PL 03/19/1986 - 30647� p V_
u
�
n
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNIPJG CO�MIISSION MEETIIJG, MARCH 19, 1986
CALL TO ORUER:
Chairperson Gabel called the P-1arch 19, 7986, Planning Comrr�ission meeting to
order at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Pat Gabel, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Wayne 4Jellan, Don Betzold
Members �b�ent: LeRoy Oquist, Bob Minton
Otliers Present: Jim Ro6inson, Planning Coordinator
Brad Dunham, 6150 Trini�y Drive PJ.E.
Kevin Cole, 326 - 120th Lane N.W.
Pat Torgrimson, 5651 Regis Drive PJ.E.
J.ohn I<osmas, 6112 Excelsior Blvd.
Joe Laconic, 6644 Arthur St. N.E.
Cindy Braam, 1436 - 66th Ave. N.E.
Fred Bischke, 1490 - 66th Ave. N.E.
Ken Steinbauer, 6640 Anoka St. N.E.
David Jedinak, 6632 Arthur St. N.E. (future residence)
Rod & Dorothy Brannon, 1622 Innsbruck Parkway W.
Marvin Asp, 1486 - 66th Ave. N.E.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 26, 1986, PLANNIPJG COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. 5ABA� TO APPROVE THE FEB. 26� 1986�
PL1�IVNIIVG COMMISSION MINUTE5 A5 WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTIOIIT
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERNIIT, SP #86-01, BY
BRADCEIf Dl1NHAM:
Per Section 205.07.1, C, 2 of the Fridley City Code, to allow a daycare
facility in a residential dlstrict on Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21, Block 3,
Oak Grove Addition, the same being 6633 Arthur Street N.E.
MOTION BY MR. 5ABA� 5ECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD� TO OPEN THE Pi1BLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE vOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPE.R50N GABEL DECLARED THE PIIBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7;36 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located just north of 66th Ave, and
east of Arthur St. in a single family neighborhood. The property was zoned
^ R-1. The proposal was for a day care facility for up to 65 ch�ildren. The
- petitioner has indicated there would be up to eight staff inembers associated
with the project.
�,
n
,�
�
PLANNI�G _C_OMMISSION �EETING MARCH 19, 1986 PAGE 2
Mr. Robinson stated that to give a little history on this particular struc-
ture, in 1970 the City Council �pproved a recommendation from the then
Building Standards-Design Control Committee to grant a permit for the con-
struction of a day care facility to be run by Anoka County. In 1980 a special
use permit was issued for the facility to be used as a home for battered
women and their children called The Alexandra House. That facil3ty remained
in operation until 1982 and the house has been vacant ever since. The
petitioner, Mr. Bradley Dunham, had an agreement to purchase the property
from Anoka :County contingent upon this special use permit.
Mr. Robinson stated that associated with thas project �as the addition of
some parking spaces. In going through past minutes from the file on The
Alexandra House, �hey found there was a 1Qt of concern a�out on street
parking i.n the area due to the operation of that facility, so the City would
like the petitioner to-in�tall severr parking stalls on the south sid-e af the
building.
Mr. Robinson handed out pictures of the facility which showed the quality of
the bui�ding. He stated a new driveway would be installed in front of the
building to facilitate th� dropping off of children. He stated the building
was originally designed as a day care center so the interior was well suited
for this type of use. Minimal remodeling was necessary.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Petitioner to obtain approval and implement a landscape plan.
Petitioner to install a 6 foot high solid wood screening fence
around the back yard and south of the parking area.
Any signage to be residential in quality not exceeding eight (8)
square feet.
Hours of operation to be from 6 a.m, to 6 p.m. Monday through
Friday only.
Petitioner to work with Engineering Department on storm drainage
needs.
Petitioner to submit a performance bond in the amount of
$5,000.
Ms. Gabet-asked if there was any history on this facility when it was
operated as a day care center that would indicate any particular problems
at that time.
Mr. Robinson stated
original minutes of
day care facility.
he did not see anything in the file, other than the
the City Council approving the permit to build the
Mr. Dunham stated�he wou7d like to preserve the facility pretty much as
residential.
Ms. Gabel asked what kind of provisions would be made for deliveries and
how frequently would deliveries be made.
. �
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1986 PAGE 3
Mr. Dunham stated there was presently an exterior entrance where deliveries
have been made in�the past. He presumed deliveries would probably be made
on a weekly basis:
Mr. Dave Jedinak stated he �ill soon be living at 6632 Arthur St, which was
across from°this facility. He asked if any study had been made on how much
traffic would be added to the area. If they are ta]king about 65 children,
that is a potential for 65 cars coming in and out of there. His reason for
moving to this area was because of the dead-end street and the lack of traffic.
This day care facility really concerned him because it would be adding a
considerable amount of traffic.
Mr. Dunham stated no studies have been made by him on the-traffic tha� would
be generated. He agreed that if they were operating at capacity, that cou7d
possibly be 65 vehicles. He stated there would only be congestion at
certain times, and that was the reason to have it open between 6 a.m, and
6 p.m, on weekdays only. When people are at home in the evenings and on
weekends, it would be quiet. He stated he rea7ly did not have an answer to
adequately address the traffic question.
Mr. Robinson stated most of the traffic would be between 6-8 a.m, and 4-6 p.m.
Mr. Jedinak stated he was also concerned about people parking on their
residential street. He stated that at the time this facility was a day care
�'� center before, there was a school across the street and it didn't have the
affect on the residential area that it is going to have now.
Mr. Dunham stated on-street parking should not be a problem. There was a
considerable amount of driveway for drop-off and also there was 160 ft, of
frontage for cars to park Zn front o.f the facility.
Mr. Ken Steinbauer, 6640 Anoka St., stated he lived directly behind the
property. In talking about the potential of 65 children, there seemed to
be a lot of presumptions being made about traffic.and arrival times. He
thought there was going to be higher traffic volumes than just 2 or 3 cars
at a time. He �hought 7-10 cars was probably a more accurate figure.
Mr. Steinbauer stated that as Mr. Jedinak had pointed out, when the day care
facility was there before, there was a school �cross the street; therefore,
he would expect no past concerns. He felt it was going to be different this
time. In ta]king with the neighbors regarding the Alexandra House, particu-
larly the ones who lived next door to it, there were a number of problems
with traffic and a number of problems with the type of people who were there.
He understood it , was a different entity with different purposes, but there
were still some problems. He thoyght the same type of traffic problems
and the same kind of problems with the increased flow of people were going to
come about even though this was proposed as a day care facility.
n
. :
l•1�
n
PLANNING COMMISSION I�EETING, MARCH 19; 19�6 PAGE 4
Mlr. Steinbauer stated this facility was going to reduce his proper�y value.
Looking at the marketplace today, homes that are next �o or right across
from a business were worth about �5-10,000 less than the same type of home
in a completely residential area. He stated he moved into this area because
it was a residential area.
Mr. Steinbauer stated that in looking at the increased traffic this facility
would generate into the area, that would increase the risk to the other
children in the neighborhood. In this par�icular neighborhood, there were
a lot of families with children between tfie ages of 3-13. With the increased
traffic between 6-8 a.m,, that would not present as much of a problem as
the hours between 4-6 p.m, when-neighborhood chi7dren are out playing. From
a safety perspective, the risk would be significantly increased with the kind
of volume projected by Mr. Dunham for the facility.
Mr. Jedinak stated the facility does look 7ike a residential structure, but
, the parking lot and the U-shaped driveway would change the appearance to
look more like a business.
Mr. Robinson stated there would besuffici�nt landscaping to screen the parking
lot. As far as the U-shaped driveway, there were a lot of residential homes
in Fridley with U-shaped driveways in front.
Mr. Marvin Asp, 1486 - 66th Ave., stated he lived around the corner from the
� facility. He stated the building does have the appearance of a residential
structure, but it will definitely not be residential with a day care center
in it.
Mr. Joseph Laconic, 6644 Arthur St., stated he was very concerned about the
increased traffic. This was a quiet street now, and he did not want to see
it become a busy street. He stated that becaus� Arthur St, was not a through
street, all the traffic has to go in and out from the same direction.
Mr. Dunham stated maybe it would be possible to post some signage that would
warn motorists of "children at play".
Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Dunham to explain something about the class structure.
Mr. Dunham stated they were really hoping to structure their needs around
the neighborhood and, hopefully, serve some of the neighbors. They are
hoping to operate a"latch key" program for school children before and after
school, and some of the traffic might be from the neighbors who use the
facility. They rea7ly won't know their requirements until they actually begin
operation.
Ms. Cindy Braam, 1436 - 66th Ave., stated she was concerned about traffic.
It was all young families with approx. 2-3 children per family. She stated
there were no street lights on Arthur St, in this area. She had asked
� Councilman Schneider about the possibility of street light, but was told
there was not enough footage for street lighting. When talking about
� increased traffic coming and going at 6-8 a.m, and 4-6 p.m., in the winter-
time it was very dark at those times. She would be concerned for the
safety of the children.
PLANNING COMP�ISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1986 PAGE 5
'� Mr. Fred Bischke, 1490 - 66th Ave., asked if the City had the ability to
control or limit the number of children who could use the facility, or was
that only in the County's jurisdiction? Sixty-five childr�n seemed like
too many children for this facility.
Mr. Robinson stated the Planning Commission could recommend to the City
Council the number of chi-ldren they felt_was appropriate-for the facility given
its neighborhood setting.
Mr. Dunham stated they must have at least 35 sq, ft. per child, and then
they have to follow certain programming guidelines where they cannot take
into account closet space, bathroom space, etc. There are fire codes, etc.
The building can actua7ly facilitate more than 65 chi7dren, but with the type
of programming they want to do and the number of employees they need to make
the program run well, they have determined the number at 65.
A resident stated that 66th Ave. and Arthur S�, form a"V" If people drive
very fast around that "V", it could be a dangerous situation. Part of it is
visibility and sometim�s it is weather conditions. Sometimes, after people
drop off their children, they are in a hurry to get to work and they might
drive too fast. He had some real concern about the type of access this
facility had. He stated the Planning Commission should be looking at the
whole traffic pattern, not just the number of cars that would be coming in
and out of the facility.
�^ Ms. Pat Torgrimson, 5651 Regis Drive, stated she would be involved in the
operation of the day care center. She stated that 65 children was the
absolute maximum. Most day care centers run at about 701, and even at that
70%, there would be a lot of part-time children, and children arrive at all
different times. The chanee of their having 65 chi7d�en when they open was
very �ji�, It takes awhile for them to build a reputation. Even then, the
changes of them having 65 children every day was extremely minimal.
Mr. Dunham stated that as far as numbers of children, they could not operate
if they were limited to, for example, 40 chi7dren.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� 5ECOIVDED BY MR. SABA� TO CLO5E THE PIIBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N GABEL DECZ�IRED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick asked if they could place a stipulation on the specia] use
permit for a maximum or minimum number of children.
Ms. Gabel stated they could do that; however, this was something the Staff
should check into before the City Council �neeting. She was pretty sure the
County and the State had some jurisdiction over the numbers.
i-,,
� �
6E
PLANNING COM�ISSION MEETING, MARCH 19; ]986 PAGE 6
Mr. Betzold stated he felt the Planning Commission should still have the
authority to recornnend a smaller�program with a smaller amount of children.
even though the State sets the policy and the County licenses the facility.
Mr. Saba stated he had a lot of concerns about a day care center for 65
children in a residential area. He had no problem with a day care center in
a residential area, but he did have a problem with a maximum of 65 chi7dren.
He stated that traffic was also a valid concern.
Mr. Kondrick agreed. He stated that if Arthur St. was a through street,
it would be a lot more accommodating for traffic. This was a very nice
looking building, but they should be careful about how many people they allow
in the facility.
Mr. Wellan stated he was concerned about traffic because this was a dead-end
street. Traffic can only come in and out from one way. Granted, the day care
facility was there before, but he was also bothered by the high number of
children.
Mr. Betzold stated his sister ]ived in this neighborhood with three small
children, so he could understand the concerns expressed by the neighbors.
A day care facility was a permitted use for this property and a use they
should encourage in residential areas. They should probably put some cap on
the number of chi7dren so the number could not be increased. He would also
�"'`'� recommend an annual review to see how the traffic flow situation was working.
Ms. Gabel stated she agreed with the other commissioners. She did not know
how they could determine what the "cap" should be. She certainly would not
want it over 65, because that would generate a lot of traffic. She did not
know if it should be less, because she did not know how the figures worked
out based on the County's requirements. Lega7ly, she did not see how the
Planning Commission could deny this special use permit request; however, they
could put some stipulations on it.
MO�TION BY MR. KOND.RICK� SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THE APpROVAL OF 5PECIAL USE PERMIT REQUE`ST, SP #86-01� BY BRADLEY DUNHAM�
PER SECTION 205.07.1� C� 2 OF THE FRID�EY CITY CODE TO ALLOW A DAY CA.RE
FACILITY IN A RE5IDENTIAL DI5TRICT ON LOTS 18� Z9� 20 AND 2Z� BLOCK 3� OAK
GROVE ADDITION� THE 5AME BEING 6633 ARTHUR 5TREET N.E.� W.ZTH THE FOLLOWING
STIP ULATION5 :
1. PETITIONER TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AND IMPLENIENT A LAND5CAPE PLAN.
2. PETITIONER TO IN5TALL A 5IX FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD 5CREENING
FENCE AROUND THE BACK YARD AND SOUTH OF THE PARKING AREA.
3. ANY SIGrIAGE TO BE RESIDENTIAL IN QUALITY NOT EXCEEDING
EIGHT (8) SQUARE FEET.
4. HOUR5 OF OPERATlON TO BE FROM 6 A.M. TO 6 P.M. MONDAY
THROUGH FRIDAY.
5. PETITIONER TO WORK WITH ENGINEERING DEPT. ON STORM DRAINAGE NEEDS.
6. PETITIONER TO 5UBMIT A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $5�000.
� 7. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CHILDREIV ALLOWED TO BE 45.
8. AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BY THE PLANNING COMMIS5ION.
�
PLANNING CONllNISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1986 PAGE 7
Ms. Gabe7 stated she was a little uncomfortable with the Planning Commission
determining a number for the simple reason that they do not know anything
about this day care operation and what it takes to have a successful operation.
Mr. Betzold stated that by recommending a number, they are forcing the
issue of numbers so the petitioner will have more information for the
City Council's review.
Mr. Saba stated that because of the traffic concern, he could not even
agree with 45 as a maximum number.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� KONDRICK, GABEL� AND BETZOLD VOTING AYE� 5AB�1 AND WELLAN
VOTING NAY� CHAIRPER50N GABEL DECLA,RED TFIE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER BOTH.5TREET LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE FOR THI5
PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OPERATION OF THE
DAY CARE FACILITY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, KONDRICK, .z1NND GABEL VOTING AYE� 5ABA AND WELLAN
VOTING AtAY, CHAI.RPE.RS0111 GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2.
Ms. Gabe] stated this item would go to City Council on April 7.
'� 2. PUBLIC H�ARII�G: CONSIDERATION OF A�SPECIAC 11SE PERI�IIT, SP #86-02, BY
� rt I KuLtul°I:
Per Section 205.15.1, C, 5 of the Fridley City �ode to allow a motor vehicle
fuel and oil dispensing service, and per Section 205.15.1, C, 6 of the
Fridley City Code to allow a motor vehicle wash establishment on all that
part of Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, which lies Easterly of a
line parallel with and-distant 351 feet Westerly from the East line of
Section 23, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, and the South 20 feet of
tbat part of Lot 11, Auditor's Su6division No. 155, which lies Easterly
of a line parallel with and distant 351 feet Westerly from the East line of
Section 23, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, except that part thereof
taken for Highway, the same being 5300 Central Avenue N.E.
MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. WELLAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 8:47 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated the zoning was C-3, and the surrounding properties were
also zoned C-3.
Mr. Robinson stated the reason the petitioner was applying for a special use
permit was because of bad soil conditions.The present building was continually
settling causing structural problems. The petitioner planned to remove the
�,,,, present structure, but in doing so has to meet today's codes. Four variances
` were heard by the Appeals Commission on March 11, and the Appeals Commission
made some specific recommendations regarding those variances.
PLAN�ING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 19; 1986 PAGE 8
�'1 �
� Mr. Robinson stated the layout was quite different from the old layout in
that the building and the pumps would be situated at an angle on the
property in order to improve traffic flow. Also to improve traffic flow,
they have closed the existing easterly driveway onto 53rd Ave. The City
has also asked for green space and landscaping with automatic sprinkling
in order to bring tfie property up to code as much as possible.
Mr. Robinson stated the Appeals Commission decided the addition of the car
wash added to the variances for the site so they recommended some reduction
in the rear yard setback and the front yard variances to allow for more
green space on 53rd Ave. The petitioner has revised the drawings to meet
these requirements with the car wash still included.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Petitioner to obtain approval and implement a landscape plan.
Petitioner to obtain approval and implement a storm drainage plan.
Petitioner to submit a performance bond to cover the site
improvements.
Protective measures to 6e implemented to mitigate any erosion
or destabilization of surrounding property.
An approved utility easement across the northerly portion of the
property to be granted to the City.
i"'� Mr. Betzold stated the first variance regarding the size of the lot had to
be granted because if it was not, nothing could be built on the lot. It
was possible to construct the building without any other variances, but the
petitioner wanted the building constructed at an angle for visibility of
the gasoline pumps from the building. The Appeals Commission expressed some
concern about overbuilding on the lot, so they tried to reduce the variances
because they thought a smaller building would be more appropriate. They
tried to avoid the car wash issue.
Mr. John Kosmas, KK Design, stated the car wash would be a full-service,
roll-over car wash. It was a convenience-type service connected with the
sale of gas. It would not be promoted as a single source business.
Ms. Gabel asked about stacking space to get into the car wash.
Mr. Robinson stated he did not think Q Petroleum was anticipating a heavy
use of the car wash. There seemed to be enough stacking room for four cars
within the driveway itself.
Ms. Gabel stated she shared the same concern as the Appeals Commission in that
this seemed like a good deal of overbuilding on that lot.
Mr. Kosmas stated one of the objectives his firm had in serving Q Petroleum
was to loosen up the whole site. To him, it appeared more congested now
than it would with the new proposal. The new proposal would open the site
^ up for more visibility.
�1
PLANNING COINMISS_ION MEETIIVG, MARC11 19, 1986 PAGE 9
��,
- Mr. Robinson stated the b�iances s�emed Tike an extr.�me req�est because of the
zoning,�C-3. Actually, if the property was zoned C-1 or.C-2, there would be;no
need for any vari;ances because setbacks and lot area would not be nearly as severe.
Mr. Kosmas stated that in conversations with Q Petroleum, he gave them some
alternatives: (1) maximize back to retail; (2) go with a car wash of a
little different size which would allow them �o increase the r�tail; (3) go
with a car wash in th�s combination with a dryer. Q Petroleum preferred the
car wash with a dryer and the scale of the retail was reduced to accommodate it.
Mr. Rod Brannon stated he owned the car wash immediately to the north. He
stated he was not opposed to the variances that allowed the rebu�lding of what
was there now, but he was opposed to the addition of a car wash to that building
which was more than they had before.
Mr. Brannon stated that approximately one year ago, four variances were
approved by the City to build the Pickwick building. He had expressed concern
that the City was taking a building twice the size of his building and a lot
half the size of his lot and granting a variance to move that bui7ding from
40 ft, to 5 ft. from his property line. Now the Pickwick building sits right
on his property line and virtually screens his entire business. He was supposed
to have worked wi�h the owner and the City on the landscaping, but to this day
he has not been contacted by ei�her party. Eight pyramidal arborvitae were
put in YJf11Ci1 nov�r take up another 15 ft. and screen more of his property, and
� there was an oversized dumpster pad. So, nine months out of the year, his
business was not visible from 53rd Ave. He stated his business was down 25%.
He stated this might not be germaine to this discussion, but he has seen what
four variances the Ciiy approved has done to his business. He stated he would
fight this on the basis that city ordinances were for the protection of every-
body and to take into consideration the rights of everybody. The City has to
ask itself: Is this proposal in the best interest of all its neighbors? From
his standpoint, the answer was "no".
Ms. Gabel stated that regarding �he landscaping, Staff was going to have to
get together with Mr. Brannon to work somet��ng out. She remembered the
stipulations that were made on those variances, and there should be some
follow-up on them.
Ms. Dorothy Brannon stated she thought the car wash was going to add to the
traffic. She was sure Q Petroleum wanted the car wash to attract business.
If the car wash was successful, she did not think there was adequate stacking
room for it. If it was not successful, then why add a car wash? When the
original Q Petroleum building was constructed, there were not a lot of rules
and regulations on landscaping. Now �he City had an opportunity to upgrade
the landscaping, and she did not see the City doing that by allowing so many
variances which, in turn, then allows the car wash which competes with a
business already esta6lished in the immediate area. She agreed that this
proposal would be an improvement over what was there now, and there was a need
to upgrade this corner. She was just not sure that this corner could support
�� more traffic, and she felt the lot was already overbuilt. With a carr wash,
there was going to be a lot more traffic in and out.
.PLANNING COM19MISSION h�EETING, MARCH 19, 1986 PAGE 10
,�1
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICIC� 5ECONDED BY MR. WELLAN� TO CL05E TAE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PI7BLIC
HEARING CL05ED AT 9:30 �.M.
MOT.ION BY MR. KONDRICK� 5ECONDED BY NIR. WELLAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL U5E PERMIT REQUE5T��5P #86-02� BY Q PETROLEUM� p�R
SECTION 205.15.1� C� 5 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW A MOTOR VEHICLE
FUEL AA�D OIL DI5PEN5I111G 5ERVICE AND PER ,�ECTION 205.15.1� C� 6 OF THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE TO ALLOW A MOTOR VEHICLE WASH ESTABLISHMENT� WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATION5s
1. PETITIONER '1'� OBTA.TN APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENT A LAND5CAPE PLAN.
2. PETITIONER TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AND IMPLENIENT A 5TORM DRAINAGE PLAN.
3. PETITIONER TO SiIBMIT A PERFORMANCE BOND TO COVER THE SITE
IMPROVEMENT5.
4. PROTECTIVE MEA5URES TO BE�IMPLEMEIiTTED TO MITIGATE ANY EROSIDN
OR DEuTABIL2ZATI0IV' OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
5• �1N APPROVED UTILITY EASEMENT ACR055 THE NORTHERLY PORTIOIU OF
THE PROPERTY TO BE GRANTED TO TI�E CITY.
6. PETITIONER TO WORK WITH C.ZTY 5TAFF ON TBE LOCATION OF THE
DUMPSTER.
Ms. Gabel stated that as far as traffic, there has been a lot of traffic in
� the past, and there will be a lot of traffic in the future. She was in favor
of tearing down the old structure and putting up a new one and cleaning up
the area. She did not like the idea of the addition of the car wash be�ause
of the potenti�l for additional traffic.
�l
Mr. Saba stated he felt the car wash was going to be a big draw to the
business, and he was opposed to the car wash because of the extra traffic
that would be generated because of it.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� KOIVDRICK AND WELLAN VOTING AYE, BETZOLD, SABA� AND (;ABEL
VOTING A1AY� CHAIRpER50N GABEL DECLA.RED THE MOTION FAILED.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CZ'TY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SPE�IAL U5E PERMIT REQUE5T� SP #86-02� By g pETROLEUM� PER
5ECTION 205.15.1� C� 5 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW A MOTOR VEHICLE
FUEL AND OIL DISPEN5ING SERVICE ON ALL THAT PART OF LOT 12� AUDITOR'S
SIIBDIVISION NO. Z55� WHICH LIES EA5TERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITN AND
DISTANT 351 FEET WE5TERLY FROM THE EAST LINE OF 5ECTION 23� T-30, R-24�
ANOKA COUNTY� MINNESOTA� AND THE SOUTH 20 FEET OF THAT PART OF LOT IZ�
AUDITOR'S SUBDIV�SION NO. 155, WNICH LIES EA5TERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH
AND DI5TANT 351 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 23� T-30� R-24,
ANOKA COUNTY� MINNESOTA� EXCEPT THAT PART TNEREOF TAKEN FOR NIGHWAY� THE
5AME BEING 5300 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E.� WITH TXE FOLLOWING 5TIPUZ�ATIONS:
1. PETITIOIVER TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENT A LAND5CAPE PLAN.
2. PETITIOIVER TO OBTAIN APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENT A STORM D.RAIIVAGE PLAN.
3. PETITIONER TO SUBMIT A PERFORMANCE BOND TO COVER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
4. PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMEIVTED TO MITIGATE ANY ERO5ION
OR DE5TABILIZATION OF SU.RROUNDING PROPERTY.
i"�
PLANNING COh1MISSION MEETING, MARCH 19, 1986 PAGE 11
5. AN AppROUED UTILITY EA5EMENT ACROS5 THE NORTHERLY PORTION
OF THE PROPERTY TO BE GRANTED TO THE CITY.
6. PETITIONER TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF ON THE LOCATION OF THE
DUMP5TER .
UPON A VOICE VOTE� BETZOLD� 5ABA� AND GABEL VOTING AYE� KONDRICK AND WELLAN
VOTING NAY, CHAIRPER50N GABEL DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. 5ABA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
DENIAL OF SPECIAL U5E PERMIT REgUEST� SP #86-02� BY g PETROLEUM� PER
SECTION 205.15.1� C� 6 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALZAW A MOTOR VEHICLE
WASH ESTABLISHMENT ON ALL THAT PART.OF LOT.Z2� AUDITOR'5 5UBDIVI5l'ON NO. 155�
WHICH LIE5 EASTERLY OF A LINE PARALZEL WITN AND DISTANT 351 FEET WE5TERLY
OF A LINE APRALLEL WIT�F AND DI5TANT 351 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE EA5T LINE OF
5ECTION 23� T-30� R-24� ANOKA COUIITTY� MINNESOTA, AND THE 50UTH 20 FEET OF
THAT PART OF LOT Z1� AUDITOR'S 5UBDIVISION NO. 155� WHICH LSE5 EASTERLY OF
A LINE PARALLEL WITH A�VD DISTANT 351 -FEET WESTE.RLY FROM THE EAST LINE OF
SECTION 23, � 30, R-24� ANOKA COUNTY� MINNESOTA� EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF
TAKEN FOR HIGHWAY� THE SAME BEING 5300 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� BETZOLD� 5ABA� AND GABEL VOTING AYE� KONDRICK AND WELLAN
UOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2.`
Ms. Gabel clarified for the petitioner that the car wash was a permitted use
� �ith a special use permit; however, there were commissioners who felt the
car wash was a safety hazard because of traffic concerns.
Ms. Gabel stated this item would go to City Council on April 7.
3. RECEIVE MARCH 4, 1986, ENERGY PROJECT COP�IMITTEE MINUTES:
MOTIOIV BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE MARCH 4� 1986,
ENERGY PROJECT COMMITTEE MINUTE5.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI.RPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
4. RECEIVE I�f,qRCN 11_,_ 1986, APPEALS COC7MISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECE.ZVE THE MAR. 11� 1986,
APPEAbS COMMI5SION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER501V GABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING, h1ARCH 19, 19�6 PAGE 12
�
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD� 5ECONDED BY 1�IR. SABA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CNAIRPER5GON GABEL DECLARED THE MARCH Z9, 1986�
PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.
Respectfully submi ted,
�
Ly Saba
Recording Secretary
�'1
�
6K
�a� z
�'as,,xsTi� l���jy�y °
Z� j� Cl
,m�r - 0 �� / i�.�
• (�� � s - _
�at� �C��ls3r?u'�/'L _ � `�l l� �•a�., �-i , /�'�-� , .
�V `� ��DI !J� K - ���Z1 _. �-1�1�. - � 1J'�L.. �.`'�,�
l�. o � � .Ii�I /U XJG_ �tJ /y a? 2 �N�vs�rk c � P�i�y • �/ �
/
�. i i
�oro �i!�y `�`c+�n llQ �'t . --- -
l
/f'1ar-�in Asp - /�81e GGflt �✓e . N.�
Q� � � ` �
�`�z�
��r • ! �1, �9��
�i
,.,� ���:�_ Q�k�c�-
��l-,.; � �
�`C�,� lbr ci oN
� �
���� � �
�
� /'����G
�Gry ,���YY
, u�
�
.�z�' .
�
��
!
_,
;i
;
PAGE 13 6L�
� �
C�I�°b �� r� �T� Q�,.
�� -la� ��� ��
cJbS � Re �S ��
� I�
�i� Z� �' ��
ti /'��3(� - �l�i ��' ���
i � � o � 6 � � /��� ��