PL 01/08/1969 - 31016� ��+A�VNING CAI�IISSION MEETI�TG JANUARY 8, 1969 g,��L, �.
\ ,
� The meeting was called to order by Chairman Erickson at 7:35 P.M.
R4�� T.:
Members Preseat: Myhra, Mittelstadt, Erickson, Jensen, Fitzpatrick
Others Present: Engineering Assistant Darrel Clark
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: DECII�ER 12 1968:
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning Commission
miaute� o� pecember 12, 1968 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motioa carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PARIGS � RECREATION C014II�IISSION MINUTES • DECII�ER 16, 1968:
�i0TI0N by Mittelstadt, aeconded by Myhra, that the Plaaning Commission
xece�.ve Che Parks & Recreation Coa�ission minutes of December 16, 1968. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
I�,EC„� �TVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES • DECII�BER 18, 1968
MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission
xeceive the Board of Appeals minutes of December 18, 1968. Upoa a voice
^ vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.�usly,
� 1. PUBLIC MEETING: HYDE PARK ADDITION REZONING STUDY By NASpN WEHRMAN IQiTIGHT
AND CHAPMAN. INC.
The representatives from the planning firm were William Chapman and
Michael Murphy.
The Chairman gave a brief run down of the problem by saying that many
months aga the Planning Commission realized they had an area of some 80 acrea
bettaeen Main Street and University, 57th Avenue on the South and 61st Avenue on
North which was presently zoned R-2 pe�uitting two family dwellinga. Ia this area
th�re ar� usea of Industrial, Cou�ercial, Multiple, Single Family aad, he thought,
A].mos:k no two family dwelliags. Under the old meaning of the R-2 Ordinance, there
was permitted certain types of multiple dwellings and that is what you have a great
dea�l o� down there now. They felt an area that large of two family dwellings was
pxabably in�proper, and becauae they were just plain citizeas, juat like the people
p�es�c�nt, t}�ey Aeeded help to know what decision should be made for the rezoniag
ie�y,u��t� that axe cont�tnually coming up in that area. They requested, some months
ago, �h�t the City Council hire a profeasional planner to make a study of the a�re$
�Ad C� see :if they could come up with some recommendations for the Cos�issioR to
vi�se' aad �he City eatered into a contract with Nason, Wehrman, Knight � Chapraan,
��ic. �� �+lanning Co�ission had not given them any direct advice; they were left
�i�h a� open mind to consider every type of possibility. This meeting def initely
W�� '�ot a �e�on�.ng hearing.
` �'ix. Chapman explained that they had been working with the Planning Co�issioa
� ��d theix coacern has been to develop a guideline plan fox the development of the
81a�3a��,, Commisaion Meet�Lng - Januars► 8, 1969 , Pa,�e 2
v�`�� of th� area which could be util.ized by the Planning Co�isa�ton in the future.
�'heir intent is not �o discrimina�e against anything, but to improve the
a7Cea �o the benefit of the area xeaidents and to the area at large. They
�aatd�.planned studies - no engineering atudies - of the area, what exists,
what pxoblems are there, what they could expect to happen over a period of
time. Their thinking, to some extent at thia poiat, is how it wi11 grow
over a period of time and what they feel would develop over a pexiod of
time. Mr. Mike Murphy was asked to discuss this.
1K�. Murphy used the projector to exhibit th� maps. Map #1 showed the
zaAing of the Hyde Park area and immediate aurrounding area, but did not
cros� over T.H. �47 to the East. As the map indicates, an industrial district
ia e3.tuated between two residential areas -- Ayde Park to the east and
aupthex residential area lying along the river to the west. The circulation
of tsaffic was discusaed. It was'noted that residential streets would carry
co�aercial and industrial traffic as both of these uses require traffic
which would crnae on the streets ix�ediately adjaceat to co�ercial or �dus-
trial, creating a traffic hazard. Map $,� was a circulation map �howing the
main xoutes being Main Street, 61st Aveaue and 57th Avenue. The �adications
are that the present circulation system will be inadequate to sufficiently
sexve any of the three uses to which it will be put. Such traffic will be
a hazard to children and pedestrians.
• Map #3 is the F.�cisting Land Use Plan, and this showed the size of the
bu3lding structures. Mr. Murphy continued that the point to be considered
,—�` here wa� that those houses which are in the lower range of square footage
� will eoon be�come inadequate. It was noted that apartments have repl,aced
pxeviously built houses. The small houses will probably go first and if
that happens, they will go to aTartment buildings. �.'he apartments accou�t
for about 307a of the atructures :�� the residential axea of Hyde Park and
houses are about 60% of the familiea.One thing to be considered are the
childrem from the apartments. It is not likely the apartments wi11 over-
load the schools, but playgrou�a�.a are needed for the children because they
do npt have yards of their own and are playing in the neighbor's yard or
ia the street. Based on this look at the area, several recommendations can
be reached at this point. This is an area that has been previously dominated
by single family dwellings and are now switching to apartments. If this
ha�pens, it �ust either be encouraged or discouraged altogether. Because
of the North-South accesa, it is an ideal location for apartments or towa-
housea. You should try to encourage the most satisfactory development.
Other considerations are handling of traffic that is in conflict,
suah as cou�ercial traffic. lteferring to tfie three coIImuercial eettlements
an 3rd Street, Mr. Murphy said there is no access for them from Highway ,1�/+7
and since the only acceas for these 3 co�ercial settlements is through the
reaideatial area itself, the recou�endatioa is that theae three not be allowed
to develop further.
We also included in our pioposals the need for a park to be located some-
where in the study area. We tried to locate it near the center and in a loca-
tion where, at the present time, there are no buildings.
�
``_� We have prepared and have with us three plans in which we have tried to
indicate eolutions and provided what we feel ia best for the proper develop-
t�nt of your area.
PlanA,3.t1� Co�n�ssion Meetin� Januarv 8, 1969 �
` Pa�� 3
� Scheme A: The itraffic sigr}al on �Univ.:ersity Avenue has been changed from
^ the �.utersection �t 57�h Avenue to 57th Place.: The advantage of this is commer-
' ci�1 oa� both sides of the str.eet and permit'the deveZopment of lot depthe
a�cz�ssary for ap�ropriate cammercial frontage. The diagonal crosswalks on 60th
Ave�nue at 2nd and 2� Streets would block traffic coming into the area and
fox�a a loop that would prevent traffic entirely through the residential area.
North of 61st Avenue are single family residences. In order to prevent damage
to property values as a result of an abrupt change in laad use, it ia recom-
mended that the northernportion of Hyde Park, lyiag �enerally between 60th
and 61st Avenues be held in predominantly single fam3ly use, belaw this as we
�o South from 60th, we start out with two or three family dwellings, thea to
higher density �ultiples adjacent to the co�nercial along 57th and 57th P1ace.
Scheme Bt The traffic remains the same at 57th Avenue, without relocatiag
of traffic sigaal and the commercial the same as in Scheme A. A possible Park
Site� �j�3��u�les.; 2z �t�e�et and 3rd Street, .: It �,s, �l�t¢s;'r- �wo acre�, generally
u�devel��;e�¢ 't,i�t�i t}i� ;,exception o;� thre�e ;ho����$+, �'��'�would �b� ppssiblQ to buy
them and 'Yeave a relatively large area free�` �ori° t�ie '`playground. fihe diagonal
crosswalk�s axe ia the same place as Scheme A. �
Sch�me C: 57th Place would eventually'be vacated as a through street
aad couverted into a service drive at the rear of the commercial developmeat.
It would then be necessary that no further residential development be allowed
to OGCttx' with frontage oa it. 59th Avenue has been vacated and vacant laad
�p be acquired for a park. Second Street and 22 Street would end ia cul de
sacs oa �ither side of the park.
^ � Mr. Chapman aclded, that as you see, we have reviewed esseatially a
�twelve block area, barely 32 blocks wide, bounded by a major thoroughfare on
the East with no access on Universi.ty Aveaue, a potential iadustrial area
on the West, commercial activities on the South. What we have is a small
aeighborhood which we must do everything possible to improve. Our coacaza
was �bout the existance of small commercial pl;aces within the area, concern
for traffic, major concern is the continual possibility of industrial traf��.c
produced by the land to the W�st. It could be adverse to the co�nunity if
not properly handled.
Chairnian Erickson, at this point, asked for the opinion of the. people.
HR7C].ow �. Kinney, 5841 2� St.: T have lived there for quite awhile. If they
put iz� this park (Scheme "C") I will need to get a helicopter to get out of
lnty yaxd. N�w to get to University, I have to go to Main Street if I want
to go South. I have to go down 3rd Street tio go North, go around a dozen
ci7�c1• to get to Holly Shopping Center.
. Jack 0. Kirkham, Mayor: Asked if the aurrounding areas had been etudied
&Ad irxvestigated, such as the Northern Pacific Railroad track, the Great
Nortllexn Track, East River Road, but there was no indication what was going on
�cross T.H, �k47. We do have commercial development here (West side of Univer-
�i.ty). It seems quite evident that residential development has been proposed
im a11 of the Schemes,but it has bern residential for a long time and nothing
t��s happened. IIp North on Highway �47, South of Osborne Road there is now
n p�oposed a co�ercial development. It developed after it had been changed to
e�e�aial.
<�r ,.� „ a, ,, r: �
P1a�ui�g Co�issioa Meeting - January 8, 1968 Pa�e �
.���.,�.�.�
�othex thing aot considered, one of the strongest motivating factvxs
{� �w�s the facC Chat most of the people im thi$ ivanediate area were asking for
aad intexested ia coIIanercial zoning. It might be possible commercial there
would not be good, but I would like to see some proposals showing what would
happen if co�ercial were there. To get access to the co�ercial area, there
could be a slip off xamp oa 61st, the diagonal crosswalk �ould be uaed, and
comutercial could be from 60th Avenue South on 3rd Street. It is hard for the
people wkto have co�nercial developments here to watch successful co�ercial
ente7rpxises being developed across University Avenue.
Mayor Kirkham would like to recom�end a completion of the planning study.
It did aot aeem to him we have accomplished what we set out to do. He felt
we asked for a profeasional planner to come in and ahow us the best use of
th� Tand here. Since it was the desire of so many people to want commercial,
he would like to see at least a proposal of what a commercial development
would do aad what Lt wouldn't do. Wherever aeparation is needed between
coa�e7rcial and exis�ing multiple, we could use the diagonal crosswalk to
separate this and then keep the cammercial traffic in commercial area as
shown in the Schemes. The assignment has not been completed. We need more
s tudy .
Mr. Chapman answered that he would like to take up the point of the
co�rateraial development. They had considered co�ercial, but t1�e exhibit
does aoC s'how a atrip of coimnercial on the East side backing up to a�ood
xeaide�►ttial aeighborhood. One of the problems extending out Prom Mi�a.eapoli�
i� a stxip of coamiercial developtnent facility. Some axe not �oo good. Tk�ey
� do h�ve a tax return aad have, for the owner, in the change from residential.
' �o c��aatercial, a pasaibility of valuation. Some commercial strips in Minnie�-
po11s wk�ich extend out Central Avenue are � block wide, but they have produced
p�oblems for the commiaities. The width of the cou�ercial strip East of
Higl7�way ��47 is substaatially wider thaa what could be produced between the
Highway and 3rd Stxeet. It is especially narrow and we feel it is much too
xu�7rxow to serve co�ercial. He did not have the market information to show
t�e+ t��ed fAr that much more co�nercatal in this area at this time. If we are
�A�ng to xemove the residential to �llow commercial, two shallow blocks of
widtl� fot residential su�rounded on two sides by couimercial and one side
fuduaGx�ial, I would say would not be good.
Mr. Murphy said that the reason there is no co��rcial on the West side
�� $wy. ,i��+i, but on the East side, is that there is very little relationship
acxoas the highway. There might be similar uses, but they won't be uses that
are related wi�h a direct connection. They don't affect one another.
�ldon Schmedeke, 5900 University Ave. N.E.: He stated he was a prop rty
Awaaex in the co�ercial area for twenty years. On this narrow strip you sy
c�tmn�rcial can't exist long. It is hard to prove to me. The planner's m�p
doe�g�'t shc�w his complete area as he owas three lots instead of two indicated
o� t'h�i.r map. He said he had drawa up maps he intended to give to the Planning
Commisaion which show a slip off going in on 60th, crosswalk and diagonal,
� 59t� �.s opea. This plan would not bother the residential North of 60th Ave.
��� ttE the resi,dents object to the park as shown in the Schemes, but would
1�k� �he City to buy the industrial �and now before it goes sky high for a
�"`1 �ood �ized park. ,
���r►�t��� ��i�sion M��tin� Jan. 8, 1969 --- �a�e S
�
bi�Cs. Floyd Bradley, owner of apartments at 590Q, 59A8, 5916 2� Stxeet;
,� S�8 �aid they have apartments down there and woul.d like to know just exactly
whe+�e the paxk will be. A neighbor said it would take the firat apartment
buildi�. We have been there six years and taxes have increased. Would be
$1ad Co ae11 xight now.
.J�sen in�vrmed hex the plan would not affect her buildings.
Chai�aa Erickson again informed the people that this ia not a rezvain�
'he�ari�. Th� idea behind.the planner's presentation is to try and establi.sh
� Patgexa o� development and a pattera that the City can liaten to as fa�
a�a ��ce��ning pattern is concerned. There is Aa plazi to demolish aay�hi.rag.
i�ir�. Doaald Crooks, 5910 2nd St.: S�e asked Plan C to be showa on the
projeq�or. She said she �ived on the Nort�i side, 59th and 2nd street and on
t1�e Z�ft side of 2nd �treet on the corner. Your map does not show our
property as it is. We have an exit from our property onto 59th from our
��xage. You have our house amaller than all the surrounding houses which is
ao� the case. -
�ir, l�utrphy expl.aimed these maps do aot necessarily indicate the outlay.
�ix�s. �rooks said she felt somet�aues these pl�n� are put up that way ta
�k� ��e houses look ahintzy. '
,Agaia Mr. MurPhy tri.�d �o assure her that they were not trying to sh�ve
�.., off th� valu� o� any of the houses.
Mrs. Crooks coAtinued that hex house has been shown as havirig smalles'
�1oor space than she actually has .aad then the plan shows that 59th Aven�te
wou7.d be takea away so that they wauldn't be able to get out of theiz property.
' bir, Muxphy said �hat this is x�ot a plan but a Scheme being preset�t�d.
�h� x�eason why three Sch�anes were made up rather than one was to giv� y�u tlz�
ahoice o� alt�rnate that aould be enacted in your neighborhoad i£ you ag�esd
with i.�. These three,they feel�were acceptable as far as ths�.r b�aic $oa�ls
w�xe cax��erc�ed.
1Krs. Crooks: Abou� University and the Co�mercial there, I sti11 c�A�'�
undexatand why those people were not given a se�rvice road along Univex�iC�p
at the time of the Highway. They te11 me they ran out o� 1and. That do��
A9t �ke aense to me. When th� plans were being made, why can't they make
� ��zvice xoad aloag Univer��ty.
�
1�7e, Mu7rphy replied that there was not adequate room for a service d�C�vee
cH� �e��rred to �he map).
�.
$,ogex Berggxeu, 5821 2r�d St. : I a�t won�dering �bout the use of the �ark
i�t t'his area. '�he study is mainly of apartment buildings and the childr�a
t1'te��, � thitsk �a�st o� them are pxe-school. In my apartment, by the time
���i� okaildre� axe grown up, they move out and into homes. We have a�park
�,�b th� Sylvan �Ii11s area. In the last park bond issue, they planned buying
� ?�+�Ad o� the cvTnex of Main Street and 61st Avenue in �he industrial area.
_ � dg�6't �Caow how many children are in the area now, but I think the childxen
�i� �hte e�partmet�Ea wlien they are older, will not be using the park.
P1,a�uatia� Couoni�sian Meetin� - Januarv 8, 1969 Pat�e 6
��..` Mr. Murphy added that if there were many apartments in the axea, it would
be expe�ted there would be children and that there would be a rather high
number of small children, an average of oa�e child per apartment.
Chairman Exickso� ��k�d �koe opiaioa of the ge�a�g�b ,sr�a���aa�� �� t�
whethex or not a p�xk is ne�ded in tfla�� �s��o
Mr. Rog��c Herggreaa �aid that the o�aa�se of �altipbn dw�llia�� ia�, thie day
and age �re tryiag to diecour��e p�opl� wi�ia childrea. �
Councilman Liebl, Third Wsrd; (Standing at projector) I do �gree
paxtially with Mayor Kirkham. This area between 61at and 5ith -- I am your
couacilman aad represent you at the couacil table and it ia my opiaion that
we should have no rezoning from 61st to 60th at all. This is a very weli
establiahed resideatial R-1 area with a couple of exceptions -- two double
bungalows an,d a nice apartment building. A lot of people have called me aad
iadicated that they are willing to go along for a cos�ercia� rezoaing if
they can get enough money for the laad to sell out an.d tlxey �ould build a
house somewhere else. They indicated to me that they would like to see,
from the middle of the block all the way down 2? Street, rezoued coffiercial
just like the mayor indicated.
He continued that he was not too impressed with all three Schemes, but
� he did not criticize the Schemes as he realizes a lot of time was speat on .
them. We already have got a lot of apartment houses which are in bad shape
� and the streets are not in good shape either. The people South of 60th Avenue
are ready, and I think the petition indicated they are willing to go co�er-
cial. You have co�tercial in Holiday and in ttie last few years the tread
has been commercial moving to the North. We have to be coasistent. We have
to decide either to go all the way R-3 and leave partially R-1 or R-2 or
go aad create a cou¢nercial area all the way along University Avenue. I would
like to see Mr. Chapman, if it is all n�ssible, if it is feasible to prepare
a proposal which would make it p�ssible to have co�ercial area up 2� Street.
We also need a park in this area. Z'here is a five acre plot, which is
:industrial and easily accessible from this area. We had it on the park bond
isaue last year and it was defeated. We still need a park in this area.
�f we go R-3, it is going to create twice the traffic problem that we already
� k�ave. We have to have two blocks in depth for the co�nercial establishment.
T would like to say that we instruct Mr. Chapman and Mr. Murphy to prepare
a sketch showing co�ercial as discussed.
Mr. Chapman stated that he did not think they were so far apart in
theix thinking. The concern was that the area between 60th and 61st should
7remair� pretty much the same, single family, but commercial activities should
Go��ine themselves along 47th and adjacent to Holiday. Most of the commercial
is right on the end, adjacent to Holiday. Commercial �hould happen in this
area. I am worried about this squeeze play on residential. I do not know
�he masket for coffiercial in this area. If a larger area of commercial should
happea, it should be done on a large scale, a developer should get a number of
parcels -- one half block, one third block or one and a half b�.ocks. This
would allow you a good devel�^ment. If individua� lots were sold, it should
pre�'erably be two or three at a time. Concerning the park area, our thinking
was for the small children that they would not be required to cross a thorough-
fare. Our idea was a neighborhood park rather than a city wide facility.
P1�t�� �o�iasion Meet3�n� ,7ax�uary 8, 1;969 Page 7
r>� �raak H. Hart, Jr., 6000 3rd St.: I was surprised so many people w�re
a$ains�t zhe park. Speaking of coimnercial zoning, you have your big Holiday
s�oxea which axe breeding places for juvenile delinquents. Some form of a
park far the childxen to work off their frustrations should be figured in.
If tlte people would stop to think about this, I thialc they would find it to
be true: I think definitely there should be a park.
Mr. Schmedeke: The reason we did not like a park in that area , a lot
of us people here have homes which are paid for, probably some in each block.
When you take a home away that some people have already paid for, it makes it
mean. Everyone was interested in a park on Main and 61st Avenue. Appraiser's
price never turns out to be what people have in the home. If we are going
commexcial, I don't laiow how badly we need a toddlers park there.
Mrs. John Peka, 5925 22 Street: If we took this as a park, it will be
just too small. If there is going to be a park, it should be for some of
the older children, too.� We are right across the atreet from the lady that
owns the apartments. There is a problem of parking now aad when the streets
are so narrow, I don't think a park would work.
DeWayne H. Woehler, 6004 22 St.: I agree on the park. I have kida about
to be teenagers. They are the ones who need the park -- toddlers stay �n thE
yard. The kids go to the swimming pool clear over to the Junior High. I
would like to see a park in the industrial area as discussed.
� Jensen said he wished to commend the people that have spoken tonight at
this meeting. The Planning Co�ission have received a great deal of asaistance.
Comme�ts have been ma.de in a very fair fashion. Oftentimea these public
meetings do not turn out this way. He believed they all had a fine inter-
chaRge of ideas.
Mrs. Crooks: I agree with Irlr. Hart on the proposal for a park ia that
area. The present Sylvan Hills Park is �ciet adequate for`the larger children.
We need more park area for these children and I believe it is necessary for
the community.
Kenneth R. Strand, 5955 22 Street: I am in the area where everybody
t�lks about co�ercial. I am undecided yet. I would just as soon see the lo�
just as it is, R-2, but if three quarters of the block goes co�ercial, I
would have to go for coimnarcial. too.
Mxa. Crooks: From 59th Aveaue to 60th Avenue West of 22 Street, there
axe new homes that have been in not too many years and are nice homes. There
are zeally only two that are small so there would be quite a few homes you
Would have to disrupt. Anyone could sell their particular parcel, but we
would have to live there for twenty years. At the present time, the homea
�long �hat area would be very much harmed by the change of zoning aad more
�ultip�.es wou].d be very hard t� live next to, but if you develop Univeraity
�i7�st and then go back, perhaps our area would be ready.
Canrad D. Garness, 5916 2nd St.: I feel rather than take aomebody's
/'� ho�4e when, there would be enough room elsewhere, the park should be in the
- $�dustrial zone where it has already been mentioned.
�,�.i�g, Coaa�iss�.on Meetin� - January 8, 1969 Page 8
,�ti �&. �Iaxlow Kiriney, 5841 22 St.: Talking about building up apa�ent houses,
we built our home to specifications. This is probably about the oaly oae
�hat is built this way. We would be living there with apartments all the way
axound us. The problems of the apartment across the street axe traffic,
rubbish and garbage. I would like it to be total co�nercial starting at one
end and working their way up.
Mr. Schmedeke: I would like to have you accept these petitions. In my
praposals, I don't think a11 of us are hoping to wait for a shoppiag center to
buy the whole works. I think it would be fair to start at one aide of the
block from a co�ercial area and taking at least the smallest size area
that. was sold acros's the street �fxom u�., �f. it_ were three or �foux lots wide,
that would tie suffici.ent on �the full blocks. :' I was h'opiiig it :wc�u,� , go �he
detpth of the block, hoping with your concuraCei%ce, the building ��Qt�d;� b1e�� 04t�
the front (West side) with parking in the back and it would not;,�i�o�t pa�kiag �. .
from�the highway. This would be solved on the small lots by hai�iilg a screea
oi�evergreens and sodded. And having the parking at the back of'th� buildings,
it would be possible for it to be as nice a place as aaywhere in the City.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planniag Co�ission
receive the Petition dated December 15, 1967 circulated by Eldon Schmedeke
xe�ative to a desire for commercial zoning in Blocks 12, 21, 22 and N� of
Block 28 �:n Hyde Park Addition of, Fridley, and also a Petition fo� Blocks 12,
21, 22 aad 28 for the same purpose dated January 3, 1969 app{a;�ently circulated
by E1don Sclunedeke, and a Fetition dated January 3, 1969 appaxently circulated
,.� by Erwin Bjorngjeld requesting that the existing R-2 zoning be maintaiaed in
Block 9 aad WZ of Block 10, and Petition dated January 3, 1969 cixculated by
Clifford Skillings requesting that the present R-2 zoning be maintained also
i�n Block 9 and W? of Block 10, and a Petition dated Jaauary 3, 1969 circulated
by Lee Baxott requesting the existiag R-2 zoning be maintaiaed ia the E'� of
$lack 8 aad Block 7, a11 in Hyde F3rk Addition. Upon a voice voke, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Erickson asked if Mr. Schmedeke wished to preseat his maps, but�
Mx. Schmedeke declined eaying he would bsiAg them to a meeting for the Coannis-
sion to etudy.
Mr. Chapman said he felt at this paiat that he would like to read the
transcxipt of �his meeting to clarify, in his mind, what the feeling is.
To digest it to see if he has learned something different from what the
Planning Coamnission has learned aad then discuss it with them.
Mr. Mittelatadt said he felt the Mayor thought this atudy wae not complete.
He felt it would be up to the Council to decide what the future atepa should be.
�'he followiag by Mr. Jensen was for clarification to the public: Mr.
Mittelstadt has been on the Planaiag Co�nission for a relatively short time
and wasn't in on the full backgrouad of atudy. It is true the consulting
planuexs were hired by the City Council, but they have been workiag pretty
much under the directic and in consultation with the Planniag Co�iseion
with relatively little contact with Council. From that staadpoint, it
/'�� would seem logical for that direction to come from the Planaing Co�isaion
utiless the Couacil would direct us in another direction.
P1e�natu� ComRaissio� 1Keetin� - Januaxv 8, 1969 Pat�e 9
�
Chairman �rickson said he agreed. He thought Mr. Chapman's conmient� of
i'"'`� wanting to study the transcription was fine, but if the Council, wished to
direct him to prepare another map of the area showing feasibility of what seem�
to be the general opinion of a co�ercial diatrict along 3rd Street, we should
dir�ct him at this point.
Mr. Myhra said it seems without a question it is the•feeliag of the group
�d that's what we want.
Mr. Jeneen coa�nented that one axea of concern relative to the;idea of
ccmunercial expansion in the general vicinity of 3rd Street to 2? Street from
59th Aveaue to 57th Avenue is the economica. I am not particularly well
veraed in this subject as an individual, but if this were proposed tQ be
zoaed commercial, and that the Planning Commission would recommead it tq the
Council, I would be somewhat coacerned that we should have the op�.nion of aa
expert on the marketability of this property as co�ercial and capabi],ity
of the i.ndividuals living ia that area to actually sell their property with
the improvements on it for a fair price and to actually find buyers that
would be able to pay that fair price. It would not be logical to embrace.a
plan which would not be economically feasible for those owni�g property at
the present time and future potential buyers.
Chaixman Erickson asked Mr. Chapman if he would care to coaunent now on
60�h Avenue aad the land South. Mr. Chapman answered he would like to discuss
it with the Planning Cor�ission before goi.ng in that directioa.
^ Mayor Kirkham commented that there is a question of whether:or not
marketability data is in the realm of our responsibility and before we ask for
' or order such a report, we should get an opinion from the City Attorney.
Chairman Erickson said the practice of spreading a co�ercial use in a
residential area would have�to be handled with great care becauae of the
majority of people involved and the problem of selling. Rather than call a
brief general public hearing, the Planning Co�ission could call Mr. Schmedeke
amd others if they wiah, to come in and sit down with us and then call the
general public in again. �
Couacilman Liebl said that he knew what the people would like, but felt
he would like to be represented by Mr. Chapman. Ae did not see any problem
�.n peog�.e selling their hames for co�nercial.
Mr. Jensen asked for a show of handa of those who thought it was logical
$or the �'laaaiag Cou�isaion to be studqiag the area. There was a majority
who thought it was worthwhile.
�
Chairman Erickson informed the public that Mr. Chapmaa, Mr. Schmedelre
at�d anyone elae who wiahed to represent the area would be aotified of the
meeti�►g and that the residents of the area would be notified of the public
saee�t iag,
2. R'EQII�ST FOR RELEASE OF LOT 30, BLOCK 11, HYDE PARR ADDITION BY KENNETIi R. STR,AND:
�'�'� ' kir. Strand explained that Council received the request at their meeting
�.__ of ,Taaauary 6th and notified him that they would just as sooA aot release the
lot uutil. this study was campleted. He tried to buy this lot ia June and
gl��� �a�Lssion Me�- Jaauarv 8, X969 Pa�e 10
�d f�und the City had pulled it off the market last March. Of course T can
��`'y �ee� he said, why you didn't want to xelease it now, but maybe that ia i,ni my
�avox, too. I owit Lots-20 and 29. At the time of buying I have no purpo�e
��tside af cleaning it up, level it down as it is higher than my propexty
a�d ti�te children play on it. I would keep it cle�n and control it and $dd
it to nry yard. I have only a single garage added onto my house and I would
l�ke possibly to put a garage on the lot.
The Chai�an asked him if, in the light of this, he would object if the
pl�ing Gommission tabled his request for a couple of montha. Mr. Strand
auewezed that he had no objections but would like to go on record to have
the f�rst oppoxtunity to buy it after the study, as he beli�nted b� could
uC�l��e the land better than anybody.
Mr. Strand was informed that by following,the progress of the study, he
will lazow when the appropriate time is to open his request, probably when the
Planaiag Commission forwards its reco�nendation to Council.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning Co�ission
table the item of a request for the release of Lot 30, Block 11, Hyde Park
Addition by Kenneth R. Strand. Upoa a voice vote, all voting aye, the motiom
Cr�xried unanimously.
3� REZONING RFQUEST• ZOA �F68-13, H�'NIl�RLUND ENTERPRZSES, INC.: Parcel 10 aad 20A
(No7rth 903 feet of E. 3/4 of NEz of NEZ of Section 13). Rezone from R-1 to
x-3A. Reaffirm public hearing date of January 23, 1969.
�
� Mr. Jensen said that this property adjoina New Brightoa and wondered if we+
should ask the administration to respond with at least some data as to the
znniag across the City boundary. (A public hearing notice was mailed to the
City Clerk o� New Bxighton but was not asked for a response.)
MOTION by Mittelstadt, secoaded by Myhra, that the PJ.anain� Co�mn�sai,aR
�eschedule the public hearing �:f the rezoning request ZOA �k68-13, Hammerj.und
�p,texprises, Inc. of Parcel 10 r�nd 200 to rezone from R-1 to R-3A to
Ja,nuary 30, X969 due to the inability to get a quorum on Ja�cluary 23, 1969 aad
di�cect Che administration to re-advertise and send corrected notices to th�
F�'3.d1.ey Sun and to the general public. Upon a voice vote, all votiag aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
4� �?pTTIl�TG UEST• ZOA �k69-Ol. PII�ITOM, INC.: That part of SE� of Section 24
th�t lies North of State Highway �k100 right of way. To rezone from R-1 to P.D.
Reaffinu public hearing date of January 23, 1969.
�IUTION by Mittelatadt, seconded by Myhra, that the Plannir� Co�ission
�eschedule the public hearing of the rezoning request ZOA �69-01, Pemtom, Inc.
of that part of the SE�4 of Section 24 that lies North of State Highway �100
right of way, to rezone from R-1 to PD to January 30, 1969 due to the inability
to �et a quorum on January 23, 1969 and direct the administration to re-advertisse
and se�d corrected notices to the Fridley Sun and to the general public. Upon
a.voiGe vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�
�l�.a�ai�� Cot�uission Meetin� - Januarv 8, 1969 Pa�e 11
;,� 5. SUGG�STED REVISIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOFMk�iT ORDTNANCEz
The Engineering Assistant explained that there are two aeparate �xeas of
t�,s Ordinance which we have found need for possib],e revisions and/dr additions.
We have also been asked if this body would consider recommending to Council
specifi.c uses in a paxticular area upon the approving of an are� zoned P.D.
We have found, and as reflected in a letter from the City Atto�ney, a por-
tion of the Ordinance that isn't quite clear in respect to what happena to a
P.D. district when a plan no longer is valid due to the annual review neceasary.
If upon reviewal it is fouad to be not practical according to the present ordin-
$nce, it seems that if no plan is brought in, or the development of an approved
plaa is not consumated in one year, it would abolish the zone and revert back
to its prior zoning. We want to know if this is truly your intent.
Membership discussion on this indicated a need for Ordinance,Amendment to ;:
reflect the continuance of the zone with.or without an approved p��i.;and tha� ;�:�•rt;�
an approved plan, if in existanae,� should be reviewed annually un�t3:�' •its � com� "�? �
pletion. : �; �
�. ,,
: ,'
The second portion we should discuss is the possibility of staging the
submittance of final complete plans and ir�rement development of large areas
as in the Pemtom request.
In the discussion by the members, it was determined that in large areas
^ whexe a development could be spread over a period of years, it would be im-
� pxactical to expect a developer to bring in final plans for the entire area only
- to i�ind that revisions would become necessary, the result of which would be very
expensive. Many aspects were discussed and it was decided that if an overall
pxelimin,ary plan indicating such things as type of buildings, road patterns and
stxeet grades were submitted for approval, the developer could bring in final
plans or sma.11er portions as the plan developes. The Commission felt they would
se� the minimum size of each stage but wanted more time to study that aspect
of i.t. They asked if the city attorney, when he rewrites the portion on develop-
ment plans, could at the same time, include a section on stage development.
Darrel Clark stated tk�at he had been speaking with Pemtom representatives
and that they were going to ask the City for some sort of indication as to our
feelings toward their specific .development plan in so far as what use we would
perm�.t to be part of the development plan. They stated they would rather have
the zoning request denied if we were not going to agree to a townhouse and �
apartment complex for their area. The reason for this requeat ia a matter of
financing and cost of haviz►g plans drawn.
After studying the motives for the request, it was decided that there was
nterit in it. However, if they were going to be asked for any sort of coa¢ai,t-
me�t on use, they would want a plan presented at the P.D. hearing and woulct
wa�n� public discussion on it.
� � � i�
1� 7.`here being no further business, Chairman Erickson adjourned the meeting
� at 11:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Hazel 0'Brian
Recording Secretary
�
�
�
L�/� . �
� _ �
s ; ,
' I']'.ANN�TG_ Ct�IISSION 1�ETIN6 -.T,ANtiARy g, 1969 SSGN �N SHEET
N`�ME — __ _-
_ __ _ __ .
_ - -- -- --- --
- - -_
, _ __ r---- - —
`
' ��� _ �% y���i -- _ _ �o�o _ �r� �r__�i/.__� _
_ f��� _ -��-} ���. _ __ _ _ _�� � l _ _ �? a � n � _ � . _ _
� _ �' °
�oU�t�, _ 13E!R,�arz.,E.�_ _ _.__ . _ S8S I - 2 — ST, _ N- E ,
� Q _ .
_ _ _ __
� ell o S �l�. ►'s ai� . _. _ _ _____ . __ _ _ �OG/ 7_ _ _3 r---- s .
� ___ � T /� �
;I � _
_ .; ���._ �__, _ _� �__ _ --- __ _. _ ��- -" � �-- _ � _���. _ (��-f �- L_�, --
L°� �� � ���- -vr� °�G _- � � _ �^_ � �
-- _ i ��
_ _ _'t�l�� __ � _ _ --- __ _ _ _ _ - � $ !O __ _ 3 _'�_ -�' � , �-_ . __ _. __
� �_
I - ~ n ^_ _
� �.,,r ; �, ; S"�g � L� — � l�'' / c v)/� �
_. :�, .,.. -�"?�":__ _ _ _ _. v � _ _ _� -<-':� .
I , � � _ _ r ,_ � ___ _ _ __ _ __._.
. ,� � 7 _' �' '� �
_ _z-�?�_____� -'�-�-��-�-'��._ � � -- _ '.
-
__ ,
�. �
_____ --_ _
, ___ _ _-- �
. - - .-.- - ---_ _ _- _-- -
i �--
___ _ _ �yf�__ __���-_�:_�
-:- --- _ - -- _ .
, ._ __ __ _-- _
_ ____ _ _ ____--
___ --�1--- ___ _ � __- -- ___ ---- -- S__9__ �`�__��_�, � �--� _ _ _ --
.
__ __ W�-�-��- _ _ �--T. ____ ___--- �� �v__ _ �-�`� �_�___.___ _ _ --
� - (
. -- -- - _ _ y - - -- -__ ___ __ _ � . 6 °__f ---; . �--�.-__\� '-,- _�`-__
j_ _ ----
__ _ _� - _ __ __ s � �-
_ __ ___ ___ __�_
_ _ - _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ � _ _ _
I _ _ �- __ - _
, ,
_ __ _ _t _��-_ _ _ _ __ ------ _ - __- _ s�y%-,z.���� �, - --______ __ --
_ _ _.
�
_ _ _ _. __ s9s-,�-�1�_ � � _ _ -- -
,
_ t _ _ _ --- �� __ ___ _ _ _ _____ s���.S__.--�'� --,� ��-� ---- -
, � _ _ __ _ _
,
�- ; � --- - ��- _ --- -- ___ . ..__ _ __ _ .�-� a_ �: __ a-'��. _.� -�� � ____ -- . __ ----
__. -- � - � � _ -- - - _ _ k:�'�-�� - ,��� � � , _---_ _ _ __ _
�
_ _ _ _ __ � -_ __ ____ _ ����_-��_-a_�_��-� -_ --_ _ _ ___
_ -- _ _
_ _ _' __ ___ - ___ _ _ _-- - '-- - - _ _ _ ��`�� --- - _ -` __ -- --- - �.1�_ !V; � _
� _
- - -- _ _ _ __ -- ------- _ _ _ - --_ __ _ �� �-��-� 5 _ ___1_--- ��_ � _ .r__
�
- ` - i � .�g �- �._-_ 1/� a-� _ .
_ _ _�� - �' ��-_ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - -- ��
, _ _ __ _ __ __ __
. . . � - - , ��
�`�' -- � 1�...r.C�.l� _. --- __ __ .__ . _. ' _ _ - _ _ _ � - - ___ - _ _ - - _ . _ _ . _
_ � � a � 5 "�, — ��- � �
--- _ _ � _ ---� - � o
- - - --_
_ _ ____ __ _ ___ _-- - ---
-_ _ _ __�°����� _ _ __ _ �?�� �� _ --- a,�,�(__ �-t- _ �� �-+ _ _--
,_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - -- �`� a1 _ _ � '� - ,�. - -- �_- - _ . _ _
� �
_--_ - - _ .__�-- �_ ��_��..�__�-n- -- - �°_�y __,�-�--.�--=--���_-__-_ _ __-__
�� � 1��� VW�
�
. y
i
� y NORTHEAST MEDICAL CLINIC
12a9 BECOND BTREET N. E.
MINNEAPOLIB, MINN. 55413
January 13, 1969
Mr. Oliver R. Erickaon, Chairman ,
Fridley Planning Commission
Fridley Village Hall
Fridley, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Erickson,
�� �� We rece�ived notice of the informal hearing shhed- �
uled for January 8� to discuss land use in the
Hyde Park Area.
Because oi other committments we were unable to
be present at the meeting. May we, then, have a
copy of the minutes o� this meeting.
Sincerely,
.
iw�-----
mes F. Su.11ivan
Administ: '-
JFS:dc
G431 UNIVERSITY AV�, N,�,
� E�E�VE[�
JAN 1 � )969
AM �M
7i8i9'�'u'�i1i2+3i4�5�8
�