Loading...
03/11/1968 - 5884SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING - MARCH 11, 1968 - 8:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE• ROLL CALL• ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS• 1. On. Preliminary Assessment Roll - Sanitary Sewer, Water and Storm Sewer Project ��88 (Addendum No. 2) Page 1 2. Consideration of Rezoning Request - Eldon Schmedeke Pages 2- 4 OLD BUSINESS• 3. Consideration of City Attorney report regarding drainage of Shady Oak Addition - Andrew P. Gawel Contracting NEW BUSINESS� 5. Discussion of Sign Permit - Naegele - T.H. �k65 6. Posting of Load Limits on streeta in area East of Central Avenue and South of Mississippi Street ADJOURN • G�:;,,���; y, �� �, _ �_r ��_� �,,��� �� � SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING COMNIENTS - MARCH 11, 1968 � . PUBLIC HEARINGS• 1. ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - SW&SS ��88 (ADDENDUM ��2) : The Notice of Hearing will be found on Page 1 of the agenda. The estimated costs and the roll will be found in the separate booklet in the envelope with your agenda. � 2. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUEST - ELDON-SCHIKEDEKE: The Notice of Hearing will be found on Page 2, and the discussion from the last Planning Commission Meeting of February 29, 1968 will be found on ' Pages 3 and 4. OLD BUSINESS: � 3. CONSIDERATION OF CITY ATTORNEY REPORT REGARDING DRAINAGE 0�'�SHADY OAK ADDITION - ANDREW P. GAWEL CONTRACTING. Any questions can be directed . � to the City Attorney. _ _�. � �. �...�, -;� •. -.•.: • - - - - ,� - I�� NEW BUSINESS• - S. DISCUSSION OF SIGN PERMIT - N�EGELE - T.H. ��65: The Naegele Sign Company came in to request a permit to put up two large signs which were blown down by a wind storm last year. These were on T.H. ��65. Council has been considering limiting billboards in Fridley, so this is being brought before the Council for your consideration, 6. POSTING OF LOAD LIMITS ON STREETS IN AREA EAST OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND SOUTH OF MISSISSIPPI STREET: The staff has been receiving complaints concerning Lenny Cochran's property in regard to excavations from his land, and he refuses to cease operation. The City Attorney is planning to take him to court. The suggestion has been made that the streets around it should be posted for load limits; so that the trucks cannot tear up the streets in that area. I� ADJOURN �r �� �i OFFICIAL PUBLICATION CITY OF FRIDLEY (EXHIBIT A� NOTICE OF HEARING ON Il`�'ROVIIKENTS PROJECT #88 ADDENDUM #2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, has deemed it necessary and expedient that the improvements hereinafter described be made. NOW, TFiII��E'ORE, NOTICE IS HII�EBY GIVEN THAT on the 11�' day of March, 1968, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. the City Council will meet at the City Hall in said City, and will at said time; and place, heax all paxties interested in said improvements in whole or in part. The general nature of the improvements is the construction (in the lands and streets noted below) of the following improvements, to-wit: CONSTRUCTION ITEM Sanitaxy sewer, watermains, laterals and service connections to serve the following streets in Onaway Addition: 77�' Way, Beech Street, Elm Street ESTIMATIDCOST. . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �110.000.00 THAT THE AREA PROPOSID TO BE ASSESSID FOR SAID IMPF�OVII`�NI' IS AS FOLLOWS : For Construction Item above ------------------------------- Al1 of the land abutting upon said streets named above and all lands with- in, adjacent and abutting thereto. All of said land to be assessed proportionately according to the benefits received by such improvements. That the Council proposes to proceed with each of said improvements as separate improvements, except as hereafter otherwise provided by Council all under the following authority, to-wit: Minnesota Laws 1953, Chapter 398 and law amendatory thereof, and in conformity with the City Charter. DATID THIS 5� DAY OF FEBRUARY , 1968 BY ORDER. OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MA.YOR - Jack 0. Kirkham ATTEST: Publish: February 21, 1968 CITY CLERK - Marvin C. Brunsell Februaxy 28, 1968 .� � � � � r � OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO tiJHOi�: IT T�P.j' COidCFRN: � Notice is hereby given that there �aill be a Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6�31 LTniversity Avenue N.F. on ?�Iarch 11, 1968 in the Council Chamber at 8:0� P.I��. � or the purpose of : Consideration of a request by Eldon Schrnedeke, .. (201� #�68-01) to rezone Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, Block 12 and Lot 3Q, Block 21, Hyde P�.r[� Adclition fr�m R-2 (l�rr,ited mal+..iple family dwellinas) to C-2 (ger_er2,1. business areas)� all l;,ring in the North�aest �uar�er (NG'4) of Section 23, T-30� R-2I�� City of Fridley� County of Ar.oka, State of Minr:e s ota. Generally located en the Fast side of 3rd �tre�� at 59th Avenue. Anyor.e desiring io be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. Publish: February 2�3� 1968 Marcn 6, 1968 Jac� o. �i����,r �YOP � i�� I ' I� I� I�_ I' I� ,, . .. . , �� � ', ._ _ ._ Plannin� Conunission Pleetin� - Februar_y 29, 1968 Pa�e 2 He also called attention to four letters written to flood control agencies and the Corps of Engineers in St. Paul. They caere written essentially to each � of the people on flood control zoning and the information returned will be . used by the Committee. ORDER OF AGENDA: ' An extra item, rezoning request by Dr. Ingebrigtsen, was moved up on the agenda to be taken between Item 7 and 8. No other change caas made in the order of agenda. 1. 2. HYDE PARI: REZONING PROBLEM: I�ason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. Chairman Hughes read the letter he received from Mayor Kirkham, dated February 21st, and addressed to the Planning Commission. He said that Beyond the informati�n given in the Piayor's letter, the Council turned down the request of the Commission for a zoning consultant for study of this area. As far as he could see, the Planning Co�nission has no further business to transact in regard to Item 1, e�cept inform the consulting firm we are not likely to use their services, although they have been so informed by telephone. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning.�ommission ask the City Manager to write such a letter advising Mr. Chapman that the Planning Com- mission would not be working with a consultant, but that they will be proceeding with their study of Hyde Park Addition without their services. Upon a�oice vote, aIl voting aye, the�motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED FEZOATING R�QUEST: ZOA ��68-01, ELDON SCiiriEDEKE: Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-2. Mr. Erickson referred�to the last paragraph cf the statement he turned in to the secretary. The complete statement is as follo�ass "Eldon Schmedeke Rezoning ZOA �68-01 From the City Manager's report of January 4, 1968, it appears that accord- ing to the Revised Zoning Nfap of July 1, 1953, the subject property was zoned R-1. Previously it appears also that the only commercial zoning in the area applied only to lots lying East of the alley bet�oeen 3rd Street and University Avenue. Most of this commercial property, of course, is noco part of University Avenue. In January of 1955 a special use permit was granted to Air. Schmedeke on Lots 16 and 17, Block 12, only. In the December 1955 comprehensive rezoning, the area involved, including the subject loCs, was rezoned from R-1 to R-2. � Since �ae clo not have before us ehe former list of permitted uses under R-2 zoning, I am not prepared to state cahether any connnercial use of the subject lots, except for 16 and 17, is in violation of our zoning code. At least a year ago this Planning Coctmiission conunenced the discussion of a comprehensive study and possible rezoning of the area betcaeen 57th and 61st. Avenues and University to Piain Street as we have been under constant gressure to hear requests of various kinds for small parcels within the area. I feel this area needs some study and possible rezoning because inconsistent uses exist in the area. It appears to me, hocaever, that the petition represents the type of � spot rezoning that we should not condone. It surely caill lead to a steady stream of rezoning requests for adjacent and neighboring property. You will recall, at our last meeting, when the petitioner introduced members of L-lie puUlic to support his position, i.t lurned out that they caished thcir•ocan property to be zoned com- mercial also. I�' ir I' I' � �� Planning Commission Meeting - Feb. 29, 1968 Pa�e 3� I would like to state at this time that I have a completely open mind about the proper use for the 3rd Street area and am not saying that all or part of the area should not be commercial. I say only that if it is to be, it should be done in a reasonable manner. The property has been used for its present purpose for at least 12 years, and pxobably longer, without interference from the City, to my knowledge. I do not suggest that it be discontinued. However, a few more months, more or less, of waiting for a study should not inconvenience the petitioner. We recommended a study to the City Council at our last meeting but it was turned down pending the hiring of a staff planner. Since this is their decision, we certainly can cooperate with such a planner, although it may delay the study for a couple of months. I would urge the Council to make his services available for this project as soon as possible. The petitioner has stated that he does not wish to hold his petition in abeyance. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons above, I move that rezoning request� ZOA ��68-01 be denied." M_0_TION bv Erickson, seconded b Myhra, that the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, of Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 3U, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition to be rezoned from R-2 (limited multiple districts) to C-2 (general �~ _business districts) be denied. Upon a voice vote, all voting a e, the motion carried unanimouslv. Mr. Myhra said he noted in the mayor's letter that we will have a new plan- ner. His thoughts were a new planner shouldn't be put on a planning assignment regarding a large area, a portion of which, the Planning CoBUnission in recent weeks wi11 have made a planning decision. Sa far as he could see from reports, that portion of Lots 16, 17 and 18 lying between the alley and 3rd Street has been zoned residential since 1951. Apparently in the early days of 1953, Mr,Schmedeke sought a special use � permit to build a commercial building in a residential zoning. He continued, if a mistake had occurred, a chance of a correction being � made occurred later in that same year when a new zoning ordinance for the City was adopted. � � If an error was made in zoning seventeen years ago, he could not believe the present Planning Co�nission has a moral obligation to make a correction in the apparent short while before professional help will become available. He completed his statement with finally, so far as he can determine, Lot 19 of Blo'ck 12 and Lot 30 of Block 21 are a clear request for rezoning without extenuating circumstances and certainly there can be no argument for rezoning before a proposed professional planner has had an opportunity to study the matter. Mr. Jensen wished to make a statement relative to the second paragraph of Member Erickson's motion. He thought the point was well taken relative to a steady stream of rezoning requests and he thought it should be pointed out that this "stream of rezoning requests", which could be anticipated, would put the Planning Commission in the position of being unable to turn down any request, even though unreasonable, once spot zoning takes place. Chairman Hughes said he agreed entirely with that analysis, as it would be �� the logical result if the rezoning application were approved.