The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 11/30/1967 - 31000� � ' \ � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 30, 1967 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:35 P.M. .'OLL CALL: Members Present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Ylinen, Erickson Others Present: Engineering Assistant Clark APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 26 1967: PAGE 1 MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 9 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 1967 be approved, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: NOVII�ER 1, 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board af Appeals dated November 1, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: NOVEMBER 2,1967 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting of November 2, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. REGE':`-i' BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: NOVIIKBER 7 1967: .MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control dated November 7, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: NOVENIBER 8, 1967: Member Ylinen, Chaixman of the Board of Appeals, gave a short resume of a "request for variance by waiver of requirements or provisions relating to the construction of a one family dwelling on the SZ of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5, Block 14, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, which property is actually a portion of land described in legal description on which Permit ��4746 issued to construct a 3 family structure at 5370 5th Street N.E.". In this situation, the original structure, a triplex, had the proper space requirement. At some later date, a portion was sold to another party. A third party purchased a piece of land as required by City Code as far as land space was required. There are no requirements at the present time in the City Ordinance to prevent this. This could be serious in the future as land becomes more scarce, and we ought __ Planning Commission Meeting - November 30; 1967 Page 2 � to ask the City Council to consider it in order to prevent reoccurrence. The � Board of Appeals approved the construction of a single family dwelling on the 60 foot lot and they are already going ahead with the dwelling. All assessments are taken care of so that is no problem. Because the triplex was originally sold without the necessary land area, the owner felt he should be able to sell it in .the same condition. Denying the variance would not remedy the situation as the owner of the triplex cannot be made to comply with the code. If sold to another party, this party could request a variance as an "innocent" party and we would again be faced with the problem. Chairman Hughes suggested this situation could be included in the Planning Commission study of the Zoning Code. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Board of Appeals Minutes of November 8, 1967 be received by the Planning Co�nission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMNLLSSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 27 1967: MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of November 27, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes stated the Planning Commission would be receiving the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission from now on. n ORDER OF AGENDA• Chairman Hughes asked for a show of hands of the people interested in the public hearings scheduled for this meeting and it was decided to reverse the order of the agenda, taking the last item first, etc. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-12) INNSBRUCK NORTH, ACRES, INC : That part of SE4 of Section 24 that lies North of State Highway ��100�R/W. Rezone from R-1 to P.D. (about 120 acres). The public hearing notice was read by Chairman Hughes, who then explained the order of the hearing. Mr. L. J. Mori.,axty, attorney for Acres, Incorporated, said he thought it was germane at this time to point out that�the change of the zoning system from residential to P.D. does not necessarily show exactly what will be built in that area. If he understood the procedure correctly, that is the subject of some later hearing and at this point, ask it to be changed from residential to P.D. That is the basic change. If they wanted to build an apartment build- ing, it could not be done until a further hearing testifying exactly what can be built in each place, and when that plan is made, that could not be deviated unless there is a subsequent hearing. Chairman Hughes informed Mr. Moriarty that P.D. not only permits multiple, � but it permits residential or commercial. t..� Mr. Moriarty asked if a discussion here tonight would be premature to pre- senting or saying exactly what they are going to put in in Innsbruck North at this time, and to get permission to do that is a subject for a later public hearing. He was asked to show his proposed plan which he said was tentative Plannin� Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Pa�e 3 in nature. The terrain is irregular and there axe several small ponds. The ^ apartment houses and town houses would be in the center; there would be a neighborhood shopping_ center, which would be confined to the services for the people in the area, located in t�e northeast corner. There would be a nine hole golf course. It was estimated it would take some ten years for the development of the whole project. Without specifying the sizes of the build- ings, that is as far as they have gotten and in order to proceed, they have asked for P.D. zoning of the area. In answer to Member Myhra's question, Mr. Moriarty said there is some land between Grace High School and the project. The land is, at the present time, landlocked, but it will be worked out with New Brighton. Mr. Billman said there would be 3 high rise apartments. The proposed entrances of the development would be off Silver Lake Road. They are thinking pretty much of minimizing access to the development, tryin.g to make a private access. Chairman Hughes elaborated on Planned Development. He said the category was added to the City zoning code about a year ago for the purpose of allowing a more tightly controlled development of large tracts of land. The addition of this category was prompted by the number of situations occurring in which it was apparent that a tract of land might properly be developed with some kind of residential and commercial. Where our existing zoning codes would require separate action on individual zonings of tracts, this would create hardship to the person trying to develop the area. The other thing that prompted this was the desire on the part of the City to maintain somewhat tighter control � than was possible under previous zoning code on the type of building and manner of building in a large development so that this is the basis for the zoning category. The first step is to have the land rezoned to P.D. and in order to do this, a public hearing is held before the Planning Commission and another before the Council, which has the final decision. If Council concurs in rezoning to P.D., an ordinance will be drawn stating the zoning change be made and shown on the zoning map. At that time, the developer may proceed with the plan, but not proceed with any building. The land is marked in the building inspector's office that no permits are to be issued in the area only after the developer has produced a plan for the entire area and brought that plan to the City. There will be another hearing before the Planning Commission on the planning and following that, it goes before the Council. So that this evening we are here to discuss the desirability of the zoning. No specific plan has been pre�ented. It is not incumbant on the part of the developer to develop any- thing like this, but we cannot hold him to it. The meeting was then open to the public. Herman Bergman, 5503 Regis Trail: I would like to speak against it. One of the reasons I moved out to Fridley was to get away from multiple dwellings. To my knowledge, the area proposed to be rezoned was, in my opinion, residential in 1955 and was purchased by Acres, Inc. to build single family residences. I have a petition with 45 names who would like to see it stay single family resi- dences. They are people who live in Parkview Oaks just West and people in Inns- bruck to the South. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the petition presented by IIerman Bergman be received by the Planning Commission. Paul Riddle, 1225 Regis Lane: I speak against this change to P.D. I really - Planning Cormnission Meeting - November 30, 1967 .�age 4 question the safety hazard of the heavy traffic coming into a very limited ^ access. Already there is traffic through the residential area, which has a � great number of children. It looks like high density type of population will add to the automobile traffic. I wish to present a petition against this rezoning which has 19 names from Lynde Drive. � MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission re- ceive the petition presented by Paul Riddle. Tony Gnerre, 1202 Hathaway Lane: I speak in opposition. Approximately 95% on Hathaway Lane oppose this zoning. The three brothers of Grace High School also opposed this plan of rezoning. I wish to present a petition opposing the rezoning. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive the petition presented by Tony Gnerre opposing the rezoning. George Bukovich, 1244'Regis Terrace: I speak against this, also. It appears to me that there would be no definite advantage to the City at this time not knowing what would go into the Planned Development. I wish to present a petition of 33 names opposing the rezoning. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive the petition presented by George Bukovich opposing the rezoning. R. J. Reed, 1204 Regis Terrace: I, also, have a petition opposing the rezoning of this area from R-1 to P.D. My basic reason is I am recently a new home owner and that I do appreciate the residential district. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive the petition pxesented by R. J. Reed opposing the rezoning. Lowell C. Mellum, 5517 Regis Trail: My property is immediately adjacent to the proposed planned developmento I, too, oppose rezoning. They want to go from single to multiple family and want to put in under a diffexent name. I moved out here from the City at a great expense. One of the reasons was the zoning of the area. There was no multiple family zoning in the area and I see no reason for it now. I am presenting a petition against the rezoning from single family to P.D. . MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinan, that the Planning Commission receive the petition presented by Lowell C. Mellum opposing the rezoning request. Chairman Hughes nated that some af the petitions were original copies and some xerox copies, and that there was one duplication because of this. He stated that it is the proper procedure to present the original copies o£ the petitions and these are forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive all six pe�itions opposing the rezoning of ZOA ��67-12, Innsbruck North, from � R-1 to P.D. upon receipt of the original copies. Upon a voice vote, all voting � aye, the motion carried unanimously. (The original copies were delivered ��✓ 12/1/67 to Engineering Office), Member Ylinen sta�ed the original copy would be most helpful if the names and addresses of the person who circulated the petition were on the petition. Planning Comunission Meetirig - November 30,-1967 - Pa e 5 Doyle D. Mullin, 1233 Hathaway Lane: I can see why they want it rezoned ^ to P.D, Uut why do they want to have that particular development as opposed � to residential development. I can see that in order to have this kind of development, it must be rezoned, but w�at is not clear is why they want that I tYPe• Mr. Moriarty: Simple economics of the proposition. We started in Inns- bruck South in 1958. We do not have to apologize for it. It has done more for any section of the �ain City area and done more for the particular section of our area, second only to the country club district in Edina. It has up- graded this area. The answer to the question is economics. The cost of land, plus taxes, is such that we cannot.afford to put it into single family dwel- lings and then sell it. The taxes are that high, that ta put in sewer and water and price lots, the price of lots would be so high that the single individual could not buy it. This is not slighting anybody for I could not buy it myself. The only other thing is to put the finest type of multiple dwelling system into this and we believe it would increase the value ot your homes. • Mrs. Herman Bergman: I wonder if the terrain has changed since it was pur- chased. It was originally zoned single family residential. Mr. Moriarty said the terrain had not changed except for erosion. He said they were not going to develop apartments like the ones down on Hwy. 65. William D. Shontz, 5547 Regis Trail: I recently purchased property adja- n cent to the area with the idea in mind that I was in the area of Innsbruck North which would be at least single family dwellings. It is quite obvious his plans for the entrance will increase the density to an unknown magnitude. The streets which are indicated here, are open to Hathaway Lane. The land is 1,000 feet in elevation, almost the highest point in that area. The high rise apartment plans would in no way add to the aesthetics of the area, nor would the apartment houses add to this area. Richard E. Hudrlik, 5502 Regis Trail: I do oppose the plan as population density will be bottled up in one area. Mrs. Henry Wahlberg, 5659 Regis Trail: Does the City of Fridley need more land for multiple dwellings? How much is undeveloped? The City Engineer Qureshi answered that, basically, all the land which is zoned for multiple dwelling has been used. There is a large tract available northwest on East River Road where they are building a complex. There is no large tract left in the City outside of this one. Mrs. Donald Heyda, 1224 Regis Terrace: I do not understand why you have to build that type of buildings. Why not have residential like Innsbruck 5th? Cherle Pedersen, 1030 Hathaway Lane: I moved out here for one reason and that was to have a place for my children to play. Now we have a fulltime job ^ on Hathaway Lai.e. I don't see it will profit anything by having more buildings. , It is a race track right now. We have had a terrific amount of traffic and �i it has gotten to the point where you don't dare put the children into the yard. It is taking away everything we moved out here for. A citizen stated that he had been loolcing for a lot to build on next year, Uut right now he does not know what is going to happen in this area. If this project gets build, he asked what would be the ratio of the residents by n Planning Commission Meetin� - November 30, 1967 Page 6 family that would be occupying the area under this plan as compared to single family dwellings? Mr. rloriarty: Three to one. It is interesting to hear these comments. Ifyouu were going out to buy a house, you could not get one for less than $22,000 and the average young person today cannot make a payment on the house. Why then is there opposition to a beautiful apartment building done in the proper way without destroying the tree beauty of the area? Ronald L. Morin, 5531 Regis Trail: I don't know a multiple dwelling that has stayed as nice as when it was built. I really don't want that in my. back.yard as they will not look the way they did when originally built. George Bukovich, 1244 Regis Terrace: So far all I have heard is that this will make a better deal for Acres, Inc. I have not heard how it will be a better plan for all of Fridley. Herman Bergman: PriVate access to the area -- you cannot build a private access and tell everybody not to use it. There are large residential areas bordering your property on both the west and south and a good share of that will probably use your road. You have a nice residential development in Innsbruck. I agree. I think it is a credit to the coimmunity of Fridley and you ought to build another one. Doyle Mullin: I hope the Commission will analyze this carefully. People are taking fantastic prices for lots. I think people are paying toa much � for them. I would like to point out that access to this area is a problem. Duly considered, the traffic problem is not just one thxough the residential area. All the traffic starting at Hwy. ��694 north to beyond Gardena funnels down to one intersection and that is Hwy. ��65 and Central Avenue. Frankly, I do not see how that intersection can stand more. Lowell C. Mellum: You said single family homes were too expensive. Your property borders on our property and we built there. I would object to a town house on that short 130 foot lot in back of ine. Paul Riddle: If the City plans to encourage permanent residents, you are not encouraging permanent residents but encouxage a transient kind of popu- lation which may or may not stay here. Another citizen said she objected to the P.D. because she had never seen a town house or apartment building that ever looked like a house. If the land is zoned residential, it should stay that way. Still another citizen said he has a house he would be willing to sell today. The cars go 60 miles an hour across the street from the apartment houses. People move in and move out. He would like to move because of the apartment and now they are going to put more in. Another citizen added that they were bound by apartment houses on the west ^ and south. The proposal here would block them in effectively with apartment , houses on the east. � Paul Riddle: This does not affect Fridley in itself, but it affects the area in which we live. The population explosion of one to three -- it would be putting a large burden on the people who live in Fridley and their educa- tional system. n Planning Commission I1eet,ing - November 30, 1967 Pa�e 7 Doyle Mullin: I rather suspect the ultimate is to provide low cost housing. If these multiple dwellings are going to be as nice as he said, the cost will be quite high. Herman Bergman: 3 to 1 ratio sounds horrible to me. I compliment Mr. Moriarty in the courage he had in answering he was going to triple the density of houses we have in the_area. I checked the zoning before I bought a lot. If it had not been R-1, I would not have bought. We paid good prices on the basis we were in the midst of an R-1 area. Getting down to basics, what Acres, Inc. is proposing is to change the zoning in which they can make more money. The City Administration should not allow someone to make a change which would be a financial loss to the adjacent neighbors. If they can sell town houses, why cannot they sell R-1 homes? Mrs. Richard Hudrlik, 5502 Regis Trail: I am appalled at the population density of the area. How could this help the health, safety and welfare of the city? Lowell C. Mellum: strictly economical, As long as there is their property. If the reasons or jt�- ification for rezoning were it would be for a re": �::vely few people in Fridley. a possibility, they ax:,. :oing to make more money off Herman Bergman: Would you ask for comments from citizens in favor of the rezoning? There were none. � MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing of the rezoning request ZOA ��67-12, Innsbruck North, Acres, Inc. of that part of the SE4 af Section 24 that lies North of State Highway ��100 right of way. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The petitioners were asked if an unfavorable decision were made, would they still want to go ahead with the petition, and would they be willing to have part of the land built up with single family dwellings. Mr. Moriarty answered that they understand there is a certain ma.rket for such lots, but not a very big market. By virtue of the terrain and cost -- it cost them $3,500 per lot to bring in sewer and water all of which they were required to pay within one year -- they had a terrible time with it and that is the kind of cost they are talking about and, in this case, it would be more costly. � It was mentioned that the underlying objection was traffic, and the Com- mission realized there would be problems connected with it, but they felt they could be worked out. As far as the City was concerned, the City would have somewhat more to say about the manner in which the area is laid out. The people should bear in mind that Planned Development category was estab- lished as a tool to accomplish a specific end. Member Jensen commented: I think that we are all missing the point be- cause of the sketch. I think this sketch was an errox. The entire hearing n this evening was a review of this sketch. We started out by saying the -.,; sketch was meaning less at this point and all felt they were actually going to build this. We should throw this in the wastebasket and staxt over thinking about P.D. and recognize that we still have a very comprehensive control of the development even though the P.D, rezoning would be granted Plannin� Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page by the Planning Commission and Council. I think, from my own standpoint, ^ this property would be best developed with P.D. zoning even though it might be entirely separate homes. IJue to the extremely rugged terrain, the variet of types of ground in this area, it could be handled in a great many ways. I can see a great many advantages of this property being zoned P.D. but I am not commenting about this plan. I think we should keep on the track. Chairman Hughes said the point was well taken and they should not be in- fluenced by the showing of the plan. We should listen to the statements made by the petitioner as it appears the plan which he will present later on will be strongly, if not entirely aimed at multiple dwellings. It should be presented with a plan that will be predominently single family dwelling. Th intention is predominently multiple dwelling uses. If we should proceed to recommend in favor with this without explaining our position, it would be an indication that the Commission ratified and approved the general plan. I agree entirely that the petitioners are not committed to this drawing. The following items should be studied: l. Bottleneck of traffic occurs at Central Avenue and Hwy. ��65. May like to look further at the type of build- ing in the area. 2. The matter of load on the school system. 3. It is proper to consider what the question of possibility of the continuence of this matter and have something in mind of the purpose of continuence. Member Myhra stated he was opposed to the rezoning P.D, because he though it being used primarily as a rezoning. He felt the P.D. concept was a good thing but this request did not seem logical. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission � recommend to the City Council denial of the petition for rezoning from R-1 to P.D. Development ZOA ��67-12, Innsbruck North, Acres, Inc. that part of the SE4 of Section 24 that lies North of State Highway ��100 right of way. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The members agreed they had nothing against the P.D. Development request, but if the petitioner would be coming in with a new type of platting with a mixture of single family and multiple dwellings, they would be glad to work with it. The audience was told that a public hearing would be held before the Citv Council on December 11, 1967 and that no further notices would be given. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-11) JAMES LUPIENT: Lots 18-20, 23, 24, Sz 7, 8, NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park Addition to rezone from R-2 to R-3. The public hearing notice was read by Chairman Hughes. Mr. Lupient asked that the record indicate that the property he owns and is requesting a change in should be corrected from "all of Lot 7" to read "SZ of Lot 7". ^ Mra Lupient presented a map and plans to the Co�unission explaining he planned to build two 7 unit apartments renting at about $140; two 4 unit `" apartments renting for about $150. They would all be two bedrooms. It was noted the four unit buildings would require a variance in order to build if the rezoning were granted, as the fourplexes would be on two lots. � - Planning Commission Meeting - Plovember 30, 1967 Page 9 Eldon Schmedeke, 5900 University Avenue: What is the zoning on that n area? (Answer, R-2). On an 80x120 area if a fourplex were built, where is the parking? An apartment across from me has nine cars. If a variance �aere permitted here, there �aould be a number of variances where there are two vacant lots. There will be a lot of variances and we would have to go along with them. If this happened, could I build a duplex on the corner 40 foot lot? We have to draw the. line some place and I say we should go strictly by the present code. It was mentioned that the City has not issued permits for 40 foot lots in the last ten years. The present Code does not allow anyone to do so. Mr. Schmedeke continued: If we are going to allow people to come in ' and change zoning in an area for profit, and that they can come in within a month's time to change it, that does not seem fair. It would be quite a mistake as we have a really desirable commercial strip which will be gobbled up by apartments, and we would have small homes set in between the apartments. I cannot•see where this would benefit Fridley. If commercial came in, there would be no small homes as they would be purchased by com- mercial and the area would clear up. I know some of this has fallen on deaf ears for some time. It is coming to a head putting pressure on you fellows and those who have been here for awhile. If you studied this axea, do you think the homes would be worth much setting between these apartments? I think before you pass on this rezoning, study it as commercial area from 60th Avenue South -- 22 Street already has a buffer zone. They cannot make money building three units, so they want to build four. A good strip of commercial property is being thrown away -- we should give it con- sideration. People who own small hames have something to say about traffic. situation. I wish you would consider commercial before you go into this. I have been there 20 years and probably understand the problem as well as anyone here, so please consider it. Myhxa said to Mr. Schmedeke that if he were living down there, he might very well sign Mr. Schmedeke's petition that he would not want an apartment in there, but he �vondered if he would want commercial. It was a complex situation and he just wondered when Mro Schmedeke was getting a petition, if he discussed it with the people who signed. � La�arence A. Muggli, 5973 3rd Street: I have a small machine shop. I always undexstood it was commercial and lately was told it was R-2. I am in favor of commercial. I think the zoning is all illegal. Originally it had been commercial but without proper notification, through the requests of one or two parties who had single residences ten or twelve years ago, the zoning was changed to R-2. I have a few words on that thing to come up a little later under Item ��3 of the agenda. This is one and the same problem. We have people come in .and tell us they will benefit the area, they want to rezone it, put in units that will malce them a lot of money. We all know ihat to make money is the basic idea, but why should the resi- dents, who have been there all the time, not have the same opportunity? If they want to benefit the area, why not build a unit on that property that complies with the present zoning. It does not set very well with the neighbors. Everyone has spoken about the parking problem, but the slight parking problem we have had up to now, is nothing compared to what it will be if we allow all these apartment-buildings to go in. Traffic is the primary consideration. Marvin 0'Berg, 5947 2i Street: Apartments --we know they cause a great Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 10 n deal of trouUle witl� police and everybody else. They do not build good apartments, but just low grade ones. Double bungalo�as would have people that would keep them up, At 60th it is quite nice. Down towards 59th, it has horrible apartments. Houses would be about the same height.and look nice. Mrs. Frank Gabrelcik, 5723 3rd Street: If you took the whole strip from 60th to 57th and commercialized it, that would take the little houses and they would upgrade Fridley. Ruben Lauseng, 5948 22 Street: As far as commercial goes, I am not for or against it. It would not do me a bit of good. We all like to make money. Actually everybody is talking about making money. I own my own home and I cannot make any money. If they build triplex, that is nat so bad, but if they build 7, 8 or 10 units, this will still knock the bottom out of our place. On my block there is a fourplex on one side and four to seven units and behind me all new homes. As soon as I bought, a new apartment came up, but I do not care to have more apartments. A triplex is O.K., but I am not in favor of a four, seven or eleven. Mr. Muggli added, according to the present zone of R-2, two family or a duplex are allowed, but with a rezoning can a triplex on 40 foot lots be built? Are not these applications asking for a fourplex on two 40 foot lots? He was informed that the applicants had an application before the Boaxd of Appeals to lift area requirements. Mr. Lupient: I am not a newcomer to the area. The area is being used � for multiple and I did not feel there would be a lot of objections because there were so many apartments there. �rs. John Peka, 5925 22 Street: When we first moved in, we were not noti- fied they were going to build apartments across the street. We have never been notified about the fourplex on the corner. Oux house is the little yellow one in the middle and we will be penned in and there is nothing we can do about it: Chairman Hughes told Mrs. Peka if the apartments were built according to the Uses allowed, she would not be notified. If it were necessary to be re- zoned in order to build, then she should have been notified. It is highly possible there was no irregularity. Mr. John Peka: Putting apartments on each side of here -- I do not think would be fair. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the public hearing of the rezoning request (ZOA ��67-11) James Lupient, Lots 18-20, 23, 24, SZ 7, 8, NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park Addition, be closed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Myhra said that Mr. Schmedeke mentioned we should make a study of this area. He spent better than one half day down there. He thought a11 the remaxks ^ tend to bear out the fact tha� that area has many, many different aspects ' u` from commercial to small single family dti�ellings. He, for one, did not feel competent to make a decision on �ehether this ought to be rezoned and how, He thought that this may be the time when the Planning Commission could use some professional help, and he hesitated to use the word, but it is such a mixed area, it is hard to say whether it ought to be this, or that, or leave it as it is. Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 11 Chairman Hughes a�ded he shared Mr. Myhra's opinions. He has gone through ^ the area many different days (walked and drove) and he has al�aays come away feeling somewhat the same as Mr. Myhra described. It is quite apparent Lhat area is improving itself. His feelings were he hated to take any action to change single small parcels simply because it was not clear what the area itself should be. If it becomes clear later on, we would feel very badly to rezone tracts that portion which should be cammercial to residential. If it appears later on that the area should be held in R-2, we would look awfully dumb if we had made it all commercial. We have a situation that does not show into what direction we should go. 3ensen added that the zoning in this area is wrong and that is about as far as he cared to go. Erickson agreed he felt very much the same way and was of the opinion the Planning Commission should have counsel. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission recoirnnend to Council the denial of the rezoning request (ZOA ��67-11), James Lupient, Lots 18-20, 23, 24, SZ 7, 8, NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park Addition from R-2 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Myhra commented that when a person owns property, he has a perfect right to request a zoning change for xezoning and there is nothing wrong to make a profit out of it, Chairman Hughes said it is desirable we recommend denial rather than � table the rezoning request because it seems that likely that the solution to the overall problem is going to be on another project and that it would be unfair to the petitioner to be left in doubt what the situaCion should be. 3. � CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST ZOA ��67-10, HENRY LAPIDES: Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, rezone from R-2 to R-3A. Chairman Hughes recalled that at the time ehe hearing was continued, we had heard Lhe public and a number of comments from the Petitioner and Com- mission. Myhra commented that this was the original reason that the Com- mission talked about studying the area. Mr. Lapides said in light of the fact that you might consider having the area studied, he would like to make one point in asking consideration on this request. He did not feel that approving the request would greatly change the aspect of the neighborhood. There are two fourplexes on 3rd Street directly across from his lots, University Avenue to the east, and on his side of the street, two lots down, i.s a fourplex. He was not abutting any 40 foot lots and felt that in this instance, they were justified in aslca.�zg for a rezoning. 3�. Mr. Schmede e felt that corner lot would make a nice slip off to �.i.�zex= - . _.__ ..._ __ _ __ _---- -��tie - commercial . � -z.e « . Mr. Lauseng: Either let it stand as it is or get the home o�aners and let them get a petition. Mr. Muggli: I am all for anyone making money but not at the expense of anyone else �aithout anyone having anything to say. Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 12 .. �� MO'1'IOP1 by rZyhra, seconded by �rickson, that tne continued public hearing . of t-he rezoning request (ZOA ��67-10) Uy Henry Lapides, of Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Fark Addition, i:o rezone from R-2 to R-3A be closed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Myhra observed that talking in terms of study, he found merit in what the- petii:ioner said, but he thought the point still goes. What type of zoning it ought to be, he didn't think the Planning Commission ought to assume anything at t-his time. If a pxofessional planner is to be asked, it seems this request ought to be denied. Chairman Hughes added that it seemed to him that all the reasons given to the previous petitioner for denying the application are applicable to this, also. And an area which all the members seem ta find themselves in agreement on poor zoning, it seemed poor practice to him to change rezoning of a tract in the area when they did not know the direction the area will develop. MOTTON by Jensen, seconded by �rickson, that in view of the aforementioned reasons, that a motion be made that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council denial of the rezoning request ZOA �'�67-10, Henxy Lapides, of Lots 29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, to be rezoned from R-2 to R-3A. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes asked if it were desirable to make a motion requesting permission to employ a planner for the purpose of studying this axea. `` Darrel Clark suggested mentioning some guide lines and how extensive a study they would �aant so that an estimate could be made by a planner as to what a study would cost. Mr. Schmedeke said he would like someone besides Hodne for that area. Myhra felt the Rice Creek Area study by Hodne had good results. It would depend upon who a.s available and willing. Chairman Hughes felt it would be desirable to have someone show up at the next Plann.ing Commission meeting to discuss study costs. COMMUIVICATION FR02� CITY OF COLUM33IA NETGHTS, NOVEMB�R 17, 1967: Re: 10-17 unit apartment buildings in area east of Washington Street and west of Sullivan Lake on the south side of 53xd Avenue. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, requesting the City Manager to correspond with the Manager of Columbia Heights asking him (1) the entrance on 53rd Avenue be kept to a mi.nimum (2) request that they try to bring up substantial screening of the side of the buildings facing 53rd Avenue to provide the greatest possible protection to the single family residences across the street in Fridley. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chai1-man Hughes adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Hazel 0'Brian Recording Secretary � r � �-=� _ . ..� �� Nt?V� 30, 1967 -F ..r�............ SZt�i-� SH$� -- PLANNING CO�IISSION �._i 4�• / �/ � , � / � � , �� . ,� _ ;�� `U, � : �� -- � � ' � �• � � l�J. _ �'17 _ � /' 1 �I� /, � , , , � .� r ,. . ,. ��.r ��"� f: � � i�i � r � �� ' ,u . ' � ��y'' rE.�,�:..> �` � - , ,�, �L,,�* r�--. :�--v-�-�---- 41� .��,LE.,"'�^'�, � � '/ � �, a � -� ��3/ ' _-��'=�``� . 3-sy� � c�-�=�� S.� S� �. l� ° �-�-Q-c�, T _� s�� -�-Q � �� -� �'� �� S � �� ,,�� -s 7`� �,��a ��, ,�� S c�?3 3"�',K� x,� ss�o �� D� �� a� ,�,¢ � - �—�.—�i � � � �� / . �°-�,�.�`�' s' 1 �� ,� � �� .��r �.-�-�-�.. �� o � � �s-� s-� �� C�4 ` � �� 3 � �.�� :�" ..� S � ,.�i �"..C) � - °-- G�� Jo 3 � ;� ��,.�_ ., j J: ... : 4 � a � a � � �.�,-,�,� �-- _ .-�-•-�e �2� 5 �� o�'�`�t^, '� , �a a s �-� -�-� � .�"�ooZ, ��/ ��`.-.�-c� �j 5 pZ- r - '•-`�'v,.'C.J .3 y � o �'�° :.-, ' .�'� . �o /.i t:� w� � . �� .r� � o ,�.� � S� 36 �Z 3��11 �N t��Z. i a �i11U �. �� `�- ,�-:� � � � ��n� . .�,i�` �f/ r . i�y'i%y!� / J j.. � '1 �' !'� r e �„" ;�/ ` j�'.�,r . } .t r" � I/%�� / � � � , _.� .____— —G -- _ __ _ .._ Page 1 .3 � ._.3 _ _ � � � � � / � Z � -� � � � � 3 � 3 � 3 � � 3 3 3. ,� I� 3 I� � � I� II � _� �! NOVII�ER 30, 1967 >, '` � SIGN - IN SHEET -- PLANNING CONIlKISSION il � D SS __ _� 0 i '��-l� ��•�� i _ �� ,i � �-�. , � !�a�►G f/- 8d/ror.L � �-r��✓ �..��.��.��, ; �. , !'�� li' -�� . �! ��'-f��f" -.° ,. � , . � . � �( v /J� � Gl � ��,�,�... ��',��. � "� � � � °, � � i `°".�`' ::�,�,�,�'„r�,�--�'� ��'� � � , 7�'�Z�S'►�G � �I �, r�,� �, .�� '�, �`�'�s'�- �' �'�`�.._ � � �� .��vLC.- .� � o.� �� .,.� � � �'. . Q"� �� ° ��. �'_ �} a s /I/, �a /a. S'��f ��/ /Pe•�/r �u7��o-t.._/� � ! 0 30 % v�'�� l �.01 i'��'�+j-�,,�C �.� , �� , a�� M�� a� 4-�. �-� sy /;�� /.�`-� lz33 � ��?�£, 1 ys+1 G � � � �.�.. s��.s�-� � �,� 1� � � ; `..-.✓J J �' ; � � r' /va: . � j�'`- -� `'•.- �,�`=r. 3"S� �3 3� � � � ��23 �� r� �" . _� � 3 y �! � ,ct.'.�(�: , y � . � �� :; ��. � �-_ � v_ �--� � - �-� � ___��_ �, - � Page 2 3 � � � � � , � �a., 3, � � 3 � �—`_._ � '� � �' � 1 �— r �--- 1 � .�