The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 07/09/1975 - 7515CITY OF FRIDLEY A G E N D A A '" PLANNING COMMISSION MEE7ING JUL•Y 9, 1975 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 25, 1975 RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 26, 1975 1. BUILDING PERMITS: None . 2. APPOINT VICE CHRIRMAN: ' 3. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ACT: � Additional information presented at meeting 4. PCANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: Material presented at meeting � �� 8:00 P.M. � � PAGES � 1 - 14 15 - 22 23 - 44 � � � r^ CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 25, 1975 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Warris called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Narris, Lindblad, Peterson, Drigans Members Absent: Meissner Others Present: Qarrel C1ark, Community Development Administrator James Langenfeld, ex-officio member APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:� JU�E 4, 1975 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the minutes of the PZanning Commission meetin� of June 4, 1975 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motioM carried unanimously. . RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIQ� MINUTES: MAY 27, 1975: MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes for their meeting of May 27,�1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motivn carried unani�usly. RECEIVE BQARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: MAY 27, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Cammission receive the minutes of the Boa�d of Appeals 5ubcommittee meeting of Ma� 27, 1975: Mr: Drigans said that on page 14 of the Planning Commission agenda, and page 2 of the Board of Appeals minutes, t�he Board had made a motion that .the Council make a determination if the "affice-warehouse° under question constituted � a proper use af C-1S zoning. He hadn't�heard any answer on this.motion. He said that they wanted to know the difference between a warehouse and a storage facility. He said that the developer would be leasing office space, and t�is "storage" space would be available to any tenant who would need it. Mr. Drigans said that he felt that conceiveably the develaper cauld rent out office space ta one tenant and warehouse space to another tenant, which wouldn't be an allowed use in,C-1S zoning. Mr. Clark said it may be hard t�`keep jurisdiction over this, but it definitely . would be permitted that if say a plumt�r rented office space, and he could use the storage space for his equipment, such as a truck and stock. There were a lot af trades that would be allowed in this zaning. He said it had been.made q�ite clear to the developer that he could only rent storage space to someone who had already rented office space. Mr. Drigans said he thought this could be difficult to contral as the developer could sell that building and a new owner may not follow this policy. Mr. Clark said the code was quite clear in this area, and what the developer n intends to do was an allowed use in this zoning. Mr. Drigans said he still thought this should be in an M-1 pistrict rather than a C-2 District. Mr. Clark said then the code would have to be changed. He said that everr if this was hard to administer, but he felt ihat if a tradesman was going to rent office space, he would rather see r�� Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 2 inside storage than have equipment stared in the yard someplaee. /"1 Mr. Drigans said this was labeled as an office-warehouse combination and that was what the Board of Appeals took exception to. Mr. Clark said it should have said office-storage combination, because this was what it was going to be. Mr. Lindblad said he didn't feel this would be any harder to control than any other type of building. We never have any absolute guarantee�that every building will be occupied exactly as the City Code allows. Upon a voice vote, al1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. RECETVE ENUIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMP�ISSIQN MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION by Petexson, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission meeting of June �0, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindbled, that the Planning Commission �eceive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcomm�ttee meeting of June 1Q, Z975. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP�#75-06, BY C. E. GILBERT: To allow the operation of an outdoor flea market, per Fridley City Cade, Section 205.151, 3, N, to be located on Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. /"1 153, the same being 52a7-5289 Central Avenue N.E. (-Skywood Mall) Mr. Gilbert was not present. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Specia� Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert. Upan a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris�declared the Public Hearing open �t 8:12 P.M. � Mr. Clark said that to clarify the location he pointed out where Twin City Federal, Ground Round, Menards and the Speedy Car Wash were located which were all in the v�cinity of Skywood Mall on Central Avenue. He said it was his understand- inq that the flea market would be located somewhere South of the building known as the Skywood Shopping Center and North of the Speedy Car Wash operation, in an open area that was not blacktopped. Mr. Clark said that if the City were to allow this type of operation out in the open,,�it shoul'd be very, very careful and scrutinize the operation to make sure it would not cause traffic problems, and that the litter was picked up. He thought it would be hard to administer, and it would be difficult to see that the area was always cleaned up. He said he thought it was a Council decision on whethe•r they wanted to have this type of �peration in the City of Fridley. Mr. Clark said that even if this use was allowed, they would want to delay it until the City had gotten an agreement from Mr. Mortenson on the beautification program the City was starting, because there were problems in this area that have to be sorted out with the property owner. They would like better mainten.anc,eand there were ^ some erosion problems in the area and the blacktopped area needed some work. . .�� _- � Plann�ng Commission Meeting - June 25. 1975 Page 3 Mr. Drigans said that before he was ready to make any decision on this, he would like the petitioner to be present, and as long as he wasn't here, he was /"� prepared to make a motion to continue this request. Mr. Harris said they had some business to take care of before this motion could be made. . Mr. Gordon Bluhm, 1160 Regis Trail, said he was a resident of Fridley, and also A�ssistant Secretary for the Twin City Federal branch in Fridley, located at 5205 Central Avenue, although he did work in the downtown office. Ne said Mr. Don Borrel was also in attendence, and he was Assistant Vice President of this Fridley branch also. Mr. Bluhm said it was their opinion that this operation would be detrimental to the Twin City Federal property. He said he knew this was a prejudicial viewpoint, based on other flea market operations in other communities. Mr. Bluhm said he had stopped on his way home on the day of this meeting and had taken pictures of the area in question, to show how it looked at the present time. He said he would not want to see this �:,operty deteriorate any further. �Mr. Harris asked if this aperation�had been inside the Skywood Shopping Center before this .request was made-. Mr. Clark said it was his understanding that it had be�n, on a weekly basis. He said Mr. Gilbert wanted to move this outside so the flea market could be larger. Mr. Bluhm presented a letter from Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association. UPON A MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Flanning Commission /"� � rece.�ve the letter from Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Assoc.iation, dated June 25, 1975, from Mr. Bluhm, and a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Xarris svmmarized � the letter for the audience. � . Mr. Harris said the letter was written to let the Planning Commission know they were not in favor of this request for a flea market in this area.of Fridley. The ]etter states the reasons for this objection. Mr. Lindblad asked if other merchants who operate businesses in the Skywood Shopping Center were notified af this request? Mr. Clark said that only property owners were notified, but Sheldon Mortenson had signed the request, and it would be . up to him to determine if his other tenants would agree to an open flea market in this area. Mr. Bluhm said he had been to outside flea markets in the Los Angeles area, located in industrial neighborhoods. He said they are really an attraction. He said that in the Minneapolis Sunday paper, it was mentioned that the indoor flea market at Apache Plaza draws between 25,000 to 35,000 cars on the week-end. Ne said he couldn't see any problem with an indoor flea market, but an outdoor flea market would be something else. He didn't think this would benefit Fridley at all, and he would strongly urge the Planning Commission to deny this request. �Mr. Langenfeld said he appreciated Mr. Bluhm's statements, but he thought the petitioner had every right to state his case also. He said that even though we do not know the exact details, he was sure that the Planning Commission would run into /""� some of the problems that were specifically mentioned that had to be considered in granting a Special Use Permit, and they were traffic problems, noise, Tight glare at night, and probably indiscriminate advertising. .�.� ... , Planning Commission Meeting - June 25 1975 Page 4 Chairman Harris said that as no one had any other camments to make on this ^ request, it would be in order to close the Public Hearing, and determine if they were for or against this request, or to table the item. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the request for a special use permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert, until Ju1y 9, 1975. Upon a ro11 ca1Z vote, Drigans and Peterson voting aye, and Lindblad and Harris voting nay, the MOTION FAILED. Mr. Drigans said that perhaps the petitioner didn't realize that he should appear for this meeting. Mr. Clark said he had been sent an agenda for this meeting. MOTION BY LINDBLAD, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearinq on the request for a specia� use permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. Gilbert. THE MOTION DIED for lack of a second. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Giibert did pay the fee for a Special Use Permit and as we do not know the reason he was not in attendence at this meeting, it would be common courtesy to continue this request until the wishe� of the petitioner were knvwn. . 1�D.TION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, asking fr:r reconsideration of t1:e motion to continue the Public Hearing until Ju1y 9, 1975. The vote remained the same, so the MOTION FAILED. • � Mr. Lindblad said he knew it was the policy to cantinue any request where �. the petitioner did not appear, but he felt this was creating a hardship for the interested parties who did attend the meeting to ask them to come to another meeting af the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark said he would excuse himself and try to contact the petitioner to see why he was not here. When he returned to the meeting, he said the petitioner had forgotten the meeting, but he was on his way to the meeting now. MOTION BY Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission table the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. GiZbert, until the petitioner appeared at the meeting. Upon a voice vote,�all voting aye, the motion carried anani- utousl y. � 2. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST• SAV #75-04, BY LEON9RD BENSON: Vacate the 12 foot alley in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addit�on, located between Ashton Avenue and the railraad tracks, so the existing gardens and fence"s would not have to be removed from this alley. Mr. Leonard Benson was present. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson what type of fence was in the alley easement. M.r. Benson said he had a chain link fence, and he also had a garden. Mr. Benson said there was another fence that was kitty-corner from his fen�e that extended into the alley also. He said one other neighbor had had a fence in the alley ease- ment, but he has already moved his fence back. � . Mr. Dr.igans asked Mr. Benson if he had a survey of his property at the time the fence was put in. Mr. Benson said that he did. Mr. Drigans asked him why he put the fence in the alley then. Mr. Benson said he thought the alley had already been vacated. • . ..�.` � Planninq Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 5 _ ^ Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr, Benson if he had received any complaints on this fence from the neighbors? Mr. Benson said he had not. - • Mr. Benson said he had a petition from the neighbors who were in favor of this request. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindbled, that the Planning Coramission receive the petition in favor of vacati�on request; SAV #75-05, by Leonard Benson, (Petition IS-1975) which was signed by eight property owners in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition. Upon a voice vote, a11 vo.ting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr� Harris said there was a petition in their agenda that was against the vacating of this alley. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planninq Commission rece.ive the petition aga�nst the vacatian request, SAV #75-05, by Leonard Benson, (Petition 16-1975) which was signed by seven propert� owners in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Addition. Upon a voice vate, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Benson said that if this alley wasn't vacated,�we could have traffic on this a11ey and sno�Nmobiles could use it also. He said they.have had a problem of small thi�every in the neighborhood, and if this area was open, he thought this sort of thing would be encouraged. This was why he wanted this area fenced, and keep the traffic on the street. He said that all the garages face the street sa ^ no one needed the alley to get in�o their garage. Mrs. Cyril Paulson, 131 79th Way N.E., said that they couldn't get into their back yard if this alley was vaeated without taking their front yard fence down. She said there were other people on Longfellow that couldn't get their recreational vehicles into their back yard without this alley,�because there wasn't enough room, between the houses, and these vehicles can't be left on the street, , Mr. Stephen Pogreba, 19� L'ongfellow Street, and Mr. James Roberts, 121 79th Way N.E. said they had signed both petitions. They had signed the petition against the alley vacation first, and then had ehanged their minds, and were both in favor of the alley vacation now. Chairman Harris asked them if they wanted their names removed from the petition against the vacation and they said they did. That left five names of property owners on the petition No. 16-1675 against the�vacation. Mr. Clark said that if this all.ey was vacated, the City would have to retain a utility and drainage easement on the 12 feet. Mrs. Judy Welch, 1�4 Longfellow Street N.E., said she had circulated the petition against the alley vacation (petition 16-1975), but it was not their intention to ever ask that this alley be improved. She said they wanted it left as it was, just grass and an open area. She said that they'owned a recreational vehicle and they would not be able to get this into the back yard if the alley was vacated, and this vehicle couldn't be parked in the street either. �„� Mr. Benson said he had talked to neighbors in Block 4, and two people who have recreational vehicles could get to their property in the rear yard even if the alley was vacated. There would only be one who had signed thepetiiion �gainst the vacation who would not be able to get their recreational vehicle into the back yard if tr�e alley was vacated, who wouldn't have an alternate access to his rear yard. Mr. Langenfeld said that�Mr. Benson had stated that he had rece�ived rro complaints /'y � � Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 _ from the neighbors on his fence, but tonight we are hearing some. How did this come to the attention of the City? Was it a complaint? Mr. Clark said they do not have the staff to go out an check infri�ngements into alley easements, and oniy do so when there was a complaint. He said the Engineering Department had received the complaint, so he was not involved in it. Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission had received twol�tters on this request. One was from Richard Rush, 3619 Janssen Avenue North, Chicaga, who stated th�t he was in apposition to the vacation request, and he owns Lots 11 and 12, Block 4, Spring Brook Park, and a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Pett, 176 Longfellow Street, who state that they have signed needPthetalley9easementesoathey canbgetWar2lufoote to attend this meeting and they recreational vehicle into their back yard. MOTION BY Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Ietters from Richard Rush and Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Pett in opposition to the vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Bensc;l. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously. . Mr. D�igans said this-wauld make 6 praperty owners in oppos�tion to the vacation request and 8 in favor af the r.equest..�There were.l7.proper.ty owners in the block. Mr. Benson said thatuld cutsualall theegrassWin thedeasementeational vehicles and pick-up campers, �t wo P � Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Clark that if the alley went in, wouldn't the � adjacent property owners have to pay for that. Mr. Clark said they would. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Clark if there were any restrictions on this alley which was neither vacated nor improved. He said that it seemed everyone in this alley had sodded this area, and could someone come in there with a heavy vehicle and tear it all up, and just ?eave it in them tonhim�that Hn thisdparticular�instance, no�regulations governing th�s. It would se the people in this area want to have their cake and eat it too. He said that if he were a property owner in this area, and someo�eadr�eciatetitS uHemsa�detheluse that .he had sodded, and tore it all up, he wouldn pp � people want to make of this alley almost demands an improved alley. Mr. Clark said that the City doesn't maintain unimproved alleys, and if it l was being maintained, it was by individual property owners. He said that if someone tore up this portion of maintained alley easement so the property owner couldn't cut it, he didn't.know what would happen, as we have had not had a situation like this before. He said that apparently the alley has been used this way, and he didn't ' know if this had caused a problem or not. Mr. Roberts, 121 79th�Way, saidHeesaid lived their three years and he had never seen any traffic on this alley. that Northern States Pawer Company doesn't even drive on this alley easement. They work. from the street. � Mrs. Paulson said that Northern States Power Company had used this alley about 15 years ago, but that was when there was very little development in this area. n� Mr. Clark said they usually didn't have such a division on whether an alley should be vacated or not. He said ttiat about 15 years ago, in Plymouth Addition, there was division, and the Council vacated half of the alley, and left the other Planning Commission Meetinq - June 25, 1975 Page 7 half open, but there were people using the alley for access to their gara.ges, in this particular instance. � Mr. Langenfeld when he extended this the alley had already vacated. Mr. Drigans said that he had. � � asked Mr. Benson if he knew he was violating the City Code fence into the alley easement. Mr. Benson said�he thought been vacated because alleys in the blocks around them were asked Mr. Benson if he installed this fence himself. Mr. Benson Mr. Langenfeld asked if anyone in the audience had changed their opinion dur.ing the discussion. There was no response. Mr. Drigans said there was enough oppositian td vacating this alley so that he didn't feel they could recommend approval of this request. He said it would take time to reconstruct the fences, so he thaught the people with fences and gardens in this easement should be given a time period to comply to the Code. Mr. Drigans asked how many gardens were involved. Mr. Benson said that there were two. Mr. Drigans said he thought most of the gardens should just about be through by September 15th. Chairman asked Bc�a Schroer who was in the audience, if this was correct. Mr. Schroer said everything should be done by October lst,�.anyway, in the garden,s. Mrs. Paulson, 131 79th Way N.E., said that Mr. Benson had one of the most beautiful gardens she had every seen, and although she was against the a11ey being vacated, she said it would be a shame to make him tear out this garden until after the growing season. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Benson what kind of garden he had. Mr. Ben'son indieated that it was a large vegetable garden and he had intended using the fence to graw cucumbers on. Mrs. Paulson said she was sure that every neighbor wouTd feel that Mr. Benson should be allowed to let his garden grow until the end of the season. � MOTIDN by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend ta Council denial of the vacation request, SAV #75-04, by Leonard Benson, to vacate the 12 foot a11ey in Block 4, Spring Brook Park Additian, located between Ashton Avenue and the railroad iracks, because of the opposition of six adjacent property owners, but that the property owners who have fences and gardens in this a11e� easement be given until September 25, 1975 to relocated their fences and rernove the gardens. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, fhe rrtotion carried tznanimously. Mr. C. E. Gilbert arrived at the meeting. MO�'ION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the request for a Spe�ial Use Permit, Sp "#75-06, by C. E. Gilbert be removed from the table. Upon a voice vote, a21 voting aye, Chairman Harris remov.e'd it from the table at 9:20 P.M. Chairman Harris explaine� to the petitioner that this item had been tabled to give him a chance to be heard. • � Mr. Gilbert said he had been holding an indoor flea market for three years. said this usally closed up by the end�of May. He said it was the policy of a flea market to set up outside, in the summer time, so he approached Mr. Mortenson with request, and Mr. Mortenson said he had no objection. He this Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Gilbert is he would explain the nature of a flea market. Mr. Gilbert said that the people who set up booths or tables are called dealers. They.pay a$3.00 fee to set up in the market. They sell antiques, items from estate Planning Commission Meetin June 25, 1975 Page 8 � sales and garage sales, or items they have bought wholesale. After the sale they � pack up and clean up. He said they usually opened up at 7:30 A.M. and closed at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Drigans asked if they needed a license to sell in a flea market? Mr. � Gilbert said they just needed it for sales tax. Mr. Drigans how many dealers were at these sales. Mr. Gilbert said they usually had 52 dealers inside, but outside they would have 60 or more dealers. Mr. Drigans asked about the turnover of deal�ra'fewrtimesbert said some of them were regulars and some only came once, of �ust Mr. Drigans asked how Mr. Mortenson made a profit on this. Mr. Gilbert said he got a percentage of the fee charged each dealer. Mr. Drigans said it wasn't a percentage of the sales then. Mr. Gilbert said no.. , Mr. C1ark asked how often the flea market would be open. Mr. Gilbert �aid it would be once a week, on Saturday. . Mr, Langenfeld asked how they advertized the flea market. Mr. Gilbert said they used flyers, the Minneapolis papers and the Sun. He said thai after business was buiTt up, they usually didn't have ta advertise. Mr. Drigans said that as this was a commercial business he wondered if there were adequate facilities. Mr. Gilbert said they had a key to the Mall so they � cauld use the restroom facilities there. Mr. Clark said that OSHA requirements say the facility has to be within 200 feet, so he thought this would be adequate. Mr. Bluhm said he thought Mr. Gilbert was a very reputable man and an honest man. What he has described would be like a giant garage sale. He wondered if the property owner of the Skywood Shopping Center had the right to rent to a tenant that could aduersely affect other tenants in the area. �Mr. Clark said that Mr. Mortenson, �he owner of this property, had signed the request, and he would have thaught that he would have considered his other tenants before he agreed to this use. He said that he agreed that the tenants have a vested interest in this. Mr. Lindblad said that was why he felt that all the tenants should have been notified. I''1 Mr. Bluhm said that only the owners Menards and Lee Wards were not notified. Mortenson had discussed this with, but he the other tenants, if he didn't. of property were notified, and that Mr. Clark said he didn`.t know who Mr. thought-he should have discussed it with Mr. Bluhm said he felt that Menard's had greatly improved this area, and also the Ground Round had done extensive remodeling. He said that he has watched the Skywood M�11 area very closely because of the location of the Twin City Federal �branch in this area. He said he was very soreythat�the SkywoodSMallalacksaa lotsas meeting, because he would tell h�m to h�s fac far as maintenance. It should be improved, and kept improved. He said the reason he Mad taken the pictures on the way to this meeting was to show the weeds that are allowed to grow on this property. Ne said he just cauldn't see this type of owner getting further pri.viledges of freedom, especially as there was a zoning ordinance thai precludes it. Mr. Lindblad said that the condition of Skywood Mal.l has always been a problem, � �. I Planning Comnission Meeting - June 25, 1975 _ �aqe 9 and Mr. Mortenson �„` didn't think this been kept up, and had always skirted fixing and maintaining area benefited Fridley at the present time all Fridley got were broken promises. Mr. Bluhm said there was a protective covenant that had been drawn up for the property that was occupied by Twin City Federal, and he thought this flea market operation would be in violation of the covenant, and turn-about should be fai.r p1aY• Mr. Borrell said that Twin City Federal had spent a lot of money on their property trying to upgrade the property, and if this operation was allowed in this are a, it would have all been for nothing. He said that Twin City Federal was open from 9 to ; 12 on Saturday morning, and this operation.would really be detrimental to their business. ; this area. He said he because nothing had Mr. Drigans said that'if the recommendation was to deny the outdoor flea market, this wouldn't stop the indoor flea market as this was not objectionable. MOTION BY Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on%.the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E., Gilbert. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lindblad,. seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #75-06, by C. E. GiZbert, to a11ow the operation of an outdoor f.Iea market, per Fridley Citr� Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to be located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and S, Auditor`s Subdivision No. I53, the same being 1507-5289 Central Avenue N.E. (Skywood Ma11). Mr. Drigans said his feelings on this request were that an indoor flea market ^ was fine, but that an outdoor flea market would be difficult to eontrol, especially as far as traffic and crowd problems. He said he thought there were better sites in Fridley for this type of operation. There was a minature golf course�in this area, and we just don`t know what type of environment we would be creating if we allowed this operation at this location. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanzmously. 3. CaNSIDERATION QF A VACATION RE drainage and utility easement Block 1, Clark's Addition, the Mr. Kok was not present. QUEST: SAV from 6 feet same being #75-05, BY RICHARD KOK: To reduce the to 0 feet on the South side of Lot 6, 6517 McKinley Street N.E. Mr. Clark said the previous owner of this pro�erty built a�detached garage in 1961 before we required a verification survey, and he encroached about three feet into the easement. There was never any trouble with this because there aren't any utilities in this easement. Mr. Clark said that he advised the petitioner than in order to make his property more sale�ble, he should get this problem settTed by having the encroachment allowed �or vacating the easement. He said there was a siz foot easement on this property and a 6 foot easement on the lot South of this property. A field inspection verified that there were no utilities on this easement, and the utility companies have been notified. As yet there has been no response from them, either pro or con. � Mr. Clark said that because the petitioner wasn't present and we haven't had any`response from the utility companies, he thought this item should be continued. He said the petitioner has waited 13 years, and he didn't think another month wvuld affect this one way or the other. � � ....�*� .,.:I Planning Commission Meetinq - June 25, 1975 Page 10 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission continue � until July 23, 1975, the vacation request, SAV #75-05, by Richard Kok, to reduce the drainage and utility easement.from 6 feet to 0 feet on the South side,of Lot 6, B1ock 1, C1ark's Addition, the same being 6417 McKinley Street N.E. Upon a voice vo�e, a11 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-06, by MICNAEL MCFARLAND: Vacate the 12 foot undeveloped alley in Block 15, Fridley Park Add�tion, to allow the petitioner to erect a fence that would include the alley, the same being 98 64th Way N.E. � Mr. Michael McFarland was present. Mr. McFarland said that this was an undeveloped alley that was heavily waoded. It was just a collector of dead leaves and was very unsigh�lye He said it had been used as a depository for junk, and it was completely impassable. He said he was new to the area, and he wanted to clarify his lot lines, and as he lived on the cori�er of East River Road, he would like the privacy of a fence, and it would keep people from cutting through his yar�. If ihe Planning Commission wasn't agreeable to the entire alley being vacated, he would still like the alley adjacent to his property vacated. Mrs. Jerry Lowe 39 63 1/2 Way N.E. said they were in favor of this vacation request. Mr. Harris asked about the people who were across the alley from Mr. McFarland's ^ property. . Mr. Langenfeld said he lived across the a11ey, and he wanted the alley vacated also. He said this a11ey was used as a junk yard, and he wanted to eliminate that problem. He said most of the people in this block have maintained ihe property that was alley easement. He said no one had a fence in the alley, but people would like to fence the alley easement, if it was vacated. . Mildred King, 71 63 1/2 Way N.E.; said she was in favor of the vac��nR�Cequest. Mr. Lavern Dornbusch, 40 64th Way N.E. said he was favor of the vacation request also. Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission was going to recammend approval of�this request, they should stipulate that a drainage and utility easement be retained in the vacated alley. He said the petitioner and Mr. Langenfeld were right when they said this alley easement had been a catch-all. He said it would be impossible for the City to ever improve this alley, because they couldn't cut down the trees. MOTION BY Peterson, seconded by Drigans, thaf the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the vacation request, 5AV #75-06, by Michael McFarZand, to vacate the 12 foot undeveloped a11ey in Block 1 5, Fridley Park Addition, to a11ow the petitioner to erect a fence that would include the alle�, the same being 98 64th Way N.E. with the stipulation that a drainage and utility easement be retained in the vacated 12 foot a11ey. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the mo�ion carried ^ unanimously. u' - • . .. . Planning Commission Meetinq - Ju�e 25, 1975 Page 11 Mr. Harris said he would like all the property owners in the block notified of ^ this request. Mr. Clark said they had been, and would be notified again for the Public Hearing before Council. 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-02, BY RICHARD JANKE: To allow Lot 11, Bloek 1 Rice Creek P1aza South Addition to be split into Parcels A& B, because of the error in fence location on Lot 10, the same being 191 and 201 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. Mr. Richard Janke and Mr. Virgil Mullins were present. Mr. Janke said his mother owned the property at 201 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. and when they built a patio and retaining wall, along with the fence, there was an error made as ta the actual property line. He said that rather than most the fence and other improvements to this property, the owner of Lot 11, Mr. Virgil Mullins, 191 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., has agreed to sell the.property to his mother. , Mr. Clark said that Mr. Mullines was present also, and he had also signed the request, and if both parties were in agreement, the.City saw no problem with this request. Mr. Mullins said he was in agreement with this request. Mr. Harris asked if both lots would still meet the setback and lot requirements of the City code. Mr. Clark said they would � ^ MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recomment to Council approval of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #75-02, by Richard Janke, to a13ow Lot 11, B.Zock 1, Rice Creek P1aza South Addition, to be split into Parcels A and B, because of..an error in fence location, the same being 19Z and 201 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting ay�, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. 6. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. �75-03, BY ARTHUR SEGER: Sp1it Lot 1, Block 2, Spring , Lake Park Lakeside Addition, to create another building site, the same being 7650 Lakeside Road N.E. Mr. Arthur Seger was not present. Mr. Harris said it looked 1ike the lots would be quite large. Mr. Clark said they would be. He said the present lot has enough area and street�frontage to make two building sites. Mr. Clark said there really should be a survey made of the property as soon as possible. There was some question as to the rear yard requirement for the existing house. According to the rough drawing, the house would be 26 feet from the new side lot line of the properiy being split off, and the rear yard requirements was 25% of the lot depth, which would make thls 30 feet. He said that this would create no problem because of the size of the property. The lot size of the property being split off could be reduced to 90 feet and would still meet the lot area requirements. Mr. Narris said that it could be reduced just by the 4 feet, and the lot wou1d be 100' x 100'. Mr. Clark said the property South of these lots belonged to School District #13. ^ � � Mr. Harris asked if there would be any easements necessary on this parcel: Mr. Clark.said he was sure that there would be. _ ,�., Planning Commission Meeting- June 25, 1975 Page 12 _ Mr. Harris said he would like to see this property surveyed and all the utility ^ easements see before this went to Council. Mr. Clark said they have not always done it that way, but that was no reason it couldn't be done. They could stipulate that this all be done before it went on the Cauncil agenda. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend that the petitioner have Lot 1,.B1ock 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addi�tion surveyed and all utility easements worked out with Northern States Power Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Minnegasco, Cab1e Television and the City Engineering Department before this appears on the CounciZ agenda, and that both Iots meet the.setback and area requirements of the City Code, and at that time the Planning Commission would recommend to Council approval of the request for a Lot Split, L.S. #75-03, by Arthur Seger, to split Lot 1, B1ock 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, to create another building site, the same being 7650 Lakeside Road N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said he would like a copy of the completed lot split to be included in the Planning Cor�nission agenda. [��r. Clark said he would see that this was done. ' 7. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-04, BY ROBERT SCHROER: Split off the�North 126.1 � feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, and the South 173.99 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to create a building site, the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E. Mr. Robert Schroer was'present, n� Mr. Clark presented a drawing that had been submitted by Mr. Schroer in 1972, and said that on the basis of this drawing, we have previously granted lot splits for both Capp Homes and the Town Crier. The third parcel, which was this request, was for the Datsun Dealership.. It does not disrupt the pattern thay may .become evident at some future date, but it does cut off thes:treet access to the Western portion of Lot 3, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. He said Lots 2 and 4 were L shaped lot splits, so they still have access. He said he had talked to Dave Harris, who has an interest in this also, and he told Mr, Harris that the staff would probably recommend approval of the lot split, but we definitely would want an ea9.ement to the rear portion of Lot 3 for s�treet aceess. Mr. Harris indicated to Mr. Glark that he would be willing to grant this easement at this time, and that the City shauld drawn up the agreement, and he would sign it. Mr. Clark said that this would satisfy the access to liot 3. Mr. Clark said t{iat both parcels meet the zoning requirements for C-2 Zoning. Mr. Clark said that he was not saying that the road would go in as it was shown on the drawning, but we do have to protect street access for Lot 3, and insis t on a .right of way. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #75-04, by Robert Schroer, to split off the North 126.2 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 3, B1ock 2, and the South 173.99 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, BZock 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to create a building site, the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E., with the ^ stipnlation than�an agreement be signed to provide an easement for street right of way on the West 30 feet of the Easterly 230 feet of Lots 3 and 4, together with the Southerly 33 feet of the East 200 fee� of Lot 4, B1ock Z, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ��1 Planninq Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 13 8. BUILDING PERMITS �„� Paco, Inc. . Industrial Building - 7847 Elm Street N.E. -Staff Report -Rttachment A Mr. Clark explained that with the reorganization of the Planning Cammission this item will always appear on the agenda, with an administrative staff report, but after this, it will always be the first item on the agenda. Mr. Clark said that all building permits will be reviewed by the Planning Cor�nission and the City Council. We feel that no action is necessary by either body unless they wish to make some comment about them. He said an administrative staff report would be submitted with all building permits, and they were working on a form that would be a check list to see how such conS�ruction would affect the environment, for example, whether it affects it adversely or betters it. Mr. Clark said that this particular building, in this block, will complete the construction along Elm Street between 77th and 78th. This addition, along with another structur�, meets all the zoning requirements as far as setbacks and parking ratios and the use of the property. The architectural design was s�milar to the balance of the buildings in this area. The middle building front will be split block masonry. The other one will be brick, the same as the next building Sou�h, up to iwo or three courses of the top, and then it will be split face rock, for the balance. It was very similar in nature to the rest af the structures in the black. The staff fee�s that this was a good addition to the area, and"it meets all the codes and does not affect the environment adversely. � Mr.�Clark said there was a set of plans, if the Planning Commission wanted to look at them. He said there were 80 feet between this structure and the next one South, and Mr. Pashke was discussing with the owner of the�other structure, the possibility of putting in the parking lot now, rather than sodding it and having to tear up the sod.later for the parking lot. This was a parking lot that they have been planning for, for some time. It doesn't have to happen, because the parking _ meets the cade requirements, and there apparently were no parking problems, but we da have an open building which may need more parking, depending upon the occupancy. Mr. Lindblad asked to see the over-all plan of the Onaway area. Mr. Drigans asked Mr.' Paschke when he was coming in for variance. Mr. Pashke said thi�s building did not require any variance. Mr. Drigans commended Paco, Inc., for coming up with a plan �hat didn't require a variance. Mr. Clark said there would have been a variance, but with both buildings being built at the same time, under one ownership, and with the firewal], it meets the zoning requirements for a 0 lot line. - ' Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission did not have to make a recommendation unless they felt that this did not meet the policies, which you haven't established yet, then that would be what you would comment upon. Mr. Lindblad asked if all building permits for commercial and industrial construction wi11 come to the Planning Commission now. Mr. Clark said they would, ^ and the staff report will state if there are any problems or not. If there are problems, the Planning Comnission will direct the application for a building permit to the proper Commissison. If it was a variance, that would go to the Appeals Commission right away, before it comes to the Planning Commission. He said this Planning Commission Meeting - June 25, 1975 Page 14__ procedure was sart of in limbo now, until the Planning Commission sets up its policies, and goals and objectives. � Chairman Harris asked the other members of the Planning Commission if it was the concensus of opinion that they agreed with the staff recommendation. The other members stated their agreement. STATEMENT OF APPRECIATION: Chairman Harris said that the reorganization of the Planning Commission would result in new members on the Planning Commission, and he wanted to thank the present members for their cooperation and indulgence. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lindblad, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commision meeting of June 25, 1974 adjor�a�ned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � �� /'� Dorothy Eve on-Secretary 0 / \ a • . .� � /'1 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7791-7747 E1m Street by: PACO MASONRY Attachment A GENERAL DESCRIPTION • This is a special warehouse building to be built at 7791 and 7747 Elm Stxeet. A portion of the building will be an extension of the occupancy at 7791 Elm and 7747 Elm will be set up for a new occupancy. This building is an allowed use in this district (M-2} and meets al'. code requirements. The building will be set back an the South 20' in order to allow for a joint parking facility � for 7747 and 7739 Elm Street. This facility will be set back 35' from Elm Street with no entrance on to Elm. This area between Elm and the parking lot will be bermed and planted. The building will be constructed of a combination split ' face block and brick to match the existing building design in the area. The back alley wi11 be used for general access to � the parking and truck loading facility. � ENGINEERING . We don't foresee any engineerinq problems with g�ading or drainage. The parking lot will. drain to the a11ey which in turn drains south and is'picked up by Storm Sewers in city streets. � ENVIRONMENTAL � We don't foresee any negative environmental impacts on �. the area with�the construction of this building. � 0 ! . • i , � c 560-3450 _ ��' C�t o ��le .. � � ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE June 27, 1975 Mr. Dick Harris Chairman, Fridley Planning Commission City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 My dear Mr. Harris: FRIDLEY, MINIVESOTA 55432 Following are the Minutes of the Fridley Human Resources Commission meeting held June 26, 1975: � Mr. Dick Harris, Chairman, Fridley Planning Cocranission called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. Members Present: Members absent: Grace Lynch Harold Belgum Barbara Shea WiLliam Scott Nancy Lambert As the first order of business Mr. Harris called for nominations £or chairperson of the commission. On a motion by Barbara Shea, William Scatt was elected chairperson and took his place at the desk. On a motion by Harold Belgum, Barbara Shea was elected vice�chairperson.. • Following thourough discussion a series of resolutions were adogted � as� follows: 1) A resolution establishing a Youth Development Pro}ect Committee on a motion by Grace Lynch (Resolution attached). 2) A resolution to eonduct a pnblic seminar on a motion by Harold Belgum (Resolution attached). 3) A resolution that the commission consider people in it's decisions, mimimize effects of the reorganization, recognize organ- � i2ational needs and attempt to promote intensified communicatiom among community residents by retaining the published meeting times �� of the commission on the third Thursday of each month and directs ' Human Resaurces Commission Minutes continued ^ the chair to so inform the Planning Coramission.on a motion by , Grace Lynch. On a motion of Barbara Shea the Commission adjourned at 8:30 P.M. to a meeting of the Planning Commission. FOR THE COMMISSION, � ! .� (� "�' +,c�t,ti� � ��c.�t l -.�1.1. . William . Scott III Chairperson WES / tas Enclosures � � � 0 m � r �� r 0 ^ ^ 560-3450 � �� i�� o Yidte� . � cJ� � . • ANO.KA COUNTY " 6431 UNIVERSI7Y AVENUE NE A RESOLU2ION FRIDtEY, MINNE�OTA 5543� BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with chapter 122.07 City of Fridley Ordinance Number 584 a special project commi.ttee composed of a Commission member and young people be formed to further the objectives of the Commission and provide for greater participation of youth in the affairs of the City of Fridley. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, William E. Scott be designated as the ex- officia member of the committee and sai� committee shall report to the Commission the qualifications for membership, composition and duties of said committee prior to undertaking activities for which it is formed. . BE IT �'URTHER RESOLVED, Kam rietcalf, 860 West Moore Lake Drive N.E., A, ++.� sw► �3c�s v� Fridley, be appointed �x � rk�:-=°-�=`= � of the committee. � �' "" � a � , � � . w . .-, . . ,.... .._ _..,..,,.,,,�,..,�.,.,,,,, „ ` trlr �' � � . . . . . �� %`�'�`'�.��"� � � �� . �r co 0 �� 4� N � . o � •°r L) � � O rA w . � � �; � w ..� ^ � � c_ , o H � Q c+.� � t— q '-f 4.. � �� z i:� > � �: in � w � � � r . � Ci O � W . t" Z W ci U ^ � U ��t� c � June 26, 1975 A RESOLUTION �� IHEREAS the Human Resources Commission, City of Fridley, a netaly constituted body,organized for the purposes stated • in Fxidley Ordinance 584, Chapter 122 desires to carry out the xespansibilities so assigned in the most expeditious and fruitful manner possible. � � t BE ST RESOLVED the commission seeks to enhance it's un�er- standing o£ human needs and desires by enlisting �he expertise of appropiate agencies concerned Vrith human development to offer advice, suggest goals, delinate means and othercaise provide assistance to the con¢nission and community residents in acting responsibly for the benefit of the community. � BE,ZT FLTRTHER RESOLVED the commission will host a public 6, seminar titled ''FRIDLEY FUTURES - A PUBLIG SEMINAR FOR - HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPPIENT" for ALL community residents • wishing to attend and adopts the attached proposal arid � agenda ior implementation. � . 0 ^ PROPOSAL FOR "FRIDLEY FUTURES - A PUBLIC SEMINAR FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPr1ENT" . � . PURPOSE To enhance knowledge and understandi:ng of human needs and desires and to develop a framework for action and responsibility upon which the Human Resources Commission will function and upon which community residents may participate to promote greater realization and envolvement in human resource develop.�.ent within the community. SCOPE The seminar is a public event consisting of six evening sessions of three hours each. Each session will have guest speakers to ^, present a discussion pertaining to a field of human development. The material presented wilZ attempt to stimulate discussion, identify � goals and objectives, and suggest actions citizens, local officials and commission members may take to enhance the well being and promote harmonious relationships among all people of the community. TIME - The sessions will be held on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 7:00 to 10:00 P.M. in the classroom of Fridley City Hall beginning � Jul� 8 and ending July 24, 1975 (See attached agenda). n -� 9 �� .. ,... , .. , , ..: . : M .�,. ,. _. : � ,�..� ,: � -,-., _,.�..,..,,.,� ° ;�.. , ._..,. • ; w,� • .� .. . . , �. _ . : .... ,,� .�t.-, .,, ... w. .:<*.. .� ., ,;.�, .,... . .�: . �_. . . .., . . ....,�. - !.. • � . ' •/ � ' . . . . . � . �� . "FRIDLEY FUTURES - A Public Seminar for Human Resource Development" � AGENDA DATE TIME AGENCY AND TOPIC REPRESENTATIVE TUESDAY July 8 7:00-7:05 Fridley Human Resources Commission. Introduction to Seminar . Bill Scott 7s05-7:08 City of Fridley Introduction of Keynote Speaker Mayor Bill Nee 7e08-7:30 MN Department of Human Rights � Keynote Speech Commissioner William Wilson 7:3Q-8:30 Metro Council Humar� Resource ' Commission Guidelines for planning Human Development Ken Reddick ^ 8:30-8:45 BREAK FOR REFRESHMENTS. ' 8:45-10:00 Metro Council Human Resource Commiss ion Guidelines f.or pl.anning Human Developmen� Ken Reddick THiJRSDAY � July 10 7:00-8:30 University of Minnesota Center • for Youth Development and Research Characteristics and needs•of - youth. . Youth involvement and participa- tion in community dev�lopment Terry Anderson 8:30-8:45 BREAK FOR REFRESHMENTS 8:45-10:00 MN Department of Corrections. Anoka County Court Services. Community Correct'ions Program. Jan Schwarz � Juvenile and Adult Corrections � . Activities in Anoka County. Jerry Soma Continued on next page. F n • TUESDAY ^ July 15 � 7:00-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:45-10:00 MN Deparcment of Human Rights r4N Iluman Ri�;hts Act AffirmaLivc Action Programs BR�AIC FOR REFR�SIIMENTS MN Department of Manpowcr Services. Anoka County C�TA Office. Employment of Minorities, Women, Youth and thc Disadvant:a�ed. C�TA Programs in Anolca County. Mary Culhane Nancy Hendrickson Ann Peterson �� THURSDAY July 17 7:00-8:30 � 8:30-8:45 8:45-10:00 Governor's Council on Aging The Aging i.n Community Develop- ment � neth Molberg BREAK I'OR REFRESHMENTS State Planning Agency-Develop- � mental Disabilities Office Community Developmental Disability Planning Cheri Gilman TUESDAY ' July 22 7:00-8:30 MN Department of Education 8:30-8:45 8:45-10:00 State effort to eliminate Racism and Sexism in �ducation BRFAK FOR REFRESHM�NTS MN Sta�e Arts Council MFLS Society of Fine Arts Fine Arts in the C�mmunity Walter Jones Lani Kowamura THURSDAY • July 24 7:00-8:30 MN Fiumanities Commission Community opportun_ities to � obtain funding for the Humanities Lynn Smith 8s30-$:45 BREAK FOR REI'RrSHM�NTS 8:45-10:00 I'ridley Numan Resources Commission Qpen for Community Residents Commission Members , .� � \ Suggested Outline for Presentations c �z Introduction A description of the scope and general content of the material to be presented. A statement about your agency and what is does. Discussion An explanation of the subject matter. Please include items you feel will assist the attendees in understanding the importance of the subject. Suggest goals, objectives or methods the attendees could use to realize maximum potentiial for a successful effort in the area you are discussing. Resaurces � ___.__--- ^ Please suggest places, people, agencies or other �esources the ' attendees could contact for further information or assistance in the field you discuss. Al.so, any inforraation on possible funding sources or program development assistance will be appreciated. question/Ans�ver Period . , Reserve a portion of time�at the end of your discussio�n to stimulate an exchange of dialogue with the attendees. : 0 � � . _ . . . �..+......�n• � �.. .. „, . . � . , .� - ...` .. . .,:.. _ ,�, w,�+r .:`;. �,�' ! , , , . ,. . � . . ...�........v. ..rw.r«.+...4s..w-.»...».».-.... .. . - . .. .. , . . . . . . ... ...i�.'. . .. . , . .. _.... ... . . . , . �� v� 23 pROPOSED STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THE, MANAGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL SHORELAND ARE�1S QF MINNESOTI� -- • Chapter Six NR 82 - 84 �raft for Public Hearing �R, 82 General Provisions (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY , The�uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely afiects the public health, safety, and general welfare by contributing to pollution of public waters and by impairing the �ocal tax base. In accorctance with the authority granted in the Laws of Minnesota ].973, Chapter 379, and in furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes 1974, Chapte�s 105, 1I5, 116, and 462, the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred tc, as the Commissioner, does hereby provide the municipalities of the State with minimum standards .and criteria for the subdivision, use, and developme�t of the shore�- lands of public waters located in,municipalities ia order to pre- ^serve and enhance the quality of surfaee waters, canserve the economic and natural environmen�al values of shorelands, and provide for the wise utilization of water and related land resourc°s of the State . (b ) SCOPE (1) To achieve the policies declared in NR, 82(a), the Comniissioner here sets forth minimum standards and criteria.ior the wise use and development of shorelands in NR 82 - 84 which include: (aa) 'Classiiication of public waters. (bb) Regulations designating type� of land uses com- patible with shoreland management classification. . (ce) R,egulations providing minimum dimensions for the ^size and length oi water frontage of lots suitable for building sites. � � . -� . ' . i I �� (dd) ftegulations governing the placement of structures in relation to shorelines and roads. �. � ^ (ee) Regulations governing the amount of impervious surface allowed on eaeh lot. . (ff) ftegulations governing the type and placement of sanitary and waste disposal facilities. (gg) ftegulations governing the alteration of natural shore- lands in municipalities. � (hh) Begulations governing the subdivision af shoreland areas in municipalities. � • (ii) Provisions for the enforcement and administration ot inunicipal shoreland management ordinances: � � (2) These are minimum standards and criteria for municipal shore- land�management ordinances. Each municipality shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the shoreland management � _ ordinance adopted in compliance with these standards and criteria. Nothing in these standards and criteria shall be construed as prahibit- ing or discouraging a municipality for adopting and enforcing ordin- ances, rules, or regulations whiGh are more restrictive. . , (c ) JUftI SDICTI ON � These minimum standards and criteria apply to those shorelands of public waters of the State which are located in munieipaxities. (d). DEFINITIONS . . �For the purpose of these regulations, certain terms or words used herein shall be interpreted as follows: the word "shall" is � mandatory, not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured harizontally. � �� `" -2- . . ' � �� ' "Boathouse" means a structure used solely for tt�e storage of boats or boating equipment. � "Building Line" means that line mea�ured across the width of the lot at the point where the main structure is placed 'in accordance with setback provisions. . "Clear-cutting" means the removal of an entire.stand of trees. "Conditional Uset' means a use of shorelands which is permitted within a zoning district only when allowed by the municipality after a public hearing, if certain conditions are met which elimin- ate or minimize the incompatibility with other permitted uses of the district. "Crowding Potential" means the ratio Qf total acreage of-a water body:to shore miles. "Hardship" means the property in question �anno� be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the off icial � controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner; and the v�riance, if granted, will not ali;er the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations aiane shsll not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under terms of the official controls. "Lot" means a parcel of land designated by mete� and bounds, � registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated fram other parcels or portions of said description for•the purpose of sale, Iease, or separation thereof. For the purposes of these regulations, a lot shall be considered to be an individual building site which shall be occupied by no more ^than one principal structure equipped with sanitary facilities. "Municipality" means any city. _3_ 0 . .,,. �� in Use" means any use� of land �established before the �� . Nonconform g effective� date of a municipal ordinance which does not conform"to the use restrictions of a pa�rticular zoning district. This should not be ^ onfused with substandard dimensions of a conforming use. "Ordinary High Water Mark" means a mark delineating the highest ' water level which has been maintained for a su�fficient period of time ' �to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predomi- nantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.. "planned Unit Development" means a type of• deve�opment which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and developed as a unit. The Planned Unit Development is disti.nguished from the tradit.ional subdivision process of development in that zoning standards suGh as �density, setbacks, height limits, and minimum 1ot sizes may be altered by negotiation and agreement between the developer, the municipality �i�d the Commissioner. � "Public Waters" means any waters of the State which serve a bene- f�cial public purpose, as def ined in Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 105.37, Subdivision 6. However, na lake, pond or flowage of less than l0 acres in size and no river or stream having a total drainage area less than two square miles need be regulated b.y the municipality for � the.purposes of these regulations. The official determination of , the size and physical limits of drainage areas of rivers and stream�s shall be made by the Commissioner. The official size of lakes, ponds, or flowages shall be the areas listed in the Division of W.aters, Soils and Minerals Bulletin 25, � jnvent�rv � Mirinesota Lakes, or in the event that lakes, ponds ar flowages are not listed �i;here�in, official determination of size and physical limits shall be made by the Com- ^missioner in cooperation with municipalities. �� "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark or between a structure or sanitary facility and a road, highway, or property line, �"Shoreland" means land located within the following.distances from public water: (i) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of ,a lake, pond, or flowage; and (ii) 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on such a river or stream, whichever is.greater. The practical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory limits whenever the waters involved are bounded by natural topographic aivides which extend land- ward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by trie Commissioner. "Structure" means any bu-ilding or appurtenance thereto: except aerial�or undergraund utility lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph, ar gas lines, including .towers, poles, and other supporting �purtenances. "Subdivision" means improved or unimproved land or lands which are divided for the purpose of ready sale or lease. "Substandard Use" means any use of shorelands existing priar to the date of enactment �of any municipal ordinance which is permitted within the applicable zoning district but does not meet the minimum lot area and length of water frontage, structure setbacks, or�other dimensional standards of the ordinance. "Variance�' • means any modification or variation of official controls where it is deter�►ined that, because of exceptional hardships, strict enforcement of the official controls is impractical. (e) SEVERABILITY ^ . - 5- � � � ,��, � � The pravisions of these regulations shall be severable, and the invalidity of any paragraph, subparagraph, or subdivision there- �f shall not make void any other paragraph, subparagraph, sub- division, or any other part. � � � , (f) SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (1) The Commissioner shall classify all public waters in municipalities in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Reg. Cons. 71 (a) (1), (2) and (3) and the following criteria: (aa) Those waters whose shores are presently characterized by industrial, commercial or high density residential development shall be classifiec� General Development. (bb) Those waters whose shores are presently characterized by medium density residential development with or without limited service-oriented commercial development shall be c�as�ified as Recreational Development. ^` (ce) Those waters whose shores are presently charaeterized by low density, single-family residen�ial development shall be classified as Natural Environment. • (dd). Those waters whose shores.are not yet densely developed, so that the future character of the waters is a matter of choiee, shall be classified as either Natural Environment or Recreational Development, depending on: (i) Existing natural characteristics of the waters and shorelands. . (ii) The ability of the waters and adjacent shorelands, • based on size and crowding potential, to accept aithout degradation, medium density shoreland �,,,; development . -6- - (iii) State, regional, county, and municipal plans. Y •(iv) Existing land use restrictions. (2) Supporting data for the shoreland management classiiication � is supplied by the records and files of the Department of Natural _ Resources, Bulletin No. 25 of the Division of Waters, Soils and . �Minerals (1968); other supporting data is provided in Minnesota'�s Lakeshore, Part 2, Statistical Summary, Department of Geography, University of Minnesota; and additional�supporting data may be supplied, as needed, by the Commissioner. (3} Classification Procedures Public waters .shall be classified by the Co�r�nissianer. The Com- missioner shall doeument each classification with appropriate � supporting data. He shall submit a preliminary list of classified public waters to each aifected municipality. Each affected munici- pality shall be given an opportunity to request a change in the �oposed e2assification. If a municipality feels such a change is needed, a written request with supporting data may be submitted to the Commissioner for consideration.� If a municipality requests a change in a praposed shoreland management classification and the public water is located partigily within the jurisdiction of an- other governmental unit, the Commissioner shall'review the recom- mendations of the vther governmental unit(s) prior to making a final decision on the proposed change. (4) Keclassification The Commissioner may, as the need arises, reclassify any puiilic water. Also, any municipality may at any time submit a resolution and supporting data requesting a change in any shoreland management classification of waters within its jurisdiction to the Commissioner r'1 • �or consideration. �t� n..v � _,_ ,�a (5} Classification System - Modification and Expansion: _ The Commissi�ner may, as the need arises, modify or expand the �shoreland classification system to provide specialized shoreland management regulations based upon unique characteristics and � capabilities of any public water(s). NR 83 Land Use Control Provisions (a) LAND USE DESIGNATION - Municipalities shall provide for the designation of the following land use districts, or districts providing substantially the same land use restrictions, in accordance'with shoreland man- agement class and the designation and district criteria set forth in NR 83 (b). (1) On Natural Environment Waters �aa) Conservancy Districts (bb) Low Density Residential Districts ^ (cc} ather cvmpatible Zand use districts, as approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. ' (2) On Recreational Development Waters� (aa) Conservancy Districts (bb) Low Density ftesidential Districts (cc) Residential Districts ��dd) Other eompatible land use dis�ricts, as approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resourc�es. (3.) On General Development Waters (aa) Conservancy Districts , (bb) Low Density Residential Districts (cc) Residential Districts � (dd) Residential-Commercial Districts J � � (ee) General Use Districts . (b) DESIGNATION OF DISTRICTS, DISTftICT CRITERIA ' -8- . �� 0 In order to achieve land uses compatible with the natural characteristics�and existing land uses in shareland areas and--to guide the wise development and utilizat3on.of shorelands for the /�, preservation of water quality, natural characteristics, economic values, and the general health, safety, and welfare, the following • land use district standards and criteria are hereby established. To the greatest extent possible, areas of unique natural, biological, or historical significance should be preserved in each district. (1) Conservancy Districts Municipalities may designate areas unsuitable for development due to wet soils, stQep slopes, flooding, inadequate drainage, severe erosion poteniial, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the com- munity as Conservancy Districts. Only open space uses�and accessory structures which provide �egligible encroachment on the shoreland � environment shall be permitted in Conservancy Districts. (2) Low Density ftesidentiaZ Districts Municipalities may designate areas'suitable �for low density resi- dential development as Low Density Residential Districts. Such districts may be designated in areas where low density residential uses are deemed appropriate to insure protection of the natural characteristics of remainiiag undeveloped shoreland, in areas•whieh are not served by public sewer and.water facilities, and in areas of exceptional na�ural, biological, or historical significance. Only open space, single-family residential uses, and Planned Unit 31 Developments shaZl be permitted in.Low Density Residential Districts. (3) Residential Districts ^ Municipalities may designate areas suitable for residential uses as Res3dential Districts. Such districts may be designated in � . � �� areas which are presently developed as residential areas, or in other areas deemed appropriate for residential uses. Only open space, single-family residential, multiple=family residential, ~ limited service-oriented co.mmercial�uses, and Planned Unit Developments shall be permitted.in Residential Districts. To the greatest extent possib3e, such districts shall provide for the centralization of service facilities and the separation of incompatible land uses. (4) Residential - Commerical district _ Municipalities may designa�e areas suitable for residential and commercial uses as Residential - Commercial Districts. Such dis- tricts may be designated in areas which are presently developed as residential or commercial areas, or in other areas deemed a•ppropri- ate for residential or commercial uses after consideration of e�ist- ing use patterns and intensities, engineering capabilities of land and water for development, �conomic growth considerations, mun�cipal � planning considerations, the need for such uses in the area, and potential enviornmental effects. Only open space, single-family residentia]., multiple-family residential, commercial uses, and Planned Unit Developments shall be permitted in Residential- . Commercial Districts. To the greatest extent possible, such districts shall provide for the centralization of service faciliiies and the separation of incompatib�e iand uses. (5) General Use Districts Municipalities may designate ar.eas suitable for uses directed toward urban activities or industrial uses which require locations within shorelands as General Use District's. Such districts may be de- signated in areas presently developed as residential, commercial, � or industrial areas, or in other areas deemed appropriate for such uses after consideration o� existing use patterns and inten- -10- � ' ' � � - �3 sities, engineering capabilities of land and water for development, economic growth considerations, municipal planning considerations, rid the need for such uses in shoreland areas. Such districts staall provide, to the greatest extent possible: centralization of service �facilities, and separation of �ncompatible uses. (c) ZQNING PR.OVISIONS In order to reduce the effects of over-crowding, to prevent pollution. of waters of the State, to provide ample space on lots for sanitary facilities, to minimize flood damages, to maintain property values, and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas, municipal shoreland ordinances shall con�rol lot .sizes, placement of s�ructures on Iots, and alterations of shoreland ar.eas in accordance with the following land use district provisions. (1) Lot Size Provisions-All lots created after the date of �actment of the municipal shoreland ordinance shall conform to the following minimum lot dimension provision�: (aa) Low Density R,esidential,Districts: All lots shail be at least 80,00Q square feet {appraximately two acres) in area and 200 feet in width at the building lzne and at the ordinary high water mark (on lots abutting public waters). . • (bb) ResidentiaZ Districts: Lots not served by public sewer shall . be at Ieast 40,0U0 square feet in area (approximately one acre) and 150 feet in width at the building line and at the ordinary high water mark (on lots abutting public waters). Lots served by public sewer and which abut public waters, shall be at least 20,000 square feet in area (app�oximately one-half acre) and ?5 feet in width � at the building Iine and at the ordinary high water mark. � . . , -11-- . _ _ . . _ __ _ . _. � � � ' � All other lots served by public sewer shall be at least 15,OOO�square feet in area and 75 feet in width at the building line. � (cc} �tesidential-Commercial Districts: Lots not.served by public sewer shall be at least 20,000 square feet in area and 100 feet in � � width at the building line and at the ordinary high water mark (on � � lots abutting public waters). Lots served by public�sewer, and which i i abut public waters, shall be at least 15,000 square feet in area and I 75 feet in width at the building line and at the ordinary high water ' mark. All other lots served by public sewer shall be at least 10,000 . Square feet in area and 75 feet in width at the building line. " (dd) General Use Districts: lots in General Use Districts shall conform to the dimensional standards set forth for ftesidential-Com- �mercial districts. , (ee ) Substandard lots : lots. of record i.n the aff iee of the County nRegister of Deeds on the date of enactment of the Municipal Shoreland t?rdinance which do not meet the requirements of NR 83 (c) �1) (aa) through (dd) may b� allowed as building sites grovided such use is permitted in the zoning district, the l.ot is in separate ownership from abutting Iands on the date of enactment of the shoreland ordinance> and sanitary and dimensional requirements of �he shoreland ordinance i � are�complied with insofar as practicable. Each municipal ordinance may, I co�sistent with these standards and criteria, set a minimum size for J substandard lots or impose other restrictions on the development of substandard lots, including the prohibition of development until the substandard lot (s) are served by public sewer and water. (ff) Exceptions - Exceptions to the provision of NR 83 (c) (1) (aa) through (ee) may be permitted for Plannted Unit Developments pur- � suant to NR 83 (E') (4 ) . (2) Placement of Structures ori Lots. -12- .*'+ . • � ,.,� ,� (aa) The following minimum setbacks from ordinary high water marks for each district set forth in NR 83 (a) and (b) shall apply ! �•. .- .,, ' �ta all structures except those specified as exceptions herein: � � (i) Conservancy Districts: Z00 feet. (ii) Low Density R,esidential Districts: 200 feet. �� (iii) Residential Districts: 100 feet. ! I , (iv) ftesident�al-Commercial Distriets: ?5 feet. {, (v) General Use Districts: 75 feet: �(vi) Furthermore, no siructure shall be erected in the � � floodway of a river or stream as defined in Minne- sota Statutes 1974, Section 104.02. (bb) Iiigh Water Elevation - In addition to the setback require- ments of NR 83 (c) (2), municipal shoreland ordinances shall control placement of structures in relation to high water elevation. Structures shall be placed at an elevation consistent with any applicable local � flood plain management ordinances. When fill is r-equired to meet this elevation, the fi11 shall be ailowed to stabilize to accepted engineering standards before construction,.is begun. When no ordin�nces exist, the eievation to which the lowest floor, including basement, shall be placed shall be determined as follows: (i) For lakes, pQnds, and flowages by (a) an elevation of available f lood information and consistant with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of F1ood Plain Areas of Minnesota or (b) placing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest known water level. In those instances where suffieient data on known high wat�r ^ levels are not available, the ordinary high water � mark shall be used. -13- �q -- � � 36 - (ii) For rivers and streams, by an evaluation oi available f lood information and consistent with Statewide Stand- � ards and Criteria for Management of Flood Plain Areas� of Minnesota. (ce) Proximity to Roads and Highways - No structure shall be placed nearer than 50 feet from the right-of-way line of any federal, state, or county trunk highway; or.20_feet from the right-of-way line of any town road, public street, or others not classified. (dd) All structures, except those in General Use Districts and aII nan-residential agricultural structures, shall not exceed 35 feet in height, unles� such structures are approved as part of a PZanned Unit. Development pursuant to the procedures set forth in NR 83 (E� (4). (ee) The total area of all impervious surfae�s on a lot shall be eontrolled by the municipal shoreland ordinance in order to retard excessive surface runoff, maintain natural vegetation in shoreland ^ areas and prevent pollution of surface waters. � (ff) Exceptions: (i) Boathouses may be located landward of the ordinary high water mark as a conditional use provided they are not used for habitation and they do not contain sanitary facilities. .(ii) Location of piers and docks shall be controlled by � applicable state an.d Iocal regulations. (iii)Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site, structural setbacks may be aZtered to take setbacks of. existing structures into account. (iv} Commercial, industrial, or permitted open space uses requiring location on public waters may be allowed as � conditional uses closer to such waters than the set- backs specified in NR, 83 (c) (2). � � -14- i3i (aa ) t �� Shoreland Alterations: Natural vegetation in shoreland areas shall be preserved in- �far as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. The removal of natural vegetation shall be controlled by the municipal shoreland ordinance. . . in accordance with the following criteria: (i) Clearcutting shall be prohibited, except as necessary for placing public roads, utilities, structures, and parking areas. (ii) Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as . feasible after any constr-:tction project. (iii) Selective cutting of trees and underbrush sHall be � allowed as long as sufficient cover is left to screen motor vehicles and structui��s when viewed from the water.. �� (bb) Grading and filling or any other substantiai alteration of the natural topography areas shall be controlled by the municipal shore- land ordinance in accordance with the �ollowing criteria: /''1 (i) Tt�.e smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as feasible. (ii) Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, shall be used and permanent vegetative cover, such as sod, shall be pravided. � (iii) Methods to p��vent erosion and trap sediment shall be employed. � (iv) Fill shall be stabilized to accepted engineering standards. (cc) Alterations of Beds of Public Waters: Any wark which will change or diminish the c�ourse current, or cross section of a public water shall be approved by the Commissioner before the work , -1 5- is begun. This includes construction of channels and� �� . ditches, lagooning, dredging of lakes or stream bottom for removal of muck, silt or weeds, and � filling in the lake or stream bed. Approval shall be construe3 to mean the issuance by the Commissioner ' of a permit under the procedures of Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 105.42 and other related statutes. (ii) Excavations on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by the municipal shoreland ordinance. Permission for � such excavations may�be given only after the-Com- ' missioner has appraved the proposed conneetiom to public waters. Approval shall be given only if the proposed work is consistent with applicable state /"'�. regulations for work in beds of public waters. (4) Municipalities may, under.special circumstances and with the Commissioner's approval, adopt shoreland management ordinances which are not in strict conformity with NR 83 (c) "Zoning Provisions" pro- vided that the proposed ordinance is based upon individual public water cagabilities and that the purposes of Minnesota Statues 1974, � Section 205,485 are satisfied. � (d) SANITAR,Y PR,OVISIONS In order to insure sa�e and healthiul conditions, to prevent pollutian and contamination of surface and ground waters,•and to guide development compatible with the natural characteristics of shorelands and re2ated water resources, municipal shoreland ordinances shall control individual water supply and waste disposal systems in � . respect to location, construction, repair, use, and maintenance; and -16- . 39 . � "� � s hall control commercial, agricultural, industrial solid waste, and �icipal waste disposal. (1) Water Supply • (aa) Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department af Health Standmrds for water quality. (bb) Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flood- ing and upslope from any source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be f lood proofed in accord- ance with accepted engineering standards. (2) Sewage and Waste Disposal . • Any premises used for human occupancy�shall be provided with an adequate method of sewage disposal to be maintained in accordance �th acceptable practices. . (aa) Public or municipal collection and treatment facilities shall be used where available or feasible. (bb) All private sewage and o�her sanitary waste disposal systems . shall conform to applicable standards, criteria, rules, and regulations of the Minnesota Department Qf Health and the Pollution Control Agency and any applicable local government regulations in terms of size,. construction, use and maintenance. . . (cc) Location and installation of a sgptic tank and soil absorp- : tion system shall be such that, with reasonable raaintenance, it will function in a sanitary manner and will not create a nuisance, endanger the quality of any domestic water supply, nor pollute or contaminate any waters of the state. In determining a suitable location for the nystem, consideration shall be given to the size and shape of the lot, slope of natural and finished grade, soil permeability, high ground water elevation, geology, proximity to existing or future water . �-1?- supplies, accessibility for maintenance, and possible expansion of the system. , (dd) Septic tank and soil absorption systems shall be setback �the following minimum distances from the ordinary high water mark in accordance with land use district designation. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv ) C� ) Conservancy Districts: 150 feet. Low Density Residential Districts: 150 feet. ftesidential Districts: 75 feet. Residential-�Commercial Districts: 50 feet. General Use Districts: 50 feei. � (ee) Soil absorption systems shall not be allowed in the follow- ing areas for disposal of domestic sewage: �• (i) Low, Swampy areas or areas subject to recurrent � f looding. � (ii) Areas wh�re the highest know ground water table, bed- rock or impervious soil conditions are with3n four feet of the bottom of the system. � (iii) Areas of ground slnpe which .create a danger of seepage of the effluent onto the surface of the ground. . (ff) Municipal shoreland ordinances may require or allow alternative methods of sewage disposal, such as holding tanks, p�ivies, electric or gas incinerators, biological and/or tertiary waste treatment plants or la�d d�sposal systems, provided such facilities meet the standards, criteria , rules, and regulations of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health. (gg) Public sewage disposal and commercial, agricultural, so2id waste, and industrial waste disposal, shall be subject to the standards, criteria, rules, and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control � � agency: -18- 0 (e) SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS (1) Land Suitability 0 �"1 land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the municipality for the proposed use because of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe � erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harm- ful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. (2) Inconsistent Plats Reviewed by Commissioner All plats which are inconsistent with the arunicipal shoreland ordina*�ce shall be reviewed by the Commissioner before approval by the munici- pality may be granted. Such review sfiall require that the proposed plats be received by the Commissioner at least ten (1Q) days before a hearing is called by the municipality for consideration of approval ^ . �.. a f inal plat . (3) Copies of Plats Supplied to Commissioner Copies of all plats within shoreland areas shall be submitted to the Commissioner within ten (10) days of final approval by the munici- . pality. . (4) Planned Unit Development , Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to the municipal shoreland ordinance f or planned unit developments provided. (aa) Preiiminary plans shall be approved by the Commissioner prior to their approval by the municipality. . (bb) Central sewage facilities shall be installed which at least meet the applicable standards, criteria, rules, or regulations � the Minnesota Department of Health and the Pollution Control Agency or the Planned Unit Development is connected to a municipal sanitary sewer. -1.9- � 4� (cc) Open space is preserved. This may be accomplished-through the use of restrictive deed covenants, public dedications, or other ''lmethods . (dd) That the following factors are carefully evaluated ta ensure • that the increased density of development is consistent with the re- source limitations of the public water: (i) Suitability of the site for the proposed use. (ii) Physical and aesthetic impac� of increased density. (iii) Level of current development. (iv) Amount and ownership of undeveloped shoreland. , (v) Levels and types of water surface use and public access. (vi) Possible effects on over-all public use. � (ee) Any commercial, recreatianal, commitnity, or religious facility allowed as part of the planned unit development shall conform to all �applicable federal and state regulations including, but not limited � to the follawing: (i) Licensing provisions or procedures. (ii) Waste disposal regulations. . (iii) Water supply regulations. , (iv) Building codes. � (v) Safety regulations. (vi) ftegulations concerning the appropriation.and use of . Public Waters as defin�d in Ma�nnesota Statutes, 1974 Chapi;er 105. , (vii) Applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental � Quality Council. � (ff) The final plan for a planned unit development shall not be �'�lmodified, amended, repealed, or otherwise altered unless approved in - -20- writing by the developer, the municipality,•and the Commissioner. (gg) There are centralized shareline recreation facilities-such as beaches, docks and boat launching facilities. /"`5R, 84 General Administration . (a) ADMINISTRATION AND ENFOKCEMENT •Municipalities shaZl provide for the administration and enforcement of the Municipal Shoreland Ordinance adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 462.362. (1) Permit System: In order to facilitate orderly and efficient administration and enforcement of municipal shoreland ordinances, municipalities shall establish permit procedures for building con- struction, installation of sewer and water facilities, and grading and filling in shoreland areas. • � (2) Variances: Variances shall o�ly be granted when there are particular hardships which make strict enforcement of official can- trol impractical. They shall nat circum��ent the general purposes r . .and intent of the official controls. No variance may be granied that would allow any use that is prohibited in.the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to p�oteci . adjacent prvperties and the public interest. (3) Nonconforming Uses: Under authority of Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 462, municipalities may adopt provisions to �egulate, control and reduce the number or extent of and gradually eliminate nonconforming and substandard uses. Municipalities shall provide for the elim�nation of sanitary facilities inconsistent with NR 83 (d) (2) (bb), {2) (cc), and (2) (ee) over a period of time not to exceed five (5} years from the date of enactment of the municipal ordinance. � -21- 0 �� ,"�"� _. i� (b) JOINT EXERCISE OF P�WERS _ In order to facilitate more logical, consistent, and efficieni admin- /,istration of municipal shoreland management ordinanc�s, municipalities are encouraged, wherever feasible and practicable, ta enter into joint . powers agreements with adjacent or otherwise similarly situated local units of government for the purpose of jointly administering and en- forcing shoreland management ordinances pursuant to the procedures and authority of Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 394.32 and 47I.S9. (c) NOTIFICATION PftOCEDURES (I) Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendmen�s, or conditional uses under the municipal sh�re- land management ordinance shall be received by the Commissioner at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings. (2) A copy of amendments and final deeisions granting variances or conditional uses under the municipal shoreland management ordinance �shall be received by the Commissioner within ten (10) days of final action or amendment. . �� n -22- � R