PL 08/05/1987 - 30669CITY OF FRIDLEY
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings call�d the August 5, 198Z, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Biilings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Donald Betzold
Members Absen� : Richard Svanda
Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Jock Robertson, Community Development D� rector
Bill & Danna Madden, 2054 Desmond Cove, Gernrantown, Tn, 38138
APPROVAL OF JULY 22, 1987, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTIDN BY MR. If�1DRI�K, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE JULY 22, 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
^ UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
n
1. TABLED: CONSIDERATIUN OF A VACATION, SAV #87-08, BY RARID OIL CHANGE:
o vacate t e oot street rig t-o -way_ . venue y ng nort of
Lots l and 2, Block 2, Central �iew Manor.. To allow for an improved site
plan for a proposed Rapid 0i1 station, generally located.at 7315 Highw,ay 65 N.E.
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE TABLE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER,50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Rabinson stated this propasal by Rap�-d.0i1 was tfl.utilize the property
-on -whi ch now -stands a-vacant servi ce stati on on the nortfieast si de of
�3rd�Avenue and Hiqhway 65. The proposal was to demolish the station and
create a new four-bay oi1 changing operation. Along with this petition was
a request for a special use permit which was recommended to Citv Council
. for aapr.ov'al at the Planni_ng �omrrission's last rri�eting:. Nine variances were.
a1so recommendEd to City Counc�il_for approval by the Appeal_s Comnaission.
The sp�,ci al use Rermfit a�►d the vari a�es w;�nt to ,Ci t.y ' Counci 1 l ast Monday,
and a].1 the items were tablQd by the City_Counci1 ba�e�i upon the undecided
stat��s of the �acation �p.et.itio�a wfiich was .�r�r�;s�e.d along with the other
petitions as a packa�e:
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGs AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. Robinson stated the portion of the �treet that would be vacated was
73 1/2 Avenue, just north of the property. This particular cross-over did
not have a stoplight, it was in MnDOT's prag�a� a�d it was MnDOT's
intent ta close off that intersection, along with modifications to the Fireside
Drive intersection. He shnwed a slide showing MnDOT's propos.al, along with a letter
from Joe Katz, District Traffic Engineer of MnDOT, dated Aug. 5, 1987,
which stated it was MnDOT's intent to close.the cr.oss-over either this year
or early next year and also to modify �tl�i� F�resi��.Drive cross-over in such
a fashion ta only allow for northbound westerly left-hand turns.
Mr. Rotiinson stated the vacation request was tabled at the last meeting
because of some unknowns, and at this meeting they have a couple more
answers to those unknowns for the Commission. One was the MnDOT timetable
he had referred to, and also an opinion from John Flora, Public Works
Director, that the 73 1/2 Avenue vacation enclosure could happen independently
of the extension of Viron Road through the trailer court area and the area
could still function adequately in terms of traffic flow.
Mr. R�binson stated with those two things in mind, it was Staff's opinion
that the project should be interrelated with the vacatio� ��d should go
forward ��ith that approval.
Mr. Robinson stated stipulations were discussed at the last meeting and
were as follows:
1.
2.
Petitioner agrees to submit a letter (to City) petitioning for street
excavation for the portion of 73 1�2 Avenue, lying north of the
pr•oposed site and-agreeing to assessment for all costs associated with
said excavation prior to publication of �acation ordinance.
Upon excavation of .vacated 73 1/2 Avenue, petitioner will install
driveway exiting onto service road to east and landscape with irri-
gation as shown on City plan dated July 22, 1987.
3. Performance bond ref�renced �as-stipulation #13 for special.use permit,
SP #87-14, to cover improvements referenced in item #2 above.
4. A drainage and utility easement should be maintained over the entire
portion of the vacated street.
Mr. Robinson pn.i.'nt�i out that 5,280 sq. ft. af land which would be vacated would go
to the Rapid Oil facility. This was a substantial amount of land and would
bring the lot area from .54 acres to .66.acres. It would also eliminate
a variance for building setback from 73 1/2 Avenue from 21 to 35 ft., a
dr.iveway setback variance from i9 ft, to 53 ft. for the northerly driveway,
and would make the lot more confo►�ing in terms of lot area--approximately
50� closer to the .75 acres required by Code.
Mr. Bill Madden stated he was the Director of Real Estate.for Rapid Oil.
^ He stated that following the City Council meeting on Monday, they went to the
site and made some preliminary evaluations � the area to be vacated and the
workd needed to be done. They are_t�ap:ing-��see-the vacation process
/�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 3
proceed so they can sit down with City Staff and go over the details of the
project. At this time, they ha4�e talked �1th City Staff and have historically
agreed to participate in the improvements of the vacated area. Of course,
they have some concerns. In the vacated area, the newly owned property,
there are three manholes that are signfican�tly below the existing grades of
the•vacant service station now. There�are one or two.water cut-off valves
that showed in �3 1/2 Avenue that are considerably below the station grade
as well. The pump house to the north of l3 1/2 Avenue was considerably
below grade at the corner location. So, ther.e-were some major concerns about
the cost of improving the vacated area of 73 1/2 �venue. However, they have
said they will go along with the vacation as it will benefit Rapid Oil with
the additional lot expansion area, and they are willing to handle the
improvements of that area.
Mr. Billings stated the vacation and special use permit and all the costs
incurred with the whole pr�oject we�e.things the p����inne� �ould have to
dete.rmine as to wh�ther it was eeonomically feasible for. them to proceed
with the project. He did not think these were concerns the Planning Commission
had to address in their approval or denial of the' vacation request. He would
encourage the peti.tioner to get together with City Staff and address the
problems the petit��n�r had regarding the difference in grade and the costs
involved.
^ MOTIf1NN BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. BET20LD, TO RECOMME111D.TD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF VACATION, SAV #87-08, BY RAPID OIL CHANGE,- TO.UACATE THE 66 FOOT
STREET RIGHT OF WAY (73 1/2 AVENUE) LYING NORTH OF LOTS Z AND 2� BLOCK 2�
CENTRAL VIEW MANOR, TO ALLOW FOR AN IMPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED RAPID
OIL STATIc�V, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 73I5 NIGHWAY 65 N.E., WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS :
1. PETITIONER AGREES TO SUBMIT A LETTER (TO CITY) PETITIONING
FOR STREET EXCAVATION FOR THE PORTION OF 73 1/2 AVENUE� LYING
NORTH OF THE PROPOSED SITE AND AGREEING TO AS5ES5MENT FOR ALL
COSTS �50CIATED WITH SAID EXCAVATION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF
VACATION ORDINANCE.
2. UPON EXCAVATION OF VACATED 73 1/2 AVENUE, PETITIONER WILL INSTALL
DRIVEWAY EXITING ONTO SERVICE ROAD TO EA5T AND LANDSCAPE WITH
IRRIGATION AS SHOWN ON CITY PLAN DATED JULY 22, 1987.
3. PERFI�RMANCE BOND REFERENCED AS STIPULATION #13 FG�R 5PECIAL USE
- PERMIT, SP #87-14, TO COI�ER IMPROVEMENTS A5 REFERENCED IN ITEM #2
ABOVE.
4. A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 5HOULD BE MAINTAINED OVER THE
ENTIRE PORTION OF THE VACATED STREET.
Mr. Kondrick stated he was recommending approval based on the letter
received from Mr. Katz announcing MnD�T's plans to vacate 73 1/2 Avenue
anyway .
Mr. Betzold stated he would like to discuss some of the points brought up
at the last meeting when Mr. Grossman:�; and Mr. Schrader were present.
^ They were making the objection to proceeding with the vacation, not knowing
how it would aff.ect their property. He stated he wished the Planning
Commission had voted on the vacation at that time, as he did not accept
^
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987 - PAGE 4
t�� arFguments raised by Mr. Schrader and Mr. Grossman. He thought an�thing
that was built on Mr. Sc�rader's property was certainly visible from
Highway 65, and the fa�t th.at� �opl.e.have to turn�in and then take a quick
left to the property was not going to dri�e away b�siness, and the vacation
was not going to affect the property at.all. He continued to maintain that
even though there was some dispute at the last meeting, the special use
permit was inseparable from the vacation to the extent that without the
vacation, they have a substandard lot. If, for whatever reason, the vacation
does not go through, he would not like to see anything on that substandard
lot and the project should be shelved. If the lot was not a buildable lot,
then nothing should go on it. He felt the plan presented by Rapid Oil was
doab]e, but he was not willing to w6rk with any less space than the present
lot plus the vacated property. That was why he was in favor of the vacation.
Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Fl.ora and he had spent some time working through
a couple of alternative scenarios on the accBSS question brought up by
Mr. Grossman and Mr. Schrader: (1) The distance between.the signal inter-
section at 73rd.and the frontage road, the loopback, was standard or greater
than the other loopbacks in Fridley tha� are designed specifically to try
to address the access problem when there is a frontage road off a cross
street. Particularly, there was the question of, "is there enough satacking
space?" and fit�,�uas greater or equa] in this situation. So, their experience
has sho,wn in other places on:�Highway 65 and University Avenue that this was
� an adequate setback for that loopback to provide access to comnercial that
is not on the frontage road. This was the key question raised at the last
meeting by Mr. Schrader and Mr. Grossman. (2) With the widening of Viron
Road right behind the proposed development, they will have an adequate number
of lanes to facilitate the waiting and turning movements �hich will again
allow access to commercial on the frontage road which was primarily
Mr. Grossman's concern.
Mr. Roaertson stated at this point, Staff was satisfied that the Planning
Commission's concerns and questions raised.at the last meeting were now
answered.
Ms. Sherek stated she still had some problem with the idea that once you
pass the spot to get to the development,.the only way to get to it was to
go.to Fireside and find your wa�r;.around the outside loop by way of Old Central,
She had a.problem with the lack of extension of the frontage.road there to
make it accessibie once you pass the exit. She knew what Mr. Grossman was
talking about in terms of traffic access studies that natianal restaurant
chains do. This site at present without the frontage road coming from
Fireside back would be rejected by most natioqal restaurant chains. Unti1
it becomes critical to get that frontage raad through there and start
pressuring the owner of the mobile home park, the question would not be
answered. Maybe the answer will be that t�r. Schrader will have to apply
some pressure if he wants to make his proper.ty marketable.
^
PLANNIPJG COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 5
�
Mr. Billings stated he felt MnDOT's report was indicative of the fact that
the access to Nighway 65 at 73 1/2 Avenue was going to be closed off, either
later this year or early next year. Since that was going to t�e closed off,
he felt it only made sense that the City then vacate that portion of 73 1/2
Avenue i n order to create a bui 1 dabl e si te,� anck i�t- was:. on:)y good pl anni ng
sense to rna�ke that space available to enhance a pi.ece of property that
presently is grossly undersized.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. COIJSID�RATION OF RECODIFICATION OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL
Mr. Robinson stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed
a number of other suburbs' positions dealing with commercial establishments
in industrial zones. In particular, they tried to address office/warehouse
establishments. The City of Fridley is seeing a proliferation of hundreds
of thousands of square feet of space in existence and in the works.
Mr. Robinson stated.the Commission members had received a rough draft of an
ordinance.which they had requested at the.last meeting. Bas�cally, it was a
synthesis of what they felt was the most appropriate and best of the other
suburbs' positions dealing with this problein. He reviewed this with the
Comni ssi on merr�ers .
Mr. Kondrick referred to 3.g. which stated; "The proposed use, in the opinion
of t�e Citjr Council, would be compatible with the area in which it is proposed
to be located and would not.create a public nuisance.°
Mr. Kondrick -asiced what was the definition of "public nuisance" and who was
going to judge what was a public nuisance?
Mr. Robinson stated it would be the City's responsibility to define a public
nuisance. With any special use permit, the burden was on the City to do that.
Mr. Billings stated his first thought when reading 3.g, was that it was an
invitation for the City Council to act in an indiscriminate manner.
Mr. Saba referred to 3.f, which stated: "The proposed use shatl only be
permitted when it can be demonstrated that their operation will not signi-
ficantly lower the existing level of ser.vice as defined by the Institute of
Engineers on streets at intersections."
Mr. Saba wondered what was meant by "significantly lower". How specific
can they or do they want to be?
Mr. Robinson stated "significant" would have to be defined.
n
^
PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 6
Ms. Sherek suggested they eliminate th
so it reads: "...that their operation
se rvice as defined by the Institute.of
of Traffic Engineers already has its o�
was true for the term "public nuisance
can use.
word "significantly" in that sentence
will not lower the existing level of
Traffic Engeineers..." The Institute
n built-in grading system. The same
. There had to be a better term they
The Commissioners agreed with the change to 3.f. as suggested by Ms. Sherek.
Mr. Billings stated he would like to see this draft ordinance reviewed by the
City Attorney.
Mr. Robertson stated that was the next step pr.ior to the public hearing.
Mr. Robinson stated that in his mind, "public nuisance" encompassed the
health, safety, and general welfare factors.
Ms. Sherek stated the term "public nuisance" has been defined, but the problem
was it was the barking dog/noxious exhaust type of thing. So, that kind of
public nuisance might not cover what they are talking about in this proposed
ordinance. Does the City want to allow something like a second-hand store
in an office/warehouse development? It was not a nuisance, but was not some-
thing the City would probably want to grant a special use p�rmit for.
n Mr. Betzold s��ge�ted they strike the last half of the sentence: "in which
it is proposed to be located and.would not create a public nuisance" and put
a period after "area". Then they are just asking if a proposed use is com-
patible with the area period.
Ms. Sherek stated if the use was something that would create a nuisance,
was not going to be compatible with the area. Another example would be a
video arcade going into a building with a lot of offices, and that would
be a compatible use.
Mr. Robinson stated he should point,out that this sectian was designed to
deal with only drive-in retail establishments, Cl.ass II restaurants, and
it
not
s�milar uses. The reason they are not more expansive was because they are
still trying to keep a distinction�between the industrial section and the
commercial section.
Ms. Sherek stated she would agree.with Mr. Betzold's recommendation. The
kinds of uses the City was talking about were either going to fall into the
limitations in that they are not going to.be permitted if they lower the
level of traffic service (which was the biggest nuisance thing the City
was talking about), the city has already limited the hours of operation,
has limited more businesses by sa�.i:ng °drive-in retail establishments",
has limited the size of the facility with relation to the total size of the
development, has limited the total square footage, and now they are saying
the use has to be compatible with the area in which it is proposed to be
n located. They are not looking at allowing anything anyway that would be a
nuisance type of thing if they follow all this through.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987. PAGE 7
Mr. Betzold stated that by definition, a special use permit h�s to consider
the public health, safety, and general welfare issue, and a public nuisance
would violate-that anyw�y.
The Commissioners agreed to strike the rest of the sentence after "area" in
item 3.g, as recorr�nended by Mr. Betzold.
Mr. Robinson stated that item 4 should be changed to read as follows:
"Canmercial Recreation uses subject to the conditions outlined in 3a - 3h
above except ross floor area shall be considered on an individual case basis."
Mr. Robinson stated they will also have to tighten up the definition of
"Commercial Recreation".
Mr. Billings stated he wauld like to see this proposed ordinance again in
its final form before the Commission sets a p�blic hearing. They can review
and discuss it again at the Aug. 26 meeting and then set the public hearing
for Sept. 16. In a-ddi�ion ta pu���nq �h�e.public hearing notice in the news-
paper, he would like Staff to send notices, along with copies of the proposed
ordinance change, to the more visible developers in the city and those who
have expressed an interest in office/warehouse type of developments and invite
input from these people.
n Mr. Robinson stated.they will send the public hearing notice and proposed
or.dinance to anyane who has or is proposing an office/warehouse development
in the City.
MOTIDN BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MS.. SHEREK, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR
SEPT. 16, 1987� AT 7:30 P.M. REGARDING "USES ALLOWED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT
I1V M-1 AND M-2 ZONING DISTRICTS."
UPON A VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. RECEIVE JULY 28, 198Z, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
�I�ION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MS. SNEREK, TO RECEIVE THE JULY 28� Z987,
APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. OTHER BUSINfSS:
a. Riverview Park Acquisition Project
Mr. Kondrick showed the Commissioners an aerial view of the Riverview
Heights Park area. He showed the properties that have been acquired by
the City and the properties yet to.be acquired. He stated the most
^ recent property acquired was the Findell House. The most immediate
question was what.to do with the Findell House as it was an old field-
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 8
stone and brick house.with quite a bit of historic value to it. The
City's proposal was to remove the walls and roof, but retain the
foundation and the fireplace; and then turn it into a picnic-type
shelter that would resist vandalism but would help preserve some of the
historic value of the house.
Mr. Kondrick stated the Rarks�& Recreation Commiss��� had discussed
their desire to have restroom facilities in the park, but were told by
Mr. Volkman that because of the house being in the floodplain, a rest-
room facility in the Findell house would-not be feasible, However, it
might be possible to have a restroom facility in another location in
the park. They also talked about storage, but that also did not seem
feasible for this particular building.
Mr. Kondrick stated some of the uses proposed for the new park were:
canoe/boat launch, passive areas, picnic areas, fishing area. He stated
he really felt the park had a lot of potential and was going to be a
great facility.
Mr. Saba stated he would like to see this park not rushed into and that
time be spent to really make it a class A park. Maybe it would be
beneficial to approach industry to sponsor some facilities there.
^ Ms. Sherek stated she thought the City should look at some corporate
sponsorship.
Mr. Saba stated he felt this park was in line with what everyone was
trying to do with the river in the State of Minnesota. He stated maybe
the City should also consider finding someone with some experience in
park development who would draw up the park design.
Mr. Robinson stated that Planning staff was working on some alternative
concepts which could be reviewed later this year.
Mr. Robinson stated he did not envision any intensive development in
this park--they want to keep it more rustic and quiet. Right now the
current concern was the Findell house. They want to do something
before it is vandalized, and also right now there are no funds for any
renovation of the house.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO ASK CITY COUNCIL
TO LOOK FOR$$,000-6,000 OUT OF THE BUDGET TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIR5
AND RENOVATION TO THE FINDELL HOUSE IN THE RIVERVIEW PARK AREA.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
^
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 5, 1987 PAGE 9
^
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE AUGUST 5, 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A1?JOURNED AT 8:50 P.M.
Respectfully submi ted,
y aa
Recording Secretary
�
n
\
t
,�_ �
�Jc-�i`� / .
� . �, ��� %
<��� '' ���-�
,
�l9-r�-�.� �' � vZ O .S y �.,.-�,._�__� / �.--s�•�.,�,�, �'�`
j��i'�.� ' � t�1.�1�'� � �'" �`d�ri ��/ 3 �� 38
2��� ��� � �� ��
�� �F���-.-
�
�,