PL 06/22/1977 - 30470;�
tITY OF FRIDLEY
PLAPdNING C4P1�iISSIOPJ I"�EETiivG
JL'P�E 22, 197? —
tALL 1'C� OfiEER =
Chairperson Ha�ris called the June c2, 1977, Planning Commission
rr:eeting tc� ar�er Gt 7: 35 F. r.
F:OLs_ CpLL :
Members Present:
flembers Absent:
Others Present:
Shea, Bergman, Harris, Schnabel � Peterson
Pete�son
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLA�NIhG COf1f�ISSION MINUTES: JUN� 8, 1977
Mrs- Schnabel indicated that since Ms. Suhrbier was at the
June 8, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting� representing
Mr• Peterson, he should nat have been listed on Page 1 as an
Absent Member-
Mrs• Schnabel corrected a typographical error on Page 16,
eighth poragraph. Mrs• Boardman should have been
Mr- Bo�rdman.
�� MOTION by f1s. Shea, seconded by Mrs. Schnabel� that �he Planning
Commission minutes of June 8, 1977, be �pproved as amended•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PER�1IT, SP �77-04,
P N R� Per section � � o t e
Frid ey City Code to allow sales and services of recreational
vehicles on Lot 1, Block 1, Pe�rsons 2nd addition, the same
bzing 7701 East River Road N.E. ,
MQTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, to open the Public
Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M.
Mr• James Pawelski and Mr• Ray Amundson of Apache Camping Center�
2465 Fairview Avenue North, St• Paul� were present at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Mra pawelski explained that they were requesting a special use
permit for the building located at 7701 East River Road N-E• fo�
the sales and servicing of recreational vehicles — Fold-Down
Traiiers, hlini-Motor Hcmes, Pick-Up Campers, and Travel 'i'railers•
He said thct. they serviczd th� units the�nselves and �re not
invalved in any engine repair work. He indicated that they planned
to use the prFSent building- He said that they didn't plan to
chanqe the building at all except to change the outside sign and
ao� one small sign tf�at would inciicate Apache Camping Center and
�nother that would indicste the brand of camper that they sold (the two
sm;�ll si�ns �•rould be 4x3).
PLAP�NING COMMISSSON MEETING -- JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 2
�"is. She� w�nted to know if the City was asking for a better
landscappin� plan-
Mr• Pawelski said that they had told him of no such request. �
He indicated that all he hac! been told was that the City
wanted some type of plan as to how he would display the vehicles.
Chairperson Harris referenced Page CC of the agenda,
tommission Application Review, ^I"ust subrnit better layout for
Plar�ning Commission showing lanCSCaping and visitor parking^-
Mr. Pawelski ssid that he haC never receivec� the form or had he
been told of that request.
Mr• Pawelski commented to the statement that read, ^No objections
from Engineering �ith the exception that if existing harc!
surfaced area is changed and/or increased, a drawing and
grading plan must be approved to control the runoff into
Springbrook Creek^. He said that they wouldn't be changing
anything except they will clean the property and have better
maintenance on the shrubbery that was presently on the property•
Mrs. Schnabel asked if they planned to keep the driveways as
they were presently located.
Mr. P�welski said that the gates and driveways would remain
exactly where they presently were•
f1r• Paul Burkholder of 7860 Alden Way said that the property �
shouldn't be turned into a scl�s lot or a^car^ lot for
recreational vehicles. He said that these types of sales
should be kept on University and Central Avenues. He said
tl-�at East Riv�r Road was not a Commercial Strip• He said
that the proposed establishment would encroach on the
aesthetics and values on the surrounding properties• He
referenced many of the recreational vehicle sale establishments
located on Hwy 65. He felt that since it was a business
venture it would involve bright lights, noise, anc� added traffic.
He didn't feel that the area needed that type of activity•
�ir. Lloyd Mzyers - 132 Stonybrook Way N.E. said that �he term
Recreationa]. Vehicles was really very broad. He wanted to know
if this Sales Building would be limited only to the four kinds
Mr• Pawelski talked about.
Mr. Pawelski again indicated the only four items that would be
handled by the proposed business.
Mr• Meyers asked if there would be any snowmobiles or all-terrain
vehicles•
Mr• Pawelski indicated that they would not be selling that type
of vehicle• �_
PLANNING COMMISSION PIEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 3
Ms. Mary Martin of 133 Stoneybrook Way N•E• strongly protested.
She said she was in total agreement with f�r• Burkholder and
said that the reasons not to grant the Special Use Permit would
'�`� be the same objections that were stated at the Datsun discussion.
Mr. Ray Wormsbecker of 2809 Hampshire Avenue North was the
Real Estate Broker for this property. He indicated that the
building had been vacant for some time and that he had been
wo�king on trying to lease it out. He said that there wasn't
a lot of companies interested in that type of layout• He said
that the building was layed-out perfectly for the type of
business that Apache �amping Center would have. He felt that
the Planning Commission should recommend the granting of the
Special Use Permit.
Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr• Meyers what he thought of the business
occupying that building.
fir. Meyers said that he didn't seriously object. He just didn't
want to get involved with all the noise that went with snow-
mobiles and motorcycles and the like• He was mostly against the
idea of a lot of lights and noise•
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know the hours and days that business
would be conducted.
P�r. Pawe�.ski indicated that they would be open Mondays thru Thursuays
from 9:D0 A.M. un�il 8:00 P.M. Fridays they would be open from
^ 9:00 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. and on Saturdays they would be open
from 9:00 A.f1. until 5:�0 P.M. He said that they would not be
open on Sundays.
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know if there were any plans to extend
the hours once the�r were in the new building.
Mr• Pawelski said that they didn't anticipate any different hours.
He indicated that they were business people and that their
livlihood depended on customers. He said that if someone came
into the showroom close to closing time, that they would probably
remain open until that customer had been taken care of.
Mrs. Schnabel asked how many vehicles would be stored outside the
showroom.
Mr. Amundson indicated that it would depend on the season. He
said that in the Spring the inventory was heavier than the other
seasons. He estimated that, including the units on the showroom
floor, there would be about 30 units. He said that they didn't
keep a lot of inventory. He said that the business operated mostly
from orders.
�,
PLANNING COf1�1ISSICN MEETIPJG — JUP1E 2�, 1977 PAGE 4
Chairperson Harris said that the units would have to be small or
else the building and property would be crowded• He felt that
the petitioners had a lot of outside storage of units.
^
Mr• Pawelski said that the inventory was goverr.ed by their banker-
He said that at present they had seven travel trailers, �ive mini-
motor homes, nine pick-up campers, and 20 cabs {the cabs are on
racks, 4 to a rack}. He said that basically they woulcf have the
units on aisplay. The customer would order what he wanted
based on what he would s2e from the display•
Chairperson Harris questioned that only five parking stalls for
customers was provided on the drawing. He wanted to know if
they felt that was real3y all they' would need.
Mr. Amundson indieated that their operation was basically small•
He didn't really feel that much more than five spaces would be
needed.
Chairperson Harris said that there was basically no room for
on-the-street parking. How would they arrange for over-load
parking.
Mr• P�welski said that it was hard to put on paper exactly
how many cars would be at the business at one time•
Chairperson Harris explained how he interruptzd the drawing
he had before him. He said that he didn't feel there would
be adequate space for off-street parking. ^
Mr• Wormsbecker indicated that there was enough biacktop to
provide 43 parking spaces.
r�r• Pawelski said that the drawing was nat to scale and that
there would be ample space for the outside display units as
well as off-street parking for customers.
Chairperson Harris said that he wanted the map revised.
P1r• Pawelski agreed that the map should be revised; basically,
drawn to scale.
In answer to a question by Mr• Bergman, Mr•�!ormsbecker inciicated
that even though the property waszoned for commercial, they
need a special use permit to display outside the building.
M r• Bergman wanted to know what the petitioner planned in way
of construction.
M r• Amundson said that they only planned to change one of the
garage doors by making it higher• They also planned to change
the sign outside the building-
��
R► r�1NING COf1f1IS�I0N MEETING — JL1NE 22, 1977 PAGE 5
(�r. C�!;�:,'��,ld_r ir�dica�ed that �he own�r of the property was only
plar�r;ir�y to Iease the front pa�t of the building to the petitioners.
He fel�, tha� as leasees the petitioners would, indeed, only dc�
!'1 as little as possible to the property. He also didn't believe
thot the bui�dir,g was large Pnough to take care of the cisplaying
of their products during ir�c'l�ment weather• He said that he
didn't fai�lt the petitioners tor being ambitious and energetic
a-id hdrd-working businessmen who wanted ico expand their business.
Ne felt that it wouldn't be long before the units would be stored
all c��er the propes^ty anc; on the a�jacE�nt gross. He said that
East River Roed already had enough traffic problems without adding
to it �>y allc.��,�ing the petitioners � spe�i�l use permit. He felt
that �he problems tha.t would result would be the same as those
cited when Datsun was before the Commission.
M rs. Schnabel discussed with Mr. Boardman the interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance governing the property in question•
hir. Boardman indicated that anything having outside display
of products needed a Special Use Permit.
f�s. Mary Martin asked the Planning Commission members to go back
and read all that was done when Datsun wanted to g� into that
building. She felt everything pertaining to that decision was
pertinent to the present request for a Special Use Permit.
Chairperson Harris asked what the Staff felt about this request.
�� Mr• Boarciman said that Staf1= wanted an upgrading of the
property and not just a maintenance of the present property.
Staff would require an extensive landscaping plan similar to
what they neec+ed from Datsun. He said that the blacktop in the
parking area would have to meet code standards. Since the
building was zoned commercial, he felt it was up to the
Commission to decide whether or not the type of business would
� put an inordinate burden on the area.
Mr. Bergman asked Mr• Boardman to read the uses permitted in a
C2S zoning.
f�r. Boardman read to the Commission and the audience the uses
permitted in a �2S zoning.
I"�r. Bergman indicated that then the only conflict involved was
the fact that the petitioner planned to have outside storage/display.
Mr�. 8oardman said that that statement was true.
Chairperson Harris asked if a Special Use Permit had ever been
grented on that property.
/�`�
�,,...,_
PLANNING COMf1ISSI0N MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 6
Mr. Boardman res�onded that if tr�e establishments were in the
building before 1969, they probably didn't r�eed to have a
Special Use Permit. ^
Chairperson Harris declared a short recess at 8:15 p.M. whil? Mr• Bo�rern�;r
looked up the information regarding whether a Special Use
Permit had ever been granted on that property•
The meeting was called back to order at 8:30 P•t1•
M r• Boardman indicated that there was no record of any S�ec�a1
Use Permit ever being granted for that property•
MOTION by f1s- Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, to close the Public
Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 P.f1•
Mrs. Schnabel indicated that the request for a Special Use
Permit could be falling into the catagory of causing an undue
hardship on the adjacent land owners because of the amount
of outside vehicle storage. Because of that haroship she had
reservations on granting the Special Use Permit for that
type of operation on that property•
Ms. Shea wanted to know where the petitioners would park the
vehicles that were in for servicing.
I�r. Pawelski indicated that the se►-vice area would hold three ,�
or four vehicles and any more than that would have to be parked
outside by the service door•
Mr• Burkholder indica�ed that the petitioners would only be leasing
the front half of the building and all the land. He said that
the owner would be keeping the back of the building to use as
a warehouse.
Mr� Amundson said that he was a specialty dealer and that his
products were basically seasonal• He indicated that they weren't
going to be a car lot, constantly expanding• He said that it
wasn't right to keep comparing the business to a car lot — almost
everyone owns cars, not everyone buys campers or mini-mobile homes.
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how much traffic would be
generated by the owner of the building in regard to his half
of the building•
f9r- Wormsbecker said that he didn't know- He only knew that the
owner was in the carnival business and was out of town a lot. He
said that there was no way of his knowing what was being stored
in the owner's part of the building-
^
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNF 2�� 1977 PAGE 7
�s• Shea said th�t she knew for a fact that most of the units
^ didn't sit on the lots for very long• She said that most of
the inventory moved ver,y rapidly• She said that basically
most of the units are special ordered-
Mr. Bergman didn't feel a sense of conviction either way.
said it seemed that the general neighborhood preferred to
see the building vacant; but he could also see that the
property owner would want to put the building to some use,
said that both parties did have justifiable arguments.
He indicated that he a��=nted to take a closer look at the
request. He also felt that more time would be beneficial
the requestor so that they could spend some time with the
City Staff so that he would know exactly what would be
required of him regarding the property
He
to
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the
�equest for a special use permit, SP �77'04, Apache Camping
Center: Per Section 205.101, 3N of the Fridley City Code
to allow sales and services of recreational vehicles on Lot 1,
Block 1, Pearsons 2nd addition, the same being
7701 East River Road N.E.
Mrs. Schnabel didn't feel there would be any advantage in
continuing the item. She said that she had driven past the
�.,� property and had been previously on the property. She felt
the basic concern was with the amount of v�hicles that would
be stored outside the building.
Ms. Shea said that she wanted to see the map drawn more to
scale. She felt that there would be no problems wi�h over-
cr.Qwding on the outside lot.
UPON A VOICE VO TE , M s. Shea, M r• Bergman, and Mr . Peterson
voting aye, Mrs. Schnabel and Chairperson Harris sustaining,
the motion passed-
Chairperson Harris indicated that the item would be continued
at the next Planning Commission Meeting on July 13, 1977. He
asked the petitioners to meet with f1r• Boardman with a be�ter
layout of their plans.
��
�
PLANNING COMi1ISSI0N �IEETING — JUNE �2, 1977 PAGE 8
C• PUFiLIC HEAP.IPJG: REQUEST FOR A ��ECIAL USE PEPf'IIT, SP �77-OS,
BY THF HOl1SING CORP•!D/B/A IN�T�NT �HOfi��=--�'er ri -ey
City toc:e, �Section �05 , 1��„�, N� to a-I�ow a flo�ile HOme
Sales Center on a 300' x],00' strip of property lying in
Lot 5;A.S. �153, located between the car wash and Skywood
f1a11 Shopping Center, same being 5�01 1/2 Central Avenue N.E.
MO'fION by f1rs. Schnabel� seconded by Mr• Peterson, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously- The Public Hearing was opened at B:�O P•f1•
(�r• Ralph Henriksen of Housing Corporation D/B/A, Instant
Housing, 9550 N.E. Highway �65 was present at the meeting•
I"�r• Boardman said that the plan had been revised since the
Public Hearing notices had been sent out. He indicated that
the petitioners had a new site plan of the operation. He said
that he had talkecl with the petitioners and had inoicated w4�at
the City wanted them to put in the area.
f1r. Henriksen showed the Commission and the audience the site
plan he had for the mobile home sales center•
Mr• Henriksen said k�hat their intentions were to be if they
were granted the Special Use Permit. He said that they would
operate a sales display area of eight to ten units- He said
that the units would be displayed and then orders would be
taken based on the displayed models. He said that their
intentions were to do much landscaping to the area to make the
area attractive to the eye• He inoiicated that they hoped
to make a nice, clean-looking display area that would be
attractive to the customers as well as to the surrounding
areas.
Mrs. Schnabel asked that since a lot of the area will have
crushed rock and gravel, would there be some type of control to
keep th�s rock and gravel confined to their area.
Mr• Henriksen said that it would be planned for•
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know where the customers would park.
Mr• Henriksen said that they had worked with the owner of
Skywood Mall, and that the parking lot presently located at the
site would be expanded and improved• The mobile home customers
would use that parking area.
�
�
�.
PLANNING CO�MISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 9
Mrs• Schnabel pointed out that s'r�e had noticed that currently
cars.are usually parked dgainst the south wall of Skywood Mall
^ building. She wanted to know if this would continue to happen•
Mr. Henriksen said that there would be landscaping against the
mall building and that there would be no parking allowed against
the south wall of the building.
rr• Peterson asked how large the units were that would be
displaye�.
Mr• Henriksen said that there would be some 14' x 7�' mobile
homes and a few 24' x 60' mobile homes. He said that there
would be a nice mixture of both sizes.
Mr• Peterson wanted to know if the illustrotion that
Mr• Henriksen was �isplaying to the Cornmission actually showed
the number of units that he planned to have on the l�t.
M r• Henriksen said that the number of units would vary. He
indicated that there would usually be eight, but sometimes
ten units and once in a while there would be 12 units.
Mr• Boardman pointed out that the Special Use Permit would,be
issued to the owner of the property and not Mr• Henriksen.
Mr• 8ergman wanted to know what the petitioners plans were as
far as a water/sewer system.
��
Mr. Henriksen said that the office unit would be connected to the
already existing water/sewer system in Skywood f1a11-
Mr. Bergman asked, that since the petitioner would be l�asing
this piece of property from Skywood Mall, would the lease
include the parking and other uses of the adjoining properties.
Mr. Henriksen answered yes to the question.
Chairperson Harris asked if one of the display models would serve
as office area.
�lr. Henriksen answered that the office area would be located in
one of the display mobile homes. He said that the mobile home
closest to the parking area would serve as the office.
Chairperson Harris asked if the office mobile home would be a
permanent structure.
Mr. Henriksen said that it would be the one hooked up to the
water and sewer systems..
�,
1
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINC — JUNE �2, 1977 Pa e 1❑
Chairpe�son Harris asked if there would only be the eight units
located on the property in qu�stion• ^
Mr• Henriksen said that they Cidn't want to be tied to just
eight units. He said that possibly there would be ten or 12
units displayed at different times.
Chairperson Harris guestioned if 1c mobile homes would fit on
the proposed property.
f1r• Henriksen said that 12 mobile homes would fit but that
there would have to be a cifferent arrangement of the display
homes. He pointed out that there may be times that three or
four units would be stored on the property — not necessarily
on display.
Mrs. Schnabel asked about the business hours.
M�• Henriksen said that the display would be open from
8:30 A.M. until 9:�� P.M. Monday thru Friday; 9:00 A.M. until
5:OD P.f1 . Saturday; and Noon until 5: �0 P•Pl . Sunday.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if they planned to have outside lighting•
M r• Henriksen said that they would have a need for security
lighting.
f1rs. Schnabel asked if the petitioners anticipated any late-
,�
night operations, such as moving of the homes, etc.
Mr• Henriksen indicated that the only possible activity at
night would be possibly showing the mobile homes to someone
who couldn't come during business hours. Not a usual occurance.
Mr• Peterson wanted to know if any equipment would be stored
on the property.
Mr• Henriksen said that all the equipment used in moving the homes,
etc. would be stored at the operation that was located in Blaine•
Ms. Shea asked if the display homes would be skirted•
Mr• Henriksen said that they had very attractive plans for the
skirting of the mobile homes. He said that all the display models
would be skirted and attractively displayed- �
Mr• Bergman asked where else in the area the petitioners had
businesses already s�t up•
�Er• Henriksen indicated that the headauarters was locat�d in
Blaine on Hwy 65; there was a sales operation in Egan on Hwy 55
three miles east of the Mendota Bridge; and one in Fa�mington �
that would be opened in 30 days•
PI_ANNING COMMISSION MEFTING —� JL�NE 22, 1977 PAGf 11
Mr• Boardman indicated that when he had talkec to the surveyors,
that t��ey had mer.tioned �c'ditional screenirg th�t w�as beirg
n p1�nRed along the border of the property• He asked if
I"r• Henriksen was still planning that venture•
Clr. Henriksen said that he did plan for some screening around
thP property barders• Ne said that the screening woulc' be
loc��ed en the owner's property. Fie shou.ecl the Commission a
picture af the f�laine location as an ex�rnple of what he
planned to do•
�1rs. Judith Engelbritson of 5216 Taylor �treet ��.E. presented
Petition �12-1977 to the Planning Ccmmission. The petition k•as
in opposition to the granting of Specizl Use Permit �77-05.
She ir,dicated tha.t the people who signed the petition felt that
the size of the area was insufficient to have that type of
business located in Skywood Mall. They also felt that the
existence cf such a business along with the other struct�res
located in Skykood Mall were and would be a depreciating factor
to their praperty• �
MOTION by f"s. Shea, secor,ded by Mrs. Schnabel, that the I�lanning
Commi�ssion receive the Petition �1c-1977. Upon a veice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried �•r.anirro��sly •
Mr. Aaron Engel�ritson of 5216 Taylor �icreet �!.E. felt that
Fridley had enough �lobile Home Ccurts and Sales Centers and
,� �hat anether one would be entirely unnecessary. He ir.dicated
that the adj�cent neighbors had enough problems regarding
SkywooC Mall and tt-ey c'i�'n't need a Mobile Home Seles Center
�dded to the prcblems. He hoped the Ccmmission would recommend
NO special use permit.
��
Mr. 6ordon Eloom of Twin City Federal, 5305 Central Avenue N.E.
indicated that Twin City Federal also wanted the Special Use
Permit rejected. He said that a lease for that type cf use fcr
that property would not be beneficial to the area. He said that
they were opposed to anything that would require a Special Use
Permit. He proceeded to add his name to the petition �12-1977.
He also mentioned that the Public HEaring Notice had not specified
exactly where the Mobile Home Sales Center would be located-
Mr. Eloom also asked if the plan that Mr. Nenriksen had displayed
was still in the 1C'0' x 300' descriFtion that had been indicated
en the F�blic HEariro Notice. He cidn't believe that the n.��n�t�er
c=f 4nits that Mr. Nenriksen planned to display would fit on a
lot that was 100' x 300'.
Mr• Boardman said that the deseription sent out was based on
a previc�us sketch �r,d there h�c Leer, r.c ex�:ct loc�tion indicated
on tFe appliczt.ion E>:cept betk•eer. the car wash and Skywocd Mall
Shoppirg CentE,r. Ne w�.sn't sure ahat the req�irement� were �s tc
ir:cr�� sino the si z� of the Mc�ile Hcme Sales Center ��re� �:ir,ce th e
S�eci.�l L�e Perrrit woulc' be crarted to the er.tire shopping center-
FLAhNIP:G CCf".f11�SI4N MEE:TI��G — Jl!�JE 22,1977 PAGE 12
Chairperson Narris askec how larae tFe parcel in question o-as-
Mr• Foarc'rrar, inoicated that the parcel would be increased by ^
approxim�*_el�� J�/3 of the �:rcpo�n� ��,�� of ��[7' x 30�' . He a�eir
pointed o�:t that the �Fecial L�se Permit woulC be granted to the
entire property and not a separate pertion of the prcperty•
Chairperson Harris said that the Fublic Hearing �etice had not
read that way.
Mr• George F'.ale of 5c�4 Taylor Street �'.E. said tl^at his view�oint
in lookir.g at the struct�;res existing in Sky�,oc�' �!all and then
considering the corstruction ef � terrporary establishment did
not seem ir: the bESt ir,terest of imprcving that property• He
felt th�t the I"cbile Hcme Sales Center w•c�.lc' create an ac'dition�l
traffic hazard in the area. He didn't feel i� woul� either
enh�nce thE property or result in 1cwEr taxes, so he hopec' tt-e
Comrr,ission woul� not 5rant the ;:pecial Lse Perrrit �77-05.
Mr. Sheldon Mortenson of 1289 SkywooC Lane N.E.� one of the owners
of the Skywood Mall Shopping Center, indicated that the area in
question was expansion space to make it possible to increase the
size of the Chopping Center• Accarding �to the City Ordinance it
would be possible to increase tc an additional size of 44,�00
square feet of retail sales cr for use as an office ��;ilding, etc.
Ne said that they didn't have ar,y present immediate plans for a
development and so the land would remain vacart and in its presert
cor.dition. Ne felt that th� Mo�ile Home �ales Center would be an �
imprcvere�ert to the Center. He said that the procee�s from the
�iobile Home cales Center lease wc41d be used tc irr,prove the
parkirg lot and try to do some IandscaFing around the property-
He indicated that if the Special Use Permit didn't go through, that
the property would probably remain in its present condition.
M r. Engelbritson said that the adjacent property owners have
tried to get some landscaping dene fcr the past 12 years with no
success.
Mr• Bloorr, acree� that nothing is ever done to the property to help
its appearance. ke felt there was no excuse for the pcor cor.dition
af the prcperty . He felt the ok�ners co�:lc1 make sctre effort to
shou the Comm�nity that they were willing tc u�c,rade the
property and then possibly the adjacer,t neighbors would show�
some interest. in a Special Use Fermit• enterprise• Ne said
that re dic'n't have ar,ythino against the Hcusing Corporation
except that usually in a Mobile Home S�les Center the rrobile Fierres
�re stackec ir, siCe-�y-side• H= said tFat if they would operate
their business ex�ctly as they were indicating, the sales center
would indeed be nice. However, he said that the owners of the
prcperty. had never proven te the adjacent neichbors end businesses
any good intentions of 4pgrGoing the property and they couldn'"t
depend cn what was being said-
/�1
�
0
PLANNING C4f1(^.ISSION MEETING -� JL'NE 22, 19?7 _ �__,pAGE 13
f1r • George F',ale poir,teci out that Mr • f�ort�nson Fac thre�tenEd
that if the ��;ecial l.�se Perrrit wasr.`t gr�r7tE�, ther: he cic'n't
,� plan �o dc anything a�ith the prcperty�. He felt that the �cuncil
sl-�ot,l� keE� that, scat�mer�� in mir��.
f1rs. Schr.abel askec if Mr- Henriksen u�ould do all the internal
landscaFing.
Clr. Nenriksen said that h� wculd do all the internal landsca�irg•
Chairperson Narris asked how long the terrr.s c,f the lEase wc�.lc be -
Clr• Nenriksen said it wos a two-year lease with the option to
renew.
Mr. f�ortenson said t{-at he eventually war,teo tc see �r, office
�uilding on that parc�l of land• He also saic� he didn't me�n
tc sound like he was threatening. F!e said that presently there
just wer�n't mories available to do the pr�cFer landsca�ir.g of
thE Shopping Center• He saic� that the taxes go �p sc fas� tha�t
any extra money had to be used tc pay taxes. Ne felt thdt the
type of Speci��l Use Ferrrit in question wculd allow enough extra
money to enable the Shoppir,g Center to do seme cf the rr�ch
r.�eeded landsca�irg.
Mrs. Schr,abel k�anted te know who woulc be res�cnsible fcr the
�outh side of the ��hopping CEnter.
�
I"r. Mortenscn said that he wculd work with Mr. Henriksen �nd
. tcgether they would take care of the 1�ndscaF•ing, including the
extending of the parkiro lct.
I"rs. Schr.a�el asked a�out the pl�ns for some type of scrEer,irg
at the rear of the lot.
I"r. Mortenscn indicated that it really was awkw�rd to plan
screEning for that Shoppir,g Cent.er th�t would be totally effective.
C�rs. Schnabel egreec! that it woulc' bE F�.�rd to find trees that
wa�.�ld grcw high enough to allow scrEening of the Shop�ing CEnter
also without ruining the view cf th�e hen�EOwners thdt very° possibly
built on those lctis far the bea��tiful �iEw of the City.
Mrs. Engelrritson s�id that she tFo�;Sht therE hec tc be �crre type
of ��uf�fer zcne beta�eer. carr�rrEr�cial anc+ residential - �he �lso
indic�teri that. tF�ey had been �.ncer the irr:pr•es�ion that thErE
kc�lc� be a better layout cf the SFopping Center that would
includE �cme t.y�pe of screening. All they ever saw ef that whole
de��l had been � few seeolinc�s..
��
�-
PLANNINr COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 14
� r• Mortenson said that he had invoices to prove that he had
planted 10,0�0 seodlin;s on that hill. He said that every year
he planted them, we had extremes in the weather that tended to �
kill them off.
Mr• Bloom wanted to know why, since they already had an operation
on Central Avenue, they would want to move closer in•
�r• Henriksen said thaL for the same reason Twin City Federal
had branch offices. More exposure to the Public.
Chairpersan Harris said that �3 on th� petition concerned an
additional amount of traffic stress that wo�ld be placed on the
already congested traffic conditions• He asked for an
explanation of what was meant by that statement•
Mrs. Engelbritson said that on Fridays, when the bank was open
and the other businesses were doing their usual week-end
business, that there was a real traffic problem. She said that
the residents of the area had to use the area as it was their
only access. She didn't feel it was right to bring more
businesses into the Shopping Center•
Chairperson Harris said that the City had signed contracts with
the State to upgrade �hat area.
Mrs. Engelbritson said that �hat contract was only involved with �,,,,
53rd Avenue� She said that 52nd Avenue was not included.
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Henriksen approximately how much
traffic his business would generate in a 24 hour period.
Mr• Henriksen said that there would be no ^big sales^ that
would be attracting multitudes of peop�e• He indicated that
perhaps four to six customers per day as an average• He
didn't fezl that there would be a great increase in the traffic
congestion or infringement on the available parking.
Chairperson Harris asked how much of an increase in traffic had
been noted at the Holiday Village operation•
M r• Boardman said that there had been na appreciable trends.
Chairperson Harris questioned �4 of the Petition as to an
increase in noise volume•
Mrs• Engelbritson said that a problem already was apparent
regarding truck tra7`fic through the Shopping Center at 4:00 A.�-
{garbage/trash trucks, etc.}• She made a reference to the
Hilltop Mobile Home operation and was afraid that the venture in
question would result in the same type of over-crowding and
unpleasant appearance- She then said that as far as noise itself �
that there would be people coming into the area, it would result
in noasz from children that would be drawn to the area. She said
that it would be a seven-day operation and the area wouldn't have
any relief from the constant noise of business in progress-
PLANNI�r, COMMISSION MEETING — J�NE 22, 1977 PAGE 15
CF�airperson Harris also questioned the r�ferenc� on the petition
regarding a potential fire hazard to the adjacent property owners.
�� Mrs. Engelbritson felt that whenever ther� was more people, the
risk of fire was always greater• She said that one carelessly
tossed cigarette could result in major damage due to the amount
of dry brush located on the property that borders directly to
the residential homes-
P1r. Eloom said that he was the security officer at Twin City
Federal and he proceeded to tell about many dangerous incidents
th�at hau� occurred at �che Twin City Federal Bank. He said that
before another business was accepted into the Shopping Center
area that something should be done to �ry to alleviate the
type of problems that Twin City Federal had experienced.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr• Bloom had been in contact with
f1'r• Hill, the City of Fridley's Safety Director•
Mr• Bloom indicated that Twin City Federal had been in contact
with him at the times that the incidents happened. He said
that basically the FBI took over such incidents since Twin City
Federal is a Federal establishment. He indicated that if the
area was upgraded, it wou7.dn't attract the type of.trouble-makers
they had previously encountered.
MOTI4N by Mrs. Schnabel, seconcled by Mr • Peterson, to c].ose the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
i� carried unanimously. The Public:Hearing was closed at 9:40 P.M.
M rs. Schnabel asked if there had been a Special Use Permit in
Existence for the Photo Store.
f1r. Bosrdman indicated that there was.
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know how many Special Use Permits a
property owner needed to apply for. She asked if each type of
business would require a new Special Use Permit•
Mr. Boardman expl.ained �hat a Special Use Permit would be granted
for a special use• He said that each special use on that property
would require separate Special Use Permits. �
Mrs• Schnabel asked if the Special Use Permit would go to the
owner of the property or to the business itself-
Mr• Boardman indicated that a Special Use Permit always went
to the property owner•
^,
��
,��:.., _
PLANNING COMf�ISSION MEETIRJG — JUNF 22, b977 PAGE 16
Mrs. Schnabel quest.ioned how many Special Use Permits• a property
owner could hav�. She also asked that if a�pecial Use Permit
was granted to a specific parcel of land and the property chanqed
in nature and a dissirnilar business moved in, could the new
owne►^s use the Special Use Permit that hac previously been granted
since the owner still had the Special Use Permit.
Mr• Boardman said that if the new business was a different type
of business than what I-,ac; be�n alloweG by t{�e previous Special
Use Permit, then a new Special Use Permit woulc� have to be applied
for•
Chairperson Harris wanted to be sure that City Council read
his statement —^I TpLD YOU SO^• The precec�ence set with the
use of the parking lot at Holiday Village North that came before
the Planning Commission had been voted egainst exactly for this
particular reason• Now we are flooded with requests from
everyone wanting to use their parking lots or extra land around
their Shopping Centers for something else• He fel't that a very
poor precedence had been set by allowing the Holiday Village
North operation.
Mr• Bergman said that the property owners were only trying to
get the best use possible from their property. He felt that
there had already been incompat,ibility between the Skywood f1a11
Shopping Center and the adjacent residents. He felt tha� the
approval of a Special Use Permit to add the outdoor sales of
mobile home units, even though an excellent plan was being
proposed, would only add to the degree of incompatibility that
already existed.
f10TI0N by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the denial of the request
for a Special Use Permit, SP �77-05 by the Housing Corp, D/B/A
Instcant Homes: Per Fridley City Code, section 205, 101, 3, N• to
allow a Mobile Home Sales Center on a 30�' x 100' strip of
property lying in Lot S.A.S. �153, located between the car wash
and Skywood f1a11 Shopping Center, same being 5201 1/2 Central
Avenue fV . E .
Mrs. Schnabel said that since the proper�y owners had said they
eventually wanted to have an office building or an addition to
the Skywood Mall Shopping Center constructed on that lot, she
had a difficult_time trying to understand why the petitioner
would want to go through the expense of upgrading the property
just for a two-year lease•
n
�
,'"`�
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 197? PAGE 17
Mr� Mort�nson �a�.d that actually they were thinking of more
lii�e five years mar,irnurn • Ne statEd that as far as existing
incompatibility betwe�n the Shopping Center and the adjacent
home owners, he said that construction of the Shopping Center
began in 1i62, at w'r�icn time very fEw of the surrour,ding homes
were in existence• He felt that when the people built on their
lots, they knew that the Shopping Center was in existence• He
said that when a person lived on a hill he would be exposed to
everything below the hill• He said that the distance between
their proper�ies and the Shopping Cer�ter buildings was over
1D0 feet.
Mr• Engelbritson claimed that they had built th�ir home in
1964 and their had been no buildings existent in the Shopping
Center•
Mr. Mortenson again said tha� construction of Skywood f1a11
had been started in 1962.
Mr. Engelbritson said that as the layout showed the Mobile
Hame Sales Center, it would look nice. He said that
the layout only showed eight units. He said that
Mr• Nenriksen was talking about possibly 12 units and he felt
that the layout would not be very nice with that many units
displayed.
Mr. Hpnriksen sai.d that what he was indicating was that if
a delivery was made before another unit got out, it could
,�� result in more ur�its than indicated on the layout• He
indicated that their intentions were not to display any more
than the layout showed.
Chairperson Harris had a problem agreeing with the Public Hearing
Notice. He said that before it went to City Council, the wording
had to be changed.
i�r. Boardman didn't know how else the area in question. could be
described• He explained that the Special Use Permit would be
for the entire shopping center• He said that it was a completely
legal description and couldn't see any problem.
M r. Boardman said that the only control as to the exact area
would be controlled by the Planning �ommission/City Council
as stipu�.ations put on the approval of the request.
Chairperson Harris felt that a public Hearing Notice left with
such broad terms could be very misleading to the general publiG.
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 18
Plr• Boardman indicated that originally the request had been for
a 1��' x 300' strip af land• Ho4��ver� due to requests made by
the City, the area had to be laid out differently, therefore,
t'r�e requestor nee�ed more area to comply•
Chairperson Harris said that the precedent set by Holiday
Village North would make it difficult to deny the request
since th� City allowed Holiday Village to have the �obile Home
sal�� center on their lot.
Mr• Berqman felt that it really w=s a different issue• He said
that the Holiday Village North operation didn't infringe on
any residents• He said there was no conflict of interest,
no incompatibility, or adjacency of occupancy, no effect on
other properties, and no zoning problems• He said that in the
case of Skywood �1a11 there was much public opposition. He was
also upset tha� no buff�r zoning had been established•
Mrs. Schnabel said that if the plan was to be exactly as it had
been drawn up and explained to the Commission, it would actually
be an upgrading of the area since �11 that was located presently
was a vacant lot overrun by weeds•
Ms. Shea said that she could appreciate the neighbors concern•
She said that th�e weeds would still be there, th� mobile home
sales center would just be in the middle of �he vacant lot,
surroundsd by the weeds and grass.
Mr• Boardman suggested three things that the Planning Commission
could consider in granting the Special Use Permit:
y}
2}
Restrict the Special Use Permit to a specific area.
Limit the number of Special Use Permits allowed a
property owner•
3} Planning Commission should get a commitment in writing
from the Shopping Center owners for an upgrading of the
entire property which would include overall improvements.
UPON A VOICE VO TE � M s- Shea, M r• Bergman, M r• Peterson, and
Mr• Harris voting aye, Mrs. Schnabel voting nay, the motion
carried•
�
,,"'�
�
�
,PLANNING COM�ISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 19
3. PUQLIC HEA�IPdG: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PER�IT SP �77-06
� _ �___.__..�___.-T-`__ _ �_�. '_
�`f� ��URf�l�N 1-�A_LL = Pcr Fridley City CucJe, �ection 205 .051,
�� 3.D, to allow the construction of a duplex/double bungalow
it; n-1 zo��ing {sinyie family F�omes} on Lot 1, Black 4,
Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being 6390-6392 Starlite Blvd
f10 TION by flrs . Schnabel , seconded by �1 r• Petersan, to open the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
c�-�rried unanimously• The P�_ablic Hearin� 4J3S op`ned at 7,0:04 P.M.
f�r• Bo�rdman said that the request w�s to construct a duplex/
double bungalow on a presently existing single family dwelling
lot• He said that a duplex or uouble bungalow could be allowed
in a single family area with the Special Use Permit. He indicated
that he had a copy,of the house plans. Also he indicated
that a petition �11-1977 that had signatures of the people that
were in agreement with the plan was included in the agenda packet.
Mr. Boardman said that the lot backed up to lots zoned industrial•
He then proceeded to indicate all the zonings of the lots
located in the area in question.
M r• Nocman Hall of 56-66 1/2 Way presented his plans to the
Commission and the audience• He said that he planned to build
a double bungalow or duplex style hcause cn the property. Ne
felt that what he proposed would be an asset to that corner
as well as the r�eighborhood. He said tha cost of the proposed
� dwelling would be approxirr�ately $65-75,�00 •
,
f�r. Boardman informed the Commission that Mr• Hall would also
have to go through a variance request since the lot measured
9,942 square feet and code required 1�,000 square feet•
Mr. Hall indicated that he really had the intention of dressing-
uR the proposed structure so that it would resemble a single
family dwelling. He said that once he had the completed, final
plans he would be willing to ge� with the neighborhood and discuss
the plans with them before starting construction.
Mr• Bergman asked why Mr. Hall wanted to develop this property
with a double bungalow rather than a single family dwelling.
Mr• Hall said that since he was a construction worker/brick
layer he felt he had the knowledge and ability to attempt to
build that type of dwelling• He also indicated that since his
family was grown, perhaps in time� he would want to move into a
smaller dwelling and he thought that a part of the double
bungalow would suit him and his wife perfectly•
M r• Bergman asked what Mr• Hall's plans were regarding rental
versus sales. .
i�1
PLANNItJG CO��ISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 20
Mr• Hall explainF�d that he didn't plan to sell the douhle bungalow•
He s�id tl��t he mic,ht keep it for rental only; or� like he had
mentioned previously, possioly to live in• He did indicate thab
F,e d�l=initely did not, pidri to bui1J tt-�e duplex for sale� pu� po��s-
Mr•Robert Lee of 1�� Satellite Lane asked if I�r• Hall owned any
other double bungalows or duplexes.
Mr• Hall said that he o��ned one duplex located on 53rd and Sth Street
which he had recently purchased• He commented that anyone that
w�,r,ted to drive by the duplex w�uld agree that it was one of the
nicest kept houses in the area.
�1r• Hall stated �hat it was not his in�ention to build a piece
of junk on that property. He said he planned to as cafeful
as possible with any rental of the property•
Mr• Robert Lee informed the Commission that he was at the meeting
representing Mr• Hall {he was a Realtor}• He explained the
entire area around the lot in question• He said he had talked
to each of the neighbors that were on the mailing list. He said.
that all th.e people he talked to were in agreement with
Mr• Hall's plans. He said that the en�ire area was well kept
and that f1r• Hall planned to be sure that the double bungalow
would be well kept and nice at all times.
�^
Mrs. Judy Kidder of 6360 Starlite Blvd said that she was at the
meeting rr�ainly because of a misunderstan�ing• She said th�t she �
doubted the credibility of the Petition �11-197? since she had
signed because she had been led to believe that the only thing
that could be built on that property was either an office buildiny
or a multiple dwelling• She said that it had been a misunderstanding
because if she had been told 'that a single family dwelling could
also have been built on that pr�operty, then she would not have
signed the petition that was in favor of �he construction of a
double bungalow. She felt that people who lived in rental units
did not have the pride that people had when they owned their homes.
She said that the entire area would suffer if someone moved
into that duplex and didn't take care of it.
Mrs. Kidder
constructeci
petition•
said that she preferred to see a single-family dwelling
on that lot and wanted her name removed from the
M r• Lee pointed out that rental property could be just as well kept
as privately owned property•
�.
PLANNING COMMISSION M�FTING — JU�E 22, 1977 PAGE 21
Cl���ir��:rs�n Harris a�kecl if Mr�• Kidder wanted her r�ame removed
�Croen L-he petition -�11-1977.
� M rs. Kidder said that her name and Mary Auger af 6348 Starlite Blvd.
also want�d her name rernoved. h1rs• Kid�er explained that f15. Auger
had to leave because of sitter problems due to the late hour•
f1r• LPe apoloaized for any misunderstanding anc� said that he had
nat intentionally misled anyone regarding the property• He said
ti��� he had explained to the people thc po.^sihility of using
the lot as a type of buf�er zone between the industrial zone and
the single--Family cwelling zone• He indicated Lh�t he felt the
particular lot may have been a little harder to sell since it
bordered on the industrial lots.
Mr. Hall said that he agreed that sometimes an absent landlord
didn't have the tend�ncy to take care of the property as much
as a person that lived on the property. He wanted to m�ke
the point that he really couldn't rrake �he statement that he
would definitely move into the duplex or for that matter when
exactly he might move in; but he felt that he did have intentions
of keeping the property up as well as his own was kept up and he
invited anyone to drive past his home and see for themselves
that he definitely kept a nice yard•
Mr• Hall also pointad out that sometimes people who own their
own hornes don't always keep their yards nice•
n �ir• Charles Sander of 1Q1 Sylvan Lane submitted a petition to
the Commissa.on that had signatures of people in opposition to
the granting of Special Use Permit �77-06. He said that the lot
was zoned R-1 and that it should remain as R-1. He said that
all the promises were probably well meant but that things didn't
always work out the way someone plans.
f10TIflN by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Comrnission receive Petition �7,0-1977, opposing the Special Use
Permit �77-06• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr- Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the revised petition �11-1977, in favor of
the Special Use Permit �77-D6- Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the same names could not be
on both petitions and that if a name was on both petitions, that
the name would be removed from Peti�ion �11-1977 and left on
Petition �10-1977.
.-�.
, L,
Pl--A�if�ITP.I� C�'if�t�T`'rl0nl t1�ETTtl� —�.l�iP1E �c - 7,977
PA.GF 22
�s. Car�line Johnson of 6��� Starlite Bl.��d. felt that since
there were still empty lots on the South end ofi Starlite Blvd,
�!-�� felt �f:at �ot��eonc ��is� woulU -��il�w f1r. H�,11`s �x�rnpl� ar�d
decide to construct a double bungalow• She said that rental
property had too much turnover of people• She wanted the lot in
question to remain R-1.
Mr- E- L• Rice of 100 Sylvan Lar.e gavP hi.s d�scription of
Starlite Blvd• He said that the entire area was single-family
du�ellin�s and he sai� that since the lot was zoned as R-1, it
should be left as such.
Ms. Johnson wanted to know why only certain people were sent
Public Hearing notices and why f1r• Lee had only talked to
certain people•
M rs. Schnabel said that only properties within 300 feet of the
lot in question had to be notified of the Public Hearing-
f1r• Lee indicated that he had used the list he had received
from City Hall when he went and talked to the individual
neighbors. He pointed out that of aIl 'che people he talked to,
only one was against it and he said he wanted the lot to remain
vacan�. He said that basically it didn°t make any difference at
all to him whether the Special Use Permit was granted or not•
He said that he had not sold the property and had nothing
invested in the property. He said t��at F��e really believed
P1r• Hall had a good plan and he believed Mr• Hall had good
intentions of keeping the property as nice as the adjacent yards.
Mrs. Kidder said that she too thought the lot was nice just as
it was and she didn't care if it was left vacant �ither, at
least until someone decided to buy the lot and construct a
single-family dwelling.
M r. Lee pointed out that the reason the lot looked so nice was
not an accident. He said tha� Mr• Hall, the City of Fridley,
and himself had the land levele� and cleaned up and developed
so that it would be pleasant to the eye.
Mr• Lee felt that everyone was assuming that all double bungalows
are bad, unkept place�.
Mrs. Kidder explained that from what everyone knew of rental
property, that was the trend• .
Mr• Johnson said that it would only be a matter of time before
sorneone would buy that lot and build as an R-]�- He wondered
if it a�as a matter of wantinc� s�met.f�ing just to fill the lot
why would they want to spoil such a nice area with a double
bungalow.
�
n
�'1
�--.
, �
PLANNIPlC COMMISSION MEETING — JU{VE 22, 1977 PAGE 23
t�r� i.c�e agr?ed wit.h f1r• Johnson that the lot would definitely
sell sooner or later. He was only at the meeting because he
felt that I�r- Hall had a good pldn and that he thought it would
r"fi be an asset to the community• He said that the people adjacent
to the property weren't objecting.
��
M r• Walter Shupien of 6299 Trinity Drive said that he moved out
of multiple clwellings to live in an area,of sirgle-family
homes• He asked that the lot remain an R'1 lot• He saic] that
it was only a mat;ter o�F time before rental property would go
down hill and it almost always happened faster than privately
owned, owner-occupied, property did.
f10TI0N by Ms. Shea, seconded by f1r- Peterson, to close the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the mation
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 10:45 p.M.
f1rs• Schnabel said that to grant a Special Use Permit on that
lot was somewhat similar to a spot zoning — a direct change to
a neighborhood•
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by �Is. Shea, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the denial of the request
for a Special Use Permit SP �77-06 by Norman Hall: Per Fridl.ey
City Code, Section 205.051, 3.D, to �llow the construction of a
duplex/double bungalow in R-1 zoning {single family homes} on
Loic 1, Block 4, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being
6�90-6392 Starlite Blvd.
Mr. Bergman said that he didn't consider it at all unusual
request to buffer other single-family homes with a double
bungalow that borclered on industrial.
Clrs. Schnabel said that the entire area was single-family homes.
She said that the zoning hadn't been set up to fouffer the
industrial and the single-family dwellings.
Mr• Bergman thought that that had been a very drastic move as far
as changing a zoning directly from Industrial to singie-famil:y
dwellings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr• Lee indicated that he had never been to a Planning Commission
meeting in Fridley City Hall and he thought that the Planning
Commission had handled themselves very well. He felt they had
given everyone a fair hearing. He said that he had enjoyed
being at the�meeting and he thought that the Planning Commission
had made a very wise decision in aenying the request- He said
that if anyone contes�ed something going into a residential
area, th�y should have the right to keep it residential• He
thanked the Commission for the opportunity of taking pant in
.-•,
their meeting.
r �
�
ANNInJ.r., �oMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 22, 1977
PAGE 24
4. REOUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. �7-06� BY CLINTON J• COPPICUS:
Spii�;��oi f``tii�-nor�:ri��I�y �fi�vur fiN�__T_� ��_.��_t�_�-��; ��E'Y��i:-`3,-:�---
Hvde Park Addition• To allow for access to garage in back
yar� oi= Lot `i •
Mrs• Sharon Jensen of 5946-4th Street N.E• was present at the
meeting.
r"�
�r� EoGrcman explain2d tha� the l�t to t.h� south of 595D-4th �tr�et "! `
was an 80 foot lot. He said that f1r• Coppicus wanted to put in
a drivEway• i+E Sc�1G� �fid� lfl Of GcC' 't0 GO t{`idt. c�iCj tlicilfl't�lfl t%i2
steps out of the b�ck-door of his hom�, he would have to obtain
four feet from the property located at 5946-4th Street N.E.
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how close to the property
line the house at 5946-4th Street N.E. would be after losing
four feet to 5940-4th Street N.E.
Mrs. Jensen said that she wasn't positive as to the number of
feet but that she was sure there would be plenty of space on
that side of the house• She indicated that her g�rage was located
to the South in the rear of the house and that there was only
grass on �he area that Mr• Coppicus wanted to buy.
f1r• Bergman indicated that Staff had gone out to the home and
measured and ha:!�--�'t indicated any problems.
P10TION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Ms• Shea, to recommend to
City Council th� approval of the request for a Lot Split
L.S. 77-06, by Clinto J• Coppicus: Split off the northerly
four {4} feet of Lot 10, Block 1,3 Hy�e Park Addition• To allow
for access to garage in back yard of Lot 9 subject to a
confirrnation of no sideyard setback problems. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously-
Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 11:�� P.M.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 11:10 P.f1.
5. PROPOSED SIGN CODE
Mr• Boardman explained that he thought the Planning Commission
should go over the propsoed Sign Code and discuss t�e changes
that had been made and to better understand what was being
attempted by the Ordinance•
Mr• Bergman commended Staff for the work they had put into the
Sictn Code Ordinance• He said that they took the ideas from
Community Development and converted.them into ordinance form and
language• He said a lot of timely erfort had been spent putting
togeth.er the Sign Code Ordinance on very short notice• He said
that there had been a big and pleasant change from what
Cammunity Development Commission had submitted and what they got .
back. .
�1
��
n{ q��n+Tr1G �Of1�'lIC�TOhI �1FETING i,IUNE 2� , 1,`i77 pA�F 25
Chairper�on Harris,f�rs- Schnabel, and f1s. Shea wanted more time
�o be able to read the proposed Sign Code Ordinance•
Chairperson Harris suggested that the Planning Commission read
through the Sign Code Or•dinance with �1r• Boardman a�d then
take it hom� and read it in its entirety•
Mr. Boardman went through the entire Sign Code Ordinance and
explained all the changes that the Community Development
Commission hac� made at th�ir June ],4, 1977, meeting.
The Planning Commission made several comments/questions regarding
dii-ier�nt points in the Ordinance• f�ost of which Mr• Boardman
answered or explained to their s�tisfaction.
MOTION by f1rs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to continue
the Proposed Sign Code Ordinance discussion until the next
Planning Commission mee�ing and extend an invitation to
Ms. Pat Gabel {Chairperson of the Project Committee} to be
present at the meeting to provide the Commission with any
additional information they may need. Upon a voice vote, all
voting.aye, the motion carried unanimously•
6• CQNTINLIED= PROPOSED HOUSIN� f1AINTENANCE CODE
� MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
tommission continue the Proposed Housing f1aintenance Code. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
7• RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COf1MISSION MINUTES
Ms. Shea indicated that tarol Ristae had been named the Citizen
of the Year-
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by f1r. Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the Human Resources Commission f1inutes of
June 2, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
8. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 14, 1977
Mrs• Schnabel explained that the Appeals Commission felt that City
should take a look at the Zoning Ordinance. The Commissioh feTt
that corner lots should be excluded when oetermining the average
setback for the other lots in the area.
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of June 14, 1977.
r'�'� Upon a voice vo�e, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
PLANNING C4M�ISSION �EETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 26 _
9. PECEI�lE COfi�1L'NITY DEVEIOf'I`lE�1T COt1f1I�`�T4N fiIP�UTES:
Jun�� 14, 1,9?7
Mr• Bergman �aid that �1r• Bo�rdman had di�cu��ed �ny comments
that h�ad been made at the Community Development Commission meeting.
MQTION by Mr• Bergman,
Commission receive the
of June ],4, 1977. Upon
carried unanimously•
10. OTHER BUSINESS
seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Community Development Commission f1inutes
a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion
Chairperson Harris explained that when the Planning Commission
went th�ough the Special Use Permits, that section on non-use
was not very clear• He suggested tha� tha� section be re-written•
f1r• Boardman indicated that hopefully in August, Staff would be
�ewriting the Zoning C•ode Orainance•
Chairperson Harris stressed the fact o��' attendance or representation
at the Planning Commission meetings• He inoicated that everyane
that was present always did do their jobs well• He said that.
parks and Recreation Commission was not represented on a usual
basis. He wanted to know if there was something that could be
done to try to make sure that all the Commissions were
represented at each Planning Commission meeting. .
Mr• Boardman said that presently Dorothy Evenson called all
the members of the Planning Commission to be sure they were
represented. He said that it was �,sually left up to the
chairperson to notify the vice-chairperson if he can't make the
meeting. He went on to explain the reasons for the absence
of the members from the June 22, 1977, meeting.
There was some discussion as to the actual importance of the
Parks and Recreation Commission having to be represented at
the Planning Commission fleetings- .
Mrs. Schnabel felt that either the Chairperson or Vice-Chair-
Person of the Parks and Recreation Commission should be
present• She felt that they had valuable things to offer•
Mr• Bergman questioned her statement•
M rs. Schnabel said that she respected the opinions of the Parks
and Recreation Commission• She said that it was also one more
voice and at times bring up pertinent information that mi�yht not
have otherwise been brought up-
�"�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE c7
THi�re was a c'i�cussion on ite��s that have to go through the
Plannin� Com�l�is�ion b�fore City Council and it�rns th�t can go
� directly to City Council bypassing the Planning Commission-
i+IsQ di�cus��ci i;l�� aifi �r�nt Comrr�issions tf��� ilaflC'1L requests
that go neither to the Planning Commission nor City Council•
Chairperson Harris asked what would '-;Gppen if the Planning
Commission didn't formally receive the minutes of the other
Commissions.
Mr• Boardman said that the minutes would not go to City Council•
ADJOURN�1ENT
�10TION by f1r• Bergman, seconded by f1s• Shea, to adjourn the
June 22, 1977, Planning Commission f1eeting. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 12:35 A.f1.
�
Respectfully submitted,
�.� � � � .
a �,� ,
�` �,.�:'�✓'..., .r � �.A
�IaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
�