Loading...
PL 06/25/1975 - 31186�, � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF FRIQLEY JUNE 25, 1975� PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Lindblad, Peterson, Drigans Members Absent: Meissner Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Devel�opment Administrator James Langenfeld, ex-officio member APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 4, 1975 MOTIOIV b� Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the minutes of the Planning Conrtr►ission meetir,r� of June 4, 1975 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 27, 1975 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded'by Peterson, that the Planning Commis�ion receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes for their meeting of May 27,�1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanirnous.Zy. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MAY 27, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee rneeting of May 27, 1975: Mr. Drigans said that on page 14 of the Planning Commission agenda, and page 2 of the Board of Appeals minutes, t�he Board had made a motion that the Council make a determination if the "office-warehouse" under question constituted a proper use of C-1S zoning. He hadn't�heard any answer on this motion. He said that they wanted to know the difference between a warehouse and a storage facility. He said that the developer would be leasing office space, and this "storage" space would be available to any tenant who would need it. Mr. Drigans said that he felt that conceiveably the developer could rent out office space to one tenant and�warehouse space to another tenant, which wouldn't be an allowed use in C-1S zoning. Mr. Clark said it may be hard tn�keep jurisdiction over this, but it definitely would be permitted that if say a plumtnr rented office space, and he could use the storage space for his equipment, such as a truck and stock. There were a lot of trades that would be allowed in this zoning. He said it had been.made q�ite clear to the developer that he could only rent storage space to someone who had already rented office space. Mr. Drigans said he thought this could be difficult to control as the developer could sell that building and a new owner may not follow this policy. P4r. Clark said the code was quite clear in this area, and what the developer r-,, intends to do was an allowed use in this zoning. Mr. Drigans said he still thought this sh�uld be in an M-1 District rather than a C-2 District. Mr. Clark said then the code would have to be changed. He said that even if this was hard to administer, but he felt that if a tradesman was going to rent office space, he would rather see Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 2 inside storage than have equipment stored in the yard someplace. Mr. Drigans said this was labeled as an office-warehouse combination and '�� that was what the Board of Appeals took exception to. Mr. Clark said it should have said office-storage combination, because this was what it was going to be. � �r. Lindblad said he didn't feel this would be any harder to control than any other type of building. We never have any absolute guarantee�that�every building will be occupied exactly as the City Code allows. � Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the.motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISS_ION MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission receive the minutes of the Envirorunental Quality Commission meeting of June 10; 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION, by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Corranission �eceive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of June 10, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A.SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP�#75-06, BY C. E. GILBERT: To allow the operation of an outdoor flea market, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.151, 3, N, to be located on Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. �..1 � 153, the same being 52a7-5289 Central Avenue N.E. (Skywood Mall) �, Mr. Gilbert was not present. . MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Coirartission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. GiZbert. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at.8:12 P.M. . Mr. Clark said that to clarify the location he pointed out where Twin City Federal, �round Round, Menards and the Spe�dy Car Wash were located which were all in the v�cinity of Skywood Mall on Central Avenue. He said it was his understand- ing that the flea market would be located somewhere South of the building known as the Skywood Shopping Center and North of the Speedy Car Wash operation, in an open area that was not blacktopped. Mr. Clark said that if the City were to allow this type of operation out in the open,,:it shoul'd be very, very careful and scrutinize the operation to make sure it would not cause traffic problems, and that the litter was picked up. He�thought it would be hard to administer, and it would be difficult to see that the area was always cleaned up. He said he thought it was a Council decision on whether they wanted to have this type of operation in the City of Fridley. Mr. Clark said that even if this use was allowed, they wo.uld want to delay it u�til� the City had gotten an agreement from Mr. Mortenson on the beautification program the City was starting, because there were problems in this area that have to be sorted out with the property owner. They would like better �ainten.�nceand there were some erosion problems in the area and the blacktopped area needed some work. � Planning Commission Meeting - June 25. 1975� Page 3 Mr. Drigans said that before he was ready to make any decision on this, he would like the petitioner to be present, and as long as he wasn't here, he was � �� prepared to make a motion to continue this request. Mr. Harris said they had some business to take care of before this motion could be made. � . Mr. Gordon Bluhm, 1160 Regis trail, said he was a resident of Fridley, and also Assistant Secretary for the Twin City Federal branch in Fridley, located at 5205 Central Avenue, although he did work in the downtown office. He said Mr. Don Borrel was also in attendence, and he was Assistant Vice President of this Fridley branch also. Mr. Bluhm said it was their opinion that this operation would be detrimental to the Twin City Federal property. He said he knew this was a prejudicial viewpoint, based on other flea market operations in other communities. Mr. Bluhm said he had stopped on his way home on the day of this meeting and had taken pictures of the area in question, to show how it looked at the present time. He said h« would not want to see this property deteriorate any further. . Mr. Harris asked if this operation had been inside the Skywood Shopping Center before this request was made. Mr. Clark said it was his understanding that it had been,�on a weekly basis. He said Mr. Gilbert wanted to move this outside so the flea market could be larger. � Mr. Bluhm presented a letter from Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association. UPON A MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the PZanning Commission �"� rece�ve the letter from Tw.in City Federal Savings and Loan Associatio�, dated June _ 25, 1975, from Mr. B1uhm, and a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris summarized the letter for the audience. . Mr. Harris said the letter was written to let the Planning Cammission know they were not in favbr of this request for a�lea market in this area of Fridley. The letter states the reasons for this objection. .- Mr. Lindblad asked if other merchants who operate businesses in the Skywood Shopping Center were notified of this request? Mr. Clark said that only property owners were notified, but Sheldon Mortenson had signed the request, and it would be up to him to determine if his other tenants would agree to an open flea market'in this area. . . � Mr. Bluhm said he had been to outside flea markets in the Los Angeles area, located in industrial neighborhoods.� He said they are really an attraction. Ne said that in the M�inneapolis Sunday paper, it was mentioned that the indoor flea market at Apache Plaza draws between 25,000 to 35,000 cars on the week-end. He said he couldn't see any problem with an indoor flea market, but an outdoor flea market would be something else. He didn't think this would benefit Fridley at all, and he would strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny this request. Mr. Langenfeld said he appreciated Mr. Bluhm's statements, but he thought the petitioner had every right to state his case also. He said that even.though we do not know the exact details, he was sure that the Planning Commission would run into some.of the problems that were specifically mentioned that had to be considered in �� granting a Special Use Permit, and they were traffic problems, noise, light glare at night, and probably indiscriminate advertising. - �� Planning Commission Meeting - June 25. 197� Page 4 Chairman Harris said that as no one had any other comments to make on this request, it would be in order to close the Public Hearing, and determine if they' ,�'-� were for or against this request, or to tab]e the item. � MO1'ION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue • the Public Hearing on the request for a special use permit, SP #75-06, bq C. E. Gilbert, until Ju1y 9, 1975. Upon a ro11 ca11 vote, Drigans and Pet�rson voting aye, and Lindblad and Harris voting nay, the MOTION FAILED. Mr. Drigans said that perhaps the petitioner didn't realize that he should appear for this meeting. Mr..Clark said he had been sent an agenda for this meeting. MOTION BY LINDBLAD, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a special use permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert. THE MOTION DIED for Iack of a second. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Gilbert did pay the fee for a Special Use Permit and as we do not !cnow the reason he was not in attendence at this meeting, it would be common courtesy to continue this request until the wishe� of the.petitioner were krrown. �Q�ION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, asking ft:r reconsideration of tl:e mation to continue the Public Hearing until Ju1y 9, 1975. The vote remained the same, so the MOTION FAILED. Mr. Lindblad said he knew it was the polic y to continue any request where the petitioner did not appear, but he felt this was creating a hardship for the � interested parties who did attend the meeting to ask them to come to another meeting - of the Planning Commission. � ' Mr. Clark said he would excuse himself and try to contact the petitioner to see why he was not here. When he returned to the'meeting, he said the petitioner had forgotten the meeting, but he was on'his way to the meeting now. MOTION BY Peterson, seconded by L•indblad, that the Planning Commission table the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert, until the petitioner appeared at the meeting. Upon a voice vote,!a11 voting aye, the motion carried unani- mously. , 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-04, BY LEON9RD BENSON: Vacate . the 12 foot alley in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, located between Ashton Avenue and the. railroad tracks,�so the existing gardens and fences would not have to be removed from this alley. Mr. Leonard Benson was present. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson what type of fence was in the alley easement. -�r. Benson said he had a chain link fence, and he also had a garden. Mr. Benson said there was another fence that was kitty-corner from his fence that extended into the alley also. He said one other neighbor had had a fence in the alley ease- ment, but he ha� already moved his fence back. - � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson if he had a survey of his property at the time the fence was put in. Mr. Benson said that he did. Mr. Drigans asked him why he put the fence in the alley then. Mr. Benson said he thought the alley had already been vacated. � —� � Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 5 � Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Benson if he had received any complaints on this fence from the neighbors? Mr. Benson said he had not. � � Mr. Benson said he had a petition from the neighbors who were in favor of this request. � MOTION by Peterson, seconded b� Lindblad, that the Plenning Commission receive the petition in favor of vacati�on request, SAV #75-05, by Leonard Benson, (Petition 15-1975) which was signed by eight proj.�erty owners in B1ock 4, Spring Brook Park Addifion. Upon a voice.vote, a11 voting aye, the rrtotion carried unanimously. Mr� Harris said there was a petition in their agenda that was against the vacating of this alley. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the petition against the vacation request, SAV #75-05, by Leonard Benson, (Petition 16-19�5) which was signed by seven property owners in B1ock 4, Spring Br�k Park Addition.. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �. Mr.. Benson said that if this alley wasn't vacated, we could have traffic � on this alley and snowmobiles could use it also. He said they have had a problem of small thi�every in the neighborhood, and if this area was open, he thought this sort of thing would be encouraged. This was why he wanted this area fenced, and � keep the traffic on the street. He said that all the garages face the street so � no one needed the alley to get in�o their garage. � Mrs. Cyril Paulson, 131 79th �Jay N.E., said that they couldn't get into their ��back yard if this alley was vacated without taking their front yard fence down. She said there were other people on Longfellow that couldn't get the�ir recreational � vehicles into their back yard without this alley, because there wasn't enough room between the houses, and these vehicles can't be left on the street. Mr. Stephen Pogreba, 190.Longfellow Street, and Mr. James Roberts, 121 79th Way N.E. said they had signed both petitions. They had signed the petition against the alley vacation first, and then had changed their minds, and were both in favor of the alley vacation now. Chairman Harris asked them if they wanted their names removed from the petition against the vacation and they said they did. That left five names of property owners on the petition lVo. 16-1675 against the vacation. Mr. C1ark said that if this alley was vacated, the City would have to retain a utility and drainage easement on the 12 feet. . Mrs. Judy Welch, 144 Longfellow Street N.E., said she had circulated the petition against the alley vacation (petition 16-1975), but it was not their intention to ever ask that this alley be improved. She said they wanted it left as it was, just grass and an open area. She said that they owned a recreational vehicle and they would not be able to get this into the back yard if the alley was vacated; and this vehicle couldn't be parked in the street either. Mr. Benson .said he had talked to neighbors in Block 4, and two people who have -- recreational.vehicles could get to their property in the rear yard even if the alley �' was vacated. There would only be one who had signed thepetition against the vacation .�who would not be able to get their recreational vehicle into the back yard if tne � alley was vacated, who wouldn't have an alternate access to his rear yard. Mr. Langenfeld said that Mr. Benson had stated that he had received no complaints Plannin Commiss�ion Meeting - June 25, 1975 _Page 6__ from the neighbors on his fence, but tonight we are hearing some. How did this come to the attention of the City? Was it a complaint? � �r ' Mr. Clark said they do not have the�staff to go out an check infrfingements into alley easements, and only do so when there was a complaint. He said the Engineering . Department had received the complaint, so he was not involved in it. Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission had received twoletters on this request. One was from Richard Rush, 3619 Janssen Avenue North, Chicago, who stated that he was in opposition to the vacation.request, and he owns Lots 11 and 12, Block 4, Spring Brook Park, and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Pett, 176 Longfellow Street, who state that they have signed the petition against�the vacation, but were unable to attend this meeting and they need the alley easement so they can get a 21 foot recreational vehicle into their back yard. MOTION BY Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Ietters from Richard Rush and Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Pett in opposition to the vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, fhe motion carried unanimously. , Mr. Drigans said this would make 6�roperty owners in oppos�tion to the vacation request and 8 in favor o�� the r.equest..�There �ere.l?.proper_ty owners in the block. � ' Mr. Benson said that if this alley easement was used by recreational vehicles and pick-up campers, it would cut up all the grass in the easement. /"`� Mr: Langenfeld asked Mr. Clark that if the alley went in, wouldn't the - adjacent property owners have to pay for that. Mr. Clark said they would. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Clark if,there were any restrictions on this alley which was neither vacated nor improved. He said that it seemed everyone in this alley had sodded this area, and could someone come in there with a heavy vehicle and tear it all up, and just leave it.in that condition? He asked if there were � no regulations governing this?� It wou.ld seem to him that in this particular instance, the people in this area want�.to have their cake and eat it too. He said that if he were a property owner in this area, and someone drove on this unimproved alley that he had sodded, and tore it all up, he wouldn't appreciate it. He said the use that people want to make of this alley almost demands an improved alley. � Mr.�Clark said that the City doesn't maintain unimproved alleys, and if it was being maintained, it was by indi.�idual property owners. He said that if someone tore up this portion of maintained alley easement so the property owner couldn't cut it, he didn't know what would happen, as we have had not had a situation like this before. He said that apparently the alley has been used this way, and he didn't know if this had caused a problem or not. Mr. Roberts, 121 79th�Way, said he had lived their three years and he had ne�er seen any traffic on this alley. He said that Northern States Power Company doesn't even drive on this alley easement. They work from the street. � Mrs. Paul.son said that Northern States Power Company had used this alley about. 15 years ago, but that was when there was very little development in this area. �� � Mr. Clark said they usually didn't have such a division on whether an alley should be vacated or not. He said that about 15 years ago, in Plymouth Addition, . there was division, and the Council vacated half of the alley, and left the other Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 7 half open, but there were people using the alley for access to their garages, in this particular instance. � ;�"�„ Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Benson if he knew he was violating the City Code when he extended this fence into the alley easement. Mr. Benson said he thought the alley had already been vacated because alleys in the blocks around them were vacated. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson if he installed this fence himself. Mr. Benson ' said that he had. Mr. Langenfeld asked if anyon.e in the audience had changed their opinion dur.ing the discussion. There was no response. Mr. Drigans said there was enough oppositian to vacating this alley so that he didn.'t feel they could recommend approval of this request. He said it would take time to reconstruct the fences, so he thought the people with fences and gardens in this easemen� should be given a time period to comply to the Code. Mr. Drigans asked how many gardens were involved. Mr. Benson said that there were two. Mr. Drigans said he thought most of the gardens should just about be through by September 15th. Chairman asked Bob Schroer who was in the audience, if this was correct. M���. Schroer said everything should be done by October lst,�.anyway, in the gardens. Mrs. Paulson, 131 79th Way N.E., said.that Mr. Benson had one of the most � beautiful gardens she had every seen, and although she was against the alley being vacated, she said it would be a shame to make him tear out this garden until after the growing season. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson what kind of garden he had. Mr. Benson indicated that it was a large vegetable garden and he had intended using the fence to grow cucumbers on. Mrs. Paulson said she was sure that every neighbor would feel that Mr. Benson should be allowed to let his garden grow until the end of the �"`� season. � � ' MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council denial of the vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, to vacate the I2 foot a1Zey in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition, Zocated between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, because of the opposition of six adjacent property owners, but that the property owners who have fences and gardens in this a11ey easement be. gi.ven untiZ September 15, 1975 to relocated their fences and remove the gardens. �Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. C. E. Gilbert arrived at the meeting. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the request for a Spe�ial Use Permit, Sp #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert be removed from the table. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris removed it from the table at 9:20 P.M. Chairman Harris explaine� to the petitioner that this item had been tabled to give him a chance to be heard. . Mr.'Gilbert said he had been holding an indoor flea market for three years. He said this usally closed up by the end of May. He said it was the policy of a flea market to set up outside, in the summer time, so he approached Mr. Mortenson with this request, and Mr. Mortenson said he had no objection. � Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Gilbert is he would explain the nature of a flea market. � . Mr. Gilbert said that the people who set up booths or tables are called dealer,s. � They pay a$3.00 fee to set up in the market. They sell antiques, items from estate ,��� Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 1975 Page 8 sales and garage sales, or items they have bought wholesale. After the sale they �''1 pack up and clean up. He said they usually opened up at 7:30 A.M. and closed at 4:00 P.M. � Mr. Drigans asked if they needed a license to sell in a flea market? Mr. ° Gilbert�said they just needed it for sales tax. Mr. Drigans how many dealers were at these sales. Mr..Gilbert said they usually had 52 dealers inside, but outside they would have 60 or more dealers. Mr. Drigans asked about the turnover of dealers. Mr. Gilbert said some of them were regulars and some only came once, of just a few times. Mr. Drigans asked how Mr. Mortenson made a profit on this. Mr. Gilbert�said he got a percentage of the fee charged each dealer. Mr. Drigans said it wasn t a percentage of the sales then. Mr. Gilbert said no. � Mr. Clark asked how often the flea market would be open. Mr. Gilbert sa.id it would be once a week, on Saturday. � ' Mr. Langenfeld asked how they advertized the flea market. Mr. Gil�bert said they used flyers, the Minneapoiis papers and the Sun. He said that after business was built up, they usually didn't have to advertise. Mr. Drigans said that as this was a commercial business he wondered if there . were adequate facilities. Mr. Gilbert said they had a key to the Ma11 so they %�� could use the restraom facilities there. Mr. Clark said that OSHA requirements �� say the facility has to be within 200 feet, so he thought this would be adequate. �� Mr. Bluhm said he thought Mr. Gilbert was a very reputable man and an honest man.� What he has described would be like a giant garage sale. He wondered if the property owner of the Skywood Shopping Center had the right to rent to a tenant that could adversely affect other tenants in the area. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Mortenson, the�owner of this property, had signed the request, and he would have thought that he would have considered his other tenants before he agreed to this use. He said that he agreed that the tenants have a vested interest in this. Mr. Lindblad said that was why he felt that all the tenants should have been notified. Mr. Bluhm said that only the owners Menards and Lee Wards were not notified. Mortenson had discussed.this with, but he the other tenants, if he didn't. of property were notified, and that • Mr. Clark said he didn't knaw who Mr. thought-he should have discussed it with Mr. Bluhm said he felt that Menard's had greatly improved this area, and also ihe Ground Round had done extensive remodeling. He said that he �as watched the Skywood Mall area very closely because of the location of the Twin City Federal �braneh in this area. He said he was very sorry that Mr. Mortenson wasn't at this meeting, because he would tell him to his face that the Skywood.Mall lacks a lot as far as maintenance. It should be improved, and kept improved. He said the reason he had taken the pictures on the way to this meeting was to show the weeds that are allowed to grow on this property. He said he just couldn't see this type of owner getting further pri.viledges of freedom, especially as there was a zoning ordinance that precludes it. Mr. Lindblad said that the condition of Skywood Mall has always been a problem, � Planning Comnission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Pa4e 9 and Mr. Mortenson had always skirted fixing and maintaining this area. He said he didn't think this area benefited Fridley at the present time because nothing had n, been kept up, and all Fridley got were broken promises. Mr. Bluhm said there was a protective covenant that had been drawn up for the property that was occupied by Twin Gity Federal, and he thought this flea market operation would be in violation of the covenant, and turn-about should be f��.� play. Mr. Borrell said that Twin City Federal had spent a lot of money on their property trying to upgrade the property, and if this operation was allowed in this are a,�it wo41d have all been for nothing. He said that Twin City Federal was open from 9 to 12 on Saturday morning, and this operation would really be detrimental to their business Mr. Drigans said that;if the recommendation was to deny the outdoor flea market, this wouldn't stop the indoor flea market as this was not objectionable. MOTION BY Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing bn�.the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by' C. E. Gilbert. Upon a voice vote, all voting a�e, the motion �:arried unanimously. MOTION by Lindblad,. seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City�CounciZ denial of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E..GiZbert, to aZ1ow the operation of an outdoor flea market, per Fridleg City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to be located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, the same being 1507-5289 Central Avenue N.E. (Sk�wood Ma1I). Mr. Drigans said his feelings on this request were that an indoor flea market . was fine, but that an outdoor flea market would be difficult to control, especially � as far as traffic and crowd problems. He said he thought there were better sites - in Fridley for this type of operation. There was a minature golf courseiin this � area, and we just don't know what type of environment we would be creating if we _ allowed this operation at this location. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZ�. 3. � CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST: SAV #75-05, BY RICHARD KOK: To reduce the drainage and utility easement from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side of Lot 6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, the same being 6517 McKinley Street N.E. Mr. Kok was not present. Mr. Clark said the previous owner of this property built a detached garage in 1961 before we required a verification survey, and he encroached about three feet into the easement. There was never any trouble with this because there aren't any utilities an this easement. � Mr. Clark said that he advised the petitioner than in order to make his property more saleable, he should get this problem settled by having the encroachment allowed -or vacating the easement. He said there was a siz foot easement on this property and a 6 fAOt easement on the lot South of this property. A field inspection verified that there were no utilities on this easement, and the utility companies have been notified. As yet there has been no response from them, either pro or con. Mr. Cl.ark said that because the petitioner wasn't present and we haven't had i� any response from the utility companies, he thought this item should be continued. .� He said the petitioner has waited 13 years, and he didn't think another month would � affect this one way or the other. - _ _ � �,.� Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 10 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Corrm�ission continue until JuZy 23, 1975, the vacation request, SAV #75-05, by Richard Kok, to reduce the �- drainage and utility easement from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side of Lot 6, B1ock 1, Clark`s Addition, the same being 6417 McKinley Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, all vofing aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-06, by MICHAEL MCFARLAND: Vacate the 12 foot undeveloped alley in Block 15, Fridley Park Addition, to allow the petitioner to erect a fence that would include the alley, the same being 98 64th Way N.E. Mr. Michael McFarland was present. Mr. McFarland said that this was an undeveloped alley that was heavily wooded. It was just a collector of dead leaves and was very unsigh�ly. He said it had been used as a depository for junk, and it was completely impassable. He said he.was new to the area, and he wanted to clarify his lot lines, and as he • lived on the corner of East River Road, he would like the privacy of a fenc��, and it would keep people from cutting through his yar�. If the Planning Commission wasn't agreeable to the entire alley being uacated, he would still like the alley adjacent to his property vacated. _ � Mrs. Jerry Lowe 39 63 1/2 Way N.E. said they were in favor of this vacation request. Mr. Harris asked about the people who were across the alley from Mr. McFarland's � � property. � � Mr. Langenfeld said he lived across the alley, and he wanted the alley vacated also. He said this alley was used as a junk yard, and he wanted to eliminate that problem. He said most of the people in this block have maintained the property that was alley easement. He said no one had a fenc� in the alley, but people would like to fence the alley easement, if it was vacated. � Mildred King, 71 63 1/2 Way N.E., said she was in favor of the vac��iAn:�Cequest. Mr. Lavern Dornbusch, 40 64th Way N.E. said he was favor of the .vacation request also. Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission was going to recommend approval of this request, they should stipulate that a drainage and utility easement be retained in the vacated alley. He said the petitioner and Mr. Langenfeld were right when they said tfiis alley�easement had been a catch-all. He said it would be impossible for the City to ever improve this alley, because they couldn't cut down the trees. MOTlON BY Peterson, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approvaZ of the vacation request, SAV #75-06, by Michael McFarland, to vacate the 12 foot undeveloped a.I1ey in B1ock 15, Fridley Park Addition, to allow the petitioner to erect a fence that would incZude the a11ey, the same being 98 64th Way N.E. with the stipulation that a drainage and utility easement be retained in the vacated 12 faot a11ey. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • � �- Planning Commission Meeting - Jude 25, 1975 Page 11 Mr. Harris said he would like all the property owners in the block notified of t� this request. Mr. Clark said they had been, and would be notified again for the Public Hearing before Council. 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-02, BY RICHARD JANKE: To allow Lot 11, Block 1 � Rice Creek Plaza South Addition to be split into Parcels A& B, because of the error in fence location on Lot 10, the same being 191 and 201�Rice Creek Terrace N.E. � Mr. Richard Janke and Mr. Virgil.Mullins were present. Mr. Janke said his mother owned the property at 201 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. and when they built a patio and retaining wall, along with the fe�ce,.there was an error made as to the actual property line. He said that rather than most the fence and other improvements to this property, the owner of Lot 11, Mr. Virgil Mullins, 191 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., has agreed to sell the property to his mother. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Mullines was present also, and he had also signed the request, and if both parties were in�agreement, the City saw no problem with this request, - Mr: Mullins said he was in agreement with this request. Mr. Harris asked if both lots would still meet the�setback and lot requirements of the City code. Mr. Clark said they would � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recomment _ to Council approval of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #75-02, by Richard Janke, to . allow Lot 1Z, B1ock 1, Rice Creek P1aza South Addi�ion, to be split into Parcels A and B, �ecause of_an error in fence Iocation, the same being 19Z and 201 Rice Creek , ' Terrace N.E. Upon a voice DOt�� a12 voting aye, the motion carried ananimously. 6. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-03, BY ARTHUR SEGER: Split Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, to create another building site, the same being 7650 Lakeside Road N.E. Mr. �rthur Seger was not present. Mr. Harris said it looked like the lots would be quite large. Mr. Glark said they would be. He said the present lot has enough area and street frontage to make two building sites. � Mr. Clark said there really should be a survey made of the property as soon as possible. There was some question as to the rear yard requirement for the existing �ouse. According to the rough drawing, the house would be 26 feet from the new side lot line of the property being split off, and the rear yard requirements was 25% of the lot depth, which would make this 30 feet. He said that this would create no problem because of the size of the property. The lot size of the property being split off could be reduced to 90 feet and would still meet the lot area requirements. Mr. Harris said that it could be reduced just by the 4 feet, and the lot would be 100' x 100'. Mr. Clark said the property South of these lots belonged to School District #13. �"� � Mr. Harris asked if there would be any easements necessary on this parcel. Mr. .Clark said he was sure that there would be. �� Planning Commission Meeting- June 25, 1975 Page 12 Mr. Harris said he would like to see this property surveyed and all the utility � easements see before this went to Council. Mr. Clark said they have not always done it that way, but that was no reason it couldn't be done. They could stipulate that this all be done before it went on the Council agenda. � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Corran.i.ssion recommend that the petitioner have Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition surveyed and a11 utility easements worked out with Northern States Power Company, Northwestern Be11 Telephone Company, Minnegasco, Cab1e Television and the City Engineering Department before this appears on the Council agenda; and that both lots meet the setback and area requirements of the City Code, and at that time.the PZanning Commission would recommend to Council approval of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.5. #75-03, by Arthur Seger, to split Lot 1, BZock 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, to create another building site, the same being 7650 Lakeside Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. Mr. Harris said he would like a copy of the completed lot split to be included in the Flanning Commission agenda. Mr. Clark said he would see that this was done. � 7. � LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-04, BY ROBERT SCHRQER:.Split off the North 126.1 feet of the East Z00 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, and the South 173.99 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd�Addition, to ereate . a building site, the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E. Mr. Robert Schroer was present. �♦� Mr.�Clark presented a drawing that had been submitted by Mr. Schroer in 1972, and said that on the basis of this drawing, we have previously granted lot .splits for both Capp Homes and the Town Crier. The third parcel, which was this request, was for the Datsun Dealership. It does not disrupt the pattern thay may ,become evident �at some future date, but it does cut off thes:treet access to the Western portion of Lot 3, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. He said Lots 2 and 4 were L shaped lot splits, so they still have access. Me said he had talked to Dave Harris, who has an interest in this also, and he told Mr. Harris.that the staff would probably recommend approval of the lot split, but we definitely would want an easement to the rear portion of Lot 3 for street access. Mr. Harris indicated to Mr. Clark that he would be willing to grant this easement at this time, and that the City should drawn up the agreement, and he would sign it. Mr. Clark said that this would.satisfy the access to uot 3. Mr. Clark said that both parce�s meet the zoning requirements for C-2 Zoning. Mr. Clark said that he was not saying that the road would go in as it was shown on the drawning, but we do have to protect street access for Lot 3, and insist on a right of way. ' MOTTON by Drigans, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Commission recommend �o Council approval of the request for a Lot 5p1it, L.S. #75-04, by Robert Schroer, to split off the North 126.1 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, and the South Z73.99 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, B1ock 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, � ta create a building site, the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E., with the stipulation than an agreement be signed to provide an easement for street right of � way on the West 30 feet of the Easterly 230 feet of Lots 3 and 4, together with the Southerly 33 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . .. °�'�',' "' �"'1. r'� Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 13 8. BUILDING PERMITS � Paco, Inc. Industrial Building - 7847 Elm Street N.E. -Staff Report -Rttachment A Mr. Clark explained that with the reorganization of the Planning Commission this item will always appear on the agenda, with an administrative staff report, but after this, it will always be the first item on the agenda. Mr. Clark said that all building permits will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. We feel that no action is necessary by either body unless they wish to make some comment about them. He said an administrative staff report would be submitted with all building permits, and they were working on a form that would be a check list to see how such con��ruction would affect the environment, for example, whether it affects it adversely or betters it. Mr. Clark said that this particular building, in this block, will complete the construction along Elm Street between 77th and 78th. This addition, along with another structure, meets all the zoning requirements as far as setbacks anu parking ratios and the use of the property. The architectural design was similar to the balance of the buildings in this area. The�middle building front will be split block masonry. The other one will be brick, the�same as the next building Sou�h, up to two or three courses of the top, and then it will be split face rock, for the balance. It was very similar in nature to the rest of the structures in the block. The staff feels that this was a good addition to the area, and�it meets all the codes and does not affect the environment adversely. Mr. Clark said there was a set of plans, if the Planning Commission wanted to look at them. He said there were 80 feet between this structure and the next one South, and Mr. Pashke was discussing with the owner of the other structure, the possibility of putting in the parking 1ot now, rather than sodding it and having to tear up the sod later for the parking lot. This was a parking lot that they have been planning for, for some time. It doesn't have�to happen, because the parking meets the code requirements, and there apparently We�e no parking problems, but we do have an open building which may need more parking, depending upon the occupancy. Mr. Lindblad asked to see the over-all plan of the Onaway area. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Paschke when he was coming in for variance. Mr. Pashke said this building did not require any variance. Mr.. Drigans commended Paco, Inc., for coming up with a plan that didn't require a variance. � Mr. Clark�said there would have been a variance, but with both buildings being built at the same time, under one ownership, and with the firewal], it meeis the zoning requirements for a 0 lot line. •. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission did not have to make a recommendation unless they felt that this did not meet the policies, which you haven't established yet, then that would be what you would comment upon. Mr. Lindblad asked if all building permits for commercial and industrial construction will come to the Planning Commission now. Mr. Clark said they would, ,� and the staff report will state if there are any problems or not. If there are � problems, the Planning Corr�nission will direct the application for a building permit � �to tFie proper Commissison. If it was a variance, that would go to the Appeals Commission right away, before it comes to the Planning Commission. Ne said this Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 14 procedure was sort of in limbo now, until the Planning Commission sets up its policies, and goals and objectives. , � Chairman Harris asked the other members of the Planning Commission if it was the concensus of opinion that they agreed with the staff recammendation. The�other members stated their agreement. � . . � STATEMENT OF APPRECIATION: ' Chairman Harris said that the reorganization of the Planning Commission would result in new members on the Planning Commission, and he wanted to thank the present members for their cooperation and indulgence. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION b� Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commision meeting of�June 25, 1974 adjor��ned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � � n � Dorothy Eve on-Secretary 0 I ' c 0 � Attachment A ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7791-7747 Elm 5treet by:. PACO MASONRY GENERAL DESCRIPTION This is a special warehouse building to be built at 7791 and 7747 Elm Street. A portion of the building will be an extension of the occupancy at 7791 Elm and 7747 Elm will be set up for a new occupancy. This building is an allowed use in this district (M-2) and meets all code requirements. The building will be set back on the South 20' in order to allow for a joint parking facility for 7747 and 7739 Elm Street. This facility will be set back 35' from Elm Street with no entrance on to Elm. This area between Elm and the parking lot will be bermed and planted. The building will be constructed of a combination split face block and brick to match the existing building design in the area. The back alley will be used for general access to the parking and truck loading facility. � ENGINEERING We don't foresee any engineering problems with grading or drainage. The parking lot will drain to the alley which in turn drains south and is picked up by Storm Sewers in city streets. ENVIRONMENTAL � We don't foresee any negative environmental impacts on the area with the construction of this buildi.ng. i� � , .��.� ��G��- ;' _ � _ _ ;' �� �o�..&� _ i I ! _ �i��'--LC.e�.�� `,. _ l:..GLr-a� . �. ,C�e�'��f/ ! � � _ �- � . _ a--�:�-� �,%� � _, � _ , �--� � 5 � / �l 7 .S /z1 7��� ��. �� th � / �y �'� ..�� `� �S`� = °�i� . `% � � i�- s-����..�� �> _ �9� _ __ .,� ��� � � � _ ,� � E �i � 3 � � ��. .��. `3 9 - � 3 � .�- y ' �� i���.�- _ - _ i C� � � � , _ �� ;„ � , -: . �.�-�� � �.��, _� _ . _, _ _ __ _ _ , ,� ; �� _ . �_�� ����� _ G��� e�� U� , � ;.; � � �o���(�( y fi ti _ _ _ _-- , i �y � �> '�. � .� �,.� _�l�a _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ,,��� _- - ���-� �'� ��ti � _ �4 �.o�� �o - � � =�=�- � � �. � � � G� � :.�� 0 7 � �o. ���