The URL can be used to link to this page

10/13/1997 - 4798Y co�Ncl� MEETING IDLEy CIT T FR CE 5KEE ATTENDEb�, 13> >99� ��► Ma �daN �� 3 � p.M • E INTERE5TE� IN ITENi � OU AR NUMBER ivo►-� AND ITEM NUMBER Y ADDRE55 SNT N �E � S I' LEP'SE PR A��RE5 G ,'l� c° �-� V`� -. � ��G' "- �� C CLE AR.LY i �_ � � �s�- _ � / � 'r - c� J RINT N r� � �� S� , � r�5� � (�J�'� � :� Y'� � 'Y �' -- �,��,� �` ' � �. � �/,�� f� ,. l - .. � --� t�, ,�`�� ,' :� il � '� '''-��- � `�&-�' / ~ a , .� `7' .-�',�,,-� , �` ,; . �5 v � � _� � . `� ,,,�`�' � �, `�'��' � � � � � �� , ' � (�. �—�-,--. _ � , y� �� S �'� � � �� i�� . 3 �� ' �i d� ' r- �� ,�-� � � �� ;� �r� � �,� �.�, ; � � � � � J `r�:- � � � ! � �'W � � . J � � Y� � .� }(% � � � � � V (� � C �� ,,.. - � � �>� �--� ��'�v �-` � < , , � �� ,, -� � � � � � -� , � � � _ �f � -� � �- � � �`�. �-- z��(� � - � �r�� _ � ��- � �� <_ �- � ,�� r� � ��1�;_-��? `�� .., �� l�- � � Cf�Y OF FRIDLEY FBIDLEY CITy COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBE813,1997 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass ariyone ��e a�ission or acc in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national ori in s sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodahon Wll to, or treatment, or em lo g, ex, disabili a e P�ent with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services ro �'' g� m�'ital status, interpreter or other persons with disabilities who re uire auxili 1 be provided to allow individuals � P ��s, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an week in advance. ('I"I'D�g72_3534) q �1' aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATIONS: Student Foreign Exchange Week: �n Honor of Maria Morales from Venezuela �n Hono� of Nestor Amarilla from Pa�aguay October 93 - >9, >�997 Minnesota Manufacturers Week.• October 93 ->7 �99 , 7 Make a Difference Day.� October 25, �997 �T1( COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 FRIDLEY C qppROVAL OF MINUTES: Cit Council Meeting of Sepfember 22, 1997 Y OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Cit Code, Recodifyin9 the Fridley Y Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," to Regulate the Location of Pa Hand �ps, Pawn Brokers, and Se en�ing Goods Dealers, by Am 205.14.01.A, Sections 205•and 2�5.16.02 205.15.01.A, (Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #97-01, by the City of Fridley) Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City Minnesota, by Making a of Fridley, pistricts (Rezoning Change in Zoning the City Request, Z4A #97-03, bY of Fridley, Generally Locatea aand Northeast Corner of a�d 3W y • � � � � � � • � East River Road) (W � PAGE 2 1.01 - 1.03 . . . 2.01 - 2.02 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 1997 ....................................3.01-3.35 � Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 1997 ....................................4.01-4.37 Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot Split, L.S. #97-03, to Create Two Residential Lots, on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Generally Located at 5616 Fourth Street N.E. (by Ray Kahl) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.01 - 5.08 Resolution Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing ' Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Calendar Year 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.01 - 6.03 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 PAGE 4 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS �CONTINUED): Establish a Pubiic Hearing Date for November 10, 1997, for the Hackmann Avenue Project No. ST. 1998-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establish a Public Hearing Date for October 27, 1998, on an Ordinance Amending Chapters 113 and 11 of the Fridley City Code to Increase Solid Waste Abatement Program Fees................................ . 7.01 - 7.10 :� :�� Resolution Authorizing Application of Office of Environmental Assistance Grant Funds and Execution of Grant Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.04 Approve Change Order No. 1 to I-694/TH 47 N.E. Ramp Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997 - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.01 - 10.03 Receive the 1998 Budget for the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 11.04 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 PAGE 5 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Resolution Designating Time and Number of Council Meetings (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.01 - 12.02 Claims Licenses Estimates: ....................................13.01 ....................................14.01-14.05 ...................................15.01 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk for Friendly Chevrolet, to Rezone Property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center, Generally Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ............... 16.01 -16.08 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 �—PAGE 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUEDI: Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-05, by Doiphin Development and Construction Co., Inc., to Rezone Property at 73rd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business, to Allow for Future Commercial Development, Generally Located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 - 17.17 Rezoning Request, #97-06, by Frank Masserano, III, to Rezone Properties from R-1, Single Family Residential and C-3, General Shopping Center, to CR-1, General Office, to Allow Construction of an Office Building, Generally Located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2) NEW BUSINESS: .................... 18.01 - 18.12 Resolution Approving a Plat, P.S. #97-03, Friendly Chevrolet (to Resubdivide Three Unplatted Lots into Three Lots, Generally Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.01 - 19.10 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 PAGE 7 NEW BUSINESS (.CONTINUED� First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridiey, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (RezoningRequest, ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet to Rezone Property Generally Located East of 7501 Highway 65 N. E. ) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variance Request, VAR #97-15, by Bolton & Menk, on Behalf of Friendly Chevrolet, to Reduce the Hard SurFace Setback Along a Public Right-of-Way from 20 Feet to 7 Feet; to Reduce the Hardsurface Setback from the Side and Rear Lot Lines from 5 Feet to 0 Feet; and to Waive the Requirement for Curb and Gutter Along the North Edge of a Parking Lot, Generally Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 - 20.03 ...........21.01 -21.27 First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-05, by Dolphin Development and Construction Co., Inc., To Rezone Property Generally Located at 73rd and University Avenues) (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.01 - 22.02 � . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 PAGE 8 NEW BUSINESS �,CONTINUED): First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (by Frank Masserano, III, to Rezone Property Generally Located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........23.01-23.02 Resolution Approving a Vacation, SAV #97-01, Generally Located at 6017 Third Street N.E. (by Margaret Reed) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.01 - 24.15 Special Use Permit, SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk, to Allow a Secondary Accessory Structure, Generally Located at 6291 Central Avenue N. E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resolution Approving a Plat, P.S. #97-04, Heather Hills North (by The Philip Stephan Companies, Inc., to Resubdivide the Property, Generally Located at 6217 Central Avenue N. E. ) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . Informal Status Reports ADJOURN: ................. . 25.01 - 25.15 ....................... 26.01 -26.32 .............................27.01 ' � .r 'FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 1997 � C7TY OF FRIDLEY The Ciry of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individua(s with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PROCLAMATIONS: Student Foreign Exchange Week: October 13 - 19, 1997 In Honor of Maria Mora/es from Venezue/a In Honor of Nestor Amarilla from Paraguay Minnesota Manufacturers Week: October 13 - 17, 1997 Make a Liifference Day: October �5, 1 S97 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ciiy Council Meeting of Sepiember 22, 1997 �� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, Entitled "Zoning," to Regulate the Location of Pawn Shops, Pawn Brokers, and Second Hand Goods Dealers, by Amending Sections 205.13.02, 205.14.01.A, � 205.15.01.A, and 205.16.02 �,�t� � (Zoning Text Amendment, � NEW BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City (; h� ,� of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a C hange in Zoning Dis tric ts ( Rezoning � �� Request, ZOA #97-03, by the City of Fridley, Generally Located at the Northeast Corner of 61 st Way and East River Road) (Ward 3) . . . . . . 2.01 - 2.02 � � Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 1997 .............. 3.01-3.35 � Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 1997 .............. 4.01-4.37 Resolution Approving a Subdivision, Lot n � J� Split, L.S. #97-03, to Create Two '►��0� Residential Lots, on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, Generally Located at 5616 Fourth Street N.E. (by Ray Kahl) (Ward 1) .... 5.01 - 5.08 �}.e� �rt {��b �'1'- �� d�xY�p+,on �.z.� Resolution Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Calendar Year 1998 ..... 6.01 - 6.03 � C�� `�� l �� `%p� I"" ZTA #97-01, by the City of Fridley) 1.01 - 1.03 �� • � - '" . , !� ;1: ��i' GI �� r, �� IZ �� Z�Z � II�� i� I Gt� L� i l 7� NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Establish a Public Hearing Date for November 10, 1997, for the Hackmann Avenue Project No. ST. 1998-1 .. 7.01 - 7.10 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Licenses Estimates: .............. 14.01-14.05 Establish a Public Hearing Date for October 27, 1998, on an Ordinance ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Amending Chapters 113 and 11 of . the Fridtey City Code to Increase Solid Waste Abatement Program Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.01 - 8.02 Resolution Authorizing Application of Office of Environmental Assistance Grant Funds and Execution of Grant Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.01 - 9.04 �l �SO l� Approve Change Order No. 1 to I-694/TH 47 N.E. Ramp Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997 - 3 .. .... 10.01 - 10.03 Receive the 1998 Budget for the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.01 - 11.04 Resolution Designating Time and Number of Council Meetings (1997) . . . . . 12.01 - 12.02 �`�!��,` � Claims .............. 13.01 ............. 15.01 OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: (Consideration of Items not on Agenda - 15 Minutes) � PUBLIC HEARINGS: Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-04, by Bolton 8 Menk for Friendly Chevrolet, to Rezone Property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center, Generally Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.01 - 16.08 Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-05, by Dolphin Development and Construction Co., Inc., to Rezone Property at 73rd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business, to Allow for Future Commercial Development, Generally Located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.01 -17.17 Rezoning Request, #97-06, by Frank Masserano, III, to Rezone Properties from R-1, Single Family Residential and C-3, General Shopping Center, to CR-1, General Office, to Allow Construction of an Office Building, Generally Located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive (Ward 2) . . . . 18.01 - 18.12 v NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Approving a Plat, P.S. #97-03, � Friendly Chevrolet (to Resubdivide Three " �j Unplatted Lots into Three Lots, Generally �C;�;�'� Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.01 - 19.10 First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (RezoningRequest, ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet to Rezone Property Generally Located East of 7501 Highway 65 N.E.) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . 20.01 -20.03 Variance Request, VAR #97-15, by Bolton & Menk, on Behalf of Friendly Chevrolet, to Reduce the Hard Surface Setback Along a Public Right-of-Way from 20 Feet to 7 Feet; to Reduce the Hardsurface Setback from the Side and Rear Lot Lines from 5 Feet to 0 Feet; and to Waive the Requirement for Curb and Gutter Along the North Edge of a Parking Lot, Generally Located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.01 - 21.27 �O.,Y�"'" " First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #97-05, by Dolphin Development and Construction Co., Inc., To Rezone Property Generally Located at 73rd and University Avenues) (Ward 1) .. 22.01 - 22.02 First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (by Frank Masserano, III, to Rezone Property Generally Located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.01 - 23.02 . . = . • . Resolution Approving a Vacation, n �,�--J SAV #97-01, Generally Located at �' 6017 Third Street N.E. (by Margaret �� Reed) (Ward 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.01 - 24.15 Special Use Permit, SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk, to Allow a Secondary Accessory Structure, Generally Located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01 - 25.15 ,� ��,��`�" Resolution Approving a Plat, P.S. #97-04, Heather Hills North (by The Philip Stephan Companies; Inc., to Resubdivide the Property, . Generally Located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E.) (Ward 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.01 - 26.32 ;� I�!a � � V �� " � Informal Status Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.01 ADJOURN: THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAIZ MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:34 p.m. . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: PROCLAMATIONS: Mayor Jorqenson, Councilman Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom None Councilman Barnette, Councilman Schneider and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH: OCTOBER, 1997: . Mayor Jorgenson read and issued a proclamation proclaiming the month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness•Month. During this month, Anoka County media, churches and other organizations will inform area residents about domestic violence, its prevalence, consequences, and what we, as a concerned community, can do to eiiminate its existence. PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT DAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997: Mayor Jorgenson read and ` issued a proclamation proclaiming October 6 as Physician Assistant Day in reeognition of the contributions and outstanding service of the. physician. assistant profession. Physician assistants deserve the City's heartfelt thanks for the medical care they provide throughout the year. � FIRE PREVENTION WEEK: OCTOBER 5-11; 1997: Mayor Jorgenson read and issued a proclamation proclaiming the week of October 5 through 11 as Fire Prevention Week. In commemoration, the public is invited to visit each of the Gity's three fire stations on Saturday, October 4 to view the community's.fire fighting equipment, to meet the firefighters, and to visit with other members of the City's Public Safety Division. Mayor Jorgenson presented this proclamation to Kevin Swanson of the Fire Department. Mr. Swanson stated that the three fire stations will be open on Saturday, October 4 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; however, all demonstrations will be held at the main fire station on Univers�ty Avenue. He reviewed the activities planned,. including landing of the National Guard helicopter as part of the DARE program. Other organizations participating are NSP, MPCA, Red Cross, Healthspan, and the City's Public Safety Division. Refreshments will be provided by Old Country Buffet. Mr. Swanson invited everyone to attend. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 2 CITIES WEEK: OCTOBER 5-11, 1997: � Mayor Jorgenson read and issued a proclamation proclaiming the week of October 5 through 11 as Cities Week. She ericouraged all citizens to become active partners with their City government to build a strong and bright future for all to enjoy. NATIONAL BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH: OCTOBER, 1997 AND NATIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY DAY, OCTOBER 17, 1997: Mayor Jorgenson read and issued a proclamation proclaiming the month of October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and October 17 as National Mammography Day. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1997: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimousl.y. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: � OLD BUSINESS: . 1. ORDINANCE N0. 1103 TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF `E'RIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (ZOA #97-02, 1360 ONONDAGA STREET N.E.) (WARD,2): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this rezoning request is by the Fridley American Legion to allow expansion of their parking area. The Planning Commission recommended approval, and staff recommends the second and final reading of this ordinance. � WAIVED THE READZNG AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1103 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT (1) A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I�MENDMENT SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPANDED PARKING AREA; AND (2) A $5,000 PERFORMANCE BOND SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF THE LANDSCAPING AND FENCING. 2. APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND BRW TO COMPLETE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF THE 57TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 5T. 1997-4: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the total contract cost is $59,160, with $25,000 being contributed by Home Depot. The balance, $34,160 is to be paid for by the City and staff recommends approval. FRIDLEY.CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22 1997 PAGE 3 APPROVED THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND.BRW TO C�LETE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION/INSPECTION OF THE 57TH A�TENLJE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST. 1997-4. NEW BUSINESS: 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1997: RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CONH�lISSION MEETING OF SEPTEI�ER 3, 1997. 4. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #97-06, BY CRAIG AND DELORES HARTOS, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND GARAGE, GENERAI,LY LOCATED AT 6200 STARLITE BOULEVARD N.E. (WARD lj: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the petitioners want to construct a new 24 foot by 38 foot detached garaqe. At the same time, they want to relocate an existing 22 foot by 22 � foot� detachecl garage. Another accessory building, which is 10 feet by 28 feet located near the rear of the property, is also to be removed. The new garage will be used for storage of vehicles. • The relocated garage will be used for storage of wood and maintenance equipment, as well as a dog kennel. A1l of this work can be accomplished withiri lot coverage and the accessory:use limits mandated by.the City's zoning code. The Planning Commission unanimously approved this request. Staff recommends approval with five stipulations. APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #97-06, pITH THE FOLI,OWING STIPULATIONS: (1j THE STRUCTURES SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DWELLING; (2) NEITHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY BE USED FOR A H� OCCUpATION; (3) THE 10 FOOT BY 28 FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF COMPI,ETION OF THE GARA,GES; A DEMOLITION PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED; (4) PROPER MOVING AND BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION STARTING; AND (5) THE SECOND C�ARAGE (22 FEET BY 22 FEET) SHALL NOT, BE LOCATED IN THE UTILITY EASEMENT. 5. APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANS FOR OSBORNE COI�ZERCE CENTERS I AND II, BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC., GENERALLY LOCATED AT 103 OSBORNE ROAD N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that sign plans for Phases I and II of the Osborne Commerce Center at 103 and 223 Osborne Road were submitted by the developer, Steiner Development Corporation. The plan is new for the building located at 103 Osborne Road (Phase II) and revises the plan previously submitted for 223 Osborne Road (Phase I). The main signage is on the south side of the building facing Osborne Road. Anchor tenants will be allowed to have a 68 square foot sign, with other tenants allowed a 40 square foot sign. Anchor tenants will also be allowed signage on the east and west side of the building. All signs will consist of individual vinyl letters. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 4 The revisions�to Phase I signage include shifting from "pan signs" to individual vinyl letters and increasing the size of letters allowed to anchor tenants. The changes to the Phase I plan will afford consistency in signage for the two b�ildings. All of the proposed signaqe is consistent with the City's sign code. APPROVED CON�REHENSIVE SIGN PLANS FOR OSBORNE COI�II�RCE CENTERS I AND II, GENERALLY I�OC'.�ATED AT 103 OSBORNE ROAD N.E. 6. APPROVE TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND KREINES & KREINES, INC. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the consultant will evaluate two methods for providing telecommunications antennae. The first approach, the designated site approach, would require telecommunications providers to construct and operate antennae on City-owned sites. In the second approach, the municipal utility option, the City would construct and lease antennae ori sites owned by the City. The role of the consultant will be to evaluate the costs and revenues available from each of the approaches over a ten-year span. The consultant will also assess other advantages and disadvantages associ�ated with each approach. These consultant. services will cost the City a fee, no`t to exceed $50,000. In the event that the City determines to establish a telecommunications utility, the proposed utility must be approved by the.voters in a referendum. P.PPROVED THE T�LECONA�iUNICATION CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND KREINES & KREINES, INC. OF TIBURON, GALIFORNIA. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 70-1997 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF 5UB-GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL AS5ISTANCE UNDER THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FOR SUB-GRANTEES: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this resolution authorizes the Emergency Management. Director to execute and sign sub-grant agreements with the Federal Emergency Management Administration relative to reimbursement for storm damage cleanup between June 28 and JuTy 27 1997. The City expects reimbursements to be about $15,000. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 70-1997. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 71-1997 APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE ANOKA COUNTY AUTO THEFT TASK FORCE: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated Anoka County has received a grant of $115,528 from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. As a result of the grant, a multi-agency auto theft task force will be formed. The grant money will be used largely for computer and surveillance equipment, as well as for investigative overtime. Fridley's role in the task force FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22 1997 PAGE 5 will be to provide investigative and surveillance services of our officers on an overtime basis. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 71-1997. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 72-1997 DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED PERSON TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING OVERTIME GRANT: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the City has recently been notified by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that we are among 53 Minnesota cities to receive Federal funding for community oriented policing. The City's award is for $10,000 and will be used to support overtime costs of our Neighborhood Resource Officer program. This resolution authorizes signature of the agreements necessary to implement the qrant award. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 72-1997. 10. RESOLUTION N0. 73-1997 ACCEPTING TERMS. OF AN OUT C)F COURT SETTLEMENT WITH RICHARD BISTODEAU: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this resolution authorizes a$100,000 out of court settlement with Richard . Bistodeau. In exchange for the $100,000 that will be paid for by the City's insurer, Mr: Bistodeau agr.ees to drop all claims against the City arising out of Y�is non-appointment as a full- time firefighter in September, 1994. Mr. Bistodeau had claimed that the hiring process was discriminatory and not in compliance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This settlement agreement was reached on September 4, 1997, in a settlement conference before Federal Magistrate Arthur Boylan. At this coriference, our attorney and the attorneys for our insurer, the League of Minnesota. Cities Insurance Trust, agreed to the settlement subject to Council's approval. While Council has the option of rejecting the settlement it would, in doing so, accept City responsibility for all costs associated with this case which may exceed $100,000. Staff recommends that the City accept the terms of the settlement. In the aftermath of the settlement, staff will conduct a thorough assessment of .our firefiqhter selection process and will make necessary changes to prevent claims similar from the ones made in this case from recurring. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 73-1997. 11. RESOLUTION DECLARING � COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LOCKE LAKE EXCAVATION PROJECT N0. 255: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that based on the final cost of the Locke Lake dredqing project, $51,459 will be assessed to properties abutting Locke Lake. Assessments will be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 6 payable over a ten-year period beginning iri January, 1998. This resolution recognizes the cost to be assessed and authorizes City staff to calculate the amount to be assessed against benefiting property owners. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 12. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LOCKE LAKE EXCAVATION PROJECT N0. 255: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the proposed public hearing date is October 27, 1997. A hearing notice will be placed in our official newspaper, and notices will be mailed to each affected property owner at least two weeks prior to the hearing. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 76-1997 DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED.AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT.FOR CONCR�T� CURB AND GUTTER PORTION OF THE ALDEN WAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996-1 & 2: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated to benefiting property owners i assessed at the rate of $10 per ten years. The City is.directe for benefiting property owners. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 76-1997. that the cost to be assessed s$50,250. The cost will be front foot over a period of d to calculate the assessment 14. RESOLUTION NO. 77-1997 FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALDEN WAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 1996-1 & 2: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the proposed hearing date is October 27, 1997. General public notices and property owners notices will be executed at least two weeks prior to the hearing date. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 77-1997. 15. APPOINTMENT: CITY EMPLOYEE: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Mark Kluge is recommended for appointment as Mechanic A in the Public Works Maintenance Division. Mr. Kluge has his automobile mechanic certification from 916 Technical College. He has been employed as a mechanic at JR Transmission and Repair; lead mechanic at Crown Auto, and mechanic at Pat's Mobile. Mr. Kluge's other experiences include welding and fabricating, repairing diesel equipment, tractors, bobcats, dump trucks, and snow blowers. `='` 1 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 7 CONCURRED WITH THE FOLLpWZNG APPOINTMENT BY THE CITY MANAGER: Name Mark Kluge 16. CLAIMS: Starting Starting Position Salary Date Replaces —__ Mechanic A $15:33 Sept. 23, William Non-exempt per hour 1997 Murphy, Sr. AUTHORIZED PAYN�NT OF CLAIM NOS. 76553 THROUGH 76798. 17. LICENSES: APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. 18. ESTIMATES: THIS ITEM WAS REMpVED FRpM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE RE GULP,R AGENDA . No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda items. � Counc�lwoman Bolkcom requested that Items 11 and 12 be removed from the consent agenda. Councilman Billings requested that Item 18 be removed from the consent agenda due to the change in one of the estiinates. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the consent agenda items with the exception of Items 11, 12 and 18. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt the agenda with the addition of Items 11, 12 and 18 from the consent agenda, Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no response from the audience under this item of business. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 19. PUBLIC HEARING ON UNIVERSITY AVENUE FENCE: MOTION by Councilman Billings to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22 1997 PAGE 8 Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Flora, Public Works�Director, stated that in 1984, a study group suggested that lights be added along University Avenue and the chain link fence be removed on the east side from I-694 to Mississippi Street. In 1992, the Southern Anoka County Chamber of Commerce requested removal of the fence on the east side of University Avenue between I-694 and Mississippi Street. The reasoning was that snow piled along the fence and it created a psychological barrier, as well as an unsightly appearance. Mr. Flora stated that a past survey sent to about two hundred residents resulted in seventy responding favorably and eleven aqainst removal.of the fence from I-694 to Mississippi Street. In February, 1993, Council forwarded a resolution to the Minnesota Department of Transportation requesting removal of the fence. The State sugqested that the City provide a hold harmless agreement before .they would proceed with removing the fence. The attorneys indicated that this was not necessary. This was held in abeyance. Mr. Flora stated that a recent request was received from the Southern Anoka County�Chamber of Commerce to.remove the fence from I-694 to Mississippi Street. He reported that 393 surveys were sent to residents. As of this date, the.City received 29 responses in favor of removing the fence on the east side of University Avenue with 81 responses indicating that they wanted the fence retained on University Avenue. Mayor Jorgenson asked when the fence was originally installed. Mr: Flora stated that he believed the fence was in the late 1960's. Both the cities of Columbia Heights and Fridley requested the fence to be installed. Councilman.Schneider asked the purpose of requesting the State to install the fence. Mr. Flora stated that he did not have any specific details. At . that time, University Avenue was two lanes, and there was concern about widening it to four lanes. Councilman Billings stated that the resolution adopted in February, 1993, call.ed for removal of the fence from 57th Avenue to Mississippi Street on the east side of University Avenue. The Department of Transportation initially responded that they would remove the fence. Mayor Nee sent a letter to the State indicating that Council voted to take the fence down; however, he personally was opposed to it. Councilman Billings said the State then requested a hold harmless agreement. A majority of this Council, in 1993, did vote to request the Minnesota Department of Transportation to remove the fence from 57th Avenue to Mississippi Street. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 9 Mr. Flora confirmed that Council asked the Department of Transportation to removal of the fence, if possible. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there were any comments from those in favor of removinq the fence. Mr. Flora stated that the majority of the comments regarded access. Councilman Billings stated that there have been letters to the editor of Focus News regarding the unsightly fence. The City is currently going through a comprehensive planning process, and there have been comments from the residents regarding the fence. Mr. Flora stated that three areas have had neighborhood meetings in the east and north portions of the City. In those meetings, there were statements in support of removing the fence on the east side of University Avenue. Ms. Loretta Larson, 5980 Fourth Street, submitted a petition with over two hundred signatures opposirig the remaval of the fence. She is opposed to removal of the fence because of the safety issue for animals and children, as well as security reasons. With the fence, people cannot cut across the residents' yards. She understood that the businesses wanted the fence removed, but they have their signs that are elevated for visibility. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive Petition No. 4-1997 opposing the removal of the fence on the east side of University Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a Voice vote,.al1 voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried.� unanimously. Ms. Margaret Seefeld, 5956 Fifth Street, stated that she was � opposed to removal of the fence from 45th to 69th Avenues on both sides of University Avenue. She read a letter from Jim and Sharon Larson of Longmont, Colorado, whose daughter. was killed on University Avenue in 1970. As a result, the fence was installed to avoid a lawsuit. If residents felt the fence was an eyesore,-they should clean up the area and plant some shrubs rather than complain. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to receive a copy of a letter dated September 19, 1997 signed by Jim and Sharon Larson, 1328 Hilltop Drive, Longmont, Colorado 80501. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Carole Newham, 4351 Sixth Street, stated that she was an aunt to the child who was killed on University Avenue in 1970. She stated that it was very hard to go to her niece's grave. She was opposed to removal of the fence. Ms. Lana Freeburg, 301 Rice Creek Terrace, stated that she is opposed to removal of the fence. All the areas along University Avenue from I-694 to Osborne Road are not alike, as there are FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 10 businesses and residential homes. She asked Council to consider these different areas with the purposes they serve to the community. She read a letter from Pastor Clarke Poorma� of Woodcrest Baptist Church dated September 22, 1997, in opposition to removing the fence. MOTION by Councilman Billings to receive the letter from Pastor Clarke Poorman dated September 22, 1997, in opposition to removal of the fence. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, , all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Freeburg stated that if the fence along University Avenue was removed, she would feel less secure in walking the pathway. She felt the limited accFSS provides for greater safety.� She can understand why the businesses would want more visibility, but the residential areas should be offered more protection. Councilman Schneider stated that if the fence were to be removed �long this area of University Avenue, Woodcrest Baptist Church could install their own fence Mr. Paul Corbett, 5367 Altura Road, asked who is behind the request to remove the fence. . Councilman Billings stated that the original request from the businesses was to remove the fence on the east side of Universit� Avenue from I-C94.to Mississippi Street. There have been letters to the editor of Focus News, and persons have contacted the City regarding the fence. Therefore, Council decided to conduct a public hearing to receive comments from the�residents. Mr. Corbett stated that he would be opposed to removing the fenee. He questioned the number of business versus the number of residents who wanted the fence removed. Councilman Billings stated that the results of the survey indicate the only area of .the fence that should be removed is the section from 57th Avenue to Mississippi Street. The rest of the fence should remain. Mr. Corbett felt that if a portion was removed, it would probably mean that all the fence would be torn down. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that there has not been a decision. This is the reason for the public hearing. Councilman Barnette stated that he received .two telephone calls from persons that live along University Avenue that wanted the fence removed. He was inclined to favor removal of the fence, as it is, basically, an eyesore. He did not think it was much of a. safety factor. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL t�ETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 11 Mr. Joe Pisansky, 5313 Altura Road, stated that he wanted .the fence to remain for security reasons, and he was opposed to having it removed. Mr. Jeff Jansen, 4727 Third Street, stated that the fence was installed because someone was killed. The businesses between 57th Avenue and 61st Avenue are thriving. Instead of removing the fence, it should be beautified and cleaned up. Mr. Mike Riley, 4703 Third Street, stated that his property backs up to University Avenue. He has a problem now with people trespassing on his property. If the fence is removed it would only increase his problem. He was opposed to removing the fence along the west side of University Avenue. He said that Representative Chaudhary said the City is second cr third in line to have a noise reduction wall on University Avenue from 49th Avenue to Osborne Road. He felt that nothing should be done with the fence until there is a decision on that wall. Mr. Flora stated it was his understanding that the State would not construct a noise wall on new projects. Mr. Riley stated that he .al.so spoke to Mr. Dave Hansen, who was taking. a noise survey last spring, along with Representative Chaudhary. They assured him the City is in the running for construction of this wall. � Councilman Billings suggested that staff follow up on this issue with Representative Chaudhary's office. Mr. Loren Smerud, 4603 Third Street, submitted a petition from persons living on 46th, 47th, and.48th Avenues. There are 61 people in that area who are opposed to removing the fence. MOTION by Couneilman Billings to receive Petition No. 5-1997 opposing the removal of the University Avenue fence. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Doug McNurlin, Southern Anoka County Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Southern Anoka County Chamber of Commerce has requested that the fence be removed from I-694 to Mississippi Street. They have not requested tY�e fence be removed from the residential areas along University Avenue. The fence collects trash and weeds, and it is an eyesore. It is also a psychological barrier for the businesses along University Avenue, as snow d�es pile up and blocks the view for the businesses. The businesses along University Avenue have not been thriving, and there is only one restaurant left in the area. He suggested that a portion of the fence be removed in the area of the business.es. Ms. Dee Larson, 6161 Fifth Street, stated her concern is that, the fence is removed, trash will be coming on to her property. Children today have no boundaries, but the fence has been boundary for some children. if a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEN�ER 22, 1997 PAGE 12 Ms. Karen Earley, 6041 Third Street,-stated that she lives on the west side of University Avenue, and the fence is in her back yard. She was opposed to removing.the fence. Mr. Mel Smyre, 286 Rice Creek Boulevard,.stated that his area {near 69th Avenue and University) attracts youth in the summer, and the fence helps reduce foot traffic in the vicinity of the creek. The fence also helps to keep animals from crossing University Avenue which would be a safety issue for motorists. He urged the Council to keep the fence in this area, as well as the residential areas. Mr. Chad Lusty, 6004 2-1/2 Street, stated that he was opposed to removal of the fence. The fence is needed for safety, and more effort should be put into repairing or replacing the fence. Mr. Dan Delzer, 360 6%th �,venue, stated that there is a general consensus that residents do not want the fence removed. The fence is definitely an eyesore, but safety is an importa�t issue. He suggested that a different fence. be installed. Consideration should be given to the businesses' right for the fence to be removed if it can be proven they are sufferinq because of it. Mayor Jorgenson asked how the snow storage would be� handled if the fence were to be removed. Mr. Flora stated that the fence does retain the snow. Realistically, the snow would probably be pushed back and forth between University Avenue and the service road. Mr. Robert Zmuda, 6051 Fourth Street, stated that he felt the problem for the businesses is more accessibility and signage than the fence. He would not like the fence removed. MOTION by Councilman Billings to close�the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice uote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:49 p.m. Councilman Billings stated that, speaking for himself; a reasonable statement is tha� he does not think the fence would be removed on University Avenue on the west side and probably not north of Mississippi Street. As far as the section of fence south of I-694, he would certainly want input from Coltunbia Heights before any action was taken. Mrs. Loretta Larson asked about the two hundred persons who signed the petition saying they do not want the fence removed on the east side. There are a lot more residents than businesses who are not in favor of removing the fence. . Councilman Schneider stated that the Southern Anoka County Chamber of Commerce has requested that Council consider removal of the fence. He would like for the Southern Anoka County Chamber of Commerce to come up with some alternative options. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 13 Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that further discussion is needed. She felt there could be some alternatives besides removal of the fence. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Council has heard a great deal of discussion through comprehensive planning meetings regarding corridors. Council wants Fridley to be a good place for everyone to live, work, and operate a business. Input is needed from the business community and residents to make this work for everyone. Councilman Schneider stated that this issue should not be residents against businesses but to have everyone work as a team to resolve this issue. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that the businesses she contacted on University Avenue never suggested the fence be removed. The comments she heard is that the fence is unsightly and collects trash. Ms. Margaret Seefeld suggested having those persons who have to do community service work clean up and maintain the fence area. Mayor Jorgenson stated that Fridley does use these persons in some areas of the community. Mr. Doug McNurlin stated he felt force the issue, but discussion of for a long period of time.. The issue. He realizes that there is a not far from University Avenue. suggestions the residents have to, the Chamber of Commerce, Barbara 571-9781. that the businesses would not the fence has been on the table. businesses realize the safety problem, as he lives in _Fridley He would be open to any. offer. He or the President of Warren, can be contacted at Mayor Jorgenson stated that the residents would be kept informed of Council's discussion on this item. Staff and Council will .work with the neighborhood and business community to try to ,resolve this issue. She thanked everyone who attended the meetinq, as well as those residents who returned the survey but were unable to attend the meeting. 20. PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #97-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, TO RECODIFY THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING," IN ORDER TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF PAWN SHOPS, PAWN BROKERS, AND SECOND HAND GOODS DEALERS: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:02 p.m. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that tlie purpose of this zoning text amendment is to regulate the location of pawn shops, pawn brokers, and second hand shops. Currently, these uses are permitted in a C-1 and CR-1 zoning district. However, the CR-1 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEI�ER 22, 1997 PAGE 14 district was intended to serve as a transition between residential properties and higher intensity commercial business uses. The C-1 district was intended to provide convenient business opportunities to serve the convenience needs of the surrounding residential areas. This amendment will assure the intent of the C-1 district stays intact and that detrimental impacts to adjacent residential uses are curtailed. Mr. Hickok stated that a meeting was held on April 7, 1997 with a group of local business owners representing a cross-section of the pawn shop and second-hand dealers in Fridley. The business owners discussed the proposed code modifications and concurred with staff's recommendation to prohibit such shops in the C-1 and CR-1 zoning districts. Mr. Hickok stated that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to Council. Mr. Dan Delzer, 360 67th Avenue, asked if there was any correlation between pawn shops and the crime rate in the city. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the ordinance requires certain reporting measures which helps curtail illegal activities that can occur. No other persons spoke regarding this proposed zoning text amendment. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:12 p.m. 21. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #97-03, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM,R-3, GENERAL MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING, TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 61ST WAY AND EAST RIVER ROPiD: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 9:12 p.m. Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this was a request by the City to rezone property from R-3 to R-1. The property is located along East River Road between 61st Way and 61-1/2 Way and is approximately three acres in size. The property was rezoned in 1984 from single family to multiple family for a 28 unit townhome development, and the plat was approved by the City. The developer failed to meet his obligations, and the City is choosing to rezone the property back to single family. .�. Mr. Hickok stated that three criteria have been met regarding compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district; FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 15 compatibility �of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning; and compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. The land is currently vacant, and there are no development proposals at this time for the property. The surrounding zoning districts include R-1 to the west and north; vacant railroad property to the east; and recently rezoned property of M-1 to the south. If this rezoning is approved, a future development would be required to meet the R-1 zoning district requlations, unless a rezoning is requested. Mr. Hickok stated that the Planning Commission voted three to two to recommend denial of this rezoning request. The Commission felt that the site should remain as it is currently zoned given its location near an industrial area and the railroad. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning in order to comply with the original intent of the 1984 action. Councilwoman Bolkcom felt that the rezoning gave Council more discretion and does not eliminate the possibility of a future request for R-3 zoning. Councilman Billings stated that there is no development proposal, and wanted to know if it is staff policy or a statutory requirement that there be a development proposal for a rezoning. Mr. Hickok stated that, historically, it is staff policy. Having a development proposal is not a statutory requirement. Not only woul� the rezoning give Council control, it gives the neighborhood an opportunity for a public hearing and to address their �oncerns. for any development on this site. The Planning Commission pointed out that an R-3 development today on this site may.be a real surprise to the residents in the neighborhood, as they may• have believed it reverted back to R-1 zoning when the proposed development did not proceed. Councilman Schneider stated that what. is being accomplished with this rezoninq is reverting to the same zoning it was in 1984, prior to the proposal for development of this site. Councilman Barnette stated that a majority of the Planninq Commission members felt that, in their minds,, this was never going to develop as R-1, and there will be another request to rezone to R-3. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she would like to rezone to R-1, as it would give the immediate neighborhood an opportunity to meet with a potential developer. She would also listen to any proposals for this site. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that Council, with this rezoning, is clearing the air with respect to the title of this proper�y and probably even making it more developable. Council also entered into an agreement with a developer back in the 1980's that was binding. Anyone this developer sold the property to was bound by this agreement. During this entire period, the land has been zoned FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 16 R-3. The development agreement through the City's actions and non- actions was declared to be void because of non-performance. That gives the City the right to resort and return to the conditions before the time of the agreement. The City has a recorded development agreement even though it has been declared to be non- enforceable. The rezoning would complete the circle and take the City back to where they were prior to this agreement. Mr. Knaak stated it is important to emphasize that the entire purpose of this action is not a strategy on the staff's part. What is being done is restoring the property to what it was before the development agreement in 1984. Mr. Maynard Nielsen, 7144 Riverview Terrace, stated that he was the owner of the property and would like it to remain as R-3. He would be back with a rezoning, as he felt multiple development was best for this property." He has had �omeone interested in constructing a facility for Alzheimer's patients. The church has also expressed an interest in this property. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:34 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: 11. RESOLUTION NO. 74-1997 DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LOCKE LAKE ION Councilwoman Bolkcom sta�ed that she requested this item be removed from the consent agenda, as she wished to abstain from voting. MOTION.by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 74-1997. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Barnette and Mayor Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from voting on tlie motion. Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. 12. RESOLUTION N0. 75-1997 FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LOCKE LAKE EXCAVATION PROJECT N0. 255: Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she requested this item be removed from the consent agenda,_as she wished to abstain from voting. MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 75-1997. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings, Councilman Schneider, Councilman Barnette, and Mayor Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Councilwoman Bolkcom abstained from voting on the motion.' Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 17 18. ESTIMATES: � MOTiON by Councilman Billings to approve the estimates, as follows: Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of July, 1997 ....$ 14,731.50 Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374 Central Avenue Bikeway/Walkway Project No. ST. 1994-9 Estimate No. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 46;.833.40 S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 650 Quaker Avenue Jordan, MN 55352 Removal &�Replacement of Miscellaneous Concrete Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk Project No. 305 Estimate No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,201.55 Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 I-694/TH47 N.E. Ramp Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997-3 Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $126,501.24 Seconded by Councilman Schneider. MOTION by Councilman Billings to amend the above estiznates by eliminating the estimate to Hardrives, Inc. for Project No. ST. 1994-9 for the Central Avenue Bikeway/Walkway in the amount of $46,833.40 and replacing it with the following estimate submitted by staff: Hardrives, Inc., Central Avenue Bikeway/Walkway Project No. ST. 1994-9, Estimate No. 7, (Partial Payment), in the amount of $20,339.79. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL N�ETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 PAGE 18 22. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY- CODED, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING," TO REGULATE THE LOCATION OF PAWN SHOPS, PAWN BROKERS, AND SECOND HAND GOODS DEALERS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.13.02, 205.14.O1.A, 205.15.O1.A, AND 205.16.02 (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #97-01, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the location of pawn shops, pawn brokers, and second hand goods dealers in certain commercial districts. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a v�ice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 23. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS (RE�ONING, ZOA #97-03, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this ordinance relates to the rezoning of property owned by Maynard Nielsen at 61st Way and East River Road. The request is to rezone the property from R-3 to R-l. Councilman Barnette stated that staff's memorandum indicated that this rezoning was unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the Commission recommended denial of this rezaning by a three to two vote. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to waiVe the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Schneider, and Mayor Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings voted against the motion. Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried. 24. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: LANDSCAPING PROJECT, COMMUNITY CENTER: Councilwoman Bolkcom thanked everyone for their work on the landscaping project this past Saturday at the Community Center. She stated that there were many participants. She stated that the landscaping looks great. Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Billings, and she each supervised a group of workers. Mr.. Burns, City Manager, reported that 41 people of all ages assisted with this project, as well as persons from other communities, including two seniors from Minneapolis. Michele McPherson of City staff was the main coordinator. She designed the patio and landscaping and deserved a lot of credit. He stated that David Lindquist, Parks 5upervisor, was there with his crew. Without their help, the project would not have been this FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL N�ETING OF SEPTEI�ER 22, 1997 PAGE 19 successful. People seemed to have fun, even with the hard work. They got the job done. Mr. Burns stated that those persons assisting with this project worked from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. and planted nine, six foot spruce trees, 17 crab apple trees, and 53 shrubs. They also laid 680 yards of sod and moved 15 yards of rock. Mayor Jorgenson stated that quite a few staff inembers also participated in this project. Mr. Burns stated that there were no other informal status reports. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council of September 22, 1997 adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad Secretary to the City Council Nancy J. Jorgenson Mayor DATE: October 6, 1997 MEM4RANDU1Vj PI�ANNING DIVISION TO: Wiiliam Bums, City Manager �r�l`° FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance Regarding Second Hand Stores and Pawn Shops The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding rezonin re uest ZTA #97-01, on September 3, 1997. No public attended the hearing and the � Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request. The City Council approved first reading of this ordinance on September 22, 1997. ecommendatin� Staff recommends that the City Council approve second reading and authorize publication of the attached ordinance prohibiting second hand stores and pawn shops in the CR-1, General Office and C-1, Local Business Districts and allowin both uses as permitted (in accordance with City,Code Chapter 31) in the C-2, g General Business and C-3, General Shopping Center Districts. M-97-421 �.� � ORDINANCB NO. �_ p,i�i ORDINANCL RECOTLi3DINZONINGFRITO$RFGULP+TLOTHB CIiApTER 205, $1`TTI SSCOND LOCATION OF PAT�iN SHOPS, PAWN BROKBRS, � gp,DiD GOOD5 D$AI+BRS � BY ��ING Si3CTIONS 205.13.02, 205.14.O1.A, 205.15.O1.A., � 205.16.02 The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: 205.13 C-1 LOCAI+ BIISIN�SS DISTRICT RBGULATIONS 2, USES EXCLUDED p,ny use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded-in C-1 Districts �, ; od and sP^^T'�hand aood --_.., .,�-oa Y,v Ch . .,�_...,.-e d�� _ 925 . _ 205.14 C-2 GSNERAt+ BIISI�SS DISTRICT RSGU�TIONS 1, USES PERMITTED p,, principal Uses. The following are principal uses in C-2 Districts: �.,, �jro r a T�'rn�l ate� hv Ch r , o�, �, tv Gode "'d `� � r acr, ned � n rii, _ _ _ ..�.. Ctat,e .Std 2 05.15 C-3 G$NERAL SHOPPING C$NT$R DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1, USES PERMITTED p,, Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in the C-3 Districts: [�T��'E, �L:*sa•`zs�� - _ -- _ .- -. � u_�_�--. _ - - - 1.02 Page 2 - Ordinance No. 205.16 CR-1 GBNERAL OFFICB DISTRICT RSGULATIONS 2. USES EXCLUDED Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in CR-1 Districts, including, but not limited to: �awn shops aawn brokers as r�g�lated �y Chanter 31 of the Fridley City Code and seconcLhand goods dealers as defined MirLnPanra State Statute 471 925. PASS$D AND ADOPTBD BY TH$ CITY COUNCIL OF THB CITY OF FRIDLBY THIS DAY OF , 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR September 22, 1997 September 22, 1997 1.03 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: October 9, 1997 TO: Wiiliam Burns, City Manager � r L� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Second Reading of an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning, ZOA #97-03, by the City of Fridley; Generally Located at the Northeast Corner of 615t Way and East River Road - The City Council approved the first reading of the attached ordinance at its September 22, 1997 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve first reading of the attached ordinance rezoning property generally located at the northeast corner of 61�` Way and East River Road from R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling to R-1, Single Family Dwelling. MM/dw M-97-424 2.01 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANC$ TO AMBND TH}3 CITY COD$ OF THL CITY OF FRIDLBY, MINNBSOTA BY MAKING A CHANGS IN ZONING DISTRICTS The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. SECTION 2. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Lots 3 and 21, not taken for street purposes, and all of Lots 4 through 10 and 14 through 20 of Block 20, Fridley Park, as recorded at the Office of the Anoka County Recorder, generally located at the northeast corner of 61$` Avenue and East River Road. Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District R-1, Single Family Dwelling. SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling to R-1, Single Family Dwelling. PA35BD AND ADOPTSD BY TH$ CITY COIINCIL OF THB CITY OF FRIDLSY THIS OF . 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: - NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR September 22, 1997 September 22, 1997 2.oz 0 CITY OF FRIDL�Y PLANNING COIrIl�tISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 CALL TO ORDER; Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the September 17, 1997, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jeff Saarela, 6190 Heather Circle Mary & Dennis Pietrini, 6177 Heather Cir. NE George Bateson, 6196 Heather Place Mary & Mark Bue, 6229 Central Avenue Norma & Harold Morgan, 6245 Central Avenue Dorothy Miles, 1370 Rice Creed Road NE Paul Litwinczuk, 6291 Central Avenue NE Councilmember Ann Bolkcom Councilmember Bob Barnette Angela Rust Jane Skinner, 6217 Central Avenue John Corcoran, Realtor Dianne McKusick, 4330 Van Buren Street Cynthia Schreiner, 7372 Symphony Street NE Peggy Van De Riet, 210 Rice Creek Boulevard Donnamae Siedlecki, 425 - 67th Avenue NE Virgil Brenny, 6187 Heather Circle Marge Brickner, 3423 Fordham Court Rick Brickner, 1233 - 12th Avenue NW, New Brighton, MN Jim Esler� New Brighton Mrs. Willis Lynn, Melody Manor Phil Dommer, Philip Stephen Companies, Inc. Jeff Johnson, Barna, Guzy, & Steffen Ltd. Amy Jo Martin, 6170 Heather Place Caro1 Westover, 6270 West Ben More Drive Virgil Raney, 6187 Heather Circle _� �+� : � ' �: : •' ` ! ►1► \ •ulu •. u �I Y MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the September 3, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3.01 PLANNING CONIlrtISSION MEETING SEPTII��ER 17 1997 PAGE 2 . � :�•u" � . .,,� , _ •� :; Mr. Hickok stated this meeting is for the third planning area as part of the Comprehensive Planning process. The City Council made it clear that they would like to involve the public in the process as much as possible. In order to do that, staff has broken the City into seven geographic areas. Homeowners and business owners are notified of the meeting in the hope that they will provide input as the City moves forward in the comprehensive plan process. Mr. Hickok stated the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan 15 years ago as part of the State Land Planning Act. The plan looked to the future; talked about what we would look like from a policy standpoint into the year 1990; and set policy for land use, housing, park and recreation, transportation, environment and utilities. We are at a point where the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated. The State is requiring that by the end of next year the Comprehensive Plan be updated and in place. As part of the process, staff has been interested in getting the public's input and the Commission's input as part of moving forward on the plan. Mr. Hickok stated the City of Fridley is a fully developed community. Most of the development occurred after World War II in the 1950's and 1960's. As we now look at this process, it is important for the City to look at not only the City itself but also where we are in the region. As the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed by staff, the City Council and Planning Commission, we want to make certain that we have looked at how we fit into our region. We want to hear about what makes the community happy and what the community wants to see changed. Surveys were sent out to have the public give us a written response ahead of time. Citizens are asked to send that in. A prepared map is located in the lobby at the City Center showing the planning district. Staff will share this evening statistics of the comments received from_ Planning Area #3. Mr. Kondrick stated, for all planning area meetings, citizens are asked to share their ideas and comments for the future of our City. This meeting is one of six meetings being held to get ideas and input from citizens. It is not the purpose of the meeting to discuss individual problems or issues. Ms. McPherson stated this is the third planning area meeting out of six. Staff sent 767 surveys and invitations out on August 25 to residents of Planning Area #3. She apologized for the typographical error in the survey and any confusion that it may have caused. Planning Area #3 is the area bound by Rice Creek on the south, Highway 65 on the east, the Burlington Northern railroad to the west, and the Cities of Spring Lake Park and Coon 3.02 PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION MEETING SEPTII��ER 17 1997 PAGE s3 Rapids to the north. 59 surveys were returned for an average return rate of approximately 7.7%. The return rate for Area #1 was 5.2% and for Area #2 was 7.8�. Ms. McPherson reviewed charts showing the ages of the respondents and the length of residency. Staff has attempted to group comments received into the issue areas of parks, City services, property and maintenance, general amenities, City government, taxes, neighbors, access and location, traffic, crime or safety, land use, City image, and schools. This chart compared the four questions asked of residents - what did residents like about Fridley; what did residents dislike about Fridley; what did residents like about their specific neighborhood; and what did resident dislike about their neighborhood. General responses regarding what residents liked about Fridley included the areas of City services including snow plowing, police, fire services, recycling, and to a small extent the water. A higher response category was the access and location. Ms. McPherson stated the largest area of complaint included land uses with general comments about apartment buildings in the neighborhood, desiring upscale restaurants, wanting a municipal golf course. Most of the negative comments were about the Fantasy House and the pawn shops, general property upkeep and the City image particularly along the University corridor. Ms. McPherson stated specific comments about Planning Area ##3 include property upkeep. Most people feel that their neighborhoods are well kept and that people care about their property and their neighborhood. They also feel that people in their neighborhood are very friendly and very supportive, and feel a part of the community in their neighborhood. Ms. McPherson stated the.last question asked what residents disliked about their neighborhood. While most people felt their neighborhood was well kept, a number of respondents stated there were a number of properties that were not well kept. The second category for comments was land uses including the lack of maintenance along University Avenue and the fence along University which is a negative contribution to the community. There were several comments about increased traffic along 73rd. Several respondents stated the City lacks good architecture. Many felt their neighborhood and/or the City was very stable. Ms. McPherson stated, for this meeting, the Planning Commission would like to know what residents would like Fridley to be in the year 2010 and to discuss general concerns the residents have about where the City might be going in the next 10 to 15 years. At the same time, they would like residents to be creative and pose possible solutions to those same concerns. For those who would prefer not to come forward to speak, forms are available so that 3.03 PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING SEPTEN�ER 17 1997 PAGE 4 residents can jot down comments and turn them in at the end of the evening. Mr. Kondrick stated he would hope more people would respond. 7.7% responded to the survey for this area. This provides a trend but it would be better if a larger percentage responded. He asked residents to come forward for comment. Ms. McKusick stated she agreed with the comments that were made. She did return the survey. One comment she wanted to make is that the University Avenue corridor is right now an eyesore. Highway 65 and the Moore Lake area are becoming an eyesore. The other day as she drive past there, she noticed many weeds and the barrier is damaged and rusted. When the City Council discussed the issue of the lights, they discussed upgrading the corridor. Councilmember Barnette mentioned future businesses moving into the former Twin property may be affected by that. As a community member, she would like to support that whether the lights go in or not. Ms. McKusick stated another issue is something she noticed a few years ago while at Unity Hospital with her mother-in-law. While in the waiting room, she talked to a number of people. She noticed two couples and another person who had left the City. She asked them why they had moved, and they responded it was because there was not the type of housing available for them that they wanted for their later years. Their ages were the late 50's to perhaps 70's. They were looking for a little more upscale townhomes. The City did not have the Rottlund development at�that time. In conversation with these people, she got the impression they wanted something perhaps a little more than the $100,000 level. It seems sad that these people seemed to be good community citizens but they left the community because of that issue. She did not know if anything could be done about it, but it is an idea that should be thought about in the future. Ms. McKusick stated she agreed with most of the other comments. She pretty much likes her neighborhood. There is one property that is deteriorating and the-family does not seem to care about it. Otherwise, she has nice neighbors. They have been in their house for 28 years. Mr. Kondrick asked if she thought there was a good sense of community pride in Fridley. Ms. McKusick stated she thought overall there is. She has been involved in different community events and organizations. Overall, she thought there was a good sense of community. Mr. Pietrini stated he would like to know what they are doing at the Moore Lake area because it has significantly increased the traffic. Sometimes trying to get out of their street onto old 3.04 PLPiNNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEP�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 5 Central is getting to be tougher and very risky particularly when cars are coming from the south. Mr. Pietrini stated he has lived in Fridley for seven years. He asked if their were specific rules and laws about the condition in which you keep your property, what you can or cannot park in your yard such as a gravel truck? He thought Fridley was a nice area. He does occasionally see a house with debris or stuff in the yard and wonders what the neighbors must think. What can you do about it? Mr. Hickok stated he would address those issues following the meeting. Ms. Siedlecki stated she uses Locke Park and really enjoys it. She sees a lot of development that encroaches on these beautiful areas in Fridley. She thought these natural areas should be left alone. As an example, there is a huge warehouse north of Locke Park. Wal-Mart encroaches on the Springbrook Nature Center. She thought the City should slow down on the development and not encroach on the beautiful preserves that are in the City. That was the attraction when moving here. When she walks through Locke Park, it is like she is not even in the City any more. It is a beautiful place and she thought they should slow down on the development. She is an avid fan of bicycling and encouraged the bike trails. The bike trails along University Avenue are bumpy and the plans are to fix that. She thought, as a community, Fridley seemed anti-pedestrian. If she is biking on Mississippi Street, cars will honk as if she has no business on the road. She thought they could have more designated areas on the side of the road for bicyclers. It does not have to be real wide, but just enough to feel safe. Ms. Modig asked where the east/west bike paths were located. Ms. McPherson stated there was a bike path along 73rd on the south side. There is also a path on the north side of Osborne which goes from the easterly border at Mounds View over to East River Road. Mr. Esler stated he now lives in New Brighton after moving from Columbia Heights. His purpose for the coming is that he heard about the Planning Commission meeting. Last week while on the Internet, he found something interesting. He got on the website for the Minnesota Planning Commission. One of the reasons he moved from Columbia Heights was the fact that the taxes jumped by 21� this last year. The purpose for coming is that he found a report put out by the Minnesota Planning Commission talking about where the State is today as far as having a surplus over that last few years, but they also have expectations of seeing a large deficit in the 2002 to 2005 timeframe. His thought to the City is 3.05 PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEP�IDER 17, 1997 PAGE 6 to watch how they spend other people's money. He will provide a copy of this article. Mr. Kondrick stated he would pass that information on to the City Council. Ms. Lynn stated she is concerned about where they are going with all the information, and she is concerned about the mandated laws that have been passed this last year by the State legislature about land use and planning and starting a strategic and long range planning office. The State mandates these meetings in all the cities and counties. She wants to make sure that we are•very careful that we are not having things mandated by the State and Federal governments as to private property uses. She is concerned about mandatory laws stating that there be a certain number of roads per square mile and a certain number of residents per square mile, etc. She will provide a copy of this bill, House File 217. This is information available on the Internet. She just wanted to make sure that we are not being drawn into something that would affect the property rights of Fridley citizens. There are a lot of plans out there, and she wants to make sure that we are free of that type of intrusion from the State and Federal governments. Ms. Van De Riet stated she did not mind the weeds but there is way too much litter in the parks and along the roads in such areas as Commons Park, University Avenue service road, in the parks around Columbia Arena, etc. Moore Lake is disgusting. There is garbage strewn about, broken glass on the beach, boom boxes playing loudly and car radios, etc. She went there once but she will not go back. The area is unkempt. She thought it should be pickecl up or fines for those who litter. It is worse than other places she has been to. Mr. Bue stated he believed there is a proposal for new housing next to his property. It shows there would be six houses put along the edge of his property. He has concerns about that, about the street and where it would go, how it would butt up to his property, etc. He is looking for information on how that would be done. Mr. Kondrick stated this item is next on the agenda and will be discussed following this item. He asked Mr. Bue is he had any comments about his neighborhood and/or community. Mr. Bue stated he thought the schools were pretty good. One son is a junior and another son is in the Air Force, and he thought they both received good educations. He thought Fridley was a great place. He has no problem with the police. He thought they did a good job. It seems like a nice community and he has great neighbors. He would like to keep it that way. 3.06 PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEI��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 7 Mr. Hickok stated he would like to address the concern about the number of people attending this meeting. He reminded the viewing public that they can still fill out their surveys and turn those in. Four more planning areas are yet to be reviewed. Staff would like to hear those comments. Comments will be included in the information and they do want to make sure that all voices are heard. He and Ms. McPherson are available if anyone would like to speak with them personally about any issues. Ms. McPherson's telephone number is 572-3593 and Mr. Hickok is available 572-3599. Mr. Hickok stated another concern came up. The City Council has heard the voice of the code enforcement process and the need to make sure that properties are kept up. It is very important to the City that this happens. In May 1997, the City has embarked on a systematic code enforcement process. The plan is to go through the City over the next two years to be certain the codes are being enforced. Very often, they find that folks need additional information about the code requirements. Staff has found that approximately 87% to 90% of the folks upon first notice and realizing what code issues exist on their property correct those issues. Mr. Kurt Jensen-Schneider is the resource for code enforcement and is available at 572-3595. The next area planning meeting will be October 15. Mr. Saba stated people bring up over and over again the lack of maintenance and unsightly conditions. The more he drives on Highway 65 from I-694, the worse he fells about what the State is doing to the City. It is the State's responsibility to repair the divider and rusted looking barriers, to control the weeds in the median and to fix it up. He did not think they would be doing that to the City of Edina but they tend ta forget about Fridley. What can we do as a City to get the State to be more active in cleaning up their unsightly areas. It degrades our City. We have a nice looking park in the Moore Lake area but you see the mess in the median. It's ugly. We have an area on University where we are trying to clean it up including the fence. The areas on Highway 65 are strictly the State's responsibility, and he would like to make sure that someone-in the City working with the State to take care of this. Mr. Hickok stated this is an excellent place to start. The message from the public is entered into the public record. The City Council is interested in the outcomes of these discussions. Staff direction comes from the City Council. The City Council is very interested to know what it is about the community that is ailing and what it is that they can do in terms of giving staff direction to move forward. Certainly, staff take that to heart and will move forward to get issue(s) taken care of. This particular comment about the upkeep of the corridors is one that has come up over and over again. 3.07 P7�ANNING COl�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEI��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 8 Mr. Kondrick stated they do hear similar comments from others as well about the conditions along East River Road, University and Highway 65. He agreed that it is time for some action. Mr. Saba stated he was satisfied that they will do something next year. He would like something to be done sooner. It could be a beautiful area for the City but now is looks like a slum. 2. Pt�3LIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S. �Q7 04 BY THE PHILIP STEPHEN COMPANIES INC : To resubdivide the property into six buildable lots for single family homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYI�, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:22 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the request is for a preliminary plat of residential development for a single family subdivision of seven lots generally located at 6217 Central Avenue. The property is located south of Rice Creek Road on Central Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Single Fami.ly Dwelling, and is surrounded by R-1, Single Family, on all side except to the west where there is C-3 development, the Moore Lake Racquet Club. The Heather Hills residential development would share the Heather Place roadway that enters this proposed development. Mr. Hickok stated, in analyzing this plat, staff determined that each lot meets the minimum 75 foot lot width requirements and exceeds the 9,000 square foot minimum lot area. The proposed development would have seven single family executive homes which would be paired in such a way to share a driveway. Six of those homes would face south and the paired arrangement would mean three driveways onto Heather Place.- Each dwelling would be maintained with a homeowners association. The properties would be commonly cared for, the driveways plowed in a common arrangement, the landscape maintained by a common association. The seventh lot is Outlot A on the proposed plat and would have access from the Ben Moore cul de sac. Mr. Hickok stated a neighborhood meeting was held September 10. At that meeting, the developer asked to hear of the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood. In the context of the meeting, the developer agreed that a$300,000 base price for the dwelling units would be the starting price for the homes. An $8,000 landscape budget would be required of each of those homes and the minimum floor area of the homes would be 1800 square feet. The developer 3.08 PLANNING COl�lISSION MEETING SEPTII��ER 17 1997 PAGE 9 also talked about the architectural individuality of the units. There were concerns from the neighborhood about this looking like six homes with similar characteristics. The developer responded that they would be interested in individuality. On top of the other standard lot sales, there would be a plan book to select from with no two plans being the same. The developer agreed to shared concrete driveways, matching mailboxes, yard lighting that is appropriate for the architecture in the area, and also an entry monument off from Central Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated other development issues include the status of Outlot B. Outlot B exists as part of the Heather Hills West plat. If you were to go to the County and ask for the plat for Heather Hills West, Outlot B is a 4-foot strip of property that separates the street from the north property line. Outlot B was created in 1981 as part of a development discussion for the Heather Hills West plat. At that time, the property owner who owned the property to the north discussed a number of options with the City but at that point indicated they were not interested in future assessment packages or anything that would put an assessment responsibility on that property to the north. As a result, Outlot B was created and the developer to the south paid 100% of the improvement costs for the roadway and utilities to go along with the development. Mr. Hickok stated there are street connection issues. In discussions at the time the initial Heather Hills West development was being discussed, there was also a discussion about future development from this area up to Rice Creek Road. In the event that future development were to occur, what would be potential future road alignments for this area. There is a stipulation which talks about providing future access via a dedication of a 30 foot strip across the northern edge of Outlot A and Lot 6. There is a public street right-of-way for 28 feet of the eastern lot line for Outlot A. This provides adequate access for the residents in this location. Dedicating a 30-foot strip along Outlot A and Lot 6 would provide an option for the future. In the planning process, we like to look at the development and, as it is developing, make sure that we are leaving ourselves options. For future road connection, if the larger lots to the north were to develop in a different scheme than we currently see, we would have an option for an alternative for connecting the roadway from Ben More to Rice Creek Road, should that become the chosen route. Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Hickok was saying that from Ben More that we are talking about allowing access to the�first and second lot or just the first. The accesses for the other lots are from the south. Mr. Hickok stated access from.Ben More would be just for the one lot. The other six lots would have access from the south. The 3.09 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 10 dedication is upon request of the City. The development area to the north is such that future development could occur. If that did occur, this would provide an opportunity. As we l.00k at the addition of snow plow routes along alternative access neighborhood, etc., this would be 1/2 of a right-of-way. Mr. Hickok stated there are miscellaneous engineering issues talking about where utilities can be connected to the development and where utility stubs are in relation to the lot lines. Those are pointed out in the staff report and will become part of the recommendation before final plat approval. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the plat request with the following stipulations: l. Prior to approval of the final plat, the petitioner shall either acquire Outlot B and incorporate�it into the plat, or provide legal documentation to certify that Outlot B does not exist. 2. Park fees shall be paid at the time of the building permit ($1,500.00 per lot). 3. A$1,000 per lot storm water fee shall be paid at the time of the building permit. 4. Outlot A shall be changed to Lot #7. 5. A 30-foot road easement shall be dedicated along the north lot lines of Lots #7 and Lot #6. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot #7, a detailed grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan for the driveway and house plan shall be submitted. 7. No driveway access to Central Avenue is permitted. 8. The developer shall place restrictive cov�nants on the property regarding maintenance of shared amenities. 9. A maximum of 3 driveways will be permitted onto Heather Place, as proposed by the developer. 10. A demolition or moving permit shall be obtained prior to demolition or movement of the existing home. 11. Dedication of the 50 foot easternmost lot illustirated on the proposed plat for County Roadway purposes. 12. Al1 engineering issues identified shall be rectified to satisfy the City Engineering staff prior to final plat 3.y0 PI�ANNING COIrIl�lI S S ION MEET ING , SEPTEI��ER 17 , 19 9 7 PAGE 11 submittal including, but not limited to: • Services to Lot 3 are on or across Lot 4 property line • No services have been shown to Lot 6 • No services have been shown to Outlot A • Proposed grading plan showing drainage west to CSAH No. 35 (Central Avenue) from rear yards � Proposed grading cannot affect properties to the north. Ms. Modig asked how the 50-foot easement affect the first lot. Mr. Hickok stated the developer has designed the plat to accommodate the required right-of-way. The developer has allowed an additional 3.86 feet on the corner lot. The lot size for Lots 1-6 are approximately 11,245 square feet and Outlot A or Lot 7 is approximately 17,988 square feet. One revelation staff had as they analyzed the 30-foot dedication on the north edge of Lot 6'is that it does leave Lot 6 with 8,995 square feet or 5 square feet shox�t of the minimum lot size. If that were to be the case, staff ask that the lot line be adjusted so that Lot 6 would be of the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet. Staff asked that this be considered as the final stipulation. Mr. Sielaff asked if Ben More drive would terminate at Lot 7. Mr. Hickok stated Ben more is a cul de sac. On the plat there shows a 28-foot public right-of-way that then becomes a private driveway. In the event of future development occurs to the north and the City builds a roadway, then a determination would have to be made on just how the road alignment would work. Mr. Sielaff stated, in the future, that on to the north of Lot 7, and we do not be. It depends on future development. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. road could extend further know how far out that will Ms. Modig stated, in looking at the map on Heather Place, what is the triangular piece. - Mr. Hickok stated that is a different Outlot A. The petitioner would need to obtain rights to Outlot B. It is our understanding that the.developer does not intend to address anything with this Outlot A. Mr. Dommer stated his desire is to plat a property with a lot of history. The situation has been a difficult situation for many people, particularly for those who are closely involved. His hope is to get beyond that and create a dynamic development that will enhance the City and address some of the housing needs. In his presentation he will describe the development, address the Outlot B issue, and finally ask for support and help in moving this 3.11 P7�ANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 12 forward. Mr. Dommer stated in his work he focuses on developing projects that are meeting the needs of a changing market. In the Parade of Homes or if you have seen the Parade of Homes magazine, there is a section that talks about attached maintenance-free and detached maintenance-free living. They are moving in that direction. Although this is a traditional single family neighborhood, we are addressing the need to have a traditional single family lifestyle in a maintenance-free setting. Their projects have three main characteristics. First, they target main level living with the owner's suite on the main level, laundry area on the main level, etc. There is expansion space in the upstairs or downstairs. This project would have an 1800 square foot main level minimum. Second, they are focusing on maintenance free homes both on the exterior of the home as far as the materials that are used and also on the property itself. TYie association includes landscaping, snow plowing, etc., which gives people the freedom they are looking for. They are targeting the active adult. Third, the architecture itself is required to be classic architecture. The intent is to develop homes and require homes that have features of a throw back era. One point for clarification - they do not have a plan book such that you can choose a particular plan. They have a guidebook that says we are looking for a particular feature and a particular material. They are not going to feature garages or driveways. They want to feature good architecture with good proportions. These principles define the kind of project they are trying to do in this location. Mr. Dommer showed proposed elevations for the site. Their intent is that the eye would be drawn to the home itself and not to the driveways or the garages. Their landscaping plans would require that the homes are veiled with landscaping but not screened. They want to feature the architecture as well as good landscaping. You will notice that the garage is not visible. They do a concept called layering. In front of the home, they put a retaining wall which raises the home and allows the residents to look across the street at other pleasant homes and allows those on the street to look up at the home and not see the driveway. The overall site plan is presented to give the idea of the variety of homes that could be put there. You can get a variety of different styles in architecture. These are going to be custom homes. People have the freedom within this footprint to have a unique home to fit their taste. There is generous space between the homes. Even with a relatively large footprint, 1800 square foot minimum, they can still achieve generous spacing. The characteristics being discussed do not apply to the outlot but to the six lots. The three driveways and generous landscaping will minimize the negative things of residential development. Mr. Dommer showed an example of the shared driveway. It allows 3.12 PLANNING CO1�IlriISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 13 and encourages some kind of a pattern in the complex. Their intent is to create a development that offers the best of single family living and a maintenance-free lifestyle. He thought this was a great location to offer it. Mr. Dommer stated he wanted to get into the other development standards to make sure there is no misunderstanding between himself, the City and the neighbors. They held a neighborhood meeting, and he thought they made good progress. Anytime you have development, there is concern particularly in an existing neighborhood. Regarding the concrete drive, they are committing to the concrete drive but they would also like to leave the option open for pavers and aggregate. He thbught the bottom line was there be no asphalt. They talked about textured architectural shingles which is really asphalt shingles. They would like to leave the option open to put on slate and shakes. Last, it states we are going to brick, stucco, stone and bleached shakes. These are maintenance free products for the front of the home. The sides and the rear of the home may have other maintenance-free products including vinyl siding. That is up to the owner. Their intent is from the streetscape to offer a real dynamic appearance. Mr. Kondrick asked if the developer would specify that the home be maintenance free. Mr. Dommer stated yes. There are detail elements that some will be cedar, some will be shakes, but the intent is to be as maintenance free as possible. Regarding the $300,000 minimum value, that is not the base price of the house that you can add options from there. They are talking about making homes that are comparable in value to the Heather Hills West neighborhood. He is not convinced that the number is $300,000 but the neighbors tell him it is. They will go in that direction. He is talking about total value which is a.different term than base price. He thought this was a dynamic development if you look at it from that perspective. Mr. Dommer stated it was a sur-prise to him that they would be asked to dedicate a 30-foot easement on Lot 7. They can do that if that is a buildable lot. At the time they submitted the plat, that was in question. Dedicating 30-feet to the north is not the proposal that they are presenting and not the proposal they are seeking a recommendation on. 30 feet particularly on Lot 6 is very detrimental to the project. By taking 30 feet of Lot 6, you eat up 30 feet of the lot and then you have a front setback on that side and a front street setback on the other side, and then the lot does not meet minimum size. They are absolutely against dedicating that right-of-way particularly on Lot 6. They understand there are hopes to develop the rest of the area, and that is why they plotted Outlot A. Mr. Hickok mentioned some reasons for doing an outlot. One of the big reasons in 3.13 PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 14 development is to hold it for future development. Their intent is to give some flexibility. They understand the need for future planning. Dedicating a 30-foot right-of-way does not serve the development and is not necessary for this project. When a development plan comes in, that would be the time to dedicate it. That is not their proposal. If you have to recommend approval with that in it, then you will not get this proposal. He thought that was piecemeal planning. This was a surprise to him and he did not get a chance to work out details. They object. It does not serve the development and there is no benefit to it. At the time a new development does come in, they would be happy to work and cooperate with that. This same issue has been talked about since 1980. Mr. Dommer stated, regarding 0utlot B, the burden of proof is apparently on his shoulders to show that it does not exist. The Planning Commission has a copy of the staff report. Mr. Dommer handed out copies of the graphics previously shown. In the staff report, he would like to make sure there are corrections entered into the record. He has been is Mr. Hickok's position. There is a lot of stuff flying around, and this in particular is very difficult. He is personally interested in the property so he has spent a lot of time researching the records. That is time the staff probably does not have. The corrections he is making are probably because no one else probably knows the record as well as he does at this point. There are some things in the staff report that need to be corrected in order to get an accurate picture. Mr. Dommer stated the first regards the site history as outlined on page 4 of the staff report. It talks about, in 1980, Brickner Builders proposed the Heather Hills development. What needs to be moved in the site history, however, is the fact that the Skinners did not address the issue of the road access, and the Heather Hills road placement was not debated until July and August, 1981. So that whole paragraph needs to be pop down. That is important because the chronology needs to be right. Mr. Dommer stated, second,,the City Council did set a public hearing to consider Heather Hi11s West. They approved it on April 20 but they approved it as a 50-foot right-of-way. That information is not in the staff report. The copy of the approved plat is in the packet. Mr. Dommer stated, third, later it says the developer would have to pay an additional $56,100 without the participation of the Skinners. The actual proposal was for the amount to be $18,835. That is from the City Council records. This is the critical point. The staff report identifies that the Skinners were not interested in any options for special assessments. However, minutes will show that to be different. There was a public hearing on an assessment project on August 10, 1981, which is 3.14 PLANNING CO1�Il�iISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ER 17, 1997 _ PAGE 15 several months after the plat approval. Reading directly from those minutes, he stated, "Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Skinner if he would be in favor of a deferred assessment. Mr. Skinner said that he felt that a deferred assessment would be more intriguing to him. He stated he had an interest in developing this property but one thing is the time problem of not knowing exactly what is going to develop, in which direction, and how it will affect his property in the future." Mr. Skinner stated he would certainly feel more comfortable with a deferred assessment and the time frame was such that he would be pursuing some plans for development and then what would the options be. Mr. Dommer stated there is a clear record on August 10 that Mr. Skinner was interested in a deferred assessment. Now seven days later on August 17, 1981, an administrative meeting was held by the City Council. The Skinners were not invited to that meeting and no public was there except the developer and the City. At that time, the staff report shows that is when Outlot B was created. For this to have occurred at that time, there would have to have been three official City actions. First, the right-of-way approved previously would have to then be vacated. Second, a variance would have to be approved. Third, a new lot was created and would have to have been created through a replatting process. He has asked in a letter that the City to provide him with minutes or any action that would indicate that these thing happened. Their response was that there are no minutes to show these actions. There are no resolutions that show these actions. Furthermore, the addition of Outlot B was not included on the agenda or in a resolution. The only resolution approved on August 17 was one approving a public works project. Mr. Dommer stated, as a Planning Commission, you know that there is a process that a property has to go through to be created. That process does not exist here. First, we have no action taken to substantiate the addition of Outlot B. We have a problem because Outlot B shows up on the County records and is drawn on the plat. His question is who drew Outlot B on the plat. He would like to ask that publicly tonight. The previous builder is here. The City is here. Of those two, who drew Outlot B on the plat? Mr. Dommer stated we have a situation where there was no action taken, no one taking responsibility for that action. That outlot was never officially created. He is sorry for Mrs. Skinner. She has objected to this situation from the day they found out about it. It has caused a great deal of grief. Mr. Skinner died in the process. He is sorry for the Brickners. They have paid taxes on this for many years. He has come tonight with facts that you can rely on and there is nobody who can refute those facts. We can get through this. He is willing to cooperate with it and he wants to do it. They can get the County record and get it corrected. 3.15 PLP,NNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 16 The County records do have errors. He has been around the business enough to know there are errors in the County records. He has no problem with that and wants to participate in it. Here is what he has a problem with. This is a big ugly public mess. It has created a lot of problems for the Brickners, for the homeowners, and for the Skinners. Mr. Dommer stated the public guardian is the City. The public guardian should step in and help fix this problem. Instead, the City's position has been private citizen, Mr. Dommer, and private landowner, Mrs. Skinner, should fix it. He can fix the problem but he did not think it was necessary if they could together. He does not want to litigate this thing but he will if he has to because the facts are on his side. If you look at the letter regarding the City's response to his question for evidence that Outlot B was created, the City's letter states that they must presume Outlot B exists because the County records show it and the plat shows it. Lawsuits are one of facts not presumptions. If we have to litigate this, they have to do it. Every dollar spent litigating is a dollar less spent on a prime development. Every dollar spent litigating is another dollar taken from the taxpayers. He does not want to go that route. The facts are clear, but they will do what it takes to get the records corrected. Mr. Dommer stated he said at the end of his presentation he would be asking for the Planning Commission's help and that is what he wants to do. They have a prime development that he thought would be an asset to the community. These are homes that meet a market demand not currently met in the City. It is a good area and he thought they would provide a good tax base. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the plat as presented and recommend the City Council to work with them to correct the error in the County records. Ms. Modig stated page 6 of the staff report indicated that the neighborhood talked about concrete driveways and that Mr. Dommer agreed. Tonight, the petitioner is indicating that perhaps that the driveways may not all be concrete and that there may be other materials. Mr. Dommer stated he was saying that concrete would be their minimum or something better. There may be an aggregate or pavers which is an upgrade material. They will not put in asphalt, and he thought that was what they were objecting to. Ms. Modig stated she was not at the meeting but of what the neighbors are asking for is that the same materials that are in the existing division that is concrete. 3.16 her interpretation appearance be the and at this time PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 17 Mr. Dommer stated they would be happy to agree to concrete. It is less expensive than other materials. Ms. Modig stated stipulation 5 deals with the 30-foot roadway easement and that the petitioner would not agree to do that. Mr. Dommer stated this was correct. It does not benefit their property and is not required to plat their property. There is an outlot to the north. He would be willing to leave Lot 7 or Outlot A so that you have some control if someone would want to get back there. They can build on it and still address that issue. There is a lot of land there. His feeling is that there are a lot of private owners who do not want it developed. At this point, it would not be wise planning to carve out a narrow strip which would negatively impact this project and a strip that is not usable today. When a development plan comes in is the time to set the road patterns. Ms. Modig stated, if they do not do that planning now and a development come in later, a home is already built on the property, and there is no room there, then that creates a major problem for the rest of the area to develop. Mr. Dommer stated he would agree, but that is the typical process. You can develop property when you have control of it. If that were the case, then he would ask that the City plat the rest of the right-of-way through the project at this time. Ms. Modig stated she was not comfortable with the Planning Commission having to react rather than act. She would rather act upon something instead of having to react to a negative thing to try to deal with it five, ten or twenty years down the road. Even though she no longer would have to worry about it, someone is going to have to deal with that. She is not comfortable dealing with it in that way. She finds they are more and more into that mode because they neglected or did not deem it necessary to do something 25 years ago because they did not see far enough into the future to know that they �nzere going to need to do that. Now they are trying to solve some of those problems at this age, and she did not see that they need to continue to do that. Mr. Dommer stated, if that is a requirement of the platting, he objects. The right-of-way is not required there to serve the project. There is rational nexus between that right-of-way and the project. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner objected to the right-of-way was on both Lots 6 and 7. Mr. Dommer stated he objects particularly to Lot 6. He would plat it on Lot 7, and he made Lot 7 bigger for future planning. There 3.17 PLANNING COI�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 18 is plenty of room on Lot 7 to make a road work. He says that with the understanding that if the right-of-way is platted that Lot 7 is still considered a buiTdable lot. Mr. Hickok stated the developer has throughout the course of the meeting asked staff to say whether Outlot A is a buildable lot. It is the developer's determination that should say whether that is a buildable lot. Staff's position is that they want to see that as Lot 7. The lot size would not be diminished by dedication of the right-of-way. He has been asked several times to answer whether or not this is a buildable lot, and he thought there was something else there of interest. The developer indicated to Mr. Hickok early on that this is the site for his own home. It is staff's position that it meets all of the minimum standards. Earlier this evening the developer questioned whether this was a buildable lot. The street right-of-way frontage reguires 25 feet on a public right-of-way. This lot has 28 feet and meets the requirement by 3 feet. To answer the answer the question about minimum lot area, the lot area would not be diminished to create something smaller than a 9,000 square foot by dedication on Lot 7. On Lot 6, there is a 5 square foot deficit by dedicating that 30 foot strip. This is an opportunity for the developer to move the lot line over and create the additional square foot dimension necessary to allow that to happen. Also on Lot 6, the developer talks about the double frontage. As you will note, the roadway in front of Lot 6 curves at about the west lot line. We are talking about a future potential roadway behind it and a driveway to Lot 6 that comes in off from Ben More. Mr. Sielaff asked why they were saying the right-of-way is on Lot 6 and not on Lot 5. Mr. Hickok stated staff will look at this from a reasonableness perspective as to whether or not we are reasonable in our expectations. The topography in this area has great variation. To go from Ben More to the north would require a gradual curve. Staff believes that with the topography considerations additional land may be necessary on Lot 6-but it would not carry to Lot 5. Because of the change in grade, staff is therefore asking for that dedication. Mr. Dommer stated, because it is a surprise to him that they have a 30-foot right-of-way on Outlot A, does that constitute proper frontage in order to pull a permit to build a home. Mr. Hickok stated the lot has 28 feet of frontage on the Ben More right-of-way. The situation would only get better by dedication of a 30-foot right-of-way because there would be frontage along the north side of the lot. Mr. Dommer stated this is true. But the code says an "improved" 3.18 PLANNING CO1�IlrlISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 19 right-of-way. The City would be drawing an unimproved right-of- way across there. He wants to make sure he is not creating an unbuildable lot. As Mr. Hickok said, we really don't know what the road is going to do. Personally he believes the road needs to cut off quite a bit sooner. He did not know how much land is needed. He would need to look at an engineering plan that shows the need for Lot 6. There is a hill from Ben More. The best course is to go with the hill as soon as possible which would be cutting about 75� and would not require Lot 6. Mr. Sielaff asked if, historically, the County is considered the official record. Mr. Hickok stated yes. If anyone has tried to file a false document at the County, it puts a different light on what has been put before you this evening. The official document is before the Planning Commission this evening that is recorded at the County. Certainly there are some representations that lots of things happened in the past. It is very clear that the City Council has the authority to file a plat within 18 months of the time that plat is approved. This was filed within 18 months, and they elected based on the August 17 discussion to include an outlot because the developer was willing to pay 100� of the assessments and it was represented. The minutes state the City Manager let the City Council know that the property owner to the north was not interested in participating; therefore the developer has taken on 100% of the assessments and therefore an outlot was created. When assessments are being appointed to properties adjacent to an improvement, the assessment is based on the benefit to that property. At this juncture, it was determined that the property owners were not interested in the proposal at hand, the developer was interested in 100% involvement in the project, and therefore a lot was created and it was filed within the proper amount of time. Until a record is in the County's hands on a filed plat, there is no dedication of a 50-foot right-of-way. It is at the time that the 50-foot right-of-way in on record at the County that a vacation would have to occur and also a variance to allow that lot width of the street. The City-Council has within its power the ability to create something less than a 50-foot right-of-way if they choose to do so, and they chose to do so in this case. Mr. Dommer stated he is not refuting that. He is saying that there is a process they have to go through, they did not follow the process. The only public records available indicate that Mr. Skinner was interested in a deferred assessment. You cannot create outlots in public works project areas. He has asked for the documentation that the City Council created through the process. Furthermore, this is just plain bad planning. It would not occur if it went through the proper process. The drawing at the County shows Outlot B, but the approved plat in the file does not. 3.19 PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPTED�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 20 Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner was saying the approved plat does not show Outlot B. Mr. Dommer stated this was correct. He does not know what happened. There is a difference between what the plat shows and what the City Council approved. Mr. Hickok and he have agreed that they are not going to agree on this. The facts before you are that this did not get created in a hearing setting or process that is legally viable. Ms. Modig stated she understands the petitioner would object to stipulation #5 regarding the 30-foot road easement. The issue regarding Outlot B cannot be solved this evening. Is there anything other than that stipulation to which you object? Mr. Dommer stated stipulation #8 should be clear that Lot 7 is not a part of the neighborhood with shared amenities and maintenance. Only the six lots will have that. These are two neighborhoods. He also asked for a clarification of stipulation #1 that says he must acquire Outlot B or provide legal documentation that it does not exist. He asked someone to define what that documentation is so they know what they have to bring. Mr. Hickok stated throughout the course the course of this the developer has asked the City to do the research to prove his point be correct. Staff's position is that on this is that Outlot B exists and we will ask the Commission to ask based on the development. If, as presented to you, you believe there is litigation standing, then he believes it is based on past history. The proposal before the Commission is one that without request for an answer to Outlot B cannot go forward. Mr. Dommer does not have access to a roadway based on the records on file at the County. Therefore, we have a planning issue. If there is something else, that is his proof and we would like him to bring that forward. At a point this can be proven, we certainly will amend our position. At this time, Outlot B exists and staff will contend that Outlot B does exist as this moves forwa�d. If the direction of the Commission is to send staff back to do the developers research, then he would like to point out that it is his burden of proof to show that the outlot does not exist. Mr. Dommer stated he is asking what legal documentation staff is seeking to convince them. Facts were presented tonight which are convincing. What else is there? He would like specifics. The drawing is one thing, but there are other parts of it that he can bring forward. He is asking for guidance from staff. They are asking for legal documentation. He wants staff to be specific about what that legal documentation is. Mr. Sielaff stated in stipulation #1 the petitioner is asking for 3.20 PLANNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 21 specific information as to what legal documentation is required besides what was presented tonight. Mr. Kondrick stated this is certainly a difficult issue. He opened the meeting to the general public. Mr. Johnson stated he was an attorney at the Barna, Guzy & Steffen law firm and that he represented the Brickners. At the time of the transaction, he represented the church that had the underlying fee ownership of this property. While he was not particularly involved with the platting process, he can say that it is the Brickners' position that 0utlot B does exist. If you understand the platting process, the city is presented with a plat, a drawing per se, in which the city will look at, act and approve. That drawing is reduced to a recordable instrument, signed off by the city mayor and city clerk, sent to the County Attorneys office, surveyor's office, and ultimately is recorded in the•County Recorders and Registrar and Titles Office. Mr. Johnson stated in the plat, if you read the dedication, the dedication statement says that the developer or the party platting is dedicating to the public the right-of-ways that are reflected on the plat and subdividing the properties and parcels that are reflected by that drawing. That is the instrument that creates the subdivisions with the County. It is what then goes forward from that time for the records. The parcels are identified separately, tracts and change of title are identified separately from that time forward, property identification numbers�(PIN) for taxes purposes are assigned to the individual parcels. All of those steps were followed. This took place some 16 years ago. Minnesota has statutes of limitations. If there was a problem with the process, the statute of limitations has long expired. Outlot B exists. There is no question that Outlot B exists. If the developer is asking you what you need in the way of some type of legal documentation saying it does not exist, it needs to be in a district court order that reverses the process. Good luck to the developer in getting that. Mr. Bateson stated seven years ago they purchased a lot in Heather Place. They wanted to build a substantial home. They looked at many places in the Twin Cities to build. When they found this, that is where they wanted to build and they wanted to be in that kind of setting. He is present to voice his concerns that this development changes the character of Heather Place. His lot faces this property. His lot is 230 feet wide. The part that he has developed and mows is about 175 feet wide. His home not counting the decks is 78 feet wide, and Mr. Dommer wants to put in 75 foot lots across the street from this. His home would not even fit on these lots. He thinks this development is to minimal and changes the character of Heather Place. If those lots is going to have access onto Heather Place, then he thought it should be in keeping 3.21 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEPTE,T�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 22 with the kind of homes that are in Heather Place. Mr. Bateson showed pictures of his property. All the homes have a significant street presence. They talked about the driveways should be concrete to be consistent with what is the development. He thought the street presence should be consistent with the development too. These are all homes that are not built right upon each other. If you looked at Mr. Dommer's renditions, you would see that the garages are 5 feet from the lot line which means the back of the garages are 10 feet apart. His decks are 12 feet wide. And this development would be across the street. He thought that it would detract from the character of the Heather Place development which has been there for many years. Also, he believes he would suffer value loss in his property if this development is allowed to go ahead as proposed. Mr. Bateson stated they had met with Dr. Dommer and talked about the requirements that the residents all faced when they built in Heather Place. That is summarized in the list in the staff report. He is concerned that there is no legal substance. Mr. Dommer has agreed to these but he would like to have some way that this is incorporated into the development that these things will take place if the development goes ahead. Those requirements were given to us to be in Heather Place. He hears that they are not the requirements for the development, legally. That is why Outlot B is so important. When they asked their developer about the property across the street because they had concerns about what might happen there,-Outlot B was explained to them and the fact that when Outlot B became involved in any future development that the requirements would be enforced. That is why they had no reservations about building in Heather Place even though it was not completely defined what would happen on the property now being discussed. He thought this development was not in keeping with the kinds of homes now in Heather Place now. He asked the Planning Commission not to approve the development that has been presented. Ms. Martin stated she has concerns about the development. One concern is the shared driveway approach. They were presented this option as the lesser of two evils. Do you want six driveways coming onto Heather Place or three? It is like asking whether you would rather have a broken leg or a heart attack. In the cul de sac where she lives, there are five homes each with three-car garages and extra wide driveways. Whenever they have a family event or gathering, they end up having to park on the street. The shared driveways really brings up the concern for parking. Now you have six homes with a shared driveway and parking pads going to individual residences. If any one of those people on each of those three driveways have a gathering, there will be people parking in the street. That creates traffic problems. There are bends and blind spots. But now there would also be cars parked on 3.22 PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 23 the street. Ms. Martin stated her second concern is that the developer has agreed to the yard lights, a minimum landscaping requirement, exterior materials, etc. He has also agreed to a$300,000 price range. He as much said at the neighborhood meeting that he can ask $70,000 for the lot and $230,000 for the home so this has reached the $300,000. He has not even selected a builder yet. There may not be a builder who will put homes on a lot with a shared driveway. It may happen. What will prevent him from putting in a $150,000 house? Ms. Martin asked where the egress would be for Outlot A. Mr. Kondrick stated the egress would be only on Ben More cul de sac. Mr. Pietrini stated he has given a lot of thought to this development. He understands the concerns about the property and they understand as homeowners that the property will someday be developed. They think at this time that the development as proposed is not in keeping with the spirit and general overall look of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a tremendous asset to that property. He thought that property could be an tremendous asset to the neighborhood. He suggested four lots rather than six with bigger yards and homes more in keeping with the style of the homes that are there. It would enhance everybody's position. Mr. Pietrini stated there were questions that keep popping into his head. He does not have an answer but he has suspicions. You have seen pictures of the homes in Heather Hills. If you look at Mr. Bates home, it is very well kept as are all the homes. If you were going to build a development, why would you have the back of the house and the garages facing out at the area. Wouldn't you like to look at the homes in Heather Hills? What is the reason that we will have garages looking at us? Why aren't the garages on the back side of the undeveloped lot? There is more to this scenario than meets the eye. �ie sees this as not real good for their situation. Mr. Pietrini stated Mr. Dommer has stated he is the developer and not a builder. In the neighborhood meeting, he said when they build they do this and they do that, but he stated he was strictly a developer. He could develop the land, put the lots up for sale, and a builder could buy the lots provided they met certain criteria and could build there. In effect, he could develop these lots, parcel it out, have someone build on them, and leave. That bothers him also. He would hope that the Planning Commission would look at the neighborhood, look at the huge investment that they have made in their neighborhood, look at all the things they have done to keep their homes looking right, and ask that the 3.23 PLANNING CONIlriISSION MEETING, SEPTEP�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 24 Planning Commission take a hard look at this development and see if there is another way that this could be developed. He thought that the land was worth enough money, why fight about Outlot A and Outlot B? He believed that 4-foot strip when it was put in there by the City was for a very specific and just cause to protect this extremely expensive area to develop as insurance for homeowners who bought that land so that nothing would happen to their cul de sacs with through streets and other types of development. He believes in that spirit at the time that strip was put there and he believes it is legal and he believes that it is part of the area. Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. Pietrini has suggested having four lots there. What if there were four homes there worth $175,000, would that be satisfactory to him? Mr. Pietrini stated no. Mr. Kondrick stated he is familiar with the area. We are talking about a residential area. He is wondering how they can limit the amount of dollar value of a home that is put in there. Mr. Pietrini stated he believed that the control comes from the developer. He believes there are developers in this area under the right circumstances would develop that property and put� homes in there of substantial value. There has been a recent development in the City of Fridley on Royal Oaks Court. Those are very substantial, beautiful homes. No one in the neighborhood would mind getting homes like that in there. But not with shared driveways. That is not in keeping with their neighborhood. The lots in Royal Oaks Court sold quickly. He believed there was an opportunity for the developer to do that. He knows it is difficult for the Planning Commission to say the value must be $200,000 or whatever. There is already some backpedaling on Mr. Dommer's part on what he perceives to be a$300,000 value on a home versus what they perceive. He believes there are people who would love to live in that neighborhood. Ms. Pietrini stated she agreed with what the neighbors and husband have said. She supports their statements. She would like to add that they love living in Fridley. They love their community. They love their neighbors. They have fun together and do things together. The City means much to them. A developer comes in, develops a piece of property, sticks whatever he can put in there and leaves. They are still living there and working together. That is one concern that they all have. Ms. Westover stated she and her husband have owned their home on Ben More Drive for 17 years. Her concern is that, when they were notified of this meeting, it was about taking a piece of property on Heather Place and making it six lots. There was no mention 3.24 PL�INNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17 , 1997 __ PAGE 25 that it would affect Ben More Drive. She did not think the people in her neighborhood were aware of it. They were not invited to the neighborhood meeting nor were the people to the north of that property. There are eight homes on Ben More Drive and she did not think that the people on that street would like to have it go through either. She thought the other people need to be heard before this is approved. They were against Ben More Drive when their development was going through because we felt that would bring their values down. She thought there were other people who would object. They are at the top of a substantial hill. This property is lower and would not be a part of their neighborhood. Now the City is talking about putting a street in there and making it a through street. She thought others on that street would want an opportunity for input before anything is decided upon. Mr. Dommer stated he invited to the neighbor immediately to the north to the meeting and discussed with him the proposal. He said he was fine with that and did not see a reason to attend. Mr. Saarela stated he is a unique resident because he is the only person who built his own house. He previously lived on Stinson Boulevard and noticed signs of lots available. He originally went to Mr. Skinner's house to see if he could buy a lot and then learned of the landlock situation. Being a modest man, he never dreamed that he was going to be able to build there. He met with Mr. Brickner who agreed to sell him a lot and let him build his own house over a three year period. He stipulated the covenants that needed to be met. It was a gift to me. He finds himself in a development with individuals who have greater means.than he does as a resident and father of three. Fridley is a gift, a secret that the City really does not let out. It is a community of outstanding people. In some situations, it is wonderful to have a development where there is a place and where fine homes are there. His concern is to have this area developed and to bring in a development of minimal requirements is a contradiction in terms of what a development is. He would appeal to the property owners to come to terms and to break the lots into four instead of six, and ask Mr. Dommer to take his development somewhere else. He would also ask the Planning Commission to table this. Mr. Bue stated they are the people who have lived there the longest. They are the people .that live down in the valley. Some residents have lived there 40 years. Some people here have been there seven years of their life. They have been there all of their life. They have concern with this. These people have these wonderful houses. Mrs. Skinner wants to move on in life and they are requesting her to sell to people that have to have expensive houses or it isn't good enough to show their house and they want to put the back side of the house towards his neighborhood who have been in Fridley all their lives. How is his neighbor supposed to move on to something else? It will be harder for them 3.25 PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 26 to sell because they have to sell to someone who has much more money. It is going to be hard for his neighbor to sell and hard for him to sell because these people want big houses like theirs. As the people who live closest to Mrs. Skinner, we weren't even asked to these meetings. It seems silly that the development of Fridley is not part of their system. Are they just going to be thrown away and say to get rid of this stuff? It's not big enough or beautiful enough. He thought they were part of the backbone of the City. Mr. Raney stated he was Mr. Bateson's neighbor. He appreciated Mr. Bateson's comments but the pure economics of it is that if the development is the way it is proposed with more of the upper class building bracket, it would enhance the resale value of his house. Fridley is a good community and there are many good things available to them. Former Mayor Nee had mentioned to Ms. Rose Totino when she was still alive that this is the pride of the Fridley area. All of the neighbors would benefit by the development if it is developed properly. The resale values would go up. The City would make more money on property taxes. It would benefit everyone. He agrees with his neighbors with limiting the number of lots. Why would minimum standards be set in those lots when where they are has larger lots? Even though the way it is situated now and you did an architectural configuration, no matter what you do you could never when the lots are that close together get a variation of the configuration of the houses. You would see much of the sameness there. That would detract from it. You would get the townhouse or rowhouse effect. Four lots would be more amenable. Mr. Johnson stated he had a procedural question. If the plat that is before you is encompassing Outlot B and the Outlot B owner has not signed an application and stands in opposition to the plat, is that property before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hickok stated the survey that has been submitted and signed by a surveyor indicates that the roadway right-of-way is directly abutting the property to the north. It is not taking over Outlot B. It is implying that Outlot B does not exist; therefore, a right-of-way exists up to the edge of the property and there is no separation by land between utilities, etc., and the lots to be developed. The developer has submitted a survey signed by a surveyor that indicates there is a 50-foot right-of-way that exists and directly abuts the property in question. The property in question would exist between this property line and the roadway. The position of the developer is that the 50-foot right- of-way exists and that they have direct access to a public right- of-way directly adjacent to the property. What is on record at the County shows something different. The County record shows a 21 foot and 25 foot right-of-way which is four feet less than the surveyor had shown. The proposal does not take on land that 3.26 PLANNING CONIlKISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 27 belongs to the owner to the north or it does not take on from the owner to the south. The proposal assumes there is no outlot that was legally created and therefore his access to utilities is there and adjacent to the property. Mr. Johnson stated he would offer to the Commission that the County record does demonstrate there is an Outlot B separating Heather Place from the property to the north. If there is going to be access taken along with Heather Place in this plat, it has to come over Outlot B. In that situation, Outlot B must be incorporated into the proposed plat. The owner of Outlot B has not signed an application for this plat and is not in favor of this plat. What the Commission would be acting on is a proposal where one of the property owners is in opposition to the plat in process. Mr. Dommer stated their proposal only included the land to the north of Outlot B. They have the signature of the owner. The Commission can act on that proposal. The Commission can recommend denial because they don't have street frontage. They don't need Outlot B's signature because they are not incorporating that as part of the plat. You can propose a rectangle in the middle of a cornfield if you li.ke. They are going through the process of proposing a plat on property for which they have the owners signature. Mr. Johnson stated he would suggest that the developer has just admitted that his lots fail the minimum requirements for street frontages for the City. Mr. Dommer stated he is not suggesting the lots do not have street frontage. They are suggesting the right-of-way on Heather Place is 50 feet wide and that we have street frontage. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING �1YE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:05 P.M. Ms. Modig asked staff if she made a motion to table this item would ther� be no further discussion and this be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Hickok stated a motion to table and seconded is not debatable. �OTION by Ms. Modig to table consideration of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #97-04, by the Philip Stephen Companies, Inc., to resubdivide the property into six buildable lots for single family homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 3.27 PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 28 6217 Central Avenue N.E. Ms. Modig stated in her opinion there are too many issues that are not resolved regarding the final plat, Outlot B, and the 30-foot easement. She is concerned about whether the City allows shared driveways. She is concerned about density. She is concerned about the builder and talks with the neighbors concerns are not required or signed on. She is concerned that the people on Ben More Drive have not had enough input regarding the access for the road. She thought this had to go back to the drawing board and be redefined. Mr. Kondrick stated those are important issues and he has no problem with the motion. If they get down to the basics, would we agree that Outlot B exists? If it does exist, then it cannot happen and then therefore we would deny this application? Mr. Sielaff stated he would be in favor of denying the request because he felt there.was enough information out there to make a recommendation. VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend denial of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #97-04, by the Philip Stephen Companies, Inc., to resubdivide the property into six buildable lots for single family homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated this item would be considered by the City Council at their meeting of October 13. 3. Ptn3T IC HEARING: CONSIDER.ATION OF A SPECIAT USE PERMIT, SP #97-07. BY PAUL LITWINCZU�C: To grant approval to maintain an existing 18 foot x 20 foot garage on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:12 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit request is to allow a 3.28 PLANNING CO1�Il�ISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 29 second accessory structure on the property located at 6291 Central Avenue. Mr. Litwinczuk has requested the special use permit to allow the continued use of an existing garage with 360 square feet in area. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1 zoning. There is C-1, Local Business District, to the north and across the way is C-2 zoning, Moore Lake Plaza. Mr. Hickok stated a new dwelling was recently constructed on the property including an attached garage of 652 square feet. The subject garage was constructed in 1973 and is detached. A demolition permit was issued for the original dwelling in 1995. The petitioner was cited for lack of properly completing the demolition as the foundation stayed as an open excavation for a period of time. The structure will be moved closer to the new dwelling, as he understands, next season. The structure will be resided and reroofed and used to store personal items. The setback because it is a corner lot must be 25 feet from Rice Creek Road and there is adequate space. A hardsurface drive is not required because the garage is for personal effects. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. Al1 necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. No driveway access is permitted to Rice Creek Road. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. A"double door" versus an overhead garage door shall be installed. � � 7. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building�permit to insure timely completion of the project. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. Ms. Modig stated, regarding the use of the structure, the corner is very nice. The report states the petitioner will not be using the detached structure as a garage. 3.29 PL�NNING CO1�Il�lISSION MEETING, SEPTEIr�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 30 Mr. Litwinczuk stated he wants to use the building as a garage with the existing driveway. The driveway for the attached garage is very short. There is not enough room for parking cars on that part of the driveway. If he has visitors, he wants a place for them to park. You cannot park two cars on the new driveway. Visitors must now park on the street. He wants to keep the curb cut and pave and keep that as a garage. He will reside and reroof it to match the house. He does not want to move the garage. Ms. Modig asked how they could keep the petitioner from using this as a garage if he wants to. Why do we care? Mr. Hickok stated two curb cuts on a corner lot is one issue and they are looking to avoid that. Mr. Litwinczuk stated the curb cuts are there now. Mr. Hickok stated special use permit in most cases is applied for before a structure is built. At that time a separate curb cut would be discussed and evaluated. Early in the discussions, it was understood that, because the structure is in a low area of the lot, the petitioner is going to raise the structure building a short foundation wall below the accessory building. It is staff's recommendation that it be moved back from the lot line because it sits a questionable distance_from the lot line. Although it may meet the three foot requirement, it is right on the �hree foot dimension. It was staff's recommendation, based on that discussion, that if the garage was going to be lifted for a new foundation that it be moved, resided, reroofed, etc. Mr. Kondrick stated it is common to see a stipulation stating that there be no home business operation in the accessory structure. This is not included. Should that be included as stipulation #8? Mr. Hickok stated this is a standard and he would recommend adding that as an additional stipulation. Ms. Modig asked what they would have to do to let him use the garage. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission has it in its authority to recommend whatever it likes. If you want to allow for a second driveway, he would encourage the motion be structured accordingly. Ms. Modig stated the basis of her question is that the garage is to be used for storage purposes and not be a garage for vehicular storage. Why did you do that? Mr. Hickok narrow lot dixection. stated this is a unique situation. with two garages with two driveways That is atypical to what we see on 3.30 This is a long facing one second accessory P7�ANNING CO1�IlriISSION MEETING, SEPTEI��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 31 structures. It has a street presence that is less desirable, in staff's opinion, than if it were modified to be a storage building even with the garage door width opening but with double doors rather than an overhead door. Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner could still put a car in it if he wanted to. Mr. Hickok stated technically yes. He could not park in front of it, but if it has concrete floor he could park a car in it. If he is going to use it as a garage, then their recommendation would be to have a driveway put in. Aesthetics is one piece of it. It is a relatively narrow lot with two garages and two driveways. Mr. Litwinczuk stated he put a new house where it is because of the existing driveway cut. There is a driveway cut there now for the existing garage. The lot is difficult to build on so he set the house forward. The new driveway is short. He has 25 feet from the garage to the edge of the lot. He can only park one car there. If he has a visitor, they would have to park on the street. The detached garage is already existing, it is three feet from both lot lines, and it does not impact any neighbors. The neighbor to the east has no problem with the request. Her house is located back further. It does not impact any of the commercial properties across the street. He did not think it would hurt anyone by having a driveway there. The curb cuts are existing. Mr. Litwinczuk stated he had problems with stipulation #3 because he wants a driveway access to the detached garage. Stipulation #4 stated vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface. If there is no hardsurface, he cannot park a car there. Stipulation #5 is okay as far as the siding and'roof materials. He wants the same garage door to match the new one on the house, not a double door. He does not want to move the garage. He wants to leave it where it is. He has just planned to have it lifted in order to have several courses of block added. He has no problem with the deadline. Mr. Kondrick asked if he had any problem with not allowing a home business. Mr. Litwinczuk stated that was okay. Mr. Saba stated the summary of issues in the staff report is not consistent with the stipulations. There is some modification required. The summary states the structure cannot be located closer than 25 feet from the Rice Creed Road lot line or north lot line and no closer than five feet to the east and south lot lines. Staff stated three feet was the setback and several pages later it states that three feet is okay. Which is correct? 3.31 PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, SEPTEP�ER 17 , 1997 PAGE 32 Mr. Hickok stated a•detached garage can be as close as three feet. It was staff�s understanding that the garage was going to be moved in which case, with the drainage, five feet is the preferred location. Mr. Sielaff asked the petitioner if it was correct that the size was not correct. Mr. Litwinczuk stated the garage by the house is 24 feet x 24 feet which does not equal-what it stated. That is 676 square feet. The staff report states 652 square feet. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was an issue with #3. Mr. Litwinczuk stated they want to put in a driveway. Ms. Modig asked if they needed stipulation #6 if the petitioner is not going to be moving the structure. Is this needed? Mr. Hickok stated, whether the garage is moved or raised, $20,000 is the requirement. It is almost the identical process. Mr. Litwinczuk asked staff why they were asking for a letter of credit. Mr. Hickok stated this is standard. This can be issued through a bank or an insurance agency. That is based on the value if the City had to complete the work or the project. Mr. Saba stated it is just to make sure that the project is done. Mr. Litwinczuk stated a special use permit was approved for the garage several years ago. The problem previously arose because the contractor had left debris from the foundation and could not get it removed on time because it was during the winter. This was in February. . Mr. Sielaff stated this is not based on risk. Mr. Hickok stated there is a risk for those issuing the letter of credit. If the petitioner does not perform it becomes essentially a loan. The City cashes in on that, completes the work, and the petitioner pays on the value. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a risk involved. Mr. Hickok stated, with the history, staff wants a bond on this proj ect . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. 3.32 PLANNING COI�iISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 33 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:40 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he has no problem with the request. He would concur with the petitioner to allow him a driveway and remove stipulation #3. He would recommend replacing stipulation #3 stating that no home occupation or business shall be operated in the structure. He would delete the second sentence from stipulation #5 and state an overhead garage door shall be installed. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk, to grant approval to maintain an existing 18 foot x 20 foot garage on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation. 4. Al1 vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. An overhead garage door shall be installed. 6. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/bui�ding permit to insure timely completion of the project. 7. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated this request will be considered by the City Council at their meeting of October 13. � . • -. • • : � . u _ �l • : _ � �� !�_ � _- 3.33 PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, SEPT�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 34 9UALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19 1997 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of August 19, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECET� THE MINL�'1'ES OF THE PARKS AND RECRF�-ATT(�N CONIl�IT�4T(�l�j' MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1997 �IOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of August 4, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER B INFS�; Mr. Hickok stated the recycling center will be accepting appliances and fluorescent light bulbs for a fee. The recycling center will also be accepting scrap metal. Operating hours are Tuesday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The expanded services will start September 20. If anyone has questions, you can contact Julie Jones at 572-3594. A.DJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMHER 17, 1997, PLANNING COI�IlKISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:44 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,-, �.�L� ' � '� � � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary 3.34 S I G N— IN S H E E T PI�NNING COMMISSION.MEETING, � September 17, 1997 3.35 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONIlrtISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 CALL TO ORDER- Chairperson Savage called the October 1, 1997 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Barbara Dacy,�Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Dennis Honsa, Bolton & Menk Ron Stelter, Friendly Chevrolet Ray Kahl, 941 Hillwind Road Councilmember Billings Al Quam, 399 73rd Avenue NE Jeff Brenk, Brenk Brothers, Inc. Suzanne & William Holm, 7424 Melody Drive Peter 0'Keefe, 5641 4th Street NE Toni Ferdelman, 6007 3rd Street NE Carl & Kathy Agerbeck, 7551 Central Avenue NE Cynthia & Tony Schreiner, 7372 Symphony St NE Thorwald Johannsen, 7358 Symphony Street NE Margaret Reed, 6017 3rd Street NE Frank Masserano, International Ministerial Fellowship Chet Masserano Brian Houwman, Houwman Architects Jane Brassam Joel Harding, Dolphin Development and Construction Co., Inc. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the September 17, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #97-01, BY MARGARET REED: To vacate the south half of the alley located in Block 5, Hyde Park, as follows: the 12 foot alley in Block 5, Hyde Park, lying south of the south lot line of Lot 22, extended 4.01 m PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 2 easterly and north of the south line of Lot 16 extended easterly. All lying east and adjoining Lots 16 - 21, Block 5, Hyde Park, generally located at 6017 - 3rd Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the vacation request is to vacate a 12-foot alley located on Block 5 of Hyde Park behind three homes along the east side of 3rd Street. The three properties are located in the northeast corner along 6Oth Avenue and 3rd Street. The site is also adjacent to the University Avenue right-of-way. The property is zoned S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood, which is a special type of zoning district exclusively for the Hyde Park area. Ms. Dacy stated there was a similar vacation request for this 12- foot alley just north of the properties being discussed at this time. In 1987, a request was initiated by one of the five property owners to vacate the alley at that time. That process was ultimately concluded in 1992. The alley was platted in the original Hyde Park plat which was recorded in the latter part of the 1880's. The plat also created lots which were purchased by MnDOT in order to construct University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated they learned from the previous request that a legal process that needs to occur on the certificates of ownership for each of those lots. That process is called a memorialization process. Vacating the alley will not have an adverse impact on the sites. Al1 of the lots will have access from either 60th Avenue to the south or from 3rd Street. Ms. Dacy stated Ms. Reed, the propert� owner at 6017 3rd Street, is proposing to construct a new garage and a new driveway from 3rd Street. Right now, she has a garage with access through the alley at the rear of the property. �She has already planned to reconstruct her access to 3rd Street. The property owner at 6011 3rd Street has access from 3rd Street at this time. The owner at 6007 3rd Street has a driveway to 60th Avenue. She also understands from a phone conversation today that this owner wants to build a new garage as well. Ms. Dacy stated there is an NSP power line located along the alley so a public utility easement will be required along the area. The petitioners will also need to complete the memorialization process to attach the 12 feet to the certificate of titles that they have at the County. The petitioners will have to incur that expense. 4.02 PLANNING CONIl�SISSION MEETING, OCTOBER l, 1997 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated the memorialization process has a number of steps. The City will vacate the alley - the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council and the Council will pass a resolution vacating the alley. When vacating alleys or road rights-of-way, one half of the alley will go to the owner on one side and the other half to the owner on the other side. In this case, the east 6 feet of the alley will accrue to the ownership of MnDOT. Then, we need to contact MnDOT after the alley is vacated and ask them to deed that 6 feet back to the City. When the City gets it, the City has to declare the property as excess, meaning it is okay to convey that back to the property owners. At that point, the property owners initiate the legal process to memorialize the certificate of titles. That is a process where an attorney would file an order at Anoka County court which would identify all of these deeds and transactions, and officially declare the full 12 feet is attached to the property. Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends approval of the vacation request with the following stipulations: l. The petitioners agree to provide a 12-foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the entire length of the alley. 2. The petitioners are responsible for the appropriate memorialization processes required to properly attach the 12- foot alley to each of the subject properties. 3. 4. The area now used as an alley shall be converted to lawn/grass area by October l, 1998. Vehicles shall not be stored on the vacated alley and must be parked in conformance with City Code. 5. The petitioners shall provide the correct legal description of the alley to be vacated, including the triangular-shaped property next to �007 3rd Street N.E. Ms. Dacy stated the reason for the last stipulation is that there is a triangle of property located immediately adjacent to 60th • Avenue that adds additional area to the vacation that is just a little unusual. Staff have advised the petitioners to have a surveyor review that and prepare a legal description to make sure that, when the Council vacates it, they are vacating the right piece of property. The petitioners have initiated that process. Ms. Savage asked if there were questions of staff. Mr. Sielaff asked if the cost of the MnDOT deed to the City was also a cost of the petitioner. 4.03 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 4 Ms. Dacy stated the State will not charge or require payment as part of the transfer of that east 6 feet. They will convey that to the City for $1.00. As part of their application fee for the vacation, staff will do the required steps for the vacation, contact MnDOT to obtain the deed, and initiate the process to pass an ordinance declare that east 6 feet as excess. The petitioners' costs come in to take all of those documents and hire an attorney to do the processing. The only cost to the City is staff time. Mr. Oquist asked if staff could foresee any problems with MnDOT. Ms. Dacy stated no. She did not see a problem with MnDOT conveying the east 6 feet. She was the staff person who worked on the application to the north. It is just an issue of time as to when they can complete the quit claim deed. Mr. Oquist stated he understands three property owners will be affected. Do all three owners have to agree to this vacation? What happens if one decides not to proceed with this process? Ms. Dacy stated all three property owners have signed an agreement for the vacation. If one or two decides to drop out, we would need to take a look at which two out of the three. If Ms. Reed who is at the end of the alley and has access through the alley decides not to pursue the driveway from 3rd Street but the other two do, that would cut off her access. We would have to look at who is objecting and for what reason. At this point, all three agree. Ms. Reed stated, back in 1987, the only reason the alley was kept open was to allow access to her garage. When she decided to do something about the driveway and understood the need for it to be a hard surface, she looked at maintaining the alley which she has done all along. She decided on the 3rd Street access for the garage and that started the ball rolling. She had staff look at the site before deciding where the driveway might be. She then decided to offer the option to the other two property owners to close the alley since it did not need to be open for her. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the stipulations. Ms. Reed stated no. Ms. Ferdelman stated she had no problems with the stipulations. She had no additional comments. Mr. Oquist stated staff had come out to look at Ms. Reed's property. There is no problem with putting the driveway in and no 4.04 PLANNING CONIlriISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 5 need for a variance. Ms. Reed stated she had several different options. There was room on either side of the property, but the south portion would only allow an 8-foot driveway. The north side will be a better access and will accommodate the garage and a two-car width driveway. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M. Ms. Modig stated the only stipulation she wondered about was #3 where staff is asking to have the alley converted to grass by 1998. If the process takes as long as the other one did, is it reasonable to expect them to have that landscaping taken care of in one year if the process is not completed? Ms. Dacy agreed this was a good point. She suggested that the stipulation could be amended to say "... to be completed within one year of the memorialization." One of the owners wants to construct a fence back to the chain link fence on University Avenue. That is why she did not think they were objecting to that stipulation. If the Commission would like to clarify, that should give ample time. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Vacation, SAV #97-01, by Margaret Reed, to vacate the south half of the alley located in Block 5, Hyde Park, as follows: the 12 foot alley in Block 5, Hyde Park, lying south of the south lot line of Lot 22, extended easterly and north of the south line of Lot 16 extended easterly. All lying east and adjoining Lots 16 - 21, Block 5, Hyde Park, generally located at 6017 - 3rd Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioners agree to provide a 12-foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the entire length of the alley. 2. The petitioners are responsible for the appropriate memorialization processes required to properly attach the 12- foot alley to each of the subject properties. 3. The area now used as an alley shall be converted to lawn/grass area no later than one year after the date of completion of the memorialization process. 4. Vehicles shall not be stored on the vacated alley and must be parked in conformance with City Code. 4.05 PLANNING COI�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 6 5. The petitioners shall provide the correct legal description of the alley to be vacated, including the triangular-shaped property next to 6007 3rd Street N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-04, BY BOLTON & MENK: To rezone property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION GARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:48 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the rezoning request is by Bolton & Menk who is representing Friendly Chevrolet/Geo located at 7501 Highway 65. They are requesting a rezoning of approximately 2.48 acres from M- 4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center District. Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of the east Highway 65 service road and Fireside Drive. There are mobile homes to the south, additional C-3 zoning to the south, and to the east is a manufacturing plant owned by Brenk Brothers Manufacturinq. If approved, the owner of the property is proposing to expand the parking area to the rear. Located on the subject property is the car dealership, Friendly Chevrolet/Geo. A car dealership has been located on this location since 1971. The Appeals Commission reviewed a variance request related to the expanded parking area at their September 24 meeting. The property owner and the adjacent owner, Brenk Brothers, are also in the process of proposing a preliminary plat which is the next item on the agenda. Ms. McPherson stated there are three criteria used to analyze rezoning requests: 4.06 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 7 1. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing the expansion of the parking lot. If the plat is approved, the property owner proposes to expand their parking area to the east by approximately 200 feet. Parking lots are a permitted accessory use in the C-3 district. The C-3 district, however, does require a special use permit for automobile uses such as new and used car sales and any expansions of such uses. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. Ms. McPherson stated the M-4, Manufacturing Only District, was recently adopted to encourage manufacturing uses and to reduce the number of warehouse/distribution facilities which the City has seen develop in recent years. The parcel prior to its being rezoned to M-4 was zoned M-1, Light Industrial. A manufacturing parcel is located to the east and north of the property. This zoning pattern in this neighborhood has been established since 1958, based on staff's review of historic zoning maps. The expansion of the C-3 use to the east would still be compatible with the adjacent uses and zoning. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has requested several variances for the proposed parking lot expansion including a reduction in the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet; a reduction in the hard surface setback from the side lot line (north side) from 5 feet to 0 feet; and to waive the requirement for curb�and gutter along the north side of the parking lot. The petitioner has requested these variances in order for the expanded parking area to be consistent with the existing parking area. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of these variances to the City Council as requested by- the petitioner. - Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has submitted a landscape plan which indicates the required screening along Fireside Drive. In order to provide consistent landscaping along Fireside Drive, staff is recommending additional street trees be installed in addition to the proposed hedge. The petitioner is proposing to install a security fence along the east and north lot lines and is. unsure at this time if the existing fence along Fireside Drive will be extended along the new parking area or if it will be removed. A small portion of the fence was removed in conjunction with the recent building addition that was completed in 1996. The fence now has three strands of barbed wire on top of the chain 4.07 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 8 link. The City Code expressly prohibits the use of barbed wire. Staff has recommended a stipulation that the barbed wire be removed as well as no barbed wire installed on the new fence. Ms. McPherson stated, since the request meets the three evaluation criteria, staff recommends approved of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: l. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. 2. Three Marshall's Ash, spaced evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. 3. The plat and variance requests shall also be approved. 4. The petitioner shall receive a special use permit prior.to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. 6. Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. Ms. Savage asked if there were questions of staff. Mr. Oquist asked if there had been a similar request from this dealership within the confines of the place for employee parking. Ms. McPherson stated in 1996 they completed a substantial addition for office and showroom and did a small addition to the rear. At that time, the Appeals Commission and City Council did grant similar variances for the parking lot. The lot has not been further expanded from where it was. It was just brought into compliance through the use of variances. Ms. Modig stated stipulation #6 talks about adequate on-site employee and customer parking and no on-street parking will be allowed. Is that on all three sides? Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Oquist asked how this would be policed. If he drives up there and has to park on the street, do they come out and have to move the car? Ms. McPherson stated this would probably not happen. The purpose for stipulation #6 is that we have had recent code enforcement complaints regarding the amount and length of on-street parking � 1 : PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 9 for this location. It has been customer cars, service cars, and employee cars parked on the street for long periods of time and causing traffic complaints, etc. Staff is working with the petitioner through this process to rectify that. This is to stipulate that they need to park on the site and not on the street. Mr. Oquist asked if they needed to install No Parking signs or paint the curbs yellow. Mr. Hickok stated that it is anticipated by the nature of folks as they are shopping for cars that sometimes they would just like to peruse the lot without pulling in and parking. It is anticipated, without painting the street or posting signs, there will be some customers who will park there. The issue here is providing parking for those who want to park on site and to make sure that all vehicles being serviced or belonging to employees have a spot on the lot. The big issue is not the occasional guest who parks on the street but rather those folks that should be parking on the lot. Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner could put up signage indicating customer parking and in that way de'signate.a certain portion for customers. Mr. Hickok stated he thought that was a excellent idea. Mr. Sielaff stated he could foresee that the Planning Commission would pass this for these uses, and it could be taken up by new cars. What about the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning this? Is this a significant change for the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. McPherson stated there will need to be a minor amendment to the comprehensive plan. However, we have had several minor changes in the land use designations such as the American Legion. The City is in the process of updating the plan itself. Staff is hoping that all of these minor land use changes will occur at the same time and be presented to the Metropolitan Council at one time. Mr. Sielaff stated he thought they should designate customer parking. The question becomes what amount. Mr. Honsa stated he is working with the City and he plans to meet the six additional requirements. He has no problem with those. Ms. Savage asked if they had any additional comments. Mr. Stelter stated they had nothing further to add to his knowledge. 4.09 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 10 Mr. Sielaff asked about a stipulation to designate an area for on- site parking. Mr. Stelter stated that is no problem. They are providing parking now. They do not have enough parking on site for employees. You will see an occasional car park out front on Sundays because the lot is closed. Mr. Sielaff asked what percentage of the additional parking was going to be designated for customers and for employees. Mr. Stelter stated the entire back lot wili be for customer cars that will be serviced and for employees. The lot will be approximately 50/50. Mr. Sielaff asked if they would object to putting signs there for customer parking. Mr. Oquist stated he thought there was some confusion. Mr. Stelter is talking about cars that will be left outside for service work. Mr. Sielaff is talking about new/used car customers coming in to browse. Is there space allocated for that? Mr. Honsa stated the expansion being put in on the east side will open up room for the new car buyer. Most people will enter on the southwest corner or the south and westerly side. On the westerly side, it is there intention to open up some additional space to provide for customer parking. The expansion lot is to get employe�s parking there and then the people who drop their cars off for overnight service will park in that additional parking area. The building expansion has taken up some of the parking. Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be any new cars in this expansion area. Mr. Stelter stated there may be some if space provides for it. Mr. Sielaff stated his concern is that they would put many new cars back there and then there would not be enough room for customer parking. This could result in the customers parking on --- the street again. He is trying to get an idea of how much signage would be adequate. Mr. Stelter stated he would rather not put signs up. If they open up the entire front of the building, that should be enough space for customers. Mr. Honsa stated they could work with staff to see what they feel would be adequate. 4.10 PLP,NNING CON�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 _PAGE 11 Mr. Oquist stated they just don't want all new cars in the new area and then get the same parking situation again. He thought staff could work that out with the petitioner. Mr. Brenk stated he was one of the owners of Brenk Brothers, Inc., the property directly to the east of Friendly Chevrolet. They are in favor of this property transfer overall. It is still pending a formal agreement between themselves and Friendly Chevrolet, but it is a logical move to make this swap. There are three issues that he wanted to mention, and some may apply to the following rezoning request. First, as the platting occurs, they want to separate any property as a separate parcel and that parcel may stay as an M-4, Manufactory Only, future expansion. Second, they need to define and confirm the status of the storm drainage pond. He was not sure of the definition. They were not sure at this point whether to consult an engineer to see if the pond is going to require additional storm conveyor or, as this is defined, if there is any future liability they need to be concerned with or any safety issues. Third, they share the parking issue concerns. There are times when Friendly Chevrolet employees have parked on their property and on the street. They share some of those concerns as well. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HE.ARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to see added to stipulation #6 that the petitioner shall provide adequate customer parking signage as agreed to with City staff. Otherwise, he is comfortable with the recommendation. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Rezoning, ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk to rezone property from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., with the following , stipulations: l. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. 2. Three Marshall's Ash, spaced evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. 4.11 PLANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 12 3. The plat and variance requests shall also be approved. 4. The petitioner shall receive a special use permit prior to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. 6. Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. The petitioner shall provide adequate customer parking signage as agreed to with City staff. UPON A VOICE VOTE,.ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #97-03, BY BOLTON & MENK: To replat three lots into two, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLP,RED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:08 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the plat request is by Bolton & Menk on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet/Geo and also Brenk Brothers Manufacturing. The proposed preliminary plat is to re-subdivide three parcels into two. The request is for parcels located at 7501 Highway 65 and 7490 Central Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated the analysis of the preliminary plat indicates that both lots as indicated by the plat meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for both the M-4, Manufacturing Only, and C-3, General Shopping Center districts. The current unplatted lot configuration indicates there are three parcels. There is a dividing line to the east of the Friendly Chevrolet/Geo parcel. There is a vacant parcel to the north of the Brenk Brothers and also the Brenk Brothers property which extends the same distance as the property to the north. The land 4.12 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 13 swap, as it were, occurs with the area to the east and adjacent to Friendly Chevrolet/Geo. The preliminary plat indicates two lots - one adjacent to Friendly Chevrolet extending from Fireside Drive north even with their north property line, and another parcel including the Brenk Brothers site and the parcel to the north. Ms. McPherson believed Mr. Brenk is requesting that the parcel to the north of their site be maintained as a separate lot, thereby creating a third lot. However, that is not the plat that is before the Planning Commission this evening. Ms. McPherson stated staff calculations indicate that the lots will be 5.4 and 8.87 acres with the Friendly Chevrolet/Geo lot being the larger in area. The plat also dedicates right-of-way for the east Highway 65 service road, Central Avenue, and Fireside Drive. Additional land gained through the exchange between the property owners does provide additional expansion area for both properties. Ms. McPherson stated a joint stormwater detention pond is proposed. Staffs calculations indicate that it is sized to provide adequate area for the proposed parking area and should be adequate to provide detention for possible future expansion of the Brenk Brothers facility or a secondary building to the north of Brenk Brothers. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends an easement be indicated on the plat in the area of the pond, and staff also recommend that a joint stormwater maintenance agreement be recorded against both properties to insure that the property owners properly maintain the stormwater facility. The subdivision ordinance does require park dedication fees to be paid and those are calculated at .023 cents per square foot of land area. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request to City Council with the following stipulations: l. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the.area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees as indicated below shall be paid: A. Friendly Chevrolet/Geo - $8,886.68 B. Brenk Brothers - $5,560.42 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against both properties. 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. 4.13 PLANNING COHIl�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 14 Ms. Modig asked if the parcel at the back portion of Friendly Chevrolet/Geo was big enough to stand by itself if it were kept separate. Ms. McPherson stated she believed it had adequate lot width and that it met or exceeded the 1.5 acre requirement. Mr. Oquist stated if he understands correctly, if this is approved, that whole area would become one lot. If they choose to make two lots out of it, then we have to have another lot split. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct according to the proposed plat. However, there is time that they could add the third lot prior to the final plat. Mr. Oquist asked if the plat could be revised before final approval or would it have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hickok stated, if it is okay with the Planning Commission, staff can require before the final plat that the decision be made and that it be platted accordingly on the final plat. Ms. Modig.asked if the Brenk Brothers property and the lot to the north were now proposed to be platted as one lot. Ms. McPherson stated it is proposed as such currently. Ms. Modig asked if there was a separate legal description for that now. Ms. McPherson stated no. Mr. Sielaff asked what the current zoning was on the lot north of Brenk Brothers. Ms. McPherson stated it was zoned M-4, Manufacturing Only. Mr. Sielaff stated that Friendly Chevrolet/Geo currently owns the property extending to the east boundary. That is currently zoned M-4. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. Mr. Oquist asked what happens after the plat. Ms. McPherson stated the area to the east will remain M-4. The area adjacent to Friendly Chevrolet/Geo becomes C-3 and part of the existing dealership. 4.14 PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997. PAGE 15 Ms. Modig stated Mr. Brenk addressed the question of the pond. She asked if staff was responding to that or if staff had talked with Mr. Brenk. Ms. McPherson stated she had not spoken with Mr. Brenk. They are working with Bolton & Menk who did the calculations. The City Engineer reviewed those calculations and did not have any additional comments regarding the drainage calculations or the design of the pond. If Mr. Brenk feels comfortable having a third opinion regarding the detention pond, she would recommend he get the third opinion regarding the design. Ms. Modig asked if there were other places in the City that had a joint pond arrangement. Ms. McPherson stated there are not a lot of joint ponds in the City. The previous policy has been to have individual ponds as opposed to a more regional type approach. However, there will be a similar situation with Sam's Club pond which has been sized to accommodate a development to the north and that has similar stipulations as well. Ms. Modig asked if this type of pond worked well. Ms. McPherson stated this will work. This is a more preferred approach as opposed to having many little ponds. A larger pond actually serves the clean water objectives much better. Mr. Honsa stated, up to this point, they were not aware of Mr. Brenk's concern for getting two parcels out of the one. They will work with Mr. Brenk. It is a buildable M-4 lot so you are not losing any additional M-4 zoning area if they do create two separate parcels. They could proceed with a three-lot plat. He believed that is what Mr. Brenk is after. That has not been conveyed to Friendly Chevrolet, which would have been passed on to Bolton & Menk. As far as the pond, regional ponds are more environmentally sensitive. If you are concerned about this pond, Ms. McPherson has stressed that the City is going to require a maintenance agreement. Both parties will have a legal binding document as to what is covered for maintenance on the pond. Bolton & Menk designed the pond. If Mr. Brenk does create a third parcel in the northeast corner, they would then join in on the use and sizing of that pond. If Brenk Brothers puts additional parking out in the front, they may need some storm sewer to get it back. If they put parking in the rear, they can use the grade to get it to drain into the pond. Mr. Oquist asked if there were any issues with the other stipulations. 4.15 PLANNING COI�Il�iISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 16 Mr. Honsa stated no. They will meet the City's stipulations and have no objections. Mr. Brenk stated he had the same concerns as previously stated. Mr. Oquist stated, if Mr. Brenk wants to do the lot split for three lots, he should do it now so this request can move on in a timely manner. Mr. Brenk stated he thought this had been communicated through legal council. Mr. Oquist stated he understood they could recommend approval for three lots. Mr. Brenk stated this gives them flexibility as they move forward. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he has no problem with the request. He would like to include a stipulation regarding the third lot. Ms. McPherson stated she would suggest the stipulation read, "The preliminary plat shall be amended to indicate a third lot prior to the October 13 review of the request by the City Council." Ms. Modig stated, by handling the issue of the third lot in that way, it brings up another situation regarding the drainage and pond easement, etc. Ms. McPherson stated the stipulations would be the same. The City would require the recording of the document against that lot as well. Staff would have to recalculate the park dedication fees to address the third lot and to verify that the pond provides adequate storage for any development on that third lot. Mr. Sielaff stated they won't know how to size the pond until you know how much hard surface there will be. Ms. McPherson stated the engineers look at the zoning code requirements and what is allowed in terms of green area and parking. From that, they make a worst-case estimation. Ms. Modig stated let us say for example that Brenk Brothers and Friendly Chevrolet/Geo are someday sold. Do these pond easements and agreement pass along with the property? 4.16 PLANNING CONIl�tISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 _ PAGE 17 Ms. McPherson stated yes. The documents are recorded against the properties and become part of the permanent land record. The agreements refer to successors and assigns so it does carry forward and is not limited to the current property owners. Ms. Savage asked if the park dedication fees needed to be changed. Ms. McPherson stated she would recommend amending that stipulation to read, "Park dedication fees shall be paid and each lot will be calculated by staff prior to the October 13 City Council meeting." Ms. Modig stated stipulation #3 should also be adjusted to reflect all properties. Ms. Modig stated, by changing this to three lots, if they decide not to change it and only want two, does it then have to come back to the Planning Commission or can the Commission just say we are going to recommend approval of the preliminary plat be it either two lots or three lots. Mr. Hickok stated they just need to know by final plat time. If the Commission trusts staff to carry that forward, staff will by the time it gets to the City Council for approval have all the calculations done. What is being presented this evening and agreed to by both parties is that we have a three lot subdivision and that the stipulations as suggested apply. If those facts change, staff will make sure before the City Council meeting that all facts apply to what is being presented to them. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommen� approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #97-03, by Bolton & Menk, to replat three lots into two, on the North 330 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, and all that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 lying south of the north 1120 feet thereof, Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees shall be paid and each lot will be calculated by staff prior to the October 13 City Council meeting. 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against all properties. 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. 4.17 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 18 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #97-05, BY DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.: To rezone property at 73rd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business, to allow for future commercial development, on Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, generally located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBL�C HEARING OPEN AT 8:34 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the rezoning request is by Dolphin Development and Construction Company for property to be changed from M-2, Heavy Industrial,�to C-2, General Business. The property is located at the southeast quadrant of University Avenue and 73rd.. There is M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning to the east; R-1, Single Family, and R-2, Two Family, to the north; and C-2, General Business, across University Avenue. The site is 2.4 acres and is currently undeveloped. Mr. Hickok stated a convenience store with fuel and a car wash has been illustrated as a possible use for this site. In the layout for such a proposed site, the convenience store itself is in the northeast corner of the site and bermed with landscaping. The code requires 30o evergreens as part of the tree planting scheme. This developer has chosen 50% evergreens to provide additional screening of the building itself. The building has been backed into the corner of the site without a service drive behind the building in an effort to create the maximum possible amount of buffering and to eliminate the commercial feel on the backside of the building leaving more of a natural wooded look as you look across from the residential area to the north. The more intensive uses would be between the store itself and University Avenue. On the site would be fuel pumps and a car wash behind which is a storm pond area. The City's engineers have calculated, based on this design, this pond to accommodate a convenience store. The engineers woul.d like to take another look at it if there is a modification to this proposed layout. Mr. Hickok stated the City's comprehensive plan designates this 4.18 PLANNING COI�SISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 19 site as commercial and not as an industrial site as it is currently zoned. The parcel is call a loopback or switchback parcel. These type of parcels are seen along University Avenue and Highway 65. There are 19 parcels that are like this. Of those, 15 are located along University Avenue. Of the 15 University Avenue switchback parcels, 4 are zoned C-3; 10 are zoned C-2, and 1 is zoned M-2. Ms. Hickok stated staff uses three criteria to evaluate rezoning requests. l. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. Ms. Hickok stated the proposed use is for a general business operation. Motor fuel and convenience operations are permitted with a special use permit in the C-2, General Business, district. For this developer to proceed, they would be back before the Planning Commission for a special use permit request. At this. time, we simply have a rezoning. This use is compatible with the district. With a special use permit, it could be made compatible with the neighbors. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. Mr. Hickok stated the surrounding properties include C-2 across University Avenue, M-2 across the service drive, and R-1 and R-2 across 73rd Avenue to the north. The C-2, General Business, district is compatible with the surrounding uses. It is separated by 73rd which is the point of demarcation. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Mr. Hickok stated evaluation of setbacks, building and parking, drainage, landscape, building materials, lighting, etc., reveals compliance. Once the precise building footprints have been placed on the site plan, an adjustment of drainage calculations may be required. The use would be compatible with the proposed district once a special use permit is processed. Mr. Hickok stated the site has been vacant since incorporation of the City. In 1989, Phillips Petroleum filed a special use application to allow a motor fuel and convenience store operation with a carwash. The applicant was not requesting a rezoning at that time, and therefore the use was denied because it exceeded the 30� allowable retail in an industrial district. Also in 1989, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suspected that a wetland was present on the site. The City later hired an environmental consultant to delineate the suspected wetland. The wetland expert 4.19 PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 20 determined that no wetland existed on this site. Mr. Hickok stated later an informal request was made regarding the use of this site as a bank location. The formal request was never made. In 1995, the City of Fridley considered rezoning the site to C-2, General Business, in an effort to locate the municipal liquor store on the site. The rezoning fails for lack of support of 4/5 of the City Council. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the rezoning request without stipulations. Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. Ms. Savage stated she was wondering after reading the letter about the concerns for screening and landscaping if there should be a stipulation concerning the landscaping plan to make sure there would be adequate screening for the residential area. Mr. Hickok stated, as proposed, the plan does address the concerns. This would be appropriate if the Commission wanted to add that. Mr. Sielaff stated there must be a reason why this area was evaluated as a wetland. There must be standing water there. Mr. Hickok stated aerial photos are taken. Seasonal shadows on these photos can cause misconceptions about what is actually real on the land. This is not the first time that this has been discovered. On aerial photos of a raised rail bed with shadows along the edge of the railbed often looks like a linear wetland. When further evaluated is found not to be a wetland. The City wanted to be careful about whether there was a wetland on this site and whether or not to pursue this site as a liquor site so the City hired an environmental consultant to do an analysis of the site. They determined there was not a wetland. Characteristics they look for_is wetland vegetation and the composition of soil. Those conditions were not there. Mr. Sielaff stated there is no saturated soil or standing water on this site. He would be concerned with underground tanks. Mr. Hickok stated there was no saturated soil, no standing water, and no vegetation to indicate that it stands at any time during the season. Mr. Harding stated he was in the business of development and construction of commercial, industrial and manufacturing projects. He was last here was in support of the Linn Companies redevelopment project on 57th Avenue for which they acted as the 4.20 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 21 general contractor. Mr. Harding stated he had some parallel comments to the staff report. The agenda packet included copies of letters from him sent to the City staff and to 84 neighbors in the area. As staff indicated, the City pursued this site for use as a municipal liquor store in 1995. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning approval but did so without comment as to the particular use. In 1996, the subject of rezoning the site was before the City Council. It was there based upon a letter request from the fee owner. The City Council voted 3 for, 1 against - not the 4/5 required. At that time, the then current mayor was ill and not in attendance. Mr. Harding stated, since that time, they have been working on this rezoning issue with staff. They have submitted several plans and the Commission has�seen the latest version of that plan which was submitted in early August on the basis of what they think is the worst possible case for rezoning consideration. That is really as it relates to the neighbors and their view of this rezoning process. They are requesting rezoning so they can go out and market the site. They do not have a buyer, investor or client in hand today. If he went to that community of his and said he had a property but it was not rezoned, he would leave the office very quickly. It is an expensive piece of land and he does not have a user today for it. Depending on the use they find, who purchases, invests or uses the site, a special use permit may be required. Mr. Harding stated the comprehensive plan shows this site as commercial. As he understands the current law, the comprehensive plan takes precedent over the zoning ordinance. They have stuck with the rezoning process for 18 months. They would like approval on the rezoning. Ms. Savage stated in Mr. Harding's letter to the neighbors he states he would agree to not include a liquor store in the marketing efforts. Mr. Harding stated he was not thinking straight because the City would be the one that would have to come to him for that. There could only be a municipal liquor store requested by the City. Mr. Quam stated the neighborhood has historically been against the development of this property for a liquor store, convenience store and gas stations. He thought they should maintain that position. If and when a particular buyer comes forward with a proposal, he thought it should be brought then for rezoning. He does not like writing a blank check. He also disagrees with the judgment. He has been supportive of some real estate development. When a 4.21 PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 22 serious buyer comes along, they will go through the process. He would recommend not rezoning the property at this time. Ms. Holm stated she took pictures of the last development. That development was supposed to be bermed. She showed pictures of the site. The map does not show the McGarvey trucks parked in front or the berms. The trucks go up on the berms, and the neighbors get to look at the trucks. This was supposed to be as this proposal. It was landscaped. It was bermed. It was protected from the neighborhood. Now they look at trucks in the parking lot and a featureless wall which everyone refers to as "the great wall". Where is the berm? If they did not get a berm that time and this man is telling them that he will at some point sell this property and change it from M-2 to C-2 and this lovely diagram with the trees, etc., there is no guarantee that this will be part of it. She agrees with Mr. Quam. Don't rezone this if you don't know what it is going to be used for. This is a piece of virgin property that has been in the City since before your time and before the City Council's time. If you want to do something, how about the corner where The Gym is? You don't seem to do anything with that corner so why mess with ours? That is the entrance to their property and they care about that. Mr. Schreiner stated they received the notice about the hearing tonight. He knew that a number of their neighbors did not receive a notice. He was wondering what the procedure was for sending out these notices. Also, the notice was addressed to his wife, not to him. Mr. Hickok stated, according to State statute, the City is obligated to notify properties within 350 feet of the perimeter of the site. For that reason, some neighbors may not receive it. Mr. Schreiner stated he brought with him a neighbor who lives closer who did not receive a notice and his neighbors across the street did not receive a notice either. Ms. Dacy stated staff can check the list. As she recalls, staff sometimes maintain lists over a number of applications. Sometimes staff will pull names from lists of persons that have attended a previous meeting. So, if someone attended a meeting from the other side of the neighborhood, they may be on the list while someone else is not. Mr. Schreiner stated that may be the reason the notice was sent to his wife. Mr. Harding stated he sent out 84 letters. He received a letter, answered it, and sent a copy to all the Councilmembers and the Mayor. He did not receive a response from anyone. He does not know if they received his response or not. He is also completely opposed to rezoning this property. His concern is the 4.22 � PLANNING COIrIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 23 traffic situation. He did not know if the Planning Commission looked at traffic. Melody Manor has two exits to 73rd Avenue to the south. Those are the only exits from the neighborhood. The traffic has been bad and is getting worse: The most recent building has not helped that situation. Also, there is another big building going up to the south. Has the Planning Commission addressed how that will affect the traffic issue on 73rd? He thought before anything is decided on this parcel that should be evaluated. Getting to the two exits from Melody Manor, he would invite anyone at peak traffic time to try to exit from Melody Manor, especially if you are trying to go east. Ms. Schreiner stated they moved there in 1971. At that time traffic was not a problem. They have no right-of-way. Nobody yields to them. If they want to get out of their neighborhood for any reason, they have to wait to get out. There are no three-way stops either on Osborne or 73rd. They are getting locked in with traffic. 73rd is constant semi's back and forth from University to Highway 65. She did attend the Planning Commission meeting a few weeks ago. After being at that meeting, she was enlightened about the University corridor and how run down the corridor looks. In the area of 73rd and University is another eyesore - the gas station that sits vacant and is zoned C-2. There is a new Freedom gas station on Osborne and University. At the side to the east where there is a Fina station and SuperAmerica station, the Fina station she thought was struggling to stay alive. There was a convenience store, gas station, car wash there that did not make it, and they have one on Osborne and University. There was another gas station there that never survived. They have two strip malls before Columbia Arena. There are businesses that do not survive. The strip mall west of University cannot maintain tenants. The office building on the southwest side of 73rd and University has rental space. She did not think they had ever taken down the sign. The buildings have never been full to capacity. Ms. Schreiner stated the main concern is traffic. That big warehouse, the "great wall" as it is called, is a request for which she came down. Northco did not have to have that setback and the barrier for neighborhood aesthetics. It is a big storage warehouse with windows cut into it. When you drive past at night, you see all the shelving. It has created more traffic. She sees their neighborhood going down. In the northern area of Fridley, they are becoming further and further detached and do not feel like a part of the City. Their children grew up their and went to the Spring Lake Park school district. It is hard to say that Fridley is their home. They are being cut off and isolated and not being considered part of the City. It seem like they are fighting city hall. 4.23 PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 24 Ms. Schreiner stated she would like to see the area cleaned up first. If there are other viable businesses then think about it when the time comes. When the bank talked about coming in, they did soil borings and felt it was not feasible. Mr. Schreiner stated, getting back to the wetland issue, he is not an engineer or environmentalist. He does know this is a low area and he knows personally that the bank pulled out after soil borings were done and they found it needed fill. The primary concern that he has is the traffic. He would hate to see someone killed on that corner. People end up cutting in front of cars because there are no stop signs along 73rd between University and 65. That is where everyone wants to get across because there are no stops. When the green light comes on, there is a steady stream of cars both from the east and west. Some on the Planning Commission have been around long enough to know that when the Target warehouse was built, they were told not to worry about the semi trucks because they would take Highway 65. He invited everyone to come over and take a look at where the semis are actually driving. Ms. Schreiner stated they have lots of the hospital traffic comes off 73rd up many dangerous maneuvers that are made. traffic. In the morning, Zurich Lane. There are Mr. Schreiner stated, if there was something that was to go in there, he would like to see something that did not have traffic. Is it so terrible that there is a corner of property that is not developed? Is there some kind of rule that says that every square inch of Fridley has to be developed? Ms. Modig stated she drives that route everyday. That corner, in her opinion, is an eyesore. It is full of garbage and trash. Leaving it undeveloped to her does not make sense. Mr. Schreiner stated it is a small parcel of property. One reason the Phillips 66 did not fly was because there was not enough room for a berm. Ms. Schreiner stated a bigger eyesore is the northwest corner of 73rd and University with the vacant station and carwash. Mr. Schreiner stated he personally would not mind seeing trees, grass, bushes, etc., on the low land. Ms. Modig stated her point is that the property has been undeveloped since the City was incorporated. We have to either make it a park or develop it. They cannot leave it as it is. Mr. Schreiner stated he disagreed and saw nothing wrong with it as 4.24 PLANNING CON�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 25 it is. Mr. Johannsen stated he did not get a letter. neighbors across the street who also did not Other neighbors also did not get notices. He asked the get a letter either. Ms. Savage asked Mr. Johannsen if he had any comments regarding the rezoning request. Mr. Johannsen stated he did not like it. He would prefer to leave the lot as it is. He has to fight traffic to get out into the street. He has to wait until people get by. He cannot get out. Ms. McPherson showed a map with the radius drawn to 350 feet to show the properties that were notified. Staff also used the same mailing list as part of the liquor store proposal in 1995. They started with the 350-foot radius and added those persons who attended the Planning Commission and Cit� Council meetings at that time. That is probably why some of the residents did not receive a notice. Ms. Holm asked when the notices were mailed. Ms. McPherson stated the notices were mailed on September 17. Ms. Holm stated she was at all the meetings in 1995 for the liquor store and did not get a notice. Ms. McPherson stated their address is on the mailing list twice. Ms. Dacy stated the 350-foot radius stops just short of the cul de sac on the corner of Symphony. For the record, staff has completed the process that is required by State statute which is the 350-foot notification, and staff has gone beyond that by also sending notices to those people who signed up at the City Council meeting several years ago. Staff have tried to go beyond what is required. It is conceivable that Mr. Johannsen did not receive a letter and that his neighbor also did not. The same list was provided to the developer prior to this application. She apologized for the confusion but that is how they try to get everybody on the list. Mr. Sielaff asked under what conditions would it come back to the Planning Commission for a specific proposal for this site. Mr. Hickok stated the list of permitted uses includes professional office buildings, several types of retail including convenience store. If there are uses under special use such as a carwash, motor fuel, etc., it would come back for specific review. If a developer moved ahead with the proposed plan, it would be back 4.25 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 26 before the Planning Commission for review. Ms. Savages asked if there were any plans for a municipal liquor store in that location. Mr. Hickok stated no. Mr. Schreiner asked how many notices were sent out. Ms. McPherson stated 97 notices were mailed. Ms. Schreiner asked what percentage of representation is this of people living in Melody Manor. He asked this because of the traffic situation. He understands the statute is 350 feet from the site. When you take into consideration that the traffic affects the whole area, it seems that you would notify the whole area. Ms. Dacy stated she agreed that traffic is a legitimate concern as they go through this request. Not only does the statute require notification, but staff also placed an ad in the Focus. This area has been a concern for the neighborhood for a number of years. The point she is trying to make is that there has been no fault in the process. Staff took the extra steps to have the developer contact the neighborhood prior to the application. He requested that if anyone would want to meet with him individually or as a group he would do so. The only way that we know someone is interested in the process is by the people that show up at the meetings, that sign in, and we add that to our list. They want to include as many people as possible. It is hard for staff to tell how many people are or are not interested in any particular development request. An ad is placed in the Focus, neighbors notified within a 350-foot radius, and kept track of who signed in at meetings. Ms. Savage stated this matter will go to City Council so neighbors can certainly be told of that_meeting so they can attend. Mr. Schreiner asked how many letters were sent by the developer. Mr. Harding stated he send 84 letters and received 2 or 3 responses. Those responses were directed to staff and he received copies of them. No one asked for a meeting. Mr. Hickok stated there is a sign on the site that is posted by the City for the rezoning and he personally received two calls from that sign on the site from folks who have driven by. That is another attempt that the City makes to make an announcement that something is going to be happening on the site. 4.26 PLANNING CON�iISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 27 Ms. Savaqe stated it is clear that the City did everything that it could not only in conformance with the statute but in what they did to notify the area. Mr. Harding stated he knows staff has done an excellent job in looking at traffic and consulted with people who know what they are looking at for traffic. They will go through this again. In Fridley when making a rezoning request, you must show certain things. More importantly they go through a plan review, then to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council. What they are asking for is approval to rezone the property in order to market the site. When they have marketed the site, they will be back with a full set of plans. They have always built what they have said they would build. The traffic issue is of concern. That has been studied by the staff. As he recalls, the recommendation indicates that 73rd can handle the traffic. Mr. Sielaff stated someone brought up the issue of soil borings on the site. He would like to get that cleared up that this is a buildable site. Mr. Hickok stated the City did borings and made the determination that it is a buildable site. When the bank was to be built, there was a concern about a wetland and, if so, how much of the site would be affected by the wetland. He thought, if they had gone through the same analysis, they would have come to the same conclusion. It can accommodate an underground tank. Mr. Sielaff stated that use would have to have a special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated yes. Mr. Hickok stated a speaker this evening was concerned about a berm that was supposed to be on the building to the east that was not there. He would like to clarify that. The code requires parking areas to have. either/or a berm of three feet or they need to mitigate the effect of headlights by having a hedge. As you know, that development was ultimately approved with a hedge and a spacing of shade trees along the northern property line. It meets the setback and landscape screening requirements for the proposal. At one end of the site, it also has a retaining wall which brings the headlight of vehicles lower. Because of the contours of the site, on top of that retaining wall is a hedge and shade trees. This does meet all code requirements. . Ms. Holm showed pictures of the site. If that is what they get with approval meeting City codes facing their houses, perhaps they need to think about what the hedge and tree requirements are. What is there is pretty crummy. If this meets requirements, 4.27 PLANNING COI�iISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 28 anything you put there only has to meet requirements. What they see daily is trucks facing directly into the neighborhood. She felt that destroys the property values. There are nice houses there but they look at a bunch of crummy trucks. You can say what you want about a mud filled triangle, but at least it is not filled with things that are destroying the property. Mr. Hickok stated the trucks are not permitted beyond the front corner of the building. They are to be parked in the side and rear yard. The developer brought in a 30-foot tree and others in the 15-foot to 20-foot range in an effort to mitigate the trucks and would be permitted on the side but an effort to further screen. The hedge is still young. They would like to see five years of growth but that is not realistic. Within a given period of time, it will mask the parking lot and provide the effect they want to separate the parking lot from the residential community. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:25 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated according to code they do have the minimum number of trees required. We do have a building plan review. Even though it is not coming to the Commission staff analyzes the site and takes into account the things that folks have been asking for. That can be accomplished during the staff review. Mr. Oquist stated part of the building permit is to have a landscape plan, lighting plan, etc. He has been toggling with the discussion tonight. He can appreciate the issues the residents have. On the other hand, we have been trying to develop this property and it is going to develop someday somehow. Perhaps we can at least have some say as to what goes in there. He have a problem rezoning the property without knowing what is going in there. On the other hand, it is a rezoning only and anything that is developed there will have to come back through anyway. He thought it okay to rezone. Ms. Savage agreed. Realistically, the site will not be vacant unless it is turned into a park. It seems there could be a worse scenario in developing or leaving it vacant and not cared for. Residents will have an opportunity to voice their opinion as far as what is actually going to go in there. It will go to City Council. The Planning Commission will monitor what type of business will go there. Ms. Modig stated she feels that the traffic issue is a real problem. She drives on 73rd three or four times a day and she 4.28 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 29 knows it is a problem. No matter what is put on this site will have an effect. �e have to have a realistic idea of what we can use the site for. She thought changing the rezoning to C-2 is more realistic is getting the proper type of tenant there. Anything that has been proposed for this property has met with opposition. At this point, they are not making a decision about what is going there. It is just a rezoning. The rest of the steps will be back and forth again. Mr. Sielaff stated, to him, the request has been property noticed as far as time and who was notified. He would encourage the residents to be involved in whatever is developed on this site whether it is with City staff, going to Council meetings, or coming back to this body. He would encourage residents to come back and be involved in that process. Ms. Savage stated she appreciated the residents comments. The comments are recorded and put in the minutes that are forwarded to the City Council. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of a Rezoning, ZOA #97-05, by Dolphin Development and Construction Co., Inc., to rezone property at 73rd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business, to allow for future commercial development on Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, generally located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. Mr. Oquist stated he has driven by the site with the "great wall". At times he has driven by there and those trucks have been parked in front in any manner. If there is something that could be done, he would like staff to look irito it whether a letter be serit or whatever. He has seen it worse that what was shown in the photographs. Mr. Hickok stated this site has had a code history. The next time that a truck is in the front parking lot the owner will be cited. The follow up carries beyond the development of the site. They will have to appear in court for that issue if that is the case. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #97-03, BY RAY KAHL• To create two residential lots, on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, generally located 4.29 PLANNING CON�tISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997_ PAGE 30 at 5616 - 4th Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBI�IC HEARING OPEN AT 9:30 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the lot split is bei who is representing two property owners. that a lot split be granted to create two lot will be vacant and could be sold for residential dwelling containing three or property is located at 5616 - 4th Street Avenue, east of University Avenue, and on Street. ng requested by Mr. Kahl Mr. Kahl is requesting residential lots. One development of a fewer units. The which is south of 57th the west side of 4th Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is composed of four 40- foot wide platted lots. The petitioner is proposing to subdivide those four lots along the previously platted lot lines as part of Lot 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville. Each of the proposed lots measures 79.84 feet x 136.28 feet as each lot contains half of the vacated alley. Each lot would be 10,831.5 square feet in area. Ms. McPherson stated proposed Tract A is vacant. Currently Lots 4 through 6 are combined under one property identification number (PIN) for tax purposes. Lot 7 has a separate PIN. Tract A will be composed of Lots 4 and 5. There is a detached 8 foot x 12 foot shed on a concrete slab which will be located on proposed Tract A. Proposed Tract B will contain a single family dwelling unit and a detached garage measuring 24 feet x 24 feet. The garage meets setback requirements for the rear and side yard. However, the existing dwelling is only 3 feet from the south property line. That means that the dwelling is nonconforming. It was constructed prior to 1955. Any expansion of this dwelling will require review of the expansion by the Appeals Commission to correct the nonconformance issue. Ms. McPherson stated staff is stipulating that the detached shed on proposed Tract A be removed or relocated onto Tract B. There is also a park dedication fee requirement for the proposed lot split which is $1,500 per lot. Ms. McPherson stated staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of the request with the following stipulations: 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to Tract B or completely removed. 4.30 PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 31 2. A park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot shall be paid. Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. There were no questions of staff. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner if he had any comments . Mr. Kahl stated he is the real estate agent marketing the property. He looked at it and thought it was a strange situation with the 40 foot x 129 foot lots. It did not look right and he moved forward with the lot split request. The other lot will be sold. It was set up in 1942. It makes more sense. Ms. Savage asked if he had any problems with the stipulations. Mr. Kahl stated the only problem is with the park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot. They wanted to know why because they do not have $1,500 per lot. Ms. McPherson stated the fee is calculated for each lot so that is a total of $3,000. The park dedication fee on Tract A could be deferred until a building permit is applied for at a future dwelling. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:38 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she had no problem with the request. Ms. Modig stated she had no problem with the request. If there is difficulty with the park dedication fee, can it be deferred? Can they pay that in installments or as part of the taxes? How does that work when there is a problem in paying? Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the park dedication fee for Tract A can be deferred until�such time that a building is constructed. Staff has never been presented with this type of situation. The City Council would have to determine that with the owners. Ms. Modig asked staff to look into that issue with the owners and agent. Ms. Dacy suggested the wording, "... at the time a building permit is issued" and staff can investigate for Tract B. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of a Lot Split, L.S. #97-03, by Ray Kahl, to create two 4.31 PLANNING COI�SISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 32 residential lots on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, generally located at 5616 - 4th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to Tract B or completely removed. 2. A park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #97-06, BY FRANK MASSERANO III: To rezone properties from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C- 3, General Shopping Center District, to CR-1, General Office, to allow construction of a 2,640 square foot office building on Lot 1, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition, together with Outlot A, Shorewood Plaza, reserving easements of record, generally located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND TAE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:40 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated this is a rezoning request for property located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive. The property will be owned by Frank Masserano III who is requesting a change in the zoning from R-1, Single Family, and C-3, General Shopping Center District, to CR-1, General Office. If the rezoning is approved, the developer will construct a 3,022 square foot office building for the International Ministerial Fellowship. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located in the southwest quadrant of 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive. The site consists of 0.54 acres and is undeveloped. A residentially styled professional office building has been designed for this site. The proposed building has a residential style to mimic the residential character of the homes to the north and west. The exterior of the building will be a combination of brick and rock-face block. Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan designated the site as a 4.32 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 33 commercial and residential site. A minor amendment to the comprehensive plan will be required if the site is rezoned. Similar minor amendments have been discussed with the Fridley American Legion and earlier this evening with the Friendly Chevrolet/Geo proposal. These could be under the umbrella of a comprehensive amendment. Mr. Hickok stated the criteria used to evaluate is as follows: 1. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed use for this site is for a general office use. Professional office buildings are a permitted use in the CR-1 district and this use is compatible. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. Mr. Hickok stated the CR-1 district was created to provide a transition between commercial and residential properties. As such, the proposed use would be compatible with adjacent uses. To the east is C-3 and to the west there is residential. The CR-1 district was created to provide a transition between those two which is proposed. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Mr. Hickok stated there has been an evaluation of the setbacks, building, parking, drainage, landscaping, building materials, etc. Generally, it reveals compliance. There will be a stipulation regarding the landscape. The developer is proposing a bathroom module on the west face of the building which will require a variance and will go through a separate variance process. That would afford them more office and conference space within the building itself. The developer has requested that variance. The use is compatible with the district if the variance is granted. Mr. Hickok stated the site has been vacant since the incorporation of the City. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the following stipulations: l. Approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-18. 2. A new landscape plan will be required and shall be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. A minor comprehensive plan amendment shall be processed. Ms. Savage asked if there were any questions of staff. 4.33 PLANNING CONIl�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 34 Mr. Oquist asked why was the bathroom module proposed. Mr. Hickok stated, as the petitioner was evaluating their space needs, they determined that the bathroom itself and the necessary hallways, etc., caused the interior space to be cramped. In their effort to create a building on this site, they thought that a bathroom module that is attached to the building would function and look from the exterior like any other portion of the office space and that would provide them with the usable space within the building that they needed. If the variance is not granted, he believed that the plan would go back to the original floor plan without the variance for the bathroom. Mr. Chet Masserano introduced Mr. Houwman, the architect, and Mr. Frank Masserano, the petitioner. He stated that his father, Frank, leases space directly across Moore Lake now. They are from Fridley and want to stay. They are trying to get as much building as possible for continued growth so they can stay for many years. They designed the building to blend into the neighborhood. They have commercial on the south and east and the pump house to the north. Mr. Frank Masserano stated, with the proposed variance, they show an 8-foot privacy fence between the building and the house next door and would close it in toward the front of the building. From the street, you would never now the bathroom area was not in compliance. It is a very small lot and i•t is hard to justify it as residential. The pump house is across the street, commercial on either side, and soil correction costs to absorb. Another kind of commercial unit could be a gas station or auto body shop. He lives in the neighborhood and has seen the lot for many years. It is not big enough for a regular commercial developer. Even now, without that module, the building is 2,644 square feet. It is hard to justify the cost of building there. If the City would see fit to get the space for that extra office, they could use it effectively and it would not be an eyesore. He has talked with the neighbors and some are at-the meeting. He met with everyone within 350 feet. The second neighbor to the north has some concerns. They had originally designed the site to have an entrance from 63rd. She has small children as does the potential purchaser of the home next door. They had concerns about cars on 63rd. So they came back to have the entrance from East Moore Lake Drive. Mr. Frank Masserano stated one neighbor had concerns about the 8- foot privacy fence between her lot and this property. Kids come through there so they agreed to extend the fence from their back corner to where it catches the fence from the shopping center. They have met with the community, heard what they are saying, and 4.34 PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 35 incorporated that into the plan. Ms. Brassam stated she attempting to buy the house next to this property. She asked when the variance would be voted on. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission would consider this request on October 22. The City Council would see it in November. She would be getting notices regarding the meetings. ' Ms. Modig asked if she had any problem with the bathroom request. Ms. Brassam stated she did not. They are putting up an 8-foot fence. She was wondering about the height of the building. Mr. Houwman stated the bathroom would be connected and have a roof. The fence will be 8 feet. The site line is such that they will see just the top of the roof. The fence shown in the drawings is the view from 63rd. The fence is as tall as the eaves of the building. The fence is on the property line, the line of site will go up, and all the neighbor would see is the roof. This is a neighborhood thing. Neighbors put fences between the�selves all the time. He did not see it as a wall. Mr. Frank Masserano stated there are currently trees there. They plan to keep all of the trees. If they have to offset the fence in order to do so, they will do that. On the south side is growth and they plan to leave it. Ms. Brassam asked what type of landscaping they were going to do on the east side. The only other concern was from the house would she be looking at a big fence. They are going to landscape for everyone else but she is looking at a fence. Mr. Chet Masserano stated there will be a fence, tress, and landscaping that is there. Basically it will be like looking at a house next door. Mr. Frank Masserano stated there is a row of trees all along there right now. All those trees will remain on the residential side. There will be 30 to 40 feet of fence to keep kids from coming through. If Ms. Brassam closes on the house, they would be happy to plant more trees along there if the neighbor wants that. Mr. Houwman stated, if they do that, Ms. Brassam would have to maintain all that. Mr. Hickok stated it is sometimes hard to imagine what a fence would look like in that same neighborhood. As you drive behind the credit union building, they have an 8-foot fence which would give a sense of the scale. 4.35 PLANNING CONIl��ISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 36 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CFIAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:57 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated the request is pretty straight forward. The building would be constructed to look like a residential house. He is pleased and impressed with the willingness to work with the neighbors. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of a Rezoning, ZOA #97-06, by Frank Masserano III, to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family Dwelling, and C-3, General Shopping Center District, to CR-1, General Office, to allow construction of a 2,640 square foot office building on Lot 1, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition, together with Outlot A, Shorewood Plaza, reserving easements of record, generally located at 63rd Avenue and East Moore Lake Drive, with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-18. 2. A new landscape plan will be required and shall be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. A minor comprehensive plan amendment shall be processed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CAitRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would review this item at their meeting of October 13, 1997. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 1997 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 27, 1997. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Dacy stated the next meeting is on October 15 with a planning area meeting for the comprehensive plan and a public hearing on the ordinance regarding the telecommunications issue. The City has hired a consulting firm to prepare a report on the options 4.36 PI+ANNING CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 1, 1997 PAGE 37 that the City Council is evaluating for the telecommunications facilities. Ms. McPherson stated the meeting will also include a plan amendment for the northeast corner of University and Mississippi for Walgreens. Also, there will be three requests for Bachmans on property north of Sam's Club. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE OCTOBER 1, 1997, PLANNING COI�IlKISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary ' 4.37 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY Aaenda Item: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner, Ray Kahl, on behalf of property owners June Bierch and Gloria Sorby, requests that a lot split be approved to separate four 40 foot platted lots into two buildable lots. One lot will remain vacant for future development, and the second lot will be for an existing dwelling and garage. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The proposed lot split is on property zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. Three of the lots are currently combined into one Property Identification Number (PIN), and the fourth lot containing the existing single family dwelling has a separate PIN. As such, the lot with the dwelling would not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements for the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district. Each of the proposed lots (Tracts A& B) will be 79.48 feet wide x 136.28 feet long. The lot area is 10,831.5 square feet. This meets the minimum lot requirements of the R-3, General Multiple Family District. Tract A, containing an 8 foot by 12 foot shed, will remain vacant and may at some time be utilized to develop a three or less unit dwelling. Tract B will contain a single family dwelling and a detached garage. The dwelling has nonconforming setbacks, and may not be expanded without a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The proposed lot split meets the minimum lot requirements of the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot split request with the following stipulations: 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to Tract B or completely removed. 2. A park dedication fee of $750 per lot shall be paid. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to,recommend approval of the request to the City Council. They amended stipulation #2 to read: A park dedication fee of $750 per lot shall be paid. The fee for Tract A shall be aaid at the time of issuance of a building aermit The �etitioner shall wor with staff to arranae �ayment of the fee for Tract B." CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: After review of past park dedication fee requirements, staff determined that the park fee was only collected on the vacant parcel. Staff recommends that the fee for Tract B be waived. Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. 1 Project Summary L.S. #97-03, by Ray Kahl Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Properly: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A lot split to create two residential lots; one vacant and one with a dwelling. 5616 - 4'h Street N.E. Lots 4- 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville Flat Trees, sod, some shrubs R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling; Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville; 1886 Connected (5615 - 4th Street NE) 4�' Street N/A N/A The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are currently consistent in this area. To be taken. 5.02 Project Summary L.S. #97-03, by Ray Kahl Page 3 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: ADJACENT SITES: Zoning: C-2, General Business Zoning: R-3, General Multiple Fam. Zoning: R-3, General Multiple Fam. Zoning: R-3, General Multiple Fam. Site Planning Issues: C��!I�l�� Land Use: Used car lot Land Use: Residentiai Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential The petitioner, Ray Kahl, on behalf of property owners June Bierch and Gloria Sorby, requests that a lot split be approved to separate four 40 foot platted lots into finro buildable lots. One lot will remain vacant for future development, and the second lot will be for an existing dwelling and garage SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject property is located south of 57"' Avenue on 4�' Street. The property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family as are the lots to the north, south, and east across 4�' Street. A four unit apartment building is located north of the subject property, and a single family unit is located to the south. To the west, the property is zoned C-2, General Business, and is utilized as a used car sales lot (Motor Valet). Located on the subject property is a single family dwelling unit constructed prior to 1955 and measuring 20' x 34'. Also located on the property is a detached garage constructed in 1966, measuring 24' x 24'. Also located on the property is an 8' x 12' shed located on a concrete slab. The subject property is legally defined by four 40 foot platted lots (Lots 4- 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville). Currently, Lots 4- 6 are combined under one PIN and contains a detached garage and shed. Lot 7 has a separate PIN and contains a single family dwelling unit. ANALYSIS The petitioner is proposing to create two buildable lots, each measuring 79.48' x 136.28'. Tract A will be composed of Lots 4 and 5, and contain the detached 8' x 12' shed. Tract B will be composed of Lots 6 and 7, and will contain the detached 24' x 24 garage and the 20' x 34' single family dwelling unit. 5.03 Project Summary L.S. #97-03, by Ray Kahl Page 4 Tracts A and B each meet the minimum lot width and lot area requirements for the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district. Tract A will be vacant and could provide adequate area and lot width for a three family dwelling (three family dwellings require a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet). The shed located on proposed Tract A will need to be removed or relocated onto Tract B, as accessory structures may not exist prior to construction of the principal use. The single family dwelling located on Tract 6 has nonconforming setbacks. The dwelling may not be expanded or improved without a approval of a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION• The proposed lot split meets the minimum lot requirements of the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling district. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot split request with the following stipulations: 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to Tract B or removed entirely. 2. A park dedication fee of $750 per lot shall be paid. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION• The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. They amended stipulation #2 to read: "A park dedication fee of $750 per lot shall be paid. The fee for Tract A shall be paid at the time of issuance of a building �ermit The Qetitioner shall work with staff to arrange .�ayment of the fee for Tract 6" CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION• After review of past park dedication fee requirements, staff determined that the park fee was only collected on the vacant parcel. Staff recommends that the fee for Tract B be waived. Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. 5.04 R$SOLIITION NO. - 1997 R$SOLUTION APPROVING A SIIBDIVISION, LOT SPLIT, L.S. #97-03, TO CREATi3 TWO RLSIDBNTIAL LOTS, ON LOTS 4, 5, 6, AND 7, BLOCK 4, HAMILTON'S ADDITION TO MECHANICSVILLB, G]3NERALLY LOCATBD AT 5616 - 4� STR$ET N.$. WHEREAS, the City Council approved a lot split at the � 1997 meeting, and two stipulations attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, such approval was to create two residential lots, with legal descriptions as follows: Tract A: Lots 4 and 5, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, together with half the vacated alley adjacent thereto. Tract B: Lots 6 and 7, Block 4, Hamilton's Addition to � Mechanicsville, together with half the vacated alley adjacent thereto. WHEREAS, the City has received the required Certificate of Survey from the owners; and WHEREAS, such approval will create two residential lots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council directs the petitioner to record this lot split at Anoka County within six months of this approval or else such approval shall be null and void. PASS$D AND ADOPT$D BY TH$ CITY COIINCIL OF TH$ CITY OF FRIDL$Y THIS DAY OF . 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 5.05 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR Page 2- Resolution No. - 1997 EXHIBIT A 1. The detached shed located on Tract A shall be relocated to Tract B or completely removed. 2. A park dedication fee of $750 per lot shall be paid. ee or T�Ct A sha trlp i ma [�f aiiannA n - t11C� � ric7 r�ar�+it . r The petitioner shall work with staff to arrange payment for the fee for Tract B. 5.06 CERTIFICATE OF FO R RI� `( K�1-I t_.- � 0 3 0 1 HEREOT CEN71 F'f THAT Ttll f 3UIZVEY. I�LAN OR RL•Pq1'f � � VAS PfIL•PARED FiT MF. OR U�OCR AIY OIRECT SUPL•RVISIUIJ N10 THA'f 1 MI A OULY LICENSF.D LANV SUIiVEYOR t�IDER T ! OF 7 S1� Of iESOT . SCALE IN FEET I M I NNESOTA l. I CENSE NO . ZDL'1 O � � 3 � .� P� � / / � � �,,/� W . U � Z J r � � ' 0 �N_. � / �� V Ir � J d 4 � y J £ o J � N � \� �1 \ 1 � f i � \� M � \ . %� tC � +� �� '�'= V 4- E< T V SURVEY KURTH SURVEYING, INC. �002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E. CO�UM81 A HE I GF-IT S, hN . 7 S� Z 1 �si�� 78e-8788 F�x �B�s� 795-7802 DATE S "ZO -�? o• I RON MONUMENT 5�T �n) =MC�ei= O o � sT ANc-� �p>; ��AT D\STA�ILL G`F ` C�Y:b.�wa uA1�� T.t'c1.1tE � - --I��o.Z��^�—� a. � �`�P � 1� G A V - Vr ,�ti� wooD PW vAc.y FCN<<= Z ��.�, `� '. ' � r� n n n -/ / - ' - - ��,o.z$ -- lLg•`+�o CP) � .. ^ „ � �5.0' �� i'� 10 �30�- �Sw,`=T. � x� � � �` ��01r� 0�1...-� � Ot,.A" �^ ,�� G: o nf C- •• F_� w 'SLA.g • �'''� T 0 L ��. T li� . N i) t�� \ r- �� - - ��o.Z$ - - \ \ �9'�- \ �y, � n � 0 £ r v � � � . ^ �.,. v O ' � T I I 0 TR/�c.� ��„ �� ui Q,iioi' Sc�. cT� , � �` ; 0 � . � � � '� - � .� � ^ �' � � a ` � � 9J�M � � O � . 1 'y �z9•`ib(a) ��_ to "'-3t,z- � -- l�•Zg�� L 20 Z.p .i/, `�� 'V�1�{ � � `` 1.`�'I- �• / � -- 1�� .�ZSCM�� LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRACT `�A" j�� Lvts 4& 5, Block 4. HAMII,TON'S ADDTTION TO MEC'HANI � LE, Anoka County, Minnesota. Togecher aith hali'the vacated ailey adjacent thereto. � � J J s � S � � � � i .lJ � t� 11 J {.M' rn V � .j � � ■ � Zonir�g Desigia6ars: � t�1 - one Fariy Urrts � 1�2 - Two Fartiy Urrts 0 1�3 - C�eneral M16ple Uiits R 4- Nbbile Hor►ie Parks � PlA - Plarried Uri! Davelaprrient � S1 - H�rde Park Nei9hborhood 0 s2 - Fiedavelaprr�ert asfid 0 G1 - Lod B�Sir� � G2 - Genera� Business � G3 - � Sho�ping � GR1- Generdl Office Q NF1 -�� 0 AIFZ - hleev,► �r�d�ral � M,3 - outdoar Irtensive t�eavy Ind � ,a� - r�� H+;. P - Pt�lic Facilities p war� 0 Poc�ir�wnY w� _� � � � � ► 5712 AbE NE �"7I � � �� LS 97-03, Lot Split Request Ray Kahl requests that a lot split be approved to create finp parcels, one for 5616 4th Street, and the other to be sold as a vacant residential lot. N A _# 2/�/97 . � Corrp7ed and �an�n fi�om affiaal records based «, o��,o� �o. To �,a za,�� a� �rn�s �w�tn � �ng «a� anoes ado�ed ar'�d effeai�e as oF 2I17/97. 1?I@ Qly d F�idey F�aS talce�l every et�Oft bpr�o- vide ttte most upfio-tJate irfamietian available. 1r,eda� � n�re � �t m�. The (:dy of Fridey will not be respor�sible far unForeseen ennrs or usage of tF� doament. , C MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT� DIRECTOR� DATE: October 9, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager � � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for 1998 The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act is a voluntary program for metro region municipalities to take advantage of incentives to create affordable and life cycle housing, to clean-up polluted sites for new businesses and jobs, and to encourage "compact" development, linking housing, jobs, and transportation services. On October 14, 1996, the City of Fridley agreed to participate in the program for 1997. The program must be reviewed on an annual basis. BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM The 1995 Act creates three programs designed to encourage affordable housing and economic development. The three programs are the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, and the Local Housing Incentives Account. The City took advantage of tFie Tax Base Revitalization Account in 1996 in order for the Fridley HRA to act as a"pass-through" for Dealers Manufacturing to receive pollution contamination clean-up assistance. The City also has pending a Livable Communities Demonstration Account application for assistance in the 57th Avenue reconstruction project. Participating in the program has helped the City in the past. in obtaining ISTEA funds for the Highway 65 improvement project. Although the City has been unsuccessful in obtaining funds from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, participating in the program does award the City additional points in a competitive application process. 6.01 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act October 9, 1997 Page 2 It is recommended that the City continue to participate in the program for the upcoming year given the pending application for 57"' Avenue and also the potential of additional applications to MHFA for either multiple family or single family rehabilitation programs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for 1998. �� . M-97-425 6.�2 O�V �O v� �o� �o� � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 1998 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statues Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and tiVHEREAS, a metropaii�.an area r:zunicipalir,� is not eligible to receive grants or lcans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Deparhnent of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Acrion Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 1998, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1997, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1997; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT e{specific municipality} he by elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program un the Metropolitan Livable mmunities Act during the calendar year 1998. By: Mayor u:Vcruger\peterson�mres4.doc By: Clerk 6.03 City of Fridley W. Burns Ci Mana er �� TO: William , ty g � FROM: John G. Flora! Public Works Director DATE: October 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Hackmann Avenue Public Hearing PW97-264 On August 20, 1997, I have had a meeting with the residents on Hackmann Avenue regarding the planned water pipe replacement and offered a street improvement project in conjunction with that project. Most of the residents that participated at the meeting were favorable to the project. To date I have received a petition with 32 out of•58 signatures. As a means of expediting the process, I propose we set a public hearing for the improvement project for the November 10, 1997 council meeting so that we can proceed with the official design and specifications. Recommend the City Council set a public hearing for the Hackmann Avenue Project No. ST. 1998-1 for November 10, 1997. JGF:cz 7.01 �'�' � STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION (HACKMAN AVE & HACKMAN CIRCLE) We the residents on Hackman Avenue and Haclanan Circle request the City Council improve our stireet with new asphalt surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. We understand that we will be assessed for the concrete curb and gutter at a cost not-to-exceed $12.00 per front foot. We also understand that this street improvement will be completed in conjunction with a water line replacement project. RESIDENT OWNER / RESIDENT 960 HACKMANN CIIt FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT � 970 HACK:MANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 980 HACR:MANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 990 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1000 HACK;MANN CIR FRIDLEY 11TN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1001 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1008 HACKMAN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1011 HACK;MANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1016 HACK;MANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1021 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 '� OWNER / RESIDENT 1024 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1031 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 i ' �l - 2"�-�'L�r'��;'V �c� . SIGNATURE � �� ..�,��,� � (� /.�G��G � �GG� 'f9 " ��/1.>,��!`'�/�� ✓� �i�`T�..�� J � 1 /7 ' . � j��' , . ..� _ -�,, � � _��_ � _ _� ` ��'�`"_ ,� , ��' / '� �. 7.� ��,�,� /�� -t.�� ( �E! � STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION (HACKMAN AVE & HACKMAN CIRCLE) We the residents on Hackman Avenue and Hackman Circle request the City Council improve our street with new asphalt surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. We understand that we will be assessed for the concrete curb and gutter at a cost not-to-exceed $12.00 per front foot. We also understand that this street improvement will be completed in conjunction with a water line replacement project. RESIDENT SIGNATURE OWNER / RESIDENT 5858 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5861 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5866 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5869 HACKMANN AVE C�� FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5874 HACKMANN AVE �- FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5882 HACKMANN AVE �� • FRIDLEY MN 55432 � OWNER / RESIDENT / , ' 5889 HACKMANN AVE `' FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5890 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT � � 5898 HACKMANN AVE � �� ' —� FRIDLEY MN 55432 ' ��`" � � "`- �`�� OWNER / RESIDENT 5899 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 � � OWNER / RESIDENT ° 5906 HACKMANN AVE � ( ` � FRIDLEY MN 55432 'i�� , '•. I' . � ;,� _, OWNER / RESIDENT � % 5909 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 7.03 X .� � � tiX � � � STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION (HACKMAN AVE & HACKMAN CIRCLE) We the residents on Haclanan Avenue and Haclanan Circle request the City Council improve our street with new asphalt surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. We understand that we will be assessed for the concrete curb and gutter at a cost not-to-exceed $12.00 per front foot. We also understand that this street improvement will be completed in conjunction with a water line replacement project. RESIDENT SIGNATURE OWNER / RESIDENT 1040 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT ` , `I� � 1041 HACK:MANN CIR ��'`i �1 � �� ' "i�+.�,�2-,;.t,..�-.,� FRIDLEY MN 55432 � OWNER / RESIDENT 1048 HACKMANN CIR /� FRIDLEY MN 55432 � Q�� , �� OWNER / RESIDENT , 1056 HACKMANN CIR • � FRIDLEY MN 55432 `�^"2� �� OWNER / RESIDENT 1064 HACKMANN CIR `�CN � �,�� j /�� FRIDLEY MN 55432 � OWNER / RESIDENT 10�2 �cxraarnv c� �%.�L/ ^��,r�''� FRIDLEY MN 55432 `� � OWNER / RESIDENT 1080 HACK:MANN CIR FRIDLEY NIN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT % 1088 HACKMANN CIR V�� ,�� _.---- FRIDLEY MN 55432 � OWNER / RESIDENT - 1096 HACKMANN CIR FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 1104 HACKMANN CIR � FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5770 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5778 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 7.04 � STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION (HACKMAN AVE & HACKMAN CIRCLE) We the residents on Hackman Avenue and Haclanan Circle request the City Council improve our street with new asphalt surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. We understand that we will be assessed for the concrete curb and gutter at a cost not-to-exceed $12.00 per front foot. We also understand that this street improvement will be completed in conjunction with a water line replacement project. • RESIDENT SIGNATURE OWNER / RESIDENf 5794 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5802 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5810 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5811 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY NIN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5818 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 " OWNER / RESIDENT ('�Z.—C�� C�V "– t�' 5821 HACKMANN AVE . � FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT y��"�""" 5829 HACKMANN AVE � FRIDLEY NIN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5834 HACKI�IANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT _ . ho�^�AS M� Zv w.42T 5837 HACKMANN AVE �'A �p ('T—��—� FRIDLEY NIN 55432 �"`� � � ��'\ OWNER / RESIDENT . 5842 HACKMANN AVE `` `� �i � _ �, FRIDLEY MN 55432 ��`/t `,��C `�-C r_.{}'�y, OWNER / RESIDENT , 5845 HACKMANN AVE /�� , , ^ �� FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5850 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 7.05 y �' STREET IIVIPROVEMENT PETITION (HACKMAN AVE & HACKMAN CIRCLE) We the residents on Haclanan Avenue and Haclanan Circle request the City Council improve our street with new asphalt surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. We understand that we will be assessed for the concrete curb and gutter at a cost not-to-exceed $12.00 per front foot. We also understand that this street improvement will be completed in conjunction with a water line replacement project. RESIDENT OWNER / RESIDENT 5917 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5922 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5925 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5930 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5933 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5945 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 OWNER / RESIDENT 5946 HACKMANN AVE FRIDLEY MN 55432 , �� / ��%fJ 1��, '�,.�� '�� 5 � S � � 7�" C�=��% �� z ✓ � � SIGNATURE � ��r� I� � %1 �l'i�'•�-�. � c f {S°� �� ' �C. � ��yG-�Kti� /� / � �' �� .: � _ � � ,; � � � -'-; � ��,� � %7 5 � : - ---- __ - ; � _ - -- --- - -__ ___ --- - � 1�l'j, (,,� t—( 4 C k fr� � ��1 ��,� % ^� � ., f � . - t; li� � �� ;:' �i ,r,-�� l!`i'� , � �%--;- �,,., . ; �, , �. !. (� � ,_ . .� -- - ._._ ✓ •� t�� , -------- ,�--- 1 _ ' _ _ :..� _ "� v�. . _ . _. _ - -------- - — `l ��\ t"} r. .�L�i-li��'�i'�; ''\"e, I� <� - 7.06 `� j SS �' -^� � -�. � �" z�`: �+��o � � �. s� . k�`�. �� «��; t +- 3 c i- ' t i 'si L C'` � .fir%��q � J i�i �"1c, �+ 'A� _'� ' � � �'��f ��. ��;.��' � "'� r` ux ��t � v rr � ,. f � :�' <6y ; � ��-�� E?��i - � < m 7.09 � � � � � � O� � r� � � O H � � � z 0 � 0 c� � w x � � � �a � a 00 � � � w � W z 0 H � � � 0 � 00 � �--� � wM W O H L� O H W � � � � � � � w � 0 H � � w x � � � � � . . . 7.10 � � w � F-y � o� v� o� � � � H � H z w � � � � � . w � � � � � � U � � Q1 �, � MEMOR.ANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: October 7, 1997 TO: William Burns Cit Mana er �� Y 9 � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Julie Jones, Planning Assistant/Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Setting Public Hearing to Gonsider Increased SWAP Fee BACKGROUND: � During earlier budget meetings, the City Council has expressed interest in raising the City's recycling service fee, commonly referred to as the Solid Waste Abatement Program (SWAP) fee. The purpose of raising the fee is to offset the increased costs of weekly curbside recycling services with the addition of plastics and to operate the Recycling Center. It was determined earlier that it would be necessary to raise the SWAP fee from $4.00 per quarter to $6.00 to offset these costs. RECOMMENDATION: The recycling service fee rate is set in City Ordinance, so a public hearing is required to consider changing the fee. Staff recommends that the City Council set a public hearing date of October 27 to consider the fee increase. A proposed public hearing notice and first reading draft is attacherf. It is important that consideration of this change occurs as soon as possible to allow adequate time for public notification. M-97-423 8.01 City of Fridley PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Fridley City Council at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Ave. NE on Monday, October 27, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering amendment to °Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Collection," Section 113.07, "Solid Waste Abatement Program Fee," and Chapter 11, "General Provisions and Fees." The proposed change is to increase the recycling service fee from $4.00 per quarter to $6.00 per quarter, effective with January 1998 billing, to all residential and 5-12 unit multiple dwelling units. For a detailed copy of the proposed ordinance changes, contact Julie Jones, Recycling Coordinator, at 572-3594. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than October 20, 1997. Nancy J. Jorgenson Mayor Publish: October 16, 1997 October 23, 1997 Filename: BudgeUCouncil Item/102797 Public Hearing Notice 8�0� MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: October 7, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Julie Jones, Planning Assistant/Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Application for State Environmental Assistance Grant BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance is accepting Environmental Assistance Grant applications through October 15, 1997. City staff and Global Action Plan (GAP) of Minnesota are interested in pursuing grant funds for the purpose of expanding GAP's Eco Team program into Fridley apartment complexes. The Eco Team program, currently underway in the City of Fridley, has proven to be quite effective in changing resident's environmental habits. See the attached summary for details. There were eight households in the first Fridley Eco Team, and the average garbage reduction was 36%. Outdoor water usage was reduced 53%. PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM: While completing a multi-family recycling grant this year, the Recycling Coordinator saw a strong need to educate apartment-dwellers about recycling and the environment. It is stated in the City's 1997 Goals and Objectives that the City will "improve the performance of multi-unit recycling." The Eco Team program would be a great way to accomplish that goal, but the program needs to be slightly modified to make it work for apartment dwellers. GAP has also been interested in expanding the Eco Team program into apartment buildings, but knew they would need additional funding to re- work the action steps in the program. GAP would like Fridley to be part of a pilot project that can serve as a model for the entire Metro area. The City now has the opportunity to apply for appropriate funding for a program that will not require any City cash contribution. The proposed grant amount is $17,500. A 50% 9.01 cash or in-kind match is required, but GAP will secure private donations to meet the match requirements. The Recycling Coordinator would assist the program by locating apartment complexes that are interested. The funding will be used to finance the cost of GAP's staff re-working their workbook and coordinating the tenant groups. The exact number of teams is not known at this point, but we do know of several apartment complexes that have active tenant groups with management willing to support this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution, authorizing the submission of the grant application and execution of a grant agreement in case the City is successful in obtaining grant funds to develop a multi-family Eco Team program M-97-422 9.02 S�P—�'�-19y7 1�4-33 FF:OM GLOBHL HCTU�N PLAN TO � �� t7" � � � � � � � � � � � � v � � � � i� � L� � o � � �� z �� W � U I y i i I �� tJ! � ;- �� , A � � _ Q � u� a: � '� . ' L 17i; . $ . il � . ;. : � �� 7f �. , m �, � W s� � O � _ o � � � �I �! � � � � � �-► � `ll. �' M s"t . 1� oo v-- � � M N 1 f � M �s 4 � M� � ` Oc T hiUOF:ES P. k11 � � . � `FI ,� •�� O � � � �� 1 � � � � M '�' � � � �� 1�� -1 � � � � � � �� M ~ � ' "l n. � � � �l � � � � �� 1 � �� 0 � � ; 1 + � � • �' � . � ., " - .j . . .� � i ti• y t �, � � � 9.03 � � . �� _ . � � � � M ry 1 � 0 w � . � +� � � �� M W z T � � M � � � � v � w �, V > � ; Q � 4 � RESOLUTION NO. -1997 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION OF OEA GRANT FUNDS AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) is currently accepting proposals for Financial Assistance Grants; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley is applying to the OEA for grant assistance and is committed to implementing the proposed project as described in the grant application if OEA funding is received; and WHEREAS, the OEA requires that the City of Fridley enter into a grant agreement with OEA that identifies the terms and conditions of the funding award; BE IT RELSOVED THAT the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, authorizes application for an OEA Financial Assistance Grant for the purpose of establishing Eco Teams in Fridley apartment buildings and, in the event that funding is awarded, to enter into an agreement with the OEA to carry out the project specified therein and to comply with all of the terms, conditions, and matching provisions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Fridley authorizes the City Manager-to sign the grant agreement on its behalf. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 13T" DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997. ATTEST: NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK �- 9.04 Ei�et,n.�.�r� �y y tiiwi•r W Y W.�li•� a � � O F:.. , p 3 S��cecs � � rnA ��o�..,�c.� w� ¢m oa MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �� PW97-267 FROM: Jon H. Haukaas�tant Director Public Works John G. Flora, Director Public Works DATE: October 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 to I-694/TH 47 NE Ramp Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997-3 Mn/DOT has added a number of minor work orders to the above Ramp Reconstruction Project. These included special signing informing motorists of ramp closures, the addition of a pipe sleeve under the ramp for future utility wiring, and joint sealing and grading related to repairs on an existing storm sewer along the ramp. These items are all approved and paid for by Mn/DOT. The net cost of Change Order # is an additional $3,546.40. Recommend the City Council approve Change Order #1 to I-694/TH 47 NE Ramp Reconstruction Project No. ST 1997-3. 10.01 CITY OF FRIDLEY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 6431 UIVIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FR.IDLEY, MN 55432 October 13, 1997 Forest Lake Contracting Inc. 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1, I-694/TH 47 NE Ramp Reconstruction, Project No. ST. 1997 - 3 Gentlemen: You are hereby ordered, authorized, and instructed to modify your contract for the I-694/TH 47 NE Ramp Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997 - 3 by adding the following work: Addition: �� u �t �� ount 1. Construction sign special 1 Lump Sum 332.94 332.94 2. PVC Hand Hole with Light Duty Cover 1 Each 632.50 632.50 3. 75 MM Conduit Push 4 M 57.74 230.96 4. Embankment Grading 1 Lump Sum 350.00 350.00 5. Joint Sealing 1 Lump Sum 2,000.00 2,000.00 TOTAL ADDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,546.40 TOT T. HAN ORnF,R�• Original Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $453,496.01 Contract Additions - Change Order No. 1 . . . . ................... ..... ....... $3,546.40 No. 2 +- � � • �� :�• �. . 10.02 Forest Lake Contracting Inc. Change Order No. 1 October 13, 1997 Page 2 Submitted and approved by John G. Flora, Public Works Director, on the 13th day of October, 1997. Prepare y Checked by v-- r„t, r L„ ---- *i T' — �vti.) /�. KA�s�3,� �: . , �. �5�; Director of Public Works 7 Approved and accepted this `�day of o� . , 199$ by FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING, INC. , S�. lZ•� S��(w^ , �� 7 Approved and accepted this day of , 1997 by CITY OF FR,IDLEY - Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor William W. Burns, City Manager Approved and accepted this � day of ��-�/ , 1997 by Metro Divi ion P c`eJc.�}- �n,y tnQ.er 10.03 � a QTY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM � Memo to: William W. Burns, City Manager ,��i+� � From: William C. Hunt, Assistant to the City Manage Subject: Date: William C . Hunt Assistant to the City Manager 1998 Budget for North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau October 2,1997 In accordance with the agreements with member cities, the North Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau is required to submit its 1998 budget to each city prior to the last day of September 1997. Submission of the budget is for informarion only with no action necessary by the Fridley City Council other than to receive the document. I am enclosing a copy of the 1998 budget for the Bureau which was approved at the September 10, 1997 meeting of the Board of Directors and submitted to the City on schedule. I request that you present it to the Fridley City Council for a motion to receive at their October 13, 1997 meeting. WCH/jb Attachment 11.01 � w (9 � � m O � F- W � _ f- � O z m rn rn 11.02 � ro rn �o a � w c9 0 � m O � F- W � x f- � 0 z � rn rn 11.03 N ro � N a � w C� 0 � m O � H W � _ E- � O z ao rn rn 11.04 co m � N a � � CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: DATE: � William W. Burns M E M O R A N D l,l M City Manager The Honorable Mayor and City Council William W. Burns, City Manager�F� October 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Resolution Changing the Date of the December City Council Meeting Attached is a resolution which designates the time and number of Council and conference meetings for 1997. Since the City Council meeting originally scheduled for December 15, 1997, has been moved to December 8, it was necessary to change the date listed in the resolution. Staff requests that Council approve the resolution. Thank you. WWB:rsc Attachment 12.01 RESOLUTION NO. - 1997 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TIME AND NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, Section 3.01 of the Charter of the City of Fridley requires that the City Council meet at a fixed time not less than once each month; and WHEREAS, Section 3.01 of the Charter of the City of Fridley requires that the Council shall meet at such times as may be prescribed by resolution; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Council to comply with the open meeting provisions contained in Minnesota Statutes 471.705 as interpreted by the courts; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley that: 1. The Council will hold regular meetings in the Council Chambers of the Fridley Municipal Center, commencing at 7:30 p.m. on the following Mondays in 1997: January 6, January 27, February 10, February 24, March 3, March 31, April 14, April 28, May 5, May 19, June 9, June 23, July 14, July 28, August il, August 25, September 8, September 22, October 13, October 27, November 10, November 24 and December 8. 2. The Council will hold conference meetings at the Fridley Municipal Center, at which time matters are discussed but no formal action is taken, commencing at 7:00 p.m. on the following Mondays in 1997: January 13, February 3, April 7, May 12, July 21, August 18, October 20 and November 17. 3�. On the dates of regular Council meetings, conference meetings will be held in the Fridley Municipal Center at 7:00 p.m. and following adjournment of each regular meeting. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF October, 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 12.02 / � CIIY OF FRIDLEY GAS SERVICES Cronstrom's Heating & Air Cond 6437 Goodrich Ave St Louis Park MN 55426 DJ's Heating & Air Cond Inc 6060 LaBeaux Ave NE Albertville MN 55301 Marlowe's Refrigeration & Heating 6325 Bloomington Ave S Richfield MN 55423-1768 Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2 Ave S Anoka MN 55303 Practical Systems 14226 Norden Dr NW Rogers MN 55374 Pride Mechanical Inc 1600 Broadway St NE Minneapolis MN 55413-2617 Quality Air Inc 10830 Magnolia St NW Coon Rapids MN 55448 St Boni Refrigeration & AC 8716 Hwy 7 St Bonifacius MN 55375 Soderlin H O Inc 3612 Cedar Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407-2920 LICENSES OCTOBER 13, 1997 Peter Rice Thomas Wendel Marlowe Koch John Becker Scott Sporer Richard Hjelm Robert Lilya Richard Donovan Leah Arendt RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same GENERAL CONTRACTOR-COMMERCIAL Construct All Corporation 4401-85 Aver N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Mike McNellis Modern Concepts & Design Inc 1700 Sugarloaf Trl Brooklyn Park MN 55444 James Manetas GENERAL CONTRACTOR-RESIDENTIAL All American Roofing & Remodeling (5160) 411297LnNE Blaine MN 55434 James Piersiak American Roofing (20109395) 655 W Main St Anoka MN 55303 Brinkman Russell Home Imp (8168) 3415 Hartford Rd Woodbury MN 55125 First Landmark Builders (1992) 611 S Snelling Ave St Paul MN 55116 Giertsen Co (1796) 860 Decatur Ave N Golden Valley MN 55427 Jay Bowers Bill Brinkman Pat Markowski Richard Giertsen Lake State Remodelers Inc (20047291) 6000 Bass Lake Rd #111 Crystal Mn 55428 Doug Schultz Legvold Construction (3650) 374 E Belmont Ln Maplewood MN 55117 Lonn's Construction (2365) 841 Gabriel Rd St Paul Mn 55119 Gary Legvold Lonn Greenlee New Haven Construction Inc (20077950) 4208 83 Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Dan Cardinal 14.03 RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same STATE OF MINN Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Norling Exteriors (20098700) 341 79 Way NE Fridley MN 55432 Pro Exteriors (6094) 3012 Kentucky Ave N Crystal MN 55427 HEATING Cronstrom's Heating & Air Cond 6437 Goodrich Ave . St Louis Park MN 55426 Fore Mechanical Inc 2660 N Cleveland Ave #7 Roseville Mn 55113 Marlowe's Refrigeration & Heating 6325 Bloomington Ave S Richfield MN 55423-1768 Northwest Sheetmetal Co of St Paul 110 Sycamore St W St Paul MN 55117-5451 0'Keefe Mechanical Inc 7251 Washington Ave S Edina MN 55439 Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2 Ave S Anoka MN 55303 Soderlin H 0 Inc 3612 Cedar Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 Quality Air Inc 10830 Magnolia St NW Coon Rapids MN 55448 St Boni Refrigeration & AC 8716 Hwy 7 St Bonifacius MN 55375 Jim Norling Ray Fuerstenberg Peter Rice Greg Dustin Marlowe Koch Rodney Albers Gary O'Keefe John Becker Leah Arendt Robert Lilya Richard Donovan 14.04 SaGne Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same PLUMBING C Walsh Plumbing 19909 Polk St NE Cedar MN 5501 1 ROOFING Bolander Construction 12038 Eagle St Coon Rapids MN 55433 Horizon Roofing Co 1333 Larc Industrial Blvd Burnsville MN 55417 Whitetail Construction (EXEMPT) 7435 Oakley St NE Fridley MN 55432 SIGN ERECTOR Kaufman Sign Co 1622 Central Ave NE Minneapolis MN 55413 WRECKING Herbst & Sons 2299 Co Rd H Mounds View MN 55112 Chuck Walsh Joe Bolander Suzanne Martz Floyd Mohawk Daniel Kaufman Dennis Herbst 14.05 STATE OF MINN RON JULKOWSKI Building Official Same Same RON JULKOWSKI Building Official RON JULKOWSKI . Building Official � ESTIMATES � OCTOBEB 13,1997 cRr oF ' FRIDLEY Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Larson, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of September, 1997 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,250.00 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432-4381 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of August, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,031.30 M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 19245 Highway 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 Wellhouse No. 1 and Water Booster Station Project No. 298 Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,690.00 Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374 - Central Avenue Bikeway/Walkway Project No. ST. 1994 - 9 Estimate No. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 16,789.53 Diversified Paving, Inc. 8019 - 146th Avenue N.E. Ramsey, MN 55303 1997 Driveway Paving Project No. 307 Estimate No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,780.96 1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: � The petitioner, Bolton & Menk, on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet, requests that a 2.48 acre parcel be rezoned from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, Generat Shopping Center District. If approved, the owner proposes to expand a parking lot for employee and service vehicles. The petitioner is also processing a plat and variance request. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. If the rezoning is approved, a special use permit is also required prior to expansion of the use. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The request meets the three evaluation criteria used to analyze rezoning requests: * Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district * Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning * Compliance with the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. In order to reduce the visual impact of the expanded parking area on the mobile home park to the south, several additions to the landscape plan are recommended. It is also recommended that the ! barbed wire be removed from the fence along the south property line. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. 2. Three Marshall's Ash, space evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. 3. The plat and variance request shall be approved. 4. The petitioner shalt receive a special use permit prior to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. 6. Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. They amended stipulation #6 to read: "Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided; on-street parking shall not be allowed. The petitioner shall work with staff to determine an a�ariate amount of customer ap rkinq to be siqned." CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. Project Summary ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A rezoning of property from M-4, Manufacturing Only to C-3, General Shopping Center 7501 Highway 65/7490 Central Avenue Metes and bounds; north part of SE'/4 of NW'/4 of Section 12, will be replatted 712,594 square feet; 16.36 acres Mostly flat Typical suburban; trees, sod, shrubs, the portion which is vacant contains weeds and scrub trees. Unplatted Connected Highway 65 East Service Road; Fireside Drive N/A Shared drainage, stormwater pond maintenance agreement The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are currently consistent in this area. To be taken. 16.02 Project Summary ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk Page 3 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Zoning: Zoning: ADJACENT SITES: R-4, Mobile Home Park R-2, Two Family Dwelling Land Use: Mobile homes Land Use: Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Land Use: Residential Zoning: M-4, Manufacturing Only Land Use: Manufacturing facility & vacant Site Planning Issues: ;_e The petitioner, Bolton & Menk, on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet, requests that a 2.48 acre parcel be rezoned from M-4, Manufacturing Only, to C-3, General Shopping Center District. If approved, the owner proposes to expand a parking lot for employee and service vehicles. The petitioner is also processing a plat and variance request. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. If the rezoning is approved, a special use permit is also required prior to expansion of the use. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY Friendly Chevrolet, located at 7501 Highway 65, is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 65 and Fireside Drive. The Friendly Chevrolet property was first used in 1960 as a mobile home sales and display lot. In 1960, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a 49' x 72' workshop and office space. Subsequent building permit activities are as follows: 1963 - Construction of a 24' x 24' detached garage 1964 - Construction of a 120' x 140' mobile home sales and service building 1965 - Construction of a 100' x 150' storage and sales addition 1971 - Construction of a 120' x 232' addition and issuance of a special use permit, SP #71-10, for new and used car sales 1978 - Construction of a 48' x 150' addition 1982 - Approval of a special use permit to park new vehicles in the current manufacturing property located north of the Friendly Chevrolet site at 7585 Highway 65 16.03 Project Summary ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk Page 4 1996 - Construction of an 84' x 84' and 44' x 21' additions. Variances were granted to reduce the setback from the right-of-way line from 20 feet to 13 feet and 7 feet from the side (north lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet), and to waive the curb and gutter requirement along the north property line. . ANALYSIS Prior to the City approving a rezoning request, the following criteria are evaluated: 1. Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. 2. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. 3. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements. Comoatibilitv of the Pro��PC� Use with the Proposed District The proposed use is a parking lot for the existing dealership. The parking lot will be used for employee vehicles, vehicles waiting to be serviced, and new/used vehicle storage. The C-3, General Shopping Center District allows parking lots as an accessory use, however, it requires a special use permit for new and used auto sales. In order for the parking lot to be expanded, a special use permit must be granted. �omnatibility of the Propc sP� District with Adjacent Uses and Zonina The proposed district is C-3, General Shopping Center. The property is zoned M-4, Manufacturing Only. The City recently approved this new zoning district to encourage manufacturing uses and to reduce the impact of warehouse and distribution facilities in the City. Previously, the property was zoned M-1, Light Industrial. A manufacturing facility is Iocated at 7490 Central Avenue, directly east of the subject parceL The surrounding parcels are zoned M-4, Manufacturing Only (north), and R-4, Mobile Home Park, and C-3, General Shopping Center (south). The rezoning to C-3 of the subject parcel would expand the zoning district to the east. The parcels have been zoned in this pattern since 1958, with few modifications. The districts are compatible with each oth�r. �'omnliance of the Proc�?� Use with the ProqosPri District Rec�uirements The petitioner has requested several variances for the expanded parking area: 1. To reduce the hardsurface setback from the public right of way from 20 feet to 7 feet. 2. To reduce the hardsurface setback from the side lot line (north side) from 5 feet to 0 feet. 3. To waive the requirement for curb and gutter along the north side of the parking lot. The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the variance request to the City Council. 16.04 Project Summary ZOA #97-04, by Bolton & Menk Page 5 The petitioner has submitted a landscape plan depicting a three foot hedge of closely planted dogwoods, honeysuckle, and potentilla in the area of the parking lot extension along Fireside Drive. Tb provide a consistent streetscape, additional shrub beds of similar materials should be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. In addition, three Marshall's Ash should be installed to continue the line of street trees to the east. The existing fence along Fireside Drive may be removed, however, a new fence will be installed along the east and north lot lines. The existing fence has three strands of barbed wire on the top. The City's fence code prohibits the use of barbed wire. The new fence may not have this type of wire on it, and the barbed wire on the existing fence should also be removed. The petitioners have submitted a grading and drainage plan which indicated a shared detention pond with the property to the east. This pond is adequately sized to handle runoff from the expanded parking area as well as potential building expansion(s) of the adjacent property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Councit with the following stipulations: 1. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. 2. Three Marshall's Ash, space evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. 3. The plat and variance request shall be approved. 4. The petitioner shall receive a special use permit prior to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be installed along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. 6. Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to,recommend approval of the request to the City Council. They amended stipulation #6 to read: Adequate on-site employee and customer parking shall be provided; on-street parking shall not be allowed. The �titioner shall work with staff to determine an ��proRriate amount of customer {�i�.g t e sianed." CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur �� th�lanning Commission action. V � � � � � � � g � � ��iq � R � �� 16.OV 1! i ;� il ,� �i c� � �' i i �� i �' j� i � _�; � � �� Y ��i � � �'�� 1� ��a . � �� i��} �� i �i� , f } �-s !,i r# � �� i I'i �g e�° � �i� ! 1� �� ° E� � � �� E `� � ��1f ! �i� �Z �i�:j � t� ` 3� 7 � f ;� �: #f i� . �� ;t �F � i� � :� g a W _ �y � � e � �� a �4�i�� ,;�� i!��;��i��iti�ii =i�o:oi:p:-:;i:' :O��;IirT � ; { i '� �� f��l �f�t;�� i t �!i{�7i �i�.ttl � �� , 1s� �,� {�� I: aeeoraf ao� � I 's � s � ��:� ; �-�- � -�� r� �� - _. �_ ..> � �: RRESIDE DR PE rt k ; d.c ��, � � � � a :t+�` �:,� � ..c� � .`�, • • � � ,w:. �� ' �� - �� M1 � Zo�11fg DBSI�18bQIS: � �' -°"eF�'"""� ZOA 97-04, Rezoning Request � f�2 - Two Farriy lk�s 0 R�3 - Ger�eral Mitiple Units � R-4 - Nbbile Fbrre Paris � � _,., � �,.� Friendly Cheverolet requests that o S-2 -�� a� property be rezoned from M-4, OG1 -�� o �2 -� �� Manufacturing Only to G3, � G3 -Ger�alSf�oPP��B ��ral Shopping Center. This is � GR1- Gaier-al O(fioe � NF1 - � Industrial o�2 _�� in relation to a new subdivision - nh3 - outdoor Uter�sive Heavy �rd. �,� -�� and will allawadditional parking 0 p -RblicFacilibes for the auto dealership. 0 VYATFR f—I PoGHT-0FW4Y _ �' j ! • � < oe�af �� 76 AVE NE 75AVE NE --r:: :- � �� }� :� .-�-:...-a i �� . • _.,a,' � � N A 2!'�197 con�piled a,a � from oFfiaal �eoords �ed an Orcinanoe Pb. 70 and Z,onirg effective dabe 1/27/56 bogelt� wilh aN adr� anoes aclopted ar�d efieciive as af ?J1 /97. m�cs�ya r-r;aey n� � e,�y e� ep� vide ri,e most up�b�6e infonneuo� ava'labl� -n,�a� �,�a n� �s s�t m �. The ci�r of Friaey wil� not be �spor�ble for 11�0(89E�Ef1 E.iTOfB Of IS�E Of �115 dOGllT�f�- � C-��; , ,� �� 213_. �NCFS_. . (Ref. .180) ._, _ _ . 213.�1. DEFINI'TDON . As used here.in the term "fence" means and includes a structure or �rtition erected for the purpose of enclosing a piece of land or to divi3e a piece of land into distinct portions. The term "fence" includes an enclosure about a field or any other place, and especially an enclosing structure of wood, iron or 'other material intended to prevent intrusion fron without or straying from within. (Ref. 180) 213.02. PRIVAZE NU�SAt1(E Ar►y fence maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property shall be deaaed a private nuisance. Any such owner or occupant injured, either in his or her comfort or in the enjoyment of his or her estate by such fence, may have an action of tort for the damage sustained hereby and may have such nuisance abated. 213.03. Pf2�C6IBITIDN It shall be imlawful for any person to construct and maintain or allaw to be constructed or maintained upon any property located wit-hin the limits of the City of Fridlev anY__barbed wire fence or any fence of inetal oonstruction or otherwise, whicTi is c—Tiarged or connected with an electrical. curr�t in such a maru�er as to transmit said current to persons, animals or things which might come in contact with same. . ,� 213.04. LOT LII�.S � ' Whenever a fence is or shall be located upon any presnises abutting public property, whether the same be a street, alley, public way or otherwise, the City may require the vwner of the property upon which a fence nvw exists or is to be located to establish lot lines upon said property through the placing of permanent stakes located by a: lioensed surveyor and otherwise approved by the Council. In any case, no survey is necessary and a permit for the same when required may be issued. on certificate or affidavit of the applicant tha*_ he or she is the a,n�er of the prenises upon which such fence lies or is to be located. 213.05. I,OCATION All fences must be located e�tirely upon the private property of the person, firm or corporation constructing the sane or causing the fence to be so constructed and erected, except that adjoining property owners may agree in writing that said fence shall be located on the division line of their �aAd properties. � . 1 : 213.0� DEFINITZON PRIVATE N(J ISANCE •.�• �: • � � _ ��. IACATION 213-1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Dolphin Development and Construction Company is requesting a change in zoning from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2 General Business. If approved, the developer would seek a retail/service user for development of this site. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The property is located in the southeast quadrant of University Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. and consists of 2.4 acres. This land is currently undeveloped. A convenience store with fuel and a car wash has been illustrated as a probable use for this development site. A Special � Use Permit would be required to allow a motor fuel and/or car wash operation in the C-2 district. In the City of Fridley there are 19 loopback sites. These parcels were shaped by a service drives along heavy traffic corridors. When a service drive intersects with another street, it is very important for the intersection to occur far enough back from the heavier roadway intersection, so that dangerous conflicts do not occur near the heavier intersections. Pulling the intersection back then creates a teardrop shaped parcel called a loopback site. Of the �, City's 19 loopback sites, 15 are along University Avenue, 4 are on Highway 65. The 15 University Avenue Sites are zoned as follows: C-3 (4 sites), G2 (10 sites), & M-2 (1 site). The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Commercial, not Industrial as it is currently zoned. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning request ZOA #97-05 without stipulations. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. 17.01 Project Summary Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: PROJECT DETAILS Rezoning from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2, General Business Southeast quadrant of the intersection of 73'� Avenue N.E. and University Avenue Legal Description of Property: Tract A Registered Land Survey No. 78 Anoka County Minnesota Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: 2.4 acres Mostly flat, slopes slightly to the west. The parcel sits slightly lower than the surrounding roadways. Trees and Tall grasses M-2, Heavy Industrial East University Avenue Service Drive 73'� Avenue N.E. and East University Avenue Service Drive Bikeway\walkway at sites northern edge Drainage Comprehensive " Planning Issues: Proposed zoning designation is compatible with Comprehensiire Plan designation for this site. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken 17.02 Project Summary Page 3 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Site Planning Issues: ADJACENT SITES: Zoning:C-2, General Business Land Use: Prof. Office Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industriai Zoning: M-2, Heavy Industrial Land Use: Northco Industrial Land Use: Northco Industrial Zoning: R-1 � R-2 Residential Land Use: Residential REQUEST Dolphin Development and Construction Company is requesting a change in zoning from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2 General Business. If approved, the developer would seek a retail/service user for development of this site. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject parcel has been vacant since the incorporation of the City. In 1989, Phillips 66 Company filed a special use permit Application to allow a motor fuel operation, convenience store, and car wash on the site. The City denied the request on the basis that the square footage of retail exceeded the 30% permitted in the M-2 District. Also received by the City was an informal request regarding use of the site for a bank, but a formal request for that bank was never received. In 1995 the City of Fridley considered a rezoning to allow its municipal liquor operations to build an 11,200 s.f. liquor warehouse store on the site. The liquor store request did not receive a unanimous endorsement by the City Council. Therefore, the land remained as an M-2, Heavy Industrial site. Wetland Issues A wetland was identified on this parcel by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1989. This wetland was indicated on the Service's National Wetland Inventory Map. Prior to the City's moving forward at the time of their liquor store request, the extent of wetland on the site needed to be determined. The City hired a firm called Peterson Environmental Consulting Services to delineate the wetland and develop a mitigation plan to replace any impacted wetland. The consultant utilized the 1991 Wetland conservation and Federal Clean Water Act. It was determined by the consultant that a wetland was not present on the parcel. The hydrology did not exist to meet the criteria in the 1989 wetland delineation manual. 17.03 Project Summary Page 4 Evaluation of the Rezoning Criteria Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district The proposed use of the site is for a general business operation. Motor fuel/convenience operations are permitted through the special use permit provisions of the C-2, General Business District. The developer has also discussed the potential of general office and/or a medical office complex as potential candidates for the site. Those uses would be compatible with the district. Compatibility of the proposed d.istrict with adjacent uses and zoning. The proposed district, C-2, General Business is compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. The subject parcel is a switchback parcel. A switchback parcel is one which is located between a service road and an adjacent roadway at an intersection. There are 19 switchback parcels in the City; 15 of those parcels are zoned commercial, 4 are industriaL - The property to the east is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, however, many of the uses are warehouse-showrooms, and a large portion of the building is committed to a medical office use. The property to the north is zoned residential, both single and two family. Those properties are separated from the proposed development by 73nd Avenue NE which is a collector street. The use of the subject parcel as it is currently zoned would be limited to a small industrial user not requiring expansion space�due to the small size of the parcel. Other possibilities for this site include: heavy repair garages, or automobile service stations. Rezoning this site to commercial would allow a wider variety of uses whose size and intensity of land use is more befitting of the site. The designation for this site on the Comprehensive Plan is Commercial. Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements Setbacks � The proposed site plan meets the minimum requirements of the C-2, General Business District requirements. No variances are required. Unlike the M-2, Heavy Industrial District, the C-2 District does not have additional setback requirements from the public right-of-way adjacent to a residential district. Drainage The engineering department will require that the drainage plan meet the requirements of the Six Cities Watershed Management Organization. Stormwater will be required to be ponded on site and then released into the stormwatwer system located in 73'� Avenue. 17.04 Project Summary Page 5 Landscaping The proposed landscape plan looks very good as a concept plan. Much emphasis has been placed on screening the use from the residential property to the north. Final landscape plans must meet or exceed the requirements of the C-2 District. REQUIRED 31 trees (1 per 50 feet of site perimeter) 25% reduction for large trees (3" caliper deciduous and 8' tall evergreens) 30% evergreen 2 ornamental trees may be substituted for 1 overstory tree PROPOSED 38 trees (with 2:1 ornamental credit) 50% (of required) as evergreen The proposed plan exceeds the requirements of the C-2 district and is�very good. Screening of the overhead doors of the car wash near University Avenue may need additional screening. Also, headlights of cars waiting to enter the car wash will require additional shielding to eliminate glare toward motorists on University Avenue. Building Materials Code requires that commercial buildings be constructed of masonry units specifically designed as finished exterior surFaces. These materials include: brick, rock face block, etc. Lighting The site shall be lit through the use of shielded downcast lighting. A 15' maximum light standard is recommended to assure no glare impacts are experienced by the property owners north of this site. Any canopy lighting shall be shielded downcast as well. Traffic Rezoning the parcel to a commercial designation will have some impact in terms of traffic. The C-2 District permits a wider variety of uses, including: offices, banks, drive- through restaurants, gas station/convenience stores, and other retail facilities. A comparison of average daily trips follows: USE Industrial (Manufactur Industrial (Warehouse Restaurant (w/drive- through) Gas station/convenience Bank General Retail AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS 3.48/1000 s.f. building 4.88/1000 s.f. building 632/1000 s.f. building 887/1000 s.f. buildin 291/1000 s.f. buildin 51/1000 s.f. building 17.05 Project Summary Page 6 General office 24/1000 s.f . build Liquor Store 21/1000 s.f. buildi A convenience store/ fuel operation such as the one illustrated could generate 5765 average daily trips. Similar switchback locations along University Avenue experience similar traffic numbers. Scattered throughout the day and with peaks of 6:00-8:OOam and 3:30-6:OOpm, the surrounding roadways will accommodate the proposed use without structural modification. A special use permit will be required prior to such development. Other commercial uses that may develop on this site would generate fewer vehicle trips and therefore, would only improve overall traffic outlook. Trips on University Avenue average 34,500 per day (1993 counts). Trips on 73`� Avenue Average 10,000 per day. The probability of the intersection at East University Avenue Service Drive and 73nd meeting warrants for signalization is low. There is adequate stacking distance on the service drive for vehicles waiting to get onto 73`� Avenue. Stacking distances between University Avenue and the Service Drive (once on 73`�) is in excess of 360'. Customers leaving the site could also travel southbound on the Service Drive to the 69th Avenue Access to University Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recommended approval of ZOA #97-05, without stipulations. PLANNING COMMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA #97-05, without stipulations. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. 17.06 M1 V A . � a n �_�'- ,._- r__ �� _ � 3 73A�EHE� : Cn � �- a Z�onirg Desigia6arB: � t�1 - one Farriy Units � F�2 - Two Fartily Unils � �3 - Genaral Mlliple Urits 0 R q- Nbbile Fiort�e Parics � �-�� s, - M� �* r��,n«r,00a � s2 - �de�elapn',e�t Ofsaia 0 G1 - Loml Business 0 G2 - C�,�cral B�siness - G3 - c�eneral SInPp�9 � GR1- C�,eneral qfioe 0 WF7 - L�ght Indusfrial 0 nM2 - F'�y �ndtstria� � M3 - oitdoor Irtensive F�leavy Ind. � � _ �� 0 P - Public Facilitles O w�+T� 0 Poc�ir-o�vvaY � � � � G � � _ Y � < N � d'1lN'C�1 G3� � 1 � 74 AVE PE 74 AVE NE v \ 73 AVE PE 73 AVE NE ZOA 97-05, Re�oning Request Dolphin Construction requests that the property at University and 73rd Avenues be rezoned from M-2, Heavy I ndustrial to G2, General Busi ness for the development of oommeraal US@S. ♦ -� n� N A 1J26/97 campiled and c�, fr«n offioa� reoorrJs b�ea 0�1 ��1�lOB ND. 7� BFId 7�fti� �V@ C�F.' i/Z%/� � WI�1 � �ng OR��T- anoes aclopbed and dfeGtive as aF?J171'97. -rhe c�, aF Fr;aey r,as t�, e,r�y e�«t ro Exo- vide the most u�to-date irforrr�ation availabl� �� The City of Fridey vNll not be resporsible far uiForeseen enors or usage d this docunent. 73RD AVENUE NE :: _ -� - :t ---��_..�_ .. .; _ .. — -- — " � � �� ---J� '__ . o � Ir�_t v � . /'— -- . -- a3 r'" � -- � � , i. . . � . � � �-. o � _� � , , 1� � � � 4 .' °s; � - -�--i - '� ° � �' �� L.�`., ° �� .._ � _ , � � t_ � " z � - -- --�. ,.��;,._-� � .r--; � �' .�...: :_ 4 �� `t-.,�% � � - � �:-�� . f , �� i. i �`t ' � : � a , �. � i ' .. � Y;,t a- `� ~ �: " ; c; 1 � • - � _ / ; � ��_ - _ � -� . : --� <� ' � •�\ �L 9 , ` /�� , W ti J f_\ C 2 � 1 '� : i J / F ? � j _ a h < t ✓ � ; ' � j W ; i `a � � � ^`� � 2 � uJ ,�, , ;,i"l� '' �� •, �v L y; Z oN e _ � 1 4 w 1 � , � 1 � O p0 � �1..1 , + � , ` Z Y'1 y . =t � 0 Y7 � � ; � i 2 u .'-: ` ° � (� :1 . o ` � ., ; � � L , ` J � 1 � W � � � ,j - .-.; � � �r' �� .1 1 �% 1 .4 ^ .. � � �~ z _ / / fy"� � , �✓:in I `aj � f ' � ,` � �• �,- °i Z � f ��„ � '1 a 1 \ / � o i ' LI.� �-. � % � ; \ . . 2 1 a J. � Q O ` � 1 � .. � . �'h "° � � ,� ` < :� .i - Q � r ' . �e L�'�� ' +�° "� � _ � ve i � - �� 1l` � ~ � � e ' �T ^ : � ( ' � - a 1 � l I `� /� C . � / � �. , l� l � � . . �� . ` Sn � / � ' � � c W � r �i � � �, o < � � � o Z �9 J � d � I I .�' ,,,,,� . _"- \ f P d _ .._N� O O h ' `1 - ,. w� � �G �"�9 � �'. M. ,`e o ' , s.} NQ . � , ;F � �f,'! 1 . I > / ..,.;�::.:� <:. ;: I � � I % ,-1. T>..' . .. � - �:: _ : .:�, a; �.:q�.''.y �.. c � � o o � � � s7 al e'� �� e� � ~ � � s'1 e d t � � �.- .r .r �- ..c 5 � -� ' S � --r i _" � o � p n c C d] _ �� c_ c? n_ a p� � t9 d � N W O i � a Q � - � � = - a o � � � ;.� = - - � � � Q r �• iJ � .~i � V n `� J -.o :p � c� N N J Z �, � J r ;� �, .� i `n v' � —� 3 r O )- 4 � n o i .=i J < ? c Q F w o 'E � `' '�' � o a `� _ � � "~ o G � V `, i � r� z � 3 — � < � � - .,.. � X ,` i „ u� �u r �� Q _r Z � � p � `� i � a J j �-y J J � _ u Q �- V. � ♦ .n � �' �/ O H 'Y „� Y 2 1 p Q l i) J v W � Q Z O Q. 0 ,n� `� �,_ �^' p 2 ~ � � a � � C ¢ ' � E � � j � ? "� a o ��.1 i� � J J I� N G � � H .Y V V z F Z uJ a ° g � " � '� � � Q < < Q G .� ) o t V- ✓~i c] � Q .� � w 7 l.l }- � w ul � �;y r! r � f 7 'iL n J � . f C � � � Q G V U U v� � _ � � � � i�- F- E i ,�r� � ? ,;j � Z a a � a -- - � � ,� _ = J G ., �- '. �i ry J � .I J J � 1 lT � � � \ � J d " ` � �� G 1 Q L � ) l- � = � �I � � .� W � 4 ,� o > :;: y �, � 1 � `, 1 °�� „N � N � � � U 1 � � Z .i � � p L �. � ..i c y .+.' � � c� n c t- �' o � \ � � � - E Z 'i =o r! < y � � � F Cl � p `L 1 .t . V C .J cl .t J 'L' bl . Q'\ 'L ` ..� � 1J � O� \J � � J LL� J C� Oy W �+-� „' uJ C y Q Z \ � v z. �. S. � �s o 0 0 3 0 � a. F. o � �.- _ � � Q� � o o < O a Q . ~ Z � °. '-��- � � C�] � V U ui l'J � i l7' i '1 J ul t/l Y1 .,. J !- F- F- � l� j' � r - S � �� c� � N '�' a0 �9 _ Z � 7 ci 17.09 J f; 0 . - �:;°.. Suite 1380 Box 530 Minneapolis MN 55440 Tel (612) 347-8254 Fax (612) 347-8170 Canadian Pacific Rai/way John P Nail Diiector Real Estate Marketing (US) August 26, 1997 Ms. Barbara Dacy Planning Department City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 RE: REZONING REQUEST FOR 73� AND IJNIVERSITY Dear Ms. Dacy: It is our understanding that our recent application for the rezoning of the above site has become lost. Please accept the attached photo copy of that application from our records in its place. Sincerely, � � ll._ ' � John P. Nail Enclosure cc: Joel R. Harding Dolphin Development & Construction Company 821 Raymond Ave., Suite 230 St. Paul, MN 55114 9723 8-03.1tr 17.10 / / � DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. May 7, 1997 Mr. Scott J. Hickok Planning Coordinator CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Submission of Application for Rezoning - SEC University/73rd Dpar Scott: In conjunction with our submittal of an APPLICATION FOR REZONING regarding the 2.43 acre site at the southeast corner of 73rd and University, the purpose of this letter is to request that the City of Fridley evaluate this application without the various plans and information typically accompanying such a submittal. In Fridley, if a property is correctly zoned for a particular allowable or special use, the proponent is required to submit a series of architectural plans and engineering information which are an integral part of the Plan Review Process through Fridley's Community Development Staff, Planning Commission and City Council. Current practice within Fridley requests that Applications for Rezoning also be accompanied by that same series of architectural plans and engineering information which include: * Site Plan showing existing and proposed structures. * Building(s) Elevations including description of the ma e ia�s o e uti3ized. x LancscapejGrac;�ir:�j �"L`a�.iia�.t� r��iio� �L�3ii.ia ^�il�i.^.� r� w:?. * Calculations for - Stormwater Run-Off and Excavation. * Water Utility and Sewer Utility mapping to include existing aim ns an�ervices and proposed services. The requested C-2 General Business rezoning allows a variety of allowed and special uses. And, at this moment, we do not know what the final use will be! The dilema here is that we can not prepare plans against all the uses in order to satisfy or acheive rezoning. Yet, we are seeking rezoning for all uses under C-2 Zoning in that we need that total spectrum to properly market the site development. With the rezoning, we acknowledge that any application for the ultimate use shall be fully examined under the Plan Review Process as cited above. 17.1� 821 Raymond Ave., Suite 230 • St. Paul, MN 55114 • Bus. -(612) 644-7540 • Fax -(612) 644-7599 REZONING APPLICATION - 73RD & UNIVERSITY Page Two The site is not very large and supports only a small development. As mentioned earlier, it contains 2.43 acres or approximately 105,850 square feet. Our guess is that the usable square footage is somewhere near 1.7 acres/74,000+ sc�uare feet given the site's odd shape and the normal setbacks applied in development. We have purposely not gone to our community of commercial users/ owners because the site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial. In our opinion, the requested rezoning from M-2 Heavy Industrial to C-2 General Business very positively reflects an upgrade for potential development. As rezoned, it should be of interest to several of clientele. With the reznning to C-2 General Business, we see the potential development at the site including the following uses: * Retail Store combined with Auto Service Center. * Convenience Store/Center combined with Auto Service Center. * Convenience Store co-branded with Fast Food Restaurant. * Auto Service Mall with a variety of users therein. * Small Office/Medical/Bank (small due to parking required) * Retail Strip Center with a variety of users therein. * Combinations/Stand-Alone's of .any of the above uses. Recently, we mailed a letter discussing the rezoning subject to eighty-four (84) neighborhood residents of the 73rd & University area. A copy of that letter is attached for your file. Aside from discussing some of the points addressed herein, it requests that the recipients contact us should they desire to discuss the rezoning issue prior to commencement of formal proceedings at the City. Today, a good letter was received from a neighbor (a copy attached for your file). It is the only communication so far. Lastly Scott, for your information, a third attachment to this letter lists examples of Development Projects wherein Dolphin has performed the developmental as well as the general contracting ral�. L��el�p u�r�t rcle �ear,s that wa spaw:,ed the can�eep� and then coordinated that process through to the time when the Buildinc� Permit was available. General$Contracting takes over at that point! Summarily, we do acknowledge that current practices within the City of Fridley require that certain plans and information are to accompany a Rezoning Application. However, we are requesting that the City of Fridley evaluate this application without such submittals for the reasons and rationale stated herein. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, �` � � oe R. Harding J : kct Attachments (3) 17.y2 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY DOLPHIN (meaning Deve opment an Construc ion as opposed to Construction only) PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION Woodbury Office Plaza - 1811 Weir Drive, Woodbury a 3 Story 52,000 s.f. office building. lst National Bank - existing building redone as Bank Abra Auto Body & Glass Goodyear Service Center Royal Center/Goodyear - an 18,000 s.f. combination of Auto Service and Retail Hudson Square Business Center a 11,000 s.f. multi-tenant office building Amoco Certicare Center - Service with Offices above Hadley/Five Center - a 12,000 s.f. Retail Strip Woodgate Business Center a 17,000 s.f. Business Strip including medical use Especially for Childen - _ a 7,500 s.f. DayCare Park Place Business Center - a 25,000 s.f. Office/Whse for multi-tenant business Amoco (now Texaco) Service Center and Convenience Store Redo Brooklyn Park Certicare - Goodyear Service Center & - Retail Strip Center of 13,000 s.f. Holiday Stationstore 17.13 17800 Hwy #7, Minnetonka Chanhassen, Minnesota Chanhassen, Minnesota 1751 Weir Drive, Woodbury 7876 Hudson Rd, Woodbury 1561 Woodlane Dr. Woodbury 6988 N.33rd St., Oakdale 1850 Weir Drive, Woodbury 6223 Dell Rd, Eden Prairie 7801 Park Dr., Chanhassen 1310 Cty Rd E, Arden iiills 8500 Xylon, Brooklyn Park Hwys 13/11, Burnsville Norwood/Young America � / / DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. May 1, 1997 Re: RE-ZONING OF PROPERTY IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Dear Neighbor: The purpose of this letter is to inform you now about possible zoning and development changes which we shall be applying for in your neighborhood. You will soon be receiving official notice from the City of Fridley indicating the dates for related public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Before we formally approach the City to request any such changes, the Mayor suggested that it may be a good idea to communicate our interests to folka in the nearby neighborhood! Our Company is interested in purchasing the property at the Southeast corner of 73rd Avenue N.E. and Univereity. Under our arrangements with the land owner, we would purahase the property after it has been re-zoned to COI�tERCIAL. It is currently zoned INDUSTRIAL. You may recall that the City considered this site for a Municipal Liquor Store. Rendering Plants, Dry Cleaning Plants, and Assembly Plants are additional examples of Allowable Uses under current INDUSTRIAL zoning. And, also under current zonin it a ppears that a sizeable Auto Service Mall can be constructed at the site. None of these uses nor the INDUSTRIAL zoning seem to be appropriate for this site. It is a small piece of property. In our opinion, it will not attract nor support most of the allowable INDUSTRIAL uses and should be re-classified to COMMERCIAL. For your information, the Service Road to the east of this property is described as a��Loop Hack.�� There are ninetesn (19) such "Loop Hacks" in Fridley and thirteen (13) of them are zoned COMMERCIAL C-2. Dolphin develops and constructs a variety of commercial products both for itself and for others. The development arena upon which we focus includes small retail strip centers, small• office/ medical/bank buildings, Convenience Stores (fueling stations), and Auto Service Centers (Goodyear, Certicare). And, of course, we perform renovation work on these types of facilities. 821 Raymond Ave., Suite 230 • St. Paul, MN 55114 • Bus. -(612) 644-7540 • Fax -(612) 644-7599 17.14 73rd & University - Page 2 Commercial real estate development is a very �risky business! And, we have to ask ourselves, which comes first - the Chicken or the Egg? We do know that we can not ethically discuss probable site development (with potential commercial users) until there is appropriate zoning for the use(s) intended. And, until a qiven site is properly zoned, we also know it is futile to expend the time and effort required to market a plan or a concept. The ultimate user also knows that it serves no purpose for us to mutuallx develop even a preliminary concept plan since appropriate zoning is the key to later review and critique of such plans during the public approval process. We underetand that your neighborhood was concerned about prior development concepts for this site. An example would be the proposed Liquor Store. Other neighborhood concerns probably included the traffic, noise, lighting, etc., emanating from any site development (even with the current traffic on University, on 73rd Avenue, and the existing commercial development to the east, west and south of the site). These concerns are common in most municipalities and effected neighborhoods. Dolphin principals would �ladly discuss these issues with any interested neighborhood individuals or groups prior to our future Public Meetings with the City of Fridley. We would like to know your concerns. We would agras to not include a Liquor 3tore in our marksting efPorta! And, would commit to assuring that proper landscapinq (berms and evergreens focused along the site's North property line) be included as a method of minimizing vision into the site. This landscaping would also serve to filter site lighting which is normally �'down-lighting�� onto a site by code. Although it is somewhat difficult to forecast as to the dollars involved, we estimate that commercial development of the site could generate ap�roximately $35,000.00 to $40,000.00 of added tax dollars to Fridley Schools, County Government, and the City of Fridley. We would not be requeating any Tax Increment or other form of City financing assiatance. We are not at the point where we have predetermined any particular commercial use for the property. What we do know is that we can not plan or go further without first knowing that the 73rd & University site can be properly zoned for Commercial uses. So, if you are interested in a preliminarx meeting to discuss any concerns about re-zoning, we would like to hear from you. Please call our office to register your interest or send us a letter addressing your thoughts on this subject. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Joel R. Harding 17.15 Niles R. Schulz t�tay 7, 1997 fax: Fa4-'7S�a�a Dolphirt .l:)cv & Cc�nst. Co., Inc 82J Rayinund Ave , Suite 230 St. Pau1,111n 551 t�1 Subj: Rezonin� Neighborhood Prap�rty Ref� Youc letter, dtd S/1/97 T)ear Sii�s, Th�nk you for sending the Reference letter; i�tp��reciate your proactive �t�ort to communicatc with us earty an as to what your tentativa plans are. A te�v concerns wtuch come to mind include: 0 The value of having a few "witd a�cas" iefi in the city I c�uestio�� whv every corner of major road intersecti�ns has to have sumething built on it. Th� cc�rner in question may be the only k'ridley rr�ajor road int�rsection left which has some "natur�l" on one of its carners Having a corner as it is r�ow shows Fridley values "nature" in that cvcrything does not have to be huilt upon I believe this "natt�ral" area has a positive cffect on people travelin� along tlniversity Ave. 2.0 T have great concern about the tra#�c at che 73`', loopback, and Symphony inte.rsection. Ia all lilcelihood, any busincss you u-ould put in there would he af a"hi�h tic�or traffic" nature [as �pposed to an oftice which would have only starting and quitting hours traf�ic] and iliis would just add tc� an already busy intersection. T'herz are many times now when I must wait for a long tirz�e ta get on to 73"� from Symphony. With the addiiion of a"high #la�r traftic" type business, the City of Fridley will have tv be prepared to address the resulting t�at�ic problem--•-the�additio,n of a trat�ic light, or rerouti.ng aUowing only right turns on to 73'd from the loopback and from S,ymphony. 3(y My guess is that if this area is leti zoned as Industrial �1<�thin� wiH happeti tu it----it is too small for rendering p.lantq, dry cleaning plants, or assembiy ptaat.s. 4 0 If we were to assum.e that the additi�nal a�utt�al taX rev�i�ue to the city wou(d be $40,004, nay question i.s what is the °,'o increase in tatal tax revenue to be realized by the city? How sign.ificant is this really? 17.16 5 0 If rezoning dc�es occur, arid svmeihing is built there, how �vould yuu gi�arantee that berms and evergreens wou�d actua,lly be put in The develc,�ers �f the Eacility alc�ng 73r° irramediately to the east of the loophack said the sam� thin�, and there are no berms in place and the project is "c�c�ne." 1t �ems like w� hon2EOwners ar� told cenain ihings to get zoni�ng/variance changes approved, and then these thin�s don't tnat�ri�lize. I am interested in attznding any infornnation meetin�s you are plannrng; and thank yc�u again fc�r sending your letter to us, Sinc ely, �_. � .l �,uMCau.,.` Les .Kuivanen 7398 Lyric Larie N.E �ridley, �1�1N 55432 pl� 6I2-786-1297; �ax 612-78G-0671. 7507dolpht�t 17.17 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY item: Number: ZOA� Reviewer. Sco lanage quest, E� - �7-06 : J. Hicko� �ation :� DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Frank Masserano III is requesting a change in zoning from R-1 Single Family Residential, and C-3, General Shopping Center to CR-1 General Office. If approved, the developer will build a 3,022 s.f. office building. Mr. Masserano's building will house the Intemational Ministerial Fellowship. � SUMMARY OF ISSUES ;The property is located in the southwest quadrant of East Moore Lake Drive and 63ro Avenue N.E. and consists of .54 acres. This land is currently undeveloped. A professional office building designed with residential character has been proposed for this development site. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of this site as a redevelopment district, and a portion of the site a residential. On the proposed site plan, a right-in, right-out access has been illustrated to allow access from East Moore Lake Drive. Mr. Masserano indicated that he has made a commitment to the residential neighborhood to not take access from 63'� Avenue. Traffic capacity and traffic movement are essential pieces in the traffic analysis of a project. The anticipated traffic generated by a 3,022 s.f. General Office use on this site will not detrimentally impact overall traffic in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning request ZOA #97-06 with 3 stipulations: _ 1. Approval of VAR #97- 18 2. A new landscape plan will be required and shall be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be required to reflect a commercial designation (to be completed as part of City's overall Comprehensive Plan amendments). CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation. 18.01 Project Summary Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS Rezoning from C-3, General Shopping Center and R-1, Single Family Residential to CR-1, General O�ce Southwest quadrant of the intersection of East Moore Lake Drive and 63`d Avenue N.E. Lot 1, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition, together with Outlot A, Shorewood Plaza, reserving easement of record .54 acres Flat Trees and urban lawn C-3, General Shopping Center, R-1, Single Family Residential East Moore Lake Drive East Moore Lake Drive N/A Drainage Proposed zoning designation is partially compatible with Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. The R-1 site would require a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be taken 18.02 Project Summary Page 3 WEST: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: Site Planning Issues: ADJACENT SITES: Zoning:R-1, Single Family Res. Land Use: Single Family Zoning:C-3, Gen. Shopping Ctr. Land Use: Moore Lake Ctr. Zoning:C-3 , Gen. Shopping Ctr. Land Use: Moore Lake Ctr. Zoning: R-1, Residential Land Use: Residential REQUEST Frank Masserano III, International Ministerial Fellowship is requesting a change in zoning from C-3, General Shopping Center and R-1, Single Family Residential to CR-1, General Office. If approved, Mr. Masserano will build a 3,022s.f. professional office building for his business. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject parcel has been vacant since the incorporation of the City. Evaluation of the Rezoning Criteria Compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed district. The proposed use of the site is for a general office use. A professional Office Buildings a permitted use in the CR-1, General Office District. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent uses and zoning. The proposed district, CR-1, General Office District is compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. The CR-1 District was created to provide a transition between commercial and residential properties. As such, this site would provide a compatible transition. The use of the subject parcel as it is currently zoned would be limited to a small industrial user not requiring expansion space due to the small size of the parcel. Other possibilities for this site include: heavy repair garages, or automobile service stations. Rezoning this site to CR-1 General Office would allow uses whose size and intensity of land use is befitting of the site. 18.03 Project Summary Page 4 Compliance of the proposed use with the proposed district requirements Setbacks The proposed site plan meets the minimum requirements of the CR-1, General Offices District requirements. No variances were required with the original proposal, however, a revision in the plan indicates that a variance will be requested from the western property boundary . Drainage The engineering department will require that the drainage plan meet the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed Management Organization. Stormwater will be required to be ponded on site and then released into the stormwatwer system located adjacent to the site. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan looks very good as a concept plan. Much emphasis has been placed on screening the use from the residential property to the north. Final landscape plans must meet or exceed the requirements of the C-2 District. REQUIRED 12 trees (1 per 50 feet of site perimeter) 25% reduction for large trees (3" caliper deciduous and 8' tall evergreens) 30% evergreen 2 ornamental trees may be substituted for 1 overstory tree PROPOSED 3 trees (at 2:1, ornamental, shade) 25% (of required) as evergreen at 2:1 ornamental 1 existing tree over 3" caliper 8 additional trees required Also, the parking lot will require additional plantings to provide additional screening of the parking lot from the public right-of-way. Building Materials Code requires that commercial buildings be constructed of masonry units specifically designed as finished exterior surFaces. These materials include: brick, rock face block, etc. The proposed building will be a combination of brick and rockface block. Lighting The site shall be lit through the use of shielded downcast lighting. A 15' maximum light standard is recommended to assure no glare impacts are experienced by the property owners north of this site. 18.04 Project Summary Page 5 Traffic Rezoning the parcel to a commercial designation will have some impact in terms of traffic. The CR-1 District permits a fairly narrow set of uses, primarily office buildings. A comparison of average daily trips follows: STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff recommended approval of ZOA #97-05, with 3 stipulations: 1. Approval of VAR #97-18 � 2. A new landscape plan will be required and shall be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be required on the portion of the property that is currently designated as residential. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission concurred with staffs recommendation: CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation. 18.05 Sep 04 97 11:33a 9-@�-199? 9�23PM FROM P.1 $Cgteiribet S, 199% G City of Fridley 6431 Universiry Ave_ F�idlcy, MN SS432 Aueniion: Scoti Hickotc, Ptanning Coot�dinator B�ing FEE OWNER of the misller triangnlar 1ot at 63rd Avenue NE and �ast Moore Lalc� Dcivc, Fridley, Mi�csota. i have reviewr.d thc forass (Lot Consolidation and Re2oning - Fridley Coramuaity Utvelopmtnt Ikpartment) and concur with the actions of Frank (Chet) Masserano. PETITIONER. If you have any qv�catiuns regarding this mattcr, pteasc fecl free w coatact me at (701) 232-8735. Sinc:ercly. , � � /LC,�, 1..r�� Denais Unruh Quality Growth Fargo, Nort}� Dakota 18.06 p.l \\ � ,:�'��s r „ _ P. �. � � �,.\ .- =�'C�= .: . \_� . �� \ `\\`\o /: � ' „\ �. \_ \ � '\ `u` `\ � ` �� ti \ �, � p��: �� ' - _ � � . �-�, �ti�� _ . \ ��',�r�l � � -4I��, � ' � �i-.�, /Jl �� • i�� ; �� . \ \ STU¢ \ 1=8"14 . � / ;� 0 GB. . � , :a s �'� % � �J1m�� ,_ °IN.�-...��''�: � � Rl.�f �� ..:.�;,�: `�� ;� � � - � � �=• � � �1� ✓ • � I �4 � ' ` �� ,0 �2 OLlTLc�T A u / � � <�- � �� ,. �,;' � se - / o � F �` ,� � / �� ,c�,j z �- �i �o �U/ ('j,% u)? `� e f / 3`�� a„ � �� / � � � � n�� s�� / �3? �, �� Q �` ' r �c'�_ � � I � � � ��o, ,e �.:% ��' � 7`� / h� � �� =:�rC�D 36,`0 � Tv ::i SF�.1B5 \ �' 4gN � '.� Q� ��` � Q � y L:cISTPOLE ��f' �� Y 3� �� ,�3v / :°� o��' �' �� s'e d a � �� 0 � Q ''-A �� N /, ,�.0 `°� r� � TU�„nr S,o.q ` - ` � � � ��,y p if�cS �, C'1 Fx�g �YF � �MG �m ' Q, -� . � ro � T'��5+/s �� ' �' . AiQQ S/,� � .� MAS RETAf� I / �� WALL AND ° NTINCs � S.,g � � TO �MAI!�; � '\STALL 32j �� GOt�r�R�� fi��R 0 � � SiALE / iry � Zl7 � ��. <-"�OVE '� i �li =��ST �� M,i.1. � t= -- T � ^ � LIGH'POL� G,g, � e��s �\ j; . Y` S� � / ,; , : PL �,N ,� = Zm,_m� 7 \� � � �� .': � .�� F j �lE�� - �'='��: � 5 833 Thrcd Skr,et SW New Bnghton. MN 551 ! 2 (612) 63 I -0200 (fa� 639-9726 NEW FAGIL!TY F02 I1�1TEi�lATfONAL MINISTEi�(AL FELLOUJSNIfi� FRIDLE'ti", '"\TvE90TA 08/i8�?l � � � �� O o �� O�� u-� � �� I11 � LL z ,..�..� �"— l.0 �� cn � � :: �: X� � � �� \ \ � \ q h < ° il= � � 3 � ,3�� , �a � a °m ° i�� < _EII� � .. .. . . �� i N �e�5 b � �1�� ' , �:-;; ,...� . ��-:...�:: (L ;��: _ ��_ � ��.` . O �� .. �-: .� :��;.`_ � �� =�: :...�:: Q -�=:: �°�:= �:_> OC �" �', �-. �... �,_ � :� V_ � . ':�= N V �:_ z _ �� w �^ J = r- :�:' Q�� =, Z - . �_ �:: o a .�;_ �..:�.:- += z °�° ��., � � �' �i � �.� �_�.� w � � : ��=' ?�Q �;;:;. � �: U Uw �- � � U��1 � d Li 0 d F � V r 0 � � � �m �s4 � a �� *3-� I,�� .7 Q7 /�f � O � �°zi ��! � � � ` � _Ei�i 1� $ ; � 18.10 �� x � �� a „ � �; �� . $ �� .� , �; N E��s b � a�� r a F �3�� !�'� � a u ��_ ��!� x ,� ! �ir � � �� ~ �� Q m' � $< � �� ' � � � 18.11 , , . �� :. ,,`, . ., m ti° :�- � � � �� J 1 ' ��.�� . ii �� ; �� N C��i b � e��! � .: ,1 � � � 3� � � �I �` � � ♦ ♦ � . ��: 0 I�t - aie Farriy units � 1�-2 - Two Farrily Urits 0 R-3 - General AAtltiple Urits � li 4- Nbbile Fiome Parks � PUD - Plamed lkrt De�elapment � �., -�� o $2 -��a� 0 c, - � e�� 0 G2 - General Btsiness G3 - Genera� � GR7 - Gene►al O'ia�e � � N41 - �ight �ndustrial 0 nn-2 - �a�y ina�m� � M-3 - outdoor U,tensive F1�y �nd. � r�x - �i� 0 P - Rblic FaciliGes o �� 0 PoGffT-O�WAY �i � \� � � i � ,.�. -� Rezoning, 63rd Av�enuelEast Moore Lake Drive This request, by Intemational Ninisterial Fellowship, asks that paroels zoned single farnily and general shopping be 1'EZOII� t0 9�Ic'�I OffIC@ t0 allow oonstruction of a 2,640 sq, ft. offioe building• ♦ e ♦„ ■\�■' ■ w z � � � W 2 < RICE C�REBC RD F'EATFBt PL 1 .,�.,mvu! PE �� C {. Carrpled and cJrawn frnm affiaal reca+ds based an Ordr�ar�e Wo: 7� �d Zonirg e�ec�ire da�e 1/27/56 toge�tt�er with aA � ad�r anoes adopted ar�d effective as aF 2J1 /97. H'�de tl�ie�most u�pfiot�e� rna6� a�vail bie� TF1@ data pr,� r1EiE IS Slt�ject b� ct�ng� The City of Fridey will not be respor�le for unForeseen erras ar u�ge of this doamert. CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY 7501 Highway 65 N.E. Prefiminary Plat ' „__�:_....}. QA«,,., �. nAo�k•: �r�Anrilv f;hevrolet-Gec DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST• Bolton & Menk, the petitioner on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet-Geo, requests that a preliminary plat, ' entitled "Friendly Chevrolet", be approved. The proposed plat will resubdivide three existing unplatted lots totaling 16.36 acres gross area into three lots; one for Friendly Chevrolet (8.87 acres), one for Brenk Brothers, 7490 Central Avenue NE (3.32 acres), and a vacant lot (2.18 acres). Additional land is being dedicated for right-of-way purposes for the service road, Fireside Drive, and Central Avenue. If approved, Friendly Chevrolet proposes to expand their parking area on the additional land which will be gained by the subdivision. They are afso processing rezoning and variance requests. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The proposed plat resubdivides three unplatted parcels into three platted lots. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot requirements for the respective zoning districts (C-3 and M-4). A shared drainage pond is proposed as part of the plat. A drainage or pond easement should be dedicated on the plat in the area of the detention pond. A shared maintenance agreement for the pond is also required. A park dedication fee will be required for each of the new lots. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat, "Friendly Chevrolet", with the following stipulations: 1. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees as indicated below shall be paid: A. Friendly Chevrolet - $8,886.68 B. Brenk Brothers - $3,329.45 _ C. Vacant lot - $2,188.34 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against both properties. 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with either finro or three lots. The stipulations are to apply to all lots, whether it be a finro or three lot plat. The owner of the Brenk Brothers property requested that the plat be a three lot plat as opposed to the finro lot plat presented to the Commission. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action and approve the three lot plat of Friendly Chevrolet. __ Project Summary P.S. #97-03, by Bolton & Menk Page 2 Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A preliminary plat to resubdivide three parcels into three. 7501 Highway 65/7490 Central Avenue Metes and bounds; north part of SE'/ of NW'/ of Section 12 712,594 square feet; 16.36 acres Mostly flat Typical suburban; trees, sod, shrubs, the portion which is vacant contains weeds and scrub trees. Unplatted Connected Highway 65 East Se►`vice Road; Fireside Drive N/A Shared drainage, stormwater pond maintenance agreement The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are currently consistent in this area. To be taken. 19.02 Project Summary P.S. #97-03, by Bolton & Menk Page 3 ADJACENT SITES: WEST: Zoning: R-4, Mobile Home Park SO TH: Zoning: EAST: Zoning: NORTH: Zoning: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST R-2, Two Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling M-4, Manufacturing Only Land Use: Mobile homes Land Use: Residentiai Land Use: Residential Land Use: Manufacturing facility & vacant Bolton & Menk, the petitioner on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet-Geo, requests that a preliminary plat, entitled "Friendly Chevrolet", be approved. The proposed plat will resubdivide three existing unplatted lots totaling 16.36 acres gross area into three lots; one for Friendly Chevrolet (8.87 acres), one for Brenk Brothers (3.32 acres; 7490 Central Avenue NE), and a vacant lot (2.18 acres). Additional land is being dedicated for right-of-way purposes for the senrice road, Fireside Drive, and Central Avenue. If approved, Friendly Chevrolet proposes to expand their parking area on the additional land which will be gained by the subdivision. They are also processing rezoning and variance requests. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY The subject parcels are located north of and adjacent to Fireside Drive. Friendly Chevrolet, located at 7501 Highway 65, is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 65 and Fireside Drive. Brenk Brothers, 7490 Centrat Avenue, is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Central Avenue and Fireside Drive. The Friendly Chevrolet property was first used in 1960 as a mobile home sales and display lot. In 1960, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a 49' x 72' workshop and office space. Subsequent building permit activities are as follows: 1963 - Construction of a 24' x 24' detached garage 1964 - Construction of a 120' x 140' mobile home sales and service building 1965 - Construction of a 100' x 150' storage and sales addition 1971 - Construction of a 120' x 232' addition and issuance of a special use permit, SP #71-10, for new and used car sales 1978 - Construction of a 48' x 150' additjpA■03 �y Project Summary P.S. #97-03, by Bolton & Menk Page 4 1982 - Approval of a special use permit to park new vehicles in the current manufacturing property located north of the Friendly Chevrolet site at 7585 Highway 65 1996 - Construction of an 84' x 84' and 44' x 21' additions. Variances were granted to reduce the setback from the right-of-way line from 20 feet to 13 feet and 7 feet from the side (north lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet), and to waive the curb and gutter requirement along the north property line. The Brenk Brothers building was constructed in 1978 and is 211 feet by 144 feet (30,384 square feet). The building was originally occupied by Servomation. In 1986, the company changed its name to Service America. Brenk Brothers acquired the building in 1994. ANALYSIS The total area proposed to be resubdivided is 16.36 acres. After dedication of right-of-ways for the Highway 65 service road, Fireside Drive, and Central Avenue, the remaining acreage totals 14.41 acres. Three lots are proposed; an 8.87 acre lot for Friendly Chevrolet, a 3.32 acre lot for Brenk Brothers, and a vacant lot of 2.18 acres. Additional acreage will allow each company to expand for its own purposes. Friendly Chevrolet is proposing to expand their rear parking area to the east. This parking area will be used for employee parking, customer vehicles waiting to be serviced, and new and used vehicles waiting for some type of service. The Appeals Commission considered a variance request to reduce the setback from the public right-of-way and along the north property line and to waive the curb and gutter requirement along the north property line for this expanded parking area. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of these variances to the City Council. The proposed subdivision meets the minimum requirements of the respective zoning districts; C-3, General Shopping Center (Friendly Chevrolet site) and M-4, Manufacturing Only (Brenk Brothers), and a vacant lot. A joint detention pond is proposed on the Friendly Chevrolet lot along the common property line to provide a detention facility for the expanded parking area on the Friendly Chevrolet property and future building expansion(s) by Brenk Brothers. A drainage or pond easement should be dedicated on the plat in the area where the pond is proposed. A joint stormwater maintenance agreement should also be recorded against the plat to insure that the property owners maintain the proposed detention facility. The subdivision ordinance requires a park dedication fee of $.023 per square foot for commercial and industrial plats. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat; "Friendly ChevroleY', with the following stipulatio��.04 Project Summary P.S. #97-03, by Bolton & Menk Page 5 1. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees as indicated below shall be paid: A. Friendly Chevrolet - $8,886.68 B. Brenk Brothers - $5,560.42 C. Vacant lot - $2,188.34 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against both properties. 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. _ . • � • • `l� The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with either two or three lots. The stipulations are to apply to all lots, whether it be a finro or three lot plat. The owner of the Brenk Brothers property requested that the plat be a three lot plat as opposed to the finro lot plat presented to the Commission. rITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action and approve the three lot plat of Friendly Chevrolet. 19.05 R$SOLUTION NO. - 1997 A RBSOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT, P.S. #97-03, FRII3NDLY CHEVROLET WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat, P.S. ##97-03, on October l, 1997 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the preliminary plat at their , 1997 meeting, with stipulations attached as Exhibit A; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves the Plat, P.S. #97-03, Friendly Chevrolet, and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Plat as prepared by Bolton & Menk, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the petitioner is requested to record this Plat at Anoka County within six (6) months or said approval will become null and void. PASS$D AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COiTNCIL OF TH$ CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 19.06 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR EXHIBIT A 1. A drainage or pond easement shall be indicated on the final plat in the area of the proposed detention pond. 2. Park dedication fees as indicated below shall be paid: " A. Friendly Chevrolet - $8,886.68 B. Brenk Brothers - $5,560.42 C.Vacant lot - $2,188.34 3. A shared pond maintenance agreement shall be recorded against both properties. 4. The rezoning and variance requests shall be approved. 19.07 � � � � � � � � � g � � � � � 19.08 � � a � 0 � a �! i iF tl '] t �i ,� [i g :�;i ;; � ��' � ��1 � � i �' � � �� E� � e �� o� �� 0� Z 1 y i�; �;�;� �� r�� ,i �# t ��i � d, � � �� e � �i E lf� E � ��1� � � :�a� � ;� , , {� �i � ;� �� i� i� .� � F� �� A. �� i � � � .Z � R W Z �y � � e� a� - � e :��i�� t � �dlii�t�� I''r�� fg ��i��i�6�1t1�lt '��o:oi:�:.:;a:' :O�O�IIrI � i i ; _; �f�� l�;�i�� j��;f� Js il�1��; i��IE� � 1' t �`t i�f �1� � � N � � � � � � � � � g � � � � � '' � �v � i ��—�. — 1 ' l � • - I ��, , _, � a�v��t � ` _ . : � .` � ~��:.i�\: �'' , 1' ,. ,t-�— i L ;� I : I� I - :I'' � � � � i ! 'i � � _ �i Z�'�� p ,� � �,,,� � � {; ! ��; � �� i � ;� i 1��} �� t � � r�• . � `'' � 1 ; ; o i�: � � � v � J I��r� � �� 1',ti � �� !�� 'y pp � Iit e ��i ' �'` X P ■ � ' i W . !� � � �it� r �rt �� :i!� �8 � t ' s� � i �� , � �� . � �� '� ti � � � :S . i � �, � � � � • __'. �, � :I • , � �i�� . , � . � � ��;f� I � �� a �i1i�� " . � � ; � . � ��,,,.� � • • � '' � i ' �H � ' �'f� � \ Z y .� tf:;� � ��,� � �---- � � � ° � �l�1�;� 5�i � ....... ....._.. � � — — ' a � �#�!i4i � � i AI �1Y.tMM,tlW alY7Yt 3[17s i � � � � � ` � � M ; � � � � �i � �' { � 1 1 � � i� !�t �! ��! s �tl��i��{��(��i�8�tls1lt ;!s � ::...... , 19.09 =.: e :o::�: =: a ;:o:o,<<�r li� � � � - ; 4�� ,\ �`;�� RRESIpE pR ►� M 1 rt � ... �� ? F 4 - ,� � .� z %'s. _-'S 3 • • � t. :� :. •' '� � -� . n ' a . � : �� i� zoning pesiguUor�s: ■ � o�_� � PS 97-03, Plat R uest 0 1�2 - Two Family Urits � � -�� ■. �-�� ., -�� $2 - �� Friendly Cheverolet requests that �] G1 - Laal Buainess � G2 -�� property at 7501 Highway 65 � G3 - General Stx�pping �d 7� ��ral Avenue be � GR1- Gen�al Office o�2 -� � resubdivided from 3 paroels into � ►� -�� ,,,��. 2 �rcels. � riR - F?aiUoeds �� P - R61ic Facilibes O �� wc�rr�waY i A 1 n � � �J � � � � C1 �� A�� 75 AVE HE �-��.,�, a:. -. �: . . - , � I �' - '�,;. .: �.. . .. �: : .� ��.-'; � • a..... '..:._. � �,,. N A � ��o� �.�'m��",az� � d� �m�ss �w�n �u �►�,ang o��,- �noes adopted arid effective as of ?J17/97. ��,o� h� tal�r' e�y efforc m �P-�-date iriormation availabl� lile data �xeSenbed he�B iS Sti�ject b change. � C�Y � F�Y wiil nat be respo�ible for urioraseen errnrs or � of this doarrert MEMOR.ANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: October 9, 1997 William W. Bums, City Manager �V'/ TO: � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director � Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance approving a Rezoning, ZOA �#97-04, by Bolton and Menk (on behalf of Friendly Chevrolet), To Rezone Property East of 7501 Highway 65, from M-4 , Manufacturing Only to C-3, GeneGal Shopping Center The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this rezoning request at its October 1, 1997, meeting. No public was in attendance regarding this request. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request to the City Council with the following stipulations: 1. Barbed wire shall not be installed on the extended fence and shall be removed from the existing fence. 2. Three Marshall's Ash, spaced evenly, shall be installed along Fireside Drive in addition to the proposed hedge. 3. The plat and variance request shall be approved. 4. The petitioner shall receive a special use permit prior to expansion of the parking lot. 5. Additional hedge materials shall be install along Fireside Drive in the area of the "old" parking lot. 20.01 Bolton & Menk ZOA October 9, 1997 Page 2 6. Adequate on-site employee and parking shail be provided, on-street parking shall not be allowed. The petitioner shall provide adequate customer parking signage as agreed to with City staff. The request meets the three criteria used to evaluate rezoning requests. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of the attached ordinance rezoning the property adjacent to 7501 Highway 65 from M-4, Manufacturing Only to C-3, General Shopping Center. M-97-426 2�.�2 ORDINANC$ NO. ORDINANC$ TO AM$ND TH$ CITY COD$ OF TH}3 CITY OF FRIDLSY, MINN$SOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix C of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. SECTION 2. The tracts or areas within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: The East 210' of the West 810' of the SE % of the SE �/ of the NW � of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-3, General Shopping Center SECTION 3 That the Zoning Administrator is director to change the official zoning map to show said tracts or areas to be rezoned from Zoned District M-4, Manufacturing Only to C-3, General Shopping Center District. PASS}3D AND ADOPT$D BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH$ CITY OF FRIDL$Y THIS DAY OF ,1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: October 13, 1997 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 20.03 CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner requests that three variances be granted: 1. To reduce the hard surface setback along a public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet 2. To reduce the hard surface setback from the side and rear lot lines from 5 feet to 0 feet 3. To waive the requirement for curb and gutter along the north edge of a parking lot The petitioner recently completed the construction of a two-story office addition to the existing car dealership. The petitioner has purchased an adjacent vacant lot to the east and is processing a plat request with the property owner of 7490 Central Avenue to resubdivide the properties. A rezoning and special use permit are also required. The variances requested are for the expansion of a parking area to the rear of the site for vehicle storage. STATED HARDSHIP: "To match existing curb lines." SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Similar variances were granted to this property in 1996. The curb and gutter requirement was temporarily waived to allow the petitioner additional time to complete the improvements. This variance request is for an area of vacant land to the east of the improved dealership pa�king. The expanded parking is a desire of the owner, not required by code. Neither the site nor the ordinance is creating a hardship which warrants granting a variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: The petitioner can meet the setback and curb/gutter requirements. Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. If the Appeals Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. The related plat, rezoning, and special use permit requests shall be approved. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the recommended stipulation: � 1. The related plat, rezoning, and special use permit requests shall be approved. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: � Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the staff recommendation and deny the variances as requested. 21.01 Project Summary VAR #97-15, 7501 Highway 65 N.E. Page 2 PROJECT DETAILS Petition For: Variances to: 1. Reduce the hard surface setback from a public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet 2. Reduce the hard surface setback from the side lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet 3. Waive the curb and gutter requirement Location of Property: 7501 Highway 65 N.E. Legal Description of Property: Legal in file, new legal will be created by replatting. Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: 395,646 square feet; 9.08 acres Flat Typical suburban 6.6 acres zoned C-3, General Shopping Center District; 2.48 acres zoned M-1, Light Industrial, being platted Connected Highway 65 Service Road N/A N/A Comprehensive Current zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Planning Issues: Use designations. Public Hearing Comments: To be taken 21.02 Project Summary VAR #97-15, 7501 Highway 65� N.E. Page 3 WEST: SOUTH: EA T: NORTH: ADJACENT SITES: Zoning: R-4, Mobile Home Park Zoning: R-4, Mobile Home Park Zoning: M-1, Light Industrial Zoning: M-4, Manufacturing Only Site Planning Issues: REQUEST: Land Use: Mobile homes Land Use: Mobile homes Land Use: Vacant Land Use: Manufacturing facility The petitioner requests that three variances be granted: 1. To reduce the hard surface setback along a public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet 2. To reduce the hard surface setback from the side and rear lot lines from 3 5 feet to 0 feet To waive the requirement for curb and gutter along the north edge of a parking lot The petitioner recently completed the construction of a two-story office addition to the existing car dealership. The petitioner has purchased an adjacent vacant lot to the east and is processing a plat request with the property owner of 7490 Central Avenue to resubdivide the properties. A rezoning and special use permit are also required. The variances requested are for the expansion of a parking area for vehicle storage. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: The subject parcel is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 65 and Fireside Drive. The property was first used in 1960 as a mobile home sales and display lot. In 1960, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a 49 foot by 72 foot workshop and office space. Subsequent building permit activities are as follows: 1963 - 1964 - Construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage Construction of a 120 foot by 140 foot mobile home sales and service building 21.03 Project Summary � VAR #97-15, 7501 Highway 65 N.E. Page 4 1965 - Construction of a 100 foot by 150 foot storage and sales addition 1971 - Construction of a 120 foot by 232 foot addition and issuance of special use permit, SP #71-10, for new and used car sales 1978 - Construction of a 48 foot by 150 foot addition 1982 - Approval of a special use permit to park new vehicles on the Kurt Manufacturing property located to the north 1996 - Construction of 84 foot by 84 foot and 44 foot by 21 foot additions. Variances were granted to reduce the setback from the right-of-way to 13 feet and 7 feet, from the side (north) lot line to 0 feet, and to waive the curb and gutter along the north property line. ANALYSIS Code Section Section 205.15.05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley City Code requires that all parking and hard surface areas shall be no closer than 20 feet from any street right-of-way. Public purpose served by this requiremenf is to limit visual encroachment into neighboring sight lines and to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right-of-ways Section 205.15.05.D.(5).(b) requires all parking and hard surface areas to be no closer than 5 feet from any side lot line, except for a common drive approved by the adjoining property owner and the City, and no closer than 5 feet from any rear lot line unless adjacent to an alley, then the setback shall be increased to 15 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to limit visual encroachment into neighboring sight lines and to allow for aesthefically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right-of-ways. Section 205.15.05.D.(3) requires that the entire perimeter of all parking areas in excess of 4 stalls shall be curbed with a poured 6-inch high concrete curb and gutter. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide a finished edge around all parking areas and fo protect open green areas from vehicle damage. 21.04 Project Summary VAR #97-15, 7501 Highway 65 N.E. Page 5 Parking Setbacks � Setbacks from the Public Right-of-Way The petitioner is requesting a variance to reduce the parking setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet (Fireside Drive). The petitioner has stated that they would like to meet the existing curb lines. As this parking lot is being constructed on vacant land, it is appropriate to deny the variance and construct the improvement in a way which conforms to the code. The code requirements do not create an undue hardship, and the site is not unique when compared to other properties in the vicinity. The property to the east has a 40 foot setback and this would be a graduation between the existing dealership and the adjacent property. The reduction of parking spaces created by complying with the setbacks does not adversely impact the site. The site provides 586 spaces before the expansion, 390 more than required by code. The increased setback provides additional space for street trees and additional landscaping other than the hedge which is proposed. Because of previously granted variances and the use of the land, there is very little opportunity to have landscaping to enhance the site and minimize the harsh appearance of acres of asphalt. This is an opportunity to achieve landscaping and create a consistent streetscape with the industrial property to the east (on Fireside Drive). The City has previously granted variances to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way to 0 feet, Setbacks from the Side and Rear Lot Lines The petitioner requests that a variance be granted to reduce the hard surface setback from 5 feet to 0 feet along the side (north) lot line. The City previously granted this variance to the property to reduce the hard surface setback in fhe area where parking is shared with the property to the north. In the area of the requested variance, there is no shared parking. The building to the north is located 5.5 feet from the property line, and it would be appropriate to provide 5 feet of green space on the subject property for aesthetic purposes. The total green area would then be 10.5 feet. The petitioner has an opportunity to meet the code requirements as the land is vacant and the site is not unique when compared with other industrial parcels. 21.05 Project Summary VAR #97-15, 7501 Highway 65 N.E. Page 6 Curb and Gutter Requirements The petitioner is requesting that the City grant a variance to waive the curb and gutter requirements for that portion of the property adjacent to the north property line. A variance was granted to this property to temporarily waive the curb and gutter requirement along the south side of the existing parking lot. The requirement was permanently waived along the north side as the property shares parking with the adjacent property to the north. On the expanded parking lot, however, there is no shared parking and no purpose to waive the curb and gutter requirement. Curb and gutter can help direct storm water and prevent run-off from going onto other property in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION: The petitioner can meet the setback and curb/gutter requirements. Staff recommends that the Appeals Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. If the Appeals Commission chooses to recommend approval of the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. The related plat, rezoning, and special use permit requests shall be approved. APPEALS COMMISSION ACTION: The Appeals Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council with the recommended stipulation: 1. The related plat, rezoning, and special use permit requests shall be approved. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the staff recommendation and deny the variances as requested 21.06 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #96-08 _� BY FRIENDLY CHEVROLET: Per Section 205.15.05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the hard surface setback from the right-of-way from 20 feet to 13 feet and 7 feet; Per Section 205.15.05.D.(5).(b) and (c) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the hard surface setback from the side and rear lot lines from 5 feet to 0 feet; Per Section 205.15.05.D.(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to waive the requirement for curb and gutter around a parking lot perimeter; To al�ow an existing nonconforming parking lot to remain on the West 600 feet of the North 330 feet of the Southeast Qua�ter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432. ' MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:34 P.M. � -- Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting three variances. The first request is to reduce the hard su�face setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 13 feet along the Highway 65 frontage road and to reduce the hard surface setback along the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet along Fireside Drive. The second request is to reduce the hard surface setback from the side or rear lot lines from 5 feet to 0 feet along the north portion of the property line and the east property line. The third part is to waive the requirement for curb and gutter around the parking lot. The requests are for 7501 Highway 65 N.E. which is located at the intersection of Highway 65 and Fireside Drive. Directly to the south is a mobile home court. Directly to the north is Kurt Manufacturing. � Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner recently received a special use permit from the City to construct a two-story office and showroom addition on the north portion of the existing � building. The use is a car dealership which is a special use in the C-3, General Shopping -' Center District. Ms. McPherson stated the property was first used in 1960 as a mobile home sales and - display lot. In 1971, the City issued a special use permit, SP #71-10, for new and used car sales. In 1978, there was a substantial addition constructed onto the building. In 1982, the petitioner received another special use permit in order to allow the parking of new �- vehicles on a portion of the Kurt Manufacturing property to the narth. 21.07 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 3 Ms. McPherson stated staff has analyzed the request. The proposed building meets all the setback requirements of the C-3 district. The site also meets all of the requirements for parking spaces with 586 spaces on the site. The calculation for parking using the space as it cuRently exists requires 76 spaces. With the changes, the site would require 196 spaces using the ratio of 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of buifdin� area. The site meets code requirements. . Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way be reduced to 13 feet along the west frontage and to 7 feet along the south frontage. Both of the service roads adjacent to the subject parcel were constructed on road easements as opposed to a dedicated right-of-way. Regardless of this fact, the setback should be met by the petitioner. The petitioner is meeting the 20 foot setback requirement in the front of the building in the middle portion of the frontage along the west property line. The petitioner has indicated they plan to do some parking lot improvements in conjunction with the addition and as part of their fufure property maintenance plan. At this time, it would be appropriate to meet the setback requirements. The petitioner- indicated in their hardship letter that complying with the setback requirements would result- . in the loss of 51 parking spaces. This does not adversely affect the code requirements: : It does, however, adversely affect the petitioner's ability to park new and used vehicles on the site. Increasing the hard surface setback along the public right-of-way, especially � along the Fireside Drive frontage, would provide an opportunity for additi�al screening � for the mobile home park itself. The City has previously granted a variance to reduce the hard surface setback from a public right-of-way to 0 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the second part of the request is to reduce the setback from the side and rear lot lines from 5 feet to 0 feet. Located along the north property line is Kurt Manufacturing. Currently, a po�tion of the Kurt Manufacturing site is used by the petitioner for parking of new vehicles. There is a common hard surface area with a chain link fence separating the two parcels. The C-3 district does permit a common drive, when approved by the adjoining property owners and the City. While it is not a common drive, it is a- common parking or hard surface situation. The City could choose to approve the variance request. _ Ms. McPherson stated, on the east or rear portion of the site, there is a vacant�lot directly adjacent to the subject parcel. The petitioner also does not have a 5 foot hard surface setback along this property line. The petitioner is proposing to do some improvements to the site. It would be an opportunity at this time to install the 5 foot hard surface setback to define the edge of the parking and to provide a screening opportunity. The Gity has not granted any variances to reduce the sid.e and rear lot lines. Ms. McPherson stated the third part of the request is to waive the curb and gutter requirements for those portions of the property adjacent to the south, east and north 21.08 � �- APPEALS COMMISSION I�ETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 4 property lines. The petitioner is proposing at this time to install curb and gutter along the west edge of the parking iot in conjunction with the addition to the building. If the variance is granted along the north prope�ty line, it would be appropriate to waive the curb and gutter requirement due to the shared parking situation. The City has in the past received variances such as this; however, the City has not approved such variances. In fact, the curb a�d gutte� installation was a requirement af the 1971 building pe�mit. Unfortunately, a time line was never established with the previous owner for installation of the curb and gutter. Ms. McPherson stated staff has separate recommendations for each of the three variance requests. The first request is to reduce the hard surface setback along the public right-of- way from 20 feet to 0 feet. The City has previously granted a variance down to 0 feet; therefore, staff has no recommendation regarding this portion of the variance request. The second part is to reduce the hard surface setback from the side and rear lot lines from 5 feet to 0 feet The City has not previously granted a va�iance of this nature. However, the code does allow a common drive between two prope�ties. As there cur�ently is a common parking situation between the property owner to the north and the subjeet parcel, staff recommends approva! of the reduction of the hard surface setback along the north property line from 5 feet to 0 feet; however, to deny the request for the same along the east property line. The third pa�t is to waive the curb and gutter requiremen�. Staff �ecommends denial of the request along the east and south prope�ty lines �d to approve waiving of the curb and gutter requirement along the north prope�ty line if the variance is approved to reduce the hard surface setback from 5 feet to 0 feet. Staff recommends the following stipulation: The petitione� shall comply with the stipulations set fo�th in the Special Use Permit, SP #96-04. Ms. Savage asked if one of the special use stipulations was that the variance request be approved. Ms. McPherson stated, yes. The wording of the stipulation by the Planning Commission was such that the petitioner shall meet code requirements unless the Appeals Commission approves the variance to maintain their existing condition. Denial of any of the variances by the Appeals Commission would not prohibit the petitioner from constructing the addition. They would just need to meet all of the code requirements. Ms. Savage referred to the common parking situation. The petitioner is allowed to park on the other side of the chain link fence that belongs to Ku�t Manufacturing. Ms. McPherson stated the stipulation on the special use permit only allows the petitioner to park in the fenceci-in a�ea. In terms of the common parking area, it is such that there 21.09 APPEALS CO1rIl�1ISSION MEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 5 is parking by Kurt Manufacturing all the way to the fence between the finro properties. It is her understanding that the petitioner does not store vehicles in this location. Ms. Savage asked if this situation would continue. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner would need to answer that question. Mr. Kuechle asked the rationale for the curb and gutter in the parking lot. Ms. McPherson stated one function is aesthetic to provide a finished edge to a parking. The curb and gutter can also direct storm water drainage on the site and is sometimes used by developers to meet the detention requirements. They will sometimes pond storm water on the parking lot before it is released into a detention facility or storm water pipe.� Curb and gutter also provides a physical barrier to automobile drivers from driving on landscape areas and open green space areas. ' � . Mr. Kuechle asked which of these goals staff is trying to accomplish. - Ms. McPherson stated they are trying to accomplish all of them. The water now sheet ' flows off the property which is typically not permitted in terrt�s of storm water detention: The City would like to see the aesthetic finish to the parking lot. While cu�iomers do not "� drive on green areas at this time, that could happen if the use we�e to change. �•- Ms. Savage asked if there was a landscape plan required as part of the special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner did submit a landscape plan for the west boulevard area for the installation of plant materials. The stipulation that related to the special' use permit regarding Fireside Drive was to expand this boulevard area to the required 20 foot � hard surface setback and provide the required landscaping and 3-foot or more hedge to _ provide screening for the adjacent residential property which work shall be completed in ' 3 years unless the petitioner obtains a variance therefrom. Mr. Klein stated he would like to review the rationale for the project. The building addition that has been proposed and approved by the City Council is for additional� office and � showroom space and replaces the existing trailer that is a temporary structure on the site.` The trailer was granted a permit to be there on a temporary basis. The trailer is currently` ` used as meeting room space which will be provided in the addition to the building. �-- Mr. Klein stated the setback requirement along Highway 65 has been established over time. There is approximately 13 feet north and south of the building and it is 20 feet in the center of the building. At one time, this frontage road was and still is the property of this site. An easement was granted for construction of that frontage road. The taking of this 21.10 �~ � APPEALS COMMISSION NIEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 6 land was at one time granted for the frontage road. Last year, a permit was issued by the City of Fridley fo� the replacement of par{cing lot lighting. That parking lot lighting has been installed. If that hard surface setback we�e increased, those lights would be out of place. They are asking that the historic setback be g�anted because of the hardship of having to move those lights to a different location. � Mr. Klein stated they are enhancing the existing landscaping along the frontage road and they feel they can provide the necessary landscaping within that 13 feet. When the present owner purchased the prope�ty, he called the City and had staff tour the property. The City identified deficiencies in the building. At that time, there was no identification of any zoning deficiencies. The hardship to the owner is, when looking at the propsrty and seeing it in use, if he had realized these setbacks were going to be enforced over time, he may have looked differently at this p�ope�ty. They are asking the setback be iaft in its historic location because of the hardship of moving the lights and loss of parking spaces. They are asking that the setback for the west side b� amended but not the landscaping and not the curbing. � Mr. Klein stated the area along Fireside Drive has similar issues. Fireside Drive is a road constructed on land owned by the adjacent properly owne�. They are asking for a variance from a setback from 20 feet to 7 feet. They are not asking for a variance on curbing or landscaping but for a time delay on when those items will be put in place. �fiat has to .do with a second addition to the building. The frst addition is showroom and office space.° :� The second addition is a service write up spaoe. This would be a separate iacility from the service department. Cars would come in to be examined, write up the service required, � and either taken in for repair or to the lot to be scheduled for repair. The planned locations are either to the south or to the �ear of the existing building and construction is planned for the next 1 to 3 years. When that project comes into play, that will affect the curb cuts along Fireside Drive and there may be a need to change other curb cuts into and out of the building. When that project is constructed, they would landscape and curb along Fireside Drive. Mr. Klein stated the other issue with the setback in force along Fireside Drive is the loss of 1 row of cars or 51 vehicles. While they have ample parking according to the code, it is not ample for a car dealership plus employees, customers, and service vehicles. The other issue with the setback along Fireside Drive is that this does not necessarily enhance the property. The property has what you might caN two front yards because it is on a corner with finro streets. If Fireside Drive were not there and they adjoined another prope�ty, they would not need 20 feet. The hardship is that this has two front yards. Mr. Klein stated that along the north property line, they recognize the City's desire #o improve and beautify the present buildings. � While that would be a goal, given the nature of the building next door and the fact that they were at the City to put on an addition and 21.11 APPEALS COI�IISSION MEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 7 there was no requirement that Kurt Manufacturing curb or landscape this common property line, to make this owner curb and landscape at this time would get only half the job done. They could bring the curb line in and landscape to the fence line. If this is to work, it should be done on both sides of the fence. He did not think it was necessary given the use of the two properties. . Mr. Klein stated that along the east property line, at this time they are not asking for a permanent variance on the curbing and setback. The owner is in the process of purchasing additional property directly to the east. The parcel is approximately 200 feet in width going back to Old Central Avenue. The owner is trying to swap a portion of this property with a parcel owned by Brinks Brothers. If the owner is able to do that, he would be able to develop the back of his property for the future development of the property. They are asking for a delay in putting in the curbing and not be required to meet the setback because of the future planned development. They are asking for 3 years to work out these details. � Ms. Savage stated it sounds like some much needed improvements are in the works. On the north property line, how can that area be improved? _ Mr. Moody stated that area owned by Kurt Manufacturing is for storage parking. There is � a 6-foot chain link fence. When they went there in 1991, there were r� lights in the �� parking lot which they put in last year to improve visibility and reduce theft. He did not know what else they could do with that. Their goal for the area to the east is to have two nice square parcels for future development. He thinks he can accomplish that and thought it would be a plus. He would then have 11 acres which could be developed. . Mr. Moody reviewed the plans for the addition. In 1991, they started with 31 They now have 100 employees. Parking is very important. Ms. Savage asked if they planned to improve. the existing. building. employees. Ms. Klein stated, yes. The new building will be stucco. Along the front yard, fhe bituminous currently runs from the parlcing lot to the street. They plan to remove the bituminous and establish a green space between the curb and the parking lot. Mr. Moody stated this is part of the improvements. The property will look better. The parking lot will be completely repaved once the construction is done. It would be paved `� to the end of the building. They will do the additional improvements and then repave the baiance of the lot. The only reason there is a waiting period is because they do not know �. what thei� neighbors will do. He thought is was positive because they would get more frontage on Old Central. 21.12 (.. APPEALS COI�IISSION I�ETING, MAY 8, 1996 � PAGE 8 Mr. Klein stated there is also a curb cut that they could use to access the parking lot. The property line is 7 feet from the parking lot and it is 5 feet from the property line to the curb. That is 12 feet of green space. He would work with staff to develop a landscape plan to design green space. Mr. Moody stated that if they were required to comply with the setback toward the north, it would look terrible for their line to be set back and the neighbors to be in the front. Mr. Moody stated business has g�own over the years. They have not had any problems or grievances. The City gave them a special use permit for the trailer for 3 years and he felt by then they could expand the building. What they are gaininc is a showroom for 5 cars and 10 more offices. They wiil remove the trailer and have a bEtter looking building. The second goal is to go to the bacic with a separate driving area, car wash, eic. to provide a complete full service dealership. Everything they have said they would do since they have purchased the property they have done. , • Mr. Hickok stated it was clear they are asking to waive the curb but for a period of time to allow for phased development of the site. Staff does recognize thaf. Ms. Beaulieu stated the time delay is for the south and east side. The curb and gutter on the west will be done now but not on the north side. � r. ickok stated that is co�rect. �`' .. _. : -; u: . , �. Mr. Moody stated the trucks at Kurt Manufacturing may set their for months. They use them for security purposes so that people cannot walk or drive onto their property. Mr. Klein stated they feel this is a substantial improvement to the prope�ty. It meets the intentions of the City's goals in providing curb and gutter along the perimeter of the parking lot and beautifying the public view of the building and landscaping the public areas. Mr. Moody stated that after all the improvements are completed, they will have 5,600 square feet of building space on 11 acres with approximately 150 full-time employees. Ms. Savage asked if staff had received any calls regarding this request. Ms. McPherson stated they did not �eceive any calls. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING�CLOSED AT 8:10 P.M. 21.13 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 9 Mr. Kuechie stated he could see no particular reason to make the petitioner curb the north side at this time, unless there is an acute water problem that needs to be addressed. Aesthetically, he does not think it is worth the money. One reason he sees for curbing is to prevent driving onto the parking lot. This is not a problem there with the fence. He would be in favor of not waiving the curb and gutter, but to give them 3 years to get it installed. The same is true of the 5 foot setback on the east side. He would give them 3 years to comply with the 5 foot setback and have curb and gutter along the south and east sides in 3 years, which he thought would give them the time table for which they are asking. That is rea�onable. If they do not build, they must install-it anyway. Ms. Beaulieu asked if he would require curb and gutter now on the west side. Mr. Kuechle stated, yes. The petitioner does not have a problem in doing that. Ms. Beaulieu stated she agreed. It sounds as if this will be a substantial improvement to the property. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #96-08, by Friendly Chevrolet, to reduce the hard surface setback from the right-0f-way from 20 feet to 13 feet along the west side and from 20 feet to 7 feet along the ' south side, to allow an existing nonconforming parking lot to remain, on the�l/est 600 feet of the North 330 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. �_: MOTION by Ms. Beaulieu, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approva! of Variance Request, VAR #96-08, by Friendly Chevrolet, to reduce the hard surface setback on the north side from 5 feet to 0 feet and on the east side to allow the petitioner three years to,_ comply with the 5 foot setback, to allow an existing nonconforming parking lot to remain, Y on the West 600 feet of the North 330 #eet of the So�rtheast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #96-08, by Friendly Chevrolet, to waive the requirement for curb and gutter along the south and east side of the parking lot perimeter for a period of 3 years and to waive the requirement for curb and gutter along the north side, to allow an existing 21.14 � � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 8, 1996 PAGE 10 nonconforming parking lot to remain, on the West 600 feet of the North 330 feet of the Southeast Qua�ter of the Northwest Quarte� of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E., Fridiey, Minnesota, with the foliowing stipulation: 1. The petitioner shall comply with the stipulations set forth in the Special Use Permit, S P #96-04. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTlNG AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would co�sider this item �n May 20. 3. UPDATE ON PLANNING COMMISSION D COUNCIL ACTIONS , Mr. Hickok provided an update on Planni Commis'sion and City Council actions. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Savage stated the next Ap eals Commission meeting would be held May 29. � ADJOURNMENT: - _ � MOTION by Mr. Kue le, seconded by Ms. Beaulieu, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOlC OTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION C RIED AND THE MAY 9, 1995, APPEALS COMMlSSION MEETING ADJOUR D AT 8:23 P.M. submitted, L�vonn Cooper U�o� Recording Secretary 21.15 . FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 __ PAGE 16 submit the specifications for staff review on prairie plant varieties; (3) the petitioner shall provide maintenance of the prairie plants for a minimum of three years to insure pr per growth; (4) the entry and exit signs shall be reduced t four square feet in area; (5) the petitioner shall submit h rologic calculations to the Public Works Engineering Department ' order to review the grading and drainage plan; (6} the pet' ioner shall submit an acceptable form of assurance in the unt of three percent of the construction costs to insure c pletion of the outdoor improvements; (7) the landscape pl shall indicate inclusion of underground sprinkling; (8) the oise level from any intercom system shall not excezd the decibel evel set forth in the Fridley City Code; (9) the petitioner sh install an eight foot screening fence along the north and eas lot lines, abutting the R-1 zoning, starting at the southeast corner of the fire station; (10) any expansion of the facili or extension of hours of operation over one hour before and iter the proposed hours must be reviewed and approved by the Pl ning Commission and City Council; and (11) garbage hauling from e site,shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m. Se nded by Councilman Billings. MOTION by Councilman S neider to amend stipulation No. 9 by inserting the words " d security" after the word "screening." Seconded by Councilm Billings. Upon a voice vote, aJ.l voting aye, Mayor Pro em Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Cou ilman Schneider to amend stipulation No. 10 to read as follows: "Any expansion of the facility or extension of hours of operati over 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday must be reviewed and approved by the P nning Commission and the City Council. Seconded by Counc' woman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. XIPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 18. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR �#96-08, BY ROGER MOODY OF FRIENDLY CHEVROLET, TO REDUCE THE HARD SURFACE SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT- OF-WAY FROM 20 FEET TO 13 FEET AND 7 FEET; TO REDUCE THE HARD SURFACE SETBACK FROM THE SIDE AND REAR LOT LINES FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET; AND TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR CURB AND GUTTER AROUND THE PARKING LOT PERIMETER, ALL TO ALLOW AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PARKING LOT TO REMAIN AT 7501 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. (WARD 2): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator stated that this variance request includes three different variances. The first variance is to reduce the hard surface setback along the right-of-way from twenty feet to thirteen feet (East Highway 65 Service Road) and seven feet (Fireside Drive). The second variance is to reduce the hard 21.16 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 PAGE 17 surface setback zero feet. The and gutter along on the north and east lot lines from five feet to third variance is to waive the requirement for curb the parking lot in certain areas. Mr. Hickok stated that staff analyzed the parking setback deficiencies on the site and determined there were a number of areas where the previous owners had hard surface drives out to the perimeter of the lot. It is the intent of the current owner to update the facility to meet all standards for lighting, building, and landscaping. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner is negotiating for the acquisition of property to the east and hopes to expand the building and parking area. The petitioner is requesting that the curb in that area be waived to allow for future expansion. At the time of this expansion, curb and gutter would be installed. Mr. Hickok stated that the reduction of the setbacks on the north relates to conditions at the Kurt Ma�ufacturing facility. The petitioner has an agreement with Kurt Manufacturing to allow storage of vehicles, and they share a common hard surface area with a chain link fence separating the two pareels. Mr. Hickok stated that the Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variances with a number of stipulations. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if these variances would help the parking situation for the neighborhood. Mr. Kline, architect for Friendly Chevrolet, stated that this immediate plan should help improve parking, as it will define the parking areas. The future proposed expansion, which involves additional land to the east, will add parking to the site. Mr. Moody, the petitioner, stated that parking conditions would improve when they begin the next expansion. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, VAR #96-08, to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from twenty feet to thirteen feet (East Highway 65 Service Road) and seven feet (Fireside Drive); to reduce the hard surface setback from the north property line from five feet to zero feet; and to waive the curb and gutter requirement along the north property line. Etiirther, to deny the variance to reduce the hard surface setback from five feet to zero feet along the east property line, but to allow the petitioner three years to comply with the five foot hard surface setback along the east property line; and to deny the variance to waive curb and gutter along the south and east property lines, but to allow the petitioner three years to install curb and gutter along the south and east property lines. Seconded 21.17 �._. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 20, 1996 � PAGE 18 by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, al1 voting aye, Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 19. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIOIVS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated it is recommended that Dian Savage be appointed as Chairperson of the Planning Commissio , Rosalie Landt and Peter Panchyshyn be appointed to the E ironmental Quality and Energy Commission; and Satveer Chaudhary e appointed to the Human Resources Commission. There remains an opening on the Appeals Commission and Human Resources Commission. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to appoint the f,611owing persons to the various commissions: Planning Commission: Diane Savage as Chairperson to the term, xpiring April l, 1997. Human Resources Commission: Satveer Chaudhary to the term expir�ing April 1, 1998. Environmental � ity and Energy�Commission: Rosalie Landt to the term Peter Panchyshyn to the ing April 1, 1998. expiring April 1, 1999. Seconded by Councilman S hneider. Upon a voice vote, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Sch eider, and Mayor Pro Tem Jorgenson voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Billings abstained from voting on the motion. Mayor P Tem Jorgenson declared the motion carried by a three to one vote 20. INFORMAL ST1jP�US REPORTS: POT BELLIF�b PIGS: Mr. Hickok, lanning Coordinator, stated that Cindy Langendorfer, 15 63rd Wa , requested that Council amend the code to permit pot bellied pi s as domestic pets. Staff has researched this issue and contacted other cities, the State Veterinarian's office, and the Humane ciety of Minnesota, and Anoka and Hennepin counties. Based n this information, staff would recommend against an ordina ce amendment to permit pot bellied pigs as domestic pets. Some f the reasons are that pigs are territorial, aqgressive, extr mely protective, carinot be vaccinated against rabies, sus eptible to Brucellosis which is a human health risk, and sp cial humane society-type shelters have been developed to keep u wanted pot bellied pigs. 2 �.18 g � � � �-.±..�.� _ 20�11� �1$�Q16: 0 �1 • Qie Fartily Urils 0 1�2 - Two Fartiy U'its 0 R 3" Gerer-al Mlbple UMs Rd - Nbbile Home Paris � �-�� , -�� s2 - �t astria 0 G1 - � �� 0 G2 - G�al &sin�s � G3 - c�,er�l S�a�pi�9 � c� - c,�,� afice 0 nA-1 - � �ndusUia� � n�2 - r�r i�,a� � M3 - dutdoor Uta,sive 1-I�vy Ind. � � - Raitroaas ;0 P - Pt�iic Fadlibes o �� l RIC�iT-0FWAY FlRE9DE DR PE VAR 97-15, Varianoe Request Friendly Cheverolet requests that variance,s be grar�ted to reduoe the hardsurface setbadc from the right of way from 20' to T and from the lot line from 5' to 0' to allow the oonstructiai of a park"�g I°t. 21.19 � < � < 76 AVE NE 75AVE HE Flt�SIDE DR N � -1 ` .0 oN N A ?l�B197 _ _ compiled a,a �wn frorr, a�i '�I �eoorcJs be�ed an Or�renoe WO�. 70 and Zorrng �ue da�e 127/56 �ogett� with ab ar� a�du� anoes acio�ed and effecti�e as of ?J1 /9�7. me a�y o� r-�d�y r,� �, �y �«c�o- vide the most up�bo-da�e irioirrie6on avai e. The daNa p�eser�6ed here �s s��bject �o ct�nge. The Cily aF Fridey will nd be respons�bl6 far �r,ro�se�, ertnrs «�ge oFthis doa„�enc. � � � y � � � � g � � � � �- i ; --- ; ; i �, . � � � '=_ ---- � � � � � � _�jr\\ � i � � : `� , " � Y� 3 � ; ., . Q� V ' � , --------� '�. � c0 ' �I ., � � '�� I � ------------- �y, r i � � �—� —�—�—i �— `='I- d � ; � � � � ----------.� ,; ;�, � y 'I'i i . '. — � • , A �I .� . �� • --- I "' �' ' ' i �L.--.— \ �_—�._n I�. �i, . _� � R� ffr.'Z � , � .� , � �=�� -- -- � __ _----__ ,. —�-�-��=��- — ti 1— --� — � �� : �� 1� i � � �, � . .. ,t-�—� �. 1 '' � --- � .. I ' I + : i�. . ', �� `' � � • �• � � � � � � . � , � / .._... ....� �► �� 21.20 ! ,i � is L & �� Z�� ! ��s. ii � ��;� ��g � - . , ;; � 1�� } � �� t l �r �' t' t i� � ; � _�; } } � �. a �, ,i r � ti � � ��' ! �e �j �dj � f�.r �p i �ir e c°� �� ! i'� � ' � � �� i�� ri �x �.�,1 �� I � a� � v � � ;� s ' �� I � �f � �� ? � #� #� . �� ;� �� i . � i � 4 ; �: 1 ,t�t#;� a ��j��) W �� z �y s � j�,�`,, � ° � `�i��it � a � ��.�� _ � � e �� ;�� i ��IlEfir��illli�a��It��i� `';; ::..... ... ..... .....:...:::::::::::::: ��i � =::e :o.:�:::;; : �:o:o;(�ri ��i a - � IE� � : i ;)' r _ . .r _ . ._ ✓� _! :p .�:..:. ; ,. -,;. � _ -�� T _�a ,w � �� . f'\ �7CM _ .�:�. f ' 1 .� � . � . -. � ��:. E. �. � ' � �+� + � ta _ � `'�;��, _ Y� _- ,c . -`� -* "r Y�n ��+ r,; r�.� :X,. � �� M ;-��2�ST^�� » �1 � '��,'- ,� } ••�Y, �'r . :� S. .�+rc� `�' � •✓z r .a�"-x - �� > j_ ' � �'��.. ,.. '"- _� � � a� i i 3�1 � ` ."`i> .s� 4'� 3". ,• �*`� r � �� a '`'� � +. �Y : � t _� � � - �i � '�z � '� ��'K -��Yk .- �' ." `_ S� ... C,� � 3'�� . ,r,_ � � ��,,.,r�S� ' t �c�� .. ;+�i�.� - �� i��. � � �./4 c�., �i, � ..� +r k J �. . � - t i A �� ' �� .�'i• ' 4 3 ��i3, f�L .V�-�t i�. �: 4 :. � .. `' �, +'�� a . ;'+z` � _ r_.T'k7� . , � .�■4%�"�� F :'�! ^� � a � a,, :�wy ,� � � r.€ y�..�.�� . ,: _ • L,�. ar.� � i� -�... .. � ��a - �: �.V hir. �4 � � '� S r'��1 � � l... ' � �'�. t'� � .± � � �' � � �� .-� 8 z �. � � . � aSl-�ttl' +. � rM7'C' #�- � ;�.fx" ! t ' � �i�� e i:i ii i T 2 � �` F�'#�� . i # '�lr � f+�l9�,�.`� jt i ' � -�i .. ... ... � . ,. . . . 4 � � �`t-R �� i�� f ,�.,'f. b �?''n' ,JG � ,-,y N�. _ . . � �? � . ; 3j 9 . 3 :° - >., '^ Sr" �+ ,�f i' i � � . s rr ..� � - r . . .�. � '3 „ s -.-. _ - ,'yJ � }� � �� f"'j �[ �= �i � v� . ��_ : ,,_ s- - 'ws i � .:�_ . , - �_ . _� ' . ., ... , °;�c� �.x'� , �a;iJ�i. . , � ,,,�, ��3 � } , t ., y,�+F � � . ' .. � � _ . i � . 5. +r�'.;l . r �`t ^ �sF r� � ± .:, �'P � i 3 i _ �i e`� �*;� ..� � � . .; y� �„��±ti..e��. � ..r. � � ��"��.,�';�t�in,�c y� �{ �k"��-�� ,.-, �y; �,•��. �, : , .. .. . . . �� . .. L F� `� aT!� .: f ; s . . : : . R� , ._..u:: . ., .� ;. ��.:. _w.- � - �} ��4 ..-, . �a it: ,. �� - �"� . � ..'. • f h-� , "i .. `. � . � � . . - .. }.. . , r- ' :,�� S2"'�. fi.t.t,� .rr ' a.. ��.. �;4 r� ' z ��Mp� � �.`� �-� ,y�i � • . �F. � ' � �i„i . -��x �f`�tN,#�l�t'��, ,i'� .'!� ' � .� �. r ' : �- ` �., . .. f , t._ r �. .�Y' ' .' 's.� ! : k" - - � ? _♦ p ' , �u'�f '�z �q� � '�' � + � � � � `� 1� `'' :3�,: �. :s, �e _ =4" F t g �+ . a � ..; ,. ..-` ,�„ -''�_Y , r � � � � . • � ' . f! �' ' � . � k' . t ,. �3 . _ a� ��•.� _ � � �- � � ��, .��ti � , a � / J 'I ! �•1 . �. � fjk"� .,� �t -�G, ��' .-"al �'� .d.. A� .,� . ��... ':i} �. � m " .. . � � ��Q • "�t� L ' ) ( . � s e y� .:iG, �-t: - _ =, � . �4., �ei ' .+ • ' . �::i si � . _ ti• ""3 .,r = F 1 ��... 4 - " . . F - z�� . �� S ��r`� ` ��a ��i� � �. F �- � . � . J, _4. � f,,`~ .s �s S N . ,.raa. � �.='c- � �t - .�L s� � ty . C� =Y * � f�; ,� � . i�� *�� i x �?`�.��j�� • �� ,� + g � ' �.- *$ . � .'+ �.�. � � � � � .i! � _ .,*` :� � � �, ti� . � -t,^" t- „ � � , �'� ...�'r t ��.�e � ..,a�� , t - �c'y �� ; 1 �, ° '' .'s � 1 i � . � , ! "o w, . +. �'s .�� i �� y'' '�±fr �"��+ ��'��:�� Yts-�� `3 ti�� .�! �� t - � - .., 5 + ,.t� 1 ,� �� "y.r= �. � T � •e ,� s � i � ' � y �► � } S:{ J�"•� � � �' t ��'�`�s: • �� _ �r� i � �.'� ,_ � � ti '�,� : �� x v , x, ��'� q;' •� � � � �� F � �'i sc V'`� � �`%SId��3� �:�5 ��}� ; �¢ � `. ilE. . { �^., �k'� 3. , .{ ..ss � � r��.. � � �iy;,,,�,. - _ �' ��,..°K`r�°r. �Y'', .-� yrC:. ..��.�ilY`- - .... �N ..'�. �7;:. � 1 � VsO. -3 r+,_ *.rL-,� dCr.3r+-w �� .aZ' �.' s c _ `.... . . .'- '- { '�"�- '�'�.,s�*�"."�� . c'°k�.r� .� 4'`� '? �a �� S�y'`t£•�:.r '�'`•q �� f` z " _' � . ax '7�t'�� s:„ ;¥ �rr , �{-� , `� .2�� • �+r�'¢�r�r-� t S .'. � ± • T � ` hy..' �� .ti,s � ��'u r ��Y� r �'Y�,ui � -�j%� �' �.`r`��` !��- � +. � � � ��l��srrR''3 � .,. �r � . ei y.k� � li � ,pi �.,� . � j �., � i f i'r ' . � �' - . �.c� �''� ,r ��.-S� 9 „ �, :.+ � . �. . � � �� '�° �� - i � � t ��f �� i4��'_� � � . �.. � ' �� c. °� Y �,,�, � F,,� �.� � �_- �' . .�:j� "rt'�d #r,' � . s�n � �:4 3 F.a }�.'�'� '��' �? e �-�� '' „s '� W> �a �` ; _ .c;.'p' �� .s.s . { ;r_,. a::. t �r�r��.�',�F, �t *r�"'�' F�."� � �2. �t�� • , i��.�i- ��.;, n.- t ��1 "` : ' 1..: �e �t, �i^ 4 � : L �; � • � �' ��:3 i F •�' i • � � �"� '�t . ' : 1� • Y'+.'a3 . �. `5 ,�� a''�� .�M4M�.�� .� �f -T/�-.. i��• � � ' i� . .� ...`'� �Y .. } - r" j .. �� _ .r.`� . ��;• +' ' 1 ��1� � i� r �� 21 ^ w ... V. }�j-e)�f y�r q+"` i � � � < Y � ..n1 ' .y� i r . � �. . . '. 6 , �C��y/. � �,• . �� - 7 �, i^ A- r`t�'�-�`' r' �'�,�' '�• �}�t'�� .�T�`"'' =3'�� q' �~ ` �r�[_�v .,y ,..c, �-.a ; , V. ' .�. ' -. ��_+-ir&>f." $ ,3� � -_ .. . .i�.. • �g,ii�� r� ly I+YhYI� � � w".dL.'*uf��.P.i�4. �.+ia,ct a_:.5:. .. , .,� ��...'%a�.,{q►. } r. ` ' �r � - . st _ � .:�. � �` `,• .. ' � '.'�,�"-"' .—.. ._ ...... . t. . . .r �..'. �,,"�L .- a, `_ f .� ..'a- r . `-• ;� a, ,�E �..,� ;e �`�� ` . r;�E •� , � ;�� ` yd�'4�t ' '�-. ��. ! , 3 � �'� . r , �+�� *. H.:?9��"! .. _ .. ,q .t . ,�.h';�_: . . µ .fs �...�.. � �^4 `�.,� � . '� � . _ _ . CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 ROLL CALL: Vice-Chairperson Beaulieu called the September 24, 1997, to order at 8:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Carol BeaWieu, Ken Vos, T� Larry Kuechle Mau Others Present: Michele McPh on, Planning Assistant Dennis Ho , Boiton & Menk Ron Ste r, Friendly Chevrolet Roge oody, Friendiy Chevrolet Commission meeting TI by D. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to approve the August 27, 1997, Appeals Commissio minutes as written. UPO q VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU D LARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANC REQUEST VAR #97 15. BY BOLTON & MENK INC : Per Section 205.15.05.D.(5).(a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet; Per Section 205.15.05.D.(5).(b) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to reduce the hard surface setback from the side lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet; Per Section 205.15.05.D.(3) of the�Fridley Zoning Code, to eliminate the requirement for curb and gutter around the paricing area; To allow the expansion of the vehicle sales area and customer parking facilities on the north 330 feet of the SE 1/4 and all that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 lying south of the north 1120.00 feet thereof, generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Friendly Chevrolet/Geo). MOTION by Ms. Mau, seconded by Dr. Vos, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:03 P.M. 21.22 �4PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the variance request is by Bolton & Menk representing Friendly Chevrolet/Geo located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. The th�ee-part request is to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 feet; reduce the hard surface setback from the side lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet; and eliminate the requirement for curb and gutter around the parking area. The subject parcel is located in the northeast comer of the intersection of Fireside Drive and the east Highway 65 service road. - Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to this request, the petitioner is processing a plat request, a rezoning request, and a special use permit. The plat and rezoning requests are in conjunction with the owner of the property located at 7490 Central Avenue, also known as the Brenk Brothers Manufacturing facility. Friendly Chevrolet has purchased the vacant parcel to the east of and directly adjacent to the existing car dealership. The Brenk Brothers building is generally in the southeast comer of the site. A large portion of the Brenk Brothers p�operty is cuRently vacant. The replat of the subject property and its adjacent neighbors will create an expanded area for the car dealership directly to the east of the existing dealership. In exchange, Brenk Brothers will receive property located to their north creating a north/south parcel rather than the existing east/west parcel. They are essentially swapping land. This request is related to the proposed parking lot expansion which will occur on the newly acquired property. In order to do the expansion, this area will need to be rezoned G3, General Shopping Center District, as the existing site is currently zoned and will also need a special use permit to allow expansion of the car dealership use. Ms. McPherson stated that in 1996, the petitioner constructed two additions to the car dealership—one was 84 feet x 84 feet and another 44 feet x 21 feet. A finro-story addition occurred in the front and provided new office and showroom facilities. When the petitioner proposed the expansion, they also requested several variances to correct existing conditions on the site. Variances were granted to reduce the hard surface along a public right-of-way to 13 feet and 7 feet along Fireside Drive. A variance was also granted to reduce the hard surface setback from 5 feet to 0 feet along the north property line. Along this property line, the petitioner has some shared parking with the Kurt Manufacturing building to the no�th, which is zoned M-4, Manufacturing Only. They also have a special use permit on the Kurt Manufacturing site use to allow parking of new vehicles. A temporary variance was also approved to waive the curb and gutter requirement for three years along the south property line in anticipation that the petitioner would be constructing additions to the service area and expanding the parking lot. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has requested a variance similar to what was granted in 1996 to match the curb lines along the Fireside Drive right-of-way. The adjacent area to the east is cuRently vacanf and has no existing pavement. While a variance was previously granted, the circumstances on the original site are somewhat different than on the vacant property and the petitioner has an opportunity to provide the 20 foot required setback. This would provide a consistent curb line and setback with the adjacent property to the east. The compliance with the setback requirement would affect 21.23 �PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24 1997 PAGE 3 the proposed parking by reducing the potential number of parking spaces that may be provided in the expansion area. However, that reduction of potential spaces does not reduce the number that are required by code. The site prior to the expansion provides 586 spaces which is 390 more than required by code. In addition, the additional setback would provide the potential for increased landscaping including street trees and other amenities. In addition to the previously granted variance for the subject property, the City has previously granted variances of this nature down to 0 feet. � Ms. McPherson stated the second variance is to reduce #he setback�to 0 feet along the� north property line to provide a consistent line as stated by the petitioner's hardship statement. Staff will present the fact that the site is vacant. It would be unusual to have a jog when compared to the existing section of this property, but it would provi�e 10 feet of green space between the closest edge of the Kurt Manufacturing building ar,d the proposed parking area. When considering this industrial site with other industria( siies in the community, it is not unique. There are no differentiating site conditions and no shared parking with the adjacent prope►ty to the north in the area of the requested variance. Ms. McPherson stated the third variance is to waive the curb and gutter requirements to be consistent with the previous approvals along the north properly line. However, there is no shared parking in the area of the variance and the placement of the curb and gutter would finish the new pa�lcing lot off very nicely, provide an aesthetic improvement to the site and would help direct storm water from running off the site as the proposed grading does indicate that water should be directed to flow to the shared detention pond between the shared properties. � � Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends denial of this request to the City Council based on the facts as stated. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. The related plat, rezoning and special use permit requests shall be approved. Ms. Beaulieu stated that when the Planning Commission allowed this in 1996, the hardship was because it was either existir�g or shared parking. Ms. McPherson stated this is correct. Mr. Honsa stated they are requesting the setback be reduced from 20 feet to 7 feet along Fireside Drive. The hardship is, if they jog that additional 13 feet, they are going to have to redesign the entire parking lot. It will disrupt all the traffic patterns. They want to establish continuity. It was granted a year ago, and the existing site is approximately 600 feet long. They are trying to clean up the block there. They are planning two lots. It would be an approximate 200-foot extension of the previously granted variance. Ms. McPherson pointed out that she would like to see it go to 20 feet to match the Brenks Brothers building. Their curb is not at the 20-foot setback but rather approximately 40 feet back. If you are looking for continuity befinreen the two parcels, you would never arrive at that. 21.24 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24 1997 PAGE 4 Mr. Honsa stated the second request is to reduce the hard surface setback along the north property line to 0 feet. The fence for the Kurt Manufacturing site goes right up to the comer of the building and there may be some type of agreement in the future for a shared driveway through there. By putting green space there now, they are not accomplishing anything. He did not believe there was any maintenance south of that buiiding. If they did put in green space, who will maintain it? Ku�t Manufacturing nms the fence right to the building corner and uses the building to divide the property. Mr. Honsa stated that with the curb and gutter on the north end, they have asked for a variance along the north property line only. There is an unnecessary cost related to the curb and gutter. He agreed with staff that it does keep vehicles from going onto a maintained area. Another purpose of curb and gutter is to direct storm water. The design of this property is that they are going to take all the adjacent water and channel it across the proposed addition into a detention pond. From a design purpose, other than trying to catch a car, there is no real reason to put curb and gutter there. Again, they are asking for an extension of the variances granted a year ago. This is less than 1/3 the size of the existing property and is for continuity in both the parking systems in the front and rear of the building. If they jog the parking, there is an enormous amount of cost to recreate the parking pattems and relocate light posts from what has existed for numerous years. Dr. Vos asked what the use of the proposed parking area would be. Mr. Moody stated this would basically be employee parking, vehicles ftom the factories, and service people. Dr. Vos stated he noticed that the agenda said to eliminate curb and gutter around the parking areas. The.summary states stated it is along the north edge of the property. . Which is correct? � Mr. Honsa stated they are asking for a variance along the north edge to 0-foot setback for bituminous surfacing with no curb and gutter. The east side will meefi all City requirements including the setback requirements. On the south side, they will meet the City's requirements for curb. They are asking for the setback due to the traffic pattems. New curb and gutter will be put along the existing parcel and they would like to extend that uniformly along Fireside Drive. Dr. Vos stated he understands there is no curb and gutter along the south edge on Fireside Drive at this time. Mr. Honsa stated they do have a portion of curb and gutter from the comer to the first driveway. They want to put curb in the same place along the south p�operty line. They have a variance for 400 feet there. They are now requesting a variance for 200 feet to the east at the same point. Dr. Vos asked if there would be any new curb cuts along Fireside Drive. 21.25 �PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 PAGE 5 Mr. Honsa stated, no. There are two existing curb cuts which will remain in place. Mr. Honsa stated they would like to get this project completed this year. They do not know how soon snow will be coming. If there is no snow up until the third week of November, they could probably get the site paved. In case of an early snow and they cannot pave, they would like to put in Class V and then surface that as soon as the weather permits next year. . Ms. McPherson stated they would have to work with staff on this type of thirig. Staff has previously allowed Class V and then held a bond to insure the lot is completed. This is done on a case-by-case basis. M TI N by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Dr. Vos stated it is a different part of the property. He can see the spirit of what the staff is trying to say, but it seems like it would not give us that much more advantage to adhere to all three variances. He did not think he would vote against any of the variances. He is not crazy about it. Ms. Beaulieu stated she was impressed with what the petitioner said which is asking for continuance of the variance they already have and the continuity of the developed property. She did not see a good reason, as long as it was allowed before, to allow for this additional property. Ms. Mau stated she concurred. There is no other way to get it to blend without following the same line. ' M I N by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Mau, to recommend approval of Variance Request, VAR #97-15, by Bolton & Menk, Inc., to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way from 20 feet to 7 f�et; to reduce the hard surface setback from the side lot line from 5 feet to 0 feet; and to eliminate the requirement for curb and gutter around the parking areas; to allow the expansion of the vehicle sales area and customer parking facilities on the north 330 feet of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and all that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 lying south of the north 1120.00 feet thereof generally located at 7501 Highway 65 N.E. (Friendly ChevroleUGeo), with the following stipulation: 1. The related plat, rezoning and special use permit requests shall be approved. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 21.26 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997 PAGE 6 Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request at their meeting of October 13. 2. Ms. McPherson provided an update on Planning Commission and City C�incil actions. Ms. McPherson stated the Recycling Center is now accepting appl' ce, fluorescent light bulbs, and scrap metal starting September 20. Residents can t e these items to the center during its operating hours, Tuesday through Saturda :00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There is a fee for appliances and fluorescent bulbs. If yo re a Fridley/NSP customer and bring your bill, you can drop off fluorescent bulbs no charge. ADJOURNMENT: M TI N by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. M, to adjoum the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL DECLARED THE MOTION C COMMISSION MEETING A RespectFully submi d, � Lavonn C per aQ, � Record�Secretary AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON BEAULIEU AND THE SEPTEMBER 24,1997, APPEALS :D AT 8:28 P.M. 21.27 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION DATE: October 8, 1997 TO: William W. Bums, City Manager�rj�'` FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUB.IECT: First Reading of an Ordinance approving a Rezoning, ZOA #97-05, by Dolphin Development and Construction Co. Inc., to rezone property at 73'd and University Avenues from M-2, Heavy Industrial to G2, General Business, to allow for future commercial development, generally located at 7299 University Avenue N.E. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing regarding this rezoning request at its October 1, 1997, meeting. 7 residents of the Melody Manor neighborhood spoke to this issue. The speakers were generally opposed to development on the site at 73'� and University. Issues such as traffic, screening, and destruction of the natural setting were discussed. The City Council must act on this item by October 28, 1997, according to the 60- Day Agency Action Law. Recommendation ' Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of the attached ordinance rezoning the property at the south-east comer of University Avenue and 73'� Avenue NE, from M-2, Heavy Industrial, to C-2, General Business. 22.01 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix C of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. SECTION 2. The tracts or areas within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Tract A Registered Land Survey No. 78 Anoka County Minnesota Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-2, General Business SECTION 3 That the Zoning Administrator is director to change the official zoning map to show said tracts or areas to be rezoned from Zoned District M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-2, General Business. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF ,1997. ATTEST: m NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: October i3, 1997 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 22.02 .� MEMORANDUM PLANNING DIVISION . , TO: William W. Bums, City Manager �� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott J. Hickok, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: First Reading of an Ordinance approving a Rezoning, ZOA#97-06, by Frank Masserano III , to rezone property at 63nd Avenue NE and East Moore Lake Drive from R-1, Single Family Residential and G3, General Shopping Center, to CR-1, General Office, to allow for future commercial office development. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing regarding this rezoning request at its October 1, 1997, meeting. 1 future and 1 current resident of the adjacent neighbofiood spoke to this issue. The speakers were generally supportive of the development on the site at 63'� and Moore Lake Drive. Issues such as building design, building height, and landscape screening were discussed. Staff analyzed the site plan. As proposed, the landscape plan needs additional materials to meet code requirements. The developer indicated that additional coniferous trees could be planted along the west side of the property, and an 8' fence would be provided to address the concems of the future adjacent neighbor who spoke. The building itself was placed to minimize impact to the west and north-west neighborhood. A residential character was designed into the building to assure that the new building will provide a compatible transition between the commercial and residential district. This coincides with the overall purpose of the CR-1 district, which is to provide a transition befinreen the residential districts and their heavier intensity commercial neighbors. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the first reading of the attached ordinance rezoning the property at the south-west corner of 63`" Avenue NE and East Moore Lake Drive, from R-1, Single Family Residential and C-3, General Shopping Center, to CR-1, General Office. 23.01 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix C of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. Be and is hereby rezoned subject to the stipulations adopted at the October 1, 1997, City Council meeting. SECTION 2. The tracts or areas within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and described as: Lot 1, Block 2, Moore Lake Highlands 3'� Addition, together with Outlot A, Shorewood Plaza , reserving easement of record, Anoka County Minnesota Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District CR-1, General Office SECTION 3 That the Zoning Administrator is director to change the official zoning map to show said tracts or areas to be rezoned from Zoned District R-1, Single Family Residentiat, and C-3, General Shopping Center to CR-1, General Office. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF ,1997. ATTEST: NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK Public Hearing: october �3, 1997 First Reading: Second Reading: Publication: 23.02 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: October 9, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager�� FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Vacation Request, SAV #97-01, by Margaret Reed; 6017 - 3'� Street N.E. PROPUSED REQUEST� � Three property owners along the east side of 3'� Street north of 60�' Avenue are petitioning for an alley vacation along the rear of their properties abutting University Avenue. This request is similar to a request which was filed by a property owner further north in the same block in 1987 (Wayne Johnson). :�• �• � The subject property consists of fhree parcels located at 6007, 6011, and 6017 3`� Street N.E. The legal descriptions encompass six lots in the Hyde Park plat which was recorded in the 1880's. Each of the parcels is approximately 80 feet wide and measure 129 feet in depth. To the rear of these parcels is a platted alley 12 feet in width. Two of the three properties (6007 and 6011) receive access from 60`h Avenue and 3ro Street, respectively. The property at 6017 - 3`� Street has been using the alley to gain access to the garage at the rear of the property. The property owner at 6017 - 3`� Street is Margaret Reed who intends on constructing a new driveway from 3'� Street to a new garage at the rear of the property. She has spoken to the neighbors Michael Pestello at 6011 - 3`� Street and Antoinette Ferdelman at 6007 - 3`d Street, and the three have jointly signed a petition to vacate the 12 foot alley at the rear of the three lots. 24.01 Margaret Reed SAV October 9, 1997 Page 2 ANALYSIS The area proposed to be vacated now consists of a tightly packed dirt path since it has been used for vehicle access to 6017 - 3`� Street. The MnDOT fence which abuts the east side of the alley is located approximately one foot east of the 12 foot alley in MnDOT right-of-way. The alley to the north in the same block was officially vacated in 1992 (there was a significant amount of legal activity regarding this vacation which will be presented further in the report); therefare, this request will eliminate the entire length of the alley in the block. There is an overhead NSP power line which runs along the alley. As was done with the previous application, a public drainage and utility easement covering the entire 12 feet should be retained in order to provide an access for public utilities. The alley vacation itself does not pose any adverse concerns to the abutting owners who are petitioning for this request. The owners, however, need to be aware of the significant legal process which will ensue as a result of the vacation procedure. The process which needs to occur is based on staff's experience with the previous vacation request by Wayne Johnson. Although initiated in 1987, the matter was not concluded until 1992 because.of the variety of legal issues and the number of properly owners affected by the case. ,�.. -. ..- . .--. Typical vacation procedures dictate that if an alley or a road right-of-way is vacated, one-half of the property accrues to the abutting properties on either side of the alley or right-of-way. In this case, six feet of the 12 feet will accrue to the Minnesota Department of Transportation since these lots were originally purchased for the installation of University Avenue. Once the City adopts the resolution to vacate, MnDOT must convey the east six feet of the alley to the City. The City must then declare it "excess" and pass an ordinance to that effect. At that time, the State's Certificate of Title pertaining to these lots must be "memorialized" with the resolution to vacate the alley, the legal notice to vacate the alley, and the deed to the City. The memorialization process typically takes at least three to six months. The State will not complete this process since it is too time consuming and affects a very small land area. Therefore, the affected owners must carry out the process in order to obtain good title. 24.02 Margaret Reed SAV October 9, 1997 Page 3 Finally, the abutting property owners must memorialize their Certificates of Title (all three property owners have Torrens certificates), with the deed from the City to the property owners conveying the east six feet of the alley. Staff has advised Ms. Reed with the ramifications of initiating the process. She was advised to speak to the other petitioners to determine if they are willing to carry out the next steps so that their Certificates of Title are appropriately corrected for legal purposes. Each of the petitioners or the petitioners as a group should retain an attorney to complete the memorialization process. 6007 - 3`� Street There appears to be a triangular-shaped portion to the alley abutting 6007 - 3'� Street. A legal description of the area to be vacated should be provided by the petitioners prior to adoption of the resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the vacation request subject to the following stipulations: 1. The petitioners agree to provide a 12 foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the entire length of the alley. 2. The petitioners are responsible for the appropriate memorialization processes required to properly attach the 12 foot alley to each of the subject properties. 3. The area now used as an alley shall be converted to lawn/grass area no later than one year after completion of the memorialization process. 4. Vehicles shall not be stored on the vacated alley, and must be parked in conformance with City Code. 5. The petitioners shall provide the correct legal description of the alley to be vacated, including the triangular-shaped property next to 6007 - 3'� Street N.E. 24.03 Margaret Reed SAV October 9, 1997 Page 4 STAFF UPDATE Councilman Billings suggested that staff identify the pros and cons of including the vacation of 60th Avenue as part of the proposed application. Pros • Vacating 60th Avenue would add 4,230 square feet to 6007 - 3� Street and 5981 - 3`� Street, increasing their lot sizes from approximately 10,500 square feet to 14,730 square feet. • The additional land area would become taxable land area. • The additional area provides more flexibility for remodeling or expansion. Cons • There is an 18 inch storm sewer and affiliated catch basins located within the right- of-way. The Engineering Department would prefer that the right-of-way remain, but a 20 foot wide easement centered on the alignment of the storm sewer could be obtained. The Engineering Department would prefer to keep the area as a right-of- way, since there would be immediate access to the storm sewer if a problem occurred, and private property would not be affected if repair had to occur. Although vacating the street would give an extra 30 feet to the property to the north (6007 - 3'� Street), an easement would be located in the 30 feet which would be added to the property. A structure could not be located in the easement. • If the property owner at 6007 - 3'� Street would build a new garage facing 3`� Street, the existing paved street may not be necessary and would therefore have to be removed. The cost would be approximately $4.00 per square yard, or $3,760. • Leaving the street as-is and vacating 60�' Avenue would mean that the street would become the driveway for the owner. It is a larger than typical driveway and a number of cars could be parked on it giving an impression of a parking lot. As of the writing of this report, on Tuesday, October 7, 1997, staff has attempted to make phone contact with the owner of 6007 - 3'� Street regarding their opinion about including 60th Avenue as part of the vacation process. It was hoped that a meeting could be established to discuss the options for the owner so that by the time of the City Council meeting Monday evening, the Council would have more information. 24.04 Margaret Reed SAV October 9, 1997 Page 5 Staff will still pursue a meeting with the owner and will provide a verbal report to the City Council on Monday evening. The owner to the south has been contacted, and they will be contacting staff by Monday evening regarding their opinion. The ultimate solution if 60�' Avenue is vacated would be: • The owner reorients the house toward 3`� Street. • Increase the size of the house (it is 676 square feet), enabling the owner to build a bigger garage which also faces 3`� Street. • Construct a new driveway. • Remove existing street, and resod. • Reserve an easement for the storm sewer. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The petitioners have submitted the appropriate legal description to be included in the resolution to vacate the alley, and the small triangular easement referred to earlier in the staff report. The 60 day action law on this item is October 14, 1997. Pending the outcome of the discussion on 60�' Avenue, the alley vacation is prepared to be approved by the City Council. Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution vacating the alley and the triangular-shaped easement subject to the stipulations contained in Exhibit A of the resolution recommended by the Planning Commission. Should the City Council decide to pursue the vacation of 60�' Avenue, staff recommends the item be tabled with consent of the petitioners so that appropriate arrangements to include 60�' Avenue can be completed. BD/dw M-97-420 24.05 Ri3SOLUTION NO. - 1997 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VACATION, SAV #97-01, G$NER.ALLY LOCATED AT 6017 - 3"� STR$ST N.E. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the vacation, SAV #97-01, on October 1, 1997 and recommended approval to vacate: The alley legally described as all of that part of the 12 foot alley within Block 5, Hyde Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 21 and northerly of the easterly extension of the south line of Lot 16. The street and utility easement granted by Quit Claim Deed dated 12-10-71 and recorded 1-28-72 as Document No. 73481 described as all that part of Lot 16, Block 5, Hyde Park, described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 16; thence west along the south line of said Lot 16, a distance of 20.00 feet; thence in a northeasterly direction to the northeast corner of said Lot 16; thence south along the east line of said Lot 16 to the southeast corner of said Lot 16; being the point of beginning and there terminating. WHEREAS, the City Council at their October 13, 1997 meeting approved the vacation request at the same meeting, with stipulations attached as Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the vacation has been made in conformance with Minnesota �tate Statutes and pursuant to Section 12.07 of the City Charter and Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves the vacation, SAV #97-01, and authorizes the City Clerk to amend Appendix C of the City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTfiD BY THB CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLBY THIS DAY OF , 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 24.06 � Resolution No. - Page 2 Exhibit A 1. The petitioners agree to provide a 12 foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the entire length of the alley. 2. The petitioners are responsible for the appropriate memorialization processes required to properly attach the 12 foot alley to each of the subject properties. 3. The area now used as an alley shall be converted to lawn/grass area no later than one year after completion of the memorialization process. 4. Vehicles shall not be stored on the vacated alley, and must be parked in conformance with City Code. 5. The petitioners shall provide the correct legal description of the alley to be vacated, including the triangular-shaped property next to 6007 - 3rd Street N.E. 24.07 � 1 � � � � Znnirg Desigr�atiors: � R-� - Q,e Farriy utits � F�2 - Two Farriy Urrts � �3 - C�eneral Mtttiiple Urils � F�4 - Nbbile Hane Parics � p�p ' Ranecl Unt De�lo�xr�t � S7 - M�de Par1c Nei9hborhood o s-z - �,�,r a� 0 G1 - � �� 0 c2 - c� s�� G3 - General Shop�i�9 � GR1- General offioe 0 nMi - u9r,� inau� � Iu42 - Heavy Indtstrial - �3 - Outdoor Inte�sive Fieavy Ind � � - Ra�roeds � p - Public Facilibes o �� 0 Poc�-rr-oF w4Y S�AV 97-01, Alley Vacation Request Margaret Reed requests that t south half of the aliey located adjacent to University Avenue betw�een 61 st and 60th Avenu� � VaCdt2Ci. 24.08. � � ';�� Of1 �IOB NOi. 7� A�1d Zi011�1�1g NI� E�fBdIV@ a�,m�s �,�r, �n � «� _ anoes aclo�Ged and effectiNe as aF 2I1�197. The aly aF Fridey has taken e�ery effat �o pro- vide the most u��adate ir�i0m�tion available. The cl�ta pr+esen6ed r,ere �s s�ject fio charx,�. : The aty aF Fridey wdl not be respo�ble for � �a � o�tr,� �n,�,c 10/08/1997 16:04 7887602 FOR c� �11 NNESOTA l. ., ,/ �/� � � � � � �� l � �' _� (�� , ��1 �l i n o� � � .� �J � l� � � � /^ � � KURTH SURVEVIN6 INC �- e► ��_ �CC•.'T G 6-1 i b'CS�.ti� i" T I O t 5 SVIIVtY. O�AN 09 AF. ONT ca w oiAEe'r sweov�sia+ KURTH SWIVEYINQ, 1NC, NSF. LAh9 SUAVE'fOq MqEq � I ESO?A. CO�tryl� ��CIG tSN W. N S�tl tais� iY0-Y)Oi rwac isit! ��•�w= ISE N0. ZoL?O � �_G_.. I I ,. , titi� `4 ; `ob � �o - ---�- � �� - � �� L�%��•� " ;'�t�` \i► 7 V n ° Y u — . � d Q 1 '� � o'�' � � , � i o•''' ` �' Q t 1 1� ' � . � v ._ `� o z �c`� � . � ' O� r � .r 2� 1 ~ � `v .' -, � A�7 _' ,1y0 � � ♦ � � ��` `� � � I � r h r �. �y � ^ � Z J T PAGE 02 �aTE D-%- SCA�E p� : y0� UEARINGSNAAENON�AN ASSuA�Cp DATUw _.; '� n ;�. ' r,� _ �'' -�" 7 i `� � � `� ' � � � � � '_ � � J ', -' � � — � � , � , `� ' � I �- J '7 _,.,�.. ae coenca,ios�6 r � _ . � ` � � LL LJ v�� aF � , �� N � � �. q. �� 3 . � `�V �y,��it��+(a gTRI•.(cT � � \ . UTlL1TY i:A7Cr'iCN�T !'� P�R oo�.NO.�348� y�� , I� �v � /"'C V � . N , � . C�oai �Zlvv� i. � i 1� � �—.' �` �i� �,�! --� � - 1 '. � i , � � � , � (.�' U � � �J � � � � � �J i LEGAL DESCRIPTIOIY Alley Vacstion All of that part of the 12 foot aliey withu► Block 5, HYDE PARK, Anoka County, Minoesota, lying southerly of the easterly extension of the north line of lat 21 and noRharly of the easterly extensirni of the south line of Lat 16. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Street and Uti)ity Eaaement Vacation of Es�ement Cranted by Quit Claim Deed Dated 12-]0-71 end recorded I-Z8-72 ae Doeumart No. 73481 All that paR of Lot 16, Blxk S, Fil�'DB PARK ADD[TION, deseribod as commencing at tha southeast comer of Lot 16; thence west alaig the south line of said Lot 16, a distance of 20 feet: tha+ce in a aottheasterly dirxtion to the northeast comer of said Lot l6; thence south along the east li�e of said Lot 16 to the southeast eomer of said Ld 16, : being the point of beguming aad there tsnninating. i � � �� J �. � SAV #87-07 Wayne Johnson _-- �,. .- 2A � _ � �fJ�vJ' Ue/1` � ='1�va�� --- � N /lo. � a . � - ' — ._ n..p ' � /3 � • .) �, ��.� _� D�� A � � /,�`'� � i3/o i�jp( .. . -- --� /.� � �n. - �� 9� f P`.� n �w L . �"�L ,.r-------- _ Q �� ' ' � �`-• 3 0 �°� � m' � � ' z9.// - --i �.s °" � w � 9 =� ,� 1 0 ` � � �ti. 3 0 �1� • E:c ' i�a�� r � . . g(�)=;, � �'� a � �9 ; �--- -- o � _i :_�q �ti.3„�� ' o � `� • r ZE ¢� ,1��1): �.� � � 8 , i"' � '� ' 1 . Z9 -! _ " � P ' -.:2 - - - � 7 . �i U -- �� , �c �� 5 ,� _.: �,, ¢ �,, � �. � ---- 1987 REQUE �J -,�� -�=�--- ---�-- - ��; � � S ST - , , � /) ' ` �-S - - E ;�e � � 5:$� 6 ,'pa) ' 2 . 16 -- -; � - v . \ n t . � ¢ 4� � - �lf - - - r - - �,-� � X.. --- - � --- -� %� �= 1�`\ 6 51 , :�2¢ "7 � _ 'C� .� • M ; .� � � o G 3��j . B i�i) ` t .1^i' � b' i1 `'��- "'F-- --- °� L �¢ � ' ^, - ¢- a �� ` � 2 c� - -. ,-n- _ _ L : ^ __ , -- - � � - -Z� ��ol B p �. e -- ` � � �1 : � � - -� . � 23 .� . ! �= � ;45� � /G �i : -'� ��- ' '-' '1 \'A'ii ��• nt /361B ' � O � -'� J - ��, `�� '�'° 2/ O�l i�i'��' ' '/ ' �C�� , %:�,N O .1--- � J:v� /9 :�a) /Z ��r /9 �; - - �2 - - � , , �i `i/ I - - � zo t v/ � �q�� '� '� � .. ._ _ !un J• .7¢3 �Q r /�r� ��a . --�Z -_; V :�c �t�� -- J - � 1997 REQI�ST - . > i ,�1� � ,,,� ,_ � : _ . 'e a � i6 /S , . � N � . L-1 � i < ' o ��e .r� f . iz _ _ /_�• � p , --- - - .. 1 � r �rr i3<3s� \ ALLEY TO BE V : ► ze � _ _?7 ¢ : zFyo� ��: ---a-s---- N . Z�`�1 7 ��: --2�q�_ a : • �'' --9 -_ ° W _� �1 � �' � /6 /f �l Q ! n � � � � --- - -- �� o a . s � '•• serrowf -_ia..� JJJ. / _ i: o,s_� '�'� 17�cs -at . . _ _ . _b'i F 3 � s ��s �1 �. n / eJ � � ACATED ' - � p ° ?° �` �� --� . z� ti� a �--��.- � w ♦ �'� � l0 - `°� a Z✓�' 'V -- � � F \ �� z7 �ti, � �.� 27 � � .; � l° - -¢- - - = .� �.��.�� - . 2 6 b+Yl ---- -- . .' � ? E ,5 � ��;. ^ �,,Z O �t, <<. zs --- - --; W , -.� �� ' c�.S E1o� • Z� b�� - - T� � � r�S �� , � 4i � r1 �l . � i � ' z¢'b � 7,�i= / .,�,,�, , - -- —:� ? . � Z� � �s� i , � . - k,� h �jL)/B W - no� � �= ---- � � LL�, ; , �' . � . ` c � 'qtii /O i�� : • : Z i ` �O l07 : " "'- ` ' 2 % ��'�1 •�(,V /3E.�o � � • Z / �l ' Z - G �� - - ~"1- - - Z Z° V1 //�nB)� Z Z� e�l / � _'-°`�-�.y --- ~ =-- � � ' .� ^ '`� /7 � /9 "' '2o i �• 0 9 /9 iT_ lgol: ��, /Z (ef� l ';l- ----- � ; ./ `�� o - -. iH �q1 ,_� , �19 b� ��L-- -- �� ' � � � � r,'� ',? - - > �o %�B V`''1 /.� �io) : /B �*� � ' � ', �,� � , 1�1 � /6 v 'O,l` /� ' , --.� _ _ � ; %�. `, . o �"_ ` ` g � � � /� ��i)= �7 v� -- -- -- -ei; �., ; s. � � ti 9 ' . �...: � � ,' R �,� f° i� ' � � /6 � i s � � /F / o : i/i i /L^_ 1.10 � � h � p', � a ', 3:. . .r ,� n�� /S 59TH _ '1, \.� J^ �a i��. "�,�f¢` � ,� AVEI�UE N.E. y. „ ; � ; � �4 �� e� �� 40, i�`':s y> .�a .� --- Q C I� ��. ,. v � � pel�` � s� ti _ I s � , �, , !� ; a la� �� . � ; s , h e � - � . 29 � ' 1�� w ?g 11ei ,,� ' �29 Z ZB � �� Ll > Q �47y�, _. N �� ¢ ' � ` � � C�� 3�¢ � � ��'�7 , � 5 h�� N�:::E t�� ---3-----� M� it�26 �� ; ' r 25 :6°� 6 2 S 2 4 7 1181 ' ?_ 4�y9) � 7�,�� : � 2 6 :.�. i19 ' W��Z3 B. ' : _ ' - ' ° : �, �l �? n ��,1� � . �: ¢ .� .� J i _J � � � ' �- - ,, � - --i , --- -- : -p,�q, , �, � G f� h � � �� ^ o. o _ 0 .-ac.s = % y w i,�> • � E M `` :�s.t� � 5 h � F ' ��, °� _ a .id1'�J1f N _... _ � R !ic�3 � /��/Zi �i � � � ��o) . ( � :��o !! °� 5 9 T e�o ,^ _ , -a�; ' 01V�A _ i t� � � i / .� � J L � � � � � � � � � y � „ r � � Y � � � � � / a � �- 4 � �� d ° � '' v � � � � � � � '. ° J � � � � p v1 � � fl y � �. � L v3� �a� Q� � � � � � � �� Qj � � � v � / .� � � �) 71' � � ; � � .� � s v � S�1 ' c;Z 3� o} 4 � � � � � ., ti��►��+i i�tlilt/�tl� j r � .� ' i ! ; F �'j J i '�� J�c � ; / � i ) , ;,� � a , • - ' p ' � - � � . � , .�� , i . � � . . 4 � ; . � � � f , � . , . . , : ��i� �� [ r� �1 rt �ti tt1 : � �� . . 0 _� � {, � p � � , � o .�, . : , o� : - , �, � . � � , , h _ . � �r �. _ �. � �:,_ � , � � /�_�t�� % � ��\�,��1�,'T`i /: �►,_ Y�' i �`...r., .� � :_i��ii ��1 � %i if�� i��t'� �� -o 0 o O. .� O — r= �" a � � - a `9 • o , _ �� , , � ' . w�w�' . o o , , � ; :. w��w"w"� � al �o J/!l111 tl J)�t i jfi" � �► � . 0 24.11 � �� v�� —� — ( : ! � � �' � ; �' �; � ;� � �� i �� : dl � � c1 9 �a �3 s� � � V• � � X � v � �' �, � f� � � � �j � �, � � � � d o �' � �, � � � � -� ,� �� ;s i ; jl � 3 � � v � �� s � J pJ o�i � � � �, „ # ' �� 'I ,� r�ovg eo�xFVNm PucE 4� a�►ss s s� 1 1 /2� 81'N1�10US s� 1 1 /Y 91nJMM0U3 �� 7R�TI,JCH T . -5+'3 • �a G ',- `. -��S:.r. �;'..!i3' 8 0 . 0 0 �v 0�� REMC•�l� EXI':'. ;;L P.B--•. _ '� — � LOTS 27 TH y' �J HYDE PARK, C, �. `= _ . ` .=� � K: I � � '� .� � � _ � , ;'� � i 1� ��`. � �;� � � � '�' ~ T I � \ ' A" � L, � � _+ TGP �T H�7 -..^. , o � MTION � , ..._— — in GP G9. ` t^ �� H ti � �� '� � + �.� � _� � ` � � I 8 0 . 0 0 ►�x PocE ow�e,w . � j.-►a A�LEY � � � _-_..__ __ –_ . .._ _.� ��Y- � �iNF�VY 0:�253 � �__, — —x— R X crwrr uwc ,� � �� "=�'` ,� I� vE. (s. r.H. rvo. 4�) i i _�: �.i , � _, !,_ `� _ `�C �Y i .7 � �3� 7t—�`. _ ` _ — �t � ��—� —A— , 6�.T _ _ _. _ . _ __. �� . �-. � � � . �g �� . . N � �_ �. i . :�� : :�. Lt_ �_ _ ) {�.; " Tr.'_!. — r� ��acKr�,L � � �, ; ; tr ��:r� ; � , ��1;� � � _ � '� �'`�.y� , r:�_�_• � r„o�oa,, . ;��n�J�J�!JL .�� L _ .�� r A i (_�, (ateR� FU�N15Ft _ '�'� ' —X •' -- C;1 `- --�-�,�� .... - ' � ''�_� t� --�� -- — �,�hK FE�i�:E __ ��.. ._.-- ----�— : :�.._ . I� � � � ' � I�: �. -�f- -.._,... ....- � � � I _ -�/ i �• �� 1�=� '�. c � > � z � � '� -�=– �� '�d �-� r.� w 0 I �-e. r c' �� C 0 � .� ... ,� .- � � L , �%z,c�/t'1� Lo-�- 1��' �7 �G u c. �� - � � d�' N . �I ,�.� i � �--- - ---_-- ----- � � �. I . - �ji. � � .. � � . � I • �J , W I 0 � I i ff _ � 1 �-- �-------�--- �.: � I,T ., "The piat abov 0 � �'�. ��k � v .. , L �;.os -- . - -------� _ . . ,. %- � . . . _ .W . . � ._ � t � � � Exhibit A t - Z � ti� / �� ; .� � . � . -- . � � -- � . L'� ' �s � 1 � •` � �1 � v • i j ; � � �- � � ;- �� c� v N 1� 'J ( �' Z ' � �' ' ----- ` '� —_ � /' ' � �.� .--- -�." - - . . . . _.. � . � - �� . �, � �� ! 'J t / � � 1, � . � I . . ._ . _ _ ._ . .. . _....-- - �--�� --� .-� -- ----� - �-0 =y' ; �_ •�. o _� . �� " ,�l � � /`J F ,� ST�,-- � �r►�,Yy ��7�-1 1 • ,I� � �� - 24.13 . . ' • •A �: � � �, , . �t�=::. .� � �� : � �� y � � . � !y i'4 ! ,�*^ y � _ .;: ,-,, f s.a-� s ' � Y M * � fxS s- ��'. � ' '. ` i �%� p �, • � � � ';° '�.� +' ' a "�S z� �v �,i . { �ts v`r s i i.- A �•,. �,.,& � z - � r �1�: �J� 1 -� ' i; c� ;�4 � ; , J� .� - - c � T.-. �� `�� j� f �.�:. �4 } � , ` ,Yc � �, � � � � �� i � � � � , r :: .' K . . _ � .z ...,_L. � r ` �. � r +t ts�; � - �� - .. ! ,z : .- � +T� ft �€ ' �, t -~ .� .:_� „ � j -� �r- � � � i,� �, . �. - r . °. r.�s:Y s -r>. i _-; arw.. rt^r�.' i.i , . _ ,.:s,• -.iL - C e~�; - �.R -,.-- -c . - r ., .�� . x,b. i..: - - �:7 '�4 � � S'! _ ` '' ,�C �: . �'k ''t�* �S,t� X?:,��..... ^..�?� -._ p. 1�►� P � NI �j 4��' ? �� ,e� F. � �= -�' � � *+jt 3`s Y � � �- - � , �Y n G'. Y. � r� ''y .Y� - �3� _ .a v _ c', A'' 3�,. _� �. �i. L' � � e • :5�> � �r� # t.. rz �� + i _ � r ��' �'7 �-` ,.y' K � ' $ ' �_�::� � - 4 � T= -� � s.� .. �' �+ y � - _ -Y,' '`' .�t•`��: ` • � �i y r`�r�;.� _� ; „�Y � � J§ � �. �i � / � -+�3 4' ' ��•'Y .. h .r.1 _ �_ � ` � .t p�` 4� �'' 0 a.� �' '�'. � � � � 1 � , - � .. _� � E � p �w � � � -:ti• f :.�� F � � ;" ,� � � , h XC � y�'! S`�+�i... � �� - �* - � .��"s � 't> s (r . � ; f4_ Y� '�� t. F j! � `' ' �' : � `<' �}j ,� '� "r .. R 4 � � .. t . r� c� �...i� � � �� t �.� � �.ln: � -_ � ♦. ft � �" � � a. j F�' i �i`E �r � , � `_ � � �� _;� � � � . # � � -: .�. � � � � >f a'f� t � - g� :� � *'..-��f = � � � f � � �a�;; �. � � �-s' �- t ,: � r -a�-- z �� - ' z '�$� r �' � � � � _ ,��° �� Y �-r �'- � �� - � �� "� `�� Y �� . y--� ��-� ,,� �: { �� , � . .. � . �.-- '-xi s . t `_ . +t t. � _ .. �z-' _ 1s' L .'� ��•--� � c.�}� �-'- s� -w - =;:� e e �' � }�i�?.- F' C,c - � � � � � � • '� � � : , `, 4� 4 ` � �-: i�, � ; �. � faM � r� . �, ♦'�� _o� _, 1 ss�,_- ..f� � '.�e.F . Z ,,,v :'�� . x °r"� =� � j-' f'°� � ' � ..� �.. ,. � � it i ��t�� £ >:� " i s i : 'i" � 1� h ��, � �� `-' :E; , �� l _ : � S [ r � z : . � - t k� � '� : Y � � � ' � �� . � j �` � W ' r '�� -� � ; :'� � : �� i1� "s � ,. M .;v�� . " ' . °' . �. , =: ; .. °�.. . �,r� ` E PETITION FOR VACATION OF REMAINING PORTION OF ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN THIRD STREET N.E. AND UNIVERSITY AVENUE.- SOUTH OF 61 ST STREET, AND NORTH OF 60TH STREET. THE THREE HOMEOWNERS AGREEING ON THIS VACATION LIVE IN HOMES WITH HOUSE NUMBERS 6017, 6011 AND 6007. SIGNED• DATE 24.15 / �� CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow a second accessory structure at 6291 Central Avenue N.E., which is in the southeast corner of Rice Creek Road and Central Avenue. The petitioner has recently constructed a new home with an attached garage (first accessory structure). The proposed second accessory structure is an existing 360 square foot garage which was built in 1973. The petitioner proposes to keep the structure in its current location, re-side, and re-roof it to match the new dwelling. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The square footage of the proposed structure (360 square feet) combined with the square footage of the first accessory structure (576 square feet) will not exceed the code maximum of 1,400 square feet. Because the petitioner was cited for lack of properly completing demolition work prior to constructing the new dwelling, a letter of credit is recommended to insure timely completion of the project and adherence to stipulations. The northeast corner of the structure is within inches of the three foot setback. The petitioner may either app�y for a variance or acknowledge that the structure must meet the setback if destroyed. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Staff recommended approval of the special use permit, SP #97-07, to allow a second accessory structure, with the following stipulations: 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. No driveway access is permitted to Rice Creek Road. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. A"double door" versus an overhead garage door shall be installed. 6. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building permit to insure timely completion of the project. 7. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998 shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission replaced stipulation #3 to read: "The structure shall not be used for a home occupation." Stipulation #5 was also amended to read: "An overhead garage door shall be installed." The word "moving" was deleted from stipulation #6. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. Project Summary SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk Page 2 � Petition For: Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation: Existing Zoning/Platting: Availability of Municipal Utilities: Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Comprehensive Planning Issues: Public Hearing Comments: PROJECT DETAILS A special use permit to allow a second accessory structure in excess of 240 square feet 6291 Central Avenue N.E. Part of Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22 16,694 square feet Flat Typical suburban, sod, trees R-1, Single Family; Auditor's Subdivision No. 22; 1939 Connected Rice Creek Road N/A N/A The zoning and Comprehensive Plan are currently consistent in this area. To be taken. 25.02 Project Summary SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk Page 3 WE T: SOUTH: EAST: NORTH: ADJACENT SITES Zoning: C-3, General Shopping Cntr Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Dwelling Zoning: C-1, Local Business Site Planning Issues: REQUEST: Land Use: Shopping center Land Use: Residential Land Use: Residential Land Use: Offices The petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow a second accessory structure at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. The petitioner has recently constructed a new home with an attached garage (first accessory structure). The proposed second accessory structure is an existing 360 square foot garage which was built in 1973. The petitioner proposes to move this structure closer to the new home, re-side and re-roof it, to match the new dwelling. SITE DESCRIPTION/HISTORY: The parcel is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Central Avenue and Rice Creek Road. The parcel measures 67' x 247'. Lots platted prior to 1955 may be 55 feet. Originally, this lot was 122 feet. However, 55 feet of the lot was split to create a second residential lot in the 1940's (estimate based on building permit file for second residential dwelling). As it is a corner lot, the shortest of the finro street frontages is the front yard (Central Avenue side). Located on the parcel is a recently-constructed single family dwelling and the existing 18' x 20' detached garage, for which a permit was issued in 1973. A building permit was issued for the new dwelling on May 28, 1997. A demolition permit to remove the dwelling constructed in the 1930's was obtained on October 20, 1995. The petitioner was cited for lack of properly completing the demolition project by not filling the hole left by the foundation. A bench warrant issued for the petitioner's arrest was recently dismissed given the petitioner's construction of the new home. A special use permit in 1995 for a second accessory structure was granted subject to three stipulations (see attached minutes). A variance was also approved in 1995 to permit an existing encroachment by the former structure. The 1995 special use permit 25.03 Project Summary SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk Page 4 lapsed, given the petitioner's demolition of the original structure and construction of a new home. ANALYSIS: The petitioner intends to keep the existing 18' x 20' second accessory structure in its current location. The petitioner proposes to re-side and re-roof the structure to match the new home and to use it for storage of personal items. It is staff's understanding that the garage is to be used for storage purposes and not to be a garage for vehicular storage. Therefore, the typical requirement for a hardsurface driveway is not recommended, and in its place is a stipulation to prevent access to Rice Creek Road. A detailed plan of the exterior of the proposed garage was not submitted, although the petitioner intends to match it to the existing dwelling. The roof and siding materials should match to the materials on the new dwelling. Further, staff recommends that a "double door" as opposed to an overhead door be used to minimize the garage appearance and to promote a more appealing storage appearance. Because the petitioner was cited for improperly completing work on the property and was slow to comply with requests for activity on the site, a letter of credit insuring completion of the project is recommended. It is also recommended that if the project is not completed by October 1, 1998, a revocation hearing of the special use permit be established. The City cannot automatically revoke a special use permit without conducting a public hearing. The recommended stipulation would speed an enforcement process. RECOMMENDATION TO THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION: Staff recommended approval of the special use permit, SP #97-07, to allow a second accessory structure, with the following stipulations: . 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. No driveway access is permitted to Rice Creek Road. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 25.04 Project Summary SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk Page 5 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. A "double door" versus an overhead garage door shall be installed. 6. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building permit to insure timely completion of the project. 7. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998 shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. �. • •.� � The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission replaced stipulation #3 to read: "The structure shall not be used for a home occupation." Stipulation #5 was also amended to read: "An overhead garage door shall be installed." The word "moving" was deleted from stipulation #6. • i • 1�• • Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. 25.05 0 Q ' O L_.J_..� � � r Nd. � �� Y �N�� I�LJ a M� a� � N�^ � r r � �N v N � I�61N C m � ,�W m�\ �Nm � � N� �Y �� 2i � O! �� z � t- U " a 3 N � a o � r.._r�' � � � w � � m I � J F � z_° � N � F � � Z i � � � W s � �� U F- � a . � I m " ° �j I v ? I � °� 0£ � � v� �` • r r. m ��^� 3,$0,£5�00 5 � --• 56'99 -_ - . _ , � � � ; _�� V_i �, u � � �F ��li om a I .', '\ M � � N M�.� � r-- 1�� Y�� A � o, ; � � � , ,� � , _ , � 5'Ll ��_ �,^ o �"W z 1 N � I � I �� 1- Ya_ LE'ZE -� Ii't(- ~. 9V'EZ � � .� �9tt `111f18SV o \\ � illll6 N O �0 iV m t \2 \N �` O 0'\\ 1\\ i p•L I ZO'£Z � o F o i \ \i-\� � � _ " o\..,....,�'\ �Ob - a� , � ^ p� m r � � � � W �y'5�7� \� \M��\I` � O N� N o O��O � `� m\ 1D � J m m a � \�m N I � '� lt N o � ��\ � � � � 4£'i m ZO'SZ N ��' ( � � � �' m - � N W U i � I W 0 a F � � Z uZ � Y �p aQ �. '-- � =p� um �� Q LL� � � Om _ � II U Z Z> W y u! m F W i 5'Ll .� �m N �� i �, �w X � �a 0 �w �� > \ Ol Q W � I� � � y �o e _ �� w > = a. _ �� ,� �. a M • I• I I i; ,'I�zr�n�n�dw�� --ZL'L9--- � � --�N154't98 M„tZ,65,00 N '�"`�'1Be i � � I I "�1b'S90 ' 959� 8an7 '�NO� tivrnadob snor,iwniia �. ---. o�saez � 25.06 55 w __ SP ��97-07 Paul Litwinczuk � �-� � `..� `_- � �� /� -� J � �� ,t� �� i�= , ,�- �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 PAGE 28 6217 Central Avenue N.E. Ms. Modig stated in her opinion there are too many issu s that are not resolved regarding the final plat, Outlot B, and e 30-foot easement. She ,is concerned about whether the City lows shared driveways. She is concerned about density. She ' concerned about the builder and talks with the neighbors ncerns are not required or signed on. She is concerned that e people on Ben More Drive have not had enough input regard' g the access for the road. She thought this had to go back to e drawing board and be redefined. Mr. Kondrick stated those are import t issues and he has no problem with the motion. If they t down to the basics, would we agree that Outlot B exists? If ' does exist, then it cannot happen and then therefore we wo d deny this application? Mr. Sielaff stated he would e in favor of denying the request because he felt there was nough information out there to make a recommendation. VICE-CHAIRPERSON KOND CR DECLARED TH}3 MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Ms. M ig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend denial of Preliminary lat, P.S. #97-04, by the Philip Stephen Companies, Inc., to res divide the property into six buildable lots for single fam' y homes, on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, gener ly located at 6217 Central Avenue N.E. UPON OICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYL, VICL-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DEC ED THE MOTION CARRIID IINANIMOIISLY. : Hickok stated this item would be considered by the City uncil at their meeting of October 13. 3. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #97-07, BY PAUL LITWINCZUK: To grant approval to maintain an existing 18 foot x 20 foot garage on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. . TI N by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICF-CHAIRPERSON.KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 10:12 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit request is to allow a 25.07 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 29 second accessory structure on the property located at 6291 Central Avenue. Mr. Litwinczuk has requested the speeial use permit to allow the continued use of an existing garage with 360 square feet in area. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, and is surrounded by R-1 zoning. There is C-1, Loca�. Business District, to the north and across the way is C-2 zoning, Moore Lake Plaza. Mr. Hickok stated a new dwelling was recently constructed on the property including an attached garage of 652 sguare feet. The subject garage was constructed in 1973 and is detached. A demolition permit was issued for the original dwelling in 1995. The petitioner was cited for lack of properly completing the demolition as the foundatio:i stayed as an open excavation for a period of time. The structure will be moved closer to the new dwelling, as he understands, next season. The structure will be resided and reroofed and used to store personal items. The setback because it is a corner lot must be 25 feet from Rice Creek Road and there is adequate space. A hardsurface drive is not required because the garage is for personal effects. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. Al1 grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. No driveway access is permitted to Rice Creek Road. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. A��double door" versus an overhead garage door shall be installed. _ 6. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building�permit to insure timely completion of the project. 7 Ms. is the Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. Modig stated, regarding the use of the structure, the corner very nice. The report states the petitioner will not be using detached structure as a garage. 25.08 PL�NNING CON�IISSION MEETING, SEPTII�ER 17, 1997 PAGE 30 Mr. Litwinczuk stated he wants to use the building as a garage with the existing driveway. The driveway for the attached garage is very short. There is not enough room for parking cars on that part of the driveway. If he has visitors, he wants a place for them to park. You cannot park two cars on the new driveway. Visitors must now park on the street. He wants to keep the curb cut and pave and keep that as a garage. He will reside and reroof it to match the house. He does not want to move the garage. Ms. Modig asked how they could keep the petitioner from using this as a garage if he wants to. Why do we care? Mr. Hickok stated two curb cuts on a corner lot is one issue and they are looking to avoid that. Mr. Litwinczuk stated the curb cuts are there now. Mr. Hickok stated special use permit in most cases is applied for before a structure is built. At that time a separate curb cut would be discussed and evaluated. Early in the discussions, it was understood that, because the structure is in a low area of the Iot, the petitioner is going to raise the structure building a short foundation wall below the accessory building. It is staff's recommendation that it be moved back from the lot line because it sits a questionable distance.from the lot line. Although it may meet the three foot requirement, it is right on the three foot dimension. It was staff's recommendation, based on that discussion, that if the garage was going to be lifted for a new foundation that it be moved, resided, reroofed, etc. Mr. Kondrick stated it is common to see a stipulation stating that there be no home business operation •in the accessory structure. This is not included. Should that be included as stipulation #8? Mr. Hickok stated this is a standard and he would recommend adding that as an additional stipulation. Ms. Modig asked what they would have to do to let him use the garage. Mr. Hickok stated the Planning Commission has it in its authority to recommend whatever it likes. If you want to allow for a second driveway, he would encourage the motion be structured accordingly. Ms. Modig stated the basis of her question is that the garage is to be used for storage purposes and not be a garage for vehicular storage. Why did you do that? Mr. Hickok stated this is a unique situation. narrow lot with two garages with two driveways direction. That is atypical to what we see on 25.09 This is a long facing one second accessory PLANNING COI�iISSION MEETING, SEPTII��ER 17, 1997 PAGE 31 structures. It has a street presence that is less desirable, in staff's opinion, than if it were modified to be a storage building even with the garage door width opening but with double doors rather than an overhead door. Ms. Modig asked if the petitioner could still put a car in it if he wanted to. Mr. Hickok stated technically yes. He could not park in front of it, but if it has concrete floor he could park a car in it. If he is going to use it as a garage, then their recommendation would be to have a driveway put in. Aesthetics is one piece of it. It is a relatively narrow lot with two garages and two driveways. Mr. Litwinczuk stated hc put a new house where it is because of the existing driveway cut. There is a driveway cut there now for the existing garage. The lot is difficult to build on so he set the house forward. The new driveway is short. He has 25 feet from the garage to the edge of the lot. He can only park one car there. If he has a visitor, they would have to park on the street. The detached garage is already existing, it is three feet from both lot lines, and it does not impact any neighbors. The neighbor to the east has no problem with the request. Her house is located back further. It does not impact any of the commercial properties across the street. He did not think it would hurt anyone by having a driveway there. The curb cuts are existing. Mr. Litwinczuk�stated he had problems with stipulation #3 because he wants a driveway access to the detached garage. Stipulation #4 stated vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface. If there is no hardsurface, he�cannot park a car there. .Stipulation #5 is okay as far as the siding and'roof materials. He wants the same garage door to match the new one on the house, not a double door. He does not want to move the garage. He wants to leave it where it is. He has just planned to have it lifted in order to have several courses of block added. He has no problem with the deadline. Mr. Kondrick asked if he had any problem with not allowing a home business. Mr. Litwinczuk stated that was okay. Mr. Saba stated the summary of issues in the staff report is not consistent with the stipulations. There is some modification required. The summary states the structure cannot be located closer than 25 feet from the Rice Creed Road lot line or north lot line and no closer than five feet to the east and south lot lines. Staff stated three feet was the setback and several pages later it states that three feet is okay. Which is correct? 25.10. PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING, SEPTE:L�ER 17, 1997 _ PAGE 32 Mr. Hickok stated a detached garage can be as close as three feet. It was staff's understanding that the garage was going to be moved in which case, with the drainage, five feet is the preferred location. Mr. Sielaff asked the petitioner if it was correct that the size was not correct. Mr. Litwinczuk stated the garage by the house is 24 feet x 24 feet which does not equal what it stated. That is 676 square feet. The staff report states 652 square feet. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was an issue wit'h #3. Mr. Litwinczuk stated they want to put in a driveway. Ms. Modig asked if they needed stipulation #6 if the petitioner is not going to be moving the structure. Is this needed? Mr. Hickok stated, whether the garage is moved or raised, $20,000 is the requirement. It is almost the identical process. Mr. Litwinczuk asked staff why they were asking for a letter of credit. Mr. Hickok stated this is standard. This can be issued through a� bank or an insurance agency. That is based on the value if the City had to complete the work or the project. Mr. Saba stated it is just to make sure that the project is done. Mr. Litwinczuk stated a special use permit was approved for the garage several years ago. The problem previously arose because the contractor had left debris from the foundation and could not get it removed on time because it was during the winter. This was in February. Mr. Sielaff stated this is not_based on risk. Mr. Hickok stated there is a risk for those issuing the letter of credit. If the petitioner does not perform it becomes essentially a loan. The City cashes in on that, completes the work, and the petitioner pays on the value. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a risk involved. Mr. Hickok stated, with the history, staff wants a bond on this proj ect . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. 25.11 PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING, SEP�??R 17, 1997 PAGE 33 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIID AND THI� PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:40 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he has no problem with the request. He would concur with the petitioner to allow him a driveway and remove stipulation #3. He would recommend replacing stipulation #3 stating that no home occupation or business shall be operated in the structure. He would delete the second sentence from stipulation #5 and state an overhead garage door shall be installed. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig; to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #97-07, by Paul Litwinczuk, to grant approval to maintain an existing 18 foot x 20 foot garage on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties. 2. All necessary permits shall b� obtained from the City prior to construction. 3. The accessory structure shall not be used for a home occupation. � 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hardsurface as approved by the City. 5. The siding �and roof materials shall match the exterior of the new dwelling. An overhead garage door shall be installed. 6. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a moving/building permit to insure timely completion of the project. 7. Failure to complete the project by October 1, 1998, shall constitute a basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DEC?�ARED THE MOTION CARRIID UNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hickok stated this request will be considered by the City Council at their meeting of October 13. 4. �G�.71 � C FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 2 1995 PAGE 11 Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that Mr. Kiewel has good intentions, but there is a potential that in the future, if the home is sold, someone may wish to convert it to a home occupation. MOTION� by Councilman Schneider to concur with the unariimous recommendation of the Appeals Commission and deny Variance'Request, VAR #95-23. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. �pon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the ��otion carried unanimously. � 15. VARIANCE RE UEST VAR 95-26 BY ANOKA-COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM ACCAP TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 24.6 FEET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE GENERALLY LOCATED AT 380 57TH PLACE N.E. WARD 1: Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this �s a request to reduce the front yard setback to allow constructic�^ of a garage. He stated that this is a"double fronted" property and is the best alternative. He stated that one change discussed was that if the garage was moved five feet, it would allow additional garage stalls and open space. MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the unanimous recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant Variance Request, ,VAR #95-26, with the following stipulation: (1) the petitioner shall install a hard surfaced driveway of asphalt or concr�te by October l, 1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon� a voice vote, Councilman Billings, Councilwoman Bolkcom, Councilman Schneider, and Councilwoman Jorgenson voted in favor of ,the motion. Mayor Nee abstained from voting on the motion and the j�motion carried by a four to one vote. 16. SPECIAL USE PERMIT RE UEST SP 95-09 BY PAUL LITWINCZUK PER SECTION 205.07.O1.0 1 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OTHER THAN THE FIRST ACCESSORY BUILDING OVER 240 S UARE FEET ON LOT 17 'EXCEPT THE SOU2'H 55.0 FEET THEREOF AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 22 GENERALLY LOCATED AT _ . __ _� �. Ir.��TT °f� � Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request for a special use permit to allow construction of a second accesetiy structure at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. He stated that the p tioner is prop�fs a�� ° car garage with a mast r bedroomaaboven and construction Mr. Hickok stated that staff recommended approval of this special use permit with three stipulations, and the Planning Commission concurred. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant Special Use Permit, SP #95-09, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall con- struct a hard surfaced drive of asphalt or concrete within twelve months of this approval of SP #95-09; (2) all grading, drainage and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner that will prevent detrimental runoff im�CJt o adjacent property; and •(3) all necessary permits shall be S��ined from the City prior to construction. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 2 1995 PAGE 12 vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 17. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL AVENUE BIKEWAY/ WALKWAY PROJECT NO. ST. 1994-9: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that bids were opened for the Central Avenue bikeway/walkway project, and three bids were received. He stated that the low bidder was Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $349,352.90. He stated that the City's estimated cost of the project was $280,000.00. / Mr. Flora said that the State of Minnesota is requiring the City to build a pedestrian bridge to State Highway standards. He stated he felt that by revising the present design, the bridge can;be a simpler design. He recommended that the bids be rejected, and this proj ect be re-bic; in early 1996 . / MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the following bids for the Central Avenue Bikeway/Walkway Project No. ST. 1994-9: Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $349,352.90; Forest Lake Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $361,734.50; and H& M Asphalt Company in the amount of $399,791.95. Seconded by ,Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to rej ect tYie bids and authorize staff to redesign this project and re-bid ��ii early 1996. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried urianimously. 18. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: i ,' � Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that there are several items to be discussed in the conference session. He stated that these are: (1) the Southwest Quadrant condominium issue; (2j the budget issue regarding personnel; (3) a fStonybrook Creek update from staff mediation meeting with the representatives of Spring Lake Park; and (4) evening hours on Tuesdays from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for�City operations. , - ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Regular Meeting of the Fridley' City Council of October 2, 1995 adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William J. Nee Secretary to the City Council Mayor 25. � 4 Znnirg Desigrations: � F�1 - Ohe Farrily lkiLs � 1�2 - Two Farriy Units � F�3 - General M�tiple Urtts � R d- Nbbile Hare Parks � PUD - Plarr�ed Urrt De�eloprr�ent _ S-1 - F'tYde Park Nei�borhood 0 s2 - �� a�a 0 G1 - Lnd Business 0 G2 -G�al �in�s � G3 - General Shopping � a� - ce�,e� arce � nIF1 - �t �ndustrial 0 NF2 - � �r�d�i� � nn,3 - au�doar Uxensiv�e F�vy �nd. e � RR - F?ailroec)s 0 P - Rblic Facilities Q W4TER f-1 PoGFiT-OF WAY u �■ � 1\1 I Chur 64 AVE NE 64 AVE NE z � W Z < $ �� . ■ Y �� I�B2 PL PE � �i y�pppYIJJ I�E _ � Y � � SP 97-07, 6291 Central Avenue The petitioner, Paul Litwin� requests that a special use permit be approved to allow the oontinuanoe of a 18'�0' detached garage. r �J �� 3 � �% _ ,'� � E {. Campi�ed and drau� finm oFfiaa� reoorrls b�sed On Orcinan0e NO�. 70 and Znning Mhp e�fediVe rabe 1/27/56 bgett� with a� arr�xing ar�irr ar�oes adopted and effecti�re as oF 2N 7197. TFIe Gl)/ Of Fridey tras talcen e�ery etfat bpro- vide fhe most u�rbtia6e in6orrrretian available. �� The City of Fridey will not be ��sible for �rforeseen errors or usac�e aF this doarnent. CITY OF FRIDLEY PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The Philip Stephan Companies, Inc., New Brighton, requests plat approval of a 7. lot plat on Auditor's Subdivision #22. SUMMARY OF ISSUES All lots in the Plat meet the requirements for lot size and width. The proposed plat, however, � has been improperly drawn in that it shows the development property immediately adjacent to Heather Place. A four foot outlot separates the proposed lots from Heather Place Access. City utility stubs are not located in Outlot B. The developer would be required to cross Outlot B to connect to utilities. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended denial of plat request PS #97-04. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve plat request PS #97-04 with the following stipulations: 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, the petitioner shall either acquire Outlot B, Heather Hills West and incorporate it into the plat, or provide legal documentation to certify that Outlot B does not exist. 2. Park fees shall be paid at the time of the building permit ($1,500/lot). 3. A$1,000/lot storm water fee shall be paid at the time of building permit. 4. Outlot A shall be changed to Lot 7. 5. A 30' street and utility easement shall be dedicated along the north property lines of Lot 6 and Lot 7(developer's proposed Outlot A). 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot 7, a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the driveway and the house. • 7. No driveway access to Central Avenue shall be permitted. 8. The developer shall place restrictive covenants on the property regarding maintenance of shared amenities. 9. A maximum of 3 driveways will be permitted on Heather Place from the proposed development (as illustrated by developer). 10. A demolition or moving permit shatl be obtained prior to the demolition or movement of the existing home. 11. Dedication of the 50' westemmost parcel illustrated on the plat for County roadway purposes. 12. All engineering issues identified shall be rectified to satisfy the City Engineering staff prior to final plat submittal. Including, but not limited to: * Services to Lot 3 are on or across Lot 4 property line * No services have been shown to Lot 6 ' No services have been shown to Outlot A . ' Proposed grading plan showing drainage west to CSAH No 35 (Cent�al Avenue) from rear yards 26.01 Project Summary Page 2 Petition For: � �• Location of ,� Property: Legal Description of Property: . . PROJECT DETAILS A 7 lot plat on Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, Anoka County, Minnesota 6217 Central Avenue Lots 20 and 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, Anoka County, Minnesota Size: 2.148 Acres Topography: Varied, steep slopes at north-east corner of property Existing Vegetation: Native woodland/urban lawn Existing Zoning/Platting: R-1, Single Family Residential, Auditor's Subdivision Availability of Municipal Utilities: In Heather Place right-of-way Vehicular Access: Pedestrian Access: Engineering Issues: Heather Place (pending outcome of outlot acquisition) NA Noted in body of report Comprehensive Planning Issues: This proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this parcel Public Hearing Comments: To be taken 26.�2 J ZONING CHANGE PROPOSED We, the undersigned residents of Fridley object to the rezoning of Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, located on the south east corner of 73rd Ave and University, from M-2 to C-2. Our objection to this rezoning is based on the additional traffic that would be generated at a residential intersection which is already highly congested and dangerous for pedestrians, bikers and motorists. Not only is this intersection used by residents and employees of nearby warehouses and light industry, but it affords direct access to the Unity Medical Complex for employees, visitors and emergency vehicles. The face of Melody Manor is changing. We now have more young families with small children whose safety will be directly impacted by the increased traffic. We, therefore urge the Council to reject the applica.tion for re-zoning. Name Address Phone ^--- • �� .i %• L' �� Co u n �, �i rh..,.{, �, � lI'I � n r%.->> Uv�- 13 � ?: 3 � Q� /yl ZONING CHANGE PROPOSED We, the undersigned residents of Fridley object to the rezoning of Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, located on the south east corner of 73rd Ave and University, from M-2 to C-2. Our objection to this rezoning is based on the additional traffic that would be generated at a residential intersection which is already highly congested and dangerous for pedestrians, bikers and motorists. Not only is this intersection used by residents and employees of nearby warehouses and light industry, but it affords direct access to the Unity Medical Complex for employees, visitors and emergency vehicles. The face of Melody Manor is changing. We now have more young families with small children whose safety will be directly impacted by the increased tr�c. We, therefore urge the Council to reject the application for re-zoning. Name Address Phone f1�� A "•p � 1 _- ,, CI7� Cavn,�ci� �.trG _ � luorv , l D-13 � �- 3� ZONII�TG CHANGE PROPOSED We, the undersigned residents of Fridley object to the rezoning of Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, located on the south east corner of 73rd Ave and University, from M-2 to C-2. Our objection to this rezoning is based on the additional traffic that would be generated at a residential intersection which is already highly congested and dangerous for pedestrians, bikers and motorists. Not only is this intersection used by residents and employees of nearby warehouses and light industry, but it affords direct access to the Unity Medical Complex for employees, visitors and emergency vehicles. The face of Melody Manor is changing. We now have more young families with small children whose safety will be directly impacted by the increased traffic. We, therefore urge the Council to reject the application for re-zoning. ^--- • ZONING CHANGE PROPOSED . _, We, the undersigned residents of Fridley object to the rezoning of Outlot A, Registered Land Survey No. 78, located o� the south east corner of 73rd Ave and University, from M-2 to C-2. Our objection to this rezoning is based on the additional traffic that would be generated at a residential intersection which is alrea.dy highly congested and dangerous for pedestrians, bikers and motorists. Not only is this intersection used by residents and employees of nearby warehouses and light industry, but it affords direct access to the Unity Medical Complex for employees, visitors and emergency vehicles. The face of Melody Manor is changing. We now have more young families with small children whose safety will be directly impacted by the increased traffic. We, therefore urge the Council to reject the application for re-zoning. Name Address Phone r1�� A Project Summary Page 3 WEST: S TH: EAST: OR H: Site Planning Issues: REQUEST ADJACENT SITES: Zoning: C-3 Zoning: R-1 Zoning: R-1 Zoning: R-1 Land Use: Moore Lake Center Land Use: Single Family Res. Land Use: Single Family Res. Land Use: Single Family Res. The Philip Stephan Companies, Inc., New Brighton, requests plat approval of a 7 lot plat on Auditors Subdivision #22. If approved as platted, the developer intends to build 6 homes facing Heather Place and a 7�' home taking access from Ben More Drive. The property currently includes 2.148 acres. The property currently is described as Lots 20 and 21 Auditor's Subdivision #22. A home (6217 Central) exists on the property. The home will be removed from the site. Seven lots have been proposed for this development. The developer proposes that 6 lots will take access on Heather Place and lot 7(Outlot A) will take access from Ben More Drive. C.hapter 205 of the City Code requires that R-1, Single Family residential lots contain a minimum of 9,000 square feet and have a lot width of 75 feet at the required setback. Lots 1-6 of the proposed development average 11,344 square feet. Lot 7(Outlot A) is 17,988 square feet. All lots meet the 75 foot minimum lot width. Chapter 205 also requires a minimum street right-of-way frontage of 25 feet. Provided the developer acquires Outlot B; Heather Hills West, all proposed lofis meet the required minimum. Without acquisition of Outlot B, Heather Hills West, the 6 lots facing Heather Place do not have street frontage. Outlot A, Heather Hills North, has a 28 foot frontage on the Ben More right-of-way. The developer will be required to either acquire Outlot 6, Heather Hills West, or substantiate his position that, "Outlot B, Heather Hills West, does not exist". The plat filed with the County Recorder's office shows Outlot B, does exist. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 26.03 Project Summary Page 4 The projected 1990 Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) designation for this site and its surrounding area is Low Density Residential. From a street frontage perspective, there is a realistic potential of only 7 single family lots. The 7 lot single-family redevelopment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SITE HISTORY The Skinner Home was built pre-1950. 1969-A permit was taken to re-roof the Home. 1970- A permit was taken to remodel the garage. In 1980, Brickner Builders proposed the Heather Hills development south of this proposed plats property (aka. Skinner property). At that time, G. Ralph Skinner, owner of 6217 Central, clearly was not interested in paying for a road that would benefit him in the future development of his property. Placement of the roadway to serve Heather Hills West was debated. On March 16, 1981, The City Council set a public hearing date of April 13, 1981. At that time, the Heather Hills West plat was approved. Initially, the City had evaluated an access to the Heather Hills West Project from Ben More Drive. The City ultimately decided that, with the length of the resulting cul-de-sac and varied topography in this area, an alternative access from Central would be most appropriate. In July 1981, Brickner Builders petitioned for street improvements, sanitary sewer, and water. Heather Place was proposed to�be installed to senre the Brickner development and to provide for future development of the Skinner property (Heather Hills North property of proposal). Much discussion occurred before the City Council regarding the timing of this road and Skinner's portion of the assessments. Mr. Skinner was not interested in the options available, including a deferred assessment. Brickner agreed to pay 100% of the assessments. Without the participation of the adjacent property owner (Skinner), Brickners would be required to pay an additional $56,110.00 for roadway and the associated improvements. On August 17, 1981, the City Council made the decision to allow Heather Place right- of-way to be installed entirely on the Brickner property. No assessments were assigned to the Skinner property; therefore, Skinner access to Heather Place could not be guaranteed. The curb of the Heather Place roadway and Skinner's property was now separated by a 4' strip of land which is owned by Brickners. Other access points for 26.04 Project Summary Page 5 the Skinner property are encumbered by either topography or separate ownership of the property to the north of the Skinner property. In May of 1982, the final plat for Heather Place West was recorded at Anoka County. The Plat shows Outlot B which is the 4' strip of land that separates the Skinner property from Heather Place, the roadway that serves the Heather Hills West Plat. The Brickners have been paying taxes on Outlot B since the plat was filed. Currently, the developer contends Outlot B does not exist. The surveyor for the developer has placed his signature on the line indicating that all elements of the plat before you are true and accurate. The 4' strip (Outlot B, Heather Hills West) is not shown. However, minutes of City Council actions and the officially recorded plat document at the County Recorder's office show this not to be true. The developer will be required to either acquire Outlot B, Heather Hills West, or substantiate his position that it legally does not exist. Staff has analyzed alternative access options, however, Heather Place is the only real access option for the proposed lot configuration. � NEIGHBORHOOD The setting is beautiful. South of the proposed plat, single family homes have been constructed in the Heather Hills development. To the east of the property is a relatively severe slope which connects to the Ben More/Kerry Circle residential neighborhood. To the north of the Skinner property is a series of single-family homes on large lots. To the west is Central Avenue. Proximity of these lots to the Heather Place neighborhood, combined with ample lot size and natural amenities would provide an excellent setting for an executive home development. Further, executive housing in this area would accomplish the objective of diversifying the City's housing inventory and providing executive "move-up" housing in the community. The average Heather Hills West lot value recorded in the City's 1995 assessment records is $40, 270. By comparison the Heather Hills West lots average 11,614 square feet and those proposed by Philip Stephan Companies is 12,293. Though, the lots are more regular in shape, they are very comparable in size. From a lot frontage on roadways perspective, all proposed lots will be 75', with the exception of Outlot A(lot 7), which will have 28' of street frontage. NEIGHBORHOOD/DEVELOPER MEETING On Wednesday, September 10, the Heather Place West neighborhood met to discuss the future development of the Skinner property at the corner of Central Avenue and Heather Place NE. The developer, Phillip Dommer, presented his proposal and explained the architectural character he hopes to create through his efforts. The other 26.05 Project Summary Page 6 purpose of the meeting as described by the developer was to, "hear the concerns of the neighborhood". The neighborhood voiced concerns about the following: lower priced homes adjacent to their property, the status of the 4' outlot, whether the developer will be staying to build, or simply platting the property to sell, whether the developer will honor the covenants imposed by Brickner Builders, too many homes, too many lots, a"townhouse look", number of driveways, building materials, and the developer's minimum landscape requirements. In response to the neighbor's concerns, Phil Dommer stated that was the purpose of the meeting. Dommer then asked what standards would be acceptable. There appeared to be a consensus and Mr. Dommer agreed to the following list of standards: • A$300,000 base price minimum for all 6 homes to be built • A single shared driveway between finro units (3 driveways total on Heather Place) • Concrete Driveways • No finro homes the same • Textured "Architectural Shingles" • Brick, stucco, stone and bleached shakes • Lighting in the front yard • Matching mail boxes • Landscaping plans prepared by a landscaping professional • An $8000.00 minimum tandscape budget for each unit • An entry monument at Central on the north side of Heather Lane " • An 1800 s.f. main floor for each home Mr. Paul Beecroft, 6199 Heather Place, requested that City staff investigate the potential of a"NOT A THROUGH STREET" sign. Staff has investigated this issue with Assistant Public Works Director, Jon Haukaas and determined that if the neighborhood petitions for a sign, the issue will be evaluated by an internal committee. If endorsed by the committee, a sign will be installed. OTHER STREET CONNECTION ISSUES As part of the new seven lot plat, adequate space for a street connection should be platted on Lot 6 and Outlot A(Lot 7) to provide for the option of a future connection to the north. Allowing for the street-to-the-north option at this time serves a number of purposes. It would provide for a future internal neighborhood link, provide an early alert to the Heather Hills North neighborhood of potential for future development (north), and new home/lot buyers would not be alarmed by a future road installation if a redevelopment plan were to occur on the properties to the north at some point in the future. The internal neighborhood street could eventually connect to Rice Creek Road if deemed appropriate with a redevelopment. 26.�6 Project Summary Page 7 Because of varied topography, it has been determined that a street connection to Ben More Drive would require a dedication of 30' across the north edge of Lots 6 and Outlot A. Dedication of that land, as well as the east 50' lot for County roadway purposes, will be required. ENGINEERING COMMENTS • Services to Lot 3 are on or across Lot 4 property line. • No services have been shown to Lot 6 • No services have been shown to Outlot A • Proposed Grading Plan showing drainage west to CSAH No 35 (Central Avenue) from rear yards • Proposed grading cannot affect properties to the north RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of plat request PS #97-04, with the following stipulations: 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, the petitioner shall either acquire Outlot B and incorporate it into the plat, or provide legal documentation to certify that Outlot B does not exist. 2. Park fees shall be paid at the time of the building permit ($1500.00) 3. A$1,000/lot storm water fee shall be paid at the time of building permit. 4. Outlot A shall be changed to Lot #7. 5. A 30 foot road easement shall be dedicated along the north lot lines of Lot #7 and lot 6. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot #7, a detailed grading and drainage plan and an erosion control plan for the driveway and house plan shall be submitted. 7. No driveway access to Central Avenue is permitted. 8. The developer shall place restrictive covenants on the property regarding maintenance of shared amenities. 9. A maximum of 3 driveways will be permitted onto Heather Place, as proposed by the developer. 10. A demolition or moving permit shall-be obtained prior to demolition or movement of the existing home. 11. Dedication of the 50' easternmost lot illustrated on the proposed plat for County Roadway purposes. 12. All engineering issues identified shall be rectified to satisfy the City Engineering Staff prior to final plat submittal. Including, but not limited to: • Services to Lot 3 are on or across Lot 4 property line. • No services have been shown to Lot 6. • No services have been shown to Outlot A. • Proposed grading plan showing drainage west to CSAH No 35 (Central Avenue) from rear yards 26.�7 Project Summary Page 8 • Proposed grading cannot affect properties to the north. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended denial of the plat due to unresolved issues such as: Outlot B, Heather Hills West not being included in plat, and the 30' easement. 26.�8 � R$SOLIITION NO. - 1997 A RBSOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT, P.S. #97-04, HEATH33R HILLS NORTH WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat, P.S. #97-04, on September 17, 1997 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the preliminary plat at their , 1997 meeting, and stipulations attached as Exhibit A; and . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves the Plat, P.S. #97-04, Heather Hills North, and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Plat as prepared by Comstock & Davis, Inc. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the petitioner is requested to record this Plat at Anoka County within six (6) months or said approval will become null and void. PASSF3D AND ADOPTLD BY TH$ CITY COIINCIL OF THB CITY OF FRIDL$Y THIS DAY OF . 1997. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 26.�9 NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR Resolution No. - Page 2 EXHIBIT A 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, the petitioner shall either acquire Outlot B, Heather Hills West, and incorporate it into the plat, or provide legal documentation to certify that Outlot B does not exist. 2. Park fees shall be paid at the time of the building permit ($1,500 per lot). 3. A$1,000 per lot storm water fee shall be paid at the.time of building permit. 4. Outlot A shall be changed �o Lot 7. 5. A 30 foot street and utility easement shall be dedicated along the north property lines of Lot 6 and Lot 7(developer's proposed Outlot A) . 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot 7, a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the driveway and the house. 7. No driveway access to Central Avenue shall be permitted. 8. The developer shall place restrictive covenants on the property regarding maintenance of shared amenities. 9. A maximum of three driveways will be permitted on Heather P�.ace from the proposed development (as illustrated by the developer). 10. A demolition or moving permit shall be obtained prior to the demolition or movement of the existing home. 11. Dedication of the 50 foot western-most parcel illustrated on the plat for County roadway purposes. 12. Al1 engineering issues identified shall be rectified to satisfy the City Engineering staff prior to final plat submittal. Including, but not limited to: A. Services to Lot 3 are on or across Lot 4 property line B. No services have been shown to Lot 6 C. No services have been shown to Outlot A D. Proposed grading plan showing drainage west to CSAH No. 35 (Central Avenue) from rear yards 26.10 u� i " ' .' i 2'--- - -�--� ;. , R1 � �:=-f �; � � ;� �l � f A1ElE -�-�� v�� --- � ivr � _ � � � R1-� , � 1 IiCECl�(ImlE G-iurcti ;. i : i liCE Q�( f�lE -- , � ---; � � � � ; ��_ �� 1 � � � � ZLXllfl9 Q�'{�OflS; � F�� - a,e Farriy urits 0 F�2 - Two Fartily lkits Q f�3 - C�neral Ntltiple lJnits � R-d - Mobile Horne Parks � PUD - Planned Urit De�eloprr�errt � s, - f-+,� �x r�yr,b«t,00d � S2 - �developrr�ent Distrid (� G1 - lod Busiress r� c2 - c� e�;� � G3 - Gener'al Stiopping e cR, - c�,� ar,oe � n�i - �.�srx ir�d�,� � rw.2 - � i„d�;� � N^3 - oudo« �nteru;�,e F�f�v,, �r,cl. � FZR - Railroads f� P - Rblic Faalicies Q wA7B� �1 PoGIiT-0E-WAY PS 97-04, 6217 Ce�tral Avenue The petitioner, Phil Dommer, requests that a prel i mi nary plat be approved to allow the creation of six singie family dw+elling building SItGS. - - - - / � `� f � �'AfTj7d� � �'dWfl �fOfTl O�1C1� f�000fd5 cb'iSEd i«, o�a�r,o� rb. �o �a z�� nn� �� , date 927/56 bogett� with all arr�xirg orJi� � anoes adopted and effective as d?I17/97. i vide � r � t�as taken e+�ery �ort b pno- Up-tO-�f@ If�OfTT1�Of13Y'dil8bl@. ��c .8 �1tCd itEB IS SIbJeGf EO Ch2f1C�'- The Qty d Fridley will nd be respor�'de far �o�ese� emas or �sage of Uiis doarnc�t. i � I , ; i W �-+ � a � �z Gi. v, �� x '� W •� ►r[�' r--� � � d a� �'-d ��1 o� • � \ �do \\', de �� ;�;� 2� �,,\�• � � ��i;/ � � \' \ ,\`` • ,�� `6 ,; 3; � \ — —\�� U � � oi d .� m a E �' o "' U�O� o �n ' � a�i C z aFi .G � �m �� ..� � O O� a�� qo a;G �°„'� V � � m �a � m a•: AF�z • U0.F �� e� ii9 8es / � h :/ y.�'n .a v �U // ii Z6'6f l ��3.9�.5405'�\ �\ � � ,\ � f_ V) W �\� `,' . �1 / � l �y� �g I� j W ci o p %� Y--"= — f,. �i � U , ' ��R--' /,, 68'6fl .-wY � � I •� �; J �� , i rP .- _�� ` II � oo d 69 I � � C� �' .��Jm� ��I� �.�I, I Pm W � !� I�V 1 I m �� _ � t,� _ � �� — Q m ' " , ZO.o� - — : � k x i.i �`, 1''1 I i� ! � : ! ., '• � � � R� �i �C::'�.r I � � � �- �� _� -� �; ;.. � � ;�, , . , �' i:��- 3�oai� �: i,;�� `x ,00s� � � i'° °213H1V3H � II �� N �_ , � I} �' �1 �� ` I n � OS �� I ��.«_90'OSl _ �_+ � i� s � i� LJ � i ?��- -��, r - , � � _ '� , , ; "'-� '` - << im�' � E, `_'� .� ��! i��= �-� :;� �� '�. . � � , e' � � i ;�',, � , � - ; - �� i :.� _ :e�os� r.y i=1:' ' - �. — — �.� ji t� i � _ _ -- J �t � �°n �---� �.... ...e—' :.��'� �: . ; '" �.� 3s - �. 3r.N3nv@I i 'g� �� ' 'ra1rv3J� i _ '' _. . _ �n.a:.� 4an _ -' � � � � 6�'OSL ' _ _ S£ 'ON HVS� 3f1N3/�`d 1V211N3�_ _ . ._ .''c: .,.,..,.,�`J.�,!',� 26.12 i 0 m � 00 � e 0 � .: 3 � F` o Nu° � �� m i � 1 � .i�— ^ ° Z < N o 0 i N zo� \'1 $� 1a� y ; _. . <HO 3 W a 3-� g�r ' > � s��o og '� � . v��nW w �°� 10 i Hoz � =1 �� _ _ �¢�� - �oW4 � � ° � ,� � wW � a�N< Y ° Nd'UVI � (�� W g Z . j �O� ti H y� G =r: � o =_ 9 $ �o'co fM'm 2 ° I �j�3 W� W o �. Wm�3 ' Q i � uoF� �� O j y i WaoQ� � = a , a2r� (� V. p . . m . I -� � � g ii x � _ ��_�' � W „y g '� �?�38 g �4��!' ` ¢ . � nnnnn� 0 rc I W �r � N vlyl p y� Q �„ < Q �� Q N q n� ^ I � �'�°nnn°n� m c °: z � ° � o h ; ,.�� _ � o � 0 o � _��.��o� o ; �s N � � g�� E� � �� s � c°-o: u �gu� i ggaV�� g�oe ��g�3a i ��'�5 L6'64 t // f 3naa— _ -� � � ° Z � S � i -� �� tl ( • M3Naa I a o� _ �.I ;o, — J � � i (� I N � O �p ' �o _SC0 3� � �^ � ry �� '� la U ��o o�� `--- � _ Js f— —�—nnaa��. _ _-_ =i. 66'64l - � I ; i i � � i � — ..-� - i. _ _-, _ � — M d � .'ti c� :; ' •••:♦ ''-. ;'� � ::'J }- �,�� ,_;; - �--gL"9z[' --- 00'Z9 00'�O� '° � •--9L'Z9/�•- .. j !V �, :y. ----� � '� � ----� � e Q� o� b r v °• � ----- h b ��y° �Q�� 8 I_..{.� -- — � � I i I I � � �N :� -- _ : h ya ��5 i "-' � R � � ^ o° v 0 f� � o � o�v ^ Z L.o p � Ee.nf ��'� �e H�"' � °`��' 03 p i6 s� o� � � � � : � ��tY L ti ��s. o00 �3c :� ` � Z h �o ir � �''' o.�► � r;,, ��o tb I Moo � ° a � 5•SZ � °w\D i av� u=' / �� N N I c�� J j'�aR;°oP��', so�; ar•y.�:Ea.,s . ti�I �+..s�, � =i" � �9 `e �. `pi.t � �1 6i�ss. R��.o� � 145 � v� oo ac,d. • , ati�� 9�6 s6 , � '1po 9 ai it0'6I. 6 �4� i ,� j.j �qq � ��,�.j . 0 0 '�t �.�°r iC o d'15 1�/o I ��'1 / ,H v p \� / -° : • - h' o • o „� : �� . .� o o . � 11 j$ o ...,` N v �°°i. \ ,� \ •._� � a � � •..i / ••g �c• • •� •,� � ;v ,A � :. i C ,o : N °/ �" \ �:,��_ � p ' h � � , � 4 4 F o V � \ N �i � \ ♦ � � /Z� SZo I 6 1 w / � � �NE� �--'� 1 � � � ° I � � , • � :S: vI�� ' v 1'-"-" l W,' .- '•� Z\�' ""a I� O V�. `�O Q _-a \ 'g �5 \ �wZ�'.f�'oS"S hV, b ��°O �u � I �I '^ � ��'ZO/ I O h o a. - �-- � I � i ;4 / � I �b� o � � -- v � ^ � I� .',..� � � / ( i � � . �V • � h� �O ti I � ,�_.1 �0 0�?.�`� � o a '^ � ��; �h'v � ^ /h^ � � I � �1 I � q \� � 4 � N� h � � �- �� v ��_. _`?- �J / F o v �V I -� o-'_ � d� v /'• °l'� po 'v° \ � � ,� _ � o ( °,� � -�- � / ` •3� i � o •• e� � 6`} � 1� O f ��.i I yo°oo 0o NI .°I � �o. D' �, � Q p �} - 9 0 ;. l�! t' �_ � d � � i�� '' �� i I � Fr ooYS 64'6� i oo t,� � o � R's° `°�z o 1�.io.6S os � N ' Fg'OZZ'��ZsV � bFIB � � • no1' � ZT.b�^ t, � I � ��i.� � oo�-�/J 9��Nl ��n 9 qti� ��' � �'.. � ti `'a'� O - � �� h � i � „�, o oos[ _•:�srr a:258'`'/ ` o' L..� �-...: ��, O fe � , ` � � `bP•zY a f.,� � �..__. °o ;c - r - : . 'v o ti� o I � °� � � h o '�r. �l °o `. Ih �9 � ,'~';7. 4� N N p� � � .� � o I �, L ^j ; �°` o °° ;� i ti � �I � W �! N\: I � .9 . ' � � � ' /Z SI I � � ' I _ � �ociz oo�ir /0 06 00'St/ FL'Z9 I� 7_ .. - �L'17F._. .._ — - p M.. S/,9�oON `; ,p ..._ ,. � �s//%/ �a'oJ o�aoW DL'lZF�. . _ �,. . •' r -..�_.t_ i ••.._. ._�• N ____ �s4_.:��i i./. . Mdlb' i✓oFl f/ �e�»s �° �i, �S f° au� fr��.., - OFFICIAL PLAT ON FILE AT ANOKA COUNTY 26.13 � i � _ _, I ... ...��- ..:. ..:� � . - . .�: ::; �._:'.� --- � ... . . r ` �, . I �.ez.«o os I - � - PL'8ZF - `_�'�� oo•z� ov•toi --- ...g[ •z9i... ....j•` — _ T ' . ;- I — — — `\^ -• 1 � � O h y. � ' "� V ef � �1 A ��'"�;..( _ :� � --=-, : e o e ,�6 � N o O = o. °� o p? , �a � �� v.,,' �rl,z, � N `., ---• -- : h q�' ��.5� � J � �� ~ . � ---. � h 5 b f � .�-� � ~ \ � � ° � e R � � � p. � o � � f oN ^ Z�o o� E�T{ �'�� a \ �� N � + � ti o� 'r�. a'c,Q�° Z6 s p� 0 w �v : / fy � � ��b.b} oo- \ 3� \ � �^ Z h � f i• �� i'r �•� � �'r:�- le� � � O b � o R� S.s� � � Dy I . � 4 \ ,� � Z v N �6 � �`►. � A B' o p0 � N e d' ' I � qRf��, ACS ��it �� 'r•a'_�� Fr, o� . ti .�+»6d,6i.s -`r O � T�- � �'t s 35• o ` . i w �ti°1 , 9ss'"s6 : R,tl• � 5,� k§ \ o0 os.�, p A � M ,1�.o a z%-� z. 6�5 � '3� ti q� �_., J .� p � � ti o �g • .z4 �1� � � �v O o � �� hti� ,�� o ,o� �� p O : : -. ,•.�� V��o o �• N � r \ \ :_..� � ^ . � ... Z '1 �± v V : .N,� e� � � , � `: ..._ � , ` � \ � � p 4 � � _ � � . ' o "� 1 � ' sz szo I e ti : � � ° � N "'? � `"�`-• � , 3 e � o h I � I_ � W� � , - � � 4 O � y h " '� -----�o °,,/ \ ��s t5�'' -....Z�,F�os'S � �'��. v � �_y � �n .1^ 4 \e0 I : I �.:_ �� . , . � �q•zo/ i �o� o i' a � — — �-- . � � � / � � �b� �. � . v ^ � Q. , �.• I � � ' ' � � � �' � �v � � I �m a e , -.;, �0��0��`� � o ' � V . \ ( , �. I u �� _ ' 'M � y� �� : A�t � V ° O � � :::, " ro I � � d � � .. h_ � � � � h ;-:; �� _ •. <ja oo ; v. '•.f p,l.. I o-' �O Q � O �V � � ;�.., :� I ooa'..�e a � / 84 �� 1� 3o I �� q05�0 o c N �� °c9 0 �� ,� � � - �L e�► Ia �� i' � N N� : � T— — o � -r � � �l � I Q Fr 00 %s 66'61 p o ..c- � o J � . �•S � i p 1 J../0,6SoDS � n f. � FAZT 4/� Z�P h I 3EZB ,. �% oo,s- 9a-i K ,� ' `�`' -' > �Nld� �/ ti � - ;.7_ � ry~ ��J � � \�� ' � h � � � O `..�'� ��r4.,�-- oo's� _ •;�ssjz � e�158�'/ /' ° , �-I �� . �: P� s— — � � � `a.z� .•�� I � '_•. f v : , o 0 _o 00 � � � � � o � 1,�: o I o .''�� o � � •., ' f p V � N h �` _ � . ., •. h V � � a► � � � . � c'.. � O I � R1 � v� Q � e� � . 1 �I N W � � � I J � � ` lZ SZ � � i Q � oYZ o0-sr /006 00'SZ/ FL'Z9 I� � ---- -- 76L 'L ZE --- ... a M , S/, 9�, ON � ,�. �, ` '�r//.'H �j'nJ aiooW O[ZiF>. . � -�'� • . . V -.�•_'t' ' ` "'' •- h ' x .:./ f,� _� � c. MdI�+ ivoFl F/ �'?y��s i° '% �S f° au� fs��/-', 26.14 PAGE 11 'o. 027R30 th rough 063V08. �te, all voting aye, P1ayor '.icenses as submitted and �ed by CouncilmaFl Barnette. . ared the motion carried •;CH 30, 19£31 TO CONSIDER : INCREMEMT PLAN: ^e the Community Development hearing for March 30, 1981 �rict and ta�c increment ' ioice vote, all voting aye,�� . , e action regarding payment �t-up and having someone �he felt they should ail �ng. Seconded by Council �yor Nee declared the mot g of the Fridley City Co 1 _ �� Willi J. Nee Mayor � fdE MIHUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF �I 16, 1981 �t IE�9ular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at �� D• �n. by Mayor Nee. � � Rt06E OF ALLEGIANCE: �or Aee led•the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to Ck Fl ag. =�ERS PRESENT: Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Mose Mayor Nee Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barn te :' 1EMBERS ABSENT: None '� PUBLIC HEARIMG MEETING, MARCH 9, 1981: iiit by Councilman Schneider to approve the minui touncilwanan Moses. Upon a voice vote, all vot' �aotion carried unanimously. IT10N OF AGENDA:. _ M as presented. Seconded aye, Mayor Nee decl�red or te requested the follo�t�ng �tems be ded to the agenda: (1) Consideration Estiaates from Smith, Juster, and Fe.ik a; (2) Consideration of Estimates from rlck and Newman; and (3) Receiving Co unication from Schoo] District No. 16 "Council Liaison. �II by Councilwoman Moses to ado the agenda with the above three additians. I�deA by Councilman Schneider, pon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee I�rtd:the motion carried��unan ously. ��' �_�, VISITORS: � • .. ��Jert;Seeman, student a ridley Senior High, appeared before the•Council �ofce his concern of_t decision made by the Council regarding the nature �ter. .He stated this. enter is now costing the taxpayers and when it was st prought fonvard, t was stated tax money wouldn't be used. He felt tl+e� tnvestment s ld be made so. that taxpayers could get a return in Poture. rerin Makie, tudent at Fridley Seni'or High, also indicated his concern rt the natur center. He felt there should be a golf course there and 1:�n lnves nt made so the residents can get their money back. xlloan chnei�der asked Jeff Seeman if he had ever been to the nature tt' he stated.he had several years ago. . �an Barnette asked the two students if they were.members of the Fridley � ea�xo which they answered in the affirmative. MISINESS: • NUTES OF THE_ PLANNING COMMISSIO�; OF PROPOSED PRELI�IINARY PIAT, P.S. HILLS 75 �id Ay Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on this proposed Ylfainnry plat for.April 13, 1981. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon tiotce vote, all voting aye, Ptayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously 26.15 f� � •� � �l �� :. � t � � � _.. . i RE6ULAR MEETING OF MARCH � � CONSIDERATION Of LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L, S. #81-01, 6229 CENTRAL AVENUE, BY THOMAS BRICKNER: • '� Mayor Nee asked if this lot split req�est should be considered in conjunction with the proposed preliminary plat filed by Mr. Brickner. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the Council could consider the lot split now or when they consider the p1At, whichever they prefer. Mr. Brickner, the applicant, stated there is some urgency in that the lot split is holding up the sa].e of the property owner's home on a contract for deed. Mr. Brickner stated, since this is independent of the plat, he would appreciate the Council giving consideration to the lot split this evening. Mr. Flora stated this property in question is just east of Moore Lake and Mr. Brickner wishes to split off the east 300 feet of Lot 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 22, located at 6229 Central Avenue N. E. He stated Mr. Brickner does have a purchase agreement from the owner to split off 300 feet of the lot. Mr. Flora stated�the Planning Commission has recomnended approval of the lot split with several stipulations: (l) That no building take.place on this property until the property is serviced directiy by a public street; and (2) That the property owner sign the'lot . split application. Mr. Flora stated staff has reviewed the.$tipulatio�s and ther�.,are fg4r,, additional stipulations the Council�should 'possi.bly consider. `These are as follows; (1) That a road easement be provided for the extension of Ben•� More Orive; (2) That drainage and utility easements be obtained; (3) That there be an agreement with the developer that he pay the street assessment; and (4) Payment of the park fee. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated there is really no problem with the proposed development, however, he wanted to make sure there is a clear. understanding by the present owners and the applicant, who is buying the property, unless all the stipulations are�met, the building permit would not be issued. He pointed.out, if access is not provided, they: would have a landlocked parcel of property. � Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Brickner if he understood the sii:pulations and Mr. Brickner stated he did and didn't have any problems with them. Councilman Schneider stated he has.seen some of the fine homes built by Mr. Brickner and is comfortable with this situation. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Cortmission and grant Lot Split, #81-01 with the foll�a�ring stipulations: (1) That no building be constructed and no permit issued until the public street is provided; (2) That a road easement for extension of Ben More Drive be.provided; (3) That drainage and utility easements be obtained; (4) That the petitioner pay street assessments; and (5) That the petitioner pay the park fee. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee deci-ared �e motion carried unanimous � v Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, s tabled to the April 6, 1981 meetin� he would recommend this MOTION by Councilman Schneider o�able this item to April 6, 1981. Seco by Councilwoman Moses. Upon voice vote, all voting aye, f�ayor Nee decl the motion carried unanimou y. REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH lo, � HOTION by Councilman Schneid Commission Meeting of Februa Upon a voice vote, all votin unanimously. EM A Mr. Flora, Public Works Direc� district and the applicant is : the rear of the lot to be usec furniture and to construct a .Hr. Flora stated the Planning recomnended approval with the be moved to the rear of the l �Councilwoman Moses asked if t 'the size of the garage in com stated they have requirement 'Nithip the appropriate limits. ` MOTION by Co wcilwoman hbses t Planning Commission and grant that the existing storage shed the new garage is completed. vote, ali voting aye, Mayor Ne Nr, Miller stated he was prese procedure from this point. Mr Hall for.a building permit. � . Hr. Flora, Public Wor.ks Direct� Street just in the south bound, convert a present single famil: stated owrrers plan on splittinc they will live on one level anc Hr. Flora stated the Planning ( provides better control by the structure, the zoning would'sti the property rezoned to R-2. Mr. Flora stated three persons I permit because they felt it was Mr, flora stated, after discuss recomnended the request for a� following stipulations: (1) Tf Marshall on the appropriate exi owners obtain the proper permii Councilman Schneider asked if � kcre to convert to duplexes, if to handle the additional capaci and, if it happened throughout problems. _ _ ___...._.__•-._..�......_........�....�,....�.�- -- _ --- � PUQLIC HEARING MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1981 PAGE 5 NUtiL[C HEARING ON FINAL PLAT PS #81-02 HEATHER HILLS WEST 6175 CENTRAL THOMAS BRICIU�ER: �=• tdOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing � and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voi all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the hearing opened at F3:30 p. m, Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the area in question is just east Central Avenue and south of Rice Creek Road. He stated Mr. Brickner has o an option to purchase a portion of Moore Lake Addition from the church and interested in developing it as R-1. . Mr. Flora stated this area was previously discussed when the Council appro� lot split several weeks ago above this existing property. Mr. Flora stated staff is working with Mr. Brickner for development of thi! and his interest is in preserving the beauty of the area and custom designi particular home to fit the lots. �4r. Flora stated a road will be constructed with two cul-de-sacs and a pond area to serve as water retention for this area. He pointed out, in conjunc with the Redeve�lopment Plan, they ere looking at possibly taking this parce connecting it in the future with Ben More Drive and possibly extending it t Creek Road. He stated, currently, Mr. Bri.ckner hasn't been able to purchas property for the continuation of Ben More Orive. hir. Flora stated, in orde provide sanitary sewer and water service to this area, the proposal is to a Ben More linto this area rather than providing the services from Central Avd Councilrnan Schneider asked how he would develop those lots, if he can't exp Ben More Orive. Mr. Flora stated the lots could be served off of Central Ai for only a short period of time and in conjunction with the Redevelopment P� the Housing and Redevelopment Authority may be able to acquire it. I�Ir. Qureshi, City tdanager, stated there is a plan the Council reviewed and'i when they developed the whole area east of Central to serve, basically, the' standardssbecause o f theeplateordinancetrequire�nt�regardingnthebeulede��t approvedX�there�wereetemporaryaeasements�ac�uy'redhandtae �at of Kerry lanei this area. He pointed out this plat would be improper unlesstano herdaccess' provided. � Councilwoman Ploses asked if it was part of the Housing and Redeve.lopment Autl plan that the lots would.be divided and the streets constructed. t4r. Qureshi felt this was one way it could.potentially be divided, if there:� consensus on the part of the property owners, and t{teG9ty.:�l.t.#his.w�the w�l Councilman Schneider asked thelength from Central Avenue to the tip of the�d A gentleman in the audience stated it was 654 feet. Councilman Schneidersq with5thise600ffoot�culhde�sacnrequirementeandtpointeduoutetheretis double � Ben More Drive. Councilman Schneider stated, if it is the feeling of the t�1 on Ben More Drive not to carry the street through,— he doesn't see a pressing Mr. Lyle Carpenter, 6258 Ben More Drive, stated, in talking with most of the extendedn BHe statedrthey wouldalikento9 eemittremainwas�itnis unless�iteis� necessary. He stated Kerry Lane is narrav and there may be a problem gettip� fire fight'ng e uipment, however, the lot' to the west of Ben More Orive d very quick�y an� might pose the same prob�em. . Councilman Schneider asked if Ben More Drive isn't extended, what kind of p. would it create for this plat. Mr. Flora stated the primary concern wouldb! sanitary sewer and water systems to support this plat and anything else that be developed. He stated, with extension of Ben More Drive, it would providE� easy way for extension of these utilities. He pointed out they can get sexer and water services form Central Avenue, but it wouldn't be as good a systen wnat could be provided by the extension of Ben More DrivP. h1r. Brickner, the petitioner, stated they are looking at 11 lots with single family homes and indicated he would not be totally opposed to the extension of Ben.Piore Drive in the futu re. He felt the primary access would probably be the entrance off Central and since Kerry is such a steep hill, the extens of Ben More Drive would probably be used much more. 26.17 PUBLIC HEARING hiEETING OF APRILI3, 1 I !4•. Wayne Welch, 6115 Woody Lane, po cul-de-sacs so the plat couldn't be He stated he had concerns about the 9ets smaller and smaller, however, h Ilr. Brickner's developments. Nr. Qureshi felt there should be som provide looping for the water lines. Nr. Brickner can acquire property, i go. He pointed out if the people di it would make a difference. Mr. Qureshi stated he felt it is a p to a aeighborhood. Ao other persons in the audience spo �IqTION by Councilman Schneider to cl 'Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice v� _the motion carried urianimously and t: 'PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQUEST, : :C-2 to M-1,8000 UNIVERSITY AVENUE R AND �Cp�ISIDERATION OF REARPROVAL OF PS �8( TABLED 4 6181 : 1qTI0N by Councilwoman Moses to waivf notice and open the public hearing. a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor � and the public hearing opened at.8:5: Nr. F1ora, Public Works Director, st� anG 81st just west of University Aver Council for consideration are a plat: requirement. Mr. Flora stated this � � year ago, but since it was not recc W the Council. He'stated the Planni conjunction wi.th.the rezoning, and ic bro together. Nr. Flora stated the primary concern staff has not received a drainage. pla Nr. Harris.has provided them with a 1 certain criteria which they feel woul particular plat, if it is recorded an knav what would be required for them Mr. Flora stated another thing to be approval of the rezoning. He stated aod Mr. Harris has a buyer for a port rezoning from C-2 to t4-1 of lots 1:, 9 requesting a variance of the front ya to 35 feet because this P1-1 property Nr. Flora statEd the development is f canstruction of a building and the gr esscntia]�y detain the water to incluc some going to the property to the so� supports Mr. Harris' reasoni:mg to deve to address itself independently for N. PAGE 5 ��i TJBLIC HEARING MEETIPlG OF APRILI3, 1981 PA6E 6 K ni�� wtST 6175 CENTRAL A1 ' : 1M. Wayne Welch, 6115 Woody Lane, pointed out the 600 foot requirement for ding of the public hearing nc al-de-sacs so the plat couldn't be approved because of this requirement. ilman Barnette. Upon a voice -;•� stated he had concerns about the open acreage behind his home, which arried unanimously and the p 4ets smaller and smaller, however, he has heard sane favorable comments on � IOr. Brickner's developments. �a in question is just east � stated Mr. Brickner has o idition from the church and �sed when the Counci 1 approve� property. ner for development of thisp the area and custom designi�y two cul-de-sacs and a pondt He pointed out, in conjunci possibly taking this parcel and possibly extending it to nasn't been able to purchase �tr. Flora stated, in order area, the proposal is to ca e services from Central Aven those lots, if he can't ext� be served off of Central AN on with the Redevelopment P1� �le to acquire it. � the Council reviewed and ; il to serve, basically, thel > plat would not be meetin9l ant regarding the. cul-de-sac; rhen the plat of Kerry Lane� i and a plan to provide acta �roper unless another access wsing. and Redevelopment Aut �ts constructed. - ially be divided, if therei i tue�ity`elt�his.wasthe w� Avenue to the tip of the c t. Councilman Schneiderst He further stated he has a� nted out there is double aa it is the feeling of the re , he doesn't see a pressing in talking with most of the hey would not like to see& nain as it is unless it is� �re may be a Problem getti�g west of Ben More Drive drq : extended, what kind of pr� :he primary concern would be �lat and anything else that� �re Drive, it would provide� �nted out they can get sesrer ,ldn't be as good a systena •e Dri ve. ing at 11 lots with single � opposed to the extension �ary access would probably h a steep hi 11 , the extens� IOr. Qureshi felt there should be some plans or direction to proceed to .:Orovide looping for the water lines. Councilman Schneider stated, until Itr. Brickner can acquire property, it is diff�icult to say where Chey would 90. He pointed out if the people directly to the north don't want to sell, it would make a difference. Nr. Qureshi stated he felt it is a prudent approach to have double access to a neighborhood. , . to Other persons in the audience spoke regarding this proposed plat. lUTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by Louncilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motian carried un,animously and the public hearing closed at 8:55 p. m. ZONING REQUEST lqTION by Councilwoman Moses to waive the reading of the publi hearing eotice and open tt�e public hearing. Seconded by Counciiman rnette. Upon ivoice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee decJared the�motio carried unanimously �nd the public hearing opened at 8:57 p. m. l6r. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the area in estion is between 79th md 81st.just west of Unfiversity Avenue. He stated e items before:-the • Council for consideration are a plat, a rezoning, d a variance on the setback riequirement. Mr. Flora stated this plat origina y came before the Council about i year ago, but since it was not recorded in 1 da�ys, it requires resubmission to the Council. He stated the Planning Comni ion did review the plat, in ba�junction with the rezoning, and identifi a number of items that tied the bro together. : Flora stated the primary concern w the drainage. He stated, to date, aff has not received a drainage pl for this particular plat, however, . HarM s has provided them with a e�*.^r which, in paragraph 1, establishes rtain criteria which they feel uld handle the drainage question for this rticular plat, if it is recor d and documented so all future owners would aw what would be required fo them to handle the water. lir..Fl ora stated another t ng to be addressed was the landscaping and final ,�pproval of the rezoning He stated the plat has M-1 zoning and C-2 zoning uid Mr. Harris has_a b er for a portion of the property and is requesting ,rezoning•from C-2 to -1 of lots 1:, 9, and 10. He stated they are further requesting a varian of the front yard setback from the required 100 feet to 35 feet becaus this P1-1 property is across the street from residential. Nr. flora stat the development is for Lots 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 for tmstruction f a building and the green area, as shown on the map, would ess�ntial:7y etain the water to include some water in the parking area, with same goi to the property to the south. He stated this particular development support Mr. Harris' reasoni:mg to develop a plat where each parcel would have to ad ess itself independently for water detention. 26.18 � :� 3�;� . �:. �_. � i � � 2 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1981 Mr. Harris stated he appreciated the fact the Council wi11 under advisement and, hopefully, he will be treated fairly. RATION OF FINAL PLAT, PS #81-01. MI PA6E 5 take__this matter J. H Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this cel of property is located in the Great Northern Industrial area, just st of East River Road and south of I-694. He stated the property ' cludes a triangular piece, which was shown on a map, and is part of th ntire parcel Midwest Printing bought from the railroad. Mr. Flora stated it was not ssible to record this small triangular piece of prope�rty at the Count ecause they didn't have a legal description, therefore, this plat ' requested to define this portion of property so it': can be recorded. MOTION by C Addition. aye, h or cilman Fitzpatrick to approve the final plat, PS �81-01, Midw econded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all votirg Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 3 CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PLAT PS #81-0 2 HEATHER HILLS WEST 6175 CENTRAL AVENUE, THOMAS BRICKNER: Mr. Flora, Public Wo rks Director, stated this property is east of Old Central, between Rice Creek Road and Gardena. He stated the plat consists of il residential lots with two cul-de-sacs off Central Avenue. Mr. Flora stated the Planning Comnission has reviewed the plat and has recommended approval. Mr. Flora stated the item that was not addressed is the development and assessrr.ent of costs for the road improvement, sanitary sewer, and water services, which will essentially be serving the.property outside the plat, and the potential connection to Ben More Drive. Councilman Schneider pointed out that two-thirds of the people on Ben Ftore " Drive indicated they didn't want.6en More Drive extended.� He stated he ;�i `rTe'spected staff's opinions, but.would hati� to get into a sfituation sarse time. in the future that the Council ap�roved this plat and approved the � extension of Ben P1ore Orive. . � Ftr. Flora stated the City's plans were for the eventual extension of Ben (,�ore Drive to Central Avenue. He stated, when Ben More Drive.was being �' constructed, the church that owned this parcel objected to further extensia' so it was terminated. He pointed out now that the parcel is being developeE,' it fits in to add the com ection to the street: t-�r. Flora stated, currently, the City can bring water off Central to se�rvia this, parcel, but it is only fran one direction and it is more purdent toput in water from tvro directions and the most logical place to service this arN is the line that is terminated at the end of Ben More Drive':. Councilwoman Moses asked if the service is affected if it comes only from Central Avenue. Mr. Flora stated the line, essentially, becomes a dead li� and if there is a water break, then everyone is out of service, but if they can service from different directions, service could be continued. Councilman Schneider stated he is concerned about naming a street that may,� in fact, not continue. Mayor Nee asked about the names for the cul-de-sacs, since one is shown as G�enn Oak Circle and the Ci�y currently has a street called Oak Glen, and felt this may pose a problem. 26.19 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 20, Nr. Brickner stated he didn' ue quite a distance apart, name could be changed. Mr. md he didn't care, either w Councilman Schneider asked i if Bert More Drive.w�asn•`t exte� standpoint, it would be bett iE may be better not to have building lot, but he is not : tveryone concerned. cilman Schneider stated t ng off Central as Ben Moi Ik. Qureshi, City Manage r, si �rea and the major concerns r iooping.y if Ben More Drive w� scheme or plan for that area 1Wyor Nee stated he would lik wDmitted at a conference mee Councilman Schneider stated h for the water looping and tha far for the extension, other direction has to be provided Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, al �ffect other properties and a �ssessed. Counci lwoman htoses asked who + stated, in the past, the City tbis would be the way he woul� tbe property owner to the now Ais property would benefit gr� Nqyor Nee stated, as he under. �19ht-of-way. :t. IDTION by Councilman Schneide� Yest, contingent upon the str� nnamed in accordance with an� �nd Post Office and,•secondly: ipecifically not be named Ben Or any references to Ben Mo�re. Mr. Wayne Welch, 6115 Woody L� aprovements. Nr. Qureshi , Ci ty Manager, thc toncerned with would be for dr designed properly, it would hc md there would be no need for aent where Mr. Welch would be UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE declared the motion carried un cil will d fairly PAGE 5 ". take this matter ��: DITION, LOUIS J. HAMLIN• �'' el of prpperty is located �� f East River Road and triangular piece, which 1 Midwest Printing bought ;�. s small triangular piece a legal description, �rtion of property so it �� i_�� i6ULAR MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1981 PAGE 6 Mr, Brickner stated he didn't feel this would be a problem since the streetS ue quite a distance apart, however, if Co�cil feels there is a problem, the name could be changed. Mr. Brickner also stated he lives.on Ben More Drive md he didn't care, either way, if Ben More Drive was or was not extended. Councilman Schneider asked if he saw any problem with his development, if Ben More Drive.wasn•'t extended. Mr. Brickner felt, from the C1ty's standpoint, it would be better to have the extension, but from hiS standpoint, 1t may be better not to have it extended, as it may give him an additional Duilding lot, but he is not sure this would be in the best interests of ' everyone concerned. Councilman Schneider stated he doesn't, at this time, want to name the street caning off Central as Ben More Drive. �al plat, PS �81-01, Midwest• `�• Qureshi, City Manager, stated the City has s ane overall plans for this a voice vote, all votin � area and the major concerns would be only one access and the water line 9"� ` iooping�, if Ben More Drive wasn't extended. He stated there is a total :sly. -s •. scheme or plan for that a�ea and felt those issues .should be addressed. _LS WEST, 6175 CENTRAL �` :,� Nayor Nee stated he would like to see the plan and asked if it could be '� ; submitted at a conference meeting. �rty is east of Old ,. Cauncilman Schneider stated he doesn't see the requirement for the road orrly tated the plat consists -- ` for the water looping and that is the only justification he has heard so t ral Avenue. '�' , far for the extension, other than dual access. Mr. �'� Qureshi stated some ed the plat and has � ` direction has to be provided in regard to the water looping. the development and ary sewer, and water perty outside the plat, the people on Ben More ended.� He stated he to a situation sorre lat and approved the �ual extension of Ben 4ore Drive was being ;ted to further extensi �arcel is being develop �r off Central to service it is more purdent to put lace to service this area ^e Dri ve': . Itr�. Qureshi, City Manager, also pointed out this plat would, potentially, affect other properties and according to the City's po7icy, they would be usessed. • fauncilwanan htoses asked who would be putting in the road. Mr. Brickner stated, in the past, the City has•put in the improvements and, in this �ase, this would be the way.he would want to proceed. He stated that Mr. Skinner, the property owner to the north, is in favor of this devlopment and is aware his property would benefit greatly by this road and that he would be assessed. Mayor Nee stated, as he understands it, they are presently talking about a right-of-w�y. . IqTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the plat, PS #81-02, Heather Hills Yest, contingent upon the street names being removed and the cul-de-sacs renamed in accordance with any requirements of the Police and Fire Departments and Post Office and,�secondly, that the east/west access coming off Central specifically not be named 8en More Drive, Ben More Circle or Ben More Court or any references to Ben More. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. l6�. Wayne Welch, 6115 Woody Lane, questi;oned if he would be assessed for dnprovements. if it comes only from �� ' Nr•.Qureshi, City Manager, tfiought the only possible assessment he could be �lly, becomes a dead line'� .toncerned with would be for.drainage. ._ fe.t, however, if the drainage is of service, but if the � designed properly, it would hold all the water this property is receiving Y��`� �.: and there would be no need for an outlet. He stated, if there was an i i be continued. � �.cent where Mr. Welch would be assessed, he would receive a notice of hearinge iming a street that may, � ,: pppN A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee _ ` declared the motion carried unaniinously. , since one is shown as � : called Oak Glen, and 26.20 � 4�.1 REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1981 PAGE 7 � BEGULAR MEETIN6 OF APRIL 20, 198] Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated there is also the question of the park fee. h1r. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the requirement is that 10%..of the,land b e given rfor park purposes or a cash donation of �0% of.the value_of.t6e� land. He stated the Councid has, in..the past, allowed the park fee to be: collected at the time the building permit is issu2d. r�,� ;, : h1r..Br.ickner stated he would prefer the option�of paying the park fee at the time the building permit is issued. Mr. Brickner was �requested to submit;a letter, to thi1s efiect,� regarding payment of the park fee. FIRST READIN6 MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to waive the reading and approve the upon first reading. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voi all voting �ye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.. ION OF REZONING Councilman Schneicler stated, af.ter the action of the Counc' last week to deny this rezoning.request, �1r. Burandt co.ntacted him an anted verificatioe on the action taken. He stated Mr. Burandt indicated h didn't receive notia of the prior Council meetings, and is present here thi evening and perhaps should explain. Mr. Burandt stated he talked to the City the day fore the Council meeting. He stated he was under the impressioni�that the r oning had taken place. Mr. Burandt stated he never received any noti s, and felt they were possibl� sent to the property address, and not his p ce of residence. He stated he took the action of the Planning Comnission s approval. Councilwoman Moses asked how he was not' ied of the public hearings before th� Planning Cortmission. Mr. Burandt tated, when he made the application, fie was told when the meeting would b held. • Councilrnan Ftizpatrick asked if h attended the hearings before the Planning Commission and at those meeting if he wasn't advised what would be taking place to which Mr. Burandt ans red in the affirmative. Councilman Schneider stated he word from staff was that Mr. Burandt was contacted and that he was ware of the meeting. Councilman Schneider a ed Mr. Burandt what was his intended use of the property, if it is re ned. Mr. 8urandt stated he wanted to refurbish the property. He s ted there was a fire in the dwelling so he has gutted it and there was n insulation and it has to be reworked and landscaped. Councilman Schn der pointed out one of the comments made by staff at the public hearin was, if the property is to be rezoned to cortmercial, they didn't think he structure should be remodeled and used as a comnercial building. Mayor N� felt if the Council is inclined to reconsider the denial of the rezoning> they should probably have all the material presented to them agaia 26.21 Councilman Schneider stated his t a rezoning, unless there is a sti Nr. Burandt stated it is not ecor. be to reomdel it and use it as a 11r. Qureshi, City Manager, stated there is a commercial use intende it. He stated if there is a need it should be rezoned from R-3 to built for that purpose. Mr. Burandt stated he would like of remodeling the structure. He feasible to tear it dow�, and he because as it is now, it is an ey� NOTION by Councilman Schneider to f80-02 as filed by Ted Burandt arn neeting, with submission of all tl request. Seconded�by Councilwomai Councilman Schneider stated when 1 support the rezoning, he would war comnercial building constructed. Hr. Burandt was asked his address Nr. Qureshi asked if psrsons in tF Council felt they should be notifi for consideration. • UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABO declared the motion carriect unania NEW BUSINESS• RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE`PLANN FqTION by Councilman Schneider to Heeting of April 8, 1981. Seconde all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE CHART! l�TIOt� by Councilman Fitzpatrick t� Neeting of March 3, 1981. Seconde� Councilman Schneider stated there ► redrawing of ward boundaries 30 da� pointed out the opinion recei:ved fi this time period, and staff was rec Attorney to the Charter Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE AB01 declared the motion carried unanimc �RECEIVING PETITION # 1-1981 FROf4 P( FqTION by •Councilman B.arnette to re Schneider. . Upon a voice vote, all tarried unanimously. PAGE 15 permi t, SP #81-05 base� patible with the �er. UPON A ROLL CAL� r voted in favor of th�- �man Moses voted againi! -rni t, SP #81-05. Seca :ilwanan Moses, Council tzpatrick and Councila :D THE MOTION FAILED AS RRY. ft an ordinance to th! lexes in .an R-1 zone. Counci,lman Schneidec� ; rick voted in favor of ion. Mayor Nee declan mnendation of the Ap� ht of a wall sign fr� ood Shoppi ng Center,. the same being 6225', ?� a voice vote, a11;; imously. �;- s of the Planning icilman Schneider. :he motion carried ��6ULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4, 1981 PAGE 16 � JUilON by Councilman Schneider to au ri �tohire Doug Hedin, with a separat fund to accountlforethe�fees bemn�ssion lor the refranchising. Seco�ided 9 paid �.�ilvoting aye, Mayor Nee uec edytheumotion�carriedtunanimouslyvoice vote, k ptp�ISIDERATION OF RE UEST FOR DIVIDING PARK FEE AND APPLYING TO INDIVIDUAL ftTS BY THOMAS E. BRICKNER: �`IDIION by Councilman Schneider to grant Mr. Brickner's request regarding �k`tAepark fees for Heather Hills West and direct staff to draft whatever gal agreements are necessary to provide potential buyers;of tte property "�ith notice of the park fee. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a � �lolce vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimous7,y. diISIDERATION OF ANOKA COUNTY LAW ENFORECMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR U AID: �r.Hill, Public Safety Director, stated he is recortmending approval of ,lolnt Powers Agreement and stated they nov�sractual ly cross boundary 1 ines �ien emergencies exist, but there is concern, and this agre�ment would kgalize that operation. h10TI0N by Councilman Schneider to authorize t decution of the Joint Powers Agreement for Mutual Aid. Seconded.by o qrnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the ot csRied unanimously, th i ion ilman w�•��N+� ivir �r urttcH11UR0 LIABILITY INSURANCE: t. Nerrick, City Attorney, stated he has worked with Mr, Hil and met tivith tlk City's present insurance.agents to discuss this matter •th them. He stated k is in favor of it, bu� whether this is the right time act he supposed tiis a calculated risk to wait until the next insurance idding. He stated k had a question if this type of insurance, with this articular company; '' as one where the City might have a deductible and if t would make any flfference in the premiums. ir:Y . ':6Ni11, Public Safety Director, stated he su cause they are proposing the E500,000 limit. ductibles, only the pro-rating. ,N AMOUNT NOT TO �r Nee felt they should receive a report ri lone on this item within the next several eek< ;�• li[EIVING COMMUNITY RECREATION BUILDIN EEDS � the Cable.Televisio�. ilman Schneider. '- Ais item was discussed earlier in t meeting. e motion carried `'" ,. - ed this was not the case stated they did not discuss staff, but would like to ase port-a-pak . ? lOiION by Councilman Schneider to authorize the execution of Agreement ^ed from where these �tracts Nos. 67 and 191 wi the Metro Waste Control Commission. Seconded Councilwoman Moses. Upo a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared fAeaation carried unanimo sly. easy to operate, �ublic access is a �een times when om a need for it. Television Commiss 'ION by Councilma �Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 58-1981, and authorize 1Councilman Ba t tte9reUpontaWVOicehvotea9a11� otingeayea MayorSNeesdeclared motion carri d unanimously. 26.22 y , _ _�•� � �� ` � PE ;' Y a ra;�� :AM1 BOOAU! �u PEA$ �o� ��-�� ;BOORUI ;� PEAS� i: '` `�� ; . � ��o ��I "' .: y BODAUI '� nr �c PFJ � PAGE 5 en a junker and a classic. chase a license for a classic i. .: r A�ELIC HEARING MEETIPJG OF JULY 13, 1981 PAGE 6 k. Qureshi, City Manager, explained certain criteria had to be met for these Slock grant funds and this project met these standards because it provides services to low and moderate income groups. / ' (ouncilman Fitzpatrick questioned on what the $280,000 in block grant f ds plates, you cannot get a ��d b e spent. M�r. Qureshi stated it would be used for acquisitio f lained, in his situation, he P�operty in the tax increment district for purposes of redevelopmen . He � streets and highways, and stated�itis hoped, if there is a full development, it will bring lot more :o make them which wi11 involrt. �x revenue than what they would be spending. ,�'' � touncilman Fitzpatrick stated that evidently considerations ent into this probably look at some changes,' �t he wasn't aware of, but he had no objection to using ney in this way ordinance and investigating � ;� stated, however, comnurity development block grant fu s could be used ;,for things that come up where there are no other funds� vailAble. is describe an actual junker �r. �e this way that.the vehicle 3tion by the Inspection. �llector cars or classics. >ssic, his neighbor may �ighbor files a complaint, , > problem. problem by keeping a and patience, but felt � and City time. ''�6 MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1981; minutes of the Cable Televi y Councilwoman�Moses. Upa i the motion carried unani�c contacting the owner of Ri� able to contact him. I �f OF FRI rance in early September contract of friendship. Mayor to execute the cont urmies, France. Seconded voting aye, Mayor Nee �r him to take to Fourmies, �t Pledtronics to advise the� �idEEN THE HRA ANO THE CITY �TION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to authorize the to disperse these funds from the community development blook grant ogram. Seconded by Iouncilwoman Moses. f�yor Nee questioned if there was a way thes funds could be returned to U�e City at a future date, when it becomes conomically viable.. k. Qureshi stated he would suggest thi item be tabled until ttay could .tAeck into the matter further. !I . -- ,lOTION by Councilwoman Moses to ta e this item for further research by .'staff. Seconded by Councilman S neider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, - .kyor Nee declared the motion c ried unanimously. TE CURB AND . Flora, Public Works irector, stated the concrete slab reconstruction at • eintersection of E t and West Danube Roads utilized the majority of the i9inal contract of 47,757.50 and Lhere still remains concrete curb work be accomplished his year. He requested, therefore, the Council consider . proval of chan order No. 1 to the original contract to allow this work ' be compl ete - ION by C ncilwoman htoses to approve Change Order No. 1 with Halvorson st►vct n for miscellaneous concrete curb and slab,construction in the �nt $11,925.00, which changes the originalcontract price from ,1 .SJ to a revised contract price of $50,682.50. Seconded by Councilman �der. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye., Mayor Nee declared the motion ried unanimously. -19 -1981 ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPC�t`f, PLANS AND 5?ECIFICAT ION by Councilwoman Moses to receive petition No. 6-1981:. Seconded by ncilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee lared the motion carried unaniously. itted to the Council showed':�` ��• Flora, Public Works Director, stated he has been in contact with the two �nt financing and questioned_> -� Perty owners involved, Mr. Brickner and Mr. Skinner. Mr. Flora further �'ftated, as of this morning, D1r. Skinner has decided he doesn't want to K` krelop his property, therefore, Mr. Bricknerv�ll come to the Council at =tAe next meeting to present an adjust.ient to the plat to move the right-of ;;ray of the northern streetone foot into the plat. He stated Mr. Brickner �rill then submit a new petiirion for 100% of the property ownern; and request the assessments be spread over the entire plat. 26.23 � i� i. � �; yi � 3i � , � ;, � �-:: � � r-"' �� ii 1=: . ;,[: �'�,;: �f r rli!: ��i :; � � :F.j � ,,::� 1.:;;; �3 �� PUaLIC HEARING �4EETING OF JULY 13, 19F31 PAGE 1 � PUBLIC HEARIN6 MEETING OF JULY 13, Ptr. Flora stated P1r. Brickner desires the City to put in the sewer and water improvements this fall and to accomplish the street improvements next year. Councilman Barnette asked if Mr. Skinner wanted to develop his property several years from now how he would proceed. Mr. Flora stated he woutd have� to purchase some property from Mr. Brickner for access. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated the City does have some alternatives. - They can put in the improvements, as shown, and make the assessment or could make the assessment again5t both properties, Mr. Brickner's and Mr. ',:� Skinner s, and defer the assessment on the northern portion. He pointed outs the Council doesn't need 100% petition to put in a City street and if the �`:� right-of-way for the northern street was moved one foot into the plat, it �� may cause some problems in the future for Mr. Skinner's property, as far as`:;� the access. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked if it wasn't possible the northern portion might be platted without access from thisproposed st reet�:, to which Mr. Flora stated itwas possible. Mr. Herrick felt the Public Works Department should give :.ome thought on what kind of road system they want in that area, �4r. Qureshi, City Manager, stated they wo��ld recarmend the Council consi� adoption of the above two resolutions and set� the hearing for the improvi and have a choice on��how the assessments are spread at the time of the a! hearing. MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to adopt Resolution No. 69-1981 ordering prel inary report, plans and specifications for water and sanitary sewer projec No. 134 (Heather Nills) Secandecl by Counciiman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye , Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.. MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to adopt Resolution No. 70-1981 ordering preliminary report and calling a public hearing on water and sanitary seNei project No. 134 (Heather Hills). Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upong a voice vo.te, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unani� Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the C' y has developed a three plan for resealing the joints on the concre streets in the City, and requested Council consider adoption of th' resolution to advertise for bids for this project. MOTION by Councilman Schendier to pt Resolution No. 71-1981. Seconded Councilman Barnette. Upon a voic vote, all voting aye, � ayar Nee declar the motion carried unanimously ON N0. 72- NT, APPROVAL OF PLANS AND h1r. Flora, Public Wor Director, stated the storage reservoir located on Johnson St reet has number of exterior cracks requiring repair and the tank needs a new c t of paint, and requested Council consider adoption of this resolution advertise for bids for this project. MOTION by Co ilman Schneider to Councilman rnette. Upon a voice the �otio carried unanimously. adopt Resolution No. 72-1981. Seconded vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declar� 26.24 Senato .r pon Frank : knator pon Frank appeared before thf Council may have regarding the past t Senator Frank reviewed the actions t� the State's deficit. He further stai yovernments be o� the same fiscal ye� mough warning would be given so loc< change . �neator frank stated the Legislature 1t is the concensus of both houses tt the next session, Ilr. Qureshi questioned if local aid t level as las.t year. Senator Frank st the case, but obviously that is a shc Mestated the cost of local services shifted again to lccal governments ar 9overnment has is to raise the proper Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, pointed ou penalized for being prudent and cost �tate has put a mandate. on Local gove �axes . �tor Frank stated he woul d agree t �ver, he felt the coming y�ar will ; went through_because they still �r Nee stated in regard to condani taken away the City's descretion Ci�y. Attorney to draft a proposed would recover the Ci�y's power t ested a model ordinance be drafte ted to coder the City's concerns. �5enator Frank.also stated, during thi: ��roperty has been reduced by three to calls from rental owners who stated tl �roperty because of the taxes. He fe� this issue further because of the dif• �on-rental property. knator Frank questioned the completi� �Wuncilman Fitzpatrick felt there sho� pedestrians could cross the street sai stated when the widening began, one s- left`is inoperative. He stated they c� �re completed but he is trying to wor school begins. kaator Frank stated the Department o� deciding what route will be taken for t stated the City doesn't wish a south e Frank stated Representative Simoneau r the meetings, but he would rather dout of any access to the bridge. lSayor Nee extended the Council's thanE the meeting and providing this inform� ' * < iIIC MINUTES OF THE PU(3LIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL Of e��IC HEARING MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 19 AUGUST 10, 1981 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:35 p, m, by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led th e Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegianc Flag. ` ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fi Councilman Schneider and MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTIO(� OF AGENDA: the �*'ick, Councilwoman Moses, cilman Barnette MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to opt the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon oice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimo y. PUBLIC HEARINGS: '�I_ � :PUBLIC HEARING i ITARY SEWER P HEATHER H MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing no and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the p� hearing opened at 7:36 p, m. Mr. Flora, Public.Works Director, stated the Heather Hills West plat is loc east of Moore Lake, off Old Central Avenue, and consists of construction of streets, Heather Place and Heather Circle. � Mr. Flora stated the developer, Mr, Brickner, has petitioned for sanitary se water and storm sewer.to be installed this year, with the street and concret curb and gutter to be installed next year. He stated the lat located on the side of Heather Place is being charged only for the share of the cost which i benefit to that property and if this lot is later platted.or divided, therei be additional costs involved in extending the water and sewer lines. Mr. Flora stated the costs affecting the Heather Hills West plat are being d equally between the 11 lots in the plat. He stated this is a self-sustained development and thc only requirement the City would like is to loop the watei system to sane other lineinstead of just internally. He stated the original was for Ben More Drive to be extended all the way down to Central Avenue and connected to Heather Place, however, there was discussion on the practicalit� doing it at this time. Councilman Schneider asked if Ben More Drive would �e extended at some futuro date, the improvements put in this year would have to be changed, t4r. Flora stated it �vould not because when this particular water system is installed�i; should lend itself to at least four other methods of providi�g a viable sr in this area. Councilwoman Moses asked what the assessment would be to the property north the plat which is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Skinner. Mr. Flora stated the cost the sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water would be about $18,835. Mr. Skinner stated there has been some discussion between himself and Jerry Boardman, City Planner, as to possibilities for development of his property. 26.25 4 s ed, however, at tnis point, he i pro�erty rri t�out kncMing Nhere he s krelop as far as his property is conce dt� the Heather Hills development, as prtion of it. . Skinner stated to go along with any sessed any amount of the costs whatso ing into the Heather Hills developmen ated he understood the Heather Hills d was to bear i�s total cost and he h cause it doesn't affect him. Skinner stated, frankly, he doesn't not opposed to the street being cons �ther Hills, as long as he doesn't ha ing part of the cost of those improv �. Skinner stated he has had some disc ition discussed was the street would b icost to him.. He stated he didn't fe clear cut answer as to what will actu �velop. He stated there was discussi id joining Ben More Drive, however, pe� :reet to be extended. He stated there �be extended. �Ne stated there was al� ms his property and roin Rice Creek. �be so maRy things for which they hav� uncilwanan Moses stated right now, the t questioned if Mr. S1;inner wouldn't i what was eventually decided upon on t . Flora.stated he felt there would be inner could plat on his property: uncilwoman Moses pointed out that this spread across these lots, if Mr. Skir. incilman Schneider questioned how this put in sewer and water and half of th If opposed. . Herrick, City Attorney, stated the d re particularly, the street pattern, i uncil and not the individual land owne uncil, with the advice of the administr garding the street pattern. �. Herrick stated, as far as the assessi greater than the b�oefits to the prop� sessed equally. Ilr. Herrick felt, in this case, there ar� street is constructed so it is not adjacc [ouncil decides they will not assess his Ideferred assessment. (ouncilman Schneider asked Mr. Skinner.ii usessment. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF �uncil was called to order dge of Allegiance to the �atrick, Councilwoman Moses, �uncilman Barnette �5 presented. Seconded by ng aye, Mayor Nee declared 134, HEATHER HIL 3 of the publ i c hea ri ng noti< xnan Moses. Upon a voice vc ied unanimously.and �he pubi �r Hi11s West plat is locatcd �sists of construction of brp �etitioned for sanitary serer; 'th the street and concrete � ed the lnt located on the ap share of the cost which is e1 latted or divided, there roa� and sewer lines. ils West plat are being dirt� this is a self-sustained`." like is to loop the wate� .= . He stated the original.pl nvn to Central Avenue and be' �ssion on the practicality. �.: ;:- �e extended at some future �''=' :o be changed. �4r. Flora' ;� :er system is i nstal l ed, 1t :- of providing a viable sys e to the property north of �. . Flora stated the cost for bout $18,835. _ tween himself and Jerry lopment of his property. `"�1UBLIC HEARING MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1981 PAGE 2 �estated, however, at this point, he is totally opposed to the assessment of !is property without kn aving where he stands or what is eventually going to tevelop as far as his property is concerned. He stated he was not concerned rith the Heather Hills development, as long as he doesn't have to pay for any �ortion of it. k. Skinner stated to go along with any approval for his property to be usessed any amount of the costs whatsoever for sewer and water connections going into the Heather Hills development, he is totally opposed to it. He stated he understood the Heather Hills development was to be self-sufficient ,� �d was to bear its total cost and he has been in total agreement with that w: Oecause it doesn't affect him. . �� r. Skinner stated, frankly, he doesn't need a street by his pro ert but . is not opposed to the street being construct2d_. ap,d� �the development of leather Hills, as long as he doesn't have to make a pre-mature decision on - �aying part of the cost of those improvements �r. Skinner stated he has had some discussions with Jerry Boardman and one aption discussed was the street would be constructed, as proposed, but with �ocost to him.. He stated he didn't feel.at this time that anyone really had �clear cut answer as to what will actually happen if his property were to 4velop. He stated there was discussion of crossing the back of his property ndjoining Ben More Drive, however, peop)e on Ben More might not want the sireet to be extended. He stated there was also discussion for the street tobe extended. He stated there was also discussion for the street to cross his property and join Rice Creek. He stated, at this time, there seems tobe so many things for which they have no. answers. . touncilwanan Moses stated right now, the Council doesn't have all the answers, Out questioned if Mr. S{;inner wouldn't have some buildable lots, regardless tfwhat was eventually decided upon on the street design. a. Flora.sta.ted he felt there would be anywhere from four to six lots Mr. Skinner could plat on his property. � touncilwoman Moses pointed out that this proposed assessment of $18,835 cou�d k spread across these lots, if Mr. Skinner were to plat them. � Wuncilman Schneider questioned how this is handled where it is necessary toput in sewer and water and half of the persons are in favor and the other lalf opposed. ,�. Herrick, City Attorney, stated the decision on how property is platted and, �ore particularly, the street pattern, is a decision that should be made by the touncil and not the individual land owners. He stated that is something the Iouncil, with the advice of the administration, wi11 have to make a decision 'regarding the street pattern. Ar. Herrick stated, as far as the�assessments, the cost of the assessment cannot legreater than the bQOefits to the property and all properties have to be usessed equally. _ �r. Herrick felt, in this case, there are two options. One would be that the street is constructed so it is not adjacent to Mr. Skinner's property, if the louncil deCides they wi11 not assess his property, and anothe r option would be �deferred assessment. founcilman Schneider asked Mr, Skinner if he would be in favor of a deferred usessment. 26.26 ;� `_ j ; i � Mr. Skinner felt a deferred assessment would be more intriguing to him. He stated he has an interest in developing his property, but the only thing is the time problem of not knowing exactly what is going to develop, in whid direction, and how it will affect his property in the future. He stated he `-: would certainly feel more comfortable with a deferred assessment, and the ttat frame would be such where he would be pursuing some plans of his own and wh�C� options �vould be open. � . ,` ,� s Mr. Qureshi, City.Manager, stated the burden on the City is only to prove� � that the assessment on any property is equal to the benefit to that properb � He stated there is no question in his mind that the property r�ould appreti�tt; more than the amount assessed against Mr. Skinner's property. �'�� Mr. Qureshi stated he also wanted to make sure Mr. Brickner understands wfiat amounts they are estimating agai�st the property he wishes to develop. Ne•�,- pointed out Mr. Brickner has given all the right=of-way for the street ard ti cost for sewer and water will be over $9,000 per lot plus the assessment for the street improvement. He felt, when all the improvements are completed,ti cost would be between $12,000-$13,000 per lot. He asked Mr. Brickner if he� it was a reasonable assessment and if he could absorb these costs in the de� Mr. Brickner�stated the preliminary estimates are a bit higher than he had�. anticipated, and pointed out it is a difficult piece of land to develop,:�- therefore, there would be only 11 lots in the plat. He stated, however,he' from the start the cost for development would be higher for this piece of pr Mr. Brickner stated the lots would be larger than average and compared.thea the Innsbruck Area where the cost for lots are quite high. . Mr. Qureshi stated, as far as Mr. Skinner's property, his recortmendation no�N be to assess the property on the narmal.basis, as he felt this situationls � probably no different than any other properties in the City. ��_� '� � Mr. Qureshi stated Mr. Brickner has given the full easement for the road an0� was surprised the assessment against Mr. Skinner's property was low camparel� with what Mr. Brickner would be assessed. =�`� � ;�� Mr. Brickner stated he thinks this raises the point that each property mustbl assessed equally. He stated what they a�e now talking about is only estimatet� of the costs and the final calculations will be done at the time of the assesf heari ng. ^"'� Mr. Qureshi felt there was no oppQSition to the irt�provements, but the onij( tuestion was how the costs should be allocated, and this could be resolv� hey have the assessment hearing. •��;�a� Mr. Skinner stated he wanted the Council to be aware that four or six lotstM say can be developed by this street being installed, two of these lots happeil to be his front•yard and if those lots were platted and structures erected.�i1 would totally and completely cut off any view or access to Central Av2nue. Nr Skinner stated he can see Mr. Brickner's benefit because he is developing rx7 property, but where his house and garage is located there is absolutely-no =�"s benefit, but a detriment to pay for improvements because he doesn't have anr'; reason to connect into them without destroying the utilities that are alreaQ/ there. � Ptayor Nee felt perhaps Mr. Brickner should move the street a foot and if thif was done, the Cnuncil doesn't have the burden of determining the value of the property to the north. - Mr. Brickner stated he would be willing to do this, however, he didn't kna 1 it involved any problems in the future where Mr. Skinner would be 1andlocke0. Mayor Nee stated it seems Mr. Brickner�is getting a terrible burden for beiay the leader in development and he sliould be in a position to recover some ofi investment. 26.27 �UBLIC HEA RING MEETIMG OF AUGUST 10 k. Qureshi stated he would suggest �ainistration will come back with • �ppropri ate. ON by Councilman Schneider to c icilman Barnette. Upon a voice motion carried unanimously and RION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to aice and open the public hear.ing. roice vote, all voting aye, Mayor d the public hearing opened at 8: F1ora,�Public Works Director, s een Ashton Avenue and East Rive ed the petition for the vacatic , and it is requested the City Fl ora stated, if the vacation � utility and drainage easements. NSP have utility poles in this �. Richard Soj, 6101 East River Rc b other persons in the audience sp OTlON by Councilman Fitzpatrick to ;amcilwanan Moses. Upon a voice v otion carried unanimously.and the N by Councilman Fitzpatrick to �e the Council, the fee be waiv a voice vote, all voting aye, mously. � pTION by Councilwoman Moses to wai 1ed open the public hearing. Second pte, all voting aye, Mayor Nee dec fpe public hearing opened at 8:33 p t: t. Inman, City Clerk, stated'rlinfi tf a $4,000,000 industrial revenue �rea. He stated representatives fr Nth their legal representatives� t Ar. Rod Taylor, representing Winfie �O� 54,000,000 in industrial reven development in the Paco Industrial rill be established as a result of ptential for light manufacturing. i�trease the City's tax base and th !rom $6,000,000 to $8,000,000. It was stated by Winfield's represe rlll enter into a loan agreement wi stand by the bonds under a letter c PAGE 3 � J i re intriguing to him. �e►'tY, but the only thing going to develop, in which :he future. He stated he �ed assessment, and the tiar � plans of his own and what' City is only to prove benefit to that property.' ° property r�ould appreciate property. 3rickner understands what �-- wishes to develop. He � -��ay for the street and th!` : plus the assessment for = �vements are completed, th�`. 3sked Mr. Brickner if he feli �b these costs in the develop� bit higher.than he had e of land to develop, " He stated, however, he k� ;h�r for this piece of p� erage and compared them to;`� � high. � �BLIC HEARING MEETING OF AUGUST 10, 1981 PA6E 4 �r. Qureshi stated he would suggest the Council close the hearing and the �dministration wi11 come back with a recommendation they feel would be �pprop ri ate. lOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing. Seconded by founcilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the put�lic hearing closed at 8:30 p, m. d�� ,,. ..... ----- lqiION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the.public h ring eotice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses Upon �voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carrie unanimously �nd the public hearing opened at 8:30 p, m. i�r. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the alley to be vacat d is located Detween Ashton Avenue and East River Road and between 61-1/2 nd 62nd Way, f:e stated the petition for the vacation was signed by 100X of e residents in '.he �rea, and it is requested the City waive the fee. !�. Flora stated, if the.vacation is allowed, it is sug sted the City retain the utility and drainage easements. He further stated hat Northwestern Bell mdNSP have utility poles in this area. , his recommendation would�'; Ar. Richard Soj, 6101 East River Road, spoke in fa r of this alley vacation. felt this situation is �" �e City.. �;:' Io other persons in the audience spoke regardin tnis proposed alley vacation. -�r : asement for the roa� and ; 1fOTICN by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the ublic hearing. Seconded by roperty was low compareG �T �ouncilwanan Moses. Upon a voice vote, all ting aye, Mayor Nee declared the �f �otion carried unanimously.and the public h arin closed at 8:32 ; '" 9 P. m. :hat each property must be�; IqTION by Councilman F.itzpatrick to instr ct staff, when this vacation c anes } about is only estimates_ Oefore the Council, the fee be waived, econded by CoUncilman Schneider. at the time of the asses Ipon.a voice vote, all voting aye, May Nee declared the motion carried nanimously. rvements, but the only :his could be resolved that four or six lots th .two of these lots happen nd structures erected, i ss to Central AYenue. kr use he is developing vac, here is absolutely no use he doesn't have any� ilities that are alreadr: treet a foot and if this rnsi:ni ng the val ue of the a�vever, he didn't know 1 �er would be landlocked. �rrible burden for being ion to recover some of h 1qiI0N by Councilwoman Moses t waive the reading of the public hearing notice �nd open the pub]ic hearing. econded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice rote, all voting aye, Mayor ee declared the motion carried unanimously and .the public hearing opened 8:33 p, m. I�. Inman, City Clerk, s ted �linfield.Developments have requested the issuance ,efa'$4,000,000 industr al revenue bond for development in the Paco Industrial uea. He stated repre entatives from Winfield are here this evening, along dth their legal repr sentatives, to answer any questions. "= k. Rod.Taylor, re esenting Winfield Developments, stated they are applying for$4,000,000 i industrial revenue bonds for the construction of a multi-purpose '�� levelopment,:in t Paco Industrial plat. He stated approximately 250 new jobs r dll be establi ed as a result of this development and there would be a f��° ptential for ght manufacturing. Mr. Taylor stated the development would lncrease the ty's tax base and the amount paid in yearly salaries would range � fr'an $6,000, 0 to $8,000,000. ��, • a�" ltwas sta d by Winfaeld's representative fr«n Miller-Schroeder that the City `f�' dll ente into a loan agreement with Winfield Oevelopment and they would stand by he bonds under a letter of credit by a bank. ��, � /� ;!, ;' : 2�.L� ;;;' il�' � ��i�� I ,!�;�� `� ' :,; �. � il;� if i ��l';�r ; � �i�; �:! � ,�.�i��i�r, : ..'.�ry� ;�� I,N,�, �� „ � � � 3d � � � O( �� ' �c f ; Id t;I : GL f; , �, :� ,•� jo :�;Ij � ; Ot ;�3 ID , ; � Id I � Cf i . . � � ; � . Id � D6 ; :,_ ;� „ � �' � ,{m 3�` ; , �l;' � : � ��.' I: �:' � , �,. ; �, -. � �; � � -� > :� � t; i � , r. ' � � =� � €�i �� „ :i ,, t� � � L G?S I' rEQ;LI,�i N�E7IhG GF F.�UST 17, 19c1 pa9E 6 � RE6ULAR MEETING OF'AUGUST U. -� i' � � NOTIUN by Councilman Fitzp�trick to accept the amended dra� ge plan for the.• �SClUTION N0. 93-1951 O1REC+ I� University Inoustrial Park Plat, as recorrmendea by staf , and as outlined i� � OVEhENT PR CT ST. 9 6-3 Mr. Oave Harris' letter of August 4, 1981 to the Ci ouncil. Secondea by: �N�ION by Louncilman Fitzpatr� Councilman Schneiaer. Upon a voice vote, all vo ' g aye, Mayor Nee declartd� :by �uncilman Schneider. Upor the motion carried unanimously. declared the motion carried ur ION N0. 99-1981 SETTIN6 THE CITY 0 ECTION FOR THE 15TH DAY MOTION by Councilman Barnette adopt Resolution No. 99-1981. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon oice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declarel the motion carried unanim ly. �RESOLUTION N0. 87-19 DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION .tiirr;FS F k HE EP �BER 5. 8 PRIMARY ELECTION: MOT ION by Counci lma the moty6 � RESOLUT . �s,�.�� o ilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 87-1981. Seconded b� arnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared carried unanimously. N0. 88-1981 ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVAL OF FINAL_PLANS AND'� PROJECT N0. 134, HEATNtk H1LL�: Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated there was some concern by the property�� owner north of this plat to pay the cost of the improvements. Mr. Qureshi stated he met with Mr. Brickner, the developer, and he is agreeable to payin9 the total cost of the improvements and will provide = another outiot in the plat, Outiot 8. He stated if the property to the nart! is developed, the owner of this property would have to deal directly with Nr, Brickner and the City would not be involvea. _ Mr. Qureshi stated it seemed the City's position at the last meeting was thq were more than fair with the property owner to the north, Mr. Skinner, •�: however he did not wish to be assessed for any improvements. � � MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 88-1981. Seconded b� Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declareC'' the motion carried unanimously. � RESOLUTION N0. 89-1981 DIRECTING PREPARATION Of ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET ` �� IMPROVENfNT PR CT T. 9-5: MOTION by Councilman Barnette to adopt Resolution No. 89-198 . Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, yor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ' [�`; �'•RESOLUTION NO 90-1981 DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF HEA�!'NG ON PROPO v �ZCF�CMFNT F� TR FT TMPROVENENT PROJECT $T. 97 . MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resol ion No. 90-1981. Secondedby Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, al voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 1 V RESOLUTION NO 91-1981 DIRECTING PREP�ATION OF ASSESSMENT ROIL MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatric to adopt Resolution No. 91-1981. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upo a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried animously. ��- RESOLUTIGN N0. 92-1981 D�CTING PUBI.ICATION OF HEARING ON PROPOSED MOTION by Councilma Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 92-1981. Seconded t� Councilman Barnet . Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declarea the motion carri d unanimously. 26.29 . RESOLUTION N0. 94-1981 DIRECT: SMENT FOR ST EET IMP OV h NOTION by Councilman Schneider �OUncilman Barnette. Upon a v the motion carried unanimously RES0.UTION N0. 95-1981 DIRECTI CE N N : MOTION by Councilman Barnette fauncilman Schneider. Upon a the motion carried unanimously RESClUTION N0. 96-1981 DIRECTI E NT HE 8 ERV C qOTION by Councilman Fitzpatri by Councilman Schneider. Upon Getlared the motion carried un RESOLUTION N0. 97-1981 DIRECTIi TREATME NT ANO REMOVAL OF TREES NOTION by Councilman Schneider Councilman Barnette. Upon a w the motion carried unanimously RESOLUTION N0. 98-1981 DIRECTI E NENT F R HE 7REATNENT A 'NOTION by Councilman Schneider Councilman Barnette. Upon a v� the motion carried unanimously PPPOINTI�NT - CITY EMPLOYEE PR' l4�. Qureshi, City Manager, sta the Police Department to rep7a National Guard. NOiION by Councilman Barnetted Nanager to appoint Robert Frii effective August 5, 1981. Sec vote, all voting aye, Mayor Ne EST IMATES : � MQfION by Councilman Schneider Herrick and Newman, P.A. 6279 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 For legal services rendere for the month of July, 19F __ _._e_r__ --_____� �t .� �\ 1 m \` � �� - . �,.' . > �i -, � t� � �:> i .` � . , 26.30 ��'I�I � � O �j r Z `� _� Z�o � -� � 0:. N �� v � � � ii ' � � � � w �g Q � a��. _ �� s �� an � � �. � i� �� , ��`•_ . O � , �_ . . _ �; ...,� , �� di p � � �- � � . �.� , �. � S � Q I '�L � I ,- - � � �� Z � �� 7 S -` _� r �- ; � ,: ` � �� :��. �:�'` � ,� Z ' �Q ' g� , . - . , ; .- � � �� . .. . �- , ---� : � / ^�� i� � f ► �r.�n E_��a■ � �;^: �� S �I / ■�;�« ; 6�ia l o■ � r$"� �7Ti I 1 ,_Q _ � '�. � � �� . �� 26.31 � �� m � Q � . � - Z J � • � d , �n Y. +� x�vi� y �5� � 1 � w I � Q w _ Q �r � �.,r�� ° � �+�� o +� .� � � . • --,---_. - Y � � � _� � --.---- �. �. .� , � . � 4 J ; . . �. � .i� -- I �, �� . _ __ �r ► � 7� .I .f � • r s r _+ � r � �� ,., _ - �.,� � :.. . � : ��► � � r�g �I 1 �� a�� i � — 0 Q � � O �� S � � � d J � � � T � � w _ ,----- . _ _ , � �. ° "' ~ b�.3�' n» � n �d -� d � .� N � � � Z �•�7�d1 � 2!� t-Ll_�� H � "�-v� 1� I � `� ) � L. -- i � FBIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF � OCTOBEi� 13,1997 CffY OF FRIDLEY inr�aRMAC sra rus R€�aRrs 27.01