Loading...
PL 05/22/1974 - 31172'� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 22, 1974 CALL TO_.f�RDER: PAGE 1 Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent• Others Present: Fitzpatrick,Harris, Lindblad, Drigans Blair Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 8, 1974 . MOTION by Lindblad, seconded b� Drigans, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the May 8, 1974 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MAY 9. 1974 • • � Mr. Lindblad said there was discussion at the Council meeting on the proposal by the State of Minnesota. Mra Harris said they were going to ask the State of 1�linnesota !� to find an alternate location for the salt storage warehouse. It -- was felt that Brooklyn Park got a picnic area, etc., and Fridley got a salt s�torage warehouse and we would like a picnic area also. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission receive the Building Standaxds-Design Control Subcommittee minutes of their meeting of May 9, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a.11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MAY 14, 1974 MOTION by D:�i.g�n�, seconded by Lindblad, that the PZanning Qommission receive the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of their May 14, 1974 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, ihe motion carried unanimously. . Mre Drigans said that on page 32 of the agenda (page 7 of these minutes) •he 1�ad listed some criteria to be considered on special use permits and variances for billboards. He said he wauld like this r.riteria discussed as an agenda item•P after the regular agenda items have been handled. T�ECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & i7TILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE NtINUTES: MAY 15, 1974 r"� MOTION by Narris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning � Commission receive the P1ats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities minutes, , of the May 15, 1974 meeting. Upon a voice vot�, a11 voting aye, the motion�carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 �' Page 2 �1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HFARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #74-01, HENNING NELSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: To rezone Lots 13, 14, �'`, 15 and 16, Block 2, Riverview Manor, from R-1 (single family . dwelling areas} to R-3 (general multiple family dwelling areas) �,to allow construction on an agartment complex to be located South of 71st Way and West of East River Road. Publ�ic Hearing open. No one was present to re�present the petitioner. Ohairman Fitzpatri�ck said this item was continued to allow the petitioner to work with the neighbors and school board on a proposal that would be acceptable to them. We also asked that there be a check made with the County to see if they needed any addi�tional right� of way- for East River Road. We have a letter. in our agenda from the Council stating that an add;.tional 17 feet will be needed for this right of way �'rom Lot 16. Mr. Boardman said this needed additional right of way will not make an appreciable difference in this lot as far as it being a buil.d- able.lot.� It would still be large enough for a double bungalow or a duplex. Mr. Boardman said Mr. Darrel Clark has talked to the petitioner today and he did say he was coming to the meeting with a proposal, hut he didn'.t say what that proposal might bes �� - • �'Mr. Harris said the addi�ional right of way needed for East River Road should be obtained from Lot 16 before it is developed. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that i�he P.Zanning Commission continue the PubZic Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Construction Company until the petitaioner arrive's at the meeting. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. At 9:00 P:,M., Mr. Timothy O'Neill, 158 71st Way N.E.�, said he thought Mr. Reinertson had been at enough meetings of the Planning Commission so he should know what time he should be here when hie was first,on th� agendae He asked the Blanning Commission how long they were going to wait for the petitioner be�`ore they took action on this request. He said the neighbors had all signed the petition against any rezoning of these lots and this was the fourth time they have come to a meeting on this same request. The neighbors felt that a decision should be made on this request at this meeting. MOTI�N by Lindb.Zad that the Planning Commission consider this request at this time. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Drigans sa�id he would like to find out� if Mr. Reinertson met with the school board. Mrs. O'Neill said he agreed to meet with the ^ neighbors and no one present has had any meeting with him. She said the school board sent a letter stating they were opposed to the original proposal, so if they have agreed to a new proposal, it was safe to � Planning Commission Meeti�ng - May 22, 1974 Paqe 3� assume that they would have notified the Planning Commission that they had agreed to something differerit. ^ Mr. Harris said that if the Planning Commission should take a negative action on this request he would like the petitione'r to •be present to hear the reasons. Mr. Lindblad said we have been continuing this request since February. He said he thought the neighbors were entitled to get a decision on this tonight. Mrs. 0'Neill asked if they were going to give the petitioner an• opportunity to appear all evening. This was a lorig agenda and she didn't think it was fair to keep the neighbors here waiting. As far as she was concerned, the petitioner hasn't done any of the things he had agreed upon at the last meetinge . R MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the PZanning Commissic set a time Iimit of 9:30 P.M, to consider thi's item whether the petitior er appeared or not. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously. � . At.9:30 P.M. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the petitioner has not a�?.�ar�d but we have agreed that we would make a decision on this rezoning request, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Construction Company whether the petitioner appeared or not, at this time. He said the Planning Commission has a petition from the neighbors against any ^ rezoning of this propertyo We have a letter from the school board in _ opposition to an,y iricrease in density of this property. Mr. Drigans said the petitioner has not come foi?wa�rd with any figures to show that it is economically unfeasible to build R-1 housing in this area. We have a report from the administration showing the number of homes that have been construction along and on East River Road during the past yearo MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the P.Zanning Commissic clase the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Construction Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the - motion carried un�nimously. MOTION by Harris, seconded b� Dxigans, that the Planning Corrrmission recommend to Council denial of the rezoning request, ZOA #74-01, by Henning Nelson Construction Company, to rezone Lots 13, .Z4, .Z5 and 16, B1ock 2, Riverview Manor, from R-1 (single family dwell�ng areas) to R-3 (general multiple family dwelling areas) to allow construction of an apartment complex to be located 5outh of 71st Wa� and West of East River Road, for the fol2owing reasons: • 1. This is spot rezoning, which is against City policy. . 2. A need has not been'shown that it would be economically n� unfeasible to build single famil� homes in this area. 3. Opposition from School District #Z4 on higher density�in this area. �� � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1�74 �• Page 4 4. Petition from the neighbors opposing any rezoning of this �...� proper t y . 5. We do not believe that R-3 zon.ing is compatible with the surrounding area. � 6. The petiti'oner was requested to work with the school board and the surrounding neighbors on a more suitable p1an, and this was not done. Mr. Drigans said he thought the Council should be aware that ' we have had three meetings with the petitioner present. This is the fourth meeting and the petitioner was not here. Although this was the first item on the.agenda, we did not take action until 9:30 P.M., giving the petitioner every opportunity to attend this meeting. UPON A VOICE vote, a.Z1 voting aye, the rnotion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGa CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #7�!•-03, JIM LUND ESTATES, BY JIM LUND; Being a replat of Lot 30 and the . North Half of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 1.29 locatecl between Onondaga Street and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mr. Jim Lund was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning ^ Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on a preliminary plat, P.S. #74-03, Jim Lund Estates, by Jim Lund. Upon a voic�e vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, �lr. Harris said this item had been handled by the Plats & Sub- divisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee at their May 15th meeting and was approved with eight stipulations. He said he thought the best way to consider this plat was to go through��.these stipulations. The first stipuation was to negotiate for driveway access with the owner of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129. This nas to do with a garage on this lot where the garage door faces this plat. On the pZat presented tonight, Mr. Lund has made an Outlot A of 6 feet. Mr. Lund said he planned to deed this outlot to the owners of Lot 28. Mr. Don Hanson, the oraner of Lot 28, said this was the first time he has seen this proposal of having 6 feet deeded to him, so he would like a little time to think about it. Mr. Drigans asked how far this garage was from the lot line of Lot 28. Mr. Lund said it was 21 feet, and with the 6 foot outlot it would give Mr. Hanson 27 feet for garage access. This would line up with the present curb cut for this driveway. Mr. Harris said�the second stipulation was to move the center of ^ the cul-de-sac to the East boundary of Lot 4, Block l, and Lot l, Block 3. He said Lot 4 is now Lot 9, but the cul-de-sac is located where we stipulated it should be. Plann�ing Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 5 The third stipulation is to provide underground utilities. Mr. Lund said he had contacted Northern States Power Company and /'� they told him the fee policy has changed. He said there used to be a flat rat� on this, but now they will. charge the property owner.$2.00 per.month, for l�f.e, for undercround utilities. Mr. Harris said N.S.P. has been making a lot of noise about teaching children to stay away from overhead lines and other dangers from these lines, and this new policy would not encourage underground utilities. He said he thought a letter should be sent to the Public Service Commission on this fee � change. Mr. Lund said the only time underground lines were dangerous was when you had to excavate and you might hit a hot line, bu't once the area was developed, underground lines were much safer for both children and adultso Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commission will s�ill make underground utilities a stipulation and Council can make thEir own decision. Mr. Harris said the fourth stipulation was that the developer provide one tree per lot, 2 inches in diamet�r, exce�ti:where th�re.is already a tree on the lot. Mr. Lindblad aske3 if this tree was in addition to a boulevard tree. Mr. Harris said the m�ker of this motion did not clarify if this was to be a boulevard tree or one inside the property line, butc he thought he meant this tree should be inside the property line. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we can make our own stipulation on this item. Mr. Lindblad said he thought this tree shoulc be in addition to the boulevard tree. Mr. Harris said that in light of �'� recent developments�in the City, it would be better �to have this tree inside the property line than in the public right of way. Mr. Fitz- patrick said it would seem that our recommendation would be to have two trees, one in the boulevard and one located at the owner's discretic Mr. Harris said the fifth stipulation was to eliminate the half street going to the East on 74th Avenue (732 Avenue) and delay the construction of this street until Lot 32 is developed with an agreement from the develaper that Lot 5 and 6 will be red tagged un�til this ti.me. Mr. Boardman explained that on the plat presented �o the Plats & Subdivisions-5treets & Utilities Subcommittee these two lots would have been land-locked because they only had half street right of wayo Mr. Lund has now changed his road pattern so all the lots have street access on the plat now. Mr. Boardman said that the importance of acquiring the remaining right of way so that 732 Avenue could be built right the first time should be•stressed. The situation as laid out i� the plat will require a good deal of temporary road construction which will burden the property owners with additional asse•ssments when the road is relocated. This additional cost could amount to as much as $11.00 per foot as compared to an approximate $3.50 per foot for construction at this time. ,. Mr. Harris said Mr. Lund has contacted these people about getting the additional right of way and they do not want to give this right of ,� way at this time. The only way we can get this right of.way is through � condemnation until Lot 32 is developed. . . Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Boardman what form stipulation 5 should Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page.6 take on this proposal we are looking at now. Mr. Boardman said that if the Planning Commission approves this ^ plat as laid out, then the motion should read that Jim Lund should work with the Engineering De�artment in ordex to determine those sections of the road tha� should be temporary construction and that no construction to done on the half street right of way on 732 Avenue East of Pinetree Lane, and that every effort be taken by the developer to acquire the 732 Avenue right of way in order to necessitate good road design and mini.mize any addi�ional costs. Mr. Harris said stipulation six is that a topography map be prepared before the Planning Commission meeting and �he drainage � problems be worked out with the City Engineer. Mr. Harris said we have the map and he asked Mr. Boardman if the drainage was satisfactory. Mr. Boardman said it was,' and all the surface Water will drain towards Onondaga where it will be picked up in two catch basins. These catch basins will run West to another ca�ch basin where he will pick up the lowlands between Lots 4 and 5, Block 14 and then run a storrn sewer out to the City storm sewer in the street. Mr. B�ardman said this wa� superior to the first drainage plan of the petitioner. Mr. Harris said the seventh stipulation was that all the corner lots be 80 feet, and this has been done on this plat. He con�inued, that stipulation eight is to stub sewer and wat�r just behind the pavement at 74�h and Anoka. This should say 73� Avenue and the unused right of way. ` � � �Mr . Don he would get said he will � to maneuver � Hanson said he questioned whe�her the 6 additional feet from this plat would give him enough room. Mr. Boardman have a total of 27 feet and this should be enough room a car. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is the amount we require for oth�r developments. MTC. Harris said the normal aisle is 25 feet. Mr. Hanson said there is always a lot of accumulati,on of snow in the area of his driveway and he though� this would be a problem in the wintertime. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Ylanning Commission was sympathetic�to his problem, but the petitioner has already given you 6 feet and we are infringing on someone�else's property. - Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Lund how this 6 feet would be handled. Mra Lund said he would deed the 6 feet as Outlot A to the �wner of Lot 28. Mr. Hanson asked if the houses along Onondaga would still have the staggered setbacks as mentioned at the other meeting. Mr. Harris said this was handled by our code by the average setback requirement. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the P1ann.ing Commission close the Public Hearing on the consideration of a pxeliminar p1at, P.S. #74-03,�Jim Lund Estates, by Jim Lund. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Nlr. Harris asked if there were any curb cuts across the street from Pinetree Lane? Mr. Lund said there wasn't any. Mr. Harris said � �"'� � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 7 it �ouldn't interfere with the park in any way then. Mr. Boardman said no, this is a better plan. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindb.iad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the pr�liminary p2at, P.S. #74-03, Jirrc Lund Estates, by Jim Lund, being a rep.Zat of Lot 30 and the North Ha1f of Lot 31, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, located between Onondaga 5treet and 73rd Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: I. Petitioner deed to the owner of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision, #129, Outlot A, for driveway access. � 2. Provide underground utilities. .3. Provide two trees, 2 inches in diameter for each Zot, one to be placed in the boulevard and one within t1iE� property line. 4. Pet7tioner should work with the Enginee.�ing Department in order to determine those sections of the road that should be tempor- ary construc�Gion and that no constructian be done on the half •street right of way on 73� Avenue East of Pinetree Lane, and that every effort be �aken by the developer to acquire the 73� Avenue right of way in order to necessi�ate good road desigx and minimize any additional costs. 5. 5tub sewer and water just behind the pavement at 73'� Avenue in the uriused half street right of way. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimousl�. Mre Harris said he liked this preliminary plat better than the one presented at the Plats & Subdivisions-S�treets & Utilities Sub° committee meeting and thought it was environmentally sound. 3. FUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-07, OL�IFFORD A. ANDERSON: Per Fridley City Code, Section 502.101, 3, D, to allow a garage for the storage, repairs and servicing . of motor vehicles not over tw�o-ton capacity, on Lots 12, 13 and � 14, Block 4, Ree's�Addition, the same being 6385 University Avenue N.E. Mr. Clifford Anderson wa� present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, t�at the Planning Commission waive the read.ing of the Public Hearing notice on the request for a Specia.Z Use Permit, SP #74-07, b�t Clifford A. Anderson. •Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mot.ton carried unanimousl�. Mr. Boardman said a portion , rented out to this repair ga�age n work and painting. If there are administration has no objection follow the codes thaf cover this .parking of cars being worked on building be brought up to code. of the Conoco station has been in which they are doing auto body no complaints from the neighbors, the to this request as long as they do type of operations such as no outside for more t�1an 48 hours, and that the '�Yiere are both fire codes and building � ^ � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 8 codes they will have to meet. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this usage is allowed in C-2 zoning with a Special Use Permit. ' Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Anderson what hours he would be in opera�ion? Mr. Anderson said it would be from 9 to 6. Mr. Drigans said the� he didn't plan on doing any evening work. Mr. Anderson said he probably would once in awhileo Mr. Boardman said this garage is a separate business and is not connected to Mr. Ryan's business. He would not be able to pump gas. Mr. Anderson said the tanks have been removed, the pumps are gone and this part of the property is all cemented over. Mr. Drigans asked how many stalls he had. Mr. Anderson said he had fouro Mr. Fitzpatrick said he wanted to make the petitioner aware that he could not operate �nae� the special use requested if this property went back to being a filling station. . . . Mr. Harris asked where he was going to do the painting? Mre Anderson said he has been open since November and he has a spray booth. Mr. Harris asked if this meets the Fire Marshall's standards? Mr. Boardman said thi� will be gone over by the Fire Marshall and the electrical inspector and anything that doesn°t meet the code will be brought up to code. Mr. Harris asked how much outside parking they had for this property? Mr. Anderson said he had about 8 stalls. Mr. Anderson said doesn't use this outside parking very much. Mr. Lindblad asked if there was going to be any outside storage of refuse or car parts? Mr. Anderson said he had a rubbish container and there woul.d be no storage of car parts. He gets rid of them right awa�. . MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planninq Commissio close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Perm�t, SP #74-07, by Clifford A. Anderson. Upon a voice vqte, a21'voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTIDN by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commissio recommend to Council approval of the request for�a Spec�al Use Permit, SP #74-07, by Clifford A. Anderson,,per Fridley City Code, 5ection 205.101, 3, D, to a1Zow a garag� far the storage, repairs, and servicing of motor vehicles not over two-ton capacity on Lots12. 13, and 14, B1ock 4, Ree`s Addition, with the stipulation.that this be granted on that portion of the building known as 6385 University Avenue N.E., only for the period of time that this building is leased to the petitioner, Clifford Anderson. Upon a voice vote, a11 vbting aye, the motion carrie unanimously. . ' �� a Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 9 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-08, n MARVIN HARTSE: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to allow construction of a second accessory building on Lots .14, 15 and 16, along with vacated 57� Avenue N.E. adjacent to these lots, Block 4, City View Addition, thE: same being 475 57th 'Place N.�. Mr. Marvin Hartse was present. MOTION by Harris, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Commi.ssi< waive the reading of tlie Public Hearing notice on the request for a special use permit, SP #74-OS, by Marvin Hartse. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslye �Mr. Hartse �said tYiis storage building is designed like a�little white barn and wi11 be 12 feet by 14 feet. Mr. Boardman said this building is being placed on a walkway easement. If it is determined that a sidewalk will be constructed on this walkway, it should be a stipulatior� on tliis special use permit that the petitioner will be given a 30 day notice to relocate this building. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Hartse if there was some reason he wanted to locate this building so far back on his lot? Mr. Hartse �,,,� said this will be approximately 10 feet from his fence and the location falls between trees and he thought�.it would look better located theree Mr. Lindblad asked if the City has any plans at this.time for constructing a sidewalk on this walkway? Mr. Boardman said no, but it could possibly go in if the bikeway proposal goes through. Mr. Boardman said the fence would have to come down the same time the building would have to be relocated. � Mr. Drigans asked what �this building would be used for. Mr. Hartse said.he was going to use it .for storage of his lawnmower,• bicycles, etc. Mr. Boardman said this has to be anchored to a permanent foundation Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Hartse if he was aware that if he located this building five feet closer to his house that he wouldn't have to relocate it. Mr. Hartse said he still wanted to i�lace this building as shown on the survey of his lot. MOTION BY Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the P,Zanning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-08, by Marvin Hartse. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caraied unanimously. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Fiarris, that the Planning Commissao recommend to Counci.Z approvaZ of the request for a Special Use Permit, � SP #74-08, by Marvin Hartse, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.05Z, 2, A, to allow construction of a second accessoru building on Lots 14, 15 and Z6, along with vacated 57'� Avenue N.E. ad'jacent to these Zots, B1ock Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 10 � 4, City View Addition, the same being 475 57th P1ace N.E., with the stipulations that this building be securely anchored to a permanent foundation with a 30 day notice given for the relocation of this building when the walkway is developed. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye. the motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-09, BY ANTHONY R. BOURDEAUX: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to allow construction of a second accessory building on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, the same being 1533 Onondaga Street N.E. _ , Mr. R. O. Bourdeaux, the petitioner's father, was present to represerit the petitioner. b MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad; that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the reques for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #74-09, by Ant.hony R. Bourdeaux. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unaniraousZy. Mr. Bourdeaux said this was a 12 foot x 14 foot metal storage building which his son will use to store parts for a 1932 Ford car which he is restoring to mint condition. He said this does involve . the City because the West boundary of this property has a fence all r,.•� along the lot line which separa�tes this proper�ty from Flanery Park. � Mr. Drigans asked what type of foundation this shed would have. Mr. Bourdeaux said he was from New Brighton and was not familiar with the Fridley codes, bu� his son would do whatever was required. Mr. Bourdeaux said he didn't think his son planned to pour a concrete slabe He said the reason his son hasn't enlarged his present garage is becaus� this would require a survey of the lot and this his son didn°t want to do. He said his son would much rather add to his existing garage than have this storage building, and although his present garage is 15 feet from the neighboring fence, he was told by �the City that he couldn't add on to his present garage without a survey. He said the City has a fence along one property line, and there is a new house with a cyclon� . �.fence on the oth�r sid�. Mr. Bourdeaux said they knew where the easements were, so his son saw no reason to go to the expense of having a survey done when he knew where all the p�roperty lines were. Mre Harris said the petitioner was going to have to have the property surveyed no matter when he builds another garage or adds to the present one. He said it would seem to him that the petitioner would be better off getting the lot surveyed and building what he rea11: wants than going to the expense of a metal storage building. Mr. Bourdeaux said he would still like to have the special use .permit considered and he would tell his son what the Planning Commissio: � � suggested. � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the l�lanning . Commission close fihe Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-09, by Anthony Bourdeaux. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting � Planning Commission Meeting — May 22, 1974 Page 11 aye, the motion carried.unanimously. � MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approvaZ of the request for a Special Use'Permit, �SP #74=09, by Anthony Bourdeaux, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to allow construction of a second accessory building on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, the same being 1533 Onondaga Street N.E., with the stipulation �hat this building be secure.Zy anchored to a permanent foundation. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. 6. PUBLTC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �74-10, BY W. RED STANG: Per Fridley City Code, 5ection 205.101, 3, N, to allow traileYS, campers, mobile homes, boats, machinery, spor�tin . equipment and like enterprises having its merchandise in the open and not under the cover of display salesroom, to be located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Ce D. Hutchinson Addition, located at 7451 � Eastc River Road N. E. Mr. W. Red Stang was present. MOTION by Harris, seconded b� Lindblad, that the Planning Commissio waive the reading of the Public Nearing notice on the request for a Specia.Z Use Permit, SP #74-10, by W. Red Stang. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Mro Stang said they were going to use the grocery store portion of this building for the display of snowmobiles and the two stalls for repairing snowmobiles. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if he would be using the entire corner. Mr. Stang said the gas station portion of the building will still stay gas station. Mr. Boardman said the pe-titioner was presently doing business at 7701 East River Road. Mr. Drigans said the Public Hearing notice said this was requested so merchandise could be in the open and not under cover of a display salesroom. Mro Sicang said �.hey did have merchandise in the open at their present location, but the only thing they were going to h�.ve at this location was snowmobiles, and they would be in the salesroom. Mr. Walter Gay, 7479 East River Road N.E., said fi.l�.ere wa.s too much activity at that corner now, and in his opinion, he didn't think they needed any more. He said he was speaking for other people in the neighborhood also. Mr. Drigans asked if the building 3aas still owned by the Gulf Oil Company. Mr. Stang said it was owned by the Kunz Oil Company now. �.,.1 Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Gay if he thought the proposed use was going to generate more activity that the previous use of the buildir as a grocery store? Mr. Gay said he would have to tell the neighbors ' what was really being proposed for this site and see how they felt about �T �- �� Plannirig Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 �. Page T2 �it. He said when they read the Public Hearing notice they thought the proposal was much different. Mr. Harris said he had been quietly discussing this with Mr. BQardman for the last few minutes, and without outside storage, we're not 'sure the petitioner needs a special usP permit. Mr. Drigans said this was his feeling on �he matter also. Mr. Boardman said this is one of the vague areas of the code where we really have nothing to cover this type of operation. We do have a section in our �ode on commercial recreation and whether thi� falls into this category or not isn't clear. Under Accessory Uses, we have storage of inerchandise, solely intended to be retailed by a related and established principal use. We have nothing as �ar as ser�icing of these vehicles and whether servi.cing of snowmobiles would be classified as a garage for the storage, repairs and servicing of motor vehicles not over two-ton capacity, or not, he didn't know. Mr. Harris said that by definition a snowmobile is not classif ied as a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is something with wheels that travels on public right of way, and by ordinance we don`t allow snow- mobiles on our public right of way. Mro Boardman said this leaves the section of the code that was quoted in the Public Hearing notice. � Chairman Fitzpatrick said that if he was going to do what the •. Public Hearing notice said, he would need a Special Use Permit, but as the petitioner has said he is not going to have any outside display, he didn't see the need for a special use permit either. Mr. Drigans said if Mr. Stang intended to have any ou�side storage he thought a plan should be presented as to where he intended to have this outside storage. We should be given a plot plan showing the number of things he might store outside and where it will be located. Mr. Harris asked how many of the items mentions in the Public Hearing notice the p��itioner would be selling? Mr. Stang said that all he will have at this site were snowmobiles, outboard motors and same trailers for snowmobiles. He said he thought he could comply with the exiting code for C-2 zoning without a special use. Mr. Boardman said that if there is no outside display, this would be a permitted use in this zoning without a special use pe3rmit. Mr. Stang said there was an area behind the building about 40 feet by 100 feet which will be completely fenced in, and anything that had to be stored outside will be stored in this area: Mr. Gay said that if this was going to be a different proposal from what the Public Hearing notice stated, the neighbors would n probably have a different viewpoint. Mr. Drigans said he thought the Planning Commission should continue this item until we get clarification on whether a special use Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 13 permit is needed, and if it is needed, we should get an alternate plan ^ from the petitioner on where he is going to put up a fence for storage. This could probably be worked out between the City administration.and the petitioner and a special use might'not be necessary. �"1 � Mr. Boardman said that whether this proposal needs a special use permit or not, he thought this should still go to the Building Standards- Design Control Subcommittee on the outside development. He said we should get a�.letter from the petitioner stating that there would never. be any outside display on this site. With this letter we can alarify whether a special use permit is needed or not. The petitioner can � withdraw this special use request, and make a new request if a special use permit it needed. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the PZanning Commission continue until June 5, 1974, the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74=10, by W. Red Stang, per FridZey City Code, Sec.�ion 205.I01, 3, N, to'a11ow trailers, campers, mobile homes, boats, machi:nery, sporting Fquipment and Iike enterprises h�ving its merchandise in the open and not under the cover of display salesroom, to be located on Lots l and 2, Block 1, C. D.. Hutchinson Addition, located at 7451• East River Road N.E., to allow the petitioner to work with the City administration to determine whether the petitioner's proposal needs a special use permit. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. !. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #�74-06, DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Split off that part of Lot 1, Block 28, lying Sou�h and East of�a line described as follaws: Beainning at the North- west corner of Lot 5, Block 4,r thence North 0 degrees 09 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 1.50 (bearing assumecl from plat of record); thence S�uth 89 degrees 50 minutes 48 seconds East to the West line of Lot 4, Block 4, and there terminating, and add i�t to �,ot 5, Block 4, Innsbruck North Townhouse 3rd Addition, the same being 5537 East Bavarian Pass N.E. � 8. REQUEST FOR A CORPORATION: add it to Lot the same being 9. REQUEST FOR A CORPORATION: add it to Lot the same being LOT SPLIT, Sp1it off t 6, Block 4, 5539 East L.S. #74-07, DARREL A.:'FARR DEt7ELOPMENT he South 2 ieet of Lot 5, B1ock 4, and Innsbruck North Tov�anhouse 3rd Addition, Bavarian Pass N.E. LOT SPLIT, L.S.. #74-08, DARREL A.:'FARR DEVELOPMENT Split off the South 2 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, and 8, Block 4, Innsbruck North Townhouse 3rd Addition, 5533 East Bavarian Pass N.E. � 10. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #74-09, DARREL A: FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPOR�ITION: Split off the South 2 feet of Lot 6, Block 4, and add it to Lot 7, Block 4, Innsbruck North Townhouse 3rd Addition, the same being 5535 East Bavarian Pass N.E. Mr., Roland Kruger was present to represent the p�titioner. Mr. Harris said this item had been before the Plats & Subdivisions- � Streets & Utilities Subcommittee and they had r�commended approval of the land divi.sion but recom�ended that this be handled as a replat instead of .�... Planning Commi�ssion Meeting - May 22, 1974 �• Paqe 14 a lot split. One parcel of land hasa complicated legal description because it is taken from the common area. n Mr. Lindblad asked if the petitioner had any objection to � replatting. Mr. Kruger sa1_d they had no objection, except to the time involved in replating. Chairman Fitzpa�rick said this would be a pretty routine plat so the Public Hearing notices could go out for the Planning Coanmission and for the Council ahead of time and this would hurry it up a little. Mro Kruger said they have sold the townhouse with the garage that has the complicated legal description (5537 East Bavarian Pass N.Ee). MOTION by Harris s�conded by Lindblad, fhat the Planning Commission approved the concep� of the land division on Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 4 Innsbruck Norih Townhouse 3rd Addition, but recommend that this be handled as a replat, rather than by 2oL splits. Upon a voice vote', a11 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimousl�. 11. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #74-04, MR5. MILDRED MUSTONEN: Split off the Westerly 75 feet of the Easterly 14�'.89 feet of Lot 11, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside, to make another building site, which wi11 be addressed as 1579 75th Avenue N.Ee The petitioner had notified the administration that she was ill �..� and was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Boardman said that when the petitioner called the office, she was told that the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets and Utilities Sub- committee had reconunended approval o� this lot split, but that she would have to get a survey of this lo�to The petitioner agreed to do this. Mr. Boardman said as far as the City adminisfration is concerned, the lot that is being splii� off ineets all the code requirements so we have no.objection to this lo't split being grantede The existing house on the part of the lot that will be left does f it on the 75 foot lot even if this does not meet the 80 foot corner lot reqta.iremento Mr. Harris said the reason tor the lot split is so the peti�tioner can sell this portion of her property. She is a widow and the assess- ments for the street, plus the fact that �his is a large lot and too hard for her tQ maintain are the reasons she want� to sell this part of her property. Mr. Drigans said he thought someone from administration should contact Mrs. Mustonen and explain to her about the�tax structure on this property becoming two lots in case she didn't sell the lot as soon as she planned on. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission � recommend to CounciZ approval of the request for a Iot split, L.S. #74- 04, by Mrs. Mildred Mustonen, to split off the Wester.Zy 75 feet of the Easterly 1�9.89 feet of Lot 11, B1ock 2, Spring Lake Park Lakesidc, to Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 15 make another buiZding stte to be addressed as 1579 75th Avenue N.E. with the stipulation that a survey be made of this property before �1 final approval is given. Upon a voice vote, al1 voting aye, the.motion carried unanimously. . 12. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.So #74-05, SPRINGFIELD HOMES: Split off the Northerly 4 feet of Lot 4, and add it to Lot 3, Block 1, Innsbruck North, the same bein� 5643 North Danube Road N.E. No one was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Harris said the foundation is already in for this house and they used.the radius iron instead of the lot iron to locate the house on the ].ot. They got the house 4 feet too close to the property line to meet the sideyard requiremento This is the reason for the lot split request. � � � � Mr. Boardman said that Springfield Homes owns both lots and Lot 4 wi11 still have a front footage of 78.36 fee� which is comparable to other lot sizes in this area. Mro Drigans said he �hought this should haye been handled as a variance rather �han a lo� split. There wi11 be a lot of legal work involved in a lo� split and a variance could be handled locally. Mr. Harris said it would be easier to obtain mortgage money on n a house that meets alI the se�back requirements than one that has a variance. Mr.� Drigans said does tha� mean that every variance �hat is granted on a house may make it difficult to sell? Mr. Harris said that usually no addi�ional land is �vailable and a variance is granted on a hardship that is requested by the property owner. On - this request, there is property available s.o that a variance is not nece5sary. Mr. Boardman said that by requesting this lot split, both lots 3 and 4 will still meet the code, and the petitioner felt this was better than asking for a variance and having a house that did not meet t.he code on the side yard requirement. � MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commissio recommend to CounciZ approval of the request for a lot split, L.S. #74- 05, by Springfield Homes, to spl�it off theNortherZy 4 feet of Lot 4, and add it to Lot 3, BZock 2, Innsbruck North, the same being 5643 North Danube Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, Harris, Lindblad, Fitzpatrick votin aye, Drigans abstaining, the motion carried. ' Mr. Drigar:s said he abstained because he felt�this should have been handled as a variance rather than a lot split. 13. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN Mr. Boardman said the Council had this on their agenda on May 20, � 1974 and they delayed any action on this plan until surveys are done and there is a more detailed study on the bikeways and pathways and on . park usage. This delay will be between six and seven months. Planning Comm�ission Meeting - May 22, 1g74 �� Page 16 . Mr. Boardman said this was given to the Planning Commission � just to receive the Plan. You don't have to discuss this unless you want to have a discussion so your input can go to the Council. He.said that all the recommendatibns that were made by the Planning Commission were incorporated into the Plan by the Parks & Recreation Commission,, except for the changing of the name. Mr. Drigans said they could discuss this. Mr. Harris said �hat he would rather wait until they had the same information that the Counci had requested. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commissio table the receiving of the Parks & Recreaiion Comprehensive Plan pending the receiving of the same•information that has been requested by the City.Council. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' 14. HYDE PARK STUDY . Mr. Boardman said this study was requested by the City Council • ��because they had a request to develop a single family residence into � a commercial develapment, and this location did not meet the requirement of commercial development. The Council did deny this request and then they requested that the Planning Department do a study on the commercial area of Hyde Park to determine the best way to combine lots so this area could be developed. � • . Mr. Boardman presented a map of Hyde Park showing the location of the R-2, R-3 and commercial area. He said that what the Planning Department did was to go through this area and locate all �the structures . presently on these properties to determine what type of land use we had. Yellow designates residential, orange designates apartments and red designates commerciale . Chairman Fitzpatrick said the request that the Council received was in the commercial areae Mr.� Boardman said it was, but wha-t the petitioners wan�ted to do was turn a residential struc-ture'into commercia: and there was a problem of variances and that the lot size did not meet the commercial requirements of 20,000 square feet or a lot width of 160 ieet. The Planning Departmen.t divided the parcels up into usable sites according to present lot lines to show what would be feasiblc for someone to buy and still leave a usable site, without request iing a variance. The map presented shows the plan we came up with. Mr. Harris said that this study only concerns the.portion of Hyde Park that is zoned commercial then. Mr. Boardman said yes. Mr. Boardman said the dotted lines on the map show ownership of the lo�s. � Mr. Lindblad asked if the Council or the City had any long range � program for this area? It is such a blighted area. Mr. Boardman said that the only way that we are going to be able to do anything in this area as far as controlled development is to eigher stick to a concept plan like this, which we still might have some problems with, or go to a Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 17 n Housing Redevelopment Authority. Because of the amount of property owners, it is unfeasible for any commercial developer to come in and purchase that much property, tear down•that many buildings, and still put up a commercial building. We are going to have problems with this area for the rest of our lives. Mr. Boardman said Wha�. we are asking the Planning Commission to approve is a concept, and ask them to stick to that concept in consid- ering any proposals for this area. Mr. Harris said a Housing Redevelopment Authority was very unpopular in Fridley, and just mentioning it, he could smell the tar. . Mr.Boardma� said if someone comes in and purchases a.couple of lots and tries to develop it commercially, with variances and other problems.�, we are going to have the same thing as we have up in Onawayo This is really something we don't want. Mr. Harris said that if this plan becomes a public document, he could see all kinds of pitfalls. The first thing people in the area are going to say is that you are going to take my land away from me. They won't unders�and the purpose of the plan. We are going to h�ve to make it perfectly clear what the purpose of the plan is. Mr. Drigans asked what criteria the Planning Department used in ^ establishing the size of the parcels for development? Mr. Boardman said first they divided: the area into parcels by individual ownership. He said that what they were suggesting was to have the smaller parcels on the inside, because of the corner lot restrictions. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked the range in size of the proposed divisions of parcels. Mr. Boardman said the smallest parcel was 20,600 square feete Mr. Harris asked how many commercial enterprises were in this area now. Mr. Boardman said the Bell Telephone is Ln one area. We have the Schmedeke Used Car Lot, and Gabrelcik's.Muggli.�Man�facturing is in this area. Mr. Lindblad said he thought Mr. Muggli sold out to Kurt Manuf acturing. Mr. Boardman said the commercial rezoning for most of this area is really not too feasible. He said it was brought out in the f irst study that the type of commercial that would be attracted to this area would probably only pay about $1.60 per square foot, which is the comparable price in this area, and the costs in this area, with tearing down the buildings and other costs,�would bring it to approximately $2.60 per square foot. Right there we are talking about $1.00.per � square foot more than most commercial enterprises will pay. This, of course, was the cost at the time of the first study. � Mr. �oa�dman said he thought before the City would have to go could be developed commercially. ' go to the voters, and he couldn't it.would only be a matter of time to a Housing Authority so this area Mr. Harris said this would have to see it passing. � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 �Page 18 ' Mr. Lindblad asked by a housing authority, what do you infer? �,,,, • Mr. Harris said it would. give the City the right to go to condemnation, condemn the property, tear it all down, replat it, and sell it for commercial development. A Housing Redevelopment Authority provides the funds with federal aid or other programs available. The money, in effect, is returned to 'the Housing Redevelop- ment Authority when the property is sold. Mr. Boardman said the City would have trouble getting any f ederal funding unless it became involved with some housing authority. He said he thought that one mistake that was made when the fir�t housing.. authority was proposed for Fridley was that nat enough information was given to the voters. Mx. Harris said he agreed with Mr. Boardman that a lot of things need to �be done in Hyde Park, but from a practical standpoint, what can be done? He said Minneapolis has had a sad experience wi�th a Housing Redevelopmen�t Authority. They tore down large �racts of housing and the area was very slow to develop. Mr. Drigans said maybe the approach to Hyde Park would be to �work on.one area at a time and c�?���ntrate on that area. It looks �.ike the commerical area could be divided in�to four sections. Mr. Boardman saicl�here could be other ways to develop.this areae Indust�cial Revenue Bonding is now available �o commercial areas. Mr. � Harris asked if the Cit�• would have the right of condemnation und�r Industrial Revenue T3ondingo Mr. Boardman said the only way the City would have the right of condemnation would be through a housing authorit � Mr. Boardman said this could be developed piece by piece, but you have to really follow a concept to have good control on development. If someone came in with a proposal tha-� was less than code and required variances, with a plan like this, you would have a better basis for denial. Mr. Harris said he thought one of the biggest problems in the area right now is that the property in Hyde Park is priced right out of the market. It was six years ago, and he didn't think this had changed. . . Mr. Harris asked if there was any property in the commercial area of Hyde Park that was vacant or unsafe for habitation. Mr. Board�nan said that only one house has been condemned. Mr. Harris said he thought a close watch should be kept on this area so that any marginal houses could be condemned. Mr. Boardman said the City could do that under present State regulations for hazardous buildings. Howe�rer, the devel- opment of a City Housing Code could provide a better way to control it by the establishment of more workable standards. Some cities are develop�:r�g an occupancy permit program. Chairman Fitzpatrick said Minneapolis has a housing code, but it is very minimal and not enforced very well. Mr. Drigans as}ced if this occupancy permit would mean that if a � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 19 house was sold, that the buyer could not move in without an occupancy n permit? Mr. Boardman said that was correct. That house would have to meet code before it could be occupied. Mr. Drigans said he thought this was taken ca�e of when you applied for a mortgage. Your house has to meet certain codes to get a F.H.A. or G.I. loan. Mr. Boardnian said this wouldn't cover conventiQnal loans or someone taking over a mortc�age, or someone paying cash for a home. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this occupancy permit would cover rental property also. Mr. Boardman said maintenance could be covered with this also. � Mr. Harris said that if a tax credit was given for maintaining your hame instead of penalizing people by raising the taxes for im- provements, there would be a lot more maintenance done. ' Mr. Drigans asked Mro Boardman if he had any documeri-tation or narrative on'.this proposed Hyde Park s�.udy? Mr. Boardman said it was strickly an oral presentation. Mr. Boardman said it was thought that ihere should be a Public Hearing set on this studyo Mr. Drigans said that before the Planning Commission did that, he wou�.d like to ge't some background on how the Planning Departmen� developed this conr.ept, what criteria was used for this plan, So that we can answer intelligently any questions that are asked at this Public Hearingo Mr. Boardman said he would see that the Planning Commission got this information. r`�1 Mr. Boardman �sid what we are looking for is concept approval by t�� Planning Commision, a concept apprcval that they are willing to strive for. Then the people in the area should be notified that.this is a concept approval and this is what the City is going to strive for in � this area. A plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission and Council has more teeth, if they want to use this plan as a basis �or a denial of a requeste Mra Boardman said that if the Planning Commission doesn't want to have a Public Hearing on this proposal, they can approve the concept and send it on to the Council and le�t them hold the Public Hearing. Chairman Fi�tzpatrick said that while he approved the concept of having the parcels large enought to meet the commercial requirements, he wouldn't want to give approval of someone's property being par� of one parcel rather than another parcel. So what concept are we approvinc� Mr. �Linablad said that this concept looks real good on paper, but it real life it might be very difficult to develop in just this way. Mr. Harris asked how many property owners were involved in the • commercial a•rea. Mr. Boardman said he thought it was about 70. •• Mr. Harris said he could see that this concept would make it easier to deny variances and development of small parcels of land. � . Mr. Lindblad said we would have to determine what would be good . and what would not be good for this area. What kinc� of businesses should�be in the area and what kind of buildings,rwe want. Mr. Harris Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 � Page 20 �said this would be up to the developer. Mr. Boardman said not necessar- ily, because we do havE+ codes to follow. This is zoned C-2 and there � are restrictions on what can be dev�loped. There are some things that . come in under special use, but this could be denied also with a concept plan. �� � Mr. Drigans said the only thing he would be ready to approve would be that there should be a concept plan for this area, but not necessar- ily this concept. Maybe there should be a new layout of streets, etc. There may be a better way to develap this. Mr. Harris said with this many parcels, how would you implement a new street plan. He thought there had been enough problems with the slip-off plan. � Mro Fitzpatrick asked what would be wrong in referring this to the:�Fridley Housing Autho'ritye Mr. Boardman said that the Planning Commission can only recommend that Council send this item to the Fridley Housing Authority. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked what the Cauncil wanted from the Planning Commission? Mr. Boardman said the Council asked that this study be done, and we felt that it should go to the Planning Cammission. for their� review. � Chairman Fitzpatrick said that if the Planning Commission was going to have a Public Hearing on this study, we wouldn't want to approve a concept prior to that time. Mr. Harris said that when we are dealing with that many people's futures, we should find out what they think. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that Mr. Drigans has asked for the criteria used in preparing this study. It is obvious that you are creating parcels large enough for commmercial development without leaving unbuildable lots. Mr. Boardman said they took what was there and tried to set up a feasible concept for the total development of the commercial land. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there were copies availalale.of the Hyde Park Study done five years ago? Mr. Boardman said there were. Chairma�n Fitzpatrick said he had a copy, but he thought the other members of the Commission should have a copy also. Mr. Lindblad asked if this area could be more feasibly developed if it was r�zoned to a greater use? Mr. Boardman said the land require- ments would be even greater. Mr. Drigans said he would like the criteria used in setting up this plan, the minutes of the meetings held during the last Hyde Park Study and a copy of the original study. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that he remem- bers that there wasn't a great deal of opposition to the rezoning. Mre Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commmission did not have to take any action at this time. They will wait for the information tha�t was requested. � Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 Page 21 15. REVIEW OF SECTION 205. OF THE CITY CODE i� Mr. Harris said that at �.ome future date, he would like the Planning Commission to review Section 205 of the Fridley Code. He said there are many areas that are quite vague and hard to interpret. Mr. Boardman agreed with Mr. Harris. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this is something the administration could take under advisement and put on our agenda when we don't have so many other items to consider. 16. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE CONSIDERATION CRITERIA FOR ADVERTISZNG SIGNS � Mr.. Drigans said he had compiled a list that could be used as a criteria on handlii�g requests for �variances and spe�ial. use permits on billboards. He asked the Planning Commission to read the list from the Board of Appeals minutes of B�lay 14; 1974. 1. Welfare, Safety or Public � 2o Environmental Impact: - Visual Pollution � 3. Financial - a. Loss to owner b. Loss to Leasee c. Loss to Ciicy • 4. Miscellaneous - � n ae Location _ be Length o�' Time Sign Has Been Ere�ted c. Condition/Maintenance Sign Has Received d. Other Chairman Fitzpatrick �.sked how much.time is meant by le.nth of.time? Mr. Drigans said he thought about f.ive or six years. Chairman Fitz- patrick said the Planning Commission sa.id each billboard should be considered on i.ts own merit and if these questions were asked on each request, the answers could determine our decision. Mr. Harris said he thought it was a good liste MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission ap'prove the criteria from the Board of 1�ppeals rneeting of May 14, 1974, for considering special use permits and variances for advertising signs, and that a cop� of this criteria be attached to every request for specia use permits and variances on biZlboards. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the mot.i.on carried unanimously. M.r�. Harri� said he thought alanost all the billboards are going to require variances. � Mr. Harris said he thought these should be referred to the Environmental Quality Commis.sion first. Mr. Drigans said they are not asub�commit'tee of the Planning Commission and he thought it was up to Council what was referred to them. � Mr. Lindblad said tha� if things aren't referred to them, they never will become a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meeting - May 22, 1974 � • PaQe 22 Mr. Harris said that maybe we should make a request of Council that they refer these applications on billboards to the Environmental Quality Commission, and then send their input directly to us. He � said they would have to give reasons for their recommendations. . � MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission r�equest�the City Council to �refer a11 the reques�s for • the continuaiion of billboards thai need special use permits or variances in the City of Fridley to the Environmental Quality Commission for their review and recommendations and that these Be forward�ed to . the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission before they make their final disposition on these requests for variances and special use permits Upon a vozce vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 12:45 A.M. Respectfully submitted, � �. � � ��� �>���� Dorothy Ev son, Secretary � � ;� , t . �� � �� � ��; � % �� �� �� ��� � _ ---- ------ --- _ _ ____ - - --- --- -- _ ---- ____ _----- _ __ _ _- -- __ - -- -- - _ _- - -- _ _ -- ____ ___ - - - _ --- - _ _ --_ ____ _-- --- _- -_ _ .� . ��-- -- � �_� _:�. _ _ _ _ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ _ �_� � _ _ �����'��._,�_ _ __ _ _ ___ . � � - - �% ��' �-��- -��.� �7--____ __ _ __ - -__ _ __ _ ___. .r�__ __ _ __ __ _______ ____ _____ _��� __ ���__. __ _ _ _ _____ __ __ ______ _ ________ � ��� - 7i �` --- _ _ -- __- — -- ---- ---- - ___ ___ _ - . - -- _ --- _— �_� _ _ ,�_ __ __ _- � ��_- .��� _- --- -� � __._ ___ _ __ _ � , �� _�- _ _� -- ���_ -- _ _ _ _ _._ 1s� _�i� ---- _ __ __ - -- _-- ---- - -_ _ � L /SFf �� s w . � _ � --__ __ _ _- -- -_ -- _ _ ___ _ ---_ _ - - - ---- -- � -- -- - -- --- --- --- - - --------�`��---��`?- -- �e=-� � Y�' � — -- �`" _ -- -- -_ __ ___ ____------- � �r �s� �-h.�-. d � S�`��,_ �. _ __-- - ----- - -- - - �- � � _ _ _�'���_ -- _ - --���i�- -- -- - 1 1��' � 9�61i�"�� ' - - - _------ - - - — a� -�-z r ��� - _ - ------ - -- - __, ._ _ _ _ -- - _ _ - �/ _. _ _ . - - - --- � - _-___ _ - - ._ _ ----- - GG"/ / "" �- __� �=- l�� �--t- � _ �-- ----- --_ _ - - - --7-�' z �- _ ��_L_� �__�_� � ti --�- = - � � - :-- __ �'�"''-�- - - ----- _ _ _ - --- - - _--- --__ _-- - -- - - - _ _�?=_Y.:L�.��. �=9 _.� _�"Jt �=--- �------ _ -- --- - - - -- � � �� - __ -- - --- _ -- --- . � _-- �_ _ _ _ ___ _ -- � _LS- 3 3-- _�11���_�i.p1�-�� —� 1 <-- --- _------- ._ _- ---- ---------_ --------------- - -- - - --- -------- -. �_—_--- ---- --- _ - --- .