Loading...
PL 09/28/1977 - 30476CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING SEPTII�ER 28, 1977 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the regular September 28, 1977, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7;45 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present; Shea, Bergman, Harris, Suhrbier, Gabel, Langenfeld Members Absent; Peterson (Ms. Suhrbier was his representative) Schnabel (Ms. Gabel was her representative) Others Present; Ruben Acosta, planning Aide APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTENIBER 14, 1977: MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to approve the September 14, 1977, Planning Commission minutes. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE AMENDED AGENDA: Ni0TI0N by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Shea, to approve the amended agenda as mailed out by the Cit;�. �Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion �� carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS CONlNIISSIOi�T MINUTES: SEPTII�IBER 20, 1977: MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, to receive the Appeals Commission minutes of September 20, 1977. Chairperson Harris asked Ms. Gabel to clarify Item 3 regarding a variance to reduce the required minimum square footage for a house to waive the single stall garage requirement and to allow the construction of a house without a garage at 71,63 East River Road. Ms. Gabel stated that, basically, the problem was because Ron Holden had been on vacation; and when they were doing the laying of the house on the lot, Staff had neglected to realize that the owner needed a side yard variance, also. Because there was a time element involved and the people would lose financing, the Appeals Commission ��orked hard to find a way to handle this. 'I�ey decided they would go ahead and approve the request and that Staff would work with the petitioner to notify the listed persons that were required to be notified to see if there were any problems in order to make the time requirement. The problem had evolved through a Staff error, but if it could not be handled this way, then it would go on to City Council. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARSIED UNANIMOUSLYo PLANIVING CONII�4ISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 2 1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP � 77-12, NASEEM A. ANSARI; As per Section 205.131, 3,A, 10, of the Fridley City Code, to allow a public auto repair center use on the Southerly 805 feet. of the Easterly Half of the Northeasterly Quarter of the Southeasterly Quarter of Section 3, T-30, R-24, except the Westerly 328 feet,according to the plat thereof, subject to the easement agreement of April 12, 1974, the same being 7900 Main Street N.E. MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to remove this item from the table. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris opened the public hearing at 7;50 p.m. Mr. Harris explained to Mr. Ansari that at the September 14th Planning.Commission meeting, Mr. Boardman had explained the mode of operation and the general location in the building in.which this operation was to take place: He said there had been several questions by the Co�ission members which Mr. Boardman was unable to answer so action was tabled until Mr. Ansari could be present. Ms. Shea suggested that Mr. Ansari read pages 9-10 of the September 14th Planning Commission minutes to familiarize himself with what took place at that meeting. Ms. Gabel asked if Mr. Ansari would be providing the oil and the tools needed or if the customers would bring these things in themselves. Mr. Ansari sta�ed that it was very difficult at this time to really outline in minute detail what would happen. He referred to the September 14th Planning Comm�ssion minutes in w hich someone had mentioned that some of these facilities had opened in the past few years and had failed. Mr. ,�asari said the reasons were numerous, but what they had done was not available to him. He had been spending considerable time an this project and either he had been getting a dead end wherever he went, or he had not been able to get to some- one really involved in this type of operation. Mr. Ansari stated he would try different things until s�ething worked. Ms. Gabel asked if it was Mr. Az�sari's intention ta provide parts and sell them. Mr. Ansari stated it was not; that there were numerous auto parts bus3nesses. They did not claim to know that kind of business and,at the same time, try � to get this business off the ground. Ms. Suhrbier�stated she was concerned about the liability. There would be people of all abilities coming in and there would only be one person super- vising. What was the liability to the City? Mr. Ansari stated there was no model plan on which he could base his answers. He had asked his insurance people if insurance coverage would be available for this facility and the insurance people had assured him it would be. Since people would be working on their own cars, it was understandable that liability would be two-part; (1) injuries inflicted by persons upon them- selves; and (2) responsibility of the garage when someone slipped, for �i - � �, �� � � � _ � P , PLANDTING CONlMISSION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 3 example. That kind of liability existed in every building and with the owner of the facility. Mr. Langenfeld read from Zoning Ordinance, Section 205.131, Item 10, requesting a special use permit. He asked Mr. Ansari that of the follow- ing, what would be allowed in the garage; gasoline service stations, accessory greasing, servicing, cleaning & washing of automobiles, minor adjus�ments and repairs but not general repairs, overhauling, rebuilding, demolition or spray painting? Mr. Ansari stated that he would not have gasoline servicing, cleaning & washing of automobiles, or demolition or spraypainting. He would have accessory greasing, servicing, minor adjustments & repairs but not general repairs, overhauling, and rebuilding. Chairperson flarris asked if the request was for 9,000 square feet or 13,000 square feet. Mx. Ansari staeed it would depend on the availability of space. At first, 13,000 square feet had been available, but now he did not know how much would be available as Mz. Brama of Bryant-Franklin Corporation could not hold that amount of space for Mr. Ansari until Mr. Ansari had received approval from the City and could get started. Chairperson Harris stated the reason he had asked that question was because he wondered if there would be a physical retaining wall or a separation wall. Mr. Ansari stated that if they got into this facility, instead of leaving bays, the y would remove the partitions and leave one unrestricted area. In the contiguous bays they occupied, they would remove the separating walls so there would be a better free flow of cars and better supervision. In that particular building, the walls were temporary walls in every bay. Another change he would like to make was that in the Planning Commission minutes it had said there would probably be no hoists, but Mr. An.sari stated he would like to have quite a few hoists to raise cars up and down. These would probably be electric, rather than hydraulic. There would be personnel on duty to help with these hoists. As discussed, their people would bring the cars from the parking lot into the building, put the cars on the hoists, and then the customers could work on their cars. Ms. Suhrbier stated she was concerned about the danger with one large open space with no confinement of dust, etc. If it was partitioned, it would help protect people working nearby. Chairperson Harris asked what section of bays Mr. Ansari would be using. PLAIVNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 4 Mr. pnsari stated he would have Bay �3 on. Mr. Brama had been reluctant to sublet the first two bays. Mr. Brama had said if the operation was successful, Mr. Ansari may get the first two bays also which would put this operation on Main and 79th, the south corner. Ms. Gabel asked if the customers would be responsible for taking away their own oil. � Mr. Ansari stated that the customers would not be responsible, that he and his people would have utensils in which to collect the oil. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Ansari if he had talked to any people who had had success with this type of operation. Mr. pnsari stated that, to his knowledge, no one had been successful on the scale he was going on. Operations had been successful when there were only two or three stalls. But, he felt there was a need for his type�of operation and that it would work. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Ansari if he felt there would be peak seasons and poor seasons, thinkiag of the cold weather in January and Eebruary. Mr. ,Ansari stated that it definitely would be a seasonal business. It _ would be a challenge to mak2 it a permanent business. They would have to promote and come up with services for the entire year because cars were driven year around. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. �lnsari intended to put in an exhaust system. Mr. Ansari stated they would have to, especially ia some areas where the car engines would be allowed to run continuously for long periods of time. They would not need an exhaust system for the cars in for routine maintenance.• Ae said it was going to be very difficult to keep the building warm in the winter and there would be a lot of heat loss. Chairperson Harris asked how many attendants would run the operation. Mr. Ansari stated he would have at least two people--a mechanic who would guide people on how to do things and another person to bring the cars in and out of the facility. These attendants would be on duty at all times. Mr. Ansari stated they were planning on being open 10 hours a day, the peak hours being 12:00 noon to 10;00 p.m., at least to begin with. Mr. Langenfeld stated he was interested to know how Mr. Ansari planned to charge for people working in this garage. His concern was that they might have to charge quite a sum to make money and hire a mechanic. � �. �, �I.ANNZNG CON'Il�lISSION MEETING SEPTEMBEIt 28, 1977 PAGE 5 Mr. ,�c►sari stated he would probably charge on an hourly basis and on a per-job basis. He stated it had to be a paying proposition; but if these rates were equated with the going rates at a regular garage, there was quite a bit of room. Chairperson Harris asked if there would be any outside storage of vehicles and Mr. Ansari stated there would not--just a waiting pexiod.in the parking lot if the building was full. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the planning Commission close the public hearing on the gequest for a gpecial Use . - Permit, SP � 77-12, Naseem A. �isari: As per Section 205.131, 3, A, .� 10 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a public auto repaii center use _ on the Southerly 805 feet of the Easterly iialf of the Northeasterly Quarter of the Southeasterly Quarter of Section 3, T-30, R-24, except the Westerly 328 feet, according to the plat thereof, subject to the � easement agreement of April 12, 1974, the same being 7900 Main Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the public hear3ng closed at 8;10 p.m. Mr. Ansari stated that this operation was really a trial measure. This was a highly specialized use of a building and this particular building was not the real answer to this kind of venture, It would take a lot of money to put up the proper garage facility that should be used. ^ His intent was to try this operaCion in this kiad of building for a _ short time;and if it was successful, have his own building which would meet city code, special requirements, etc, MOTION by iKr. Bergman, seconded by Ms, ghea, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the request for Special Use Permit, SP � 77-12, Naseem A, Ansari: As per Section 205.131, 3, A, 10, of the Fridley City Code, to a11ow a public auto repair center use on �the Southerly 805 feet of the Easterly Half of the Northeasterly Quarter of the Southeasterly Quarter of Section 3, T-30, R-24, except the Westerly 328 feet, according to the plat thereof, subject to the ease- ment agreement of April 12, I974, the same being 7900 Main Street N,E., with the following stipulations; 1. With the understanding that all codes, ordinances, and other applicable regulaLions be met; 2. That for purposes of this special use permit, a space limitation of 15,000 square feet be understood as a part of this recommendation. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like to add for the record that due concern for unnecessary noise and improper disposal of oil, etc., be regulated. Mr. Langenfeld said Mr, gergman encompassed this when he stated that all regulations would be met. � � _ UPOA1 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, Ti� MOTION CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLYe .Y PLpNNING CONa2ISSI0N MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28,.1977 . PAGE 6 _ �"1 Chairperson Harris told Mr. Ansari that this request for special use permit would go before City Council an Monday, October 3, 1977. Chairperson Harris declared a 10 minute recess at 8:40 p.m. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE: 220.43� Compliance Mr. Bergman stated that it looked to him that a compliance order may be served on the occupant unless the occupant was also the own.er. Legally or otherwise, it did not make sense. He thought the owner was the liable person and perhaps the papers must be served only to the owner. Chairperson Harris stated that the problem may be the occupant's fault and not the owner's. No. 4 under 220.43 Compliance was changed to read as follows; "Be served upon the owner or agent and the occupant, as the case may require, such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent, and upon any such occupant, if a copy thereof is." Chairperson Harris stated that even if there was aaother type of violation that was the owner's responsibility, at least telling the occupant that ^ the City was doing samething about it was a good idea. But, supposing it was the occupant's responsibility for the care, custody, and control of the property? MX. Harris stated that perhaps the city attorney should give some guidance on how thisshould be rewritten. The Commission members agreed to automatically eliminate the words, "his" and "him" wherever they appeared and replace them with "said person'!. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that No. 4, Item C, be changed to read: "Legal action will be taken." Chairperson Harris stated that this was another part that he thought the city attorney should look at for the proper wording. The Commission members agreed to eliminate the words, "and EnforcemenC" from 220.40 and add them to 220.43 to read: "Compliance and Enforcement" % 220.44 Emer enc Cases Mr. Bergman stated that under emergency stipulations the code should give the city the authority to take action if the case required. This did not do that. " Ms. Shea stated this was another item she felt the city attorney should look at. �� PLANNiNG CONIMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 7 Chairperson Harris stated he felt the City should face�the situation where people are living in a building and are ordered out and have not the means to procure other habitation. It then should become encumbent upon the City to take care of these people. Mr. Acosta agreed to look in the codes to find where it was listed about a building being condemned and the tenants are ordered to leave. fle would also look to see if 220.44 could be more explicit and would discuss this with Mr. Herrick on the legal aspects. Chairperson Harris stated they did not want people to suffer because of errant landlords. 220.45 Unfit for Human Habitation Mr. Bergman stated that he did not read anything in this section where the public was protected from hazardous situations by action by the City. It did not immediately remove the hazard from endangering the public. The Commission members agreed to add ehe following at the end of No. 3, "Secure Unfit and Vacated Dwelling;' of 220.45 ; "In the judginent of the Building Inspection Department, if the dwelling is of a hazardous nature, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the situation at the expense of the property owner." � 220.46 Execution of Compliance Orders by Public Authority This section was changed to read as follows; '�iTpon failure to�camply with a compliance order with.in the time set and no appeal having been taken, the City Council may by resolution cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the compliance order. The cost of such remedy shall be allayed against the subject property and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429." . 220.47 Right of Appeal The question was raised of why the City Council was acting as the Board of Appeals in this case when they did not for public hearing notices: This section was reworded as follows: "When it is alleged by any person � to whom a compliance order is directed that such compliance order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this ordinance, such person may appeal the compliance order through the appeals process. Such appeals must be in writing, specify the grounds for the appeal, be accompanied by a filing fee of $15.00 in cash or cashier's check, and be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after service of the compliance order. The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedtngs, unless such a stay would cause imminent peril to life, health, or adjacent property. ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 PAGE 8 220.48 Board of Appeals Decision This section was changed as follows: "With at least five business days prior notice to the appellant of the appeals process, the Appeals Commission shall hold a hearing." 220.49 Restrictions on Transfer of Ownership The Commission members agree ehat the way this was written was against the law. It was agreed it should be reworded somewhat as follows: "The owner shall be required to inform any prospective buyer or new owner of any compliance order on the property." MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Lan.genfeld, to contiaue discussion on the Maintenance Code at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PARKS & OPEN SPACE PZAN: MOTION by N!X �ergman, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that discussion on the Parks & Open Space Plan be continued at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION by Mx. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10;36 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, �. GZ� Lyn Saba Recording Secretary r"� �'", ��, _1�"� , ��