Loading...
PL 09/25/1974 - 30406� CITY OF FRIDLEY ��. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 1974 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Fitzpatrick, Blair Darrel Clark, Drigans, Harris, Lindblad Community Development Aclministrator APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 11, 1974 Mr. Fitzpatrick said that on page 6 of the minutes, in about the middle of the page, there is a statement made about the Pl�.nning Commission being able to put some type of stipulation on the rezoning request for some type of.sound barrier between the residential area and the railroad, but they couldn't expect the railroad to do this because they were there first. He said he knew the statement was made at the meeting, but he didn;"t say it. Nlr. Clark said this paragraph could start, "'�he statement was made-----". Mr. Fitzpatrick said this would be satisfactory. � n MOTION b� Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of their meeting of September 11, 1974 `" as amended. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. , RECEIVE BOA.RD OF APPEALS SUBCO�lMITTEE MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 10, 1974 MOTIDN by Drigans, seconded by Harris, for discussio.n, that �he P.Ianning Commission receive the Board of Appeals Subcommittee minutes of September 10, 1974. Mr. Harris said he was interested in �he first item of these minutes where a smaller house on a slightly smaller 1ot had been approved. Mr. Drigans said the proposed house seemed to fit the lot, and there would be room for expansion later, so the house could eventually meet the cade requiremen�s. There would have been quite an increase in the cost of the house if they would had added on the required square footage, and reducing the size of the garage would have spoiled the lines of this housee This is a two story house. Mr. Harris�:said �.he reason he was interested in this was because of their discussion about having smaller houses on smaller lots. UPON A VOICE VOTE, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBC)OMMITTEE MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 12, 1974 i"1 � ', MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the P.Zanning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittea meeting of September 12, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried�unanimously. �;"�'�:-� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - September 25, 1974 Page 2 �� RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 27, 1974 � Mr. Drigans said there is discussion in these minutes about the Shade Tree Ordinance. He asked Mr. Clark if he knew how this program was progressing and how many trees have been removed. Mr. Clark said he knew there were about 800 trees involved. There are two steps in removing.these trees. First there has to be a deep trench made around the tree and later, the removal of the tree. He � said he didn`t know how many trees have already been removed, but he understood the City was getting good cooperation from the property owners. Mr. Huff would be making follow-ups on all the orders for removal. MOTION by Karris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the August 27, Z974 meeting of the Environmental Quality Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. . 1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING RE�UEST, Z�A #74-04, BY HENRY F, MUHICH: To rezone Lots 11-21 and Lots 28- 37, Black 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, from M-1 (light industrial areas) to R-1 (single family dwelling areas} to allow the moving in of a single family dwelling on Lots 31 and 32, Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, generally located between 79th Avenue N.Ee and Longfellow Street, and Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks. � Mr. Henry Muhich was present. Public Hearing open. � Chairman Fitzpatrick said _that one of the rea�ons this reques�t had been continued was to give Mr. Muhich the opportunity to circulate a petition to be signed by the affected property owners. Mr. Muhich said he had the Petition and it was signed by seven of the eight property ownerse The only one who di3 not join in this request was Mr. Leonard Benson, 154 Longfellow Street N.E�., owner of Lots 36, 37, and 38, Block 4, Spring Brook Addition, who had stated at the last meeting that he was opposed to having his property rezoned. Mr. Muhich said one property owner lives in.Chicago, but he had sent a le�ter, which was inclucZed with the petition. _ MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive Petit.ion No. 16-1974, which includes the attached Zeiter, F�hich was signed by seven of the eight property owners of Lots .ZI-2.1, and'Lots 28-37, B1ock 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, requesting that their property be rezoned from M-1 (light industrial areas) to R-I (single family dwe.Zling areas). Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Drigans said the owner of Lots 36, 37 and 38 has one residential �,,.1 lot and�.two M-1 lots.� Why is he opposed to this request? `" Chairman Fitzpatrick said Mr. IIenson had sta�ted at the last meeting that he had purposely bought this property because in was zoned M-1. � At some later date, he would like to have a business in his garage, such . -�f= �,-� , Planming Commission Meeting - September 25, 1974 � P�age '3 as a cabinet shop, which he couldn't do if his property was rezoned %"1 to R-1. This garage is in the present M-1 zoning, and his house is on lots that are half R-1 and half M-1. ��'1 ,'�1 Mr. Muhich said he had contacted the owners of 66 lots of the 72 lots involved within the 300 foot radius of this request, and the only objection he had to this rezoning was Mr. Bensons. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Muhich the p�srpose of this rezoning request. Mre Muhich said he wanted to move a house onto the two lots he owned. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that since 1969, we haven't allowed any R-1 use of industrial property. It was allowed before that. Mr. Drigans asked if this area was zoned R-1, how many sites would be left to build homes on. Mr. Clark said that with Mr. Muhich's property, there would be four sites left. Nlr. Drigans asked why it was disallowed ta let an R-1 dwellirig to be bu�lt in an area like this. Mr. Clark said it was the feeling that if you have commercially zoned property, commercial should be built th�re, and if. its zoned industrial, .it should be built industrial. This was to prevent the intermixing of residential with commercial and industrial property. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that prior to 1969, it was felt that you couldn't�build up in a zoning district, but you could build down. R-1 was allowed in any district, for instance. Mr. Harris said if he read the code right, Mr. Muhich could put this house on his property with a Special Use Permit, as an alternat� to rezoning. � Mr. Drigans said there wasn't much you could do industriall� in this area with the property that was still vacant. Mr. Robert Welch, 144 Longfellow Street N.E., said he lived nexr door to the property Mr. Muhich owned, and he would much rather have a house go in there than any industrial development. Mrs. Cyril Paulson, 131 79th Way N.E., said they have lived at this addess since June 3, 1960, and when they purchased the property they had no idea their property was zoned M-1. She said it was her understanding that if this house was over 50o damage�.by fire or wind or by some other means, that it could no�t be rebuilt in the present zoningo She said they wanted to continue to livE in this house for some time, and to protect themselves, ichey were in favor of rezoning their property to R-1. Mr. Drigans asked Nlr. Benson how long he had lived at 154 Longfellova Street? Mr. Benson said it would be three years in October. Mre Drigans asked the size of his garage and what he used it for now. Mr. Benson said it was 24' by 22' and he used it to store his truck, snow- mobile, saws and other tools. Mr. Drigans asked him i� he was a cabinet maker. He said he wasn't, he was in the construction business. Mr. Muhich asked him what phase of the construction business he was in. Mr. Benson said he worked in concrete and masonry and did some carpenter work. • . ;-�. , �.-� Planning Commission Meeting - September 25, 1974 Page 4 Mr. Drigans wondered about having a small business in an area that has a res�dential atmosphere. Mr. Benson said there was a �'"1 machine shop right across the street, so he didn't think his wanting to use his garage for a business was going to make that much difference. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson if he built his house or purchased it after it was built. Mr. Benson said the house was already there when he purchased it,� and one of the main reasons he bought this house was because it was zoned M-l. He was looking for a house that wasn't in residential zoning, and this was just what he wanted. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark wha� the City's policy would be in rezoning.property against the property owner's will. Mr. Clark said he didn't think this had been done. He would assume it could be done, but the property owner could take it to court and whether this would stand up there, or not, he didn't know. " Mr. Drigans wondered if a Special Use�Permit could be granted to Mr. Benson so he could have this business in his garage if his property was rezoned. Mr. Harris said we �on't have a request for this.' Mr. Lindblad asked if Mr. Benson could meet the requir�ments �or a business in his garage if this area stayed M-le Mr. Clark said he would meet the requirements under M-1 zoning. If the rest of the block was rezoned to R-1, he wouldn't meet the setback requirement of 15 feet, bu� as �his is an existing structure, this wouldn't be necessary. Mr. Clark said that according to the zoning code, if Mre Benson°s �� property stayed M-1 and the balance of the block was rezoned to R-lp if Mr. Benson's property was destroyed, he wouldn't be able to meet the 50 foot setback requirement for M-1 zoning from R-1 property, so he wouldn't be able to rebuild his home, or industrial, without rezoning or with a variance. He said that from a planning standpoint, it would be better to have the entire block all rezoned rather than leave �wo lots M-1. Mr. Harris said that was why he felt that leaving these two lots M-1 wouldn't create any problems, because this situation could resolve itself in time. , Mr. Clark said he has stated before that he thought Mr. Benson could have a cabinet shop or other business in his �arage as long as his property is zoned M-l. He said he hadn't been able to check this ou� �ith �he City Attorney. There might be something in the code that says when the principal use of the property is residential, you can't use the garage as industrial property, but this would have to be checked out. Mr. Harris said he personally is against rezoning any property against the owner's will. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this request was originated by a private party for rezoning this area, and was not initiated by the City for public purposes. This makes a difference �lsoo Mr. Harris said we have a petition signed by all the owners of this praperty, except the property owned by Mr. Benson. This tells me that all the other property owners want their property rezoned to R-1. ;� . Mr. Drigans said the Public Hearing notice includes all the M-1 ,��,-�, Planning Commission Meeting - September 25, 1974 Page 5 n property in this Block 4, and he doesri't understand how Mr. Benson's property could have been included in �his request, �hen he doesn't want the rezoningo Mr. Clark said that when Mr. Muhich wan�ed to rezone the two lots he awns, it was felt that as the entire neighborhood was residential, we would set up the Public Hearing for the entire M-1 area. Mr. Muhich went out and talked to everyone in this area, and found out that they were all in favor of this rezoning, except for Mro Benson. That was the purpose of the Public Hea�ing. When Mr. Benson voiced his objection at the first meeting, was when the Planning Commission asked for a petition on this request, to make sure that all the affected property owners were aware of the rezoning con- sideration. At this P�ublic Hearing, Mr. Benson stated his objections to having his property rezoned. Mr. Clark said that if Mre Muhich would have asked for rezoning on just the two lots he owned, that would have really been spot rezoning, which isn'� very desirable eithera Chairman Fitzpatrick said what we have in effect is a request for rezoning from all �he property owners with �he exEeption of Mr. Bensone Mr. Lindblad asked if Mr. Benson could add on to his house or garage as long as his property was zoned M-1? Mr. C1ark said he couldn't add on to the hause, except he could make the inside more livable, and if he wanted to add on to the.garage, this would require a variance, because the present garage is closer than 15 feet from . the property line. � � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Muhich if he had any pictures of the house he wanted to move into�Fridley. Mr. Muhich presented the pictures. Mr. Clark said this has been approved by the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee, subject to the rezoning being approvedo Mre Har�is said he thought this house would f it in quite well in �his-area. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that he fel� tYiat Mra Eenson's point that his property had some industrial use, was a legitimate one. Mro Harris said it is his proper.ty, and he did buy it because it was zoned M-le Mr. Fitzpatrick said he agreed with Mr. Harris, that he didn't want to recommend rezoning on any property against the wishes of the owner under these circumstanceso MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #74-04, by Henry F. Muhich. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unan- imously. � Mr. Drigans said that if we rezone Mr. Benson's property, we are denying him the use for which he has stated he bought this particu� lar property. As the other property owners want their property rezoned, he said he would agree with Mr. Harris, that at some time in the future, leaving these two lots as M-1 will resolve itself. ^ Mr. Harris said that what it amount to is that we are changing the zoning on all the property except Mr. Benson's, which will stay the same. Planning Commissian Meeting - September 25, 1974 Page �6 Mr. Clark said that by rezoning�Block 4 to a11 R-1, it would � change the requirements on the industrial business across the street. If they want to do any more building, they will have to maintain a 100 foot setback or acquire variances.. � � Mr. Drigans said this would be necessany whether'they rezone all Block 4 to R-1, or rezone it all except Mr. Bensons „ MOTION b� Lindblad, seconded b� Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the rezoning request, ZOA #74-04, by Henry F, Muhich, to rezone Lots 11 - 21 and Lots 28 - 35 (this excludes Lots 36 and 37) BZock 4, Spring Brook Park Additaon, from M-1 (light industrial areas} to R-1 (sinqZe family dwelling areas), generally located'between 79th Avenue N.E, and Longfellow Street, and Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . Mre Drigans said �e didn't want this to be a stipulation, but he would not want to see Mr. Benson's garage enlarged for anythirig more than such a business as a cabinet shop. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-14, BY MICHAEL B. ROTTER: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.1Q2, 3, N, to permit Mobile Home Sales in a C-25 District, to be located on the-Westerly 329.3 feet of part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, (Parcel 478Q), the same being 7355 Nighway #65 N.E. Mr. Michael Rotter was present. MOTION by Harris, seconded b� Drigans, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing Notice for the request for a Special Use Permit, SP •#74-14, by Michael Rotter. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rotter said he was asking for this Special Use Permit so he could have a mobil� home sales business. Mr. Cl�rk said this will be located in the same area where a special use permit had been granted to American Auto Listings last year. Mro Fitzpatrick said if there was an area in Fridley where such businesses could be allowed, it would be in this area, but all mobile home.sales require a Special Use Permit. Mr. Rotter presented a plot plan to the Planning Commission showing how the trailers would be placed on the lot and where the office wo.uld be located. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Rotter if he operated a mobile home sales business anywhere else. Mr. Rotter said he didn't. Mr. Eitzpat- rick asked if he was workir.g for a company that did. Mr. Rotter "said he had been in this business for six years. At present he was working for Patti Homes and Previously had worked for Castle Mobile Homes. Mr. Harris asked if�the office would be a permanent structure. Mr. Rotter said it will be a double trailer, set up on blocks and skirted —: ,�-� Planning Commission Meeting - September 25, 1974 Page 7 � as a permanent structure. Mr. Harris said he understood that sewer and water were already available on this property. Mr. Drigaris asked if this office was in the same lacation where American Auto Listings had theirs. Mr. Rotter said no, it would have to be extended over to his office location. Mr. Rotter said he will have seven mobile homes on the siteo He planned to have them eight feet apart, but has room to make them 10 feet apart, if necessary. He said the office will be 24' x 36'e Everything within the dotted line will be blacktopped. He said he would have crushed rock under the trailers, because they damage blacktop if they are stored on it. He said they have a tendency to sink, so this is why crushed rock is used. . Mr. Drigans asked.Mr. Rotter what kind of arrangements he had made with'�:the property owner, would this be a lease or would he be buying the property? Mro Rotter said.he thought it would be a lease with option to buy, but they haven't even discussed the lease as yet. He wanted to wait and see if this Special Use Permit would be approved, and what stipulations would be put on it. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if this special use was approved, how long a lease would he be looking for. Mr. Rotter said he thought for � about three years. He said he didn't plan to start up this business until spring, because money was tight, and he knew the winter months were bad months for this business, from experience. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Rotter if he had a copy of the agreement tha� had been drawn up between the City and another operator of a mobile home sales. Mr. Rotter said he did. This agreement for the mobile home sales lot at 7151 Highway #65 was discussed by members of the Planning Commission and the pe�itioner:,and from this discussian the stipualations for this special use permit were determinede Some of the members questioned having a yearly review of this permit. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Rotter would be expected to spend a lot of money for the blacktop area, and he wouldn't feel like making a big capitol investment if �his permit could be revoked in one year. He �hought the term of his lease or three years would be fairer to the petitioner. Mr. Harris said that this Special Use Per�it could start from the time the petitioner signs the lease or purchase agreement, which ever he has. Mr. Drigans. said he wanted this Speci�l Use Permit tied to the lease or subject to review in three �ears, which ever was the shortest length»f time. Mr. Rotter said he had no objection to this. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use n Permit, SP #74-I4, by Michael Rotter. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • �;:�-.� Planning Qommission Meeting - September 25, 1974 ���Page 8 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by.Harris, that the Planning Commission � recommend to Council, approvaZ of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #74-14, by Michael B. Rotter, �er Fridley City Code, Section 205.102, 3, N, to permit Mobile Nome Sales in a C-2S District, to be located on the Westerly 329.3 feet of part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12 (Parcel 4780), the same being 7355 Highway #65 N.E., with the following s.tipulations: � 1. A SpeciaZ Use Permit to operate a mobile home sales 1ot is given onl� to MichaeZ B. Rotter as an individual and he wi11'- be the operator of the business. If the business changes hands or he no longer is majority owner and operator of the business, the permit wi11 be nu11 and void, and would have to be reviewed by the City Council before transfer. 2. The office trailer will be blocked on concrete blocks and the base wi11 be skirted with aluminum. The office wi11 be con- nected to utilities; such as, �ater, sewer, gas and electricitye 3. Two restrooms wi11 be installed in the office for the public's use. • 4. The office trailer to be taxed as a permanent structure. 5. There will be no permanent residents in the mobile homes and no repairing or storage of damaged trailers. � 6. There will be a minimum of 10 feet of space between the trailers. 7. The public and empZoyee parking 1ot area to be bZacktopped by Ocfober 1, 1975. 8. Provide a screening fence along the North property Iine. Precast curb wi11 be put along the entrance and aZong the parking area for customers. 9. The land wi11 be kept clean and free of debris, junk and unsightly materials, and a11 green areas will be kept free of weeds,cut and well groomed. Z0. There will be no washouts on the property due to surface drainage and if there are any, these wi11 be filled and taken care of immediately. 11. Lighting, Iandscaping, and plot plan be approved by the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee. 12. A11 signs will comply with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. n I3. This SpeciaZ Use Permit be issued for a maximum of three years or to run concurrently with the Zease, which ever is less. UPON a voice vote,•a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . ..�, Planning Commission Meeting - September 25, 1974 Page 9 n Mr. Drigans asked �r. Clark what method the City used to check out stipulations to Ge� that they are.complied with: Mr. L�ndblad said there was us�a13� a performance bond requested to insure that every thing would be done. Nlr. Drigans said that answered his question. 3. DISCUSSION Mr. Drigans said he had a couple of things he wanted to bring up at this meeting. One was that he would like the�Planning Commission to receive a copy of the Armory report and the letter from the American Legion that was mentioned in the Council Agenda. Mra Clark said he would see that the Planning Commission got copies of this. The other thing Mr•.:::D�.igaris wanted was to check and see if the Plann�ing Commission could have a tour of General Television. He said they had mentioned this at a meeting some time ago, and would like to know how the Planning Commission and other governmental bodies could use this medium. Mr. Clark said he would try and arrange this tour. � Mr. Harris said he didn't know if if had•become a problem in Fridley, but he has noted in other communities, that there is a ^ problem with some of this screening of refuse containers. He said the idea is fine, but a lot of the time there isn't room for the garbage trucks to get in and pick up the refuse, and the screening is subsequently damaged and looks worse that what they are trying tp screen. Mr. Clark said that one of the problems they have is that the code says the refuse area has to be screened from public view. What is the public view? One case in point is the back o� of the>stores in Moon Plaza. They all have storage at the back of their buildings, but the public can drive back there too. The solutian would be to have a screening fence a11 along the back of the bu�lding, but they don't, have too much room back there now. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he agreed with Mr. Harris that he had seen some screening that looked worse than what�they were trying to sereene Mr. Harris said the way these refuse trucxs �,rork, you al�uost nave to leave one section open, So you only have screening on three sidesa The section left open would usually be on- the alley or street side, so he really couldn't see what was being accomplished. Mra Lindblad said that it was a problem, but he thought screening was a better solution than leaving these areas completely open. Mr. Harris said he just wanted to bring this'to the attention of the Planning Commission. � Mr. Jerrold Boardman stopped in at the meeting to mention that there was a seminar on community development that would be held at Normandale College, and he would appreciate it if any members of the Planning . Commission wish to attend, they would let him know so reservations could .,�,. - } n �� i� Planning Commission Meeting - September 25, 1974 Page 10'• be made. There sere 6 sessions, and they could attend one session or all of them, whatever they desired. The fee was $5 per session or $25 for all six. Mr. Clark said he would get copies of the informa- tion on this seminar out to the Planning Commis�ion the next day. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � / n-�/ Dorothy Eve sori, Secretary �