Loading...
09/18/1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 7:30 P.M. Public Copy Planning Commission City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 7: 30 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 21, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING: Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, entitled "Definitions" to change the definition of a Kennel as follows: 205. 03 DEFINITIONS. 39. Kennel. Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #91-10, BY TIMOTHY HUTCHINSON: Per Section 205.24 . 04. (D) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, Block V, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #91-02 , BY THOMAS BRICKNER: To rezone from C-1, Local Business and C-2, General Business to R-3 , General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3 , 1991 OTHER BUSINESS: Memo Regarding Light Rail Transit Preliminary Design Plans ADJOURN: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the August 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Larry Kuechle (for Diane Savage) , Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Darwin Voigt, Fridley Bus Company Barrett Colombo, legal counsel for Mr. Voigt See attached lists APPROVAL OF JULY 24, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the July 24, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #91-09, BY DARWIN VOIGT OF FRIDLEY BUS COMPANY, INC. : Per Section 205. 18.01.C. (12) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of vehicles and equipment on Lot 1, Block 6, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, generally located at 6750 Main Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the end of Main Street and the service drive west of Stylmark, located south of and adjacent to Rice Creek. The property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial, as is the property to the south. To the north is Rice PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 2 Creek, to the west is the Burlington Northern Railroad, and to the east is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated that in June of 1991, the City received a complaint from the resident adjacent to the subject parcel about the condition of the above ground fuel storage tank. The tank was rusting and the screening surrounding the tank was inadequate. The City notified the petitioner, and requested that they install a screening fence and paint the storage tank. Ms. McPherson stated that after receiving the letter, the petitioner met with the Code Enforcement Officer regarding required actions. Construction of a fence, a retaining wall, and repainting the tank were discussed. However, tree and vegetation removal was not discussed nor was it authorized by the Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. McPherson stated that after the meeting, the petitioner commenced the clearing of vegetation and regraded additional property which resulted in the expanded storage area. The removal of vegetation in this area is in direct violation of stipulation #4 of the building permit originally issued in 1973 . A total of 15 stipulations were applied to the building permit and agreed to by the original property owner. Once the City was notified by an adjacent property owner that the clearing of the vegetation had occurred, staff ordered the petitioner to stop work and apply for a special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated removal of the vegetation created an additional 3, 300 square feet of storage area. If the special use permit is approved, this area will need to be paved, increasing the amount of run-off from the site. A storm water plan would need to be submitted for approval. Ms. McPherson stated the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is preparing plans to repair the Locke Lake dam and improve the lake basin. In conjunction with these improvements, a sedimentation basin may be constructed in Rice Creek north of the subject parcel. The petitioner will need to work with the City and the RCWD to determine the actions necessary to facilitate this improvement. Ms. McPherson stated the expanded storage area required the removal of extensive vegetation along the east portion of the property. Because the petitioner has violated the stipulation applied in 1973 , staff cannot recommend approval of the special use permit request, and staff's recommendation would be to require that the area be re-vegetated. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has installed a chain link fence in conformance with the fence ordinance and has repainted the tank. Also, trees have been planted along the east side of the fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 3 Ms. McPherson staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the special use permit request to allow exterior storage of vehicles and equipment and to require that the property owner to re-vegetate the area by June 1, 1992, with the following plant materials: - 14 - 2 1/2 inch caliper Silver Maples planted 20 feet on center. - 30 - 24 inch Red Twig Dogwood, planted along the east property line at approximately 3 feet on center. Ms. McPherson stated that if the Planning Commission decides to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The storage area shall be paved, lined with 8618 concrete curb, and meet the appropriate setback requirements, including a 5 foot hard surface setback from the building. 2. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 3 . Appropriate permits shall be obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District. 4. The petitioner shall work with the City and the Rice Creek Watershed District on the construction of a sedimentation basin in conjunction with the Locke Lake improvement. Mr. Betzold asked if there was any outdoor storage of buses prior to it being brought to the City's attention? Ms. McPherson stated that on previous site visits, the existing parking area had at least one bus, if not several, parked outside. Mr. Betzold asked if the City files give any indication what the original intent for the requirement for vegetation was in 1974 when the building was constructed. Ms. McPherson stated there are extensive minutes discussing the approval of the building plan in 1973. The neighbors were very concerned about the aesthetic impact of the proposed facility, and the intent of stipulation #4 was to provide screening and buffering of the building from the residential neighborhood to the east. Mr. Betzold stated that the Commission has been given two documents at the meeting. One is a two page letter from the petitioner's PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 4 legal counsel, Barrett Colombo, dated August 21, 1991, and a petition submitted by the neighborhood. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive into the record the letter dated August 21, 1991, from Barrett Colombo, and the petition dated August 21, 1991 submitted by the residential neighborhood. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the petition was submitted this morning. It is from the residents of the Rice Creek Plaza neighborhood. There are approximately three pages of signatures. The neighborhood is trying to make its concerns known to the Commission about the request. The petition states: "As concerned residents of the Rice Creek Plaza neighborhood, we would like to make our concerns and recommendations known to the Planning Division and City Council regarding the use of the property known as Fridley Bus Company. The use of this property has far exceeded the original intent of the building permit No. 12392 issued November 16, 1973 . It appears that the company may well have outgrown the intended use of the facilities. The attached documents and correspondence describes the illegal activities and noncompliance with the building permit and stipulations. We will not restate them for the purpose of this petition. We do wish to make the following recommendations known to the Planning Division: 1. That Fridley Bus Company adhere to stipulation #9 of the building permit and refrain from parking buses outside the existing building. 2 . That Fridley Bus Company replant trees and shrubs on both sides of the new fence to completely cover the fence from the east side and to conform with stipulation #4 (easterly 70 feet of property be left in vegetation) . 3 . The City obtain an easement and establish a walkway in accordance with stipulation #2 . 4 . That the City investigate the apparent pollution caused by the storage and refueling of buses on the west end of the building. It appears that diesel fuel is running into Rice Creek. 5. That only limited exterior lighting be allowed so that visual pollution is kept to a minimum (lighting be limited so that it is not visible from the east of the property) . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 5 6. That the City study the traffic flow from 2nd Street to Mississippi Street. With the expansion of Stylmark and the number of buses and cars at Fridley Bus Company, that is basically the only exit/entrance for the entire Rice Creek Plaza neighborhood. " Mr. Betzold asked the staff's reaction to this petition. Ms. Dacy stated staff just received the petition this morning. It does not appear that since the 1970 's that the City did obtain an easement from the property for a walkway on the north side. The other issues need to be discussed by the Planning Commission. In relation to the traffic issue, there have been a number of public hearings regarding requests from Stylmark, and the City is well aware of the concern about the traffic from 2nd Street onto Mississippi Street. The City is in the process of working with Anoka County for a traffic light; however, it does not appear that this will take place in the immediate future. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the letter received from Mr. Colombo, the petitioner's legal counsel; she had spoken with Mr. Colombo earlier in the day and had asked Mr. Colombo to write this letter for presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Colombo makes the point that they believe the requirement to apply for a special use permit for this activity is not necessary. They are saying that the parking of vehicles on the property is a permitted accessory use. Secondly, they are questioning the enforceability of the stipulations made on the building permit in 1973. Apparently, many of those stipulations were not recorded against the property at Anoka County. On page 2 of the letter, Mr. Colombo indicates that they wish to work with the City to try to come to some kind of agreement to meet the concerns of the homeowners to the east. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as staff's reaction to Mr. Colombo's letter, in regard to the necessity for the special use permit, she advised Mr. Colombo on the telephone that it has been typical City policy for the City to require a special use permit if the vehicles cannot be properly screened from public right-of-way or a residential area. Another section of the M-1 district states that: "All materials and commercial equipment shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or adjoining property of a different district. The City Council shall require a special use permit for any exterior storage of materials. " Ms. Dacy stated that as far as whether or not these stipulations are enforceable, that is a matter that will probably have to be tried in court. Until that time, the City stands by the stipulations of the permit. However, if they can come to an PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 6 agreement that would be acceptable to the petitioner and the neighborhood, they would prefer that. Mr. Darwin Voigt, the owner of Fridley Bus Company, stated he purchased the existing building and business from Roger Christenson in 1985. At that time, they did a title search and found there were some stipulations against the property in regard to storm sewer, water, sewer, etc. When they took over the bus company, there was one full time employee and the owner. There are now 30 full time employees. Of these 30 employees, six have moved into the Fridley area. Mr. Voigt stated he started to expand his business, but was not aware of the 15 stipulations from the original building permit. They did not become aware of them until they received a notice from the City asking him to take care of the propane tank. He then discussed this with Mr. Barg at the site. Mr. Barg stated the City wanted the propane tank painted and screened. He asked if he could build an 8 foot fence, and Mr. Barg said he could, but that it had to be of a noncombustible material and slatting had to be in it. He stated that with an 8 foot high fence, the buses would still be visible so he proposed an 5 foot retaining wall, that would make a height of 13 feet so the buses would not be visible to the residential neighborhood. He believed Mr. Barg's comment was he was not too concerned about what he did as long as the tank is painted and the buses screened. Mr. Voigt stated he sandblasted the tank and painted it. When they were laying the last block in the retaining wall, Mr. Barg came and told them they had to had to stop any further work because of the removal of the vegetation which was in violation of one of the original stipulations which he knew nothing about. Mr. Voigt stated that as far as the vegetation that was removed, one was a big cottonwood tree that was growing into the power lines, and the power company removed that. There was one big oak tree that was cracked and rotten in the middle; there were 5-6 elm trees that had grown wild; there were 4-5 pine trees planted by Mr. Christenson for screening. They did not haul any dirt in or out of the property. They graded the property and installed cultured sod. Mr. Voigt stated they did not do this work behind anyone's back. They were not aware of the stipulation. Therefore, he is requesting this special use permit so he can continue to operate his business at this location in Fridley. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Voigt to respond to the six recommendations made by the residents in the petition. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 7 Recommendation #1: That Fridley Bus Company adhere to stipulation #9 of the building permit and refrain from parking buses outside the existing building. Mr. Voigt stated he cannot operate his business if he is required to adhere to stipulation #9. He stated he owns about 40 buses. Only 24-28 buses can be stored inside. The rest have to be parked outside. Recommendation #2. That Fridley Bus Company replant trees and shrubs on both sides of the new fence to completely cover the fence from the east side and to conform with stipulation #4 (easterly 70 feet of property be left in vegetation) . Mr. Voigt stated that is the area he needs for parking. If- he put vegetation back there, he will lose parking. If he has to re- vegetate with trees and shrubs, why put the fence up? Recommendation #3. The City obtain an easement and establish a walkway in accordance with stipulation #2. Mr. Voigt stated his only concern would be the liability for people walking on his property. If he could be assured that he would not have any responsibility or be held responsible for any accidents on his property and as long as he did not have to pay for the walkway, he would not object to an easement for a walkway. Recommendation #4 . That the City investigate the apparent pollution caused by the storage and refueling of buses on the west end of the building. It appears that diesel fuel is running into Rice Creek. Mr. Voigt stated he had one over spill from a stuck nozzle. They called the MPCA who investigated. They had about a truckload of contaminated soil that needed to be hauled away. Recommendation #5. That only limited exterior lighting be allowed so that visual pollution is kept to a minimum (lighting be limited so that it is not visible from the east of the property) . Mr. Voigt stated his intent was to have the poles on each corner of the fence to be 10 feet higher in order to shine lights into the storage area to prevent vandalism. They do get vandalism. He stated he did discuss lighting with the neighbors, and there were a couple of neighbors who did request lighting. Ms. Sherek asked where Mr. Voigt has parked the buses before now. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 8 Mr. Voigt stated he has been parking them on the Stylmark property. He has an agreement with Stylmark to park buses there. In the summertime, he moves school buses to a storage area in St. Cloud to prevent vandalism. Ms. Sherek stated that if the special use permit is granted, is there any possibility that Mr. Voigt would totally enclose that storage area? Mr. Voigt stated, yes, his intent is to totally enclose it with fencing and a gate with a lock. Mr. Barrett Colombo, Rinke-Noonan, legal counsel for Fridley Bus Company, stated he has had little opportunity to examine the City's ordinance or the past history. He had expressed some of his concerns in his letter. He stated some of the 1973 stipulations were recorded as encumbrances against the property. The title company for the property show that there are restrictions in regard to the easements. Someone took the time and care to select certain restrictions that were going to run with the property. Mr. Colombo stated that while Mr. Voigt wants to cooperate, it is feeling that it would be very difficult for the City to actually enforce the rest of those stipulations. In reviewing some of the correspondence provided to him from Mr. Voigt, he believed some of the wording about the illegal activity regarding the removal of vegetation is somewhat strong. He did not believe there was any necessity to get anyone's approval to remove that vegetation. Mr. Colombo stated this was the first time he was aware of the easement for a walkway along the north side of the site and thought it is something that can be worked out. As far as the lighting issue, adequate lighting also relates to the requirements by the insurance company. Mr. Colombo stated the goal is for Mr. Voigt to have a decent operation and to reach some accommodation with the City and the neighbors. He has not really had much opportunity to discuss this with the City Attorney. Mr. Terry Mickley, 241 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he is really concerned about these stipulations not being recorded with the County. Are these stipulations still legitimate? Ms. Dacy stated that at this time, staff is saying that the stipulations are enforceable. Obviously, the petitioner has objected to that and until that is resolved via a settlement or court action, City staff is intending to enforce the stipulations passed with the original building permit. Mr. Walter Behun, 171 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he is the property owner most adjacent to the bus company. He is concerned about the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 9 value of his property. He stated that the vegetation that was removed was almost worthless for any screening. In the summer months, the trees were leaved out and it did provide some blockage; however, about seven months out of the year, the leaves are down and the propane tank and property are quite visible. He had asked the former owner, Roger Christenson, to plant some evergreens to help block the view, but the evergreens were planted too far apart to do anything. Mr. Behun stated the new fence and retaining wall are up and the slats are in the fence. This has obscured the view about 85-90%, so it still isn't doing the job he would like it to. One suggestion has been made to put another set of slats on the back side of the fence to provide heavier screening. He would also suggest that more evergreen type arborvitae be planted to fill in the area. However, arborvitae need to be kept trimmed and neat looking. Putting in deciduous trees has little value for screening. He certainly likes the situation better now than what they had before. Mr. Behun stated he would be opposed to a walkway easement. He does not want anybody walking behind his home for any purpose. There is really not enough space for 20 foot walkway because the bank drops rather abruptly. Ms. Sherek stated that because the slats are made of a noncombustible metal slats, another set of slats going the other way may trap moisture and dirt, causing the fence to deteriorate faster. Mr. Sebastian Wagner, 181 Rice Creek Terrace, stated there is a concern that has not been mentioned with an additional 18-20 buses parked outside, and that is the pollution and exhaust from these buses running, particularly in the wintertime. Another thing is that this privacy fence is not very private. What is wrong with having a "freeway-type" privacy fence 12-14 feet high made of treated lumber that would really screen the area? His two major concerns are the air pollution and being able to see the buses. He would like to see stipulation #4 enforced. As far as evergreens, any size tree can be planted. Mr. Lyle Elverud, 221 Rice Creek Terrace, stated there would not be any problems if the bus company had continued to park all the buses inside. He did not believe the rest of the neighborhood shares the same view as Mr. Behun regarding the vegetation that was removed. The neighborhood is concerned about pollution: air pollution, noise pollution, odor pollution, not only from the buses but also from the trains. Tall evergreens would be excellent for screening. The dogwoods recommended by staff are also excellent and beautiful in the wintertime. The people on Main Street are concerned about the buses running on Main Street, and the neighborhood is concerned about the buses running at night. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 10 Ms. Ethel Dzubay, 220 Rice Creek Terrace, stated she was at the public hearing in 1973 when this business was first proposed. At this time, she feels really betrayed. She feel that the spirit of the law and the stipulations that were written down and what they were promised have changed drastically. Many neighbors that night expressed the need for visual privacy to make the area look good, to be screened from the noise, pollutants, and the insistence that all the buses be stored inside. They left the public hearing with the feeling that they had achieved something, that they were going to allow a business there, but that the neighborhood would have a business that looks good. Now it no longer looks good and it smells bad. Ms. Constance Wagner, 181 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that regarding the air pollution, in the wintertime they can smell the fumes in their house. This cannot be conducive to good health. She also feels betrayed. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding any type of ordinance regarding air pollution, the City has adopted the MPCA standards by reference, so if there are odors that would trigger certain thresholds, the City would have to hire a testing firm to conduct tests. Mr. Betzold stated the air pollution is a very legitimate concern. The City might want to consider having tests conducted to alleviate some of the neighbors' concerns. Ms. Wagner stated that with this new storage area, the buses will be parked 35-40 feet from the nearest house. That is too close to the residential neighborhood. The air pollution could be even worse than it is now. Mr. Saba stated he is very concerned, not only about the odors, but also about carbon monoxide build-up. Ms. Wagner stated that she was also at the public hearing in 1973 . The former owner, Roger Christenson, told them that school attendance was down, several schools had been closed, and his business would just eventually phase out. That is not the case with Mr. Voigt. He has many charter buses. This is not a school bus business anymore. This is a business that has outgrown its location. It is not as it was in 1973 . Mr. Voigt stated he would be able to cut down the idling of the buses considerably if he has the storage area, because he will have outlets to plug the buses in to keep the engines warm. The buses are diesel, and the trains also run on diesel fuel. If they do testing, how will they know where the fumes are coming from, the trains or the buses? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 11 Mr. Sielaff stated a certain part of the solution could be managing the buses and not having them all running at one time. Mr. Voigt stated he does stagger the buses as much as he can. The school buses are not diesel; some are propane, some are gas. The school buses all leave between 7-9 a.m. Seven charter buses leave between 4: 00-5: 30 p.m. , and the others leave on different schedules. Mr. Saba stated adequate vegetation buffers noise, it buffers pollution, and it looks nice. He would like to see the petitioner pursue very dense vegetation. Ms. Dacy stated the Commission's primary focus tonight is the special use permit and the comments need to be directly related to the special use permit for an outdoor storage area. Then,- if the Commission wishes to recommend that staff pursue some of these other issues with the Fridley Bus company, staff can do that. Mr. William Neumeister, 180 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that he has been told by other neighbors that Mr. Voigt is using Stylmark property for the outdoor storage of some of his buses. Can he do that? Mr. Voigt stated that he has an agreement that allows him to park on Stylmark property and to do this modification. At such time that the owner of Stylmark wants to expand, then the agreement ceases. The agreement can broken within 30 days. Mr. Neumeister stated Mr. Voigt has been very nice and cooperative to the neighbors. He had no problem with the bus company and thought everything was fine with the City until he read the 1973 stipulations. He just moved into the area in November in 1990, and he plans to live here a long time. Mr. Steven Barg's letter to Mr. Voigt dated May 29, 1991, stated that: "The City of Fridley has established a City Code for the purpose of promoting a pleasant and attractive suburban environment. " Seeing a fence is not attractive. Even though the original vegetation was not very attractive, it did block sound. Mr. James Tracy, 250 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he is a relatively new resident to this area, and he, too, moved in with the intention of living here a long time. He is concerned about the City's ability to inform general citizens about a change to the neighborhood when some neighbors are out of the notification area. Mr. Tracy stated that pollution is a major issue. There has been a substantial increase in noise since he moved in. As far as air pollution, testing of that particular thing is rated on personal exposure limits and basically that would pertain to the diesel fumes. The reason the propane tank is on the property is because the original buses were run on propane which is a much cleaner PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 12 burning fuel. With the change of makeup of Mr. Voigt's general fleet, there will be a substantial change in air quality. Mr. Tracy stated the land related to Stylmark is rather unique. It is o.k. for businesses to work together, but the concern is on the part of Stylmark also condoning variations which are beyond what the City has proposed as being correct and proper channels in which to do business. He is concerned about whether Stylmark might take similar actions in the future if this special use permit is approved. He is hoping the Planning Commission will table this matter in order to have an opportunity to look at some of the legal issues that might are involved and possibly learn more about the amicable arrangement between Mr. Voigt and Stylmark. Mr. Bruce Lundberg, 230 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he has lived in his home for 18 years. The proposal in 1973 was for a bus company. They came away from that public hearing with the feeling they did not have everything they wanted but did have a workable compromise. At that time, they wanted natural screening. The 70 feet was there, the vegetation grew up rather wild, but it wasn't bad. He knew the bus company was parking buses outside, but, from where he lives on the block, the buses are not very visible. Then, the trees were removed, and it brought up all the feelings and concerns expressed by the neighbors in 1973. In some ways, he also feels betrayed. Some mistakes were made and some of the stipulations were not recorded on the deed. His question is: If he made the same kind of mistake on his home, would he not also be required to go back to the stipulations and the agreements that were made before? Mr. Lundberg stated he likes the area. They have made a substantial investment in their home. The area is relatively noise free and relatively traffic free. But, now the fence is not adequate screening. The slatting does not screen the buses effectively. As nice as the fence is, over time it will deteriorate. It looks like an industrial area, and he personally feels the visual impact is the same as having an auto parts junk yard in his neighborhood. He is urging the Planning Commission to deny the special use permit and to reinstate the stipulations from the original building permit. Mr. Ben Baxter, 191 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that they can see the subject property easily. There has been a tremendous aesthetic difference in the tree line since the trees were removed. The trees used to be continuous, and the continuity is now broken and drops to the height of the fence. It looks pretty naked and different. He is somewhat puzzled about why Mr. Voigt is so staunch in his position against trees on the neighbors' side of the fence. He would like to see trees planted on their side of the fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 13 Mr. Baxter stated that if the special use permit is denied and there is not outdoor parking of buses, then it is unfortunate that all the vegetation was removed and the other work has been done. It would have been nice to still have the trees for some screening. However, if the special use permit is approved and Mr. Voigt can park all these buses outside, then the residential aesthetics of the neighborhood will have been totally violated and something has to be done about it. Mr. John Hreha, 6731 Main Street, stated he has lived here for 30 years. When he moved in it was nice and quiet. The property was zoned light commercial. Then in 1973, the school bus company was built and the Christenson's told the neighbors that trees would be planted all around the building. Now with the trees gone he sees the whole mess. Those buses run all night. They are noisy, and in the morning all they can smell are the fumes. The new fence only covers half the buses. This is a residential district, and the value of their properties is being lowered. They are very dissatisfied. Mr. Raymond Rejman, 190 Rice Creek Terrace, stated he has lived here 23 years. There was not a problem back in 1973 when the buses ran on propane. Since Mr. Voigt purchased the company, he has brought in the big diesel buses and they are noisy. The bus company has grown too large for this particular parcel of property. There is no room for expansion. He is suggesting that the Planning Commission deny the special use permit, and Mr. Voigt look for a larger piece of property for his business. Mr. Bruce Lundgren stated the Fridley Bus Company is currently parking buses on Stylmark property with Stylmark's permission. If Mr. Voigt needs a special use permit to park buses outside on his property, how does this affect Stylmark? Wouldn't a special use permit also be applicable to the buses being parked at Stylmark? Ms. Dacy stated that originally the easterly 70 feet of the whole Stylmark parcel up to the Fridley Bus Company parcel was supposedly to remain as is. It is true that since 1985, the Fridley Bus Company has been parking buses outside the building. It is also true that the City has not sent the Fridley Bus Company a violation notice during that time. The only possible explanation is that because of the vegetation, there did not seem a reason to pursue it. At least, the City did not receive any complaints. Now that the vegetation has been removed, this whole issue has been raised. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding whether or not Stylmark is required to have a special use permit for the bus storage, there is this special use permit that needs to be dealt with and then the City Council has to decide whether it wants to pursue stipulation #9 to force all the buses on the property to be parked in the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 14 Ms. Sherek stated the City has granted a special use permit for storage of materials on another property in the past. A special use permit was issued for a lawn service company to store their lawn equipment vehicles on property at 73rd and Central. She believed a stipulation was that if the business where the vehicles were stored ceased to operate, then the special use permit also ceased. Mr. Wagner stated that back in 1973 this was just a school bus business and, at that time, the owner admitted his business would probably dwindle. Now it is far more than just a school bus business. If Mr. Voigt would just maintain the school bus portion of the business at this location and have his charter bus portion at another location, that might be a solution. Ms. Sue Neumeister, 180 Rice Creek Terrace, stated she wanted to just re-emphasize the fact that back in 1973 stipulations were put on the building permit. The definition of a stipulation is: "Making a condition of or requirement". The requirement in this case was to have trees for screening, and now they are not there. Is the City just going to ignore those stipulations now and say they mean nothing? Mr. Betzold stated that whenever stipulations and various conditions are put on special use permits, variances, etc. , they are often filed at the County Recorder's Office against the property. If someone buys a property, that person is expected to know what is filed against the property. In this particular case, for some reason, some of these stipulations were filed at the County, and some were not; and Mr. Christenson, for whatever reason, apparently did not inform Mr. Voigt of these stipulations. Mr. Voigt's attorney is saying that those stipulations that were not recorded at the County are not enforceable. City staff is saying they are. Mr. James Tracy asked if anyone has verified that some of the stipulations are not recorded on the deed. Ms. Dacy stated staff has not done that, but they would be happy to verify that information. Stipulations related to easements are typically recorded against the property. The law as it reads now is that if the Council takes any kind of action, any stipulations must be recorded. That was not true in 1973 . However, the records are still available at the Municipal Center, and there is a certain amount of obligation on the part of the property owner to investigate all records before purchasing a property. Ms. Sherek stated that if the former property owner was also operating in violation of the stipulations and the City had done nothing about it, what is the situation then? If Mr. Voigt had no reason to believe that the operation being carried on at the time was not alright, then how do they enforce stipulation #9 now? She PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 15 knows that buses were stored outside prior to 1985 when Mr. Voigt purchased the property. Ms. Dacy stated that, again, the whole issue of stipulation #9 has to be pursued further by the City Council. Mr. Betzold stated Mr. Voigt has provided the Commission with a copy of the title search done by Chicago Title Insurance Company. He gave this copy to staff to also be forwarded on to the City Attorney. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive into the record the title search done by Chicago Title Insurance Company. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Tracy asked if there was any need to get a legal opinion from the City Attorney prior to the Planning Commission making a decision. Mr. Betzold stated he would like to know what the City Attorney has to say about some of these issues before they make their recommendation; however, if they do make a recommendation at this meeting, the City Attorney will have an opinion before the City Council meeting. Ms. Dacy stated that the Commission does have a copy of a memo from the City Attorney dated July 23, 1991, regarding the illegal activity at the Fridley Bus Company. In the memo, Mr. Herrick agrees with the special use permit approach. He agrees that the property owner should be advised that he is in violation of the stipulations on the building permit and that the City would pursue court action if the property owner does not voluntarily restore the area in a manner satisfactory to the City. She will have Mr. Herrick review the information submitted by Mr. Colombo. Ms. Dacy stated that based on some recent applications the City has had, she cautioned whether it is advisable for the Commission to be discussing legal positions if the case ends up in court. However, if the Commission wishes, staff can come back with the appropriate information. Mr. Betzold stated that is a valid point. Ms. Sherek asked Mr. Voigt that in the past year, what are the maximum number of buses he has parked outside on the site or on Stylmark's property. Mr. Voigt stated 18 buses are parked outside. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 16 Ms. Sherek asked that when Mr. Voigt purchased the company in 1985, how many buses were parked outside? Mr. Voigt stated 4-5 buses were parked outside. Ms. Sherek asked what Mr. Voigt's plans are for the coming two years. Is he planning to continue to expand his charter fleet? Mr. Voigt stated he has no intention of expanding the charter fleet at this time. He does intend to be out of this area in about 4 years. That is no secret. He has told the neighbors this. With financing the way it is, he cannot afford to purchase another property at this time. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. _. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Betzold stated that even though he still has a lot of questions, he did not think they are significant enough to table this item. His inclination is to recommend denial. He believed the bus company has grown too much and seems to be pushing too far into the residential neighborhood, there are too many buses in this area. He did not think Mr. Voigt entered into any of this with bad faith or bad intentions, but at some point, the City has the responsibility to draw the line. Mr. Saba agreed. He stated the neighborhood feels betrayed. They were promised a commitment that vegetation would be maintained, it was put on the building permit as a stipulation, and then the vegetation gets arbitrarily removed. He agreed they were betrayed. If the neighborhood, the City, and Mr. Voigt could get together and agree on some vegetation, that might be a solution. He agreed that Mr. Voigt has almost outgrown this site. Ms. Sherek stated that, unfortunately, many of the City's businesses are outgrowing their sites. Time after time, the City has tried to accommodate these businesses with special use permits, variances, etc. All they have to do is drive down Main Street or Central Avenue to see those areas where these permits have been given and no one is ever happy. There are always problems. Ms. Sherek stated she has serious problems with the air quality issue with having 40 buses parked 30-150 feet from the residential area. She would support denial of the special use permit. Mr. Kuechle stated he would disagree with the denial. If they recommend denial, it is his feeling they will basically lose the ball game. Mr. Voigt will either move or park the buses outside anyway, and they then lose any negotiating power the City has to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 17 try to get some more vegetation along the easterly side. If they approved the special use permit with a stipulation for more vegetation along that side, then that would be the best situation. He would recommend approval. Mr. Kondrick stated he was inclined to recommend approval, until Mr. Voigt said he was planning to move out of the area in four years. Then, all this would be for nothing. The noise is not so much a problem as the air pollution. He agreed that Mr. Voigt has outgrown the area, and he would recommend denial. Ms. Modig stated there does not seem to be much compromise between the neighborhood and Mr. Voigt. Mr. Voigt is going to need more space soon. This area is just not designed for the type of use now with the large charter buses. She is concerned about the air pollution and the buses being so close to the residential homes, 18 years outside year around and 32 buses inside. She would be in favor of denial. - Mr. Sielaff stated the stipulations were there from the beginning and knowingly or unknowingly Mr. Voigt didn't seek out that information. As a result, they are sending the wrong message out to other industries in the City if they don't enforce these stipulations. He would vote in favor of denial. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council denial of Special Use Permit, SP #91-09, by Darwin Voigt of Fridley Bus Company, Inc. , per Section 205.18.01.C. (12) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of vehicles and equipment on Lot 1, Block 6, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, generally located at 6750 Main Street N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SIX MEMBERS VOTING AYE, KUECHLE VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6-1. 2. RECEIVE JULY 16, 1991, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the July 16, 1991, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE AUGUST 1, 1991, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the August 1, 1991, Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1991 PAGE 18 4. RECEIVE AUGUST 6, 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August 6, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the August 21, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lyni a Saba Recording Secretary SIGN - I SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, . ( l) / ( Name Address/Business :c.'id/qteeiC- r---- z-- b W I:Y o .. aa_d_zet .c _iLy /7/ >i'L-P-A o R_Ai-=1".A.A ax-e— :,,, /i iiii•SZ rad%A/N. Agf // /14-44. (3-..I,iv__ 0 - .0 M A) in, 2.. / Zce CreeK lerrzce , , „ S I G N - IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, August 21, 1991 Name Address/Business r5 /Yqr 25c1 /e'ce' Crr,r,e "c-7 fi,i4e 67.F7- p - -3q ir(f, (Po L r� AI& No __ T-kaAi N -7,-5 )14.-La) . .(/ -.'.4, , CA,z,..6._-7;;-__ /OW- a6-/ - _ ` o o, X k Olt4/ aaD ice, t a - I/Q ,i% / /9O / e Z ,�" . Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: September 13, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Change the Definition of a Kennel Background For several years, a variety of issues pertaining to various sections of the Animal Control ordinance (Section 101 of the City Code) have been discussed or debated. Most recently, questions were raised regarding the number of animals permitted to be kept in a single family home. This generated the proposed ordinance amendments to Section 101. Planning Commission Action In order to ensure that Section 101 of the City Code is consistent with the zoning ordinance, the definition of a kennel is proposed to be amended. We have attached the entire ordinance; however, the only item of consideration for the Planning Commission is the amendment to the kennel definition. This is not to suggest that the Planning Commission cannot comment on other provisions of the ordinance, for example, the Parks & Recreation Commission has been concerned about the impact of animals within community recreational facilities. Proposed Definition The definition of a kennel is proposed to change to permit four (4) or more dogs or cats or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats at least six (6) months of age. This means that a homeowner can only have three dogs or cats. The current definition of a kennel is three (3) or more dogs or cats; a homeowner can only have two dogs or cats. A kennel is not permitted in the residential zoning districts of the community and is only permitted in the commercial zoning districts. In the last several years, the City has encountered several situations where single family homeowners own three or more dogs or cats and the City has had to advise them that one of the dogs or cats be removed from the premises. Definition of a Kennel September 13 , 1991 Page 2 The City Council directed staff to prepare the ordinance amendment in order to conduct the public hearing process and to discuss the proposed ordinance change. The Chief of Police will be present at the meeting to present background information to the Planning Commission regarding this issue. Other Communities We surveyed other jurisdictions (see attached) and found that five out of the eight permitted up to three animals. Two had no restrictions on cats. Some also required a special use permit for more than three animals in a residential district. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the definition of a kennel, Section 205. 03 . 39, as represented in the attached ordinance. This is also recommended by the Police Department. BD/dn C-91-674 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, September 18, 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. for the purpose of: Amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, entitled "Definitions" to change the definition of a Kennel as follows: 205. 03 DEFINITIONS. 39. Kennel. Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: September 4, 1991 September 11, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. 4' {F` POLICE DEPARTMENT { MEMORANDUM k4,-,,,L=0 • City of Fridley Minnesota • SATE AUGUST 23, 1991 ROM PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, J.P. H LL TO ACTION INFO OBJECT BILL BURNS _ X ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Attached is a draft of proposed amendments to the animal control ordinance and an amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to kennels. Section 101.01.09 and 205. 03.39 amend the kennel definition by allowing the number of animals to increase from two to three, at council 's request. A recent survey of other cities regulations on this restriction is attached. • Section 101. 04 . 05 amends the language relating to barking dogs. The amendment is requested by Carl Newquist due to the Court of Appeals decision in an Edina case. The proposed language should withstand any challenge. It takes some language from the State Disorderly Conduct Statute, requires more than one person to be disturbed, and administratively will require at least on official recorded notification to the owner of the complaints to prove knowledge. Carl Newquist's letter on this issue is attached. Section 101. 04. 08 is amended to be consistent with the kennel definition change. S :Liou iu1. u4. 13 is a request by Jack Kirk and the Park and Recreation Commission. The prohibition of animals on a bathing beach currently exists in the beach ordinance. Jack requests that this be included in the animal control ordinance so that there is one point of reference on animals. The prohibitation of animals in the Community Park is a new provision felt needed by the Park and Rec eation Commission due to the type of park involved being athletic/spectator in design. Dogs in the athletic area are a danger to participants and dig up turf. Dogs in the spectator area are creating citizen complaints about barking and snapping at children. Section 101. 11 is Carl Newquist's and my recommendation to amend the vicious animal prohibitions so that it has increased specificity and prohibitions. The amended language is primarily from the Blaine ordinance. There are several cases across the country where these type of animals have taken human lives, especially children. Blaine reports the removal of a cougar last week from their city. Previous correspondence from the Humane Society and a city resident on this issue are attached. Increasing the number of animals in a residential zone requires a zoning code change, thus a Planning Commission process. Barb Dacy said the earliest that she could have the Planning Commission consider the ordinance is at the September 18, 1991 meeting. It would then be referred to the City Council to establish a public hearing on September 30th, and possibly the first reading on October 21, 1991. JPH/sa CSDINMNCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RBODDIFYIIN3 THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 101, ENTITLED "A W AL CONTROL,' BY AMEND] SECTIONS 101.01.09, 101.04, 101.04.05, 101.04.08, 101.11, AND ADDIM NEW SECTION 101.04.13 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZCNIIVP' BY AMENDING G SECTION 205.03.39 The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: 101.01. DEFINITIONS. 9. Kennel. . combination of throe (3) or more doge and cats aro kept on tho camp pranicce• X4res11-1-itter-ef-pwe or kittone may bo kept for a period of six (6) months Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dons or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. 101.04. ANIMAL NUISANCE. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keen, or harbor any animal which is considered a nuisance. For the purpose of this Chapter, an animal nuisance shall exist under any of the following conditions: 5. The animal barks, howls, cries,-or yelps or makes any other noise habit»a1ly and/or repetitively that the person who awns, keeps, or harbors the animal knows, or has reasonable grounds to know that it will, or tend to, alarm, anger or disturb other persons residing in the vicinity thereof. So--as--to \,,, e r•l , dist'eerie► or an oy a 'ison or p ; +-h„ ;ty }hereof i n defisera ir\ Chapter 110, ontitlod "Public Nuieanco", of tho City code. 6. ;A. 'acre doge or three (3) or more cats, or any combination of }h (3) er -re dogs aryl ca a leas#- six (6) he•Rion of age are F-kep en }he I tha } \ and--t l re i i rements f Cep.#-i er\ 1 01.15 re ,'vanr\l i girl_w h-- Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four '4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. Additional animals may be kept in non-residential zones that meet the City's zoning requirements for a kennel license. 13. To allow an animal on the premises of any bathing beach or the City Community Park, whether ridden, lead, carried, or running at large. 101.11. VICIOUS ANIMALS. No porgy. a hal l L allow Icy-a mp�irvicious ;roc;dents._sal th n 3 65 c ar d±a s■ i • for he viola krion of ;s add t S t-• 6sitiC -of sentence,-fit ;ma Control--Of€ioer to tau-the ar --in giestien intoforthwith 1. No person shall keep or allow to be kept in the City: A. Any animal of a vicious nature or with a propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause iniury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals; or B. Any animal which attacks a human being or a domestic animal on two or ;Wore occasions without provocation or on a single occasion where substantial hrYii l v harm on a human being is inflicted without provocation; or C. Any non-domesticated animal not naturally tame or gentle, but is of wild nature or disposition, including any of the following: (a) Any animal or species prohibited by federal or Minnesota Law. (b) Any non-domesticated animal or species, including, but not limited, to the following: (1) Any skunk, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, de-scented or not de-scented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies. (2) Any large cat of the family Felidae such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cougars, and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated horse cats. (3) Any member of the family Canidae, such as wolves, foxes. coyotes, dingoes and jackals, except commonly accepted domesticated dogs. (4) Any poisonous snake, pit viper or constrictor, such as a rattle snake, coral snake, water moccasin, cobra, boa constrictor or python. (5) Any raccoon. (6) Any other animal which is not listed explicitly above, tut which can reasonably be defined by the terms in section 101.11 of this code, including bears and badgers. Upon conviction for the violation of this Section. the court may in addition to imposition of sentence, direct the Animal Control Officer to take the animal in Question into custody and forthwith dispose of it in a humane manner. 205.03 DEFINITIONS. 39. Kennel. of three (3) or more dogs and cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. Any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs or cats, or any combination of four (4) or more dogs or cats, at least six (6) months of age, are kept. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OCXJNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDIEY THIS DAY OF , 1991. WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR ATTEST: SHIRLEY A. HAAPAIA - CITY CLERK First Reading: Second Reading: Publish: ANIMAL RESTRICTION SURVEY RESIDENTIAL CITY DOGS/CATS COMBO ADDITIONAL ANIMAL PERMITS Fridley 2 animals No Columbia Heights 2 animals No • New Brighton 3 dogs Special use permit Cats not restricted Spring Lake Park 3 dogs Special use permit Cats not restricted $50 Blaine 3 dogs plus 3 cats Up to 7 cats Coon Rapids 2 animals Special use permit $50 Brooklyn Center 2 dogs plus 3 cats Kennel license $30 Brooklyn Park 3 animals Kennel license Anoka 2 animals No F. ' NEWQUIST & EKSTRUM. CHARTERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 301. FRIDLEY PLAZA OFFICE BUILDING 6401 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 TELEPHONE(612)571-687(1 FAX(612)571-6884 CARL J. NEWQUIST OF COUNSEL B. WILLIAM EKSTRUM July 19, 1990 DOUGLAS J. PETERSON Fridley City Hall 6431 University Avenue N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Attention: Mr. William Burns, Fridley City Manager Fridley Police Department 6431 University Avenue N. E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 tAAttention: Mr. James P. Hill , Public Safety Director RE: Fridley Dog Ordinance Dear Bill and Jim: It is rare for anyone to spend the time and money necessary to constitutionally challenge a municipal ordinance. Unfortunately, a Mr. Roger Dreher chose to contest the validity of the Edina dog ordinance. The Court of Appeals held that the Edina ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as it prohibited "any animal which shall by any noise disturb the peace and quiet of any persons in the vicinity thereof". Our Fridley ordinance prohibits animal noises that "unnecessarily disturb or annoy any person or persons in the vicinity thereof". Our animal ordinance also refers to our public nuisance prohibition against "maintaining or permiting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the public. I believe the next time we have a court case, our Fridley ordinance will be sub- ject to the same criticism, namely that the "ordinance as written gives no guidance to the pet owner, the neighbor, or the investigating officer as to what is allowable barking and what is not". Because barking dogs can be such an annoyance and because we do need an enforce- able barking dog ordinance, I respectfully suggest that the City of Fridley con- sider amending Section 101.04 (5) to establish a more objective standard of behavior. Mr. William Burns Mr. James P. Hill Page Two July 19, 1990 I am attaching a copy of the court decision for your review. Thank you. Very tku1y yours, Carl . Newquist CJN:pp enclosure • MINNESOTA LAWYER vitl. _ fo)) .0 who fail pay income tax- A bark too loud? • Cotut said d it would be l C�_ 1°44 Bey john R. Wylde jr., whhoo Edina's animal noise ordinance is too rely personal income taxes vague for Roger Dreher's dog,whose barking ,ICJ'- t)00. 60 0ov ( straight years. led to complaints from two different were are mitigating factors in neighbors. e Court gave him two years The Court of Appeals overturned Dteher's conviction and $30 fine because Dreher, neighbors to police can't determine what is Norwest e I it was reluctant to give pro- "allowable barking" by reading the or- part because of a stand tak- dinance. e,In to Bunker.In that case, The ordinance forbids Edina residents has been helping Mi E.violations will prompt sus- from keeping animals that"disturb the peace arment, except when con- and quiet"of neighbors.The city contend- attorneys with their c e most extreme,extenuating ed that the phrase"peace and quiet"is well • Y understood,but the appeals court disagreed dge,as we must,"the Court ,even though two neighbors complained and escrow issues for ovc hat we have not always liter- a police officer twice listened to the dog bark e In re Bunker dictum even from a distance of 50 feet. years. persistently given it lip sew- "Who does that mean?"wrote judge R.A. however,that notwithstand- Randall for the court. "Does that include e in In re Bunker, we have several-month old babies which may easily See how we can hel�^ i lawyer whose only miscon- be disturbed and cry at any strange sound? Y elation of personal income Does it include the elderly or anyone who is your escrow needs. quirements." extremely sensitive and claims to be dis- your escrow needs. ed numerous mitigating far- row E•+y any noise above the normal hum Feree who recomru^dca a conversation?" ?Ode.Among them:Wylde Randall also noted that none of the corn- Call William Wilson and paid taxes for several of plaining neighbors was called to testify to de- ny questions we're raised;he scribe how their peace and quiet was (612) 667-3517 :iplinary record in 20 years disturbed. Edina vs. Dreher. Filed April 24. s done pro bono work;some troubles were not his fault. it did not put its stamp of AQ of the mitigating circum- not specify which circum- Limiting liability awing on its decision not to itinn for Disciplinary Action The Supreme Court upheld a state law Complete ✓ylde Jr.,as A:,.. - ' — :6 -`; tiabiliry of municipalities.say- iron :- �f. . u%u►e(even when applied to municipal liq- 01 '1 ;, aroi stoles does not violate an Escrow accident ViEflin`s equal protection rights. exual conduct Because legislators could reasonably have � • wanted to shield municipalities from costly Services Villenbring was having mar- verdicts,the court said the law could be used day he asked a friend if by to reduce a$2.2 million award to Steven and ho would "put but." The Theresa Imlay.The lmlays were injured in a o safekeeping & traffic accident with a man who had put- ,tally handicapped woman chased liquor at Lake Crystal Municipal Liq- t the level of a I3-year-old. troy Store. ( recordkeeping for met the woman at their The court was not persuaded by the hnlays' ince's house,where she had arguments that they.were denied equal pro- every type of escrc -le asked her to have sex. tection because the verdict would not have she went ahead and did it been reduced if the man had been drinking at a privately owned bar. Imlay vs. City of 0 Automated cash d he realized she seemed"a Lake Crystal. Fikd March 30. fore they had sex.He never management because he felt"ashamed;' ing is fighting charges of final sexual conduct,which Marital tort o •superior investmer engage in sexual penetra- -me whom the defendant Divorcing mouses may keen rhr nrne-~if m tisose without Wo tO t •% =,• 1 � ORFATFR ANOKA COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY 1411 MAIN STREET*COON RAPIDS, MN 55433.754-1642 • ,• RE: Keeping of wild and/or exotic animals. Most species of upland game birds are specifically protected by the Minnesota DNR who require that permits to possess displaced, sick or iniured protected animals be obtained. Migratory birds along with other wild birds, e.g robins, bluebirds, etc. , are protected under Federal Law. Permits are available from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to allow the keeping, rehabilitat- ing and raising of such birds. It is true that a person may purchase ducks, geese, pheasants and turkeys (wild varieties) , but State and Federal Law generally require that a receipt be kept and shown upon request to prove that these animals were not taken from wild habitat, but were born and raised in captivity. Game farm permits are generally required for persons keeping any variety of wild mammal . Among the reasons for this requirement is the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that conventional rabies vaccines have an effect upon wild animals. It may not be accurate to consider wild animals as "dangerous" in and of themselves, however, there may be a danger to the animals in allowing uninitiateeualified persons to assume their care. The proper care, in terms of special feed and medication, is gen- erally quite costly and often not easily obtainable. On the other hand, many wild or "exotic" animals such as, bear, large snakes, wolf, bobcats, cougars and other large cats are becoming popular "pets" . Most experts agree that an inherently wild animal can never be completely "tamed" and must be adequately housed or caged to prevent injury to people or to themselves. Several cities have adopted ordinances that require special permits for pe sons to keep exotic mammals and some simply do not allow them to be kept at all . It may be best for people to consider that wild animals are meant to be wild and should not be held in captivity. The Humane Society is attempting to organize a program to help iniured, ill and orphaned wildlife. This program will provide an option for the care and protection of wild creatures. • • Ct. s ?\ - A..� `� bit,pr% . h E Ib• January 16, 1987 • Dear Mayor, You probably remember about a month ago or so, a supposedly tame Himalayan bear had to be shot. The bear was a worry to the neighbors; they thought his cage was not strong enough to hold him if he decided he no longer wanted to stay. In the end, I understand that he did get out and tried to bite one of the officers, which made it necessary to shoot -- the bear. People were outraged that this defenseless, declawed bear was cornored and shot. (It was not reported that the bear had tried to attack the officer. ) I'm upset also about the bear having to be shot. The whole incident should not have happened. People should not be allowed to buy and keep exotic or wild animals that could possibly harm someone. People should also not be allowed to have ducks in town. (These are usually Easter gifts. ) We've had a couple of incidents in the last two years where people have these ducks that they turn loose when it's no longer convenient to keep them, which is when it turns cold. These poor ducks don't know enough to fly south, so they just sit in this unbearble cold and freeze. One of these ducks was rescued and taken to a farm, the other was lured with food, caught and transferred. I don't think it's right that these animals should have to suffer and die, that concerned citizens and police officers should have to risk their • lives recapturing bears or rescuing ducks frozen in ponds. y a,O (2) I believe all the cities and townships should have an ordinance that states that people should not be allowed to have certain wild or exotic f animals. (A list should be compiled of all animals that would or would not be acceptable as pets.) There should also be an ordinance allowing people to have ducks only if they have a farm. I am a member of the Greater Anoka County Humane Society. Our director suggested in the December newsletter that we should write to our cities and find out what ordinances they have concerning these areas. If they have none, that they should possibly be drafting same. I am writing all the cities and townships in the Anoka county area. Would you please take the time to write to me and let me know if your city or township has any ordinance about keeping exotic animals or farm type animals? Thanks so much for your time in this matter. A self addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Sincerely, 4 Carol Hughes Carol l flhes 424 Askew, Ave. M.E. 1 1 Prialeg. MX 55432 •-_� � , , 0`i 6 ` j4� 3 0 Iq°\ July 30, 1991 • Mr. Nee: My name is Pam Davis. I reside at 7321 E. River Rd, Fridley. We moved in June 1, 1991 from Cambridge. I called ahead (May) to question the requirements of our animals for the City of Fridley. We have two Chihauhuas, (one 3 years old and one 4 years old) , 1 miniature dachshund who is 9 years old, one 4-month old Chihauhua and one 9-year old Siamese cat, neutered and declawed. The 4 month old puppy has already left and the cat I can dispose of or find a home for. On Thursday evening June 26th, an officer came to our house and said a concerned neighbor had called because of the barking of our dogs. She told us to check into a kennel license. Earlier this month, we had put up a chain link fence in the backyard to keep our dogs in our yard. I went to the county offices on Monday morning, June 29th and spoke with a person in the zoning office. She told me at this time they were not enforcing that law of only two animals and that we could not get a kennel license unless we had a pet shop or were a veterinarian. I wanted to be sure so I went downstairs and talked with the CO officer in charge, Mark. I explained the situation to him as we understood the complaint was for barking dogs. He also told me they were not enforcing the ordinance of no more than two dogs, and not to destroy my dogs. He stated that unless the dogs bit someone, I did not have to destroy them. Later that evening the first officer called my home as she had checked further into it and realized we could not get a kennel license, but that we still had to dispose of the other two animals. I explained we were told otherwise. She also told my husband at that time the complaint was for the amount of animals we had, not for the barking. She said Dave Solmon would call me in the morning. He called me this morning and said he was sorry for the wrong information that was given to me and that I had to get down to only having two animals. Everyone has been very nice and no one has been disrespectful or rude. I realize they are only doing their job, but can something be done? I don't want to dispose of my animals. How do you chose which one is to go? The obvious would be the oldest because she is 9 years old but can't they wait until she expires? She won't live much longer. Why can't we be issued a kennel license as other cities do? I did call ahead and nothing was said about being able to only have two animals. We do have a chain link fence around the yard so they can't get out. Can you please help me? I do not want to dispose of my pets. Thank you. Sincerely, Pam Davis Home #: 574-1794 Work #: 755-7500 Ext. 110 INCIDENT REPORT RIOLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT 91—MNOO2 MN0020600 ENSE OR INCIDENT ANIMAL COMPLAINT OAT' S M T W F S E REPORTED TIME RECEIVED TIME DISPATCHED TIME ARRIVED TIME COMPLETED 7-25-91 1511 1533 1609 HRO: R - radio Lee CFs :OCCURRED TIME OCCURRED -25-91 Same R P - phone Lee INC E OF OCCURRENCE ORSO a A - alarm ARR _335 East River Road 5 OF COMPLAINANTNICTIM DOg - in person JUV ohn Capretz L v - visual OFF ADDRESS PHONE M - mail PROP /335 East River Road 571-4754 T - other NESS ADDRESS PHONE IRTEO BY cLuplainant • less PHONE 01 9835 S :ER ASSIGNED SQUAD ISN UOC DISP lodge sjd 5M51 REPLACEMENT VALUE: STING OFFICER(S) SUPVR APPROVAL • VALUE OF DAMAGE: DA VALUE RECOVERED: :STED/SUSPECT(S)OR DESCRIPTION TIME OF ARREST Gerald Davis, 7321 East River Road, 03-04-44, 574-1794 ESSES ADDRESS PHONE DDe ILS OF INCIDENT: ADDITIONAL REPORTS: ispatched to 7335 East River Road to meet with caller who is concerned about his neighbor at '321 Fast River Road, to be having too many animals. fpdn arrival, I met with the caller, Mr. Capretz who informed me of his neighbor, Mr. Davis ho has five animals at his residence. Mr. Capretz was concerned about an ordinance violation. then proceeded over to 7321 East River Road to speak with Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis advised me e just moved here from Cambridge and was unaware of our animal ordinances. I then explained hem to him and instructed him to obtain city licenses for his animals. Clear. 1 SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT CASE NO. 91-109614 ANIMAL COMPLAINT OFFENSE FRIDLEY John Capretz POLICE COMPLAINANT 7335 East River Road ADDRESS ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF OFFENSE. PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATIONS. ETC. I contacted Ms. Davis on July 29, 1991. Ms. Davis had informed CSO Dodge that she had received conflicting information as to whether or not the City enforces the ordinance regarding the number of animals at a residence. I informed Ms. Davis that there may be same misunderstanding in that we do not proactively enforce (go door to door searching houses) the ordinance but that we had received a complaint and we have no choice but to enforce the ordinance as it is written. I apologized for any conflicting information that Ms. Davis may have received but that she was limited to two animals in her residence according to City ordinance 101.04 (S) 8. I suggested that Ms. Davis discuss this issue with family members and inform me when they felt was a reasonable time for them to comply with the ordinance. On July 30th, 1991 Ms. Davis contacted me and stated that she had contacted Mayor Nee and that the Mayor had told her that he would raise the issue with the council to see if there were some other solutions to the issue of the number of animals in a household. Director Hill contacted Mayor Nee and explained the issue to him. A resolution to this complaint is pending a decision by the City Council. I contacted the complainant (he had previously requested that we contact him with the final resolution) and explained to him the current status of his complaint. Copy to Director Hill. 'HIS OFFENSE IS DECLARED: oroa•ded ❑ Deputy Director Sal loran DHS s j d OATF 8-1-91 SIGNED:turd by Arrest 0 Investigating Officer ec otioe•Ily Cleared 0 DATF SIGNED 'active (Not Cleared) 0 Chief or Commanding Officer This Fora' Is Used by Officer Assigned to • Case to Report Progress Alter Three •ad Seen Oars and Weekly Thereafter, Also to Report Significant Oeveloomentt. j_J STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : September 18, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER sP #91-10 APPLICANT Tim Hutchinson PROPOSED REQUEST Allow construction in the CRP-2 Flood Fringe District LOCATION 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. SITE DATA SIZE 11 ,500 square feet DENSITY PRESENT ZONING R-1, Single Family Dwelling ADJACENT LAND USES R-1, Single Family Dwelling & ZONING UTILITIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION • SP #9 1-10 Timothy Hutchinson S 1/2 SEC. C/TY OF O 31 TREE '''0 , 1 - ' %0111113 6"kr la lk el: El Ir. W•'; c,1." I'..::.:,,, Ilk. �\ 0 ��+'"w" a ��er 'iT16mW �� j i.C;1°E',VILVO'--iti t if aid*:..11711:41 P III SI lit Vit Ai .,,,.. _' - res: _ ; �� oNz a 0' �11�► r well"% rill , ‘,ik � /r? ���' ;.3. k=1;,_W . \ ' '01 0 410 • el ti ktlik\WO'11'N vi ir•Virk %S: : ELY -i'' -10IA vela la slit miott 4.44,11.-,-;..B B`1,2o % :17106.,..atitii,Sigil ' lititi 1 ,Iillitli '' 4 .:i \ ikir'1137' t•1 latalkElleVA, , , ? IAA 1., , \4„.....".'4 1 4)...ft, "ire: i;••)oo(.4 444 tt .3 ,. 0 ap ..'4EX _„..- ‘ . •• '• * We. , _”. —T- '' - Ilipiga•-...• •,-,,,, 1-11,4/1.5,,,fitiitiriii4. 1• lt Alitill't-ri v,i,,,- IS,*2',4, 1 .---:•:-,.. t. s Iii.,,,•t..,,EMMET. \711r,i (1).an..„,—f_e,1 g PJ U u MJ ON lal)* ....,,,, ,04'.1 riliffk- \o"1* NO f f.-Z'-''''1-.! :"':" � � ��► + 0 a . I � 7?✓z• LIBERTY 1St 3 •tit ittigiti r. °� o S ry ra a� • - a. s �,wiglim 11f ` NIA Igo(s R � » ' �® � f „ t, �, �a � ' t� eJ113o r r °, a ril4A .: p _ ---,;0540#AiSit OS %ifi VA i' 1 ,6; ' ' 4' .1" "- • � % V L�N6FELLOW a.t� i . 11% \'' -414, 01014111 II 1111-1114:," ",-,-0,,:, • 1 'to on v+uu w tagi ,04._ � ��F��� � r° ,s41f-ici- ..�� � ,r> �- o 'rn 6J an W �� (+N���.:f, , ('� l� _. i FAQ .,JT ....�• r%a..✓ f° S. < ' \ a 1�lJAf.E$fi u fir — :�._. _ _ _y2 ; !> \ \\.� ' ,' ,°ar ter...e w • 79 Te 1 • sr WAY NE . CP , fl .. ,.ic ,� ,{s •6 / 'i 4y , r oney °�`��C.". ® ,: D f' cai 00.E.a be, Cam) #4. Pv A, P'/ ,,, r sro w (�. �p� p .1013 .• , - • 'po A 1..,,. -v-40 : .\ \ 33 -O \ P ` \ �(aF [_�, °t':'' T-: . . 10111 p{ a+)• ,fir ;00fr 9 # k COG `\a Q y ' \ -________ _. ,.. _ _ _ • 34 LOCATION MAP , . SP #91-10 Timothy Hutchinson . i • . :: ? "2,:4) n..3 C-) -0 ) ) -,-,1 <!-). - c--, 0 • ,.. CITY , OF „ _ THOMPSON' vuoSitili 0 \ ,,,, J ( 0 ) o \ # ',;_?, RIVERV/EW V0 HEIGHTS . . . tau .43,0•. . „..,,, . .., .,.,..., 10 oi.,CO .0111 V AV' NI• 111 -16212111illia AjirlIti • • I R 0 N TON Al.'titill-Mill r A roo- I. -e — . erT,,. i, ; 14:R A I 2 . 1• Q 0 _MI MUNE*i - 6 s 0. 3 .01: • r SPRIW Bpi0ow 1tiMMEIM . ' ... .... 1034d; R V I ' i a ne11111111Off 1..1 cl lb. ill , I'VE - •_ _d: 64 OF „a ., A joitillid. •••.% • ;„Ir,, an, ammo 4 --- GLENCO:."‘-•': 11:11421 Palm gm_saimig 5 11.7;.-1147411,Itii MFAImirr7qT1 'ROT . " Al'i r.gi:c44 . ticam;•.• roil :, haTIMIIM 1 ifi>C1<.'t, . e„'A ____ • C FIVE g E I ma EL a lei :Mk IN '.'": AM se il 71 svit+oa ,Ems -,- -,rtapi Ai( tnk,Ira• tr) r 199 - • Val % el _./ ELY CIR. 03 ELY •W' I Br .4 4- \is.\ 0 ; 4 ,0 .nu fi f;44( Lai / 0 Ii& '%, •'UMW • I . .... 4.04' Ow/ \—4,.. a // . \ LIBERTY 5 S T. ir . 7 • • i • ,. , ..n \ 4. / ,, _ lir-701110:I • L 0 N GF L LOW \\ gil. ‘ii e)0 \ \ •\ . le \ \ 4 somig• p4 _ii car ii • • • • 2; • • • .g • A • • * * .. 'a • • • % • • • • • * • • a • • • ibri * \ r • . i• T , i t . • • . ,) — -;: ,2,.,, , •,• • \ so.J... • 7••• 70. t-410- •-;11:, \ I • ... 1. .4C-#0, IP,/ .• 0. \ , .4.ir,,,T 111, • •lie. %.1411Z, RiVERViW 4 ____ '4 -----; 4 \..- „ A> •34 i, %, • • • • • ••••• HEIGH rk :.. Wti Pa, ' - r,%. L''' 64:4 .`. \I, •'' k ". %.‘ ' 44 • " • • • . • • 4 ..i• • .. 10_ • • • • •_•2 _ ..< \ ...„; cr _ .1111, \ ‘, 44.1 •• \•••••• • •.,70,••• \ \ kS .,., . • da& • . .,,.•. . • 4 . 4%1, \ •• \ •.1 % Xite •• • • • 6.74 • • \----. F,... (: ',1,,,(7*.` ' 611,, : sip \ ••••• .. , 4 :k •6 " ' N • • • ••• . . , \ "N. _ % ,,,,, . \ • . 1. •,Ik,„:',. * • .‘ •'- *-k \ ....is'. ... ---, • - qt..,;if. - • . - .\ '. . ,..t, • cs , A .k'4 . \ • •04% • ... „, , t ' \` - • 0,- •,.' s l'• • • --. • .z..v u, \ • V P - ) ‘0 .g.? . " s\• 1.. • • • 's \ ...-J •J; A .• 1 . & • 1,6 ' 5 q 1 . , # ‘ • ,, - .4 . • .....-. ZONING MAP Staff Report SP #91-10, Timothy Hutchinson Page 2 Request The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted in order to allow the construction of an addition to an existing dwelling unit located in the CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) district. The request is for Lots 21 - 24, Block V, Riverview Heights, the same being 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. Site Located on the property is a two story, single family dwelling unit with a detached garage. The existing dwelling unit, constructed in 1966, contains a basement. Analysis The petitioner is proposing to construct a two story addition with a basement between the existing dwelling unit and garage. An addition will be constructed to the existing garage to increase its size. Section 205.24. 05.A of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance requires that new structures for habitation be constructed so that the basement floor or first floor, if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The existing structure is non-conforming because the basement floor is below the regulatory flood elevation. The petitioner in proposing the addition has indicated that a basement is necessary to provide structural support for the two story addition. The elevation of the basement will be below the regulatory flood elevation. However, the first floor of the dwelling unit will be above the regulatory flood elevation. Special use permits have been approved for crawl spaces and accessory structures below the regulatory flood elevation. Hold harmless agreements recorded against the property have been required to ensure that these spaces are not converted to livable area. In this request, the basement floor cannot meet the minimum elevation requirement. To approve the request even with a hold harmless agreement would be in violation of the ordinance. Previous agreements have been for uses which are clearly accessory in nature and which are permitted under Section 205.24. 05.B to be at a lower elevation. Staff requested that both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources review the request. The request is out of the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of Natural Resources has recommended that the request be denied as the petitioner cannot meet the requirement to locate the basement floor elevation above the regulatory flood elevation. Staff Report SP #91-10, Timothy Hutchinson Page 3 Recommendation As the petitioner cannot meet the elevation requirement set forth in the ordinance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. . . SP #9 1-10 Timothy Hutchinson • • • ml . . _ ,i 1, ! ! • • P-i ! ----L---. ; , . .. I I •. . . . , . ; • • i . • • . , . . . , • .. • .. ; • - I I 1 00.0 Et. , i 1 • • I . , , • • • • i • 1 , . i . , , . . . , - , I, ii , • • 1 I 1 , i , ! , i • 1 .: ; , , • ,, ! ii • i I ' . . : 1 • ! i . 1 • . , ; 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 i - : ; ! 1 i 1 I • • I i 1 ; I I I • , I 1 . 1 • •,. i i . 1 , , • „i ,, 1 ; • , I : I . • I I -I I i I '..-.. - ( 1 1 ; : i i i , 1 : i 1 ! , , 1 • .. i , . I I , ; • 1 . , i • , • , . // , i '. i ' i 1 I i ' : I • I I 1 I i 1 ' 1 ' 7 / : , • ' ! . , : 1 I I I • • I I I ' ' , ; • ! I 1 I I I I I I • ! i l-vo1 • 1 1 * 4 I I I I 7 A./ * i I I C.P I • * PI i • ! I I 1 il 7/7. • 1 ' 2 - . ! : 1,,e6,:i9. • • . c:r)-- tjl 1 I - el . : „ iiFt . 41 i ! co ! ---r- I' I 1 . • 1 1 , 1. • : 1 . i i 1 i I 1 . , ,, I 0,1 - > co i E ising ilioUse, . ; 1 i 1 ^ 1 ! : • .I i. 1 ' • I I ; , 1 .. • , . 1 • • i • , : , . 1 : , : • • • I I ' I i i : , , 1 • 'I I I j ; .. ,. ; i i ! i . i : , • 1 1 , • , , • ; • • i . I I 1 " I , 1 , 1 . tfl ,. .. .. , .. ! ., , I 1 j : • i 1 . t• . ; , , , 1 i 1 j I j i . I: I I ' I . ' I • 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 . . . . .. . i 1 • I I 1 1 I i. , . , • , I 1 I I I 1 I .1' .. '! i 1 I 1 ! 4 I 1 i 1 , I I i4 I. i • I • 1 I 1 i I 1 I I ' I ! I I • 1 1 I 1 . I • ! , • I I 1 ! ! 11 ! ! I II 1 I I : ! ... • 11 I I I . 1 * ,I ' I I I N4( I I ! I I I i I 4 , • • ! I I! 4 ! j ! 1 goi rb I z RI VbirVI.E\A/: Ti.:.RRACE-1 1.1 06, .0 :,PT. 1 1 i • i • '• ; i , , i 1 ! , . , fL01-s 1 , 22, 23 ANt) 2.4.,;Bu)cts v,.--rive • I -R.. VI .\;(/ 1-1ic LrIATS ••• ! . • ! SITE PLAN • SP #91-10 Timothy Hutchinson i i . li WI 1 ' i-illlli ' ; hill WWI I I I ' II I 1 III fill illikIi. I Ili ; jl it I I I6 Ill ; Il Iiji I l III l I II_ ( IIi !; ii ' ! 1II III 1 1 • __1Jj1III III 11 1- --I -- 1Iii • .1It_ 11 i ilI - �a i I1 1 . I 1 1 � � it ' i � I I � I }- , i 11 l - 1 • •�l' '11Ir-ir' : i =1� II 1 ; ! IIoI1 - IIl 1. 1. -. -.1_ 1 ! 1 I •:I i V, 1 LLI r — iiIr I li il, L1.;- 11 1 1i ��.Ii _ i y I� Ili iI I \� � I:, l ; i II 1 1,11 ; I 1 III it I�Ti:, W! � .}_:� l Ill Il ! iII1 ! i l I i_ 1 -- _____I____ - __.___-- it) 1I, 1 : ! ;., , 1 , 1 i_l I l I . 5 1 '. �, �"' il l I � ' IIIII 11 i ) I 1 i ' _ III III l _l_._ L___ I 1-1 .1.,, �� Al, l Ii_t 'tt I I Jul H it - .- - - 1- - _: I 1 11 ' l I ' Ii It - _ i ! I ( ; - _ _ 11 1 . 11. Ii 111111 . I : i1I it ' _-- _= II _ I i I _ _ �'1 1 I I 1 . I -i-= - _ _- II I I., f1 ; _I.1I ►Li lI 1 1 1 ' 1m1 : _ �11 III 1 ! i G1 1,�,- _� .• J ,L�I,,I 1 If- Ilia 1._ . , _ = = I �_ _ 1111 - -1� 1 . r _,, ,_, 1:' ' I -ill: I .: i 11 � , 51 : l01 ":: _ i_ iiiô ' : Li ..1 MI 1 1 . 1 I. ' 1 1i Ili ! 1. , II L l I II :. .. � I i I 1 11 I 1 11♦-I I, 1 I , : I iI 1 I I , IIlI , I I•-'-'- I ! I ' I ' i i li 1 , iiiiill il ; ll 1 . 1 I , ; ' ! , . il l _ _. _ .. _. _ .'..l..I I l• � l i i l i __ .... _ _.. .._: 1 i �l ; i I ,- .1 , l ; rt-; i i 1 - - ,• 1 II I ' Willi 11i 11 1 . 11 I 11 1111I II I 1 ! 1 IIIIII IIII I : IiI l II l iI '' 11i 1I11I1 1I1 ili I 1 Hilt 1111 1 1 I I 1 111 ! � III1i1 ! . . III : I , 1 . � . : 11 ELEVATION ItSTATE OF ]liki_]I-ZU`11'LQ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 7 7 2-7 910 FILE NO. September 10, 1991 Ms. Michele McPherson Planning Assistant City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 RE: 8021 RIVERVIEW TERRACE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOODPLAIN, CITY OF FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY Dear Ms. McPherson: This letter is in response to notification of the above referenced Special Use Permit application for a basement expansion in the CRP- 2 (flood fringe) district. I have the following comments: 1. Fridley's floodplain ordinance, section 205.24.8, item A, states that "No use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. " 2. Section 205.24.5, item A of the same ordinance requires new structures for habitation to be constructed so that "the basement floor or first floor, if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood protection elevation. . . ". 3 . With the above references in mind it appears that the proposed construction is prohibited by ordinance and the permit should be denied or limited to construction above the regulatory flood protection elevation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /% 9 ITom Hovey Area Hydrologist THl:kka AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 205.24.4. electrical, sewer and water supply systems located in the 0-1 District flood plait) shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. (2) Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads and bridges located within the . Flood:ay District shall comply with the Sections of this - Chapter. Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. D. Permitted Uses In CRP-2 District (Flood Fringe). No building or structure or any portion thereof, shall be placed within the CRP-2 District, nor shall there be any grading, filling or excavating of land or any use established on any property within the District unless a Special Use Permit is granted. A Special Use Permit may be granted within the CRP-2 zone with the following exceptions: • (1) No Special Use Permit shall be authorized which would result in incompatible land uses or which would be detrimental to the protection of surface and ground water stir?)ies. (2) No Special Use Permit shall be authorized for structures which will increase the financial burdens imposed on the community and its individuals through increasing floods and overflow of water onto land areas adjacent to the creeks and rivers. (3) No Special Use Permit shall be issued unless the proposal is in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the City of Fridley and which will not increase or cause danger to life or property. (4) No Special Use Permit shall be issued in those cases which are inconsistent with the objectives and encourage land use that is inaxnpatible with the preservation of the natural land forms and vegetation. (5) No Special Use Permit shall be issued for any fill unless shown to have sane beneficial purpose to the property and the amount thereof must not exceed that necessary to achieve the intended purpose. A plan shall be submitted by the owner showing the uses to which the filled land will be put, the kind of fill, and the final dimensions of the proposed fill or other materials. Such fill shall be protected against erosion by rip-rap, vegetative cover or_ bulkheading if deemed necessary. (6) No Special Use Permit shall be issued for garbage or 205.01-5 205.24.5. waste disposal sites or systems. 0-1 District CO No Special Use Permit shall be issued unless the applicant sulznits engineering data, site plans and other ,` plans and information, as the City may require, in order to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation in unnumbered A zones, and the effects of such development on the bed, bank, channel, floodway or flood plain in the District. The applicant shall submit four (4) complete copies of the application. (8) No Special Use Permit shall be issued unless the proposed use or obstruction has been reviewed by all governmental bodies having jurisdiction over such use or obstruction. Even if the review is required by statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations applicable to other governmental bodies, the City of Fridley retains the right to make the final determination. • 5. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS IN CRP-2 DISTRICTS ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS Any Special Use Permit issued for an obstruction in the CRP-2 district shall meet the following provisions: A. Structures. Structures for habitation constructed on fill shall be constructed on fill so the basement floor or first floor, if there is no basement, is above the regulatory flood protection elevation with the fill at that elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the limits of any structure or building erected thereon. Where existing streets or utilities are at elevations which make compliance impractical, or in other special circumstances, the Planning Commission may authorize other techniques of elevating the first floor (including basements) above the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum under the Special Use Permit, that conform with the flood-proofing requirements of the State Building Code. B. Other Uses. Accessory land uses, such as accessory buildings, yards and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum if a Special Use Permit is first granted pursuant to this district. Accessory structures must also comply with Section 205.24.4B(1) (b) (1-4) of this district. C. Storage. Any storage or processing of materials that in time of flooding may be buoyant, flammable, explosive or could be injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited. D. Nonresidential Structures. Commercial, manufacturing and industrial structures shall be elevated on fill so that their first floor (including basement)- is above the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum but may in special circumstances be flood-proofed in accordance with the t State Building Co .de ' Structures that are not elevated to above 205.01-6 205.24.8. furnished by the City. Variances to the Creek and River 0-1 District Preservation District must only be for reasons of exceptional circumstances when the strict enforcement of these regulations. would cause undue hardship and strict conformity with the standards would be unreasonable, impractical and not feasible under the circumstances. Variances granted under this District must be consistent with the general purpose of these standards. Although Variances may be used to modify permissible methods of • flood protection, no Variance shall provide for a lesser degree of flood protection than stated in this district. •'7. PC7Fr'£R.S, DUTIES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE POWERS, DUTIES AND TECHNICAL A. Powers And Duties. ASSISTANCE The City shall hear all requests for Special Use Permits and Variances under this district. Requests for Special Use Permits and Variances shall be subject to Section 205.05.4 and 205.05.5 respectively, of the City Code. The City shall submit to the Ccx;missioner a copy of any application for a Special Use Permit or Variance where a hearing is to be held to consider such application. The Co nissioner shall receive at least ten (10) days notice of the hearing. Such notice shall specify the time, place and subject matter of the hearing and shall be accotrpanied by such supporting information as is necessary to indicate the nature and effect of the proposed use. A dopy of all decisions granting a Special Use Permit or Variance to the provisions of the Creek and River Preservation District shall be forwarded to the Cixr..issioner within ten (10) days of such action. B. Technical Assistance. The City may transmit the information received by it to the appropriate Watershed District or the Ca:r:.issioner for technical assistance to evaluate the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, for determination of the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum within unnumbered A zones, and to determine seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, compliance with the provisions of this district and compliance with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas of Minnesota (I.1:..,,,,�,ra Regulations NR 85-93) and other technical matters. 8. EXISTING Naloammum USES FXIS fl NOiRMNFORMING An obstruction, structure or use which was lawful before adoption of USES this Chapter, but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this district, may be continued subject to the following conditions. A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. g; No structural alteration or addition to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of its assessed value at the time of its becoming a nonconforming use, unless the entire structure is permanently. changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or additionf the 41 would substantially reduce potential flood damages 205.01-9 205.24.10. 0-1 District entire structure.C. C. Any alteration or addition to a nonconforming use which would result in substantially increasing the flood damage potential of that use shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the State Building Code. - D. If any use of an obstruction or structure or the use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months, any subsequent use of the obstruction, structure or use shall comply in all respects with the provisions of this district including, but not limited to, the obtaining of all required permits and variances. E. If any nonconforming obstruction or structure is destroyed or damaged by any means, including floods to the extent that the cost of repairing or restoring such destruction or damage would be fifty percent (50%) or more of its value, then it shall not be reconstructed except in full compliance with the provisions of this district, including the obtaining of all required permits and variances. F. The Creek and River Preservation District regulations shall in no way prohibit routine maintenance of existing properties. Routine maintenance is considered to be the work property owners could do previous to the adoption of this district without first obtaining a building permit. 9. SUBDIVISIONS SUBDIVISIONS A. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City of Fridley for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. B. All lots within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum. C. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Chapter and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum. D. All subdivisions in the flood plain district shall satisfy zcq,-.1.7cmcnts of this Chapter. The City shall evaluate the subdivision in accordance with procedures established in this district. 10. MA IJFACIURID BOh1S AND MOBILE HOME PARKS MANUF CIURED MCMES A. New mobile home parks and expansions to existing mobile home AND MOBILE parks shall be subject to the provisions placed on subdivisions 1 ,E PARRS by the above Section. B. Manufactured homes in existing mobile home parks that are located in flood plain districts are nonconforming uses and may be replaced only if in compliance with the following conditions: (1) The manufactured home lies in the CRP-2 District. (2) The manufactured home is anchored with tiedowns that 205.01-10 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, September 18, 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #91- 10, by Timothy Hutchinson, per Section 205.24.04. (D) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the CRP-2 District (flood fringe) on Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24 , Block V, Riverview Heights, generally located at 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: September 4 , 1991 September 11, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. Planning 8/30/91 Timothy Hutchinson MAILING LIST Council SP #91-10 Timothy Hutchinson Steven Lipa 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. 8249 Thomas Avenue North Fridley, MN 55432 Minneapolis, MN 55444 Dale Tyson Michael LaFave 641 Dover Street N.E. 640 Dover Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Gordon Hedlund Jean Werner 1255 Pike Lake Drive 655 Ely Street N.E. New Brighton, MN 55112 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident • William Wagner 665 Dover Street .E. 681 Ely Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 George Korich John Rice 687 Dover Street N.E. 696 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Roger Holmgren Current Resident 8001 Riverview Terrace N.E. 8041 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Dennis Prince Allan Stahlberg 8031 Riverview Terrace N.E. 8055 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Reitner Richard Cook 684 Ely Street N.E. 690 Fairmont Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John Koczur Planning Comm. Members 680 Ely Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 City Council William Erickson 650 Ely Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Schrader 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Padilla 670 Dover Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Community Development Department (612) 571-3450 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittals; see attached Address: ;1/Cy a- t 2 t UEtZV t t:urre2(21-<.-t� Legal description: L.,.cft'S 2 t 2 2 , 2 4- 2 4• ISIn c_(c V 1Z.t J CR_V t 4 t`-eW Lot Block Tract/Addition Current zoning: R.t Square footage/acreage k li c' a Reason for special use permit: (` P J 6/cod OBI, Section of City Code: 7.6`J_ O y . t'h FEE CNNER INFORMATION (Contract Purchasers: ijFeeArgsztosign this form prior to processing) NAME ADDRESS 0 9-i k't R-Ji L tA1 DAYTIME PHONE -3c! 07 SIGNATURE 0A/O-g/ i C/1/1 DATE Er YNliT1ONER INFORMATIV NAME ADDRESS DAYTIME PHONE SIGNATURE DATE Fee: $200.00 $10/�0.00 for residential second accessory buildings Permit SP # "!1 - VO Receipt # i/ j.. I g Application received by: Scheduled Planning Commission date: ; . / 8 f / 9 Scheduled City Council date: • o 1 mi STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE September 18, 1991 FRI DLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER zoA #91-02 APPLICANT Thomas Brickner PROPOSED REQUEST TO rezone property from C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling LOCATION 64xx Central Avenue SITE DATA SIZE 110,192 sq. ft.; 2.52 acres DENSITY PRESENT ZONING C-2, Local Business,and C-2, General Business ADJACENT LAND USES C-1, Local Business, and C-2, General Business, to the N; & ZONING M-1, Light Industrial, to the S; R-2, L o Family Dwelling MUTES to the w PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION c ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner S //2 SEC. /3, T 30, R 24 CITY OF FRIDLEY 14 (::: . . • . I 0ENTE I I rE6,E4 I I ... .� .rrwr r.- ..• ',.C�UNjY' STAT-E A hHG IWAY£ND:6«,....-7!;=---,. ,r„ q r<, SS£JSt�PI , MI I /N �1 ,r ,^• ,., rt' 0/ !n):i 5,5e IOW al ,St .,t al 1 ,<s ,ri w it N :.: <i�.'.ai rNr. Ctl �l Ua (r:eo)(is r9' z.f ' ®s • l0 ;?.;*:, i,... a I ` 2 3 w e "-" lA: 1� hA (e) (r7 h) rf) (sn I it 7 N3SUBDI�f510N i . �� �yL�� F ."1 (.e NO .. /en(�) /// a;(f'• r.•.�N ,/ 0, xZ7lV: J= f/�: 2 ll''=' 1 �],n / ) 2A/6w:1 sq �iqr, piait •^frJ ) /Hrdl.la , MIOJ 1wtc l�^= •!•err= 17 ✓ Y. bJ (IQhln` I (A �1\ a :4: .4/4Ennf��.'.K�,;cy�o^ryryr.rM� ° E• �,- (ad) , Q : /9(P) 7� s '1-.,<H.• �Z "i -, C ��5° 7�p7•°vW 'i �a7. 22r` —�' '7. /'� /L ,O fiI4z .,,; OtJ ka \ (s1)G%m i(u) ,� 21 (9 (+) n l*p/6 I l J 'I el= a= («1 A err,.., 1•., AK?......" x r ns ,t f nr , ,.. .:t i*1• J • AVE N • L� `'°(SMO�RE2�' m • zs�A), 9 I*t �' ;N�WAL 4TH ., ' " to,, <<'/4 K m) = 2zlsh `O' � ra e le _ Lw> I CO (P cal . • Z OW . 5 0 .'.i , litt4• MICt' • . c- iN I I= I, r„t j: i :z : Milllik V.414-�. Iti•-�7 TERRACE ,,' �<;,,,:< OM ....-. 1,.. ,14::,:„....71..,.. .,...!.,, --x- ig:::' ;' ,''''''.4,.' 3e ,.... ...._,,i',._.j ...,,,,,, 4-----R 4;, :.-. 1,� b. `. ?j !hJ L r A •r ..tom.pI I jyy B y 6 M7 . :,F� y. i • f�Aa. .1,It. . I ' I ei 4nv1 el maiiiiii;..0z.,'..:4 / 0 aI�N.</�'' 6 T yIE 4.1r 2 . 5, �,� : A� .Yr l��1• I V fJrrA) !N L{j= nR� i ��� I f N'j. S ,�f _. , :_ __ „.„.. . ..r N; volE.-1 ,, • . , -4 AUDITORS sua 1 201 NO. 88 � •. �., �) 7e.J Ca r 20 SUB. ` s le "''col VI /� _ > : OORE-- LAKE + � 1!>�ir F1 ... " . 2 •+HEAT ��, i-" a T',�+' IR. r / • I \ 000 ✓ ip .fC„, r rr ri7J l' • �Of i �`(� �;�-) 'Gi) k !' g �.P Z 7 `V r / po) tikh, Ak. Siiir� a/p . h 6U.1 • /Y Ala t n' - $r.•., F•- 7\ J S i WOOOY i„A. z"-+,,, _.,� f NO/0 • a , n., I 4^ i I (1n rh' • N0. 22 '!N / 0 h .. .. ' 7 J_-- ` .P w.wr•' (J C/ a •5�1 i .7� <.at.. r,i-.,I g lu:,;i •a .....< 34 43 24 . - LOCATION MAP ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner I z , Kiwis 4,. . .1. 2, !v I 14 _3 - AR- Sut ,� I l .....�`_;�e, 1tt•11 ,3 ` „ y 9 7��/� 3 Z: N 88 27 s W ff �tom yy .. 8 �Py -Z S ,,I 9 -/ HAF ►••• -- ij - Nx :::�1+,`'��j • t� '9 /4 /2 /G 8 . 4 - M¢ ; ;t :/ Pot a E ...1.4. • '•' / 24 �8 ���. ?f 64TH.w AVENUE �# h.E. I'S .'Jl.' ._ ••Lki K9 - /S N ' IL. to it,j • - 7 .�e..' ' a : : ._,Cr,1 o ar /3 a 900\7 S 3 / 16 14 1; rt n\ 11 LA1J . l 4 . • 1. `- a f4er _� �A 1 JJ •440 0 / /4 • - � < .v.: 209 /4 i2 /0 8 6 .! 2 i4 4 --3-- 9 a 'X- 5 l� "i` „ if : - / .. S b w �� VT �AV� /� n RICE CREEK ROA' Irvin Add. ,- OR E _ C•ii , �� G 3 ,,6A •,,„N.F• G A'♦�♦�♦: /7 . [i' +9, �_ li ♦♦•♦♦ 1%i h fft !! , - I• 41.•.. L 1 .17. OS Ini. 4• 3 •, ♦♦♦♦♦ / /8 � ' I I r. s ,� E 3 +♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ v�.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ►&- 4#3auq�lT_o, . ,klilfaula .,.•': 5 4♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦4♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ o ♦♦♦ - ;? . s 3 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ •♦ �♦ ♦• ♦♦♦ \7� � �. b 10 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� ♦'♦•,♦ ,♦ ------ - - • j. �' 7N 7 ,6 i� •:► , ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦• s Y♦'♦♦:♦.♦-•♦ _'n a - mill ♦♦♦♦ W♦v°.O ! ♦♦♦ + + + + + ��y // N r!. �_ QNe Z ♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦dt ♦♦♦ + s + © /Q 4 '�1• , 4l Zr �_ 1 @. ♦♦♦♦♦♦•1k1 ♦�►•►♦♦♦ 35a' _ ♦♦♦♦ ♦d♦•.P•►♦♦♦ + + + + + + � r 9 I Wo if Ir ♦♦♦�r •�"♦L♦4 ♦ ♦♦♦ c+ • ♦♦♦♦ :44. ♦� . ►♦♦♦ ++ + + + + 3H/ L4S , J ape b' 6 ICI 2 II TJD#�'' ' 5 a• �-. ♦♦♦SAS►C♦�;~♦♦••43 1►♦♦♦♦♦♦ + + +++ + _ • EATHEpor' /L L 12 PARK - •K 6 rE- ♦♦V♦U♦ ♦♦♦♦ ►♦♦ 2 s — �� '•♦♦�►♦♦•,-*♦4fr♦��♦4-♦♦♦♦♦♦j .c t3 v 09 ' 1 - ♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦ 6 �e� 4 8 4 . 3 2 I I 2 GI CT 4 1 _ ZONING MAP Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 2 REOUEST The petitioner is proposing to rezone property located south of Sandee's Restaurant and west of Central Avenue from C-1, Local Business and C-2, General Business to R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling in order to construct a 48 unit, three story apartment building. The rezoning request is one of two land use requests which will need to be considered by the City Council. If the rezoning request is approved by the City Council, the petitioner will need to submit a plat (in order to subdivide the property from the Sandee's Restaurant property) , drainage calculations, and a landscaping plan. The petitioner is proposing a three story, 48 unit apartment building. Each floor will contain 16 units; four one bedroom units and 12 two bedroom units. The apartment will have both above- and below-ground parking spaces. The petitioner intends to live in the building and manage it. The petitioner has met with the neighborhood on several occasions and has agreed to file deed restrictions against the property to limit the following: 1. No outdoor sheds; 2 . No swimming pool; and 3. Restricting the number of people per unit, to no more than three persons in a two bedroom unit, and no more than two persons in a one bedroom unit. The intent of the deed restrictions is to promote the building as an "adult" building. SITE The property is currently vacant and is characterized as having a low elevation and containing wet/poor soils. The lot is heavily wooded with a variety of trees including Maple, Aspen, Cottonwood, and shrub materials indicative of wet soil conditions. The property is zoned C-1, General Business and C-2 , Local Business, as is the property to the north. The Advance Company property located to the south is zoned M-1, Light Industrial and property to the west is zoned R-2 , Two Family Dwelling. ANALYSIS In analyzing a rezoning request, there are three tests which must be evaluated: Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 3 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the district's intent; 2 . That the proposed use is consistent with the lot and structure requirements of the zoning district; and 3. That the proposed use is consistent with adjacent uses and zoning. DISTRICT INTENT The intent of the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district is to provide zoning for single, two family, and multiple family dwelling units. As the proposed use is for a three story, 48 unit multi-family apartment, the proposed use meets the intent of the zoning district. LOT/STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS The proposed site plan meets the minimum requirements for lot area, setbacks, and provision of garage/parking spaces. However, there are several issues which need to be addressed. These include height, landscaping, drainage, traffic, and platting. Height The apartment building is proposed to be a height of 42 feet which is below the 45 feet allowed by the zoning district; however, as was stated earlier, there are poor soil conditions which will need to be corrected prior to construction of the building. The petitioner has completed a soils report; analyzing the soils in the vicinity of the proposed building. The petitioner's consultant has determined that with appropriate soil correction, the maximum height of the building will be 42 feet; however, as the soil analysis was limited, actual field conditions may result in the construction of the building at a higher elevation than what is proposed. The proposed building, once completed, will be the tallest structure in the area. Landscaping As was stated earlier, the petitioner will need to submit a landscape plan consistent with the ordinance. As a condition of approval, the petitioner should be required to save as many of the existing trees as possible to provide screening and buffering for the single story, two family dwellings to the west of the parcel. These trees will aid in mitigating the difference in scale between the proposed building and the surrounding structures. Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 4 Drainage The petitioner will not submit a drainage plan until the proposed plat has been prepared. Concern regarding the overall drainage in the neighborhood has been expressed by the homeowners in the area during past land use requests and also during the neighborhood meetings conducted by the petitioner. • Storm water in the area flows from Harris Pond located east of Central Avenue through a series of pipes to an open ditch located north of the Graystar office building. Once the ditch reaches Central Avenue, it is joined by a second ditch parallel to Central Avenue. Storm water flows from the joining of these two ditches under Central Avenue and along the north side of East Moore Lake Drive through a series of pipes. These pipes enter a series of detention ponds located in the Moore Lake Commons development area, eventually entering Moore Lake. Storm water from the proposed development should be directed toward a third ditch located along the west lot line of the subject parcel. The design of the project will need to include a pond located at the northwest corner of the property, discharging into the third ditch. Any flooding problems the neighborhood is currently experiencing due to the capacity of the downstream system will not be increased due to the proposed project. By ordinance, water is not allowed to flow off the subject parcel at a rate greater than what flows off the site in its undeveloped state. Further, Anoka County has indicated its preference to have the site drain toward the west, and not toward Central Avenue. Traffic Traffic issues pertain to two areas: 1) on-site and combined traffic with Sandee's Restaurant, and 2) the intersection of Old Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. Staff has analyzed the requirements for installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and Mississippi Street. In reviewing requests for traffic signals, Anoka County has established ten warrants which must be evaluated prior to installation of a signal. Of the ten warrants, only the first warrant, minimum vehicular volume, applies to the intersection. It requires that the volumes in eight hours out of 24 hours need to be exceeded. In analyzing the traffic counts for the intersection and combining it with the proposed traffic of the apartment building, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is not met. Using the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) suggested number of trips per day for apartment complexes as five to six Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 5 trips per unit, approximately 300 additional trips will be generated by the proposed use. Using a 50% distribution where 50% of the people leaving the facility will travel north on Central Avenue and 50% of the people leaving the facility will travel south on Central Avenue, the required vehicle trips per hour on Central Avenue is not great enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal. However, our analysis is not a sophisticated traffic analysis, and if in error by as little as 10%, it is possible that the minimum vehicular volume warrant could be met. Anoka County will not consider the installation of a signal at this intersection until the actual vehicle volume exists. Anoka County is willing to complete the traffic counts after the project is completed and consider adding a traffic signal to its capital improvement project. The proposed vehicular entrance into the apartment complex is located less than 30 feet from one of the Sandee's Restaurant's parking exits. Staff recommends that the parking area for the apartment be tied with the parking area for Sandee's Restaurant to reduce the number of driveways. This will limit the traffic conflicts on Central Avenue. Anoka County has suggested that one of the two driveways to the project be eliminated. Staff recommends that the southerly driveway be eliminated. Further, a driveway connection to the Sandee's lot should be made. Staff will recommend this on the plat request as well. Platting Currently, the subject parcel is combined with the Sandee's Restaurant parcel. In order to develop the apartment complex, the two parcels need to be legally separated. As the parcels were originally part of an auditor's subdivision, a plat will need to be created in order to process the legal separation of the properties. The platting process should be completed if and when the rezoning request is approved. The second reading of the rezoning would not occur until the plat was completed and construction had begun. COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES AND ZONING While the rezoning request has met the first two tests, there are several advantages and disadvantages to approving the request. Disadvantages The proposed rezoning request would continue the mixed land use pattern which currently exists along the west side of Central Avenue. Currently, there are three developed properties: Sandee's Staff Report ZOA #91-02, Thomas Brickner Page 6 Restaurant, the Advance Companies (M-1) , and the Ziebart facility (M-1) . The remaining undeveloped properties are zoned commercial and CR-1, General Office District. North of Mississippi Street, the land use on the west side is residential and then industrial north of Rice Creek. In addition, the proposed rezoning would locate a higher density population near the M-1 zoning district. While the use of the property by the Advance Company has relatively low impact, it is possible that a higher intensity industrial use could locate in that location. Other homeowners in the area have complained about noise from Sandee's Restaurant and Moore Lake Commons. There is also the issue of scale and the visual impact that the proposed apartment building may have on the neighborhood. The building will be much taller than any building which exists in the area and may emphasize the mixed use nature of the west side of Central Avenue. Advantages The proposed rezoning request does meet all requirements of the zoning district and may have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. While the proposed building will be the tallest structure in the area, the R-3 regulation setbacks are written to provide adequate setbacks between adjacent structures. There will be approximately 120 feet between the proposed apartment and the adjacent structures. The intent of the district regulations is to mitigate the impact of scale between various structures. The proposed use would generate less traffic than a commercial use, such as a restaurant, and there are no extended hours of operation. The vehicular activities of the building would be buffered by the building itself due to its "L" shape, which forces the vehicular activities toward Sandee's Restaurant and Central Avenue. In addition, the apartment building is a collector street (as opposed to a residential street) , near shopping facilities, and on a transit line. Staff also questions whether additional commercial development will be generated as "spin-offs" from the Moore Lake Commons development, and whether retaining the existing commercial zoning on both sides of the street will be compatible with the residential areas (compatibility issues were raised during the Moose Lodge request) . There is adequate commercial space in Moore Lake Commons for neighborhood commercial uses to locate, and to serve the area. Staff Report ZOA #91-02 , Thomas Brickner Page 7 RECOMMENDATION/STIPULATIONS As the rezoning request meets the intent of the district, the lot and structure requirements of the district and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages regarding compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the adjacent uses and zoning, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council, with the following stipulations: 1. A plat shall be submitted and approved by the City Council. 2. A drainage plan and preliminary calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application indicating a pond in the northwest corner and the drainage directed to the west property line. 3. A permit shall be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. A landscape plan in conformance with the ordinance shall be submitted in conjunction with the plat application. 5. Existing trees shall be maintained along the west property line to provide buffering and screening, and shall be protected during construction. 6. Deed restrictions prohibiting outdoor sheds, a swimming pool, and limiting the number of persons per dwelling unit, shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. An overall parking and access plan with Sandee's Restaurant shall be submitted with the plat application. 8. The southerly driveway access shall be eliminated on the site plan. . . ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner , - r MI .L.221110 14,116.41491v4 . _At • , . ...•,,., _ L!bi --.---4_ -- I 1 • • 1 i . 1 1.• I I 1 . f 1 I I 1 '.(-- I PI- I • 1 I _ • I 1:: i 1:1 I 14i 1 . I 91 ii -,t til- t— I. : I c.,. I _____, I 1 • I . - • I • 1 .I , 1 I I. I li 1 7.100/ I /. I .. . :. I 1 --r---• ...." .••- -1 ; I 4-4. 1 i•LP--yst I • . : . : 1 1 • • I I • I . . I I I • q • \ . .• !, .`, \ • Ti i , 1 I [-‘ \ \.\ ' ' ..1..-• 1 i - 1 • 0 1 L • I I s I ii2 1 I I litt I I 4 ' I i - • I ...,.........4.4 I /-4/ .-- V . • I . ,. I 14 . I 1. 1 i -.;..-•'.': •-.,.•.7'7'7,-_;--1:---.--.---'".------i 4 . ., . p , 1 1 i . -., • • . -Y " LIT 1 pc.1 i 4 I I ,': ...-.• • ,--- 1 I I ittt,I 1 0-1-7 enri .1.••• * —IP-- --*-17C1.-#27->_i ii/No--oz. X io•es ' 1 . 1111 III ....:-''-----. I ! i a . ' g • T ci — 1 i; ....., I :.---.6.-. ._• Op_ 40 ,x-1 . le i .' ..1.__ q-, I -I.. 1 v 1 • - 4Z li il (... -.----;4 A i 1...:.-'. 4.1P: I I •Is i ' I P 4 (:.-- - • - I., '''. _ Cli7 If ;-CgA A• iiqt il S. I - 4 i la ••• 6& ,-•., il 1 ...q - •• -, . ....„ ; J ' -.---.*ti , . •-g• I.. 4:I:. •- .1.• - =- L.:i . * I 4.4 H .'. •• • • ••••;:••. .'..-:.. ;-4: I• J"•-•. :__—__N— ... I • O ; - • • '. " -1-:- . ••• rf.: It r . . „. • P,IIIA - I1—.-----'4- jc ii 7 .031 i' I 1 i - I._A\ 1 1-- 3 Ali Z At itif V- 1 I - - miw __ TUT*/ .It • # 1 .11 - 4 __ 07111 CI it 1" -- ".I 'N---- ---j----g v -a 'V ft•-4 - -: ' : • ••72/ii3 -1,07312k-ItY3 .1 Ns i .o.1 SITE PLAN ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner -1 � ','Ill , r1Z_� Z 1?l ".4%. ft' '"'; . .., , .-;• - - •,...- q`. II ..i ® I;�' I ..i r 4. ►a , • kevi . ia•.•J. . ..1... �LI ; `\-w ." h. '1,..,(i k;1 • m 1 'CC4''', "' r , 12 ....... ...i..7_ , :I•a ..., rm,. .- . 4.1 . . ''' . 1 'E. i ,; ,AN • i • a It= a ••;PTO, „0„,. 44 = 9 I n• �1 ri • P�►, 1, II '`� . / '''. '4 I'::.-- -4 MI . \\ \ t.\ ,.. v 7 C �+ I 1 . r 1,• �� 1= _ I e{ I , fo: atII!. it •.Rt.• tP`' 121- (a 1\ ' f • I �� a •gt,.... , .1 \C.:.` `II '-$''sic '' �' 7 I .'i• JA_ �_ psi-",' :..t';: 1 r - �_ ■_ �� , � �II. / ELEVATION le . , . ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner . . _ 0. cl • <1- . 0 • • AD;A,.4 11,4.4.• - t. Troec. et- - • ilt-a• ,/ I . ... . . ills „, -----j . I 1 i'l. 01 . k: IJI • 1 •,. •,, . 410-0 1 'i 1 ,.• M ___.4 ,77q,___...101:-._0_____V:1?-_ . -.\,... .f...-!;..T':':,..,,...',..'... . _ rp..6• ____ i cs- kr\-) I': . ,I• 6102,1 • cp,___ i.375-e,__14'.."-ckyk. ---_- --,-,. V . ........- , %---- 31-0 • '. ;';." - -19 16)- )(*. i —____- "----FF ‘•------ ____._......._ >(V1T: &i?-7L\P I. . _____ 0 • • A .?,:„ • • . . • (1..1 . 81-0.v 4orus Per,. , . \?!..i..), 8-141--a &NRIetc,s, pp•&I - • . i, T • * ---- C''73"--.- .. 67b , . „k,_....__A__.--,:.„..„_„,__.„•.... p-r. -_ ELEVATION • it..5."-1 ••....a...L....................•• ...- • .. .. .1) _ E 11)Y1) 111w11 w I 13 ]1.0 Y. ...:0 L.. i .)t )11.1•NI • /iC N`` _+ V Y Y c `. '� {ya�1 yy{ ] ) I a + • i •�j a1)4• S Lm q. .. 7________ r': .— .;. II—.1. "----' .r0.41—"" �wlwvNlN 0 :.... iii . iL 1y F t I i •tort s ,�e C i CU LI a a L �( •wwar• l .___•13YIS Y•w 1 r I a • 1h7�—TT.1 . • —or : E I' 1 - • �.a.�eYr AyalaL O ti' •. i ,. ;t CO • f6,6 w o j 'wi ,ll, N cV Y--- J • s. ■ E. V i so I:, 17M1S 71r]4 y� c r 4 r I .\ w sJ CS l 3.yei. . 4 wb .. al 1 OOC.•,)7 IS t N.: o - 1 . _ I11.1 . W .. . r Q .t ►z _cz • . ...a ) ...a • .• •• •,..w• a•a Y mart whir* • •O, • J. Q • I : r e1 • -I 'm1 'fir I •M 1Mt`I • —_ . Ti a 0 r • •n 1r : OwF. u • •• 4 I1 5 YIYn• Y•• Ms • h 1 , 1.3intret. •ti It.Ye 1>1,1 it 1.• .. • 1Mr N 42011110 _ a. In, 11M11 ,•1 •91 . • remove Li.......................... . � t • NOVO.. • 13je1• r13/Y ;' .�1. /11 a.ara• c p I,4 •` ] . 11 Ir Engineering WY Water tr cc O Parks O 3 Streets UU Maintenance W J CO El a MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, City Manager PW91-258 FROM: Mark A. Winson, Asst. Public Works Director at( DATE: August 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Drainage & Traffic for Proposed Apartment Complex by Brickner Southwest of Mississippi and Central After reviewing the preliminary plan for this apartment building, there are not any particular concerns with drainage. The developer will need to provide onsite detention in accordance with City and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements. There appears to be sufficient open areas on the site to accomplish this. There is an adjacent drainage ditch which could be used as the discharge permit. We have reviewed the existing traffic volumes, projected volumes after the completion of the apartment complex, and the accident history of the intersection of Mississippi Street and Central Avenue. Since January, 1986, there have been nine (9) property damage, one (1) personal injury, and no fatality accidents at this intersection. Under current conditions, this intersection does not meet any of the ten (10) warrants for signalization. The addition of the apartment complex could push the traffic volumes up far enough to meet the minimum traffic warrant. I have contacted the Anoka County Highway Dept. regarding doing an analysis of this intersection for signalization and it does not currently meet warrants for signalization. If the apartment building is constructed, they will take another look at the traffic counts to see if warrants are met. MAW/ts . Barb Dacy , 1RJ CINOF FRIDLEY r� COUNTY OF ANOKA 4 Department of Highways M Paul Paul K. Ruud, Highway Engineer 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD NW, ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 612-754-3520 • September 6, 1991 Michele McPherson City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN. 55432 Re: Proposed Development 48-Unit Apartment Building Dear Ms. McPherson: I have reviewed the proposed site plan for a 48-Unit Apartment Building to be located west of CSAH 35 (Central Avenue NE) and south of CSAH 6/CR 106 (Mississippi Street NE) in the City of Fridley, and offer the following comments: The existing right-of-way at this location is 50 feet from the centerline of CSAH 35,which should be adequate for future needs. Calculations must be provided which show that any drainage onto CSAH 35 does not exceed the pre-existing conditions. If drainage to CSAH 35 will exceed the current conditions,an alternate drainage plan must be sought. A single entrance onto CSAH 35 should be adequate for a 48-Unit Apartment Complex. It is my recommendation that the northern most entrance be retained,and the southern most entrance eliminated. A permit for any work which may occur within the County Right-of-way is required and must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction. Contact Roy Humbert, Contracts Administrator for the Anoka County Highway Department for future information regarding the permit process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ne Pemble Traffic Engineer dmh/1FRIDLEY Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer C. WARRANTS 4C-1 Advance Engineering Data Required A comprehensive investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteristics of the location is required to determine the necessity for A signal installation and to furnish necessary data for the proper design and operation of a signal that is found to be warranted. Such data desirably should include: 1. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 16 consecutive hours of a representative day.The 16 hours selected should contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic. 2. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, and public-transit vehicles), during each 15-minute period of the two hours in the morning and of the two hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest. 3. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in paragraph (2) above and also during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young or elderly persons need special consideration, the pedestrians may be classified by general observation and recorded by age groups as follows: (a) under 13 years (b) 13 to 60 years (c) over 60 years. 4. The 85-percentile speed of all vehicles on the uncontrolled approaches to the location. 5. A conditions diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersectional geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, bus stops and routings, parking conditions,•pavement markings, street lighting, driveways, location of nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use. 6. A collision diagram showing accident experience by type, location, direction of movement,severity,time of day,date,and day of week for at least one year. The following data are also desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection and may be obtained during the periods specified in (2) above: 1. Vehicle-seconds delay determined separately for each approach. 2. The number and distribution of gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street when minor-street traffic finds it possible to use the intersection safely. 3. The 85-percentile speed of vehicles on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control. 4. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or a Sunday. Adequate roadway capacity at a signalized intersection is desirable. Widening of both the main highway and the intersecting roadway may be warranted to reduce the delays caused by assignment of right-of-way at intersections controlled by traffic signals. Widening of the intersecting roadway is often beneficial to operation on the main highway because it reduces the signal time that must be assigned to side-street traffic. In urban areas, the effect of widening can be achieved by elimination of parking at intersectional approaches. It is always desirable to have at least two lanes for moving traffic on each approach to a signalized intersection. Additional width may be necessary on the leaving side of the intersection, as well as the approach side, in order to clear traffic through the intersection effectively. Before an intersection is widened, the additional green time needed by pedestrians to cross the widened streets should be checked to ensure that it will not exceed the green time saved through improved vehicular flow. 4C-2 Warrants for Traffic Signal Installation Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the signal warrants in this Manual are met.Information should be obtained by means of engineering studies and compared with the requirements set forth in the warrants. If these requirements are not met, a traffic signal should neither be put into operation nor continued in operation(if already installed). For the purpose of warranting signalization,a wide-median intersection should be considered as one intersection. When a traffic control signal is indicated as being warranted, it is presumed that the signal and all related traffic control devices and markings are installed according to the standards set forth in this Manual. It is further presumed that signal indications are properly phased, that roadways are properly designed,that adjacent traffic signals are properly coordinated, that there is adequate supervision of the operation and maintenance of the signal and all of its related devices,and that the traffic signal controller will be selected on the basis of engineering study and judgment. IC-4 Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic The Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant applies to operating ctnditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the rabl- below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor- str, approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not ser "isrupt progressive traffic flow. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 2 Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on on each approach Vehicles per hour on higher-volume mi- major street(total of nor-street approach Major Street Minor Street both approaches) (one direction only) I 1 2 a more 1 750 75 2o+more 2 or more 900 70 900 1.. 2 or more 750 100 100 These major-street and minor-street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street ray be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. When the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above. 4C-5 Warrant 3, Minimum Pedestrian Volume The Minimum Pedestrian Volume warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes exist: 1. On the major street, 600 or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches); or where there is a raised median island 4 feet or more in width, 1,000 or more vehicles per hour(total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the major street; and 2. During the same 8 hours as in paragraph (1) there are 150 or more pedestrians per hour on the highest volume crosswalk crossing the major street. When the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than An investigation of the need for traffic signal control should include where applicable, at least an analysis of the factors contained in the following warrants: Warrant 1—Minimum vehicular volume. Warrant 2—Interruption of continuous traffic. " .errant 3—Minimum pedestrian volume. -rant 4—School crossings. at 5—Progressive movement. :it 6—Accident experience. ant 7—Systems. Warrant 8—Combination of warrants. Warrant 9—Four Hour Volumes. `` Warrant 10—Peak Hour Delay. iv 2200(a) arrant 11—Peak Hour Volume. Rev.4 4C-3 Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor- street approach to the intersection. An "average" day is defined as a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 1 Vehicles per hour on Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on higher-volume mi- on each approach major street(total of nor-street approach Major Street Minor Street both approaches) (one direction only) 1 1 500 150 2 or more 1 600 150 2 or more 2 or more 600 200 t` 1 2 or more 500 200 These major-street and minor-street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. When the 85-percentile speed of major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, September 18, 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #91-02, by Thomas Brickner, to rezone from C-1, Local Business and C-2, General Business to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling, on Lot 2 and the Southerly 399 feet of Lot 3 , Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, to allow the construction of an apartment building, generally located at 6450 Central Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: September 4, 1991 September 11, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. Planning 8/30/91 ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner MAILING LIST Council Thomas Brickner Stanley Dubanoski Frank Kitterman} 6240 Highway 65 N.E. 6423 Pierce Street N.E. 1839 Central Avenue Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Minneapolis, MN 55418 Mark and Jean Schwartz Jerry Jacobson Fortune Investments 1372 - 64th Avenue N.E. 3846 Independence 4611 E. 36th Street Fridley, MN 55432 New Hope, MN 55427 Minneapolis, MN 55406 David Kramber Current Resident Florence Gouldon 2013 - 29th Avenue N.W. 6401 Pierce Street N.E. 6448 Pierce Street N.E. New Brighton, MN 55112 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 David Kramber Carol Anne Gadke-Berge Sharon Sandberg 1299 Mississippi Street N.E. 6389 Pierce Street N.E. 6436 Pierce Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Manager Current Resident Donna Hoffman 6501 Channel Road N.E. 6391 Pierce Street N.E. 6424 Pierce Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 John Czech Fay Christianson James Rusinak 1417 Mississippi Street 6389 Pierce Street N.E. 6412 Pierce Street N.E. New Brighton, MN 55112 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Country House Inc. Donald Johannes/ Cur. Res. Alfred Kells 6501 Central Avenue N.E. 6373 Pierce Street N.E. 6400 Pierce Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Byron Larson Donald Johannes Douglas Johnson 1250 Mississippi Street N.E. 1620 Rice Creek Road N.E. 6388 Pierce Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Byron Larson Donald Johannes/Cur. Res. Sandee's Restaurant 1260 Mississippi Street N.E. 6377 Pierce Street N.E. 6490 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432,/'j• Fridley, MN 55432 Della Burmis Duane Levandowskic/i' Gift Haus 6459 Pierce Street N.E. 6361 Pierce Street N.E. 1282 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Miles Hedlund Douglas Tanner/Cur. Res. Steven Fischer 6449 Pierce Street N.E. 6355 Pierce Street N.E. 1288 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Leonard Bergman Douglas Tanner Russell Prior 6435 Pierce Street N.E. 2206 St. Anthony Boulevard 1340 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Minneapolis, MN 55418 Fridley, MN 55432 George Demarais Midwest Van and Storage Ferdinand Holzheu 6411 Pierce Street N.E. 6400 Central Avenue E. 1314 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 ZOA #91-02 Thomas Brickner Page 2 Fred's Welding 6491 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Frank Demello 6134 Woody Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Carlson 7691 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Mark Mattison 6421 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Bob Calderom 6401 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Joseph Nelson 1357 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 John Rau 1341 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Lavonne Kowski 6391 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Leroy Tovsen 1356 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Sharyn Ramsey 1340 - 64th Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Richard Mochinski Litk 7256 E. Commerce Circle N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 City Council Members Planning Comm. Chair CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. F RIDLEY, MN 55432 QoaQamity Develoieent Dot (612) 571-3450 REZONING APPLICATION FORM PROPER]YY INFORMATION site plan required for submittals; see attached Address: G /sue GCN 7�A :A yC Imgal description. Le' s' j a,3 tk / , /VAL'` - ye./ C.E G/C 6 6t< 7-64 Xc Lot Block Tract/Addition/ 4r I.- „ 6'7 6 .vy n .. Current z . C Square footage/acreage R�equestirig n 3 '., Reason for rez " FEE OV1NER niFoRMATIOTT (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to processing) NAME .` �i�d)7„,e S 7X/ G/1 ADDRESS - J wr 1 � J 0 7 LViYITME 1:1101VE —7 9,7/ DAB i rrriONER INFORMATION MIME ‘I''')//0 A 7 73g / DA / / siGNATuRE Fee: ' $300.00 is e&)O .On -__............__--........._ ............._ Permit ZOA # 9/. oz,1 Receipt # Application received by: ' Scheduled Planning C omission date: �� /qq/ Scheduled City Council date: • r' � A •