Loading...
PL 02/06/1980 - 30529�� �� � i' � /"'1 �� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANiQING CONI�2ISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 u CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Iiarris called the February 6, 1980, Planning Coumnission meeting �o order at 7:35 p:m. , ROLL CALL• Members Present: M,:. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Mr. Hora (for Mr. Langenfeld), Mr. Oquist, Ms. Hughes, Ms. Schnabel Members Absent: None Others Present: ,Perrold Boardman, City Planner Bob Schroer, 8100 University Ave. N.E. Itoger Jones, 7620 University �4ve. N.E. Warren Johnson, Northern States Power �4PPROV,�iZ OF J�IvT[T4RY 23, 1980, FL�NDTING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the 3anuary 23, 1980, Planning Commission minutes. Nis. Schnabel stated that the following ch�.nges should be made: Page 2, last paragraph, add the following sentence: "The other possibility c�ould be a renewal �'ee ." Page 4, third paragraph from bottom, second line, delete "nox�mally would be" and insert, "possibly could be". She also wanted to point out in that same paragraph that, "There always is an appeals process even if something is written into the ordinance." UPON A VOICE V(DTE, I�LL VOTING A,YE, CHAIRPERSON H�RR.IS DECLARED THE MINUTES �aPPROVED AS AMENDED . 1. PUBLIC HE�lRING: CONSIDEF.�TION OF A PREI,IMCNARY PLAT P.S. �680-01, UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL PARK,BY ROBERT SCHROER: Replat of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 2, T-30, R-24, City of Friclley, Mn, Anoka County, except that part taken for State Higt�way No. 4%; except tne South Z84 f2et ot the West 46C� feet and except the West �60 feet lying northerly of the south 666 feet. Generally iocated between 7ytn Avenue and 81st Avenue N.E., on the West side of University Avenue. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by r4r. Oquist, to open the public hearing f�nr P'��� �f�0-01., by P.oUert Schraer. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared tl�e nuh' ic hearing open at 7:40 P�'I , s � PL�NNING CONIMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated that Staff had looked at this proposed plat, and there � axe several things within this plat that should be put into the record. All � the easements are recorded on this plat, but some easements are missing on an ex3.sting water line along TH 47, so a 20-foot easement should be shown on the plat along that sewer line. ahat cames in on Block 1, Lot 1, and Block 2, Lot 1. Nlr. Boardman stated that with Block 3, Lot 1, which is a cca�mercial property, aad Block 4, Lot 1 and 8, which are shown as M-1, they may have the same problem here as they had with the Paschke property where the setback on industrial property has to be 100 feet off any cammercial property. It may give some problems as far as the setback for building. They may want to do the same thing they did with Mr. Paschke and that is, along with the plat, to recommend that a variance be granted stating that all loading and parking be in the rear yard. Mr. Boardman stated they have not yet received any drainage plans as far as ponding or stormwater run-off, so that should be a stipulation under the building permit. Mr. Boardman stated that in this plat, it shows 81st �►ve. on the north. fle stated they have had a discussion with the gen�leman just north of this property who owns the driving range and is not happy with 81st Ave. going in. However, Staff feels 81st should at least connect to Ranchers Road; whether it go through to Main St. at this time probably is not necessary. If 81st Ave. was not tied into Ranchers Road, they would have to deadend Ranchers Road, which is not a good situation, and the Engineering Department would prefer to see it attached at that point. Mr. Harris asked how they would handle the ponding. � � � 1�Ir. Boardman stated they do not necessarily look at on-site ponding as a � requirement. They look at water retention. If the builders can figure out a ; way to hold water on the roof�op or in the parking lot so that the rate of i run-off is not greater than the existing property, that is generally what � they look at. They go by the same regulations they must meet when they go �__� into the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Roger Jones stated he owned the Fridley Golf Range at 8100 University. He stated he was not against the development or the plat; he thought that was good. He stated he could aPpreciate the £act that the City did not want to deadend streets, but he had to look out for his own interests and the fact that his driving range would go out of Uusiness if 81st went in because of the narrowing of the property, and because of the possibility of damage to automobiles on the road from stray golf balls, He stated he thought he saw that all the properties could be served with utilities in the proposed plat, and would not need a through street. If the City was to develop the area between 79th and 81st, which is a normal gro;�Tth area and let that build up, it seemed like the wise way to go. Tf they put in 81st Ave,, they are trying ,...1 r� PIeANr1IP1G COA�IISSION MEETING, FEBRU�RY 6, 1980 � PAGE 3 � ^- to develop 79th and the whole package at one time, and the growth is not there at this time to do it. He also felt it was putting an undue hardship on the existing property owners to pay assessments, taxes, etc., waiting for development to come from 79th on through. Mr. Harris asked what Mr. Jones thought of the proposal to just put 81st Ave. to the new proposed Ranchers Road. Mr. Jones stated he was not in favor of it, because it was doing essentially the same thing as having $lst all the way through, as that was his working area. Mr. Harris stated that if this land was platted and Ranchers Road was put in and a service drive and both streets were made deadends, there would be a problem with emergency vehicles--fire, police, and also snowplowing. Maybe iL- would be possible to put in 81st so a loop would go around onto Ranchers Road. Mr. Jones stated that would still create a problem for him. He did not know how to get away from the situation. Cars have to travel along the road, and there is no way to control a golf ball. � Ms. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Jones put up some kind of screening--fencing and trees or shrubs--that would help block the flight of a golf hall. There must be other golfing ranges cvith the same problem. � �� Mr. Jones stated he presently had a fence which was quite worn, but he believed the f�nce was about 20 feet high. They still lose about 6-7,000 golf balls a season that go over the fence, so the fence was not totally effective. ,� 30-foot high fence would probably contain considerably more golf balls. � �` 1 ` Mr. Schroer stated that he and Mr. Jones had talked about this several times. He stated he felt the biggest problem for Mr. Jones was the amount of assess- ments going on his property, and he could appreciate Mr. Jones' concern. He stated they were going to put in 81st a couple of years ago, but decided it was not necessary at that time. He felt it ��as getting more necessary now. Was there any way the assessments could be delayed or something to help Mr. Jones' situation? A'Ir. Boardman stated he thought there has been some deferred payments on assessments; howev�r, the assessments have to be gaid at the interest rate at the time the assessments are paid, so interest rates could be considerably higher at that time. It might be better to pay the assessments now, rather than ten years from now. Mr. Harris stated that he had reviewed his notes and it appeared that about ten years ago when Mr. Jones came in for a special use permit to build a golfing range,there was some discussion and Mr. Jones understood that at some point in time, something else was going to happen to his property besides a driving range. As Mr. Harris remembered, the Planning Gommission said the reason they were recommending a special use permit was becanse there was nc,t much activity in the area, and they would like to see th� driving range in that area to kind of geL- things moving. PL�INNING CONA'lISSION MEETING, FEERUARY 6, 1980 P�GE 4 � Mr. Jones stated that, yes, he had understood that. He stated he also under- � stands that Mr. Schroer needs access to his property for development of that property. His question was: Is it really necessary to go �Ln and do this now as it is somewhat stopping the operation of his 12 acres? � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Jones if he had thought of platting his property in the near future. Mr. Jones stated that, yes, he had, but, until the area from 79th to 81st is developed, built, and sold, it seemed foolish for someone to skip over that property and build on property farther out. Mr. Boardnnan stated that there is development at access points, and access points are at 79th and 81st. Generally, development is done first at the access points and then development is done inside. Mr. Joaes' property is at an access point, so his property could possibly be developed before Mr. Schroer's interior lots. Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Schroer that on the lots along 81st Ave., what kind af businesses would be going in there? Were they businesses that would attract a lot of people and generate a lot of traffic? Wou1d these businesses require the development of 81st? Mr. Schroer stated that the commercial business would generate a lot of trca�fic, but the industrial business would not. He stated, yes, it would require the d�velopment of 81st. Ms. HLghes asked what the time schedule was for the street construction. Mr. Harris stated that the streets would probably be done by fall of 1980. Mr. Harris stated again, that in an ind.ustrial area, they cannot {�ut in dead- enii streets because of emergency vehicles. Although the City does have some cul-de-sacs, they are not all �nat successful. Mr. Jones stated he was not asking for.a cul�de-sac, a.nd he was not out to stap the development, but there has to be some workable solution, rather than putting an undue hardship on an individual. If they co�sld put in a street that would go back to Ranchers Road, he would go along with that and would work around.that. He would maybe need assistance in putting up �. retainer wall to protect cars and people from stray golf ba].ls. �lso, if there was some way to �et deferred assessments, so that when Mr. Schroer's property was developed, then the rest would be ready for development. He felt there was too much land to be developed and they were trying to do it too soon. If 81st has to go in, he would prefer to see it stop at 1Zanchers Road. Mr. Oquist pointed out that if they stopped Slst at Ranchers Road, before long, they will have developers of the other property coming in wanting 81st continued all the way to Main St. . r"\ � � /"�� i � � PLAIVNING CONIl�2ISSION MEETING, �7A���6, 1 0 PAGE S � Ms. Schn�bel etated that ahe was very sympathetic Co Mx. Jones' problem. She felt uncamfortable as to how to solve the dilemma that the development of /� 81st Ave, would present to Mr. Jones and his prop�rty, but she also felt that in the City's best interest, the development of 81st was bound to come soon, if it was not due right now. From Mr. Schroer's standpoint, the development of 81st was probably crucial. She thought the point Mr. Jones made was very valid in the delineation of sereets and the philosophy behind the way those streets are platted. She did not see an answer that would accommodate both people. MOTIO N by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by N'�.. Hughes, to close the public hearing on P.S. 4�80-01, by Robert Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairma.n Harris declared the public hearing closed at 9:05 p.m.. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with Ms. Schnabel that it is inevitable that 81st is going to be developed. He�also appreciated Mr. Jones' diiemma, but did not honestly know what could be done. Mr. Harris stated that, as far as the financial burden, maybe the Planning Commission could recoumiend to City Council that assessments be delayed to a later date. Mr. Boardman stated that he would like Mr. Jones to think about that, because interest rates could go higher. MOTIO N by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, that the Planning Commission ,.� recommend to City Council approval of Preliminarp Plat,i'.5.. ��80-01, by Robert � Schroer, being a replat of the NW.1/4 of Section 2, T-30, $-24, City of Fridley, Mn, Anoka County, except that part taken for State Truck High�aay l�b. 47' except the South 284 feet of the West 480 feet ancl except the West 460 feet lying northerly of the south 666 feet, generally located Uetween 79th Avenue and 81st Avenue N.E., on the West side of University Avenue, with thP following stipulations: 1. An acceptable storm water drainage system be designed for the plat. 2. Tnat a 20 foot easement be dedicated for Block l, Lot 1, and Block 2, Lot 1. , 3. That 81st Avenue N.E. be extended from Main street to University Avenue i�N.E . 4. That the assessments to the property owner be delayed, if the owner so wishes Ms. Hughes stated that if there was not excellent control of water in this plat, she would hope that whatever means available are taken to prevent any develop- ment of the land. UPON A VOICE VOTE, �I,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPEFSON HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY. Mr. Harris stated they should discuss the drainage situation. It was his � feeling that he would like to see the Engineerir�g Department do a comprehensive study of the whole area as far as drainage. This study should be pointed to �- the possibility that at same future date, the City acquire land f or a holding pond in an advantageous area near the tracks, Now is the time to do it before there is a lot more development in the area. � r PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING, FEERUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 6 r� M_OTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR, HOR1�, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MlyKE A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE WHOLE AREA AS FAR AS A DRAINAGE SYSTEM, POINTED TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT, AT SOME FUTURE DATE, THE CITY ACQUIRE LAND FOR A HOLDSNG POND, POSSIBLY NEAR THE RAILROAD TRACK AREA. THIS COMPREHENSIVE STUDY TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL CARRIED UNANIMOUSI.�Y . 2. ..� -z-..-��-; �-: _. VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATTON OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA ��80-01, BY ROBERT SCHROER: Rezone Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 3, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, Block 4, of proposed Plat, University Industrial Park, from G2 (general business areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas) located in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 2, generally located betweeen 79th Avenue N.E. and 81st Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to open the public hearing on ZOA 4�80-01, by Robert Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing open at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Boardman stated that the property in B1ock 3, Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, and Block 4, Lots l, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, were presently zoned C-2. There is a wide band.of commercial that is going up through this district, and rlr. Schroer felt he cannot market that amount of commercial property. So, Mr. Schroer had suggested that all the interior lots be rezoned from C-2 to M-1. He stated Staff has no problems with this, except for the fact that the 100-foot setback requirement makes Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, Block 4, hard �.o build on. Mr. Boardman stated that one thing he would like to see is as much parking and truck loading as gossible in either the rear or side yard and not facing the street areas. He also felt they could move the setback from I00 feet to 35 feet on the corr�er lots . ' MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, se�onded by Mr. Oquist to close the public hearing on ZOA ��80-01, by Robert Schroer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the public hearir.g closed at 9:43 p.m. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Oq�aist, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning request, ZOA 4�80-01, by Robert Schroer, to rezone Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 3, and Lots l, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, Block 4, of proposed pla*, University Industrial Park, from C-2 (general business areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas), located in the NW 1/4 �� the S[d.1/4 of Section 2, generally located between 79th Avenue N.E. and 81st Avenue N.E., with the inclusion that Lots 1 and 8, Block 4, be granted a 35 foot setback � ith the stipulation that the loading be tu the rear of the building on the property. __ ___._.. UPQN A VOICE VOTE,�ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPEKSON HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CAr.RIED UNt�IMOUSLY. �, Mr. Boardman sLated this would go to City Council on February 25 and a public hearing could be set for P4arch 10. Chairperson Harris declared a ten-minute recess at 9:48 p.m. 0 r. , PLANI3TNG COMMISSION MEETIPIG, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 7 � 3. RECEIVE LETTER FROM CENTRAI� CENTER FOR F�LY RESOURCES THANKING THE " COMhIISSIONS AND COUNCIL FOR $5,000: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the letter dated January 29, 1980, from Central Center for Family Resources.� Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 4. RECEIVE ARTICLE FROM FRIDLEY SUN OF WEDNESDAY, J�eNiTARY 30, 1980, RE; "NSP LOOKS AT ERIDLEY SITE � OR POZ�TER FL.ANT": MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the Fridley Sun article dated January 30, 1980. , Mr. Johnson stated he was with the North Division Office of NSP, and he was the liaison worker with the cammunities of the North Division, of which Fridley was one. He had a little background in this plant siting and was present at the meeting to try and answer any questions the Plan.ning Commission might have. Mr. Jolnnson stated that the ar�icle in the paper was factual. The reporter had appeared at the Metropolitan Council meeting and this information was relayed to him at this time. Mr. Johnson stated that one of the reasons the site was selected was because NSP was asked by state and private groups to investigate the possibility of �'"1 putting a.smaller plant �n the metropolitan area, the plant to not only develop electricity, but ta be used £or co-generation, either steam or water, for industrial and residential use. With that in mind, they looked at various s�ots and tried to pick locations in all areas of the metropolitan area. Mr. Harris asked if NSP was aware of the proposed park across East River Road? Mr. 3ohnson stated that, yes, they were. They had met with Mr. Boardman and have reviewed plans, and they feel they are not enfringing on the park property. Y�ir. Harris asked how NSP would draw water from the river. Mr. Johnson stated they would draw water from the river in a closed circuit in about 12-inch pipes underground, so there would be no visual impact. Mr. Harris stated that he assumed the coal would come by rai1. Mr. Johnson stated that, ,yes, that was the reason for the site by th� railroad. Mr. Harris stated he was concerned about where NSP would stockpile the cval. Mr. Johnson stated he did not know the exact location, but it would p�obably be somewhere close to the railroad tracks. � Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Johnson to describe the configuration of a 200-megawatt /'� plant. Mr. Johnson stated there would be one stack, one caater-cooled tower. The building itself would probably be 150 ft. tall with a stack. 0 'u i ' PLANNII�TG CONIMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 8 Mr. Johnson stated this plant would add 75-100 employees and would bring in approximately $600,000-700,000 in taxes to the City e very year. . Mr. Johnson stated that NSP wi11 select 3-4 sites to be�turned over to the State. The first thing they have to do is go before the Minnesota Energy Agency and prove their need for the plant. After that they have to go before the Site Selection Approval committee with the Minnesota Equality Board. Each one of these will have a public hearing with input. An environmental impact statement will also have to be made. �411 of this will take approximately 2-3 years, and then the State will decide where the plant will be b uilt. NSP hopes to make their selection of the sites they feel would be most valid for their usage within the next 2-3 months. Mr. Harris stated that the City Council had inforffially directed the Planning Commission to study this NSP site in Fridley and get back to City Council with a recommendation. He asked Mr. Johnson if he would supply the Planning Commission with as much information as possible for the Plannin g Commission to study, they could get together again for further discussions. He would also like enough copies so the Environmental Ouali�y Commission, Community Developmentc Commissian, and the new Energy Commission could also study it, Nlr. Johnson stated he would get this information to Mr. Boardman, and then the Planning Commission could contact him when they would like him back again. Mr. Harris thanked Mr. Johnson for coming to.the meeting. Ms. Hughes stated she would like someone to keep track af the Certificate cf Need, because without a selection of site, rridley would not normally be notified of this. Maybe NSP could keep the City informed about that. Ms. Hughes stated she would like to draw the Com�ission's attention to the article, third paragraph from the bott.om on the right, where it states: /1NSP is uncertain at this time whether a new coal-fired plant i•s licensable in the Twin Cities area". That is probably because of the sulphur oxide emissions in the Twin Cities area where there is still some violation, Ms. Hughes stated. Those standards are being reviewed now and could legally change. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPEPvSON Hl�RRIS DECLARED THE MOTIO� TO RECEIVE THE ARTICLE IN THE F�IDLEY SUN CARRIED UN�NIMOUSLY. �'�1 5. CONTINUED :. PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205 . ZOI�TING : MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue discussion on Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. . 6. RECEIVE JANU.�RY 22, 1980, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONAiCSSION MTNUTES: MOTION by r�r. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Hora, to receive the January 22, 1980, � Environmental Quality Commission minutes. n 0 PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING, �'EBRUt�RY 6, 1980 PAGE 9 Mr. Boardman stated referred to the motion made by the Environmental Quality Commission on page 2 recommending that Planning Commission and City Council send a Fridley representative to the MPCA Board meeting on Feb. 26, 1980, ' reflecting the concern of airport and freeway expansion. Mr. $oardman stated. that the MPCA Board acted on this on Feb. 5 instead of Feb. 26. He stated tliat this motion was taken directly to City Council on Feb. 4, the City Council passed a resolution supporting the prioritization by the MPCA for noise con�rol for airports and highways, and Mr, Virgil Herrick hand delivered that resolution to the NlPC�6 Board meeting. Mr. Boardman stated he did not know what action the MPCA had taken regarding this resolution. Mr. Harris stated that regarding Ms. Sporre's statement on page S where she stated that Mr. Harris should not make statements th at, "planes have to land somewhere", he would appreciate it if Ms. Sporre would not take his statements oufi of �ontext. Ms. Hughes stated the same thing was true of the statement she had made in the Dec. 5, 1979, Planning Commission minutes that "air quality reviews on current Highway 10 were so bad, there was no choice except relocation." Ms. Sporre had also taken that out of context. The discussion had been that with the current Highway 10, the air quality reviews were so bad, you couldn'.t possibly • exparid current Highway 10. If you were going to build a high�aay, it would have to be the relocated Highway 10. That did not say one thing about the /"� desirability of building the new highway. UPON � VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING .�YE, CHAIRPERSON HAI2P�IS DECI,�,RED THE MOTION TO RECEIVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CO�ISSION MINUTES CARRIED UNA,NIMOUSLY. 7. ItECEIVE JANUARY 24, 1980, HOUSING & REDEVELGPMENT �,UTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mx. Treuenfels, to receive the January 2/�, 1950, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. Mx. Harris stated he lzad some discussions with members of the I�RA. The HRA was having a meeting with one of the developers un February 7. Iie st ated the HR� would like some input fr�m the Planning Cammission sometime down the line. Mr. Harris stated he told the members that he did now think it was the proper time for tche Planning Commission to give input and told them that when the HR� had something ma;.e-definite, the P1anzling Commission would be happy to give their input. Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commission will have to get involv2d after the HR,l� makes a selection of a developex and they get into actual �ommitments. Now was not the pr.oper time. Aqr. Harris stated 'chat members of the Planning Commission were.invited to attend the IH�tA meeting on Feb. 7 as individual citizens. � PLANNING CON�4ISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 6, 1980 PAGE 10 8. OTHER BUSINESS• Mr. Harris stated that Mary Cayan and himself had attended a meeting with the Anoka County Welfare and had some discussions with them. There was a meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. on Thursday, Feb. 7, with the CAP Agency. He stated he could not believe the lack of coordination be�ween the agencies--the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing, He stated that after all the meetings, they would try to put the whole thing together as a package for the Human Resources Commission. The Human Resources Commission would then make recommendations. Hopefuliy, the Planning Commission wi.11 also see the package to act on it and send recommendations on to City Council. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION by Mr. Hora, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the February 6,.1980, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfuliy su mitted, , , Lyn S ab a Recording Secretary �� . �