Loading...
APPEALS COMM MINUTESJ.IiL /I .l./:l:LLS Vi L.it: iJVULU Vi t1fJ lJ t; a:11 :i JUUI: VIl:1lll Ll.t t= =:1 t; 4'Lllly .:_. r1cly . •Mr. Crowder asked if the construction had been discussed with the neighbor. Mr. Mattson said he had received a call from the neighbor and there was no objections as long as the garage was not going to go to the lot line. Mr. Corbett added that the neighbor had also mentioned not disturbing the fence -between the two properties. Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Mattson if the City staff had any comments on this. 2JNr. Mattson said a firewall had been discussed for the east end of the garage since it will be so close to the lot line. Mr. Corbett said he knew he had to install a firewall between the.living.area and the garage but did not understand why he needed one on the east end of the garage. Mr. Crowder said that with the overhang on the garage and on the adjoining house, the structures would be getting pretty close together. Mr. Corbett said he had no objection to installing the firewall. Chairman Drigans said this can be worked out with the administration when the building permit is applied for. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Crowder, to close the public hearing. upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Chairman Drigans said it seems to him that the hardship is the size of the garage and the proximity to the property line. He said the garage width, 21.6 feet, is.about the minimum for a double garage. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Crowder, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the side yard variance from 5 feet to 3 feet. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 2. A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.103, 4, A2, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE, FROM A_PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO.54 FEET ALONG 79th AVENUE (NORTH LOT LINE), AND, SECTION 205.103, 4, A2, TO REDUCE THE SE'T'BACK FOR THE :•LAIN STRUCTURE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO 54 FEET ALONG EAST RIVER ROAD (SOUTH LOT LINE), AND, SECTION 205.103, 4, A2, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE N•IAIN STRUCTURE FROM A PUBLIC .RIGHT OF VIAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO 20 FEET ALONG LINCOLN STREET (EAST LOT LINE), AND, SECTION 205.103, 4B, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FRO"I THE REQUIRED 15 FEET TO 10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LOT LINE, AND, SECTION 205.104, 1, E2, TO ALLOW OFF STREET PARKING TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF SET BACK THE REQUIRED 20 FEET, AND, SECTION 205.103, 4, C2, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO 20 FEET, AND, SECTION 205.103, 6B, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE OF ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT (R-3) FROM 50 FEET TO 10 FEET (SOUTH LOT LINE), ALL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECULATIVE BUILDING (CO,•L^IERCIAL) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PEARSON' S 1ST A BEING 7899 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY, MINITESOTA. (REQUES` BY MERIDIAi7 CORPORATION, 15 SOUTH 9T11 STREET, MINNEAPOLIS. iIINNESOTA.) MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Dir. David E. Nordale and Mr. David M. Noyes, of the Meridian Corporation, were present to present the request. The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommitte,�! Meeting or May is, L9/i> • The'proposed plot plan was shown to the Board for their review. Chairman Drigans said he had received a letter from Mr. Fudali, who is the attorney for, general partner of, and developer of the Meadow Run Apartments, the adjoining property, objecting to the variances. Chairman Drigans read the letter to the Board. lie also gave a copy of the letter to M.r. Noyes.. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded.by Gabel, to receive the letter from Mr_ Fudali objecting to the variances. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Chairman Drigans read to the Board, the stated hardships for the variances from the application. The application stated, "Due to street setback requirements on three sides, the buildable area is only about 40 (1825 square feet) of the total site area of about 42,226 square feet. This is an extremely low coverage figure. In addition the angled geometry of the property makes for an unusual configuration if the site is to be utilized properly or to its even small buildable maximum." Mr. Mattson showed the Board a plot plan that had been drawn up conforming to the setbacks. Mr. Richard Fudali, and Mr. Larry miller of 7889 Firwood Way, came forward to see the plans.- Mr-.. Nordal.e explained that if you use the zoning setback requirements, that are in existence, from the street, because of the geometry of the shape of the lot, that means by the time you set back all of these distances you would end up with only a 800 square foot parcel and a 900 square foot.parcel that would be buildable. He said that is a very low buildable area for a lot that is zoned commercial. 'lie said it seems this would impose a hardship on anyone that would try to sell or develop this property. Mr. Noyes said that -originally the owners proposed to build a gas station at this location and they took this proposal as a second choice. He said their proposal is for a 7-11 food store and possibly a coin operated laundry and a Payless shoe store. He said the purpose for the Ibuying of this property was for putting in a gas station and this is their second choice. Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Mattson if he could give the history of the property as far as zoning. Mr. Mattson explained that before July of 1969 the property in question was part of a commercially zoned strip running from 77th Way to 79th Way along East River Road. Then in `July of 1969'a portion of that strip was rezoned R -3A along with some M-1 property.east of the commercial strip and next to the tracks. This was done to enlarge an existing R-3 area in between the commercial strip on East River Road and the M-1 strip along the .tracks, for the purpose of accommodating a large apartment complex. This action left 2 pieces of C -2S property; one just north of.77th Way along East River Road,and the subject property just south of 79th Way along East River Road. This same subject property was left bounded on two sides by right of ways and partially on a third side by another right of way. The resultant setback requirements have given rise to the present hardships in building on the subject property within Code. rage • The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of May 13, 1975 Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Mattson to point out each variance on the plot plan. Mr. Mattson said the variances as listed in the public hearing are marked as A through G consecutively on the plot plan. Mr. Mattson added that #iC should be changed in the public hearing notice to read Lincoln Street instead K of East River Road. Mr. Plemel asked if access for this property would be off from 791h ;•Tay, East River Road, or Lincoln Street. Mr. Mattson said the property would use all three roads. Chairman Drigans asked what the object of Lincoln Street is and Mr. Crowder asked who maintains it. Mr. Fudali said the street is used as an access to the apartments and his plows usually maintain it. Mr. Plemel asked if there would be left turns made onto East River Road from this property. Mr. Fudali stated that he didn't think left turns would be permitted, as on his building permit, it was stipulated that a sign be installed that no left turns be permitted onto East River Road from the apartment road,, so somebody going south would have to come out on 79th to be legal. 11r. Nordale said he would like to make a general comment about the variances and that was that if you took the same basic mass and juggled it, unless you went to an unusual shape you would always be affected by variances. He said the reason they pushed the building back, toward the east, was for parking and setting back as far as possible from East River,Road. Chairman Drigans said he was concerned that the request said for a speculative building and he wondered what type of study was done to determine that a dairy store and laundromat were needed. Mr. -Noyes said that they were approached by the owners of the property, as Meridian Corporation are developers and in this type of business, and the owners said that they had talked with the City staff who informed them there should be no problems with this type of business. He . said they have a working relationship with the 7-11 Stores who they feel are an excellent small food operation and they ran lots of studies on this .particular site, as traffic counts, etc., and they felt there was a definite need in this area for a store. Mr. Noyes said the owner felt because of the gas situation, that this proposal was an alternative. He added that 7-11is .interested in a long term lease and the other portion of the building has no definite tenants yet. He said it could be broken up and used for doctor offices as long as the business was allowed by the Code. Chairman Drigans said they then would not be asking for a special use or a rezoning after the building is up, in order to rent it. Mr. Noyes said they would not. Mr.. Crowder asked if 7-11 stores have a basic square footage that they go with normally. Mr. Noyes said that 7-11 likes..the 2400 square feet. Mr. Crowder said if the building was to be built for just the 7-11 store, would it be just half the proposed building. Mr. Noyes said because of the cost of land, they couldn't afford to build a 2400 square foot building for just 7-11. Mr. Noyes said he was not aware that there was any opposition to this type of business, in fact, they thought because of the residential neighborhood and apartments, that this business would be an asset to the neighborhood. Mrs. Wahlberg asked what the size of the other half of the building is. Mr.. Noyes said the 7-11 store would have 2400 square feet,and there would'be 2800 square feet in the rest of the building. Mr. Crowder asked if the 41 parking stalls was arrived at by the total of these two figures or 5200 square feet. Mr. Mattson said it was determined for the 7-11 store and the rest of the j building being office space. • Page 5 The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of May 13, 1975 t,'.r. Fudali said he would like to corvnent on the hardships stated. IIe said the situation here is one where the price of the hand is so high that they have to add square footage onto the building for some commercial purpose for which they are not certain as yet. Ile said laundry facilities were mentioned for example, and he added that the apartments have 15 laundry rooms so they have plenty of Laundry facilities. ,-mr. Noyes said to just eliminate the laundry facilities then as he was not sure of what would be going into the building. Mr. Fudali continued that here is a situation where East River Road is practically famous on a state level for the number of accidents because of the number of vehicles and speed of the vehicles that travel this road. IIS said there are approximately 450 automobiles that have only two ways to get in and out of the 114eadow Run Apartments; one is Lincoln Street and the other is Vast River Road. lie said.that if they are going to go south, which most of them do as they work toward downtown, they are supposed to go out Lincoln Street rather then East River Road so you have during the working hours, 300 to 450 cars between the hours of 7-9 ingressing and egressing onto East River Road. He said when they went through obtaining the apartment building permits, one of the things the Council specifically reyiired was that there be no curb cuts wl^at so ever along East River Road and that Lincoln Street be the only source c- ingress and egress. He said when the people bought this subject property it was platted like this and the ordinances were in existence, and anybody could have -determined what could be built on this property or what could not be built on this property. He said they wanted to build a filling station and that went into court, and is now a dead issue. Mt. Fudali said for them to now realize what they want as far as dollars for the property, this large building, or larger than required building, has to be built on the property and so they come now with all these variances. Mr. Fudali said he had no objection to any variance under any circumstance which first is a result of a true legitimate hardship, and this is no legitimate harship as far as the zoning is concerned because this was platted when the owners bought it. He added he also had no objections.to variances if they did not affect the surrounding property in any way, .then even if there is no hardship, and granting the variances will facilitate an improvement which is going to bring tax base and a use for the community, then it should procede. He said not withstanding the fact that he felt there is no hardship here, other than the fact that they want to yield a certain number of dollars from their property, he would have no objection to the "D" and "G" variances because they in no way trouble the other properties as far as the safety point of view. He said as - far as "C" and "F" are concerned, they are completely blocking the East River Road visual situation. He said if he would have asked for and received variances for setbacks on the Meadow Run Apartments, he could have saved well over $100,000 because of the construction problems they encountered in holding the building tight to the creek, and this was a hardship as far as dollars was concerned, but the situation of safety was more paramount and no variances were asked for. He said the setbacks are set up by the City to create good visual lines of sight so that people can see other people moving back and forth in automobiles and he felt that each one of these variances asked for, except "D and "G", will impair the vision. He said from an aesthetic point of view, the back of this building will be an eyesore to his tenants because of the trash containers and storage. Mr. Fudali continued that for 300 families there -are only two :roads, and leaving the complex means they have to use East River Road and for him, as the owner of the apartments, he has to be concerned with the development of _ this lot. lie said in this instance, there is a building that is less than half leased out and all we know about the other part is that it will meet the Code, so we don't know how it will benefit the community and yet this Board is .asked to make determinations and grant variances which are going to impair the P,ige 6 The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of may 13, 1975 apartment complex. IIe said that if the gentlemen from Meridian Corporation would like to sit down wit-h.him and try to figure out the best location of .the building to the satisfaction of both parties, he would be willing to do so. i Chairman Drigans said he could not understand what the visual problem is as far as East River Road. Mr. Fudali said that the parking in front of this building, if you were coming down 79th Play, would block seeing the cars on East River Road. Chairman Drigans asked if there was a stop sign on 79th Way. Mr. Miller said there was one there. Chairman Drigans said he failed to see where there was a visual problem here then, when the cars have to stop before getting onto East River Road. Mr. £iordale said this was discussed with the City staff and that was one of the reasons for'placing the building back instead of more toward East River Road. Chairman Drigans asked if it was a necessity to have an exit on East River Road. Mr. Nordaie said it was considered more of an entrance for the people coming home along East River Road. Mrs. Wahlberg asked how the people would be controlled from exiting onto East River.Road. Mr. Noyes said.a sign could be put up but this lould be no guarantee that they would not exit there. Mr. Plemel asked if there was a right turn lane for 79th Play. Mr. Fudali said there was not. _ Mr. Miller said he was the only one present who lived in the area, and he wondered why this has an isolated zoning when all around this property is residential zoning. Chairman Drigans explained.that_the property that the apartments are on was rezoned to apartment zoning and this piece of property was under separate ownership so was not included in the rezoning.mr. Miller asked if this piece of property could be rezoned to residential. Chairman Drigans said the property owner would have to request a rezoning. P•4r. Miller said he couldn't see why a commercial building should be built in the middle of residential property. He said this store will have lighting on until 11:00 P.M. He said its too bad that someone can't develop this residential. Chairman Drigans said that because of the odd shape of the property, anything being built would have stringent restrictions. 11r. Nordale,added that it would be almost impossible to build anything on this 1'ot without variances. Mr. Crowder said the one problem with the apartments is that the people are all leaving within a certain time period and then there is no traffic for two or three hours. He said that was one of the reasons for no exiting on East River Road. He said with this type of business, the traffic pattern shouldn't be grouped in such a small time period. Mr. Plemel asked if there was a possibility of a traffic signal going in at 79th Way. Mr. Mattson said he was not sure. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Fudali what his objections to the filling station were. Mr. Fudali said at the time the station was proposed, there were two stations just down the road that were both abandoned and an abandoned -filling station deteriorates very quickly. He said if you look at the locations of the other stations in Fridley, they are all within large commercials areas. He said when you looked at the other stations and then looked at this isolated site, the City plus everyone else felt this 'site would not: be appropriate for a service station because of the lighting, -storage, cars, tow trucks, hours, etc. Mr. Fudali said this is a nice piece of ground and a food store has some merit here but in looking at the shopping center, they have tenants going in and out all the time and this might happen here.. Page 7 • The Minutes of the Board of 11p,eeals Subcommittee Meeting of May 13, 1975 Mrs. Gabel asked if this property was being bought.contingent upon the variances being approved. Mr. Noyes said the owners of this property are just desirous of developing their property as best as they can. IIe said Meridian Corporation is just the developer and contractor. He said he felt that 7-11 would be an asset in the residential neighborhood. He said the Chamber of Commerce'has a number of people who would want to go'into this type of facility and they will be quite restrictive in selecting tenants. Chairman Drigans asked if this proposal had been before Building Standards. Mr. Nordale said he thought they would be going to that Board at their next meeting. Where was a discussion on moving the building toward East River Road. Mr. Fudali said he would like to see a larger green area and have it stay as far away from. 79th Way and Lincoln as possible. Mrs. Wahlberg said the building is proposed 54 feet from 79th Ajay and from a visual safety standpoint that should be ample. Mr. Fudali said the Code says it should be 80 feet and this must have been studied before it was made a requirement. Iie.said there a -a lots of reasons for the setbacks, one of them being visual, and another is to avoid condemnations when roads are widened, and another is to have larger green areas. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there is any boulevard on 79th Way or if the property starts at the purb. Mr. Fudali said he didn't know but he added that 79th is a state aid street and once that road continues over the tracks it will be an awfully popular road like Osborne or Mississippi, and he said he could imagine 79th Way being widened. Mr. Fudali said•they have land along 79th Way but all they have along that area is berming. He said 'the building are way off from 79th. Mr. Mattson said he did not know how big the boulevard is along 79th Way. Chairman Drigans said it looks like there is a 20 foot boulevard along East River Road. Mr. Nordale said he thought it was about 20 feet. Chairman Drigans said it also looked like there was an easement along the property. There was a discussion on both of these as far as the relationship to the property line and as far as.widening East River Road. No definite dimensions were determined. Chairman Drigans said one of the areas that will have to be discussed, but not with this Committee, is the lighting as this is one of the problems with commercial property along East'.'River Road. There was then a discussion on alternate locations for the building on the lot. Chairman Drigans noted that because of the shape of the lot, the total area of the building has only 18% lot coverage which is considerably less than the 40% allowed per the Code. Mr. Crowder noted that even if only part of this building was built, it would still need many of the same variances being asked for. Mr. Mattson said that in determining this location for the building on the lot, it was felt that even though it may not be the ideal location, it is the most appropriate location for the shape of the lot._ He said such .things as refuse and storage areas might be better placed in the side -instead of the back but this would be determined by Building Standards. �., MOTION by Crowder, seconded by Gabel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Page a The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of May 13, 1975 Chairman Drigans said the hardship is the lot size and Mr. Plemel added that it is more the lot shape with relationship to all the setbacks. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if it was correct that the size of the building determines the number of parking stalls. mr. Mattson said in this case it is determined by the 7-11 store, being a store, and the rest of the building being used as office space. Chairman Drigans asked if it was thought to be conceivable to have 41 cars here at any one. time. Mr. Mattson said he didn't think so. Chairman Drigans asked if as long as the space is available, is it necessary to blacktop the entire area for parking. Mr. Mattson said if it is not blacktopped, it would need another variance. .•,r. Crowder said variance "E" could be eliminated as it is only needed for 3 cars to back out of the stalls but then they would heed a reduction in stalls from 41 to 38. He said since we don't know what is going into the other half of the building, and according to the Code it could be a number of things,_ it is bonceivable that the stalls will be needed. Chairman Driqans said it would be easier to give them a variance on parking stalls as there is no other place to park because they can't park on the street. Mrs. Wahlberg said unless you get something in there like a V.F.W., the parking stalls could be reduced. Mr. Crowder said this would eliminate one variance but we would have to grant a variance on the number of stalls. Chainnan Drigans added that this change would create more green area. Mr. Crowder said that this idea is well taken and he felt it should be in the motion that if Building Standards wanted more green area instead of all. the parking stalls, that the Board would entertain the deviation. Mr. Nordale said they would prefer this also if it could be done, assuming that the stalls would not be needed for the tenants. Mrs. Wahlberg said she would like to know if in a 7-11 store, if the deliveries are made in the front or in the back. Mr. Nordale said the way it is set up at present, it could be on either the side or back and he added that the general deliveries are made during the day and these could also go in the front. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there would be access to the refuse containers if these were placed along the back of the building. Mr. Nordale said this is usually handled by screening with access to it. He said there hasn't been the need for any direct immediate pick-up. Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason she is asking is that a driveway in tiie back might need another variance, Mr. Mattson said. this had been discussed with the Planning Assistant and he'was sure it could be worked out. There was a discussion on moving the building west but it was determined that this could possibly _-infringe on the easement. Mr. Crowder said this looks like a very unfortunate situation of C -2S which is an all encompassing thing, anything from an office to a store, and because of the shape of the land and the fact that there are three street, basically one being a half street, he felt he was in agreement with granting all of the variances that are being requested and further he would make a recommendation following that, that the next body considering this, make a,determination as to whether 41 stalls are really necessary. He said he would just as soon see variance "E" eliminated and possibly a rearrangement of the whole parking area. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Gabel, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the variances, referred to as "A" through "G" as requested by Mericlian Corporation, with the following suggestions; 1. On the direct access to East River Road that there be a sign installed stating "No Left Turn". 2. The next body to consider this, be it Building Standards or the City Council, consider the Hoard's recommendation to eliminate variance "E" by eliminating 3 existing stalls on tha northwest corner of the property in the hope that this area be turned in green area. ,_� _ . _ ,� -_. �� __ �. -----.-�__�_ .._R�_ - -� 1 r:idlcy Appeal,; Gocuilnsion Meeting -- March 15, 1977 Pale 7 2 _ CITY COUJ�CIL Ri?�r4 ;T;E1MED ATIPR VAL Or,', ��' :�.1)i:VI:L01';'.F.i�T.�F5 PIROPOSED 3Y num) 11 CORPO ZA' TON AT 1:JL IiiT:;:tSi:C'PIOP; 011' 79TIi W."LY AND L13T RD7ER ROAD WI171 THE' IFOLLOWING STIPUII►T OLS 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 marked on the plans). It. Entire building would be trick. 5. Buffer plantings incorporated with berm. b. Lighting; focused dotizi so as not to shine into the residential property orner's windows. 7. All blacktop adjoining; green area to be separated by poured concrete curbing. 8. Vo egress from the development onto East River Road; ingress only. 9. Refuse area should have solid screen, no gate opening onto the service drive, the portion not being used for refuse storage and handiing to be used for plantings. 10. Sidewalk con.•:ection constructed to Lincoln Street. If an agreement cannot be reached between Ncr_dian and FL dal.i, the side::alk connection shculd be, constructed anyway, but only on i;eric:ianls property. This will offer property protection from nearby residents. 11. Parking moved dc:..1 to 20 feet to pick up additional room to enable cars to face in instead of against- each other. tail , �nc in future. 13. Easements to be dedicated to City of Fridley as noted on attached map. 14. Applicatnt will construct a deceleration lane fro:a the driveway abutting East Diver 1,oad to the south. The deceleration Dyne• is to be a 12 foot wide bitlx?dnous section with a 2 foot gravel. shoulder and is to extend southward fro;n the driveway entrance 100 feet soutz.;:ard from the south� �3 00,66 radius &nd then taper at 15:1 to tie back into the existing road;ray. The typical section shall consist of U" Class V base, ashhali, binder course 0 -I'D 23!,l) and 1';:" asphalt wearing course (;::;ID 23!11). All con- struct -ion shall be in acco_- a:ice with the Minnesota Departrient of Hii;nways Standard Specification.,; for Highway Construction dated Jc:l:i:,iry 1, 1912, and as amended by Supple;-iontc'il .Specification for Hi,;hi:L�y Construction dated January 1, 197U. 3.5. A bond coverin,; the cost of all stipulated improvencnts would be recu.i.re.d. { ,- t • � _ t � � �� �� _ � � \ t \ �� \ '`� � � `�� ��� � � ��' ��� .. h 8, - - `�'--�s�-- _ ,�. �= . �� -------- �-� Tom_ �� � f L' \ d' �. f f� � .. _� � �'� l \ �` C9.. �?L � .,\ ; ` Y � \� ... ` \ y' �T` � ����- ,. ��.: =.., ,� ��: _ � ��. � - � � �. _--+ '� v _ � � _c � �• h1 : ` `'. � ` i 1 � _ �.�� ` _ � `tip `. � ��T1� F � =j • � _ • [" ti. -� �� . _ � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March•15, 1977 Page 5 F 2� 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.103,, 41 A21 TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT A OF WAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO 77 FEET ALONG 79TH AVENUE NO OT LINE), T= THE REQUI 0 FEET TO 5 FEET ALONG EAST RIVER ROADfa SOUTH LOT LINE), AND FROM THE'REQUIRED0 20 FEET ==1 -STREET ( (EAST LOT LINE), AND SECTION 205.103 B, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK p FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FEET TO 10 FEET ALONG THE 3UUIM LUI M1=1 CTION 205.104, 1, El, T T= OFF STRE77ARKING TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET QF THE [ 1_U_ LOT LINE INSTEAD OF SETBL K -'THE REQUIRED 20 FEET, AND SECTION 205.1033 41 C2, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 2 FEET � TO 20 FEET AND SECTION 205.103, 5B, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM THE 4 BO DARY LINE OF ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT (R-3) FROI4LO TFEEET ` ( SOU TH LOT LINE)., ALL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECULATIVE BUILDING (COMMERCIAL) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1.1 BLOCK 11 PEARSON'S 1ST ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7899 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Request by R.C.E. Corporation, 7899 East River Road, N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.103, 4, A2 (Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3) requiring an 80 foot setback from the main structure to any public right of way. Public purpose served is to provide for adequate parking and open landscaped areas as well as to congestion and provide adequate site clearances in commercial areas. Section 205.103, 112 B, requring a side yard setback of 1.5 feet from a, common property line. Public purpose served is to provide for adequate open areas around structures and clear access for fire fighting and to reduce the conflagration of fire. Section 205.101, 13 E, prohibiting parking in commercial areas within any portion of the required 20 foot front yard. Public purpose served is to limit visual encroachment into neighboring sight lines and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right of ways. Section 205.103, R, C, 2 requiring a rear yard setback of 25 feet. Public purpose served is to provide adequate access for fire fighting and again to limit threats from conflagration of fire. l Fridley Appeals.Commission Meeting - March 15, 1977 Page 6 2C Section 205.103, 6B, requiring a minimum set, back of 50 feet from a common boundary line of neighboring property which is zoned other than commercial. Public purpose served is to provide adequate open "buffer" areas between zoning districts for aesthetic and development reasons. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Due to street setback requirements on three sides, the building area available is only about 4% (1,825 square feet) of the total site area of. about 112,2.26 square feet. This is an extremely low coverage figure. In addition, the angled geometry of the property makes for an unusual configuration if the site is to be utilized properly or to its even small building maximum. The petitioner applies for a variance to build to the size and configuration shown on the enclosed drawing. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The property in question was zoned as R-3 when the original zoning ordinance was adopted in 1956. In 1960 it was rezoned to C -2S (general shopping areas). Several subsequent proposals, including a filling station, were submitted and either denied or withdrawn. A similar request to this one, was approved by the Board of. Appeals on May 13, 1975. It was approved by the City Council as well. Because no further action was taken and no building permit issued, the approved variances have lapsed. The unusual circumstances of this corner property being bounded on three of four sides by public right of way extremely limits the available building area. The proposed building of 7,008 square feet (compared to 5,200 square feet in the Meridian Corporation request in 1975) will apparently house a 7-11 Store with the remainder as office space. (The 1975 request included a coin-operated laundry). The building will cover approximately 1790 of the lot. No plans,are on file for the original 1975 request. A list of the stipulations which Council imposed on the 1975 request by Meridian Corporation have been included as a reference. Please note that the request for the petitioner to petition Council for a rezoning from C -2S (general shopping areas) to C-1 (local shopping areas) would reduce the setback requirements from 80 feet to 35 feet off 79th Avenue and East River Road. A Bond, covering the costs of all stipulated improvements, Will be required. In addition, all necessary and proper right of ways, easements and letters of encroachment should be submitted and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1977 Pa"e 7 2 D CITY COUNCIL RECOIdMENDED APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED BY MERIDIAN CORPORATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF 79Th WAY AND EAST RIVER ROAD WITH THE FOLLOWING 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 marked on the plans). 4. Entire building would be brick. S. 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. 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 -2S 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. The typical section shall consist of 8" Class V base, 1-2-" asphalt binder course (MHD 2341) and 11," asphalt wearing course (MHD 2311). All con- struction 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 dated January 1, 1971. 15. A bond covering the cost of all stipulated improvements would be required. 11 Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 1.5j 1_97Y Page 8 ® ' 2E Mr. Richard C. Ernst, representing the R.C.E. Corporation; and Mr. Robert A. Minish, 331 Pearson Way, N.E., an interested person, were present. Mr. Holden showed the Commission the plan that had been submitted two years ago and told them how it varied. Mr. Minish stated he hadn't received a notice two years ago, and wondered if the standards had changed. Mrs. Schnabel checked the file and determined his name hadn't been on the mailing list before, and there were a few more names on the present mailing list. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Ernst if either he or his father (who is President of the R.C.E. Corporation) were associated with the Meridian Corporation. Mr. Ernst replied they were not, although their proposal was based on the Meridian plan. He explained that their primary tenant would be 7-11, and they had taken the recommendations that Had been stipulated in the first plan and incorporated those into this plan which they were presenting tonight. He said they had increase the size of the building for economic reasons and placed the setback at 351. Other than that, he said, there were no other changes in basic layout of the building on this property. He added that this property was chastised quite a bit by the general ordinances, and that was the reason for the variances. Chairperson Schnabel suggested the Commission label the requests for variances on the Official Notice of the Public Hearing as "A" through "G", so they would be easier to refer to. She noted that the request before them was for 7,008 square feet and the previous plans called for the building to be 5,200 square feet; so the only change from the previous request would be on request A, which called for a reduction from 80' to 35'. Mrs. Schnabel also pointed out to the Commission the area in blue on the plans, which represented the total area that would be buildable if all the setbacks were met ( about 40/10). Chairperson Schnabel stated that one of the major concerns two years ago was the fact that people would be coming off of East River Road onto this property and might be tempted to go back on East River Road from this property, and it had been suggested that a sign be put up saying "No Right Turn". Mr. Ernst stated that his engineer had designated that sign. Chair- person Schnabel said that the members of the Appeals Cortinission and City Council thought it would be dangerous otherwise, and they wanted Lincoln Street to be the only source of egress and ingress. Mr. Minish stated that he had been in a traffic accident at that corner and was very concerned about the safety factor. He said he didn't have any problem with the building or any of the setbacks, but was concerned about the traffic it would generate. Chairperson Schnabel said the State and County would have to work together to get signalization put in at that corner, and asked what the status was on the proposed signalization. Mr. Barna replied that it was in the planning stages at this time, possibly for next year. He said that the study had been started, and plans were for a complete improvement of the intersection. He said that right now that intersection was a death trap, and he was surprised there weren't more accidents there. Mr. Minish stated he just wanted the Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1.977 Page 9 2F Commission to realize what his concerns were for that corner, and then left the meeting. Chairperson Schnabel asked if Mr. Ernst had any communication with Mr. Fudali or anyone from the Meadow Run Apartments on this, and Mr. Ernst replied he hadn't. Mrs. Gabel asked how this situation went from Meridian to the R.C.E. Corporation. Mr. Ernst explained that when Meridian was going to construct the building, times were quite difficult in the mortgage department for money to build, so it was dropped. lie said that 7-11 was interested in this particular site, and they were the company that was taking over the plans. He said they had an option on the property now. Mrs. Gabel asked why the previously -approved plan was no longer suitable for 7-11, and Mrs. Schnabel said the new contractor/developer had a new concept on what should be in there. Mrs. Gabel asked why a larger building had been proposed, and Mr. Ernst said it was for economic reasons primarily. He explained that 7-11 had increased the size of their stores over the past six months and were planning on a larger store. Also, he said, there would be more room to rent. Mr. Holden said that the previous plans had called for a coin-operated laundry. Chairperson Schnabel noted that one of the things that made them hold back was when Mr. Fudali told them there were many coin-operated laundries within the apartment.complexes themselves. Mr. Ernst said that there might be a dry cleaning establishment included in the new plans. 1,11r. Kemper asked what the outcome was of the original request made by the Meridian group. Chairperson Schnabel explained that the requests were approved with a number of stipulations, but apparently Meridian could not get financing so they dropped the idea. Mr. Kemper asked if all of the stipulations put on by the Council at that time still applied, and Mrs. Gabel replied they didn't because the time had run out. Mr. Kemper noted that the only actual change was in the dimension of the building. Chairperson. Schnabel said she had a question regarding the number of parking stalls, and asked how many would be required for this plan. Mr. Holden replied that Staff had gone through this, and found that R.C.E. had an excess of what they considered to be an adequate number of parking stalls. He said there were enough stalls provided that could accommodate an even larger 7-11 operation and still meet the requirement. After some discussion on how the number of parking stalls was determined, Mr. Ernst stated that the actual store was divided up into three basic areas (office, retail and sales). Chairperson Schnabel asked if the number of parking stall changed with each use of the building, or if it was consistent throughout the zoning area. Mr. Ernst said the zoning determined the parking requirements, and Mr. Holden added that under the zoning there were requirements for different uses. Mr. Barna read the zoning code regarding this, and noted that they would still require three parking stalls for the storage area. He said that the warehouse area obviously didn't need parking spaces, so they could take that into consideration. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Ernst if he was proposing 40 parking stalls, and he replied that was correct. He explained that in his meetings with Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1917 Page 10 ' 2G Mr. Boardman and based on the city ordinances, they had determined that 38 parking stalls were needed, and they were providing forty. Mr. Ernst said that a 7-11 only used from five to six parking spaces because of the large turnover of people. Chairperson Schnabel stated that a consideration on variance E (to allow off-street parking to be within 5 feet of the front lot line instead of set back the required 20 feet) would be to eliminate two parking stalls because they were not needed. She pointed out where that would add 201, since each of the stalls was approximately 10' in width, and pointed out that green area would be gained on the corner. Chairperson Schnabel said another thing she was concerned about was that 7-11 appeared to have changed its policies over the past number of years and now appeared to be open 24 hours a day. She said she couldn't speak for the adjacent neighbors, but she was concerned about lighting in terms of this place being open 24 hours a day. Mr. Ernst said that lighting would be directed away from the neighbors across the street and would be well-planned with berming, etc. He said he didn't know what their policies would be concerning being open 24 hours a day, but that would probably be determined after a certain period of time. Mr. Holden asked if it would be possible to berm the North edge of the property so the headlights would get above 20', and Mr. Ernst said that was possible. Chairperson Schnabel said another thing she would like to check on was the back of the property line, and asked if they intended to put in any kind of fencing. Mr. Ernst said that had been suggested by Mr. Boardman, and showed on the plan how it would extend across the back. He added that the tenants of the apartment buildings would appreciate that, and said there wouldn't be any storage or machinery in the back of the building. Chairperson Schnabel asked if the other shops besides 7-11 would have back- door entrances, and Mr. Ernst replied they would. She said it was for that reason that fencing would be appreciated. Chairperson Schnabel said that in 1975 one of the stipulations had been that the applicant petition for rezoning from C -2S to C-1 with the under- standing there would be no problems in achieving that rezoning. She said she thought the intent was to focus a little closer on the type of tenants that would go into that building, as C-1 requirements were a little more stringent. She said it was not the Appeals Commission's prerogative to initiate any zoning change, but it might come up at the City Council level and she thought Mr. Ernst should be aware of that. Chairperson Schnabel asked what the exterior of the building would be, and Mr. Ernst replied it would be brick all the way around with a shingled mansard all the way around the building and a deck roof. Chairperson Schnabel asked if they intended to channel the entrance off of East River Road so it would be an entrance only and not an exit, and Mr. Ernst replied they did. He said that would be done with curbing and they would talk to the highway department about that, and he also thought a sign would be desirable. .Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1977 F Page 11. Mr. Holden asked if it would be possible for South -bound traffic to turn left into that entrance, and Mrs. Schnabel replied no, not if they put some type type of curbing in there. Mr. Kemper suggested a "No Left Turn" sign there. Mr. Holden commented that he didn't think that was something they could control right now, and Chairperson Schnabel said it was something they could control if they eliminated access off of East River Road. Mr. Kemper asked if it would be possible to eliminate that entrance until such time as the corner improvement on 79th and East River Road occurred, and then take another look at that entrance. Mr. Ernst said that the way it stood now, there wasn't a right-hand turn lane, and they would be constructing that themselves. He said what they were concerned about was some driver who wanted to go against the grain, and from their standpoint they would like to have that possibility eliminated. Mrs. Gabel noted that the highway at that point was not divided, and Mr.. Barna said that was correct. Mr. Ernst pointed out the intersection to the South of them where people were making left-hand turns entering the apartments, and he thought the incentive would be greater to get into the apartments than to go to the store. Mr. Barna pointed out that the people who were doing that were doing so illegally, and complaints had been made. Mr. Ernst said that if access on East River Road was closed until the proposed improvement was made, that would generate more traffic on 79th and that could cause problems also. Mr. Barna said that his concern was that the intersection change that had been described to him by someone from the Highway Department was a flip-flop from the one at Mississippi; it would be widened on the East side, not the West. There followed a discussion on the easements, and the possibility of the City condemning a larger portion than the easement for the new intersection. Mr. Holden said he thought the county and Highway Department could possibly settle this. Mr. Ernst commented that he thought his proposed plan was possibly the most limiting of all access plans. Mr. Holden stated that the City Council had been rather descript as to what that turn lane would incorporate, and it amounted to the developer would really be picking up some of the tab for putting in the curbing and additional blacktop. Mr. Ernst stated that their tentative plans at this stage were based on the easements the City had taken. Chairperson Schnabel said that according to what she had been able to research, the last time there had been any correspondence concerning the signalization on 79th was June 16, 1975; it appeared there hadn't been anything since then. Mrs. Schnabel said that evidently, some of the City Council recommendations of 1975 incorporated the recommendations of the Appeals Commission as well as the Building Standards -Design Control Sub- committee that was in effect at that time. She said that according to the minutes she had of the City Council meeting, there was a motion to approve the variances with stipulations by the Board of Appeals and the Building Standards -Design Control Subcommittee, and the additional stipulation that there be no access onto East River Road, that an easement be dedicated on East River Road for right of way, and that the applicant will petition for zoning change from C -2S to C-1 and that there will be no contest on this zoning change in the future. That motion had carried unanimously, Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting- March 15, 1.977 F Page 12 2I and was contained in the minutes of the Council meeting of June 16, 1975• Mr. Holden noted there was a conflict in what the minutes said and the list of stipulations that had come out later (8/5/75), and Mrs. Gabel suggested that perhaps a change had been made by the Council at a later date. Mrs. Schnabel stated that on July 14, 1975 Mr. Warren Caldwell, who was the owner of the property, stated in a letter to 'Mr. Quershi: "It is our under- standing that additional demands will be made by the Council in order to possibly obtain ingress and egress from East River Road. This has to do with installation of accelleration and decelleration lanes along East River Road. We are in agreement to rezoning only if we can obtain direct access from East River Road, and we would be agreeable to right -turn traffic only in exit to East River Road. It is our understanding that this could possibly be worked out. On the assumption that Meridian Corporation will purchase our site, we are petitioning for rezoning on behalf of Meridian Corporation, based on the previously submitted plot plans, and only if ingress and egress along East River Road is granted by the Council. This site would have little value with no access along East River Road". Chairperson Schnabel noted that if what she had read was correct, they had agreed to rezone only if they could have access to East River Road. Chairperson Schnabel said there was another letter from the President of the Meridian Corporation to Mr. Cald:aell which read: "...this will confirm that the parties we have been negotiating with relative to the East River Road site (that is 7-11 and others) have expressed their disinterest in the site without direct access from East River Road. Their experience, they indicate, dictates avoidance of such a site as it has a tendency to dis- courage shoppers by indirect access. If the entire highway had limited access to all frontage, the shopper reaction would be different, but where applied on an individual basis, they believe it psychologically detrimental. Based on the above experience of extremely successful national retailers such as 7-11 Food Stores and others, we would not be interested in exercising our option to purchase the property. We believe the site is not marketable without access from East River Road, especially with a long frontage of 341 feet". Mrs. Schnabel said that may be what prompted the City Council to reassess the proposal and allow an ingress only. She noted the list of stipulations was dated August 5, 1975, and the other documents were dated June and July. Chairperson Schnabel stated this had taken quite a bit of time, but it was important to understand that if an access was to be allowed on East River Road (and the letters had indicated that would be a requirement of the major tenants of the building), then she thought they should be very careful that that continue to be an ingress only and hope the design of it would discourage egress and discourage a person . travelling South on East River Road from attempting to make an entrance there for purposes of safety. Mr. Holden commented that normally that wouldn't be much of a problem, but with that intersection so close it could really back up cars. Chairperson Schnabel said'she thought they could draw the Council's attention to the fact that the last correspondence with the county on the situation Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting March 15, 1977 F Page 13 2J at that corner of 79th and East River Road appeared to be June 16, 1975, and they could reaffirm their interest in seeing that intersection takezcare of as quickly as possible. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Ernst if he would consider rezoning to C-1, and Mr. Ernst replied he didn't think he would consider it. He said they wanted to keep the building as a 7-11 store and preferrably office space, but he didn't know what would happen thirty or forty years from now. He said he didn't want to restrict the property any more than it was right now, and he thought the chances of the building being used for undesirable operations were not great. P4rs. Gabel explained they were thinking more in terms that they didn't want it to go to a heavier type of use that wouldn't be permitted in a C-1 zone. Mr. Kemper told 1.7r. Ernst he thought he should bear in mind that the City Council might insist it go to C-1. Mr. Ernst then said he would be willing to cooperate on that, and didn't see any problem. Mr. Kemper stated that he was inclined not to approve the entrance off of East River Road because of the very dangerous intersection. He said he had no objections to the building going in, but he was very concerned about opening up an entrance off of East River Road until such time that entrance from south -bound traffic into that parking lot could be somehow restricted. Mr. Ernst suggested a protruding island that would restrict traffic, and Mrs. Schnabel said that would have to be worked out with the county. Mr. Kemper said that he thought an entrance off of East River Road into this parking lot was a sensible thing if south -bound traffic could be controlled. He added that one of the reasons this Board was here was to analyze why the ordinances were there, and safety was of paramount importance. He stated that without that control, he thought they would be creating a traffic hazard. Mr. Kemper said he would be disposed to not approve the variance with that in mind, but would put a condition on that --that the entrance could be prepared and could be opened up at a later date. He said his stipulation would be that no ingress or egress from East River Road be allowed until. such time as south -bound traffic was restricted from entering; but the City Council might come to a different conclusion. Chairperson Schnabel said that at this point there were probably no objections to any of the other requests with the possible exception of "E" (to allow off street parking to be within 5 feet of the front lot line instead of set back the required 20 feet). Mr. Ernst said he had no objection to eliminating the two parking stalls. He said he would like to start construction this spring and complete it 60 days afterwards. The Commission then went through the stipulations recommended by Council on the original proposal, and decided if they could be handled by Staff, were obsolete, or should continue to be a recommendation. Mrs. Gabel asked what the sign would be that was noted on the plans, and Mr. Ernst said that 7-11 liked to have their own sign but they have considered multiple -use signs. He stated that he really couldn't say exactly what it would be at this point, but thought it would concur with all the ordinances. Chairperson Schnabel explained it had been brought up because the sign Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1.977 ` Page 11t -- 2K ordinance was in the process of being rewritten. Mr. Ernst said he would cooperate with the City on that, and Mr. Holden mentioned the sign might have to be moved a little bit South. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Schnabel said that she had not come across any correspondence from any person in the area stating objections, and it appeared that the property owners were not concerned at this point with this construction. Mr. Barna said he had one comr^iunication from Mr. Larry Miller who lived right across the street from the proposed structure, and Mr. Miller had .felt it wouldn't do any good to complain. Mr. Barna said that Mr. Miller would prefer a four-plex, or something of that nature on that property. Mr. Barna stated that one of his other concerns was that in ten years it would be one more vacant business sitting on the side of East River Road. He said that he personally had no objections to a store being there, and he had spoken to the owner of the Fridley Food Market and they had no objections and didn't feel it would hurt their business at all. He said his main objection would be to any new entrance or exit on East River Road, and the additional traffic it would generate crossing the River Road bothered him extremely. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the school bus stopped at the intersection of Fast River Road and 79th Way, and Mr. Barna said it stopped further down. He said they had stopped there at one time, but there were too many near -accidents. Mr. Kemper asked if they discharged children that had to cross East River Road, and Mrs. Gabel said they did. Mrs. Gabel said that besides the problem of controlling that entrance, she thought it was also part of their responsibility to the community to not create a situation that was worse than it presently was. She stated she thought when this happened two years ago that they were squeezing everything out of this they possibly could, and she felt even more so now, although she did understand the problem with the lot. She added that she could live with this plan. Chairperson Schnabel stated that without the real property owner at the meeting it would be hard to determine if he had ever had a buyer who was interested in putting any multiple dwelling on the property. She added, however, that its present zoning might discourage someone from wanting to buy that property for anything other than a commercial structure of some type. She said it had been zoned for 16+ years as commercial. Mr. Barna said that one other concern he had was the statement in the letter from the 7-11 people that they would not consider building there if they couldn't have an entry off of East River Road; maybe that was the reason the other variances were allowed to expire. Mr. Ernst said he didn't have the specifics involved in -that. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - 141arch 15, 1977 Page 15 2L MOTION by Kemper that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, that all the variances be approved with the exception of "E", with the strong recommendation to Council that no entrances or exits be allowed at this time off of East River Road until such time that south -bound traffic could be controlled via the upgrading of 79th and East River Road. In addition to the above recommendation, the Appeals Commission would recommend the following stipulations: 1. Berming to be of sufficient height to protect the residents from automobile lighting and buffer plantings incorporated with berm. 2. Lighting focused down so as not to shine into the residential property owner's windows. 3. 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. 4. Sidewalk connection constructed to Lincoln Street. 5. Recommend City Council consider rezoning from C -2S to C-1. 6. A bond, covering the costs of all stipulated improvements, will be required. In addition, all necessary and proper right of ways, easements and letters of encroachment should be submitted and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Barna disagreed with the motion on the grounds that as a resident along East River Road, he could not personally see any additional construction or increase in traffic flow on East River Road in its present condition. He added that he would not encourage anyone to invest money on East River Road with the present East River Road Project Committee's recommendations on future uses of East River Road. He said he would feel more comfortable denying the request. Mr. Ernst said that as far as the success of the neighborhood shopping center went, 7-11 had done extensive studies and housing counts and projections as to the possibility of their success and had positive results as far as their projecting the net income in the area. He added that they had been successful in the past in projecting market areas. As far as R.C.E. is concerned, he continued, they felt confident they would do well in the area and would like to go ahead with this on that basis. He said that he didn't think the possibility was very great that the property would be up for sale in the future. Mrs. Gabel stated that she had an internal battle with this. She could live with it, she said, but it wasn't something she really wanted to see there. She said she knew people who lived in the area and they felt very strongly about their neighborhoods and anything that would generate one more car driving down East River Road. She commented that she was having a lot of trouble with this. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, :1977 Page 16 2M Mr. Holden wondered why there hadn't been any objections to the plan, and thought one reason could be because a similar plan had already gone through this procedure and been approved. Also, he said, there was the possibility that they did not object to it. He stated that having a retail grocery store, which was the primary structure, within walking distance may not be a problem. Mr. Kemper added that he was thinking that the people who lived in the apartment buildings would have fewer blocks to go to do their shopping. Mrs. Gabel stated it would be easier for her to vote in favor of the proposal if it was rezoned C-1. She said that this was a speculative venture; the 7-11 may be a sure thing, but they couldn't control the other uses that might go in there. Mrs. Gabel continued that in a C -2S there was a large variety allowed, and read that portion of the code aloud to the Commission. Chairperson Schnabel said that many of those uses were also allowed in a C-1 zone, and she didn't know what was the right usage for that corner. Mr. Kemper wondered how the City could have approved this two years ago. He said that the Council had approved it, and if Meridian had elected to go through with the plans, there would be a building there at this time. Mr. Holden commented that he didn't think it was within their right or jurisdiction to second guess the success or failure of a business. He said this operation would be close to an awful lot of people, even by way of foot traffic. Mr. Barna stated he had good friends who were hurt in accidents involving East River Road, and if it was up to him he wouldn't have any businesses in there with ingress or egress off of East River Road. He said he knew a lot of people down there, and he knew someone would get blasted at that corner sooner or later. Chairperson Schnabel asked if that intersection had signalization if he would be more inclined to go along with this, and Mr. Barna replied he would. Mr. Kemper stated that he thought their problem wasn't with R.C.E. Corpora- tion or the 7-11 Corporation, but with a notoriously bad highway. He said that if by denying this variance they could somehow speed up the improve- ment on 79th and East River Road, he would make that motion right now, but he didn't think that would make a bit of difference. Chairperson Schnabel said that for Mr. Ernst's information, there had been a study group looking for some time at East River Road in Fridley, and the group was composed mainly of residents along both sides of East River Road. She explained the committee was formed because most of those residents were very concerned about the speed, the amount of traffic, and the number of accidents along East River Road. She told Mr. Ernst that they had made recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council to try to make some changes on East River Road in terms of traffic flow; they had proposed a plan where the two-lane would continue from South of Mississippi to 691 with right and left -turn lanes, etc. She said they had asked for support of this.plan through the City to Anoka County to try to get some- thing done about their concerns. Mrs. Schnabel said that the plan was not Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - ?:arch 15, 1_977 Page 17 2N successful with the county, but they were still continuing to study the problem. She stated that in effect, they were told that until the North Corridor was developed the East River Road would probably continue in the manner that it functions now, with some upgrading. So, she said, the citizens along there have had an overriding concern about this roadway for some time, and it came to focus on the Appeals Commission now in terms of this request. Chairperson Schnabel explained to Mr. Ernst that they had no problem with him or his proposal, but their main concern was their responsibility to the effortsthathad been done by a number of people in the City in regard to the traffic problem. She said she had wanted to make him aware of the history of what had happened on East River Road. Mr. Ernst stated that the development wouldn't create any new cars or generate more traffic; that number of cars was constant. He said that by taking that entrance away on the East River Road it would restrict the use of that property and the 7-11 store, and thereby restrict the owner of the property as well. He said he understood the Board's concerns about the added turning and the congestion that would cause; but based on what had happened up to noir, he thought the plan they had before them concerned itself with those problems and tried to solve them as well as possible. Chairperson Schnabel stated he had made a good attempt, and thought the Eonrd would agree that the store would probably not generate any more new traffic. However, she said, she thought the concern was basically with that particular corner from a safety standpoint in terms of traffic south -bound on East River Road attempting to turn into that entrance on East River Road instead of using 79th. Mr. Kemper agreed that the problem wasn't with more traffic, but with more cars stopping and starting at an already notoriously dangerous intersection. He said he was not a traffic engineer or someone who could analyze if the business would decline without that entrance, but he thought if somebody wanted to stop there, they would. Chairperson Schnabel said they did have several options available to them: deny, approve, or table the request; but they were obligated to pass on to the City Council some type of decision. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Planning Commission, that the request for variances be denied due to the adverse traffic conditions on the East River Road and specifically at the intersection of 79th Way and East River Road. Mrs. Gabel stated that when she looked at this as a building`plan she had no problems with it, but when the human aspect was added into it, that was when her problems began (and that was what the community was made up of). She said they had a responsibility to the citizens of the community, and that was her reason for seconding the motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Barna and Gabel voting aye, Kemper and Schnabel voting nay, the motion tied 2 - 2 and failed for lack of a majority. Chairperson Schnabel wondered if they must arrive at a majority opinion or could pass this on to the City Council a tie vote. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting -- March 15, 1977 ! Page 16 20 Chairperson Schnabel declared a recess at 10:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:46 P.M. Mrs. Gabel commented that she thought they had almost talked this thing to death, and she had to vote the way she believed. Chairperson Schnabel said that basically, they had to really consider the various variances that were being requested, and thought perhaps they might be putting more emphasis on traffic flow than the variances that had been requested of them. The other thing they had to consider, she stated, was that there were two more bodies that this would appear before which would perhaps deal more directly with traffic flow problems as opposed to the specific variances they were being asked to deal with. She said that their job was to look at the requests for variances of the zoning ordinance as they related to the public safety and welfare of the citizens, and perhaps they had gone further than the zoning ordinance by getting themselves quite wrapped up in the East River Road traffic situation. She said this was not to deny there was a problem there, but she thought they might be going beyond the ordinance. Mrs. Gabel said she understood what Mrs. Schnabel was saying, but in terms of looking at the public health, safety and welfare, she thought their concerns all tied in. Chairperson Schnabel suggested they might be looking al.l,:'ttle bit further than what this body .really dealt with. Mrs. Gabel stated they had to look at things as how they related to the community and if they were: good for the community. She said she could not ignore that the situation was there and the problems did exist. Chairperson Schnabel said that maybe the time to make that type of objection would be at the City Council; perhaps they were getting beyond their scope. She said they were charged basically with dealing with any variances of a zoning ordinance, and the traffic on East River Road was not a variance in the zoning ordinance. She suggested that perhaps the decision on whether or not any commercial venture should be allowed on East River Road would more directly rest with the Community Development Commission or with the Planning Commission or City Council. She said the Appeals Commission was charged more specifically with variances to the zoning ordinance instead, and that was their function. Mr. Kemper said that in order to make those decisions, however, they had to take into consideration the hardships involved; hardships not only to the person requesting the variance, but the hardships to the citizens of Fridley as well. Mrs. Gabel said she wondered if they were not asking themselves to do the impossible. She said they could sit there until 4:00 in the morning, and if they all felt very strongly on this, they simply would not agree. She said at some point they would have to pass this on to the Council. Chairperson Schnabel read to the Commission the duties of the Board of Appeals from the code book. She said she thought that the decision as to if anything should be placed on that property ur any other property along' East River Road may more likely belong in another body than this Commission, Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 1.5, 1977 L Page 19 and thought the Appeals Commission may be simply structured to deal with variances of the City code. Mr. Kemper noted that the last paragraph she had read from the charter said they were charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the public interest and were told they should apply stipulations to ensure public safety. He said that frankly, he didn't see that either one of the motions was out of line. Chairperson Schnabel said she wasn't inferring that, but was trying to make them all understand what their charge was as a Commission and see if they couldn't reach a majority decision. Mr. Kemper said he thought it was not appropriate for them to deny a private concern a variance for something that was complete beyond his control and something that may go away in the foreseeable future. He said he would like to find an avenue to try to work around that particular problem, and that was what he was trying to do in the original motion he made. He said he didn't think this body could sit back and say, "No, you can't do it and you can't do it forever because of the bad traffic situation on East River Road". He said he thought that was a temporary problem. Chairperson Schnabel said she also had a problem saying a petitioner should be denied a request based on a personal feeling of whether or not that business was going to succeed. She noted that in the memorandum they had received from the City Attorney on economic feasibility and economic hardship, one of the things they had never done was to request a financial report from any petitioner. She stated they never knew if the petitioner standing before them had a million dollars in the bank or was rolling his last nickel around in his pocket; they never knew if a person had the ability to succeed or might fail in any venture he had before the Board. She stated she really didn't feel it was legitimate for them to deny any petitioner on that basis, but there were many other_ reasons why they .could deny a petitioner. She added that she didn't think they should second guess whether a business would succeed or fail. Mr. Barna said he was not basing his decision on that. He explained that two years ago he had spoken in favor of a business on that corner, but that was before he had gotten involved in the safety factor. Chairperson Schnabel suggested that the building could be reduced in size by about 40'.(reducing it from 146' to approximately 1061), and asked Mr. Barna if that would be more palatable to him at that point. Mr. Barna said that wouldn't make a viable building, and Mrs. Schnabel agreed. She said that probably it wouldn't be economically appealing to him because the square footage would be reduced. Mr. Holden commented that he had found subsequent action by the City Council on August 18, 1975, in which they did discuss and put together the list that they had before them of the 14 items. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission table this item until they had a full board. Upon a voice vote, Kemper and Barna voting aye, Schnabel and Gabel voting nay, the motion tied 2 - 2 and failed for lack of a majority. 2P Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1.977 i Page 20 , Chairperson Schnabel said she felt a motion to table at this point would require that the missing Board member be brought up to date, and there was no guarantee that he would be at the next meeting. Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Ernst his opinion as to what 7-11 would do if they were denied access off of East River Road. Mr. Ernst replied that it would make the site undesirable to them since their business was based on traffic (either by cars or foot), and it would cut them off from their main artery of survival. He said they wouldn't want that property even if it was possible that at some later date there would be an access of of East River Road, as it would jeopardize the project. Chairperson Schnabel asked what Mr. Ernst thought 7-11's reaction would be if the City Council also denied a direct access onto East River Road. Mr. Ernst replied that they had to look at it in terms of the whole concept, and if Fridley would provide that access. As far as 7-1.1 was concerned, he said, they felt just an ingress would be enough for them, but they would like to have egress as well. Mrs. Gabel wondered if it would be in order to make a motion that they pass this on to the City Council as is. She said she didn't see that they were going to come to any conclusions. Mr. Barna commented that they couldn't agree on everything all of the time.'Mr. Kemper said that the minutes would reflect all of their concerns and would tell their feelings regardless of which way any motion went. Mr. Holden asked what the main objection was to Mr. Kemper's original motion. Mr. Barna said his main objections were to two safety variances, B and G. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Barna if he would be more inclined to support the proposal if the petitioner came in with a new plan that eliminated requests B, E and G and if there was no access from East River Road. Mr. Barna replied he would not. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission pass on to Council, through the Planning Commission, their tie votes without recommendation. Chairperson Schnabel said that in view of the fact that they did seem to be at an impasse and had attempted three motions, it was possibly advisable to pass this on to Council as it was and let the minutes explain what had happened. She said she did feel the necessity to get in contact with the Chair of the Planning Commission and the Mayor to discuss what had happened at this meeting with both of them. She said that if they felt that the Board of Appeals should come back and try to reach some kind of majority opinion, she would notify each of the members of the Commission. She added that she did feel obligated to at least make those calls so they could be aware of what had happened. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Gabel, 13arna and Kemper voting aye, Schnabel voting nay, the motion ,carried 3 - 1.