Loading...
PL 12/22/1976 - 30458/� 1 CITY OF FBIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 22, 1976 \ CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.NF. PAGE 1 ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: DECETZBER_8� 1976 Mrs. Schnabel noted that on page 18, the last sentence in the second para- graph should read "He added that most of the applications were pretty cut �e _ and dried". �`� p�[r. I,angenfeld stated that on page 19, the second sentence in the second paragraph should read '�he didn't think the IIzvironmental Commission should drop the ba11..."; and the last sentence should read "environment" instead � of "Environmental". MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission minutes of December 8, 1976 be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. ' � 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #76-1� NAEGELE OUTDOOR ATIVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the construction of a 10 x 2 billboard, per F'ridley City Code, Section 21�.0�.2, to be located on Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #77, the same being l�l Osborne Road N.E. . MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commi.ssion open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-1l� by Naegele Outdoor Advertisir.g Company. Upon a voice vote, all vating aye, Chairperson Harris declaxed the Public Heaxing�open at 7i37. Air. Ronald L. Mielke, representing Naegele Outdoor Adnertising was present. Plann3ng Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 2 ADMINZSTRATIVE STAFF REPORT . Sign Location: 151 Osborne Road�. N.E. Sign Company: Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company SIGN INFORMATION 1. Height (25') 25' (greater than 10� above ground) 2. Area (300 Sq. Ft.) 250 square feet . � 3. Distance Between Signs (500�) greater than 500' �.. Setback From Street Right-of-way Lines (30�) greater than 60� 5. 6. 7. 8. Distance From Street Intersection (500�) greater than 500' Distance from R-1 Uses (500') greater than 500' Condition Status (All Metal) Metal Zvning (C-25, M-1, M-2) M-2 Conforms to existing sign ordinance; no variances needed. r 0 Mr. Clark stated that this did meet a11 the criteria as far as advertising signs or billboards. He explained that this would be located on Osborne Road about midway between the tracks and Main Street on the North side, and North of the St. Paul Water Works. Mr. Clark passed out to the Comrnission copies of Planning Commission minutes from 1975 which discussed several requests concerriing existing billboards, and explained that those stipulations went to the City Council and the Council approved the Special Use Permits changing one of the stipulations and omitting one other (item 2). He pointed out that item 5 stated that the permit would run concurrent with the lease, and the Council added it would not exceed five years before it should be reviewed again. Mr. Clark informed the Commission that a11 the signs would be reviewed in November of 1980. Mr. Langenfeld asked what this sign was going to display, and Mr. Mielke said it would be changing every month. He added there was a lease restriction saying there would be no tobacco or liquor advertised, but it was strictly commercial. Mrs. Schnabel asked if there were any other billboards along Osborne Road between Ea.st River Road and University, and Mr, Clark replied there were none on Osborne at all in the City of Fridley. Mr. Mielke added that it was written in the lease that upon sale or development of the property the sign would be taken down. �"1 i � ,,''1. " ��. . � � Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 3 � Chairgerson Harris asked if this was.a double-faced sign, and Mr. Mielke � replied that was correct. He said it would be back-to-back, advertising in both directions. Mr. Harris asked what the distance was from the sign to' the railroad right-of-way, and Mr. Clark said it was approximately l�00'. Mr. Haxris asked how far it was from the sign to the entrance on Main Street, and Mr. Mielke said he just �rnew it was greater than 500'. He added there was a sign on the property at the present time whic h said "For Sa1e". Mr. Harris asked who owned this property� and Mr. Mielke replied Eaxl Patch. Mr. Haxris commented there was no way of telling how laxge a chunk he had. . Mr. Clark noted that l�3�' �as the frontage along Osborne from the railroad right-of-way to his East line, and the sign would be sitting in there. Mr. Mielke stated the sign wou].d be located 70' from his West property line, so Chairperson Harris figured it would be 366� from the right-of-way of.the railroad. Chairperson Haxris asked about the height of the bil'lhoaxd, and Mr. Mielke replied it was 25'�to the top of the board and was 15' off the ground. He said the size would be 10 x 25', and it would be a11 steel. He showed the Commission photographs of what it would look like. Chairpersan Harris asked about the mansard shown in one of the photographs, and Mr. Mielke replied it had been removed at the city�s request and at the advertising company's expense. . Mrs. Schnabel asked if there would be�lights, and Mr. Mielke replied there would be no illumination as it would be too expensive. Mrs. Schnabel asked what was going to happen to the "For Sa1e" sign on the property, and Mre � Mielke answered that as fax as he knew, it would stay there. Mr. Mielke �� pointed out that there was a 60' easement by the St. Paul Water Works� and over 60' setback off the highway, so they were over double what the required setback was. MOTIOId b3r Schnabel� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Request SP �76-11� by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a goice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P•M• Mrs. Shea stated that she would like it in the record that Human Resources ' was opposed to any non-conforming billboard in the City. She said it was bad enough to give a Special Use Permit to one that was in, but even worse to put a new one in where there wasn't one. She added she was mandated by her Commission, and she had to oppose this billboard. Mr. Bergman said he would like to recognize, first of all, that the requested billboard did conform in each item to present Fridley code; they had reviews in ihe past where it almost seemed like a rarity. However, he continued� he wanted to remind the Planning Commission that there was a Project Committee assigned to reviewing the sign ordinance for the City of Fridley and that committee had been working diligently in review of a fairly detailed, lengthy and cumbersare ordinance. He pointed out they had been doing this for about ten months and were nearing completion so that this �Planning Comm3.ssion might.possibly be reviewing a recommended ordi.nance change as '-1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 ' Page � r"� early as Maxch or April. Mr. Bergman said he would feel quite awkward if �� the Planning Commission at this time was to approve construction of another billboaxd i.n the City, possibly in conflict with the effort that has been going on. For that reason, he said, his view was toward suggesting a moratorium on new billboard construction until they received the ordinance review, or at least in this paxticular case deferring this request for a new billboaxd until the results were received from the Project Com�niitee. Mr. Langenfeld stated he saw what Mr. Bergman was trying to say, but wondered if they didn't have to make their judgement on the existing ordinance. � Chairperson Harris said that taasn't exactly true. He explained he had attended a meeting in Coon Rapids last week and this particular item had come up in discussion with the people from rietro Council� and there was a provision in the law that allowed for setting up an interim ordinance or a moratorium while the present ordinances were being re-evaluated. He said that whether or not this would apply to billboards or signs, he did not lmow. He added they hadn't specifically discussed it in that chaxacter, but there was a vehicle for which there could be a moratorium. Mr. Peterson stated he thoughi they were stretching the point in terms of coming up with a new ordinance si.nce the Project Committee was doing a study to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission which in turn made a recorrunendation to the governing body. He said the Project Committee . was a study committee created by a member Gommission, and when they were talking about revising a code they were talking about City Council action � as only the City Council had the authority to make the change. Chairperson � Harris pointed out that the Planning Commission could recommend a moratorium� and the Council could decide to place a moratorium ori all signs. N1rs. Schnabel stated that she would like to concur with Mr. Bergman's thoughts on this lrnowing that the Project Committee had been working very long and hard on this and has had representatives from advertising companies and representatives from the community on that study committee. She stated she would feel inclined to ask the petitioner to either agree to a tabling of the request until such time that the report is ready from the Project Committee, or if that was unacceptable, request the City Council to declare a moratorium on construction until such time that they had a chance to review whatever changes were recommended by the Project Committee. Chairperson Haxris stated that he saw one basic problem with this particu.lar application that hadn't been discussed. He stated he felt there was a deficiency in the present signing ordinance because it spoke to distance from intersections, distance from center line of right-of-way, distance from R-1, parks, schools and public lands� but it did not speak to distance from railroad crossings. He said he thought if the ordinance was to be looked at from the standpoint of 500' from an intersection (and he assumed that was put in because of safety)� then certainly a railroad crossing should be in there. He said he thought it was just an oversight, and added he was wondering wY�yr 500' was used as distance from an intersection. /�`� Planning Cormnission Meeting - December 22� 1976 , Page � � ,� Mr. Clark s.tated it Was probably chosen because of safety� or spacing could be another reason. Mr. riielke said he could see no problem with safety whatsoever and again pointed out it would be i5' off th� ground. Mr. Clark stated the safety concern was not the obstruction of v�.ew but distraction� and Mr. Haxris poi.nted out that Amtrak came through that i.ntersection at 70 mph. Mr. Mielke stated he would like to return to Mrs. Shea's comment for a moment, and said he agreed about non-confoxming signs. He sa.id that in the past the City had passed ordinances and he had to go according to what those ordinances sa.id, and this sign was conforming. Mrs. Shea said she realized the sign was conforming, but didn't agree with the City Ordinance and couldn't back any new billboards in the City. Mr. Langenfeld said that lae felt if a moratorium was declared, Naegele should have the existing fee caxry over to the point when this was discussed again. Mr. Claxk agreed. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission, recognizing there is a Sign Ordinance Project Committee and that Committee has been reviewing the present ordinance for approximately 10 months and is indicating that this body might be reviewing the results of proposed sign ordinance changes within the March to April time frame, table the ret�u;�st for a Special Use Permit� SP #76-1l� by Naegele Outdoor Advertising � Company� subject to the receipt and review of the Project Committee input. �� Chairperson Harris stated that a tabling motion was a non-debatable motion, and I�irr. Bergman said perhaps he should have used the word "defer". Mr. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION to change "table" to "defer". Agreeable to Mrs. Schnabel. Mr. Mielke stated that he had gone in accordance with what the ordinance said now. He said that the comp7�tion date for the sign w�.s on or before December 31, and if this was deferred to March or Fpril his contract would . not be any good. He noted that the Project Committee had been working on this for ten months already, and said it could possibly be longer than March or April before the study was completed--possibly even a year� and they did have the ordinance as it stood right now. Mr. Langenfeld stated that he personally thought the moratorivm would not hold with this paxticular type of subject. Mr. Bergman poi.nted out his mo�ion was not for a moratorium, but deferring action. Chairperson Haxris said he thought that deferring action for three to four months was not a reasonable length of time, in a11 deference to the Project Committee. He stated he would be prepared to act on this tonight. Mr. Peterson stated that he spoke against the motion. He sa3d it was fine for people on various commissions to be against billboaxds, and he was sure � that in every action that was taken in this City there would be people who were against that particulax action. However� he said� there were things Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 6 going on in the City all the time, and there was always a compromise in terms of wishes no matter what happened in any level of goverrunent. He � said there was an ordinance on their books as far as the City was concerned which was to be a guideline in terms of operating. He stated that now they were saying they did not like the way the Citx operated so therefore they were going to defer taking action on something in hopes that it would be changed to something they liked better� and from that standpoint he could not support the motion. Mr. Peterson stated they should either deny the petitioner's request and he could take other action, or they should grant it. He added that they could beg the question on any ordinance they had. Mr. Langenfeld said that the peti�ioner approached them in good faith on the basis of the existing ordinance, and now they were in effect saying "sorry, Buster� you are out of the picture until somebody makes a decision'�. Mrs. Schnabel stated she took exception to that remark because the motion was a recommendation to the City Council, it was not final action on this. She said what they were recommending in the motion was simply that the City Council itself declaxe a moratorium on any further billboard construc- tion until such time the ordinance has been reviewed. She said they were not saying "sorry, Buster10� but were saying this was the recommendation and the City Couneil could either agree or disagree. Mrs. Shea stated that the petitioner was correct in that this ordinance wou].d not be finalized until a year from now as it would take that long for it to go through channels, have all the Commissions review it, etc. She stated she would still vote against it, but they did have an ordinance now that she thought they had to make a decision on. Mr. Bergman saa.d that he had mixed emotions on this as the petitioner did come in good faith and was conforming to the ordinan�e. He said he would like to talk a bit about the approach to the sign ordinance, and he thought there were at least two approaches. He stated he didn't really know if there ioere members on the Commission who were flat3.y against signs, but he thought the Commission looked at this in a couple of different views. Mr. Bergman stated that one line of thought said that signs were important for local businessmen to advertise their business� as being different from a billboard which was not benefiting a loca]. businessman directly. He said that Plaegele and other similax companies were in the business of making income from putting up billboards, as opposed to a sma11 local �usinessmen putting up a sign to attract business to his shop� so there was some distinction. He stated that again the word ��moratorium" had come up� and explained that the motion did not provide for a moratorium. He said if they taanted to consider that as a second motion� that would be more proper. Mr. Mielke said that their signs were requested by the people in Fridley, such as Kennedy Transmission, hScDonalds, Northtown, etc. He said the people empha.size that they do need the coverage in Fridley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergmar�, Schnabel and Shea.voting aye� Harris and Peterson voting nay and Langenfeld abstaining, the motion carried 3- 2. Mr. Langen�eld said he abstained because he would rather see the Commission vote direct�y toward the petition that was before them, and also because �� n , , � n �--, � � � r 1 Planning Commi.ssion Meeting - December 22, 197b Page 7 he didn't feel they could really do this in accordance. with the existing sign ordinance. �ir. Claxk suggested that there might be a time limitation on how long the Commission could defer action, as there was on rezoning (60 days). Iie thought 3pecial Use might have the same length of time, and he thought it was unreasonable to defer action for a year. Mrs. Shea said she had the feeling this would force City Council to make a decision. Mr. Clark read to the Commi.ssion fx�r►the City Ordinance which said they would have to approve or deny the request within sixty days. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the point was this may not be the only request that came before them within the next few months. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commi.ssion recommend to City Council that�a moratorium be placed on all new billboard construction withiia the City of Fridley until such time that the present sign ordinance has been adequately �eviewed. Mr. Langenfeld stated he was still wondering if they could actually do that. Chairperson Harris said they could make the recommendation and Couneil would then have to research the situation with their legal staff and they had the final say on it. He added that there idB.S a vehicle witliin the law whereby they could declaxe a moratorium. . Mr. Mielke questioned the moratorium, and stated they did have the ordinance at present and he was proposing a conforming sign. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to make a statement that had to do with the City Attorney's memorandum on Special Use PermiLS. He said he realized they were not talking about Special Use Permits directly in this motion, but it did center around the whole discussion. He read from page 2"The Planning Commission must draft findings and report the same to the Council indicating its recommendation as to approval or denial and specifying what, if any, conditions are necessary regarding features of the proposed use of the building". . Mr. Bergman said he would like to reference back to Mr. Clark's statement that the Council must take action within sixty days. He said he didn't think that was quite as clean as the implication, because deferring, in a 1ega1 sense, may be considered taking action on the item. He added that no where in the ordinance did he see discussions on under what conditions deferments could be made� and he knew that was a common a.lternative. Mr. Bergman sa.id he was not an attorney either, but when somebody said "take action", he would question whether or not a deferment wouldn't qualify as taking action. Chairperson Harris,said he didn�t think so. He said he thought the i.ntent of the ordinance was either to approve it or deny it. Mrs. Schnabel said that she would like to suggest that one of the alternatives �'� that the City Council had in addition to approving or denying was to table it. She said that she thought they were begging the question by jumping to Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 � Page 8 legal opinion on exactly what the City Attorney would recommend in this case. n She said .she would guess that this was not the first time this has come up ,, in the City of Fridley and probably not the last, and she thought the City Attorney would have some opinion on it. Mr. Bergman said he thought the second motion did give the City Council the third alternative--that of moratorium. UPOId A VOICE VOTE� Harris, Bergman, Schnabel and Shea voting aye, Langenfeld and Peterson voting nay-, the motion carried !� - 2�� \ 2. CORITINUID: PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE: Continue until January 5, 1977. Mrs. Shea said she would like to recommend to Staff that they look in Column One of tonight�s newspaper. She informed the Commission that Spring Lake. Paxk�s City Council would be looking at cockroaches, etc., as the result of a complaa.nt from an apartment dweller. 3. CONTINUID: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GpALS AND OBJECTIVES: Cbr.tinue until January 5, 1977. r"� 1�. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES CONA7ISSION MINUTES: DECDUIBER 2 1976 MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of December 2, 1976. Mrs. Shea said she would like to bring to the Commission's attention the motion in the second to last paxagraph on page 28. She stated the Red Cross requested the City of Fridley to buy one '�baby�� for the C.P.R. Program, and explained that C.P.ft. stood for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Mrs. Shea said they were hoping to buy ten '�babies11 and 10 '�Annies°, and explained that these were dolls i,rith electronic parts so the students could practice resuscitating a heart. The "babiea" were infant dolls and the "Annies�� were the laxge ones. She said that the courses they offer would be free, and the people who have gone to this say it is vital to people of the Commission's age group on up. The ��babies�� cost $160 and the °Annies" $320.� Mr. Cla.rk asked how long the class was, and Mrs. Shea replied 8- 12 hours. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the resuscitation was different from the type of resuscitation given to a person who has shock, and Mrs. Shea replied that the heart stimulation was more important in this one. She explained this was more for a heart attack patient, and this wasn't the Red Cross life saving course. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the costs were quite high for the dummies, and Mrs. Shea explained these were different from the ones used in'the life saving course. She said these had electronic heart beats that must be stimulated by the students to pass the course. Mrs. Shea stated that �1 the idea of the Red Cross was to reach everybody in Fridley with this course, and they wanted to get at least ten each of the ��p�ies" and ��babiesn. Planning Corronission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 9 !'�'� Mr. Claxk commented that �e felt this was a great program; the only question � he had was whether the City would be better off buying these for the Fire Department so that they would be right here for our own Police and Fire Departments. Mrs. Shea said that from what she understood, it was very difficult to get enough "dummies" together at one time to taach enough people. She explained that Spring Lake Park had two but would not let them out of their schools, and Columbia Heights had two but wouldn't let them out of their Fire Department. Mr. Clark said the Fir� Depaxtment operated the same course through the Red Cross, and explained they already had an"Annie " and � it was all over the City constantly. He said they were all stretching for the same thing--to teach the people how to do this. Chai.rperson Haxris asked if the City donated �160 to buy a"baby", where it would go. Mrs. Shea said it would go into Anoka County as part of Anoka County and they would pool their resources and travel about the county teach- ing this course. 5he explained their goal was to blanket the county with these courses so everyone would end up going to one within the next year. Chairperson Haxris commented that this was the one time he could remember that he felt $160 wasn't enough for a program. Mr. Claxk said he wasn't speaking against the program--he thought it was great and everybody should take it. His only question to Council would be that they research the . resources they have locally and see if it could be better used here or there. In having it here, he said, our own Police and Fire Departmen�s would have better access to it; whereas in a County program it might only come here � once every three months or six months. ' '"1 Chairperson Haxris said that perh�.ps they should buy two babies; one for here and donate one to the County. That way� he said, Fridley would have a big one and a little one for its own use. Mrs. Shea asked what shape , the Annie was in, and Mr. Clark replied that it was almost worn out. He explai.ned they had two--one was practically worn out and the other was relatively new but didn't record. p1r. Clark said he thought that Staff could pull together a better recommendation for the City Council. He thought by the time it got to the Council Mr. Hughes would have a better report prepaxed. Chairperson Harris noted that this iaould come out of Human ' Resource's budget, and Mrs. Shea said she was aware of that. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting ajre, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Elanning Commission recommend to the City Council donating a$160 "baby" to the Az�oka County Red Cross and purchasing for the City a"baby" and an "Annie" for the C.P.R. Program. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Shea pointed out that the Anoka County Community Action Advocate Program would be on their agenda next month� and invited anybody who would li�ce to listen or comment to attend. Alsv, she said, there was a letter to the editor tonight in the paper regaxding this. Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 10 5• RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 13, 1976 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of December 13� 1976. Mr. Bergman asked why night flooding was better than day flooding, and Mr. Peterson replied because there was usually no wind at night and because of � lower temperatures the freezing time was usually quicker. Also, he said, when the rinks were flooded during the day there was the added problem of kids caming home from school and walking across the rink before it had set. Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 6, under New Business and the Request by Lion's Club, he happened to be that person referred to who made the verbal request concerning Moore Lake. Mrs. Shea said that as long as they were on the subject of Moore Lake, she was wondering why that was one of the few parks in Fridley where the gates where kept locked. Mr. Peterson stated he couldn't answer.that other than the fact it was for safety as it was a hazardous a.rea. Chairperson Harris asked if the whole Moore Lake situation wasn't a losing battle, and Mr. Peterson said that the Paxks and Recreation Commission was going to have to make a decision on that in February. He said they would have to decide if they were going to have a swimming program this year and if it was worth the effort because of Swimmer's Itch, low water level� etc. He added tY�at they had asked Staff for a recommendation, and Mr.. Langenfeld commented that even if the lake taas closed for swimming, people would still swim there anyway. Mr. Peterson stated he would hesitate to close down the lake•because he felt anyone who lived in the State of Minnesota should lmow how to swim, and there was a large number of kids in Fridley who had leaxned to swim in Moore Lake. He added that here they �vere learning to swim in lake conditions, and if that'wa.s closed down there was no place to take them. Mr. Langenfeld said that the problem of Swimmer's Itch would relate indirectly to the Water Quality Management Planning Workshop which would be conducted by Metro Council as they would be discussing swimming and fishing. Chair- person Harris said he realized Moore Lake was all they had, but perhaps they should look at it for what it really was. He stated it really wasn't a lake, but a drainage .retention pond. Mr. Peterson agreed, and said that tahen the nomenclature of a lake was maintained then there were these conflicts. He added that it could be treated with chemicals that would be safe to the people and to the ducks. Mr. Langenfeld said he agreed that it really wasn't a lake, but in terms of axea that the water enveloped it was considered a lake. � UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. RECEIVE COMriUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONIMISSION A7INUTES : DECErfBER 11� 1976 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planni.ng Commission receive the Community Development minutes of December 11�, 1976. � � , � r Planning Cammission Meeting - December 22� 1976 � Page 11 , �`` Mr. Bergman asked the Commission to note an the last page of the minutes � � that Community Development received and accepted Mr. Schneider's letter of resignation from the Community Development Commission and from Chairmanship of the Sign Project Committee, and they also approved Mrs. Pat Gabel as the replacement Chairperson for the Sign Project Committee. Mr. Bergman stated he would like to discuss a rather controversial item, that being the recommendation on maximum sizes pf accessory buildings. He said that for the record, there was an error halfway down the fourth para- graph on page 2. It read "After the second one, he'can build up to 2l�0 sq. , ft. wi.th no problem", but should read "After the•first one...". Mr. Bergman said that in response to the last paragraph on page 3, they had been asked six months ago to review the ordinance with regard to second accessory buildings, and now they had been asked to review all accessory buildings. His Commission found that there were controls over the size, and a number where they applied. He stated one was lot lir�e setback, one was the 25� lot coverags control, one iaas the control of a Special Use Permit, and another one. was finances. Mr. Bergman said he was expecting Mr. Boardman. �to be at this meeting as he was going to ask him to repeat another control that was not brought to anyone's attention at the previous Special Use requests which Mr. Boardman had found somewhere in the back section of the ordinance. He stated it was an ordinance in which any buildings in a back yard had to confarm to some percentage in relationship of back yard total depth, and possible total width. Without concluding on this, he � sa.�:d, he got the impression that the Planning Commission had approved at least one second accessory building which was of such a size that it was in ' 1 violation of the code. Mr. Clark said he would try to find what Mr. Bergman was referring to. Mr. Bergman said they had talked about putting a limit on in the ordinance of so many square feet. He said that would take it out af the Special Use Permit category and put it in the ordinance as a control. However, he continued, the same person that came before the Planning Commission and justified a Special Use Permit with a haxdship case (i.e., keeping his truck, storing antique cars, etc.) could go before the Board of Appeals with the same hardship case requesting a vaxiance. He stated that they concluded that there wasn't much difference. Chairperson Haxris stated that there was a definite difference, and a variance was an entirely different ba11 game than a Special Use Permit. He said that the burden of proof for denial of a Special Use Permit lied with the City, �hereas the burden of proof for the need for a variance lied with the petitinner. NIr. Bergman stated Community Development felt they had to consider the magni- tude of the problems and they concluded that there were very few, and could lo�gically be treated on an individual basis such as they did. He said he was also reminded that this body voted to approve the two Special Use Permits in consideration of reasons given by requestors, and he didn't think if they had gone before the Board of Appeals they would have taken a different course. � Mrs. Schnabel said she had found the item that Mr. Bergman had referred to, and read to the Commission: "Accessory buildings in the aggregate occupy not more than 35% of the axea of a required rear yard�'. Nlr. Clark stated the trick was to find the axea required� and to do this you had to go back to the rear yard requirements which said the depth of it had to be 25� of Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 . Page 12 of the lot.depth, not less than 25 feet and not more than �0 feet. He said ^ �that therefore a lot of 80� x 120' would have a 30' rear y axd requirement� � which would be 8�0 square feet maximtun for an accessory building. Mr. Bergman commented that he thought one Special Use Permit they had granted exceeded that� and Chairperson Haxris agreed. Mr. peterson said he thought that � particulax petitioner had a larger lot, so the ratio would go up. Mr. Haxris recalled this man had a siding truck he wished to keep i.n the accessory building. Mr. Bergman said that they were not aware of any real problem with the size of the first accessory building, so they got back to the old question of the second accessoxy building which they had covered before, and that is what prompted Mr. Oquist�s comment. He repeated that Community Development felt there were some controls, and the requests should be judged on their merits. Chairperson Haxris saa.d he would like to pose this problem: Suppose a man came in and said he wanted to build a second accessory building and wasn't quite sure what he wanted to do with it but did want it for storage and to put some cars in, etc., and then ended up in the body shop business. Mr. Bergman commented that Mr. Lindblad�s approach would be to grant the building because it would be better to have him do that in the garage than out in the yard. Mr. Haxris said that his argument to that would be it was a commercial enterprise in an ft-1 district and should not be allowed. Mr. Bergman said he��-�uld be in violation of the code, and Mr. Clark said he would be conducting � a home occupation outside the mai.n dwelling. There followed a lengthy discussion on home occupations, and �Zr. Clark read the definition of home �` occupation and said he thought i-t was a little unclear. '' Mr. Bergman said he thought they were talking about a couple of different points here. He said they were addressing if an accessory building of any size should be allowed or should it not� and really they couldn�t even handle that problem. He stated that all it boiled down to was that if the ordinance was changed, it would run through the Board of Appeals instead of the Planning Commission, so Community Development felt they should leave it the way it was. N[rs. Schnabel stated that they had an ordinance right now which established the line of procedure for Special Use Permi.ts, and to run it through the Board of Appeals would require a change in the zoning ordinance. She sa.i.d she hadn�t been present at the meeting when the requests came through the Planni.ng Commission for the permits that had been discussed, but she was not sure that running it through the Board of Appeals was necessarily the way to go on that. AZrs. Schnabel said that when something went through the Board of Appeals it more or less passed this Commission, and she thought the Planning Commission had a little more authoxity to get into the business use of that type of dwelling than the Board of Appeals did. She stated that for that reason, she thought it should keep going through the Planning Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. n Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 � Page 13 ^ Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Commission was in concurrence with Community Development. � . . � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission concur with the Comrmznity Development Commission that the ordinance on m�imum size of accessory buildings remain the same �rith no change. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought they shou�ld extend their appreciation to Community Development for looking at this again, and Chairperson Harris said he would also like to extend his appreciation but i.iztended to vote against the motion. He commented that he did believe they had to tighten up on the R-1 axeas. Mr. Clark suggested that it might be better to look at the horr� occupation definition and better clarify that and tighten it up. Chaa.rperson Harris said he would like to treat everyone equally, and he couldn�t see why they should allow one particulax line of endeavor to operate in home occupations and not another particular line. He sai.d he was certainly not pushing for back-yard body shops and,felt they should leave the commercial enterprises to the commercial areas as that was why they had zoning. Mr. Claxk said the other problem was some of these ma.y not be home occupation people; they could be pai.nters working for someone else and storing paint and tarps in the garage. Chairperson Haxris said the problem was, that type of thing tends to overflota; the maiL with the siding could staxt out that way, but pretty soon it wasn't big enough. He said that soon things started to be stored outside, which didn't do the integrity of the R-1 neighborhoods any good. Mr. Iiaxris said the question was how to limit this. He said he didn't have much bad feeling about the person who brought home one car and fixed it inside the garage as that wouldn�t disturb the neighbors, but pretty soon there was one parked outside and soon another one� and the neighborhood deteriorated. Mr. Bergman commented that he had mixed feelings on this, as about 1�8% agreed wi.th R4r. Harris and the other 52% leaned toward the other side. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel and Shea voti.ng aye� Haxris voting r�ay� the motion passed 5- 1. OTHER BUSINFSS: Mr. Clark passed out to the Commission copies of a document concerning the 208 Management Planning Symposium. Mr. Langenfeld explained that Ms. Larson from the League of Women Voters had asked the �vironmental Quality Commission if they would mind sponsoring this symposium. He said that the Commission took this up and was in favor of it and in favor of sponsoring this type of thing. However, he stated, it came to their attention that they might be erroneously sponsoring a private organi�ation and they were wonderi.ng if it was permissable for a Commission to sponsor a private group. Mr. Langenfeld ^ said that personally he felt they could sponsor this because it was an environmental teaching and educational process, and said he was merely Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 . Page 1� � bringing this before the Planning Commission for comments concerning sponsor- , ship and insight as to if they could sponsor this organization. He added that if they did sponsor it, all they asked the E�vironmental Commission to do was to help with the publicity if possible. � Mr. Clark asked if the program involved cesspools and septic tanks, and Mr. Langenfeld said it concerned water management. Mr. Clark said that af all it entailed was cesspools and septic tanks, it really didn�t involve Fridley. He said that he thought it was probably good that Commissians want to sponsor something, but he believed that before they did �hey should bring it to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Haxris asked if this 208 was a document, and Mr. Langenfeld explained that was the t�itle that had been assigned to the program. He said that whenever they talked about water quality, they might just refer to it as 208. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that there may be a lot of residents in Fridley who had lake cabins and would be interestecl in this program. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Fridley Environmental Quality Commission spc.nsor the Water Quality Managemeni Planning Workshop. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ,� Mrs. Schnabel brought up the subject of the Union 76.station, and asked if one of their stipulations didn't have something to do with the physical building itself. She sa.id the reason she asked was because none of that came up in the minutes of the City Council meeting� and added that they did approve it with their own stipulation--a fence. She said that there was nothing about direction arrows. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the City Council had the right to either accept or reject the Planning Corr�nission�s stipulations. Chairperson Haxris commented that doors on restrooms should be required in the building code. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOAi by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the meeting be adj.ourned. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Coirunission meeti.ng of December 22, 1976 adjourned at 10:11 P.M. Respectfully submitted, e 1 �� Sh rri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary