The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 08/06/1975 - 31188�'``; �PLANNING CO(�9ISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF FRI.DLEY AUGUST 6, 1975 Chairman Narris callec} the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Tardy: Others Present: �AGE 1 Richard Harris, William Drigans, James Langenfeld, Hubert Lindblad, Vice Chairman sitting in for Bergman, David Harris, Vice Chairman sitting in for Peterson. William Scott. ' Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator Steven Olson, Environmental Officer APPROVE Pi.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 23, 1975 . MOTI�N by Drigans, seconded by Langenfeld•, that the Planning Commission minutes of Ju1y 23, 1975 be approved as tarit�en. Upon.a voice vote, aZ1 voting ay�e, the.motion carried unanimously. . RECE�IVE MUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 24, 1975 0 MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Liridblad, that the Planning Commission �^� � receive the Human Resources Commission minutes a�' the Ju1y 24, Z975 meeting. Upon �' a voice vote, a.�l voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �''', RECEIVE PARI<S & RECREATION�COMNIISSION MINUTES: JULY 28, 1975 . Mr. David Harris said that a motion he made'�on Page 3 of these miriutes was �not correct and he wanted to make notataon of tfiis on this item. - �� MOTION by Harris, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission�meeting of July 28, 1975, noting that the motion made by Harris on Page 3 of the minutes wi1.Z be corrected at their next meeting. ' Mr. �Drigans said that on page 3, Mr. Harris suggested that the girls,.softball program formulate an organizatian andc+�velop some by-laws. 'He asked if they weren't � presently part of a sport association? Mr. David Harris said they weren't. We indicated that thi� might be a vehicle to pursue, and if not, then we were going�to � develop some by-laws as far as the Parks and Recreation Commission �vas concerned so that we wouldn't have any problems. If.we set up goals and guidelines for each and every spor.t, ihere won't be any problems in the middle of the season. . ' Mr. Langenfeld asked if the Parks & Recreation Commission still met once a month under the reorganization? Mr. Harris said they did. Mr. Langenfeld said that the date of the next meeting on page 4 of the minutes was�given as September 25, 1975. Mr: Harris said that should be August 25, 1975: . _ UPON•a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. 5cott arrived at the me�ting and apologized for being late. He said he had been at a Chamber of Commerce meeting getting input on the billboards which 0 ' Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 . �Page 2• would be coming up later in the meeting. �' ° RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 29, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of the Ju1y 29, 1975 meeting. Upon a voice vote, all � voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , � � RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 30, 1975 MOTION' by Lindblad, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes bf the Ju1y 30, 1975 meeting. Mr. Langenfeld.said that in reviewing some of the Commission's minutes, � although he couldn't pinpoint it, he thought that some Subcommittees of the Commissions were formed without a Chairperson fror� that Subcommittee. He� though�t it was in the Human Resource Commission minutE . Mr. Scott said that was because these were Subcommittees of Subcommittees. He said they had Commission members on the Project Committees but not on the Subcommittees..He said that on �Page 6 of their minute.s it was resolv�d that he would be the Chairperson of the Communications Project Committee and all the Subcommittees of this Committee. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1.t voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' 1.. BUI.LDING PERMITS . � �� , . • . y A. Remodel Phillips "66" Ser�ice Station, 6500 University Avenue N.E., � by Construction 70, I�c., for Phillips Petroleum Company. Mr. Clark said the petitioner had withdrawn his request so there was no action needed. He said the staff was�sorry this had been withdrawn beeause the proposal would have been a great improvement. . �B. Construct an 8 Unit Apartment Building, �201 East River Road N.E., • by Don Sexter. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT � General Description: � ' This permit is for an 8 unit apartmertt complex at 8201 East River Road N.E. (Northeast corner of East River Road and Ironton). The building is a frame construction brick with wood trim and a cedar shake mansard roof. The property is presently � zoned R-3 (multip7e family) and the. structure conforms to present code requiremen�s. Engineering: 7here is a potential for a drainage problem in this area due to a low spot • North of thi�s property. The maximum amount of storm water will have to be directed toward if�onton. All roof and parking lot water will be directed to the street for � proper disposal. .If this is accomplished, the new development will tend to decrease water.flow into the low area. Any gt�anding plans will have to be reviewed by the Engineering Department be�Fore th� per�nit can be issued. 0 � Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 A Page 3 � Environmen�al: The only environmental probl�em �hat we see at this �ime is the apartmen� parking lot abutting an R-1 property. A six foot wood screening fence shall be provided along the East property line to act as a buffer to the existing R-1 property and the apartment parking loto The rarking lot wou1� need to be shifted 2 feet to the West in order to provide needed area for 1andscaping in conjunctian with the fence. There may be a need for addi�ional 1�ndscaping to �he North ior visua7 protection of apartment residents and the existing commercia7 developmenta Building Permit Stipulations: 1. Provide screening fence along �as� property line. . 2. Move parking facilities 2 feet to the West: 3o Provide lar�scaping (as per approved plan)o 4. Building and parking lo� drainage to be directed to Ironton( Grading plan . be approved by Engineering Departmer�t). . Mr. C1ark said that Jerrold Boardman met with Mr. Sexter earlier in the week, and he was presenting to the Planning Commission,.the plot plan that had been agreed upon•at thatrr�eeting. Mr. Clark reviewed the building permit stipulations. He said � there might be some slight changes in the grading because one of these units will 1.,� have to meet the handicap requirements, and will have to have a ramp. He said that '` staff recommended that the Planning Commission and Council approve the plan as revised. Mr. Drigans asked if the�e was more detail on what the complex would look like. Mr. Sexter said he thought this would be a nice addition to Fridley and that he had given Mr. •Clark a copy of the exterior-development of�this property. Mr. Clark produced the copy and this was shown to_the Planning Commission. Mr. Sexter said he did not have the elevations as yet, because in o.rder to meet the handicap requirements, he would either make a walk out unit at ground level or have a ramp. He said this was a provision that would have to be met before the building permit would be issued. Mr. Sexter continued that he woul'd place a redwood fence on the East side which would act as,a buffer to the adjacent R-1 property. � Mr. David Harris asked Mr. Sexter if this was a center hall type building. Mr. Sexter said it was with a front and rear entry. There would be two floors with four units on each floor. The lower floor on the rear of the building would be one bedroom units. He said there would be an engineering room and a laundry room. Mr. Harris said with the type of building he was proposing, would he agree to•have this a security type building. Mr. Sexter said he had planned to have this. M'r.:'Harris said that he would then have no o6jectior� to this being a stipulation. Mr. Sexter said he did not. . Mr. Scott asked Mr. Sexter if•he was a member of the Minnesota Apartment Owners .Association. Mr. Sexter said he was not. He said he had owned this lot in Fridley for five years, and that he had done a lot�of building in Fridley. He said that he � had put in Polk Street; and he had built apartments in other communities. He said he tiiought he would be going into semi=retirement and he would keep this building for himself. He said he only had about three sites left to build on, and he was anxious to complete this building, as he already had a mortage corrnnitment so he didn't antici- Planning Commission Meetinq - Au ust 6, 1975 Paqe 4 • pat� any problems. � Mr. Scott said the reason he had asked the ques�ion was because the Minneapolis �� Tenants Union had asked the City for some money as an arbitrator between tenants and . landlords, and the Minnesota Ap� rtment Owners Association felt they provided a simi- lar service. Mr. Sexter said he didn't have a lot of rental property, other than 'some � small uni�ts. Mr. Scott asked him if he had any feelings about this Association. Mr. - Sexter said he hadn't beeri too involved in this aspect because up to this time he had just been involved in the construction of rental units. � � � Mr. Langenfeld asked if the storm s�wer system on Ironton would be able to handle the drainage of this property. Mr. Clark said it could as there was a catch basin down by the Creek. There wouldn't be that much drainage from this property anyway. ' Mr. Drigans asked if the parking spaces were adequate. Mr. Clark said this proposal met the code requirements as to size of lot, parking spaces, size of units and all the zoning requirements. Mr. Sexter said the. plans would be drawn up�by .a cer�ified registered architect. MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning'Commission recommend approval of the bui3ding permit for'an 8 unit apartment building at 820Z East River Road, by Donald Sexter, with t�e four stipulations on the staff report, pZus a fifth stipulation that fhis be a security building. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.' � C. Plant AddStion, 500 73rd Avenue N.E., b� Carter Da� ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT General Description: - This permit is for an addition to an existing manufacturing plant located at 500 73rd Avenue N.E. The addition is precast concr.ete panels to match the existing plan�. With the plant addition, there will be an addition 127 parking stalls which will tie into the existing parking for the office facilities. This will still provide for additvonal parking to th� nor.theast if it is deemed necessary. This addition is going to be used strictly for manufacuring and will not provide for additional storage facilities inside the structure. � Engineering: The drainage on the site i�s pretty much an internal storm system which provides adequate drainage for �he total land developmen�. Carter Day should be concerned with some ar�a of trapped water,and take steps to try to solve this situation. Environment: If the site of this operation had a different character to ii, it may have drastic environmental effects to the e�isting residential areas North of the property. However, due to the dense undergro��th that exists all along the North pro.perty line, the environmental effects that wou�d norma7ly come from this type of operation will b� minimal. It is, however, appropriate to preserve this bufiferi area by no� allowing any developr,ient any closer than the existing office setback from�73rd Avenue N.E. and keep any material storage na closer than the South edge of the parking facili�ies. The plant site also abuts Locke Park on the South. Some � Planning Commission Meeting - Auqust 6, 1975 ' � � Page 5 � attempts have been taken by Carter Day�to screeh the park property from material "storage and general plant operation. To this point, this attempt•has. been s�rictly throagh the provision of planting. This planting was approved by ihe City at that time and will monitor the progress of the 1andscaping as a feasible screening barriere We may have to make further recomrnenda�tions to Cartef° Day, if after three years from ° the date�of this permit, the landscaping is not developing into the type�of screening • � that would be desirable-to protect the visual asethics of Locke Park. I-� any develop� � ment is'built on either side of Carter Day, Inc., provisions must be made to provide adequate mat�rial storage areas with essential screening. �� Building Permit Stipulatians: �.. There will be no development wi�hin the existing setback from 73rd Avenue N.E. and the office 6uilding. 2. There wil_1 be no storage of materials North �f the South edge of the affice and�proposed plant parking. 3. The curbing as required, under ihe building permit�for the office building, must be completed under this contract. A7so,.a11 new blacktop areas will be curbed. wi�th 6"x�8" poured concrete curbing. - 4. The landscaping along the South property line wi11 be reviewed in three years from the i.ssuance of the permit for this addition. If at this time, �he City feels that the landscaping will not provide the appti°opriate screening, then - �dditiona7 treatmentwill be required. 5. When developmen't occurs on either side�o.f this property, positive�steps must be taken to establish planned storage areas that are to be screened � with appropriate screening. ' � ' Mr. Clark said that the office building was closest to 73rd Avenue, then they have a�Research and Development building, and then their industrial plant. This addition will be to the industrial plat, adjacent to and north of the present structure. Along with this addition, they are going to provide a parking lot east of, and includ- ing the R& D building and manufacturing plant. Fhis was an extension of their present . parking. He said that in their discussions with Carter Day; they brought up some ' things that the City had been questioning for a couple of years, one question being the storage of material on property the,y do not own. Carter Day has said that they � �have an agreement with the��Minnesota Transfer Railroad to store that material on their property on a'30 day rental basis. We also pointed out that we weren't too happy �vith the way the trees looked that had been planted as a buffer to Locke Park on the south property line. Upon inspection, it was found that these trees were still living, and one of thestipulations was that these trees be reviewed for their , growth in three years. Mr. Clark reviewed the'6uilding permit stipu7ations. He said the first stipulation meant that they didn't want the natural screening removed to make a�storage area. Mr. Clark said that on the third stipulat�on, there was no problem with the second part of this.stipulation, but they have asked the staff to waive the stipulation for curbing along the existing parking lot, along the south side of the structure. The reason for this was that the person who either built the n building or pu��in the blacktop, has tfiem at about the same grade, so if' a curb was placed in this area, it could cause draina�ge problems back and into the building, It was obvious that this could be a problem. The staff did not feel that they could waive this requiremerit, and told the petitioner that in order to have it waived they Planning Commission Meeting - Augusi 6,"1;975 A �� '�P�ge 6 - would have to appear before the Appeals Commission. requesting a variance, stating � why this was a hardship. He said the staff had added a 6th stipulation which was to - provide the City with the agreement �ith Minnesota Transfer showing us the authority they �have to use this land for monthly storage. _ � ,� Mr. Clark said the plant addition would be an extension of the same architectural � work that was on the existing building. He said he had almost fTnished the plan � � check, and they do meet the state building code with a few minor changes.� ,'. Mr. Langenfeld said that it stated in the Administrative Staff Report that with � the plant addition, there will be an additional 127 parking stalls which will tie into the existing parking for the o�fice facilities. Are you saying that the old parking area would be used by employees and the additional 127 parking stalls would be used for the office facilities? Mr.. Clark said�'no and at the present time they are using what was their first parking lot as a storage area, which lies west of the structure. They are presently parking any place they can find, which was most in a field-like area. This additional parking area will give them a hard surface parking lo� and w�ll be in excess or what they will need for the manufacturing plant, so it can tre used by the office too. Mr. Langenfeld asked the square footage of the property where they would have the 127 stalls. �r. Clark said it was 150 feet by 250 feet, which would be 36,000 square f.eet, give or take a little. Mr. Langenfeld said this was the area which was just sand and weeds now. He said that there seemed to be some w6rk going on at this site right now. Mr. Clark said they were just doing some grading. � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if the raw materials and finished products bei�g � s�ored on this property caused any tyPe of.hazard. Mr. Clark asked if he meant if the children climbed on them, then they could be a hazard because the ma�erial was J about 15 feet high. Mr. Drigans asked if when the first building permi� was.issued . if outside storage was allowed. Mr. Lindblad said he remembers.handling this at Bui]ding Standards and because of the size and wei�ght of the storage, this was allowed, with sereening. Mr. Drigans said that because of the proximity to the park and a residential� area was the reason for his question. Mr. Clark said he hadn't discussed this with Carter-Day, but he had discussed vandalism. He said they stated� that they didn't have much vandalasm and,he�assumed.that this was because of the size and weight of the material being stored,.also. . Mr. David Harris said he wasn't advocating another roadway in this area, but he was wondering if the Engineering Department had given any thought to the area between University and Highway #65 for access, if necessary, to the park. He said he was bringing�this up at this time was because there was only one develop�mnt in this area;, and there was a lot of empty space between Carter Day and the Target War.ehouse. Mr. Cla�rk�said�the way the parking was laid out for Locke Park, there was a. parking lot on either end and there was public right of way to both parking lots. He didn't think they intended to expand the parking area, so there wouldn`t be any need for more access. . Mr. David Harris said th�re were people in the Melody Manor area who had no difficul�ty walking to the park at.this time, but when'there was further development in this area, at some'point in time, they would be cut off from this access. They will then have to go all the way down the service drive and get access'in the area � of the City garage, or all the way down to the east end of the parcel to get ac�ess. Mr. Clark said this was a very good thought, but any access should probably be more centrally located and would be east of the Carter Day property. Mr. Harris said he thought some thought should be given to this now, so that thfs area doesn't become � � ' � ��■ Planning Commission Meetinq - August 6, 1975 Page 7 � isolated: He said that if �it was not out�of order, he would ask the Engineering � � Department �o make a report to the Parks & Recreation Commission on their suggestions . as to where a walkway or pathway could be located through the industrial area bordered by University Avenue and Highway #65 for access to Locke Parkd MOTIOAI by LangenfeZd, seconded by 5cott, that the Planning Commission recommend that a building permit be issued to Carter Day, 500 73rd Avenue N.E., for a plant addition, with the five stipulations of the administrative staff report, with�the change in the 4th stipulation, that the plantings that were a buffer to Locke Park be reviecaed annualy, and a 6th stipu.Zation be added requestir3g a copy of the rental agreement between Carter Day and the Minnesota Transfer Railroad on the storage of material be given to administration. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. . D. Plant Addition, Machining, Inc.,� 14Q Liberty Street N.E. ADMINISTRATTVE STAFF REP.ORT General Description: � This permit is for an addition to an existing manufacturing establishment located at 140 Liberty S�reei N.E. The p�^operty�is present zon�d M-1 (light industry)�and rreets the present code requirements. The building is a combination of brick'and concrete block structure designed to match both existing struciures. Expansian in tYre past involved the taking over ,� , an existing sttucture so�ath of the alley. A vaca.tian of tha� a17ey has been appraved _ by the City Council and now the petitioner will tie both build�ngs together with ' the addition applied for under this permit. . ,, Engineering: We don't for�se� any proble�ns v�i:th grading or drainage on �his site-. I� has not been determined as ye� how the campletion af Liberty Street will be handled and will hol�d up.the finishing touches of the �Fron p�rkin� area on the existing building. (see stipu7ation). Environmental: There is residential development on the West and South sideS of the property which shou7d be protected by visual improvements�to the prope�°ty. 'It is suggested that the screening, which as been�provided along the West side of the existing �property be contirrued to the South along the West property 1ine, and partially � :East along Long�fellow Street. Viqes musi also be plantecl along this fence for eventual covering for the slatted chain link fence. Soil berming and.landscaping must also be provided along Longfellow Street for the purpose af screening.the parking facilities. � � � Building Permi� Stipulations: .�1. Front landscaping along Liberty will be campleted with this permit except that portion which is undetermined due to the unfinished section n �. .' of street and John Hayes access through this property. All unfinished landscaping in designated area must be completed with road improvements. � � (see approved plan). � � � Planning. Commission Meetin - August 6, 1975 '�� Page 8 �1 . 2.. The curbing as designated on plan by 6"x18" poured concrete. 3: Solid scre�ning be provided along West property line and East along Longfellow Street to screen.possible storage area. 4. Extensive landscaping be provided in conjunction with•soil berming to provide visual protection and screening for existing residential areas. (As per approv�d plan). � �. Mr. Clark said the petitioner was befqre the Planning Commi.ssion and Council a couple of months ago asking for an a�lley vacation so this addition could be built. He pointed out on the plot plan where there will�be berming, landscaping and a blacktop area that will provide access across the tracks to John Hayes' property. Mr. Clark reviewed the building permit stipulations and said they were basically about the screening as shown on the plot plan. . . Mr. Langenfeld said he would appreciate a Letter definition of solid screening. Mr: Clark said that in this instance it was a sla�ted chain link fence. Mr. Langenfeld said•he would like the administra�ive staff report i�o'state what type of solid screening they raere recorrunending. . . • - Mr. Lindblad said that he was never very happy with slats in a chain link fence. � He said they looked good when they were first slatted, but in a short time they were in poor repa.ir and didn't seem to be maintained. Mr. Clark said there was a seciion in the City Code on the maintehance of blacktop, landscaping and fences. Mr. Lindblad r''1 � as�ked how this was policed, was it mostly by citizen complaints? Mr. Clark said that - this was basically true at the present time, because the staff didn't have the time . to go around looking for code violations,.but tha't they hoped to be using sflme CETA people to start setting up programs so that we can visit facilities in th.e City � periodically, at least once a year, to remind them of things that need .to be repaired � or maintained. Mr. Drigans asked what this company manufactured. Mr. Lindblad said it was small metal� parts. � � Chairman Harris asked if the situation with John� Hayes had been taken care of. Mr. Clark said he didn't know if Mr. Hayes had been-confronted with the plans for this addition or not. He said that Mr. Schaul had been reques�ed to talk to Mr. Hayes � and inform him that his access to Longfellow would be cut off with this addition. Mr. Hayes will still have access to Liberty Street. � � fNr. David Harris said he thought the administrative staff report should state the size of the existing building and the size of the addition. Mr. Clark said they were working on preparing a form which would have a place for this, and would also include the valution of the construction covered under the building permit request. � MOTION by Narris, seconded by.Lindblad, that the P.Ianning Commission recommend approval of a building permit for a plant addition to Machining, Inc., 140 Liberty Street, w.zth the four stipulations of the administrative staff report. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �� E. C.hurch Add.ition and New Gymnasium, Fridley Assembly of God Church, 472 Osborne �Road N.E. � Planning Commission Meeting - August 6,_ 1975 � Page 9 a• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT n . General Description: , -t This permit is for a building addition ta the Assembly of God Church at 472 Osborne Road N.E. The addition will provide for an extension of the existing sanctuary and a gymnasium. An �xtension af parking facilities will be provided to allow for approximately 128 stalls. They are alsv warking on a joint parking facility agreement with the hospital to the South. The addition to the sanctuary will be constructed of brick and will match the exis�ing sanctuary, the gymnasium.will be attached to the existing Sunday School uni�;, and will coincide wi�h t,h� overa1l design scheme of the existing facility and will be constructed of concr�te block which will tie into the block construction af �he Sund«,y SchaaT �nit. Engineering: We don':t foresee any Engineering problems. The grade is enough to drain the parking lot to the street. The extension facility wi11 also allov�-For drainage to the so.u�h through the facilities, if joint agreements are drawn. �. Environment: su-Fficient a� the�par�ing hospital We don't foresee any major environmen�al Tnpact on the surrounding area � with the proposed construction. The resident7al property io the west of the church abuts the large parking faciiity and should be protected by closely grown landscaping or a soiid�screen fence. Bui�lding Permi� Stipulation: 1. The cur6ing and landscaping related to the gymnasium be completed with -. the addition. The west parkin.g lat and all of the related landscaping will be completed by June 1, 19�77, and the east parking 1ot and all. related landscaping will be comp7eted uy June 1, 1978. (as per approved � plan). 2. Maintain planting area between church parking and Unity Hospital parking. 3. Provide screening for residential area along West property line. Mr. Clark said this item appears three times on the agenda because it requires three different actions by the City. One is the building permit, one i�-a lot split, which will move the lot line to a more southerly location, and the other was a request to vacate the exising drainage and utility �asement that exists on the present property line. � . . Mr. �Clark said the stipulations related more to updating the present facilities , ; as,far as curbing on the existing �arking lots. He Said the new addition will be ;:.:;;.;. ��.�ust a little higher than the existing structure. Mr. Clark said the petitianer was ab�e to purchase some property from the North Suburban Hospital District which will n make their lot more rectangular and will allow them to meet all the code requirements for the �ddition. He said the N.S.H.D. was in favor of the lot split and vacation request_ and had signed the application sa they must be in fav f th � or o e proposal. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 ". Paqe 10 Mr. Langenfeld said that in the Eng�neering section af the administrative staff ^ �report, it s�ates that the extension.of the parking facility will a11ow for drainage to the south through the hospital facilTties, if joint agreements are.drawn. It then mentions in the se�ond building permit stipul•ation to maintain planting area�between , church parking and.Unity Hospita1 parking. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would be a •. stipulation if a joint agreement was drawn. Mr. Clark said there would be driveways � between the two properties and �his would allow the drainage to go from the church park�ng.lot to the hospital parking lot and from there to the s�orm sewer systemo Mr. Langenfeld said that in the environmenial section.of the adminis�rative staff report, it states �hat the residenti�l property to the west of the church abuts the large parking facility and shou1d be protected by �a closely grown landscapin.g or a solid screen fencee He said he wou7d pr.efer the wor� must to should, Mr. Clark said the third stipulation takes care o� �his. � � � � Chairman Harris�ask�d what rear yard setback requirement they were following on this proper�y, residen�ial or camm�rcial? Mro Clark said the setback�was 30 fe�t, which - would meet eithe� requirement. � � � � Mr. Qavid Harris asked what �he signif.icance•was of the dates mentioned on the complet�on of certain items in the first building permit s�ipulation. Mr. C1ark said ' this was a large budget item, curbin.g, and ihis was for the existing parking lot� The dates menti oned was �he progr-am the� ch�arcF� fel t�hey coul d� me�te Mr. Harri s�sai d he had brought this up because while he �did under�tand� -�he problems Sof ��hurche�' an�� other non-profi t organi zati ons� who were dependent upanF:�ree� 'wi 11 gi fi;s �or offeri ngs =-, ' to maintain their entit-iy, and we have had some cases whe�e�work, has been done very �- �"� nicely by vari`ous people, but some of the work never seems`to�get done. .He s�id there - � were a coupl�e that weren't done that were started in the early '70's. Mr. Clark said the City' had had experience with this church before, when the sidewalk was put in along Osborne Road. 'He said this'was completed by the agreed date, and they had done�an adequate job. He said our experience with this church was pretty good as to volunteer �rork: Mr. Harris said he.knew they had done a good job, but he � thought for over-all planning City.-wide, �when we get :these requests that asfc for �a delay because.they were too�large� of a committment to mee�t on a yearly budget, we should have some control. � Mr. Clark said that when someone comes in for an addition, we try to sit down rrith the developer or owner of the property and be as harsh as we think we can be, and Yet be as lenient as we feel we can be, without jeapardizing the City's thoughts and goals in getting all these things done,and quite often the petitioner will agree to do what the City requests if we will'agree to certain dates. He said that if Mr. Harris was asking what would happen if these dates were not met; he thought they would � have to cross that bridge at that time. He said there should be some goals and objectives set up so we could.handle this. He said that.when the City sets up certain completion da�es for improvements, and these weren't.met, but would be in a reasonable time, he • thought the staff could handle this, but,if they need an extension of months or a year, the n�erhaps they should have to appear before the Council and state publicly why they ' couldn't meet the schedule and get Council approval'of the �ime extension. Mr. Harris said he thought this coiald be a solution. Mr. Clark said this shq,uld apply to all properties, both non-profit and commercial property. . �} MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the bui.Iding permit for a church addition and new gymnasium for the Fridley Assembl.y of God Church, 472 Osborne Road N.E. with the three building permit stipulations . , �_ /'�1 n Plann�ng Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 Page 11 ,of the�Administrative Staff Report. Upon�a voice vote, aZ1 voting �ye, the motion . carried unanimously. ' 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-05, FRIDLEY ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH: Split off that part of Lots 8- 12, Block 1, Osborne Manor Znd Addition, that lies Nor�th of the�following described line: Beginning at a point in the West line of Lot 8, located 5 feet South°of the Northwest corner, thence�Easterly to a point in the East line of Lot 12, being 75 feet South of the Northeast corner and there terminating, the same being 472 Osborne Road N.E. Rev. G. Mark Denyes was present. Mr.�Clark said the present lot line would sever what they want to add on to the church. They have purchased this property f rom the North Suburban Hospital District, who had picked up these lots from the tax forfeit rolls. The Hospital Board will use this property for a parking lot and ev.idently, this part of the property was in excess of what they will need. ' He said the staff recommendat.ion was that this request for a lot split be approved so the church can proceed with its expansion. ' MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindba.Zd, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Co�incil approval of the Zot split request, L.Se #75-05, by the Fridley Assembly of God Church, to split off that part of Lots 8- Z2, B.Zock 1, Osborfle Manor 2nd Addition, 'that .Zies North of the foll,owing described Zine: Beginning at a point in the West Zine of Lot 8, located 5 feet South of the Northwest corner, thence Easterly to a point in the East line of Lof 12, being 75 feet South of �he Northeast ' corner and fhere terminating, the same being 472 Osborne Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, a.I1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , 3.. VACI�TION REQUEST, SAV #75-09, FRIDLEY ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH: drainage and utility easement that lies between Lots 1 and 5, . Block 1, Osborne Manor Znd Addition and move it�to the center property line, the same being �72 Os.borne Road N.E.� Rev. G. Mark Denyes was present Vacate the 12.fobt and Lots 8 and 12, line of the new Mr. Drigans asked if 76th Avenue N.E. hadri't just been vacated recent7y. Mr. C1ark said it had. Mr. Drigans asked if the entire street had been vacated. Mr. Clark said yes, but we did keep the utlity easement because we have sewer and water in this easement. . � Chairman H.arris said there was a letter in.the agenda from Northe�r�n States Power Company asking for written permis�ion from the petitioner to retain and have access to theTr existing facilities off the new location of the easement. He asked Rev. Denyes if h� v��s in agreement with this=.request. Rev. Denyes said he had.� copy of,the letter they had written to Northern States Power Company giving them thgs permiss.ion. MOTION by Langenfeld; seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Comrnission.receive a copy of the letter wriften by G. Mark Denyes, pastor of Fridley•Assemb.Iy of God Church to Northern States Power Company, dated August 5, 1975, giving them access to n to their exisfing'facilities off the new .Zocation of the easement. Upon�a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unaniraously. � Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 A. Page 12 • MOTION by�Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend • ^ - to Council, approval of the vacation'request, SAV #75-09, by the Fridley Assembly of God Church', to vacate the 12'foot drainage and utility easement that�lies between Lots I through 5, and Lots 8 through 12, Block 1, Osborne Manor 2nd Addition,�and ,' move it to the center'line of the new property'1ine. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting � aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONTINUED: VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-05, BY RICHARD KOK: Vacate the 6 foot drainage and utility easement on the South side of Lot 6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, the same being 6517 McKinley Street N.E. Mr. Richard Kok was present. Mr. Clark said this item had been continued a couple of times, once because � the petitioner was not present and another time to allow the Engineering staff to � determine the utility patter�is in this particular block. He said there was a memo and a map in the a,�enda explaining t�he part of this easement that had to be retained. . � Mr. Clark continued that the Engineering Departtnen� had no objection to 85.31 of _ this easement being vacated on Lot 6, Block 1, Clark's Addition, but�they would need the balance of this easement to line up with an easement they would need to follo�ythe North-South boundaries of Lot 7, Block 1, Clark'.s Addition, and Lot 8, Bloc.k 3, Moore Lake Park lst Addition. He said the mapshowed that the-�xisting �arage did encroach into the 6 foot.easementa By retaini.ng part of this easement, a very small portion of the garage was sti17 in the easement, but the recommendation was to allow this very small portion to encroach into the easement. � Chairman Harris asked if the.E�gineering staff was recommending that the 6 foot � easement on the North bounda'ry of Lot 7 be vacated also. Mr. Clark said there wasn't . any i�ecommendation, just that if it was vacated, to be sure the.same part of this easement was retained as on the South side.of Lot 6. Mr. Clark said there were no utilities in this easement, they wanted to retain, but if �hey have looked at the area, they would'be awar� �hat there was a� loW spo�t North of Lot 8, and East of Lot 6, and it must trap water. If the people in the area should ever petition the City � to drain that low area, we wQuld �nave to.have an easement to get a storm sewer 6ack into this area, and feel that the logical alignment would be between Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Drigans said he could see no purpose to ke�p the 6 foot.easement on the North side of Lot 7, if the easement was vacated on Lot 6, except for the part�needed for a potential storm sewer easement. A half of an easement wasn't good for anything. Mr. David Harris said he agreed with Mr. Drigans. . Mr. Kok asked if this small amount of his garage that would be allowed to encroach in this easement would cause him problems if he waated to sell this property. He thought he should get something in�writing that the City would allow this.encroachment. Mr. David Harris said what Mr. Kok was questioning wa's that was done onithis property, prior to selJing it, he��might have a said this could be handled by a letter or a Council resolution, were many ways of handling this. • Mw. Clark said this could be put in t��e staff report. if a title search • problem. Mr. Clark or by a motion. There � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recornmend to Couricil approval of the.vacation request, SAV #75-05, by Richard Kok, to vacate the , Westerly . 85.31 feet of tn� 1? foot drainage and utility easement ori the South �� . .,,�,�,�, . � anning Commission Meetin - Au st 6, 1975 Pa 13 side of Lot 6, and fhe No'rth side of Lot 7, BZock 1, CZark's Addition, with the n •stipulation that the City a11ow the encroaclunent of the sma11 part of the garaqe on Lot 6, into the retained easement. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. !�'1 5• PU�LIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PLAT, P,�. #75-02, HENRIKSEN ADDITION BY LEIF HENRIKSEN: B�ing a replat of parts of Lots 3� and 35, Auditor's Sub- division No. 77, generally located West of East River Road and South of Logan Parkway, Mr. Leif Henriksen was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott, to open th� Public Hearing� Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:07 on a proposed p1at, P.S. #75-02; Henriksen Addition, by Leif Henriksen.. Mr. Clark said this p3a�, under two differen� names, had been processed three different times, prior to this request. Each time it had been approved by the Planning Commission and t�he Council. � Mr. Clark continued that in 1964, the then owner of,the property, Mr. Harold Lorenz and the adjacent property owner, Mrs. Hale but never recorded. In 1969, a developer presentedptheesame platatwh�chhwassapppoved� but never recorded, and in 1970, it was again brought in and a reason was neve,r recorded again. Now since 5�years have passedp weetoldnthe�petitioner ihat he would have to start all over again going through the Public Hearing process. Mr. Clark said there were 8 lots in�the proposed plat, and they a71 meet all the requirements as to total area and front footage. He said the same stipul�tions that were necessary at the time of the other reques�s for this plat still exist. M easement must be granted between Lots 4 and 5 of the proposed plat, to allow the sewer to be brought out to serve the �wo houses tfiat face East River Road, and also allow the water main to be looped out to the main on.East River Road,.to ensure proper water circulation of the water system. Back in �he previous approvals, it was noted, and,it was still true, that other right�of ways are necessary to get access to this p1a�i. We now have on file, a 25 foot easement on Lot 31�for street right of way, but we have nothing on file on Lot 34 to give the o�her half of the dedica�ion, or to provide adequate right of way to bring the street in f rom Riverview Terrace �or public access to another public street. The Council had previously authorized the negotiations for these right of ways, but until.we have a lat spent any money, wouldn't have a pro��t to assesspitbtolyand that9waseonetof the�reasons these right of ways hadn't been acquired. Mr. Clark said that the Engine�ring Department had looked at this plat, and has said that it was feasible to serve it with sewer and water, providing the right of ways were acquired. He said that James Medrern was present, representing Riverwood � School, and he had recalled some of the original conversations, and there was some dilemma back in previous approvals as to whether the access should go out to East River Road, or out to River.view Terrace, or both.� It was the consensus of the.staff, ',Planning Commission, Streets & Utilities, and Council, that the access should be to Riverview Terrace9 and not go out to East River Road,•because this was a blind inter- section. . � Chairman Harris asked if Lots 4 and-5 would be lar e enou .. easement and still be buildable. Mr. Clark said they were. � gh to handle the sewer Planning'Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 � Page 14 � Mr. Clark said the peti�ioner had been discussing the program as to when the ' utilities and streets, etc., could be put in, and the Engineering Department told him quite honestly and frankly that they probably wouldn't be put�in until next � spring, because there are hearings on the plat still necessary, and after that there will.be hearings on the improvements and the acquisition of the right of ways. He � said i��may be well for the petitioner to try and acquire some of these right of . ways because he could negotiate, because the City was now put in the position by � . a new State law where they have to offer what the land was worth by the square foot. He said he didn't think �here would be too much trouble gaining some of these . right of wa�s because there were houses .located on unimproved streets. The exception would be the two houses facing Riverview Terrace, because they would gain very little benefit from ihe street. �He said that Mr. James Hedren had recalled some new laws .� where s�reet right of ways �hat con�lict with recreational property,..had to be dealt �with rather delicately. � Mr. Mike Hagen, �7170 East River Road, said that•he had no sewer service and wondered if when this plat was developed, if thf. sewer would be put in for his lot. Mr.• Clark said to serve the plat, sewer service would no� necessarily be put in for his property, but if he desired a feasibility study or a preliminary report be made'to serve.his property, he would suggest tha� he petition the City for sewer service, s,o it could be done in conjunction with this �lat. Mr. Clark said there would be a hearing held in which Mr. Hagen would be told the estimated �ost. and i_f th�re were o�her right of ways necessary, this would also come up at the �earing. Mr. Clark told Mr. Hagen that this would not come up without a petition, and Council liked to have 50% of the people affec�ted by this request, sign the petition. � � Mr. 'Hage� said that both Mr..Nielsen, 11� 71 1/2 Way N.E., and himself, who. . own the two houses a� the end of 71 1/2 Way, wanted to see the access to East River � Road closed, because this was a blind corner. � � Mr. Kenneth Johnson, 80 Logan Parkway, said he was interested in the type of construction that would be.going in on this�plat. He asked if there were any limitations on what could be built. on this plat. Mr. Clark said the only limitations were that they be single family homes and of a certain .square footage. There were no limitati:ons as to one story, two story, or split foyer, and they must have garages. Mr. Clark said the petitioner was present, and as he was a home builder, he would proba6ly be building all the homes on this plat. Mr. Johnson sai�d there wouldn't be any apartment buildings going in then. Mr. Clark said the praperty wasn't zoned fo.r apartments and the petitioner wasn't asking for rezoning. Mr. Johnson said he thought the value 'of their property would go up if this was developed into a n�ce area. . Mr. James Hedren , business administrator for School District #14, said that he thought it was premature to be talking about right of ways or possible right of ways. Mr. Clark said he didn',t think it was premature, but he thoughi it would be premature for the City to negotiate for right of ways until this plat was acceptable. He said that negotiations would have to start before the fi�nal plat was approved.. Mr. Hedren said the other problem would be drainage for this plat. Mr. Clark said there would have to be a storm drainage plan for this plat, and they wouldn't allow it to drain onto school property. . n Mr. Gordon SangSter, 7169 Riveryiew Terrace N.E., said he would like to review some�of the thirigs that have happened before thi.s request. .He said he purchased his .. , property in 1964, afte►° the first plat had been proposed. He said he applied for . a building permit in June of 1966 and at that time there was some discussion about the road going through and that they desired 25 feet from his lot for right of way. �lanning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 A Page 15 � During that time, it was determined that we could.not build the type of home we wanted if this 25 feet was given up, and'subsequently the building permit was � �"'� - issued without the right of way being given. At that time there were no homes �- built south of Riverview Terrace, although the property had been platt�d. �He . . said he believed there was 30 feet between his lot line and the l.ot South of �' � his property. Mr. Clark said this was correct: Mr. 5angster said that he would � suspect tha� this would not be enough, as it was not enoug� for street right of � way the last time th�r•e was a proposal for a plat in this area. Mr. Clark said� it was sta�edlby both•the Planning Commission and Counc.il th�t a minimum of 40 feet wou1d be required for the right of way. . Mr. Sangster said he would submit that any property necessary for the r.ight of way be obtained from the lot South .of his property. He said that in 1969, when this sa�te plat was considered, the pla.n was that access for this plat could be either East River Road or Riverview Terrace, or both. He said East River Road � was felt to be undesirable at that time, because of the curve in the road. He said � that since that time there has been development along East River Road, and he questioned if this would be a blind corner, if some brushing back were done. Mr. Clark said he thought Mr. Sangster had given a pretty accuraie description of the history of this area. He said he recalled it the same way. He said the Planning Commission could ask the Engineering Departmeni.to study the feasibility of using East River Road, but he would doubt that they would change their mind. This was because of the curve in the road, and because.ihat sometime in the future, there would be a median placed in the center of the road which would make this a difficult access for anyone who wantrd to go South. He said there would be 8 or ^ 10 homes who would hav� to use this access. . � Chairman Harris asked Mr. Sangster how close his house was to the proposed . road. Mr. Sangster said it was 20 feet. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Cl.ark if they would �ake_ 5 feet from each property. Mr. Clark said there was no set rule, it would depend upon the street alignment, but the total would be 10 feet. . � h4r. David Harris said that at the time'this was considered before, he-�hought were comments from the County asking the,City to limit the access to East River Road. It was determined at that.time that they would try to work out an agreeable solution to route the traffic to Riverview Terrace., trying to take into consideration the opposition to this solution. He said this concept had already been,approved .by the Council at least twice, and he didn't see any other way this property could be-' developed.in relation to the�lot size and access to these lots. He thought what had to be determined was whether the plat traffic flow goes to Riverview Terrace or East�River Road. He said he thought a motion should be made to approve the plat, stipulating that the Engineering Department try to.:find an agreeable way to find access to Riverview�Terrace, with the second option being that if this could not be achieved, to report back to the Planning Commission some indication on.how the County feels about access to East River Road. � Mr. Leif Henriksen said he was the,devel�oper of this property and if the access was goin� to East River Road, he wouldn't be interested in this property. He felt that having access to East River Road would be too dangerous, and he wanted no part of it. If that was the only option, he would sell this property. He said the homes � he intended to build on this plat would be.in the $50,000 to $60,000 bracket. He � said he would like to build two model homes right away, even without sewer and 'water � available and would agree in writing that these homes would not be sold until they had been hooked up to sewer and water. He said he wou-ld grade the street and cul-de- sac up to the City code, and let the City take over in the spring. � � 0 � •Planning Commission Meetin� - Auqust 6, 1975 � ' Page 16 Mr. Scott asked Mr. Sangster how he would feel if the City had to �ake part, ^ of his property for street right of way. Mr. Sangster said he would be most unhappy. • Mr: Scott�asked how Mr. Dahlquist, 7161 Riverview Terrace, felt abo�t th�s. Mr. Sangster said that htr. Uahlquist felt the same way. �• . . Mr. Clark said that when the area South of Mr. Sangster's property was platted, We aske� �or a 30 footstreet dedication. He said that to be frank with Mr. Sangster and the Planning Commission, if more right of way was needed, we would try more strenuously to get it from P1r. Sangster's property rather than from Mr. Dahlquist, because 30 �ee� had already been taken �rom Mr. Dahlquist's property, not directly, but indirectly when the land was pla�ted. He said it was'not de�inite on ho� this would go, but it was a strong possibility, which would depend upon the street alignment. Mr. Clark said it could even be possible �or the Ci�y to decide that they could go with a narrower street, and not ask for additional right of way, if it seemed that there was no property available without changing the character of someone's property: • Chairman Harris�said as there would probably be only about 1� houses using ' this street,�it might�be a strong possibility t.�at they could get by with a narrower str.eet; becau�e this had happened in o�her areas. He said that if parking was restricted on both sides of the streei, 30 feet might,be enough. He�said the Engineering D�partment s►�ou�d-consider this possibility also. � Mr. Clark said he was sure that a representative from the City wouYd be call�ng on Mr. Sangster and Mr. Dahlquist and the school board, to see what could be worked out. � . � �.-, . MOTION.by Drigans, seconded by Scott, to close the PubZic Hearing. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, Chairman Har�is declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:36 P.M. . on the proposed p1at, P.S. #.75-02, Henriksen Addi.tion, by Leif Henriksen. MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council approval of.the.�proposed p1at, P.5. #75-02, Henriksen Addition, by Leif Henriksen, being a replat.of part of Lots 33 and 35, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, located West of East River Road and South of Logan Parkway, subject to the Engineering Department finding an agreeable way to get access to Riverview Terrace, the section option being to report back .to the Planning Commission some indication from the County on how they would view access to East River Road. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. David Harris said that the first option. of access to Riverview Terrace would include having a narrower street, if this was the only way agreement could be obtained. Mr. Henriksen asked��if the Planning Commission would give him approval to build two model homes immediately. Chairman Harris said he co�ldn't get that approval from the Planning Commission. This vras a Council decision. Mr. Henri�sen asked how long this was going to drag out. He needed land to build on now. . . Mr. Hedron said the right of way that was needed from school property alone�, was going to take some time, because this would take action by the Board. He said the ear�ies� th�is could be acte� on would be their September meeting. He said he also wanted to point out that.if Mr. Henriksen �anted to have model homes for viewing, that the City does not plow undevelo.ped streets,. so no. one would be able to get i�-there � Planning�Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 Page 17 � -in the winter to see these model homes. Mr. Clark said the Council would receive these minutes the 18th af August, but he couldn't say when they would be setting.the Public Hearing on the final plat. , Mr.�Henriksen said he knew he had to pay it, but the park fee made him a little . uncomfortable. Mr. Clark said the.platting ordinance states'that 10% of the land . must be� dedicated for park purposes, or else the park fee was $300 per lot, which in this case was $2,400. Mr. Henriksen said that it.seemed to him that every time he tu'rned around he got a bill for $2,000.. � . Chairman Harris said that �hese were things that he would have to discuss with the City Council. � � � . 6. �ACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-10, BY ROBERT HINRICHS: Vacate the 10 foot drainage and utility easement that 7ies on Lots 5 and 6, Block l, Brookview Terrace 2nd Addition, the same being 981 and 1001 Rice �reek Terrace N.E. Mr: Robert Hi�richs was present. • . Mr. Clark said that Mr. Hinrichs wanted to make a double car garage out of a � . single car garage, and he was limiied by the space he has between his hou�se and . d the lot line, and also by a 5 foot easement that runs along the East side of his g property. The staff advised him what he needed to comple�e his project. One being � to request a vacation of the easement and a positive attitude by the Council. The' � r,� other thing he had to do was to�request and have approved, a variance to go�within � �three fee� o� the lot line. He subsequently made both requestS, The Planning Commission E . was hearing the vacation request at this meeting, and the variance will go before �he .Appeals Commission on August 12, 1975. Mr..Clark said that all the utility 'comp�nies � had been contacted, and none of them have any facilities in these easements, and have :f ��all stated tha� they have no objectiori to Mr. Hinrichs §tart'ing construction durin.g the .� :. time that it takes to ga through the vacation process. He said the. reason he wa�r�`c; to start ahead of the vacation process was because by the time this cnas complet.z, w {� will b.e into late fall or wintero � ' 'fi � . . q � , �Mr. Clark said the staff recommendation was that�the easement be vaca�ed, and �� the Planning Commission also recommend to Council that ihe petitioner be allowed to encroach in this easement during �he time it takes.to process the vacation request. � Mr. David Harris asked how far the house on Loi; 5 was away from the property line. Mr. Clark said it was about 30 feet, arid there was a huge oak tree about half way to the property line. Mr. Harris said then we would have no problem of this garage being too close to the structure on the adjacent property. Mr. Clark said no, in fact the adjacent proper�y owne�°, Mr. Harding, had signed both the vacation and variance requests. Mr.� Hinrich said he tried to buy some land from Mr. Harding and Mr. Harding said he would rather join in this request than sell any of his land. . Mr. Clark said he was going to�construct an 11 foot addition �to his garage and behind that he was going to have a storage building with a deck on top. Mr. Clark said as this was a two part reques�, part of which had to go to the � Appeals Commission.,'he felt that the Planning Commission could give some�direction as to how .they felt about the variance. Planning Commission Meeting - Augus� 6, 1975 Page 18 ' ^ • MOTION by David Harxis, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Cammission recommend to Council approval of the vacation request,.SA V�75-10, hy Rob�rt Hinrichs, to vacate �" the IO foot draznage and utility easement on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Brookview Ter�ace . 2nd Addition, the same being 981 and 1001 Rice Cr�ek Terrace N,E., because there seems . to be no conflict with the adjoining property and we have the concurrence of the � ut.ility companies and the adjoining neighbor, the'City aZ1ow the encroachment into �; the easement while the vacation request was being processed. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, fhe motion carried unanimously. . • �� Chairman Ha�ris told the petitioner that it would be up to the Appeals Commission to act on the variance request to have the structure three feet from the lot line, although the Planning Commission felt that this would not be a problem because of the location of the structure on the next lot. � 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-08, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on.Lot 7,.Block I, Riverview Heights, per Fridley City Cade, Section 214.042, ��e same being 8150.East River Road. � Mr. David Harris said he couldn't see opening the Public Hearing on each�of these requests, even if they were going to be �onsidered individually. He thought all the requests for Naegele could be opened at once. The.oicher members agreed. . 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-09, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation-of an existing billboard on the n Westerly 500 feet of Lot 1�, Audi�or's Subdivision No. 89, per Fridley City Code _ Section 214.042, the same being 7201 Highway #65 N.E.- ' 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-10, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow �the coniinuation of an existing bill�board between • Lots ZO and 21, Bloek 4, H.yde.Park Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, � the same being 6029 Universi.ty Avenue N.E. . 10., PUBLIC HEARING: REQU ADVERTISING COMPA�iY: Auditor's Subdivision being 52 - I.694. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQU ADVERTISING COMI°ANY: Auditor's Subdivision � bei ng 93 - I ..694. EST FOR A�SPECIAL USE�PERMIT, SP #75-11, BY NAEGELE OUTDO�OR To allow the,continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 2, No. 789 per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same EST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-12, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR To allow the continuati�on of an existing�billboard on Lot 2, tVo. 78; per Fridley City Code, Section 204.042, the same 1�2. PUBLIC WEARING: REQUEST FOR"A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,.SP #75-13, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COPIPANY: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard located on Parcel 3000, in the NW.Quarter of the NW Quarter, except the North� . 16.6 Acres, of Section 2, T-30, R-24, per Fridley City Code, �ection 214.A42, the same being 8410 University Avenue N.E. � 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-14 • ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit the continuation of an existi �1 Revised Au�itor s Subdivision No. 77, per Fridley City Code, same bring 7357 East River Road N.E. ,'BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ng billboard on Lot.18, Section 214.042, the Planning Commission Meeting - Auqust 6, 1975 Page 19 �_ 14.� PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPEGIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-15, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR � • ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit the continuation of an exasting billboard on Lots 1-3, Block 9, Hamil�on's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fridley City Code, �� Section 214.042, the same being.5�52 7th Street N.E. 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A.SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-16, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit .the.continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivisiori No. 155, per Fridley City Code�, Section 214.042, the same being 5501 7th Street N.E. �, MOTIDN by 5cot�, secondPd by David Harris, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearings on �e requests for 5pecial Use Permits, SP #75-08, SP #75-09; SP #75-10, SP #75-�1, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, 5P #75-I4, SP #75-Z5, SP #75-16, by Naegele Outdoor Advertisin� Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting.aye, Chairman Harris ; declared the Public Hearin� open at 9:59 P.M. Chairman Harris declared a 1� minute recess at�1.0:OQ P.M. and reconvened,th� Planning Commission meeting at 10:10 P.M. • Mr. Clark said that Mr. Steven Olson was pr.esent, and he was the staff person who has been working with the sign companies and when they staried �he discussion on �he individual signs, he would answer�for�the staff. ,� � ' Mr. Clark said the Special Use Permit requirement for billboards start�d b�ck in 1969 when the present sign ordinance was adopted. This ordinance gave them until September 15;�1974 to ei�her remove the bil�lboards or get approval for a Special !'1 Use Permi�. This has been discussed many times, and the last discussion was at a full � � study session of the City Council about.six weeks ago. A��ihat time, the discussion was ' with the sign compa�� representatives and the City Council. A� this meeting they discussed the various ways.that� the City could handle these requests for Spe-cial Use Permits. With legal counsel present, it was decided that they would not have to get variances for example, where the sign did not meet the criteria as set forth in the �� ordinance, and they would not have to ask for rezoning, if the zoning as it exists, ' did not meet the zoning requirements of the ordinance. It was felt that they were �, legal non-conforming uses, in the fact t�a� they exist where they are now l.ocated . on land as it was now zoned. He said he dYdn't believe the Council stated what recommendation they. would make on these Speci�l Us.e Permits, because that would hav� been oat of order, but they did direct the sign .companies to make application for Special Use Permits. They also directed the City.staff to discuss wiih the sign companies, the struct��e of �he signs, the location of the signs and which ones they would want to make requests for and which ones t�hey would be willing to�take down at this time. There were 17 billboards six weeks ago. Since that time one has been � ' taken down by Geo.rge Is Tn F�idley. There are two other billboards that have eit�er been taken down or will be taken down. We have heard from staff peopl�eand�other � � Committee people, lots of pros arid cons on these billboards. These types of comments should be continued in the processing of the Specia.l. Use Permits for billboards. The . . Planning Commission has copies of a staff report from Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Wor.ks Di,rector, whieh includes comments on eliminating some of the billboards, extending � some of them for a certain length of time, to b� looked�at and studied again. It also mentions that if the land they stand on was developed, the billboards would.have to come. down. Mr. Clark said it�was his observation in�checking the�location af the existing billboards, that all but five or six of these billboards will eventually come � down due to development in the coming years. If the Special Use Permits are approved with �his stipulation', he thought that over a period of time, say ten years, there �. would only be fTVe bill.boards left in the City, and these.could be there indefinitely. He said that Steve Olson was ready to discuss any pertinent data that the Planning Planning Cor�nission Meeting - August 6, 1975 � Page 20 n Commission may wish �o have. Mr. Drigans said that on March 13, 1974 when the Planning Commiss.ion and Board of Appeals had a joint meeting, we also had in attendance legal counsel. It was stated then that there was going to be a need for variances., along with the Special Use Permit. He asked Mre•Clark how the Council determined that these requests for Special Use Permits no longer needed variances and wondered if this was input from the petitioners. Mr. Clark said he wasn't at that meeting, but he would guess t�at when the City Attorney made that determination, he must have changed his mind, or received new data, that altered his opinion: Mr. Drigans said the Planning Commission had been going along for almost a year �and a half asking how w� were going to handle the rezoning.and variances when �he requests for Specaal Use Permits,.came in, and had we known then, �hat all they required �as a Special Use P�t^mit, we could have disposed of these requests last year. • Mr. Clark said that a decision would not have to be made on �he Special Use'Permits at this meeting, These billboards are already existing, so by continuing �hese reques�s they would not be delaying the petitioner. This would give�the Planning Commission time to get more input from staff or legal counsel, or whatever the Planning Commission would want. � • � Mr. Steven Olson said this matter was.put at his disposal sometime in March, so he Was not familiar with pr.ior discussions, but in answer to Mr. D�ig�ns question, he said he had' contacted the sign companies by letter and told them they had to make � application for Special Use Permits, and this started them on the way. He said that _ � Mr. Craig Lofquist, a.representative of Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company was • apprehensive about the variances and rezoning that would be necessary before a Special Use Permit could be considered,.and he was the one who requested a meeting w.ith the City Council. Mr. Olson said he had attended this Council workshop meeting, along with Dick Sobiech and Virgil Herrick,�the Ci�y Attorney. He said that at that time, - a determinat.ion was made that �he existing billboards were a non-conforming use and � would only need the Special Use Permit. � � � Mr. Drigans said this did not answer his question an what made the City Attorney change•his mind. � � Mr. Clark said he did not know why he changed his mind, but he knew that attorneys could find several ways to interpret a law, and to be honest if every hillbaard had to have a variance and request rezonsng on just ihe propert� where.the bill'board was located, this would have been very unwieldy. He said he was sure that the Council would not want to be put in the position of rezoning small pieces of land for these billboards, so.this could have been part of the determination. The attorney may have felt that as long as the billboar�ds already exist, and existed before the.ordinance was passed, this would make.them a legal non-conforming use, but they would stil.l have to apply for a Special Use Permit, because this was what the Code said. � • ' Mr. Drigans said the point was that these were non-conforming, and we have just gone through this with the Frontier Club, on how long a non-conforming use should be in existence, and the courts have ruled how long a non-conforming use could be in exi.st�nce. The courts have ruled that the intent of a non-conforming use should expire �, at some.point in�time. Mr. Clark said he thought that was in Dick Sobiech's memo on� the Fr.ontier Club and was not a court decision. Mr. Drigans said they did receive �. material fr�m the City Attorney, and there were rulings by. the courts not to string this out for a� indefinite period of time. . . �� Planninq Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 Page�21_ �. Mr. Clark sai�d he probably agreed with the..statement, but he felt the way Mr. Drigans was interpreting it was no� correct. When you zone some.thing different r"� �from what it was being used for it was because you feel that over a reasonable period .. of time, either by casualty it would disappe�r, or the surrounding area changes its use, making the other use unfeasible. He did not believe .there was a law that said a �: legal non-conforming use must comply within a speeific Tength of time. He said i� , was reasonable to assume tha� sooner or later it would, just through natura1 causes. He said that in our own Code, it says tha� a legal non-conforming use cannot change • its size or its use, but it can exist as long as i� was there. � Mr: David Harris said that he was on the Cou�cil at the time the Sign Ordina�ce ' was passed covering the public hearing requiremen�s for this ordinance. At that time the Subcommittees of the Planning Commission �ere Streets and Uti7ities, Parks & . Recreation, Plats � Subdivisions, and Board of Appeals. It was not felt that any . of these subcommittees were related in anyway to the billhaards, so that was why the Planning Commission was chose� to hold th� Public Hearings. Ne said that in reviewTtig the history of the sign ordinance and seeing that we now have a restructure of the Planning Commision, which does empower certain Commissions to report to the Planning Commission relative to aes�hetics and relative �o community �evelopment. He thought the ordinance should be changed because it was no� compatible with the deve1opment process now assigned to the individual members of�the Planning Commissiona Ne though� th'e Council should consider an ordinance cha�ge that would bring this item to the Communi�y Development Comm�ssion prior to coming to the Planning Commission. The Planning'Commission would probably not have to hold a public hearing, but just.review the reco►�nendation of the Community Development Commission, for approval. Chairman Harris said that Mr. David Harris may be right under the present struc�ure, !"1 . but as i'c was now over 10 months since these Special Use Permits should have been , . heard, the Planning Commission should have been holding.Public Hearings over a year ago. He said it was probably true that the sign ordinance should be rewritten, and in time the Planning Commission would have some recommendations to pass on to the City Council, but�we now have to enforce the ordinance as it was at the present tim�e . He said that because these hearings were now a year late, it was time �or �he Planning . Commission and Council to quit stalling and get moving on these requests. We should .either enforce. the ordinance or repeal it. . � , Mr. David Harris said it wasn't that he didn't feel we should carry our res�onsi- bility, but that he felt the Planning.CommTSSion was being. asked to review something that the Community Development Commission should have been charged with in regard to aesthetics. He said that the billbaard companies weren'�t waiting to cons�l:ruct these billboards, they were already in exis�ence. He said we knew that they were well enough constructed so the�� v�eren'.t going to fall� down. He said that if a Special Use Permit was granted, these:.billboards would continue to exist, and he thought the thing to do would�be t� ask the Gouncil to review the ordinance to see how this thing was passed to '�he Planning Commission. HP said they were virtually askin§ the Planning Commission to take care of variances here, before it appears. before the Appeals Commission. . • Chairman fiarris said the Planning Commission wasn't, being asked for a.recommendation on any variances. ��Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission.wanted to send this down to any �:,� of �the Commissions for review, it was certainly in, thei� jurisdiction to do.so. � � � . � � - � ., Planning Commission�Meeting -�August 6, 1975 " Pa.e 22 '�- �. � Chairman Harris said that if this was going to be sent to any Commissions under ,the Planning Commission, �it would.probably�have to go to two or. three. These would � be Community Development, Environmental Commission, and maybe the Human Resources - Commission. Mr. Langenfeld said the Environmental Quality Commission, sometime in the past, he couldn't remember the specific date, had been asked by him to review the sign ordinance in relation to billboards. He had suggested that the billboards then in existence should be spp��ad out amor�g the membership, with each member checking on three or four billboards and each making their own environmental assessment. He said that this idea was not welcomed, and he would say� that as far as the Commission at tha� time, the sign ordinance just faded�away. Mr.�Lindblad said that he was on the Community Development Commi.ssion, and this Commission had only met twice. He said they had considered their goals and objectives at just one meeting, and the sign ordinanee did come up.• The consensus was that they were going to have recommendations on all signs,in'general, not just billboards, and there were some strong feelings on this matter. ' Mr. David Harris said this was part and parcel of his thinking.� When he referred to billboards, he wasn't o.nly referring to this type of sign, but other signs as well. He�said that you just had to look at particu�ar shopping centers to see how much had to be done on �he sign ordinance. He said they all fall into the sign ordinance requirements as far a's square footage, but no recommendation was made as to the appearance of these signs or how they would b�end in with�existing signs. He sa�d standards shou�ld be set for appearances a5 well as square footage. . r"`� �� Mr. David Harris said he would suggest that the Planning Commission close the -. Public Hearings and re�er this matter tb the Communfity Development Commission. He would also request tha� the staff ask the Council to review the provisions o� the sign ordinance, so that it was not operating un.der the same conditions we had when it.was enacted in 1969. He said the ordinance should be brought up to date to meet . the charge oi the new Planning Commission. �� Mr. Clark said he didn't think.we had to change the process of the Special Use Permit on billboards, because what the ordinance�said was alright. -If the Planning Commission wanted to adop� a policy that these or any other Special Use Permits having to do with 'billboards' go to other Commissions that was fine. He said it was p�ssible that these various subcommissions would set up policies that could be used by the Planning Commission at a later date, so it may be unnecessary for these to go back to a Subcommission. This may be a lit�le premature.to think about changing�the sign ordinance until we have experienced what we were going to experience under the new program. : Mr. Drigans said it woul� be•a long process to change the sign ordinance, and he didn't know if they would be changing the section that relates to billboards or advertising.signs. We have reconunended a criteria which we would use in judging the existing billboards. There were certain things in the sign ordinance which do need ch�nging. He said that there had been input from the Subcommittees and from the Council, and he couldn't see any reason for delaying at this time. We should dispose of them and send them along to Council. . ' �� Mr. Scott said he thought it was the purp�se of reorganizati.ng the Planning �� Cot�nission to facilitate the process, and this he has done. He said this had already � � been discussed at their Cammission meeiing, and the rea�on.he was late for this meeting wa�s because he stopped to get input from the Chamber of Commerce, who were having a -� •Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 � Page 23 meeting earlier this evening, and he was ready to pass an his input and was.prepared to act on these requests. � � Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't think the Environmental Commission would object to reviewing the billboards, but he was fearful that this would turn�into �"ping- � pong ball° type of situation, and the Planning Commission would still have to make the final recommendation ta the Council.anyway, s� we might just as well keep it ' at the Planning Commission level or we would still be at this next year.� Chairman Harris said there was another point in E�i�ich lack of action by the City•, where,a stipulation could have been put on a Special Use Permit about damaged signs not being allowed to be rebuilt, could have eliminated one bil�boa�d, which : had just been rebuilt. � ' � Mr. Olson said that if Mr. Richard Harris wa� referring to a sign which had been blown down, this was a two faced sign, as only part o.f it blew down, it was determined that it wasn't over 50% destroyed. He said that �t the time this sign was.repaired, he cautioned.the sign company that if the request for a Special Use Permit was denied this.si�gn would have �o come down. .Mr. Clark said he thought that what we needed was some clarification on when a sign could be repaired and when it could no�. We would have to know what constituted enough damage so the sign could not be rebuilt, � . Mr. Langenfeld sai.d he thought they would be considering each sign to see how they met the. requirements of the sign'ordinance. � -� Mr.�Craig Lofquist said that he didn't think any of these billboards met all. ` the requirements of the sign ordinance. Mr. Olson said he would verify th�t not one � of the 14 billboards requesting a Special. Use Permit met all the requir�ments of the � Code. ' Mr: David Harris said that it was because of all the questions raised at this meeting that he suggested passing this on to the Community Development Commission, a�d the sta�ement that was just made that none of these billboards met all of the Code�requirements indicated to him that these request should be reviewed. Mr. Clark said that one observation should be ma�de and that was that slowly these billboards were being moved out of the City. As he had stated earlier, at some point in time, we should only'have 5.billboards left•in the City�. He said . that if the Planning Commission and the Council recommended approval of these Special Use Permits with the stipulation that when the property around them was developed, they would have to be removed. You can deny them all, you�can approve them all, you can deny some, and approve some, with stipulations, or you could wait until they continue to dissolve themselves out of the City, and then take the bull by the horns so to speak, when there are only 5 or 6 billboards left in the City, and eliminate these, instead of where there were 14. We know that if we deny all these Special Use Permits, we have heard that we would be in court. We don't know this; but this was what �e have heard. Chairman Harris said that in deference to Mr. David Harris, the Council in their wisdom in 1969, passed an ordinance that said that by September 15, 1974, a billboard shall either be removed or have a Special Use Permit, and his position � on this, for over two years, has bee� that we either enforce this ordinance or repeal it: He said that he was against_putting laws on the books and just letting them sit - . there, or use them indiscriminately. � �_ Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 � Page 24 __ ' Mr. �Scott sai d n which says tha� the Permits be granted. the Planning Commission did have a memorandum from Mr. Sobiech City administrat.ion was recommending that these Special. Use Mr.�Drigans said.he wanted to refer to a statement in this me�norandum which ��, states, "After discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined �the zoning and . variances from Section 214.042 which exist with the existing advertising signs, would �lso be legal non-conforming since ihey were in1existence prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance." He said that he interprets this statement to mean . that any existing sign does not have to eonform to that section. He said that if you look at that section of the code, it was a very important section. It covers the maximum height, the sign area, the distance between signs., the setbacks; and covers the distance from stree� in�ersections. He said th� sign companies were coming up wi�h innovations all the time, and�without contro1 of any of these things on these billboards, we don't know what we will have. He thought the City Attorney should do a little more research on that one section to determine if this was a grandfa�ther ` clause or not. He repeaiced that this was a very important section. There was nothing there to stop an �.dvertising company �rom enlarging.�he sign area. The sign was already there, but i.f they don't have to comply to that section of the ordinance, - the panels put on these billboards could b.e any size.� Mr. Olson said that except for the billboards �hat got special Use Permits in 1970, all �he other billboards were built before 1969, so it would seem that you could go back to the original sign permit to deter^mine the specification on the sigr� at the time the sign permit was issued. � Mr. David Harris said that in looking over the ordinance, it would seem that the Planning Commission had no other choice �but �o approve them all, or deny them all. How are ,you going �o say that you are going to approve one that was 497 feet away � from a residential area, which was non-conforming.according to the ordinance, and then deny one thai was 483 feet away from a residential area. Where would you make the judgement: If you approve one of the signs that doesn't meet the code, he didn't see how you could deny a�nother one, because it doesn't meet the code. There has to be some consist enGy in the administration. �We cannot be capricious. If we approve ' one, we approve them all, if•we.deny one�, we deny them all. Mr. Langenfeld said then the decision befrore the Planning Commission was to grant or not to grant these Special Use Permits. • • _ Chairman Harris said he thought it was a little more than that. H�e said he could see.Mr. David Harris' point. We can grant a Special Use Permit, but along with this we can attach stipulations, and he didn�'t think there was anyway that the Planning Corrnnission Gould eliminate 14 signs tomorrow. This was unrealistic. However, the Planning Commission can s�ipulate on the Special Use Permii such things as maintenanceg rebuilding in case of damage, putting in a percentage figure. � . Mr. Langenfeld said he felt the Special Use Permit was a powerful p�rmit, and � if we followed the things necessary to�have one approved, this would help in making our determination. He said that inconsistency would no� be grounds for denying a Special Use Permit, b�t by pinpoiriting the defects of each sign with the stipulations, we would have consistency. Chairman Harris said this was why he fel� each sign had to be considered individually.. � . � Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't �eel that this would conflict with any other ordinance because if the stipulations of a Special Use Permit were violated, then Planning Commission Meetinq - August.6, 1975 Page 25 •_ thi�s would be part of the.pracess of el�minating the billboards. � Mr. David Harris said that in the Public.Works Director's mema he mentions two " stipulations: (1) Whenever a lot.is developed and an advertising sign is located . upon it, that sign will be removed. (2) Whenever an advertising sign is destroyed or damaged by an act of naiure, vandalism or other means, this sign cannot be repaired • or rebuil�t and will have to be removed. Mr. Harris said he didn't know wh�t other basis you would have for removal, because you certainly couldn't base the removal on the ordinance, because we are inconsistent with the ordinance right now; in that none of.the billboards meet all the requirements of the Code. Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't think there were enough facts here to base a denial on, so the stipulations would be sub-articles of the o�di�ance. � �. Mr. Drigans ask�d.Mr Aavid Harras what the intent of the Council had been when they gave the sign companies five years to apply for a$pecial Use Permit. He wondered why they just didn't make �hem non-conforming when the sign ordinance went into effect, so they had to apply for Special Use Permits right away. Mr. Drigans said hF felt the- intent of the CQUncil was to allow them time to amor�ize the existing signs. . Mr. David Harris said he thought that was a reasonable assumption. Mr. Drigans said that i� this was the intent, �hen he ditln't see how the Ciiy Attorney could say they were• grandfathered in,��when �they were given five years to amor�ize these1signs. �Mr. Clark said the Council felt that if the sign campanies wanted to continue their signs a�ter five years, they wauld have to obtain a Special Use Permit. Mr. r,,, Clark said we had' anticipated-that they would need variances and rezoning. The City Attorney, in researchang this, has said that �hey are lega] non-conforming uses and • �� only need a Special Use Permit. Mr. Drigans said we only have Mr. Sobiech's word, �ecause there was no communicat.ion directly from .the City Attorn�y, so we really don't have a legal opinion. . Mr. Olson said that Mr. Sobiechsent a copy of this memorandum to Mr. Herrick. Ghairman Harris said that without a response, this was not a legal opinion. . .� Mr. Scott said that his Commission felt that people do change their minds. He said that although these billboards have been Tn Fridley for a long time, the people he had input from, feel that they were no longer desirable, and it was felt that the option. should be there to improve our environment. We should not be blocked into laws that were there,-for eternity. Mr.� Lindblad said he had be�n involved in hashing��this thing out for over a year . - and he agreed with Mr. Scott. He said that it was his feeling that when the ordioance . was written, it was to give the sign companies five years to remove their billboards, � �and he didn't know why a Special'Use Permit clause was written into this ordinance. He�said that for the past year, this has been a'hot potato'. The Council say� the . Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission says legal counsel. We are back.where � we were a year, ago, still putting off �a decision. He said he couldn't speak for the � Community Development Commission, because they had only �had one meeting which was relative to the goals and objectives as a whole, but the general consensus was that ihey were not in favor of the billboards continuing in Fridley. In fact, he had talked to•many people, and he didn't know anyone who was in favor of these billboards, except � the sign companies. He said he had written down a few comments he had gotten from � . people he had discussed this with.which were, they were unsightly, and the message was . not pertinent to Fridley, and the profits made on these bill.boards were at the expense of the Fridley residents. These signs were there to.attract attention, which was a - - - °►�°� .. Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 a � Page 26 which made them a dfstraction to motorists. He said the Federal government has passed a�law thdt these billboards have to be so far from the highways, and he fel�t n _ they�iwere trying to discourage them also.. Mr. Lindblad said he felt that billboards were.from the. horse and buggy days when people had time to sit and look�around as they went down the road. He said that it was his personal opinion that he couldn�t find , any reason to support-the continuation of billboards in Fridley. � Mr. Scoit said he did attend the Chamber of Commerce meeting, and he.couldn't find an.y support for billboards from this organization. • � Mr. Lofquist said he would like to respond to the statements just made. He said the s�atement was made that no .one in the City liked billboards, but th.is was a Public Hearing and he didn°t see any citizens present objecting to these billboards. He said he was aware that there were some people who did not appreciate billboards, but he didn'� think it was a valid point to say that because one person talked to people who didn't like billboards to say that no one liked billboards: He said it-� wasn't the billboard companies who put billboards in certain places, it was the businessmen, adverti�ers, who asked that their message be put on the board, in a certain place. Ne said that thi.s was a legitimate business and it was the advertisers who were asking for the �Ls.sage on the board. He _said it wasn't the sign companies who were making the money, it was the advertisers. Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Lofquis� if they would do it for free? Mr. "Lofquist said �hat 15% of their business was public service. Mr. Lindblad said th�t was a�tax write-off,.and �the advertisers used it as a tax write-off also. � � Mr. Lofquist said he wou�d also like to clarify the Federal Beautification P� t, because this was not for the purpose of eliminating billboards. What the Beautification n Act said was �hat the outdoor advertising business was a legitimate business and � had a right�to exist,�but as�a business it only had �he right to exist in commercial and industrial areas, and they should be removed from residential and rural areasm � He said the 660' requirement was eliminated with t�he last amendment. The reason for � � this was that they wanted to keep the �ill�oards out of resident�ial areas, so they � put a distance on� them. The Staie Compliance Act.said there was no distance, it was meant to be viewed from �he highway,,.but you couldn't have them in a residential area. As far as commercial property, the billboards could go right up to the highway as iong as they weren't on public pr6perty. Mr.�L'ofquist said he didn't think the Federal. Beautificati�n Act ever meant to eliminate billboards, and in all �he laws governing � billboards, amortization was never mentioned. It states that if a man legally builds a billboard, and we are going to take it away �rom him, the only�way it could b� taken would be like anything else,'we are going to have to pay cash for it. They do not recognize amortizatTOn. Mr. Lofquist said that at the present time, we have won a number of court cases on that point,.prohibition and amortization. He said tha.t the feeling he got when he met with the�Council and the City Attorney was that they were trying to resol.ve this question on a basis where it would be palatable for " � everyone concerned, because this was a touchy question. He said he really couldn't believe tha� the only people interested in outdoor advertising.were the bi�llboard companies. � � Mr. Scott said that he would call attention to the fact that the Human Resour.ces ' Commission made a statement that they felt very negatively about bi�lboards. At that meeting, there were several citizens, and it was his�impression that the Commission members were here to represent people. So.these people didn't have to be at the meeting to speak, the Commissioner's could speak for them, and they told him lot�d and � clear�that they don't want bil7boards in the City of Fridley. He said that if the citizens of Fridley didn't want billboards, was it the policy of Naegele or any other outdoo�' advertising company to jam them down their throats, or take them to court? Planning Commission Meetinq - August 6, 1975 A Page 27 That just�didn't seem to him to be the pr-oper business attitude. �' Mr. Lofquist said that i,f the City of Fridley didn't want outdoor �dvertising, Naegele didn't want to cram i� down their throats either. Mr. Scott said he was , �.threatening to go to �ourt. Mr. Lofquist said,he had merely pointed out the legal •, aspects of what has happened, because,what you are trying to say to my company was . that we cannot conduct business in your community, and this was a legitimate business. Chairman Harris said they had a letter from Mel Jacobson in their agenda stating that he wouldn't sign the request for a Special Use Permit for a sign on his property, and he would like.this clarified. Mr. Lofquist said this was a misunderstanding. On our lease agreement with him, it was stated that no beer or cigarette advertising would appear bn ihis billboard. Because the people who arran�e for the message do not always know the terms of the lease, these have appeared on�his board. Mr. Jacobson wanted this c�ari�ied, and after we talked with him, he no longer had any objection to the Special Use Permit.� Mr. Olson saic there was further confusion on this, because the lease still had three years to run, and yei Mr. Jacobson said he no longer panted the_�sign on hi.s ' pro�erty. Mr. Loiquist said they had an agreemen� with him now. Chairman Harris � said the Planning Commissio� did not have a copy of this letter, and they could no� approve a Special Use Permit on proper�� without the owners consent, so someone_would have�to be responsible to get a copy of the agreement to the Planning Commission. MOTTON by David Harris, seconded by LindbZad, that the PZanning Commission close the.Public Hearing on the requests for Special Use Permits, SP #75-08, SP #75-09, SP #75- � 10, SP #75-11, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP #75-14, SP #75-Z5, SP #75-16, by Naegele Outdoor _ Advertising�Company. . . Mr. Drigans said he was going to vo�e against�this motion untal we resolve some of'ihe problems on what course of action•we were going to take. He felt there wer.e still 1ega1 problems and we haven't discussed the traffic problems that there might be from the advertising s�igns on our highways. '� Mr. David Harris said th�t by closin�g the Public Hearing, it would give someone the opportunity of making a motion to dispose of this matter. He said the Planning Commission couldn't base their decisions on what we would like to read into the ordinance. The ordinance didn't say that we could disallow signs for any other reasan than.that they were non-conforming by not meeting the setback and other requirements�af the ordinance.� The ordinance doesn't say we can deny the Special Use Permits on �he basis that.we don't like billboards, our commission�doesn't like billboards, or someone . personally doesn'.t like billboards. He. said he didn't see this in the ordinance. Whether we h�ve too many signs or that they create a traffic hazard, he didn't see that - � in the ordinance either. Mr. Harris said that he�saw only one.premise for denying a billboard based on the ordinance and that was th�t they were non-conforming and did not meet the criteria set up in the ordinance. He said that with this thought, and the gentleman from Naegele had voluntarily stated that none of the billboards�meet all � � the requirements of the ordinance, we on'ly have one decision to make, either �e approve them all; or deny them all. This was the only �.udgement they could make, based on the � ordinance. • ' , Mr. Drigans said they would have to haVe very strong reasons for denying t�e � �, �pecial Use Permits th at would be defendable in court. Mr. Scott said the people he represents were willing to pay the price of going to court. Planning Commission Meeting - Auqust 6, 1975 _.Page 28 UPON A VOICE VOTE, David Haxris, Lindblad, Langenfeld, Scott voting a�e, Richard !"^� . Harris and Drigans voting nay, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 1.I:2Q P.M. Mr. Davis Harris said he was going to make a motion becaase he firmly believed, and.unless someone could convince his differently, that they would either have to approve all the Special Use Permits, or deny them all. He�said that if we were going to follow Mr. Scott's thinking, he.would say that the only way would be to have a City-wide vo�e to determine how many people favored billboards and how many were against. He didn't think any Commissioner could say that he represented all the people, which Mr. Scott did not say, and while some of us might feel that billboards were undesirable, others may say that they were a vehicle where they got information and.that they were important to their welfare and well-being. He felt tha�t as long as these billboards were non-conforming, and by taking the position if he'rejec�ed one, he rejected all, and if he approved one, he approved them all, becaase they are all existing within the framework of the ordinance, but they also exist in deference of the ordinance. They do not meet all the minimun requiremen�s. The sign ordinance should be reviewed and�have bei:ter procedures to allow bet��ar controls, not only in regard to billboa.rds, but.signing for individual businesses, so�that they conform esthetically, and that these things should be brought to whatever Subcommission felt they had the respons�bility in this area, � � MOTION b�- David Narris, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the reques.ts for Special Use Permits, SP #75-OS, SP #75-09, SP #75-10, SP #75-11, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP #75-14, 5P #75�15, SP #75-16, by Naege.Ze Outdoor Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of existinq bil.Zboards,�per �'ri'.d1ey City Code, �� 5ection 214.042, with the fo2lowing stipulations: . • 1. Whenever a 1ot is developed and ari advertising sign is Iocated upon,it, thai sign wi1l be rencoved. . � 2, Whenever an advertising sign_is destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism or other means, this sign cannot he repaired or rebuilt and will have to be removed. � • � � � 3. The fo.Zlowing s.igns wi11 be removed: 3740 East River Road, 8120 University Avenue N.E., arzd 7355 East Riber Road. . �. 4. �111 the Special Use Permits come hack one year from passage for review. �Fiairman Harris said there would have to be a second to the motion before this could be discussed. � � THE MOTION DIED FOR .LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Ol�son sai d that any moti on for approval of the Speci al tlse Permi ts .. _ should mention, a percentage figure;on�the amount of damage necessary for a sign td be removed. � Mr. David Harris said that if there had been a second to the. motion, thTS could have been open for discussion. ' ' � Mr. Drigans said he felt there were several reasons for continuing�these requests � to the next meeting. He felt the Planning Commission needed some legal interpretations on whether the specification as stated in the Administrative report are able to be - upheld in a court of law, obtain a legal interpretation from the City Attorney as to Planning Cor�nission Meetin� - Auqust 6, 1975� ' Page 29 Why rezoning and variances are not required, and a legal briefing on what position � , the City of. Minnetonka took in giving total denial of billboards in their community and how it was up�eld in court. Mr. Drigans thought there were enough unanswered questions to justify continui�g these requests. He would also like to ask�the two � Vice Chairmen present, Mr. Lindblad and Mr. David Harris, if they would attend the next meeting of the Planning Commission, if not on the Planning Commission t�hen to ' be available in the audience. The both agreed. .� . MOTION by Drigans, seconded by David Harris, that the Planning.Commission continue the request,for Special Use Permits, SP #75-08, SP #75-09, SP #75-10, SP #75-1T, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP #75-14, 5P #75=15, SP #75-16, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, for the continua.tian of existing billboards, per Fridley City Code, 214.042, until August 20, 1975. ��. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Drigans if he wanted the�Ci�y Attorney present of if the answers could be in writing. Mr. Drigans said it c�uid be handled either way. Chairman Harris said he would also want wr�;�ten clarification of the Melvin Jacobson letter before this meeting also.. � .. , Mr. Scott said that no matter what the attorney says9 we will still.be faced with the same problem, whether we are going to.approve them all or deny.them all, � and no matter what groun�s we use to deny them, we�would sti11 have a problem. A� far as what other communities do, he could care less, if was what Frid7ey did that concerned him, although it might be nice to see how Minnetonka got away wi�h it. Mr. Drigans said this was his point,�because he knew they were going to have to have �, - v�ry solid reasons for denial. Mr. Lindblad said the fact that they were all non- conforming seemed like a good reason to him. � Mr. Davis Harris said they had to realize that these were existing structures, and pu� them in the same perspective�as Special Use Permits for oil stations. These have not always conformed to the Code either. He said the one station in particular was the one by St. pilliams Church. In this case, we couldn't deny them a Special Use Permit because ��they dan't conform when it was the City that put the road in to make it non-conforming. He said.that when a Special Use Permit was.requested for a new proposal, then they have to convince the City that ihis was good, but when it was already existing, then the City has to have valid reasons for saying this was not good. Mr. Scott said he agreed with Mr. Lofquist that there would have to be compe�sation, but the people he had talked to were willing to have this compensation paid. He said that if people change their minds after a company has.fiade an investment, they have to be prepared to pay. ,� , Mr. Drigans� said the burden of proof to deny any Special Use Permit was with the City. � Mr. Langenfeld asked if a Special Use superceded variances and rezoning? Chairman Harris said it was not a vehicle to get around variances and rezoning. . Mr. O1son said he thought that Mr. Drigans motion to get a legal interpretation from the City Attorney was a good one. He said he also. had a few legal briefs on this matter, and h� would have�copies made and sent to the Planning Commission. � UPON A SHOW OF NANDS, Dick Harris,,David Harris, Drigans, Langenfeld voting aye, L�ndblad and Scott voting nay, the motion carried. • � ' __ . . �� , , � Planning CorrQnission Meeting- Auqust 6, 1975 Page 30 _ . p , Chairman �Harris said the hour was get�ing late, but because all the Special Use Permits had been advertised for this date, he thought the Public Hearing would have be to opened for Brede, Inc., also. � � � � . 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMTT, SP #75-17, BY BREDE, INC.: To permit �he continuation of an existing billboard on part o Lot 8, uditor's ,' Subdivision No. 94, per Fridley City Code,�Section 214.042, the same being 5401 ' Ce�tral Avenue N.E. . � 17. �PUBLIC"HEARING: REQOEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP#75-18, BY BREDE, INC.: To permii the continua�ion�of an existing billboard on part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5403 Ceniral Avenue N.E. � � 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-19, BY.BREDE, INC.: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot l, Block 1, Harstad Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same 6801 Highway #65 N.E. 19.-�PUBLIC HEARINCo REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-20, BY BREDE, INC.: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard on Lots 29 and 20, Block 11, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fr�idley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5457 4ih Street N.E. 20. .PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-21, BY BREDE, INC.: To permit the continua�tion of an existing bill.board. on Parcel 3620, Section 1�2, per Fridley Ci�y Code, Section 214.042, the same being 7568 Highway #65 N.E. Mr. James Bratland; representing Brede, Inc., was presento — MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindblad, tha� the Planning Commission open . the Public Hearings fox requests for Special Use Permits, SP #75-17, SP #75-I8, 5P #75-19, SP�#�5-20, 5P #75-21, by Brede, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at .Z1:55 P.M: � MOTION by Dick Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Comrr�ission continue the requests for 5pecial Use Permi�ts, 5P #75-17, SP #75-IS, SP #75-19, SP #75-20, SP #75�-21, by Brede, Inc. Upon a�show of hands, Dick Harris, David Harris, Drigan, Langenfeld voting aye, Lindblad and Scott voting nay, the motion carried. ADJDURNMENT: MOTION by Drigans, seconded by David Harris, to adjourn. Upon a voice vote, aI2 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of August 6, 1975 adjorned at 11:59 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , . � , �� .J Dorothy Evens , Secret�cry . �. '� � . ` _ «r�Z / / ,� '7 S � . �''e%�"� - � � r . . .� _ .% � � ; . 0 �� - V // ' /7/��"��'�� 3 S� t�� -cz�� % V � , � s�l�� % , �� G''�� ,� �,._ � � � � � G�.� , - �� : � - w_ � � �:.: _� . _.. , - _ ��: - G l � �� .1 // 7 7/ �- 1/ 7 . 7� � Zv,a.� - �S � � - //� �w , � t 70 �- _ �� y � �� . 11�� 7 l� �' ��2�-�. � ra--.�� -f�� ,�/- ,��x,�;w�� . . . . . . . , . .. � v � .G. .O� � . Y�• • ` � , . . . � . . .. � . � . .. � . . . . � . .. . .. . . �► `' J . .: _