PL 07/22/1987 - 30668CITY OF FRIDLEY
�`� PLANNING COP�MISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987
CALL TU ORDER:
C1lairperson Billings called the July 22, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Sue Sherek, Donald Betzold,
Richard Svanda
Members Absent: Dean Saba
Others Present: Jim Robins�on, Planning C�ordinator
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Mark Gilbertson, Rapid Oil Change
Jane Schrader, 2715 Medicine Ridge Rd., Plymouth
Alvan Schrader, A.L.S. Properties, Crystal
John Grossman, Robert Boblett Assoc.
David Henrikson, 6031 3rd St. N.E.
Margaret.Reed, 6017 3rd St. N.E.
Wayne Johnson, 6051 3rd St. N.E.
Dennis Trisler, 3041 - 4th Ave. N.E., Mpls.
,�
APPROVAL OF JULY 8, 1987, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SEC0IVDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO APPROVE THE JULY 8� 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A5 WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #87-14, BY
RAPID OIL CHANGE:
er Section 05. 7.1, C, 7, of the Fridley City Code to allow an automobile
service station on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Central View Manor, the same
being 7315 Highway 65 N.E.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO OPEN .1`HE PUBLIC HEARIIVG.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLA,RED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:37 P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated.the.proposal was-for property which was now the site of
the vacant gas station north of 73rd Ave. and south of 73Z Ave, east of
Highway 65. The proposal was for a special use permit for an automotive
service facility. In conjunction with this proposal, there were two other
�—�, submittals--one for variances that were being processed through the Appeals
Commission and one for a vacation of 732 Ave., ust nor.th of the property
(the vacation was the second item on the agenda�.
PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, JULY 2��'-1987 PAGE 2
�^�
Mr. Robinson stated the lot size without.the v.acation was .54 acres. The
Zoning Code requires .75 acres. The variances being applied for were the
reduction in acreage, curb cuts for. the property that would be located too
close to the intersections, building setbacks on the north and east and west of the
pr�perty, and a hard surface setbacks.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was zoned M-1, light industrial, and required
a special use permit, There was some commercial property to the north and
east which was vacant, and there some people at the meeting representing the
developer of th�t property.
Mr. Robinson stated the proposa] was to place a 1,700 sq. ft. service facility
on the site. There would b.� nine parking stalls, one handicapped, in addition
to four ,service bays within the building. It was standard pr.ocedure to include
the inside service:bays as part of the p�rking requirement. He stated Staff
has worked diligently with the petitioner, represented by Mark Gilbertson,
to come up with a site plan and improvement program which includes landscaping,
berming, automatic sprinkling, as well as specific elevation and facade ref�i�nements.
Mr. Robinson stated item #2 on the agenda was the vacation request. He stated
if the vacation was successful, the City would propose to provide a driveway
openi ng onto thE ser.vice road.. � 1/ir�n Road presentl y di d not ex�e,xacj, compl etel y
north. It was blocked by the trailer co�art south-of Fireside I'rive, and the
City has been pursu�ng.easements in_�hat area bu� have been uns�s�essful at this
time.
Mr. Billings stated that if it was not out of order, he wouid like to receive
the information on the vacation request at this time also so the Commissioners
would.have all the information before.making any decisions,
Mr. Robinson stated he would agree with Mr. Billings' suggestion.
Mr. Robinson stated the vacation was fov� an area just north of the proposed
site which was 732 Ave.,north of Lot 1 and part of Lot 2. Presently, there
were two scenarios. The petitioner has applied for a variance for the building
setback from the right-of-way so the petitioner can start construction prior
to finishing the lengthy vacation process. So, with the approval of the
special use permft (plus the pendir�g variances), the petitioner could build
with the driveway coming straight out. When the vacation was finally
approved, the street would be removed, the driveway rerouted, and the green
area -r�sst��e�.
Mr. Robinson stated it was Staff's recommendation to continue the ser��e road
north through the.t�ailer court to connect to the new Viron R-0ad; however, they are
having difficulty in acquiring the easement to do that,
M�. �o'6insan-s���ed thatFc]osing 73 1/2 Avenue was'COnsistent with MnD@T's'plans
for the a�p�-w#"iich limits a�cess onto Highway 65 and also includes the
alteration of the-Fireside Drive intersection,
r�1
P`�
PLANNING CONq'�ISSI4N MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 3
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Special use permit, SP #87-14, contingent upon approval of all variances
for development by Council.
2. Petitioner to provide a stnrm drafnage plan and receive approval from
Public Works prior to building permit.
3. Building facade to be constructed with face brick as depicted in
elevations received by City on June 15, 1987. °
4. All doors,metal trim, and window framing to be painted or color clad to
compliment building facade. Color treatment to be approved by City
Staff prior to building permit.
5. Landscaping to be installed.as depicted in plan proposed by City Staff,
dated July 22, 198Z, including vacated street portion if vacation is
approved.
6. Automatic lawr+ irwigation to be installed for all green areas, including
vacated street portion if vacation is approved.
7. Petitioner agrees to provide an additional seven (7) foot street easement
over the east seven feet of the west 27 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Central
�`� View Manor, prior to building permit.
8. Petitioner agrees to submit letter (to City) petitioning for widening
of service road (to east) ta_36.foot.wi.dth and agreeing to assessment
for all costs associated with said widening prior to building permit.
9. Petitioner to combine tax parcels into:one prior to building permit.
10. A brick dumpster enclosure with opaque gate to be constructed along with
building.
11. All roof equipment to be screened from view. Details to be approved by
Staff.
12. No outside storage of materials or equipment is permitted.
13. A performance bond �r. letter of credit for $20,000 to cover all improve-
ments to be sup�li�d �o: Cfty prior to buiiding-�ermit.
Mr. Mark Gilbertson, Rapid Oil Change, stated he has worked with
Mr. Robinson for some time on how to auork out this site plan in order to get
the building on the site. They would like to proceed.with this site plan
for now which showed the building and parking lot worked out without the
street being vacated so they can proceed with construction.
r"'� Mr. Gilbertson stated right ncaw the site has an abandoned_gas station on it,
a�nd the property was quite unsightly. He felt they had a good proposal that
would really enhance the area with good landscaping.
i"�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 198Z PAGE 4
Mr. Gilbertson stated to save some congested problems, they have rerouted
the traffic off 73rd Ave., moved it on the back street in order to get the
majority of the traffic away from the intersection, exited out onto 732 Ave.,
etc., with the possibility of dumping it back nnto the service road if the
vacation was approved.
Mr. Gilbertson stated this was the first time he had seen all the stipulations
in writing. Fie had discussed with the City the taking of the additional 7 ft.
of property off the east side of the site. With the already 33 ft. easement
along the east and along the south edge of the property, it really limited
their land area. He did not foresee any,::problems with the 7 ft. easement,
but he would like to ask that the assessment for the widening of the service
road be split among all the developers along there. The additional traffic
carried on this road was going to be increased because the City wants to
vacate 732 Ave. Their store itself will only generate about 40 additional
cars per day. The service road presently is substandard; hence the request
for the additional 7 ft. They do not feel their store was going to create
that much of a traffic problem on this back road at this point prior to the
vacation of 732 Ave. Once 732 Ave, was vacated, that would become more of a
connecting street.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the stipulations he had a problem with were stipulations
#7 and #8. His primary concern was the cost of the road improvements along
�,
the service road.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff felt Rapid 0i1 was the primary petitioner and
business abutting this service road that would benefit from the widening of
the road.
Mr. Billings asked how many cars were exi�cing out 7� Ave. right now.
Bi
Mr. Robinson stated he did not know.
Ms. Sherek stated that in the t�orning around 6:45, she waits in line to exit
onto 73a Ave, to the north. Seventy-third and one-half Ave, comes off Old
Central, and people can bypass 73rd and the light and make a right turn.
She felt if the cars traveling on 732 cannot exit onto Highway �5, they are
going to make a left turn and benefit from Viron Road also. She did not see
where the petitioner was.the only person benefitting from the widening of the
service road. The road behind the station was quite substandard now, and she
definitely felt other people in the immediate area would benefit from the
widening of the road also.
Mr. Billings stated they also have to understand that if the vacation is
approved, the petitioner will receive the 5,742 sq, ft. of what is now City
right-of-way.
Ms. Sherek stated the petitioner. would almost have a legal lot if he received
the entire vacation. At this point without the vacation, the petitioner was
�� requesting multiple variances in order to use a substandard piece of property.
She felt it was the usua�:.position of both Staff and the Planning Commission
�
PLANNING COI�MISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 5
that if a situation can be worked out whereby the peta�tioner has a legal
standard sized lot, that was preferred over granting multiple variances for
a substandard lot.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that right now the lot was an eyesore. They want to
�e able to have a building constructed by September and improve the site.
The vacation process can conceivably be a lengthy process �hich means the
site would sit as it for quite a while if they had to wait for the vacation
approval.
Mr. Betzold stated the Appeals Commission had tried to accommodate
Mr. Gilbertson in recommending appa^�val of the variances be�ause it was
their understanding that by the time the vacation went through, the variances
would be rendered t�u.t. They might have made a different decision if they
had known that Mr. Gilbertson was really not interested in the vacation.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he did ��t have a problem with the vacation. His only
contention, again, was the widening of the service road.
Mr. Billings sta�ed that at this time, the lot was substandard, but by the
City vacating 732 Ave., they were giving enough land to the petitioner to
bring the lot closer into conformance. Theland was being given at no cost
to the petitioner; per.se, but in exchange for the land, the City was asking
the petitioner to pay for the improvement of the street. Even though the
��� petitioner was saying he really did not need the vacation, the Appeals
Corrm�ission recommended approval of the variances 6ecause they figured the
vacation was coming and the whole packa�E was tied together.
Mr. John Grossman, Robert Boblett Assoc., stated he was representing
Mr. A1 Schrader, the owner of the property at 7350 Highway 65 (Lots 4, 5,
and 6, Central View Manor, Block 1, and Lot 3, Central View Manor, Second
Addition).- He stated he was also one of the partners of the Professional
Ventures which owned a parcel of property on the southe�st quadrant of
Highway 65 and Osborne Rd�, 77,000 sq. ft, of all retail space.
Mr. Grossman stated they are very concerned about the vacation of 732 Ave.
They were at the meeting to speak both for and against the vacation at the
same time. Rather than looking at today, they are encouraging the Planning
Corrmiission to look to tomorrow, This parcel of retail land was for sale
by Mr. Schrader. They feel it is prime retail space. They see many different
uses for the land, one of which might be a sit-down restaurant, for example,
wh�ch could have 100� stal-as�of parking and_does conform to the ��e, They feel
the vacation could create a funnel effect. It was going to draw the traffic
into a substandard area with a substandar.d road. Ne stated they are encourag-
ing the Planning Commission to act to extend Viron Road all the way through.
They feel the vacation should be contingent upon-the City's success in
extending Viron Road all the way through.
Mr. Grossman stated their last figure showed a traffic flow of 27,000 vehicles
/"� down Highway 65. It has been their experience with retail use that they would
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE7IN�, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 6
get an influx of traffic. They think they are trading 2 for 1. They are
creating an invitation for a retail user to come into that property, but with
the deadend and with the access and egre�s, it would be extremely difficult
for the developer. They could see another use in the back of their��retail
area far more retail-which would create the need for additional traffic.
If 73z Ave. was vacated,.it would limit their access as well, and there needs
to be that flow to service the retail.
Mr. Grossman stated Mr. Schrader was also concerned about the tax ramifications
or assessments on �3s property, which could impede the sale of his property,
Mr. A1 Schrader, A.L.S. Properties, stated he.has owned tha�t parcel of property
(2z acres) for 12 years. It has been Hart Custom Homes, a mobile home sales
lot which closed on July 1. The property is vacated and after 12 years when
he was now ready to sell the property for a higher and better use, coincidentally,
at the same time the City was talking about shutting off the road to get to his
property. He did not want to be in the situation where his road was shut off
leaving him with a dead end abutt�ng the mobile home.park to the north. What
he was saying was that if the City was going to vacate 73z Ave, then the City
should give him a guarantee.of a way to get his traffic out to the north. The
vacation and the extension of Yiron Road should I�e timed and put in writing to
agree with each other. Otherwise, he could be in the situation where if the
City has �o go to condemnation procedures, or whateve;r,, to get the other
property to extend.Viron Road, he.could sit with his property for 1-2-3 years
�� and not be able to sell it. So, he was asking that if the City was going to
vacate 732 Ave., that they should also extend Viron Road. He did not object
to closing off 732 Ave. and giving that land to Rapid Oil, but he did object
to the City d�ing it at his expense in not.being able to sell his property.
Mr. Robinson stated.that.one reason for the vacation was that the City saw a
way of working around a difficult situation with a driveway located in an
area which they considered unsa�e. Code says a�riveway has to be 75 ft. fl r
2/3 of the 1ot width from an.intersection.�and �his �a�t�c�i�r dri��way wou�d anly
be �et back i9 feet. A� t�e same time�; they wool� be �cc�m�lis-hing �he road
requt�e�ent fr�ro MnDOT. -� --
Mr. Grossman sta�+tgd Mr. Schrader was also concerned if the vacation did occur,
that landscaping be pr.oper and not impede on any signage-of his property.
Mr. Grossman stated they would encourage the Planning Commfission to attach
the vacation to the extension of Viron Road and not.vacate at this time, but
allow Rapid Oil Change to go in. And, then at such time as the City could
guarantee the other owners that Viron Road would go through, to widen the road
at that time and not invite additional congestion or traffic flow at this time.
Mr. Betzold stated he felt it was very dangerous at this time to leave 732 Ave.
open, because of the high traffic volume on it.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. Robinson if the City had tried to acquire the property
for the extension of Viron Road.
�,
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 7
Mr. Robinson stated he has been informed by John Flora, Public Works Director,
that Mr. Flora has been working with the property owner for several months
and there are some stumbling blocks. There is a trailer home on the site
occupied by an elderly couple that would have to be moved i� order to provide
the easement. He stated MnDOT has also approached the owner, and the owner
is not interested at this time.
Mr. Gilbertson stated they develop�d the site plan so it would work either
way--with 7� Ave, open so they can start construction while the vacation is
being processed, and then if the vacation is approved, they can easily change
the plan by rerouting the traffic and installing the additional landscaping.
He would like to request that the Planning Commission look at the special use
permit separately from the vacation request.
Mr. Betzold stated he felt the special use permit and the vacation went hand
in hand. The issue the City Cou�cil will have to address was whether or not
they want anything at all on that lot, because it is such a small substandard
lot. Rapid Oil just happened to be one of the few businesses that could make
it work. The City Council also recognizes that the 73% Ave. access to
Highway 65 was probably going to have to be closed. If they decide too much
was being crammed on this little piece of property, the Council might make the
decision that nothing should ever go on that property, possibly redesigning
the whole intersection with the idea that there was going to be more develop-
ment to the north. He really felt they had to consider both the special use
permit and the vacation as part of the same process.
Mr. Svanda stated he did not agree that it was the two.together or nothing.
They have a plan before them that will fit the pr-operty quite nicely either
way. He did not think he could vote for the vacation because of the concerns
raised, plus it concerned him that they were trying to place the entire bill
for the road improvement on Rapid Oil when other people may or may not benefit
from the improvements. He would feel a lot more comfortable and probably
could vote for the vacation later on if there was a game plan laid out on how
to deal with the traffic flow situation for the entire area; because if it
were to be done correctly, it would benefit other property owners and then
he thought the cost of the improvement could then be shared by other benefit-
ting parties.
Mr. Billings stated he appreciated the fact that the petitioner has a con-
struction schedule and the fact tfi at City Staff has been working diligently
with the petitioner to try and accommodate the structure on that lot, but
there just seemed to be a lot of unanswered questions in terms of what was
going to happen to the traffic, the estimated cost of the improvements, the
possibilities of the future extension of Viron Road, and what the Highway
Department's plans were for 732 Ave. and Fireside Drive. It was his� fee�ing
that this ��em should be tabled until the next meeting.
Mr. Svanda stated he would be in favor of taking action on the special use
permit. He had not heard any disagreement regarding the project itself from
,'"'� either Staff or the Planning Commission members.
i"�
PLANNING COMM'ISSION MEETING,JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 8
Mr. Robinson stated the lot in area was too small �vith-vut v�ariances. The
variance for the driveway had been his main concern since this proposal was
presented.
Ms. Sherek stated she saw the vacation as something inevitable for the future,
but she questioned whether it should be done at this point without some
provision for Viron Road. Given the fact that Mr. Schrader now intended to
sell his property adjacent to what they are talking about improving on Viron
Road, she would question having the petitioner pay for the entire improvement
of Viron Road at this point.
Mr. Betzold stated that if for some reason the vacation did not go through,
and Rapid Oil goes in on the site, what controls did the City have to make
Rapid Oil landscape if the vacation did go through at some future time?
Ms. Sherek stated the Planning Commission could attach a stipulation to the
special use permit that at the.time of vacation of 73% Ave., Rapid Oil will
be required to landscape. She stated her biggest problem with the whole
thing at this point was not Rapid Oi1 Change and not their traffic, it was
the tying up of the retail property to the north if the City does vacate
732 Ave. Here was another piece of property that relied on 732 Ave. for access
and egress. She would have a hard time voting to vacate that street without
an alternative plan like the continuation of Viron Road.
,-•.
�' MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� 5ECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO CL05E THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE PUBEIC
NEARING CLOSED AT 8:45 P.M.
r
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #87-14, BY RAPID OIL CHANGE, PER 5ECTION
207..Z7.1� C� 7, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 5TATION
ON LOTS Z AND 2, BLOCK 2, CENTRAL VIEW MANOR, THE SAME BEING 7315 HIGHWAY 65 N.E.,
WSTH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION5:
1. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 5P #87-14, CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF ALL
VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT BY COUNCIL.
2. PETITIONER TO PROVIDE A STORM DRAINAGE PLAN AND RECEIVE APPROVAL
FROM PUBLIC WORKS PRIOR TO BUILDI111G PERMIT.
3. BUI�DING FACADE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH FACE BRICK AS DEPICTED IN
ELEVATION5 RECEIVED BY CITY OIV JUNE 15, 1987.
4. ALL DOORS, METAL TRIM, AND WINDOW FF�MING TO BE PAINTED OR COLOR
CLAD TO COMPLIMENT BUILDING FACADE. COLOR TREAZ'MENT TO BE APPROVED
BY CITY STAFF PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
5. LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED AS DEPICTED IN PLAN PROP05ED BY CITY
STAFF, DATED JULY 22, 1987, INCLUDIIVG VACATED STREET PORTI0IV IF
VACATION I5 APPROVED.
6. AUTOMATIC LAWN IRRIGATION TO BE INSTALLED FOR ALL GREEN AREAS,
INCLUDI11lG VACATED STREET PORTIOAI IF VACATION IS APPROVED.
7. PETITIOIOER AGREE5 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN (7) FOOT STREET
EASEMENT OVER THE EAST SEVEN FEET OF THE WEST 27 FEET OF LOT 2,
BLOCK 2, CEIVT.RAL VIEW MANOR, PRIOR TO BUILDIIUG PERMIT.
/"�
,�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 9
8.
9.
.zo.
1I.
12.
13.
14.
PETITIONER AGREE5 TO 5UBMIT A LETTER (TO CITY) PETITIONING FOR
WIDENING OF SERVICE ROAD (TO EAST) TO 36 FOOT WIDZ'H AND AGREEING
TO A5SE5SME111T FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 5AID WIDENING, PRIOR
TO BUILDING PERMIT.
PETITIONER TO COMBINE TAX PARCELS INTO ONE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
A BRICK DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WITH OPA�jF7E GATE TO BE CON5TRUCTED ALONG
WITH BUILDING.
ALL ROOF EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED FROM VIEW. DETAILS TO BE
APPROVED BY STAFF.
NO OtITSIDE STORAGE OF MATERIAL5 OR EQUIPMENT IS PERMITTED.
A PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT FOR $20,000 TD COVER ALL
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE SUPPLIED TO CITY PRIDR TO BUILDING PERMIT.
AT 5UCH TIME AS THE VACATION OF 73'� AVENUE IS APPROVED, RApID
OIL CHANGE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO THE APPROPRIATE LANDSC..�PPIlUG AND
IRRIGATION OF THE PROPERTY.
Mr. Billings stated if they were dealing with the special use permit and the
vacation separately and were thinking of not approving the vacation at this
time, he would have to vote agai.nst the special use permit. The Appeals
Commission went along with the variances on the basis that the vacation was
coming. Staff has said they looked at the whole plan and said it could be
done with the vacation, and that the vacation was an integral part of the
whole thing. Without �he vacation, he would not be Zn favor of the special
use permit.
Mr. Kondrick stated he did not fiink the Appeals Commission was altogether
informed of the problem with Viron Road. All that information has come to
light since the Appeals Commission meeting, and it may or may not have changed
the decision made by �he Appeals Commission.
Mr. Svanda stated he did not think he was necessarily against the vacation,
but there were other issues associated with it and that was the reason it
was appropriate to table the vacation request.
Mr. Betzold stated.he could support the special use permit as long as the
vacation ►�r�v�red,�forward. He also felt the vacation should go with the special
use permit.
Mr. Billings stated he still felt the two went hand in hand, and if they
were thinking of tabling the vacation request, they should table the special
use permit as well.
UPON A UOICE VOTE, KG�NDRICKr S1�FE1?�K��_�EP�fTT.,B� SVANDA VOTING AYE, BILLINGS
VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF
4-1.
PLANNIfJG COI�IISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 10
�,
2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #87-08, BY RAPID OIL CHANGE:
To vacate t e 66 foot street rig t-of-way 73% Avenue lying north of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Central View Manor. To.allow for an imrpoved site
plan for a pr�posed Rapid Oil Station, generally located at 7315 Highway 65 N.E.
Mr. Robinson stated if the vacation was approved, Staff would recommend the
follawing stipulations:
1. Petitioner agrees to submit a letter (to City) petitioning for street
excavation for the portion of 732 Avenue, lying north of the proposed
site and agreeing to assessment.for all costs associated with said
excavation prior to publication of vacation ordinance..
2. Upon excavation of vacated 732�Avenue, petitioner will install driveway
exiting onto service road to east and landscape with irrigation as shown
on City plan dated July 22, 1987.
3. Perfo�mance bond referenced as stipulation #13 for speclal use permit,
SP #87-�4, to cover.improvements referenced in item #2 above.
MOTIOIN BY MS. SNEREK, 5ECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO TABLE VACATION .REgUEST,
SAV #87-08, BY RAPID OIL CHANGE, UNTIL THE AUGUST 5, 1987, PLANNING COMMIS5ION
MEETING IN ORDER TO ASK STAFF TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSIDN WITH
INFORMATION REGARDING AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR PROVIDING ACCESS FOR OTHER
DEVELOPERS ALONG 73'� AVENUE WHO ARE PRESENTLY RELYING ON THE ACCESS PROVIDED
BY THAT PIECE OF ROADWAY, FULLY RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION PLANS TO CL05E THAT ACCES5 SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE; ALSO, TO
A5K STAFF TO GET SOME INFORMATION FROM MnDOZ' ON THE PROPOSED TIMETABLE FOR THE
FIRESIDE DRIVE AND 73'� AVENUE CLOSING AND WHETHER MnDOT IIUTENDS TO COMPLETELY
CLD5E THEM OR JUST CIA5E THEM TO LEFT TURNS OFF HIGHWAY 65.
UPOIN A VOICE VOTE, KONDRICK, SHEREK, AND SVANDA VOTING AYE, BILLING5 AND
BETZOLD VOTING NAY, CHAIRPER50N B:ZLI;�'NGS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A
VOTE OF 3-2.
3. COPJSIDERATION OF A VACATION RE UEST, SAV #87-07, BY WAYNE JOHNSON:
o vacate t e 2 foot alley in Bloc 5, yde Par ying North of the South
line of Lot 22 extended Easterly and South of the North line of Lot 30
extended Easterly. All lying East of and adjoining Lots 22-30, Block. 5,
Hyde Park, generally located between 61s� Avenue and 60th Avenue ,���=
3rd Street and University Avenue. �
Mr. Wayne Johnson stated he needed to do some further research before
proceeding with this vacation. Because of some misunderstanding where the
rear property line was in relation to the fence, he needed to find out
exactly where he could locate h�s garage. If he found out he could not
locate his garage in a position that would benefit him, he would probably
withdraw the petition.
�
�
PLANNIPJG COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 19�7 PAGE 11
Ms. Margaret Reed, 6017 - 3rd St., stated they own the property with the
garage access to the alley, and their only access was by using the alley.
Mr. Dave Henrickson, 6031 - 3rd St., stated he was in favor of the alley
vacation.
Mr. Johnson stated it was his intention to not include the Reed's in this
vacation, and he had discussed this with them.
Mr. Robinson stated the vacation was for everything north o� Lot 21 (6017).
Presently the garage situation was such that the corner lot (b007) has a
driveway access off 60th, 6011 has access off 3rd St., 6017 has access off
the alley, 6031 has no garage but access would be off 3rd St., 6041 would
be off 3rd St., 6051 (the petitioner) has access off the alley right now
but with the vacation would have access off 3rd St., 6071 has access off
61st Avenue.
Mr. Robinson stated that normally a vacation would require 100% participation
but this was an unusual situation where only a couple of people were using
the alley. Because the alley was not improved and it was rutted and looked
bad, Staff woul d recommend the P1 anni ng Cor�ni ssi on recom�e�d �o - C.i �y_ Caunci 1
approval of the vacation. He stated at the time, they felt only_persons north
of 6017 were in favor of the vacation; however, they recently received a
letter from Michael and Elaine Pestello, 6011, who expressed the desire to
also be part of the alley vacation� Once the vacation was implemented and
Mr. Johnson has built a g�rag�, the only person who would have access of the
alley would be 6017. One thing that should be pointed out was that all
garages are supposed to have hard surface driveways, but arr�t� the alley, it
was difficult to do it, but there was enough room on 6017 to have a hard
surface driveway to 3rd St.
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, 5ECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE LETTER DATED
JULY 22, Z987, FROM MICHAEL AND ELAINE PESTELLO.
UPODT A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.Z
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. A utility easement to be retained over thE entire portion of vacated
al ley.
2. Garage construction contingent upon letters from all utility companies
allowing a specified distance of encroachment into retained utility
easement.
3. Garage construction contingent upon passage of a resolution by Council
authorizing a specified distance of encroachment into retained easement.
/"� 4. Petitioner to escrow funds with Public Works Depar.tment sufficient to
cover curb work for proposed curb cut on 3rd Street.
5. Dumpster to be fully screened.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 12
Mr. Robinson stated Staff has spoken with the petitioner on site, and there
were setbacks req uired of 3 ft. from the rear and side lot lines.
Ms. Reed, 6017 - 3rd �t., stated that for them to access 3rd St., it would
mean taking do�n six mature trees along the south side of their lot.
Mr. Johnson stated.he would feel very badly if the Reeds were forced to
hard surface their driveway, because.that was never his intention. He
stated the people who signed the pet�tion in favor of the vacation sign�d
it with the understanding that the vacation would only be to the north of
6017, and they might have felt differently if the vacation was any different.
It would certainly be nicer to have the whole alley vacated as it was very
ugly, but this petition was only for those people who wanted the alley
vacated so it would not.interfere with the Reeds.
Mr. Billin� stated he could not support the vacation for the entire alley.
It would certainly be nicer to have the entire alley vacated which included
the Reeds and the Pestellos, but Ms. Reed came to the meeting to make sure
the vacation did not include her lot. It would be an unfair hardship to
place on the Reeds j ust to get some green space. The vacation proposal
before the Planning Commission was for 6031 - 6071 - 3rd St.
MOTION BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MRs BETZOLD, TD RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
� APPROVAL OF VACATIQN REgUEST, SAV #87-07, BY WAYNE JOHNSON, TO VACATE THE
12 FOOT ALLEY IN BLOCK 5, HYDE PARK, LYING NORTH OF THE 50UTH LINE OF LOT 22
EXTENDED EASTERLY AND 50UTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 30 EXTENDED EASTERLY.
ALL LYING EA5T OF AND ADJOINING LOT5 22-30, BLOCK 5, HYDE PARK, GENERALLY
LO�A�°E'D BETWEEN 61ST AVENUE AND 60TH AVENUE AND BETWEEN 3RD STREET AND
UNIVERISTY AVENUE, WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:
Z. A UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE RETAINED OVER THE ENTIRE PORTION
OF VACATED ALLEY.
2. GARAGE COA75TRUCTIOIV CONTINGENT UPON LETTE.RS FROM ALL UTILITY
COMPANIES ALLOWING A SPECIFIED DISTANCE OF ENCROACHMENT INTO
RETAINED UTILITY EA5EMENT.
3. GARAGE CON5TRUCTION CONTINGENT UPON PASSAGE OF A RESOLUTION BY
COUNCIL AU2'HORING A SPECIFIED DISTANCE OF ENCROACHMENT INTO
RETAINED EASEMENT.
4. PETTTIONER TO E5CROW FUNAS WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUFFICIENT
TO COVER CURB WORK FOR PROPOSED CURB CUT ON 3RD STREET.
5. DUMP�^TER TO BE FULLY 5CREENED.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE JUNE 11, 1987, NOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MS. SHEREK, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE JUNE 11, I987,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
,,� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANTMOU5LY.
,^�
PLANNING COI�MISSION MEETING� JULY 22' 1987 PAGE 13
5. RECEIVE JUNE 16, 1987, ENVIRONMENTAL UALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. KOINDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE JUNE 16, 1987,
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMM255ION MINUTES.
UPON A VDICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE'JULY 14, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO RECEIVE THE JULY 14, 1987,
APPEALS COMMIS5ION MINUTE5.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
7. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Corr�ercial Establishment in Mixed Use Industrial Developments
Mr. Robinson stated.that two meetings ago, the Planning Commission had
discussed the possibility of altering the code to allow for some commer-
cial establishments in a mixed use industrial development. At that
time, it was recommended that Staf f obtain a copy of the City of
�` Roseville's Zoning Code. He stated a co py of that was handed out at the
meeting, but it did not appear.to solve the problem the City of Fridley
was facing.
Mr. Robinson stated there was a trend to allow a r�ixture.of land uses
in office/warehouse/industrial districts to keep pace with new develop-
ment trends and with market demand. Along with that trend, there was a
need to maintain adequate control by the City over parking of the mixed
uses, traffic loads, and traffic capacities on the access roads. Presently,
in the M-1 and M-2 portions of the code, they do allow offices not associ-
ated with the principle use in industrial areas with a special use permit.
After some research,- it was-Staff's proposal to expand that special use
permi't p�^ovision �o allow for_eommercial uses which are supportive of the districi
Mr. Robinson stated the Commissioners had also received a copy of a
Larkin Hoffman study of other. municipalities. On agenda page 6E under
the City of Plymouth, it stated: "In Plymouth's I-1 (Planned Industrial
Distri-ct), retail and service establishments essential to the operation
of that aoning district and providing goods and services which are
primarily for the use of persons employed in that district are conditional
uses." He stated Staff would propose to add that language to the existing
special use permit provisions for offices. In addition to that, they are
contemplating putting a cap of 15-20% or that which was in line with the
capacity of the parking and road access, whichever was less.
�
-'� Mr. Robinson stated that in addition to that, there might be some types
of development which do not follow the general heading of "suppartive"
n
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 14
or "convenience of the district". In that particular case, for those
types of uses that would not be-a nuisance to the area, they would
propose that another special use permit for the individual user or tenant
(example: drive-up bank or commercial recreation. areas) be issued.
Ms-. Sherek asked if the requirement that a tenant apply for a special use
permit was going to discourage people from even coming before the City.
Mr. Robinson stated that for the "support" commercial, they are proposing
that there be a bl anket permi t up to a certai n percentage:,wai'thout any _�
�rti�e.r -sp�eial.� use permit. But when they get to a commerci.al use that
dvesn't fit the guis;e..of.°for the convenience of" that district, then
they would have to come in for a special use permit.
Mr. Billings asked whei^e.��e line would be drawn between what accommodates
the development and what was a special use that did not accommodate the
development. For exa�l�e: a barbershop. Was a barbershop_something that
complimented the development? The barbershop was not only to serve the
people in the development. Theoretically, a specia7 use such as a deli-
catessan could be generating quite a bit of traffic from outside the area.
Ms. Sherek stated the limitation that was w t on special uses in Edina and
Eden Prairie was that no.-outside signage was allowed to indicate the
�� location. She also thought there was a further limitation imposed in
Edina that the business could not advertise, other than within the
development.
Mr. Robertson stated there were two limitations: (1) they cannot have
outside signage; and (2) that the overall development has adequate carrying
capacity as far as parking spaces and driveway, and the special use would
not be allowed to exceed that carrying capacity. It was either 15-20%
or that which was in line with the capacity of the parking spaces.
Ms-�- Sfterek st�e�±= a.n�tf�er �hirrg_��h�jr sha� t� el�fi� at i n respect to speci al
uses was t�iere was an advantage, too, because there was a reduction in
noon time traffic in and out of these areas because people within a
building or complex can walk to a deli or drug store or convenience
store, etc.
Mr. Robinson stated they feel they need to be more competitive in the
mark2t_place, and they should process an ordinance change. The next step
was to_have a public hearing.
Ms. Sherek stated she would like to see some drafted language before
they_send out publications for a public hearing.
Mr. Kondrick agreed.
Ms�. Sherek stated a drive-up bank would gener.ate ongoing traffic and
�"� traffic at some really bad times. So, they want to look at a particular
development before they would allow a drive-up bank.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 22, 1987 PAGE 15
�
Mr. Robertson.stated.a dr.ive-up bank would definitely not fall under
the category of "for the convenience of" the people in the development.
Ms. Sherek stated she felt any ordinance drafted would have to have
language that would prohibit any outside signage indicating a business.
Mr. Robertson asked about the threshold of the overall size of gross
floor area under one ownership/management.
Ms. Sherek stated she felt they want to keep_the percentage small. When
they get up to 20-25%, there was the potential of changing the character
of the buil�ding or development.
Ms. Sherek suggested that the.tenants be notified by the development owner
in the lease that they will not get the same amenities that they would get
in a comnercially zoned area.
Mr. Robertson stated he liked that approach because the City could incur
some liability.
Mr, Robinson stated Staff would come back to the next.meeting with a
drafted ordinance for the Planning Commision's review.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO ADJOURN 2'HE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE JULY 22, 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully su mitted,
yn Sa a
Recording Secret�ry
�
j- ---- _- -----.. — -
�
� �M
�----- ---- - _ . _1�--�.-l�--
/ �
� . �
! /s�,
` �C/ � - -- -1__ _ -- ---- – — -------- –
��� –��D �------- - — - - -- _
� -- - __ _ --- - _
- --� -- -- - _
, --- _ __ _ - --
-__ ----. ._------ - -- - -----
,-- t�� � - - G��'� �y - - — -� o � - -- --_ a� �1�
� --- - - -
_------ -------
----- ---
----- __�L�� _ � LL�--���0� __ -- �?��c � �_c_L Ct�G� ?���� - �_(. � �" � %c
— --- -_— --- ---_ _____ �-__�1 ��� _---_ _ -- _-- ---
- - -- _ -- _ _----
�
. ��� - ._ �
__ --
, - __ _ _
-- _-
---_-___ _-- _-
� -_- __ _ � �-s-
__ _ _ _- -__ _ 1�u����_ __ _----�-- -- __ _ _ _ ___
___- -_- -- - - _ -- - - -'- - _ --- . __ --- _ - ---_ _ _---- _ _ _ _
�__ ��.���
__ _ _ __ ___ �� __ , �.�.� .� _ _
__
�,
--- - - -_ _---- -- - ---- ..�� __ _ ___ _ � _�l � - - __�
_
- ---- ___ _ _ - ----_ ____ _ - _ --- --___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _--
� p�.n_ ��'10�5»� a y� - _ � O 3 ��2 'T"- ---13bg � c � � �455b C .
� a � n�.��2 qu � r T � _ /j')�Z. 5 __ ��5 �_a �_ ---- -
_ _ .. __ -
--- -- - -- -
____---
_ ' �
-- -- -1��,.�� �-§�� � I��,,.- -- _ _ __- � 0� _ 3-�-� � t __ � �
-� _ _� __ __- -
__ �at���.�_ _ - - _ __ _ _ �_ o � --� -- �3 `=� `� � 'C�% �- � �_ �, --- ---
- - �
�� _
_--- -- _- - -
- -- - _ - --
- - - --
- -- -- - -
- __ /�C�-_ -UY��- . _ _ __ C DS � - � ,� � �_ -- --- __ .
a�
r,
- ----- _--
, _ _ ____ _ _
� __ __ - - __ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _