Loading...
SP83-01 13 n CITY OF FRIDLEY, SUBJECT ( 0 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. NE. SPECIAL USE PERMIT FRIDLEY, MN. 6543E (6121.571-3450 �y SP � �� V ADDRESS- --) DATE PLANNING COMMISSION: P.H. DATE APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO CITY COUNCIL: P.H. REQ'D DATE NO CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE NO STIPULATIONS: NAME _,� ��� �1Jc��\�C,�c� FEE ' r`�O RECEIPT NO � STREET LOCATION OF PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Z\ PRESENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION C•. \S EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY ACREAGE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROPOSED TYPE OF USE AND IMPROVEMENT Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? des _ CL_no. What was requested and when? ��,`,`,-� } ,� � , a� zc�T\,e���•r �ti� Spm. The undersigned understands that: (a) A list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. 1vi;1wz o.c- co. (�wn���)/s Awr�R� o,�rr��s �►pv���� QT/Ox) nUn ik ,g &,,.,7- . 7-A//5 /3 R PA 30Y f�l7OC—_r-y =2Drtn /< I/VZ r'« Gv A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. 4. Street names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within '300 feet). The undersigned hereby declares that all the fac:Q repr entations stated in , this application are true and correct. ` DATE � 3 , �� /y�3 SIGNATURE \ (APPLICANT) ADDRESS r<,� 2 Ste, �� ! TELEPHONE NO 1 • v@ .7cc W ro.c o Q.y'u o m -�c w %d vb T W m o ,�, Yea mecca �.:o M� .. =E*-o, O �4 .yE o0 o ca.<o.-� Wp WOO c. Amo o�oR'o E14 ceOm-"y`y ostvoaz ojo m o5M-.,., v oYm x�- y°a•o v�VU mW�mm co vaa' 9md�°ym co @< mm too>,yoai.a E myEC7 °oa 0.zva5o�o'"Q. z5,;w=°•o Sao v a~i> 0 .b �aZ�y.Nv��� tiia,,,a o,00zc,� c,•my� 0.N Oxzmp°Eci� ° dwY=ov«o�>° ...Ydyco^dmy "";td mmo m0.o�U v..�E c`v yo oomnoEW o'°m 7 z=agd�r-.U0.' oi m.t°.acr°n z m Z¢�� Ia 3'ck.>•ovo r- PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, March 16, 1983, in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit SP #83-01 , by Roger H. Mengelkoch , per Section 205. 101 , 3, 0, of the Fridley City Code, to allow an old depot and a Pullman railroad car to be place on the property for a commercial business , located on Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, except the northerly 198.21 feet thereof, the same being 7355 East River Road N. E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: March 2, 1983 March 9, 1983 514% • d`5 •w�3' at Vs fil enol O `•: q• �j J t •a,i'I .n .�� C� G ''g'ir'l \ •.�TQ lb e. ,nom Pal JOWAr y i I � r °° e o J Jim Vin m i:, ' � � N rn -� 4 � Stanton 9' ealty, Am BROOKLYN PARK OFFICE REALTOR 7201 WEST BROADWAY BROOKLYN PARK, MN, 55428 15 TELEPHONE 560-6600 s 1 ! SP #83-01 Roger H. Mengelkoch 7355 East River Road ''' October 26, 1982 To the City of Fridley: Please be advised the undersigned being buyers by contract for deed of following described property-(Lot B.) of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, Anoka Co. ; will allow public access to use the westerly 40' . We, further agree in future to cooperate with any reasonable request the City of Fridley may have. Roger H. Mengelkoch Robert J. Olmstead and Agent CITY OF FRIOLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E., FRIDLEY , MINNESOTA 55432 /Arl TELEPHONE ( 612)571 -3450 ril 6, 1983 Roger H. Mengelkoch 6425 Willow Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Mengelkoch% On March 28, 1983, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a Special Use Permit, SP #83-01 , to allow an old depot and pullman railroad car to be used as for a commercial business at 7355 East River Road N.E. in Fridley with the following stipulations: 1 . Contingent upon City Council approval of Lot Split with a 45 ft. easement. 2. A timeframe of two years for the depot to be placed on the property. 3. A fence meeting zoning code requirements, and landscaping. 4. Removal of billboard on the property. 5. Provide a drainage plan for the property. As of January 1 , 1983, the City is required by State Law to record all formal City Council actions affecting real property. It will be to your advantage to complete the above stipulations as expediently as possible. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter and to establish a time table for completion of the stipulations. If I can assist you in this matter, or any other matters, please contact me at 571-3450, extension 168. I can be reached at this number Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thank you for your time, cooperation and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, G William S. Deblon Associate Planner WSD/de cc: Files Robert Olmstad, Stanton Realty Enclosure 3/0/21/2/ STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF FRIDLEY In the Matter of SP #83-01 for 7355 East River Road N.E. Fridley SPECIAL USE PERMIT Roger H. Mengelioch Owner The above entitled matter came before the City Council of the City of Fridley and was heard on the 28 day of March of 19R_ , on a petition for a special use permit pursuant to the City o Fridley' s Zoning Ordinance, for the following described property. Pin No. Lot 18, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 77, EXCEPT THE NORTH 198.21 R-10 30 24 14 0002 FEET THEREOF IT IS ORDERED that a special use permit be granted as upon the following conditions or reasons: Approval of Lot Split #82-05 by Kunz Oil Company DATED this day of 19 MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ANOKA ) ss. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF FRIDLEY ) I, Sidney C. Inman, City Clerk for the City of Fridley with and in for said City of Fridley, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order grainting a special use permit with the oridinal record thereof perserved in my office and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at the City of Fridley, Minnesota, in the County of Anoka on the day of 19 DRAFTED BY: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley,MN 55432 SIDNEY INMAN, CITY CLERK A Special Use Permit shall become void one year after being granted by the City of Fridley unless or if discontinued for a period of 90 days. (SEAL) ---To Jim Robinson L Check on that Special Use Permit for that railroad car and station o E. and find out if he wants an extension. CITY OF 1=RIDLGY, :;uaJLCT Y� MINnIG'30Tn C.C3M 'iISSION APPLICATION Lep runt Approved Ly UU1e 11L �j��c: FILE !� - COMPLETE= REVIEW CHECKLIST RETURN TO PLANNING I _ our-v e C NIR/IENTS 1�'i3 Imo~ UU U •e-r?is�. u=3 PAJ E I SSE vEAsE (kj Zk f- 1^v < S C.v fk, , d..0C 74 �x�� �✓ 7 1� e.L-¢...�ti� ..ate•---•t'-'� � �,�,�.�,J� /o -� Z �! A KEINE! WV CITY OF FRIDLEY Page of B U I L D I N G P E R M I T MINNESOTA, C2 FILE NO. / ADDRE : If blank, or asterisked see current code requirements) ITEM REQUIRED ACTUAL OK COMMENTS Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. << ,r 3��3 2_ Waived if Lot Width >160 Ft. Lot Width 160 ft. G-,.y (Waived if lot area 20,000 sq.ft.) Lot Coverage I story story 35 2 G story g?b story 5 Y 3 6 story 15% / [ / 1 FrontYardSetback regular t. ?� 'WA �oa0 dftrC�!�Oh Side Yard SetbaCK re u ar 5 ft. / drive 30 tt. g465�G��a�d of� Al -q"ye corner 35 ft. ✓' Rear Yard Setback re u ar 25 ft. alley adj. 40 Tt. . istrict Separation Across t. sidewalK 15 ft. lantin stri 1 GQ, adj. to ✓ ljC�r�'P.hr (/� �/ � 5 �al�e v other district ap roved �creen etbac s When across from Abutting Any Other alley 50 ft.District Building He ht 6 story 65 ft. Parking etbacK str. ROW 20 t. ~? side yd. 5 ft. rear yd. 5 TZ. ,y t. no/ 5 Oil ar in Aisle 25 t. 2 10' cl'► v2 S`ize of Stalls 0 ft. x 20 ft. Number of Sta s of Ti—c—e---I—per 250 sq. t. �[ (see code for additional board 1 2er 2 sleeping occ. r 2`7 ► ��(� requirements) meeting I per 4 seats li uor 1per 3 seats ✓ iveway equirements intersect. 5 ft or 2/3 of T5—tw1-dM,—...--' angle 6P max. vision 2-1/2 ft-10 ft at 25 ft. radii 10 ft. curb o n. 32 ft. rivewayet ac k lot line 5 t. bldg. 5 t. f. Cur in oured concrete i trippin ✓ Surface blacktop/ hard surf. Refuse Pick-up Location rear d./side yd. screened rom row Loadin Faci ity Location- rear d.; side yd. it screened Q�J& �5 P A Interna Traffic Pattern / T- is Si ning Necessary Landscaping pTuts (SEE PLAN) rd cver. kFc°,�(/ la'"' spking. system other water ava . Greening roof equip. outside storage ✓ j ar�in o loading area refuse vision safety Lighting not disruptive -•_'_' ••.w.�`'"�, �� '��. s,,µ;..'. a.Rt.;.S!� S�_..:�'Y`�►,(�'� 7+ry'�ii.#�Tn t �' �+. `�y.�i1� �.�y�R,.�r-a •+r. Y - .Y � i 'li.t�+" �_ a+.f.�� .r.v�,,may'•Z�" �`�' •' - �r _z N h h Q � �, •� � ii 3� 1 fYoR�l LK ILDINQ AN 1 a q � � " = PARC[I A C- AREA t 0.96 AC. L �TN 01 off' M T 1 PAR AREA `�— 245.32 - ---=- wFsT • C.Soulh 1inQ or' Lof /9. RPvi'sed Rudifors Suha'���ision _ r _ � r- Id 5Ll j 1bo\ + 16 /S> SP #83-01 oger H. Mengel koch o�z#Ito 7355 E River Ro d o Sogow 5 s; ,,� • ;c (/%^* S ��► �R � 1 3 �5 40 Owo tie 1 f O16! BL •,F ��wIa) 1 \ CN E ,t it w Ir • w 7� 9. 4 cs A4 • ' 1 \ "0. AN CIS w D� S� 41 31 21 46 36 24 w I: 7365 . zoo) 6 �, ff 3 -7,1 � 4 p � I 3 CR EIS >>,o 1 12 lot N : » GLEN CREEKS RQ .,, �4� ,f a i 9 F ynw^.. 7 < Y { .A #'''n__ tom. `•'•,`{ - 4 w ' gg L oy � 4r Z y x " Y"d `�} ;kp S s- �yt;" w+:�9x"• 'i T. . y r�� " y •, "ros4 t¢ S ',s a * Y� .a S` i a� - .t 4 w rr 4•� a 1. ,;v '}, af�'s;�sE"4'�.-�.` `' `'q, '� r, i1 't,' E; yam. �p+yW��'rf�, a f � T' s, t' AY f ,�$i ��-' �+''� •�a 1e r +F y 'a Al JAL V. M ' it 11 a' v c � ol 1.4 i' C '.L. 1 ,yam♦ rr, '`w."A' .vt �'. - ';.' _ :l �.-i 'i+ #@ ►. '..fit • Sfi # I T61F-lr, d 4 K SP #83-01 r 04ngelkoch 75b � �14¢Q 9STRoadN.E. 1011 - i' C. NI a 1 L 4- F E Kk.':F- TRa5H ENCLOSURE - , - 5 .p I NI � I � W j N 3 -5pA4 ES go CAM� �' GoUc. S�DEWA1-JL J P v � � c !S � r2 PAR FJ4 SP 5 � LL I I %n l Ty e N, I 25' 25� 25' _ I I CF U K� :Jr E,a,ST Pt VEP W-CAZ) L- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 2 Mr. Svanda stated that since he has been on the Environmental Quality Commission, he did not recall ever having received any direction from the City Council . The Commission has had some meetings with the Council and has been received, but there has been no guidance. Since he has been on the Commission, he believed that their Feb. 1983 meeting was the first meeting at which a City Councilman was in attendance. That councilman was Ed Hamernik, and Mr. Svanda was very encouraged by his attendance. The key thing the Environmental Quality Commission is lacking is input from the City Council . They have gone to the City Council with their workplans, the workplans have been received, but he did not recall they were received to the extent of getting any guidance or direction on what the City Council expected of the Commission. The City Council has also never asked the Environmental Quality Commission for an opinion concerning any of these environmental issues. Mr. Svanda stated that with regard to Councilman Schneider's statement that the "Environmental Quality Commission seems to be a staff-dominated commission", Mr. Svanda stated it is not a staff-dominated commission. The solid waste issues the Commission is a r3dressi g right now were initiated by the Commission and not by Staff. Following the Commission's discussions , the City offices are now recycling paper, there is an oil recycling facility at SORT, there was a Recycling Week, etc. He had to feel those were commission-initiated things and not staff-initiated things. Staff certainly assists the Commission, but not in any way as to define the Commission as being a staff-dominated commission. Mr. Svanda stated he wanted to express his concerns regarding the comments raised by Councilman Schneider. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 . PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #83-01 BY GER H. MENGELKOCH: Per Section 205.101 , 3, 0, o t e Fridley Aty Code, o allow an old depFt and Pullman railroad car to be p a Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, to be used for a commercial business, the same being 7355 East River Road N.E. (Subject to Council approval of L. S. #82-05, Kunz Oil Company). MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #83-01, BY ROGER H. MENGELKOCH. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:39 P.M. Mr. Deblon stated the location of the proposal is between Osborne Road and 73rd Ave. , just to the east of East River Road. This proposal is part of a chain of events dating back to Aug./early Sept. 1982, with the Kunz Oil Company lot split. That is when the Planning Commission first heard the subdivision request. That subdivision called for two parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the March 16, 1983, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel , Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Goodspeed Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate Planner Roger Mengelkoch, 6425 No. Willow Lane, Brooklyn Center Mary Mengelkoch, 6425 No. Willow Lane, Brooklyn Center Henry Mengelkoch, 70 N.E. 70th Way Louis K. Schmidt, 7300 East River Road Bob Lange, 189 Loan Parkway N.E. Tom Stewart, 6040 Thomas Ave. So. , Mpls. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 9, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO APPROVE THE FEB. 9, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. Mr. Svanda referred to page 9, paragraph 6, in which Councilman Schneider had stated that, "he, too, was a little uncomfortable with combining the two commissions (Energy Commission and Environmental Quality Commission) . The Energy Commission is a very pro-active commission, whereas the Environmental Quality Commission seems to be a staff-dominated commission. With all the environmental issues that are happening right now, he would expect to be getting calls from every one of the Environmental Quality Commission members to find out what is going on, and to be taking some actions, setting up meetings, etc." Mr. Svanda stated he would like to offer a rebuttal with respect to those state- ments. He stated he was not sure if Councilman Schneider had a full appreciation for who the members are on the Environmental Quality Commission. If he knew, he might not have made those comments. Mr. Svanda stated he is Assistant Director of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Division of the MPCA. Within that division, they have a site response group which is the group that takes care of the hazardous waste sites in the State of Minnesota. They also have a group of people within this division who are responsible for looking at the proposed sites of the Waste Management Board. He stated he did not feel he needed to ask a second or third party removed from the situation on what is going on when he can ask the party directly related to the situation. M� >R PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 3 Parcel A has an existing bakery on it. Both parcels are about one acre in size and are zoned C-1S (local shopping). The subdivision went to the City Council with various stipulations, and the subdivider didn't agree with all the stipu- lations. Mr. Deblon stated there is now the potential of having the subdivision resolved. The major question of the subdivision was what was going to happen to Parcel B, and Kunz Oil did not have any proposal for that parcel . There is now this proposal by Roger Mengelkoch, which is quite a unique proposal . Mr. Deblon stated the proposal is in two phases. The first phase is to put in a Pullman railroad car, install it according to State Building Code, and design exterior improvements and parking. In the second phase, the applicant proposes to purchase an actual depot. Mr. Deblon stated the City would like to see landscaping and is concerned about the opening to the property. The code calls for a 32 ft. wide opening, so they would like to see that entrance narrowed to 32 ft. The long range plan for this area is to extend the service road a little further and have more of an opening on to East River Road. For that reason, the City would waive some curbing because it would probably be removed at some future time. The proposal-calls for a fence with landscaping for district separation. Mr. Deblon stated one of the issues on the lot split was a 40-45 ft. easement for a service road. That was an issue because of the existing lease on the parcel where the bakery is located. The City would be willing to go with a ease- ment within a certain timeframe. Mr. Deblon stated the Pullman car will be accessible to the handicapped. It will be used as a heir salon. The future depot will be for small local shops and service-type businesses. Mr. Deblon stated there is a billboard on the property. There is an agreement in past minutes that when this land is developed, the billboard is to be taken down. Mr. Deblon stated the applicant has been very cooperative. He is willing to give the easement and to work with the City on the fence for district separation and landscaping. Mr. Deblon stated one of Staff's concerns is they would like to see some time- frame for phase 2 which is the depot. Mr. Mengelkoch has said if he cannot purchase a depot, he will build a depot on that site. Mr. Deblon asked Mr. Mengelkoch to explain about the depot in a little more detail . Mr. Mengelkoch stated he has been looking at purchasing different depots from St. Paul to Duluth. Because of the closing of Amtrak, the railroads are putting the little depots up for sale in sealed bids and people can purchase them. There are a couple more coming up for bid this spring. He stated they decided to put a depot on the property because there was so much property. He felt it was kind of a unique concept in putting together his business. He felt it would really attract people. He stated the businesses within the depot will be different specialtyshops because of the uniqueness of the development. s 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 4 Mr. Deblon stated any businesses in the depot would have to be consistent with the C-1S zoning. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Mengelkoch when he would make the decision on whether to buy or build a depot. Mr. Mengelkoch stated he should know by the end of the summer when he sees what it will cost to purchase and move a depot. Ms. Gabel asked Mr. Mengelkoch if he already had the Pullman car and how it would be installed. Mr. Mengelkoch stated he already has the Pullman car. It will be sitting on its wheels on tracks and ties. The wheels are welded to the tracks so it is secure. He will put some kind of brick skirting around the car to insulate it. Mr. Oquist asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the proposal . Mr. Bob Lange, 189 Logan Parkway N.E. , asked if the fence on the south would be opaque. Mr. Deblon stated, yes, it would probably be a solid wood fence with landscaping. Mr. Lange stated that took care of one of his concerns. It would give the resi- dents some privacy. He stated he did not know when it might occur, but eventually East River Road might be widened. He asked if the City had looked at what the County's needs might be on the east side of East River Road. Mr. Oquist stated that when they discussed the lot split, it seemed to him that one of the reasons for gaining the 45 ft. easement was, not only for the service road, but also for the County to widen East River Road. Ms. Gabel stated that is one of the problems why the lot split has not been granted by the City Council . The City Council does not want to grant the lot split without getting the easement. Mr. Lange stated he viewed the type of business and the description of the applicant's plan quite favorably. He had an interest in railroads and thought this was a very unique proposal architecturally. As he was a resident of the downstream end of the watershed, he would like to recommend that there be an easement with an eventual retention pond in the northeast corner in the rear of the northern portion of land. He stated there is a very large amount of hardtop surface right now, some of which nothing can be done about, but the frontage roads could drain east from the highway instead of from the west across it. He is generally aware of the City's program requiring surface run-off in new developments. w ;J PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 5 Mr. Deblon stated the Planning Commission could make that a stipulation that there be a drainage plan; however, it is automatic and would come with the building permit. Mr. Deblon stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations: 1 . A timeframe for the depot to be placed on the property 2. A fence meeting zoning code requirements and landscaping 3. Approval of the lot split with a 45 ft. easement 4. Removal of billboard 5. Required drainage plan (probably required by building permit) 6. Reduce entrance radii to 32 ft. 7. To put the owner on notice that the Pullman railroad car will be assessed as real estate. MOTION BY MR. SAB?:, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #83-01 BY ROGER H. MENGELKOCH. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Svanda stated that regarding a timeframe for the depot to be placed on the property, he would suggest 2-3 years, taking into account the economics and giving Mr. Mengelkoch time to get his business established. Mr. Mengelkoch stated he wanted to open his business around the end of June. Mr. Deblon stated Staff would recommend not more than two years for the completion of phase 2. When the special use permit was reviewed in two years, if there was an extreme hardship, the special use permit could probably be extended. MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #83-01, BY ROGER H. MENGELKOCH, PER SECTION 205.101, 3, O, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW AN OLD DEPOT AND PULLMAN RAIL- ROAD CAR TO BE PLACED ON LOT 18, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 77, TO BE USED FOR A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, THE SAME BEING 7355 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E., r7ITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. A TIMEFRAME OF TWO YEARS FOR THE DEPOT TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY 2. A FENCE MEETING ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPING 3. CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT WITH A 45 FT. EASEMENT 4. REMOVAL OF BILLBOARD 5. REQUIRED DRAINAGE PLAN 6. REDUCE ENTRANCE RADII TO 32 FT. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist stated this would go to City Council on March 28. t� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 6 2. RECEIVE JANUARY 13, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. GOODSPEED, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 13, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 15, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY AR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 18, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Deblon stated it was his understanding that there was a motion on Item #1 that needed action by the Planning Commission. The City Council had requested a recommendation on this from the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated this was a surprise to her. She hadn't realized a recommenda- tion was needed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated this was a variance request by Mr. & Mrs. Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane, to increase the maximum height of a fence from 7 to 10 feet in the rear yard and side yards. She stated there is absolutely nothing about the fence that is aesthetically pleasing. The Appeals Commission felt there was no hardship, and that whatever lights or noise there realistically is, a 10 ft. fence will not take care of the problem. Ms. Gabel stated the petitioner had asked if he needed to be at the Planning Commission meeting, and she had told him that the Planning Commission would only be receiving the Appeals Commission minutes. She was unaware that any action would be required by the Planning Commission, and this had come as a total sur- prise to her. Mr. Goodspeed stated that since the petitioner had not been notified about any Planning Commission action, he felt they should table any action until the next meeting when the petitioner could be in attendance. Ms. Gabel stated she did not feel any new or different information would come to light if they were to continue this discussion at another meeting. The information is already here, and it is just a matter of concurring or not con- curring with the Appeals Commission. Mr. Goodspeed disagreed. 12 r Planning Commission March 1 , 1983 City Council MAILING LIST SP #83-01 , Roger H. Mengelkoch 7355 East River Road N. E. Roger H. Mengelkoch Fridley A & W 6425 Willow Lane North 7429 East River Road Minneapolis , Mn 55430 Fridley, Mn 55432 Robert Olmstad Karl Schurr Stanton Realty Minco Products Inc. Brooklyn Park Office 7300 Commerce Lane N. E. 7201 West Broadway Fridley, Mn 55432 Brooklyn Park, Mn 55428 The Pillsbury Company Burlington Northern 608 2nd Avenue South 176 East 5th Street Minneapolis , Mn 55402 St. Paul , Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Williavd Frank Mr. & Mrs. Frederick Covey 7335 East River Road N.E. 7321 East River Road N. E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Raymond A. Priem 7356 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Enroth 7340 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mary Ann Murry 100 Glen Creek Road N. E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Kunz Oil Company Po. 0. Box 24091 Minneapolis , Mn 55424 Mr. & Mrs. Dale Miner 12 Talmadge Way N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 The Kunz Oil Company Walter M. Kunz , President 5200 Eden Circle East Edina, Mn 55436 Mr. & Mrs. Louis Schmidt 7300 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 ii 0;3 . s REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1975 PAGE 11 R CON:IDERATICN OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PIAT SUBDiVISiON P.S. #75-07, BY LEIF IIENRIKSEN, r GI NIkAI-LY L0CATI.D WEST OF EAST P IF.R ROAD XjU SOUIIi OF LUG.-PFi';4K4i/�tY, (TA(10 ' OC101sCR Councilman MATI01 1 by Bruder to table this item until the next meeting. Seconded t by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECESS: Mayor Nee called a recess at 11:30 P.M. 1 RECONVEIIFD: Mayor Nee reconvened the meeting at 11:47 P.M. r 1 CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #75-17, BY BREDE, INC. 5401_C11 11- F,L AVErIUE AND ! CONSIDEPATION OF APPROVAL. OF SPECIAL USE PERi•1IT REQUEST SP #75-18, BY BREDE, INC. '94-65--C C11 fr�LA'yDT, r . CONSIDHATiON OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #75-19, BY BREDE, INC. 4 t 6VO1 HI'C!:'v-,AY465 (1.F.-- CO%SICER�TIC'1 OF APPP.OVA.L OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #75-02 BY 3REDE, INC. 5457 4 STRCET N.E. — CONSIDER:TIO;; OF APPROVAL OF'SFECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST f75-21, BP.EDE !NC. r ['� `7566 IiIGf!:•:riY��G5 N.E. — 3 ' CONSIDERATION OF APPRO nL OF SPECIAL L'SF PEP'•,I T REQUEST SP '75-09, BY NAEGELE �UIaU�I�DUEfiTiS1;;G CU'-` ,,';Y 1201 HI "t; 'AY =7G id.E. — ; CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PEP.'•111T REOUEST SP #75-10, NAEGELE OUT- AVENUE N.E. CONSIDFR.ATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP. #75-11. NAEGELE bUThCOf�{i[)Vf:itTlSIili�Ci�Pri;Y, 61 IiIGFii!.�,'1-7�4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROV.^,L OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #75-12, NAEGELE OUT- b-0 r1�V!:I;TIJIf�G CO',: ,:Y, 93 HIG;' lYl.f9+. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL US_ PFR.MIT REQUEST SP 1-75-13, NAFGELE OUTLOti(;ADJLf�i I$1t;G CCr;t'�';Y, I i10 Ui7IV�? :TY P,:'E;;JE N.E. CONSIDERATION OF APP^OVAL OF SPECIAL USE PER'•iIT P.EQUEST_SP a75-15, NAEGELE OhTD00R dOV k1I�l;TG CC `,.— 55��Til $TREEi; t�.E. MOTION by Councilman Breider to collectively approve Special Use Pv,-Mit,, !toms ' !ll through 1-.'21 , as listed above, and delete t,:o of the Planning Ccrilissions stipulations: 1. then this advertising sign was destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism or nther means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt f and wii1 have to he removed. 2. The expiration dates of these billboards b.� co-tenr,inated with signed leases with, a five year maximum. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski for discussion. Councilman Breider said he would li1:c to state his reasons for wanting these deletions: 1. Goth stipulations refer to the cor+plete elimination of all bill- i hoards in Fridley. in 1-,,v mind, he said, I see no dis,.J,antage to the City to have theseindividual bi111-narJs. i!e st.itea that ILem tS PI-pecially gives him a problem - Provision of tnc. Ordinance statim the! H111--dards had Lo he removed. The (10101- it,-9i, if a sign is destro.ved or damaged, etc, it is not replaced. I unCerstand the person wnuia not be able to rebuild it. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1975 PAGE 12 ' Councilman Fitzpatrick said he agrees with Councilman Breider except without , those stipulations, we are not really approving the Planning Conrnissions recommendations. He said fie feels if they had not put in those stipulations, they may have looked at some of them differently. In some cases, he stated, I feel they approved thera because they had that lease expiration date. CouncilwomanY,ukowski said she also agrees with Councilman Breider or the expiration date. She does not like to see that stipulation in the motion. She said, in regard to the second stipulation, where it states that this special use permit is to be reviewed annually, she would like to change the word review i to inspect. The Public Works Director said he would like to clarify the one stipulation in : that it might be a mute point as the sign o,rners declare these billboards legal non-conforming uses and we already have the section in the zoninq code that addresses legal non-conforming uses, which actually indicates that if it is des- i troyed, basically 50', of it's structural capacity, it will be removed. I do not f think that one stipulation is applicable. - The City Attorney said that is correct. He said he is not sure what t;e Planning Commission means by an annual review of this special use pern.:t. Seems to him that Administration would review the condition of the cion, would be more appropriate. One other thought, he said, that perhaps the special use permit should run for the length of time the present lease exists. Then the Sign Company would have to come back to the Council for another permit before they could sign a future lease. He said he agrees with Councilman Breider's logic that they ought not to have a definite date when they have to be removed, but it might be-reasonable to have the existing special use permit continue until the lease expires. The City Manager said that the difference is the question of does the Council want to have a review process again when the lease ccmes up. The Planning Commission came out neoa`ive, they want the signs removed. The Council could take the option r that the special use permit wDuld exist up to the present date of the lease and then a re-application of the 'special use permit would be required. Council, at that time, could reassess it or review it. i Councilwoman Kukowski said that some of the sign companies would then be coming back every year. ! The City Manager said that is the decision the Council will have to make - if you want to review thein depending on charging times. Mayor Nee said and also, if we want the Council denied the right to review them. (' f Councilman Breider said he would clarify his motion to read: i 1. When this lot was developed, the advertising sign, located on it will be re- i. moved. This one, he said, I agree to. I think it is standard throughout. I ' 2. When this advertising sign is destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and will have to be removed. This Item I would like to have removed. 3. This Special Use Permit suhject to yearly review. This is standard. I would go along %rith Council::cman Kur;wski to change review to inspect. i 4. This billboard be maintained in good quality condition. 5. This billboard be removed on or before the expiration of the lease on (date). Councilman Breider -ixplaiiicd that this item varies throughout. Some cases in five years and ozher cases in 9/77 or whatever. We could change this to read: Special Use Permit to coincide with the term of the present lease. Councilman Fit7p,itrick said that he could support that motion except he has , trouble with the stipulation that s,ys when the sion is destroy^d in a zoninq which is a nonconforming use - we have th4t stipulation on everything, not only signs. Councilman Breider said tLat is why he is deleting it, it is already covered. f f ' i REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1975 .PAGE 13 Mr. Kraig Lofquist, representing Naegele Advertising, said he would not mind the termination of the Special Use Permit at that time, but if the billboard is not in the way of development, this is two different things. Councilman Breider said to change Item 01 to read: if this lot is developed, the Special Use Permit expires. iThe City i•lanager said that we were still not quite clear on Item A3 - regarding l j the words, subject to review. After some discussion, Council roman Kukowski said she would agree to keep the word "review" in the stipulation. Councilman Breider's motion would then read: MOTION by Councilman Breider to collectively approve Special Use Permits, Item Ill through 0121, with the following stipulations: 1. When this lot is developed, the Special Use Permit will expire. 2. Deleted. 3. This Special se Permit subject to yearly review. 4. This billboard be maintained in good quality condition. 5. The Special Use Permit to coincide with the expiration term of the present lease. Mayor Nee said because he has some advertising interests, he %•could abstain. s Seconded by Council%-roman Kukowski. Upon a Roll Call Vote, Councilman Breider voted aye, Councilman Kuko.rski voted Aye, Councilman Fitzpatrick voted nay, Councilman Starwalt voted Aye and Mayor tree abstained. Notion carried. 1 Councilean Starwalt said he felt that since changes in the stipulations %•:ere made, L_) he felt someone should co back to the Planning Commission with our reasons for doing so. E.ayor gee asked Councilman Starwalt if he vrould agree to do this, and Councilman Staiwalt said that he would. COiSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERi;IT REQUEST SP 0175-14, NAEGELE OUT- N.—F. UT- .E: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the Planning Commission's recornendation to deny this Special Use Permit. Councilman Fitzpatrick explained that his objection to this is that he feels that kind of sign is out of character with the street it is on. He said he is surprised they put such a high value on that sign. Mayor Nee said he would say it is a valuable sign. He asked if there was a second on this motion. Councilwoman Kukowski seconded the motion. t Councilr;an Star�•ralt said he would like to speak against this motion for the same reason that t•layor Nee is tryieg to make a nice slow thoroughfare of East River Road. 9 Mayor Nee said this would require three votes. Upon a roll call vote, Councilman Breider voted `Jay, Councilman Fitzpatrick voted ( Aye, Councilman Starwalt voted Nay, Councilwoman Kukowski voted Nay and Mayor Nee abstained. The NOTION failed, MOTION by Councilman Greider to approve the Special Use Permit with the original stipulations. Seconded by Councilwoman Lukowski. The City Manarjer pointed out there rias a problem because the lease expired in October of 1975. The question is are you thin0 ng of extending a new lease or the itwn will come back to you again in any case. The City Attorney said that the City Mana(ier's point is well taken. If there is no current lease one of two things has to happern. Either it has to be for the term of a new lease, which is ui,known Lo the Council, or for a fixed period of time. ,.. W "Now- 1 1 � 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1975 PAGE14 Mr. Lofquist commented that he did not know when it expired, but he assumed they had a five year lease. The City Manager asked the Council if it would be realistic for the Council to renew this in three years. Councilman Breider said he would change the stipulation 195 to read - three year a lease. Upon a roll call vote, Councilman Fitzpatrick voted Aye, Councilwoman Kukowski voted Nay, Councilman Breider voted Aye and Councilman Starwalt voted Aye. Mayor Nee abstained. The 0TICN carried. CONSIDERATION OF APPPOVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #75-08, NAEGELE OUT- 15OOf2 IIUVCRTISICG CO r7;ilY,E150 Ef�ST RIVER P.071D N.E. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the Planning Commission for denial of the Special Use Permit SP '75-08. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a roll call vote, Councilman Breider voted aye, Councilman Starwalt voted aye, Council- man Fitzpatrick voted nayand Councilwoman Kukowski voted nay, Mayor Nee abstained. MOTION fails. MOTION by Councilman Breider to adopt the Special Use Permit 05-08, with the exception of having only three stipulations. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a roll call vote, Councilman Star►:alt voted Aye, Councilman Fitzpatrick voted Nay, Councilwoman Kukowski voted Aye and Councilman Breider voted Aye, Mayor Nee abstained. MOTION carried. CONSIDERATION OF ABATE•1EitT OF NUISANCE AT 101 CROWN ROAD The Public Works Director explained that this is a snow fence which runs along the west property line of 101 Croan Road and extends into a public right-of-way of Crown Road. He said that at this time, the manner in which the fence is installed, is in violation of a zoning code which calls for a 25' triangle in the southwest corner for a visual safety control zone. This uas brought to our attentionre- garding the hazards along Main Street. At this point, the zoning code is in violation and it does present a nuisance in that the City is liable for any types of accidents that could occur there. The property owner is present. He feels snow being dumped on his property causes him maintenance problems. TI-.e Public Works Director said that there are two ways we can proceed. One is to proceed with litigation regarding the filing of the citation and then that would result in a judge deciding to have the fence removed. The other is outlined in Section 110 of the City Code - The Council direct City forces to abate the nuisance. We would like to try to cooperate with the property owner. Mayor Nee asked if we have ever enforced that provision of the Ordinance elsewhere. The Public Works Director said in two instances this summer this provision was enforced. One regarding trees blocking vision and the owner did cooperate, and the other a hedge that was blocking vision and they also cooperated. The property owner of 101 Crown Road said that he has lived there since 1967. and there has never been an accident since that time. He said it is not traveled that often. He also explained that the reason for the snow fence was to keep the mud, salt and weeds from depositing in his yard. The City Manager said the point should be brought up that this gentlemen filed a complaint against the City and the Judge awarded in favor of the City. As pointed out, we could proceed through the courts again, or if you feel the problem urgent enough, you could issue an order for abatement action that would expedite this. Also, if you do not wish to take any action, you could just receive the report. Mayor Nee said, as he understands it, the prdperty owner has received a summons ` and asked the property owner if he understands that there is a law that provides „ that. The property owner said he did not care if it did or not, he would go to fail. Mayor Nee asked him if there would be a possibil ;ty of working out an agreement to acquire an easement. The property owner said that he would not. The City Manager said, as he pointed out, the Council only has to receive this information, they do not have to act on it. MOTION by Councilwomrin Kukowski to receive the report of Alkatement of Nuisance at 101 Cro+•rn Road. Secondvd by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor No declared the motion carried unanimously.