PL 04/25/1968 - 31006M
�9
� CONIMITTEE ON ORDINANCE REVIEW -MINUTES OF THURSDAY, APRIL� 25, 1968
The Planning Commission, meeting as a Committee of the Whole, met at
10:00 P.M., in the Conference Room at City Hall.
Members Present: Hughes, Erickson, Jensen, Myhra, Ylinen.
Members Absent: None �
The following decisions were reached:
The Commission re-established its plan to complete the revision of the
"R" zones and to give it to the City Council�for review by its members.
"Uses Excluded"--Uses excluded have already been established in the
revised R-1 and R-2 and they should remain the same.
"Uses excluded" paragraph will not be included in
any zoning district beyond R-2.
Reauirements on Lot Dimensions--Completed for R-1 and R-2
R-3 A. Lot Area Requirements
A lot area of not less than 15,000 square feet for
building with up to 4 units, 3,000 square�feet shall
�• be required for each additional unit.
R-S Minimun lot area of not less than 27,500 square
feet, with 2500 square feet per unit.
Single family and two family dwellings when proposed
for R-3 (R-5) shall meetlot area rea�.irements
established in Section 6, II, A.
Requirements on Lot Width--Completed for R-1 and R-2
R-3 A minimum lot or parcel width of not l.ess than 85
feet is required for each building. Delete rest'
of present 45.29.
R-S A minimum.lot ox p:arcel width of not less than
100 feet is required for each building. Delete rest
� of present 45.29.
Single family and two family dwelling when proposed
for R-3 (R-5) shall met lot width reauirements
established in Section 6, II, B.
Lot Coverage Requirements--Completed for R-1 and R-2
R-3 Not more than 25 percent of the area of a lot shall
�"� be covered by the main building and all accessory
buildings. �
�
, -
:�
� R-5 Not more than 20 percent of the area of a lot shall
be covered by the main building and all accessory
buildings.
n
Single family and two family dwellings when proposed
for R-3 (S-5) shall meet requirements for yards,
building heights, floor area, grade, set backs, and
lot coverage requirements established �in Section 6,
III, A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Side Yard Requirements--completed for R-1 and R-Z, except for following
changes:
R-1 III,� B, 3 changed to read: The side yard adjoining ari
attached garage may be reduced to not less than
5 feet, provided the height of the building on that
side is not more than 15 feet.
III, B, 4 should have follow�ng sentence at the
en.d: In no case shall the garage's vehicle entrance be
closer than 25 feet to the street line.
R-2 III, B, 2 Same as III, B, 3 above.
III, B, 3 Same as III, B, 4 above.
NOTE: We need to establish�some way of regulating the side
yard setback when the house on the lot to the rear faces
side street. �
R-3 B. Side Yard Requirements
Two side yards are required, each of which must
be at least 10 feet wide and the total width of
' which must be 25 feet, except as follows:
1, Detached accessory buildings not higher than
1Z feet may be constructed not closer than 5 fee.t
to any side lot line not adjacent to any street,
' Z. The•side yard width on a street side of a corner
lot shall be not less than 15 feet. When the
. 1ot to the rear thereof has a frontage along
the side street, no accessory building on the
� - corner lot shall b�e close to said street ''
than the distance of the front yard depth
. requirement for the lot to the rear thereof;
provicled, however, that this regulation shall
• not be so interpreted as to reduce the
buildable width of a corner lot to less than
^ 25 feet. In no case shall the garage's
• v�;hicle entrance be closer than 25 feet to ��he --
street line.
R-S B. Side Yard Requirements
, •
.+ .
�
�
�,
Two side yards are required, each of which must ,
be at least 20 feet wide..
NOTE: I had no exceptions listed in my notes: Is that correct?
R-3 Building Height Requirements
No�building shall hereafter be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, enlarged, or moved, so as
to exceed the building height of 30 feet.
R-5 Building Height Requirements � �
No building shall hereafter be erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, enlarged, or moved, so as
to exceed the building height of 35 feet.
Begin next meeting by discussing rear yard requirements.
�'�_� j
{� ?
�
, �
.�_--�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 25, 1968
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Membexs Present: Myhra, Erickson, Hughes, Ylinen,�Jensen
Others Present: Engineering Assistant C.lark
AkPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 11, 19Fr8
PAGE 1
Mr. Myhra called attention to the second paragxaph from the bottom of
Page 3 which should read as follows: "Mr. Myhra wondexed if CR-1 were
considered, would it be in order to include in the recominend�tion recommended
variances?" �
n � Mr.�Erickson asked that tha second sentence of the last paragraph on Page
'° � 6 read Limit approval to property except the North 75 or 80 feet to be left
R-1, waive some of the area requirements."
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission approve
the Planning Commission minutes of April 11, 1968 as corrected. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously..
s
,
, � ,
r
'.;-- ---
��:
— _---_ ;� -��
. - , PLAlVNING COM1�iI8S�9Rt�ING-_- APRIL 25;. 196� , PAGE 1
,
--
- -
,�--a-.r� �
-,�;-r--,�::�' - - -
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSTON MINUTES: AYRIL lI. 1968 �•
-� _�"_ ---� —
'� Mr. Myhra called attention to the second paragraph from the bottom of
� Page 3 which should read as f�llows: "Mr. 1Kyhra wondered if CR-1 were
considered, would it be in order to include in the recommendation reeommended
variances?"
Mr. Er3.ckson asked that the second sentence of the last paragraph�on Page
6 read "Limit approval to property except the North 75 or 80 feet to be left
R-1, waive some of the area requirements."
. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission approve
the Planning Commission minutes of April 11, 1968 as corrected. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously:
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - AERIL 25, 1968 • PAGE 1
^
�i
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Membexs Present: Myhra, Erickson, Hughes, Ylinen,�Jensen
Others Present: Engineering Assistant Clark
APFROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 11, 1968
Mx. Myhra called attention to the second paragraph from the bottom of
Page 3 which should read as follows: '�Mr. Myhra wondered if CR-1 wexe
considered, would it be in order to include in the recommendation reco�nended
variances?" �
Mr. Erickson asked that the second sentence of the last paragraph on Page
6 read "Limit approval to property except the North 75 or 80 feet to be left
R-1, waive some of the area requirements."
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission approve
the Planning Co�nission minutes of April 11, 1968 as corrected. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously..
ACCEPT COMMISSION ON ORDINANCE REVIEW MINUTES: APRIL 6 1968
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission
accept the Commission On Ordinance Review Minutes of April 6, 1968. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ACCEPT COMMISSION ON ORDINANCE REVIEW MINUTES: APRIL 13 1968
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission
accept the Commission on Ordinance Review minutes of April 13, 1968. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE SPECIAL MEETING OF PARKS AND RECREA.TION MINUTES: APRIL 16 1968
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission
receive the Special Meeting of the Parks & Recreation minutes of April 16,
1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously,
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:. APRIL 22 1968 � ,:_. ....,
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive
the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of April 22, 1968. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DES�GN CONTROL 3UBCOMMITTEE.MINUTES: APRIL 24 1968
MOTTQN by Eric�son, seconded by Ylinen, that.th.e Planning Commission .__
receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subco�nittee
meeting of April 24, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
�
�'1
Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 1968
ORDER OF AGENDA:
�age 2
The order of Agenda was to be followed• as written.
1. REZONING REQUEST CONTINUED: ZOA #68--05, DR, K. H. INGEBRIGTSEN:
Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Highland's 3rd Addition.
Chairman Hughes explained the background of this reQuest
and Mr. Erickson removed himself from the discussion.
The Engineering Assistant reported that, in talking
with the City Attorney, he was informed the Pla�ning
Commission can recommend a more restrictive zoning to the
Council and the Council can advertise what they wish, As
long as they recommend a restrictive zoning, this can be
done, but the petitioner would have to agree.
Chairman Hughes informed the Commission if it was the
wish of the Commission to proceed further, it would be in
order to move reconsideration �of this item,
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning
Commission reconsider the rezoning request of Dr, K. H.
Ingebrigtsen, ZOA #68-05, of Lot 11, Block l, Moore Lake
Highlands 3rd Addition. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye;
the motion carried unanimously,
Dr. Ingebrigtsen was asked to make a statement, and he
said he had nothing to add to what he had said at the last
meeting, Because the chairman was not present at that
meeting, he explained that he intended, at some future
time, to put up a professional building, including in addition
to a dentist and physician., a limited number of other
professional offices, such as lawyer's office, or an
insurance agency. His understanding of CR-1 is,that it is
more restrictive.
Chairman Hughes stated that, accordin'g to the minutes,
he understood a recommendation was suggested for CR-1
with variances:
The Engineering Assistant added that there is no
_ provision where Speci�.l Use Permit can be granted in CR-1.
We have had requests through the years for other offices
. like this. It was also noted that spe`cial use pe'rmits•in
R-3 are not uncommon. The Commission could not recommend
special use permit for Dr. Ingebrigtsen, but they could
recommend variances.
The Engineering Assistant suggested that the Commission
•�"'ti could do it and the City Attorney could research it, and ....
' ' i� it can't be done, issue a special use pe-rmit. -- -�
The Chairman said
restrictive, it would
the Board of Appeals
that unless there is something quite
be within the realm of the propriety for
to recommend'a va'riance. "
�
�� '�.�l�L� '" �v''°
�v
PLANNING COMMISSION P�lEETING MAY 9, 1968 PAGE 1
� n .
-- The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
MIl�'LBEftS PRESENT: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Ylinen, Erickson
OTI�RS PRESENT: Darrel Clark, Engineer_ing Assistant
APPROVE PLANI�TING �OMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 25, 1968
� On Pa�e 3, sixth para�-rapY�, NIr. Erickson called attention to an error
in. the wording of the motion which should read "U-pon. a voice vote, Member
Erickson abstaining, the motion carried."
Chairman Hu hes asked that �;he last sentence on Page 2 be omitt�d as
it was irrelevant.
On Page 5, the 1�aragxaph before the motion, at the request of Mr.
Erickson, should read, "Mr. Erickson said it_seemed to him that rezoning of
this•propert,y and the question of t�.is tvpe of complex would be an asset to
the communit,y and ure should be able to eliminate once and for all the problem
of the North �parcel in question."
r'�'�, . .
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Pla.nning Commission
approve the m�nutes of April 25, 1968 svbject to the aboye corrections. Upo.n
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STRFE°1'S & UTILTTIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES:
�Y 3, 1968:
Chairman Je.nsen requested the following corrections be made and
incorporated in the minutes: On Page 1 the size of the tract is quoted by
Mr. Siverts as seven.acres. The last two paragrapris on Pa�e 1, where the
letter "D" is used describing a Parcel, this is in error and the letter "B"
should be inserted. The MOTION on Pages 1 and 2 should be corrected as
follows: "MOTION b.y Na�el, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Plats & Sub-
divisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recorumend a,�-proval of Lot Split,
L.S. #68-08, as described in map referred to at the Subcommittee•meeting of
Ma,y 3, 1968, subject to the dedicatio.n of the remaining part of Lot F for �
s_treet purposes and also subject �o combznin� Lots B and C into one lot
labelled C: U-pon a voice v.ote, all votin.g a e, the motion carried unanimously "
,� MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Plannin� Commissioti
_ receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee
meeting of May 3, 1968 as correc�;ed above. Upon a voice vote, all voting a.ye,
the motio.n carried unanimously. �
_y�'�
�.
J,
x < .. .:..�,»
n`'�' _�:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MIN[TTES: APRIL 25, 1968
.� On Page 3J sixth paragraph, 1�'r. Erickson called attention to an errox
in. the wording of the motion which sriould read "Upon a voice vote, Member
Erickson abstaining, the motion carried."
�; Chairma.n Hu�;hes asked that the last sentence on Page 2 be omitted as
it�was irrelevant.
� E On Pa�e 5, the paragra-ph before the motion, at the request of Mr.
Eric�son, should read, "NIr. Erickson said it seemed to him that rezo.ning of
this propert,y and the qu�stion of this type of complex would be an asset to
the communit.y and Vre should be able to eliminate once and for all the problem
of the North parcel in ques-tion."
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Pla.n.ning Commission
approve the m�nutes of April 25, 1968 subject to the abo�;e corrections. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ��. ,s-�� /� y�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 1968
ORDER OF AGENDA: .
Page 2
The order of Agenda was to be followed as written,
1. REZONING REQUEST CONTINUED: ZOA #68-05, DR. K. H, INGEBRIGTSEN;
Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Highland's 3rd Ad ition.
Chairman Hughes explained the background of this request
and Mr. Erickson removed himself from the discussion.
The Engineering Assistant reported that, in talking
with the City Attorney, he was informed the Planning
Commission can recommend a more restrictive zoning to the
Council and the Council can advertise what they wish. As
long as they recommend a restrictive zoning, this can be
done, but the petitioner would have to agree.
� Chairman Hughes informed the Commission if it was the
wish of the Commission to proceed further, it would be in
.,,.
order to move reconsideration of this item.
,
� MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning
'_�� .Commission reconsider the rezoning reauest of Dr. K: H.
� 4'_`"��`k Ingebrigtsen, ZOA #68-05, of Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake
Highlands 3rd Addition. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye,.
�„1 the motion carried unanimously.
Dr. Ingebrigtsen was asked to make a statement, and he
said he had nothing to add to what he had said at the last
meeting. Because the chairman was not present at that
meeting, he explained that he intended, at some future.
time, to put up a professional building, incl.uding in addition
to a dentist and physician, a limited number of other
professional offices, such as lawyer's office, or an �
insurance agency. His understanding of CR-1 is that it is
more restrictive.
Chairman Hughes stated that, according to the minutes,
he understood a recommendation was suggested for CR-1
with variances:
The Engineering Assistant added that there is no
provision where Special Use Permit can be granted in CR-1.
We have had requests through the years for other offices
like this. It was also noted that spe�cial use permits in
R-3 are not uncommon, The Commission could not recommend
special use permit for Dr. Ingebrigtsen, but they could
recommerid va.riances . �
,,,.1 The Engineering Assistant suggested that the Commission
' could do it and the City Attorney could research it•, and �
i� it can�t be done,issue a special use permit.
� The Chairman said
restrictive, it would
the Board of Appeals
that unless there is something quite
be within the realm of the propriety
to recommend a variance.
for
Planning Commission A4eeting - April 25, 1968 Page 3
The Engineering Assistant said that we have two cases
� where special use permits were granted, with no construction
and we are waiting for an opinion from the City Attorney
on this very question.
The Chairman said that the variance would not have to
be recommended immediately. In most cases, where there is
a time limit, the time limit can be extended by the petitioner
where he has been delayed, We are not sure in this case
if there is a time limit.
Mr. Myhra said he would hesitaie to go to R-3 in view
of the fact the people living around there might feel
entirely different to an apartment according to their
expressions at the last Commission meeting. In speaking to
Dr. Ingebrigtsen, Mr. T�yhra said if there is a time limit, and
this runs out before he is ready to move, it has been suggested
it can be extended -- is this the way you understand it?
Dr. Ingebrigtsen asked_if then, the Planning Commission actioi
would be recommending a variance and he was told they
could recommend CR-1 and for the petitioner to ask for a
variance later on. '
Chairman Hughes asked Dr. Ingebrigtsen if it would be
, satisfactory to him for the Planning Commission to recommend
n to the Council this reauest to CR-1 with the recommendation
` for the variance for professional offices other than medical
be granted on his building permit application, Dr. Ingebrigtsen
concurred.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra that the Planning
Commission recommend to�the City Council, ZOA #68-OS,
Dr. K. H. Ingebrigtsen, Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Heghlands
3rd Addition be rezoned to CR-1 and also we recommend that
a varianceshould be considered so as to include the possibility
of other professional and office facilities other than that
specified in the CR-1 zoning.� Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, except_�ember Erickson, the motion carried.
Mr. Jensen added that he.believed it was proper, in
keeping with the intent of the petitioner and in line with
the proper protection of the neighborhood, to restrict
� � - - • � � . rezonir�g to a CR-1 rather than the desired- C-1 by the � � � -. • ,
_ petitioner. The CR-1 zonin� allows the majority of uses
that were described by thevetition.erin his presentation
for the reason of his rezoning. I think it is unfortunate
that the CR-1 zoning is as restrictive as it is in this
particular instance and therefore I would hope that Council,
in the future, and other Commissions examining the variance
of the request, would favor the �equest in line with tfie
recommendations of this motion.
�, .
2� REZONING REQUEST CONTINUED: ZOA #68-06, HIRSCH BROS.
PROPERTIES: Part of Block 22 and all of Block 23, F-ridley
Parc A ition and part of Lots 7 and 9, Revised Auditor's
Subdivision #23,
0
Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 1968 Page 4
Mr. Philip Hirsch and Mr. R. Wormsbecker were present,
r.,� The Chairman informed the audience.the public hearing had
been closed on this petition and now the matter was before
the Planning Commission for consideration.
A slight change had been made in the plans for the
complex which were explained by Mr. Hirsch including a
discussion of proximity of Mr. Plum's property. When
asked what would be going in the commercial area, b7r.
Wormsbecker said there would be a combination type of
grocery store. It would be a commercial enierprise and
would architecturally blend in with Mr. Hirsch's plans.
Mr. Erickson said he thought he indicated at the last
meeting some concern over the possible setback. The City
Attorney assured him it was highly possible for the City
to enter an agreement with the property owners for certa.in
set backs and be perfectly binding. It may be desirable
if R-3 zoning were granted as it restricts the side line
requirements. Once the rezoning is granted, this plan
does not mean anything.
Mr. Jensen said that during the action of the Plats
and Subdivisions-Streets and Utilities, he noted that the
recommendation for approval of the street vacated (Olive
Street) included acceptance o£ a 10 foot additional right of
� way for the Mississippi Street.extension and he would like
` to review�the viewpoint of the petitioner, Is there any
. agre�ment among the parties involved in the additonal ten
feet as to the disposition of the land.
Mr. Hirsch said he was not concerned about that, but
he was concerned about the side yard. He was willing to
give the additional 10 fee.t.
� Mr. Hirsch said on their layout, they already considered
what would be reauired on R-3. They had a feasibility
study made on the apartment market in�Fridley and found
that the vacancy factor is very low. Compared with 11 - --
different complexes in the area, some in Fridley and some
adjoining villages, They found that the majorityof buildings
in the area are smaller than what they plan to build and
are predominately two bedroom units with a lot with children.
They feel the most important thing regarding zoning is reall
what kind of a structure is built. If they are going to � ✓
do justice to this piece of land, . and h�e agreed w'ith --
Mr. Plum that it is a beautiful piece of land. First thing
he liked was the river and he feli he should give this river
view to as many people as he could. If he is limited to the
side.yard it is Quite likely he will have to spli.t,the
� buildings,and could not do the kind of job�he is trying -� °- �'
to layout. They are bu.ilding liuildings that will rent from
�' $140 to $180 and want this to be a first class project. .... .
He said that he is building an ap�.rtment complex in New - --
Hope. They have single family homes on two sides and roads
Planning Commission Meeting - April 25, 1968 Page �
on two sides. He called the developer who is building a
� new home abutting the property, and asked if he felt
there would be an adverse effect on his home. The letter
in response was in favor of the complex.
Mr. Jensen asked Mr. Hirsch if he would have any qualms
about entering into an agreement with the City of Fridley
agreeing to precisely the sideyard on the architect's
sketch and Mr. Hirsch replied he would be very happy to do
it. �
Mr. Hirsch said the height of the buildings woud be 2 1/2
stories facing East River Road and facing the river would be
3 stories. He said he would have a landscape architect
to plan the layout. He was concerned about screening for
Mr. Plum's property and that there is proper screening on
commercial. Mr. Erickson informed the people present that
the City has a committee that approves plans as well as
the landscaping.
Mr. Wormsbecker explained that the commercial will stay
at the same size as it is on the.back.part of the land.
� Mr. Erickson said it seemed to him that rezoning o�f
\this property and the auestian of this type of complex would
� be an asset to the community and we should be able to eliminate
once and for all the � ,
_ - � L ,� `�..���-- �
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, the th�e Planning
Commis.sion recommend to the City Council approval of the
rezoning request, ZOA #68-06 except for Parcel 1-A as
described in the public.hearing noticE dated�March 27� �
and April 3, subject to the excution of an agreement
between the land owners and City of Fridley to rest�rict any
construction to a minimum setback of 38 feet on the North
and 45 feet on the South, 100 feet from East River Road in
all R-3 or R-3A zoning and the dedication of an additional
10 feet of the south end of Blocks 21 and 22 from East -
River Road to West boundary of Riverview Terrace. Upori a .
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2-B VACATION REQUEST: SAV #68-01, HIRSCH BROS. PROPERTIES:
Vacate 30 foot street lying South and adjacent to North line
' of Fridley Park Addition. -
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson that the Planning
Commission recommend approval to the Council of the Vacation,
SAV #68-01, 30 foot street lying South and adjacent to •
North line of Frildey Park Addition subject to the rezoning
rec{uest, ZOA-#68-06,being approved. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
,� .
Planning Commission �Zeeting - April 25, 1968 Page b
The Engineering Assistant called attention to a dascrepancy
��i in the right of East River Road. The Coun�y originally
took an additional 24 feet for East Rive'r Road. Back when
Lorrie Johnson was interested in the property, the City
asked for an additional 26 feet of right of way and described
it as being part of the Block 22. Since that time a survey was
made by the. County and the new alignment was made on East
River Road creating an island of land 10 to 1S feet wide.
��
�``,
Mr. Hirsch said the driveway easement and the strip
between the driveway and East River Road belongs to the
present property owners and they would like to see it
aligned to their property.
The Engineering Assistant said Anoka County has seen the
discrepancy and may ask that it be cleared up because it. is
torrens property. The original intent was at one time for
a 50 �oot wide servi.ce drive. Since that time, service
drives for East River Road have not been talked about, therefore,
perhaps the Right Of Way could be reduced to the amount
needed for turn lanes,
It was decided that Mr. Wormsbecker should return
with more information.
3. REZONING REQUEST: ZOA #68-09, LARRY DEAN FERGUSON:
Lots 1 and Z, Bloc 3, Gunderson Terrace. Rezone from
R-1 tp R-3. .
MOTION by Ericksont seconded by Jensen, that the
Planning Commissi�n set the date of June 13, 1968 for the
public hearing of ZOA #68-.09, LARRY DEAN FERGUSON: of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Gunderson Terrace to be rezoned
from R-1 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
4, HYDE PARK ADDITION ZONING PROBLEM;
. Chairman Hughes said the attention of the Planning �
Commission was-called to the editorial which appeared in the
Fridley Sun on April 24, 1968 in which the editor spoke
favorably of the action to delay zoning of the land in the
Hyde Park Area,
Mr. Myhra said that since the �ime of Council's final
action on Nir, Schmedeke's petition, very little action has
been taken, and that ii is time for the Commission to
consider the approach that we should be taking in this matter
as to recommending a course to the council. He said the
Commission should continue to recommend��to the Council that .
they feel a need for professional help and guidance ask i�
Planning Commission Meeting-April 25, 1968 Page 7
there is the possibility, in the� near �uture, o� getting
� help from a City Planner?
The Engineering Assistant informed the Commission that
Council has asked�the Engineering Department and Planning
Commission to restudy the area and with boundaries in mind
between 2 1/2 Street and University Avenue, 57th to 60th
Avenues as a possible commercial area and also to rest�dy
the traffic flow pattern that should be setup. The drafting
department is working on existing structures and location
of utilities in the area. �
Mr. Erickson said he did not believe that the Planning
Commission has the time or knowledge to go through a
comprehensive study of the area and he would like to request
the Council if the hiring of a professional planner is not
iminent, to reconsider the Planning Commission acceptance
of the service of a Planning Consultant such as Nason, Wehrman,
Knight and Chapman, Inc.
The Chairman continued that if the availability of a
permanent planner for the City is to be delayed by even one
or two months, that it would be desirable thing to have
a temporary planner's help during that period. The estimate
that Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc, fox completion
, of the study for the Hyde Park Area was two months. It
�"� has been.now a month since final action on the Schmedeke
rezoning petition which leaves only five months before a
new application can be made.
Mr. Myhra said he thought that the editorial was quite right
in noting also that the property owner does_deserve getting
this thing accomplishe� as auickly as�he can�.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that tfie
Planning Commission request information from Council relative
to the time schedule for hiring a staff planner so that
the �lanning Commission would be able to better estimate
the task of considering the Hyde Park Area and if, in tfie
opinion of the Council, the hiring of a staff planner is
going to be delayed for longer than 30 days, the Council should
reconsider the Planning�Commission reQuest for a temporary
planner consultant. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously. , . .�
ADJOURNMENT:
The Commission adjourned at 10:00 P.M, to the Conference
Room for the Study of the Proposed Zoning Code. '
Respectfully submitted -
� Hazel 0'Brian � �� -
Recording Secretary �
�'
4�
��
�l p �i- /-�?
J
� 1 C� �' �° %��a rr �� i r� �v 7r2 "�-7 � s s � � 7� .,. �
��-� l �.r /i�£r �
.
j�latn � �-�- c��/Y �- s s ; f� em �d•
�/7 r ���1�/�f �-�rV . .S�//'_' l�li. /�?d p/L°.,� L /� r �%'. �
/
I i/�,1, p�� �—t� / 3 9 r� l.�/ a a�� +�- LQ Z
�,
�qQ�R� �� . �c N-Rd��2 ��Y� % ����� _ ev�� � � _ ` ;z.
- � y- � �'
� _ . �, �,,
% ,
:�
�/,; , : .� . , . _ - _ - � �� r �`- � : �, � 4 � ,�'� ,�...�..-: � � � ,- ; �
. ,
�,,� 3 2�-� I� `���. p.-t v
I f- . . _
�
,
�
��
� .
�
;
�
�
�
�/