no buses were to be parked outside. He stated there are sixteen to eighteen diesel buses running all hours of the day and night and the residents can smell the fumes. He stated that he believes the company has outgrown its site and is too large an operation for that area. Mr. Randy Kavanegh, 6701 Ashton Avenue, stated that he did not realize anyone else was concerned about the activities takinq place at the bus company. He stated that Steve Barg of the City staff ran a noise level test on the buses last summer. He stated that the test results were that the requirements of the ordinance were met when the buses were idling at low levels. He stated that when the buses are idling at high levels it does exceed the residential requirements, but the ordinance states they can run at high levels for up to an hour. He stated that the noise is one of his major concerns, as he does not have any vegetation between his home and the bus company. Mr. Kavanegh stated that another problem is the improper language that is used by some personnel at the bus company, and stated that he called them last summer on this issue. He stated that as more diesel buses are operating from this facility, it has become a 24 hour, seven days a week business. He stated that he also has a concern regarding the resale of his property due to the noise of the buses. Mr. Herrick asked how the noise from the buses compares to the noise of the trains. Mr. Kavanegh stated that the trains are definitely louder, but the noise is only for a matter of seconds. He stated that the noise from the buses is more constant, and they are always there. Mr. Mickley, 241 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that the railroad tracks were there when the residents purchased their property; however, with the bus company, that is an entirely different situation. He stated that in an M-1 zoning district parking is not permitted within one hundred feet of a residential zone. He questioned if the stipulations are not enforced, why the M-1 zoning could not be enforced. Ms. Neumeister, 180 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that the bus company is noisy, and there is the smell of diesel fuel. i+'ArDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETINQ OF 8SPT8MBER 30, 1991 �AGE 12 Mr. Bollesen, 240 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that in 1973 when the permit was issued, he was neutral and with the stipulations, he did not foresee a problem. He stated that last spring when he was walking along the railroad tracks he could smell diesel fumes. He stated that the problem was spilled diesel fuel around the pumps at the bus company's facility. He stated that his understanding of the State law is that pumps are to be on concrete slabs to control spillage. He stated that he would guess the bus company is polluting Rice Creek with diesel fuel, and felt that it should be stopped. _ Councilman Schneider asked if the Pollution Control Agency has been contacted. Ms. Dacy stated that Mr. Voiqt stated the bus company did have a spill which was corrected, and this was ccnfirmed by the Fire Department. She stated that she understands the Pollution Control Agency was contacted regarding this property. She stated that Dick Larson of the City staff was out there last week to check the above ground tank, and she would check with the Pollution Control Agency to see if there is a problem. Mr. Lundberg stated that there is also a safety issue as Mr. Voigt is either using the residential area to test buses that have been repaired or is using the buses for instructional purposes for his drivers. He stated that there are many young children in the area and did not believe buses should be tested or drivers trained in their neighborhood. Mr. Lundberg stated that there is reason to believe Mr. Voigt is using his facility to repair buses for other companies as buses with other names on them have been seen at this site. He stated that if he is not repairing them, he must be storing them which only makes the problem worse. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick that the policy of the City is to enforce all original stipulations including everything to be stored inside the building. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Schneider stated that he felt this was a serious issue, and the consequences of not enforcing these stipulations would be devastating to the City. He feZt that the City has to stand by the stipulations including the potential for litigation. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider asked about the timeframe for enforcement of the stipulations. Mr. Herrick stated that it probably will take thirty days to complete the investigation and serve the complaint. He stated that FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETZNG OF 8$PTEMHER 30. 1991 �A(�E 13 if this goes to court, the procedure for getting on the court calendar is such that it would take about nine months to one year. Councilman Schneider asked what could be done if there are other pollution problems. Mr. Herrick stated that.City staff can work with the Pollution Control Agency and ask them to attempt to measure, monitor, and enforce their regulations. He stated that in terms of noise and air quality, this would have to be measurable. - 6. ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 24 1991, FOR THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS: MOTION by Councilman Billings to set the public hearing for the light rail transit preliminary design plans for October 24, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that copies of the plan are available at the library and the Community Development Department for anyone interested in reviewing the plan. 7. VARIANCE EXTENSION REOUEST VAR #88-06 BY WAYNE JOHNSON TO �tEDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 3 FEET TO 1 FOOT. AND TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 3 FEET, TO ALIAW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-CAR GARAGE ON LOTS 25 AND 26. BLOCK 5 HYDE PARK ADDITION THE SAME BEING 6051 THIRD STREET N.E.• Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that a variance was approved by the Appeals Commission on May 10, 1988, and on July 9, 1990, the Council approved an extension of the variance to August 1, 1991. She stated that the reason for the extension was due to legal complications regarding the vacation and sale of the alley to the rear of Mr. Johnson's property.- She stated that Mr. Johnson has now completed the memorialization process and is requesting another extension in order to complete the garaqe construction. She stated that weather permitting, he may be able to complete the work this fall. Ms. Dacy stated that the extension of the variance is based on the site plan which located the garage in the northeast corner of the property. She stated that Mr. Johnson is now evaluating placing the garage in the southeast corner of the property. She stated that she spoke with Mr. Johnson regarding the dimensions for the variance, and asked that he obtain a letter from the property owner to the south. MOTION by Councilman Billings to authorize the extension of Variance Request, VAR #$$-06 to July 1, 1992, with the stipulation FRIDLI3Y CITY COIINCIL MSETIN(; OF BBPTSMBER 30, 1991 PAGE 14 that any new relocation of the garage on the site plan requires approval of the City staff and City Council. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 8. �PPROVAL OF EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AT ORTHODOX CHURCH QF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST LOCATED AT 1201 HATHAWAY �ANE N.E.: Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that the property owner is proposing to construct a vestibule, canopy, and carport along the front of the home at 1201 Hathaway Lane. She stated that the carport portion of the proposed construction is located within a six foot wide utility easement running along the west side of the property. Ms. Dacy stated that the garage was constructed in 1967; however, it was unknown to the City that a six foot utility easement existed where the garage was constructed. She stated that the City relied on an erroneous survey dated November 9, 1962 which did not indicate this easement on the property. She stated that the error was not discovered until the property changed ownership. Ms. Dacy stated that an easement encroachment agreement between the City and the property owner would acknowledge the existence of the garage and carport in this area, but that the property owner would be responsible for replacement costs for any repairs or replacements of the garage and/or carport if the City needs to use the utility easement. She stated that the carport needs to be shifted to the rear to comply with the 25 foot setback. Councilman Schneider asked the use of the property, as he understands it is a place for the fathers and sisters to reside. Ms. Dacy stated that she understands it is a single family home for Father Magram. Father Magram, Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ, stated that there has been no change in the status for the last several years, but they do have a house chapel. Councilman Schneider asked if they generate a lot of outside traffic. Father Magram stated that not more than four or five cars once or twice a week. Councilman Schneider asked the primary purpose of the carport. Father Magram stated that it is for architectural purposes to counterbalance the vestibule. d �RIDLEY CZTY COIINCIL MEBTING OF 8$PTEMBER 30, 1991 ��GE 15 Councilman Schneider asked Father Magram if he was in agreement to shifting the carport, and he answered in the affirnaative. Mayor Nee asked Father Magram if he was willing to enter into a hold harmless agreement that if the City had to accomplish work in the easement, the property owner would be responsible for any repairs, replacement, or,restoration costs. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that there are pipes in the easement that are actively being used, and the general rule is that people can build on an easement as long as what they build is not inconsistent with the purpose of the easement. He stated that if a property owner builds on the easement, and it is necessary for the City to repair the pipe, the City can accomplish this and is not responsible for restoring the property. He stated that this would apply to the garage as well.as any new construction. Councilman Billings asked if the hold harmless agreement is filed with Anoka County so any future owners would discover it in a title search. Ms. Dacy stated that it would be staff's intention to file this agreement with the County. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that back in 1989 when the Council addressed this issue, she understood this was a monastic home and not considered the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ. She asked if the Council can request that the architectural design of the carport and vestibule be consistent with residential homes. Mr. Herrick stated that he did not feel this could be done. CounciZman Billings stated he did not think that by acknowledging that the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ owns the property, the City acknowledges that the property is used as a church. He stated that there are many religious organizatior►s that own residential properties. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she would guess that none of the neighboring property owr�ers were notified of this item. She stated that she thought this was a monastic home although the agreement is with the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ. Father Magram stated that they have a house chapel and bible classes, and nothing has changed since they were here before the Council several years ago. Councilman Schneider asked if the number of persons living in the home has changed. Father Magram replied in the negative. Councilman Schneider stated that his concern is if this is something that intrudes in a residential neighborhood and traffic b �'RIDLEY CITY COtJNCIL MEETZNQ OF SBPTBMBER 30. 1991 PAGE 16 becomes a problem. He stated that if vestibules and carports are added, it seems there is a narrow line as to the perception of the use of the property. Father Magram stated that there has been no chanqe in the situation, and the issue is the encroachment. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she felt there is more of a change to a church versus a monastic home. Father Magram stated that he understands the concern, but there has not been any changes. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that she wanted to make it perfectly clear that this is just a hold harmless agreement on the utility easement. Mr. Herrick stated that he talked with Ms. Dacy, and all of the construction being done is within the limits of the City's building code and the required setbacks. He stated that a variance is not required from the setback requirements. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the mutual agreement with the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ and that this hold harmless agreement be filed with the County, continqent on the revision of the site plan to indicate compliance with the 25 foot setback from the front lot line. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. �tECEIVE THE 1992 BUDGET OF THE NORTH METRO CONVENTION AND TOURISM BUREAU• Mr. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the City has a contract with the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau who is the designated recipient of the lodging tax. He stated that this lodging tax has to be used for the purpose of promoting tourism and conventions in this area. Mr. Hunt stated that every year the Bureau submits its budget to the Council for their information, and this should be received by the Council. MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to receive the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau budget for 1992. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Billings questioned some of the memberships, namely, the Metro Association of CVB's. �RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF BEPTEMBER 30. 1991 PAGE 17 Mr. Hunt stated that the Bureau was quite hesitant about joining this organization; however, they are in charge of getting conventions in the Twin Cities area. Councilman Billings asked if there were any joint ventures with the Chambers of Commerce and/or the North Metro Mayors Association. Mr. Hunt stated that he knows the North 1rletro Mayors Association is not involved, but there are individual contracts with each Chamber of Commerce for services they provide. Councilman Billings asked if a brief description of what is involved with the Chambers of Commerce could be submitted to the Council. Mr. Hunt stated that he would ask the Executive Director for this infonaation. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. APPROVAL OF 1992 SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM LEVY RETURN AGREEMENTS• Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated that these agreements are to return the 1992 referendum levies associated with tax increment financing districts. He stated that the agreements would return approximately $376,061.10 to the four different school districts in the City, an increase of fifteen percent from the 1991 estimated return amount. He stated that the main reason for the increase is due to the Moore Lake Commons development. He stated that the agreement is an estimate of the amount to be returned, but did not anticipate any major changes. Councilwoman Jorgenson asked what contributed to the nine percent decrease in School District No. 13. Mr. Pribyl stated that was probably due to the changes in commercial and industrial rates. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the turn back agreements with School Districts No. 11, 13, 14 and 16. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14 TO LEASE THE "A" FRAME BUILDING LACATED AT NORTH INNSBRUCK PARK, ARTHUR STREET• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the lease agreement with School District No. 14 for the "A" frame building. Seconded by Councilwoman FRIDLEY CITY COtTNCZL KEETING OF BEPTBMBER 30, 19� �, GA E 18 Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. AWARD CONTRACT FOR SKYWOOD LANE WATER EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 220' AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO 1 FOR PROJECT NO. 220: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that bids were received for this project to construct a water line along I-694 right-of- way and to extend the water line behind Menards and the Skywood Inn motel by Council at the August 12 meeting. He stated that the City was not successful in obtaining an easement from Menards. He stated that, therefore, it is requested the contract be modified to allow the use of the existing right-of-way from Cheri 'Lane, 53rd Avenue, and the utility easement in front of Skywood Mall Shopping Center. Mr. Flora stated that Northdale Construction was the low bidder, and recommended the contract be awarded to them using the cast iron pipes. Mr. Flora also requested that Council consider Change Order No. 1 in order to implement this bypass system. MOTION by Councilman Billings to award the contract for the Skywood Lane Water Extension Project No. 220 to the low bidder, Northdale Construction, in the amount of $108,632.00. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Billings to authorize the Skywood Lane Water Extension Project Construction in the amount of $5,875.00. Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting the motion carried unanimously. 13. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Change Order No. 1 for No. 220 with Northdale Seconded by Councilman aye, Mayor Nee declared Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that there were no informal status reports. 14. CLAIMS• MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to authorize payment of Claim Nos. 39442 through 39738. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. �RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30. 1991 PAGE 19 15. LICENSES• MOTION by Councilman Billings to approve the licenses as submitted and as on file in the License Clerk's Office. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. ESTIMATES• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the estimates as submitted: Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Suite 400 Minneapolis, i�I 55433 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of August, 1991. .......$ 13,011.01 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of August, 1991 ...$ 8,805.00 Halvorson Construction 4227 - 165th Avenue N.E. Anoka, MN 55304 1991 Miscellaneous Concrete Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Project Estimate No. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9, 418. 39 Rainbow, Inc. 7324 - 36th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427 .5 MG Water Tank Painting/Altitude Valve and Vault Installation Project No. 212 Partial Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 151,763.45 W.B. Miller, Inc. 16765 Nutria Street Ramsey, MN 55303 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 1991 - 1& 2 Estimate No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 174, 061. 61 FRIDLEY CITY COIINCZL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 PAGL 20 Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of September 30, 1991 adjourned at 10:05 p.m. � Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Secretary to the City Council Approved: William J. Nee Mayor CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 ��»�� CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the September 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL- Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Dave Kondrick Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jim Hill, Public Safety Director Dennis Schneider, Councilmember Timothy and Deborah Hutchison, 8021 Riverview Terrace Tom and Marge Brickner, 1671 Kristin Court See attached list APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the August 22, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code entitled "Definitions" to change the definition of a Kennel as follows: � 205.03 DEFINITIONS 39. KENNEL Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. 1 PLANNING COMMI33ION M�ETING, 8EPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated that the City has two sets of regulations pertaining to animal control. One set is Section 110 which is the Animal Control Ordinance, and the other set is various regulations in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Over the past several years, a variety of issues have come up regarding animal control, and one of the issues has been the number of dogs and cats individuals can keep in their single family homes. As a result, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment regarding that particular issue and other related issues. Ms. Dacy stated this item is before the Planning Commission because of the proposed change in the definition of a kennel. A kennel is only permitted in commercial zoning districts of the City. The definition of a kennel as defined in the Zoning Ordinance is: "Any place where three (3) or more dogs or three (3) or more cats or any combination of three (3) or more dogs and cats are kept on the same premises.." This means that right now the single family homeowner can only have up to two dogs and cats. It is being proposed that the definition of a kennel be changed to four dogs/cats so that a homeowner can have up to four dogs and cats in the same home. Ms. Dacy stated that staff surveyed other communities to find out what they do with this issue. Out of the �surrounding eight communities, five do permit three dogs or cats in the single family home. Different communities have different restrictions regarding kennels. Some permit them as a special use in the R-1 district. That is not being proposed in this particular ordinance amendment. Ms. Dacy stated the Director of Public Safety, Jim Hill, was invited to the meeting as a resource for any questions the Commission members might have. The Planning Commission will only be acting on the definition of a kennel, because that is within the City's Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending approval of amending the definition of a kennel from three to four total dogs and cats or any combination thereof. Mr. Betzold stated the ordinance addresses vicious animals and animal nuisances. A few years ago, there was a woman in New Brighton who fed ducks on her property that caused some problems. Would this type of thing be included in this particular ordinance? Mr. Hill stated that they did discuss the issue of feeding wild animals and concluded that they did not want to recommend that for a variety of reasons. The issue basically came up because of the raccoons. Some members of the public requested that the City prohibit the feeding of those types of animals. He stated the enforceability of that kind of thing is very difficult, and then 1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 3 there are the people who like to feed the birds, etc. , so it is difficult to determine where to begin and end with this type of issue. Mr. Hill stated this process has been going on for several years, and they wanted to get an animal control ordinance that is clear and understandable to the residents of Fridley. Ms. Pam Davis, 7231 East River Road, stated she is concerned about this ordinance because she presently has three animals. Before they moved to Fridley in June, she called the Anoka County Courthouse to find out if there were any special regulations for the City of Fridley. She was not told about the limitation of two animals. Because she is not in the zoning that allows kennels, she cannot get a kennel license. Her oldest animal is 9 years old and the two Chihuahuas are 3 and 4 years old. She would like to see this ordinance changed, because she does not want to have to dispose of one of her animals. Mr. Betzold stated that a letter dated July 30, 1991, from Pam Davis was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hill stated the number of animals per residence has not been vigorously enforced. It is enforced upon complaint; and in this situation, there has been a complaint. But, the ordinance is under consideration for change. They have advised Ms. Davis that they will be staying the enforcement of any action until some decision is made by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Sielaff asked the rationale for three animals versus two. Ms. Dacy stated that it seems the majority of other communities seem to approve of three animals. Some communities don't have any restrictions on cats. Mr. Saba asked if there have been a lot of complaints about the number of animals. How can they intelligently draw a line on the number of dogs and cats and the combination of dogs/cats? Mr. Hill stated he did not know if there is an answer to the question of what is the legitimate number of dogs/cats? The real issue is not so much the number of animals, but it is the animal owner and how he/she maintains the animals. He stated that from his experience and knowledge, there are many families in the City of Fridley who are violating the ordinance at this time, but they are not violating it by way of disturbing the neighbors. Many of them love animals and take in stray animals and care for the animals until a home is found for them. He stated that after many months of consideration, they feel four animals is not an unreasonable number. There will always be someone who wants 4-5 animals, but once they start getting into those numbers, they start getting into health issues. As far as the combination of 1.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 4 dogs/cats, there are other sections of the ordinance that will relate to nuisances. Mr. Saba asked if any consideration had been given to the size of an animal. Mr. Hill stated it was discussed, but to his knowledge the size of an animal has never been addressed legislatively in any other ordinance. Sometimes three small dogs can make more noise than three large dogs. Mr. Betzold stated the proposed change does not address the special use permit issue. He asked Mr. Hill to give some rationale as to why that was not considered. Mr. Hill stated they looked at that for a long time. He stated the special use permit process is a whole other administrative process with other issues relating to it, and they decided not to get into it at all. Mr. Betzold stated that if the ordinance is amended, if a family with more than three animals moves to Fridley, they have to get rid of the extra animals. Mr. Hill stated, yes. The people would be given a notification, but they are quite liberal in giving them plenty of time to find another home for the animal(s). He stated that destroying an animal is not the only option. The City's current animal shelter at Skyline Veterinary Hospital has done an admirable job in adopting out stray animals, even though legally they do not have to do that. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code entitled "Definitions" to change the definition of a Kennel as follows: 205.03 DEFINITIONS 39. KENNEL Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. 1.3 PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 1991 PAGE 5 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, $P �91-10, BY TIMOTHY HUTCHISON: Per Section 205.24.04.(d) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block V, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE POBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:52 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is to construct an addition to an existing dwelling unit located in the flood fringe district. The property is located in Riverview Heights between.Ely and Dover Streets. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding parceis. Currently located on the property is a single family two-story dwelling unit and an existing detached garage. The existing dwelling unit which was constructed in 1966 prior to the adoption of the flood fringe ordinance regulations does contain a basement. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed addition would connect the existing dwelling unit to the existing garage. Also, an addition would be constructed to the garage. Section 205.24.05.A of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance requires that new structures for habitation be constructed so that the basement or first floor, if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The current dwelling unit is nonconiorming with this section of the ordinance as it does contain a basement. The petitioner is proposing to expand the dwelling unit with a basement. The elevation of the basement would not be able to meet the requirement to be above the regulatory flood elevation; however, the first floor of the addition would be able to meet the elevation requirements. Ms. McPherson stated that in the past, the City has approved special use permits for crawl spaces and accessory structures which have been located below the regulatory flood elevation. The City has required that hold harmless agreements be recorded against the property to ensure that these crawl spaces and accessory uses are not converted to livable area. Because the ordinance is specific in that the basement floor must meet the regulatory flood elevation, to approve the special use permit, even with a hold harmless agreement, would be a clear violation of the ordinance. She stated the previous agreements and special use permits have been allowed by the ordinance under Section 205.24.05.B of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance. 1.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 6 Ms. McPherson stated staff consulted the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources regarding this request. The request is out of the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers; however, the Department of Natural Resources has commented on the request and has supported the ordinance in that the basement does not meet the regulatory flood elevation. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner does have an alternative in that he can construct the addition on frost footings and create a crawl space under the addition area which would then meet the flood elevation requirement, as well as meet the City ordinance requirement. Ms. McPherson stated that as proposed, the petitioner cannot meet the minimum elevation requirements set forth in the ordinance; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this request to the City Council. Mr. Tim Hutchison, 8021 Riverview Terrace, stated that he has discussed his proposal with Ms. McPherson and a gentleman from the Department of Natural Resources. He stated that sometimes these regulations do not seem to be enforced evenly in the area. An addition with a basement is being constructed to a house right now at 680 Fairmont Street, which is one block from him. Mr. Hutchison stated his proposed addition will be quite large. There will be bedrooms and bath on the second floor, and an expanded kitchen and family room on the first floor. He has no intention of using the basement as living space. It will be used only as an accessory for storage. He is more than willing to sign an agreement that the basement area will not be used for livable space. With the kitchen being expanded, they need the plumbing to go into the basement. There are a lot of reasons for having a basement, even though it might not be needed for structural support. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Hutchison what he would do if this special use permit as proposed is denied. Mr. Hutchison stated he did not know, but he would probably have to move. He stated he has lived in this house for 16 years and does not want to move. Ms. Savage stated that if the basement is to be used for storage, why wouldn't a crawl space satisfy his needs? Mr. Hutchison stated that perhaps a crawl space would satisfy his needs for storage, but the existing sewage pipe is below the regular basement right now, and he would have to meet that sewage pipe with the plumbing from the kitchen and the bathroom. If they didn't have a basement, the pipe would have to go into the ground 1.5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE__7_ which is 50 degrees, and there would be no heat in the crawl space. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Hutchison if they had ever had any flooding in the 16 years he has lived in this house. Mr. Hutchison stated that in 16 years, he has not even had a wet basement. He stated he disagreed with the fact that there might again be flooding in this area. He works as a chemist for Minneapolis Water Department. He works with the river and knows all the charts and is aware of what happened when the river flooded in 1965. There was an ice jam on the river, and the Army Corps of Engineers were hesitant to dynamite the ice and free up the ice when they should have. The river backed up and flooding occurred through the ditch that runs down 79th Way. It was his understanding that no water came o�er the river bank. The City of Fridley came out and filled basements to keep the structures from hydrologically shifting. They did not flood crawl spaces. So, houses with crawl spaces could have caved in. He stated he is not worried about a flood again. He believed the Army Corps now knows to dynamite. The Army Corps is regulating the dam downstream at St. Anthony, and the Anoka County Park Board regulates the dam at Coon Rapids, and they work in tandem. Just recently, there has been flooding all over the state, yet the Mississippi has come up only four feet in the last 1 1/2 weeks. Ms. Dacy stated staff sympathizes with a lot of the homeowners in the Riverview Heights area, but until the flood elevation number changes, the City is bound to what the Federal Government tells them to do via these guidelines and ordinances. Ms. Dacy stated staff did check with the Building Inspector regarding 688 Fairmont Street. That particular lot is just outside the flood fringe district according to the flood insurance rate maps issued to the City in the early 1980's by the Federal Emergency Management Association. Ms. Sherek stated her concern is that if the City approves this special use permit and the present owner or subsequent owner applies for flood insurance, should it become known that the construction below the regulatory flood elevation was permitted after the passage of the ordinance, that house may not be eligible for future flood insurance. Ms. Sherek stated that crawl spaces are frequently put into under new split entry homes under the lowest level to provide the sewer egress, etc., and those areas have concrete floors and are vented, ducted, and heated along with the rest of the house. Ms. Hutchison stated she did not know if they want the Planning Commission to make a decision at this meeting. She stated it is her understanding that the City is petitioning to have the flood elevation changed. 1.6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18. 1991 PAGE 8 Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. There is an issue as to whether or not the elevation that the City currently has to enforce is appropriate. However, until that officially changes, the City has to enforce the ordinances as they are. The Engineering Department has submitted a petition to initiate the process, but this process could take a very long time. Ms. Dacy stated staff is more than willing to meet with the petitioner and contractor to discuss the alternatives regarding the utility pipes, crawl spaces, etc. Mr. A1 Stahlberg, 8055 Riverview Terrace, stated the house at 688 Fairmont Street which was built in the early 1980's has a basement. Mr. Dennis Prince, 8031 Riverview Terrace, stated there is another house in this area with a basement that is definitely in the flood plain. MOTION by Ms. 5herek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to table Special Use Permit, SP #91-10, by Timothy Hutchison. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. Mr. Betzold stated this item will be tabled until the petitioner requests that it be put back on the Planning Commission agenda. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #91-02, BY THOMAS BRICKNER• To rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TIiE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located on the west side of Central Avenue, just south of Sandee's Restaurant. The property is zoned C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business. There is similar zoning to the north; M-1, Light Industrial, to the south, and R-2, Two Family Dwelling, to the west. This rezoning request is one land use request that will need to be considered by the Council. The petitioner is asking that the land use question be answered first. Should the rezoning request be approved by the Council, the petitioner will need to submit a plat in order to subdivide the parcel from the Sandee's Restaurant property, a �.7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE_9 drainage plan with appropriate drainage calculations, and a landscaping plan. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a three story, 48 unit apartment building. Each floor will contain 16 units; four one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units. Both above and below ground parking spaces are being proposed. The petitioner intends to live in the building and manage it. The petitioner has met with the neighborhood on several occasions and has agreed to file deed restrictions against the property to limit the following: 1. 2. 3. No outdoor sheds No swimming pool Restricting the number of people per unit, to no more than three persons in a two bedroom unit, and no more than two persons in a one bedroom unit Ms. McPherson stated the intent of the deed restrictions is to promote the building as an "adult" building. Ms. McPherson stated that in analyzing a rezoning request, there are three tests which must be evaluated: 1. 2. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the district's intent; That the proposed use is consistent with the lot and structure requirements of the zoning district; and That the proposed use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed three-story apartment building is a permitted use in the R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, district. Therefore, the proposed use does meet the intent of the zoning district. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a site plan which meets the minimum requirements for lot area, setbacks, and provision of garage/parking spaces. However, there are still other issues that need to be addressed. These include height, landscaping, drainage, traffic, and platting. Ms. McPherson stated the apartment building is proposed to be constructed at a height of 42 feet which is below the 45 feet allowed by the zoning district. There are poor soil conditions which will need to be corrected prior to construction of the building. The petitioner has completed a soils report; analyzing the soils in the vicinity of the proposed building. The petitioner's consultant has determined that with appropriate soil 1.8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 1991 PAGE 10 correction, the maximum height of the building will be 42 feet. The property is actually slightly lower than Central Avenue. The lowest floor elevation would be 882 feet, which would be the floor elevation of the garage space. If a person was standing on Central Avenue looking towards the proposed building, they would be able to look into the first floor of the apartment building. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will need to submit a landscape plan consistent with the R-3 zoning district regulations . As a condition of approval, the petitioner should be required to save as many of the existing trees as possible to provide screening and buffering for the single story, two family dwellings to the west of the parcel. These trees will aid in mitigating the difference in scale between the proposed building and the surrounding structures. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will not submit a drainage plan until the proposed plat has been prepared. Concern regarding the overall drainage in the neighborhood has been expressed by the surrounding homeowners. Ms. McPherson stated that currently storm water in the area flows from Harris Pond located east of Central Avenue through a series of pipes to an open ditch located north of the Graystar office building at the corner of Central and Rice Creek Road. Once the ditch reaches Central Avenue, it is joined by a second ditch parallel to Central Avenue. Storm water flows from the joining of these two ditches under Central Avenue and along the north side of East Moore Lake Drive through a series of pipes. These pipes enter a series of detention ponds located in the Moore Lake Commons development area, eventually entering Moore Lake. Ms. McPherson stated storm water from the proposed development should be directed toward a third ditch located along the west lot line of the subject parcel. The design of the project will require the construction of a detention pond at the northwest corner of the property, discharging into the third ditch. Any-flooding problems the neighborhood is currently experiencing due to the capacity of the downstream system will not be increased due to the proposed project. By ordinance, water is not allowed to flow off the subject parcel at a rate greater than what flows off the site in its undeveloped state. Further, Anoka County has indicated its preference to have the site drain toward the west, and not toward Central Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated traffic issues pertain to two areas: (1) on- site and combined traffic with Sandee's Restaurant; and (2) the traffic impacted at the intersection of Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. Ms. McPherson staff has analyzed the requirements for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and 1.9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 11 Mississippi Street. Between the writing_of the staff report and this meeting, staff again consulted with Anoka County to determine exactly what the hourly counts are for Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The last hourly counts adjusted by the State of Minnesota were conducted in 1988. While the peak hour traffic in the morning and evening hours has been increasing over the years, there would still be 2-4 hours of the minimum 8 which is required where the warrants to install a traffic signal would be broken. Ms. McPherson stated Anoka County will not consider the installation of a signal at this intersection until the actual vehicle volume exists. Anoka County is willing to complete the traffic counts after the project is completed and consider at that time adding a traffic signal to its capital improvement project. Ms. McPherson stated the access points with the restaurant and the proposed project need to be considered. Currently, the petitioner is proposing two driveways into the proposed project. The proposed vehicular entrance into the apartment complex is located less than 30 feet from one of the Sandee's Restaurant's parking exits. Staff recommends that the parking area for the apartment be tied with the parking area for Sandee's Restaurant to reduce the number of driveways. This will limit the traffic conflicts on Central Avenue. Anoka County has also suggested that one of the two driveways to the project be eliminated. Staff recommends that the southerly driveway be eliminated. Further, a driveway connection to the Sandee's lot should be made. Staff will recommend this on the plat request as well. Ms. McPherson stated that, currently, the subject parcel is legally combined with the Sandee's Restaurant parcel. In order to separate these parcels, a plat will need to be created and approved by the City Council. The platting process should be completed if and when the rezoning request is approved. The second reading of the rezoning would not occur until the plat was completed and construction had begun. - Ms. McPherson stated the last test of the rezoning-is to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent uses and zoning. While the rezoning request has met the first two tests, there are several advantages and disadvantages to approving the request: Disadvantaqes The proposed rezoning request would continue the mixed land use pattern which currently exists along the west side of Central Avenue. Currently, there are three developed properties: Sandee's Restaurant, the Advance Companies (M- 1), and the Ziebart facility (M-1). The remaining undeveloped properties are zoned commercial and CR-1, General Office 1.10 P_LANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 12 District. North of Mississippi Street, the land use on the west side is predominately residential and then industrial north of Rice Creek. The proposed rezoning would locate a higher density population near the M-1 zoning district. While the use of the property by the Advance Company has relatively low impact industrial use, it is possible that a higher intensity industrial use could locate in that location. Other homeowners in the area have complained about noise from Sandee�s Restaurant and Moore Lake Commons development. There is also the issue of scale and the visual impact that the proposed apartment building may have on the neighborhood. The building will be the largest and tallest structure which exists in the area and may emphasize the mixed use nature of the west side of Central Avenue. Advantaqes The proposed rezoning request does meet all requirements of the zoning district and may have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. While the proposed building will be the tallest structure in the area, the R-3 regulations provide adequate setbacks between adjacent structures. There will be approximately 120 feet between the proposed apartment building and the adjacent structures. � The intent of the district regulations is to mitigate the impact of scale between various structures. The praposed use would generate less traffic than a commercial use such as a restaurant, and there are no extended hours of operation. The vehicular activities of the building would be buffered by the building itself due to its "L" shape design, which forces the vehicular activities toward Sandee's Restaurant and Central Avenue. In addition, the apartment building is a collector street (as opposed to an interior residential street), near shopping facilities, and on a transit 1 ine . Staff also questions whether additional commercial development will be generated as "spin-offs" from the Moore Lake Commons development, and whether retaining the existing commercial zoning on both sides of the street will be compatible with the residential areas (compatibility issues were raised during the Moose Lodge request). There is adequate commercial space in Moore Lake Commons for neighborhood commercial uses to locate, and to serve the area. Ms. McPherson stated that as the rezoning request meets the intent of the district, the lot and structure requirements of the district and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages regarding 1.1 � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 13 compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the adjacent uses and zoning, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. A plat shall be submitted and approved by the City Council. 2. A drainage plan and preliminary calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application indicating' a pond in the northwest corner and the drainage directed to the west property line. 3. A permit shall be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. A landscape plan in conformance with the ordinance shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application. 5. Existing trees shall be maintained along the west property line to provide buffering and screening, and shall be protected during construction. 6. Deed restrictions prohibiting outdoor sheds, a swimming pool, and limiting the number of persons per dwelling unit, shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. An overall parking and access plan with Sandee's Restaurant shall be submitted with the plat application. 8. The southerly driveway access shall be eliminated on the site plan. Mr. Tom Brickner stated staff has put together a very complete report together. He stated there is a real need for this type of apartment building for the empty nester people-without children. He stated the stipulations are acceptable to him, and he is willing to answer any questions the Commission might have. Ms. Modig stated she is very concerned about the drainage problems that already exist in this area. She has.a real problem with the apartment building and underground garage and the drainage situation. Mr. Brickner stated the parking will be higher on the front side and the lot will be pitched to the back so the water runs to the holding pond in the northwest corner and then south so the water is not running onto Central Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that via this application, Anoka County has also stated that they do not want any more water coming toward Central 1.12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 1991 PAGE 14 Avenue. So, no matter who develops on this site, a developer is going to have to tip the site back to the pond and submit calculations that prove that the rate of water runoff equals or does not exceed the rate of runoff from the site in its undeveloped condition. Ms. Modig stated that it seems like an act of futility, because the water in this area just does not drain. There is already so much water going into Moore Lake, and this water will go into Moore Lake eventually. Ms. Sherek stated that realizing this property is adjacent to Sandee's Restaurant and is undivided now, is any of the property being proposed for division currently part of Sandee's parking area? Mr. Brickner stated that City staff has been working with the owner of Sandee's to eventually put a green area long Central Avenue, and that would take away 6-8 parking spaces. However, if they turned Sandee's parking the other way and ran it parallel in line with the proposed apartment building and the apartment building's parking, Sandee's would not lose any parking. There could also be some cross easements for overflow parking. Mr. Brickner stated he is proposing 48 parking stalls inside and 42 parking stalls outside, and he did not believe the outside stalls would ever all be full. Ms. McPherson stated the parking requirements are based on 1 1/2 stalls per one-bedroom unit plus an additional 1/2 space for each additional bedroom per dwelling unit. Ms. Savage stated that in terms of the amount of parking that Mr. Brickner is required to have, she could foresee a parking problem. Mr. Brickner stated they will not do anything to attract families with children. He and his wife will be living there and managing the building. Mr. Saba stated that every apartment building owner starts out with good intentions; but what happens 10 years from now? What will the conditions be like then? Ms. Sherek asked if deed restrictions with respect to occupancy in rental property legal and enforceable? Ms. Dacy stated this was discussed with the neighborhood and the intent was to restrict the number of people, and she believed the federal issues are with the age of the people. The petitioner would be limiting the number of occupants as opposed to the age of the occupants; however, the City Attorney has not checked the legality of this limitation. 1.13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18. 1991 PAGE 15 Ms. Sherek stated if it is legal, then who is going to enforce it? Ms. Dacy stated it would have to be recorded against the property, and the owner of the property and management will have to enforce it. The City has a licencing procedure that every rental building has to.meet which must be renewed annually. However, those procedures traditionally have pertained to fire and building codes. Ms. Sue Rau, 1341 - 64th Avenue N.E., asked if the City of Fridley really needs another apartment building. She gave to the Commission members an article which appeared in the Fridley Sun Focus dated August 14, 1991, stating that Fridley has one of the highest vacancy rates of 20 large metro area cities from April through June of 1991. Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Maplewood, and Fridley had the highest vacancy rates. Ms. Jackie Calderom, 6401 Central Avenue N.E., asked if the City is going to rezone the property first and then work on the other problems that could occur. She did not quite understand why they are not taking some of these other problems, such as drainage, before the rezoning. Ms. Dacy stated that the petitioner has asked that the City consider and decide whether or not it thinks an R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling district, is appropriate in this particular application. No matter who develops the site, the grading has to be meet the ordinance, and the access points have to be reviewed by Anoka County. If the City Council approves the rezoning, when the City rezones a property, it takes an ordinance which is approved via two readings. Typical policy has been that the Council will approve a rezoning on first reading but hold up the final approval until, in this case, another plat application comes through with more detailed plans. So, the City Council would have the plat process plus the second and final reading of the rezoning to determine whether or not the site plan meets all the ordinance requirements. The intent of this initial process is for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider whether or not going to R-3 is a good idea in terms of general land use. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue N.E., stated that Mr. Brickner has told the neighborhood that it is either the apartment building or an addition onto Sandee's Restaurant for a rental hall. Is this true? Mr. Brickner stated he has been looking at alternatives for the use of this property and adding onto Sandee's Restaurant is his second choice. Ms. Barb Edwards, 1403 - 64th Avenue N.E., stated that the petitioner is proposing an underground garage. What type of soil testing has been done to determine the water level under this 1.14 PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18. 1991 PAGE 16 property and whether an underground garage can even be built without being under water? Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Brickner submitted a soils report conducted by Suburban Engineering. Suburban Engineering took soil boring test holes around in the area where the building is going to be constructed to determine depth to the ground water. They then made a recommendation based on the various depths. Soil correction will be needed, but they will be able to construct an underground garage that is above the water table. Again, additional soil borings and structural requirements will need to be submitted. Mr. Brickner stated the property will have to be raised to get good and proper drainage. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue, stated that if this rezoning progresses, is there any way for the neighbors to meet with the City Engineer to see what has been proposed as far as a drainage plan? She is very concerned because she has water in her basement which is a crawl space. There are a lot of problems with drainage in this area, and this development is going to affect them. Ms. Dacy stated that the plat process is also a public hearing process and the public is invited to attend. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue N.E., stated that if the rezoning is approved, and the project is later denied because of the drainage issues, or whatever, is the property then zoned R-3? Ms. Dacy stated that if something falls apart during the plat process, under the Council's typical policy, the property would revert to the current zoning because the second and final reading of the ordinance has not occurred or been approved. Mr. Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue N.E., asked if Mr. Brickner was going to put up any kind of barrier to provide some privacy for the homeowners across Central Avenue. He stated the current commercial activity is during the daytime and it is gone when he comes home at night. Zf the property is rezoned to residential, then people will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night and car lights will be shining into his windows. Mr. Brickner stated there will probably neighborhood. There at night. he believed that with the residential usage, be less lights shining into the residential shouldn't be a lot of activity or traffic late Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated that the last traffic count was in 1988 before the Moore Lake Commons development. Not counting the rush hour traffic, but all the other traffic, it seems that the traffic has about doubled since the construction of the 1.15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 1991 PAGE 17 Moore Lake Commons development. Even though Mr. Brickner's intentions are good, it is going to be hard to get older people to rent; and in order to make the payments, he is going to have to rent to anyone because of discrimination. He believed it is going to end up being 2-3 single people per apartment with 2-3 vehicles. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue, stated it is a near impossibility to go either north or south from 64th Avenue onto Central Avenue from 7:00-9:00 a.m., and there is a definite rush hour traffic pattern from 3:30-5:30 p.m. It will be difficult for the apartment building renters to get out onto Central Avenue also. She did not believe barriers forcing traffic north or south has not been looked upon kindly. There are a lot of vans coming and going from the Advance Company at 6400 Central Avenue, yet that type of traffic is not noticeable. If a commercial use such as that went on this property, it would not have as significant an impact as the proposed apartment building. Ms. Kowski stated that regarding the rezoning, the three homes on the east side of Central Avenue are going to be heavily impacted with a huge apartment building. Even with only three homes across the street, it is not fair to have that piece of property rezoned for multiple dwelling. When they purchased their homes, that piece of property was not zoned multiple dwelling, and they would not have purchased their homes if it had been. She stated she is not against progress, but she has a fear of apartment buildings and what can happen with them. Ms. Doris Bergman, 6435 Pierce Street, stated she lives directly behind Mr. Brickner's property. She stated the neighbors on Pierce Street are not objecting to the rezoning and the construction of an apartment building. Mr. Stanley Dubanoski, 6423 Pierce Street, stated he also lives directly behind the proposed development. He hopes Mr. Brickner builds the building. There are trees on that lot that are 150 feet high. If there is ever a tornado, those trees could destroy their homes. Ms. Jackie Calderom, 6401 Central Avenue N.E., stated this is a good neighborhood, and they do not need or want this apartment building. Ms. Sue Rau, 1341 - 64th Avenue, stated they want housing for anyone that needs it, but not in this area where there are drainage problems already. Mr. Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue, stated that in looking at the compatibility of zoning, he did not see any reason to put residential zoning in the middle of commercial zoning. He is concerned about what the apartment building will look like in 10- 15 years as compared to a commercial building. He is concerned 1.16 r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 18 about how this rezoning will affect his property value. The drainage is always going to be an issue. An apartment building is going to cause more problems with traffic and lights. He would like the Planning Co�nmission to consider recommending that this property remain zoned commercial. Mr. Mattison stated that if the grade of the property is raised 4 feet, there is a strong possibility that the remaining trees won't survive. Mr. Doug Johnson, 6388 Pierce Street, stated he is also concerned about an apartment building on this property. If the deed restrictions are legal and enforceable, that would take care of some of the concerns; however, he doubted that is the case, even with a bond requirement or something to aid in the enforcement. Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Brickner has said he intends to own and live in the building. That is great, but many owners/ developers start out by owning/occupying their buildings, but as another project comes along, they move out into a newer building. Mr. Brickner stated this is his retirement home. Mr. Doug Johnson asked Mr. Brickner if he had looked at the possibility of building condominiums where the units are individually owned. Mr. Brickner stated he did not believe a condominium project would be saleable in this area. There are too many choices for condos in areas with other amenities. This property has the amenities for rental property. He stated he has a very good track record in Fridley, he has lived up to the stipulations put on other projects in the City, and he will build a building that Fridley can be proud of. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. - UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:55 P.M. Ms. Modig stated there are so many zones in this area, and she can see no reason to put in another one. There are too many problems with the parking, drainage, traffic, and the way the apartment would look in among the commercial. She realized that there is R- 3 zoning only a couple of blocks away, but they would just be creating another mix in this area that is not needed. She stated she cannot support the rezoning request. Mr. Sielaff stated he believes this is an acceptable use. The stipulations appear reasonable and the petitioner is agreeable to 1.17 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 19 the stipulations. He stated he would vote in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Saba stated he looked at this as spot zoning. As a Commission they have to consider that whole area in terms of what they want to see there, rather than to allow different developments until they end up creating a mishmash of zones. He is also concerned about the density the apartment buildinq would add to the area. He stated he thinks very highly of Mr. Brickner as a developer and has the highest regard for any development he does; however, he is co�cerned about the future when the building would be sold. Every apartment building after a period of time ends up affecting the crime rate and affecting adjacent property owners. He stated he cannot support the rezoning. Ms. Sherek stated she has very serious reservations about the drainage and whether deed restrictions with respect to occupancy a are legal or enforceable. Ms. Sherek stated the Commission has given serious thought and discussion to this piece of property in the past, including a comprehensive study in 1989 on the Central Avenue Corridor from Moore Lake to Osborne Road. It was the Commission's discussion at that time to maintain this property as commercial property, especially in view of a number of public hearings that have been held with neighbors over other previously proposed uses for the area. Multiple dwellings were on the list of types of developments that the residents do not want in this area. Based on that and the unanswered questions with respect to drainage and what will happen to the property in the future, she would vote against the rezoning. Ms. Savage stated this is a difficult decision, but she agreed with Mr. Sielaff. She believed there are enough safeguards built into the proposal. She stated the Rice Creek Watershed District will also look at this proposed project closely and, ultimately, the drainage problems may be improved. As long as th� stipulations are closely monitored and other concerns are taken into consideration, she would vote in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Sherek stated the rezoning, it petitioner post a effective. that if the Commission recommends approval of might be appropriate to stipulate that the long term bond to make sure the drainage is Ms. Dacy stated this is also required as part of the building permit. Mr. Betzold stated that no matter what goes onto this property, the drainage issue will have to be addressed, but there are no guarantees. He would hate to see them criticize this plan on the issue of drainage alone. 1.18" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 1991 PAGE 20 Mr. Betzold stated he also has a lot of respect for Mr. Brickner, who is trying to do what he thinks best and what is in his best interest. He stated he has problems with the rezoning request. It is too bad they cannot go back and undo t�e mistakes that have been done along this stretch of land and the different zoning districts. It is possible they might never be able to develop all this commercial as it is zoned, but he did not think it was appropriate to have part commercial/part residential zoning. He would vote against the rezoning. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning request, ZOA #91-92, by Thomas Brickner, to rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the constructian of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, SABA, SHERER, MODIG VOTING AYE, SIELAFF AND SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-2. Ms. Dacy stated that on September 30, 1991, the City Council will establish the public hearing for October 21, 1991. 4. RECEIVE AUGUST 9, 1991, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: M�TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August 9, 1991, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE AUGUST 8 1991 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the August 8, 1991, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE AUGUST 20, 1991, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 20, 1991, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE.MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1.19 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 21 7. RECEIVE AUGUST 20, 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August 20, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 8. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 3 1991 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the September 3, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Memo Regarding Light Rail Transit Preliminary Design Plans Ms. Dacy stated the recommended action at this meeting is to receive the memo and discuss it in more detail at the October 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the memo regarding Light Rail Transit Preliminary Design Plans for discussion at the October 16, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the September 18, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Re ectfully s mitted, � Ly e Saba Re rding Secretary 1.20 \ S I G N- IN 8 H E E T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Se tenber 18, 1991 1.21 r � � I Community Development Department PI,ANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 3, 1991 �� • TO: William Burns, City i�anager�. FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Establish Public Hearing for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Change the Definition of a Kennel Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission at its September 18, 1991 meeting unanimously recommended to approve the proposed amendment to change the definition of a kennel as proposed in the attached public hearing advertisement. As you recall, the definition of a kennel is proposed to be amended in Chapter 101 of the Cit� Code. In order to be consistent, the Zoning Ordinance definition should also be changed. Recommendation Because the proposed action is to amend the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council is required to establish a public hearing for zoning ordinance text amendments. It is recommended that the City Council establish October 21, 1991 as the public hearing date for this amendment. Also on the date of this public hearing, we would schedule for first reading the ordinance amending Chapter 101 of the City Code, Animal Control. � BD/dn M-91-736 � � � DATE: TO: FROM: Community Development Department �?L�ANN]ING DIVISION City of Fridley September 13, 1991 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Change the Definition of a Kennel Background For several years, a variety of issues pertaining to various sections of.the Animal Control ordinance (Section 101 of the City Code) have been discussed or debated. Most recently, questions were raised regarding the number of animals permitted to be kept in a single family home. This generated the proposed ordinance amendments to Section 101. Planning Commission Action In order to ensure that Section 101 of the City Code is consistent with the zoning ordinance, the definition of a kennel is proposed to be amended. We have attached the entire ordinance; however, the only item of consideration for the Planning Commission is the amendment to the kennel definition. This is not to suggest that the Planning Commission cannot comment on other provisions of the ordinance, for example, the Parks & Recreation Commission has been concerned about the impact of animals within community recreational facilities. Proposed Definition The definition of a kennel is proposed to change to permit four (4) or more dogs or cats or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats at least six (6) months of age. This means that a homeowner can only have three dogs or cats. The current definition of a kennel is three (3) or more dogs or cats; a homeowner can only have two dogs or cats. A kennel is not permitted in the residential zoning districts of the community and is only permitted in the commercial zoning districts. In the last several years, the City has encountered several situations where single family homeowners own three or more dogs or cats and the City has had to advise them that one of the dogs or cats be removed from the premises. Definition of a Kennel September 13, 1991 Page 2 The City Council directed staff to prepare the ordinance amendment in order to conduct the public hearing process and to discuss the proposed ordinance change. The Chief of Police will be present at the meeting to present background information to the Planning Commission regarding this issue. Other Communities We surveyed other jurisdictions (see attached) and found that five out of the eight permitted up to three animals. Two had no restrictions on cats. Some also required a special use permit for more than three animals in a residential district. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the definition of a kennel, Section 205.03.39, as represented in the attached ordinance. This is also recommended by the Police Department. BD/dn C-91-674 1.24 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley City Council at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Monday, October 21, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, entitled "Definitions" to change the definition of a Kennel as follows: 205.03 DEFINITIONS. 39. Kennel. Any lot or premises on which four ( 4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. WILLIAM J. NEE MAYOR Publish: October 9, 1991 October 16, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. 1.25 � _ � __ J DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Development Department NG DIVISION City of Fridley October 3, 1991 William Burns, City Manager �'�•� ' Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Rezoning Request, ZOA #91-02, by Thomas Brickner; 6400 Block of Central Avenue N.E. Attached please find the above-reference staff report. The zoning ordinance requires that the City Council hold a public hearing for all rezoning requests. Staff recommends that the City Council establish October 21, 1991 as the date of the public hearing. MM/dn M-91-732 1.26 � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE C[�QF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE september 18, 1991 F�D�..� CITY COIAVCIL DATE : October 7, 199 1 A�� REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENStTY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES & ZONING UTILlTIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL iMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH AOJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENOATION P�ANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENOATION ZOA #91-02 Thcmas Briclmer Zb rezone property from C--1, Local Busi.ness, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, Gen�eral Multi.ple Dwelling 64� Central Av�n� 110,192 sq. ft.; 2.52 acres C-2, Local Business,and C-2, General Business C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to the N; Nf-1, Light Industrial, t�o the S; R-2, 'IWo Family Dwelling tA the w Approval Denial ZOA ��91-02 Thomas Brickner _ S �/2 S�"C. /3, T. 30, l� 24 C/TY OF FR/OL EY I! ,I I I' .. ,. iR : is..�n� Y� e, � `, I ie� � 34 14 24 � � �� .., � r� � r/° l� 4�'', � i; , d . � ' 1.2s LOCATION MAP .... .1.:.l,1 .... � .... ...�.�.,•��) .`..,� .... � ■.■■'N'� ....��11 .... .... «II ....� ..__,.,, , -. �]►�II `[t�i►��I��_ Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 2 RE4uEST The petitioner is proposing to rezone property located south of Sandee's Restaurant and west of Central Avenue from C-1, Local Business and C-2, General Business to R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling in order to construct a 48 unit, three story apartment building. The rezoning request is one of two land use requests which will need to be considered by the City Council. If the rezoning request is approved by the City Council, the petitioner will need to submit a plat ( in order to subdivide the property from the Sandee's Restaurant property), drainage calculations, and a landscaping plan. The petitioner is proposing a three story, 48 unit apartment building. Each floor will contain 16 units; four one bedroom units and 12 two bedroom units. The apartment will have both above- and below-ground parking spaces. The petitioner intends to live in the building and manage it. The petitioner has met with the neighborhood on several occasions and has agreed to file deed restrictions against the property to limit the following:. l. 2. 3. No outdoor sheds; No swimming pool; and Restricting the number of people per unit, to no more than three persons in a two bedroom unit, and no more than two persons in a one bedroom unit. The intent of the deed restrictions is to promote the building as an "adult" building. SITE The property is currently vacant and is characterized as having a low elevation and containing wet/poor soils. The lot is heavily wooded with a variety of trees including Maple, Aspen, Cottonwood, and shrub materials indicative of wet soil conditions. The property is zoned C-1, General Business and C-2, Local Business, as is the property to the north. The Advance Company property located to the south is zoned M-1, Light Industrial and property to the west is zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling. ANALYSIS In analyzing a rezoning request, there are three tests which must be evaluated: 1.30 Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 3 1. That the proposed use intent; 2. 3. is consistent with the district's That the proposed use is consistent with the lot and structure requirements of the zoning district; and That the proposed use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. DISTRICT INTENT The intent of the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district is to provide zoning for single, two famiZy, and multipZe family dwelling units. As the proposed use is for a three story, 48 unit multi-family apartment, the proposed use meets the intent of the zoning district. LOT/STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS The proposed site plan meets the minimum requirements for lot area, setbacks, and provision of garage/parking spaces. However, there are several issues which need to be addressed. These include height, landscaping, drainage, traffic, and platting. Height The apartment building is proposed to be a height of 42 feet which is below the 45 feet allowed by the zoning district; however, as was stated earlier, there are poor soil conditions which will need to be corrected prior to construction of the building. The petitioner has completed a soils report; analyzing the soils in the vicinity of the proposed building. The petitioner's consultant has determined that with appropriate soil correction, the maximum height of the building will be 42 feet; howe�er, as the soil analysis was limited, actual field conditions may result in the construction of the building at a higher elevation than what is proposed. The proposed building, once completed, will be the tallest structure in the area. Landsca�inq As was stated earlier, the petitioner will need to submit a landscape plan consistent with the ordinance. As a condition of approval, the petitioner should be required to save as many of the existing trees as possible to provide screening and buffering for the single story, two family dwellings to the west of the parcel. These trees will aid in mitigating the difference in scale between the proposed building and the surrounding structures. 1.31 Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 4 DrainaQe The petitioner will not submit a drainage plan until the proposed plat has been prepared. Concern regarding the overall drainage in the neighborhood has been expressed by the homeowners in the area during past land use requests and also during the neighborhood meetings conducted by the petitioner. Storm water in the area flows from Harris Pond located east of Central Avenue through a series of pipes to an open ditch located north of the Graystar office building. Once the ditch reaches Central Avenue, it is joined by a second ditch parallel to Central Avenue. Storm water flows from the joining of these two ditches under Central Avenue and along the north side of East Moore Lake Drive through a series of pipes. These pipes enter a series of detention ponds located in the Moore Lake Commons development area, eventually entering Moore Lake. Storm water from the proposed development should be directed toward a third ditch located along the west lot line of the subject parcel. The design of the project will need to include a pond located at the northwest corner of the property, discharging into the bthird ditch. Any flooding problems the neighborhood is currently experiencing due to the capacity of the downstream system will not be increased due to the proposed project. By ordinance, water is not allowed to flow off the subject parcel at a rate greater than what flows off the site in its undeveloped state. Further, Anoka County has indicated its preference to have the site drain toward the west, and not toward Central Avenue. Traffic Traffic issues pertain to two areas: 1) on-site and combined traffic with Sandee's Restaurant, and 2) the ir�tersection of Old Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. Staff has analyzed the requirements for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. In reviewing requests for traffic signals, Anoka County has established ten warrants which must be evaluated prior to installation of a signal. Of the ten warrants, only the first warrant, minimum vehicular volume, applies to the intersection. It requires that the volumes in eight hours out of 24 hours need to be exceeded. In analyzing the traffic counts for the intersection and combining it with the proposed traffic of the apartment building, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is not met. Using the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) suggested number of trips per day for apartment complexes as five to six 1.32 Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 5 trips per unit, approximately 300 additional trips will be generated by the proposed use. Using a 50� distribution where 50� of the people leaving the facility will travel north on Central Avenue and 50� of the people leaving the facility will travel south on Central Avenue, the required vehicle trips per hour on Central Avenue is not great enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. However, our analysis is not a sophisticated traffic analysis, and if in error by as little as 10�, it is possible that the minimum vehicular volume warrant could be met. Anoka County will not consider the installation of a signal at this intersection until the actual vehicle volume exists. Anoka County is willing to complete the traffic counts after the project is completed and consider adding a traffic signal to its capital improvement project. The proposed vehicular entrance into the apartment complex is located less than 30 feet from one of the Sandee's Restaurant's parking exits. Staff recommends that the parking area for the apartment be tied with the parking area for Sandee's Restaurant to reduce the number of driveways. This will limit the traffic conflicts on Central Avenue. Anoka County has suggested that one of the two driveways to the project be eliminated. 5taff recommends that the southerly driveway be eliminated. Further, a driveway connection to the Sandee's lot should be made. Staff will recommend this on the plat request as well. Plattina Currently, the subject parcel is combined with the Sandee's Restaurant parcel. In order to develop the apartment complex, the two parcels need to be legally separated. As the parcels were originally part of an auditor's subdivision, a plat will need to be created in order to process the legal separation of the properties. The platting process should be completed if and when the rezoning request is approved. The second reading of the rezoning would not occur until the plat was completed and construction had begun. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES AND ZONING While the rezoning request has met the first two tests, there are several advantages and disadvantages to approving the request. Disadvantages The proposed rezoning request would continue the mixed land use pattern which currently exists along the west side of Central Avenue. Currently, there are three developed properties: Sandee's 1.33 Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 6 Restaurant, the Advance Companies (M-1), and the Ziebart facility (M-1). The remaining undeveloped properties are zoned commercial and CR-1, General Office District. North of Mississippi Street, the land use on the west side is residential and then industrial north of Rice Creek. In addition, the proposed rezoning would locate a higher density population near the M-1 zoning district. While the use of the property by the Advance Company has relatively low impact, it is possible that a higher intensity industrial use could locate in that location. Other homeowners in the area have complained about noise from Sandee's Restaurant and Moore Lake Commons. There is also the issue of scale and the visual impact that the proposed apartment building may have on the neighborhood. The building will be much taller than any building which exists in the area and may emphasize the mixed use nature of the west side of Central Avenue. Advantages The proposed rezoning request does meet all requirements of the zoning district and may have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. While the proposed building will be the tallest structure in the area, the R-3 regulation setbacks are written to provide adequate setbacks between adjacent structures. There will be approximately 120 feet between the proposed apartment and the adjacent structures. The intent of the district regulations is to mitiqate the impact of scale between various structures. The proposed use would generate less traffic than a commercial use, such as a restaurant, and there are no extended hours of operation. The vehicular activities of the building would be buffered by the building itself due to its "L" shape, which for-ces the vehicular activities toward Sandee's Restaurant and Central Avenue. In addition, the apartment building is a collector street (as opposed to a residential street), near shopping facilities, and on a transit line. Staff also guestions whether additional commercial development will be generated as "spin-offs" from the Moore Lake Commons develapment, and whether retaining the existing commercial zoning on both sides of the street will be compatible with the residential areas (compatibility issues were raised during the Moose Lodge request). There is adequate commercial space in Moore Lake Commons for neighborhood commercial uses to locate, and to serve the area. 1.34 Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 7 RECOMMENDATION/STIPULATIONS As the rezoning request meets the intent of the district, the lot and structure requirements of the district and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages regarding compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the adjacent uses and zoning, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council, with the following stipulations: 1. A plat shall be submitted and approved by the City Council. 2. A drainage plan and preliminary calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application indicating a pond in the northwest corner and the drainage directed to the west property line. 3. A permit shall be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. A landscape plan in conformance with the ordinance shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application. 5. Existing trees shall be maintained along the west property line to provide buffering and screening, and shall be protected during construction. 6. Deed restrictions prohibiting outdoor sheds, a swimming pool, and limiting the number of persons per dwelling unit, shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. An overall parking and access plan with Sandee's Restaurant shall be submitted with the plat application. 8. The southerly driveway access shall be eliminated on the site plan. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council. City Council Recommendation Staff recommends tha the City Council approve the rezoning request as it meets the three tests used to evaluate rezoning requests. 1.35 �r G �� f �� ZOA 1�91-02 Thomas Brickner 1��, � � �� Z y �•sI/ I_s~ � �So �T .�---- -------i----- — �$ I � I ( I � � , 1 � � ,- � i A �� I . � ,� � _ �2� , I i�� re C � �.� � �) J �a � - � � � ! . ----= � . � I � �` I " Isr�~,�, _ r..., . .. . . , i'' � ; �� . . '—�: _.. --_-:, � I 1` -r —__� � —r-_'.. J' I ; . °�"`.. . _. j ° ". i . . . .� . .� . �1 �. I I ; � � � . Q , ,�., , , ,,. � � , I � �� . .11...' ,�.,��. ..�� az� � L, . � �, � � � I ►-�2 � � �' I � � �- � � . _, ( � � �� , i � • ( ' . . .1 "��'r�r � I :J`�_ . . . . Qi R � � . ._._ "(..� e_Gt '_ .. .. � ._.__._._..�'/1/ ......_... . � 'TJA:i� �h/�7Jr]Nil•!7 7Ni1S•�3 V � 1 � I � ` � � � �� ' (� Y Fz i . V � � � �4 3 � �� :$X I 1.3s SITE PLAN � . � C � N <1' ii � ;� Q� � � �I I i `!�� . �� ' �/ . \`+...N :p e rr �1'r ___' "_. ��l�;l. � ! ' � ;� n � ; �'-� � '; _ _.�\ . � ti ( � '�9�:�Mtl^� b'... ' � : �' .' �� \� ��y-� ; ��x\ I � / � Q. � , � �I� �� ;. gCo-O � o l-O t G�, p. �-----------�r-- .. .: r, . �� ; ,- ZOA ��91-02 Thomas Brickner � � �\ M �' <�� 7.�i � �.J : i , .b►�� q�-o�� Tn�S�-��- q�l-o; a��-p•� � ��(i5.o 3� 7�� '! —_ � p f...�'� ✓ : '. , r...� --'----- � °--•� Z�rO �--- �-p._�_.. . . .. . . . = i ; � �-i" i � � � � � I� `'y . �L'�:.d;•.��'. c��.. ��— - ��... . —��;� ._ ......__�. �%1'��✓ . WnnS i � (�vk c w�T �� . � � e , __ ..�.. �i-o.� �o��s �c. - , �$ ,� � S�q-o G-�►�P,�� ., - �------ ---- � ---��-- - � � : - `�. � . � ` a1b � � °o%�-o W �� -f� g�-E . -�..�--�-�._--.�_.�.. . �?�%•, � 7�. �?.Tx4Fi1,� $�7'0 ! , „ ,. . �.38 ELEVATION _ _ . . , . - - -- . . I._ � -�� - . . � � . . :. . � � . � OUM7111p� MYCMIl: � � . � • �� « �� • i�+ .. .• � •17M1 9w y 1 i� Tt0 �Y� ti y � � ••� ♦ � y � i � ♦)101Y � : 1� Q � ' - s . �. . t.�: 1 � y v � � •�1 ; ` 'a a•� o _ �o� � Y �f Z' )l�lf i •YOM� � . M %111��0 __� j . � i iQi�isM t17Y14 ��a�♦ _�_a77YlS Y � M.1 M ��/ � , � i � N � . �i �e �. 1�N��NI l . a.u■ " � e ..., . 4� . L� ♦ � 4 �i� � � ♦ r � � �� t s � - e , f � :'r . � {r . � � 4 .^� `�� C� ul ` : M � N � y . J r �,: � � � � ` .. : yyF f � i i = ' _ ' • s � y + i�Y1' Y 4 � � •��-w { `� � j�� , f r �� OY 11wM�« .tsrie �.F �� ''O .L` � + v ' .)fiit ) h. . �'ZI�' ti. �e . � . � � �I7Ylf 7�Y74 . ' �Y1 I � i a • C �• > j : � � �� «b ,� PD0�.1�7 Is � � 7{141 � �I�III � �/ . O �' � a ' � v i. . � Q IZ „LZ bZ �Z 42 bt •••, �- . • .•� .. ....r .i�•.s �ov�. � l e V t�.f U1+►0 �. a 1 W �� N Y I L .' � 3 � � L � 'i^�+ V/ •t . � � �p lI)Y1[ . � 1M�1M�'� • �� \� ` In�J�• •I�t• � f � � � � ` \ � t'� � � w �. \ � o O !)f�L� 11�• � � � � O 4 � i •f � 2 • o � � an�is � •i.�• ' dMt • o . • i ' . `/ 4 'f 1 e o�r� • � l)�Ylf MOi��f . � � �� Y ll)�l� �nln0 ]n1ti4 7.�1 i!t`\ t.• s — �� ' w� �e� a))�.{ 7oYwow . . l��Ylt �DM711� � . 1...� . � . . o l)7Ylf MO{�0�1� . I 1 L -- �iarsur Y ��4 �� + awww ''2j� ts �� : � � 1 �'i� _ � 0 _"` Engineering Sewer Water Parks Streets Maintenance MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, City Manager PW91-258 FROM: Mark A. Winson, Asst. Public Works Director �(� DATE: August 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Drainage & Traffic for Proposed Apartment Complex by Brickner Southwest of Mississippi and Central After reviewing the preliminary plan for this apartment building, there are not any particular concerns with drainage. The developer will need to provide onsite detention in�accordance with City and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. There appears to be sufficient open areas on the site to accomplish this. There is an adjacent drainage ditch which could be used as the discharge permit. We have reviewed the existing traffic volumes, projected volumes after the completion of the apartment complex, and the accident history of the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. Since January, 1986, there have been nine (9) property damage, one (1) personal injury, and no fatality accidents at this intersection. Under current conditions, this intersection does not meet any of the ten (10) warrants for signalization. The addition of the apartment complex could push the traffic volumes up far enough to meet the minimum traffic warrant. I have contacted the Anoka County Highway Dept. regarding doing an analysis of this intersection for signalization and it does not currently meet warrants for signalization. If the apartment building is constructed, they will take another look at the traffic counts to see if warrants are met. MAw/ts . Barb Dacy 1.40 / � ��71(OF FRIDLEY ::::�O,�,p Cpv�-'... .:. " Q A Y � h%� T ��4 ��'NES��P September 6, 1991 COU NTY OF ANOKA Department of Highways Paul K Ruud, Highway Engineer 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD NW, ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 612-754-3520 Michele McPherson City of Fridley 6431 Universrty Avenue NE Fridley, MN. 55432 Re: Proposed Development 48-Unit Apartment Building Dear Ms. McPherson: I have reviewed the proposed site plan for a 48-Unit Apartment Building to be located west of CSAH 35 (Central Avenue NE) and south of CSAH 6/CR 106 (Mississippi Street NE) in the City of Fridley, and offer the following comments: The existing right-of-way at this location is 50 feet frnm the centerline of CSAH 35, which should be adequate for future needs. Calculations must be provided which show that any drainage onto CSAH 35 does not exceed the pre-e�dsting conditions. If drainage to CSAH 35 will exceed the current conditions, an alternate drainage plan must be sought. A single entrance onto CSAH 35 should be adequate for a 48-Unit Apartment Complex. It is my recommendation that the northern most entrance be retained, and the southern most entrance eliminated. A permit for any work which may occur within the County Right-of-way is required and must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction. Contact Roy Humbert, Contracts Administrator for the Anoka County Highway Department for future infoimation regarning ihe permii process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, � .` �� ,�`e� f �- ne Pemble Traffic Engineer dmh/1FRIDLEY Affirmative Action /�q3al' Opportunity Employer C. WARRANTS 4�1 Advaoce Eogiaeerin= Data Reqairei A comprehensive investigation of trai'fic conditions and pt�ysic;ai characteriuics of the location is required to determine the ncoessity for a signai installation and to furnish nooeasuy data for the proper design and operation of a signal that is found to be warranted. Such data desirably should include: 1. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach dunng 16 consecuuv� hours of a representative day. The 16 hours selected should contaui the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic. 2. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach� classified by vehicle tnx (heavy cru�{cs, pass�n8a �s and light trucks, and pubLc-transit vehicles), durin each 1S-minute period of the two hours in the morning and of the two hours in the afternoon dunng w•c total traffic entering the intersection is greatest. 3. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in paragraph (2) above and also during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young or elderly persons need specia] consideration, the pedestrians may be classified by general observation and recorded by age groups as follows: (a) under 13 years (b) 13 to 60 years (c) over 6p years, 4• The 8S-percencile s of all vehicles on the uncontrolled approaches to the location. S. A coaditions dia am showing details of the physical layout, including such features as iniersectional geometrics, channelization. grades� sight-distance restrictions, bus stops and routings, parking conditions, - pavement markings, stroet lighting� driveways, location of neazby railroad crossings, distancx to nearest signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use. , 6. A co!lisioa diagram showing acrident eaperience by typ�, locatio�� direction of movement, severity, time of day, date, and day of wak for at least one year. The following daca aro also dauable for a more precix understandin� of the operation of the intersection and may be obta'sned during tt�e periods specified in (2) above: l. Vehiclasa;onds delay determined separacdy for rach approa�ch. 1.42 2. The number and distribution of gaps in vehicular traffc on the major strat when minor-street traffic finds it possible to uu the intasection safeiy. 3. The 85-perceaWe spad of vehicla on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersectiaa but uaaffectod by the controi. 4. Pedestrian dday time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or a Sunday. Adequate roadway capacity at a signalized intersection is desirable. Widening of both the main highway and the intersecting roadway may be warranted to reduce the delays caused by assignment of right-of-way at intersections contro!!ed by traffic signals. Widening of the intersecting roadway is often beneficial to operadon on the maia highway because it reduces the signal time that must be assigned to side-strat uaffic. In urban areas, the effect of wideaing can be achieved by elimination of pazking at intersectional approaches. It is always desirable to have at least two lanes for moving traffic on each approach to a signalized intersection. Additional width may be nxessary on the leaving side of the intersection, as well as the approach side, in order to clear traffic through the intersection effectively. Before an iniersectioa is widened, the additional green time needed by pcdestrians to cross the widened streets should be checked to ensure that it will not excad the green time savcd through improved vehicuIar flow. 4C-2 Wurants for Tntfiic Si�nal Installatio� Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the s�al warrants in this Manual are met. Information shoutd be obtained by means of engineering studies and compazed with the requirements set forth in the wanants. If thesr requiremrnts aze not met, a traffic signai should neither be put into operation nor continued in operation (if already installed). For the parpose of warranting signalizadon, a wide-median intersection should be considered as one intersection. When a traffic contro! signal is indicated as being warranted, it is presumed that the sigaal and all retated traffic control drvices and mazkings are installed according to the standards set forth in this Manual. It is further presumed that signat indications are properly phaud, that roadways are propaly designed, that adjacent traffic signals are properly coordinatcd, that there is adequate supervision of tho operation and maintenanc;t of the sign>tl and all of its related dtvices, and that the traffic signal conuoller wil! be selccted on the basis of enginetring study and judgment. 1.43 . �4 Warnnt 2, Interruption of Continnous Trxffic 1'he Interruption of Continuous Traf�c warrant applies to operating cu�ditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that trfCic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in ��ering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied whrn� for ea�ch of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the tabi• below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor- str• ipproach to the intersection, and the signai installation will not ser -!isrupt progressive traffic flow. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 2 tiumber of lanes for moving tnffic Vehicles per hour on on each approach Vehicies per hour on higher-vo(ume rni_ f[a or Street m�lor stn�et (tota► of nor-street apQroa,ch J Minor Street both apperoac}►es) (one direction ooly) 1 ................ 1........ � n..more........ 1 ........ ....... ........ %-' ar more. . . . . . . . 2 or more. . . . . . . . 1 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 or more. . . . . . . . 7�0 75 � 75 � 100 7� 100 These major-streec and miaor-strat volumes aze for the same 8 hours. i�uring those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor sireet maY be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. When the 8S-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph ia dther an urban or a rural area, or when the interseccion lies within ihe built-up area of an isolated comm��ty having a population of less than 10.000, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above. 4�5 Warrant 3. Miaimam Pedestrian Voinme The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when, for each of anY 8 hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist: 1. On the major street, 600 or more vehicles per hour enttr the interseccion (total of both approaches); or where there is a raised median island 4 feet or more in width, 1.000 or more vchicles per hour (total of �oth approaches) enter the interseccion on the major street; and 2. During the same 8 hours as in paragraph ( I) there are 1 SO or more Fedestrians per hour on the highest volume crouwalk crossing the major street. When the 8S-percentile speed of major-street traffic ezceeds 40 mph in e�ther an urban or a rural azea, or whrn the intersection iies within the ' built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 1.44 An investigation of the need for traffic signal control should inciude vhere applicable, at least an analysis of the factors contained in the foLlowing warrants: � Warrant 1—Minimum vehicular volume. �'anant 2—Interruption of continuous traffic. " �.irrant 3—Minimum pedestrian volume. �rant 4—School crossings. at 5—Progressive movement. :�t 6—Accident experience. ant 7—Systems. Warrant 8—Combination of warrants. Warrant 9—Four Hour Volumes. �'arrant 10-Peak Hour Delay. � arrant l l—Peak Hour Volume. Iv-s3 (e) Iv-2o (e1 a.�r. a <G3 Warraat 1, Minimum Ve�icolu Volame The Minimum Vehiculac Volume warrant is intended for applicatioa where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principa! reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic votumes givtn in the table below eacist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor- street approach to ihe intersection. An "average" day is defined as a weekday representing traffic votumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 1 Vehicle� per hour on Number of lanes for moving tcaffic yehicles per hour on higher-volume mi- on each approach m�jor street (totat of nor-ctreet approach Major Street 14(inor Street both approaches) (one direction only) i................ 1................ 2ormore........ 1..._........•••- 2 or more. . . ... . . 2 or more.. . .... . 1 ................ 2ormore•••...•- � 1:� fi00 150 Fi00 ?pp .t - 500 2(p These major-street and minor-sueet volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during othcr hours. When the 85-percrntile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph in eiiher an urban or h rural area, or whrn the inierseciioe lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percont of the requirements above. 1.45 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 8 Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. There is an issue as to whether or not the elevation that the City currently has to enforce is appropriate. However, until that officially changes, the City has to enforce the ordinances as they are. The Engineering Department has submitted a petition to initiate the process, but this process could take a very long time. Ms. Dacy stated staff is more than willing to meet with the petitioner and contractor to discuss -the alternatives regarding the utility pipes, crawl spaces, etc:" - Mr. Al Stahlberg, 8055 Riverview/Terrace, stated the house at 688 Fairmont Street which was built�in the early 1980's has a basement. Mr. Dennis Prince, 8031 Riyerview�Terrace, stated there is another house in this area with a'basement that is definitely in the flood plain. / MOTION by Ms. Sher , seconded by Ms. Savage, to table Special Use Permit, SP #91- , by Timothy Hutchison. UPON A VOIC VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIM008LY. Mr. B zold stated this item will be tabled until the petitioner re sts that it be put back on the Planning Commission agenda. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #91-02, BY THOMAS BRICKNER• To rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to-waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located on the west side of Central Avenue, just south of Sandee's Restaurant. The property is zoned C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business. There is similar zoning to the north; M-1, Light Industrial, to the south, and R-2, Two Family Dwelling, to the west. This rezoning request is one land use request that will need to be considered by the Council. The petitioner is asking that the land use question be answered first. Should the rezoning request be approved by the Council, the petitioner will need to submit a plat in order to subdivide the parcel from the Sandee's Restaurant property, a 1.46 PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 9 drainage plan with appropriate drainage calculations, and a landscaping plan. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing a three story, 48 unit apartment building. Each floor will contain 16 units; four one-bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom units. Both above and below ground parking spaces are being proposed. The petitioner intends to live in the building and manage it. The petitioner has met with the neighborhood on several occasions and has agreed to file deed restrictions against the property to limit the following: 1. 2. 3. No outdoor sheds No swimming pool Restricting the number of people per unit, to no more than three persons in a two bedroom unit, and no more than two persons in a one bedroom unit Ms. McPherson stated the intent of the deed restrictions is to promote the building as an "adult" building. Ms. McPherson stated that in analyzing a rezoning request, there are three tests which must be evaluated: 1. 2. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the district's intent; That the proposed use is consistent with the lot and structure requirements of the zoning district; and That the proposed use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed three-story apartment building is a permitted use in the R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, district. Therefore, the proposed use does meet the int�nt of the zoning district. Ms. McPher.son stated the petitioner has submitted a site plan which meets the minimum requirements for lot area, setbacks, and provision of garage/parking spaces. However, there are still other issues that need to be addressed. These include height, landscaping, drainage, traffic, and platting. Ms. McPherson stated the apartment building is proposed to be constructed at a height of 42 feet which is below the 45 feet allowed by the zoning district. There are poor soil conditions which will need to be corrected prior to construction of the building. The petitioner has completed a soils report; analyzing the soils in the vicinity of the proposed building. The petitioner's consultant has determined that with appropriate soil 1.47 PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING, 88PT8MBER 18. 1991 PAGE 10 correction, the maximum heiqht of the building will be 42 feet. The property is actually slightly lower than Central Avenue. The lowest floor elevation would be 882 feet, which would be the floor elevation of the garage space. If a person was standing on Central Avenue looking towards the proposed building, they would be able to look into the first floor of the apartment building. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will need to submit a landscape plan consistent with the R-3 zoning district regulations . As a condition of approval, the petitioner should be requi"red to save as many of the existing trees as possible�to provide screening and buffering for the single story, two family dwellings to the west of the parcel. These trees will aid in mitigating the difference in scale between the proposed building and the surrounding structures. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will not submit a drainage plan until the proposed plat has been prepared. Concern regarding the overall drainage in the neighborhood has been expressed by the surrounding homeowners. Ms. McPherson stated that currently storm water in the area flows from Harris Pond located east of Central Avenue through a series of pipes to an open ditch located north of the Graystar office building at the corner of Central and Rice Creek Road. Once the ditch reaches Central Avenue, it is joined by a second ditch parallel to Central Avenue. Storm water flows from the joining of these two ditches under Central Avenue and along the north side of East Moore Lake Drive through a series of pipes. These pipes enter a series of detention ponds located in the Moore Lake Commons development area, eventually entering Moore Lake. Ms. McPherson stated storm water from the proposed development should be directed toward a third ditch located along the west lot line of the subject parcel. The design of the project will require the construction of a detention pond at the northwest corner of the property, discharging into the third ditch. Any flooding problems the neighborhood is currently experiencing due to the capacity of the downstream system will not be increased due to the proposed project. By ordinance, water is not allowed to flow off the subject parcel at a rate greater than what flows off the site in its undeveloped state. Further, Anoka County has indicated its preference to have the site drain toward the west, and not toward Central Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated traffic issues pertain to two areas: (1) on- site and combined traffic with Sandee's Restaurant; and (2) the traffic impacted at the intersection o� Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. Ms. McPherson staff has analyzed the requirements for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and . • •. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 11 Mississippi Street. Between the writing�of the staff report and this meeting, staff again consulted with Anoka County to determine exactly what the hourly counts are for Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. The last hourly counts adjusted by the State of Minnesota were conducted in 1988. While the peak hour traffic in the morning and evening hours has been increasing over the years, there would still be 2-4 hours of the minimum 8 which is required where the warrants to install a traffic signal would be broken. ' Ms. McPherson stated Anoka County "will not consider the installation of a signal at this intersection until the actual vehicle volume exists. Anoka County is willing to complete the traffic counts after the project is completed and consider at that time adding a traffic signal to its capital improvement project. Ms. McPherson stated the access points with the restaurant and the proposed project need to be considered. Currently, the petitioner is proposing two driveways into the proposed project. The proposed vehicular entrance into the apartment complex is located less than 30 feet from one of the Sandee's Restaurant's parking exits. Staff recommends that the parking area for the apartment be tied with the parking area for Sandee's Restaurant to reduce the number of driveways. This will limit the traffic conflicts on Central Avenue. Anoka County has also suggested that one of the two driveways to the project be eliminated. Staff recommends that the southerly driveway be eliminated. Further, a driveway connection to the Sandee's lot shoul.d be made. Staff will recommend this on the plat request as well. Ms. McPherson stated that, currently, the subject parcel is legally combined with the Sandee's Restaurant parcel. In order to separate these parcels, a plat will need to be created and approved by the City Council. The platting process should be completed if and when the rezoning request is approved. The second reading of the rezoning would not occur until the plat was completed and construction had begun. - Ms. McPherson stated the last test of the rezoning is to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent uses and zoning. While the rezoning request has met the first two tests, there are several advantages and disadvantages to approving the request: � Disadvantages The proposed rezoning request would continue the mixed land use pattern which currently exists along the west side of Central Avenue. Currently, there are three developed properties: Sandee's Restaurant, the Advance Companies (M- 1), and the Ziebart facility (M-1). The remaining undeveloped properties are zoned commercial and CR-1, General Office 1.49 PLANNING COMMISSION I�tEETING, SEPTBMBER 18. 1991 PAGE 12 District. North of Mississippi Street, the land use on the west side is predominately residential and then industrial north of Rice Creek. The proposed rezoning would locate a higher density population near the M-1 zoning district. While the use of the property by the Advance Company has relatively low impact industrial use, it is possible that a higher intensity industrial use could locate in that location. Other homeowners in the area have complained about noise from Sandee's Restaurant and Moore Lake Commons development. - There is also the issue of scale and the visual impact that the proposed apartment building may have on the neighborhood. The building will be the largest and tallest structure which exists in the area and may emphasize the mixed use nature of the west side of Central Avenue. Advantaqes The proposed rezoning request does meet all requirements of the zoning district and may have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. While the proposed building will be the tallest structure in the area, the R-3 regulations.provide adequate setbacks between adjacent structures. There will be approximately 120 feet between the proposed apartment building and the adjacent structures. The intent of the district regulations is to mitigate the impact of scale between various structures. The proposed use would generate less traffic than a commerciai use such as a restaurant, and there are no extended hours of operation. The vehicular activities of the building would be buffered by the building itself due to its "L" shape design, which forces the vehicular activities toward Sandee's Restaurant and Central Avenue. In addition, the apartment building is a collector street (as opposed to an interior residential street)�, near shopping facilities, and on a transit line. Staff also questions whether additional commercial development will be generated as "spin-offs" from the Moore Lake Commons development, and whether retaining the existing commercial zoning on both sides of the street will be compatible with the residential areas (compatibility issues were raised during the Moose Lodge request). There is adequate commercial space in Moore Lake Commons for neighborhood commercial uses to locate, and to serve the area. Ms. McPherson stated that as the rezoning request meets the intent of the district, the lot and structure requirements of the district and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages regarding 1.50 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 13 compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the adjacent uses and zoning, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. A plat shall be submitted and approved by the City Council. 2. A drainage plan and preliminary calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application indicating a pond in the northwest corner and the drainage directed to the west property line. � 4. A permit shall be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. A landscape plan in conformance with the ordinance shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application. 5. Existing trees shall be maintained along the west property line to provide buffering and screening, and shall be protected during construction. 6. Deed restrictions prohibiting outdoor sheds, a swimming pool, and limiting the number of persons per dwelling unit, shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. r'-� An overall parking and access plan with Sandee's Restaurant shall be submitted with the plat application. The southerly driveway access shall be eliminated on the site plan. Mr. Tom Brickner stated staff has put together a very complete report together. He stated there is a real need for this type of apartment building for the empty nester people-without children. He stated the stipulations are acceptable to him, and he is willing to answer any questions the Commission might have. Ms. Modig stated she is very concerned about the drainage problems that already exist in this area. She has a real problem with the apartment building and underground garage and the drainage situation. Mr. Brickner stated the parking will be higher on the front side and the lot will be pitched to the back so the water runs to the holding pond in the northwest corner and then south so the water is not running onto Central Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that via this application, Anoka County has also stated that they do not want any more water coming toward Central 1.51 gLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18. 1991 PAGE 14 Avenue. So, no matter who develops on this site, a developer is going to have to tip the site back to the pond and submit calculations that prove that the rate of water runoff equals or does not exceed the rate of runoff from the site in its undeveloped condition. Ms. Modig stated that it seems like an act of futility, because the water in this area just does not drain. There is already so much water going into Moore Lake, and this water will go into Moore Lake eventually. Ms. Sherek stated that realizing this property is adjacent to Sandee's Restaurant and is undivided now, is any of the property being proposed for division currently part of Sandee's parking area? Mr. Brickner stated that City staff has been working with the owner of Sandee's to eventually put a green area long Central Avenue, and that would take away 6-8 parking spaces. However, if they turned Sandee's parking the other way and ran it parallel in line with the proposed apartment building and the apartment building's parking, Sandee's would not lose any parking. There could also be some cross easements for overflow parking. Mr. Brickner stated he is proposing 48 parking stalls inside and 42 parking stalls outside, and he did not believe the outside stalls would ever all be full. Ms. McPherson stated the parking requirements are based on 1 1/2 stalls per one-bedroom unit plus an additional 1/2 space for each additional bedroom per dwelling unit. Ms. Savage stated that in terms of the amount of parking that Mr. Brickner is required to have, she could foresee a parking problem. Mr. Brickner stated they will not do anything to attract families with children. He and his wife will be living there and managing the building. Mr. Saba stated that every apartment building owner starts out with good intentions; but what happens 10 years from now? What will the conditions be like then? Ms. Sherek asked if deed restrictions with respect to occupancy in rental property legal and enforceable? � Ms. Dacy stated this was discussed with the neighborhood and the intent was to restrict the number of people, and she believed the federal issues are with the age of the people. The petitioner would be limiting the number of occupants as opposed to the age of the occupants; however, the City Attorney has not checked the legality of this limitation. y.52 PLANNING COMMISSION M�ETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 15 Ms. Sherek stated if it is legal, then who is goinq to enforce it? Ms. Dacy stated it would have to be recorded against the property, and the owner of the property and management will have ta enforce it. The City has a licencing procedure that every rental building has to meet which must be renewed annually. However, those procedures traditionally have pertained to fire and building codes. Ms. Sue Rau, 1341 - 64th Avenue N.E., asked if the City of Fridley really needs another apartment building. She gave to the Commission members an article which appeared in the Fridley Sun Focus dated August 14, 1991, stating that Fridley has one of the highest vacancy rates of 20 large metro area cities from April through June of 1991. Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Maplewood, and Fridley had the highest vacaney rates. Ms. Jackie Calderom, 6401 Central Avenue N.E., asked if the City is going to rezone the property first and then work on the other problems that could occur. She did not quite understand why they are not taking some of these other problems, such as drainage, before the rezoning. Ms. Dacy stated that the petitioner has asked that the City consider and decide whether or not it thinks an R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling district, is appropriate in this particular application. No matter who develops the site, the grading has to be meet the ordinance, and the access points have.to be reviewed by Anoka County. If the City Council approves the rezoning, when the City rezones a property, it takes an ordinance which is approved via two readings. Typical policy has been that the Council will approve a rezoning on first reading but hold up the final approval until, in this case, another plat application comes through with more detailed plans. So, the City Council would have the plat process plus the second and final reading of the rezoning to determine whether or not the site plan meets all the ordinance requirements. The intent of this initial process is for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider whether or not going to R-3 is a good idea in terms of gerieral land use. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue N.E., stated that Mr. Brickner has told the neighborhood that it is either the apartment building or an addition onto Sandee's Restaurant for a rental hall. Is this true? Mr. Brickner stated he has been looking at alternatives for the use of this property and adding onto Sandee's Restaurant is his second choice. Ms. Barb Edwards, 1403 - 64th Avenue N.E., stated that the petitioner is proposing an underground garage. What type of soil testing has been done to determine the water level under this 1.53 � PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING, BEPTEMBER I8, 1991 PAGE 16 property and whether an underground garage can even be built without being under water? Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Brickner submitted�a soils report conducted by Suburban Engineering. Suburban Engineering took soil boring test holes around in the area where the building is going to be constructed to determine depth to the ground water . They then made a recommendation based on the various depths. Soil correction will be needed, but they will be able to construct an underground garage that is above the water table. Again, additional soil borings and structural requirements will need to be submitted. Mr. Brickner stated the property wi1Z have to be raised to get good and proper drainage. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue, stated that if this rezoning progresses, is there any way for the neighbors to meet with the City Engineer to see what has been proposed as far as a drainage plan? She is very concerned because she has water in her basement which is a crawl space. There are a lot of problems with drainage in this area, and this development is going to affect them. Ms. Dacy stated that the plat process is also a public hearing process and the public is invited to attend. Ms. Jean Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue N.E., stated that if the rezoning is approved, and the project is later denied because of the drainage issues, or whatever, is the property then zoned R-3? Ms. Dacy stated that if something falls apart during the plat process, under the Council's typicaZ policy, the property would revert to the current zoning because the second and final reading of the ordinance has not occurred or been approved. Mr. Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue N.E., asked if Mr. Brickner was going to put up any kind of barrier to provide some privacy for the homeowners across Central Avenue. He statecl the current commercial activity is during the daytime and it is gone when he comes home at night. If the property is rezoned to residential, then people will be coming and going at all hours of the day and night and car lights will be shining into his windows. Mr. Brickner stated there will probably neighborhood. There at night. he believed that with the residential usage, be less lights shining into the residential shouldn't be a lot of activity or traffic late Mr. Mark Schwartz, 1372 - 64th Avenue, stated that the last traffic count was in 1988 before the Moore Lake Commons development. Not counting the rush hour traffic, but all the other traffic, it seems that the traffic has about doubled since the construction of the �.54 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 17 Moore Lake Commons development. Even though Mr. Brickner's intentions are good, it is going to be hard to get older people to rent; and in order to make the payments, he is going to have to rent to anyone because af discrimination. He believed it is going to end up being 2-3 single people per apartment with 2-3 vehicles. Ms. LaVonne Kowski, 6391 Central Avenue, stated it is a near impossibility to go either north or south from 64th Avenue onto Central Avenue from 7:00-9:00 a.m., and there is a definite rush hour traffic pattern from 3:30-5:30 p.m._ It will be difficult for the apartment building renters to get out onto Central Avenue also. She did not believe barriers forcing traffic north or south has not been looked upon kindly. There are a lot of vans coming and going from the Advance Company at 6400 Central Avenue, yet that type of traffic is not noticeable. If a commercial use such as that went on this groperty, it would not have as significant an impact as the proposed apartment building. Ms. Kowski stated that regarding the rezoning, the three homes on the east side of Central Avenue are going to be heavily impacted with a huge apartment building. Even with only three homes across the street, it is not fair to have that piece of property rezoned for multiple dwelling. When they purchased their homes, that piece of property was not zoned multiple dwelling, and they would not have purchased their homes if it had been. She stated she is not against progress, but she has a fear of apartment buildings and what can happen with them. Ms. Doris Bergman, 6435 Pierce Street, stated she lives directly behind Mr. Brickner's property. She stated the neighbors on Pierce Street are not objecting to the rezoning and the construction of an apartment building. Mr. Stanley Dubanoski, 6423 Pierce Street, stated he also lives directly behind the proposed development. He hopes Mr. Brickner builds the building. There are trees on that lot that are 150 feet high. If there is ever a tornado, those trees could destroy their homes. Ms. Jackie Calderom, 6401 Central Avenue N.E., stated this is a good neighborhood, and they do not need or want this apartment building. Ms. Sue Rau, 1341 - 64th Avenue, stated they want housing for anyone that needs it, but not in this area where there are drainage problems already. Mr. Mark Mattison, 6421 Central Avenue, stated that in looking at the compatibility of zoning, he did not see any reason to put residential zoning in the middle of commercial zoning. He is concerned about what the apartment building will look like in 10- 15 years as compared to a commercial building. He is concerned 1,55 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 18 about how this rezoning will affect his property value. The drainage is always going to be an issue. An apartment building is going to cause more problems with traffic and lights. He would like the Planning Commission to consider recommending that this property remain zoned commercial. Mr. Mattison stated that�if the grade of the property is raised 4 feet, there is a strong possibility that the remaining trees won't survive. Mr. Doug Johnson, 6388 Pierce Street, stated he is also concerned about an apartment building on this property. If the deed restrictions are legal and enforceable, that would take care of some of the concerns; however, he doubted that is the case, even with a bond requirement or something to aid in the enforcement. Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Brickner has said he intends to own and live in the building. That is great, but many owners/ developers start out by owning/occupying their buildings, but as another project comes along, they move out into a newer building. Mr. Brickner stated this is his retirement home. Mr. Doug Johnson asked Mr. Brickner if he had looked at the possibility of building condominiums where the units are individually owned. - Mr. Brickner stated he did not believe a condominium project would be saleable in this area. There are too many choices for condos in areas with other amenities. This property has the amenities for rental property. He stated he has a very good track record in Fridley, he has lived up to the stipulations put on other projects in the City, and he will build a building that Fridley can be proud of. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. - DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:55 P.M. , Ms. Modig stated there are so many zones in this area, and she can see no reason to put in another one. There are too many problems with the parking, drainage, traffic, and the way the apartment would look in among the commercial. She realized that there is R- 3 zoning only a couple of blocks away, but they would just be creating another mix in this area that is not needed. She stated she cannot support the rezoning request. Mr. Sielaff stated he believes this is an acceptable use. The stipulations appear reasonable and the petitioner is agreeable to 1.56 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 19 the stipulations. He stated he would vote in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Saba stated he looked at this as spot zoning. As a Commission they have to consider that whole area in terms of what they want to see there, rather than to allow different developments until they end up creating a mishmash of zones. He is also concerned about the density the apartment building would add to the area. He stated he thinks very highly of Mr. Brickner as a developer and has the highest regard for any development he does; however, he is concerned about the future when the building would be sold. Every apartment building after a period of time ends up affecting the crime rate and affecting adjacent property owners. He stated he cannot support the rezoning. Ms. Sherek stated she has very serious reservations about the drainage and whether deed restrictions with respect to occupancy are legal or enforceable. Ms. Sherek stated the Commission has given serious thought and discussion to this piece of property in the past, including a comprehensive study in 1989 on the Central Avenue Corridor from Moore Lake to Osborne Road. It was the Commission's discussion at that time to maintain this property as commercial property, especially in view of a number of public hearings that have been held with neighbors over other previously proposed uses for the� area. Multiple dwellings were on the list of types of developments that the residents do not want in this area. Based on that and the unanswered questions with respect to drainage and what will happen to the property in the future, she would vote against the rezoning. Ms. Savage stated this is a difficult decision, but she agreed with Mr. Sielaff. She believed there are enough safeguards built into the proposal. She stated the Rice Creek Watershed District will also look at this proposed project closely and, ultimately, the drainage problems may be improved. As long as the stipulations are closely monitored and other concerns are taken into consideration, she would vote in favor of the rezoning. Ms. Sher.ek stated that if the Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, it might be appropriate to stipulate that the petitioner post a long term bond to make sure the drainage is effective. Ms. Dacy stated this is also required as part of the building permit. Mr. Betzold stated that no matter what goes onto this property, the drainage issue will have to be addressed, but there are no guarantees. He would hate to see them criticize this plan on the issue of drainage alone. 1.57 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 8EPTEMBER 18, 1991 PAGE 20 Mr. Betzold stated he also has a lot of respect for Mr. Brickner, who is trying to do what he thinks best and what is in his best interest. He stated he has problems with the rezoning request. It is too bad they cannot go back and undo the mistakes that have been done along this stretch of land and the different zoning districts. It is possible they might never be able to develop all this commercial as it is zoned, but he did not think it was appropriate to have part commercial/part residential �oning. He would vote against the rezoning. _ MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of rezoning request, ZOA �91-92, by Thomas Brickner, to rezone from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. OPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, SABA, SHERER, MODZG VOTING AYE, SIELAFF AND SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED HY A VOTE OF 4-2. Ms. Dacy stated that on September 30, 1991, the City Council will establish the public hearing for October 21, 1991. 4. RECEIVE AUGUST 9, 1991. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: �. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recei� the August 9, 1991, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. / � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. 5. RECEIVE AUGUST 8 1991 HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by . Sherek, to receive the August 8, 1991, Housing & Redevelopme Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VO NG AYE, CIiAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANI USLY. 6. RECEIVE AUGUST 0 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL UALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MI TES: MOTION by Mr. S' laff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 20, 1991, Env' onmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VO E VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTI CARRIED IINANZMOIISLY. 1.58 i �- ',�. _ '� '�' °��'`;5��„ "'�,� "�" �; s r., .... � .Ajez� 1'� ?�s�N-� h 'a; ... � � . f"..` - CI'I'Y OF FRIDLEY � �, � 6431 ONIVII?SITY AVENUE N.E..< �� FRIDLEY, �IN 55432 � -. `E : ��.: (612) 571-3450 � �'%-a ., . i 'I:t •; 1�._�� : a�nt�+:. .,-. _ : ` .._ 4 �Y � �: :. � w i'^� �YF�� i�% � F y� . {_ �' a � ,� u t, . ,' ° `� :a� - PR�pIItTY Il�oR'�Z*i�i - site plan required; for sul�nittals; :see attad�ied �' .,.�.. _- � ��_ > .. .�,:, � �: G /s� � GC� r-�� ;��,i� � _' � . � � �� a�.�i�: Ga `�s �, Z�� 3 �F. �� G��e ; � �� i%i�Z;� �r c-; E Gr� � c r� „�c�� 6c� �� I C I�ot Gtiirrent zonix�q: C- ;, ,�: e; . Bl.ocx . � � Tr w ,,. : ' � �. : „ �. � '� _. �, � ,� f^ '� �)�]��'�]]'� � - , �:: T�� ('g'�'��'y'� /�3 `� ///� a, h "_Z"' __'7 Zw"'") � . : / . _ - � 1L^ f'E 'a:� � . . .: . C �.c 2' , - . . wt .r. : .� f � Ii� �k �" �k i'N t R�asori for rezaazirig �'�lJ'. � �� P T f� �� :� � � �� . � � �� , ' � '= ° � � ; < " , �'� ' .. .. �x .a > < r �p . z'�k i s � . . � � . � . '�� ` �a �.s � � � � ,a"; - .... . �� '�� 7... �w. � . . . . . � .. f �� -.� � . . .. .. ;. ... . � r LaC� v��a�it .u�C V�11<A� . .. _ (Contract Purr.t�as�rsz Fee Ownexs must sign tlzis fozm p�iar� to P�5�3) � �/l d i11.,4�5 �� / G/1 �I% �I'� ' ADD�s C� Z T %�GV t �� lt / � LIAYTIl� PHONE .� ��% �" �/�% �? SIC�iA2URE pATE � �. PETITIOTTER II�OItMATI�TT ' ':: ,� -, . ° , .: , : , ', � __��O �Yl .d S �� / G,�1�� 7-��t��/�/ /w/�•- - L]LJL.Q[i-►7�7 � V � �/� :. �� ` . . / . � .�_ /./•-� / � / 9 ` 1 � • � . . . . —i / v �/ �'i� tC.. : _ OAY'I�Il�+IE PFK�lE ,� v ` � .,� � � '7 SIC�ZTJRE / l pA2� Fee: �_...........,�.,$300. 00 f �C� � . �� ...................._��......��.�.�.�..r.r.r .,.�_� .r.,..,...._..��_� P�e�m.i.t zoA # �/. o� g,�ipt # '� ( p�,i� S° . Application reoeived by: - _ Scheduled Planning Gatunission date: Scheduled City Council date: F , 1.59 � i � ,. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5. 1989 PAGE 8 Ms. Sherek stated she agreed, especially with the increased cost of new construction. Maybe they should be looking for developers to redevelop and upgrade existing property. They are now talking about the Central Avenue Corridor, and there are apartment-type units along there. Ms. Saba stated they really need t e improving the properties they have now instead of lookin building new senior housing. Ms. Dacy summarized the ents as follows: The Commission is recommending the City e a pro-active approach and inventory not only vacant sit , but also potential conversion sites for redevelopment try to take advantage of existing amenities--to be more p ctive instead of reactive. The �ommissioners agreed. 2. REVIEW PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY: Mr. Robertson stated the Central Avenue corridor goes back in history about 100 years and has some historical significance. It certainly reflects the mixture since the County and the City started zoning in the early 1940's and early 1950's. The purpose of the study is to look at the corridor from Mississippi Street to Osborne Road, and this first part looks at Central Avenue from Rice Creek Road to Mississippi Street. They have tried to identify what the City's options are. Mr. Robertson stated that in the recent past, they have had many applications or proposals for development in this area, such as Moore Lake Commons. He stated that Moore Lake Commons is really establishing a whole new identity and an anchor in the south end of this corridor. The Moore Lake Tax Increment District extends up from Moare Lake and the area around Hillwind north to the intersection of Mississippi Street. They have private development going on, even without HRA incentive, such as tfie old Midwest Van & Storage site. Mr. Robertson stated there have been other proposals. The Public Works Department suggested a median on Central Avenue between Mississippi and the intersection of Highway 65, and the residents did not want it. So� there has been an ongoing sequence of ��7'��t f S $i]�i L�Sd'lft� r.sn i. vi'°�'iv ^iv'� i'y' � �.�-� �� ".•� confusion. He stated staff has called it "the identity crisis". What is possible for Central Avenue's future? That is really the purpose for this study. Mr. Robertson stated Central Avenue was one of the first paved roads in the State of Minnesota. It was called the "Sportsmans' Highway" because it led to the hunting and fishing areas to the 1.60 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 9 north around Mille Lacs Lake. Supposedly, the original concrete pavement is buried under the asphalt. Mr. Robertson stated they divided the corridor study area into segments--the portion north of Mississippi and the portion south of Mississippi, and look for problems and opportunities. What needs could they use for unifying, trying to establish an identity? One of the things that is a problem right now, but might be a potential oppartunity, is the fact that this right-of-way is extremely wide. It is 40 ft. wider than a normal 60 foot right- of-way, and this creates problems. They have made the assumption that no matter what alternative (predominantly residential, predominately commercial, or a rational mix) the Commission picks for an identity, there needs to be some kind of unifying element so that it gives some kind of identity and rationale and establishes some kind of visual continuity from Moore Lake to Osborne Road. Mr. Robertson stated they decided there were several things they could do. They could turn the problem of the wide right-of-way into an opportunity. If they use that wide right-of-way for a central median, they might get the same kind of objections as they got from the people across from Moore Lake. But, there are huge unused areas on the side, so maybe they should create some kind of additional landscaping by having wider boulevards on either side of the two-lane street. That is a way of providing some kind of visual continuity. Mr. Robertson stated that because the riqht-of-way is so wide, they could add a bikeway/walkway very easily. Mr. Ro�ertson stated there are some isolated unsightly properties along the street and maybe they can identify those properties and key in on specific redevelopment or r-ehabilitation projects for these properties.� Mr. Robertson stated Ms. McPherson and Ms. Dacy would give a more detailed description of the three alternatives they have identified: (1) predaminately residential; (2) predominately commercial; and (3) a rational mix of residential and commercial. Ms. McPherson stated it had been her responsibility to do the �:��:�;� �� h �w .�� :�z'��. � �a�a � �..r�,-,�, �s <nf �he existing land use along the study. Predominately, they have two land uses: commercial and residential, including single family, duplexes, and multiple dwelling. According to the zoning, there are quite a few non-conforming uses in both residential and commercial. South of Mississippi there are quite a number of vacant lots, so they have the opportunity for new projects as well as some potential ideas for redevelopment projects. 1.61 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5, 1989 PAGE 10 Ms. McPherson stated Ms. Dacy, Mr. Robertson, and she discussed what could happen if they had a predominately residential, predominately commQrcial, or a predominately mixed use development scheme. Ms. McPherson stated she would first talk about the predominately residential scheme or scenario. She stated the area north of Mississippi is strongly residential already. There are many single family homes, multi-units, the new Creek Park Addition, to the east of Central Avenue. These are some problems that could be taken care of in some spot redevelopment. One would be to potentially redevelop the Findel2 site into large single family home lots. Bacon Electric and the automotive site are not necessarily in unity with the residential scheme. Bacon Electric would be relocated to a higher visible site as part of the commercial node on Moore Lake Drive. The area would then be developed with residential uses. Ms. McPherson stated the automotive site is not a unifying element in the residential scheme; therefore, it should be relocated to an industrial park or with other automotive developments in the City. That would allow this corner to be redeveloped in a residential theme, allowing this to become an entry point for the residential development located in the Creek Park Addition. Ms. McPherson stated on the south part of Mississippi, they have the identity crisis with all the non-conforming uses. In a residential scenario, these currently non-conforming uses would become conforming and integrated into a residential scheme. The satellite fire station was designed to reflect and enhance the residential feel so this a good neighbor to the residential alternative. Ms. McPherson stated that even though the Advance Companies is a commercial use, again it is more of a soft commercial use with a lot of landscaping. The wide landscaped boulevard promotes the soft commercial feel. - Ms. McPherson stated in the residential : opportunity to potentially split some < create a proposed right-of-way for some which would allow development on the bac would increase the residential density i� vi �ciiv ��. c"��i �.�.v�iv '�aa-cv -�vs...°-�.^:��`�°.i �'.�° commercial node that would tie in with Lake Commons. cenario they then have the �f the long deep lots and streets going north/south k half of these lots which i the area . On the corner 'F��' �...�� . �-'lf3}"hvi" :�22� the residential and Moore Ms. McPherson stated Ms. Dacy was going to address the commercial and mixed use alternatives. Ms. Dacy stated that north of Mississippi under the commercial alternative, they would still propose the relocation of Bacon 1.62 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5. 1989 PAGE 11 Electric and the removal of the automotive use because of the obsolete nature of the buildings and encourage redevelopment to a more appropriate commercial neighborhood use. Ms. Dacy stated south of Mississippi they have existing commercial zoning and industrial zoning by Ziebart and the vacant property to the west. So, under the commercial alternative, the existing land uses and the existing zoning almost promotes it. However, they would still recommend that on the east side of the street the rear of these properties could still be subdivided to access onto a new north/south street and maybe create a buffer between the existing single family neighborhood to the east. Ms. Dacy stated the disadvantage to the neighborhood commercial alternative is what type of eommercial uses are going to be located here. Are they going to be retail strip center, or support commercial businesses for Moore Lake Commons, or would they be more of the office/showroom/semi-warehouse uses? She stated if the City is trying to promote a soft image for Central Avenue, those types of uses would not be consistent, and maybe the alternative is to encourage the "ma and pa" oriented commercial uses and the specialty retail. The impact of the Moore Lake Commons project may also be a deciding factor. For several years, these vacant properties have been zoned commercial, and they have remained vacant so that might be another disadvantage to the commercial alternative. Mr. Robertson stated that the unknown variable is the impact of Moore Lake Commons. With the increased traffic at Moore Lake Commons and more people coming into the bottom end of this corridor, is that going to create more traffic and potential for this lower part of Central, so that things like office/showroom would be feasible. Mr. Betzold stated there is also the "barrier" kind of thing, where people will go so far but will not turn the corner into an area they are unfamiliar with. People who drive to Moore Lake Commons are not necessarily going to turn the corner to these other businesses. He would never put a retail shop on the lower end of Central. Ms. Sherek stated she had a real problem "ma and pa" specialty ��- i� �� fr�-' �--�i� � ts�y-�-,�- �� ^,�^-2 a� ��t�.i �-t�:��°. they do not want people converting the front of their houses to specialty shops. Ms. Dacy stated that with the mixed use alternative, on the southern portion, they are looking at in filling the vacant properties on the east side with townhouses or twin homes, anything that might approach single family ownership situation. They would 1.63 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 5. 1989 PAGE 12 still subdivide the rear of the properties to create a residential mix and then have the nodes of commercial at the intersections. Ms. Dacy stated that on the west side, Mr. Brickner will be making an application for a multi-family project. Ms. Dacy stated the disadvantage to the mixed use alternative is it.might be perpetuating a mixture of uses and the whole identity crisis. Ms. Dacy stated the advantage of the mixed use alternative is if there is no real market for the commercial, why not have multiple family housing in this location. It is located near neighborhood shopping, and would be a good buffer between Central Avenue and the neighborhoods to the west. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Dahlberg stated he would prefer the residential alternative, because of his concerns about increasing traffic on Central Avenue. He did not have a real problem with the mixed use alternative if the traffic issue can be controlled. He likes the boulevard/parkway concept but does not want a median, because it channelizes the traffic and may increase the speed. He does not see the necessity of commercial at every node, primarily at Rice Creek Road. He feels the residential alternative is more in character with the entire area and better from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Barna stated on the east side between Rice Creek Road a�d Mississippi, he would like to see it all residential development- -take out the little welding shop on the corner of Mississippi and Central and the commercial complex on Rice Creek Road and Central. He would like to see light multiple, such as a townhouse development, on the vacant property. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Dahlberg had said he liked the boulevard/parkway approach but not the median. One of the reasons they would do the boulevard/parkway would be because historically it would be more correct. It was originally a narrow concrete road, and they would emphasize that original character by not constructing a median. Mr. Kondrick stated he really did not have a problem with medians. Sf the_y are not interesting� they can be a waste of time, but a creative median with trees and landscaping can be very interesting. Another thing is lighting. Lighting creates a whole different atmosphere, both during the daytime and evening. Lighting can draw people into an area and make them want to build here. Mr. Robertson stated that is one of the reasons why staff thought the best way to use that wide right-of-way is to put that extra 1 r�T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETiNG APRIL 5 1989 PAGE 13 greenery and landscaping elements along the edge for uniting this mixture and confusion along the edge, rather than down the middle. Ms. Sherek stated medians are also very difficult in the winter for snowplows. Mr. Betzold stated he agreed that north of Mississippi Street should all be residentia� and that both Bacon Electric and the automotive business should be relocated. He would like to suggest another option for south of Mississippi Street that has not been discussed. Why not have one side commercial and the other side residential? An example is along Main Street south of I-694. On one side it is clearly all commercial activity, and on the other side it is all residential. It is just like two different worlds. Why not do the same thing in this area? Ms. McPherson stated that this issue was discussed. Mr. Robertson stated there is a basic sort of principle that they should try to follow in where they break land use. They should try to break it and make the change at the rear lot line, rathe= than at the center line of the street, and that having one use on one side of the street and another on the other side of the street contributes to the identity crisis. Aiso, there is the question of property values and property assessments with residential and commercial. Ms. Sherek agreed with Mr. Betzold. There is no question that one side of Main Street is residential and one side is commercial. South of Rice Creek Road is going to be commercial with the health club and the shopping center. If the opportunity is there for commercial development, they should promote it. There is such a scarcity of land in Fridley. With the upgrading of the Midwest Van & Storage property and the development in Moore Lake Commons, there is going to be some fall-out from that development and redevelopment. She would hate to see another piecemeal development in there in the meantime. To her, there is no reason why they cannot have one zoning on one side of the street and another zoning on the other side of the street. - Ms. Sherek stated she did not agree with Mr. Brickner's proposal to put an apartment building in this area. Townhouses or something like that might be "o.k.", but to stick an apartment building in there when there is no other real multiples in the area is just r�� s��.-'�� eor�f�� 3��z, �� a�� r�� #� �� .ar�V kind of identity with that type of development, nor are they going to gain any kind of identity by turning it into residential with those two solid commercial properties on either side. Ms. Sherek stated it is great to discuss further development, but her whole point of continuing the corridor study all the way up to Osborne is she felt the whole corridor should be viewed as a continuum. She felt they were lacking something discussing this 1.65 PLANNZNG COMMIBSION MEETING, APRIL 5. 1989 PAGE 14 in depth before the whole study is done. From about Onondaga to Osborne, again they have residential on one side and industrial on the other side, but she did not think that area had as serious an identity crisis as Mississippi south with the mixture of houses and commercial uses on one side of the street. Ms. Dacy stated they just needed a place to start, and the north half of Mississippi Street to Osborne could be presented at a May meeting. Mr. Kondrick stated after hearinq Ms. Sherek's comments, he does agree that the west side of Central Avenue south of Mississippi Street should remain conunercial. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Dahlberg had also suggested they look at a treatment along the right-of-way by Moore Lake Commons as far as installing a walking path down to Moore Lake Beach. Mr. Barna stated this idea had been presented before, and neither the neighbors or the property owners�want a walking path along there. Mr. Saba stated he thought it very important to do the boulevard treatment and landscaping along Central Avenue right away and tie it in with the Moore Lake Commons. Ms. Dacy stated another thing Mr. Dahlberg had stated was that there should be a traffic signal at 73rd Avenue/Central. Ms. Dacy stated staff will be including the Central Avenue study in the April 17th City Council meeting packets. The City Council will have the Planning Commission's minutes with their comments. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Brickner might be applying for a rezoning within two weeks. After hearing the Planning Commission members' comments about commercial on the west side, she would contact Mr. Brickner and inform him of these comments. She stated Mr. Brickner is intending to have a neighborhood meeting at the end of April. Maybe at this neighborhood meeting, staff can present the three alternatives and get the neighborhood's reaction to those alternatives, depending on the City Council's reaction. Mr, Betzold stated he and the Planning Commission members appreciated staff's work and all the thought and time that went into the presentation of this part of the Central Avenue study. 5. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, s ded by Mr. Saba, to receive the March 6, 1989, Parks & Rec ion Commission minutes. 1.66_ list of all of the major issues the Commission discussed�and then came up with an Evaluation Matrix for the Commission to` rate the Commission's performance for each of those issues and'to rate staff's performance for each of those issues. ` Ms. Dacy stated she would also like the Commis ion to go through the four issues for 1990. The Commission mi�ht have some issues to add to this list. / Mr. Betzold stated he would like to tab�l'e discussion until Ms. Sherek and Mr. Saba can be in attend �ce. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded b Mr. Barna, to table discussion of the 1989 Accomplis ents and 1990 Workplan until all Planning Commission member are present. IIPON A VOZCE VOTE, ALL THE MOTION CARRIED IINA Ms. Dacy stated she h Burns dated January , Department's Prior' ies stated this is so ethin done on a quartg�rly bas 3. G AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLAR�D LY. also included in the agenda a memo to Mr. 1990, regarding the Community Development and Accomplisiunents for 1990/1989. She Mr. Burns has requested, and it.will be Ms. Dacy tated this memo is for the Commission's information. It list the types of things they will see in the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McPherson and she went to this work op. It was a very helpful workshop. The Metropolitan Cou il is very aggressive on this issue, and housing has become a riority. Jack Kemp, Secretary of HUD, will be speakinq at t e State of Region address on March 7, 1990. 4. CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR UPDATE: Ms. Dacy stated this update summarizes Council's discussion at their January Betzold attended that meeting. the results of the City , 1990, meeting. Mr. Mr. Betzold stated he thought one of the Council's main concern was that they thought the Planning Commission was advocating rezoning everything up and down Central Avenue. They articulated a number of criteria as to what kind of development they would like to see, their long range goals along Central Avenue, etc. Although there have been other discussions, this is the first time the Council has ever outlined everything they want to see along Old Central, and the information was very helpful. After a long discussion, he thought the Council agreed that they do want to do something to improve the Central Avenue Corridor, but they � .s7 PLANNINQ COMMISSION ME$TINa JAN. 31 1990 PAGE 6 would like to talk to people along Central Avenue and encourage people to voluntarily rezone. Mr. Barna stated he had assumed that from previous planning documents and discussions, these were things the Planning Commission would like to see happen, not what they demand, and in reality, some of these things may never happen. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought the Planning Commission members all feel comfortable enough with what they have done to this point to say that they don't see it as something etched in stone. Mr. Dahlberg asked if it was the position of the City Council that the Planning Commission should re-evaluate what they have done to this point and bring back new recommendations, or reject it in its entirety and leave the Corridor as it is? Ms. Dacy stated there is sentence in Phase I and Phase II that says: "After completion of the Comprehensive Plan, consider rezoning properties and marketing them as they become available." The Council recommended to delete that sentence and state that they would encourage property owners to rezone on a voluntary basis, instead of the City starting the rezoning process. 5. SENIOR HOUSING STUDY UPDATE: Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Burns' memo dated January 4, 1990, regarding "TIF Guidelines for Senior Housing" summarizes the Cou '1's informal consensus regarding senior housing financi policies. Basically, the Council said that the current poli es are acceptable for senior housing projects and lis three ways the HRA currently uses to assist the projects. em #4 identifies the basic criteria for the guidelines. 6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE: Ms. Dacy stated this schedule was ncluded in the agenda for the Planning Commission's informat' n. - 7. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 6 1 9 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Kondri , seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the November 6, 1989, rks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICEAV�E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION C�R�RIED IINANIMOIISLY. 8. 1.68 Mr. Betzold stated he would also like to see notices �f the public meeting stage. He would just as soon not have a b.riefing before the meeting. % Mr. Kondrick stated that 20-25 years from now,when in theory the LRT has expanded out to Anoka, perhaps Ramsey,; East Bethel, etc., and more park and ride stations are necessaryt� He would then think the significance of the parking lots in the�City of Fridley would be greatly diminished. He would like to �ve the flexibility so those parking lots could then be changed �ack to something else. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in the Kondrick, when an area is no longer an option where the City or HRA can to the County and the Rail Autho� purchasing the property? / si ty, zation described by Mr. ied for parking, is there the property and lease it rather than the County Ms. Sherek stated this raised question raised by the Planning Commission in the early discu ions, and that was: Do they have to build all these stations a initial construction? BRW is saying they need 2,000 parking spa s, but what is wrong with starting out with Northtown, Mississip i/University, 51st or Target, and then when there is the dema five years later, they build another station. Ms. Dacy stated th would have to have the land reserved under that option. Mr. Saba stated they have to be somewhat careful, because just the potential "ne d" for a parking lot in a�ertain area can stop or slow develop ent. Mr. Barn stated his main concern about LRT is they are talking about p lic bodies developing the parking spaces. In looking at other cities, the vast majority of parking ramps are privately owne . Why isn't the City of Fridley looking at some type of two- lev 1 parking ramp/retail development on the southwest corner with a sistance from the HRA, so that when or if the LRT does go in, hey can use the extra space for retail or whatever? 2. CONSIDERATION OF CENTRAL AVENUE CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission spent quite a bit of time discussing this last spring and summer, and it went to the Council Conference meeting in July. She thought the Council members appreciated the exercise of going through the land use planning and intent. Their concern was there are other priorities in the community as far as development and tax increment dollars. Ms. Dacy stated that she used a diamond model to analyze the plan for improvements along Central Avenue, whether those are land use 1.69 � _ � I Community Development Department G DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 3, 1991 �� p�. _r�. TO: William Burns, City Manager FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Variance Request, VAR #91-28, by Richard Peterson; 7939 East River Road Attached please find the above referenced staff report. The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet. The Appeals Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of this variance request to the City Council. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request as the petitioner has an alternative which allows him to meet Code. MM:ls M-91-728 � �► STAFF REPQRT APPEALS DATE �Pt�r 3, 1991 CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE F[ZIDLEY CIIY COI�ICIL DATE : October 7, 199�1 Au�oR MN1�ls REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONiNG ADJACENT LAND USES & ZONING UT�ITIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIA� IMPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION VAR #91-28 Richard Peterson 7.b increase the height of a fenoe in the frcmt yard frcm 4 feet tA 6 feet. 7939 East River Road R-1, Single Family Dwelling �l, Single Family Dwelling tA the W, N, & E; 1�-3, Ger�ral Multiple FaQnily Dwelling to the S Denial Approval �1_ S //2 31 SEC. 3 ��TY oF �� VAR ��91-28 Richard Peterson T. 30, R. 24 FR/OLEY � U �\ � u . 26 LOCATION MAP _,1, , ;� , / ^ � � c�•� � C�% � �� r i, � � lii • � • • �� , � - '1: � . 1 .. ,� ..., .■■� • :% !�:� . � . ■�r�� n� ' � ��.- ��.I I :_r.l ` ��i � 'i��i :::: y • • � r� „�/ Fir� . � , i� �t�PI�� . �� Vv � x % : OF ��,.•. y+ + s +'•� t 4 S � �� ELY �` rn e VAR ��9 ]-28 Richard Peterson � � � '.� �,. � � �,,.� .� �� ''' ':� �� `� . �� `� �� . � � �� `��' � � � �� ♦,, :� � � .� i, � T �.,:�• � � �� . F� -� ;, � � � � � �• � �� .� `" ' ±� .c`�a� a� :, � � � �� ► I.T� � r�� a � �' ♦ 1 � � V �� . / j� � � u � , ��I • � • , 'I �' -. � \� � /�' ' ,2 � • �� • • . . ' �� •�•�•�� •� . �•� 4°�. . �� . � - �'�� l4% � � •4 � �� • t ' •, � ��«� ; •� � . ��'� %L%�! �i `J� � �; . ti •� � ♦ - • -•• �-.ii._�_, _ �.• � � �IGHTRV�f� W • ` �,�. �; 68........ .:��` ' � � .. .... ... . C ' � . � \t s., k t • ; • � • • � •�• • • � • • • �� ri;;; �, � a ti �i � ♦ • • • • • • • �O � � � � ,. � y� Q p • 1 ��\�� (�♦ �,��• ��1'� • • 139 •• �\ \ /� . �V . � �•ti ♦ ��Q • • �� ( °�. �5 � • � • • � • • �. •� I \ �� \\ � � � '•� y 6 ,� � � ,� b,1 ' �°l M �� • • 42 • . • ��i • 6 i � s . R0, y �! ��r� �� -�, ��,, �� . . 1 � ,ti � � �P : •,•��r.•. r� `a-� � , 1 �` ' 9 0�` .,.` : . . . `\_ o r�,� � \ . 0 1 ; . � �o Q.Q.S , � r�� \ F _ � 1" +� QF' e . � ' li � ; • �:;.i �.� k ti� • s •s ,( ♦ . �. ''S _ • •,•�� A�A -:; _ _ �;�, . ,► � ° r_ ' � -z• : �, i 2C ZONING MAP Staff Report VAR #91-28, 7939 East River Road Page 2 A. STATED HARDSHIP: "4 foot fence would not block out traffic on East River Road due to raised road." B. ADMINTSTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Request The petitioner requests a variance to increase the maximum height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet. The request is for Lots 4-6, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, the same being 7939 East River Road. Site Located on the property is a single family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are properties to the west, north, and east. The property to the south is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. A variance was granted in 1991 to allow construction of a 3 foot berm and a 4 foot fence to the adjacent property to the south. Analysis Section 205.04.06.A.(7j of the Fridley City Code requires that a fence, wall, or any natural hedge or closely planted vegetation that forms a barrier shall not exceed four (4) feet in height within the limits of the front yard in all residential districts. Public purpose served by this requirement is to prevent tall fences in order to maintain the attractability of a residential area. The petitioner requests the variance in order to construct a 6 foot high fence in the front yard to provide additional screening and privacy from traffic traveling on East River Road. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 6 foot high dog-eared cedar fence across the front of the property. Adequate area will be allowed at the ends of the fence to maintain the lawn in these areas. 2D Staff Report VAR #91-28, 7939 East River Road Page 3 The proposed fence would have minimal impact on traffic visibility or sight lines from adjacent properties; however, the intent of the Code is also to prevent a"stockade" appearance in the front yards of residential properties. The petitioner can construct a 4 foot ience to meet the Code, but wishes more sound protection. An alternative which the petitioner could consider would be to plant small trees, such as Crabapple or Russian Olive, which would provide increased privacy during the summer months. There are several properties along East River Road which have fences along the right-of-way, but most are in rear or side corner yards. While sound protection is understandable in this location, a combination of 4 foot fencing and evergreen trees is a legitimate alternative. Recommendation As the petitioner has reasonable use of the property and an alternative which would allow him to meet the Code requirement, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. Appeals Commission Action The Appeals Commisison voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. City Council Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the variance request. � 2E VAR ��91-28 Richard Peterson --�.-.-,. - - � +r - ;-2� � ' � � v . ' . � - ., � � . 6431' � .� � . , � ., _ c' ��i ., . � _ . ' , � ' � L .�� . . . . . . . ' " _ T � . , ' . . .. . . . . .1._ -R': _` . • . . . . . . . . . . . � Y,. ' • � - .. ' . - . - ..., . ' '?��.) . . . �� . '�• ' . . " . . ... � . . " ' '`LAND S��'i%�'1(ORS t��'. . r: � � ��r , t _ . 5,,�, �, EY FOR• Lice�sed,, ins��d� .�Boncl�;d .� � 3 _ �' ,sr . � ;:� " < �.. „�, . .. , �r,�_ ..� . . RDNER REALTY.,�& CONSTl�U.CTION � � ` �` � 1 ., <` ti• " r F I A �/� a :t�~` ' ' cr4 _ - , •.' �r� 1 ..� �V/ 7. . ' . �.} � � ry• � � f . . � J��.� , . � � � \� \ �� - : • � � - %56.80 - -- F N, /0 3.3v . ., �, . ~'- ^ ',� z6•3y I `�l? o - �!� :. Q ' � � ' � � �� . � '� ,, � � - : � __ �- � 0 � ✓;> -�;� �� , � 4 • � �'�'' .-__ �� ts� � � Q, _z7r 0 � 90 • ��. . �i~.= �a :�� . • i � , �p '� ��" � �3,L". 'l4. 33 i . � ,�, � ,�h , l74. 96 . I -- ' �L. DESCRlPTlON: LOTS 4� S AND C� BI.00K 3� SP.RING BROOK PARK. 'EREBY CERTI FY THAT ON THE �� TH DAY OF .JULY� 1973, WE LOCATED BUiLDiNG ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THAT THE ABOVE �ESENTATION 1S TRUE AND CORRECT. -a;�-sd`-''�L�-=- �-�-�1 •-�ll..�'�tJ _-- r��N►v. REG. No. •5648~ � 2F SiTE PLAN CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 L)NIVERSITY AVF�itJE N.E. FRIDLEY, I�Ild 55432 (612) 571-3450 �� i iii �� - •�� n:a� ��c�_. K�q,- � VARII�N�CE APPLIC:ATI�T �ORM PROPEIt'1'Y Il�iDI�TI�T - site plan required for sulsnittals; see attac�ed Adaress: '7 °/ 3� E{4.S i /'�v'�.` �P1) . 7�a1 description: l-oT� y� S �(, ��4aCi� 3. S�l1i�/( t�°��C p'�}4�'/� r .nt �/� s, � Blocac � Tract/Addition curre.nt zoning: � 1 Squ,are footage/acreage Reason for varianoe ar�d har,��t,;p; `� fT T'� 1,vavLA No� l3�� v't t�r�Fl��C o�1 �.,�.�. o.�� ;�. � ttA�s�o �ao . Section of City Code: _ � (�}" • (�ia (, O�IJ ___�_�..��_��_.r...�___�.... �D Iv�c�r � �2t �' GZ.,�r�jl4.c.c��,�_1!� :rl • 18i' � I • '+ h �l (Contract Purrhasers: Fee Owners must �� this foxm prior to prooessing) 1QAN� 1�IC' i�✓�v2[� ��%Y'a°Sc? ►'� �s `7i�`i ,E _ �'. ,�D, _ �i��y , �t�- SS`Y .3J� nAx�cn� � 7�� -- � i.�j . SIC�[�IPfITJRE 7�-� <��"a DATE 8/5 a`i j T �I�IQQZ �� ......« ................�.« N�1ME .5 r'-��'1 t? /� j� �G V t� • � �,• �. [.`��r�ta l li � • 4�i�_ ...�.�I�+ 0 ...» .......................................................�.....,......,...................,.........................r........................,........,........................,..,.,........,...............................,.... Fee: $100.00 - $ 60.00 for residential properties Permit VAR # � � Re�eipt_�Lf- � �- / � A�lication received by: scne�itea Appeals co�mmissi.on Scheduled City Council date: . � 9• � -9� ��_��_..��___��_��.,.�.,.�..��..��.....,��_��.r.r...��..��.�..�.,.��_��.,.�...�..� 2G APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 6 � 3. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #91-28, BY RICHARD PETERSON- Per Section 205.04.06.A.(7) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet on Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, the same being 7939 East River Road. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:06 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located on the east side of East River Road, one house north of 79th Way. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. The property to the south is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and there is additional R-1 zoning to the north and east of the subject property. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a variance in order to construct a 6 foot high fence in the front yard to provide additional screening and privacy from traffic on East River Road. Adequate area will be allowed at the ends of the fence to maintain the lawn area. �. Ms. McPherson stated that whi�e the fence would have minimal impact on traffic visibility or sight lines from the adjacent properties, the intent of the code. is to prevent a"stockade�' appearance in the front yards of residential properties. The petitioner could construct a 4 foot fence to meet the Code; however, he does wish to provide a little more sight and sound protection from East River Road traffic. Ms. McPherson stated an alternative suggested by staff for a previous similar request is to plant small trees which would provide increased privacy during the sumnier months. There are several properties along East River Road which do -have fences along the right-of-way; however, most of those fences are in rear or side corner yards. A combination of 4 foot fencing and evergreen trees would be a legitimate alternative for the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner does have reasonable use of the property and does have an alternative that would allow him to meet the Code requirement; therefore, staff is recommending the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the variance request. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission did have a similar variance request earlier this year for a 4 foot fence on a 3 foot berm for the property directly south and adjacent to the subject property. 2H a � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 7 Mr. Peterson stated he has lived in this house since 1984. He not only lives on East River Road, but has a service road in front of his house, so he has two roads to deal with. He has a unique situation in that in these three blocks along East River Road, only two houses face East River Road. Most of the houses face city streets. His lot is very low. East River Road is set up higher than his property, and the construction of a 4 foot fence would not even cover the shoulder of the road. Two additional feet would be enough to cover the traffic. � Mr. Peterson stated he has two small boys� and a 6 foot fence would help deter them from going out into the street. There will be about 32-33 feet between the two ends of his driveway, so there would be adequate room for any emergency vehicles. He stated he has planted some evergreens. Trees would provide some privacy during the summer months, but not in the winter months. He would like to plant more maple trees for aesthetic reasons and for shade. Mr. Peterson stated that as far as noise, he can deal with that, but he really wants more privacy. He really feels his house is on display to the traffic. He stated he has talked to his neighbors, and they do not have any objection to the fence. Ms. 5avage stated she is concerned that if the City grants this variance, then everyone along East River Road can also come in and ask for a 6 foot fence along East River. Road. However, she did understand the desire to have a fence along East River Road. Dr. Vos stated that the terrain of the highway and the service road are much higher along the area where Mr. Peterson lives than along the rest of East River Road to the south. Mr. McPherson stated that is true; however, this variance request could not only apply to people living along East River Road, but could apply to people living along any other city street (7th Street is an example) that has high traffic volumes. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to --close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY Ms. Savage stated that she had requested a copy of the minutes for a similar variance at 7905 East River Road which the Commission approved on May 28, 1991. She is concerned that since they had recommended approval of that variance, should the Commission, in fairness, recommend approval of this one. She stated she did have a very strong concern about setting a precedent for allowing a 6 foot fence due to the hardship of traffic. Granted, the traffic is a hardship and she understands the petitioner's position in wanting to have that protection and privacy from the traffic, but !� m APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEFTEMBER 3, 1991 PAGE 8 � she is not comfortable in recommending approval of this variance because it would be setting a precedent. She stated that the planting of evergreens could achieve the same purpose. In comparing this variance request with the one at 7905 East River Road, the property at 7905 East River Road is somewhat different in that it is on a corner lot, it is closer to the traFfic signal, and there is business property across East River Road. She would reluctantly recommend denial of the variance. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with the spirit of the Code to prevent tall fences in order to maintain the attractabi.lity of a residential area. Staff's example of 7th Street is a good example, because if everyone along 7th Street was allowed to have 6 foot fences in the front yard, there would be a"stockade" effect. However, in this case, the Petersons are being unfairly put upon. Almost everyone else along East River Road in this area can put up a 6 foot fence strictly because the homes face city streets. So, there couZd be a stockade effect anyway. She would be in favor of recommending approval, although she agreed with Ms. Savage that she did not want set a precedent for 6 foot fences in front yards. Mr. Kuechle stated he agreed with Ms. Smith. This situation is unique enough and the hardship is severe enough to make this allowance. Comparing 7th Street to East River Road is not quite in the same league. He would recommend approval of the variance. Dr. Vos stated that what convinced him to vote in favor of this variance is that East River Road is much higher at this point, and Mr. Peterson's home is one of the homes affected by that. That is not true up and down East River Road. A 4 foot fence would not do much as far as privacy. The petitioner had no control over the height of the road. As far as a stockade effect, there is a service road plus the petitioner's home is set back 11 feet from the curbline, so there is quite a distance from the property to East River Road. MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #91�-28, by Richard Peterson, per Section 205.04.06.A.(7) of the Fridley City Code, to increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet on Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 3, Spring Brook Park, the same being 7939 East River Road. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SMITH, RUECHLE, AND VOS VOTING AYE, SAVAGE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-1. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on September 30, 1991. 2J r � � J DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Development Department PI�E�NNING DIVISION City of Fridley October 3, 1991 William Burns, City Manager �•'�'a. Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Variance Request, VAR #91-29, by Skyline Veterinary Clinic; 6220 Highway 65 N.E. Attached please find the above referenced staff report. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this variance request to the City Council. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request as the petitioners have an alternative which allows them to meet Code. MM:ls M-91-729 � � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE sePtember 17, 1991 CITYOF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE F��.� CiTY COUNCIL DATE october 7, 1991 AuT� Ng+�1/ls REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES & ZONING UTILiTtES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMRLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBIL{TY W{TH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISStON RECOMMENOATION VAR #91-29 Ken Speltz; Rich Kleinaw Zb reduce the front yard setback froan 80 feet to 48 feet 6220 Highway 65 20,121 sq. ft.; 15�.existi.ng lot oaverage, 21� pra�ased C-3, General Shopping Center C-3, General Shopping Center Denial Approval tNER � I!' I ' I i i � [ � v • `�_ - � I VAR 4�91-29 Skyline Vet. S �/2 S�"C. /3; C/TY OF FR/OL 14 /6 ' � �s /7 �Jq 1 J./ �1�� , �y� � � L _��. � �N�� ■ � � �' J !I) ; a, . Y w.. � Z � � WO� ro If(`p ,`(r�; 3B LOCATIQN MAP ± �'��t •l►�II►�[t�►��I�\_ Staff Report VAR #91-29, 6220 Highway 65 N.E. Page 2 A. STATED HARDSHIP: "Remodeling would be too cost prohibitive without the variance . �� B: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Request The petitioners request that a variance be granted to reduce the required front yard setback from 80 feet to 48 feet. The request is for Lot 2, Block 1, Herwal Second Addition, the same being 6220 Highway 65 N.E. Site Located on the property is a single story brick commercial building currently used as a veterinary hospital and boarding kennel. The property is zoned C-3, General Shopping, as are all adjacent properties. Analysis Section 205.15.03.C.1 states that all permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks, and planting spaces shall not be closer to any public right-of-way than 80 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide desired front yard space to be used for green areas and to add to the attractability of a commercial zone. The required front setback in the C-3, General Shopping, district is 80 feet. However, variances to 55 feet have been granted for the subject parcel, the Miller Funeral Home to the south, and the Moore Lake Office complex to the north. The petitioners are requesting a greater variance to 48 feet which will allow the subj ect building to encroach a greater distance toward Highway 65. The purpose of the front addition is to provide a larger waiting reception area and additional office space. The petitioners, in addition to the proposed front addition, are also proposing an addition to the rear of tYie building. The petitioners have the option of adding the needed space to the rear of the building without requiring a variance. In addition, the petitioners have reasonable use of the property without granting the variance. No additional parking spaces will be required; the site provides adequate parking for the facility including the addition. 3D Staff Report VAR #91-29, 6220 Highway 65 N.E. Page 3 Recommendation As the petitioners have reasonable use of the property and have an alternative which allows them to meet Code, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. Appeals Commission Action The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. City Council Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request as the petitioners have reasonable use of the property and can meet the Code. 3E M � - �!.! . r..;;'�J� 4:�� !:� M:� � �`�� Y.� 1:� �:�' r �F�`}�: . n � 0 r�w�.p w�t O t.,.; ;y .;.t.�. fV�.� .� .` .''O .t .� .� . ,., t:; :; :,:, ° :; :; :; : .00'S ,00'00 T � �:�-� .:;.:;.:;.:;:-, :';JJ��J• � +Y:� M:� � ^�IV:i i ��l' � �f� �i 1:� I:�h:7�:�t:� �. � �-'�'ty!.�, J.' `� ; ;t ��:� �':. �:; �:;�,:.:,�:, } J :! .:; ,:; t:• �s�� ` ti'� `•.� .,t ,` .� ,1 � �'t '� 't '� �'. '. 't '. '� 00 c � s. � a �aamase� a��bas � � 3 a, � A ,r,�� -�?tJ � � r fef;;?e;?e�e� ; � . � � ;. � �� `� ! �: '�f��:'I':'I':'% �.'/; �:'I�. �f / f�I�l�� !;��i�� i!' f f`�`� � � � �o N � � u ... A (� U o �' Q�9 a � �� « o.d� a, a o � a� 0 N u � a� � u � VAR 4�91-29 Skyline Vet. A•9f 9 iSTING FLOOR PLAN i VAR �91-29 Skyline Vet. ,r- CIR'Y OF �T�T � 6431 U11IVIItSITY AVIIVIJE N. E. FRZDLEY, l�T 55432 � (612) 571-3450 PImPERTY II�TIO�i — site � .. � ?� . . - � �� ii �ii _��_ rl ��:i '_ �,� n:a� ��:.�_. K�u_u� required for suYm.ittal..s: see attac�ed �� i l z,�gal aescription: " I�ot Blocac Tract/Acldition �� „�� e,R �, durrent zoning: t-�� ,��, Square faotage/acreage _�� ,,_q �� Rea��on for variarx�e ar�d t�arr��,; p; �,,,Q.v� �� /`��` `� �-�-� 1(�c.��.-e'G o�'--�-'�-% Sectioa� of City dode: %S� J�o . D�7 � � ...........................,......,..........., v lo Y�Jcai�,i -�d�y�___��__S�1'!t�-�K--�Yow� �' Ma��,�...��: .��a• ;�v►, M .�� • `rI (tbntract Purchasers: Fee Owners x�aust sign this form prior to pr�essing) �r��i � � . .��.� � � i � �� • � i • • i . . � r, r� � /� _ \_�i --.._ / _��: � • � .' _ � - ' �r: u� S '��'�'- ��/� , C-'C'��C7 1-- �� r►►_ � 1; � . , �� -� �:� : / t �• � ► • • � /� �• Fee: $100.00 $ 60.00 " for residential properties P�xmit VAR # 1' � - Z ! Receipt # � j ��- � Application reoeived by: Scheduled Appeals Carnnission date: J, Scheduled City Council date: 31 CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 ��_��_��_��__��___��_��_��_»��__� CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Savage called the September 17, 1991, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Diane Savage, Ken Vos, Cathy Smith, Carol Beaulieu Members Absent: Larry Kuechle Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assis"tant Bruce & Suzanne Hanley, 132 Alden Circle Richard Kleinow, Skyline Veterinary Clinic Ken Speltz, Skyline Veterinary Clinic APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 3 1991 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve the September 3, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #91-29 BY KENNETH SPELTZ AND RIGH KLEINOW SKYLINE VETERINARY HOSPITAL: Per Section 205.15.03.C.1 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required front yard setback from 80 feet to 48 feet to allow the construction of an addition, on Lot 2, Block 1, Herwal Second Addition, the same being 622a Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located north of West Moore Lake, west of Highway 65, and directly north of the Miller Funeral Home. The Moore Lake Office condos are located directly to the north. The property is zoned C-3, General Shopping, as are all adjacent properties. 3J APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 80 sq. ft. to 40 sq. ft. to allow an addition to the front of the veterinary hospital. The property currently has a variance from 80 feet to 55 feet as do the Miller Funeral Home to the south and the Moore Lake Of f ice condos to the north . The petitioners are proposing a new waiting area, storage space, and larger reception, office, and lounge areas. They are also �,proposing an addition to the rear of the building. One of staff's alternatives is that the petitioners build all the additional space to the rear of the structure which they can do without a variance. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners currently have reasonable use of the property without the variance so denying the variance would not constitute a taking. However, the site would provide enough parking for the facility if the additions are constructed. Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioners have reasonable use of the property and have an alternative which allows them to meet the Code requirements, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the variance. Mr. Ken Speltz, Skyline Veterinary Clinic, stated they are requesting to make some internal changes in the front part of the building that can't be made anywhere else in the building, because they can't move their reception area or waiting area to the rear of the building. The majority of what they need has to be in the front part of the building. To move the internal changes to the middle or the rear of the building is literally impossible. The addition to the rear of the building is for more boarding area. Since they already have a 55 foot variance, they are only asking for an additional 7 feet. In looking at some of the other setbacks in this area, the setbacks vary, except for the three properties which are the same at 55 feet. Mr. Richard Kleinow, Skyline Veterinary Clinic, stated they do not have reasonable use of the property, because they cannot put the office space in back of the building without reversing the whole plan. The denial of this variance request would add a huge financial hardship on them. Ms. Savage asked if there is any way to expand to the side of the building on the south. Mr. Speltz stated that would be a possibility, but expanding to the south would interfere with the turning radius for the parking area along the north side of the property line. This driveway is also the only entrance they have to the parking area. Mr. Kleinow stated that with the proposed plan, they will only lose one parking space. If they expanded to the south, they would lose about six parking spaces. With the proposed plan, they will lose �K _ . . _ APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 3 a little green area in front, but they will be putting on a new modern front which should add to the aesthetics of the area. Mr. Speltz stated they have been in this location for 22 years and have not done a major facelift to the.building in that time, and now is a good time. He believed what they are proposing will look good. Ms. McPherson stated she had done some research of other front yard setbacks in this area. Maple Lanes is very close to the street, but it was built in 1958 and there is no record of a variance. Video Update (former Chanticleer Pizza) meets or exceeds the 80 foot setback, and Sinclair Station is about 45 feet from the street. Mr. Kleinow stated that, currently, they have a large sign out front. If they take down the sign and put nice lettering on the entrance to the building, would that help aesthetically? Maybe that is something the City can consider. Mr. Speltz stated the owners of the Miller Funeral Home have no problem with the variance request. Tom Brickner did have an objection initially, but after the plan was explained to him, he no longer objected to it. Mr. Speltz stated that as far as losing green area, part of the front yard landscaping is rock, so with the addition, they are looking at only losing about 1 foot of green area. Ms. Savage stated that if the variance is approved, will this satisfy the petitioners' need for more space or will they have to look for another site in the near future? Mr. Speltz stated they are outgrowing their space, but this addition would be fine for at least another 10-15 years. They like this area, they have built up a good reputation in this area, and people know where they are. - MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Ms. Smith stated she would be inclined to vote in favor of the variance request. The property is very well kept. The additional 7 feet would not make much difference in the appearance of the property, other than to upgrade it. She did not see that a 7 foot variance would create any problems and did not think the building will look much different after the expansion. Ms. Beaulieu stated she agreed with Ms. Smith. 3L APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 4 Dr. Vos stated he did have some difficulty with the hardship, because it is essentially a hardship of economics and growth. There isn't anything unique about this property that makes it possible only to go out to the front, except how the building was designed originally, which is that the waiting or reception area cannot be in the rear or on the side of the building. He stated he will vote in favor of the variance for the following reasons: (1) Skyline Veterinary Hospital has been a good neighbor in the City of Fridley; (2) There are no objections from the property owners of the buildings to the south and north; and (3) This is not a large expansion, and they are really only going from 55 feet to 48 feet. Ms. Savage stated she agreed. It is a very attractive building and the area in front of the building is well kept. She agreed that this amount of expansion is not going to have a big impact on the appearance or aesthetics of the space. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-29, by Skyline Veterinary Hospital, per Section 205.15.03.C.1 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required front yard setback from 80 feet to 48 feet to allow the construction of an addition, on Lot 2, Block 1, Herwal Second Addition, the same being 6220 Highway 65 N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on October 7, 1991. - 2. SUZANNE HANLEY• Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3� reduce the required rear y feet, to allow the constru< the west 130 feet of Lot 31, same being 132 Alden Circle .(a) of the Fridley City Code, to �rd setback from 25 feet to 18.7 ion of a three-season porch, on uditor's Subdivision No. 77, the E. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by\Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CiiA RPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING PEN AT 8:00 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is 1 of Alden Circle and 71 i/2 Way, nort Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1 as are all surrounding parcels. 3M cated at the intersection of the Riverwood Park , Single Family Dwelling, r � � � Community Development Department PI.��1�T1vING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 3, 1991 � `� ' TO: William Burns, City Manager �. FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Variance Request, VAR #91-30, by Bruce and Suzanne Hanley; 132 Alden Circle Attached please find the above referenced staff report. The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 18.7 feet. The Appeals Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of this variance request to the City Council. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request as the petitioners have an alternative which allows them to meet Code. MM:ls M-91-730 3N � � STAFF REPORT . APPEALS DATE sePt-��r 17, 1991 CITY OF PLAN�IING COMMISSi�I DATE FRIDLEY cmr c,ou�vc;�� oA� o�� . 1991 ,,��., r�vls REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES & ZONING UTI�ITIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION VAR #91-30 Bruce and Suzanne Hanley Z+o reduce the re�r yard setback from 25 feet t,o 18.7 feet 132 Alden Circle 8,494.5 sq. ft.; 17$ current lot ooverage; 18.9� proposed � 1�1, Single Fa�nily Dwelling �-1, Single Family Dwelling Denial Approval • '2 SEC C/TY � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � . �o, r. 30, R. 2 4 OF FR/OLEY :-� � ; 8 ,o � : \�� .' ,\ ,: : • �=v; �'- ' ��8� � 43 3P t VAR 4�9 ]-30 Bruce Hanley � .. � � , '! 1 ■ a�J�, i �� , �. OCATI4N MAP � � VAR ��91-30 Bruce Hanley ,�,:�,t�.� � o00a1� � � ►�. . p0 2� !2 1.7 14 25 6 �? ID Il i � • � � � E K N �� a �y ��R E q .3S Z 7 � D � i - - - 3/ `.'e3 % � �1 � 2 ? � j � 1 ! '{ � 1 3 �'� S i j � a :� i0 i / a O� � 3 I]' I I � !, � s � J RIVERW w0�% • a � � 6 � 6 i� � � % ,r r � s e ! N' � � . i . 71 &i WAi E ' t AR/ON S p � A �O"/ /Z /3 �9 ; S 6 � 3 7ERR Cf i ! ; . N0. 7 7 : � , 2� ; � ' I' ( ;� . . .;� � � � GIRL SCOUTS � / � • : / � �AMP LOCKSI.EA �� Z l I � � % � i , I _ _ --- 1---reY 3Q ze I � � �I a�� -, �� -. -: .��►�°�'�� . �;. �',. , 0 f r � � � E � f� i i � � i� ro j� ii I �z /3 � �� f ;'µ:� �c � � n �8 �? �} 1' 3 4, 1 -- - �----� ZONING MAP Staff Report VAR #91-30, 132 Alden Circle Page 2 A. STATED HARD6HIP: "Im�rove value; insects; privacy; expansion" B. ACNIINIS'I�2ATIVE S"I'AFF RE�TIEW: Request The petitioners request that a variance be granted to reduce the required rear yard setback fr�n 25 feet to 18.7 feet in o�ler to oonstruct an enclosed three season porch. The request is for the west 130 feet of L�t 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, the same being 132 Alden Circle. Site Lcx-.ated on the propezty is a single family dwelling with an attached two car garage. The rear yard is fenced with a 7 foot high wood privacy fence. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all adjacent propexties . Analysis Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) requires a rear yard depth of not less than 25% of the lot depth with not less than 25 feet pennitted or more than 40 feet required for the main building. Public purpose served by this request is to pravide rear yard space to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood. The petitioners are proposirig to corYVert an existing deck to a three season porrh. (DeGlcs are allawed to enrx�oach 10 feet into the required setback area.) The proposed addition would not i�act sight line.s for traffic. The petitioners have reasonable use of the property without the proposed addition and have the alternative to build a detached gazebo in the rear Y�• Reca�m�xidation As the petitioners have reasonable use of the property arid also have an alternative which would allaw them to meet Code, staff re.c�mnends that the Appeals Ca�annission reco�unerxi denial of the request to the City Council. Appeals Connnission Actiion The Appeals Co�nission voted 3-1 to reco�unend approval of the request to the City Council. City Council Reca�nendation Staff rer.�m�nds that the City Council deny the request as the petitioners can meet the Code and have reasonable use of the property. � KURTH SURVEYING, INC. 1EFFERSON S t. N.E. IM81A HEIGHTS 55421 VAR ��91-30 ��v . / 788•976� [OY CiRTI►Y TMAT TNIf iURVLY, rLAN, OR R[rORT WA� ►R�rARtD •Y MQ 01� UNDER MY OIR[CT SUKRVI/!ON 'NAT 1 AM A OULY /KOI�TtRtO t,/►NO �URV[Y0�1 UND[R TN� tJ�Wf 0/ TM[ �TAT[ Or MINM<tOTA - �• � � . „ , � DATE _ JO('. -.- . � .� , . �.�.�`�-� -� '- � SCALE 1"= �__ C�` INE TA �REGISTRATION NO. 5332 0= IRON MONUMENT Fo:� � e�:._��",'._� `_.c:.,/=,�'�.^r� �.�-.+� •� 4Jesterly 130 feet of Lat 3�,Revised Auditors Subdivisior No. 77, Anoka County, �linnesota. Subject to a road�vay easment over the westerly 25 feet. � _ __ , � � � � . - . _. _- . ' 1 �p �, � - ; _, . :, � �-.� C: -- . --- ___ - --- --_ �. z� � ` . , = _ _ . -Y i ! I i � � ;-- J �';i L U _1 �� --> � �J , �-- c!' � 11 5 -' - _ ' _� � � I � � � _� � ( i �1. 1 ,, , i � ` ', ' y ••�1 `� . -� , � _� . � ,.r..,`- - .. �� ' , �_�---.__. '�� 3s SITE PLAN CITY OF FRIDI,��C 6431 iA�IIVERSITY AVEN[JE N.E. FRIDIEY, I�I 55432 (612) 571-3450 •� n ni �� .� �_a a •;. n:a� �_ �•__ ti�n,a� VARIANC� AP�L.ZC?iTl�i FI�RM PROPERTY II��ORl�TI�i - site plan required for submittals; see attadled ��: �3 � 7I � �. QD��_��,v � I�gal description: L� 13 a � o'I �� . .�� - 'i % . . / • .,. . � - . . „., � /��i . - .. ..- .« -..- . . .- , . . / . . ! .�.I . �, i . ��'- � -i �1. ��_ . � � � i.�� - - �� = . . •.. - (C�ontract Pumllasers: Fee Owners moust sign r� i foYm prior to prooe.,ssir�g) • �, � � i I n� _ g"- �4 �-� � x�r� • ��• �. r�_ ��:� �� • � i • • i n� g' -,3 a —q / Fee: $100.00 $ 60.00 for residential properties P�ennit VAR # � 1- � x� Receipt # �/�� Application reaeived by: V s�n�ea �is ��, a��: �' � 719 I sc�edulea city co�ar�cil aate: 3T �/�/�� aRc� �� ; �� hus b��, c� C-� � �,nd � ac �. � � �� -l-� I� `� c� �; h �� . c� � l � n e� a n'i'h �� a� �- � �� , ��,Id 1�, �� 6� �p�S � ;-� `� �e ��wn i� e ��. S ��r � s %cl� o-� ��- �� .a o b `e c��a�n � � � 4� c�, �� P � � �-0 1n�.� 1 cl �n �� s �- � : c� � Q � �.�.; c— � (��I S �. , �C`��,� � �la�, n ; �c��,�--�-�-e� t 1 � -- `l I `��. U� �r ; c� 1 �- � N �'� �l � � �7 �i 9'�-3 � 3U APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 4 Dr. Vos stated he did have because it is essentially There isn't anything unique possible only to go out to th� designed originally, which is cannot be in the rear or on t he will vote in favor of the � (1) Skyline Veterinary Hospi City of Fridley; (2) There a owners of the buildings to the a large expansion, and they a: 48 feet. some difficulty with the hardship, hardship of economics and growth. about this property that makes it front, except how the building was that the waiting or reception area side of the building. He stated i iance for the following reasons: ta has been a good neighbor in the re no objections from the property so th and north;�and (3) This is not -e eally only going from 55 feet to Ms. Savage stated she agreed. It i a very attractive building and the area in front of the building 's well kept. She agreed that this amount of expansion is not goi g to have a big impact on the appearance or aesthetics of the spa e. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to recommend to City Council approval of variance reque t, VAR �#91-29, by Skyline Veterinary Hospital, per Section 205. 5.03.C.1 of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required front yar setback from 80 feet to 48 feet to allow the construction of an a dition, on Lot 2, Block 1, Herwal Second Addition, the same being 6220 Highway 65 N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. SAVAGE DECLARED THE Ms. McPherson stated this item will go t� City Council on October 7, 1991. - 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE UEST VAR 91-30 BY BRUCE AND SUZANNE HANLEY• Per Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to 18.7 feet, to allow the construction of a three-season porch, on the west 130 feet of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, the same being 132 Alden Circle N.E. MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Ms. Smith, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TIiE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located at of Alden Circle and 71 1/2 Way, north of the Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Single as are all surrounding parcels. 3V the intersection Riverwood Park Family Dwelling, APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners are proposing to enclose an existing open deck located off the rear of the dwelling unit in order to create a three-season porch. The Code does allow the encroachment of open decks and other facilities, such as vestibules and stairways, into the setback area. The proposed porch would not impact any sight lines from adjacent properties. The property to the east has a side/rear yard which faces the petitioners' property. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioners have an alternative to construct a detached gazebo which would serve a similar function as the three-season porch, and the petitioners do have reasonable use of the property without a three-season porch. Ms . McPherson stated that as the petitioners do have reasonable use of the property and have an alternative which allows them to meet Code, staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of this request. Ms. McPherson stated the lot size is 8,494 sq. ft. Mr. Bruce Hanley, 132 Alden Circle, stated the lot is small. Basically, they would like to improve the value of the lot and use the space they have more effectively. The house is a bi-level house. The garage is on the south, and behind the garage is a cement patio. The existing deck is raised and off the master bedroom. They want to enclose the deck to alleviate heat loss problems because of the sliding glass doors, and they want to make more effective use of the house. A gazebo would not be a very practical alternative. A gazebo would be detached from the house and they would either have to go down the steps of the deck or go out the back garage door to even get to a gazebo. Mr. Hanley stated that it is about 39 feet from their lot line to the side of the neighbor's house to the east. They also have a letter from these neighbors, Gary and Melonni Schantzen, 115 - 71 1/2 Way, which states that they have no objections to the variance and the construction of the three-season porch. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to receive into the record a letter from Gary and Melonni Schantzen, 115 - 71 1/2 Way, dated September 17 , 1991, stating they have no obj ection to the three-season porch proposed by Bruce and Suzanne Hanley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hanley stated it would also be much more practical to wire the three-season porch than to try to wire a gazebo in the rear of the yard, Ms. Hanley stated a gazebo would also not be a three-season gazebo. 3W APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PAGE 6 Mr. Hanley stated that regarding sight lines, the house most affected is 110 Alden Circle, and they have not expressed any objection. He stated the Riverwood Subdivision has very nice homes, and he believed this addition will add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Ms. Hanley stated the three-season porch will be constructed of the same building materials as the house and will look like an extension of the house. Dr. Vos asked if it is possible for a three-season porch to be built behind the garage over the existing concrete patio. Ms. Hanley stated that is not a practical alternative because the laundry room and a bathroom are on that side of the house. Mr. Hanley stated a porch behind the garage would also go over the exit door to the garage. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Smith, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:12 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she is going to abstain from any discussion and vote. Mr. Hanley is a criminal defense attorney and she is a prosecuting attorney and they have worked together on cases in the past. She would be more comfortable not being involved in any decisions on this variance request. ' Ms. Beaulieu stated the petitioners live in her neighborhood. The hardship is because of the way the house was built on the lot. If the house faced 71 1/2 Way, then a variance would not be needed. She stated the property is always immaculate. The backyard is fenced, and she did not think anyone would even �otice the three- season porch. She would vote in favor of the variance. Dr. Vos stated the neighbor to the east is approximately 39 feet from the petitioners' lot line and adding another 18 feet, that puts about 55 feet between the petitioners' house and the house to the east. As Ms. Beaulieu mentioned, part of the hardship is the way the house is situated on the lot, and if 71 1/2 Way was the front yard, the petitioners would not need a variance. The lot is also quite small. He stated he, too, would vote in favor of the variance request. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with both Ms. Beaulieu and Dr. Vos. 3X APPEAL3 COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17 1991 PAGE 7 MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Dr. Vos, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #91-30, by Bruce and Suzanne Hanley, per Section 205.07.0.3.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to 18.7 feet, to allow the construction of a three-season porch, on the west 130 feet of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, the same being 132 Alden Circle N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, BEAULIEII, VOS, AND SMITH VOTING AYE, SAVAGE ABSTAINING, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to Council on October 7, 1991. ADJOURNMENT- MOTION by Ms. Smith, seconded by Dr. Vos, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Savage declared the September 17, 1991, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 8:30 P•m- Res ectfully s bmitted, �� Lyn Saba Recording Secretary 3Y r _ � DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Backqround Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley October 3, 1991 William Burns, City Manager Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Resolution Authorizing Construction of a Garage Within a Utility Easement; by Wayne Johnson of 6051 - 3rd Street N.E. On May 16, 1988, the City Council approved the vacation request, SAV #87-07, to vacate the alley to the east of Lots 25 and 26, Block 5, Hyde Park. This vacation was in conjunction with the variance request in order to construct a garage within the vacated alley. Stipulation #1 required the petitioner to retain a utility easement over the vacated alley. Stipulation #3 of the vacation request required "passage of a resolution by the City Council authorizing a specified distance of encroachment in retained easement and the City's conveyance of east half of alley to owners west of alley". Proposed Resolution The memorialization process for the vacated alley has been completed. The attached resolution is to conform with City Council direction in 1988. The property owner has advised me that he does intend to pursue the revised site plan showing the garage along the south lot line one foot from the rear lot line and three feet from the side lot line on the south. The property owner has agreed to obtain a letter from the property owner to the south and submit it to my attention prior to issuance of a building permit. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution and approve the amended site plan to be incorporated as Exhibit A of the resolution. BD/dn M-91-738 RESOLUTION NO. - 1991 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WITHIN A IITILITY EASEMENT OVER THE VACATED ALLEY EAST OF LOTS 25 AND 26, BLOCR 5, HYDE PARR WHEREAS, Wayne A. Johnsan and Mary C. Johnson have petitioned to construct a garage on the property legally described as Lots 25 and 26, Block 5, Hyde Park; and ' WHEREAS, variance and vacation requests were filed; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 16, 1988 approved a vacation request, SAV #87-07, to vacate a 12 foot alley in Block 5, Hyde Park, lying north of the south line of Lot 22, and Lot 9 to the south right-of-way line of 61st Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Appeals Commission approved a variance on May 10, 1988 to construct a 22' x 40' garage within one foat of the rear lot line and three feet of the side lot line now created by vacation of the 12 foot alley; and WHEREAS, vacation request, SAV #87-07, required a utility easement to be retained over the entire portion of the vacated alley; and WHEREAS, the vacation request, SAV #87-07, required the garage location contingent upon passage of a resolution by the City Council authorizing a specified distance of encroachment into the retained easement; and WHEREAS, the petitioner has completed the necessary memorialization process to add the 12 foot alley to the certificate of title for the property; and WHEREAS, there are no City-maintained utilities located immediately underground or underneath said utility easement;_ and WHEREAS, there are overhead NSP wires; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to allow Wayne A. Johnson and Mary C. Johnson to construct the garage and to encroach upon the City's easement upon the following terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and agreed by the City of Fridley and Wayne A. Johnson and Mary C. Johnson as follows: 1. The City grants to the Johnson's the right to construct the detached garage over the utility easement as depicted in the site plan shown in Exhibit A which is attached hereto as though incorporated in full. . . Resolution No. - 1991 Page 2 2. In the event of an emergency, the City may without notice remove, alter, or dismantle said garage on its own accord. The City shall have no liability to Wayne A. Johnson and Mary C. Johnson for any injuries or damages which they may sustain as a result of the removal of the garage. 3. Wayne A. Johnson and Mary C. Johnson agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability, damages, or threatened litigation which the City may incur arising out of the usage of the garage. 4. Wayne A. Johnson and Mary C. Johnson further agree that if the garage becomes damaged or is removed due to the utilization ` by the City of its rights in the easement, the City shall have no liability or obligation to repair or restore said garage. 5. This resolution shall be binding upon Wayne A. Johnson and Mary C. Johnson and their heirs and successors in interest. 6. At the time that the garage is removed, the rights under this resolution shall automatically terminate. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1991. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK - . � i--- , -- i, . � � . ~� , . ��INDTR ENGINEERING CO.,INC. ENGI NEE.RS AND SUR�/EYORS u.+o ava�itY�..+o 901L, TESTINd CiVIL {r A.jUNIG10AL ENOIN(E41N4 LANO PLN.ININO 641d-SGT" AvENUE N. , � �- � ' i I�AINNEAPOL�S 2T, MINN. KE 7- 3637 . . 1C Q.' i��'i R.� It �[�� i � �� IF �� fN �`��! ` f1 * , � . . �� j � ' . . A ' . ' �� /4� ;a v � i1 'v� '' , � , . . � - � � �4e�ie..osw�...Ian...w.�....... �. r �. . � � � '' 6C 63 � 3�►.n. . w�L. � � . ' . 12 9 .�j 1�1PnS � I 12°...4 Pta} � .� V'. �`r �� qr Y� I V L� (d.14 � . � , ;� ,. � ' Sca(e�. ( :3� °Cenc��s. iron � o� s i-' w w a o. �� U� 0 Q M,. ;� - �� I � � � � - -� .� � O -7 � 25 � 26 , FRC• Pr<< � �UtLCIN3 a� �_1. -_� ____--- -�� °'i �� + _ a�iX�� ___ �= - � �� = .„ ;- � � I Zg. �� ;,:,• . 1� a.2? r-t:�; � � scv'� �B�ocK 5 , NY�� ,��K l � �/�/ "'� ''EQEDY CERTIFY THAT TMtS 15 A TRUE M10 CORR£GT REPRiSENTA;10t�! OF I� SUQVEY OF TH� 80UNppS2tE� �F TME � r+�ovE OESCRtBE� AKO OF THE IoCATiON OF �u. ButIO�NGS � IF A�Y, THEREON , Ar�O 14'_ v�i��1LE ENCQOACNtriE"l75, �`�� ,�.;Y, fQOM os�oN s�►o u�r�v. MINOER tNGIT��ER�'�1G �.v., INC. YN K. • II pwtFD TN�1�i_, C�•�f oc �C.-T I�o.t7jq ENG1�.jA 0.� 1►NO i"�"['fOR.4-7 . � � t 2 0 � ; , },..�.,,,, �_� �,,.�,i � � � - �+ � I !�� i� I � � 10A � � C[TYOF FRtDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY. MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 QTY m[INCIL : MY �,► : ��► ►!/ « Wayne Johnson 11610 - 53rd Avenue North Minneapolis, NII�1 55442 May 23, 1988 On May 16, 1988 the Fridley City Council officially approved your req�aest for Vacation, SAV #87-07, to vacate tl� w�esterly half of the alley in Slock 5, eyde Park, lying North of the South line of Lot 22, extpnded Easterly and South of the North line of_Lot 30, extended Easterly, all lying East of and adjoining'Lots 22 - 39, Block 5, eyde Park, generally located between 61st Avenue, 68th Avenue and between 3rd Street arul University Av�ue with the follawing stipulation: 1. A utility eas�nent to be retained over the entire portion of the vacated alley. 2. Petitioner to install a hardsurface drive to 3rd Street in conjunction with construction of the garage. � 3. Garage location oontingent upon passage of a resolutior► by Council authorizing a specified distance of encroactunent into retained easement and the City's oonveyance of east half of alley to owners west of alley. 4. Fetitioner to escrow funds with Public Works Department sufficient to cover curb work for cut an 3rd Street. 5. A�npster to be fully s�reened. 6• Lands�aPin9 to be installed on the east side of the garage once completed to screen from University Av�ue. 7. Proper p�wer line c2earance must be maintained upon garage co�istructi�, 8 feet for over a flat roof, 4 feet aver a flat roof, 4 feet over a slanted roof as per NSP requir`ements. � 8. Fetitioner to p�st a bo�1d or letter of credit to cover driveway improvement. An escrow for a City cos�tractor installed driveway may be acceptable. If you have any further questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Department at 571-3450, Sincerely, �v►�a �. . J es L. Robinson lanning Coordinator Please review the noted stipulation, sign the statanent belaw and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Departinent by Jime 6, 1968. 1 � %� �� - - � , � , '� . e �. ► t,{.�.1'� �-i i� � �-�-:1 l � r �ii ; .. Concur'�with action taken . � � _ � . Community Development Department PLA►�VN�TG DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 3, 1991 g � `v TO: William Burns, City ManagerJ► � rp FROM: SUBJECT: Historv Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Resolution Approving a Change in Street Names, from Viron Road to Highway 65 East Service Drive Viron Road between Fireside Drive and OsboY�ne Road on the east side of Highway 65 was constructed in 1966. It was named Viron Road after a name of a company that was building structures/ homes to be placed on the moon. Strite Anderson also located in this general vicinity and adopted the 7585 Viron Road address. Viking Chevrolet, the chiropractic clinic, and Bass End Trail Shop used Highway 65 street names. Our records indicate that a Highway 65 street name was also assigned to Rocky Rococo's; however, they are using a Viron Road address. This issue was brought to the approximately 10 years ago, and that time objected to the street Current Request attention of the City Council the owner of Strite Anderson at name change. This issue has been proposed at this time given the change of occupancy for the former Viking Chevrolet. Attached are letters to the two existing businesses which continue to- use a Viron Road address out of the five in this area. Supreme Tool now occupies the former Strite Anderson building. Mr. Mozman from their office contacted us on September 18, 1991 and stated that he had no objection to the street name change. We also sent a letter to Rocky Rococo's and have not heard a response from them. We advised both of the October 7, 1991 consideration. Recommendation Given that there is a street name confusion along this particular road and given that other service drives along Highway 65 and University Avenue are named similarly, staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed resolution changing the name of Viron Road to Highway 65 East Service Drive. BD/dn M-91-737 5 21 �, �� Zo.=t I !JJ .ai •n :: ;I: r` • F' _'" � IM1 !.� / "" .....% t N� . / ::�) • � •''� \ . W � . Q1� a" 1: 20e� — — --200_ �. .� � 6 a^ � I � � f: (ssro) A �.: Q 1` � i '�'` CI7Y � � � A r RT S= � � S�feiinanil0 �: Ki� /� �. , , � o ; � fo o � Ci�e/L. /,/i.a�on � � x /^ � • � � � n) � L �e) � � : �! (�) � `N Zt. ;� ,., i� ��20) �6O�FRI , , � r , ; fi, .�� :, 3 z " (/ :e b .�t? � °I ' ` �„�� >> :� 7 '� : ,� ,.., � p. �, �:�� R ( ' A 0 / T ON : z .�o - . , - .A.�� i A DE . v .... ....... ^K . .� � ' �� • •;v �i�1 � i .d, 1� f °° a�o zo I .' ' 1 ''1 �� u y/ t � \ �: �� 3 (1�� it°• � _ ` � � � � ,'s') tl I i. sl � /�loo) : � • � �� ... �,�...... � :. g ��. � �Z40� I !s��i/Lvinbii �ainpsny o '� .d fr y�, ' _ a r� 5(ii) 1 : ��srsf�� "' I �, � • 2 �� 1� r i � �(� u si O s+ � 1 ./►�f.•-�CJ.r' ,�ttf 4 y` � ' ` � s �� DE VELOPN S ! _ �0 3 u ' ;, '%) �, 2 � ". fo)J (3cs� '� .✓6,J�sJn . , y Oop (� i YGJ f:'�I/nOill �� . L� . �, .. Q�/AIl'fft BJ/1 YG/� v �r ,-c r fJ .. �. . . . . 470. 0 `- � � Q o� .` ---�. � I � � � y �l ) / i ( L fOJ �Qiry �►-P. (c j � �� f.a. ,I _ V lit+ol� �i I� _ � o I z �I ,�� - I , a -- �=.�— -- ' i �4Xoi o r � I,y Ceii/Sr �� , c 6 i �i�vn _ , Y o z � � � �� < M W F— }-a- � cn �+> � (4Joaj � JJ�.Ia �' SA � :�� > — –�--- (��oJ N �pp'lL, FI � ( �f� P�� A .�,�o,� <s�Crv> a 1lt� � I I �r) (z zn� t�i:�a� Redi i��o�� / ('f70 �tli//n� G Ovim elfi s.s.l _ _ C1TY OF FIZIDLEY n �l �� i ) l� � n ! 1 �`�� 'i FRIDLEY MUN[CIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MN 55432 •(61�) 571-3450 • FAX (6i2) 57i-i287 September 17, 1991 Supreme Tool Inc 7585 Viron Road NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Proposed Street Name Change From Viron Road To Highway 65 East Service Drive Dear Sirs: I have enclosed a copy of a proposed resolution that the City Council wi11 be considering at a public hearing meeting on October 7, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. This proposed resolution will change the name of Viron Road to Highway 65 East Service Drive. The City wauld l.ike to hear from you regarding this proposed change, as you are one of the two businesses that use Viron Road as their mailing address. The remaining businesses along V�ron Road already use Highway 65 as their mailing address. If the proposed resolution is adopted, the change would be effective on or before January 1, 1992. We would like to have your opinion on this proposed change, before the public hearing on October 7, 1991. _ If you have any questiqns regarding this matter, please f�el free to contaet me at 571-3450. Sincerely, � . '� ' �1 G�'L-'L� J �� DARREL G.CLARK Chief Building Official DGC/mh Enc: 1 : / _ _ CtTY OF FRl DLEY FR[DLEY MUN[CtPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERS[TY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MN 55�32 •(612) 571-3450 • FAX (6i2) 571-1287 September 17, 1991 Rocky Rococo Pizza 7601 Viron Road NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: Proposed Street Aiame Change From Viron Road To Highway 65 East Service Drive Dear Sirs: I have enclosed a copy of a proposed resolution that the City Council will be considering at a public hearing meeting on October 7, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. This proposed resolution will change the name of Viron Road to Highway 65 East Service Drive. The City would like to hear from you regarding this proposed change, as you are one of the two businesses that use Viron Road as their mailing address. The remaining businesses along Viron Road already use Highway 65 as their mailing address. If the proposed resolution is adopted, �he change would be effective on or before January 1, 1992. We would like to have your opinion on this proposed chanqe, before the public hearing on October 7, 1991. _ If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 571-3450. Sincerely, .�"� ,_� �� ' i •� / �-(�! �, DARREL G.CLARK Chief Building Official DGC/mh Enc: 1 r�� BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION MEMO MEMO TO: John Flora, Public Works Director a Da nity Development Director MEMO FROM: re C ar ��ef Buildin Official . 9 MEMO DATE: August 28, 1991 REGARDING: Change in Street Names Please find attached a proposed resolution which when adopted by the City Council will change Viron Road to Highway 65 East Service Drive NE. This proposed change has been discussed with the Fire & Police Departments and it is agreed that since the majority of the businesses use Highway 65 in their advertising, as their address, that we should change the street name to avoid any confusion. This resolution would affect Friendly Chevrolet -7501 Hwy 65 NE; Supreme Tool Inc - 7585 Viron Rd NE; Bass Pro Shop-Trails End -7597 Hwy 65 NE; Rocky Rococo Pizza -7601 Viron Rd NE; and Fridley Chiropractic Clinic - 7699 Hwy 65 NE. I would recommend that this resolution be adopted as soon as possible so that we can notify the businesses and get the City records to agree on business addresses. DGC/mh ATTACH: 1 5D RESOLUTION NO. 1991 RESOLOTION RENAMING VIRON ROAD TO HIGHWAY 65 EAST SERVICE DRIVE WHEREAS, Viron Road runs generally in a north-south direction on the east side of Highway 65; and WHEREAS, address numbers are being used that would be consistent with addresses on the East side of Highway 65; and WHEREAS, a majority of businesses on Viron Road already use Highway 65 as their business address; and WHEREAS, the Police and Fire Departments of the City of Fridley concur with the proposed name change for the general safety and welfare of the area residents; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Cit� of Fridley: 1. That all of Viron Road be renamed Highway 65 East Service Drive; and 2. The City Finance Director is hereby directed to register said street name change with the appropriate authorities of Anoka County and the United States Postal Service as well as other affected parties; and 3. That this change will take effect immediately. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1991. ATTEST: WILLIAM J. NEE - Mayor SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - City Clerk 5E CITY OF FRIDLEY M E M O R A N D U M ��,R. �.. TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA, CITY CLERR SUBJECT: ELECTION JUDGES FOR GENERAL ELECTION DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 The attached resolution appoints election judges for the November 5, 1991 General Election in Ward II. The lists of judges were provided by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and the Independent- Republican Party. The judges have been selected from both the DFL and IR lists in accordance with State Statutes. The cities usually do not receive lists of judges from the parties when there are no State or Federal offices on the ballot as it is not required by State Statute. We use the lists received from the parties in previous years. If you have any questions concerning this resolution, please give Shirley a call. 0 RESOLUTION NO. - 1991 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE NOVEMBER 5� 1991 GENERAL ELECTION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, at a regular meeting on October 7, 1991. SECTION 1. SECTION 2. SECTION 3, That on the 5th day of November 1991, there shall be an election for the purpose of voting on the following: COUNCILMEMBER IN AARD II That the polling places for said election shall be as follows: Ward 2 Precinct 1 Ward 2 Precinct 2 Ward 2 Precinct 3 Ward 2 Precinct 4 Woodcrest Elementary School Knights of Columbus St. Philip's Lutheran Church North Park Elementary School That the polling place will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. SECTION 4. That the following people are hereby appointed to act as Judges for said election except that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to appoint qualified substitutes as set forth in Chapter 4, Section 4.05 of the City Charter. WARD 2 PRECINCT 1 *Alice Henderson Gwen Nawrocki Gloria Arel WARD 2 PRECINCT 2 *Pat Anderson Karen Bjorgo WARD 2 PRECINCT 3 *Doris Reiners Marilyn Seeman WARD 2 PRECINCT 4 *Virginia Bureau Jean Wagar Delores Mellum *HEAD JUDGE `� � Jackie Larson Jeanette Lindquist Marlene Carlson Susan Rainy Joyce Swanson Kathleen Hoppe Lee Carlson Naida Kruger Dorine Newland Myra Stienstra 0 Page 2, Resolution No. - 1991 HEALTH CARE CENTER Lavonne Avery Bernadette Bovy SECTION 5. That the following judges are appointed to act as chairpersons of the Election Board for the precincts designated and shall have the duties set forth in Section 204B.20 of Minnesota Statutes. Ward 2 Precinct 1 Ward 2 Precinct 2 Ward 2 Precinct 3 Ward 2 Precinct 4 Alice Henderson Pat Anderson Doris Reiners Virginia Bureau SECTION 6. Compensation for said Judges will be paid at the rate of $6.00 per hour far regular Judges and $7.00 for the Chairperson of the Election Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1991. ATTEST: SHIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK • : WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR � _ � Community Development Department G DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 2, 1991 �,R . (° TO: William Burns, City Manager �, FROM: SUBJECT: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Lisa Campbel��lanning Associate 1991-1993 Recycle Minnesota Resources Lease Agreement On October 7, 1991, the Council will be considering for approval the 1991-1993 Lease Agreement with Recycle Minnesota Resources (RMR). This lease agreemeni sets forth the terms and conditions under which RMR may lease the property and run a redemption center at 350 - 71st Avenue N.E. Background An initial lease agreement was executed in November of 1986 with U-CAN/SORT. Under this agreement, U-CAN/SORT paid $1.00 consideration to lease the property. In January 1987, the lease was amended and transferred to Recycling Minnesota Resources. The lease was amended again in November I988 to extend the Zease period three years to November 1991. Because the lease agreement has been amended twice, staff chose to draft a new lease agreement. Performance Recycle Minnesota Resources and its staff operates one of the most comprehensive recycling centers in the metropolitan area at the Fridley site. Acceptable materials include cans, glass, newspaper, corrugated cardboard, all plastic bottles with a neck, and office paper. In November, under the terms of the proposed lease, acceptable materials will be expanded to include magazines. Tonnage coming through the site has increased 45% since 1986. The RMR staff at the site is responsive to resident inquiries and goes out of his way to provide residents with complete service. He was recently honored with a service award by his employer. % 1991-i993 Recycle Minnesota Resources Lease Agreement October 2, 1991 Page 2 Pro�osed Lease Agreement Significant terms of the proposed lease agreement include: the. waiver of additional monetary consideration, inclusion of magazines, RMR, staff assistance in enforcing yard waste hours, and the City's commitment to correct the drainage problem at the site. According to Mark Winson, Assistant Public Works Director, the cost of correcting the drainage problem will be about $150.00 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the lease agreement with RMR and authorize both the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the lease. LC:ls M-91-733 7A LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1991, by and between the City of Fridley, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "the City", and Recycle Minnesota Resources, Inc., a Minnesota corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, herein called "RMR". WITNESSETH: That the City does hereby demise and let unto RMR the following described premises: That portion of Parcel 6620, generally located west of the Municipal Garage yard, south and adjacent to 7lst Avenue N.E., with a premises dimension of 200' to the north and south by 205' to the east and west. The address is 350 71st Avenue Northeast. It is mutually desired by the City and RMR that the recycling center continue to be a success and benefit to the general public; therefore, the City and the RMR agree to the following conditions: I. TERM OF LEASE: RMR is to have for two years, beginning , 1993 . An extension of the lease may be of both parties. hold of the described premises , 1991, and ending additional three (3) year granted upon mutual agreement A. CONSIDERATION: Consideration for this lease shall be the mutual promises by and between the parties, sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY RMR: RMR does hereby agree to furnish for the term of this agreement, and as part of the consideration of this agreement, the following: A. HOURS OF OPERATION: RMR shall provide year-round staffed service, 40 hours per week, Tuesday through Saturday,from 9:OOam to 5:00pm, subject to severe weather or holiday closing. The yard waste transfer site hours will coincide with the regular hours of the site. RMR staff will assist the City in enforcing the hours of operation of the yard waste site during the months of June, Ju1y, and August. B. OPERATING PROCEDURES: RMR shall operate the aforementioned site by providing the following services: 1. In the course of receiving materials RMR shall accept aluminum; bi-metal, and steel beverage and food containers; aluminum foil; brown, green and clear glass bottles and jars; plastic bottles with : Recycle Minnesota Lease Agreement November 1991 - November 1993 Page 2 a neck; newsprint; office pape�; corrugated cardboard; and magazines. 2. Utilize civic groups in organizing paper and can drives. 3. Pay all utility, telephone, personnel, and operational costs associated with the maintenance of the premises. 4. Provide an on-site office for receiving customer inquiries and complaints. C. MANAGEMENT PROCEDIIRES: RMR shall be responsible for all management of the leased premises including, but not limited to: maintenance of property and equipment, utility payments, licensing fees, customer inquiries, redemption rates, collection, transportation, and the sale of materials. D. PROMOTIONAL PROCEDURES: RMR shall use available media whenever feasible for the promotion of the recycling center and for public education regarding the value of using the site. Such media may include: newspaper, television, flyer distribution, bulletin boards, and presentation to local organizations. E. ACCOUNTING PROCEDIIRES: RMR shall keep accurate tonnage weight tickets for every recycled material hauled from the leased premises. This does not include yard waste. RMR shall provide the City with quarterly tonnage reports of all material recycled. RMR will inform the City immediately of all changes in redemption rates for materials purchased at the recycling center. F. MAINTENANCE OF GROUNDS: RMR shall be responsible for the clean-up of the grounds so as to keep the said premises in a neat, presentable order, free from litter, uncontained recyclables and any other material that may constitute a hazard, such as broken or damaged material. III. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY: The City hereby agrees to furnish for the term of this agreement and as part of consideration for this agreement the following: A. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS: The City shall correct the drainage problem at the site by May 31, 1992. 7 Lr Recycle Minnesota Resources Lease Agreement November 1991 - November 1993 Page 3 B. SIGNAGE: The City shall permit any necessary signage at the recycling center for the purposes of promotion, access and traffic control. C. MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS: The City shall maintain the site in the following manner: 1. Provide snow removal on 71st Avenue N.E. and through the site if the gates are open and the site is accessible. D. PROMOTION: The City shall provide limited advertising and promotion for the leased premises for public education regarding the value of using the site. This would include distribution of flyers and advertising in the City's quarterly newsletter. IV. RIILES AND REGULATIONS: The City agrees to enforce all rules and regulations in accordance with the City's ordinances. All conduct on premises will be subject to the rules, regulations and ordinances of the City. RMR shall not adopt any rules which shall, in the discretion of the City, unreasonably limit the access and use of the premises by any citizen. The City will supply the needed personnel to enforce said rules, regulations, and ordinances, as needed. V. INDEMNIFICATION: RMR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any liability, damages, or injuries which may be sustained by either RMR or any third parties in the course of the lease. VI. INSURANCE: RMR shall provide to the City evidence of the following insurance: 1. Comprehensive general Iiability insurance against liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death in the amount of $250,000 for any one person and in the sum of $500,000 for two or more persons for the same occurrance and for damages to property in the sum of $100,000. The City shall be named insured on said policy. 2. Workers� compensation and employers' liability insurance as required by law. 3. Vehicle liability and property damage insurance, including coverage for non-owned or hired vehicles, in limits as for comprehensive general liability coverage. 7D Recycle Minnesota Resources Lease Agreement November 1991 - November 1993 Page 4 VII. POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION: The City shall provide police and fire protection to the site. VIII. TERMINATION OF LEASE: This lease can be terminated for cause upon either party giving the other party a 30 day notice. In all other instances, the lease agreement can be terminated by either party upon 180 day written notice. Just cause for termination will be based on breech of contract by the other party. Termination will deem the lease null and void. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals the day and year first written above. CITY OF FRIDLEY By By William J. Nee, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager RECYCLE MINNESOTA RESOURCES, INC., By David Locey, General Manager 7E I _ � DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Development Department PLAIV1VIlVG DIVISION City of Fridley October 3, 1991 William Burns, City Manager � �. �. . Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Lisa Campbe��lanning Associate On-Land Environmental Opportunities (OLEO) On October 7, 1991, Council will be considering an agreement which will allow for the transfer of the City's yard waste to OLEO farms. OLEO, or On-Land Environmental Opportunities, is a group of Anoka County farmers who are pursuing the development of landspreading yard waste as an alternative to large-scale composting. In 1988, OLEO members established the group as a non-profit in order to receive Financial and technical assistance. In the same year, they completed their first study on the effect of landspreading on corn crop productivity. Richard E. Swanson, iormer County Extension Agent, Agriculture, and Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, is the consultant for OLEO and is monitoring the investigation of the effects of landspreading yard waste on crop productivity. Mr. Swanson approached the Mayor about the possibility of OLEO receiving the City of Fridley's yard waste. Mayor Nee requested that staff work with OLEO to determine if such a process was possible. In 1990, yard waste was responded to this ban operations. Anoka Coun cubic yards for 1991 alo waste stream. It is composting sites will indefinitely. Alternate banned from the landfills. Counties have by operating large scale composting ty composting sites have received 51,203 ne. Yard waste represents 13% of the total not likely that County-based large-scale have the capacity to manage yard waste approaches are needed. Landspreading of yard waste should result in the release of nitrogen and increase the crop productivity. The first study was completed in 1988 and was inconclusive. Later studies have indicated some increased crop productivity. This year OLEO is evaluating the transportation costs of landspreading along with the crop productivity. They have approached staff with the request that our yard waste be transported to their farms. They have also requested that our contractor complete the attached form which documents transportation costs. : OLEO October 3, 1991 Page 2 Staff has proposed to Mr. Swanson that the City of Fridley will transfer yard waste to the OLEO farms under the condition that any additional per load costs will be paid by OLEO, and OLEO has accepted these terms. The Environmental Quality and Energy Commission has indicated that they would recommend approval by the Council of the transfer of the City yard waste to OLEO farms for landspreading, provided OLEO has met all the County and State license and permit requirements. Staff has been in contact with Anoka County and the State of Minnesota. Both jurisdictions indicate that OLEO has met their requirements, and they have forwarded written confirmation of OLEO's compliance. The City Attorney has developed a sound legal agreement between OLEO and the City of Fridley that protects the City from any liability and an amendment of our current contract with Nash Disposal. Staff recommends that the Council approve both the agreement and the amendment and authorize the City Manager to execute both documents. LC:ls M-91-734 : ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. AGREEMENT FOR RECEIVING YARD WASTE COUNTY OF ANORA ) This agreement made and entered into this day of , 1991 by and between the City of Fridley, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ("City") and On-Land Environmental Opportunities, Inc., a Minnesota non- profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ("Recipient"). WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a yard waste transfer site for the short-term storage of municipal yard waste. WHEREAS, the Recipient wishes to receive yard waste for the purpose of having it delivered to farms owned by members of the Recipient's non-profit corporation. WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement for yard waste transfer services with Nash Disposal, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. WHEREAS, the Agreement between the City and Nash Disposal, Inc., provides that the City will pay Nash Disposal, Inc., for transierring yard waste from the site to Bunker Hills as follows: $115.00 per 40 cubic yard load $105.00 per 30 cubic yard load $ 95.00 per 20 cubic yard load WHEREAS, Nash Disposal, Inc. , has agreed to transfer a portion of the yard waste to farms owned by members of On-Land Environmental Opportunities. NOW THEREFORE, be it agreed that the Recipient will reimburse the City for the extra cost .involved in having Nash Disposal, Inc., transfer yard waste from the City's transfer site to their farms. ' The extra cost shall be any cost greater than the cost of disposing . � Agreement for Yard Waste Receipt Page 2 of yard waste at the Anoka County Bunker Hill Regional Compost site. BE IT FURTHER AGREED that the term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date that said Agreement is executed by both parties and shall continue until November 30, 1991. The parties may by mutual agreement, cause this Agreement to.be�extended after the expiration date, subject to the right of either party to terminate this Agreement by giving the other party a 30 day written notice. The City shall submit itemi:zed bills to the Recipient for the cost of transportation paid to Nash Disposal, Inc., on a monthly basis. Bills so submitted shall be paid by the Recipient within 30 days or receipt of said itemized bills. This Agreement shall be controlled by laws or the State of Minnesota. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments or deletions or waviers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by both parties. : , Agreement for Yard Waste Receipt Page 3 Executed this day of 1991 CITY OF FRIDLEY ON-LAND ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTIINITIES, INC By: By: Its City Manager Its : � ADDENDIIM TO AGREEMENT FOR YARD WASTE TRANSFER SERVICES This Addendum entered into the of , 1991 and between the City of Fridley, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ("City"), and Nash Disposal, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ("Contractor"). This Addendum entered into by the above parties modifies that Agreement entered into by said parties on March 8, 1991. Said modifications are as follows: #4 Transfer of Yard Waste is amended to read as follows: "Contractor shall transfer yard waste in 40, 30, and 20 cubic yard loads from the City's Municipal Yard Waste Transfer Site at 350 - 71st Avenue N.E. to the Anoka County Bunker Hill Regional Park Compost site or to certain farms owned or operated by members of On-Land Environmental Opportunities, a non-profit corporation. The owners of said farms and their addresses are as follows: Carrol Broadbent 7227 Viking Blvd. N. E. Wyoming, MN 55092 Archie Wyatt 23939 N.E. Highway #65 East Bethel, MN 55005 Leonard Yotter 220 Viking Blvd. N.W. Cedar, MN 55011 Orville Leistico 21413 N.W. Nowthen Blvd. Elk River, MN 55330 : Delmar Schmelzer 17300 Roanoke St. Andover, MN 55304" Exhibit B of the above Agreement is amended and modified as follows: "CITY OF FRIDLEY FEES FOR YARD WASTE TRANSFER SERVICES Fee for services to be paid by the City to the Contractor for hauling to Anoka County Bunker Hill Regional Park Compost Site shall be based on a per load basis as outlined below: 40 cubic yards =$115.00 per load 30 cubic yards =$105.00 per load 20 cubic yards =$ 95.00 per load Fees for services to be paid by the City to the Contractor for hauling to the OLEO farms shall be based on a per load basis as Pollows: Carrol Broadbent 7227 Viking Blvd. N.E. Wyoming, MN 55092 Archie Wyatt 23939 N.E. Highway #65 East Bethel, MN Leonard Yotter 220 Viking Blvd. N.W. Cedar, MN 55011 40 cubic yards =$161.00 per load 30 cubic yards =$151.00 per load 20 cubic yards =$141.00 per load 40 cubic yards =$147.00 per load 30 cubic yards =$137.00 per load 20 cubic yards =$127.00 per load 40 cubic yards =$139.00 per load 30 cubic yards =$129.00 per load 20 cubic yards =$119.00 per load Orville Leistico 40 cubic yards =$161.00 per load 21413 N.W. Nowthen Blvd 30 cubic yards =$151.00 per load Elk River, MN 55330 20 cubic yards =$141.00 per load Delmar Schmelzer 40 cubic yards =$133.00 per load 17300 Roanoke St. 30 cubic yards =$123.00 per load Andover, MN 55304 20 cubic yards =$113.00 per load" All other terms and conditions of the Agreement between the parties dated March 8, 1991 shall continue in full force and effect. : CITY OF FRiDLEY CONTRACTOR NAME: NASH DISPOSAL, INC., By: By: Its City Manager It� Approved as to form and legality: City Attorney : !~ Engineering Sewer Water Parks Streets Maintenance MEMORANDUM T: William W. Burns, City Manager �!V��PW91-296 O FROM: John G. Flora,�Public Works Director DATE: October 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 2, Skywood Lane Water Extension Project No. 220 At the September 30, 1991 Council meeting, we received Petition No. 5-1991 from Murphy Oil requesting a storm water line be provided to their facility at the intersection of Mississippi Street and East River Road. The petition waives the right to a public hearing and requests the cost of the improvement be assessed to the property. We have been working with the Anoka County Highway Department to install a storm sewer pipe from the Spur Station property to the storm system south of the site on East River Road. In order to facilitate the final completion of the upgrade of the Spur Gas Station, it is recommended the City Council approve Change Order No. 2 to the Skywood Lane Water Extension Project No. 220 with Northdale Construction for $ for the installation of a storm sewer system. JGF:Ch �J � ' C(IYOf Fi21DL.EY � �� W � f I � : e ', � i r � J _ - a� � � i �" '` 4 � � � • � � z //� F- s � . ' .. . • . - N I � °' n oa a � J � � F- + -� �°_ c, �Z I • ' • LJ ••. ' 'o' Q in ' �' . n ' . ►- : Z i � . � cn � i V --- cn d . a � � z z N � - , ` `. Q co:;: : >. �-- � o �'`�' ' � - a� � � :t�?e:;: ; : < w � � �« �_i Z Q� Y J '_ � 3 I � U Q ,M c a N. - a Z ° 3 � � Q= a : U Y m O F- � i O W =m Q J M C �v � - a � c� a N O M -- • , co N � � � . � � � Z p O \ .� X _ — a Z m �J J •� � "' � • N N � `ul tD N � � I ' �' � � � m • � ;: r, N Z 1. 311 t/ . ° �n __. � — � ------- — i "'_' 1 .� - - ---_'_ '"' � � � � z -t . ;o _ a � 0 �i' a � ti �n i � � :::::.. � � U y�'a- �� ';:.::`' O W i � �� M - Q •; XOMi �.� . Q N ~ U� � GO •�� . � . o�� , o_ � s ry v` � � - a � c 6 cn ? I i �� _ n. '�' a .. � °�- -- � i � , � � � � � 1 � � � � . ,' J il �11�.- v' 'o? � W � �" .. i ac co � .� ) �� n - N.- U U .":,iZ.:., (� 1' _,� J N W 1!\ � -_.� � U 1�' t `� _ O W � O ^� � �� ' + � a '; � 5�+ 8 N � aci 1�- V Z !� W � � � c� . �3` �- ' 1 �1 W-9 ` :�r::r � � N �v � . a � �'� � - - v� � �o � ' W . (� w p N � M F- J �'' a N ' a � � r �� ° � 3 + � � F- � .� � 0 k . ; � I WQ N d 1 � l, � F- � CU � l �<::: W -� ' 1 Q w � U . ' � 1 c7 a ' Q,u. o � m tM . ` rn � W tn ' X � N �� -�C, c=� W W GO =�' � .J � tn N -,n m J Z � �, � .�� I 3 F- 3 � � �` � m ] �' �t Z 1 � O � ' ; ', � s� M 1 + � i I - - — Z �-' - r , . i � t t�� .. NI CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITION COVER SHEET Date Received 9/20/91 Petition No. 5-1991 Object CONSTRUCT CERTAIN STORi�I SEWER Ii!iPROVEMENTS TO EXTEND THE EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEM IN EAST RIVER ROAD APPROX 200 FEET NORTH. Petition Checked By Date Percent Signing Referred to City Council Disposition • - � MURPHY OIL USA, INC. September 18, 1991 Mr. John G. Flora Director of Public Works City of Fridley 6431 Unit-ersitv Ave., N.E. Fridley, M\. 55432 Dear Mr. Flora: SUITE 304 4800 W. 77TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNE507A 55435 �f / � / _ C `_i �, � ' C...- i Murphy Oil, being the owner of the property at 6485 East River Road, Fridley, ( PIV's 15-30-24-42-0001, 15-30-24-42-0026 ), request that the City of Fridle3 construct certain storm sewer improvements to extend the existing storm sewer system in East River Road approximately 200 feet north. I�furphy Oil further agrees to waive their right to a public hearing and agrees to pav the assessments for the project. Sincerely, NfURPHY OIL,� LJ,SA, �"NC. Gary /K. �ndelin Construction Supervisor GIiA/mts 10 11 12 FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNOF FRIDLEY GAS SERVICES Cheyenne Plbg & Htg Inc 18300 Uplander St NW Cedar, MN 55011 (�ENERAL CONTRACTOR Addition & Remodeling Specialists 10800 Xavis St NW Coon Rapids MN 55433 Barlow Enterprises 1 i5 Oak Street Chaska, MN 55318 Carlson, Rob Builders Inc 1b80-A 99th Lane NE Blaine MN 55434 Creadve Construction 12375 Oak Park Blvd Blaine MN 55434 Henriksen, Leif Cpntr. 6434 Riverview Ten NE Fridley MN 55432 Superior Siding 15842 Okapi St Ramsey MN 55303 HEATING Cheyenne Plbg & Htg Inc 18300 Uplander St NW Cedar, MN 55011 PLUMBING Affordable Plumbing & Htg Co PO Box 26026 St Louis Park MN 55426 Cheyenne Plbg & Htg Inc. 18300 Uplander St. NW Cedar MN SS011 Philip Cottrell Roger Harju Howard Petersen Robert Carlson Bill Campbell Leif Henriksen Douglas Fischhaber Philip Cottrell Stanley Garfinkle Philip Cottrell 12A LICENSES CLYDE WILEY Bldg/Mech Insp. DARREL CLARK Chief Bldg Ofcl Same Same Same Same Same CLYDE WILEY Bldg/Mech Insp. STATE OF MINN Same K's Mechanical 20880 Nowthen Blvd Elk River MN 55330 ROOFING Top Gun Roofing 9644 Ximines Lane Maple Grove MN SS369 Dale Bruneau Bryan Shiltz 12B Same DARREL CLARI� Chief Bldg Ofcl