PL 11/06/1974 - 31175�'�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1974
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
. �=�� _,
�.
Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad, Blair, Drigans
None
Thomas Colbert, Assistant Engineer
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 23, 1974 �
MOTION bg BZair, seconded bq Harris, that the Planning Commission
approve the minutes of the October 23, Z974 meeting as written. Upoa
a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES:
OCTOBER 24, 1974.
MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission
receive the minutes of the Building Standards-�Design Control Subcommit-
tee meeting of October 24, 1974. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye,
� the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SUBaONIl�iITTEE MINUTES: OCTOBER
29, 1974
MOTION by BZair, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission
receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission Subcommittee
meeting of October 29, 1974. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 15, 1974
MOTION BY Drigans, seconded byHarr�is, that the Planninq Commission
receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission of October
15, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Drigans asked that the motion made on page one of these
minutes that there be a joint meeting of the E.Q.C. with the City
Council and Planning Commission on November 19, 1974 be added to
the end ot. the agenda and discussed then.
RECEiVE LETTER FROM VIRGIL HERRICK TO DARREL CLARK, DATED OCTOBER 29,
1974
� MOTION by Drigans, seconded by B1air, that the Planning Commission
receive the letter from Virgil Herrick to Darrel Clark, dated October
� 29, I974. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
� Planning Commission i�leeting - November 6, 1974 Page 2
�'`�
i"�.�::,
1.
CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED
PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. 74-06, ZANDER 5 1ST ADDITI
DAILEY HOMES, INC.: A replat of Lot 3, Auditor's
No. 92, except the North 169 feet of the West 164
located South of 61st Avenue N.E. between Benjamin
Mc Kinley Street N.E.
Public Hearing closed.
�,.,.
�
Subdivision
f eet thereof ,
Street and
Chairman Fitzpatrick said one of the reasons this item was
continued was to have the survey discrepancy checked out.
Mr. Colbert said we had our survey crew check the survey and
we concurred with the survey done by Dailey Homes. The discrepancy
� we found in Mr. Korin's survey was not in the boundary line�,_�but
in the setback to his house.
Mr. Drigans said there are people in the audience on this
proposal, so he thought the Public Hearing should be reopened.
MOTION br� Drigans, seconded by Aarris, that the Planning
Commission re-open the Public Hearing on the consideration of a
proposed preZiminary pZat, P.S.#74-06, Zander's 1st Addition, by
DaiZey Homes, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting,aye, the motion
carried unanimous.Zy.
Mr. Ken Korin, 6051 Benjamin Street N.E., said that he would
assume that when the City surveyed his North property line to put
the retaining wall in, they made a mistake in the survey, was this
correct?
Mr. Colbert �.aid this is a different matter in hand• When the
City put the street in, the street was shifted to the South. In
order to have room for snow removal, the wall was shifted two feet
into Mr. Korin's yard. Mr. Korin said there was no easement given for
this wall to be on his property. He asked if the City surveyed his
property at the time this street went in. He said the City told him
at that time that they did survey his property and were putting the
retaining wall right on his property line. Mr. Colbert said they
didn't survey it as si.ich, they went by the survey Mr. Korin had
registered with the City. Mr. Korin asked how they could use his
survey when there weren't any stakes there. Mr. Colbert said it was
a combination of his survey and using the section line. Mr. Korin
said the City survey must have the same error as the surveyor of
his property had made. Mr. Colbert said the City didn't make an
error. The street was put in the right of way, the only problem
was that the retaining wall had to be moved 2 feet to allow for snow
removal. Mr. Korin asked if it was common practice to run a street
5 inches off from a person's property lir�e? Mr. Colbert answered
that this was not common practice, but this was not a common street.
Mr. Korin said that when the street was put so close to his property
line, there must be an error somepl�ace, but Mr. Colbert said there
wasn't an error, and this was something he couldn't understand.
� Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 3
' _: �'�"°'�A,'.� . d=FJ,..'�
Mr. Korin told the Planning Commission tha`�'�he had received
a letter from the Cit� at the time the street and retaining wall
were going in, and this letter stated that the wall would be on
his property line. Mr. Colbert said this was the proposal, but
the decision was made in the field when the street went in that
the wall would have to be moved in from the curb. The wall was placed
in relationship to the curb and not the property line. Mr. Korin
said then evidently the City didn't do what it said it was going to
do. Mr. Colbert said that it was changed from the proposal mentioned
in the le tter .
Mr. Korin said he didn't want to belabor the point, and if the
survey on the proposed plat was accepted as the correct survey, he
would accept it also. He wouldn't be losing any property because
of this survey, and the City was going to have the problem because
he was going to move the wall out to his property line, which would
make this wall 5 inches from the curb of the road. He said the
City created the problem when they built the street so close to his
property"line and not �eaving room for snow removal. '
Chairman Fitzpatrick said he would agree that Mr. Korin had
a problem, and he would have to pursue that in any way that he saw
f it.
�`1 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Colbert how much right of v�aay there was
for 61st Avenue at this location. Mr. Colbert said there was a'
30 foot right of way and the street itself is 26 feet back of curb
to back of curb. Mr. Harris said there had been a lot of discussion
on this street in considering this plat. This is a substandard street
, and he couldn't understand why the City put the curb in at all. Mr.
Harris continued that there was 5 inches on Mr. Korin's side of the
street and only 3� feet on the other side of the street which isn't
_ enough for snow removal. Mr. Harris said he questioned the advis-
ability of what the Engineering Department had done on this street
as a whole.
,�,
Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Korin if his surveyor had met �aith the
Dailey Homes surveyor, or if either of them had met with the City
surveyor? He said that the Planning Commission had requested at
their last meeting that this be resolved among the surveyors, and
Mr. Clark Taas also going to check to see if this was a legal matter
also. Mr. Colbert said the City felt that this was a legal matter
between the two parties concerned. Mr. DeWayne Olson said he was
a consulting engineer working on this plat, and he understood that
the surveyor had contacted Darrel Clark and there wasn't any problem
with ttie survey of the plat. He had thought the survey discrepancy
was in the 5 feet being added to Mr. Korin's property. He said their
survey�or and Mr. Korin's surveyor,Cartwright& Olson, could get together
on these surveys. `
Mr. Olson said that as far as the other alterations the Planning
Commission had asked to be shown on the proposed plat, they do now
show the three to one slope on the South property line, which is
causing some problems. They have changed the street dedication for
61st Avenue from 25 feet to 20 feet so that Lot 6 can meet the corner
lot front footage requirement. Mr. Olson said the elevation of the
�� :
� Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 4
. catch basin that we are tying our storm sewer to, was on the p�at
according to the 'as builts', but they are apparently in error,
slightly. We are looking at a slightly higher inlet elevation. Mr.
Olson said there was a.4% slope which in a 12 inch pipe should
maintain 3 feet of flow per second. Mr. Olson said the pipe would
be lowered to 940.9 because Mr. Korin's patio elevation was 942.12.
� Mr. Korin said he would like someone from the.City to assure
him that this pipe was going to handle all the water, even in extre�e
conditions, so we wouldn't get water in his basement. Mr. Colbert
said that if Mr. Olson's calculations were right, this should take
care of the water. Mr. Korin asked what he could do if it didn't?
! He said that this pipe didn't take care of any water now. Mr. Olsoa�
i said this had just been stubbed in before, and it wasn't meant to
I take care of the water.
,�
Mr. Blair asked Mr. Korin what kind of soil was in this area.
Mr. Korin said he had sand, but they would be filling in the big
Y�ole, that took the water now, with clay.
Mr. Korin asked where this pipe was located on the plat. Mr.
Olson said it was 5 feet in on Zander's property, and the end of tl��
pipe was quite near the surface. Mr. Korin said it would be very
easy for this pipe to freeze up in the winter time. Mr. Olson said
that it quite def initely would, and he would be the lat one to propuse
a back yard storm sewer. Mr. Korin asked what he was supposed to
do during a January thaw or in the early spring when all the water
was coming and this pipe was froze up. He asked Mr. Olson why some of
the drainage couldn't go to Mc Kinley Street. Nlr. Olson said it
wouldn't f low that way because tY�.ere�isn't enough.fall in the elevation
Mr. Harris asked if the grade was going to be three to one on
the South property line. Mr. Olson said that was the way it was
drawn on the plat, but in order to make these lots buildable, they
would rather go with terracing. There was a 12% grade on Benjamin
Street, which was twice what the City Code allows, and then the
house South of the plat was 8 feet above the streety: so this only
adds to the problem.
Mr. Olson said they would be encroaching on Mr. Korin's
property to put in a swale so that some of the surface water overflow
could go out to 61st. Mr. Rorin said he had agreed to a 1� foot
cut on his property, from the bank, on, but he didn't want it to be
more than that.
Mr. Dri�ans said he was worried about the drainage pipe being
so close to the surface. Who's going to be responsible for this
pipe being opened when it was frozen shut?
,^ Mr. Korin said he couldn't imagine the Planning Commission
approving a plat that they knew wasn't good. He said he has lived
at his present ldcation for 18 years and knew how much water there
was in the spring and after a heavy rain. He said there would be
water standing all over if that culvert froze, and everyone knew
it would freeze.
�,..� Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 5
Mr. Harris asked about having a pipe going out to 61st. Mr.
Olson explained that since there is no storm sewer on 61st, it would
have to be a surface outlet and you would still have a freezing
situation to contend with. Mr. Korin said this wouldn't help his
problem either, because of the elevations.
Different alternatives were suggested by the Planning Commission
but when Mr. Colbert got the plans for storm sewers in the area, he
said it was surfaced drained on 61st from B�njamin to Stinson Boule.vard.
Mr. Olson said that when this drainage pipe to Benjamin was
functioning, it would handle all the water. The fact that it was
shallow at an inlet instead of an outfall would at least make
it easier to thaw out and there wouid be a better chance of the
water flowing. He said this was a tough situation. We have a com-
bination of an area, -that was too low (it' s way_ below the street) , witia
a very severe grade situation on the street, combined with an
existing building that is 8 feet above the street. +
Mr. Drigans said he didn't buy the solution given for the
drainage problems. We have to protect the two existing properties
on either side of this plat. We still have a survey problem and
the problem of the street. Chairman Fitzpatrick said there are
n drainage problems, but the survey problem is a legal one and couldn't
be settled by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Korin said the City told his wife that the Dailey Homes
survey was correct.
Mr. Drigans said there are still two official surveys that do
not agree. If Mr. Korin wanted to sell his property and the lending
institution asked for a,�talid survey, and it came to light that there
were surveys that did not agree, this could cause a problem in the
sale of the property.
Mr. Korin asked if this plat was approved, would they be in
effect, approving the survey as shown on the plat. He said he
was not objecting to the survey,'if the City says that this is the
correct survey, then that's fine, but this was the survey•he would
use also.
Mr. Ditzpatrick said he agrees that this was a legal problem
between the two parties, but this wouldn't preclude getting some
legal advice from the City Attorney.
Mr. Harris said that due to some of the past actions of the
City, he thinks the City has some liability in this case and it is
up to the City to help solve this problem.
�'°� Chairman Fitzpatrick said he thought the City Attorney should be
asked that if we approve this plat, if we are in effect, approving
the survey as shown on the plat.
�"1
�
�
a�;� �
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 6
Mr. Korin said he didn't want to go on record as objecting
to the Dailey Homes survey. If the City says that their survey
is correct, ther�hat was fine with him, but he didn't want someone
to come along six months later and tell him his property line was
one foot in a different direction. He wants to know where he stands.
He said he thought he already knew the boundaries of his property,
but evidently he didn't know, and now he wants to be sure.
Mr. Olson said he would have his surveyor and Mr. Korin's
surveyor get together and iron out this problem.
Mr. Korin said he didn't want to hold up the development of this
plat, but he was very concerned about the drainage for his property.
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning
Commission continue the consideration of a preliminary pZat, P�.S.
#74-06, Zander's Zst Addition, by Dailey Homes, Inc., a rep.Zat of
Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, excepf the North ZC�-9 feet of
the West 164 feet thereof, located South of 6lst Avenue N.E. between
Benjamin Street and Mc Kinley Street N.E. for the following reasons:
1. Request that the petitioner have a11 the survegors of
this property corr�e up with a solution to the survey
discrepancy.
2. That the drainage problems be worked ouf to the satisfaction
of everyone concerned. �
3. Request a Iega1 opinion from the City Attorney, that if
the fwo surveys are not in agreement, would the City in
approving the final p1at, make that survey binding, and/or
can final approval be given to a plat if their remains a
survey discrepancy.
4. Petitioner to provide a cross section of how he proposes
to terrace the South prope.�fy 1ine,
to be continued until November 20, 1974, or until these stipulations
can be rnet. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
2. PRESENTATION BY JOHN RANCK ON N.S.P. RATES FOR UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES '
Mr. Ranck said that when they put the new rates in effect in
March of 1974, there were no longer any separ�te charges made for
underground utilities to the homeowner. Mr. Clark had told him that
the reason this question had come up was because of �he litigation
between N.�.P and some developers over a separate $2 a month charge
added on to a bill if they had underground utilities. This is what
was taken off on March 19, 1974 and incorporated as part of the rate.
This was far residential.
On commercial and industrial proper�ies, prior to mid 1973,
there was a charge based on what the customer wanted. This was
usually a charge of $350.00 Going back several years, there was
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 7
�
� a time when the developer paid the entire cost for underground
development because N.S.P. hadn't gone into an underground program
at that time.
Mr. Ranck said that the way that rates are establishe� was
that we have to set our rates so that people who are involved in
that service, pay for that service. People who have overhead service
shouldn't have to help pay for underground service. This is why
the underground rates are higher than overhead rates.
Mr. Ranck gave the Planning Commission a rate brochure which
is included in the minutes. (Page 8)
This shows that the underground rates for the first two steps
of use are higher than overhead rates. It would make the underground
rate about $2 a month higher. People who are already paying the
$2 a month as a separate charge, can go to the new underground service
rate which incorporates this charge.in the rate. Mr. Ranck said the
reason this wasn't put in the incorporated rate prior to March,1974,
was that when you establish a rate you want to know the cost i�
correct.
Mr. Lindblad said it had been his belief that having the
utilities underground was a more economical way to go, but evidently
it wasn't. Mr. Ranck said that the cost of going underground does
n cost more, iniatially, tha-n going above ground. .�
Mr. Lindblad said then we have been wrong in encouraging
developers to put in underground utilities. Mr. Ranck said it was
a better service in the long run, but it does cast more to put
it in. Mr. Ranck said the advantage of underground service is during
storms, etc., and the disadvantage is the cost of putting in such
service.
Mr. Harris asked the average kilowatts that a homeowner would
use during a month. Mr. Ranck said the average was 400 kilowatt
hours, but this would depend upon how each family lived.
Mr. Ranck said the way the $2 a month underground figure evolved
was that in 1964 developers wanted to go underground and wanted us
to set a cost per lot, because at that time they were paying everything.
We took the average difference between overhead and underground
distribution system, that's the back bone system, which was $95.
Then you take off the overhead service drop, which is $30, because
underground doesn't need a service drop, which leaves $65. We felt
that due to technical improvements as time went along that we would
be able to reduce this. $15, so this was taken off the cost to make
the cost $50, which would be the average cost per lot to any developer
who wanted to go underground. The customer owned and installed the
underground service lateral.
� In 1960 we re-evaluated this, because the developers wanted to
get this cost down and asked if there wasn't some way this cost could
be incorporated into the rate or be paid in a lump sum. We found
out that the difference between overhead and underground distribution
was still $95. The average difference between overhead and under-
ground siervice laterals was $85, what totaled to $180. Again we gave
( contined on Page 9�)
� � .
�
Z
tfl
�
0
�
0.
�
W
1�
0
o c o
O�
�;d
'P�
$ � ..-�°.
� x
0 0
� Q�
��ad
.e � j's �
G O L`,9
� � u �
�
����
i q
� = C e
�= 4
_ �
;� 7
a e o e�i
K K � V
�_c,�
0
� 3 3
Q 7 m M
� ► m
8��°0�3
0 C �
o a � o
V '=F 0
ti �
O j m �
y�E�o
�1
U
>
w
N
J
4
.�
Z
W
0
W
�
%�\
�
O
E
v°
�
L
0
�
�s
@�
o u
� V
o�
� Q
C �'
Qa
� �
0.5
a m
� �
�G
� o
_°a�,Q
4 �;
Q �
.
C
N
L
�
�
r
N
.7
ci
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 8
$ y � e C
•� N � � C
$,�e•"N
G •v 4 u w
a
7 'O m °� r
o •� c � o
�o � ° c
��i.� �i. N
> d G
7''c86
u
00 .-GI. � b Y
C (y� •� p
e.^ �G'+o
0
e.� m,�p
� 4 er Zt� O
O � N
� V �,Q y
a
U p
�E�rJ
o i� � v � �
� c'� e � °,
N v u � � �
a
y V � m io �0
;�d��a
� y � y, d
� j o c � a
a`��Vy�.°.�
C b tJ �' •.�.
�y'S�,°o�
°'.°.°o�°o�°o
��pl7Nh
C
�
'J� r M
���G �} tD
.��i�i..
�i
0
����
�e ,,c .ee x
t� Y 6 1.
a�aa
O O p O
@ E E E
r. � r r
�'.cac
� X � Y
°o°oo
� c� v
O � CKi a�i �
oc wzzw
0
m
0
U
UJ
�.:
�
¢
ui
N
�
Z
Q
�
_
�
W
¢
J
Q
�
m
Z
W
(7
g
c
E
m
7
a
0
�
U
3
w
3
u
u
n
�
�
p °
M �
��
a °
V u
a
��
LL C
O
� C �
�`_;
� �
C � Y
� C i
=Z�
C v �
i � p
C C .O
c 3
<�e
a �
a��
� G A
� D ~
c�
� c ,.
� ° .ac
_ `u
_ t ,.
•C �j ��..
' m
<�
T � 'O
� m
Q;s
Q � � 0
�r C � 10
a m ..di Q.
CI
w
0
P
V
E
G
f
�
�
c
0
�
_
N
00
� K
o m
°a�
y m N
m Qo
U�a
_
� N o�
¢ o c
Q �
4v
O N
00
Q U
Q �
c �
y
$�
i� �r
� �
� �
o�
��
V V
O O
C x .Y
0
'� a w
m" �
F Q
U �
01{ W
WwW
�
z
�
O
�
�
�
W
c
z
�
{!�
V
>
�
W
N
J
Q
t"'
Z
W
0
N
tt!
�
m
�
U
m
m
Y
3
m
�
W
iM
�
�
�
M °
� �
ro°�
L �
.$ �
E 3
O �
�
��
m
�o
� 'g �
C � �
CJ y ...
't� ,�
.~ � y
�,a�
q O �
$ c �w
•m M
d d
� � C
° �
a M °°
� �
0
� O �
a m m
� Qb
0
a Q 0.
�
�
�
d
�
U
w'
s
V
;
�
�
�o
��
m M
a ,,�
� O
�
V v
m
m�
� O
O
O
CV
M
m
�+
m
V
�
E
C
7�
t
e
i
3
x
0
�
m
E
�
�
�
�
�dtf°m�°mr°o
-r apa9NCV
ti
�tOiq Vt�O�
� �0�7N �r
�
����
� o cyi a�i
aa.aa
0 0 0 0
8 E E E
L. Y M V
w c ar d
aaca
����
� O O
�v
m
m � ie ie u
� wz`zw
� W
�
�
W
N
t7
�
1�
_
� L
� �
�>3
Q
� �% t
� ►w- -"
0 0 v
¢° a
c�
4
�
�
a
1
�
ffi
m
�
7
<
b
�i
�
G4
s
�
� y
wb
m W
q W
� o
a
V�
m
O A
LL p
O
�
0
�
U
E
7
�
C
�
�
�
C
0
g
`o
.g
e
�
�
a
$
0
�
c
O
s;
m^
e o
��, c
6�
a
�
= a
� O
— a
m j
>
a`m
y
0
�
�a
y° a
o=
V .�.
m=
`a�
� O
0
Q
O
Q
c
cA
.
�
�
i �
!. 00 N
� e'e3N
N ! �O
sq
�i
a
�
. �
V
a e
e
r
m ir.
O > � � �
V u a
D �°:c.'E
eZE'��
C m' u� O
'� ` i+� ti O
° �6
Q �
'a
�
0
�
0
W
n
�
�
W
N
J
Q
Z
W
0
N
W
�
U
�.
�"'
U
�
J
W
J
..J
a
N N
� �
M
Y .
Z T
� � V
Z b O'
o��
�jOO°p
�. V O
�'-.
s
t
._
..
�
3
�
9
e
<
m �
� � C
O �
n°. a E
.a4 »
m o, o
p a� r Q
V < 2 m
o ,c � �
Q .V.. 01 q
¢3i �
t � m
Z O I�L
U
� a` o
��
°aa�Y
a C m
a'°
� �'i c
� d w
o °'
C
m ..�i b
�
r C ~
e, �
� E d
mma
° z
�9
V � �
.'g3�
v
tl °�
0
O O .,0�
aa � a
Q $ m
as
0 �
� M M
a� r�
� „O « ,��.
i 0
d � p W
O � � ~
�o��
C1 �
'C!
b C 1.
c d o �
,adaa
8 �q -� e
� � O
u �3 "
�0� tl"•
o ���
� m � w
?' a` � •3
e �
o � e
a
o��w
�p d �, O
°v� ,,
m g c °
a''' o
r m 0
� M S �
a'a� r.
� � �
n eoti v
> �„ ;
a 'o � m
4 �
� � � p, 0 m
v r � �<
� °i «; x c 5 0�
a. m = • m ,c id "� 3 _o c
d .c o
m � � ° > o m .°a > � v .°� 01 °_' �`o m Y .° w �" a° c
ae > o o � E m �.�mc o�� o =�o a m 3 o r'�a m j m Z e`a E tq
��>U ac(�W �y� �U� =C7a; �� A ro � m a� 3'�a�L�p N m�m oL.. Z�
E U C � G O EI V V V O�,a � O O 0 V�� C a/0 Y� V C C>. y Y C O r��I m C U l°L V T7
v u a._
4i o°�— o> m e�a m.—'' = o o° a n o u u S • r'a c L r n n r � o m o�a c� o a8 °o 0
(7 U� C� (i i. S�..! J J J.J J L aS �a ���'�a � N t!J N t� V! M W tq N 1- » S' �}� ��
0
� � t . � L
L � p � O U R p= �� C � � Q/0 d.�. q i � O �0
� n% O rn m � H ro a t) p o 'c -'c > r p Y C � c a
= O C C C._ . u1 m � O � = C C 01 a q Y •
O� C 3. =• �• �S a`E D� o q o a o O o N' O r p 0 ry` a t O� O t vi
• C O E Y Y N t E � 4 � C N C!. p p� V fD i p ry � 6 C� 7
N V �` O O O` E C> C Q q 1; O C Q fJ � 0 C C C C a L V a�� N O� > C
� O O O �o t7 O T 7 O� fJ � U V C C C>> S� 3 L' Y Y O V m E Z A� Q J
� �mmmmmmUUUUUUO�W W W W LL�,4. ��.C�22Z2�OODO,a���f�N
� �
ao� uwua
ma7cZ�a
�pNNNN.
Q
�
�
'� V M Y r Y
��.�t�O�QC!
�'�' �O lV N .� .�
0
�����
�x���
ei o � u t~i
aaaca
o C C o O
E E E E E
r a. �. r �.
a a� u u u
aaaaa
3��L3L
xx'x.x.e
O O O O
�.�ie°q°vN
.. �
° � � ;e K ii
� wzzzw
m ai a�
t
A � �
.m, g o
��b
Y 4 �t
°' '>
v.-.'�'�
V
G A
q u a,
yc°�°
u q
G�
^ �+ 7
� �
� C �
�
w i0 c
Eo��d
�•� °� o
�
y�pS �
td �. � G
tl p p m
�
� i� M �0
d �` .�i a°i
O
r � y .�
m .�
��G
�a
.? � 6
V
�
C
�
�
e
0
�:
s�
�
6
.... �
o �
m `
� o
m
U �
a
o �
�
LL p
� C �"' ai
�a��m
� m C �
w O ,.��
w
E � � �
� Q
d e
$ y ... m
01 M C
� C ~ �
c d °�
� •,� m �.
Z � �
m u .
4
~ N � O �
m C � G
d•.°-,�Ea
� a m $ E
ce�.a � � U
�- � � �
" o u r
b � � �
Om C �.�. �i.
„v, a ;
'O �'" � � O
,ti y V �0 ..
C
�p t0 N � V
L '
� � J � ^
�C u
F' � m 'O y
E�y�
� i: °>� it
0
0
N
�
0
�
�
V
e
C
�
o+
t
C
0
�
�
s
� �
xp
ry
q O
Ez
� �
° °e
Y y
t �,
� Qp
Yu
$
`' c
� �
C
� ,�
O
m�
.L ..�i
� p
�
�
i
8 �
0
��$
O 3 N
U��
� N Q
l7 Q
��m
3N
�
O ]
Q
O
�
�°
a
�
�
cO
�
�
7
e
�
- Q.F.�.-• �
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 9
n a technical improvement allowance of $15 which reduced the cost
to $165. We multiplied this �165 by 15.4o which is the fi�ed
. charge factor that includes the cost of money; we have to borrow
money to put in the service, depreciation, incom� tax and property
tax. This came to $25.41 or $2.11 a month which was rounded off to
$2.00 a month. He said that if the developer didn't want to pay
$220 per lot, he had to notify the purchaser of the property that
this could be paid by them in a lump sum or as an extra $2 a month
on their bill. � , .
Mr. Ranck said the N.S.P. has l0a of their facilities underground,
but we find that 400 of our trouble calls come from underground
utilities. He said the telephone company digs into their lines, and
we dig into theirs. He said he didn't know how this was going to
be resolved. He said that when they put in a service, like in
Innsbruck for instance, everything seems to go O.K.until they start
digging in the service laterals. He said they try to work with the
telephone company and gas company, but as they are such large companies
it is difficult for them all to get their crews in the same area at ,
the same time. Then when they do all get in, the sewer.companies •
come in, and it's all right when they are in the street, but when
they put the sewer laterals in, something usually gets dug up.
Mr. Harris asked what problems they had when the service was
in arad operating. Mr. Ranck said that generally they don't have too
^ many problems. We ask the developers to give us a topography of
� • the area that will be only 4 inches different from the final grade,.
and we bury our facilities 48 inches deep.
Mr. Harris told Mr. Ranck that the Planning Commission had been
encouraging developers to have underground utilities and he wondered
�if�this was a good policy. Mr. Ranck said he thought it was because
our commitment now was to an underground system. He said they are
working on their problems they have when this system is first installed,
but we are gaining on it. He said underground utilities looked
much better aesthetically, and due to our severe winters, it would
eventually be more trouble free.
The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Ranck for his presentation.
3. PRESENTATION BY DAN HUF'F, NATURALIST/RESOURCE COORDIIVATOR ON
"NATURAL HISTORY AREAS" FOR THE CITY OF FRTDI;EY
Mr. Huff said the results of the November 5th election would
change some of the proposals he has made. He would have to wait for
more firm direction, especially in the North Park area.
He said that when he was hired last July, it was his understand-
ing that the City was committed ta some sort of nature education/
nature interpretation program, not necessarily in North Park, but
� utilizing whatever was available and suitable in the City. Therefore,
he was instructed to spend some time in planning and making adjust-
ments on the property we had to work with.
He said the first thing he came up with was a proposal for
setting up a system of natural history areas. This would include
,�,
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 10
several areas of the City which are for two purposes. One, we have
a variety of wild life and natural vegetation at all these sites.
One site doesn't emcompass all these things. For instance, Chases
Island is an example of a riverine type of forest with cottonwoods,
elms and silver maples. North Innsbruck is a different type of
forest and North of Dsborne Road is an example of an Oak forest.
He said he looked at all the� available areas that belonc��d ��o':t,he
parks, or undeveloped public property, and listed the one's �hat
he thought were unique enough to put together into a system, each
one a local natural history area to be maintained in it's natural
state. There would be minimum development, such as fencing where
it's needed to protect sensitiye areas, boardwalks or some type of
trail system, where needed. These would be self=interpretive trails.
with maybe a brochure available mentioning what they should look for.
in the area.
Mr. Huff said the areas he had chosen were (1) North Innsbruck,
where we have the A-frame builaling, (2� the North end of East Moore
Lake, a marshy area with cat tails, which provided a natural habitat
for ducks and other water fowls. (3) is the dunes area which is on
West Moore Lake, between the High Schoc3l and the lake, �ahich is quife
unique because all of the County and Fridley was once all like that.
(4) was another unique area, Chases Island, which had a flood plain
forest. Number 5 was a small area, an undeveloped park North of
Hickory Drive, abutting the Burlington Northern property, about 4 acres
which has a beautiful stand of natural prairie.
Then there is the Rice Creek area, which is a small stream
community, which is quite different from Chases Island. He said
he had left North Park completely out of the picture, to wait for
the results of the referendum.
Mr. Huff said that this plan could be altered by elimination
of some of the areas, the incorporation of North Park, if this was
the decision of the peop�e, which would be the most suitable site
for a nature center operation.
Mr. F4tzpatrick asked if there was a nature center at North
Park would these other areas be eliminated from the plan? Mr. Huff
said that would be one alternative. Another alternative would be
to have North Park the center of the nature study, and probably
eliminate the area North of Hickory Drive and the East side of Moore
Lake, but Chases Island, the North Innsbruck area, and the Moore Lake
dunes were certainly unique areas that contain things that you woulcln't
have at North Park. These are areas suited to being left in their
natural state. The°cost of having these areas in addition to North
Park, would be minimal, because we already own the property. This
would leave natural areas in other parts of the City, rather than
having everything at one end of the City, in North Park. We wouldn't
be just building one nature center, we would be showing the City that
we have several very unique areas that are in their natural state.
This is the best suited use for these areas and could be made a part
of a system of natural history areas or preserves.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said that as far as incorporating Chases Island
into this system, what is the relationship of Chases Island to our
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - November 6, 1974 Page 11
�. park system. Mr. Huff said that it was
department. He said the Foundation was
this area added to a nature interpretive
his plan to have a nature center in one
mentioned, such as North Pa.rk, but there
to all the other areas.
��
�
maintained by the park
very much in.favor of havina�
program. He said it was
of the areas he had previously
would be conducted tours
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what made some one a naturalist? Mr.
Huff said it encompasses a�very broad range of professions, people
who are basically traii�ed as educators with a.science background,
with a good knowledge of the subject matter. He said his own back-
ground was three years as a high school biology teacher, two years
teaching environmental technology at a vocational school, and
one year as an assistant professor at the university with�a Ph.D i�a
wild life and biology.
Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Huff what plans he had for a n�ture
center in North Park? Mr. Huff said he had absolutely no plans
for North Park. He�said he was instructed by the Mayor and the Cit�r
Council not to say one word about any plans for North.Park and was '
instructed not to �ven be on that property during my working hours
until after the referendum. He said that this was a piece of property
with a lot of alternatives, but he as a naturalist, was not allowed-
to explore any of his alternatives. He said he understood the
re�.soning behind this request, beaause this would endorse City approval
for one type of program over another. He said he wasn't sure in:��.ust
what capacity he would be used in the development of North Park. T�is
could be handled by a foundation such as Chases Island, and it would
be up to the Council as to how a naturalist would fit into the
development of North Park as a nature center.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Huff how the survey of trees was coming
in Fridley. Mr. Huff said they had found 1,700 diseased and dead
trees. He said he had no trouble working with the tree ordinance.
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if removing these trees would really cut
down on the problem of d.iseased trees?
Mr. Huff answered th"a.t if you can take out 90a of �he diseased
trees in one year, you can reduce even Dutch Elm disease to less
than 5� per year. Without this, every year the percentage goes up�
You could have 10� diseased trees in one year. If the trees are
left there, the percentage of the 90% left would be 20o the next
year, and 40o the next, so that the curve really goes up until you
wouldn't have any Elm trees left.
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what they did with the trees that were
removed. Mr. Huff said it would depend upo:� the tree. If they are
dead, and we can't determine whether or not they died from a disease,
we take them to Anoka County Landfill, which is cert.�fied to handle
trees with Dutch Elm disease. They bury them with a minimum of 6"
of dirt everyday. With this type of treatment it has been proven
that the beetles and their larvae are smothered. The trees can be
chipped also.
Mr. Drigans asked what could be done with Oak Wilt? Mr. Huff
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6; 1974 Page 12
�.^� said that if the tree had been dead a year, it can be used for
firewood. If it haGn't been dead a year, then it has tio be removed
the same as other diseased trees.
Mr. Lindblad asked who paid for the removal of boulevard trees?
Mr. Huff said there was a state law that said the cost of managing
the boulevard trees would have to be split by 50� as a minimum. He
said that if the people can remove the tree themselves, there would
be no cost, but if the City removed the tree, the property owner
would have to pay 50% of the cost which could be added to their
special assessments and repaid over a five year program. We instruct
the people very �arefully on how to remove these trees, and make
several inspections on the trees, and check again after they have
been removed. �
Mr. Fitzpatrick asked how long a tree with-Dutch Elm disease
is dangerous. Mr. Huff said that even if the`tree was dead, as long
as there is bark on the tree, the beetles can still breed in the tree.
Mr. Harris said he was particularly concerned abou� �ak Wilt. '
He wondered if this could be stopped. Mr. Huff said this could be
stopped 1000. It can be stopped by spraying the healthy trees because
almost any insect could transmit the dlsease, and take precautions
on any wounds on healthy trees, so no �_nsects can bore into healthy
trees. If you trench and break the root grafts, you can k�ep a tree
,.� with Oak Wilt from passing the disease onto the next tree. We have
had very good cooperation from the people on the problem trees in
Fridley.
Nlr. Lindblad asked what the City's policy was on replacing dead
and diseased trees. Mr. Huff said the Park Department has done a
good job in the parks of replacing trees. As far as boulevard trees,
we give the people information on what type of trees they should use
to replace the trees, if they so desire, but the City doesn't replace
them.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Huff if he was familiar with the proposed
tree nursery for the City? Would he be involved with that, or would
it just be the Park Department? Mr. Huff said that anything that had
to do with natural resources, the Park Department knew that they could
call on him to give them any help they might need. Mr. Huff said he
was interested in this area also and he did have a forestry background.
Chairman Fitzpatrick thanked Mr. Huff f or his presentation. Mr.
Harris said he would like Mr. Huff to come back again when some
�ecisions had been made for North�Park.
$. MEETING WITH ENVIRONMEYITAL QUALITY COMMISSION
Mr. Drigans said the Environmental Quality Commission had
/'� asked in their minutes to have a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission and City Council on November 19, 1974. He said that
as the Planning Commission had their work shop meeting on November
18th and their regular Planning Commission meeting on the 20th, he
didn't see that the Planning Commission would want to have to attend
three meetings in three nights. He asked the secretary how their
� Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1974 Page 13
agenda was for the meeting on the 20th. It was determined that if
^ they started their regular meeting a half hour earlier, they could
meet with the Environmental Quality Commission after this meeting,
as there wasn't that much on the agenda.
MOTION by Drigans, seconded bg Harris, that the PZanninq
Commission recommend to Council, that if they desire a joint meeting
with the Environmental Quality Commission, it be held at the conclu�io�
of the regularly.scheduled PZanning Commission meeting of November 20,
1974, and that this meeting begin at 7:30 rather than 8:00 P.M. to
a1Zow more time for this meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting a�e,
the motion carried unanimously.
5. DISCUSSION
Mr. Fitzpatrick said he had been questioned by someone in
Fridley that where one house faces the street and the adjoining
' house faces a side street, if the owner of the home facing the
' ' side street could put up a six foot fence along his back property
� line. This would make this a side yard fenc� for the house facing
, the street.
Mr. Colbert said there was nothing in our Code prohibiting this.
We can't stop a property owner from having a fence along his back
property line.
'� Mr. Fitzpatrick said that the property owner facing the street
could only put up a fence along his side yard, which could only
be even with the front of his house if it was 6 feet high, but
because this is the other person's back yard fence, the person
facing the street will end up with a six fod�t fence all,.the
way to his front property line, which could be a traffic hazard.
Mr. Drigans said he has this situation in his neighborhood.
Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�i••�.� �
Dorothy Ev nson, Secretary
�
� >. : _,.-
� , G� -
' � —�5�� __ __.. ---�
-------- -----� p —
i/ �T/� ,a � �
------ _�.�_ ` __�.—__--- -------
'%/O / �G�'-�-1� (O �'� �%� - _ --
�� - - ------------ --- __
�=~�-��.: . _
, - -