Loading...
Planning Comm Mnts2J Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 11 MOTION by Sc. bel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Co ' Sion continue the requ for a lot split, L.S. ;/7? -02, by P :etropolitan Investment Fund, Inc., the April 20th Plannin fission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all vote aye, the mot' carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said he would get t ml es together, and informed Mr. Coddon that after this had go o Appeals and c 'oack to the Planning Commission it would go to ouncil on May 2nd. I s. abel requested that copies of those es be sent out before the Appeals Co 'mesion meeting on the 12th 2A. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 15, 1977 ` MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Appeals Commission minutes of March 15, 1977 be received. fjf�,• Mrs. Schnabel stated that she hoped the members of the Planning Commission had time to read through the lengthy discussion of the Appeals Commission meeting of March 15th. She said the second item on their agenda had been a request for 7899 East River Road by the R.C.E. Corporation, and that discussion had taken 31-2- hours of the Appeals Commission meeting. She noted that Mr. Ernst was present to answer any questions, and explained that he was the father of the petitioner that had been at the Appeals meeting. Mrs. Schnabel said to briefly review what had happened, four motions had been made on this particular iters. She explained that the first motion was to approve the request for variances with the exception of one and with some added stipulations. That motion died for lack of a second. The second motion, she said, was to deny all the requests for variances. That motion was seconded but failed for lack of a majority vote. Mrs. Schnabel stated that the third motion was to table the item until all Appeals Commission members could be present, and that motion also failed for lack of a majority. She said that the final motion was that the Appeals Coruaission pass on to Council their tie votes without recommendation since they could not reach a consensus opinion, and that motion passed 3 - 1. Mrs. Schnabel stated that just prior to the vote being taken on the final motion she told the members of the Appeals Commission and the petitioner that she felt she would be negligent if she didn't call the mayor and the chair of the Planning Commission to explain to them what had happened with regard to this request. She said that the following day she did call Mayor Nee and explained to him what had happened. She asked 'nim if he would like them to take a second look at the request and try to reach some kind of conclusion, and he felt that they should pass this on through normal channels without recommendation. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she had contacted Chairperson Harris over the -weekend and explained the situation to -him. At that point, she continued, she did not feel it was necessary to call the Petitioner to appear tonight; but when she had stopped by the office today she had been infor:ied that the petitioner was planning to come in case any member of the Planning; Commission wanted to ask any questions about the request. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 2K Page 12 At this point, she said, it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide if they want to review this and pass a recommendation to Council on their otm, or don't want to review it. Chairperson Harris said that as he read this, the two major hang ups seemed to be the access on East River Road and the problem with the intersection itself. He asked if it was Mrs. Schnabel's wish that the Planning Commission take under study the intersection of 79th and East River Road, and she replied she felt that was a viable concern of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Schnabel said that particular intersection of 79th and East River Road should be looked at with the idea of trying to come to some recommendation concerning that intersection. It was stated by members of the Appeals Commission, she said, that that intersection happens to be a particularly dangerous one. She said that one member was well aware of several very serious accidents that had occurred there. Mrs. Schnabel stated that one member of the public had appeared at this meeting, and he had also expressed his concern for that particular intersection. rlrs. Schnabel said that when they reviewed the correspondence that had occurred between the City and Anoka County on that intersection, it appeared that the last time there was any correspondence was June of 1975. She thought the county's focus had been further South on East River Road, and they had not particularly dealt with that intersection. She said it was her feeling that they should perhaps have some kind of study organized of that whole Northerly section of East River Road to determine where the serious crossings occurred. She said that perhaps 79th was not as dangerous as some other intersection, and there may be some other inter- sections that were as serious or more serious. Somehow or other, she said, they should address that problem. Mrs. Shea wondered if the East River Road Project Committee had looked at some of those areas, and Mr. Langenfeld said they had not gone that far North. Mr. Langenfeld said he had read the minutes and sate where safety seemed to be the biggest factor as well as the left-hand and right-hand turns and access to 7-11. Fie said that he felt this would be a good thing for the East River Road Project Committee to extend their studies to, but he felt it did need some study whether it was that particular project group or not. Mr. Bergman asked if this was commercially -zoned property, and Mr. Clark said it was zoned C -2S, and the two abutting properties were R-3. Mr. Bergman said he had a general question, and asked why it was that a speculative building couldn't conform to City Code. Then, he said, as he got further into the detail he found that because of the shape of the property, only 4% could be built on, and that was why he was in here for variances. He stated that maybe the property shouldn't be used for commercial:. Chairperson Harris said this was another unique situation. He explained that the whole parcel from 79th to 77th at one time was zoned C-2 or C-1 (the whole front half), and the back half toward the tracks was zoned 1,I-1. He said that was about 1968 or so, then it was all rezoned after a lot of 2L Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 13 hassle to R-3, except for this particular corner which was left as C -2S. He said that the City had actually created a situation where only 4% of the land was buildable. Chairperson Harris asked how this request differed from Meridian's request in 1975, and 1r. Ernst replied that their building was 8' deeper and 10' longer. He explained that Meridian proposed a 40' building, and they were proposing a 48' building. He said they were asking for a setback of 35' along 79th where the ordinance called for 801, but they would agree to down zone to C-1, which would mean a side yard of 35' would be allowed. Mrs. Schnabel said that the only difference in variance requests from 1975 to 1977 was the first request (the request to reduce from 80' to 35'), and in 1975 it was a larger figure than 351. She said that as Mr. Ernst had pointed out, if this was rezoned to C-1 (which was one of the stipula- tions the Council had attached in 1975) then it would meet code with a 35' setback. Mr. Bergman asked about the variances that were requested in 1975, and Mrs. Schnabel said that they had been requested'by the Meridian Corporation to build not quite as large a building as Mr. Ernst was now proposing. She explained that request was approved by the Appeals Commission with a number of stipulations, and it had also gone through the Building Standards - Design Control Subcommittee and they had made sortie recommendations. Mrs. Schnabel stated it then went to the City Council and they denied approval. However, she said, after they denied approval Meridian Corporation came back with additional proposals and at that time the City Council said that if this was rezoned to C-1 and net all the stipulations, it would be approved. She stated that happened in August of 1975, but then Meridian was unable to get financing so nothing happened until this time when Mr. Ernst had not: pibked up this concept. In the meantime, she explained, 7-11 had changed their requirements in terms of size for the store and were proposing a larger building. Mrs. Shea said it appeared to her that the Appeals Commission's main concern was safety along East River Road, and she thought that was where they should be looking. Chairperson Harris said the problem was that the safety along East River Road was the City's and County's responsibility and not the petitioner's responsibility. He trusted the City and County would solve that, hopefully with the cooperation of the property owner. 111r. Clark stated that the owner had agreed to the turn lane and cutting the sharp corner off. Mr. Harris said the problem was the egress onto East River Road, and he did think it was within the city's prerogative to limit access to a major arterial highway. However, he said, he didn't think they could deny access to the property off of another street if that was available. Chairperson Harris asked 11<1r. Ernst if he was looking for action from the Planning Commission, and what he wanted them to do. Mr. Ernst said he would like them to do Urhatever was necessary to get this on to the City Council so they could get final action. Planning Commission ?,-teeting - March 23, 1977 Page l� 2 M Mr. Langenfeld stated that he recalled from the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting that the property had no value unless it had a proper access in order to conduct business. Chairperson Harris said there were many businesses in operation today that did not have direct access, and cited examples along University Avenue. Mrs. Schnabel said that if there was a frontage road along East River Road it would solve many problems, but there wasn't. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this was spot zoning, and Mr. Harris replied it was spot zoning from a planning standpoint. Mr. Bergman stated he was trying to see what options were available, and thought one would be to grant the variances, and that all those variances possibly were necessary in order to make some profitable use of the land for cor�,nercial purposes. He said .an alternative solution was that maybe that property should not be a C-2 zone, and possibly should have been rezoned to R-3 with the rest. Chairperson Harris pointed out that option would be with the land owner, and he had decided to try this. Mrs. Schnabel informed them that Mr. Ernst just had an option on the property. Chairperson Harris said he did not see how the Council could deny this gentleman's request if the request was substantially the same as Meridian's request in 1975, and the conditions really hadn't changed. He said that Council couldn't say that because Mr. Ernst wanted to build it that the same conditions did not apply today as they did in 1975. Mr. Bergman stated that he thought someone could make a point that conditions have changed. He said the City Council's judgement had changed., safety had been brought to the forefront, East River Road had been further identified and emphasized as a safety problem, etc. He commented that he didn't think it was fair to say blanketly that conditions hadn't changed. Chairperson Harris stated that the safety condition of East River Road was not the land owner's problem; it was the City and County's problem. Mr. Bergman argued that the setback ordinances were based on public health, safety and welfare and considered that. Mr. Harris said those had not changed since 1975 when the Council gave approval to essentially the same program they were looking at now. Mr. Bergman thought that someone could logically say that they were more concerned at this time with enforcing the setback from East River Road than they were in previous years. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she didn't think that was true. Yx. Clark stated that if it was a 7-11 store and some other commercial activity that went into this building, the people presently living on that side of East River Road (which includes the 295 tenants in the apartment complex) would not have to get into their cars and create more traffic to do their grocery shopping. He said it was possible that it might help, if it was done properly. Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Commission had discussed the fact that putting a 7-11 store them probably wouldn't generate any additional traffic on East River Road itself. However, she said, if there was another tenant in the building; which was an attractive and unique tenant, that might generate more traffic coming to that particular location. She thought some of the Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 15 Appeals Commission members were concerned about the amount of traffic that might cross East River Road to go to that store, and that was a viable concern. She said that the biggest problem concerned those people travelling South on East River Road who might attempt to make a left-hand turn to go to the store; the main problem would be if they missed 79th and continued on down and tried to make it into that additional access to try to get into that shopping center. So, she said, she agreed that the store probably wouldn't generate any additional traffic, but it might create problems in terms of access. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would reach the point of Public Hearing, and Mrs. Schnabel said there had been a Public Hearing at the Appeals Commission. �1r. Langehfeld commented that he was surprised so few people were there. He stated he tended to lean towards the stipulations made by the City Council on page 41, to start this thing moving. Mrs. Schnabel said that some of those items were incorporated into the motion made on page 49, and the developer had already incorporated some himself. Mr. Langenfeld said that there was no question about the safety element here, but felt the property owner was really placed in a bad situation. Also, he added, with a speculative building the owner might find in 3 - 5 years that business wasn't as prosperous as he thought it would be and might place it up for sale again. Mrs. Schnabel said that was one of the concerns of one of the members of the Appeals Commission, also. She stated it was her feeling that that wasn't for them to judge at the Appeals Commission level. She said she also felt strongly that the traffic situation on East River Road was a legitimate concern of the City Council, but did not feel it was a concern of the Appeals Commission because they had no power to control traffic situations. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that a study be conducted by the appropriate commission or subcommission on the traffic problems that occur on East River Road from the area of Osborne Road North to the City limits, with regard to safety factors to determine those intersections which are of particular concern so that recommendations could be made to the City Council and passed on to,the county in hopes of getting some type of better traffic control on East River Road. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this motion was being considered separate from the 7-11 item, and Mrs. Schnabel replied it was. She said her concern was that nothing that she had seen had been done with regard to the City and County in terms of dialogue on this particular intersection since June of 1975, and she thought that if this was going to be either approved or dis- approved, that intersection should be looked at. Certainly it should be studied, she said, if this proposal was going to be approved by the City Council. She stated that her concern was whether that was the most dangerous intersection in that area; maybe there was another one that was equally as dangerous or more dangerous. She said it was her understanding that the County at this point had no plans to spend any more money in 1977 on East River Road, so she thought they should get the ball rolling. 2N Planning Commission ?Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 16 2 Q Mr. Clark stated that he didn't think the county would do anything on East :fiver Road until directed unanimously by the City Council. He explained that whenever they started to draw something up, thinking they were reading the City of Fridley's wants, there was a big hassle when they brought the proposal in. He said the county wanted to know what Fridley wanted before they did anything on design. .rs. Schnabel commented that she thought that whoever did study this (whether it was the East River Road Project Committee or a new committee) should take a look at the county's goals (one-year, two-year and five-year), the traffic counts, etc. She said that all these things should be checked out. Mr. Langenfeld said that the decision of this project committee would not have a bearing on this particular 7-11 item because of the time element. He stated that he could not say at this time whether the East River Road Project Committee had gone further North or not, but he would take it on himself to submit this request to the East River Road Project Committee to see what their feelings were. He added that perhaps they might be willing to extend their studies North. Chairperson Harris stated that he thought it was only fair to ask Community Development if they would like to get a look at this. Mr. Bergman commented that was a leading question. He said that without trying to be in any way antagonistic or derogatory, he would like to comment on it before answering. He stated that in his opinion he felt, for one thing, that the East River Road Project Committee was kind of a special-interest group. He stated that he said this seriously, and it was his opinion. He didn't think that committee, for whatever reason, fairly represented an objective City of Fridley populous with regard to studies of any street, and in particular one that ran by their homes. He stated he felt they had a bias, and he he felt there was a lot of self-interest there. ir. Langenfeld suggested that the Environmental Study Group look into this and they would show the Planning Commission how unbiased they could be. Chairperson Harris suggested both Community Development and Environmental study this so the Planning Commission could get two opinions. Mr. Bergman replied that he would have to say that he thought Community Development should get involved in general traffic pattern and the access program, and he would have to say_"yes" to Community Development studying this. Mr. Peterson asked if he was to assume that if he voted for the motion, the Chair would then use his prerogative and direct this to both of the commissions that had been involved in the discussion. Chair-oerson Harris replied that was correct. Mr. Clark asked if the Planning Commission wished the Council to delay action on this request until the two commissions had time to study this, and Chairperson Harris said no, he thought that should be separate. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the Environmental Quality Commission to have copies of the minutes of this particular problem. He said this would bring forth the problem that took place with a particular request on behalf of a petitioner and not just the road problem, and the committee would be able to see the whole thing in perspective and could readily see that it Planning Commission .Meeting - march 23, 1977 Page 17 2 P involved a business and a person who owned property as well as the problem with transportation, safety and welfare. Mr. Clark said he would get the minutes from the Appeals Commission meeting to them, along with copies of these Planning Commission minutes. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any other commission who wished to look at this, and there was no reply. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris directed this item to be sent to the East River Road Project Committee through the Environmental Quality Commission, and also to the Community Development Commission. Mr. Peterson suggested that because there were other guests who had sat and waited, perhaps they should delay the action on this item and discuss items 2B and 2C and then come back to this. Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Commission wished to make a recommendation on this item or wanted it to go to Council without recommendation. Por. Ernst said he would defer to the other items if the Commission so desired. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission defer this item on behalf of the Commission and the petitioner to allow the other people in the audience to be heard, and then go back to this and resolve it to the best interests of the Planning Commission and the City. Mr. Bergman said that he was going to vote against the motion. He said they had spent a lot of time on this, but they did have a gentleman in the audience for this item. He stated that they might get involved with the other people for longer than they would keep this gentleman waiting, and he didn't '.mow if they would be gaining ground by changing the agenda at this point. Fir. Peterson said that when they moved to amend the agenda, they moved to receive the minutes without taking any further action. He stated he thought it was proper to defer the action because they also agreed to hear the other gentlemen. He said he might not have agreed to amend the agenda had he realized they would be taking some definitive action. He said he spoke in favor of the motion. Chairperson Harris asked if the chair of the Appeals Commission wished them to take action. sirs. Schnabel replied that as she had mentioned previously, she had talked to the Mayor and he felt this could go on to the Council without any further action. She said she didn't want to persuade this body one way or another. She added that the Major felt comfortable with what the Appeals Commission had done in view of the brief outline she had given him of what happened, so she thought it was up to the Planning Commission members to decide. Firs. Schnabel said that if they had some strong feelings on it they should feel, free to discuss them, but if they didn't have strong feelings il it might be better to pas it on just the way it was. 2 (� Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 18 ;ir. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate one thing they should watch on this, and that was they could end up going on as the Appeals Commission did and then ending up in a tie vote as well. He added that if there was something very pertinent that the petitioner wished to bring to them.to enable them to make a decision, then they should abide by it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Harris, Langenfeld, Peterson and Shea voting aye; Bergman and Schnabel voting nay, the motion carried 4 - 2. Chairperson Harris said this item would be deferred and handled after item 2C. 2B. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 17 1977 ION by Shea, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission re the Human Resources Commission minutes of March 17, 1977. Mrs. Sh informed the Commission that Mr. Harold Belgum was pres t. She said that\mot' Resources Commission had been talking about better community than they currently had, and Mr. Belgum h set up a subcomme directed the Commission's attention to he motion on top of the minutes, and said that Mr. Bel ould like to discuss twith this body. Mr. Belgum stated tha represent what he calle and was supposed to foc buildings, real estate, Commission had come to due for some kind of a that what the people did and thou t w in Fridley. He stated that people community, but that was a misnomer e were lived at home with their f lies the news concerning the peopl of Frid the Human Resources Commiss the "non -material" aspe u\nianel human element at . He state that tsion that city hel exch ge of ne was attempting to s of life in Fridley; her than the property, the Human Resources the age of Fridley was wsI and they thought very important to people living d Fridley was simply a bedroom use people's most important lives e said they had a feeling that ley ould be of great importance. Mr. Belgum said they had sted this out and h several meetings with representative citizens and had asked them to i icate the kinds of things they would lik to know about in their home own. He stated they had come up with th following main categories: pol ical life, educational programs, overvie, of businesses in Fridley, cultural tivities and religious life. Mr. Belgum stated that it could be said hat was the intention of ble T.V., but only 1,500 persons were tied to that and a limited unt of time was given. Mr. Belgum said that th Sun Newspaper helped wi this, but it covered 25 or 30 suburbs and it would e impossible for the to cover in detail each of the communities they served. :;r. .elgum stated that because of this increasing desire of people t OW t _at was going on in their own neighborhoods, forty newspapers had grov, p Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 25 Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 10:50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 11:00 P.M. 2A. RECEIVE APPEALS CO�T.IISSION MINUTES: MARCH 15 1977 (Deferred from pave 1 Mr. Ernst said he wished to point out several items, and had colored up a site plan to show what he proposed. He stated that in reading the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting, he didn't think it was stressed enough that the right -turn lane from the South was very important. He said that one of the conditions the City Council had asked for in 1975 was that the development pay for the cost of the construction of this right - turn lane. Mr. Ernst said he pictured it being done in such a fashion that south -bound traffic from East River Road would almost be prohibited from using it (by the design of it and also the signing of the right -turn lane) . Secondly, Mr. Ernst continued, they didn't carry the right -turn lane far enough to the South as to make the turn onto 79th. He said another important consideration was dedicating the right of way to accommodate that turn lane (there would be two right turn -lanes onto 79th). is. Ernst noted that the Appeals Commission had discussed the possibility of eliminating a couple of parking spaces, as they did have a surplus of two, and this drawing did cut out two spaces. He explained that they had landscaped and greened in those spaces along with part of the driveway that provided access to those parking spaces. Mr. Ernst stated that this allowed for corner visability and provided more green area. He said that it didn't eliminate the front setback requirement any, but it did allow for a better corner approach there. Mr. Ernst said he thought those points were valid, and added that the site needed the granting of the variances in order to be developed. He stated they had a lease ready to be executed from 7-11. JTr. Ernst stated that the speculative terminology of the balance of the building sounded rather derogatory, and it shouldn't be. He explained it was their intention to lease the balance of the building to office -type use and professional -type use. He said that he was experienced in building these structures and had been highly successful with filling them up with high-quality tenants. Chairperson Harris asked who would maintain the triangle on the corner, and 'Mr. Ernst replied that he would guess they would be dedicating that for public right of way. Mr. Clark pointed out that if the land was rezoned to C-1, two of the setback variances they were looking at would be eliminated, and he pointed out on the plan where they would comply with the ordinance. Mrs. Schnabel said that by eliminating the two parking stalls they had also eliminated one variance request because that brought it back within the lines of the 2 14 Planning Commission Neeting - TIarch 23, 1977 2X P 26 age zoning ordinance. She stated that the Appeals Commission's reasoning for eliminating two parking stalls was that a 7-11 store usually had a maximum of about six cars at any given time, so they would only be using about six of the 38 stalls and the other 32 would be used by whatever other tenants would be in there. Mr. Peterson added that 7-11 did most of its business after hours when the other places might be closed anyway. Mr. Peterson asked how the channelization would allow the cars to get back on to East River Road without causing some very serious traffic problems. Mr. Ernst pointed out the only way they could get out on the plan; going out on 79th and then on to East River Road. 14r. Bergman said he was impressed that Mr. Ernst had obviously spent quite a bit of time in trying to plan this out and to do a good job on it, and thought what he had was impressive. He stated that he was concerned with the magnitude of the variances (along the lines that the ordinance was good and in some extreme cases some adjustment might be necessary, but the magnitude of the variances Air. Ernst was requesting was great). He asked if Mr. Ernst had considered a multi -story buildin replied he had not. He stated he did build multi -story buildings., butrnst he required property with some slope so it could be built in and a great amount of stairways wouldn't be necessary. Chairperson Harris commented that he didn't know how a multi -story building would match in aesthetically with the apartment buildings. Mr. Peterson asked if it was correct that in 1975 the City Council promised Meridian C-1 zoning, and 114r. Clark replied it was done at the Council's request. Chairperson Harris said that the ti.ay it was written, the City Council was obligated to give C-1 zoning, which would eliminate several of the variances. Mr. Clark pointed out that there were more restrictive uses in a C-1 than in a C -2S. He said that one of the things he he didn't think they would want in there would be a VYT Post or an American Legion Post where there might be traffic and alcohol mixed. He added they probably wouldn't want any fast-food restaurants there, either, but wanted to try to keep the traffic at a minimum. 11r. Ernst said that the total area of the building was 7,000 square feet, and the 7-11 took up 2,500 square feet, and out of the remaining space he could picture a dry cleaning shop, perhaps a beauty shop or small real estate office and a dentist's or doctor's office. , Chairperson Harris said that at the time of the rezoning there had been some discussion on that corner, and asked Mr. Clark if he remembered what the strategy was. I�Ir. Clark replied that first of all the probably didn't petition to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris -stated that it seemed to him that there was some over-all plan they had for the area, but he couldn t remember what it was. Mr. Clark said he could probably find out. Mr. Harris said he thought there was talk of a service.station when it was rezoned, and he ;•rondered if they intended at the time of the rezoninhop g that it either be a service station or some kind of on that corner. He asked Mr. Clark if he thought that information swould 2Y Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 27 have any bearing on the City Council's decision at this time, and Tr. Clark replied he thought it could if the minutes reflected that the owner thought a convenience store would be the proper thing to do and the Council thought it might or might not make sense. He added that he didn't know if the minutes reflected that or not. Firs. Schnabel stated that she knew that several of the area residents had expressed quite a bit of concern about that corner through the years, and it had been brought out at the Appeals meeting that one resident across East River Road wondered why residential couldn't go onto that corner. She said she pointed out that this had been zoned C -2S for 17 years, and the property owner himself had not initiated a request to change it. She said she felt the City didn't necessarily have any control over that; if the property owner wished that to remain a commercial property, there was not much they could do about it in spite of what the area residents granted to see in there. Mr. Bergman said he thought there was something they could do. He stated that their only concern at this point was because somebody wanted to build something commercial on the property. He said that if they were to deny the request to build and the owner wanted to leave it C-23, there was no problem there, either. He stated that if they approved a commercial building of this nature on the property, that was the only way to, in fact, develop it commercially. 11r. Bergman added that either it didn't develop commercially or there was the option of rezoning and putting apartments on it. Firs. Schnabel said that her point was that in 17 years the property owner had not wished to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris asked if the otimership of the property had changed, and Mr. Ernst replied it hadn't, to his knowledge, in the past 7 - 8 years. He said that just paying taxes over that long period of time had priced it into the commercial market, and it would be economically unfeasible to develop it for multiple. He added that he was paying commercial price for the property. :1.r. Bergman asked if he had developed other 7-11 projects, and Mr. Ernst replied he had. Mr. Bergman asked if there weren't areas where he had built only a 7-11 store on a piece of property, and 141r. Ernst ans.Tered that he had built one free-standing 7-11 store (the first one in the Twin Cities), and since then had developed nine centers like the one he was proposing over the last four years. Mr. Bergman said his only thought was that there were some options to reduce the conflicts ?•:ith setbacks, and so forth. He said it was not really necessary that the building be of that size and on one floor and -.be that much in conflict with the setbacks. P -r. Ernst replied that the economics. required a building of that size to work. Chairperson Harris asked if it would be economically feasible to use the same proposal that the Meridian Corporation used in 1975, and Mr. Ernst replied it would not, especially with the addition of the final requirement Planning Commission .Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 28 2Z of the Council to construct the right -turn lane. He explained there was a ditch there that would take substantial filling, and they wanted to build it to state highway standards. He said that was his reason for requiring the increase in the building size. Mr. Clark had checked through the files, and informed the Commission that in 1962 there had been a permit issued to build'a filling station on that lot, but it was never built. He said that apparently the petitioner waited too long to start and the permit expired. Mr. Clark added that it was possible that in 1962 the zoning ordinance didn't require a Special Use Permit; he thought that changed in 1969. Chairperson Harris asked if that was a 7-11 store on East River Road and Mississippi, and Mr. Ernst replied it was, bit it hadn't been built as a 7-11. He said that was on the other side of the road and picked up different traffic. Mr. Harris asked what the total land area was they were talking about, and Mr. Ernst replied the land area was 42,000 feet -- just about an acre. Chairperson Harris asked if the Commission wanted to take any action on this, and Mrs. Shea said she would recommend that they pass it on to Council and get on to the next item. Mr. Bergman said he would like to state for the record that he was concerned about the magnitude of the variances, and had sole feeling that there were options open to the developer that could possibly reduce that magnitude. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission pass this item on to Council without recommendation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED: RECO�,24ENDED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 212: IMINING: FRIDLEY STY COM — 1141r. Langen d directed the Commission's attention to page 2 he Environ- mental Quality"SR„ ission's minutes, and pointed out that ey had once again gotten tied with 212.05 Exceptions, especial concerning emergency tirork. He said that wh they had discussed this viously he had indicated he didn't think it meant h 1 life, and was .ering if it could be clarified a bit. He also poi n out tha .r. Olson had felt the ordinance should also specify who actually a these mining permits. Chairperson Harris stated he ght ?Mr. on had a good the City Council should a ov g point, and thought e the mining pe .'ts to begin with. He said that then, if the Coun . felt they could be han delegate that resp �ibilit,I y ba by Staff, they could back to Staff. *''r. Lange d asked if the hang-up on this "emergency works' volved human life what constituted an emergency, and things of that nature. He no that they had eliminated the written memo that had been rennir PLANNTrdG COMMTSSION 1477TTiTG - D^CrT4B?'F; 7, 1227 Parse 10 ,Y 4. PUBLIC u^/?RTNG. -R'?'7,n1TT1,TG RM „r ,T� 7,nn %`77-25, Pv r, -r r, CO:?P(;P°,',T C ;T: !i'';ZOII':; i'RCiii C -2S (G?;NIRAL SIiOPPIIdG AREIsS) TO C-1 ( LOCAL BU SITTE.,aS AREr'!S) , LOT 15 BLOCK 15 P EARSON' S FIRST ADDITION, THE SAME BEING Z892 EAST RIVER ROADE MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all votingaye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 P.M. Mr. Boardman said that this piece of property had gone through several variances and rezonings. He said that it was the intent of 7-11 Stores to build on that lot. He said that a condition of the last City Council approval was that it was rezoned to C-1. He said that property was already zoned C -2S. Mr. Langenfeld asked about the stipulations that had been requested for that property by a group of Citizens. Mr. Boardman indicated that there were 15 stipulations that were incorporated as stipulations of a variance at a variance meeting held on March 15, 1977. He said that those were the same stipulations that the Planning Commission may or may not want to put on the rezoning. Chairperson Harris read the 15 stipulations: 1. Extensive landscaping on the site; plan filed with Planning Department. 2. Berming to be of sufficient height to protect the residents from automobile lighting. (as indicated on the plans) 3. Additional plants (as masked on the plans). 4. Entire building would be brick. 5. Buffer plantings incorporated with berm. 6. Lighting focused down so as not to shine into the residential property owner's windows. 7. All blacktop adjoining green area to be separated by poured concrete curbing. 8. No egress from the development onto East River Road; ingress only. f PLA1,TNINC COMMI SCIOI1 MEETING - DECiXRi R 7, 1977 Page 9 Chairperson Barris said that it appeared that there )vas adequate parking at the holiday Village North stor . \ass an said that there was adequate ine. He said s holiday Village's plans to relocat the garden spring. He said that they intended o move it the building. He said that Holida Village d the City of Fridley that thing would be done to e area. Mr. Steinma indicated that they would Lund Iianufact ring Company attractive He said that i stead of using barrel , would look like beetles. He said t'at attract people a d thereby remind hem into a. proper con finer. be purchasing from the ype litter containers. these new containers possibly these would to put their litter Mr. Langenfeld asked\�rhat the -dimensions of the building would be. \ / Mr. Steinman said thatVheooth would be 5 ft 2 in x 9 ft 2 in. Ms. Schnabel asked if ild be a concrete slab. Mr. Steinman said that/it Wuld be on a concrete slab, he said theme would be the pr er cu bing, there would be electric heating inside the b ih wi.th proper illumination. Mr. Oquist asked if/the buildi Mr. Steinman said/that it was a Chairperson Haskedais asked there to the booth. r was already constructed. e -fab building. uld be any utilities run Mr. Steinman said that the electricity would be underground. MOTION by I Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to close the Public Ilearing. Upon a voice vote, a voting aye, the motion ca ried unanimously. The Public Hea ing was closed at 9: 13 P.M MOTION/by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded. by Ms. Schn bel, that the Plann'ng Commission recommend approval of the equest for a Sped 1 Use Permit, SP ,177-15, by Holiday Villa g , Inc.: to per t a film processing drop-off booth, per Fri. ey City Code, Se ion 205.101, 3, (I), to be located in the parl•ng lot, w ch is part of Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, the CWime bein 250 57111 Avenue I?.']. with the stipula do that it could be a Holiday Village Inc. function and that in the event that the Booth is moved, that the concrete base also b moved from the area. Upon a voice vote, all. voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ,PL11NNTNG C0MMI �>InN t4-r7ING - D7C-574B ,R 7, 1977 Page 11 r 9. Refuse area should have solid screen, no gate opening onto the service drive, the portion not being used for refuse storage and handling to be used for plantings. 10. Sidewalk connection constructed to Lincoln Street. If an agreement cannot be reached between Meridian and Fudali, the sidewalk connection should be constructed anyway, but only on Meridian's property. This will offer property protection from nearby residents. 11. Parking moved down to 20 feet to pick up additional room to enable cars- to face in instead of against each other. 12. applicant will petition the City for rezoning from C-23 to C-1 and there will be no contest on zoning change in future. 13. Easements to be dedicated .to City of Fridley as noted. on attached map. 14. Applicant will construct a deceleration lane from the driveway abutting East River Road to the south. The deceleration lane is to be a 12 foot wide bituminous section with a 2 foot gravel shoulder and is to extend southward from the driveway entrance 100 feet southward .from the south radius and then taper at 15:1 to tie back into the existing roadway. `Phe typical section shall consist of 311 Class V base, 1211 asphalt binder course (MI -ID 2341) and 1111 asphalt -rearing course (i,iiID 2341) . All construction shall be in accordance with the Minnesota. Department of Highways Standard Specifications for Highway Construction dated. January 1, 1972, and as amended by Supplemental Specification for Highway Construction dates' January 1, 1974. 15. A bond covering 'the cost of all stipulated improvements would be required. Chairperson Harris pointed out that what was actually being done was the petitioner was fulfilling No. 12 of the stipulations. Mr. Oquist asked if all the above stipulations were already covered in a previous variance. Mr. Boardman said that these stipulations were placed by City Council. Ile said that the petitioner was now requesting the rezoning to fulfill No. 12 of the stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive a .letter from -Ir. John renton, the Property Mean" er of the iieadow Run 2,partments, indicatin the they were in favor of the rezoning of the property in question. Upon a voice vote, -i11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DI;C75,14P R 7, 1977 Pace 12 Langenfeld ' Mr. g said that it was his understanding that these stipulations, if incorporated, there would be no problems as far as the rezoning teas concerned. In other words, he said, the rezonini; was fine with the citizens as .long as all the stipulations were met. Chairperson Harris confirmed what Mr. Langenfeld said. Mr. Boardman shouted the Planning Commission a plan of the 7-11 Store. Mr. Oquist asked about stop lights at that intersection. Mr. Boardman said that the City had asked for lighting at that intersection. He said that the County said that there was no warrant for a traffic light at that intersection. He indicated that City felt that enough traffic was generated at that point. Ile was relatively sure that traffic lights would eventually be put at that intersection. Mr. Storla had to leave the meeting at 9:25 P.M. due to a previous commitment. Mr. Oquist said that it would be called .a neighborhood convenience center. He pointed out that there would probably be more than a 7-11 store on that property. Chairperson Harris said that there would be something other than the 7-11 Store, however, he was not certain what. He read what was allowed in a C-1 Zone. The Planning Commission pointed out that there had been a typographical error in the Public Hearing Notice that indicated the rezoning was from a C -2S to C -IS. They felt that the rezoning request gas from a C -2S to C-1. They decided to handle the request as a C-1 and make their motions as such. If Mr. Boardman found out that they would have to re -publish and re -notify the adjacent property owners, then it would also have to re -appear before the Planning Commission. Mr. Langenfeld said that without question they would have to again consider the requests of the citizen group. Ms. Schnabel said that those requests had already been considered and the City Council stipulations had stated that the request would go through and be rezoned without any contest on the rezoning. IIOTIOi1 by lir. Langenfeld1 seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:33 P.M. PLATITTITIC CnMMI ;CION MET TING - D; C,T 4T3rR 7, 1977 --- _Page 1,3 MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Rezoning Request, LOA /777-051 by R.C.E. Corporation: Rezone from 0-20" (General Shopping Areas) to C-1 (Local Business Areas), Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's First Addition, the same being 7899 East River Road ITE. Ms. Schnabel said that it would riot be necessary to include all the stipulations in the motion since City Council had already made them. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that the Citizen Group would not contest such a rezoning as long as the stipulations were met and they had already been pre -arranged prior to the request. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINr .PPOPnSL?) PR, -'T TT,TTTTnny PT,n I p X77 07 EVERT' S A DITI -)TT ?V ^: TrItTT? r; r. T ' n Z. RT;. _G: EII�,G A REPLAT Or LOT 19, j,;XCErT TIIE ElIST 190 FELT THEREOF: AND EXCEPT THE13EST 17 FEET TAKEN FOP, HIGHWAY PURPOSES: AND THE '.'JEST 147.74 FEET OF LOT 183 ALL IN AUDITpIR'S SUTBDIVISION NO. 129. (THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT LACES CEtdTRAL T01T'THOUSE PLAT (NOT RECORDED) Al IS GETeER!'iLLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 73rd AV TUE AND CENTRAL AVEI�TUE N.E. MOTION bMr. Langenfeld, seV d by Ms. Schnabel, to open the Public Hea��ng. Upon a voice, all voting aye, the motion carried una.n`igously. The PuHearing was opened at 9:36 P.M. Mr. Boardman shod the Znnirg Commission a Plat of the area. He indicated that at wbeing proposed was ten lots that would be designed fo �,uplexes. Ile explained that the proposal was to run the street �hraugh and have it cul-de-sac'd. Ile said that the City o F dley had requested that the petitioner attempt to purchas an a 'acent lot. He indicated that the person owning thy, lot did of wish to sell. Mr. Boardman 4i d that it was elt that the proposed development would be bettg4- if the duplexes ould be served by a better read system./Ile indicated that t 0I�rner of the adjacent property di not wish to sell to Mr. Fretag. He said that the adjace property was zoned comme cial and the owner wished to sell th lot as commercial. Mr. Bo- dman pointed out that Mr. Fre g's lot was zoned as R-3. Chair erson Harris said that the only way to be able to put ano er street in would be to condemn land fo the right of w , which would, then, make the adjacent lot u uildable as Commercial lot. T1s. Schnabel didn't believe that the City Council wo d condemn land for a right of way since there would be an altern to way to reach the duplexes. PLANNING COMMT_SSION MFETTTTG- - PT;C%M131 R 7, 1977 Page 14 Mr. Fretag of 3106 - 61st Avenue North indicated to the Planning Commission that both he and Mr. evert Swanson of 258''.7indsor Lane (the property owner) had approached the neighbor directly North of his property and offered them $20,000 for the back 1!3 of the lot,and the additional 25 feet that would enable them to run the road into the area from Central Avenue. He said that the neighbor had refused the offer. He said that they had tried to come up with other alternatives, but none of them seemed advantageous to Mr. Swanson. Mr. Boardman said that he did understand that Mr. Fretag had tried to purchase the land from the neighbor. He was only saying that another alternative would be to have the city condemn the land for the road right of way. He said that he wasn't telling the City they should,, just that it would be another alternative for the petitioner. Chairperson Harris said that by using condemnation to get the road right of way, the City may end up having to pay for the entire lot because by taking that 30 feet, it would almost make the lot unbuildable as a C-1. Mr. Boardman said that it could -be buildable as C-1 since the Code indicated minimum frontage of 160 feet or a total lot size of 20,000 square feet. He said that the remaining lot, after the condemnation, would be just about 20,000 sq ft. Chairperson Harris. asked if all the petitioner's proposed lots met all the requirements. Mr. Boardman indicated that Mr. Fretag's entire plan met all the requirements. Chairperson Harris asked hour the area would be serviced, Mr. Fretag said that all the service would be underground. Ms. Schnabel asked if all the duplexes would be built at once, and if they would be built for sale purposes. Mr. Fretag said that until the weather got better, they would only build one duplex at a time. Ile said that they would work on more than one at a time once the weather got warmer. He indicated that all ten of them would be completed in a 12 -month period of time. Ile also indicated that all of the duplexes would be built for sale purposes. Mr. Fretag said that there would be 1,150 square feet per unit and that the units would be 2 -story units. IIe said that the units would be priced in the x¢90,000 bracket.