Loading...
PL 05/23/1973 - 31152� � i"� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CONA�IISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: MAY 23y 1973 Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Preseat: Fitzpatr�ck, Harris Darrel Clark, Lindblad, Blair, Drigans PAGE 1 Community Development Administrator e APPROVE PLAIVNING COI�IlKISSION MINUTES: MA`l 9Q 1973 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Blair, that the Pl,anning Commission appxove the minutes of the 1�ay 9, 1973 meeting as wr�ttten. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVB PLATS $ SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS�$ UTILITIES SUBCOP�IITTEE MINUTES: MA.X 9, 1973 1NOTION by B1sir, seconded by Drigans, tha� the PZanning Commission receive the Plats & Svbdiv.isions-Streets � Uti.Zit�es Subcommittee minutes of May 9, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the �otion carried unani�usl y . ' RECBIVE PARKS �, RECREATION C014A9ISSION MINUTES: MARCH 26, 1973 Mot.ton by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Co�anission receive the Parks 6 Recreation Corr�oission minutes of March 26, 1973. Upon a vo.ice vote, a11 vot.ing aye, the motion carr.ted unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCONA4ITTEE MINUTES: MAY lp, 1973 MOTION by LindbZad, seconded by BZair, that the PZanning Coantission rece3ve the Building Standards-Design Control 3ubco�nittee m.inutes of 1�lay 10, 1973. Upon e vo�ice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE B0�1RD OF APPEAI,$ MYNUTES: MAY 15, 1973 MOTION by Dr3gan, seconded by Bla�r, that the Planning Cor�n3ssion teceive the Board of Appeals minutes of May 15, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a.�l voting $ye, the raotion carried unan�mously. rr^,_ 1, CONTINUED: VACATION REQUEST: SAV #73-08, DENNIS A. RANSTROM: Vacate 20 foat utility and drainage easement line etween Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Rice Creek School �lddition, to allow construction of a home on two lats. Same as 6700 Arthur Street N.E. Mr. p�nnriis Rar�strom and Mra. P�� �lj.a�� were present. � Planning �oimaission Meeting - May 23, 1973 Page 2 Mr. Clark said this item was continued until we had a reco�nenda�tion from the Parks & Recreation Director and the Parks & Recreation Commnission. Chairman Fitzpatrick said we do Yaave a memo from the Parks & Recreation Director and the Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission is present. Mr. alair said the Commission concurred with the Director in that we have no need for any park property from these lots. Mr. Drigans asked if the City has any easements that follow the Creek. Mr. Clark said no. Mr. Drigans said he didn't understand point five in the memorandum from the Park Departmento This was a suggestion that the lots be left as they are. Mr. Clark sa�.d tl�aat meaaat to leave thes� �n private owner- ship. Mr. Clark said this wras also continued until this item had been before the Boarc3 of Appeals. Mr. Clark said the vaxiance was approved subject to �tiie vacation being approved. The Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subco�nittee approved this request subject to a 6 foot drai.nage and utility easement being granted on the South side of I�t llo Chaircaan Fitzpatr�ck �aid there was � gixlly on tYie property. Mr. Clarlc said there was no public right of way draining into this gully, and this � ' was to be taken care of by the:petitior�er.at the time he was ready to start n construction on the home. MOZ°ION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Co�ission re�ommend to Council approval of the vacation request, SAV #73-08, by Dennis Ranstrom, to vacate the 20 foot utility and drainage easement line between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Rice�Creek School Addition, to a12ow construction of a ho� on two Iots, subject to a six foot drainage a�d ut3lity easement being granted on the South side of Lot II. Upon a voice vote, a1Z vot3ng ay�, the u+otion carried unanimmuslye 2, CONTINUED: REQUEST E'UR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #73-05, BERNARD JTJLKOWSKI: Split off part of Lot 6 and 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, to develop land either multiple or commercial. Mr. Bernard Julkowski was present. Chaixntan F'i.tzpatrick said this item had been continued at the Subconaaittee level eo th� adl�acent property owners could be notified of this request. Mr. Clark said he had heard tonight that oae of the owners is in the hoapital, so no one from the apartment camnplex had appeared this evening to give sny opinion on this property. One of the new ownera has contacted the City recently asking to have the 'no parking' �aic,�ns removed on 52nd Avenue. "'�_ Mr. Jack Getzel, District Supervisor for Robert Hall, and Mr. J. Klava, Manager oP the Fridley ltobert Hall were at the Subco�anittee meeting and said th�y had np objaction to this lot splito . ,� Planning Cou�tission Meeting - May 23, 1973 Pa e 3 � Mr. Clark continued that the City's concerra is �hat if this land is under different use, this is going to create more of a parking problem for the apartment complex than they are having nowm Mr. Clark said the 64 unit apart�aent complax was built in 1964 and at that time they met all the existi.ng codes. We required 95,000 square feet to build this many unitsm They had 118,000 square feet. out present requirement� would require 160,000 square feet for this maziy units. We did require 1� parking stalls per unit. Now we require 1� parking stalls ,per unit plus �t stall for any uni� with more than one bedroom. They would have to provide 20 more stalls now b�hara they did then o Mr. C1ark presented a plot plan with the parcel shown that Mr. Julkowski wants to split off, and the existinq apart�ent building coanplex. Mr. Clark said the 64 units face 52nd Avenue N.Ee The blue parking spaces on th� plot plan are existing parking stalls. The red parking spaces are a plan worked out by administration for the owner of the apartment building a few years ago. �hese parkinq spaces have never been put in. At the present tivae, there is some parking on Mr. Julkovaski's parcel by people in the apartment complex. Mr. Julkowski said he has owned this parcel for nine years. It has been split by the County, but the City will not honor that split for special /'1 assessment or allow hi.ua to obtain a building permit. ChairMan Fitzpatrick asked haw this can be split by the County, when it's not split by the City. Mr. Clark said the County cannot refuse to record a properly executed deed on abstract property. Mr. Fitzpatxick asked Mr. Ju].kowski if he had negotiated with the owners of the apartment complex about purchasinq th3s property. Mr. Julkowski said he had, and they have shown an i.nterest, but they aren't in any huxry to buy the property because they know I can't do anything with it. If I qet the lot split, I may still seiY the property to the apartment owners. I don't intend to ask anything but a fair price for this parcel, either way. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Julkowski what he could use this parcel for when it►�s zaned co�unercial. Mr. Clark said Mr. Julkowski did take out a building �ermit in 196� for 16 units to be built on this site, but they were r�ever built. He can stiIl constxuct an aparta�ent on this site, but the present requixement� would oaiy �llow an eight or ten unit apaz+tr�sht. Zf he aants to build an apaxtment, h� would have to rezone the property. ' � lrlr. Lindblad asked if the present owners of the apartntent complex bought - thi� parcel from Mr. Ju2kowski could.�aey eonstruct apartments on it. Mr. Clark eaid all they could use it for was parking because i.t wauld be tzeated as one parcel of land and they do not meet the square footage require- • menta for the" units they already have, or the parking requirements, according �ko aur preeetit codes. �1_ . Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Julkowski if he has requA�ted a lot aplit fraa �he City on this parcel before. Mr. Julkowski said he has talked abaut it, i� � .,^ °�_ Plat�ing Commission Meeting - May 23, 1973 Page 4 but every time he bxouqht it in, he was told to wait and see if the apartment complex would buy the property. Mr. Clark said the reaso� for this was because if the lot split was approved and the property went into different ownershi.p and a different use, the parking probleans for the apartments woulci only be a bigger problem. Mr. Meissner said there was a tax forfeit lot, Lot 11, Block 1, Marion Hills Addition, that was adjacent to this property. Mr. Julkowski said that property used to be part of the property he ownecl when he built the apartment complex and there was a driveway to the apartment complex on this lot. Evidently, subsequent buyers of the propsrty weren't aware that this was in addition to the parcel the apartment building was located on and let this lot go tax forfeit. Mr. Meissner said it was felt at the Subcommittee meeting that this lot could offer about six additional parking spaces. Alr. Clark said if thi� lot was used for pa�king, as i�'was in an R-1 district they would have to get a Special Use Permit and some variances of the setback requirements. • Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Julkowski if he got this lot split could he sell part oE what was split off to the apartmeaat owners for additional parking. Mr. Julkowski said he could, and this would give ixim many different options on this parcela Mr. Drigans said he was concerned about the overall problem of parking for the apartment complex and felt Mr. Julkowski should seriously negotiate witb the apartment owners to sell them this property. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by B1air, tliat the Plann3ng Cor�anission continue the request for a lot split, L.S. #73-05, by Bernard Julkowski, to spZit off part of Lots 6 and 7, Audator's Subdivision No. I53, to develop land either commercial or multiple, until June 6, 1973, to allow serious negotiations between M!. Julkowsk� and the apartment owners on the purchase of this parcel, and maybe the lot split wi11 not be necessary. Upon a voice vote, aZl voti,�g aye, the r�vtion carr3ed vnanimously. 3, LAND USE DISCCJS3ION: ROGER CHRISTENSOAT: Proposal to construct a school garag� on Lot 1, and the North 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 6, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, subject to all easements of record. Mr. Roqer Christenson and Mr. Carl Newquist, his attorney, were �resent. Chairman Fitzpatrick said �his proposal has been before the Boaxd of Appeala and was rec�ended to �he Planning Con�ission by that Board. Mr. Drigana said this proposal was before �he Hoard of Appeals on May 15� 1973, at which tin� there were two petitioras pre3ented requesting that we deny the variances. These requests were by the �djoininq neighbor� in the area who objected to a bua garage going into the proposed site. The petitioner wae a�aking for a five foot side yard variaric� and a 5 foot parkinq varianc�. Chairman Fitzpatr�.ck said the Board of Appeals is seeking the opinion of � the Plannir�g Commiseion of the use of the 1� as a bus qaxage. This use ie permitted �� a M-� dis9t;�,�t, whi�h is what i�Yae property in question is zoned. ,� � Planning Commi.ssion Meeting - May 23, 1973 Page 5 Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals was not only concerned about the - - property being used as a bus storage area abutting a residential area, but of any other industrial use going into this area. Mr. Drigans listed some ------- --of the things that were permitted uses in this zoning, such as building material yards, creameries, dairies, etc., ice plants, locker plants, cold storage, cleaning and dyeing plants and laundries, railroad lines and spurs, passenger and freight depots, all these things could be across the street from a residential area. In this particular area, I believe the homes are valued in excess of $35,000. Mr. Drigans said he would like to refer to the zoning ordinance, Section 45.01, in which it states that this zoning ordinance has been adopted for the Purpose of dividing the City into zones, or districts, restricting and regulating therein, the location, erection, construction, re-construction, alteration, and use of buildings, structures, and land, for industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, and other specified uses; regulating the intensity of the use of the land and to regulate and determi.ne the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings in order to prevent the over- crowding of land and to a.ssure adequate light and air, to protect waterways and natural resources. Nir. Drigans continued, this paxticular piece of property adjoins part of !� Rice Creek, and my major concern and the concern of the Board of A the use of this iece of Ppeals was P� property for a bus storage area. The buses will be repaired and maintained in this proposed building and the refuse from this will go into a catch basin, and I'm not convinced that this catch basin is going to do the job, and we could get undesira.ble chemicals into Rice Creek and Locke Lake. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the point you are trying to make is that although the zoning is proper for the use the petitioner wishes, it is contrary to the intent of our zoning ordinances. Mr. Drigans said he knew that Mr. Christenson has been a member of the business coitununity for a long time and a long time resident of Fridley�, and he, Mr. Drigans, personally knew of many insta.nces where Mr. Christenson has donated buses to Civic organizations free of charge, so he is a good part of this Community. However, I do feel that this industry would be better located in another area of Fridley, a far better suited area. I would like to see something worked out so that the City could buy this property from Mr. Christen- , son for a fair compensation, so that the bus garage, which he needs, can be located in another part of the City. Chairman Fitzpatrick repeated that this had been referred to the Planning Commission by a subcommittee asking us to make a recommendation�on a land use problem. We probably won't be prepared to make that statement this evening. � Mr. Darrel Clark said that he had questioned Mr. ' on this and he said that if any of the residents of of the Planning Commission would submit any question writing, he would give them a written answer. Herrick, the City Attorney, the area or any members they have on this, in , � Planning Commission Meeting - May 23, 1973. Page 6 Mr. Fi,tzpatrick said the use requested is permitted in the present zoning. Mr. Clark said the petitioner has requested having all the parking in the -- --- -- -,----rear of the building because he wants to save the trees on the front of the lot to help provide screening of the building from the street. As far as traffic is concerned, there is a proposed service drive between the property and the railroad tracks. Council could order this road in any time they felt p it was.necessary. They are in the proper: zoning area for the proposed use and the proposal is well within the requirements of the present zoning ordinance. Mr. Meissner, a member of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee said he would review for the Planning Commission, briefly, the action taken by them tonight. He said they were asked to approve the vacation of a 30 foot road easement on Lot 1 and the North 25 feet of Lot 2, Block 6, Rice Creek Plaza South Addition, which they did approve, retaining the utility easement and retaining a storm sewer easement running North and South to the East of the building, and an easement for a walkway to the Creek. Mr. Carl Newquist, an attorney, said he was speaking in behalf of Mr. Christenson. He said Mr. Christenson and his family has provided bus service for the schools for 35 years. Because of a change of ownership of the property he now uses, it has �de it necessary to relocate the storage of buses. Mr. � Christenson has owned the property where he wants to build the bus storage building for many years. It has been zoned M-1 for 15 years. Mr. Newquist said that by saving the trees in front of the building and on the land next to the Creek and Locke Park, they will be providing screening. • Mr. Clark explained the underpass pla�, using the scale model of the project. This plan would connect the proposed service drive to 2nd Street Northeast with access to Mississippi Street. Mr. Drigans asked how wide this street would be. Mr. Claxk said it would be 50 feet. Mr. Clark said it would depend upon the timing of the development between Main Street and the tracks, as to when the service road would be built. The City Council has the power to order it in any time that they wish. Mr. Bud Hamilton, 181 Rice Creek Terrace, said that he would like to summarize some of the points that were made by our attorney at the Board of Appeals meeting on May 15th. We presented a petition protesting this proposal that was signed by 73 people, all residents of the neighborhood affected. There were 21 neighbors at that meeting and 20 neighbors are here tonight. Mr. Simon, our attorney, said this proposal would devaluate the homes in the area, it would present a grave danger to the safety of our children with eighty buses a day traveling a residential street. The children cross the street to get to the park, and there are no sidewalks in the area< The other five blocks in Rice Creek Plaza South Addition were platted in 1958. There were very strict covenants, which apply for 20 years, in regard to square footage, architectural control, and the quality and size of the buildings. '� All these things were designed to insure a nice residential area. The area in question is right across the street. 0 � Planning Commission Meeting - May 23, 1973 Page 7 Mr. Hamilton continued that the point was also made that in the zoning ordi.nance, paragraph 45.131, in discussing the use� in M-1 zoning, that the uses will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vacinity thereof, or to the public welfare, and will not impair the - ------- �-- ��'use, enjoyment or value of any property. Also in paragraph 45.132, uses excluded; any other use which is objectionable by reason of noise, dust, dirt, noxious gases, �or, vibration, etc., or because of subjection of life, health and property to hazard. I submit that the proposal is in violation of these ordinances. It also states on the 1973 Fridley calender, with a picture of Rice Creek on the cover, tha.t Fridley offers canoers a chance to explore Rice C;reek and its mystic beauty. Rice Creek flows through the heart of Fridley, and often ti.mes makes you believe you're off in some forgotten place. Also reported in the Sun newspaper of August, 1968, which described Rice Creek as a jewel within our reach. Also in this article it stated that more land should be preserved for public use. Also, the Metropolitan Council said the City should conser.ve the land that would serve as a buffer to the Creek. This proposal would create heavy noise and pollution to the Creek. ^ Mr. Hamilton quoted the following from the pro,posed comprehensive plan. On page six under Environmental Controls, it states that a recently formed Environmental Commission will further provide additional citizen inpu� to insure better environmental quality for the people of Fridley. The involve- ment of the citizenry in this area of environmental control has been, and will continue to be, a significant force in curbing visual pollution. Also on page 6, under Cities Exemplary Role, it says that in addition to its regulatory functions, the City has taken an exemplary role in the control of visual pollution and concern for aesthetics. . On page 7, under Rice Creek Watershed Preservation, it sta'tes that controls have been established to encourage conscientious development along all City waterways, including lakes and creeks. On page 8, continuing protection is needed if natural lands are �o be preserved for future generations. Under Planning Implications; in our expanding urban environanent, it is imperative that we preserve much of our na.tural ecology in order to develop as comfortable a living environment as is feasi.bly possible. The citizenry must become aware of the importance of the City's natural resources and how they can be incorporated into the overall environment. On page 9, under Land Use; a forecast of future land use is an essential step in the planning process. Before it can be determined what is needed for '� future development, it is necessary to consider (1) how existing land is used, (2) what la�nd is vacant, (3) what afiect existing land use patterns will have on the vacant land, and (4) measure projections for the type and quani�y of land required for future population needs. /'"� Planninq CoIIU[tission Meeting - Ma.y 23, 1973 Pa e 8 Mr. Hamilton continued quoting from the Comprehensive Plan. On page 14, a table is given that compares Fridley to other first ring suburbs. It shows that the average for heavy industrial use �-� 6.7o and Fridley has 22.10. The average residential land is 41.So and Fridley has 340. Fridley has over - - - -- ----- ee t�.mes the average in industrial land. Of this industrial land, what is zoned M-I is 58.6o vacant and M-2 is 46.2o vacant. Mr. Hami.lton �ontinued to quqte from page 14 where it says with the highest. percentage of industrial land use in the Metropolita.n Area, Fridley has sufficient industry to support its projected population. Therefore, any future industrial development should be considered for the nature of its work force and its impact upon the Commun- ity. On page 20, it says the reputation of a community is shaped by the quality and condition of its residential areas. On page 25, under Community Facilities; the overall appearance of a city is one of its most valuable assets. It is therefore important to preserve the city's natural beauty as much as possible. This has been, and should continue to be, one of the major considerations in planning community facilities. On page 33, where it talks ahout land development, it states that with � limited residential properties ._ left and sizeable industrial properties still to develop, this future development would tend to provide more jobs than necessary to support the employment needs in the community. This situation is not necessarily healthy a�c1 can create problems siinilar to the core cities. On page 47, under General Objectives; insofar as it is possible and practical, all future development should reflect the major proposals of the Guide Plan. Points Mr. Hamilton stressed were (4) Promote and encourage quality business and industrial development in the City, and to cooperate with new and existing business and industry, where such business and industry contributes to the high social, economic and aesthetic level of the community. .(6) Preserve much of our natural ecology in order to develop as comfortab3e a living environment as is feasi.bly possible. On page 50, under the heading of Comprehensive Plan, the development of the Comprehensive Plan is determined to a large degree by the needs and ' desires of the City's inhabitants. These needs and�desires can be ascertained by a study of their characteristics and their own vocal expressions, but these needs and desires alter with changing characteristics, so it is necessary to evaluate trends and changes to establish future controls for our environ- mental needs. On page 53, under the heading Industrial, it will be necessary to re- evaluate the amount of vacant land which is presently zoned industrial and � possibly. consider some other uses that would provide a more stable balance ot land uses within the communitv. Also, any future industrial development should be thoroughly considered for the nature of its work force and its impact upon the community. � Planni.ng Co�ission Meeting - May 23, 1973 • Page 9� ^ . ,Finally, on page 60, Mr. Hami.lton continued, where it talks about --Study Area 4, and this paragraph is specifically for the area we are talking about tonight, it says it would not be desirable to extend industrial �acilities further into the residential areas along the railroad South of Rice Creek. This area should retain its residential character to fit into ---�-the surrounding residential neighborhood. Medium density housing would serve as a transition for the existing railroad and industry and would preserve public use of Rice Creek. Mr. Hamilton s�.d in summary that a petition signed by 73 residents was presented at the Soard of Appeals meeting protesting this praposal, to protecf the children's safety, because of intolerable noise, visual pollution and depreciation of ho�es in the area. Also the comprehensive plan specifically reco�ends that this area should retain its residential character and says it would not be desirable to extend industrial facilities South of Rice Creek. Mr. Hamilton apg�ealed to the Planning Co�nission to give serious consideration to �s proposal, and follow the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and rezone this land for residential use. Chairman Fitzpatrick said one ,point that should be made is that the comprehensive plan 1�. Hamilton quoted from so effectively, is the statement of the Planning Co�ission and has not been adopted as yet by the City. � Mr. Hamilton said he had been at the last City Council meeting with an alternate propa�ai for this area and would like to read his statement at this time. The letter was �o the attention of the Chairman of the Fridley Planning Commission on the subject of Fridley's comprehensive development plan. The letter stated that the Planning Co�nission and the City Planning Department are to 1�� complimented on the thorough plan they have developed for Fridley's remai�s.ng land. The adoption of the proposed guidelines can make Fridley even �ore beautiful than it is today. I have an alternate suggestion for the use of a portion of the land�covered in Study Area 4. I would imagine tha-� Jay Park (adjacent to the area in question, and running between Main and 2nai Street) would be more desirable as residential land than the area along the tracks. If so, it might make sense to zone Jay Park as residential and create a larger park in the area from Designware to • Ri.ce Creek. In ad:dition, the dedicated roadway where it crosses the entrance of Rice Creek into �,ocke Lake would form a natural line between this park and Plaza Park, No�hh of Rice Creek. This area where Rice Creek widens out and enters Locke L�ce is an extremely beautiful section of Fridley. It aboutids in wildlife includi.mg mallards, herons, muskrats, and wide variety of other birds. The best pga�ce to view the area is from the dedicated roadway mentioned above. As you kno�r, Rice Creek is used extensively by canoeists and many of them use this ara�a to bring their canoes ashore. In accordance with one of the Plan's objec�igres stated throughbut the document of preserving the �� City's natural be�ut� for future generations, I submit that this area should be developed as a g�rk so the public may enjoy it. Ari important part of my proposal is that the use of the dedicated roadway be restricted to pedestrian �1 � Planning Commission Meeting - May 23, 1973 , Page 10 � and bicycle traffic only. As you may be aware, there is a current problem of motorcycles on this road causing intolerable noise pollution and teaxing up of the hill on either side of the roadway. If my total proposal is not - - --- - __ feasible, I believe the important paxt is that some land South of Rice Creek be preserved for public use by the creation of a park, and that it be linked to the dedicated roadway which should be closed to vehicular traffic. Mr. James Makie, 200 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., said this area in question is zoned industrial. Mr. Christenson can build a garage on this property and as he has owned this land for some time he probably feels.he is entitled to build on it. But any kind of light industry will present a danger to this area. It is a sheltered area. Rice Creek is closed off at University and the end of Main Street. Second Street is a dead end. We really have spoiled our children. They feel they own the street. They use the street as a play- ground because we have had no traffic flow. It would take deaths and another generation of children before they learn to stay off the street. We also want to preserve the natural beauty bordering the Creek. Mr. Lawrence Anderson, 220 Rice Creek Blvd., said that bus and taxi storage yards were allowed in M-1, but there would be storage of gasoline and repair work done on the buses and he thought this could be.a threat to the preservation of the Creek. Mr. Dwayne Dzubay, 220 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., said �hat when the underpass plan goes through it is going to leave one entrance and ex.it for the entire area and the school buses would add to the congestion. Mrs. Lois Parsons, 171 Rice Creek Terrace, said it is difficult to get,out of her driveway now with the existing traffice. Also, there has been discussion of trees screening this building from Main Street, but there is a lot of the year when the leaves are off the trees and there would be no screening. Mr. Paul Plummber, 10-66� Way N.E., said he thought there was inadequate buffering for noise from Designware now. Mr. Blair said there was concern at the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting about a commercial building being located on the Creek. Because the property was correctly zoned for tliis proposal, we couldn't voice any objection, but we were concerned about the traffic congestion with a park half a block away when the children have to cross the street to get to the park. As far � as Mr. Hamilton's proposal is concerned, it would have to be worked out as to how Mr. Christenson would be compensated for his land if this property was made into a park. Another concern is whether a dedicated park can be changed into a residential area. Chairman Fitzpatrick said there can be great difficulties in making any n changes in a dedicated park. Mrs. Hamilton asked when the underpass would be going in. Mr. Clark said this was a County controlled project and she could contact the County Engineer. He said he t.hought it would be at Teast three years. Planning Conanission Meeting - Ma,y 23, 1973 ' Pa e 1'1 ^ Mr. Drigans said he would like to state that he felt Mr. Hamilton quoted very succinctly from the comprehensive plan that is under consideration right now by the City Council. I would submit to you that if some of these remarks _ or statements are of any value to the City of Fridley, that this guideline be very seriously considered. The plan hasn't even been approved and here we - - - - -_ __-- — - are already faced with problems concerning the plan. The Planning Commission has spent well over a year developing this plan, the administration has spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars developing the plan. This plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council. The first instance that we have that involves the plan, we have a problem. I think the City Council should take some type of action and if this plan has any value, either this area should be completely deleted from the plan, or followed, as well as any of the other study areas. Mr. Hamilton has quoted ti.me and time again, about ecology and the �oncern of the City in environment, and here in one area where we have a beautiful piece of land on Rice Creek,, we propose to turn it into a piece of industrial property. This is a good case where land was zoned many, many years ago, and should be looked at again now. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the comprehensive plan developed from problems that, came up before in other areas like this in recent years. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we were asked to study the land use involved in this proposal for a bus storage gaxage, and this we have done. ^ Mr. Clark said the City Council should have the opportunity to comzttent_on . this before any decision is made by the Planning Commission. This proposal meets all the requirements codewise, but disagrees with the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. This is in one of the Study Areas and what was brought up here tonight will involve the purchasing or selling of park property. Mr. Drigans said he would like some type of direction from the City Council in this Study Area 4, particularly before we go any futher in granting variances or considering the vacation request, on whether they approve of the comprehensive plan, because we have a�onflict between what the property is zoned for and what we have recommended in the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan has not been approved. It is still having Public Hearings. This portion shoulc� be approved or given a recommendation by the City Council before the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals go further with their functions. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the City Councii discuss Study Area 4 of the Comprehensive P1an at their next meeiing in reference to these requests for variances and vacation before it is referred back to the Subcommittee's and Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, th� motion carried unanimousZy. 4.. REVIEW R�UIREMEI�TI'FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SECOND AUXILLIARY BUILDING Chairman Fitzpatrick said this was put on the agenda partly at the � request of Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris has specifically asked us to continue this discussion until our n�xt meeting. MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission continue the review of the requirement for a Special Use Permit for second auxilliary building, until June 6, 1973. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl.�. �/'� 'Planning Commission Meeting - May 23, 1973 Page 12 5. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION Mr. Drigans said at the special meeting of May 2, 1973 between the members ---- oi the old a.nd new Planning Commission, there was reference made to a Park Plan, Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Plan and a Transportation Plan. Are these documents in existance. Mr. Clark said the Park Plan is in the rough draft stage and has not been reviewed by the Park Co�►ission. The sewer plan has already been approved by the Metro Counci. As to the transporta.tion plan, we will need guidelines from the Metropolitan Council, because this will involve a much larger area than Fridley. NIr. Drigans said as the Planning Commission is charged with long-range planning, I would like to see some of these plans for our review. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 10:20 P.M. � Respectfully submitted, �..��f3 ���✓!?�� Dorothy Ev son, Secretary � 1 _ � �. _..�. .._ �, ��� � �— � �°:_;�- L � � � _ ���y�� ��" ' " � � � ; _ ; - ���i ----- __��_, /97-3 ; ._ _ �- -- --- --- _ __ -- --- - ; � , �' -- ----- - -- - — - -t�; : -------, — �'�'. � �.�..�-<M..�..--,� � i7 _ —� . � � �: �-r.:: ;� . � . �,�;�'.�, � `� � c� - ,, ; ,— ;� �— , � r,, �/ , � '- <s , , 1 . . ��.., - � ,��.rr - - i`/! ,,1' ��_� � � "�" -�� vr .� _ 1 ;� "/y�: /� �._ � . � � �,_'� ��/. LI. .� �-.� � _ _ �� � � % •� � i � �- :�-------- o� oo_. �.� o � C.''2�C��.,.�.-�-2�.�t-c..��� _ __ e?av -- Di��� G���_ ��Rs�rti :� %�U �it/,D �`–' �' -�'' -- - ----- -�. �/ � Q . ��► � _ � T..t�r.r.a,c...e � O� � '90 _ 6 �l�.� r�� _ 6 �-! y / Gt,K,� � a D D ,�c�� T /� �!f-i�.t..,�._ a.. � pV 11e, ! C..,� � f� �� �-�_�_�- —�-�- � �°' - � e,� ------- 3 3 o v �!''� �„-� �V r�------ »- � � I � z_� �.���--�-�� Gt/ . � - , ? ------- ----- _�- - .� ----- —�-�--�--��_�_� --- — -- _ � U v i - �?�l l�, `° y V . _�:d�/�U-�- — --- — _ a a, � �'�e�.���.r►- _�i _�' _--- —�='� `r, _r_ n_ f t . � �► nr� �