PL 06/13/1968 - 31009- . - �...:.
. '�
^
�
�
PLE�NNING CON.�ilSSION MEETING
ROLL CALL•
JUNE 13, 1968
PAGE 1
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:38 P.M.
Members Present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Ericksan, Ylinen
Others Present: City Engineer Nasim Qureshi
ORDER OF AGENDA•
Chairman Hughes suggested delaying consideration of the Minutes because
of the time schedule for the public hearings until later on .in the evening.
1. PUBLIC Ii�ARING: REZODTING REQUEST, ZOA.��68-09, LARRY FERGUSON: Lots 1 and 2,
Block 3, Gunderson Terrace. Rezone from R-1 to R-3.
The public hearing notice was read by Chairman Hughes.
Mr. Ferguson was not present.
Mr. Dale Hagen, 7478 Ha.yes Street: We have a petition which we would
like read into the minutes of this meeting. This wi11 sum up our wishes.
The heading of the petition dated June 12, 1968 is as follows: We
the undersigned property owners of single family dwellings and residents of
the area in, around, and adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Gunderson Terrace,
hereby pe�tition the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley to deny the
request (ZOA ��68-09) to rezone the R-1 district to any.other zone than R-1.
That the undersigned represent the majority of �the single family dwelling
property owners in, around and adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Gunderson
Terrace, and hereby voluntarily signify our objection to such rezoning
requests and respectfully request the Planning Cou�ission to deny such requests.
There were thirty-one signatures. .
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�ission accept
the petition requesting denial of the rezoning request, ZOA �,�68-09, dated
June 12, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried.
Virgi.nia Conrad, 7440 Bacon Drive: Mrs. Conrad stated they did not care
.._ . to have an i.n,flux of apartments. As far as__�..W._ Onan needing residences,6 _ ....
there are still plenty of R-1 Districts. She did not think that apartment
buildings built that close to private residences would be beneficial.
Mike Svitak, 1381 75th Avenue: He stated he had not had the opportunity
to sign the petition presented to the Planning Co�ission this evening and:_
asked permission to do so. He opposed the rezoning. �
Henry G. Hamersma, 1405 Onondaga Street: When he built his house about a
year ago, there were no apartments. If there had been, he would not hav�- -�
built. � ' .
9
c
Plannin� Commission Meetin� - June 13, 1968 Page 2
ti
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Co�ission close
•,,� the Public Hearing of the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-09, Larry Ferguson, of
Lots 1 and 2, B1ock 3, Gunderson Terrace to rezone trom R-1 to R-3. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Erickson commented that, obviously, this is pretty mu.ch of a single
family area, and, at this particular time, he saw no reason to extend this
type of zoning East of Central Avenue.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission
recommend to the Council denial of the rezoning requ�st, ZOA ��68-09, Larry
Ferguson of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Gunderson Terrace to rezone from R-1 to
R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman said he agreed with Mr. Erickson's reasoning. The present
use of the area is not an argument in favor of additional multiples in that
area at all. He informed the audience that the reco�endation of the Planning
Commission is not binding, but the decision rests with the City Council. This
recommendation will be forwarded to Council for their m�eting on�June 17, 1968.
CONSIDERATION OF MLNUTES:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 9, 1968:
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning�Co�►ission
,^, minutes of May 9, 1968 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously. -
ACCEPT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 23, 1968:
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Co�anission
minutes of May 23, 1968 be accepted. Upon a voice v�te, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONIMISSION MIN[TTES: MAY 13, 1968:
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�ission
receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of May 13, 1968. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � �
ItECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONIMT.SSION MINUTES: MAY 27. 1968:
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�nnission
receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of May 27, 1968. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.' �
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONIl�IISSION MINUTES: JUNE 3, 1968:
� MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planni�g Commission
receive the Parks & Recreation C�mmission minutes of June 3, 1968. Upon a
n voice vote,�all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: MAY I5, 1968:
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission
receive the Building Standards-Design Control minutes of May 15, 1968. �Jpon
.. a voice vote,.all voting aye., the motion carried unanimously.
�
,�_
Plannin� Conunission Meeting - June 13. 1968 � Page 3
',� RECEIVE BUILDING STAN'DARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: N1AY 27, 1968:
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission
receive the Building Standards-Design Control minutes of May 27, 1968. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: MAY 22, 1968:
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning CoIIanission
receive the Board of Appeals minutes of May 22, 1968. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCONINIITTEE MINUTES: JUNE 11, 1968;
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission
receive the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcoxumittee minutes of
June 11, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani-
mously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PRELIMCNARY PLAT, P.S. ��68-03, SOUT�TON 2ND
ADDITION, JULIAN JOHNSON: Outlot �2, Worrel Addition.
Mr. Johnson was not present, probably based on the action of the Plats
and Subdivisions-Streets and Utilities Subcommittee. �
� Mr. Jensen said there were some unresolved questions relative to the
plat. The lots were not in question but a street plan should be resolved.
The Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee would discuss
this problem at their meeting on June 20, 1968.
MOTION by.Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the P�anning Commission con-
tinue the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. ��68-03, Southhampton 2nd Addition,
Julian Johnson of Outlot ��2, Worrel Addition until the meeting of June 27,
1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. �68-09, ROBERT D. DEGARDNER: Lots 22 through 25,
Block 7, Spring Brook Park Addition.
Mr. Erickson explained that he had talked to the petitioner and he has
not resolved the matter of-Lot�26.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the'Planning Co�ission
� continue the item of the Lot Split request (L.S. �68-09) Robert D. DeGardner
• of Lots 22 through 25, Block 7, Spring Brook Park Addition until the June 27,
1968 meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mousll
4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-11, LEROY B. SMCTH: Lot 2, Block 1, Spring'
Valley Addition. � �
^ Mr. Jensen, Chairman of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Sub-
committee, stated the Subcoaunittee had.recommended approval. .The request
- involves a division of 137 feet from the South of Lot 2, Block 1, Sprixig
� � . Valley Addition. The Subcommittee, he said, made its'recommendation subject
,
• • 4
_�__ .
Plannin� Commission Meeting - June 13, 1968 Page 4
'�-� to providing a 25 foot right of way for street purposes on the North of Lot 2
and a 5 foot drainage and utility on both sides of•the division line and
requested that the petitioner provide legal document for the consideration of
the Planning CouIInission. Because Mr. Smith was noC present, Mr. Jensen felt
there had not.been enough time for him to prepare the above informa.tion.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planni.ng Co�►ission'con-
tinue until the meeting of June 27, 1968 the lot split request (L.S. �68-11)
Leroy B. Smith of Lot 2, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously.
5. � CARTER-DAY CONIPANY: Approve Registered Land Survey, RLS ��68-03:
The Chairman said the purpose of the registered land survey for Carter-
Day Company is to simplify the legal description of the tract.�
The City Engineer told the Commission this property is owned by Carter-
Day. There might be an easement on the South side for the high power trans-
mission lines of Northern States Power Co.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�ission
approve the Registered Land Survey (RLS ��68-03) of Carter-Day Company. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye; �the motion carried unanimously.
6. VACATION REQUEST: SAV ��68-Q3, HENRY G. SAFFERT: Lots 22A�and 22B, Block 1,
� Lyndale Builders 4th Addition for garage.
Mr. and Mrs. Saffert were present. Mr. Saffert had consulted with the
City Attomey who said he would geC the information needed for the Planning
Coumaission. Mx. Saffert had received letters from Northern States Power Co.
and Northwestem Be11 Telephone Co. saying they had no objections to his re-
quest. _
The City Engineer said he had had a preliminary discussion with the City.
Attorney. He said if the Planning Comaaission wished to recommend approval of
the vacation, by the time it would go to Council he would�have the correct
legal procedure. . �
There was a discussion regarding whether or not the easement was filed
on the p1at. If it were, the City saould have to release it. Then the matter
�� of the letters from the Utility companies, whether or not they would be 100%
effective in case of legal matters, was discussed.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission recom-
mend approval to the Council of the vacation �equest (SAV ��68-03)�Henry G. �
Saffert, of the Easterly two feet of the Southerly fifteen feet of the five
foot by 20 foot anchor easement located at the Northwest comer of Lot 22A,
Block 1, Lyndale Builders 4th Addition: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unai�.imously. . _
�,� 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PRELIMINARY�PLAT, P.S. ��68-04, BARTH ADDITION,
�, MERWIN BARTH: Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside.
� � Mr. Barth was present. � �
,
�
• i��
+- Planning Commission Meetin� = June 13, 1968 Pat�e 5
��"�, The Chairman read the public hearing notice.
A proposed street pattern, including the dedication by Ando Terrace
(South and East of the lot split) was discussed. The City Engineer suggested
that East/West easement be dedicated fox Northern States Power and Northwestern
Bell Telephone Co. utilities if the plat is developed before the area is and
that a North/South dedication be provided for street.
MOTIDN by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission close
the public hearing of the proposed preliminary plat (P.S. ��68-04) Barth
Addition by Merwin Barth of Lots 16 and 17, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Co�ission concur
with the recommendation of the Subcommittee and recommend approval of the pro-
posed preliminary plat (P.S. ��68-04) Barth Addition, Merwin Barth of Lots 16
and 17, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion caxried unanimously. -�
8. LOT SPLIT REQITEST: L.S. �68-12, CENTRAL SERVICE CO., KEITH G. HOLVENSTOT,
AGENT: Lot 15, Block 4, Bennett Palmer Addition.
Mr. Glenn Evans represented Mr. Holvenstot and explained that the request
was to split the South 24 feet of Lot 15. � .
�"1 It was agreed the description of the lot split was.satisfactory.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�nission concur
with the action of the Subcommittee and recommend to the Council approval of
the lot split request (L.S. ��68-12) by Central Service Company, Keith G. Hol-
venstot, Agent, of the South 24 feet of Zot 15, Block 4, Bennett Palmer Addi-
tion. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
9. REVIEW CHANGE IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (ZOA �k66-16) HAROLD�SCHROEDER BY CAMCO,
INC.: James Solverson.
Mr. Howard.J. Dumphy, James Solverson; Peter J. Campion and Mervyn
Eliason were present to discuss the requested change.
. Mr. Solvexson and the CoIIUnission went over the list of items prepared by
the Engi.neering Assistant.
.a__. .�..... .. A. Lota .32 . thr.�ugh 35, Block -10, Sp�ing-. Bro.ok.. AdditiQn_ Dx.iginally_ saer.e.. nat- .. _
owned by Mr. Dumphy but were approved i.n the original plan. However,
� they have now been purchased.
B. The total square footage of apartment area is 266,500-D-.
�
2.� Christian, Schroeder and Dumphy.
n 3. We have shoc,m contour at two foot intervals. Plateau and then considerable
drop to creek. They are building the apartment on plateau area with the
lower area for the recreation purposes. �
4. Gross floor area 98,700 + square feet.
5. Total building area divided by three.
v
0
�.�_
� _ Plannin� Co�nission Meeting - June 13, 1968 Pa�e 6
�
. . 6. 163 parking stalls - 1.5 per apartment.
�"1
7. Doesn't apply.
8. Propose to have two exits on Ruth Street 55 feet from corner and a 22 foot
wide entrance.
9. There is a walk along the River Road, and will put in a walk to pedestrian
bridge to lower level park.
10. Indicate the extension of Liberty storm sewer to creek -- applicant said
they would install the storm sewer.
11. All area wi11 be landscaped. The recreational area will be left as
natural as possible.
12. Ground area will be sodded, parking lots blacktopped, sidewalks concrete.
There will be plan�s along the north side of the property. �
13. Construction will be 2? to 3 story buildings, wood f�ame with brick,
stucco base, brick veneer, balconies for all apartments, sliding doors,
lower apartments with walkouts to outdoor patio area, court or pool area
wi11 be depressed four feet. _
Mr. Myhra asked why the change ma.de from the original structure as he felt the
� new decision was a step down arrangement. Mx. Solverson�explained that the
units were 21'x30' with the narrow end to the outside and showed why the new
arrangement was more practical.
At this point the question of signs and the commercial area was discussed to
some extent. The question was whether or not the commercial would be the same
design. Mr. Dumphy said that would depend upon the person going into the com-
mercial. Right now they are working on the first phase which is developing the
, apartment area.
Mr. Erickson said in regard�to the commercial property, the original proposal
n����� was based�4on fig�a:r�s�.ven to the City as far as square footage goes, these
��� �-�' figures were�correct and now you are about an acre short. You are losing part
_ j�/?� of the parking area for the commercial. Wh.en this complex was proposed earlier,
-, it was proposed for one design for both apartment complex and commercial area.
� . You are asking us to split it into two pieces with two designs. What was wrong,
in your opinion, of the exterior design of the original plan? Mr. Solverson
answered that it was his opinion that stu�co with brick combination would make
a more handsome building. � .
C. 1. The development schedule depends on the Planning Co�ission and Council
approval. They were thinking of starting the apartment complex this fall
and finish by next•.summer, commercial the summer of 1969 finishing the
' following spring (1970). "
� Changes from Approved Plan.
1. We have not provided garages main�y because the g�.rages shown on the
previous plan would be too expensive to build due to the subsoil condition,
0
t
r '
�
Planning Co�ission Meetin� - June 13, 1968 Page 7
.�
�
�`
and you would have to haul in at least four feet of fill. We would like
it as an option.
2. We try to encourage people to walk over to the commercial area, so no
road has been planned between the apartment complex and comruercial area.
Chairman Hughes, speaking to Mr. Solverson, said that the plan he is requesting
is for parking lot in the lower area. Does that mean he is requesti�g optional
building of garages or not? Mr. Solverson said he wished to change to no
garages.
D. 1. Ely Circle still has to be vacated.
Chairman Hughes said the lot in the northwest corner really did not have to
enter into the Planned Development District, bnt now it is a significant
problem. �
2. Ely Circle -- it is officially a street and has to be vacated. .
3. Mr. Duinphy explained that Mr. Schroeder was the petitioner in the original
petition and it was in.his name, but actually, Mr. Dumphy was the petitione=
Mr. Schroeder drew the schematic design, bu� when approached to design
the buildings, he was tied up.
Chairman Hughes said it seemed that the petition had been granted td Mr.
Schroeder as a matter of record.
The City Engineer stated the application was submitted by Howard Dumphy, owner
and prepared by Buetow & Associates. All contracts and letter approving the
complex wexe written to Mr. Schroeder and a copy to Mr. Du.mphy.
4. There is approximately three acres of recreational area divided into
children's area and adults' plus the pool area.
5. There is a walk on the right of way ox� East River Road.
The Engineer said 24 feet is to be dedicated for a street and the new property
line would be�24 feet east of the present property line. The 24 foot easement
is to expand East River Road. There is a service road on the South of the
complex between Liberty and 79th on the east side. We have four lanes on
East River Road. For the traffic.into this complex, we have to have at least
another 12 foot right turn lane and 12 feet for left turn lanes to the west.
This is the overall plan. We do have a service road running on the south side.
6. The house��on Lots 32 through 35, B1ack 10,�Spring Brook Addition is to be
removed.
The City Engineer called attention to the fact that there are a large number
of streets publicly owned in the Planned Development District which are
included in the area figures and the City is actually giving up the land which
they own. When we quote a 24 foot right of way, we figured this in the total
land requirement.of the complex. This-.P..D..zoning is quite a step up from R-1
to R-3 and�C-2S.� The whole idea is tihat we can get a development which is an
asset to the community. �
The original plan for_the entrance to Ruth Stxeet was
section and now it is cut down to 55 feet wl�ich makes
�
. . -�
110 feet from the inter-
the entrance too close�
. _._._�
� Planning Commission Meeting - June 13, 1968 Page 8.
� -
• to the intersection which we strongly discourage because of the stop sign
� and traffic. .
He continued that when this complex was originally approved, there was a covered
building shown for recreational purposes. That has not been provided. (Mr.
Solverson said it could be provided in the basement of the complex.)
There has been comments made that the area north of the creek was not originally
figured in the apartment complex and was a mistake. You could cut down the
total complex to the amount which the land on south of creek would bear. (Mr.
Solverson said it becomes unfeasible to put in a swi�ing pool in a sma.11
development.)
Mr. Qureshi added that the City has rezoned it up to a better land use. There
are complexes which have swi�ing pools and much less units. Because traffic
is quite important in this area, we would like the entrance moved north on
Ruth Street. The idea is you have to provide for enough storage of cars at
the intersection. Liberty is a more heavily travelled street. .
You are moving the buildi.ngs closer to the road than these were before. The
complex has been lengthened,and is closer to residential area and streets.
(Mr. Solverson said they have Icept to all the setback requirements.)
The City Engineer commented that it would be quite expensive to�build garages
in.there, nobody disputes that, but it was approved in the complex.
� Mr. Myhra said that it seemed to him it would be advisab�le to have a couple of
weeks to go over this request. The Commission spent almost a year before they
approved the original plan and it seemed they should have time to go over this.
He would like to bring it back i.n a couple of weeks. (The members, in answer
to his request, were given copies of the proposed plan for their individual
study.)
Mr. Hughes said there is an open item on the road situation which might be
well to discuss between the petitioner and Engineering Department.
Mr. Qureshi asked Mr. Dumphy to give the City a letter explaining the situation
regarding-the original request being in the name of Mr. Schroeder and the .
engaging of another architect. •
MOTION by Erickso�.•, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission
place the discussion of the Review Change in Planned Development (ZOA ��66-16)
Harold Schxoeder by Camco, Inc. on the June 27, 1968 Agenda, and that the.
metnbers of the Commission be given copies of the proposal so that they can study
it. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
10. D. J. LOFTSGAARDEN: DISCUSSION THERRES FARM FRONTING i1NIVERSITY AVENUE AND
NORTH EDGE OF CITY•
Mr. Loftsgaarden stated he represented the Walter Therres family who have
owned the 116 acres for about fifteen years. The land is zoned industrial,
�� and because it is in a low area, there are water table problems. The area
he spoke abQUt-tliis evening is pretty isolated from the rest of the property
because of the swamp. He asked the opinion of the Coirnnission on putting
mobile homes there.
a
�
. . . � _ .s....-
Planning Co�►ission Meetin� - June 13, 1968 Page 9
• n He was informed the City was aware of the problems there, but that
they would be solved in time when the abutting area would be developed.
Mr. Jensen explained to Mr. Loftsgaarden that the Commission could not
give him much of an expression on the plan until an application were filled
out and the request go through regular channels. It was felt there would
be tremendous public opposition building residential and industrial together.
There was no action taken.
11. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S, ��68-10, THOMAS E. MARXEN: South 138 feet of the
North 306 feet of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision �108.
Mr. Ma.rxen was not present. No action.
12. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEAltING, REZONtNG REQUEST. ZOA ��68-09, LARRY FERGUSON:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Gunderson Terrace. Rezone from R-1 to R-3.
(See_pages 1 and 2) � .
Mr. Ferguson entered at 8:30 P.M. Due to an error, he received a
public hearing notice with the wrong time and therefore he was not heard
by the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning�Com¢nission
inform the Council that due to an error, Mr. Ferguson received a public
n hearing notice with the incorrect ti.me of the hearing and therefore, he
was not heard by the Planning Commission, and further, that the Commission
recommends to the Couneil that in considering the reco�nendation for the
denial, that the Council take this fact into consideration. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously. .
��
13. PLANNER FOR HYDE PARK AREA:
The City Engineer explained that the Council authorized hiring a con-
sultant for �his area, and a letter has been received from Nason, Wehrman,
Rnight and Chapman, inc. The Chairman read the letter from the consulting
firm. Mr. Jensen said the time table should be verified.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Counnission request
the firm of Nason, Wehrma.n, Knight and Chapma.n, Incorporated to go ahead with
a Contract and that when it is received, the City Attomey check it. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT•
There being no further business, the Chairma.n adjourned the meeting
at 11:55 P.M.
�
� Respectfully submitted,
.. � ,
`;�� (��,.e�a-v�--
• Haz' 0'Brian
. Recording Secretary
.
a