PL 06/08/1967 - 30992�
PLANTlING COMMISSION MEETTING - JUNE 8, 1967
ROLL CALL:
PAGE 1
The meeting jaas called to order at 7:30 PoMo by Chairman Hughes.
Members presentr Ylinen, Hughes, Jensen, Myhra, Erickson
Others present: City P�Zana.ger Wagner
APPROJE PLAI�Ti�TING COI1�'NiISSION MINUTES: MAY 25, 1967:
MOTION b,y Ylinen, seconded by M�rhra, that the Planning Com�nission
minutes of May 25, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the �otion carried unanimously.
RECEI�iTE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: MAY 24, 1967:
MOTION by Jen�en, seconded by Ylinen, ttiat the Planning Commission
receive the Board of Appeals minutes of May 2q., 1967. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
OI-tD�? OF AGENDA :
Chairman Hughes stated
� setting of the time for the
objection from the members
which is given here.
�
l.
the order of the Agenda was established in the
four public hearin�s. Unless there is some
of the Commission, we are correc�t in the order
Pt3BLIC h�'ARING, 7:30 P.M.: REZONING R
COMPANY, REPRESENTID BY R. L. �RNST:
division #21. Rezone from R-1 to R-2,
Lot 8,
R-3,
, ZOA #67-05, LOWERY REALTY
2nd Revised Auditor's Sub-
and Open Space.
The Notice of Hea,rin.g was read by the City Manager.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, tha-t the Petition dated May 21,
1967 opposing the rezonin.g request ZOA #67-05 be received. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Hughes continued that two members of the Plannin.g Commission
(Jensen &�rickson� have indicated that, because of possible conflict of
interest, they will not be participating in the discussion of the rezoning.
The order which the Planning Commission used will be to hear the petitioner
first, the Commission members to question the peti-�ioner and then ask for
comments from the public.
Mr. Ernst was asked to present his ideas and said. that first of all,
I'd like to commend the Planning Commission on the e�cellent cover letter..
It does a good job of describin� in the layman's terminolog�r the rules
pertaining• to Publi� Hearin�s. He continu.ed�.you will recall at trle April
• 27�' mee�ing u�y describing the proposed rezonin� of Lot 8, 2nd Revision
Auditor's Subdivision �21 to allow for the development of a multiple
dwelling complex that will support 125 multiple dwelling units. In additi.on?
it will provi:de four R-2 or double bungalow lots on the North and provide
for the dedication of approximately 12 acres for park.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 8, 1967 Pa.g'e 2
� This would be a continuation of the existir� park. This�accomplishes a
number of things for Fridley: l. Provides a living asea for a greater
number of famil.y units which would be a wise usage of land because of a
shortage of land we wi11 be faced with in th� future.
The Plan connects 67th Avenue from the property down to Oakley Street,
allows for eas.y snow rer�ova]_, inproves traffic and fire and police protection,
increases the ar�ount oi park land to ei�;ht acres. In addition, the paxk
would then extend North to 68t�' Avenue providing direct access to the park.
The proposal assures a large tax base. There were a number of questions
in opposition such as: spot zoning, incompatible with surrounding family,
traffic problems created, dep-ression of property value and the land should
be used for parks, which I will tr,y to answer.
This proposal gives 17� to the City. 2. Depression of propert�r valu�s:
This objection is pure speculation and is not based on any known or recorded
facts. If the frontage on 68�' were developed under the existing plan, this
area would accept 8 family lots. This proposed plan provides for iour
double bungalows.
The Plan does create additional traffic on Brookview, but with an averaoe
of 20,000 cars a da.y on Highway #65, we will not make an appreciable increase
to the area, as 67�' and 68�' are two way streets.
Mr. Ernst used a map ior the followin.g' discussion. Spot zoning,
incompatibilit�r, and surrounded by single family dwellings can be discussed
�� together. The propert,y is not surrounded by single families. To the �rlest
. is park land, that when developed and used can be considered as commercial.
To the North is an interceptor stop street.
��
This area shaded in red is going to be developed commercial this fall.
A mortuary will be developed on that property. Most ordinances group res-
idential uses together, connecting between commercial, business, industrial
and R-1. Use them together and the�r are, in �zse, compatible.
Comparison of tax.xeturn by residential land use type� Single family and
multiple dwellino - this read by Mr. Ernst.
This proposed zoning change would make the Cit,y of Fridley a better
place to live and I respectfully submit that you present this plan to the
Council.
� In answer to Member Ylin�n's question, Mr. F�nst said the preliminary
plan calls for three 34 unit and 1 2G unit buildings, making something less
than 125 units.
E�rerett McCarthy, 6830 Oakley: Asked that by building this compl�x
and extending Oakley Street, how does this facilitate fire, police and snow
r�moval? Mr. Ernst said the large snow plows would have a hard time turning
around at this dead end street. He was then asked, you have 122 units in the
preliminary proposal, what rental would you be using? Mr. Errlst said the
majorit� would be or_e 'ped.room units for youn� couples or retired couples.
Mr. McCarthy then said that this complex wauld then crea.te similar problens as
the one on Lucia Lane. Mr. Ernst said he was not familiar with that situatior.•
Ed Berntson, 925 Mi-ssissippi Street: I have lived here since 1�40. Tn
regard to the proposed street, what is to be the width of the finished st.reet?
Mr .�nst said it would be wYiat the F'ngineerin� Depaxtment requests . Nir •
Planning Commission Meeting - June 8, 1967 Page 3
. Berntson said that Oakle.y Drive is now a 31 foot street, substandard, and
� how does the elimination of the dead end street solve the problem. We would
have a street equivalent to Oakley goir� through. Brookview is the same, and
that would r:ot be wid�ned. With your figure of 122 units in a�- acre area,
how man� cars would there be? Very likely each unit will have at least one
cax and some possibl.y two cars. Mr. Ernst said the Ordinance allot�rs for
12 stalls. Mr. Berntson continued, on this basis, we 'nave 125 automobiles
to start with, leavir!g in the mornir� and returning at night pl�zs the
second family cars, �.nd this additional traffic would be on substandard
streets.
�
�11 `
Another point, yous figvses for school children show four. This is a
h,ypothetical fio re. There is nothing that �rould compel this axea to take
one child. You've got some fine figvses on the school figures, but I do
believe that you are under_estimating the capacity of the area. In regard
to the land you propose to build the complex on, it is peat foundation.
I don't believe the area will substantia.11,y support the t�rpe of building
�ou propose to put on i�;. Mr. Berntson continued that 80f of the people
have signed a petition opposing the r�zoning. It was brought to Mr. Berntson's
attention that he ha1 si�ned the petition twice. He said he would be glad
to remove his name the second time. On behalf of these people who signed
the petition, conside-rable weight should be given it. They came out here to
get away from this t,ype of zoning and wanted single famil.� dwellings. We would
like to have the park as i.t would be a fine thing if it would be developed
and would give the children a place to play. Also, �rou will have the
garbage problem in the back facing private private residences.
Orville C. Johnson, 6600 Brookview Drive: Brookview Drive is not wide
enough to handle the proposed traffic and wro would pay the cost for widenin.g
the street?
Mrs. Mary Schreiner, 6851 Oakley Drive: She stated that when Hayes _
School was rebuilt, it was with the id.ea that it would be adequate ta take
case of all grade school children in that area, but that is not the situation
and man�r of the children are bused out of the area which is an additional
expense. Sewer and water - this was put into the area for R-1 and not R-3.
Are we goin.g to be able to carry all this sewage. This rezoning request is
an excellent example of spot zoning. There a.re hidden costs, such as
election judges - additions for each 100 voters. $1.20+ cost to register.
Gasba.ge, how many more pickups for 123 units. There are 47 children on
Oakley Street and 20 homes. Where are these children and all the additional
children from the apartments going to pla�r. Skating ponds, we finally have
them from the Parks and Recreation. If we �aanted to be suffocated b�r all
kinds of people, we could have sta�red in the city. Chairman Hughes asked
Mrs. Schreiner if Hayes School with a capacit� of 600 students, had to bus
students from this area at the present time? She answered they are
busing out of the Hayes area into other areas. Hayes school cannot hold
all the students. We have been told there has been a problem in some areas
where students are transferred in and out of various school districts. I
think, too, I might add somethina on my own. That people in the apartment
buildings are not as interested in the comm�anity.
Alan E. Jen'_�in�, 6711 Overton Drive: Ver�r few people in the subt�rbs have
less than one car, and 122 units would crEate a traffic problem.
James Bruder, 969 68� Avenue: He asked ulr. Ernst if he said that some
traffic patterns could exit on Highway �65 from 68�' Avenue, and when the
answer was negative, he said he had misunderstood. . '
�
Planning Commission Meeting - June 8, 1967 Page 4
Mr. Ernst said the R-3 area totalled about six acres. It would be
wise to use�the land to put in a road pattern similar to this �indicating
his map on the wall�.
Don Brimer_, 941 Overton Drive: I believe that a proposal like this
will attract people of' y-ounger ages. If �ou check national figures, the
majority of auto accidents invol�re younoer people. A large percentage
would live in tr�.ese apartLZents. I wonder if the fire department had
adequate fire fighting equipment to service this complex. Keep the area as
R-l.
N1rs. Don B-rimer, 941 Overton Drive: You cannot wash clothes at night
because there is no water. L�Tnat wil7. T,�� do with 125 more people usin.g it?
Mr. Berntson mer�tioned the fact that this particular area shaded green
and part of the blue is su.bstandard in soil condition, not suitable for single
family dwelling. If it is not sui.table for single family, how can he
justify puttin.g in 3 or 4 story family dwellir�gs?
At this point, Mr. �rnst submitted a petition representing 50J of
the number of propert,y owners in favor of the rezoning. Chairman Hu.ghes
read the petition.
Member Erickson arrived.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive
a petition dated May 16, 1967 to change the zoning� of Lot 8, 2nd Revision cf
� Auditor's Subdivision #21 from R-1 to R-2, a:id tark. Upon a voice vote,
all voting a�re, the motion carried unanimousl�.
r�
�
�
t
Mr. Berntson asked for the names on the petition favorin� the rezoning.
Mrs. Marlys McCarthy said it seems the petitioners on the second petition
are all financially interested parties.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission close
the public heaxin.g of the rezoning request, zo1� #67-05, Lowry Realty Compary,
represented by R.L_ Er�nst, Lot 8, 2nd Revised Auditor's Subdivision #21,
to be rezoned from R-1, to R-2 and Open Space. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, except Jensen and Erickson, the motion carried unanimously.
Member Ylinen said he wished to thank P�Lr. Ernst for his well thought
out proposal and data. I think zonino of this type would change substantially
the character of the surrounding area. We have an obligation to the people
who moved into the area when it was zoned R-l.
MOTION b,y Ylinen, seconded by Myhra �hat the Planning Commission
recommend denial to the Council of the rezoning request, ZoA.#67-05, Lot,�my
Realty Company, represented by R.L. Ernst of Lot 8, 2nd Revised Auditor's
°Subdivision #21 to be rezoned from R-1 to R-2, R-3 and Open Space. IIpon
a voice vote, all voting a�re, except Jensen and F�i.ckson abstainin.g, the
motion carried unanimously.
Cha.irman Hughes teld the audience that t�iis mat-ter will be before the City-
Council at the June 19, 1967 meeting. The mat�rial will be forwarded to the
Councii.
Planning Commission M�eti�� - JuT�e 8, 1�67 Page 5
� 2. PUBLIC HEARING, 8:00 P.i�I.: REZONITdG R��,UEST, ZOA #�7-07, REES, THOl`�iSON,
SCROGGINS, INC.: Part of Lots 17 and 18, Auditor's Subdivision #78.
� To rezone from R-1 to R-3.
Bob Pritchard, hGad of the commercial department of Rees, Thomson,
Scroggins, Inc. explained that the piece of p-roperty involved is a small
strip of land that lies adjacent to the Mississippi River from xighway #694
to 65�' Street. A11 the adjo_�_ning propert.j� to the East is now zoned R-3.
This is a landlocYed piece and can't be used as it is.
Chai.rman Hughes said that P�Ir. Lametti, by letter da.ted May 17, 1967,
stated he �aould li.ke to riave Lot 4, Block 2, Hayes River Lots considered
at the same time to be�rezoned R-3.
Mr. Arthur Fosler, o�mer of the two bl�ildinfls that front 5� Way:
First of all, I would like to use all the a,ro ments the last group used.
East River Road is a traffic hazard. It still has too much traffic coming
out of these buildings. Last month or t�ro, there were four or five accidents
on the two corner_•s . 4,Ih�= nat leave it the wa;y it is and keep the natural
beauty of the river, M,y apartment bus.ldings are not lush buildings and I
feel they would be a feeder for your buildir_gs.
Mr. Fritcha-rd said we are no� trying to change the character of the
land. The strip of land being rezoned. will not chan.ge the amount of buildings,
it is not going to cli�,nge what we plan to do there now. We plan to folLow
whatever the City feels are tlze rules a,:ad regulations. I understand �rour
feeling,,but ,yovs renters are not goir.g to rent in the kind of buildin.�s
� we are going to build.
In answer to Mr. Fosler's question as to tne way the buildings would
face, Mr. Pritchard said they did not have their plans, but the project
will be a complex type of project.
In answer to Member Myhra's question tnat, whether this is zoned or
not, it would not change wha� you would plan, Mr. Prii:chard said he did. not
mean that, but it will no�t change the size of the complex.
Mike Tema said that we already have a lot of traffic. It seems to me
there is enough traffic to warrant another bridge. He was told there would
be another bridge at 85�' Avenue.
Mr. Filister said it is my opinion that when this land was originally
zoned R-3, that, through some error, the strip of 100 feet was omitted.
There is about a 20 foot drop to the river.•. We are speaking of a piece
only l00 feet the entire length zoned R-l.
Mr. Fosler sugg•ested the rezoning be postpaned until a later date so
that he can get the service of an attorne.y.
• Chairman Hughes reminded him that adequate advertising and sufficient
notice, since Ma.y 12th, have been given and that the Planning Commission
does not give the final solution, and th�.t ii' action is taken, it will be
/�� taken in final form �y tne City Council after a�other hearing.
MOTION by M;�hra, seconded by Erickson, tY�at the Public Hearing,
of the rezoning reques�;, ZOA #67-07, Ree.:�, Thom�on, Scro�gins, Inc., part �f
Lots 17 and 18, Auditor's Subdivision ,�78 to be rezoned from R-1 (single
family dwelling� to R-3 �gener_al multiple family dw?llings�-be closed. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried una.n.imously.
Planning Commission Meet:i.n.�; - Jus�e 8, 1�67 Pa�;e 6
. , Chairman Hughes said it is f.air for the Conimission to declare that the
� request is ior a rezoning of a narrow strip adjacent to a large piece of
land which is already zoned R-3. The appea.rance on the map is strange.
It may solve the correction of zoning in another part of the City where a
small strip was zoned in a category different from the basic tract. One
of the reasons is the correction of an error in a previous rezoning and it is
m� opinion this is an exa,�ple of it and not what a thinking body would do if
it were zoned for the first time.
�
Member Myhra stated I am in favor of tcie rezoning, but I would like to
point out that whether we rezone or not, it will not chan�e the neighborhood,
arid in view of that, I will make the folloVring motion.
MOTION by Myhra, secot?ded b� �ickson, that the rezoning request, ZOA
#67-07, by Rees, Thomson, Scroggins, Inc. for part of Lots 17 and 18,
Auditor's Subdivision #78 to rezone from R-1 �single family dwelling� to R-3
(general multiple family ciwelling� be approved and sent on to the Council.
Upon a voice vote, Jensen abstaining because oi conflict of interest, all
votir�g a�e, the mo+ion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING, 8:00 P.M., REZONING REQUEST ZOA �67-04, S& S INVESTMENT CO ,
REPRESIIV'I'� �3y WILLI�✓! SHA�1: Lots 1-6, Block 1, Carlson's Summit I�iar�or
Annex 2nd Addition. Rezo�e from R-1 to R-3-A.
; Kenneth Benson of Arvid Carlson & Sons, Inc. stated we are the owners.
� Originall� this property was zoned multiple througtii an error on the par� o�
the original drawing and +hen rezoned R-l. This was carried through
'i �"1 registration proceduses, and we are now back, at this time, to request this
I
be rezoned multiple, this being the best use for the property.
It was noticed that Arvid Carlson owns the land immediately to the South,
immediately to the North and on the Y�est side.
Jack Velin, 5101 Horizon Drive: Are you going to.build a three story
building? I live on the corner, and the neighbor, who recently purchased
his lot is to the North. We have taken up a petition in the neiUhborhooci..
It is zoned for single family now and we were assured when we bought, that
it would be single family and we just can't see that it should be changed.
Chairman Hughes read the petition stating there were 25 signatuses.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded b�r Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive
the petition of the people opposed to the rezoning ZOA #67-07. Upon a voice
vote, all voting a.ye, the motion carried.
Helen Truenfels, 5248 Horizon Drive: In our neighborhood the people
who received the letter were spctted everywhere. How do you pick them out?
Phyllis Brozak, 5110 3rd Street N.E.: Why don't they clean up their
,property?
Another neighbor said that another 24 units and there will 1�� another
/'�� 24 automobiles. �? young �oup lives ir� apartments for the most part bu+ they
are thou�htless. They do not take an active interest in the neighbornood
and are not concerned with it.
Planning Commission Meetin� - June�8, 1967 p�ge 7
MOTION b� Jensen, seconded b� Ylinen, that the Public Hearing be
closed for ZOA #67-04, S& S Investment Compan�, Represented by
� William Shaw, Lots 1 thru 6, Block l, Carlson's Summit Manor Annex 2nd
Addition, rezonin.g from R-1 to R-3-A. .
Member Erickson stated that we are faced with property abutting
University Avenue that has R-3 use on each side of it, and for that reason,
he would like ,to stud� the rezoning request further.
The explanation given that evening was, up until 1963, the R-2 in ous
zoning ordinance was called limited multiple dwelling and the only difference
between R-2 and R-3 was that for each unit over 4, 1500 square feet were
xequired�for R-2, and 1,000 square feet for �-3. In 1964 the Counci�. changed
it. That is wh�r there are R-2 zones �rith rnultiples. R-3-A is a new category
in the last four years and that has the same area requirements as R-2.
MOTION b� Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the decision of the
Planning Commission for the rezoning ZOA �,67-04, S& S Investment Company,
represented by William Shaw for Lots 1 thru 6, Block l, Carlson's Summit
Manor 2nd Addition fr.om R-1 -to R-3A be postponed until June 22, 1967. Upon
a voice vote, turo voting aye, two voting na�r, the Chairman votin.g aye, the
motion carried.
4. PUBLIC HEARINC�, 9:00 P.M.: REZONING REQIJEST, ZOA #67-06, WYMAN SMITH
REPRESENTING MA.,.�IAN HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO.: Lots 1-11, Block 2 a,nd Lots 1-6,
Block 1, Marian Hills 2nd Addition. Rezone from R-1 to R-3 and Special Use
Per-mit .
� Wyman Smith explained the purpose of rezoning saying, basically the
proposal is that the lots be rezoned for apa.rtments and then across the
street, which would be to the North side of 52nd Avenue and sort of into the
hill, Special Use Permit, possibly doubles, may�e something less concentrated.
mhe reason is this land was developed quite early in Fridle�r's history. It
had a grid plat called Horizon Heights, and then Marian Hills Subdivisions
were sort of a replat of the undeveloped part. It was slow in developing, but
developed very well. But this one street in the lower p�,rt has not had
b�yers and there has been a variety of builders and none have seemed interested
in it. Apartment houses were built along 52nd Avenue between the We�t edge
of Maxian Hills 2nd Addition towaxds Central Avenue and Robert Flall. Th�
covenants that were originally put on Plat 1 and 2 had ten years duration.
Now that the ten years have run out and the developer has reached a point .
where the cost is substantial, assessments and taxes and it becomes almost
an economic requirement that some use be made of the land to get the mone�r
out.� Most of the dwellings are on the high level so that they would be
above the apartment houses. The Development Company is not in the building
business. There have been some possibility of sales if it were rezoned.
Chairman Hughes read the letter from Columbia Heights stating Frank
Clayton would be present and he was called on.
Mr. Clayton said it is interesting to sit on t!�is side of the table
� and listen to the hearings. Triere:have been storm drainage problems between
Columbia Heigtlts and Marian Hills. Part of the poncJ. was in Calumbia Hei�hts
. and he doesn't see how this property could develop until this pond is taken
care of. As stated, developing i�athairn as soon as the ponding problem :aas
eliminated, began. Four houses were built this spring from $25,000 past
$40,000. I live behind aparvments that already existed and there is not
any problem because I have a deep lot and the apartments have deep lats.
Planning Commission Mee�ing - June 8, 1967 Page 8
`�he axea here with apartments in Fridle� and in Columbia Heigh-ts is R-2.
The area from Central Avenue to lower section of Polk Place is double
� bungalow. And past that part, it is all zone R-1, restrictive residential.
This area has developed as Marian Hills. I�thirLk, on behalf of Columbia
Heights, what yolt people do does affect us and what Columbia Heights has
done, affects you. I think it would be very bad to rezone this to anyt�ing
but R-1. There tiras a problem and the area couldn't develop until the pond
was drained. On behalf of Columbia Heights, we hope you would not consider
rezoning R-1, as now it would be detrimental to property owners in Mathaire
and Innsbruck. I am speaking on behalf of our Planning Commission.
Member Jer�sen �rould like to verify that the petitioners are the owners
of the lots included in the petition request. There is a single family fiome
relativel.y new, constructed on Lot l, Block 2, Marian Hills 2nd Addition
included in the petition. Also Lot ll is presently used as a driveway
entrance to the apartment build.in�s to the west. I wonder if �ou are the
owners of that lot.
Mr. Smith said there was a lot sold to the apartment building. I talked
with the Cit.,y assessor's office. The� must riot have filed a deed. We did
� sell a lot to the apartment house people for the driveu�a�.
Mr. S.T. Prokopowicz, 1350 52nd Avenue: Presented a petition objecting
to the rezoning ZOA �67-06.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded b� Jensen, that the Planning Commission
receive the petition objecting to the rezoning of Lots 2 to 11, Block 2,
�/""1 Marian Hi11s 2nd Addition and Lots 1 to 6, Block l, Marian Hills 2nd Addition
. z0A #67-06.
Mr. Prokopowicz referred to the statement of the burden of the assess-
ments for the developer, and said I am the one that bought the lot that was
in error. I found m,yself paying for the assessments, not the developer.
52nd Avenue Speed Wa�: There were several occasions we had to conta.ct
the police department and if you paid a visit duxin.g winter months, �rou would
be convinced i.t is �, traffic hazaxd. The apartment houses are below the
crest and the street just is not wide enough. There may have been a variance
and special use permit because I don't believe these apartments are set back
fax enough to give adequate traffic conveyance from the area. The cul de
sac is where the speedster begins to make the hill and go right by u�y house.�
The area has selected lots. You are speakin.g of detriments and just
opposite the lots in Columbia Heights, they are bein.g developed. These
lots that are adjacent to Columbia Heights could be developed as they are
being developed in Columbia Heights. What I hate to see is that if you are
,contemplating rezoning it, this will discourage the neighborhood. Had I
known, I never would have bought.
. I don't think the residents should be penalized because of a poor
investment of.the developer. We have a very first call on consideration
� because we were there first as builders. It is not impossible to develop
� the land as residential, 'out it will cost money but ihe developer shoull
.-�-, have been aware of this - and could charge u�ore for the choice lots. I
hate to see the area spoiled. �
�
Planning Commission Meetin.g - June 8, 1967 Page 9
Donald Delich, 5284 Ta�lor St. N.E.: We cannot use the apartment
. , for a buffer because of a natural buffer -- the hill. We have paid for the
storm sewer. We have all paid for our own assessments so the Marian Hills
� Development has not had to pay this. This is still a desirable area.
Apaxtments or multiples will not make it desirable. The police will enforce
parking on one side, because 52nd Street is naxrow and during winter, it is
inaccessible. This is one of the last areas that are plowed open. This is
an early part of the City that has been developed. In the last 10 years
the houses were built and our home in the last 4 years.
Undesirable tenants: Tenants in apartment houses have no interest in
the comnunity or property. The secretary for North Paxk School said that
school is full. The schools are full and children axe being bused to other
schools. Apartments wil.l not help the situation at all.
It was said that all apaxtments were at high level, but those on
Taylor Street are not. The street is only 50 feet wide and should be
60 feet.
Wally Strand, 1145 Polk Place: New homes are presently being built right
in back of the present apartments, and there seems to�be no reason why sin.gle
family homes could not be developed and make a terrific residential area.
Apaxtments would be detrimental to the entixe area, especially Columbia .
Heights where it backs up to Fridley. I own Lots 13, 14, and 15, and
another person is building on Lot 12 at the present time. If it is
rezoned for apartments, it will affect all the homes now being built. All
the lots on Polk Place look down onto the area.
� Wyman Smith: It is sort of overwhelming - the opposition to this
rezonin.g request, but I would like to straighten out one thing regaxdin.g
economics. Prices are up on everything and there is no question but what
'you have substantial houses that can carry it. There has been no pushin.g
of these buildings. So it was presented to me and I agreed to� make the peti�tion
and propose it, and whatever you do with it, and I assume that, with the
overwhelmin.g feeling, you are going to den,y the request, but I just want to
point out that in the develapment of a plat, we put a covenant in for ten
years. You have to think in terms that the development of the land is a
� business and that is what this has been. Certainly, back in my own mind,
I realize there would be an increase in population growth we are going to have
a,nd there is a lot more multiple dwellings than we thought of yeaxs ago.
Maybe this is not the appropriate yard stick.
Mrs. Richard J. Sherry, 5220 Buchanan St.: Have you turned down anyone
who was interested in a lot for a single family residence?
�'rancis Hunter, 5200 Buchana�. St.: I haven't really seen an,y real
change in developing the axea, but now, after the pond has been drained, you
would not want to go another ten years now that the land is usable.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that �he public hearing be closed
on.the rezoning request, ZoA #67-06, Wyman Smith representing Marian Hills
Development Company of Lots 1- 11, Block 2 and Lots 1- 6, Block 1, Marian
Hills 2nd Additian to be rezoned from R-1 to R-3 and Special Use Permit.
� IIpon a voice vote, all votin.g aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
� '
Chairman Hughes commented: It strikes me as being an area which is
admirably suited to single family residential purposes as opposed to multiple.
We have a situation, as far as zoning, which is quite appropriate as it
stands at the present time, but the lay of the land, the slope of the hill,
serves as a buffer in itself.
Planning Commission Meetin.g - June 8, 1967 Page 10
The zoning along the highway, which is commercial and back from the highway,
� ' which is multzple tend to serve somewhat as buffer. There is a slope
downward west of Taylor which tends to make the apartment buildings to the
� west less obtrusive as they might be. Lots 11 and 12 serves as buffer or
- open space. The la� of the land, as well as serving as a buffer, seems to
me to provide a definite asset in terms of imaginative construction of
buildings. As far as I can see, the need for buffer in the north-south
direction between the existing development, Marian Hills, and the development
that is underway in Colu�bia Heights is non-existant. The uses are similar
on both sides of the area and it would be legal, in my view, to continue
this type of zoning. I have seen areas in other cities which have been
developed very adequatel� as superior residential property. My feelin.g is
that this particular request is not appropriate for the area in question and
should be denied.
Member Erickson said he concurred with the remarks and, frankly, could
see nothing but problems �rith R-3.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra,.that the Plannin.g Commission
concur with the remarks of Chairman Hughes and recommend denial.of the
rezoning request, ZOA �67-06, Wyman Smith representing Marian Hills Development
Company of Lots 1- 11, Block 2 and Lots 1- 6, Block l, Marian Hills 2nd
Addition to rezone from R-1 to R-3 and Special Use Permit. Upon a voice
vote, all voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously.
Wyman Smith said the� would waive the rezonin� request before the Council.
5• II`�MY H. RIIDEL ESTATE: RF SPLITTING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: To split off the
r"1 land purchased by Dr. Trezona, approximately 1.37 acre tract.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission
receive the letter from Donald H. Lamm, dated June 2, 1967 referring to an
approval for a lot split, and refer the request to the Plats and Subdivisions -
Streets and Utilities Subcommittee and request that the administration get in
touch with Mr. Lamm requesting that he provide a copy of the metes and bounds
description of the Trezona tract for consideration at the Subcommi�tee
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. FU'I'URE LOCATION OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GAR�GE:
Councilman Harris entered at 10:15 P.M. He said he had just come from
a meeting regarding the back half of the proposed Ice Arena property with
the Minnesota Transfer people. We are trying to work out a concession type
� of thing with the acquisition of the land. Final determination will be
made by the Planning Commission and the Council. The County indicated that
they would not sell five acres, but would sell ten acres. The County said,
inasmuch as they are acquiring land for an Ice .Asena and paxk area, they
thought the property of the Public Works should be buffered in such a manner
as to be as �nconspicuous as possible. They su.ggested puttin.g the gasage in
the far end of it. Councilman Haxris assured them we will provide adequate
�buffer, submit our plans and specs to them. The Planning Commission thought
it would be wise for the County to inspect the filtration plant as an example
� of what might be done. They would have a blank wall facing them. We can
�'' _ . provide a certain setback to plow the snow, also there would be 9 or 10
acres as bu£fer. .
Councilman Harris said he would be meeting again on Monday.
Planning Commission Meetin� - June 8, 1967 Page 11
� '. The Planning Commission discussed the location of the Public Works
and gara�e with Councilman Harris and came to no conclusion.
�
�
r:r� � r. uu��►u
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission
meetin.g adjourn at 10:45 p.M, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried.
- Respectfully subm' ed,
� %1z^' -� ` � (/"�/�Zc�c�._-_ •.
! �
Haze� 0' Brian
Recording Secretary
Plannin� Commission
/
\
� . �
, .
�� a � .
4 �' �
�
PLA�INING CO1�Il�LC�SION SIGN IN. SHSE� - JUNE� 8, 1967
�
� �� � ��
L '�--� / / i f� , _
�' � � � ��'����'r�
���
� ,; �l/,�Y� Lf%E11��
� ', �� �, ���c ��t �
� � I �u � , �...- Lc/,�-E E �- . ✓
v �' �.�1 �— ����/�/lr�-+ �
�.��.
�,,. , ,�
� � � / ��
�
��
�
/I� / ��� � '�
,/��
✓ � Cz%�i�,`t�
` �- �--� a.► c.�.......�e..
�� � ���
;I � � _ ,
�- � ,
� / .�G'77 =��
��
�� `" "�'�, ' `
�'" �°'z- . � u
L G/ , ��� � 7����
i /
� ������ � <���� .�, , � �'
f { _ , J�,
' �
� , �� �� `
�� ��� e s Q r,a a
h
���',i�l. �'' .-�
�-` ' :tif� -
` �,U. `
��
� ! i �..�,,�,QvC
L �� ,
` ,�'%G:� 1��; : �r�-�a-�e_.� ��-.��"� ,�..�E� �..i
� ,� � �
� � �
✓� �%l%1,� t �,,�,, �` C-;�-�Cx, c.� `' � � C: �''+� 'r3�e , I� �
�C.�' "
i
�- .:�.���...-� t-�.-- .��� '�-�r � � � / ��..�- f -�� /f-�
`���� �,. ���� , ��'� r� � � � 5�
� . , � ? �.��
v ,�'' ,, : `�y,, ._.� �� / o �i> � �, _ ; vf`� �
, �} � '��
1 '' "!�'
_. Q /
�j�=���` z��`�,- � a � ,,/
-`' -= -� f_. __ _ _ _ �/
_ ` � _.__ _ _
r ����Gs�Li% � , ` � %l� _ r ,�'" _ _
�'`�i7.�'� '�r.�� � �',� �
��D v /�2�¢�.�;%,v-- �rl , %>, � .
J
annx�ss
� �:���
6��/
z
..�� .
�/< ` � .
,, ,
,
�1q� oJ���.��
! �9 J' � r -y � , ,,� 1%� . �/_I� -
�� � �...� G/� .� d , , .J
�7 � y �.-.,�..U,-�, ��. itJ , � .
g�� -����� fJ�.
� � �
���- 1/
lo � 5�� ��c x--z. � .� � . ' ,
�
�� �' i/ D �i� .
' � %��� � A� /
C
�.�....�` '� 'l�'� �/-�, �o rr? C � � �
� /� � � /� �� �, f"� ' �L (' ► wi �`1 �r 1,, �i e 'r'
��
/D o / i7�_f .�
� oZ.S �� ,�
9�'/ ��.���-� - ��
/ t � � � �
� �s'� `7 c��,�. �—,,
� '
_.<<�� �.,� , ��..
G 7 8�; �,.� .� f 6C.�
�- �
� !` '' �.:;.. �.
� S � �v � _�� .fQti .
�
`�
� �'
�-
✓
�-=J
IT�M N0.
�;
� ' ' 'i
� J
� � I' �
A
� NAME
�
:'h �
��
��
J �
�;
,
_
PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN IN SHEET - JUNE 8 1967
ADDRESS
�' v �.�
f �1�,,�,ti,�,,�
�� �^.t_,�> , ,:�
__ _ _ _ 1
11
__ _________ __
�Si/v 3 �--�° 5�-�v, �•
,� � � � '` Y o�( A��-Gr .
��
s��� ��.�
�'�``r ✓ -�,�. .r� `'M . � , �
G��,---....�...
e
�
ITEM N0,
6 �
� j
• e s�,
1
PLANNING CO�SSION SIGN IN SHEET - JUNE 8, 1967
NAME ADDRESS
.�-
��i i�� �Q.. ���..¢--r'`t�� _ i7'� /'.,�T''._G'-'Yt✓ V .� G.-/�i �f i,lj..v. �.:? f �,/ ;;: - //'"`.-`'�...��5�
i �
l n �
��� . �` , � � � a a -� ���` ���_
� � � �� ����� S� G�'�
�� �� �� � �,,�� �- .S`���� � G�� � � �- :y-./ _��� ' �
- -_ f � -
C
ITEM NO
�
�
�
%�