Loading...
PL 07/23/1975 - 31187� e n � � PLANNING�COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY JULY 23, 1975 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CRLL: Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harr�is, Drigans, L�ngenfeld Members Absent: Peterso.n Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Bergirran, that the agenda be adopted as presented.with th� change that Billboards be added as item 6 and goals and objectives be moved.to item 7. Upvn a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, tl�e agenda was adopted as amended. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 25, 1975. � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Langenfeld that the minutes of the June 25, 1975 Planning Commission meeting be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Iy. � TIM MINUTES OF.SAV #75-04 AND REC01 ) GHANGES TO THE JUNE 25, 1975 '� Mr. Dr.igans said that after readin�g the verba�im minutes of this vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, that his vote would not change. He would still vote for denial. -He said he thought that if anyone on the Planning Commission felt there was something they wanted to add after reading the verbatim minutes that would enforce their decision to.deny this request, those comments could be made at this time. He said that as far as he was coricerned, there was some doubt in his mind that Mr. Benson wasn't aware that he was in violation of an ordinance when he fenced the alley �asement. Mrs. Welch stated that her husband had told Mr. Benson that the Welch's weren't putting there fence in the alley because it hadn't been vacated, and this should have caused Mr. Benson to at least check with the City before �e assumed that the alley had been vacated. Mr. Drigans said that there were adjacent property owners who wanted the alley left openr�so there was enough opposition to make the motion for denial almost mandatory. Mr. Harris said it would be in order to amend the verbatim minutes with a motion to receive the petition in opposition to the vacation.� . MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by'Drigans, that the PZanning Commission receive the petition against the vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, (Petition 15-1975) which was signed by seven property owners �n B1ock �, Spring Brook Park Addition. Upon a�vaice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanirhously. "'� fi3�TIdN by Drigans that the Planning Commission sti1Z recommend derrial of the vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, with the stipulation that the fence be removed at the end of the growing season alaout the middle of 5eptember. • Planning Cominission Meeting - July 23, 1975 ' Paqe 2 Mr. Scott said there was discussion with Mr. �ob Schroer'that the gardens would be all done by the lst of October. �� . . Mr. Drigans amended his motion to state that the fence should be removed by October lst, the end of the growing season. Mr. Scott then seconded the �tion. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mo�ion carried unanimously. MOTION by Bergman, seconded.by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commi�sion receive the verbatim minutes bf SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, from the June 25, 1975 meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE.LETTER FROM HARVEY E. SKAAR, A7TORNEY FOR THOSE IN FAVOR OF VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-04, BY LEONARD BENSON, DATED JULY 7, 1975. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission recieve the letter from Harvey E. Skaar, attorney for those in favor of vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, dated Ju1y 7, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion �arried unanimously. APPROVE PCANNING.COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 9, 1975 Mr. Drigans asked if there was a copy of the resolution prepared o� the Sh�reland Management Act that was available to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman distributed copies of the resolu�ion. � Mr. Harris said that he attended the Public Hearing on the Shoreland Management �..� Act, along with Councilman Fi�zpatrick and Jerrold Boardman. Mr, said that Mr. � Boardman read the resolution at this Public Hearing. He said the Department of � Natural Resources explained their'interpretation of the rules. He said there were � . people speaking both for and against this proposal. He said that the feedback he had gotten after the meeting was that the'y expected more response tha��they had � gotten, and he had expected more response himself. . Mr. Boardman _said there may be more response because they are leaving this open until August 5,�1975. , Mr. Drigans asked if they felt ou'r community h.ad any valid points in our resolution? Mr. Harris said they took it under advYSement. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if he had gotten the documents they had asked�for? Mr. Boardman'said he didn't have them as yet. Mr..Harris said that he should make a point of getting those documents because it seemad as though they are relying on the City of Fridley for their documentation. Mr. Boardman said the main point was that we would be allowed to grant variances qn this Act, but he couldn't see setting up an ordinance that would have to be varied. He felt it would be better to set up an ordinance� if they would allow us the leeway, that could be administered without variances. ' � Mr. Scott said that he thought Jerry Boardman should be commende� for the preparation of the resolution in such a short time apd��the comprehensive nature of it and its general content to reflect the feeling of �the Planning Commission. �, He said it was his opa�nion that Mr. Boardman did an outstanding job in this case. Mr..�Harris said his effort was appreciated. Mr. Scott said he had made a point of order in the discussion on the time of Planninq Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 Page 3 of the.meeting of the Commissions. He said the�ordinance stated that this time. n • should be set by the Planning Commission, but the time was set by the staff. He thought this should have been included in the minutes. Motion by Scott, seconded by Bergmcan, that the Planning Commission minutes of Jv1y 9, 1975 be amended to include the point of order in the discussion of the Commission meeting times. Upon a voice uote, a11 voting aye, the moti�n carried unanimously. Motion by Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission minutes of the�July 9, 1975 meeting to approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, a.Il voting aye, fhe trcotion carried unani�usly. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 15, 1975 MOTION by Driqans, seconded by Scott', that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of Ju.Zy 15., 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 16, 1975 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Scott tliat the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Community Development Corrm�ission of the Ju1y 16, 1975 meeting. Mr. Scott said it was mentioned in these minutes that they would provide interim goals�and objectives by October lst. Was this the general concensus of n when the Planning Commission wanted the goals and objectives from the other Commissions. �' Mr. Harris said that on or about October lst was the target date. Mr. Scott said that his Corr�nission s.hould be prepared by that time to present a nice package on their goals and objectives. � � Mr. Harris said that if the Planning Commission could get the input from � all the Ca�°�nission's�on'tti�ir-��als a�d objectives b� October,� the Pl��+ning Corr�nission would have their's completed by the lst�of January. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langenfeld if his Commission would have their goals and objectives by that time. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought they could meet that deadline. He said that he didn't know if they could set their goals for ten years hence. Mr. Harris said that he felt.that the goal�s would be temporary. As �ne goal was reached, there would be new goals and it would be an on-going thing. Mr. Bergman said that his Commission felt that Community Development was a . large area, and thei�r goals and objectives would have to be interim goals only. . Mr. Itarris said that as Chairman of the Planning Commission what he was looking f.or from the Commissions was input on what direction they thought the Planning Commission should take, so the Planning Commission could start to°form their goals and objectives. � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Scott if it was the intent of his Commission to present the Planning Commission with a neatly tied up packaae 'before the Planning Commission had �� the ti�me to review it. Mr. Scott said.that was the purpase of having tfie goals ar�d objeCtives done by October so the Planning Commission could review them. Mr. Boardman said the Commissions proposed goals and.objectives were just to Plannirig Corr�nission Meeting - July 23, 1975 � Page 4 ^ to give the Planning Commission input. They would not be goals and objectives that - had already been adopted by any Commission. The Planning Commission would have the opportunity at that time, without returning the goals and object•ives to the Commissinns, to review and/or take out goals and objectives that the Planning Commission felt were not necessary, etc. This would be up to the Planning Commission because this �as a the authority of the Planning Commission. ��� � �^� Mr. Scott said that his Commission hoped to send their goals and objectives with some type of base on them, and not just a bunch of wild ideas. We hope to come in with something �omprehensive, not that we will be locked into these goals and objectives. Mr. Harris said he had mentioned Commission absenteeism at this meeting, and � he would have more to say on this at the end of the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. BUILDING PERMITS None � 2. CONTINUED: CONSIDERATION OF A � To reduce the drainage and util side of Lot 6, Block l, Clark's Mr. Richard Kok was present. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-05, ity easement from 6 feet to 0 Addition, the same being 6517 Y RICHARD KOK: eet �on the South McKinley Street N.E. Mr. Boardman said this was a.request to remove the 6 foot utility easement on the South side of Lot 6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, and there were no utilities in this easement. He said that both Northwestern.Bell and Northern States Power Company have notified the staff that they had no objection to this vacation. Mr�. Boardman said.that when staff reviewed this, it�was noted that there was a 12 foot drainage easment of which 6 feet were on the rear of Lots 1- 6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, and the other 6 feet were on the rear of Lots 1-6, Block 3, Moore Lake Park lst Addition. This 12 foot utility easement continued through Lot 8, Block 3, Moore Lake Park lst Addition, and was almost in the center of this lot and the house was constructed in this easem�nt. He said it was the recommendation of the staff that this request should be delayed until the easement was moved on Lot 8, or make a stipulation that this request for a vacation of the 6 foot easement be contingent upon the easement being moved on Lot 8. He said tkie staff didn't foresee any problems with Lot 8, because the owner would certainly prefer that his home was not encroach- ing on an easement. ' Mr. Kok said that if the Planning Commission looked at the survey of his lot, they would note'that the house was at an ang.le because it followed the shape of the s,treet. He said the garage was constructed at the same angle as the house so it was just the Southwest corner of the garage that encroached 3 feet into the 6 foot easement. Mr. Harris said that Mr. & Mrs. Duane Retzer, 1685 Mississippi Street N.E., owned Lot 8,�and Mr. & Mrs. Richard Janiak, 1644 Mississippi Street owned Lot 7 i�hich was in Clark's Addition also, so probably had the same 6 foot easement on the North line that Lot 6 had on the South line. He felt the entire 12 foot easement should be vacated, instead.of leaving the 6 foot easement on one side and vacating the 6 foot easement on the other side, as long�as there were no utility easements in this easement anyway. Mr. Drigans said that he agreed with Mr. Harris, that the 12 foot easement should be vacated instead of only half of it. � � 0 Plannin Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 � Page 5 . Mr.�Harris asked Mr. Boardman if the City was going to need any of th�t easement on Lots 6 and 7 when the easement for Lot 8 was jogged over. Mr. Kok said he had� no objection to part of the easement being retained if they needed it to join up with the new easement for Lot 8, but he would want to determine that his garage wasn't on any part of the easement they wanted.to retain. He said the garage was 12 feet back from his house. � . . Mr. Boardman said the City would probabVy.retain that part of the South 6 foot easement that .lies 85.31 feet from his West property line, so that's the figure that Mr. Kok should use in measuring his property. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission continue 'the consideration of a vacation request, SAV #75-05, by Richard Kok, to reduce the drainage and utlity easement from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side of Lot 6, Block 1, C1ark's Addition, the same being 6517 McKinley Street N.E., until August 6, 1975, to aZ1ow time for the Engineering Department and the petifioner to agree on'how much of the South 6 feet easement the City may want to retain in the 5outheast corner of Lof 6, and work oLt a new easement agreement on Lot 8, Block 3, Moore Lake Park lst Addition. Upon a voice vote, all�.•voting aye, the motion carried.unanimously. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-07, BY VERLYN VANDER LUGT: To vacate ' the street easement occupying the Easterly 66 feet of property described as the � South part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 3, to allow the construction of a single family home. � � Mr. Verlyn Vander.Lugt was present. . �� Mr. Boardman said this was an old street easement. The only way the City could ° use this easement would be f�r access to the park property but the grade on this easement would no� lend itself to such access, so this was street right of way the City would never need. He said this right of way�continues from Si�erts Lane all the way through the property purchased tiy Mr. Vander Lugt. Mr. Drigans asked i°f this was a buildable lot and if a home could be built on it without variances. Mr. Boardman said it was a buildable lot and he didn't think any variances would be needed. � ' Mr. Vander Lugt said that if the street right of way wasn't on Mr. Sivert's property, he had, in his purchase agreement, permi"ssion from Mr: Sivert for a 33 ft. easement_to his property. ' , � Mr. Harris said that if this easement was necessary, he should have a'legal document drawn up by an attorney, and-file this along with his deed at the County. He said the City should have a copy of it also, in case an emergency vehicle would ever have to get to his property. Mr. Boardman said the Engineering files were locked up so he was unable to get a copy of Registered Land Survey #3. He� said that if 'this street right �of way was on Mr. Vander Lugt's property,�he felt that it went ait the way through on Tract C. Mr. Vander Lugt said he was certain that the 66 foot easement went through Mr. �..,� Sivert's property,�because after the last Council meeting he had stated that h� thought he would ask for a partial vacation of thi-s right of way because his water supply was on this easement. _ Planning Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 Page 6 Mr. Drigans asked if there w�re any other easements on this property other than ^ the street right of way? He asked how service.s were provided? Mr. Boardman said the • street right of way could be used for utility easements if services ever became avail- able in this area. • . Mr. Harris asked how sewer and water were handled in this area. Mr. Boardman said that sewer and water were not available for this area, and they were all on- land systems. Mr. Harris said he didn't think that the Metropolitan Waste Control Agency would allow that type of system any more. Mr. Boardman said that all the property in this area had on-land systems. He said the lot size of Mr. Vander Lugt's property w�s sufficient to qualify for this type of system. . MOTION by Scott that the PZanning Commission recomraend to Council approval of the vacation request, SAV #75-07, by Verlyn Vander Lugt to vacate the street easement occupying the Easterly 66 feet of property desczibed as the South part of Tract C, ' Registered Land Survey No. 3. ' Mr. Har-ris said there should probably be �. stipulation on an easement being granted on the other portion of Lot C, if this was not street right of way. Mr. Boardman said that if there was street right of way op Mr. Vander Lugt"'s property, he was sure the right of way-was on all of Tract C. Mr. Harris said this could be ironed out before this went to Council. ' Mr. Drigans said he thought they were moving too fast on this request. Mr. Boardman said that the fact.that there �as going to be an on-land system � on this property was nothing that should concern the Planning Commission on the ' � vacation request, because this met.the State requirements and had already been � discussed by the City Council. He said the street right of way that Mr. Vander � . Lugt wanted to vacate was street right of .way that the City would never need, and if there was not street right of way on the balance of Tract C, it was in the . � purchase agreement that access would be g�anted, and this could be worked out legally if it was necessary. , � TIiE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. � Mr. Scott said there were no utilities going to.this property. The City has agreed in principle to provide service to the unimproved portion of the road going into this property, that was plowing this road in the winter time, even if it was not improved. He said the only thing the Planning Commission was doing by not � granting this vacation request was denying the person to build a house. He has met every other criteria in the work, that any other bureaucratic organization could confront him with,� and he has overcome them all. The only thing that was stopping him from building his house was the fact that he couldn't build it on an easement. He said he thought they were placing an inordinate burden on the purchaser of this property and that Mr. Sivert had cooperated, the neighbors had cooperated and the p etitioner had been to several Council meetings to iron out all the small problems on this property. The only thing that was keeping him from buiTding a home and living in Fridley was the�fact that we want to keep an easement that will never be used, by staff's testimony. Mr. Bergman asked if there were any other people present who had an interest �., in this request.. There was no response. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Boardman if he'was correct in his assumptn�on? .�� Planning Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 Page 7 Mr. Boardman answered that he couldn�'t see any problem with vacating the � ° street easement. There was absolutely no tie on that property. We cannot use that street easement because the grades are too steep to use it for access �o the � park property. It was actually a street easement that had no purpose. Mr..Bergman asked if it was a normal practice to have easements retained for utilities on property. Mr. Boardman said it was, but on these properties, utilities were provided by the property owner. He said that in th:T.s area, Tract A was park property. Tract C, D and E already have homes built on them. T�aet E could be served�from Central Avenue, if utilities were available. Tract C and D could be served from Siverts Lane. Mr. Boardman sai.d that if utilities ever did go into this area, the easement on Mr. Sivert's property could serve Mr. Vander Lugt's property. Mr. Drigans told Mr. Boardman that this particular parcel of land had been under discussion some time in the past`year, but he didn't recall the circumstances. Mr. Boardman said it was discussed in the Park and Recreation Comprehensive Pl��. Mr. Drigans asked what the original purpose was for this street right of way? Mr. Boardman said it was there in case this area was ever platted. Mr. Drigans said that if this area was platted, then how would we get access? Mr. Boardman said through the developed portion of Siverts Lane. He explained that Parcel 500 was tax exempt property, which was being held by the County for the County. Parcel 900 was in trust with the State of Minnesota, which was also being held for park property. � Mr. Scott said that even if this was developed into a grandiose park they still� 4' couldn't use this easement for a road because of the steep grades. M�. Drigans asked how the City got access� to Parcel 620. Mr. Boardman said that at the present time they had access from old Central. He said this access was rather limited because this was such a wild area. . �. Mr. Boardman said the only privatel'y owned property in this area was Parcel 1300 which was owned by Floyd Foslien, so there were other access points available. Mr. Vander Lugt said that neither the realtor or himself were aware of this easement on the property when he purchased it. That's why he was so sure that this 66 foot easement was on all of Tract C. • Mr. Drigans asked what would happen if an ordinance was passed where everyone had to hook up to City sewer and water? Mr. Boardman said that this wouldn't affect this property unless the City put in services for this area. The people in this area couldn't comply with such an ordinance because there were no services available. Mr. D'rigans said that he felt th�s was part of the problem. If we can't iel'1 people in this area when services would be available in�future planning for the City, this should be resolved... � . Mr. Bergman said he thought the Planning Commjssion had discussed several points that were pertin�nt to this vacation, and he also thought they had discussed a lot . � of poiflts that were not necessarily germane on this particular piece of land. He said � that'the problems with Tract C were relatively immaterial to this particular request. ---� Planning Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 Page 8 . MOTION by Bergman, seconded by SCOtt, that the Planning Commission recommend ^ • to Council approval of vacation request, SAV #75-07, by Verlyn Vand'er Lugt, to • vacate the street easement occupying the Easterly 66 feet of property described as the South part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 3, with the stipulation that � fhe petitioner and the City Administration clarify the street dedication South of 69th Avenue N.E. befor� this goes to the Council. Mr. Scott said the City has agreed in principle to provide the services that we generally associate with an improved street, not to maintain this road, but to plow it, and the people can contract with the City to repair this street, to keep the street open. � Mr. Drigans asked what he meant "in principle"? Mr. Scott said it was City policy not to maintain anything but an improved road. There had been a public hearing for improving this road, but the residents of the area stated that they did not want an improved road .in�this area. They have been maintaining it themselved. Therefore, the City cannot legally maintain thi� road. One of the Councilmen said that due to the nature of the area, they would not improve the road, but they would run the plow through there. Mr. Scott said that all the neighbors were in agreement with this whole concept. Mr. Drigans said that the right of way only went to Mr. Scott said it went all the way down on Tract C. In fact, he thinking of asking that this right of way be reduced from 66 property. Sivert's property. Mr. thought Mr. Siverts.was feet to 33 feet on his i"� . Mr. Drigans said then he had been misled. He thought the right of way ended at� ' Tract F. Mr. Boardman said the road was improved through Parcel F, but the road easement continued through Tnact C, although he had nothing to prove this with at this time because the files were locked. � � UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, the MOTION carried unanimously. �� q,. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-08, BY LEO LEMKE: To vacate 47th Avenue N.E. between 3rd Street and University Avenue, and vacate the 12 foot alley between 46th Avenue N.E. ta 48th Avenue N.E., all located in Blocks 8 and and 9, Plymouth Addition, to allow construction of a single family home on Lot 30, Block 9, Plymouth Addition, the same being 4687 3rd Street N.E. Mr. Leo Lemke was present. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconddd by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive Zetters from Northern States Power Company and Northwestern Be11 Telephone Company stating that they have no objection to the vacation request, but wished to have a 12 foot utility easement retained in the a11ey, and a letter from Minnegasco stating that they have no objection to this v.acation request as they have no services in�the alleys. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Baardman said the petitioner had requested the vacation of 47th Avenue in 1969, but at that time the City Council denied the request because they didn't know if there would be a use for the alley at that time'. He said that there was a report from Tom Colbert, Assistant City Engineer, which states that the City Administration had no objection to this request, but_that a drainage and utility easement wouTd have to 'be retained over the North 23 feet of the South half of 47th Avenue due to an exist- ing R.C.P. storm sewer located 13 feet South of the center line of 47th Avenue, and �.� Planning Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 � Page 9 suggests that the North-South alley be vacated also, to eliminate any potential � access problems: This alley was presently undeveloped. Mr. Drigans asked the size�of Lot 30. �Mr. Harris said this was a 38 1/2.foot �lot, and with the 30 feet of street right of way this lot would be 68 1/2 feet wide. ,' He said the present depth was 129.3 and with the additional 6 ft.acquired through the ' vacation of the alley, it would be 135.3 feet deep. This would make the lot 9,268 square ft. which was in excess of our minimun lot requirement of 9,000 square feet. Mr. Drigans asked what happens to the ot�er 6 feet section of alley when the highway fence ran along this area? . Mr. Cornelius Warzecka, 4675 3rd Street N.E. said he lived in this area, and the people maintained their property all the way up to the highway fence. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Lemke if he had a plan that would fit on this lot, due to � the restriction of the 23 foot utility easement. Mr. Lemke said he didn't think he would have too muc� problem fitting a house on this lot. He said that even with a 10 foot seback, he could still have a house up to 35 feet wide. Mr. Harris said it _ would be better to have the garage on the North side of the�lot because he could use the easement for a driveway. MOTION by.Drigans, seconded b� Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of vacation request, SAV #75-OS,.by Leo Lemke, to vacate 47th Avenu� N.E. between 3rd Street N.E. and University Avenue N.E., and the 12 foot a11ey between 46th Avenue and 48th Avenue N.E., a1Z located in Blocks 8 and 9, Plymouth . Addition, to a11ow the construction of a single farn.ily home on Lot 30, B1ock 9, Plymouth Addition, the same being 4687 3rd Street N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. Retain the drainage and utility easement Qver the North'23 feet of the South � Ha1f of 47th Avenue. . 2. Retain a 12 footeutility easement in the vacated 12 foot a11ey between 46th and 48th Avenue N.E.,in Blocks 8.�and 9, Plymouth Addition. • UPON A VOICE VOTE, the motion carried unanimously. 5. RECEIVE MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON TH� ISSURANCE Of SPECIAL USE PERMITS MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the memorandum from the City Attorney on the issuance of Special Use Permits. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion c�rried unanimously. Mr. Boardman sai'd this information was given to the Planning Commission as a hand out at the meeting so it could be added to the Special Use Permit section of their code book for reference. It was information that had come down from the City Attorney on what the responsibilities are on Special Use Permits, and what kin:d of ' procedural respondents you would have to•use in denying a Special Use Permit. 6. BILLBOARDS . ' . Mr. Boardman said he had made available 3 pages of a more complete report on � the status and handling of Special Use Permits for billboards. The Planning Commission would receive the complete report at their next meeting. 0 �� Plannind Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 e 10 ,---, MOTION_by Drigans, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the three page report on Special Use Permits for billboards. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . � �� Mr, B�ardman said this report cover the legal non-conforming use setback requirements. , recommends that'the Special Use Permit for b�llboards of any billboard in regard to variances, zoning, and Mr. Drigans said he had been wonhoW�theh�wereegoing todgetnar und it,nand now handled in regard to billboards, and , Y he knew. He said that for the benefiinfor the new members of the Planning Commiss�on I he would explain what had been happen g � Mr. Drigans said that for the past year We o�denance saidcthey�shouldcall bee � Permits and va'riances for billboards. Our sign discontinued by Septe�ber 15, 19�4� un�the community weretadnonsconformUng usem�which He said that many of the billboards i would require variances or rezoning, and �hsttohdiscussChowcto�handle theAmultituded Planning Commission had had several meeting of requests that would be comi�g in on these billboards. Mr. Boardman said they had made surveys of all th�Obe��boaand manyrofl�hemand found that several were existing on improperly zoned p p Y needed variances. However, there has been a determination by the City Atto �hey are that since these billboards were �n and�variancesgn ArSpecial Use Permitnwas still .grandfathered in as far as rezon�ng required, however, because that was. thanWes ehtherghadrtheaoptionstorremovingstheir September 15, 1974, the billboard comp ' billboards or applying for a Special Use boards�atMtheBnext PlanningtCommisson meeting requests for Special Use Permits for bill on August 6, 1975. Mr. Drigans said that when the S�ghe ownerscofWbillboards�totamorthze their standing that it was written to allow t costs in five years. Mr. Boardman said �t a�loo hol�aebut thepordinance didCgive Use`Permit, Ne said that maybe it was not �p for a Special-:�se Permit. them five years to remove the billboards or app Y Mr. Bergman said that evidently the five years were.:coming up. �Mr. Drigans . s aid the �ive years have come and gone. They were supposed to comply with this ordinanceJby september 15, 1974.� Mr. Bergman asked if this was to be an annuae peviewed 'each yeardmaHessaid,this could be stipulated that the Special Use Permit b report mentions stipulations that could be placed on these Special Use Permits. Mr. Bergman asked if there were any fees �e�Permit�request,randethese billboards� man sa.id the fee was $25.00 for each Special Us were handled on an individual basis. �r' BvegaasesaratethWgher�feeaforhbillboardsldn t be higher. Mr. Harris said you couldn t ha P because that would be discriminatory. . . -� Mr. Drigans said it was his undee�taid�of thesetbillboardnrequestsSatnaWworking .�going to have the opportunity to re session so they could all be handled uniformly, but on an �ndividual basis. � � � � Planning Commission Meeting - July 23, 1975 Page 11 � Mr. Boardman�said there was a report on each billboard in the big report they , would be receiving. � . � Mr. Harris said he would like that report next week so that �11 the members had time to read it before they got their agenda. Mr. Boardman said that he would see that it was sent out next week. � � Mr. Boardman reviewed difference aspects of the sign ordinance. P1r. Drigans said he would like to have the minutes and background on the sign ordinarice compi'led and given to the members of the Planning Commission also, because we do have new members, and they should know the background on this. Mr: Harris said he would like to know what the intent of the ordinance was at the time it was written. If it.was meant to eliminate billboards in Fridley, then we should either enforce the ordinan�ce or repeal it. Mr. Boardman said that all the information we have on the sign ordinan�e woiald be compiled and sent to each member also. Mr. Harris said that if the Planning Commission wan�ted to deny any of these Special Use Permits for billboards, they. would have to be very careful of their reasons for denial. He said that if one was too close to public right of way and was a traffic hazard, this could be a basis of denial. He asked Mr. Boardman to see �if the City Attorney could be present for that portion of the Planning Commission meeting when the Special Use Permits for billboards were being considered. Mr. Boardman said fie would loalk into this possibility. 7. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman said this was placed on the agenda because at the last Planning Commission meeting there was a recomrnendation that each Chairman talk to their Commission and come up with a feasible deadline��for submitting their goals and objectives, so each Commission coul� work toward that deadline. The Planning Corrunission wanted to be ready to go to P,ublic Hearings by the lst of January. . Mr. Harris said that it seemed in previous discussion that most every Chairman could meet the October lst or 2nd deadline. All the Chairmen said they thought they could meet this deadline. Mr. Harris said he would like these goals and objectives for the October 8th Planning Commission meeting. 8. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENTEEISM Chairman Harris said that he knew that there were vacations and other�activities going on that conflic. with Commission meetings in the summer time, but there was so much to be accomplished by each Commission that he felt every effort should be made for a�l members of the Commissions to attend their meetings, He said�he was, personally very disappointed in the a�tendance at the Environmental Commission meetings. It was his feeling that when people accept appointments to these Commis- sions, they should intend to serve, and if they weren't, they should resign and have the City Council appoint someone else to take their place. . � Mr. Boardman said that every member of each Commission received a agenda a ' few days prior to their meeting, and on the day of the meeting the staff contacted � each member to remind them of the meeting. . � P7anning Commissifln Meeting -�July 23, 1975� . Page 12 Ckrairman Harris said he wanted each Chairman to �oncern hi�s�lf as to why � some members weren't attending the meetings. � Mr. Bergman made a request for a plat book. He said the plat books available � for the meetings were very obsolete.� Chairman Harris agreed, and requested that �• new plat books be made available. ADJOURNMENT: _� MOTION by Scott, seconded by Langenfe.Zd that the rr�eeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairznan Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of Ju1� 23, 1975 adjourned at 11:00 P.N1. . Respectfully submitted, � .G�i� ���z� orothy Evens , Secretary n � 0 � , .. � . �y -� � '"A z ---- ° ---- __ -- --- -- -- _ __ __- . • �- - -------------------- _ ' " � _ - - --- - - " � -- ---- _ __ --- ----- ------ ��t 1���� � - -- ---- ---- -- ------ - ---__ __- --- ---- ------------- -� ;� _ _ - - ---- --- -- _ --- ---_ -- -- -_ __-- --__ ------ � ___ ___--------__----------- ------ ---- - - ° - - `--t s-'�°''�u/ - G� - --- - -. _- -- ___ _ _-. ___ - -- -- ------ --------- _ _- _��� __ o _____�.3-� 7 _,� � -_,��;�� _ . �_ __ _ __ _ __ ____ -______ _____ __ _ _____ _____ __ _ _ ___�_� z_� � �__���._ _ _ _�� _ . ___ ______ _ � _ __ _ ___�� �- �. � � � ___ __�___ ______ _- __ �- - . �--_ --- ------- ---------- __l°���---__1���,vxo,�, - ,�.�D�L� _ � �