PL 10/22/1969 - 31029r.y_ _.
'�\
PLANNING COMMISSION MEEI'ING OCTOBEft 22, 1969 PgGE 1
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Erickson at 7:30 P,M,
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Member Absent:
Others Present:
Myhra,
None
Darrel
Mittelstadt, Fsickson, Jensen, Fitzpatrick
Clark, E.ngineering gssistant
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES: OCTOBER 8, 1969
MOTION.by Mittelstadt, seconded by Jensen,.that the Planning Commis-
sio.n minutes of October 8, 1969 be approved. IIpon a voice vpte, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously,
RECEIVE PI�ATS & SUBDNISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES:
ocTOBn� 15, Zg6g . �
Mra Myhra called attention to Para,graph 3, under Item l, Page l,
which read "Mr. Myhra called attention-----", this was incorrect as
Mro Jensen was the speaker,
� MOTION by Myhra, secondeded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning
Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets &
. Utilities Subcommittee meeting of October 15, i969 with the above
correctiono Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the mot�ion carried
un�nimouslyo
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: OCTOBER 15, 1g6g
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by,Mittelatadt, that the Planning
Commiasion receive the Board of Appeals minutes of October 15, 196g,
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslyo
lo PUBLIC HEARING: APFROVAL OF PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMEIVT PLAN FOR PT,AN�TFi�
DE`TELOPMEN'1' DISTRICT: HOWARD DUMPHY "
MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Com-
missiori.waive the reading of the public hearing notice for the Preliminary
Development Plan �PD �68-10�, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously,
Mr. Dumphy and Mr. Solveson were present. Copies of "Submission
of Preliminary Development Plan" were distributed to the Commission.
Drawings of the plans, Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 were exhibited for the Com-
mission and the audience. •
�,
Mr..Solveson explained that since the last meeting with the people
in the audience, they have redesigned the building, two parcels in the
coxner are now included in the project, and made two complete studies.
�
Plannin�_Co�nission Meetin� - October 22, 1969 Page 2
For both Scheme 1 and 2, the buildings basically are the same shape. They still
�� have the same number of units and parking stalls, The house on Lots 32 and 33
will remain as it is. There will be an evergreen planting along the West and
North, and possibly an underground parking ramp. There will be a twelve unit
module interconnected with a stairway breaking up the complex, and a swimming
pool. The City has been given a 24 foot easement along East River Road. There
is a 35 foot setback on the East and 60 feet on.the North and 85 feet on the
South. �
Scheme 1 is for a 12 unit building, intexior pool area, firewalls separting
the modules, 24 two bedroom units and 84 one bedroom unit.
Undex Scheme 2, the buildings are much the same shape, but they are further
away from the house situated on Lots 32 and 33. Some of the parking is to be
underground if possible, the recreation area is outside and includes a patio
a�ea. The setbacks are 35 feet on the East and 70 feet from the creek. These
buildings would have 36 two bedroom units and 72 one bedroom unit. The elevation
is basically the same.
Mr. Myhra said he recalled there was some�hing in the ordinan.ce referring
to a change of plans, and he wondered if the first plan had any bearing on the
one pxesented this evening. The consensus was the first plan had no bearing on
the new one.
Chairma.n Erickson asked if the Engineering Assistant had checked into the
use of the area on the Northeast corner. Darrel Clark said that it could be
^ used for parking, but he wasn't sure about the area occupied by the house.
Under the PD ordinance, there is no specific area requirements.
The following people from the area, Jerry Potts, 8066 Ruth Stxeet, William
Forster, 298 Ely Street and William Young, 8121 Ruth Circle were present and
expressed concern about the buffer of trees along Ruth Street suggesting poplar
and evexgreens, and questioned the garbage clisposal, traffic patterns, parking,
commercial area and proposed bridge on East side of shopping center. They also
wanted to know of the controls the City had over the plans. Chairman Erickson
read that part of the PD Ordinance which refexred to the controls the City had
over the details of the final plan, and what was required at the prelimina�y
stage.
It was explained to the audience that at the previous hearings, there was
a traffic study by Bather & Associates. Their opinion was the traffic on East
River Road was not heavy enough to warrant signals at this location until a
later date when a traffic pattern could be studied. The Planning Commission did
take some action in that they asked East River Road be widened to provide for
right and left turn lanes at the entfance of the co�nercial area. This was the
principle reason why an additional right ot way had to be provided by the
developer. Chairman Erickson said the Planning Commission would be very much
opposed having another exit on East River Road, mainly because of the problem
of elevation. There is a difference in elevation between the road•and the com-
plex of about 15 feet -- a drop from the complex to the creek.
n Regarding parking, Mr. Solveson said �Che parking was figured at 1.5 stalls,
- or 162 paxki.ng stalls. The Commission felt underground parking would be the
answex for either Plan and asked Mr. Solveson to try to incorporate this in the
F�
i"'�
�1
:�
Planning Commission Meetin� - October 22, 1969 Pa�e 3
plans. If the garages could go underground near the apartments, it would eliminate
building by the creek. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Solveson to try for
two stalls per unit.
In regard to the exit on Ruth Street, Mr. Solveson said it was a requirement
to have two exits from the area.
The suggestion was made to use evergreens, poplars, and a redwood fence for
buffer between the house on Lots 32 and.33 and the complex. Mr. Du.mphy said they
may sell the house because, at the present time, it is rented, but it would be
better to have the owner live in it.
Mr. Dumphy said the commercial area was the same as before. The building
will have two floors. The.entrance to the East would be primarily used by the
people from that area. A bridge could be built across the creek, and a foot-
path leading to the residential area. This path would be adjacent to the lot
of Mr. Potts who said the people cross his backyard now.
� Regarding the procedure for the preliminary development plans, the audience
wexe told that, at this time, all the Planning Commission had to consider was
the overall plan. Upon the approval of the Planning Commission, the plan would
go to the Counciland another public hearing would be held. When the preliminary
pla,n goes before the Council, it becomes a final plan upon its approval. The
small details pertaini.ng to the buildings, landscaping, sidewalk and traffic
problems will be handled by the Buildi.ng Standards-Design Control Subcauunittee
and if a variance would be needed, the Board of Appeals. All work will be done
in accordance to the PD Ordinance under the directions of the departments
affected. Whatever permits are given by the Building Standards-Design Control
Subcommittee will be after a public hearing is held. The public hearings of the
Subcommittees will be the final public hearings for the project.
Chairman Erickson added that, as far as he was concerned, he was about ready
to vote with a couple of additional suggestions. 1) More specific detail on�
screening and planting of trees giving species and size.2)Statement of intent and
guarantee to protect present foliage along creek route. 3) Provision made for
future parking either at the time of the approval of the preliminary plan or a
guarantee they would add additional parking. 4).He liked Scheme 1 with Scheme 2
parking incorporating undexground parking. This would necessitate soil tests �
and grade plans with specific proposed elevations throughout. �
The parking lot facing Ruth Street could be depressed with a raised exit as
qou drive out. Mr. Solveson asked if the exterior of the buildings, being stucco
and brick, met.with their approval, and was told it appears to be what was asked
for. �
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning Commission
continue the public hearing to November 5, 1969 of the approval of the Preli.minary
Development Plan for the Planned Development District by Howard Dumphy and the
reason for doing so was to give the petitioner a chance to move forward on sug-
gestions as outlined by the Chairman listed above. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unani_mously. .
L_
Planning Commission Meeting - October 22, 1969 Page 4
2. VACATION REQUEST: SAV ��69-08, CITY OF FRIDLEY: South 18 feet of 57th Place
��' lying East of line extended North that is 20 feet East of West line of Lot 7,
Block 7, City View Addition and West of the line that is 57.5 feet West of
centerline of Southbound lane of T.H. ��47.
3. VACATION REQUEST: SAV ��69-09, CITY OF FRIDLEY: Vacate 33 foot Street
between 57th Place and 57th Avenue lying East of Lot 15, Block 8, and
West of Lot 1, Block 7, City View Addition.
The explanation was given that there is an agreement between the City of
Fridley and.Erickson Petxoleum Company to substitute the 3rd Street for the 33
foot street asked for in the vacation xequest. Erickson Petroleum owns both
sides of the 33 foot street.
The suggested exchange of pxoperty is as follows: the 33 foot vacated
street could be used for a parking lot; they have received from the Highway
Department a 57 foot strip adjacent to University Avenue and, in return,
dedicated a C0 foot right of way for 3rd Street. The street will be improved
to City standards. �
The people in the area were notified by public°heari.ng notices.
MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Myhra, that the Pl.anning Commission
approve the request, SAV ��69-08, City of Fridley, for the vacation of the
South 18 feet of 57th Place lying East of a line extended North that is 20
feet East of the West line of Lot 7, Block 7, City Vi.ew Addition and West of
� the line that is 57.5 feet West of centerli.ne of Southbound lane of T.H. ��'47
and the request, SAV ��69-09, City of Fxidley, for the vacation of a 33 foot
street between 57th Place and 57th Avenue lying East of Lot 15, Block 8,
and West of Lot 1, Block 7, City View Addition with.the stipulations as follows:
SAV �69-08: 1)reduction of the 18 feet vacation right of way to 16 feet leaving
the City with a 50 foot right of way; 2)consideration of the fact that we have
a street without a tuxn around; 3) that the remainder of the street not bei.ng
used could present a maintenance problera; �) unless properly graded, there��
could be a drainage problem; 5) that the,City retain the utility easements in
� the vacated portiora: SAV ��69-09: Recommend the City retain all the appropriate
utility easements; according to the stipulations as passed by the Plats & Sub=
divisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee in their minutes of October 15, 1969.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously. �
4. CONTINUED VACATION REQUEST: SAV �69-10, THOMAS ALBERS: Vacate Johnson
Street on the West line of Lot'1, B1•ock Z, Swanstrom's Courto
Mr. Albexs was present. Also pxesent were R. C. Staats, 5368 Matterhorn
Drive, Raymond Prestemon, 1391 53rd Avenue N.E., Clarence Engebretson, 5376
Ma.tterhorn Drive, and Robert Oulicky, 5332 Matterhorn Drive. -
The Engineering Assistant explained that the Subcoimnittee decided, rathex
than consider just one lot, that the abutting property owners should be sent
letters for the vacation of the full length of Johnson Street requesting their
�", opinions at the October 22nd Planning Commission meeting. The original request
was fox alongside Lot 1. The Subcommittee felt the street, inasmuch as it had
never been traveled, was of no use and could foresee no reason fox it to be
opened in the future, but that the City should retain an uti.lity easement. The
street, if vacated, would revert totally to the lots on the West side, and the
owners would dedicate the easements back to the City.
Plannin� Commission Meeting - October 22, 1969 Pa e 5
�''``� The property owners wanted to know how much the tax would be, but that
- couldn't be answered at this ti.me. Mr. Engebretson was not opposed to the
vacation of the street. The answex to another question was that a building
could be put up right along the easement 1ine. A fence could go right on the
lot line. If the whole street were vacated, and an owner did not wish to acquire
the land, he could sell it to.a neighbor.
It was suggested to Mr. Prestemon that if he were not interested in
acquiring the property for himself, he might talk to the two neighbors to the
East to see if they would be interested in enlarging their backyards.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planni.ng Commission
recommend approval of the vacation request, SAV ��69-10, Thomas Aibers, to vacate
Johnson Str�et on the West line of Lot 1, Block 2, Swanstrom's Court with the
provision that an utility easement be ma,intained over the East 23 feet of the
proposed vacation and that, further, a vacation of the remaining portions of
Johnson Street North of Skywood Lane and North of 53rd Avenue be considered at
the same time, providing that the adjacent property owners who would be receiv-
ing the vacated street would not object to it. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting
aye,�the motion carried unanimously. � .
5. REZONIIVG REQUEST. ZOA ��69-11, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CONLpANY: That
portion beiween 40th and 41st Avenues N.E. and in the vicinity of Grand
and Califomia Streets - approxi.mately 2.19 acxes -- to be rezoned from
�� R-1 to M-2 (heavy industrial).
Representing the Northern Pacific Railway Company �ere Douglas Shoemaker,
James Anderson and Jerry Masters. The request is to rezone R-1 property to M-2
fox the constxuction of a portion of railroad classification yard (departure
tracks and slope excavation in this area).
' The Ordinance requires 1500 feet between railroad switching yards and
residential, and the Northern Pacific Railway Co. is going before the Board of
Appeals for a variance of the 1500 feet.
The Planning �ommission were shown the proposed plans for modernizing the
railroad yard and explained in detail by Mr. Shoemaker, Anderson and Masters.
. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Mittelstadt, that the Planning Commission
set a public hearing date of Novembex 19, 1969 for the rezoning request, ZOA
��69-11, Northern Pacific Railway Company, that portion between 40th and 41st
Avenues Northeast and in the vicinity of Grand and Califo�-nia Streets, approxi-
ma.tely 2.19 acres fxom R-1, single family residence to M-2, heavy industrial.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously.
6. EAST RIVER ROAD: TURN LANES FOR UNDERPASS NORTH AND SOUTH OF HWY. ��694:
� For the benefit of the audience, the Resolution regarding the improvement
of East River Road and Intexstate Highway No. 694 Interchange, whi.ch was being
sen� on to the �Council for their consideration and approval,was read, No action.
i�._
Plannin� Commission Meeting - October 22, 1969 Page 6
�`'� 7o METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSTON:
The .Chairman received a letter from the Metropolitan Planning Commission
regarding a meeting to �discuss public ownership of the Twin City Lines. He
felt he was not in a position to answer because he did not use the bus. A
suggestion might be made to cut some of the stops, as they need something that
gets downtown quicker. It seems relatively few people depend upon the bus.
MOTION by Myhra, second,ed by F•itzpatrick, that the Planning Co�nission
request the Chairman to write a letter in lieu�of going to the meeting. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously.
8. MEETING OF ANOKA COiFNTY MUNICTPALITTES PLANNING MEETING: October 29, Z969:
Chaixman Erickson would plan to attend. '
9. ZONING ORDINANCE: REVIEW OF PARKING STALLS FOR APARTMENTS:
1'he discussion centered around the original zoning and the areas yet
to be developed. The Commission felt that the present zoning ordinance require-
ment of 1.5 stalls was inadequate at this timee There was no actions but the
members were individually to do their own checking and report at the next meeting.
�
10. MULTIPLE DWELLING STUDY IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
The Engineering Department compiled a booklet on Apartment Study in
Fridley in relation to the tax structure and school tax. The fact was discussed
that some of the income tax money is returned to Fridley as State Aid, and the
Commission felt this should be explained and put in the report as this would
more accurately reflect the tax load. No action, as the study was not completed.
ADJOURNNIENT •
There being no further business, Chainnan Erickson adjourned the
meeting at 11:50 P.M. - � �
Respectfully submitted
H����' ��
C� �Lt� -si.-
0'Brian
Recording Secretary
��
�l � �7 l �7 � � �° '� �
�/�n �7 e -7-�. c� �
U
,���� �
� -- _ j�d�. �... ��- �5��..�.�c�.
� ..,
� ��.�s �, 1�.-,�,,,j.�.....�
._ - �
; .� �,.��.�
`��;� �%7�. � �t-���
°��� i
� ,
, , ,
�-, �!�� ,
.
� / � -! �
_ �` %
i , i
/% i � r' �
i
/ � .
� � r�
� ,. � � ,
�� ,
, / �
1�� / ' , /
,��
�/ a . � "
i O / �
,j / i �
, �
/
�. `
,
,r. .../ � ��/� �/ !� l � 6 T ES
�
l
�7??,? ) 5 s c o�"Z /!�v�-` .
7�t���' e- 5S �`'�7s-i%�
i�-�p ti�.� p,�w �3 !� _ s"
��, �� �, H.� , ss �d � S
,�y� ;����, � � �
���� ss3��.t, � � . �
5'3�G �� l
f,�`...�'i j�� .�� /��� � �
�oz5 �� � �
�o� ��� i?� /
3/5 �.i �� � �, �
� �sa s-� � �,..Q. ►J �
��� ��'c� �� ���'" _ '
�Qv��� /../u//���Z�i2s�i/��
�a �� R,�y �.,-
��� ��
� � � ��-
��Z/ �T/� �.t�,
�� �y �' G�-�- �P
�
�� ((' � ' �
� � �
����_��.���� ��'
i .
�oe� � P ald� ; .s� �a�), m,,,,,,
0
�?aqw e�
%Gbu��� �'1
V t� � G^
(��v5 et"Ue L'
�
�
�
l
�
�
1
�
S
.. ._ - - __ f _ _
_ _ __ _ _— - - --- -
--- - --
--- _ _
,