PL 04/09/1975 - 31183; ;,; • .
y �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CO�IMISSION MEETING APRIL 9, 1975 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Lindblad, Drigans
Members Absent: �lair
Others Present: James Langenfeld, Ex-officio Member of the Planning Commission
Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 12, 1975
MOPI.ON by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission approve
the minutes of their March 12, 1975 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote aIl
votirlg aye, the motion carried unanirr�ousZy.
APFRJVE PLANNING COi�IMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 19, 1975
MOTIOIV by Lindblac�, seconded by L%rigans, that the Planning Commiss.zon approve
the minutes of their March 19, 1975 meeting as written. Upon a voice �Tote, a11
voting aye, the rrcotion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 6, 1975.
^
MOTION b� Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Building Sta:ldards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of Marc1�
6, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOh1MTTTEE MINUT•.ES: MARCH ll9 1975
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Corrmiission receive
the minutes of the .8oard of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of Nlarch Z1, 1975. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE CITIZEN BIKEWAY COMMITTEE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 26, 1975
MOT.TUN by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans for discussion, that the Planning
Commission receive the minutes of the Citizen Bikeway Committee meeting of �'�bz'uary
26, 1975.
. Mr. Drigans said there was a statement on the last page of these minutes that
the 32 miles of trails would cost about $400,000. He asked if this was the proposed
cost? The recording secretary said that changes had been made in the proposal and
the cu1vert had been dropped from the plan, so the cos.t figure was $232,000 p1us.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE CITIZEN BIKEWAY COMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 5, 1975
^� MOTZ'vN by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive
` the minutes of the Citizen Bikeway Committee mee.ting of March 5, 1975.
0
�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 2
Mr..Langenfeld said he would like to bring to everyone's attention the third
paragraph from the bottom of Page 2 of these minutes where Mrs. Slater asked where
��� all this money was coming from. Mr. Harris said that Mr. Boardman said the Bikeway
Committee was recommending about a dozen funding sources and were not recommending
that it be added to real estate taxes.
Mr. Langenfeld said that on page 3 of these minutes they were discussing the
Isla�ds of Peace. He said he wondered if they were going to have bikeways in this
area, along with people in wheelchairs. Mr. Harris said the bikeroute would end
in the parking area of the Islands of Peace and there wouldn't be any bikeways or
bikes allowed in the area itself.
UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the�motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 18, 1975
MOTION by Driaans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of tf.� Environmental Quality Comm�.ssion meeting of March 18, 1975.
Mr.. Langenfeld said a resolution had been submitted to the City Council for the
City of Fridley to be the model ordinance community and the resolution did pass, and
was being sent to the State Commission, and they will immediately draw up a rough
draft for the Commission to work with. Mr. Drigans asked if it was going to cost
the City anything for the State Environmental Quality Council to come out and assist
us. Mr. Langenfeld said the only cost would be for the staff person who would work
with the State.
� UPON A VOICE VOTE, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy.
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 24, 1975
MOTION by Drigans, seconde� by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commis5ion 5ubcommittee meeting of March 24,
1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 20, 1975
� MOTION by Lindb2ad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of March
20, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: APRIL 1, 1975
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Board of AppeaZs Subcommittee meeting of April 1, 1975. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
' Chairman Harris said that the first two items on the agenda could be quite
lengthy, and if there was someone in the audience to represent the North Suburban
Hospital District, they could handle their request first. There was no response.
�, MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, to adopt the agenda as written. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
��
Planninq Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 3
1. PUBLIC HEARING• REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #75-02, BY WYMAN SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR
,-.1 RICHARD POVLITZKE AND THE FRIDLEY FRONTIER CLUB: To rezone from C-1 (local
business areas to C-2 general business areas , Lot 1, Block 1, Walnut Addition,
to bring the existing use of the property into a uses permitted category of the
City Zoning Code, the same being 7365 Central Avenue N.E.
Mr. Mark Haggerty, Attorney, explained that he was replacing Wyman Smith at
this meeting as Mr. Smith was ill.
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #75-02, by Wyman_Smith, Attorney
for Richard Povlitzke and the Fridley Frontier C1ub. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting
aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:22 P.M.
Mr. Darrel clark said that this rezoning request was f rom one commercial zoning
distric� into another commercial zoning district. The reason for this r�quest was
because the commercial area in which this business was now zoned does not �ilow bars
and tavern. If any one was wondering why this business was already there, it was
because it was there before the zoning ordinance was adopted by the City of Fridley,
therefore, it was a legal non-conforming use. It can remain so as long as it was
not expanded in size and runs continuous as the same use. Mr. Clark s.aid that in
order to clarify this, he would read some of the uses permitted in a C-1 and C-1S
District and a C-2, C-2S District.
He said first he would list what cvuld be in a C-1 and C-1S District which
are local business areas. It allows such things as: 1) Retail stores and shops
^ and small service businesses such as: art shops, professional studios, clothing,
drug, grocery, fruit, meat, vetetable, confectionary, hardware, sporting goods,
stationery, music, variety and notion stores, household appliances, fixture and
furnishing stores and repair shops in connection therewith; stores and shops for
barbers, beauticians, cabinet makers, electricians, jewelers, watchmakers, locksmiths,
painters, plumbers, shoemakers, tailors, dressmakers, clo�hes pressers, job printers,
blueprinters, photographers. 2) Bakeries, cafes, confectioneries, and ice cream and
soft drink, shops, including the preparation of food products for retai� sale from
their sites only. 3) Liquor stores seiiing packaged goods. 4) Radio and television
offices and studios, excluding radio or television transmission towers. 5) Theaters,
lodges and assembly facilities having a seating capacity of less than 300 persons,
� but not including outdoor theaters. 6) Offices, including business and professional.
7) Sale of farm and garden products. 8) Other retail stores and shops, offices and
small businesses catering to neighborhood patronage, and similar in character to
� those enumerated above. Mr. Clark said these were the permitted uses in a C-1 and
C-1S District.
He said the permitted uses in a C-2 and C-2S District (g�neral business and
- shopping areas) were business establishments that were retail or service establish-
ments which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are
furnished and they were: Qrug stores, Hardware stores, Department stores, Bakeries,
Bars, taverns, Household equipment repair shops, Florist shops, Commercial recreation,
Restaurants, excluding "drive-�ns, Hotels, motels, Theaters, lodges, assembly halls,
� auditoriums, Hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, convalescent homes, h�mes for the
elderly, Offices, including business and professional, Vocational trade schools,
Laboratories, medical, dental and optical, and harmless and inoffensive laboratories
''1 �ccessory to permitted uses, in the same building, an� other retail or wholesale
sales or service uses which are similar in character to those enumerated above,
will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the
Vicinity thereof, or to the public welfare, and will not impair the use, enjoyment
n
/'1
�`,
Planning Commission Meetinq - April 9, 1975 Page 4
or value of any property, but not including any uses excluded'hereinafter.
Mr. Clark said that going back to the C-1 and�G-1S District, the uses excluded
are: a) Commercial recreation uses such as amusement parks, bowling alleys, billiard
and pool halls, dance halls and skating rinks. b) Taverns, beer gardens or bars
serving any alcoholic beverages on the premises. c�) Mortuaries. d) Used car lots.
He said uses excluded in C-1, C-1S and C-2 and C-2S were any use permitted in M-1
and M-2 Districts and any use excluded from M-1 or M-2 Districts.
Mr. Clark said that if the property were rezoned to C-2 it would be a use
conforming to the uses permitted section of the City Code.
Mr. Clark passed out some copies of the history of the site taken from legal
records of the City. He said the long legal sheets were copies taken from records
of Council minutes of the year 1957. He said he didn't think they had to be read,
it was just to indicate that what was taken from the records was officially before
the Council. The minutes are irom February 2�, 1957, and they show that the
City Council authorized the City Manager to terminate the lease agreement with Bob
Carlson, the owner of the building at 7365 Central Avenue�N.E. for an on-sale operation.
At that same meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agree-
ment with Mr. MacKensie to rent City equipment at the liquor dispensary at 7365
Central Avenue �.E. The equipment involved was some on-sale bar equipment. At the
same meeting the Council approved licenses for cigarette, tavern operation, non-
intoxicating malt liquor and cafe operation to Mr. Cliff L. MacKenzie. If you are
wondering why this was being read into•the minutes, it was because the City leased
a portion of the building, prior to the Council meeting of February 1957, for both
an on-sale and off-sa1e liquor operation. As of that da�e, or shorly afterward, it
became a private enterprise, as far as the dispensing of beer, and�perhaps set-ups,
although the records do not show that they had set-ups. The City continued to keep
the off-sale operation until February 15, 1964. As far as what was known today as
the Fridley Frontier Club; from 1957 to 1958, Clifford MacKenzie held the beer license
Robert Haskvitz held it in 1959 and 60. It was held by the Fridley American Legion
in 1960 and 1961. In 1961 and 1962, it changed hands twice, from Norman Alberice to
Joseph Morris. Hans Hansen held the beer license in 1962 and 1963, and in 1963 to
1965 the license was held by Marlene Povlitzke, and has continued under Povlitzke
ownership to the present time. •
Mr. Clark said that as far as the parcel involved, the frontage along Central
Avenue was 151 feet and the frontage along Onondaga was 257 feet making a total of
38,675 square feet. Mr. Clark said the zoning in the surrounding area shows that
diagonally across the street there was an existing trailer park, directly across the
street there was M-1 zoning which was occupied by a light manufacturing plant and
ice manufacturing plant. The corner of 73 1/2 and Central has a used au�o parts store,
and between 73rd and 73 1/2 it was zoned commercial and was presently occupied by
a service station. Across the street from the service station on the south side of
73rd was an industrial warehouse on some industrially zoned property, M-1. The
southeast quadrant of the intersection of 73rd was occupied by Onan. The northeast
part of the intersection, he would call vacant, although the remains of a basement
are on this property, and belongs to the American Legion. Right between that and the
Frontier Club was an existing house that was being occupied as a house. Across the
street from the Frontier Club on Onondaga, there was some vacant commercial property,
and just north of that there was a vacant lot zoned C-1S. The north side of Fireside
was occupied by a vacant piano store, zoned commercial, and nor�'th of that there
was R-1 property with single family dwellings, that have been built in the last two
or three years. North of the trailer park there was industrial zoned property that was
vacant. From 75th north on the east side of Central, was occupied by single family
Planning Commission Meetin� - April 9, 1975 Page 5
homes. To the east of the subject property, there was a small sliver of land that
will remain C-1. The balance of the property was zoned R-1 and was occupied by
�, single family homes as far as Stinson Blvd. There are two or three apartment
buildings on 73rd across from Onan's, but the balance of this property was
basically single family dwellings. He said there was commercial property along
Central Avenue near Osborne Road. He said the history of the zoning of the property
that was under discussion, and the zoning in the entire area, had remained basically
the same since the year the zoning ordinance was adopted which was January 1956.
Mr. Clark put on the screen a plot plan oi the property showing that the parking
was in the Tront and rear of the structure. He said this area was�;:all blacktopped at
the present time, but if improvemen�s were made to the structure, or the occupancy
within the building, we would want some green area along the 151 feet along Central
Avenue and the 257 feet along Onondaga, with parking to the rear of the building.
� Mr. Mark Haggerty said he though� Mr. Clark had given an excellent history of
the property in question. He thought the point that should be most apparent was
that this partic.�lar area was zoned, and hadn't been changed, since 1956, and sub-
sequent to that, this particular area had been used by the City of Fridley as an on
and offi sale liquor establishment, which was the old municipal l�iquor store, so to
speak. It was continued as an off-sale liquor store by the City until 1964. Ever
since 1950, this particular piece of property has been used for on sale and off sale
at uarioustimes, and has been continued as a beer garden or a 3.2 beer establishment,
. up to the present time. He said that as you are very much aware, we have been
applying for a liquorlicense since November of 1974. We have made repeated applications
to the City Council, and in the latter part o� February or the middle of P9arch, we
were informed for the first time, of this zoning problem. Our firm was unaware of
� it, Mr. Povlitzke was unaware of it, �he City Council was unaware of it, and obviously
the City Police Department and the Planning Commission were unaware of it. The point
�� he was making was that if there was a problem there, it was creating a tremendous
hardship on his client. He said he was of the opinion that this property had been
used as a liquor establishment for nearly 20 years, even if it was a legal non-
conforming use, and was specifically excluded from C-1 zoning. If Mr.�Povlitzke
. ever wanted to sell this property, the fact that this was in the wrong zoning, would
reduce the value of the property, and this would be a hardship on his client. He
' thought it was absolutely imperative that this property be rezoned. He said they had
also made application to the Board of Appeals, whether that would make any difference�
. at this time. He said that what he was requesting at this time was �hat the rezoning
�request be approved, so Mr. Povlitzke can go on with his requirements, and continue
improving the premises, and continue his application for a liquor license. He was
sure that the petitioner would agree to any requirements necessary to get this rezon-
ing approved. He said that before he went any further, he would like to ask if there
was any one in the audience who objected to this property being rezoned. There was
no response. He said that everyone in the area had been notified of this request,
and no one was present to protest this zoning change. He said the only thing that
was really being changed were the record books.
Mr. Harris said the Planning Commission had received a letter from Chester L.
Cole of 1382 Onondaga Street and he woul� let Mr. Haggerty read the letter before
the Planning Commission received it.
MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the letter from Chester L. Co1e,
� 2382 Onondaga 5treet N.E. be read into the minutes. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting
aye, Chairman Harris read the letter.
Mr. Harris said this letter was written to the Planning Commission to the
attention of Mr. Clark. The letter was as follows: With regard to the April 9
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 6
8:00 P.M. meeting of the Planning Commission to consider Wyman Smith's request
��,,.1 for Richard Povlitzke and the Fridley Frontier Club, Inc., to rezone from C-1
to C-2, we are definitely not in favor of your making this change. Also, we would
request no parking signs on our street - not resident parking only. We have difficulty
backing into the street when the patrons to the above club park on our street. Also,
the verbal exchanges frequently heard in the early hours (both summer and winter)
would be less annoying if parking was not on a residential street. Doe�sn't Fridley's
code include adequate parking regulations for each business to off-street parking
must be provided: Thank you for giving consideration to our opinion and desire,
Sincerely yours, Mr. & Mrs. Chester L. Co.le.
Mr. Haggerty said that it seemed that his only objection was the parking on the
. street itself. �He said that if that was a problem, and he had discussed this with
his c1ient, they could provide additional parking by purchasing property across the
street for this purpose. He said that this was the first time they had been made
aware of this particular problem, and they would be willing to sit down with the
�Planning Commission and solve this problem in any way the Planning Commissi�n saw fit.
He said they would try to accommodate Mr. Cole in any way they could.�
Mr. Clark said the reason there was a sliver of C-1 property east of the Frontier
Club was because this area was zoned before it was platted. It was platted about
10 years ago by Mr. Carlson into Walnut Addition and the lot lines did not follow
the zoning lines.
Mr. Clark said there was reference made that Mr. Povlitzke would have a problem
selling this property when it was a legal non-conforming use. If he sold it to
� someone to be used just �he same as it was being used now, it could continue as it
was, or it could be used for a lesser use.
Mr. Haggerty said that Mr. Povlitzke had invested over $100,000 in this property
over a period of years with the intent that someday he would have a full liquor license.
He has developed a business, a clientele, and he has said that he �ants to improve the
business by putting in larger tables, improve the exterior and the parking area. He
said he thought this would be�an improvement �hat would affeCt the entire area. bJith
his investment, there was the fact that after this area was zoned C-1, the City of
Fridley had an on-sale liquor establishment at this location.. He granted that it was
some time since the City had used it for this purpose, but it has always been used
at lea�st as a 3.2 liquor establishment. He thought that at this late date, Mr. PovlitzkE
should be given consideration for the investment he had made, for the good will he has
established, and for the general improvement to the area if this rezoni�g was allowed.
Mr. Lindblad said that with all the information that had been presented, along
with the fact that with so many people being notified of this request, and there was
no one here in opposition to this request, he was in favor of recommending approvaa
of this request for rezoning.
Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark that if the rezoning was granted, would there be any
additional setback requirements or any variances needed. Mr. Clark said the setback
requirements were the same in C-1 and C-2, so a zoning change would not affect these
requirements. �
Mr. Drigans said that as he understands this request, the petitioner was asking
� for this rezoning because it was discovered that this was a legal non-conforming use,
yet his ultimate goal was to establish a res�aurant type of establishment, which was
not consistant with the present zoning. Mr. Haggerty"said this could be phrased in
a number of ways, but now that it had been brou�ht to the attention of the City that
this business was a legal non-conforming use, it had caused problems for his client.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 7 _
� He said that when Mr. Povlitzke called the City and asked if he could put in pool
tables, and they indicated that we could not do this, it made us anticipate a lot
of problems. In order to avoid these problems, in order to prevent Mr. Povlitzke
from having to call the City every time he wants to make•some change in his operation,
because of the present zoning, this property should be rezoned. He said the only
changes that would come from this rezoning would be that the building would be improved.
We are only requesting that the zoning conform to the use this building has had for
� over 20 years.
Mr. Drigans said pool tables would not be in violation of this zoning, only
billiards and pool halls are excluded from this zoning. Mr. Haggerty said he agreed,
' but what he was discussing were the technical interpretations that brought up difficul-
ties for Mr. Povlitzke. He said he was not saying the Mr. Povlitzke would have
problems, or that legally he should have, but this was a possibility, and in order to
�avoid thi�s problem, as well as future problems, he felt this area should be rezoned.
Mr. Drigans said that what the Planning Commission had to consider was if it
was prudent community planning to locate a restaurant establishment adjacent to a
residential area. �n establishment that could have a noon day luncheon that could
feature lingerie shows, for instance, the problem of parking for a supper club type
. of establishment in a residential area. He said that the case Mr. Haggerty had
stated was that this business had always been there and that i� had always been a
liquor establishment. Mr. Drigans said he felt this had been a neighborhood establish-
ment as opposed to a more open restaurant establishment. This was the difference that
he could see. Mr. Povlizke said he had some of the best entertainment in the Twin
/'1 City area, and had a$7,000 band for a night, and he didn't think �his could be
considered a neighborhood establishment.
Mr. Povlitzke said he bought this property as a bar, and it was a liquor
es�ablishment before, so who made the error. He asked if he made the error or did
the City make the error. �
Mr. Haggerty said he thought there was just unawareness�on the subject of the
proper zoning. He said tha� Mr. Drigans had stated that this was bordering a
residential area, and if you look at the zoning map, the facts, if you want to
get technical about it was that this property was completely surrounded by a
commercial and industrial area, except for the property to the east. He said he
knew that in other areas of Fridley there were restaurant areas that border residential
areas. He said a case in point would be Mr. Steak and the other food establishments
in that same area that border on residential property. He didn't think the change
Mr. Drigans was envisioning was going to be that much of a change. As far as the
number of people who would be frequenting this operation, Mr. Povlizke has already
mentioned that he wanted to have larger tables, and he wanted to bring in pool tables
or other means of entertainment. This would reduce the number of people who would
be coming into this establishment. If the Planning Commission was worried about the
traffic and parking problem, he said they were willing•to negotiate or attempt to
purchase more property in the general vicinity. He said he appreciated the concerns
th'e� Planni.ng, Gommi'ssion� might have, but he didn't think there should be so much
concern that it should prevent them from recommending approval of this request for
rezoning. �
`� Mr. Drigans said he had another concern with this type of establishment being
next to a residential area, and that was the police problem. He wondered what type,of
problem we have with this establisl�ment, not that we didn't have problems with all
such establishments, and he would like to know the history of this operation.
�
P1anning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page $
Mr. Haggerty said it was the same as any establishment of �his type. There
�.y, were a number of times that the police have had to be called in when some one was
disorderly or had become intoxicated. He said his client had been instructed that
any time there was any problem that he should call the police. This was what he
had done, and the police have come. He said that he had called the police as a
sort of protective policing, in that they are called before a situation got out of
control. He said he thought the police had done a fine job for the Frontier Club and
he felt that any such establishment would have a record of calling the police, at
least a few times.
Mr. Povlitzke said he felt that Sandee's was in a more residential area than
the Frontier Club, and they have a liquor license.
Mr. Haggerty said that Mr. Povlizke wants to improve his establishment. He wants
to make it more enjoyable for his patrons, improve the exterior, improve the parking
area, and Mr. Clark has mentioned that they want a green area with landscaping. He
said they wanted to work with the City to improve the area.
Mr. Povlitzke said that in an establishment such as his where you sell set-ups,
you do not have much control. Some one can �buy a bottle of beer and drink a quart
of liquor with it, which was uncontrollable. He said you would have much more cor��rol
when you sell the liquor. He said there was quite a difference in the clientele of
a beer establishment and a liquor establishment.
Mr. Langenfeld said that in the Council minutes of January 13, 1975, Mr. Pavlitzke
was askedwhat he felt the amount of the investmant would be and Mr. Povlizke had
�,� answered that it would be about $50,000. He was then asked if when this was done,
would this end up to be a night club, and Mr. Povlizke had answered yes, it would be
like the Shorewood Lounge. Mr. Langenfeld said that in regard to that statement,
if Mr. Pavlitzke was going to�have food, dancing, entertainment, pool tables, etc.,
it was hard to visualize that there would be that much area to have all these things.
He would like to have Mr. Haggerty give input on that basis. Mr. Haggerty said he
would a�k his client to elaborat� more on what he was proposing. Mr. Povlizki said he
used Shorewood Lounge as an example oi where they have food,• entertainment and liquor.
He said he didn't mean he was going to have individual rooms like Shorewood had. IL
could be all in one room. Darrel Clark said that what he thought Mr. Langenfeld was
asking was what type of improvement they i:ntended to make on the interior of the
� build7ng. Mr. Povlizke said there wouldn't be too many, most of it was in the
contents. Mr. Clark said the City had received a floor plan showing the improvements
Mr. Povlitzke would want to make. It showed that about 7,200 square feet of the `
building would be used for the Frontier Club. Mr. Clark said a question he would
have would be how much of the structure would be left if this floor pl•an was followed.
Mr. Povlitzke said he thought it would be about 1,000 square fieet.
_ Mr. Harris asked Mr. Haggerty if he thought an error had been make in the zoning
of this property in the first place. Mr. Haggerty said the zoning ordinance has
changed over the years, and he didn't know how much they had changed since 1956. Mr.
Clark had a copy of the original zoning ordinance of 1956 and said it was basically
the same as the present zoning code, as far as what was allowed in the zoning districts.
.Mr. Haggerty said it seemed paradoxical that the City zoned this property C-1 which
excludes taverns and bars serving intoxicating liquors, and�then used this property
for that use themselves. He said he would have thought the City would have zoned
�"� this C-2, but as Mr. Clark had pointed out, this property hadn't been platted at the
time of the zoning, so it would be easy to make a mistake. He said he didn't know
why this was zoned this way, and he couldn't make an-opinion on whether this was a
mistake.
Planning Commission Meetinq - April 9, 1975 Page 9
� Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Haggerty then felt that this zoning shouldn't apply to
this property. Mr. Haggerty said he could see what reasoning Mr. Harris was following,
and they were going to appear before the Board of Appeals on this question, but he
did feel that if this area was rezoned, Mr. Pavlitzke could conform to that zoning.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Haggerty what additional burden this would put on the
surrounding neighborhood if the Planning Commission recommended that this rezoning
request be approved. Mr. Haggerty said that from his investigation of the situa�ion9
that there would not be that much of'an additional�burden, if any. He asked Mr.
Povlitzk� how many people he could accommodate now on an average Frid�ay night. Mr.
Povlitzke an:.wered about 400. Mr. Haggerty asked Mr. Povlitzki how many people he
could accommodate after he had made his improvements. Mr. Povlitzke said that it
would be about 270 people. Mr. Haggerty said that when we were talking about a
reduction of people, we were taking about a reduction of 130 people. He said the
first thing this would do would be to alleviate the traffic problem that Mr. Cole
had complained about. This change would include the upgrading of the exterior of
the building and allow them to provide landscaping. This would upgrade the property
and would certainly not be a burden on the surrounding area; in fact, it would be a
big improvement. They were also willing to obtain additional property for parking.
Mr. Langenfeld said that from the discussion, he had gotten a pretty good idea
� of the overall improvements to this property Mr. Povli�zke wa� intending to make. He
asked i f. ��1r. P.ovl i�czKe i ntended to serve food at the tabl es he was i ntendi ng to put
in his establishment. Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't want to get into �..discussion
of a restaurant, he just wanted to assemble the information for use in determining
whether or not the zoning should be approved. Mr. Haggerty said there would be food
'� served at these tables.
Mr. Drigans asked if the petitioner was denied the rezoning, and eventua1ly
denied the liquor license, could he legally continue to operate his present establish-
ment: Mr. Clark said he could as a legal non-confarming use.
Mr. Clark said he would take a different example. If there had been a service
station here in 1956, and it looked to th� nlanners at that time like that property
should be zoned R-1, because it looked likt it was going to be a single family district,
even if the surrounding area was all vacant at the time, as a lot of Fridley was in
1956,' that service station could continue to operate as long as it remained a service
station. It could change ownership numerous times and still remain a service station.
Mr. Drigans said the Zoning Administrator had indicated, and he wanted to read
this....."the intent of the zoning ordinance is to allow non-conforming uses to
continue for a reasonable period of time so as not to invoke a hardship on the
owner of an existing non-conforming use at the time of the zoning restriction was.
enacted. However, it is also the objective of zoning ordinances to eliminate non-
conforming uses within a reasonable time.".......Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if what
he had been saying was that there was no reasonable time established? Wasn't 14 years
or whatever it was, a reasonable time?
Mr. Clark said he wasn't the Zoning Administrator, but he could venture a guess
as to why he stated those things. If it were a service station in an island of an
R-1 District, it may just die for lack of business. If it closed as a service station,
and remained closed for more than one year, it could not be opened again as a service
station, or if it was destroyed by more than 50% by a fire orsome other "act of God",
such as a tornado or wind storm, etc., it could not be rebuilt as a service station.
The same thing would apply to the Frontier Club. Anything that was destroyed by more
J
, ��
�
��
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Page 10
than 50% of its value cannot be rebuilt if it was a non-conforming use. There was
no specific time in years or months that a legal non-conforming use can exist.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to get back to the basics of this request,
and it was his understanding that bars, taverns, restaurants, etc., are ��hr�i.��Ced
uses in a C-2 District. His question to Darrel Clark was just where woud this
establishment fall in these categories? Mr. Clark�said it would be more than one
category, it would be a combination.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark how this fit into our Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Clark `
said this section of the City he would presume, had been looked at and studied, but
it was not one of the project areas, as such, like Fridley Park and some other areas,
where it was generally felt could be zoned somewhat different in the ComprehensTVe Plan.
This area wasn't designated for change at all. He could honestly say that the zoning
ori this particular piece of property had been looked at all.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Haggerty if he would like to sum up his reasons on
why this property should be rezoned. Mr. Hagg.:rty said the primary reason was the
leng�h of time this property had been used as one of the uses that was excluded
from C-1 zoning, t��e investment that Mr. Povlitzke had put into the premises, the
misconception that the City of Fridley, the Zoning Administrator, the Police, and
everyone has had as to what zoning this particular piece of property.had. He didn't
think Mr. Povlitzke should be penalized at this late date. He also though we should
look back to the time when this particular piece of property was originally zoned in
1956 when the City of Fridley was operating an on and off sale liquar establishment.
He also felt that this request shouldn't be denied when nobody has made any complaints
on this request at this meeting with the exception of the letter from Mr. Cole, and
he thought that problem could be alleviated, because we will reduce the number of
patrons that we can handle at one time. If we get the rezoni�ng and are able to get
a liquor license, we are going to reduc e the maximum number of patrons from 400 to
270. We would upgrade the interior, upgrade the exterior, we would upgrade the
landscaping, and if need b e, we would obtain more property for parking, so as to
alleviate that problem. He said he had summarized quickly, and there may be other
reasons, but just on these reasons alone he thought they should be allowed to go
ahead with their plans and the only �way that could be �coomplished was for the Planning
Commission ta.-recommend approval of the rezoning request.
Mr. Langenfeld said he appreciated the feelings of the adjacent neighbors, and
also the feelings of Mr. Povlitzke, but he felt a final decision should be made
on updating the zoning. His personal opinion was that �his property should to rezoned
to C-2. �
Mr. Drigans said that this matter had been before the Council for many months,
but this was new �� the Planning Commission. He said his concern was for prudent
zoning of an establishment that was this close to residential property. This would
not be a neighborhood beer joint, where fellows run down the block and have a beer,
but this was going to be a much bigger enterprise, and he had some reservations at this
time that he would like to contemplate on, and he was not ready to act at this time.
Mr. Langenfeld said that on the basis of Mr. Haggerty's statement, it would seem
to him that other than the actual physical changes and maybe the addition to the
contents, the general nature of the business was not going to change from what it was
already, and thereby it just wasn't going to be different, and as Mr. Haggerty said,
the actual amount of people coming to this establishment would be less. What it was
right now, and what it will be, as far as the nature of the oper,atio►�,other than
perhaps the serving of liquor, will be the same, and this can continue to exist as it
Planning Commission Meeting - Apri1 9, 1975. Page 11
was, anyway.
^ Mr. Lindblad said that any change would be for the better in his opinion,
because of less traffic and the improvement of the building.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark to show the plot plan again. He asked how many
parking stalls were provided on this plan? Mr. Clark said he knew they had been
counted, and not by him, and he would have to count them physically now, but when
they were counted before this went to the City Council, it was determined �that if�
the City Council were to issue a liquor license, they would have to reduce the number
of seats on what they were proposing on this plan by 10, 15, or 20. The parking ratio
was 1 parking stall.for each 3 seats in a place th�.t has a liquor license, and for
Mr. Povlitzke to meet that requiremen�, he would have to acquire more land for
parking or reduce his proposed seating capacity.
Mr. Harris asked if the red line on the plot plan was the property line? Mr.
Clark said it wa° the property line, and except for the front of the building, it
meant an existing fence. Mr. Povlitzke said this was a 6 foot redwood fence, and
some boards were going to be replaced and it would be repainted. Mr.. Harris asked
if this was an adequate buffer between this operation and the R-1 as far as the
planting strip, etc. h1r. Clark said the code calls for a 20 foot planting strip
and this appears to be 20 feet. Mr. Lindblad said the sliver of land adjacent to
the east of this property was zoned C-1. Mr. Harris said there was a house built
. on this prpperty. Mr. Clark said he thought about 1/3 of tF�is lot was zoned C-1.
Mr. Harris said the property south of the Frontier Club was zoned commercial also.
Mr. Clark said it was, but there was a house on this property tha� was occupied.
� Mr. Harris asked if the exterior plan would go to Building Standards �Gor review?
_ Mr. Clark said it would.
Mr. Drigans said that Mr. Langenfeld ha� broughi up the point of the difference
in the type of business that was going on at this establishment, and as Chairman
of the Board of Appeals, he was faced with the other half of this queStion, and
that was the non-conforming use. He said the other gentlemen on the Planning
Commission had not received the letter by the Zoning Administrator, but he had
addressed the problem of non-conforming use which Mr. Langenfeld had alluded to,
because it does have bearing on what Mr. Langenfeld has said. He said this was ,
directed to Mr. Wyman Smith in reference to the Frontier Club. Mr. Drigans read
as follows: Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Fridley is in receipt of your memorandum
of March 19, 1975 directed to the Zoning Administrator. It has been determined by
the City Attorney that the Pulbic Works Director is the Zoning Administrator; therefore,
the request for a determination that a non-conforming use exists "as a tavern, beer
garden or bar serving alcoholic beverages on the premises; of the referenced
property has been referred to me.
' After a substantial review of the City of Fridley Zoning Code and other related
chapters of the City Code, together with review of pertinent state laws, the request
, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Povlitzki for a finding that they are entitled to a liquor
license on C-1 property through an existing non-conforming use is denied. The reasons
for denial are as follows: 1. That the'manner of operation of a non-conforming
use would be substantially changed by permitting the conversion of a 3.2, and set-
up operation to an operation having an on-sale liquor license. That while both
3.2 beer and hard liquor are classified as alcoffiolic beverages, the former is
'� classified as a non-intoxicating beverage and the latter as an intoxicating beverage,
and that both the municipality and the legislature have.made substantial distinctions
between the sale of the two commodities. 2. That the requested application for an
on-sale liquor license contemplates an increase in the size of the non-conforming
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 12
use. While it is true tha� the exterior of the building would not be enlarged, it
� is likewise true that a larger porportion of the building would be used for the non-
conforming use, and �hat conversely, a smaller portion of the building would be used
for conforming uses. 3. That the granting of an oa�sa�� liquor license would cause
a perpetuation of a non-conforming use. The in�ent of the zoning ordinance is to
allow non-conforming uses to continue for a reasonable period of time so as not to
invoke a hardship on the owner of an existing non-conforming use at the time the
zoning restriction was enacted. However, it is also the objective of zoning ordinances
to eliminate non-conforming uses within a reasonable time. A granting of an on-sale
license to this applicant would not be consistent with that objective. 4. That
- granting of an on-sale license would produce a greater burden on the neighborhood.
The applicant in re�uesting the on-sale license indicated that one of the reasons
for the request was that with such a Ticense, he would be able to attract more business
to the location, If this is correct, it would produce a grea�er burden on the
' neighborhood that is existing under the present non-conforming use.
As fur�her ��equested by the memorandum the above decision will be submitted
to the Board of Nppeals as provided by Section 205.082 of the Fridley City Code.
The matter will be considered by the Board of Appeals at their regularly scheduled
meeting of April 15, 1975. .
I would like to emphasize that the zoning problem is not a part of an evasive
tactic to deny and delay an issuance of a liquor license. It is a real problem
that exists and should be corrected through procedures provided in the City C�de."
Mr. Drigans said his point was that although the Board of Appeals must consider
� the decision by the Zoning Administrator, he does state that ii is his opinion that
to go from a 3.2 beer operation to a restaurant type of operation was a substantial
� increase in the opera�ion. Mr. Povlitzke has increased the non-conforming use by
degrees, and �hat was what the petitioner was continuing �o attempt ta do. Mr.
Drigans said this business wa� started as a 3.2 beer establishment and now he plans
to go to a full scale restaurant type of operation, and there will be a substantial
difference in the operation, and Mr. Drigans said there laid his dilemma.
Mr. Haggerty said that he could come back wi�h a lot of counters on these points,
tha� could go on for a half hour, legal opinions to legal decisions, but he thought
this would be brought up at the Board of Appeals meeting o� the 15th:�.': Mr. Clark said
that by rights this was when it should have been brought up.
Mr. Haggerty said they recognized that there was a zoning problem, and he agreed
with the Public Works Director that there was a problem. He said that what we were
trying to say was that wh�n this property was zoned 18 years ago, the City had an on
and off sale liquor operation at this location. Since Mr. Povlitzk� obtained this
operation, he has developed it, he has invested money into it, granted that he has
extended the use of that proper.ty as an allened non-conforming use, but he has improved
it while he has been doing it. It wouldseem to Mr. Haggerty that this was a very
. late stage to all of a sudden say, hold it, you can't go any further. He said that
we can see that Mr. Povlitzke was attempting in good faith to improve the premises,
and he thought the best remedy, as the Public Works Director. mentioned, was that it
should be corrected through.the procedures provided in the City Code. He said that
was exactly what they were doing with this rezoning request. We are trying to correct
�..� a problem that had apparently gone unnoticed for 18 years and he was asking the
Planning Commission to grant this request.
Mr. Drigans said his dilemma was not that the petitioner was going to be granted
:��
/'�•
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 13
a liquor license, that was a Council matter, but his dilemma was that if we rezone
we could have a restaurant establishment next to a residential area.
Mr. Haggerty said you have that situation all over the City of Fridley. He
said that in this particular situation it was not really oriented as a residential
area. Because of the platting and with the small sliver of commercial proper�y
east of the Frontier Club, this property does not technica.l7y adjoin any R-1 property.
In reality there was residential property, but only on the east side of this establish-
ment. The individuals who live right next door to the Frontier Club, the house
to the south which was on commercial property, and the �First house to the east in
a residential area, have made no objection to this rezoning request. If ar�ybody was
going to make any objections, in order to have a valid argument, it should have
• been one of these two individuals. They are not�at this meeting, and certainly if
they had wanted to make objections, this would have been the place to do it. He
said tha� all they were attempting to do now that the problem had been made known
ta them, was to go through the proper legal procedures to have the problem corrected.
�He said this was the best way to correct it. I,t should improve the area,�and it
would actually in fac� lessen the burden on the area because of the lower t.�affic
load, and hopefully it may even improve ihe class of clientelewho go to the,Frontier
Club. � . �
Chairman Harris said that he personally didn't feel. he was ready to reach a
decision on this request at this meeting. He said he would like to,study this for
a week because they had taken in a lot of material and he would like the opportunity
to digest it.
^ Mr. Haggerty said the plans have been shown, and this had been discussed very
thoroughly at this meeting. He said he would still request that a motion be made
� anti voted upon, so we could have some determination as to where we were heading.
However, i-F the Planning Commission really wanted to examine this request further
and you w�nt to continue this to your next meeting, he would have no objection to
that. He said he would appreciate if at a11 possible to have a vote on this request
at this meeting.
Mr. Langenfeld said he wasn't trying to rush a decision, but he would like
everyone to be aware of the fact that Mr. Povlizke had been waiting for the City
to make up its mind one way or�.�the other since last November.
Mr. Drigans said Mr. Povlitzke had beeri waiting for a liquor license, not
rezoning. .
Mr. Harris told Mr. Langenfeld that the material the Planning Commission had
received at this meeting was material they hadn't seen before. He said there had
been a lot of argument for this rezoning, very well pu� forward by Mr. Haggerty,
and we would like to examine his reasoning. He thought it behooved the Planning
Commission, in any case, whether they ultimately voted for approval or denial, to
have sound reasons for their actions. ,
Mr. Lindblad said he would just as soon have this settled this evening, but
as it stands he didn't think they could come to an agreement, so he would have to
go along with the continuation. '
'� MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission continue
the Public Hearing on the reaoning r�quest, ZOA #75-02, by Wyman Smith, Attorney for
Richard Povlitzke and the Frid7ey Frontier C1ub, to rezone from C-1 (1oca1 business
areas) to C-2 (general business areas), Lot 1, B1ock 1, Walnut Addition, to bring the
�
Planning Commission Meetin April 9, 1975 _ Page 14
existing use of the property into a uses permitted category of the City Zoning
� Code, the same being 7365 Central Avenue N.E. until April 23, 1975. Upon a voice
vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�'1
�
Chairman
to delay him,
time to digest
Harris told Mr. Povlitzke that the Planning Commission was not trying
but they had gotten a lot of material at this meeting and they wanted
it so they could do a good job.
2, PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-02, BY �YMAN SMITH,
ATTORNEY FOR W. R. STEPHENS, JR.: To permit the sale of new and used cars, per
Frid1ey City Code, Section 205.101, (3, B) and (3, G) in a C-2S zone (general
shopping areas), to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition,.
the same being 7701 East River Road.
Mr. Mark Haggerty, replacing Wyman Smi�h who was ill, W. R. Stephens,
and Roland Benjamin, proposed manager of the new and used car lot were present.
MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, t'�t the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-02, by Wyman
Smiih, Attorney for W. R. Stephens, Jr. Upon a voice vote; aIl voting aye, Chairman
Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:43 P.M.
Mr. Clark showed a map of this area and explained tha� this property and the
lot directly north of this property were both zoned C-2S. He said that north of
thes� two lots were the Meadow Run Apartments. East of the property that was presently
occupied by A-1 Motor Sports was an industrial factory, Barry Blower. The south
side of 77th Way was zoned general multiple family dwellings and were occupied by
4-plexes. Across East River Road from Criag Way to 79th, there was a two lot depih
�of R-2, . double bungalows, although noic occupied by 2 family dwellings from
Craig Way to_Pearson's Way. The balance of the property to the west of East River
'Road was zoned R-1 (single family dwellings).
Mr. Clark said the reason the pe�itioner has requested a Special Use Permiic was
because in the zoning code under C-2S District, this was a permitted use only after
having secured a Special Use Permit. In particular what the petitioner wants to
do was to operate a new car agency with the opportunity to se11 used cars as well.
�h� proposed auto dealership will be a Datsun dealership. Mr. Stephens presently
operates the same type of dealership in the southern part of the metropolitan area.
Mr. Clark said he had a drawing of the subject 1ot, showing the location of
the bu�lding and some of the improvements they wished to make to the exterior of the
building and the surroun�+ing property. He said that basically the structure would
not change in size. The �ront'part of the bui�lding with the windows would still be
used as a show room area. The.back part of the building wo�ild be used for offices
and a mechanical area where cars would be brought in for servicing. There will be�
an additional display along East River Road. They are planning to put in additional
landscaping and green a�eas along East River Road and 77th Way.
Mr. Mark Haggerty said that Win Stephens had a Datsun facility south, and they
wanted to have a facility in the northern suburbs. He presented a colored rendering
of how they proposed the new facility would appear and also a photograph of Datsun
South, showing how that facility looked at the present time. He said the photograph
showed how the new site would look after it was landscaped.� He said the landscaping
along East River Road and 77th Way would be done by professional landscapers. He
said the building would be improved and we will meet all the requirements of the fire
codes and building standards.
. • . ..
Planning Commission Meetinq - April 9, 1975 � Page 15 •
Mr. Haggerty said that there was one thing he would like to point out in
regard to the Specia1 Use Permit. �e said this property was zoned properly for
� this type of establishment. The reason for the Special Use Permit was so that the
Planning Commission,,the City Fathers, and the people in the surrounding area had
an opportunity to have some input on how the proper use of this property would be
established. He said the point he was making was that there were a number of other
uses that this property could have, either with a Special Use Permit or under C-2S
zoning. He said that just under the C-2S zoning the permitted uses were; drug stores,
hardware stores, department stores, bakeries, bars, taverns, household equipment
repair shops, florist shops, commercial recreation, restaurants, excluding "drive-ins",
hoiels, motels, theaters, lodges, assembly halls, auditoriums, hospitals, clinics,
nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for the elderly, offices, including business
and professional, vocational trade schools, laboratories, medical, dental and optical, _.
and harmless and inoffensive laboratories assessory �o permitted uses, in the same
building, other retail or wholesales or service uses which are similar in character
. to those enumerated above, will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons
� residing or working in the vicinity thereof; or to the public welfare, and will not
impair the use, enjoyment or value of any property, but not includingany uses excluded
hereinafter. Mr. Haggerty said these were all permitted uses that did not require a
Special Use Permit.
�
Mr. Haggerty said that businesses that required a Special Use Permit in C-2S
zoning were bus and taxi terminals, and Section 205.101, 3, 6, was automobile
agencies selling or displaying new, unused vehicles, and as they would have used cars
to sell also, this was 3, G, under the same section of the code. He said this establish
ment would primarily be a new car dealership. It would be a Datsun dealership, which
was a very fine car, if he could make an advertisement here. With a new car dealership,
you have to take cars in on trade. This was why they had to have a Special Use for
used cars also. He said it was not going to be the type of establishment where they
would try to push used cars like an "A-1 Used.Car" or anything like that. He said
he was talking about a first rate new car dealership.
Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Clark if this Special Use was granted, would this request
be going to Building Standards? Mr. Clark said whether it was continued,,approved or
denied, it was on the Building Standards agenda for April lOth.
Mary Martin, 133 Stoneybrook Way, said she objected to the Special Use Permit
being granted and because this use needed a Special Use Permit, she didn't see �
how Mr. Haggerty could say this was the proper.zoning. She said the area from
Mississippi to the northern ring of Fridley, despite the fact what it was zoned and
because of special variances to the code in the past, had no commercial use whatsoever.
From Mississippi all the way North was one big neighborhood story. East River Road
has become a residential area. If you allow this business to come into this area,
it will bring more traffic, and as you know, East River Road causes more accidents
than any other street in Fridley. This would endanger our children. Mrs. Martin
said that over 'the years there have been other businesses at this location and she
had listened to music by Muzak, and the sound of little motors. Even when they
try to control the noise, it cannot be controlled. If we now get used cars, we will
have a lighted lot and pennants flying which were not aesthetically beautiful. She
thought this use was thoroughly objectional in a residential area. Mrs. Martin asked
the people in the audience who objected to this request to stand up. About 25 people
stood up.
�""� Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clar.k if this wasn't the proper zoning for this use? Mr.
Clark said Mr. Haggerty had stated it correctly. This was the proper zaning, but
our Code says this type of business needs a Special Use�Permit. There was no zone
�
Planning Commission Meeting �.Apri1 9, 1975 � Page 16
in the Ci�y of Fridley that would allow the sale of new and used cars without a
n Special Use Permit.
� Elaine Hartman, 119 Craig Way N.E. said she didn't think there was enough
parking provided on this property, and there would be parking on East River RQad.�
She thought this proposal would add to the traffi.c problem, and to add to this
problem the City of Fridley would probably end up putting a semaphore at 77th Way.
Mr. Clark said it would be the County's decision on where the semaphore��a��
located on East River Road as this was a County road. He said there had been a
study made some time ago, and although no determinations have been made, if there
were any additional semaphores added they would be at 79th and 81st.
Paul Burkholder, 7860 Alden Way, said he owned the 4-plexes across the street
on 77th Way and also the vacant corner lot. He said that in talking to Darrel Clark
about another small apartment building on this vacant lot, and-he was told that he
�would no� be allowed to have access to East River Road for this apartment proposal
because of the traffic problem on East River Road, and they would have to u�e 77th
Way �or their access. He said the plot plan for the Special Use shows their driveway
coming right out on East River Road. He said that exclusive of that, he thought this
� proposal was so inconsistant with East River Road and would have such a debilitating
effect on real esta�e values. He said this was one of the choicest areas of Fridley,
� and �hen they want to put a used car lot in this area. He said the City had in fact
denied an oil station from going into this area at 79�h and East River Road and that
lot had more spare footage than this property. He said that Fridley had gone to a great
deal of expense to put in an industrial park, and typically these things go in along
�^� major highways. They are not across the street from residential areas. He said he
objeets to this proposal now, and would con�inue to object all the way to the City
Council. -
Mr. Dennis Batzer, 170 Craig Way, said the traffic on East River Road was much
too heavy, as every one knew. She said this residen�ial area was rated number two
on the tax rolls because they were supposed to be an exclusive neighborhood, and we
paid for �hat. With a ��sed car lot, our streets will be a t�y-out field, a drag
strip.;She said that last summer we had motor cycles running circles on our streets,
and we don't want any more of that. She said it was only reasonable that people would
want to try out a car before they made a purchase.
Jan Seeger, 324 Ironton Street, said she had gone down Ironton and Hugo Stree�s
and talked to people just to see what their feelings were about this request. She
said they didn't want their streets used for testing grounds and felt the traffic
was too heavy now. �
Mr. C. M. Kam, 120 Talmadge Way N.E., said he had lived at that address since.
, 1955 and had watched the area develop. He said they have had many problems with
people applying for rezoning for apartments, businesses, for everything. He thought
that in 1957 or 1958, the City designated that the only.place you could have industrial
was a narrow band along the railroad tracks. He said University Avenue was the great
white way where they used restaurants and used car lots as a buffer zone between the
highway and the residential area. He said we don't do that any more. He said Central
Avenue had become an industrial area and Viking Chevrolet was located there, and he
� thought this was where this proposal belonged. This would not be disturbing a residen-
tial area over there. He said he objected totally to having this business in his
�rea. .
Mr. John Dumphy, 155 Stoneybrook Way, said he had lived in Fridley for 20 years
and in this area for 12 years. He said he would be looking into the lion's mouth of
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 PAGE 17
of this operation. He said that in the winter time when the windows were closed,
^ it wouldn't be too bad, but when warm weather comes, the presence of ihese types
or operations were apparent in the extreme. He said this type of building should
� never have been put in in the first place. This was a residential street and it
shouldn't be turned into a commercial street. He continued that it was very
difficult for a commercial enterprise to make it on this street. He said there
had been a service station up the street for 15 years. He understood this was
abandoned now and was an eyesore io the community. There had been a pool center and
a snowmobile and moiorcycle business at this location and they both failed. Mr.
Dumphy said they didn't want a used car lot at this location. He felt this would
lower the property values in the residential area.
Mary Martin said it was her understanding that when Viking Chevrolet was
established, they were required to have a driveway into a service drive and also
a driveway into a side street. She would like to have the Planning Commission check
to see if this was a requirement for car sales. Mr. Clark said this wasn't a City
�requiremeht. It may have been a requirement o� General Motors. He continued that
as far as this property was concerned, there obviously wasn't a serviee dri•�. At �he
time this property was platted in 1968, there was discussion that there be only
one access to East River Road for the two lots zoned C-2S.
Lillian Meyer, 7868 Alden Way N.E., wondered if there had beer� a traffic study
done in having access to East River Road from this p.roperty because it was her
recollection that when the apartments were built further north, that they were denied
access to East River Road.
;� Mr. Clark said as he had mentioned before, when this property was platted,
Plats & Subdivisions Subcommittee, the Planning Commission and the City Council all
- d�eided that there could be one common access for this lot and the lot north of i�.
The County couldn't deny one access from property to East River Road without com-
pensation. The double bungalows on the west side of East River Road have common a
driveway which makes one access from each two properties. H� said the plan for this
property had just C��e in, but he would think when this was studied by the staff
and vario.uscommittees, the access would be moved further north because of the require�
ment of having a common driveway ior both lots. �
�
Mary Martin asked if all the property from 77th to 79th had all been zoned
C-2S a.t one time. Mr. Clark said it was all the same zoning prior to the building
or the Meadow Run Apartments when the property north�of the Creek was zoned R-3.
They were allowed to have one access off East River Road for this apartment complex,
which they now have. Consequently, this area was platted south of the Creek, and
they were allowed one access.
Charles Seegar,�324 Ironton, thought the question was if any commercial area .
should be.allowed along East River Road.
Ed Jonak, 133 Craig Way, said everyone has talked about the noise, but he was
concerned about the lights from this operation shining on the homes across the street.
. Bub Dueholm, 290 Craigbrook Way N.E. said he would like to have the parking layout
explained to him. Mr. Roland Benjamin, proposed manager of the new and used car
dealership explained where they would have the 50 new car inventory, the 40 used car
inventory, and customer and employee parking.
Mr. Burkholder said that it looked like the entire area would be blacktopped and
where would all the water drain?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Page 18
Mr. Win Stephens said he would like to make a few remarks. He said he appreciated
the concern voiced by the audience about a new and used car lot:because there were
� some'�hings he didn't like about them either. He said he ran three operations, and
they had tried to upgrade these operations, and tried to maintain t�em in a very high
class,a very good looking manner. He said that merchandising of cars has changed,
along with everything else. He said we have shown a picture of an operation we
are running now. We have also made the same agreement with St. Louis Park, where
we ran into the same problems and objections we have run into at this meeting. As
far as the parking was concerned, we are open minded. The building was there. We
feel we ca�i improve the building and facilities tremendously from what they are now,
and this wasn't meant to be a criticism.. We will have to spend a lot of money to
do it right. We also feel we have a project that we aren't concerned about getting
on an 'automobile row', so to speak. It was a very fine economical product. He said
- they were open minded about all the exterior deVelopment. In fact, he would like
grass all the way down to East River Road. He continued, that as Mr. Benjamin had
stated, we need room for a new car inventory of 50 cars, and a 40 car used car inventory
He said �hey were not in the used car 'junk' car business. It was not ec.onomically
sound for �hem to put a lo� of cheap used cars on a high priced facili�y, s� consequentl�
they only retail late model used cars, and we immediately rotate out old ca��s to other
areas and�other dealers. He repeated that they were open minded about the exterior
development o� this property.
Mr. Stephens said that they did not use pennants, because in the first place
� they aren't allowed under most City cQdes, and they didn't want to use them. As
far as lights, he thought with daylight saving time, they only used their ligh�s about
4 months of the year. They were open until 9'o'clock Monday through Thursday,
they closed at 6 o'clock on Friday and Saturday, and were closed all day Sunday.
,^, He said they would have to have security lights to help prevent vand�lism.
Mr. Fred Mulvihill, 140 Craig Way, said he understood there had been a tra�fic
study done to bring the traffic count down on East River Road and divert some of
the traffic over to University Avenue. He asked if this proposal wouldn't defeat
that purpose. He said the railroad crossing had no signal on 77th Way and he thought
this proposaal could add to a dangerous situation.
Mr. Clark said again that getting back to the study done 3 to 5 years ago, that
at that time, al�hough this was noi mandatory, they were thinking of closing the
77th Way crossing and moving the crossing up to 79th. 79th would be the proposed
signal location, and 81st might be made a railroad crossing also. Then we would
have a railroad crossing at Osborne Road, 79�h, 81st and 85th.
Mr. C. M. Kam said he had been on the safety committee for many years, which was
now defunct. He said they had a lot to do with putting in the stop signs on East
River Road. He said they had many arguments with the County. They said this was
a County Road and they wanted to move traffic, so the possibility of another signal
light on East River Road was very remote. He said the traffic was very dense and
dangerous.
Mr. Clark said he didn't say there was going to be more signalization, it was
just that someone had brought up the point of a signal at 77th Way and he was pointing
�out that there had never been a proposal for 77th, and if there were ever more signals,
they would be further north. '
� Mr. Burkholder said he would like to know the petitioner's future plans, if
by some miracle he would get approval of his request. He said he didn't doubt Mr.
Stephens' business acumen, he was a successful busines"sman. Mr. Burkholder said the
��
�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Pa e 19
building was already on the location, some cosmetic treatment, and it wouldn't cost
^ much to get a business started there, maybe $2,000. What if in two years time he
would decide to go over to Highway #65 and start a large operation?
Leonard Samuelson, 7800 East River Road, said that he hoped �that Mr. Stephens
would appreciate that the people in the audience were Mr. Samuelson's neighbors.
He said that he was the original builder of this phoperty, and said it was built and
zoned properly for a pool center, and when this building was taken over for a..mdtor
cycle and sr,towmobile business, this was unknown to him because he no longer owned the
building. He said the operation that Mr. Stephens was concerning himself with was
a far cry from snowmobiles and motor cycles. He said he had visited Mr. Stephens
offices in St. Louis Park and found the operation very quiet and condensed, and
found a very high grade of personnel available at the facility. He said we were
talking abou� dollars and cents, on what Mr. S�ephens was going to invest in this
operation. He said he had drawn up the preliminary plans and it had taken about
two weeks �o price out the improvements Mr. Stephens wanted to make. He said Mr.
Stephens would be s}�ending in excess of what it cost "to build the building back in
1968. 'It will be in the reaims of $100,000. ,-his was �o upgrade the facility with.
landscaping, parking, painting, the signing, bl�acktopping,. changing the fence and
internaJ improvemen�s. He said that when Mr. Stephens and Mr. Benjamin approached
him they said they wanted to do the job right.
Mr. Samuelson said that every one here had the same problem. We have an existing
structure. If Mr. Stephens doesn't provide the investment, he said wh�t do we face ?
He said we would have a vacant building, the ex�terior of which wouldn't be maintained
and the area would go to weeds. He said the adjoining property had already gone through
foreclosure. As a viable neighborhood, we•do face a problem. He said ,you can't ga
up to the Planning Commission and say we don't want that building, zone the propep°�tv
to residential. With the existing zoriing, with the existing building, what do you do?
You have a situation where Mr. Stephens was only requesti.ng a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Burkholder said he apprecia�ed Mr. Samuelson's remarks, but he took exception
to the neighborhood having tfie problem. He said the neighborhopd did have a problem.
He said that the i�act that someone owns a building there didn't make the neighborhood
obligated because peop1e had made some bad judgements. He said the City had a weed
control program, and this would take care of the weeds. He said he was a businessman
and Mr. Samuelson was in busines�s, and no one takes us ouf: of it if we make an error
in judgement. Mr. Burkholder said he didn't consider this as his problem or Fridley`s.
Mr. Drigans told Mr. Burkholder that what he thought Mr. Samuelson was alluding
to was that if you looked around in many of the communi'ties and saw all the closed
service stations with the windows boarded up and the buildings getting dilapitated,
tha�t this was what he meant by having a vacant building at this location. Mr. Drigans
said he didn't live on East River Road, but he was concerned about any empty building
in Fridley and its aes�hetic appearance. Mr. Burkholder said he agreed with Mr. Drigans
and said he owned the property across the street from this building, so he did have a
vested equity in the property, and he didn't want anyone to construe that he didn't
care. He did care. He said that he was concerned that Fridley have the right thing
in the right places, and that was why he had attended this meeting. He wasn't against
progress per se. He said he was in the real estate business and i:t was a nation-wide �
� problem, these closed service stations. He felt that they would find alternate uses
for these stations, the same way he felt a better ultimate use could be found for this
/'�, particular corner. .
Mr. Samuelson said he felt this proposal was a viable use for this facility.
��
�
Planning Commmission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Page 20
Mr. Drigans asked if the snowmobile operation at this corner req�ired a Special
n Use Permit. Mr. Clark said he didn't think it did, but he would like to check the
records before this was accepted as a fact. He said he didn't know if our Code
� called for a Special Use Permit for the pool center in 1968 either.
Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Stephens if he would elaborate on the amount of traffic
that was generated at his St. Louis Park opera�ion. Mr. Stephens said he didn't
think St. Louis Park would be a good comparison. He said he would discuss his
operation on I: 494. He said they ran an average of 25 repair ordera a day. He said
they sold on the average of 2 to 3 cars a day and their sales ratio �aas 1 out of 4
customers. They would sell that many cars on from 10 to 12 customers. He said we
were �alking about 12 walk-in customers a day and from 25 to 35 service customers a
day. Then you can plan on having abou� 20 employees.
Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Stephens hova they road tested their cars. Mr. Stephens
said they do have some road �ests, but they have a dynamometer, and he thoiaght mosi
people,were familiar with that. When they do � road i:est, i;hey take the car out on
the road and run it for a half haur or so. He said that they really did very 1itt;P
r�•oad testing though, because this equipment was pretty saphisticated.
Mr. Drigans asked�!P�r. Stephens what would be the normal period of time that a
used car would sit on the lot. Mr. Stephens said they tried ta turn their complete
inventory every 30 days. He said the cars were on the lot sometimes only 4 to six
days and he thougF�t the average len�th would be about 10 days.
� Mr. Drigans asked if they intended to have a service facili�y at this location.
i"'� Mr. Stephens said yes, thai was what they were using �he back pari of the building for
and �hey would have 10 mechanical stalls with hoists.
Mr. Drigans asked if they proposed to do any body work. Mr. Stephens said no.
Mr. Stephens said this building was a warehouse type shell now, and a lot o-f
expense for this bu��nESS would be an elaborate fire proofing of this building.
Mr. Drigans asked if this facility had a sprinkler system. Mr. Clark said they
hadn`t discussed this wi�h Mr. Stephens, but �here would have to be a one hour fire
wall between the mechanical and office portion of the building, and they would have
to put in a one hour ceiling in the mechanical area or go to sprinkling.
Mr. Drigans asked if there would be any storage of gasoline at this location.
Mr. Stephens said he doubted that very much, as there was usually a service station
in the area that they would use. �
Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Steph�ns if there had been any developers interested
in developing this property as residential property. Mr. Stephens said he was not
familiar with such a request, as he was purchasing this property on an option basi�.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the audience to think about if they would like an
apartment building, or a duplex on this property, or to have the building remain vacant.
He said he would like to ask Mr. Clark what tax benefits, if any, could be derived by
the people in this area if this proposal was approved.
Mr. Clark said that in the iirst place, he was not the tax assessor, but he
^ didn't think there was any place in Fridley where a property owner was given a d��rect
tax credit for whatever was across the street from them. He said �ny taxes derived
from this property would be just part of the taxes collected, and any benefit would
be shared by everyone.
. , .,�,
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Pa e 21 -
Leonard Brandt, 190 Craigbrook Way, said it had been mentioned how much
money Mr. Stephens was ready to invest in this business, but he too had invested
n a lot of money in his property, and ifi this use was allowed, it could lower the value
of his house. He also wondered if Mr. Stephens was going to want to purchase the
lot to the north of this property, ta use as a parking lot in the future, if things
went well. HE also was concerned about the shrubbery. He said Fridley always
requires that they put in shrubbery, and developers do, but by the second season
it was all dead and gone. They never take care of it. He said he had never found
out that there was a must that they maintain it.
Mr. Stephens said he had no need for the property to the north of the lot he
wants to use. He said he though� it would get economically top-heavy to purchase
this lot along with ihe other one. He said the picture they had presented of an
existing facility ha� been in opera�ion for nine years, and they could see how
nice the shrubbery was and how it had been maintained. He said it would be very
detrimental to their business to let the landscaping go down.
Mr. Brandt said he thought this was one of the choicest areas of Fridley, and
this would be de.:�imental to the area. Mr. Stephens said his only answer to thai
would be that this would be much, much more desirable than what he sees on that property
now. He said �hey always maintained their operations. .
Jan Seegar said that one of the fears her neighbors h�u �as �hat one used
car lo� could lead to a'Lake Street' along East River Road, rather than what we had
now.
Mary Martin said that the people who lived on Craig Way were ready to move out
�,..� o� this area, just from what was on that corner now, but it was economically unfeasible
under the present circumstances, so even if this proposal would imprave this property,
it was sti11 relative. She said she would like to know how many security lights there
�were going to be and how bright they would be, because she was going to have to sleep
with them. Her second question was how many feet o� blacktop they were going to add
to this property, because ever� foo�c or blacktop they put in will drain in her back
yard.
Mr. Samuelson said the increase in the blacktop area would be about 1,800 square
feet which would drain to the East River.Road ditch to the Creek and then to the river.
He said the drainage as it was and the drainage that will be, would be negligible. �
Mr. Bob Dueholm asked that if the Special Use was granted, would it be strictly
for the Win Stephens Datsun dealership, or wou7d this parcel of land always have this
special use. Mr. Clark said he was not the City Attorney, but we have in the past,
tied the Special Use to a particular operator, with the stipulation that a change in
ownership would require Council approval. As far as he knew, this hadn't been
challenged. He said that if Win Stenhens wante d to transfer the Datsun dealership to
another owner, it would probably be hard to deny the second owner. Perhaps if it
changed from a Datsun deaTership to a different dealership, denial might be easier,
but he couldn't say.
Mr. Dueholm aaked that if a Special Use Permit was granted for this operation
on this lot and Mr. Stephens decided to purchase and use the lot to the North, would
this Special Use automatically cover that lot. Mr. Clark said he could use this lot
for customer and employee parking without a Special Use Permit, but if he wanted to
n use it for the storage of new and used cars, it would reguire ano�her request for a
Special Use Permit.
- -�*��
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Pa e 22
Mr. Dueholm said there were 32 parking spaces on this property. He said
Mr. Stephens had said tha� they will have a new car inv.zntory of 50 cars, a used
^ car inventory of 40 cars, 20 employee cars, and 10 customers a day. This adds up
to 120 parking stalls, and he didn't see where.all these cars would fit on this
lot. This� was four times more cars than he had stalls. He said it would seem to
him�that the lot to the north would be useful for employee and customer parking.
Mr. Harris said Mr. Stephens could use this lot for that purpose without a Special
Use Permit. Mr. Dueholm said that was the point he was trying to make. Mr. Dueholm
asked how the cars would be delivered. Mr. Stephens said they would be delivered by
truck.
i'"1
n
Mr. Stephens said he would agree that they have a limited amount of parking on
this property. He said he felt they could get by with what they had, because although
they had talked�about how many cars they would h'ave on this lot, there was a lot of
fluxuation, and sometimes their stock was low and sometimes they got in a lat of cars
at once, so there was quite a variable. He said he thought �hey could get by, and
they could make use o� temporary storage in another area. .
Mr. Drigans said that if Mr. Ste hens was �
p given a Special Use Permit, «nd he
found that this was not a financially sound dealership, in no way would he be allowed
to operate this as a used car lot only. This was an exclusion in a C-ZS zoning,
so have no fears that this was going to be a used car lot only.
Mr. Clark said we had gone into this before this evening, but he thought they
s{�ould go in-to what would be allot��ed in this zone without a Special Use Pei°mit,
whether it was economically reasible or not. There are many other commercial uses
that could be put on this property and he thought the Planning Commission, the Council
and the people in this area should be aware o�f this also. He said he wouldn't go
through the permitted uses in C-1 and C-1S zoning, although they were all allowed in
a�.-Z� zone a1so. The permitted uses in C-2S are drug stores, hardwat°e stores, depart-
ment stores, bakeries, bars, taverns, household equipment repair shops, floris�t shops,
commercial recreation, restaurants, excluding "drive-ins". hotels, mot�lss theaters,
lodges, assembly halls, audi�toriums, hospi�als, clinics, nursing homes, convalescent
homes, homes for the elderly, offices, including business and pro�essional, vocational
trade schools, laboratories, medica]., dental and optical, and harmless and inoffensive
laboratories accessory to permitted uses, in the same building, other retail or
wholesale sales or service uses which are similar in character to those enumerated
above, will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working
in the�vicinity thereof.
Mr. Clark said that in addition to these primary uses, there were accessory
uses which were: Business signs, off-street parking facilities, off-street loading
facilities, recreational facilities such as swimming peols and skating rinks, which
are available to the public, storage of inerchandise,solely intended to be retailed by
a related and established principal use, telenhone booths, bus or taxi loading and
unloading facilities.
Mr. W. "Red" Stang, of A-1 Motor Sports, said he was part owner of the building
where Mr. S�tephens was requesting to h�ve his new car dealership. He thought the
wrong impression had been given that this building would stdad emp�y if Mr. Stephens
request was denied. He said he had been approached by Kowasaki and they were willing
to back him in having the largest Kowasaki motor cycle dealership in the United States.
He said he could have this dealership on this property. He said he would rather move
over to Highway #65 and remain a small operator on a more personal basis, but rather
than have this building stand empty, he would go into this dealership and he would
have to handle a minimum of 350 to 500 motor cycles a'year.
�- _.—
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 23
Mr. Clark said that our zuning ordinance doesn't say that snowmobiles are
� a permi�ted use or an excluded use, or even if that use needs a Special Use Permit,
probably because no one had heard of snowmobiles when our ordinance was written, so
he didn't know if Mr. Stang could have this large an operation or not on this property.
He s�aid it would take a determination by the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney
before it would be known if this was a permitted use.
Mr. Harris said the problem with this was that Mr. Stang had already sold
snowmobiles and motor cycles at this location. Mr. Clark said he was aware of that,
but he didn't know about that large of an operation. Ne couldn't say that Mr. Stang
could or could not do this.
_ Mr. Kam said it was his observation that th�s snowmobile business and motor
cycle business had sort of sneaked in the back door, and if anyone had been aware of
what was going in at this location, it would have faced a lot of opposition.
� M�°. �Burkholder asked Mr. Clark the percentage of land area coverage by the
building, the percentage of parking area and the percentage of green area n�cessary
in C-2S zoning as he wasn't familiar with this section of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Clark said the building could cover 40% of the land area, and this building was�
less than 40%. The green area only has to be a 20 foot strip along the right of ways
or when it was adjacent to residential property. On the parking, 20 foot of the fron�
area was restricted, and that was the green area, and they cannot park any closer to
any lot line than 5 feet. He said he couldn't find any restrictions on the percentage
of black�op in the Code.
�..� Mr. Drigans said that one of the reasons for a Special Use Permit was to allow
the City the right to establish certain regulations and restrictions on the property.
He said ihis could include the number of vehicles allowed on the property and any
other res�rictions that wer� pertinent and reasonable.
Mary Mar�in said �hat when this lot was fu11, people would be forced to park on
East River Road. Mr. Stephens said he still felt they had adequate parking. They
would keep the drive in area open. He said this type of opera�ion did not have a rush
hour like a grocery store or a drug store. He said people come and go. He said they
were anxiaus to have people come in easily and readily and have a place for them to
park. Mra Benjamin said that in their �acility in south Minneapolis, they do use
auxilliary parking for their new cars so they can keep adequate parking for their
customers.
• Mary Martin said she didn't feel she got an adequate answer on how much black�op
there would be on this facilit,y. Mr. Samuelson said he could show what was being
added, and he didn't think this would increase the run-off from this property. She
said the other question she had asked was on the ligh�ing. Mr. Samuelson said this
was a very good question and one he was sure other people were concerned about. He
said Mr. Stephens had answered the question on the lighting on when the facility was
open for business. He said the security lighting was another question. Mr. Samuelson
pointed out on the plot plan where the security lighting would be located. He said
that the security lighting would be directed back towards the site, except for the
high intensity light on the 20 foot pole. They arould have 120 foot candles at the
bumper level and back further they would have 80 foot candles. There would be
mounted fixtures on the building itself.
�, .
Mary Martin said she would like to address the Planning Commission as a member of
the Environmental Quality Conunission. She said that as a member of the Envi.ronmental
_� _ ��
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Page 24
Quality Commission she was concerned about the quality of life in Fridl�y. �he
thn��nht this included what you had to look at and listen to, and everythir�g else.
,�-, She wondered if Mr. Stephens would like to sleep under that many lights. She
' though� these things were very important in order to continue the quality of life
in Fridley, and thought the residents as well as businessmen had to be considered.
�
Mr. Stephens said they had had similar pt^oblems before, and they did put
reflectors and shields on their lights so there was no reflection across the street.
It worked out very well�and he was sure they could do the same thing in Fridley.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to read a portion of tihe Fridley Code to the
audience. He said it pertains to what we are discussing here, and it may hasten this
discussion a bit. This was in regard to'a Special Use Permit. He said it stated
in the Code ihat " Zhe purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City of
Fridley wi�h a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of
certain designated uses upon the gener•al welfare, public health and safety. In
making this determination,,whether or not �he special use is to be allowed, the
�City must consider the nature of the land upon which the use is to be located, and
nature of the adjoining land or buildings, the proximity or a similar use, ��ne
effect upon traffic in�o and.from the premises, or on any adjoining road, the total
number of similar uses within, the City, and all such other or further factors as the
City sha11 deem a requisite of consideration in determining the effect of such use
on �he general welfare, pub1ic health, and safety." Mr. Langenfeld said he would
like to indicate at this point, in regard to environmental procedures, etc. that
both the Planning Commission and the Environmental-Quality Commission would like
io look into this request. He said that in reading what the.purp�se�of�a Special
Use Perm9t was, you could see that before any determination could be made, all of
these factors must be given proper �onsidera�ion. .
Mary Martin said that piece of property was already higher than the residential
area.
Mr. Charles Seegar said he thought his requ�st should be turned down and the
property left as it was until a proposal came in that the residential area could live
with. .
Mr. Drigans said the only way this property could be rezoned would be if the
owner asked for rezoning or if the City went through condemnation proceedings which
would �e very expensive.
Mr. Langenfeld said he appreciated the feelings of the people who live along
East River Road because he lived on East River Road himself. He just wanted to bring
out that the Planning Commission had to take into consideration the rights of the
property owner also. He has the right to be heard. He said the purpose of a Public
Hearing was so that a11 parties could be heard. .
Mr. Burkholder asked if the Datsun sign would be lit up at night: Mr. Stephens
said that if he meant all night, no, it would go off with the exterior light, leaving
just the security lights on.
. Mr. Stephens said this sign would not be placed on the building as it was shown
on the drawing. It wouldn't meet the requiremen�s of the sign ordinance there, and
would be placed on the back portion of the building. He�said, as he �ad mentioned
�� before, that the exterior lights would only be on for abcw t 4 months of the year
because of daylight saving time.
_ - ,�.,
�
/"�
0
/"�
Planning Comrnission Meeting - April 9, 1975 - Page 25
Mr. Clark said they had discussed the Datsun sign with Mr. Stepbens and ii
cauld be raised two feet above�the roof of the building, but it could not be on
top of the roof.
Mr. Harris had it called to his attention that not everyone who should have
been notified of the Public Hearing had received notices in the mail. He read
the mailing list to the audience. Mary Martin said there were people that should have
been notified that were not on the list. Mr. Harris asked the staff to check on
this. Chairman Harris said this Public Hearing notice was also published in the
Sun Newspapers. Mr. Clark said that if the Ciiy Code were followed, only persons
within 200 feet of this property would have to be notified of a request for a Special
Use Permit, but in practice we notify everyone within 300 feet, except for rezQning,
and that was 350 ieet by.S�tate Statute. He said it was not ihe intent of anyone
on the City sta�'f ta not send out notices of these Public Hearings, because we all
gain from citizen input at these hearings. He said there was sometimes a lapse of
30 t0 60 days in getting a net� property owner's name from the County and some people
who purchase property on contract for deed did not file these with the County. This
can cause problems in notifying the current owner of the property. One man said his
name was on the "'st, but he had ilot receivecl the notice.
Mr. Haggerty said that if there were no more questions from the floor, he would
like to summarize what had been said and to restate their posiLi.on. He said it might
clarify a few things, and it may open up a-�ew moy°e questions. He said the first thing
he would like 1:o do was to thank all the people who had come to this meeting. He
said tMis was the way it should be when someone was proposing to open up a new business.
The communi�ty should know what was being proposed. We have to live in this community
and we have to work with the community. Mr. Haggerty said the property was zoned
correctlyo The only requirement was that we have to obtain a Special Use Permit
first. What tha� meaiis, as Mr. Langenfeld pointed ou� �che purpose, was that it gave
the Planning Commission �the power to apply restrictions in granting a Special Use
P�rmit if they feel there was evidence to show that this could endanger the public
health, safety and welfare. Otherwise, they cannot i:echnically deny the Special Use
Permi� because the property was zoned properly. Ne said that a number of people have
voiced a concern about real estate taxes. He said that technically and legally th�
ef�ect on taxes was not a factor that shauld be considered. However, he thought
they would have �to look at the proper�y in question. First, the property just north
of this lot has been foreclosed upon. He said the property in question may contin�ae
or not continue if Win St�phens dealership did not move in. He said tha'c the point '
was that Mr. Stephens was ready to invest over $100,000 in this property. He said
he could not see how this was going io lower real estate values. It would increase
the tax base for the City of Fridley. It would be better to have a well landscaped,
improved building across the street from you �han a vacant building. This may
continue as a snowmobile and motor cycle business. These are the things that have to
be considered. We want to work with you and develop something with your demands and
requests in min�d. That was why we were a� this meeting. He said a number of people
had voiced concern about the trai�fic, the problems with East River Road and 77th �Jay.
He said they were willing to work with the City Engineer and vrork out a feasible
traffic arrangement. If the City Engineer feels there should be no on-street parking
on East River Road, we would go along with that. We are willing to meet almost any
kind of conditions as far as solving the traffic problem. So if we alleviate the
traffic problem, we alleviate the problem for you. As far as parking on the premises
itself, we feel we have adequate parking on the premises and will make arrangements
to have new cars moved to another location if necessary. We will attempt and endeaver
to do everything in our power to keep the parking facilities within safety requiremerlts.
We have had some questions on the environmental quality of the area. He said that
Mr. :Stephens has stated that he would like to see this landscaped from the frpnt of
. ��, ^
,
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Page 26
of the show room all the way down to East River Road. There would be top grade
landscaping all along East River Road and 77th Way, so aesthetically he thought
they were improving the area. Another question was raised on the lighting. We have
n developed a system where the lights will not reflect into the.residential area or �
,reflect into the traffic pattern of East River Road. He said that this would be
-��exclusive dealership7 it was a Datsun, a good vehicle which was in demand. This
would be �he only Datsun dealership in �he northern suburbs, which means it would
not close. The dealership in the southern part of htinneapolis was going very well.
They are selling a lot of ca�s. He said that brought us back to the traffic going
to this property. He said they had indicated that there would be about 25 people a day
for service and about 12 customers a day looking at cars. That's 37 people a day.� He
said that people have mentioned drainage problems. All these problems would be taken
up with the City Engineer. He said that as far as safety hazards, they would be
meeting all the requirements of the codes that the City imposes, the County imposes,
the State imposes, and even Federal. �We have did this in every single one of our
facilities. He said that as Mr. Stephens had indicated, we were not a junk car
� dealership. We intend to be a first rate dealership, and if we,let the landscaping
go down hill, our sales will go down hill, and this was our livelihoad. He said
that one of tl��e .�st important things was tha�you have a neighbor, a local man who
lives in the area, who will actually be doing most b.f the work, Mr. Samuelson.
He said he knew tha� Mr. Samuelson would try to do the best job possible. He said
they wanted to work with the people in the.area. If you would like to put you�rcomments
and objections in letter form for the Planning Commission, so they know wha � they.are,
tha� would be fine. We will attempt in every way possible to meet those demands.
. Our idea was to work with the area and make goad relationships over the years, not
in any way to lower property values. He said he requested a� this time tha� the
Planning Commission make a motion on this request, secand it, and vote upon it, or
if they wished to continue this request for further s�udy, they would have �.o objection
�'�'1 �o ��hat. He sai� he realized there had been a lot of objections to this request and
a lo� of demands made at this meeting. We would like to honor those and find a way
� �o solve them.
Mr. Win S�ephens said that he regretted �he opposition he had heard at this
meeting. He said that personally he didn't like opposition because he liked to get
along ►�i�h everybody, and what we say we will do, we will do. He said he saw this
facility and it was offered to him as an available site, it looked good to use, �nd
we thought we would be able to do some good for the City of Fridley as well as establish
a good dealership. .
He said that what they had laid out here at this meeting was subject to change.
Mr. Stephens said that if there were some things the Planning Commission didn't like
about this proposal, or the Council didn't like about it, or who ever, we would be
glad to adjust to it. We have made our�.applicatio� and we feel we can do a good job.
We feel that this would be a worthwhile project, a worthwhile acquistion to the City
of Fridley. TN�e facilities were there and we feel that we can put them to good
worthwhile use. He said he apolagized for the opposition he had heard at this meeting,
and frankly, he didn't like to hear it.
- Elaine Hartman said she still maintained that there was too much traffic on
East River Road. .
Mr. Paul Burkholder said that Mr. Stephe�s had a very �positive attitude. He
does not speak as to whether he gets his request, but rather that he would be willing
�-►1 to do the things necessary so that he will get it. He has brought in an eloauent
lawyer with him. Mr. Burkholder said he wasn't a trained lawyer, and he didn't
believe any of the people in the audience were. He sai.d that he was used to appearing
��
Planning Commission - April 9, 1975 Pa e 27
on his own behalf on requests he had made to the Planning Commission. He said he
didn't think he had ever seen a turn out like they had at this meeting with this
n amount of spirited opposition. He said he.asked the Planning Commission at this
, time to categorically deny this request at this meeting, and it not be �abled.
Mary Martin asked what procedure this request would follow. Mr. Harris said the
Planning Commission was only a t�ecommending body. The fi�al decision was up to the
Council. Right now, the Planning Commission could vote for approval or denial,
continue the request to their next meeting, or pass it on to the Council without a
recommendation.
Mr. Clark said that it should be mentioned that the Special Use Process requires
a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission.� It does not require the Council to
hold a Public Hearing, but �hey could at their option. He said that when the Planning
C�mmission made a decision, the audience would be �old at that time which Council
meeting that this request would appear. As a general rule i� would appear on the
�Council agenda about 11 days a�ter the Planning Cammission decision.
Mr. Drigans said he ►vas not one to make snap judgements, and he would like to
see what type of stipulations would be necessar� as far as lighting, parking and
drainage. In addition, he thought he would like to review the minu�es of ihis meeting
before he would be ready to make a recommendation. He also thought the Planning
• Commission should give consideration to referring this to the Environmental Quality
Commission to ge� their comments �o see what input they might have, and give these
comments back �o the Planning Commission. He thought there were enough questions
that should be studied before a determination could be made. He was in favo►^ of
� continuing the Public Hearing.
Mr. Lindbald said that because of the good turn out it was bo�h good and bad as
far as making a decision. He said he was glad �hat so many people had attended this
meeting, but he said that before the meeiing started, he had an opinion on this
request, but as the meeting went on it beeame har,der and harder to maF:e a d e�ision,
as he was sure that anyone who had been on a 6oard of Commission could understand.
He said he �Lhought it was best to continue this reuest, because it seemed to him
that the people in this area were going to have one proposal or another, a snowmobile
and motor cycle agency or a new and used car agency. He said he could understand
the neighborhood's problem and posii;ion.. He said he didn't know which proposal
was the best, not that it was a definite thing that either of these dealerships would
be on �his property. For �this reason, he said he agreed with Mr. Drigans, �o continue
this Hearing.
Mr. Langenfeld said he agreed with Mr. Drigans, that the minutes would have to
be reviewed. He said that if the Environmental Quality Commission was going to
review this request, he would like a member of the City staff to be present. He said
he thought the Environmerital Quality Commission should concern themselves with the
traffic and drainage problems, and felt that the other factors such as economy and the
over-all effect of this proposal were environmentally sensitive. Mr. Clark said
this proposal would be going to 6uilding Standards on Apr°il lOth.
MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend
that the minutes of this meeting be given to the Environment�l Quality Commission
for their meeting of Apri1 15, 1975 so they could review the traffic and d.rainage
^ problems on this property and refer their comments back to the Planning Commission,
and continue the Public ffearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-02,
by Wyman Smith, Attorney for W. R. Stephens, Jr., to permit the sale of new and used
cars, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, (3,B) and (3,G) in a C-2S Zone (general
�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 • Page 28
shopping areas) to be located on Lot l, Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition, the
same being 7701 East River Raad, until their Apri1 23, Za75 meeting. Upan a voice
n vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�
Mr. Drigans and P1r.. Harris asked Mr: Clark to check and see if Mr. Stang
could have a large motor cycle and smowmobile dealership on this property.
3. VACATION REQUEST: SAU #75-01, NORTN SU3URaAN HOSPTTAL DISTRICT: To vacate
all that part of 76th Avenue N.E., located in Osborne Manor 2nd Addition lying
East of the East line of 5th Street N.E. to be used for parking and planning
purposes.
No one was present to represent the petitianer.
Chairman Harris said this had been part of a lease agreement between the
City of Fridley and the North Suburban Hospital District for parkland.
Mr. Clark said this was someihing that ha� been talked about over a year ago
when Hospital District were making plans for �he office s�ructure on this property.
They have always said that they would be willing for the City to have some park land
on �his property if the City would vacate 76th Avenue so they could get to their
property on the north side o� 76th. Mr. Drigans asked if they owned all the lots
on the north side o� 76th. Mr. Clark said they did not own the lot at 401 76th
�venue N.E. Mr. Harris said this lot had access to 5th S�re�t.
. Mr. Harris asked about Outlot 1 adjacent to the park areaQ and wondered if this
was part of the street right of way. Mr.. Clark said it wasn't s�reet righ� of way.
'�1 He said the reason this was an outlot was because it was under the same ownership
as Melody Manor. It was of such a size and location tha� it couldn't be used for
anything so it was. made an outlot.
Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't quite understand what 'vacation' mean�t. f�r.
Harris said it meant that they were vacating the public use of the property. He
said 76th was a public easement for street access. He said the street had never
been put in, but without a vacation, a street could be constructed at some future
date. Mr. Clark said that when this properiy was pla�:ted, the owner dedicated this
land for a street easement.
Mr. Clark said the one thing they would have to do was to retain an easement for
utilities over that portion where the� utilities were already in. The Hospital
District would still be able to use this property for l�andscapir�g and parking, but
they could not build a structure on it.
Mr. Harris said this was not mentioned in the lease agreement. Mr. Clark said
he was quite confident that the Hospital Qoard knew that the sanitary sewer was in
this easement and wanted the City to maintain it. Mr. Harris said this would have
to be made a stipulation on the approval of the request, and maybe the lease agreement
should be amended so that this was a part of it.
Mr. Narris asked if the property owner at 401 76th Avenue N.E. had been notified
• of this request. Mr. Clark said he would get 50 feet from this vacation because
this had all been part of Melody Manor 2nd Addition. The secretary said she hadn't
� notified �his owner, as no notices had been sent beGause this was not a public hearing.
Mr. Clark said that if this bothered the Planning Commission, tMey could continue this
request and that owner could be notified. He said there would be a Public Hearing
. �
°'1
��
"�1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 � Page 29
on this request by the City Council.
.
Mr. Harris said he thought that ow�ner should be aware that he was going to
have another 50 feet of property, before they recommended approval of this request.
Mr. Drigans said that in exchange for the vacation of 76th Avenue, the Hospital
Board was giving the City a 7 year lease for park land, and thereaf'ter continue for
an indefinite period of time. He wondered why this wasn't replatted and the park
land given �o the City on a permanant basis. Mra Cl�rk said that the make up of this
property, and the fact of the law passed by the State legislature in setting up this
Hospital District, is such that they cannot sell any of their property unless they
go back to the legislature and get approval. He said there were bonds on this property
also, which added another legal problem in disposing of any of the property. This
was why it was a lease. Mr. Clark said he wasn't aware �hat this lease could be
terminated by either party after 7 years.
Mr. Harris said he would like to find out the status of Outlot 1, whe�her it
was tax delinque;�t or not. He said the City w�� g��ng to end up main�aining this
outlot along with the park. Ne w��uld like to have the property owner of 401 76th
Avenue noti�fied of this request and he would like Mr. Clark to check on the 7 ye�r
lease for the park land.
Mr. Lindblad said he thought that one of the reasons for the 7 year lease was
because the North Suburban Hospital District migh� need this land for expansion some
day. Mr. Clark said that was possible because they did state at a meeting before the
Planning Commission that the field of inedicine was changing so fast that they didn'�
know what facilities they may need in the future.
Mr. Drigans said he thought the Cit.v should have �n option �o purchase the
park land when the bond indebtedness was satisfie�.
Mr. Clark said he would check on the 7 year lease, check the status of Qutlot
1, and notify the owner at 401 76th Avenue N.E. of this request.
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindb.Zad, that the Planning Commission continue
the vacation request, SAV #75-OZ b� North Suburban 73ospital District, to vacate a11
that part of 76th Avenue N.E. located in Osborne Manor Second Addition lying East of
the East Iine of 5th Street N.E. to be used for parking and p.Zanning purposes, until �
their meeting of April 23, 1975. Upon a voice vo�te, a.Zl voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
4. SET DATE FOR SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindbla
date for their special workshop meeting for
voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy.
5. DISCUSSION
d that the P.Zanning Commission set the
Apri1 15, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11
Mr. Clark asked the Planning Commission if it was difficult with only three
members on the Planning Commission. Mr. Drigans said that both Mr. Harris and himself
were subject to traveling out of town, and if they had to be.away, they would not have
a quorum for a meeting. Mr. Clark said that as the Councilwas considering changing the
make-up of the Planning Commission which would require an ordinance, it would probably
be almost July before any new members were preman�ntly appointed to the Planning
Commission. Would they like to suggest to the Council that someone be appointed on
- . . - ��
Planning Commission Meeting - April 9, 1975 Page 30
a temporary basis? Mr. Harris.said.he had been at every Council meeting on this
same theme. He said it was very difficult to operate with three members. The
�'� Council says we have four members. He said he told them that Mr. B1air's obligation
was aver April lst. �They said he shou�d serve until someone else was appointed. Mr.
Clark said that Mr. Blair was still a member of the Planning Commission, but if he
did not choose to come to the meeting, he had that choice.
Mr. Clark said that it was in the City Code thdt in the absence of a Chairman
of a Subcommittee, the Vice Chairman could sit on the Planning Commission and act in
their place. Mr. Harris said that George Meissner was the Vice Chairman of the PTats
& Subdivisions-Sireets & U�ilities Subcommittee, and he could act for tha� Subcommittee.
Mr. Clark said he would check the code, and if it was possible, the Vice Chairmeil.
r�oul d be contacted. .
Mr. Harris said that he had been contacted by Fred Bebensee of the Fridley
Police Deparicment, and he would like to make a presentation at a workshop meeting
on some new procedures and equipment on security locks and lighting. He said he
didn't know hovr ��efi�al this information would be to the Planning Cammission, but
it would be inieresting to hear about these things. He said there might b� some�hing
they might want to incorporate into the Code, and it could be som�thing they might
want to use on park buildings, etc. He said that Jerry Boardman should find out how
long ihis presentation would take, and schedule it for a workshop meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planninq Commiss.ion meeting
�� byadjournea. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting aye,� Chairman Harrisadjourr:ed the Planning
Commission meeting of Apri2 9, 1975 at 12:50 A.M.
�
�"�
.
Respectfully submitted,
C�',:� � v•�'�z�r�./
Dorothy Evens�n, ecretary
��
�
� < - �
�. _ q`1
�� � �
� /j'
- �^' --
I L�u���
f
�..._.�
���
�,.
��
���
l 2oti arGi !✓ ����
,
�
�
- �
�1 �r ���� �Ln��s�
� �
���
. � ��Lv C-� � UG: r� r�-y
� l
���
�� ��
� �
� � {�o �,,�-
��
� ���
�� �
�
�j 9 C� �
I 33 - �
�3 � L�
/y�- C��,S,��o� wz�
< <ri. ("^
� �U / �`'i`�"' S`�` �'v� _
� ���
���� . f //
- V
��� �
/�
a � �- �
��- i7�� `
� �� ��� �� � �
�
��f7 c�2✓��^q;�r3 �Li���
� /
�� � � �-� -
��� ��
�
�
7�'�� _ � G� � �
/�s �� �. �,, �,
,
,, i, k
� 7 � � �.�� ��
� �; i �: ��-��GG'� .L�..� _
��6 � � - ��
3� DD "
�_
°��p �
, �''�� � ' . .
�,�,,� �r