The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 04/07/1976 - 6582�� ti� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY . AGENDA APRIL 7, 1976 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 17, 1976 RECEIYE HUMAN RESOURCES COhi.MISSION MIMUTES: March 11, 1976 RECEIVE PARKS & RECP.EATION COYMISSiCN MINUTES: P1ARCil 22, 1976 RECEIV€ ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 23, 1976 RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAfF REPORTS 1. Burlington Northern, 4055 East River Road Freight Car Inspectors Lunch & Locker Room 2. Burlington Northern, 4055 East River Road Railway Maintenance of way employees 7. 2. t�' 3. Medtronic Inc., 6975 Central Avenue N.E. Production & Storage Addition 4. Lambert Peterson, Inc. 7697 Central Avenue N.E. Office buiiding 5. Maple Lanes Bowling Alley, 6310 Highway #65, Don Savelkoul: Inside improvement and outside development plan A PJBLIC HEA 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 38 39 - 42 43 - 49 50 - 56 at meeting TION OF 57 - 75 •�• •�°•�• �. �� «�RN�auw: �eing a repiat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North Addition, a7ong with Lot 49, except ihe tdest- erly 210', Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generally located North of North Inns�ruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apartment. Public Hearing closed. 76 � Planning Commission Agenda April 7, 1976 Page 2 3. CONTINUED: PUBLIC NEARING: CQNSIQERATI�N -0F A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. N76-03, LEIGH TERRACE, BY LEIGH IN�ESTEMENTS, INC.: Being a replat of Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77 (excepting parceT 5640), generally located on the West side of the inter- section of Osborne Road and East River Road.(This is the same as the property which had final approval as the Dorstad Plat, but it was never recorded). PAGES 77 - 4� 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #76-01, JOHN W. HALUPTZOY.: 9l - 95 Rezone from C-1S local shupping areas t� t�i-i light industrial areas) Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, to make zoning consistent with adjoining property, generally located just West of 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. 5. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #76-02, !3Y DONALD f. SEXTER: Split 96 - 98 Lot 3, Block 1, Froid's Addition i�to two building sites, each at least 10,000 square feet, for the construction of double � bungalow's. (Property zoned R-3), generally located on the corner of East River Road N.E. and Ironton Street N.E. .� 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY STATEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 99 - 109 See Human Resource Commission minutes and Quality Commission minutes in this agenda recommendations. : �� f ' .� � �� /,� /,J��u 0 U" n . .�" Environmental: for their � K� � Gry� � �� Nr- � �� _�... __. f.,_��_ _ _ _.._ _ .._ .� � i� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 17, 1976 CALL TO ORDER: PAGE 1 Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Peterson Members Absent: Wahlberg, Lagenfeld Others Present: Patricia Gabel, Vice Chairman of Appeals Commission LeeAnn Sporre, Member of Environmental Quality Commission Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROV� PLANhING COi�7P•SISSION MINUTEJ: P4ARCI� 3, 1976 Mr. Bergman said the sixth stipulation on page 14 of these minutes read "Review if there was a need to only allow off street parking". He said that this should read " Review on-street parking relative to street widths". MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the hlarch 3, I97G meeting as corrected. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried onanimously. RECEIVE COMPIUNITY DEVELOPTIENT COPYMISSION MINUT�S: MARCH 9, 1976 Chairman Harris pointed out that these minutes contained this Commission's recommendation on 40' lots, which �ould be put on the agenda of the Planning Commission as soon as they got the recommendation of the Environmental Quality Commission. MOTION by Bergman, seconded b� Scott, thaL the Planning Commisszon receive the Community Developm.ent Co:rrmission minates of the meeting of March 9, 1976. Mr. Bergman said he caould like to point out some of the highlights of these minutes. He said they had establ.ished 5 points of concern in regard to a teen center in Fridley. These were spa.ce, time, cost, accessibility, and validity of stirvey. He sai.d there was a motion made to communica�e with the Fiuman l2esources Commission to see if they could obtain a timetable on this request by the Youth Project Committee, and table any actiori by tlie Community Development Commis- sion until this was determined. Mr. Scott said the Youth Committee Project Committee function was to advise the Human Resources Commission, the Planning Commission and , the City Council on youth activitics. They themselves do not view themselves as an action-type Conunittee to run a youth center. They just want to be the means wherc matt-ers relating to youths are brought to the attention of the.City. They arc not sure that tliere was a need for the teen center. They nre conducting a youth rally on Thursday, March 18, 1976 in the Civic Cente'r to detcrmirte if the young people in this Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 2 community want a teen center and if they would support it. They have gone out and got some professional assistance to prese�t to � the people who attend this rally', both adults"and"young people, different proposals from different teen centers around the Metropoli- tan Area. This way the young people who attend this rally, if they want a teen center can decide which way they want to go. He said that he would expect the Fridley Youth Project Committee to ultimately make a recommendation to the City on this proposal, and whether it was feasible or not, rather than they themselves run ning a teen center. Mr. Scott said the young people would be running this youth rally, and they will permit adults to attend to listen to what they have to say. However, they have asked that the adults don't say anything unless they know what they are talking about, and they feel that that way, they wouldn't have too much adult participa- tion. They £eel that this proposal for a teen center was somethinq new, and they would like to get as many people involved as possible. Mr. Scott said he thought it would be a good thing for adults to attend juet to see how the young people conduct themselves. Mr. Bergman said they also passed a motion recommending to the Planning Commission that the ordinance be revised to require a public hearing before a business license can be issued in a resi= dential zoned area. He said the Community Development Commission was open to direction on this matter, and would like the Planning Commission's comments on how they think this should be handled. Mr. Bergman said this motion grew out of a home occupation license being granted with some conflict and concerns by the neighbors, � and particulariy the surprise to this neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said he felt fhere was some misunderstanding by the Community Development Commission. He said there was no license requirement: for a home oc.cupation• He said that none of the businesses in Fridley were licensed. Some of them were licensed by the State, and we do have some licences by activity, such as food, vending or liquor licenses, etc. He said that any activity that met the provisions for a home occupation did not have any review process by the City. He said that if someone wanted to have a beauty shop, for instance, in their home, they can do this without City review, although this requires a State license. They just have to meet the requirements of a home occupation. He said that many people check with the City administration to see if what they want to do in their home meets the home occupation requirements in the Code, but if they know these requirements, there was no reason for the City to become involved under the present ordinance. Mr. Bergman asked then why the man in question did come to City Hall. Mr. Boardman said he just wanted to check on the home occupation requirements, and if his business met these requirements. Mr. Board- man said he thought the proposed business was blown all out of proportion. He said that �ecause Columbia Heights does license business, and had denied him a license, and it was publicized in the Sun, everyone qot upset. He said this man had a full time job, and had a small clientele. Mr. Berqman said the City ordinance on home occupations did not require that he contact the administration� at all then. Mr. Boardman said this was correct. Mr. Harris said that maybe that particular business should be licensed, and maybe the Community Development Commission should look at that possibility. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Boardman said that if it pleased the Planning Commission he � would prefer to have this yo a5 one item under the Maintenance Code. We will be talking about business licenses in that section. He said a determination could be made at that time, rather than handling them as two separate items. Mr. Scott said he had some reservations about a business license for a home occupation because he thought they were treading on pretty thin ground when they start telling people what they could and could not do in their own home. He said a fellow in his neighborhood had a photography shop and he said some people could take offense of that. He said he thou§ht this should be handled in the review process when they dicussed business licenses. UPON a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 9, 1976 MOTION by GabeZ, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of the March 9, 1976 meeting. Mrs. Gabe1 said that on the variance request by Mr. Rotter to reduce the front yard setback £rom 35' to 25' to allow construction of a house at 8100 Ruth Street she would like to go over some of the points that helped us arrive at our decision to approve this variance. She said that Mr. Rotter was present at this meeting. � First, the terrain drops of€ considerably in the back of the lot, and for him to meet the 35' setback would be economically unfeasible. Second, he would run into the water table if he met the normal setback requirement, because some o£ the neighbors did comment that sometimes their back yards were flooded, and this could happen on this lot also. Mrs. Gabel said that Mr. Rotter also agreed to put up some type of shoring along the creek to prevent further erosion. She said one of the other neighbors has already done this, and Mr. Rotter said he would be willinq to work with this neighbor. Mr. Rotter has also agreed to try to save trees on this wooded lot. Mrs. Gabel said the Appeals Commission felt that the hardships involved on building on this lot were obvious enough to warrant a variance being granted. Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission had received a new administrative report on this request and a letter from a neighbor. He would like a motion to receive these, and then he would zead them to the audience. MOTION by Gabe1, seconded by Scott, to receive the admznistrative staff report and the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch of 8101 Fairmont Circle. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 8100 Ruth Street N.E. � This report was prepared in response to a request by the Appeals Commission in their March 9th, 1976 meeting consideration of a variance to the 35 foot front yard setback requirement at 8100 Ruth Street N.E. The staff was asked to determine if any governmental __ _ Pl.anning Commission Meeting.- March 17, 1976 Page 4 bodies or departiments have imposed any rest�ictions on the proximity of house footinqs to Sprinq Brook Creek in the area � in question. This report is to be presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17th, 1976 meeting in conjunction with their consideration of the March 9th Appeals Commission minutes. REPORT It was first determined that neither "Rice Creek Watershed District" or "Coon Creek Watershed District" were involved. (The area in question lies between their respective jurisdictions.) Spring Brook Creek can best be described as a"Public Waterway" in as much as it drains the North Park area which is designated as such. The Pollution Control Agency of Minnesota has no jurisdiction a_n this area on such questions as house setbacks from the Creek. The State Department of Natural Resources has no jurisdiction on work near a"Public Waterway", but they would require permits before any work could take place directly on the Creek banks or in the Creek itself. The City's Flood Plain Ordinance jurisdiction does involve Spring Brook Creek, but only from the Mississippi River to East River Road. (The area in question is upstream from East River Road.) Fina2ly, the City of Fridley's Public Waterways section of the City Code addressesitself only to work on the immediate banks of Spriny Brook Creek or in the river bed itself. � On the basis of the above information, it appears at present that there are np restrictions on the proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek in the 8100 block on Ruth Street. However, any work on this property on the banks of the Creek or in the Creek itself should be first cleared through the City of Fridley Engineer, and also through the Department of Natural Resources. Prepared March 15, 1976 by Ronald E. Holden Building Inspection Officer The following is the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch: City of Fridley: To whom it may concern: "In regards to the March 9th meeting at which time Mr. Dave Rotter requested the variance on Lot 4 changed from 35 feet to 20 feet from the cities 9 foot boulevard. At that meeting Mr. Rotter stated that he would build "reqardless" if he qot the variance changed or not. But, is the lot actually "buildable" at the 35' variance considering the size ot house he has iti mind to build, which would be very close to the creek bed, and also might cause a problem with the water table if the variance is not changed. As it wasdiscussHdat the meeting, Mr. Rotter knew when he purchased "Spring Brook Addition", that Lot 4 would be difficult to build. � A large house on Lot 4 may spoil the natural appearance of the lot and area, and maybechange the flow of the creek. Is Mr. Rotter really interested in using Lot 4.for its best qualities, Planninq Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 5 of a natural creek area or is his only interest building a particular style house. Mr. Rotter also stated that the house , that he has plans to build would increase the value of the properties around it. Maybe a different plan house that would compliment the natural surroundinqs of the lot and creek would be just as profitable to all concerned. If a house is to be built on Lot 4, the 20 foot variance would probably be best in order to maintain the natural sorroundings of the lot and protect the creek area. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch, 8101 Fairmont Circle - Lot 7 owners." Mr. Boardman gave Chairman Harris another letter that had just been received. MOTION by Gab1e, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Zetter from Mr. & Mrs. Charles L. XlinefeZter, 8145 Ruth Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, a1S voting aye, the motzon carried unanimously. . Chairman Harris read the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Klinefelter. " In reviewing the minutes from the Appeals meeting, March 9th, we feel there have been a few points missed. (1) If Mr. Rotter is asking £or this variance to build a bigger and better home than the minimum code requires, he has the right to receive that variance. (2) We feel that if the lot is kept at the 35 ft. set- � back, whoever owns that property is limited to what he or she could build on it. This means there is a possibility of buildinq a locv value home, to meet these codes, which could and would lower the value of the homes around it. A higher value home will not only add tax dollars to our City, but increase the value of the surrounding homes. (3) If the real reason for opposition of this variance is because someone doesn't want any home built on that lot, for whatever reason he or she may have, we suggest that person should try to buy that property from Mr. Rotter. This would not tie up someone else's money for another's personal reasons. (4) It was noted that some of the people felt there could be an aesthetic problem with a new home on that lot. We believe we already have that problem there, with weeds, trash, beer cans, etc. We hope this (City) Council sees fit to reduce the setback, or whatever it takes, to allow this man to build. We believe he has the right to build the home he wants, as long as it stays as close to codes as possible under these unusual circumstances. Thank You." Signed by Chuck & Bonnie Klinefelter. Mr. Robert Venn� 8118 Ruth Street N.E., said his home was next door to the lot in question. He said he felt it would be best to allow the petitioner to obtain a variance to construct this house somewhere ahead of the required 35' setback. He said that he knew the drop off from the back yard was extreme. He said that in order to see to it that the neighborhood was maintained in a decent manner in terms of the kind of structure that could be � built on this lot, he thouqht the structure should match the neighborhood as best it can. He said he would rather see the building farther forward and a nice structure, than to see something with very minimum standards. As far as the placement of this house obstructing the view, he said from his house in any Planning Commission Meetinq - March 17, 1876 Page 6 ia any direction, if they examined the curvature of the street, and notice the setback on the extreme ends of it, they all stand • further forward than what was requested with this variance, so this wasn't a big problem either. He really felt that the petitioner deserves to develop this lot in this manner: Mrs. John Walton, 8066 Ruth Street, said that their house was on the other side of the lot in question. She said that at the Appeals Meeting a lot of time was spent on the type of house that Mr. Rotter wanted to constuct on this lot. She said this lot was a peculiar shape and it had peculiar problems. She said that the Appeals Commission discussed whether they had the right to tell a property owner how to develop this property. She said that the Commission was divided on this issue. She said she £elt this was a big house that would crowd the two houses on either side of tfiis property. She thought the proposed house would look like a big apartment building with residences on each side. She sai� `.ha± Ruth Street curved right in front of this lot, and the Creek bed took a lot from the back of the 1ot, so it left a small space that would be buildable. She said that the construction of this large house would destroy the look and feel of the area. Mrs. Walton said she had asked at the Appeals Commission why there was an ordinance which stated that the front yard setback had to be 35'. She said that she was told that it was for parking and aesthetic purposes.` She said that Mr. Rotter was claiming that by developing this lot, it would improve the neighborhood, and on the other hand he was saying that aesthetic considerations � should not be considered by the Commission. She said she had no objection to Mr. Rotter building on this lot, but'she felt that a variance af that degree would be obnoxious, aesthetically. She said that Mr. Rotter bought up a lot of property at one time in this area, and he knew the problems he was buying with this lot. He knew that a house couldn't be built on this lot without a variance. She said that at this point in time she felt that Mr. Rotter was building this la�ge house for self profit and self gain to �he detriment of every neighbor in this block and she protested. Mrs. Gerald Carney, 8125 Ruth Street, said that they lived directly across the street from the lot in question. She said she was told at the Appeals Commission that her feelings didn't count because she objected to this request for personal reasons. We have a smaller rambler type house, and the houses on this side of the street were smaller than the houses across the street. She felt that the type of home that Mr. Rotter wanted to build on this lot would lower the value of our homes because they were not as�p�etentious as the othez homes in the area, Mr. Harris told Mrs. Carney that her opinion counted: Mrs. Gable said she was sorry that Mrs. Carney yot the opinion that her feelings didn't count because the Appeals Commission did spend an hour and a hal£ cominq to their decision. She said that in regard to this house, it was being built on a 100' lot, and the only variance they had asked for was the front setback, otherwise it did meet all the � other setback requirements of the code. The Appeals Commission didn't feel this house was too large for the size of the lot. _ _ _�.. ., Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 7 ' Chairman Harris said that he had been over and looked at the • lot and he wondered if there was a site plan for this lot. Mr. Boardman presented a drawing made by Mr. Rotter, showing the elevations on the lot and the terrain next to the creek bank. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Rotter how he would shore up the back of this lot. Mr. Rotter said that he would use railroad ties, and it would be a system of terraces done with railroad ties. He said it would be the same system that was used on the adjoining lot. He said the house was so designed that the end.of the garage would be closest to the high water table. Mr. Iiarris asked the lot size. Mr. Boardman said it was 100' by 100'. On lookinq at the site plan, Mr. Harris said that th�s proposed house would meet all the other setback requirements except the front setback. Mr. Rotter said this would be a split entry home. Mrs. Sporre asked if by approvinq this variance so that a building permit could be issued if the City would be liable if there was flood or water damage to this home from the Creek? Chairman Harris said no. Mrs. Sporre said there was a growing danger of flooding because there was 2300 acres in that watershed. Mr. Aarris said that from the tog of the bank to the normal water level of the Creek was 19'. Mr. S�ott asked Mr. Rotter if he ha.d built other homes in this � area? Mr. Rotter sai3 he had. b�. Scott asked the price ranqe of the homes he ha3 uuilt. P�r. Rotter said from $45,G00 to $85,000. Mr. Scott asked if the house he proposed to build would be in that price range? Mr. Rotter said it was comparable to the other houses he had built in the area, somewhere in excess of $50,000. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Rotter if the proposed home would be salabl�- Mr. Rotter said it would be. . Mr. Harris asked if this would be a walk-out. Mr. Rotter said it had to be. Mr. Harris asked if he had thought about any other type of design for this house. D�. Rotter said this design required the least amount of variance. He said he had asked for a 15' variance, but he wanted to use the least amount of variance as possible. Ae said he would try to set the house as £ar back as possible to try and maintain the look of the neighborhood and he would also like to save as many trees as possible. MdTION by.Gabel,seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that they concur with the Appeals Commission in the appioval of a front yard variance on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Sprinq Brook Addition, the same being 8100 Ruth Street, Mr. Bergman said he read in the Appeals Commission minutes that if this house was built at the normal 35' setback that it would involve great expense. He asked Mr. Rotter if he could explain what this meant. Mr. Rottter said this house would cost between $55,000 to $65,000 depending upon the amount of work he would have to do in the back yard. He said that if he met the setback require- ment�he would have to remove six large oak trees, and it would cost $200 a stump to have these removed. He said there wouldn't __ _ Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 8 be any back yard then, and he would have to 9uild a series of decks so that his children would have someplace to play. Mr. Bergman asked if he had built the homes on Lot 3 and Bot 5. Mr. Rotter said he built the home on Lot 3 but not Lot 5. He' said they had to brinq some material in for Lot 3 to bring up the rear yard. Mr. John Walton, the owner of Lot 5, said they hadn`t h�.d any problem with their lot. Mr. Rotter said that Lot 3 looked a lot like lot 4 does now, but it had been shored up with railroad ties and terraced, and he would continue this same shoring on Lot 4. Mr. Bergman said he was trying to determine the feelings of the neighbors. Mrs. Gabel said it seemed like the neighbors were pretty evenly divided as far as being for or against the variance. Mrs. Gabel said that Mr. Rottez had agreed to two stipulations which were to build a retaining wall and to set the house as far back as possible. Chairman Harris said his concern was the bank preservation. He said that if this variance was granted, he thought the starf should pay particular attention to the bank preservation at the time the building permit was issued and durinq the construction. • UPON a voice vote, aZ2 voting aye, the motion carried unani-mously. . Mr. Harris said he had a question on an item that the App�als Commission did not handle and that was on the blanket variance on the townhouses in Innsbruck Village. Why was that not handled? Mr. Boardman said it was the decision of the City Attorney that under the townhouse ordinance there were no setback require- ments. The townhouses were approved strictly through the town- house plan. Chairman Harris said he thought the attorney had better read the ordinance. It doesn't say that any place in the townhouse ordinance. He said the front yard setback was 35' in R-3 zoning and the townhouse ordinance was never meant to preclude the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman said it was the City Attorney's interpretation that the setbacks on a townho.use plan were approved with the plan. Mr. Harris asked if these variances were on a private road or a public street. Mr. Boardman said they were from a public street. Mr. Harris said then they should meet the setback requirements of a public street in his opinion. He said they could discuss this at the time they considered the townhouse plan for Innsbruck Village. Upon a voice vote on receiving of the Appeals Commission�tAaseting� Scott, Bergman, voting�age,'Peterson,�Gabel abst�i�ning, tfarris, nay Chairman•Harris counting the t:wo abstentions as 1 vote for appzoval, he declared the motion carried. Mrs. Gabel said she felt this variance should have been acted Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 9 upon by the Appeals Commission. Chairman Harris said he voted . the way he did because the handling of the variance for these townhouses hadn't been answered tio his satisfaction. 1.�CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #76-02, BY PLYWOOD MINNESOTA, INC.: To allow the construction of a 10' x 30 billboard in M-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), to designate the entrance to Plywood Minnesota and Wickes, to replace an existing non-conforminq sign, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, located on Lot 9, Block 1, Great Northern Industrial Center, the same being 5301 East River Road N.E. Public Hearinq open. Mr. Charles Seeger, Wickes Furniture, and Mr. Eugene Hunt, Plywood Minnesota, were present. Mr. Seeger said they were back �here they started. He said he had talked to Tom Colbert, the Assistant City Engineer, and to Paul Ruud of Anoka Covnty, and they would like to have the intersection at 51st Avenue after the Industrial Park was developed. He said this developr��ent could be in 5 years, 10 years, or 27 years, who knows? He said tiiat what he was asking £or was for someone to make a motion to allow us to do what we wanted to do in the first . place, which was to take the present billboard and bring it up to the City Code. Fs he ha.d said before, they would foot the bill for any other business that came into the area if they wanted their name added to this sign. He said tnat any time they were requested to take this sign down or to move the sign due to development or a change in the road, they would be very willinq to do this. Iie said that in the mean time, they just wanted to help people to get to these two business establishments, and first and foremost he wanted thern to get there without taking their lives in their hands. i Chairman Harris said you couldn't get any help from the County at all then. Mr. Seeger said the help would be about 10 years down the road. He said they didn`t want to jeopardize the public or two multi-million dollar businesses until the County got around to the problem. Mr. Peterson said that he caas in complete sympathy with this problem. He said the only problem as he saw it was that if this special use permit was approved for the sign, he didn't know if this would take care of a lousy traf£ic situation. Mr. Seeger said he didn't dispute that this was not the solution to the traffic problem, but this was an interim solution until the City came up with a solution. He said that even if the City could solve this problem in 90 days, t11ey would be�willing to take this sign down then. Mr. Harris said he wouldn't hold his breath until the City and County came ug with a solution, because so far we had got nothin9. He said this.problem was started at the time this industrial park was platted. He said this was zoned M-2 and at P�anninq Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 1� the time it was platted it was never intended that we put 5,000 cars a week into an industrial type operation. What we have is • two commercial enterprises in an industrial area. Mr. Harris said it had been his hope that we could have put some pressure on the County to solve this problem. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by GabeZ, that the Planning Com- mission close the Public Hearing on the reqvest for a Special Use Permit, SP N76-02, by Plywood Minnesota, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting age, Chairman Narris declared the Public Nearing closed at 9:03 P.M. � MOTION by Peterson; seconded by Gabe2, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approvaZ of the reguest for a Special Use Permit, SP �76-02, by Plywood Minnesota, Inc., to a12ow the construction of a 10' x 30' billboard in M-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), to designate the entrance to P2ywood Minnesota and Wickes, per Fridley City Code, Section 2I4.042, located on Lot 9, Block 1, Great Northern Industrial Center, the same being 5301 East River Road N.E. with the stipulations that a directional arrow be added to the biZlboard and that new businesses be incZuded on this sign, the cost of which being borne by Plywood and WiGkes. Mr. Scott said he was speaking against the motion because essentially what this was, was a traffic problem.and building • billboards solves no traffic problem. He said this was a plain and simple billboard that was in violation of the City Code. He said that if you want another non-conforming billboard in the City vote yes to this motion. If you want a traffic sign in this area, vote no to the motion. Mr. Bergman said that he £elt the Planning Commission was being asked to bear a greater burden than was applicable, xe said he somewhat concurred with Mr. Scott's statements. He thought the County was being wishy-washy in their responsiblity. He said he sympathized with Plywood Minnesota and ti�ickes who want to in the best fashion identify their business, �ut he said he was not sure that this was a City concern, but was a business concern. He said the request for this billboard was in conflict with the City ordinance in two of the eight criteria. He said that for lack of a better solution, the Planning Commission was being asked to recommend approval of a quick and dirty treatment, and he felt sensitive to giving approval to a nor.-conforming billboard. Mr. Peterson said he would speak in favor of the motion although he did not necessarily disagree with Mr. Scott or Mr. Bergman, but he did think the City had obligations towards its citizens who are tax paying members and who are in this situation that the City allowed when it granted building permits for this area. If the granting of a non-conforming billboard under the stipulation that if something was �one to improve the traffic problem that the � petitioners would be happy to tear it down, he felt that from that standpoint we did have an obligation to give a good City for our businesses to operate in. Maybe we were being asked to solve problems that we shouldn't, but on the other hand these businesses Planninq Commission Meeting - March T7, 1976 Page 11 were there, and we as a City have granted the building permits � and the development plan that has caused the problem, so in that respect, the City does have an obligation. Mrs. Sporre said the Environmental Quality Commission has formed an East River Road Project Committee because they under- stand that there are very many problems involved. We are concerned about the aesthetic beauty of East River Road and the problem that Mr. Peterson was addressing. She said they were also concerned about the safety of East River Road, and that was of paramount concern. Traffic pYOblems would be something that the Committee would be addressing, but she understood this was a necessary stop-gap, and therefore she would recommend that the Planning Commission approve this request because this was something that had to be dealt with because people's lives were at stake. She hoped that the Committee could come up with a better solution in the future. Mrs. Gable said that she agreed with Mrs. Sporre. She said that she personally did not like to see another billboard go up, and a billboard will not solve the big traffic problem. It does seem that a directional sign would aid people in getting to these businesses. She said that both these businesses pay taxes to the City of Fridley, and they have the right to direct people into ther.e business, so she was in favor of the motion. �. Upon a voice vote, Scott and Bergman voting nay, Harris, Pe.terson and Gabe1 votinq aye, the motion carried. Mr. Seeger said he would continue to work with the City and the County for a better solution, but he thought the Planning Commission had made a wise decision for the present. At least it will keep the patient alive until the doctor gets there. 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMIN�RY PLAT, P.S. �76-01, I�NSBF.UCK NORTH TOi:'NHOUSP IV AND V ADDITIONS, BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPME[dT COP.PORATION: Being a replat of Outlot H, Innsbruck North Addition, 9enerally located South of Innsbruck North Townhouses, Phase I, II, ana III. Public Hearing Closed. 3. CONTINUED: CONSIDERA'I UNITS, T- #76-01, BY C FOR IAINSBRUCK NORTH TC OF A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPP7EDIT OF 100 L A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, USE IV ISND V ADDITIONS. Mr. Darrel Farr and Jim London, along with an attorney, James Druck, were present. MOTZON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public.Nearing on a preliminary p1at, P.S. � ;V76-01, InnsbrucA North Townhouse ZV and V Additions. Upon a voice vote, a22 voting aye, Chairman tlarris declared the Public Hearing reopened at 9:25 P.M. ��.� Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page I2 Chairman Harris said there were several concerns that were mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting; and questions � were asked of the Darrel Farr Development Corporation and of'the City staff. He said that there was a memorandum from Darrel Farr and the City's answer to that memorandum, plus the answers to questions asked of the City staff that were given to the Planning Commission just prior to this meeting. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Com- mission receive the Darrel Farr Memorandum, plus the memo to Dick Sobiech from Jerrold Boardman dated March I6, 1976. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion carried onanimousZy. Chairman Harris said the £irst concern was that the streets did not meet the City specifications. The Darrel Farr memorandum states on streets: 1. The City of Fridley is the grantee under the road easement from the Fridley line across New Brighton to the Silver Lake Road. (Pa�agruph 3, Page 2, Development Agreement dated February 1, 1971) a. The taxes being paid on the townhouses presently in place in the Black Forest is in the area of $200,000 exclusive of sinqle-family houses. b. It seems reasonable that Fridley should maintain and plow North Innsbruck Drive until such time as the Permanentroad is constructed. 2. The road from the Fridley line to Silver Lake Road was built according to City specifications and with the City's approval. (Paraqraph 4, Page 3, of the Development Agreement.) Cnairman Harris said that the City sta£f's reply to these two � items was the following: l. & 2. The City should not, at this time, take over the maintenance af the road easement from the City line to Silver Lake Road. This road is the primary entrance and exit for all construction vehicles and should be the responsi- bility of the developer so long as development is still occurring. Agreements for this maintenance should be drawn up as a stipula- tion for plat approval. At that time when construction is com- plete, and if New Brighton has not firmed up road development in this area, the City could consider take over of the maintenance of this road if the developer would insure that the road is brouqht up to City standards. Mr. James Druck gave the Planning Commission a copy of the Development Agreement. - Chairman Harris said that item 3 under streets in the Darrel Farr memo states: 3. The Development Agreement sets out on Paragraph 5, Page 3, that all streets and utilities in the town- house area shall be approved by the City of Fridley. Mr. Board- man's answer to that was "The streets and ultities in the Townhouse Association property have been constructed to spedifications ap- proved by the City. There should be no additional burden to the Association for repair or maintenance over that of a normal resi- dential street. Although the width of the private streets are not necessarily the same as a residential street for public use, � they were approved by the City." Number 4 in the Darrel Farr memo states: 4. As regards street repair for construction traffic . Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 13 in Addition 4 and 5, the following: a. West Bavarian Pass was designed with future construction traffic in mind and as such • is a nine ton road consisting of a 4 1/2" asphalt and a 1 1/2" wear course. b. Although we will be using both West Bavarian Pass and Meister Road for construction traffic, we will, to the best of our ability, restrict heavy vehicles to West Bavarian Pass. c. We will escrow $1�,000 at the start of construction with the Homeowner's Association to apply to resurfacing or repair o£ existing streets. This will be treated as a prepay- ment of fees required of the developer at the rate of $10.75 per month per lot. d. $10,000 should pay for a 2" overlay on Meister Road and West Bavarian Pass. e. We will block East Bavarian Pass from the end of the Vienna Townhomes to the Fifth Addition during construction. f. We will patch the asphalt during the construction period and will sweep the streets because oP construction mud as needed. This will be done at the developer's expense. 5. The off-street parking in the Fourth and Fifth Addition has been requested by the City and is shown on the plan. Mr. Boardman's memo in his answer said in regard to number 4. We feel the memorandum covers the Association's concern on street repair due to construction traffic, and number 5. Off-street parking is acceptable as shown on the plan. • � Mr. Farr said that in regard to his memo, they had met with the Board of Directors of the North Townhouse Association last Friday night (March 12, 1976�, and we discussed all_the street pzoblems in regard to the interior streets in the �ssociation. We did come to verbal agreement with them, and our legal counsel was drafting an agreement that would be signed and executed prior to the City Council meeting o£ April 12th. Mr. Douglas Van Arkel, President of the Townhouse Association confirmed Mr. Farr's statement. Mr. Peterson asked if the negative statements that were made by people in the Townhouse Association had been answered by this memo. Mr. Van Arkel said the Association Was not as concerned as they had been about the interior streets, but they were still concerned about the extension of North Innsbruck Drive between the Fridley line and Silver Lake Road. S9e still wonder how this problem can be solved. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Farr how much work would be involved in bringing the North Innsbruck Drive extension up to City stanards. Mr. Farr said he didn't know, but it would cost more money than he would want to pay. He said that what the City memo was saying was that the City shouldn't take over the maintenance of this road at this time. He said there would have to be some new type of agree- ment drawn up if he, as the developer, was expected to maintain that extension road at the present time, because his obligation to maintain that road had expired on February 18, 1976. He said that as this road needed repair now, he felt he was under some obligation to repair the road at this time. Mr. Peterson said that as Mr. Farr was coming before the Planning Commission and the City Council for new development in this area, he would be very interested in • how the problem of this road beinq maintained was going to be handled before he had to vote on these proposals. -- � ,� Planning Commission Meeting -- March 17,' 1976 ' Page 14 Mr. Farr said that he thought a reasonable alternative, and he hadn't discussed it with the City staff, was for us=to maintain �e road until such time as we complete construction, which was a concession on our part, and for the City to plow this road in the winter, because he felt this had been the biggest single problem. The equipment that we have to plow the Black Forest was not large enough to do an effective job. The equipment that the Townhouse Association has was not large enough to do the job either. He said th.� City already plows North Innsbruck Drive, and for them to plow this additional 1300 feet between the City line and Silver Lake Road seemed a reasonable request, as this road was used by Fridley residents. He said that he was agreeable that they would maintain the road until such time as the construction was completed if the City would ploia the road in the winter time. Mr. Bergman said the pot holes in this street extension were getting deeper every day. Mrs. Gabel said she was completely con£used on who was supposed to be responsible for this road. Chairman Harris said that was the crux of the problem. This street seemed to be in limbo at the present time. Mr. Harris said the Planninq Commission had some,concerns about the parking for the recreational building. Mr. Farr's memo states: 1. At the time o� the planning and zoning, the City did not want to provide a lot of parking in the area of the recre- ational building to preclude the use of the recreation building for things unrelated to the Homeowners Association, i.e., antique sales, etc. 2. We have provided parking for appr_oximately 27 cars at present. 3. We can provide an additional 20 car parking on the east side of Meister Road and south of the recreation build- ing. a. Th�s parkinq, because of the topographical conditions, would require the partial Eilling of the low area east of P4eister Road and the destruction o£ a very large area of trees. We in- tend to leave this decision to the Aomeowner`s Association. Mr. Harris said the City staff was agreeable to these statements. Mr. London said they had dicussed this with the Townhouse Assn. also, and they'will make this decision by April lst. Mr. Van Arkel said that he felt this decision was up to the Townhouse Association and was between them and Mr.. Farr. He didn't think this was up to the City, and they wouldn't be involved in this decision. He said that many people in the Association were not in favor of the destruction of a great number of trees to provide more parking. Mr. Farr said they were prepared to put in an additional 20 parking stalls at the Homeowner's Assocation direction. •� i Mr. Iiarris said that to back up, he asked Mr. Boardman what was meant in his memo about the maintenance of the extension road between the New Brighton line and Siluer Lake Road. Mr. Boardman said that in the past, the City had a five year development agreement with Darrel Farr on the maintenance of this extension. He said the intent of that agreement would that the construction � would be entirely completed within these five years, and that by that time a decision would have been made by New Brighton for permanent road location. Tfiis wasn't the way it happened, but �+,_,t"i PYanning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 15 administration feels that as construction was still going on in � the area, it should still be the responsiblity of the developer to maintain this road, and any responsiblity the City might have would be after the construction was completed, if the road devel- opment plan hadn't been firmed up by New Brighton at that time. He said the developer would still be using this extension for entraiice and egress during the development of the property. He said that when the developer no longer owns property in this area, then he would then have no responsiblity in maintaining the road. Mr. Boardman said he didn't believe that this extension road had been constructed as a 9 ton road, and he didn't know if any inspec- tions had every been done on it. He said it was put in late in the £all, and by the next spring it was pretty well broken up. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Farr has stated that he would be willing to maintain this road during construction, if the City would plow the street, because this had been inadequately done because of the size of the equipment used in this development. He asked Mr. Boardman if he foresaw any problems with this pro- posal if the road caas maintained in such condition that it could be plowed. Mr. Boardman said tYiis �,�as a decision that would have to be discussed with the Public Works Director and the City Manager. Mr. Farr said this road was put in the day after Thanksgiving, and they knew it was going to break up, but they had to have some � way for the people to get in an out of the area in the winter time. He said it was resurfaced the following spring. Mr. Jim Lakaszewski, 1536 South Oberlin Circle, said that as far as he could understand, the Darrel Farr's agreement was at an end, and it'� he City of Fridley's turn to play the game with this extension. Mr. Boardman said that it was the intent o£ the agreement that it would be in effect until the construction was completed in this area. Mr. Peterson said that wasn't what the agreement said. He said that most of the City administration that were here in 1971 are still with the City. He said the agreement was signed that this would expire in five years, and now they want to change the rules of the game in the fourth quarter. Mr. Druck said that Mr. Farr did not have any quarrel about maintaining this road durinq construction, if in turn the City would agree to plow the street, because of the size of equipment. He said this would only be about 1/4 0£ a mile, and with all the streets that Fridley plows now, this wouldn't seem like too much of an additional burden. Mr. Harris asked if the Planning Commission wanted to go all through both memos before any additional comments were made. Mr. Peterson said he didn't think there was much problem with the rest of the memo. He said it seemed that the Homeowner's Assn. was satisfied with Mr. Farr's memo and the City staff was satisfied, iand there was agreement on everythinq except the extension road of North Innsbruck Drive. Mr. Bergman said the North Innsbruck.Drive was a fine street, Planning Commission Meeting - March 17 1976 Page 16 up to the Fridley boundary. At that point, it narrows appreciably to a 24' street which was curbless. He said this street merely � follows the natural terrain with hills and vales, including some slippery spots. He said he thought the bottom slope carried water across it, instead of being raised and having a culvert running under the road. He said there was quite an amount of pedestrian traffic with no place to walk except along the edge of this curbless street which was presently poorly plowed. He said that the statement in the staff inemo on this extension could mean that any actual improvement on this street could be ten years away. He said that with the increased density that will occur with the completion of this density will make this problem qet worse instead of better. He said he was concerned because we were discussing stop gap measures instead of addressing the real problem. ' Mr. Harris asked if it was the intent that at some time in the future to have this road connect to Palmer Drive? Mr. London said it was. He said the road would then start to curve right at the end of the improved North Innsbruck Drive, and then around the gravel pit where it would tie into Palmer Drive. _. -: Mr. Peterson asked if the easement had already been given for this proposed road. Mr. London said that at the time this road proposal was approved, they owned that property, but he didn't think there was an easement now. Mr. Boardman said that raad pattern would be worked out when the property was developed in New Brighton. Mr. Peterson said then the only property that was under the control of Fridley was the granted easement for the extension of North Innsbruck Drive to Silver Lake Road, so that's what they should be concerned with and not pie in the sky at some period in time that could be quite far into the future. Mr. Farr said that at the time these developments were planned in Fridley, they had also planned 1,000 units in New Brighton. The traffic study they had done, using the new street proposals did show that this area would not have any traffic problems with that street plan. He said that if he still owned the_property in New Brighton, he would hurry up and build this road. He did feel that if the extension road was really maintained, that people wouldn't be quite so upset with this road. � € Mrs. B. S, Ewers, said that she felt this 24' street was too narrow for two cars to pass now, and she didn't care what any traffic study said, she felt there had to be an answer to the traffic problem ±hat existed today. Mr. Stephen Tollison, 5538 Meister Road, said there was a question raised at the last meetinq about the people in the townhouses paying the same taxes as people who 7ive on public roads and have their streets maintained and plowed, as opposed to people who have private roads, and bear all these costs themselves. Mr.-Boardman said that taxation was based solely on valuation of property, and not on services provided. (Several people in the ' audience took exception to this statement and said it was contrary to what they had been told by the Asssessor). Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 17 _ � Mr. Harris then proceeded to read all the answers in the staff inemo which had been directed to them at the last meeting. 1. The street specification is answered under T(3) of the memorandum. To date there has been no parking problem related to'emergency vehicle operation that we are aware of in the Association property. If this does become the case, it is anticipated that 'no parking; signs could be located where needed. 2. Taxation is based solely on valuation of property, and not on services provided. The City will not take over the maintenance o£ the streets in the Townhouse Association. The roads do not meet riqht of way, setback and width requixements for public streets and any take over would set a precedence for the maintenance far other private developments. 3. The City of New Brighton will not take any positive action on road construction until the property is developed. They have been granted a State Aid connection when final location is decided upon. Mr. Terry Wiley, 5571 East Bavarian Pass, said that as none of their taxes were going towards the maintenance or plowinq of their streets, then he thought it Shouls go towards giv�ng them a decent road to Silver Lake Road. MOTIDN b� Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close thc public hearing on the consideration of a � prelimznary pZat, P.S. $76-OZ, Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions, by DarreZ k. Farr Development Corporation. �Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing cZosed at 10:Z5 P.l•:. P7r. Bergman said he thought they were involved in a step by step process here and what he thought should be step one would be to eliminate the hazards on the extension o£ North Innsbruck Drive. MOTIDN by Bergman, seconded by Gabel, thaE the Planning Commission request the City Council to pass a resolution that the City adminis- tration get together with the Darrel Farr Development Corporation and physically view the extension of North Innsbruck Drive up to Silver Lake Road, and establish an agreement for immediate correction of the present surface hazards. Mr. Peterson said that he spoke in favor of the motion, but he had some questions and one of the questions he had was what was fairfor the Darrel Farr Corporation because he felt that he had come to this meeting with a good proposal, and he had tried to be agreeable. He said he was sure that Mr. Farr had no objection to meeting with the City in terms of looking at the road and in establishing what should be'done, but he has said that he would be willing to pay to repair the road. He said that before we make a motion like this, he thought some assurance should be � given to Mr. Farr that we concur with his request for development. Mr. Bergman explained his motion, and said he wasn't too concerned on who fixed this road, just so that it got done. xe said that if Darrel Farr didn't want to fix the road without assurance that his proposal would be approved, then he thought the City should fix the Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 18 [ i pot holes. Mr. Boardman said that he didn't know if the City administration could take some action on this without Council � action, and the next Council meeting was April 5th. He said a resolution took Council action, it wasn't a decision that could be made by the administration. Mr. Farr said that iE they could get asphalt they would patch that road right away. Mr. Bergman said he would appreciate that. Mr. Harris said then there was no need for a reso�ution to hava the City go out and patch the road. Mr. Berqman said that on the basis that Darrel Farr would patch the pot ho2es, he wou3d WITNDRAW HIS MOTION. Mrs. Gabel wzthdrew her second. Mrs. Sporre asked who was qoing to plow the snow. Mr. Bergman said when he made the first motion, he knew there were many other problems to be addressed. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think the question o£ the extension of North Innsbruck Drive had been answered as had been requested '' at the last meeting. Mr. Boardman said he thought that it had. j He said there were two positions on this street, the City administ��-' tion's and Darrel Farr's. He said the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on how this conflict could be resolved, but it was a Council decision. He said there would have to be a new ; agreement worked out on this North Innsbruck Drive extension. Ha �' said that City administration could not say how it was going to be handled. It was not their decision to make. ' Mr. Bergman said that it seemed that if a developer says a street was going to be public, then it had to meet certain guidelines, but if a developer says a street was going to be private, then it was no longer treated with the same guidelines or requirements, and he couldn't understand why this should be. Mr. Boardman said that the streets in a private development have to meet specifications approved by the City. When we talk about City specifications for streets in public areas we are talking about the required street width, the right of ways and setback requirements. He said there was a public responsibility th� City had on public roads. Streets in a private area were no longer a public responsiblity was no longer in e£fect at the City level. This was the reason why although we approve the specifications for the construction of the roads as to mat and base, the street widths can vary for a private developmern:t. Mr. Scott said he thought it should have been outlined clearly what streets were the responsiblity of the City, what streets were the responsiblity of the developer, and what streets were the responsiblity of the Townhouse Association. Ae said he felt that the extension road from the Fridley line to Silver Lake Road had been badly bungled by the City, and because they had bungled in � in putting a five year agreement on the maintenance of this road which has now expired and the development of the area was not completed, he felt it was the City's responsiblity to see that Fridley residents had a safe exit and entrance to North Innsbruck Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, T976 Page 19 Drive, and hopefully the City would take care not to get caught again in this type of nonsense. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that a recess be declared. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting age, Chairman Harris declared a recess at 20:35 P.M. Chairman Harris reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 10:54 P.M. Mr. Terry Wiley, 5571 East Bavarian Pass, voiced his concerns about the problems on the 24' streets during the construction of the townhouses in this plat. Mr. Harris said it had just been called to his attention that the Public fiearing had been closed on Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions, and there were people who wanted to discuss problems in the 5th Addition, so this public hearing should be reopened. MOTI014 by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning � Commission reopen the Public Xearing for the consideration of � a preliminary p1at, Innsbruck North Townhouse V Addition, by Darre2 Farr, par.t of P.S. N76-01. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Ha.rris declaxed the Pub2ic Hearing open at Z0:52 P.M. � Mr. 4diley said there were items mentioned at the last meeting that hadn't been discussed at this meeting. He said that it was stated that East Bavarian Pass would be closed during construction of the approximate number of 50 townhouses in this area. He said that after the construction was completed, and the people from these 50 townhouses start using East Bavarian Pass, it was going to create a problem. He said it was very difficult to back out of garages on East Bavarian Pass because there were usually people waiting to get on to Meister Road. He said he felt there should be a second exit for this area. Mr. Harris asked Mr. London if there was anything that could be done to eliminate the bottleneck to Meister Road? Mr. London said that East Bavarian Pass had been approved at the time of the Vienna Townhouse proposal. He said that the reason the two garages 5�' from Meister Road were set so close to this road was because of the topography of the area. Mr. Boardman said the Southern exit off East Bavarian Pass was quite steep, and if this exit wasn't so steep, some of the traffic could go this way to Meister Road. He said the City would like to see two good exits from East Bavarian Pass. Mr. Wiley asked i£ there couldn't be another access that would join up with the service drive for the Heritage of Innsbruck � Nursing Home? Mr. London said the problem with trying to have an access in this location was that we would be talking about another extension that went into New Brighton, and as there weren't any road patterns established in this area in New IIrighton it wouldn't be a solution now, but ultimately there could be an � Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 20 access at that point. Mr. London said the IV and V Additions would be annexed by the present Townhouse Association, with all private roads. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Innsbruck North Townhouse V Addition, by Darrel Farr DeveZopment Corporaton. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, Chairman Harris decZared the Public Hearing closed at 11:05 P.M. r1 L.I Mr. Peterson asked.if there was any way that the 24' road that was the extension of North Innsbruck Drive could be widened. Could the City obtain a larger easement so this could be widened to at least 36 feet? Mr. London said the City had a b6' easement for this road. Mr. Peterson said they had been under the impression that this was only a 24' easement. He said that this made a lot of difference because there was room to widen this street and eVen put in sidewalks. Mr. Peterson raised a point of information, and asked Chairman Harris what action they could take on this plat. ^:r. Harris said they could recommend approval of the plat with stipulations, or they could make a recommendation for a resolution on particular problems. Mr. Peterson said he was sti11 in sympathy with Mr. Farr in . developing this plat, but because of the discussion we have had on the 1500 feet of unsafe road, and the fact that we now find that the City has a 66 ft. easement for this road, he would like to see: some type of resolution that would express the concern of the Planning Commission to the City Council on behalf �of the citizenry, and that we would like to see a street put in on that easement that would meet all the City specifications for a public street, that could be a shared cost of the City and the developer, or by an agreement that could be worked.out with the developer, so that we don't have this continuing problem. Chairman Harris said this could be handled as a separate item, but for himself, he would like to study this 1500 feet further, and he didn't think he wanted to see the approval of this plat held up, while this road problem was being studied. He felt this road affected the entire area, and should be handled separate from the plat. Mr. Peterson said that his problem was that he approved of the plat, but he couldn't vote in favor df it, when there wasn't an adequate road to get the people in and out. Mrs. Sporre said there should be some assurance given to the people who would be buying these townhouses, that there was an adequate road to provide fire protection also. Mr. Harris said he agreed, but this was such a large and important issue, he thought the road problem needed more time spent on it. Mr. Beterson said he would like to make a motian to approve the plat, � and make one of the stipulations that their be a solution to the 1500 feet of road in New Brighton within a certain time frame. _��_„ Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Paqe 21 � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to CounciZ approval of the proposed p3ats, P.S. #76-01, Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions, bg Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a repZat o£ Outlot H, Innsbruck North Addition, genesaZZy Iocated South of Znnsbruck North Townhouses, Phase I, 72, and IIi, with the following stipulations: 1. Provide easement for public trail adjacent to neighborhood park. 2. Plan specifications for streets and utilzties are to be submitted to the City for approval. 3. Off-street parking of 4.25 stalls per unit be provided on Ehoseanits fronting the 24' streets. 4 spaces shall be provided with each individual unit, the additi�nal 5paces shou2d be pzovided �n close proximity to the affected units. 4. DarreZ A. Farr Development Corporation wi12 provide recordable Iegal docomentation notifying purchaser that there wi11 be no noise buffer provided from inter- state traffic noase. 5. Trail development and trail Iighting wi1Z be completed with Iandscaping of adjacent units. 6. One tennis court Frill be provided on Association property _and wi22 be completed with the comp2etion of construction � of the first 20 units in Phase IV. 7. One tot lot wi22 be provided on Association property in Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions with the completion of the first 20 units in Phase V. 8. City will require a standard performance bond for exterior development (paths, 2ighting, tennis court and tot lot) of-50� of the anticipated cost. . 9. That within one month, the City administration and the Darre2 Farr Development Corporation present a proposa2 to the P2anning Commission for a so2ution to the 1500' extension of P7orth Innsbruck Drive to SiZver Lake Road. (AS any proposal for this extension would have to be at the City Council's direction, this one month time period would have to be from Apri1 5, 2976 (Council meeting) to May S, 1976 (Planning Commission meetingJ. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Mr. Boardman said the intent of the 9th stipulation was that this praposal come back to the Planning Commission for action at that time. Mr. Peterson said that was the intent of this stipulation. .'�� , Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Paqe 22 Mr. Boardman said the units which would be built in units of two were basically the same as the townhouses that had been developed in Phase I, II, and IIL Mr. London said there would be basically two types of buildings in the 4th and 5th Additions. He said one plan would be to have the two units separate and connected by a garage. This type of building would fit on land that sloped up from the street. He said where the two buildings were.joined together would be where the land sloped down from the street, and would be generally the walk-out type. Mr. Scott asked the price range of the townhouses in these plats. Mr. London said they would be in the $40,000 to $50,000 price range. Mr. I�nden said these plans have been taken to the North Innsbruck Townhouse Association, the Architectural Control Committee, and we got a lot of reco*.nmendations from them which have been incorporated into the plans for the new development. We 3id get the approval of this Committee. Mr. Boardman said the staff felt that the desiqns of the townhouses in these plats were compatible with the existing units. � Mr. Farr said the revised figures for these townhouses � would make the cost from $45,000 to $60,000. He said the units were expandable, and could be as large as 5 bedrooms. He said the bigqest unit had 2240 square feet and the smallest unit was about 1400 square feet. Mr. Boardman said these were not the structural plar.s, They would be submitted at the time building permits were requested. Mr. Scott said he had some concerns a�out the limited range of the costs of these units. It tends to gravitate towards one specific qroup. He said that the Human Resources Commission felt �that with innovative designs they could provide for more variety to provide for a broader range of income levels. Mr. Farr read from a 1974 study by the Metropolitan Council on Planned Unit Deve2opments (PUD). He said this was on housing costs. He read "'It was diffzcult to ' single out one or two of the highest priced PUD's, but one would be the townhouses at Cedarview with a top price of $65,000 and fhe single family homes of Innsbruck North which may sell for up to $80,000 or more. Developments having a diversity of price would include Briarwood, Innsbruck North, Shellview, and Eagle Lake. The condominium's of Biiarwood in Go1�en Valley sell for from $15,900 to 24,400. The Innsbruck North Apartment� will rent for $149 to $208 a _ • month. A townhouse may be purchased for as little as $32,600 and a single family detached house may be purchased in the range of $50,000 to $80,000." Mr. Scot� asked if what Mr. Farr had read pertained to what had been developed, or if it included what Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 23 was being proposed in this plat, and would what was in th�. � same townhouse association be considered as one Planned Unit Development. Mr. Boardman said that the Planned Unit Development was all of Innsbruck that Mr. Farr developed. The preliminary planned development that was approved by the City included the single family area, the townhouse are�, and the apartment area. This has been cQnstructed in phases, but it was all one planned development. He said he didn't think you could judge this by just one part of this development. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of a townhouse deve2opment of 100 units, T-$76-OZ, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, for Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions. - Mr. Berman said that he felt �hat in the context of the total plan, that there was a very broad price range in this development. Mr. Scott said that when he looked at the total development he saw pockets of this group living here, and another group living there, each group being of a certain income range. He said that in his opinion this was stereotyped planning, and he could see this developing the same as one group on one side of the tracks and another group on the other side of the tracks. He said he i would like to see a broader range of housing for a larqer ranqe of income groups. Mr. Farr said that this development covered 6Q acres, and he thought that in those 6Q acres this development did meet that criteria, and this was a fully integrated community. He said that in the same article he had read from before, it cites Innsbruck North as a fully integrated development as to styles of housing, and price range. Mrs. Sporre said she felt this whole development o£fered a variety ot life styles. She said that people who bought into a townhouse development were buying into an exclusion area, and did so because they wanted to be in a private area. She thought this fit into the housing plan, because it did meet the needs of people who wanted a different life style, and Fridley should be proud that they can offer such a development. UPON a voice vote, Bergman, Narris and Peterson voting aye, Gabe1 abstaining, and Scott voting nay, the motion carried. 4. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMITdARY _ PLAT, P.S. #76-02, INNSBRUCK VILLAGE, BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Being a replat of Outlot B., Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210' of Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive and West of the Black Forest Apartment. ` Public Hearing closed. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, I976 Page_ 24 5. CONTINUED: CONSIDERATION OF A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT OF 1f1(1 IINITS. T-#76--02, BY DARREL A. FARR DE�ELOPMENT MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public Hearing on the consideration of a preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Vi2lage, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Narris dec2ared the Public Hearing open at 2I:45 P.M. alr. Boardman said it was proposed to construct 25 4 unit townhouses on this plat. He said the preliminary approval. for this phase of the Innsbruck development was for a 251 unit apartment complex to be constructed in this area, so instead of having 251 units in this area, there will be 100 units. There are HUD monies involved in the development so West Bavarian Road will be a public street with a 50' right.of way which will be a connecting street between I�rthur Street and North Irnsbruck Drive. The spur roads in the development will be private streets, and this will have a separate Townhouse Association. Chairman Harris said this was the plat where there were structures too close to the the street, and where they had requested a blanket variance. Mr. Boardman said the City Attorney has said that any variances needed were subject to approval with the approval of the townhouse development, and whether the Planninq � Commission agrees with his interpretation that this didn't have to be heard by the Appeals Commission was up to them. He said that :nowhere in the townhouse ordinance does it mention setback requirements. Mr. Harris said this property was zoned R-3, and he felt they had to meet the R-3 requirements on a public street. Mr. Boardman said that under the townhouse ordinance requirements, that this was the only time in our ordinances that there had to be both a plat approval and a plan approval. Mr. Boardman said he felt that this �oas the basis of the City Attorney's ruling. (Mr. Boardman and Mrs. Gabel both thought there had been requests for variances in other townhouse developments but a search was made through all townhouse data, and there was no record of any variances going through the Appeals Commission.) Mrs. Sporre asked Mr. Boardman where this development did not meet the R-3 requirements. Mr. Boardman said the only require- ment they didn't meet was the setback from public right of way. The area requirements are met, the open space requirements are met. He said the City Attorney has interpreted the townhouse ordinance that any area requirements, open space requirements, and setback requirements be part of the approval of the townhouse development, and this included any variances needed. Mrs. Sporre asked what variances they were being asked to approve in this townhouse plan? Mr. Boardman said it was the � 35' setback from public right of way. They were asking for a blanket variance from 35' to 0' for the garage of some of the units. He said there was 7' from the cu.rb to the property line. Mr. Soardman said the garage doors would not face the street. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 25 __ � Mr. Peterson said that if he remembered correctly, the reason for the placement of the units as was presented was because of the topography. Mr.:Boardman said there was a high ridge that pushed these units closer to the street. Mr. Scott said that as part of the A-95 review process the Human Resources Commission was to conduct a hearing on this application. Rather than have another public hearing, the minutes of this meeting will be part of that review. He said the A-95 review was a separate action. Mr. Farr said they had a model of the development, which he thought would answer a lot of questions that coere�3ermane to this development. He said that if a greater setback was required, it would have a diverse effect on this development. Mr..Harris said that he wasn't even considering the pros and cons of tiie variances. He was more concerned witn the procedure they were follo:aing to grant the proposed variance. He felt they were circumventing the zoning code. Mr. Bergman asked Ivlr. Farr to state the hardships involved in this variance request. Mr. Farr said the hardship was the cost consideration, and whether that would be classified as a hardship, he didn't knocti�. We want to keep these particular townr- � ha�ses as low priced as possible. We are looking for young married couples. The size of the units vary between 800 to 900 square feet. We would like to keep the price of these units in the mid $30,000. To do this, one of the considerations was to provide F.H.A. fi- nancinq, because the amoritization was greater and the down payment was less. In order to get F.H.A. financing, and because West Bavarian Pass cor.nects to two public streets, North Innsbruck Drive and Arthur Street, they have required that this street be a public street. He said those �aere the hardships that prevail. He said that by making �4est Bavarian Pass a public street and adhering to the 35' setback, the development would not be viable. Ae said we would have to go to Plan B, and not have this as a public street, but go back to a private street, and this would have to be financed convcntionally, or do something else. By making the s*_reet wider, as you can see by the model, we would be destroying a substantial part o£ the site. We would be destroy- ing trees, we would have to change the existing topography sub� stantially. The units are designed to fit into a hill. They all go up. We have tried to preserve public areas.- The drive side and garage side are public areas, and the pedestrian areas ar•e private areas. He said that as they widened West Bavarian Pass we had to push the units together, so that we could develop a continuity of flow of the green areas. He said that instead of having 300' to 400' between units, we have 100' or 70' less than that. He said they thought about the setbacks a qreat deal when they designed the units: He said that he felt that one of the � reasons for this setback was to allow stacking of cars in front of a garage. All of the garages in this entire development were structured so that the cars drive into the side of the garage. The side facing the street was a finished wall. There were no garage doors facing the street. Each drive way was an L shaped . ... _ Planning Commiss.ion Meeti� - March 'T7',' 1976 Page 26 drive. He said the only structures that would fall within the normal setback line are the garages. The units themselves would � be 40' back from the property line, so he didn't think this would cause any visual blight, because the garages were relatively small structures when compared to the units themselves. He said these were the basic reasons for asking for a variance, or whatever it is. Mr. R. M. Rumpsa, 1481 North Innsbruck Drive, said that when the single homes were developed, they had to meet covenants that were established by the Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Now, when Mr. Farr wants to put in another development, it seems that this has come around about 180°, because this development doesn't even meet the setback requirements. He said that �ahen he hought his lot, he knew there was supposed to be an apartment complex on this site, and he wasn' t so sure that that wouldn't be sti.l]. �he best idea for this site. He said that by putting homes in the $33,000 to $39,000 range, that he felt that in 10 years, this would be a hell hole. Mrs. Sporre asked Mr. Farr if he knew of any other Y.ownhouse development where the garages were set so close to the street. Mr. Farr said that in most townhouse developments the garages were quite close to the street. Mrs. Sporre asked about public streets. Mr. Farr said that the only townhouse development that he knew of that had all public streets was in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Harris asked how wide West Bavarian Pass was going to � be. 'Mr. Boardman said there was a 50' right of way, and the street would be 31`. Mr. Harris said he didn't think they should be allowed to have a 31' street because all the other residential streets in Fridley were 36'. Mr. Boardman said the F.H.A. requirement was a 30' street, and that there were just as many 31' residential streets in Fridley as 36' wide streets. Mr. Harris said that he felt that any curved street should be a minimum of 36'. He said he lived on Riverview Terrace which was a 36' curved street, so he knew the problems. Mr. Scott said he understood that the townhouses in this plat would be a separate Townhouse Association. Mr. Farr said that was correct. Mr. Scott said he could see problems in the maintenance of this area, because people in this price range of homes wouldn't be able to maintain the area. Mr. Bergman said he wouldn't be able to vote in favor of this development because of the setback problems. He said he knew we were talking about setback problems versus nature, existing terrain, saving trees, etc. He said he knew everyone was in favor of saving trees, but they also wanted to see a reasonable amount of the setback reguirements met. He said that with this street being 31' and the location of the garages, that he would feel like he was driving down an alley, which he felt was not � the intent of having a public street. He said a variance request from 35' to 0' does not recognize the setback requirement at all. Mr. Peterson said he felt very uncomfortable because the Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 27 � Appeals Commission didn't debate this issue at their last meeting. He asked Mrs. Gabel why this wasn't done. Mrs. Gabel said that when this came to the Appeals Commission they were told the City Attorney's interpretation, and we were told we did not have to act on the variance request. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think they should get all hung up on procedure. If someone says we can approve or disapprove the plan, he would be willinq to do that, considering the setback as part of the plan. Mrs. Gabel .said she couldn't agree with Mr. Farr that a garage placed 7 feet from the street wouldn't be a visual blight, and she also felt that this would be a traffic hazard. Mr. Boardman said that all the garages weren't at the 0' setback. He said that instead of going through the variance procedure on every garage, they just asked for a blanket vstiance. He said that in most cases the garages were setback at least 5' from the property line, and in other cases, it was a greater distance than that, but the actual request was for a blanket variance. Mr. Harr3s asked if there was going to be concrete curb and gutter on the public street of West Bavarian Pass. Mr. � Boardman said there would be. Mr. Harris said the street would be built to City specification of 4" base and 2 1/2" mat. Mr. Boardman said it would. Mr. Harris asked if on-street parking would be allo�oed on stliis street. Mr. Boardman said it would be allowed. Mr. Harris said that assuming that a drivinq lane 4ras 8', which would be tight, because normally they were 12', and with tra£fic in both directions, that would be 16', which would leave 15' for parking. Mr. Boardman said there will be two parking spaces provided £or each uait. Mr. Bergman said that in the entire North Innsbruck area, this site has been chosen for townhouses for people of lower income families, and it seemed to him that lower income people didn't get setbacks and did get narr.ow streets. Mr. Scott asked if there caas a difference in the tax structure for a detached and attached garage. Mr. Boardman said he couldn't answer that question. (Note: City Assessing office said that there was no difference in the tax structure.) Mr. Farr said that he thought this townhouse development incorporated as many good planning features as he had ever seen in a plan. He again quoted from the Metropolitan Council report. " The Respect for Topography in•Shapinq Developmente The housing can be built around the natural land features, ecoloqically important bodies of water, marsh, woodlands, steep slopes, can � remain in their natural state. In an area of gentle slopes, or terrace townhouses may be built to advantage. Narrow Curbed or Dead-end Residential Streets: Planned Unit Developments can be flexible in their use of roadways unlike the conventional grid or..�urved - Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, �976 Page 28 linear street patterns in traditional housing developments. � Residential privacy and safety may be enhanced by streets that are designed for minimum traffic and reduced speed. Narrow streets cover less valuable land as well as inhibiting heavy high speed traffic, as well as improve the appearance of the neighborhood." Mr. Farr said these units in this development were not closer together than the units in other townhouse additions. The fact fhat the setbacks were wrong because this was designed for lower income people was not correct because the distance from garage to garage tQ street was closer in the other townhouse developments, where we were talking in a price range of $45,000 to $60,000. He said that if the public street was going to be a problem, then he guessed that they didn't need a public street. Mr. Harris said there were some things that went with a public stre�t that o:eren't requir�mer.ts o:�th a private street. Mr. Feterson said this could eliminate some people from beinq able to purchase a townhouse in this area, i£ this went to a private street, because then this development wouldn't meet the F.H.A. requirement. N1r. Farr said they felt that it wonld elzminate F.H.A. financing. Mr. Farr said he would like to read one more paragra�h from the Metropolitan Council report. "Providinq diversity of costs � within Planned Unit Developments was perhaps one of th� more important goals to be eventually met. Public attention should be directed to devel.op flexible public pro�rams thas..��l� enable a variety of housing types and costs to be 'increased within Planned Unit Developments. The Metropolitan Council will be watching the housing trends in this respect and wili continue to explore various means by which the goal of increased diversity of housing costs �__ may be met in PUD's." Mr. Farr said he understood that the City had ordinances, and that they had to live with them. He said that he didn't believe in Metropolitan government, but he firmly believed that Metropolitan government was making tremendous inroads into local government, and this may be because of the inflexibility of some of the local ordinances. He said this may be far afield from what he was addressing here, but he said that ordinances were made by people, and people can chanqe them, and he believed there should be more flexibility in iocal government. He said that all the considerations the Planning Com�ission had brought out were valid. Someone who couldn't see around the corner, snow removal, street repair, emergency vehicles access, they were all very valid, and he appreciated all those concerns. He wasn't sure that this project as it was designed, did not provide for all these things. Mrs. Sporre said just to point out that we didn't live in the dark ages in Fridley, the Environmental Quality Commission had as a goal to fos.ter and promote innovative designs and she � understood Mr. Farr's attempt to preserve the contours and retain as much as you can of a beautiful site. Mrs. Sporre said that she couldn't make a motion,' but she wouYd like to have this � Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 19T6 Page 29 _ sent to the Environmental Quality Commission to review the benefits of the plan as far as environmental concerns, and it might help i in the final decision. Mr. Scott said that he agreed with Mr. Farr as to local government sometimes being inflexible. He said that he himSelf was an advocate of this. He said that as far as PUD developments he didn't feel that there was adequate basis to drawn conclusions from. He said that if the Metropolitan Council and HUD thought that they could sit in St. Paul and make these kind of decisions, they wouldn't be sending it to a small Commission such as the Human Resources Commission for part of the A-95 review. They have asked us to review these proposals to see if they were consistent with wha� the intention of the program was. He said that both HUD and Metropolitan Council have said that you don't concentrate low income people, because they have had disastrous results. He said that he felt with only a$6,000 difference in price range for these units, that there could be serious problems. Mr. Scott said that what they were looking at he didn't feel wds a PUD. Mr. Farr said that was just part o£ the development, and the entire concept of Innsbruck was a PUD, even if that wasn't the term applied to it. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Farr if it would be possible to widen West Bavarian Pass to 36'? Mr. Parr said he didn't feel that this was necessary. The regulations for F.H.A. only require a � 30' street, but if the City felt it was necessary, it was probably something that they could do. Mr. Harris said that curved str.eets were a problem, and he'felt that this street should be 36' wide. Mr. Farr said that with the design of this development, a 36' street might be to their advantage. Mrs. Gabel asked how far back of the garages were the h9��s located. Mr. Farr said it was about 30 feet. Mrs. Gabel asked if they couldn't be moved back £arther from the street? Mr. Farr said it was pretty hard to tell from a piece of paper, but the topography of the area makes it very difficult. He said that all the trees were located on the slopes. Chairman Harris asked everyone to look at the model, and maybe someone could come up with an idea for this site. Mr. Farr explained the topography and the placement of the units. He said that some oi the units were designed all on one level, for what he called "empty nest" people, people who have raised their families and were again alone, and wanted a smaller place to take care.of. Mr. Farr said he had put in more work on this site, than any of the other sites he had developed. He said they had been working on a plan for this site since August of 1975. Mr. Scott said he didn't see anywhere on this development where there was recreation provided for young people. Mr. Farr said this land was adjacent to the City park to the North and � there was a tot lot provided to the East by the Slack Forest Apartment. He said they would be constructing two tennis courts in tHe City Park, and there was a tot lot adjacent to this site across North Innsbruck Drive. Mr. Scott said that small children _ _ � Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Paqe 30 would not taalk two blocks to a park. He said that as this site � was expected to be attractive to young people, he didn't feel - that there wer� adequate facilities for young people. Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Farr if he would consider some of the elements in this proposed plat. His particular concerns wers the lack of setback and the street width, and parking, and he was wondering if Mr. Farr was willing to consider a compromise on the setback requirement. Mr. Farr said that any movement of the units would have an adverse effect on the wooded areas and he wondered what type of compromise he had in mind. Mr. Bergman said he would rather vary the setback from 35' to 20' rather than the 0'. He said this was his personal opinion, but due to the hardships of the site, he felt this was a resonable compromise. Mr. Bergman said the other alternative was for j Mr. Farr to request a recommendation on the plat as it has been ; presented. - I Mr. Farr said that he could not economically reduce the } density in this plat. He said he had a lot of money in this land. ; He said it was zoned and planned for a 251 unit apartment building. � He said that he really didn't want to build a 251 unit, apartment € building and he was not sayinq that if they didn't approve this, < he was going to build a 251 unit apartment building. He said that � he felt this plan filled a needed gap in our housing mix in that ! part of the world, and he honestly believed that this plan was ! as well thought out as any plan he had come across, and he was �; saying that in all sincerity. Mr. Rumpsa and another property owner from the single family homes said they would rather see a 251 unit apartment on this site. � I PTOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on consideration of a pre- liminary plat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Village, by Darre2 A. Farr Developrnent Corporation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Heari:ng closed at I2:55 P.M. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Ga�be1, that the�P2anning �'� Comzaission recommend to Council denial of the proposed plat, P.S. �. �f76-02, Tnnsbruck Village, by Darrel�A.�Farr Deve2opment Corporat.ion, �. being a replat of Out2ot B, Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, Auditor`s Subdiviszon No. 92, generally Iocated North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apart- menb, primari2y because of the Zack of setback from the pnblic street. Mrs, Sporre asked why they had made a motion for denial. She felt it should have been tabled, and the problems resolved, Mr. Bergman said that his personal view was that this�Was the proper.action at this time. Mrs. Sporre said that a motion for � denial closes the door, Mr. Scott said that it closed the door on this plan. Mr. Boardman said no, it closes the door for any plan for six months. Mrs. Sporre said she thought this plan should be studied in further depth. She said that the Environmental Planninq Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 31 Quality Commission hadn't even looked at this plan yet. She said � that Mr Farr's claim that they had made an eloquent attempt to save, preserve and utilize the site to its fullest potential,.and she realized they had used the lowlands for the road, and have classified high lands as better, and she had some problems with that, but she felt that the Environmental Quality Commission could work with Mr. Farr and develop this into the kind of a plan Mr. Farr would like to have, and she would like to see him have the opportunity. She said this plan was implementing one of the goals of her Commission which was to use innovative designs to utilize a site to its best potential. Mrs. Gabel said she was not aware that a motion for denial would mean that Mr. Farr could not come back with any plan Por this site for six months when she seconded the motion. She said she would like to withdraw her second to the motion, because she would like Mr. Farr to have the opportunity to present a better plan. Mr. Scott questioned wliethtr i�� second could be withdrawn. He said a motion to table would supe� �de the motion for denial and he would make such a motion. MOSION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission table the conszderation of a preSiminary p1at, P.S. H76�02, Innsbruck Vil2age, bg Darxel A. Farr Development Corpor- ation, being a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210 feet, Auditor`S � � Subdivision lJO 92,.generally Iocated 1lorth Of North Innsbruck Drzve N.E. and West of the B1ack Forest Apartment, because he felt that Mr. Farr had a good p1an, bat there were problems that had to be worked out, and this should be reviewed by any member Commission who wisHed to review it, and it come back on the � PZanninq Commission agenda as soon as po5sible. Upon a voice vote, a21 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission tabZe the coi�sideration of a townhouse development of 100 Units, T-#7b-02, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, for Innsbruck Village, until they reconsider the p2at. Upon a voice vote, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Gabel vot�ng aye, Scott nay, the motion carried. Mr. Boardman said that due to the lateness of the hour, the petitioner for the next request had left the meeting, but he had agreed to the stipulations that Mr. Boardman would be needed on this request, but because there were still people waiting in the audience for the following item on the agenda, he asked if the order of the agenda could be chanqed. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the order of the agenda be svspended, to accommodate the pebple in the audience. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the agenda was amendea. i6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP # 76-04, BY iiENNING NELSON CONSTRUCTION COA9PANY: To permit the construction of a dup�ex and or a double bunqalow, in an R-1 District.(single family dwelling areas), per Fridley City Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 32 Code, Section 205.051, 3, D, to be located on Lots 13, � 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, Riverwood Manor Addition, generally located South of 71st Way N.E. and West of East River Road N,E. No one was present to represent the petitioner. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the P2anning Commission open the Public Hearinq on a request for a Speczal Use Permit, SP H76-04, by Henning Ne2son Construction Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Pub2ic Hearing open at 1:05 A,M. Mr. Boardman said Lot 13 had been sold as permit had already been on Lots 14, 15 and 16. that since this request had been made, a single family lot, and a building issued, so this request will just be He said that in 1974 ±his petitioner had appeared before the Planning Commisszon and Council to rezone this property to R-3, so they could build a 24 unit apartment complex on this property. This request was denied by the Planning Commission and Council. He said that this property was still zoned R-1 and the petitioner was requesting a special use permit to a11ow dcuble bungalows or duplexes to be constructed on these lots. Mr. Gerald Rossow, 6881 Washinqton Street N.E., said that he had just recently purchased Lot 13, and his new home was in the process of being built. He said that at the time he purchased this lot from the Henning Nelson Company, no mention was made that they were going to request a Special Use Permit to build a double bungalow right next to his new home, so he didn't £eel that they had operated in good faith. He said that if soneone.from the City staff hadn't called him at 4:00 today (March 17th), he wouldn't have known anythinq about this proposal. He said that he felt that the petitioner hadn't made any effort to build single family homes on these lots. He said he had negotiated with Henning Nelson a long time before he would agree to sell him the lot. He said that he had heard that other people were interested in these lots, and they hadn't been able to purchas� them either. He told the Planning Commission that these lots should be retained for R-1 development. � Mrs. Kermit Bender, 146 71st Way N.E., asked if this request was still valid when one of the lots had been sold. Mr. Harris said a request can always be reduced, but nothing could be added to it. Mrs. Bender said that no one from the Henninq Nelson Construction Company had appeared at this meeting, and this company has done this before to this neighborhood at the time of the rezoning. She said they have all sat at this meeting for six hours and she thought t.he petitioner should have been here and presented � a plan. Mr. Harris said it was not spelled out in the ordinance that he had to have a plan. He probably wouldn't want to draw up any plans unless he knew the special use had been qranted. � � . �mmission Meeting - March 17, 197 3 Mr. Boardman said that Mrs. Bender seemed to be askinq if the Planning Commission could act on this request when the petitioner hadn't come to the meeting. Chairman Harris said they could. He said they would only be making a recommendation to the City Council, and the petitioner could come to the Ciiy Council meeting. He saicl that before he could vote affirmatively on this request, he would want to see a plan. William May, 184 71st Way N.E., said that these three lots were the only empty lots in a completely residential area that was across from the school. He said he felt that unless the owner of a double bungalow lived in one of the units, double bungalows were not maintained. I3e said that 4 single family homes had been sold in the last 4 months in this area, so single family homes would sell in this area. He couldn't see double bungalows on these three lots. Mr. Gordon Sangster, 7159 Riverview Terrace, said he just wanted to stress that most people who live in �his area felt that i was a single family area, and that building three double bungalows or duplexes at the entrance into this area would be an encroachment into this single family development. Ae felt these lots should be developed as single family homes. Mr. Roger Claegens, 7130 Riverview Terrace, said they were the oldest residents in this particular neighborhood. He said that he thought it was wrong for the Henninq Nelson Construction Company to make this request, and then not even have the courtesy to let anyone know that they wouldn't appear at this meeting. He said that proposal was about the same as rezoning, and if it was approved, he thought it would destroy the concept of a very nice neighborhood, or at least the entrance to a very nice neighborhood. Mr. Leonard Litzner, 180 71st Way N.E., said that if there had been multiple dwellings in this area before he bought his house, he would never have moved into this area. He said he liked this neighborhood the way it was, and he thouqht these double bungalows would lower the property values in this area. Mr. W. J. Engelhardt, 7120 Riverview Terrace, said that he was one of the developers of this property, and at the time they came to the Planning Commission they were told that this had to be developed as an-R-1 project, and he felt it should be left Chat way. He thought there should still be majority rule, and � all the property owners in this area wanted it to stay R-1. Chairman Harris said that any property owner has the right to petition for rezoning or a special use permit, and they have the right to be heard. Mr. Litzner asked what was going to happen because the petitoner wasn't at this meeting. Were the neighbors supposed to spend 5 or 6.hours at every Planning Commissioovaleorndeniall he appeared, or could they make a motion for app on this request, or would they have to table it? Chairman Harris said that if the Planning Commission wished to do so, they could _."�„'.�°, .- Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1865 Page 34 act on this request at this meeting. Mr. Rossow said he had met a lot o� nice new neiqhbors at this meetinq, but he did want to mention that his contractor had been at this meetinq until 1:00 and then he had to leave. He said his contractor had just picked up the building permit for Mr. Rossow's home last Friday (March 12th) and no one had told the contractor about this request to construct double bungalows next to his building site, so the contractor felt that he had been put in an unfair position also. Mr. Engelhardt said that he didn't think that Henning Nelson should be able to keep mak?ng requests on this property that was against how the majority felt in this neighborhood. Mr. Fiarris said that if thi.s request'was denied, the petitioner would have to wait six months before he could make any other request for this property. Mrs. Gabel said she was disappointed that the petitioner did not appear at this meeting, because there were a couple of questions she would have liked to have asked. She said that she noticed in reviewing the minutes on the rezoning request, that he had left the neignbors in the lurch like this before. She said she could see their point when they come and sit at a meeting for six hours, and then the petitioner didn't show up. She felt this was rather inconsiderate. Mr. Harris said that on page 84 and 85 of their agenda, there were minutes of the rezoning request on this same property from May 22, 1974, and it listed the reasons why the rezoning request was denied. � � Mr. Scott said the problem he had with this request was because the petitioner was not here to develop his plan, but he did see multiple dwellings as a means of intergrating less fortunate members of our society, and felt that you could build a double bungalow in a neighborhood without destroying the values of a neighborhood, as long as these were not cx�ncentrated areas. He said he felt that a person had the right to do what the law allows him to do with his own property, and he felt this was a valid request. He said that we were going to have to understand that there were people in this country who couldn't afford the living standards that most of us enjoy. Somewhere along the line, these people have got to be 'integrated into our society and he thought multiple dwellings was a means of doing this as long as this was done on a limited basis. He said that because there ��as no plan presented at this meetinq, he couldn't vote for this request, but he thought this was a valid request. Mr. Sanqster said he appreciated Mr. Scott's comments, but if he been at the rezoning hearings, he would have heard Mr. Reinertson state that they had so much money invested in these lots that they could not afford to develop them as R-1 property, and so the reasons for building multiple dwellings on these lots were not for helping to 'intergrate less fortunate people into our society, but for monetary reasons only. Mr. Scott said he � _ _ _, "�*5.:-,. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 35 didn't know if he could approve of having three double Yungalows � together, but if the petitioner had come to the meeting, he might have been in favor of a double bungalow on the first lot, i� th� petitioner had come in with a plan that was aesthetically pleasing. � � Mrs. Sporre said that on page 3 of the Planning Commission minutes of April 17th, 1974, Mr. Reinertson stated "..a complex of 12 to 16 units would be economically feasible to build, below this number of units it would have to go to double bungalows and this would not enhance the neighborhood". Mrs. Sporre said that as the petitioner did not appear at this meeting, we have his opinion on double bungalocas from these minutes. She said they had listened to a great numbcr of people from this neighbor- hood and their objections to this proposal. Mr. Jerry Rossow was living proof that there was a market for these R-1 lots for sinqle family development, and if people were willing to try as hard as he did, that it was possible to purchase these lots. Mr. Eberhardt said he had approached this company about buying one lot, and was told tnat they wouldn't sell one lot. Mrs. Eender said they have heard of this prope�ty owner's righc to petition for whatever he could lawfully do with his property. She wondered cahat her rights were as a property owner when what the property owner �.anted to do was something that she did not want next door to her, until Jerry Rossow's house was £inished. Mr. Scott said her riqht was to come to this meeting and state her opinion of this request. He said the purpose of holding a Public Hearing was so that everyone could be heard, and af�er that to make a recommendation based on the testimony at the hearing. h10TION by Peterson, secor,ded by Scott, that the Planning Commission close the Puvlic Hc-aring on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP �76-04, by Hennir.g Nelson Constraction Company. Upon a voice vote, a2I voting a,�e, C1�airman Harris declazed the Public.Hearing closed at 1:40 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabe2, that the Planning Commission recommend to Conncil denial of the request for a SpeciaZ Use Permit, SP �76-0�1, bg Henning Nelson Construction Company, to permit the constr�ection of a duplex and/or a double bungalo�o in an R-I District (s�ng2e fami2y dwe2ling areas) per FridIey Czty Code,Sect�%on 205.05 1, 3, D, to be Iocated on Lots Z3, 24, 15 and I6, BZOCk 2, Rzverwood hfanor Addition, generally Iocated South of 7Zst [r'ay N.E. and 6�est of East River Road N.E. for the folZowing reasons: 2. 2. 3: 4. This proposa2 was not compatibZe with neighborhood. The absenee of the petitioner from this hearing. Objection of adjacent property owners to proposal Due to petitioner's own statement in the Planning �"r ... Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 36 Minutes of Apri1 17, 1974, that doabSe bungalows would not enhance this neighborhood. Upon a voice vote, a21 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, 7. PUBLIC HEARING: RE4UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #76-03 BY LYNDALE T�RMINAL COMPANY: To a11ow �he location of a garden center in the Northeast corner o£ the parking lot of Holiday Village North, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, located on Part of Lot 13, Auditor's Sub- division No. 155, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a SpeciaZ Use Permit, SP #76-03, by LyndaZe TerminaZ Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the PubZic Hearing at 2:43 A.t4. � � � Mr. Boardman said that Brad Steinman from Lyndale Terminal Company and Roger Johnson, manager of Holiday Village North had been at this meeting, but they had to leave due to the lateness of the hour, but they did agree verbally before they left, to all the stipulations that the administration thought should be on this request. Mr. Boardman said that it was because of the rezoning of this property, that the administration felt that the garden center should be under a Special Use Permit as was required � in the City Code, even though this garden center has been in existence for many years. Mr. Boardman said that the administration would like to see the following stipuiati.ons on this special use permit: l. That this Special Use Permit be granted for three years at the present location for a garden center, at which time, a decision be made by Holiday as to the permanent location would have to be made, and then permanent landscaping and a permanent site improvemen.t for this garden center be done at that time. Mr. Boardman said the reason for this stipulation was because this garden center had been at this location for a number of years and it would be an undue hardship to cancel out this operation at this location, but during a certain time frame, because if Holiday lost this operation, they would be losing between $20,000 to $60,000, through operating time. He said the petitioner has agreed that , this was a reasonable time in which to determine where the permanent' location should be. He said that at the present location, all of the St;ru�tures that were presently on the site would be torn down, and there would be no outside storage on this site, other than the garden center, as was presently }aeinq done. When the garden season was over, there will be nothing on this site. •� Mr. Peterson said that this should solve some of the problems they had heard from the neighbors during the rezoning hearing. Planninq Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Paqe 37 � Mr. Boardman said the landscaping that they agreed to with the rezoning should all be 8one by this fall. Trees wi11 replace the low shrubs which tended to be a catch all for trash, so it k this parking lot clean. should be much easier to eep Mrs. Gabel asked about the general housekeeping o£ this site. She said she has seen it when it was really bad. Mr. Boardman said he thought they were making a tremendous effort with their housek,eepin�. He said that Bradley Steinman had said at the rezoning hearing that any neighbor could call him direct with any complaints they had on the housekeeping of this site, and he thought the results were showing. and after the landscaping plan was completed, it would be better. Mr. Harris asked with the two special use permistallstto parking lot, if there would still be enough parking meet the Code requirements. P�Sr. Soardman said they would cc:.�e pretty close to meeting the code requirements, and it would be hard to deny this special use permit, because the garden center has been in operation for many years. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to check and see wli�t require- ments had to be met to have a carnival operation in a parking lot for a retail establishment. He said they had this at Holiday • and in the Holly Center, at certain times of the year: MOTZON by Scott, secondcd D� Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request foU onsaevoice � Use Permit, SP k76-03, by Lyndale Termzna2 Compang. P vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing close� at 1:55 A.M. Mr. Scott asked ior the staff recommendafion. Mr. Boardman said they recor.unended that the g�rden center be allowed at its present location for three years, with a permanent site being decided at that time, with permanent landscapinq and permanent site improve:r,ent bei_nq done at that time. You could also add the stipulation that there be no outside storage of material at this location c�:cept during the garden center season, and that the present iocation be cleaned up. He said these stipulations had already been agreed to by the petitioner, but it would lie better to have ther,i atated as stipulations. Mr. Peterson said he had a personal bias on both sides on this request. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission send that request for a Special Use Per.mit, SP ii76-03, � by LyndaZe Terminal Company, to a12ow the Iocation of a garden center in the Northeast corner of the parking 1ot of NoZiday Village Nortl�, per r'zidley City Code, Section 205.10I, 3, N, Iocated on part of Lot 13, Auditor`s Subdivision No. 255, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E• on to Council without a recommenda- tion. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Paqe 38 MOTION b� Scott, seconded by Gabe2, that the Planning Cominission was concerned with the frequency of litter present in the parking 1ot at lio2iday Village North. Mr. Boardman said that one of the biggest problems on this parking lot was the problem of paper litter. He said he felt that Holiday Village had taken some steps to eliminate this problem. Upon a voice vote, on the amended motion, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl3. Upon a voice vote on the motion, aIZ voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . 8. PUBLIC Lot 39, Revi parcel 5640) intersection AS generally of Osborne ATION OF A ITION, BY L 's Subulvision located on the Road and East LJ ELIMIATARY PLAT, P.S. GH INVESTMENTS, INC. ITION): Being a replat of No. 77, (excepting T9est side of the River Road. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on a consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-03, Leigh Terrace Addition, by Lezgh Investments, Inc., (same property as proposed Dorstad Addition), being a replat of Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, (excepting parcel 5640), generaZly located on the West side of the .intersection of Osborne Road and East River Road at the petitioner's request. Upon a voice vote, a2Z voting az�e, the motion carried unanzmously. ADJOURNb4ENT: MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabel, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 1976 adjourned at 2:I5�A.M. Respectfully submitted, �.L1. ' ` ""S�L�it... f%� �� Y_i� r' �.� .'� f-7'Z!� Dorothy Ev�son, Secretary . i `.�f � , '-' , : � ?�� . _. • { . �. . a� , _ n � `v �'�� ; ,��-t =� - . .� �,. .� � + :" itit!!A� R$$OURC�S'CO�� . � � � � „� , � � �a�ch 11; ; i'�� 6�$; ,°& ��SENT: ifii-113am Scott, Gr�eiCr;iTijF�z' �.�� H$acy;Lambert�� -rA$'S82iT: Saral� Belgum . t��.� T: Denise Lynch, YPC; �te� St 7[PC; Laren Metcalf ,,':°YPC ' ��ersop fic9tt opea�d..the mee'ting at: ,7�k� >. , _. __�..._ _� ...:............ ..« _............,.. � ,.,�e�. ...... E stated on:the °third PaBe".�.��:-f`i e �ine_ ,4Rts Co�mi'ttea is �`��i3�st;is n.cah ��..the FLaaniue ��Commissie.n��.��'�-. _. . . . . - - a,T.3 � . . , Barbara Shea, rla, YPC; Mark Treuenfels, p.m. 0 st motion should read funds from the de�(�tihe secand motion on that gsg+�'shvuld read °that the A�'ts ,Cpmmittee :ask the Ci� t��rcl�Che Planning Commission ...°' �,�tg $axbara $}iea, senondad �� Gia�e=`�Lgnch, to agprove the �-�� f�� Febru:ary 5 meeting t�f` ti�t�' ��C as amended. Upou a °�riet�e„ a11 voting a�e, the-motioa-ea�r3ed unanimously. �fZfl3%-Oai 44 �R6T LOTS: G,o:,t� �tated th�. Cammission was, s8�.mm�"�to deal with the prin- �:oi' bui:lding. on k0 foot 2o.ts.. gni�#i -s��ted she aw �ta problem` srifi�- 46- foot lots, In Minnea- ; m$np-:1oCs are 40 feet in_iaidth.. �1�wever, she added, mnst e� �aYS alleys for garking. a�§:e�Ft stated she had asked a reai-e�tate agent about this z, aud-he had state��'many � t�e neti�homes can be bu11t p1Etg way so that Ehey wou).d �it oa:_a '40 foot without much ' �ia.. She added, however, tha� the'G`ity would have to use e,C:�pn.ip,choosing the strucxu��s of.�diQ.-homes in this case. �a�la stated fig £elt buildiag-an 4Q foot iots could be a �yiti irt that the �ipmes woul� prccbab°3.gr be' built very clbse �i�r ��t stat�d s building can be deatg�ed to be aet an a 40 �},�,.. Further, �o�[e,pengle who-s'iR.s#st,this kind of ��ire concerned that they ftill ha�� 3.ew incpme housing in ;i�aa�,gy�borhou.da, 'He added, haq��vez, tfiat_-Yhis does nat , �.:pv iacom� hou.ring. He stated ss�s�.-€orCp-foot lots � . 4O surtax ��so�rz�c�s.- FAGE: TWO annac�t be built � ist�, tits� &A £t� pYa�tic��d, �si�� i:G N88 :�'t`f.S p�ePS,i id.ti8}.1]P: 'fhe Commiseion � i3gTI0N bv Sarb�i iie�man Resourc�s �U foa� lots be with apprt>Pria�i to a€hi�ve'msRf�i t#k+e Human &eSou� ` ' atta3n .minimunk;l R+mte, aI1 v9ti�-1 21I�CIISS:�'O�I `OPI T'i i4r: 'StoYla exg-l:i f�s��d3ng a yout� ta determisse w�j eeate�. �Ie_st�= 24�', Scscatt stat�+ vhether the gou f eeis there h�,,s go3ng Ct� &e ez:� wiil attend-tke bYachu:rea and d Ms. Shga stated' suggested pubE,� >eable,televisia Alr. Scott su�g�' in tt�e Ctvi,a -C� L�r. Stnrl,a et�� member 'of' tti2.:;� of' Lhe :P2aaai�t� Pv�°,��s�t f�e .waul�t � 2�� asi; be devel+ vg-_�`, eoixdusive ;�o' .�I. ti�inYoa that .ea+ �X( v...:� �54 . TB�� R� tIi`" MY . S�CA t' The XPC agreed =tei _ Fridley' Civic' Ce�i 1?TSCUSSI4N' [��i �`„A�' Mr. Saa�tt sta�:` b� the YiannY� :Ci :brui�t £a thi8-;s��-: , , �` �. _ �, , � �t�� ; ..�_'' uth Proj e; Civic' iant a teF ��terest j �eaple re^<, ;y. He`: si �ttem ca11S vf tha re s in th-e : �g a tvar i�e teeA�.� c< �this 8�a+ tectora' ca #� etc, ] a rally i� aursdap,;7 been ;soi Th�y , ��,- �; am�md ia�ain�xi;�itp8 the �fth speciaY-u�e germirs lastd £orm. -He stated ut 6e conside.re�i indlv- i` i t` �v Lambert, th8� the. �` PT�a�iing' Cpmm3ssion �that cn,a c�se by c$se basis bd�.ng s�le arsd= c�.e�3g;n rb�e�'�?t,,,tax paLne.: Aurther, •--.--� �s the eomUihir�� of lot� to ap'a�opriate. [3pon a voice d ��iiimausl�+. GammiCtae wa�a c,qnsidering er on Thursd,`ay, Ma�ch i8 any interes�t �n•a'teen � sgeak on c�3m� pk;�vention. bo5it ghe Ioc+at�on, and (2) nter..'He st�at�d.t;he HRC e tgeta! c�nte.r if it is p$�i� a re�n ice�yter , they C�d titie '�'i�C malte up ttexttfon to !th'� rally. , � y,was very'importanC. She _.epepa�ers and �ver` .*tTi�• pvs�sib3lirty' af <tooms er . ' ba=a �ommunity ef€ort. One d b�; a�policeiRaa�, a tnemtser �iit�'��iiauld b� fciivolve:d � as►1�munt��* �CAtsm- of: Ch_e �:.� . .. . i�. k976 aC 7:30 p.m. .iJE , s �e=iion -abnt�t this Yaised �` 4�#�ettdAis g�ing to be _-h �$ � �.. � , .: . 'Hr . it? l#8 : � �;� �' , � �� fi�i�R�E�s �023X'IS&IO�, M��B �1; �EB. � 4l - �a;�h asked wheCher theae geogl�.-tv�it.�d have aeces8 to the pi�, Scott stated. all of t6a faei33�#es would be shared. a�ii►ert aeked if the srhole-ghiia8pphp �aould then be to er:,ti�e housing. Mx: Sco�t .atate+d_=#�b�'t iras his philosopfiy. y�sh ..ggreed. : CQ-�t '�t.�.ted the Canmissian's .respuilS�'bility was to lei HUD lcnow s� these dev�lop��n.ts are compatable�with the City's �ative Action Policy and philat�o�hi:�a-of imigration. smberE suggested ma_icing a motioet t�h�L the HRC, generallq 4�S o� tb�e plait� but; that the,�S�RF`:`�puld� like to see'the g�tagg,a,red, 3'�s. $coCt s_�ah.ec� �e did not feel Chey wouid a in$t�on an that. s::ihe cons0nsus o€ the Commia&ion.t'h=t: (1) a marketing e��sC,.and (2} thet different-��,ee tanges in housing.exist. SSZ03� Q� BLflCIC 61�A�IT APg�.ICAT�QN-: `' tiemat3�s�lou agre�d Hr. Board��n i�a� drrste a very fine job ��g tkcis biaek grant :apglic$tioit. '-Mr. Scott stated q.art��n�n liad re�ised'his agplic�tit�y,.=#n regard to thase gTi.9qxt,� wh3ch NEr. Sc'qtt had made t�'�ai:memo to Mr. Boardman. $io_tt �tated Mr, Dan Huff had �eq�eaCed to meet with the r�.,A�spur.ees Commi.ssi,on in rega�d;'�a=-t'Ele hiring of a new s, aa$ &ecreatiaii Biiertoz.: -Hr. `Sea�Ct 'added he felt it was i�d ridea ,for the Gommiasion to esta8��..sh a dialogue- of their a rasoar.tes concexns: b��b��t stated efforts have aot been made by the Parks and egt-ias�s Ae�artsxent io stimulate i42�xest in sporCS for women, xdy p.eraans, etc. Rlie moaey sht�v2d he allocated properly. SeQE#,stated-he wou3d-like to espres8, th'e Commission's concerns �� ..ct€.the posit3on� s-andidates. (t�l��;,� sta[ed minor�tfes shnuld �e t�ken iato account when ��t`iag a gerson [o fill this gosttiaa. • Scq�t ass3gned Ms. bynch the d�ty�-�€ determining the number �bg-�;1c�ats for the Parka and Rec�2�,t$�.�tn Director and determining ��r�� qy m3npritias or.�rotected g��up� had applied fur the t�:: Purtfier,. Ms.� Lyneh wi11 ciee�3c krith 6ordon Middag as �a infor�aCi+sa on this positian �geni!�g was posted.: , ;; r � �ur�ax x�sc�uxc�s:-? ' FAGE: F'6BH �s." Laarbert stac had-$u}p xight,'i�i likg tlre Commis� anq reeommendatif Mr. Scott sugg�� Tire Gommission ;� H3JMt1t3 LI�E COA)i�� Afs. Shea. s'tated'� €om�zSssion spon� �ft� added tFte ��: xas a g�esentat� �S:E�e add��d anot�t� .�v eondiict i.t 2t� pub'3.i?c, Also. a� srili be held a�;� HOTi0N,6y Gracen� ace�pt� 'th� in�� RC m.emtsers pa�� Human I2�`s4urces:":: yt�t�f a.tl voting � �AJ(iURi�t�ENT. � ktii�YQPi by Basbal: � Yf1.e �ea��hg at '� the motiaa earz#.� ° ReapectfuSiy suh� - �! .� i:, '"r ��':,, z. �' 13oily �sager Recordirtg Secx~e� > �� . . .i, -.. ` a^ _ ��r -} r'" $ � �'. t . . � �!` � .-;� � it� itid` not feel [ i,��.ta� et all.: � -�ai�ie the.£� s . ;; , v.,. �ttizi� tfiis in :+�°. :�. � � �'x �S j �, ci 3�ms .,�,.�. . l� . .�r , � HflP ; e conferei �onatetl �: Lttliaod.a Ct ;'�a�:11 �e 1 Iiowever , �r Human ] �24.Ofl ;pe �nded t�y 1 u Colutabi: the ?3,'um� `'mem6er-s a uotion:ca� *.onded by. igon a,�voi �sly. F,'L-`, '�-�-"," ,� ... i�"Y ;F �F '�.� ��4 � �- }�., � s � � $ 4 :. } 5F' .'4^ n'+za.-&�G. . �� ►78 �; Hu'�asnT Be�AU�ces C�ommiss�ion � , Shea:stated s�t� wanld i :-rns, but no'C t� make � :tt�er t� Che�Gi#y�Manager_ ie3ghts Hu�a�n Reso�xces antitled "You, i�ie, 'and sUs." :o.�Lhi� conferehce. This tie�tious, arid drug abuse. :nted this y�ax�; the cost t wi1P'; be free to the g��s Commissio� members Cti'm��ss3vt� membez. ��g i,ambert: t�aY-the ARG ��38ttxs to have Ch� Fxidley; 3<fEe conference workshap as ,�20 api;ece. Upai� a voice t�il.unani�ously.,' $3�C�'� ��PY'£ t!j' ar}hitia.w�-.. �,vota,-a�.i voti�g ape, � �.' � • . • ��7u1' ° ?.`I�1 �a !: • � : � . �1 ' � '1'.IY'1 ' � �/ � �' �'JI � � MAI�Ei 22, 1976 Bob Peterson, Shi.x`ley Cald�ll, Ltiave Iiarris, Jan Seeger. Harvey Wagar None pTFiERS PRESFSFf: Dan Huff - Acting Director. Parks a�l Recreation Department Chuck Kasick - City of Fridley, Siumier Sports Coordinator S�ally Cagle - ILdV Leonard Moore, Jr. - Riverview Heights Concerned Action Group Judi Janiak - Neighbarhoo3 grbup for namiing park �;,,,,an peterson called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. �' NIIN[TPES OF �EBRUARY 23, 1976 PAI2�cS ADID MpTION by Caldwell, seoorxled by Wagar, to approve the minutes as written. Upan a wice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried »nanimn�Sly. ..��. � �• � i e � i�. . y«. . � . Dan Huff infornled the Carmissioners that the Spring Newsletter and the Sprinq Parks and-Recreation Bulletin wese presently at the printers and should be available by the end of the week. In these are includ� the most u�to-dat_: infozmation on the programs as possible. He said that therefore, if there are to be any changes in the fees, it would t�ve to be noted iimiecliately so the bulletin could be changed. He explainecl that after a thorough review by Janet Konzak, Fdministrative Assistant, and Bruce Nelson, Ac�ninistrative Aide, it was suggested that because of increased costs, especially in mzinte_nance, the fees should be raised. A1r. Peterson said that changing the entire rate schedule was rather a major itan, and he felt the Crnmission should have be�n included �n making anY decisions regarding fees. �r, Huff agree3 anl sai.d that he felt this should have been done about six weeks ago so that evexyone could have had a look at it arxl still have had time to put the brochure together. He pointed out that the tulletin had to be finished last week ard he had to give a recaimendat-ion to the City Manager a week ago Friday. It was determined t2�e fees c,nuld have to be raised an a�erage of $75 per team for softball to be entirely self-supporting- Mr. Wagar mted that girls' softball was rnt mentioned, arrl Mr. PeterSOn said the Camussion has already entered into an agreanent with the FYSA to run the girls' softtx�ll progr�n. /�� 4�ARKS APID R�CREATI�1 CQ�lISSICJ�I MEEPTNG OF NP�i 22, 1976 - PAGE 2 Dr. Huff felt the only pmb2ens in gisls' softball concerned the wnpises. Mr. Kasick said they were aware of those problens and were txying to eliminate therc. He said they w�se trying to train the referees ar�cl qualify thsn, and get the right ones into the right areas. Dr. Huff said that as he urxlerstood it, all they were goinq to do is hire the chief wh� will make out the schedules for the imrpires. He said that this is the only money that would be invested for administrative time. He o�tt�ented t1�at they were not planning to raise any fees. Mr. Peterson said that he felt that program should run at considerably less �st this year because that kind of money isn't spent as far as the footba7.1 program or hockey pro9r�n is concerne.ci. He noted that they couldn't afford to pay for the armunt of tirne that goes into these associations through theis amateur boards. Mr. Wagar questa.one3 if all the softball teams were from Fridley. IIr. Huf£ answered that everybody on a team must either live or work in Fridley, except in church teams. Dave Harris noted that there was sane unhappiness regarding entry fees in 1975 arri prior years. Ae said the question that has always been raised is the fact that fees are decided on the basis of a team and not necessarily on how many hours the facility is beirig used--the fees were being raised in a ratio to rnm�ber of dollars spent arx3 not hours spent. Dr.: Huff explained that the fees were raised across the board, as he asstnned there was sane sort of rationale, but he had also ass�mied the teams played the same amount of games. Mr. FIarris said he understood they play a varied amount of games, and added that the fact also was that sane of the men's slaa-pitch teams had sponsors and could raise money through the sponsorship program. t�. Peterson said it disturbed him because the City of Fridley had always prided itself on providing services to its citizens at no more cost than what is charged in other areas for similar programs. He said that last year EYidley had a higher tl�i average fee in c�iparison with other cities; and now it is being raised again. Dr. Huff assured him that they were still close to the middle as this year most cities did have a raise. He r�ted that they had checked with fourteen other cmcrn�nities and fowxi there was a range frcm $110 to $190, so he felt they weren't out of line. Mr. Peterson asked what the actual cost to Fridley was for each individual, and Dr. Huf£ answered that excludincx maintenance crosts for the field, it cost $2.26 to run the program for each irrlividual who played on a team. This ironey went for achninistrative costs, registration costs and wnpires. Mrs. Caldwell felt the Parks and Recreation should be a service to the crnmu- nity, and primarily to the youth. She felt the youth who needed the program most might have a problan with the increased costs, a�i it e,ould bec�ne a luxw.y for those who cou2d afford it. She sai.d they were getting into a winle new philosophy with this, and she tiould like to see the fees eliminated for the youth, anl certainty didn't Want to see than raised. � � � , _ �S. P�RIiS AND RECREATION CCNR�ffSSI0T1 MEN.�'ING � 1�RQi 22, 1976 - PAC>� 3 Harvey:Wagar asked where thi.s money went,, azxl Mr. Peterson replied that it gces back in general revern�e. He added that the hudget is being cut in terms o� what the Pazks and Recreation wauld like to do for the city, and when all this is multiplied aut there are quite a few thousar�d dollars that go back intn general revenue, whereas if that money came back into Parlcs aml Ftecxeation it would be possible to qet warniing houses ani other �,;gnent that uras needed. Mr. Harris pointed out that there was a problen with a b�qet l�sed on expected revenue. He said ttie expected revenue is sanetimes greater and sanetimas less tl�n what is anticipated. Dan Huff asked if the fees have been a regular Ca�mission iten that is considered at a certain time of the year, and Mr. Wagar said it hadn't. Dave Harris added that he did not apprave of this way of doing it as they had no control over tY� dollars spent. Mr. Wagar asked what iten D- Playgrowrls concerned, and Mrs. Caldwell said this Concerned the activities that the yourx3sters ;�*-*;cipated in for a few weelcs in the sinmier, including art, T-ball, archery, etc. It involves children mainly in the £our to eleven age qroup. She said that this program wvrkecl well for mothers snployed outside the hane and for people who couldn't afford to sexxl theis kids to camp, and naa it might be out of theis range. Dr. Huff noted that the user paying the fee was the national trend in recreation � today. He said there has to be a naau�al fee to have better control over the ' program. If there isn't a naainal fee the people aren't regular in attecxiirig. He felt that $6.00 for a child receiving supetvise9 atteni.ion £ive hours a day, four days a wee]c; for six weelcs was a reasonable price. Mr. Peterson asked if tliere was any provisi.on for a family who couldn't afford to pay anything, and Dr. Huff replied there was none that he ]mew of. Mr. Peterson said it was necessary with every one of the volunteer organizations that use the city facilities that if there is a family who cannot afford to enroll their children, they play and the association picks up the costs. Dr. Huff said it wnuld be easy to do that if there was an association runnim� the proqram. Mr. Harris suggested that a base figure be set, a�l anyone who makes less tlYin a cextain a�rount would be able to participate free of charge arrl the city wvuld pay the costs. Mr. Peterson raised the question of el�m;*�ting the Youth Baseball. He said there were already two excellent association-run programs. Little Izague and Bai�e Ruth, which encanpassed the same age groups. He felt this was an area that could be cut which wvuld decrease the costs to the kids and also save the city money, includii� maintenance. Mr. F3arris said he objected to the whole i.dea; �t fran the standpoint that a certain raise in fees isn't justified, but to the whole procedure as he felt it was time the (buncil realizes all the incrntinq m�ey should be reviewed by the Cannission to plan the budget intelligently. �, J ,, PARKS ADID I2➢CREF.TIC�1 �SSI�] NIEETING OF MARCH 22, 1976 - PAGE 4 � MOTION by Dave Iiarris, s�onded by Haivey Wagar, to reject the rate increases for the stmmer recreational programs until the Parks a�l Recreation Carnnission has reached an agreanent with the city �niiiistration to be allowed to use the estimatecl fees that are returne9 to the city in intelligent preparation of their annual budget. Upon a voice vote, all vot;� aye, the motion carrie3 urianimously, MdI'ION by Dave Harris, seconded by Jan Seeger, to maintain the same fees as allocated in 1975. Upon a voice vote, all voti�7 aye, the motion carried unaniumusly. DISCUSSI�I ON SQETLiAI�L REGISTR�ITION ME�TING DATFS: Dr. Huff infonneci the Carmissioners that the I�brxlay and Tuesday leagues will meet on March 30th, and the Wednesday and Thursday leagues will meet on April 1. Mr. Peterson asked i£ the city fiirnished the clerical help to register the adult soft2x�1]. teams, and IIr. Huff replied it did. He added that last year the city was paying for three people's time. Mr. Peterson said that spealting as an individual Cai¢ni_ssian menber and as a city taxpayer, he couldn't understand why volunteer associations were fornled for the youngstexs when the adults, who should be able to handle this thenselves, need the city's help in reqistrativn. Mr. Peterson requested that the Adult Softball Program be put on the agenda for the Septanber meetinq. � DISCUSSION ON Q�URCH LEAGUES- "L1VE OR WORK" RUlE: Dr. Huff said that in 1975 a team menber would either have tb live or work in the City of FYidley. The cha��n of the church leagues has asked that the Comnission cronsider changing the policy for the church leagues. Mrs. Ca].dwe11 felt the philosophy behi�l the rule was the important thing to consider. Mr. Peterson noted that there wauld be s�ne people who wouldn't be able to play on a church team if thexe was such a rule. Mrs. Seeger asked what was provided to the church leagues fran the city, a� Dr. Auff replied the balls, facilities, and �ires �re prwidecl. NYYMON by Shisley Caldwell, seconded by Dave Iiaxris, that the rule for church l�gues be chaia7ed to "live, work, ar be a menber of the church for which they w�xe playing." Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. DISCOSSION �I RFSERVATIONS FI�R IQQ� PARK PAVILLION: Dr. Huff inforn�ed the menbers that in the past it was the tradition that no reservations be given for the pavillion, but a pei'mit had to be taken out to have a picnic in the park. He suggested that a reservation procedure be initiated. Mt. Harris said the problsn is that there are onty ts,�lve Sundays in June, July � aixi August, and felt the pavillion should be shared. He said reservations might cause ill feelings. PARKS AND RECRFATION CONPIISSICtV MEEPING OF MARCH 22, 1976 - P1� 5 4� Mr. Peterson said he felt they had a metropolitan obligation. If one of the service organizations or one of the ca�anies fran within the city whose m�ney, time and effort has gone inta making the city what it is wants to use the pavillion, they might run into a conflict with a group fran South Miruieapolis which also wishes to use the pavillion. In the past tl�e groups wexe prim3rily from outside of Fridley. Mrs. Caldwell suggested havi.ng a fee c2�ed to groups who wanted to reserve the pavillion, with a higher fee for those not residing in the city. S2� said she didn't favor contributions as that was tt�o much like favoritisn. I�'h. Harris noted that the park costs the city money, ard it is bei.ng a "Goclfather" to a large pzrt of the metropolitan area. He said he suggested some time ago requiring a�Y*�+;t to use the beach and park, but reaction was not good. Mr. Peterson sugqested that it might have some mexit fran another standpoint, in `hat Locke Park in some areas is getting all the tra£fic it can stand fran an ecological point of view and it needs smie time to recuperate. He sai.d a fee might help control this. Harvey Wagar carment�ed that there might be a problen with the reservation systan in regards to enforcing the rule. He cited that if the pavillion caas reserved but another group from a different territory arrived with the inten- tion of using it, there could be a problen. • MOTION by I3axris, seoorxied by Jan Seeger, that Dan Huff obtain a staff reca[men- dation on how to monitar a reseivation system to be presented at the April meeting. Upon a voice, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimcusly. Dr. Huff pmposed the possibility of a fee for using the beach, but Mr. Harris said that oouldn't be done or the city �uldn't get any money frcan the county. He said the city receives $2,000 fran t1�e county to maintain the watex q_uality on the basis that the city would r�t exclude anyone living in Anoka County fran using the k�eaches. He suggested the administration go back to the county to inform than that the $2,000 was a 1968 figure arxi the cost of chani.cals has inflated drastically since tt�n, arxi perhaps the amount could be raised. DISCUSSION ON RAiSFS FOR PLAYGROIT,�ID SUPERVISORS: Dr. Huff infonned the Cacmissi.on that in the budget there was a raise for the warnring house attesrlants and playgrou� supervisors, fran $2.25 per hour to $2.75 per hour. The increase was given to the wanning 1»use atter�clants, but no�a in the process of trying to hise the supervisors, the City Manager is oonsidering not allowing the playground supervisors' salaries to be raised by t]�at airrnuit. Mr. Peterson asked what the qualifications c�xe for the supervisors' positions, and Dr. Huff replied that they had to be at least 17 years old or older, ax�d that references were checked � that mature an3 dependaUle people would be selected. He said that a lot of then have been college students a� many were repeaters who have been doing this for several years, but it is mt in the jab � description that the applicant must be a college student. �$ PP.RRS AND 12ECREFITION Q'Y„A'BSSIQd N�'PING OF MAI�Ii 22, 1976 - PAGE 6 Mr. Harris pointed out that there were people doing fantastic jobs who wese � gettincj paid the same as peoPle who weren't doing such a good job. Mr. Peterson asked if the job description could be rc�aritten to ensure the city would get the better person, and Dr. Huff sai.d it could. MOTI�T by Dave Iiaxris, secorrled by Shirley Caldwell, to increase the hourly z,ege for Playground Supervisors fran $2.25 to $2.75 an t�ur. Opc�n a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unaniumusly. OLD.BUSII�SS - NAMING PARKS: Mr. Peterson informed the Caimissioners that sane of the parks that were liste3 as unnamed had actually already bee�i designate3 "Natural History Areas" by the City Council in 1974. Dr. Auff said that North Park has already been unofficially named, and the Arthur Street and Gardena Area was officially designated as Innsbruck Natural History Area. The Dunes has been designated the West Moore Iake IRxnes Natural History Area, and Rice Creek Estates property has been designated Rice GYeek Natural Hi.story Area. There are still seven pieces of property that have not been named by City Council action. Mrs. Seeger told the manUers that the Indian n�nes fran the Tribal Council weren't available yet, but she had driven Mr. George Mitchell of the Acn�sican Indian Center to the parks to view than ar�d obtain descriptions. Tkiis will be reviewed with an eldex in the Indian Council and they will give the Camtission . a brief outline on why they would choose a certain name for a park. The list of recmYnendations with a description of the name wi1l be qiven to Mrs. Shaw, who wi11 type it up for the Cca�¢ni.ssion. Mr. Harris said he felt his ca�ments regarding his reo�ndations for park names should have been part of the mano, ancl Mrs. Seeger added that she thought the rec�nerdations fran letters received fran the league, the Springbrook Plature Center Fbundation a� the residents sY�uld be included. Dr. Huff asked if there was an officiaZ policy for park naming, and Mr. Peterson replied there v,*as. He explained the Parks and Recreation Conm.ission makes recorrnner�dations which are sent to the City Council for official action, and then it becanes the name of the �xrk. Mr. xarris added that namuig parks after pc�ple is a problan as far as the city is concerned. He said he felt that the mistake was made originally when parks were named after people in the carernuzity, because those who do the most wnrk usually azen't recognized. Mr. Peterson pointed out that this time the Camnission was considering names concerni.n9 the Bi-Centerviial ax�d our In3ian heritage. He said he didn't think there has l�en an official policy within the C�mission, pex se. Dr. Huff suggested that perhaps there should be a.st�,�ation against naming parks after people. MdPION by Harris, seconded by Mrs. Seeger, that at the Apri]: meeting of tYie Parks and-Recreation Canni.ssion, providing there is a full quonnn, action be taken and the parks named, and that Shirley Caldcaell be kept informed of the � progress made. Upwi a voice vote, all wting aye, the motion carried unanurously. _ .. � _ _ ,. _ _ _ _ . �.. , _.., _, _._.V _ ____ . ..,^+�+r_ n �J . i PARKS ADID RF7CREATICN QONP�lISSION MEEPING QF N�I 22, 1976 - PAGE 7 ta 1 � •�« • ••�n•• « • h Mr. Juan Salas was scheduled to appear before the Catmission to discuss the so�cer changes, but was not present. Dr. Huff informed the manbers that Mr. Salas had requested times ar�d facilities fran schools, and had been given gym time. The Conmissioners agree3 that the soccer field at Locke Park should be improved as it was b�lly in need of maintenance. � • • � u i� � • � • • • • • o�� i i� � � � � Ur. Huff told the Catmission that the barrl had been polled and had oome up with the idea of a portable band shel.ter rather t1�an a permanent one. Mr. Peterson said he wasn't in favor of that idea because a portable shelter c,DUld not sezve the ne�ls of a lot of gx�oups that the C�mission was concerned with when this was first proposed. Dr. Huff said that one group of ix��l menbers did not like the ideaa but felt it �ras either this way or noth;ra. He szid they were really concerned with the location, and if a decision had to be made this year a portable �,ould �lve the problen. Mr. Peterson said he felt the band was out of order on this. He added that the Hwnazi Resources Caanission was in favor of the band shelter as was propose3, which �uld be a pennanent structure for use Y�y the fine arts groups for plays, etc. Dr. Huff was concernecl aYput the �ise situation, airl Dave Harris said this was the fisst consideration. Mrs. Seeger suggested a sound study be taken, ani Dr. Huff agree3. OT1�12 BUSINESS: Mr. Peterson thanked Shirley Caldwell on behalf of all the Crnmissioners for her services on the Parks and Recreation Ca�mission, as this was the last meeting she would be atter�ing as a manbes. �� • •iiia The meeting was adjourried by Chaiiman Peterson at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully sulanitted, � ,��; a ��--�� S1�erri O Donnell Reoording Secret.aty 4� �� ..�.,_ �� ; �i..� �.:�' � � � 4 _ , i. i i I .. . .... I.. .. � � ,� ;� „r �� . :- � ` ;;_' � f x� -:� �;b: � - t F �C 1- n.;y 53 � n. . . F°, ', � tt� � � � 4 �. � � 3� k�.t , z <, . . � i ( > °6 �. t � d ;� � � � % "s y � ��.:, � �%�: � _p � 8 � � �. � � 3 � °J ��", �� ) i} S � � �}F t3 �. �"3_. 1 M d � , � � Z � .- � �•. C�. ' �� . .�"` _y i y "x � �� ' n i� � fi �x .g'.s '.. 5 %4 � � � rR � � z � �V � L � µ�� ;: � � �� y'Y . .; ,/ �N � a s � . xt{ ` � - >.^z � � � � k � A� � a � —_ '�'` �;µ 'a �� . z � � ,x �; t � � � 4 J4 � � ` j � ��y�.� 43f.` . . � 7f`4•` "e"`� � .. . . . `y,�, �, . ' . �, r � � a. . «� �s � �- � � ,. . ;. .. .,.-.. � � . _ �, ' . . . _ j, � �, �� . . t�,'�� . . . .. f��.� �. , . �r;.�. � �' . t �� . �,` � � ` ;_ , � � . . � �d � " � ' ' �� _ . . �' . , .. ,_ � -:��, , . 1 ti..-• / � � : � ��; : ' � _ � / .. � �_ j / I � / / � � : , _ � � ,� �. ', � } " . . . ; . ,�. , _ z� J .. . . .. . . . . ± �' '� � � � . . � � ._ . :':>�' ' .. . � � :�.... � . . 4°>,i ., � y� ' � .. ¢� � � .. .. . . - � . � ' . �'��r ,,, . � � 3 Y� � h �� .. r � -s+r-�e = F -�+ . � r � � � xi . e � �� , , �� _ ; t t� E �` � " 'y; < < � r � . 3� �,� .{�i�, s, y I, � ir � � �� t' . ?.` h+�''�� >4 � �'+''Y� �'' g '� ^�? tb y'�'�� . 7 f - t �` . ^� � "i � � ` � � .�� , , � � ; t _ �X . Y � � y � s�} ; � 4 Y3 � d . �4 � � � �r . � �� J �` _ . _ r � � ? �` . . . . . <` ��.' ' "� . i. 4�A� rv %' ` hv_ X � � . . . .�{u �` � �� S i�� _ � *� r � � �Y � 3 s � �� i� it ^xe �, �� ; � �i ��, ..� S��p� i °j � t'rt ". i � s � '� i - s � �� L �. ✓ � ' � � � ,,' �., �, ., k � i; � � . .` sat �''* ` f ' � �. �' _. _' ';,' ,.�� '? # .e ��, , , L � r, �s� � . � :.-_ ' . :.'�': �" � � w '`�` � �s` . . ' �. � � �i� � � a '., ' a y.: �" +,. � � eF�� -,�,:, "' ,�. � . �.k � y "' � _4"�� w a �� ** � S k . . . ,4 � iF � �Y � #` � �4 } � � .. . � .��P S",�"� 3 n ".b �rv' � � . , r Ye,. � _.. ... . �. .' ' t .�c � ° r� y s�.bf � x> � � : i 'n . � !.r° . ; u. , r' �. . - z-i= .. . . � .. .;� � i, .. .. . � ,�i _� ,.. s � � � � h k, �y. � � � k}. k �, . � d., f .4^� t, . _ y � . : r " .F' _ . _ ♦. � ,v . . � � V � 5s^( : .. � . . . . � W -3f� Y � . 4�5... . . . � .� � -x t �.� Y°. � . .. . . . � �,i . . . ... . . _; . .. . .! ' . i: �. �k �. , � r Yy£ � � � x r � 4 z ,: � � � l Y ( 4 r'4' s . tg�2��y� . 'T .'4 . . G:f� '�` f ., h�� S.. t �' *..�F L � �_ +� . „ : . 1 �� '� * x... G=� t d+.� � "V ,�y �..'`. i•': # ' �� `,r2 . - . '�"!., ' Y �. � � v`Y x � � u^ x � „,, s,{�t,- . : .-. �., � ' •�:� � ;... � ,�y .,'4. '.- 3$ . . - . lflti_ �. .. �r ii' e �yiF�� s# �hT °�' . i . . � �a � �:' � �''% �t s �. _ , e; � _1 � i i i ; I �� , ; � I � I I i I I I I I I i � � � � � � I �� I- �<� � r�, �` f Y� � a � � �� .� 'si�v . �� x . . wr s "�`. . �� ..?_� � � . $p ' ' � � � 1 1,. ��"`T �� 4 � �'c a �'i.✓ �` � _ � q. � ;� �; , � `,� � �. , : � _ °, �; ;:. ° ' � � � ;. � � � � :�:' � � �� k b .-iE.:, . � � � �` � ` � £<: �. f e s. �' _ 4. . "' �� s. � � � a' g ` � � � �,, . � y t R � � � � � � R: 4 Y`� . � ✓ u a � � �. 9 a � " _, _ s r'�� . � �`'\ �� h¢�{ �/ �. 4� 1 Fa }� bti � � � x�. � � � � � Y£ } � '.S � � � 3A . . _ . _ � � . �,., � � � 4 � � tG � �' . A" � �� . . � : s �.'`� i -t . _°i _ � . -`fi# �'�� :f � � f`�.. .. � �'` . _ `fi3'; � es. ; � � 4 �' : y �� Y:.� ry �. � � K � Y � - Y .^� ¢ 3 y ^ . . � �� x i � �' . ! �� . y" ii .:�,p �€ � v �Y � t ,. _ . :;r ., x_ . � /' , � � - .� :. .... . 5:. �. �F ; t . / { % /� � + � J F / � '-1i1%^y k � � � �� \\ � �'. � � / . . . \ � _ . �r .. .. / . . - . . . . µa i�.. 1 y % ` �� T k } � � al 7 '4�A�'R . � � ��''� : w� � " . . '" ` ,- t,�, '� l'_�� .r , y � �t C 5, . � ' . � ., � y � ', t;. ( � fi '� Y C f � � . s , � l.. ` €c s x�, Y e> . . . . � � -n� . .m — . . . . . ,. . '�x v . x��r:» . � �yr . . . �.- : . . . � � � - j . . , �� = � � �- ? - � � ' . . . � �, . , � -q,y � � �_ � ` .. . . . � . . . . vi ��..,� zr � p : < . �. � . . . . � . . r � � . , . . . . . . . . � . r - .±, ... � _ � ' . _ - _ , # -- .. .. -. . �i� �_ J , . . . . . . � . . �y_ "�r : X '4f .. . . �� i' imF�`'ilc�L . . � � .. q i .. . . _ . . . � u�AY ri r'�: ~ X p .. . . ' . �"a S '� � .� . . . . . . Y .*` �`! � "r.: �:� .N. �2 'e'�[. -(�[Y'f .. . . . . F +�y�� . . . . . . Ao �. .,,,} . . . � - . , r ,, , � � � 3_ ' j- �. . _ �,,. . _ -. - . . . � . -' , . r...,.'.�: . . . . :ibLX.�F`. w . . . � . .. . �to-: ., . � . . . � @ i � : �. r k. . � .. � . � i .. a .s ,. �. .. . .. .. _ rr. P°t Y _ :ti-. . ' . � . � zRy,�,+� . , + : . .. . � � . � . . . . #�.e, . . ' � . , . . . . x". � .. � � . . . - �'> 1 >. . . . . .. .. . . �� . , � . . . � . . . � . . i.'".. . . . . .�U ' OFFICIAL NOTICE CI7Y OF FRIDL.EY PUBLIC NEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Nontheast on Wednesday, March 3, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M, for the purpose of: Consideration of a proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. � 76-02, Innsbruck Village Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210 feet, Auditor's Subdivision Plo. 92, all-lying in Section 24, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of A�oka, Minnesota. � 6enerally located North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apartment. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. Publish: February 18, 1976 February 25, 1976 � RICHARD H. HARRIS Chairman Planning Correnission J% � NUDIISL•R .�f/ 7(,_OY � APPI.IC.4N'1''S SIGNA'I�J2C �q,FR�� f9.E'R //EvEeovrYlGNT�•p,E� Address z�lO �o ,�O {� %�i�n�s JJ1N. 3"�'N.�o ciTY or r•aiu�.ev MrnNesrrrn PLANNING AND ZONING FORM � Telephone numbcr �'(�0 - �/t7 PROPER7'1' OlVNER'S SIGN:'I.URE � o,a Qgtilc 5� TYPE OF R�QUEST Rezoning Special IIse Pennit X ApProval of Premin- inary $ �inal Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Address ' _�_ (�e�r Tvw.o ��WS� i Telephone Number r�'U° ��} ! FeeaJV Du Receipt I�o. %�G" �� i Strc�t Location of Vropert.y �y�—�pi�� /' `iai�f�C31o.a: — ��,.�.-�-�--• ., I ~~ �� ' / � �CT �! 4>XCP Legal. Description of Property Q�r[ar /3 1�n-s3zU�/C NC�PTH p��"�� ; ��o• Aoo. s::b 9z 9a•Y., ie-3 • j Present Zonino Classifica�ion ic'1 �2-/ Existing Use of Property� (iACAtir � Acreage of Property // %�e, DescriUe briefly the proposed zonir.g classification or t}•pe of L+.se and improvemcnt proposed \p� �wNHOUStS —`� oN.ra G�/' ' � Has the present alpli-cant previocsly sougllt to rezone, plat, oUtain a icc splii: or variance or speciul use permit oa the suUject site or part of it? 7� yes no. k'hat iaas requested and wlien? _ The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all resi�ents and on�ners oi pro�erty within 300 fe�t (350 ;.�:t for rczoning) nust Uc attached to this application. (U) Tliis application :::::st bc signcd by all owners of the property, or an expia�tat=on given wh�� this is not Yiic case. (c) Fesponsibility.for any dc:fect in the Preecedi.^.�s resulting from tlie failure to list the names and addresses of all resi.dei�ts and property ot�lers of property in question, helongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structw•e must be dra��n and attaclied, sho�ai_n� the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Lecation of proposcd siructurc on the lot. 3. Dimension�. of property, proposed siructure, and froni and side setbocks. 4. Street \ames. S. Location and use of adjacent existing builda.n;,�s (wi.zhin 3GG �aet). The undcrsigned hercUy dcclares that all the far.ts and represe�tations state3 in this �pplication are true and correct. . DATG �`�6� f 2 ! q 7�o �IGNATUR�� /�*��+� U. /d � APPi.ICAN'l') inat� F�i�a Datc of Hcar.ing_ Planning Commission Anprovcd (datcs) Deni.cd_ City Council Approvcd (dates) Denicd _ Mailing List P.S. �76-02, by Darrel A. Farr Corp. INNSaRUCK VILLAGE ;�r Innsbruck North Associates 2810 County Road 10 Minneapolis, Mn 55430 Darrel A. Farr Development Corp. 2810 County Road 10 Minneapolis, Pin 55430 Janet G. Hoffineyer r��r'"'"�� 5�93—Fast -Ober-lin—Circle ijoDU'"`f'�. Fridley, t�in 55432 � �� r�� f�lr. f� hirs. Hilm_r Ferkingstad 5589 East Obertiii Circle N.E. Fridley, Nn 55432 Katherine hi. Holuin 5585 East Oberlin Circle N.E. Fridley, tdn 55432 Sid E. Cserquam 5573 East Ubarlin Circle N.E ` Fridley, i��n 554?Z Mr. & I��s. Editi�a�°d Lethert 1567 �orth uberlin Cfrcle N.E Fri<a�ey, I�fn 55432 Mr & Mrs. Harry 4licis trom 1553 North Obei°lin Circle N.E. Fridley, hin 55<i32 Timotny M. Jaeke 1559 North C.�erlin Circle N.E. �ridley, f�?n 5,n32 �r. S D1r;. t�arvin i!. Erdman 555 i�!o:-th Ob�-rlin Cii�cle N.E.� ridley, I�n 5543? r. & hirs. Clarence F'erris 543 Nori:h OUei°lin Circie N.E. ridley, tin 55432 �uisa N. ltichardson �47 North Oberlin Cirr.le y.E.� •idlcy, Fin 55�i32 � Planning Gomnission .� ' ��- 7U Council 59 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Moore 1539 North Oberlin Circle N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Merle Grimmer 5571 Waldeck Crossing N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Fredrik Schiotz 5567 lJaldeck Crossing N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Tufford 5563 Waldeck Crossing N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 �1r. & Mrs. Theodore Thoinpson 5559 Waldecl: Crossing N.E. Fridley, P1n 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Albert Miller 5555 Waldeck Ci°ossing id.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 D1r. & tdrs. John Lindstrom 5551 ldaldeck Crossing h.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mary deslaimiers 5570 t�!aldeck Crossing N.E. Fridley, Pin 55432 Margaret Hale 5566 IJaldeck Crossing N.E. Fridley, Pin 55432 Mr. & P1rs. Harris Sonnenberg 5562 lJaideck Crossing N.E.. Fridley, Pln 55432 Mi•. R F1rs. James Hulbert 5553 l4aldeck Crossing N.E. Fi-idley, f•in 55432 h7r. & i�irs. Richard Peterson 5554 �:laldeck C�acsing N.E. Fridlr,y, I�1n 55132 Mr. F i�irs. Terry Anderson 5550 idaldeck Crossing N.E. fridley, Pln 55432 -� � �� tlailing List �Pa9e 2) P.S. N76-02 INNS6RUCY. VILLAGe DARREL A FARR DEVELOPt�1ENT CORP. Mr. & P1rs. Duane Johnson 1526 Qornhof Junction Fridley, h1n 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Vernon Rose 1522f3ornhof Junction N.E Fridley, P1n 55432 Judith A. Leino 1518 �ornhof Juction Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & P1rs. J. Michael• Ertel 151G Qornhof Junction N.E. Fridley, 1•1n 55432 Karren S. Anderscn 1510 6ohnhoi' Junction Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & h1rs. Wayne Gernian �� 1506 P,ornhof Junction N.E. fridley, h1n 55432 Janice Root 7566 North Oberlin Circle N.E. fridley, 14n 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Rodger Erickson 1562 Narth Obe,•lin Circle N.E Fridley, Mn 55432 Darrese Herinari 155u North Ob��rlin Circle Pl.E Fridley, h1n 55n32 Pir. & tirs. Lai•�rence Cipolla 1554 North Oberl in Ci r'cle P;. E Fridley, I�� 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Foy 1550 tdorth Oberlin Circic FI.E. F/r�idley, P1n 554.;2 I'r�i��.� fll1�� j\ 7f�l�it'Ch :)1�tiS A1r. & Tlrs_�-ilU:rt-Kinnrinen 1546 tJorth Oucrlin Cir�le N.E Fridley, I•1n 55�132 Joyce �. 1•!emiberg 15A7. Nurth Obcrlin Circic N.E F1•idley, D1n '.;5�i2 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Minton 1538 North Oberlin Circle fridley, Mn 55432 Norman Hectner & Grace 4Jestrich 5569 East Oberli� Circle N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Eugene German 5565 East Oberlin Circle N.E. Fridley, f�in 55432 i Donald Olson 5594 1�1eistei� Road N.E. / Fridley, Mn 55432 Herbert Q. Holtz 5590 P1eister Road f4.E. � Fridley, P1n 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Willie � 5586 Pleister Road N.E. Fridley, t=in 55432 Mr. & Ptrs. Mark Krueger 55£32 r�:eister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Lindstrom � 5578 Meister Road N.E. fridley, t4n 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Marshall Ginthner� 5574 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, P�tn 55�132 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Qerger' 5570 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, P1n 55432 Peter J. Y.ozl�7k, Jr. � 55u6 Meister Road N.[. Fridley, h1n 55�432 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Rumpsa 1481 North Innsbruck Drive t�.c. Fridlcy, btn 55432 Mr. & P1rs. Orlin 4licks 1495 North InnsLr•uck Drive td.E Fridley, Mn 55A32 1•��1 --- -� - i .� t3i Mailing l.ist Page 3 a P.S. #76-02 INNSBRUCK VILLAGE Robert Yanicke Minneapolis Field Office 8200 Normandale Blvd. Minneapolis, Mn 55437 Cheryl L. Nybo 5588 Arthur Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr: & Mrs. Gary Samuel 1479 North Danube Road NE Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. James Johnson 5657 North Danube Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Olson 5643 North Danube Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Veryl enler 5529 No �anube Road N.E. � Fridl�; 55432 � Mr. & Mrs. Myron Swenson 1496 North Innsbruck Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Urbick 5837 Arthur Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Berchin 5829 Arthur Street N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Jacob Wiens 5809 Arthur Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 � � 61 �--� • : . , : +- '. f... � --..... .."•'_'__'�_ ` r .. .. . � `� a � ' � 1%Y3g� �•• i !�9L!/1 . d:n' VIGI 40 ' ,��- ., . �;__ 34�3? : i�c�J (�i � : '. 39 ---�;: -�.�----- , , --�--� --�---'--=--,--v ,,�zir.�• . � �= .� 4�� .. 45" �� ... o � - - -::. �:., , r - -�.a:- � 5�09 .�JJ•j h. . � i, j�„49 , � ` ii ��: +F \ �� • 1" � i: ' . -.:f.�..:;- .:..-._,_--: ,_,r �. :se':.* , � , . i :: � .� , y; "�:'� ; ~ h�: �;�L �..0 'r.y .�� ' Cn: ��4� �:'• � . ''/z_ ` ; r `:P`� �t��' � -:�. � � i,'v:.•, i' rV '�'.11 A 'f"\ .....,1•��:: ` • <'r ij �� .i!':• ^1., , �(1� ��n L� ? .'' j: ��' '�.: ti/;/� ��' � , /4. , '- _' 't. �' '�x� ..� ,� .� �r ..; ,\�'5.��, � a � � '�`I L . .•• �.�:. ! ��E . .. I �,�. - :� - - . . �'�" N z yy::'° ...> � i .; `• ' <L; 4 �,i '� s ..;y .�1' ; . y.+' r. � , .,..^. ;.' ; ..,. -;�-, :'6 �:,:e rPz ,��f; �S, 3 � , .. •5' ' ...�. ' /! •r..v�i�� / ...: -.�:: .Rr..: a��hi . .�:t: �z�`F �� t ` ` �:� -`'� iJ) . ;1' �' � � i `;%1 - �s. � r.:� �3 :i. �C. : , -.. .• : .� ;� s t'�`Y \.. �' - .sc `' � C:) -� .... � �'n �. n �r•'.\ `� � � `.. � , " `�� ' t�� f�:+ - �' L i.� .�.A��. ,. . � � °'�� O� � (� t ��(� �� ; 5, 1 �� 3 .' [�+. ` . ,V .�� .' '�.i,.... ' ' 1 J!/! • � . i . �� 'f � ; �' ; , � _.-1—r-------------- � , � �� ' I ` - --• ^ , .. . , . . . `��2zT.ol � : . 1 �7 �` - ♦ ` •'V � . . ,�f"Jr [.')i �. ��'� i � � 50 l` y �� _ � � '� � ,1 � 1 � � t / � I , � ` _, r � �, , • . __�__- T �' `�� : � �� ` `� � �� ,� ��j�O. � � T � . ,� . ., d � � ,• . ,, . ♦` ,�� (z490) � �.�, , �, 1 . '� •' � � � � � , , .. _. .______._°__-_, ._.__�.. _."_ ..'i_.r' • ' .��c ^��}C.�a �: . � • c:a��rw , t, ,�.: _-- � , ., _".`'�_. ,j_� 6.. � —L .3 • I ��Ir�i" �i1 : - � � � ,/ . / � � t ,1• I; `� .�.1 r. � 5 1 `F � ,�/ � , Iti // . � e ; 5t •E. r; � Gl��aa . y� , ,� �� : � � :� y, 1 f r.,: � ��' ..��.�[.�j�{.'1.� M.,< .., . �•'�'! ; �',�= "i�-'y �, � �� f �,, . . ; .. . . t� ^ ; ; .,; � ,. �_,: , �.• �J!'e ��rti' �! `1 �.. � r.+ f �� ` � . ^ J_ i� _ . ; • �, � •�' ZS 1 �' °��..r; �1f-{� � � .,:� .... R .� �, f. -i'/ i . < . .. .: i . _ . . . �'_-- _—__�� .� �,� Q UT��T 0 q� . Lr ��i" : ' , �., , �, - =---_ *� . K •y' {t \ I' ' I � � 't �'t`D � ,�'!' ...f .p r� r . �.�. o � � �7 � . j i r ::� P . � ` � . •.. r - ,, . : ' -C� '�� J . \ ., v.r.'..: '�I •'C� , � a � a L � A � D�i'ARTn�rsP op 2toJStraG & ur.Er,:� ��vEr.oF-.�r,:;�'T � ....._ Tx.�NNEAPOi15 • ST. PAUL AP.::i OFFICE �arigflt - Midway 6uilti ng , < "'. i821 U�ivcrsily Avcr.ue . . ;:•. : - . $L Paul, Minnesola SSC4 � � , �... f,�AR 51976 .. St Puul� Z•iinne�ota �51011 � Dr.r.•^.l. A. "ar� D,?'ac2op-:cat Corperation 2�17(. Ca°.zrr�; Poc�c} i0 I:ir.nc_�polis, ii�.nacoatc ��is30 Gent7.:�;; ;nt ci11��::C::i .`.uJ:i�..Yi^10:1 :�0. :I:�.'-� '�. ,.o': U.il,. Inr:: . ?:ri.d,?c,-,�, ;iisur�ao�a. � � E�3 C�S �� FT�VsDo 1•'c utid.�i•:�'n3 'c:��a.�� ;:he r;.ier';,3.��n oi o��':.ninin; u p-a�lic collectc�r ' •+'F fA'f`�U" 'i:: ., :i''JO �"' G-^-i'C �OY..'.C': v j.9 ZJ::].i�� C21".-Cil:: .Cil k`1 vi) 'vi1C s�rr.-,. , �:; � . (i'lt,�r ;1;) .%j.fi?.'D�ti�� 3D?]£<^S J_`L+ �i_f. .7i: ?�PtC,::?;'.^.TI(:t v�?:3G ;j04 t;?VB ' � �i � � ., i n - iy t� g� tuL:C!; 1 CQii1i c^— S.'C �Lt.'�: �L ,CI II 1 i� 3 �.':S .i� f.- 'L �/;%�.0 Z ...5:�, 1r �� -ni .t C. 3� � �+ �C�: CC'1�l ac.i2�'.lOAS �i%S«i. �::C:2 r:cr,:,. . s :;o.,n .�:. ;�,�, _. _..__ T'�so�:-c:d, n?..-....._ .,.-_i�,a.i, �tr.:o copies ca .. .c��se3 �ite t3.lan =;i�e^ T)O.*'L"LI77;� i:i:C�TeC�;:t._:+C't &G"t:v::Ci: Ci:3TJy,`yGtJ� B�G�C. t;C i!1'.^. .^.�T.t]_�. CG`i:.^.:;'_':IC� �'::�Jll✓ �LY!�-' CIClI.'illij �il� lt �r<.Y.IS �.7.iiB�.�}T �s13.`U �ht? �1?Q�E; Ci?i..'L.. . S.I:^U�(i Al.JIiU 1i1 GCi1t3 1'CC''.'.tC�L1CIS Of C�.^.17S1�L'f. Also, plc�.sr ::u1::.:it a ce: ��:inz sP`�o:y^ aJ U t:nej�p.cpc :ed lot l.n�s �rithi:� a tyfical u, :'. Tt -;_.C+�J V�SrII L�3l.�. ��1i.iclicri ;;ara,;cs rtiglil: rc^�aiz.. a cc::?�;r:�t•a 1c�;�1. i jtf. .^.SC 2it(tCi'.!'.](` i CTOF�_EnC�iJA:I C1Ct:ti�.7.T1^ OAT' :::!�irc:Jcent:� i0i p^3"G;,r u��i c^r:;..;1icLion ::er ;our rc'z^rcncc. l:lcc� bu r�:.inctcd t?:.�z'� kL:.licic� :.�_�:ir:�; o:�:: 1-_.�G cnnr.ot pa.s: o:-a:, t:n.cr o: thrc��;;h �r.�taer uniL ...;.�.� each r.r5.t :hu�t havo sep4r:'.�o r,:=<;,ers. t;e h:ve r.ot ;;:>'L r+�ccired i;l:� :ictreno7::.t:in Cour.cil corasents an thi^ propo�al bat :.v do not :::r�:�ip.'�te .ny saajor d�;jections. Ple^_se �uhroiis 2rif'c�xmA�•io;� rc:�ucste� above t,o assi.ci ua in deterxiin- 1ng the i'easibil:i ty o�' tlti.:; pr�po;,a_l. Sincorely, Tho:naa T. i cen=Y Axc�a B3.reo'cor Pa�cl.o�ura. cct JUcrrcl Clr.r'c VeL•er<ui� l,d:�i.niotratios: -s�-^? • i i r� MEMO TO: MEMO FROM: MEMO DATE: RE: Planninq Commi.ssion Jerrold L. Boardman, City Planner March 26, 1976 Taxation Question on Townhouse Developments Attached please find grapkss shoceing how tax dollars are dispersed in the dif£erent school districts. The mill rate . is different for each schoal dis�rict.. 1975 Mill Rate with Fiscal Disgarities Schboi Dis�sict 11 10I:86 School District 13 95.79 Schoal Die�ric�. 14 102.00 School District 16 107.72 The North Innsbruck Townhouses are in School Distriot #13, which incideatally has the lowest mill rate. As per the graph, this mill rate is disgersed in the following mar,ner: 54.12 riilis 22.22 Mills 14.88 Mills 3.41 Mills .77 Mills ,24 Mills .15 Mills 95.79 Mills qo go go go go go to to to t0 to to to to the schools the Cbunty the City Metro Transit Metro Council Mosquito Control N.S.H':D.? {56.50�) (23.20�) (15.53�) ( 3.568) ( .80$1 ( .25�? ( .16�) 100.00� This mill rate is applied to the assessed valuation of a property, not the estimated market value. Any questions on how the assessed valuat£on is:arrived at.should be directed to �he City Assessor's office. . �he 14.88 mills that go�to the City accounts for 54.8� of the total General Fund Budget of the City. In 1975 this amounted to $1,619,966 out o£ total revenues of $2,954,850. The total � budget for Public Works was $525,152 or 18.3$ of the City General Fund Budget. This would equate to $296,453 in tax dollars or 2.65 mills or 2.$$ of total taxes paid. This would mean, for example,'if the real estates taxes were $700 on a property, 2:8� of those taxes would be $19.80. This Public Works Budget does include the maintenance and snow plowing of North Innsbruck Drive and Matterhorn Drive, and other public streets that service this area. It also includes the costs of maintaininq and repairing of fire and police equipment which service the Innsbruck area. The City also runs water and sewer 1'i:nes to the property line of the area. These Public Works maintenance items would reduce the 2.88 figure a little, so the amount of real estate taxes beinq paid by homeo.�mers in a townhouse development for sshich they feel .they were not getting services for, was not a large amount. ' azs/ae Attach: __ _ ,._. �„�-' •. fMetro Council .77 Mills .76h Metro Transit .41 Mills,� r.35% / ' �� \ 14.88 Mil' .1�` Count , 22.22 Mills 27.81% � 0 @I �Metro Mos. Cont. .24 Mills .23% N.S.H.D --'f5 Mills .15� ., \ ''� '•,. School � � 60.19 Mills j 59.09% � � SCHOOL�DISTRICT #14 Metro Council Metro Mos. Cont. .77 Mills .24 Mills .75% .23 % Metro Transit N.S.H.D. 3.41 Mi}75 .15 Mills 3.34% .15� / �_Y I� 14.88 Mil s ;� Schaol 14.59% 60.33 Mills 59.15% Count . 22. 22 tdi 11 s 21.78� • .� . � , �% ��_ ... � .80X 3.56% cil Metro Mos. ConJ ls :25�Milis sit N.S.H.D_ S 15 I�li 11 s , \ � ;��. .16% Cjty � 14.88 Mil 15.53� Count 22.22 Mills 23.20% scnool 54.12 Mi)ls 56.50% , SCHOOL DISTRICT �16 Metro Counci7 Metro Mos. Cont. .77 Mil l s .22% � S .71% Metro Transit N.S.H.D. . 3.41 Mi71s � � ,15 Mills 3. U% .14% � �� \ 14.88 Mi] 13.81% County 22.22 Mills i 20.63� *Vo-Tech �916 .39 Mil s 2.22% School 63.66 Mi71s 59.70% *School District �16 only �i'�' � . � . ' �.aU --�� at� o{ �ric��e� � ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Mr. John Boland . Chairperson Pfetropolitan Council 300 Pletro Square Bui.lding St: Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Boland: March 18, 1976 In rega'rds to the Darrei Farr Corporatton application for devel- opment of Innsbruck Village, the Fridley Human Resources Commis€ion conducted a preliminary review at a public hearing Marc:h 17, 1.976. At the public hearing serious que�tions relating to hurnan xesources as well as physical and environnental developmenL were ra3.sed. Specifically, indications are the p:oposal may tend to propagate ghettoization in the Innsbruck development, adequate recreational. resources appear remote to the intended occupants, variety and design of housing st�yles do not appear consistent wir.h the Fridley Housing Plan and the expressed hdusing.goals and objecLives of the Fridley Human Resources Commission,and the layouk of the area may take on the appearance of a substandard fiousing development, espec- ially with drastic reduction of normal setback requirements and inferior roadways. The discussion at the public hearing disclosed the problems alluded to above, and time did not permit interrooatives concerning civil rights as outlined in the IiA-95 Review Process Guidelines. The Plannino Commission moved to table the,plat request anci housing development plan pending further review by member commissions including the Fridley Human Resources Commission. Therefore, the Fridley Human Resources Cammission requests Lhe application by the Darrel Farr Corporation for developmenY. of Innsbruck Village be held in abeyance until the Ruman Resources Commission has had an opportunity to complete the civil riohts intcrrogatives. The Human Resources Commission will schedule u meeting with'the applicant on April 1, 1976 and forward results oi this meeting to your office. cc: Daryle Olson� RUD Sincerely, ��,�C'�� S1i11i3m E. Sca Chairperson Fridley 8uman � . ScD-� :t III Resaurces Commission � -a�:� ,� � i 1 i ; i 3 1 t i/ / i ^; • a, i { � � .\ � �`� : � \ .� j ,� � . 1, � � . � . �r: . � ; i i ; - I �i - March 25, 1976 Mr. 4lilli.am E. Scott, III Chairperson Fridley Hu�nan Resources Commission City oi Fridley � 6431 Unive.sity Avenue, i�E ' Fridley, rlinnesoca 55432 ' Dear Ms. Scott: � - � I am in receipt of your �etter dated I;arch 22, 1976, as well as a copy o� a letter written to N'•r. �?ohn Boland, Chairman of the Metropolitan Council, date3 March 18, 1976. Z find pour letter to 1Sr. Bolar,d ta be not in the bea.t intesests of the resi3ents of the City of Fridley, the residents of the metropolitan a:•ea, or the r°sic�er.ts of th� plznned unit developrnent of InnsbrucY. North. _ Your letter is further n.ot in the best znterests of the �+idley i3uman Resources Cor..mission. - In general, the Innsbruck North Planned Unit Development, -"- of ,�hich the Innsbruck Village Subdivision would be an integral part, is probably the most socio-economic inte- grated �lanned unit development in the entire metr000litan area, if nat in tha ent�'re co-�xntry. On one120-acre piace " of land, in a fairly representative suburb, we have managed sound planning and a great de�ee of socizl ar.d environm°ntal conscience to �reate the followino :ousing ' mix: . , ,.. �:-�:.;, � , : � �-:: �+l"' �r ��.. r�. ��:�� =�� . :'. ;;._ ,ry _ ;.:..-��,..��.�,�� u.�>';��;T ��;�;� Execet{vo Olticas TELEPHOTIE 612/ 580-8710 2810 COU�IY AOAD t0 MINNGiPOLIS, r.uvri�sOTA 554�0 �r_ ..' _ .. . . ' , ' . . . , ' .. : - . � -.� -. . . . . . -. �O � , V Mr. William E.'Scott, III � . 2 . Mtarch 25, 1976 . _ . . �, ."-Housing Dwelling Dwelling ' ' Ty�e " Finsncing Units Units/Acre Price �Comgletion _ • Single-Family ' Coaventional 122 2.5 $ 60,000 - $150,000 _70�5 -� ..Detached _ . Townhouses Conventional 102 7.8 35,000 - 60,000 100$ Townhomes Conv�ntional 56 ' 7.0 39,000 - 52,000 � 57$ ` _ ' Apartments ..221D-4 258 . 23.4 • 150.00 - 223.00/nonth 97% Townhouses Conventional 1�0 5.6 40,000 - b5,000 Starting ` Townhomes FHA proposed 300 . 8.2 30,000 -.34,000 Startino .. Predicate3 on t�� above table and assuming 25$ of.a personTS or family's inco.�� -_, can comfortably be spent for housing, this would indicate an earnings range of the resi.dents of Innsbruck North from $7,200 per ,year to $66,000 per year. , ,.- ' I believe this inda.cates, contrary to your very negative letter to Mr. Boland, r. that tae, in fact, have achieved the goal of Innsbruck North and the goal of responsible land and social planners throughout the wuntry. � 'rAfore specifically, I would like to reply to the allegations i.n your letter to =:Mr. Boland: . '- . ,. - . . , •• � 1.`P.s we tried to indicate at the Hearing on March 17, 1976, we are try= �: ing in the Innsbruck Villages portion to provide owner-occupied single-family '- �:housing for the moderate income person or family. The income range required to finance one of the ho:��es that we propose would be from $14,000 to $18,000 annually •people in this earnings range have been effectively priced out of the single- : femily market especially in a close-in environnentally desirable area like Inns- �.liruck North. ". - - .,. . .. - - _ : _. ,::. - "?2. The-individual housing units will be of a design and construction ` totally compatible architecturally,.Vtith the ex'isting dwellings. They will, in � ":addition, be of high-quality_construation as evidenced by the followino inclusions ,:in the �ase grice: _ • ' - _. `. ", *." _..'. ,:,-, �. .. . .,. : -. ... _ a ;`Central airconditioning •b: Vaulted ceilings. ^; _- c. Attacned and detached garages • _ d.: Ce:•a:r.ic tile' baths . - � e. All oak ts�im and oak cabinets - •. In addition, they will obviously have to meet FiiA property stan3ards, - the standards of the i9innesota Euilding Code and be subject to inspection by the City of Fridley as a°ll as HUD. • I do not understand hox ghettoization can in any way be inferred fr om the above. � 3. P.e�eational re�ources are anything but remote from the intended occupants. • He have dedicated nark land to the City of Fridley, abuttin� th2 Innsbruck Villages plat on the north. It is my understanding that the City of FY�idley intends for t:�is park to be a passive recreational area. 3ut in addition to that, we have committed to the City to build toro tennis courts, at our costs, on this park land, iTrme3iately adjaceat the Innsbruck Villages plat. - 7"RT" ,+ Mr, Siilliam E. Scott, III t7arch 25, 1976 " 3 . ��i9.. . Also, im�ediately adjacent the Innsbruck Village property is a tot _ lot providing a substantial array of pZay appa:atus for children. - The plat for Innsbruck Villages is to include substantial green- ' ways including pia�ic areas, walking paths connecting to the City park, ponds,. and other passive areas. The p�t and buildings uere so designed as to fit the e;cisting topo- " g:aphy with a very ninimur� distisbance of the natural tree cover. As a hrief dr.ive through the Innsbruck North area will readily indicate, the best subdivisions have preserved the natural amenity to a great extent including trees, hi71s, ponds, and othe.� natural ve�atative cover. � 4. The Staff of the City of :ridley, including the Planning Department ` and the Engineeri.ng Department, has reviewed all aspects of our proposed plan. '- _ I believe they concur with the plan and agree that it provides an excellent land - use compatible with the zoning ordina.�ces and comprehensive plan of the City of - Fbidley. _ ,. _ ' ` 5. The plan, as submitted, does in no way take on the appearance of a - substandard housing development or does it have unusual, abnormal setback - requirenents. __ _ _ - , The streeis would obviously be built to City specifications and I do not u'nderstand your use of the phrase "inferior roadways." _ '-� ; _ . � _ ' - •. If you will recall tae Iiearing of Mzrch 17, 1976, I quoted re�eate3ly from a . ' housing report from the Metropolitan Council dated February 1974, entitled, "PUD: Trends and Experience in the Metropolitan Area." ProbaDly, quotations r�ost �er- r�ane to this develoy��ent occur on pages eight and nine of this report: __ �While several of the goals set for PUD's a."e being fulfiZled, others are not. 1^hose that have not relate primarily to the pro- visions of diiierent housing types and a range oi housing costs - within indiv?dual PUD's. - - . . • , ,. . . - Providing a diversity of costs within PDD's is perhaps one of. the more i�gortant goals to eventually be met. Public attention '_ should be eirected to develop flexible public p^o8ca;is.that f�ill : enable the va.^iety of housin g types and costs to be increased with- ." in PUD's. Sha Couneil Vrill be watching the housing trends in this respect, a:.d :aill continue to explore vaeious means by which the • goal of i*YCreased diversity of housing costs m,ay be met within � . PUD's. ' ..' If you could ava�l you-rself of that report, I balieve the following paragrap;�s . . could ansaier quest_ons you inay hzve: 2. Page 2- ri1: A variety of housing costs and types. . �'j� .. . .. -. _ " .. . . ��Yl:�.�.. FSr. {iilli.am E. Swtt, III ' . ' 4' '.. . March 25, 1976 -. I �'. 2. : Page.3 -#4- Respect for �topo�aphy in shaping developnent _ 3. Page 3-�5: Narrow, curved, or dead-end residential streets. - , 4'. Paoes 6 and 7: Housing Costs in PUD's _ _ `As we.have been since the start of th� Innsbruck North Bevelopment in 1971, we continu� to coo erate with the Cit of Ebidley and, if desired, the t•tetro- . will Y p . • po2itan Council in the proper developnent of this area. I expec� and wzll forth- : riahtly consider aay constructive cxiticisr� based on fact and curreni Fri.dley _ _ and metropolitan area concerns and goals._ - _ At the same tir.:e, hoaever, I wil.l vigorously oppo:,e, by whatever neans are , -.necessary and available, obstructionist-oriented criticisn and rhetoric. Ne will be at the meeting of the �idley Hw�an Resoimces Cor:�nission on April I, • 1 976. .We tirill be prepar2d to explain our proposal and to answer any questions : `you or any members o£ the Co:R,�nission may have. _ - - :'"Very sincerely, . . " - ' DARREL A. FARR DEVP,LOPi:E?dT COP.P ;.,.:: �-� �'i'�---- J �� _ _ �. �DARREL A. FARR ' President - - : ;DAF: tcb -'.cc:: Mr.:John Boland, Chairc�an ' ' � ' .Metropolitan Council _ �' --- ;� 300 Pietro Square Baildin� ' "' - _ - St: Paul,.tiinnesota 55101 - �- ' :> � Mr.. Daryle 02son . - Department o£ Housin� & Urban"Developir.ent.. - -- 1821 University Avenue ' _ St. Paul, t�finnesota 55104 � ' � • . Mr. � Jerry Boar3man +�+r.... .; . : -- City Planner -, . . ..' '�City of Fbidley - -- , 6431 University Avenue, NE - EY�idley, Minnesota . t3r. James Druck . .. � hlaslon, Kaplan Law Fii3�i • 1800 tlid�rest Plaza - : Minneapolis, [Iinnesota 55402 - .� ,1 NE�f01tANllUh1 FOR FILE March 8, 1976 . i SUBJSCT: Plan approval for innsbruck Village and Innsbruck Privacy }Iomes I Streets : 1. The City of Fridley is the �rantce under the road easement irom the Pridlcy line acro:� ilew Brigt�ton to tLe Silver Lake Road. (Paragraph 3, Page 2, Development Agreement dated February 1, 1971) •a.; The taxes being paid on the too-rnhouses presently in place in the Slack Forest is in the area of $200,00� exclusive of single-family hcu��. b. It seems reasonable that Fridley should maintain and plow North Innsbruck TJrive until sucn time as the permanent road is constructed. �,�: The road from the Fridley line to the Silver Lake Road was built accorcling to City specifications and c•rith the City's approval. iParao aph 4, Page 3 of the Development A�eement.) 3. The Development Agreement sets out on Parao aph 5, Page 3, that all streets and utilities in the townhouse area shall be approved by the City of Fridley. • '4.> As regards street repair for construction traffic in Addition 4 and 5, the follo:aing: � �a.: West Bavarian Pass was designed with future construction traffic in mind and as such is a nine ton road consisting of a 4 1/2" asphalt and a 1 1!2" wearing course. b. Although we will be using both Sdest Bavarian Pass and Meister Road for construction traiFic, �re tiiill, to the best of our ability, restrict heavy vehicics to iL`��:;;��--�0:51= West Bavarian Pass. 6. 1•7e will escrow $i0,000 at ti�e start of construction with the Home- oxner's Association to apply to resurfacing or repair of existing streets. Thi.s will be treated as a prepayment of fees required of the developer at the rate oF $10.75 per month per lot. �. $10,000 should pay for a 2" overlay on i�fesiter Road and West Eavarian.Pass. rr: We will block Bast Davarian Pass irom the end of the Vienna Town- homes to the Fi.fth Addition duriny construction. _. _� ::� Marcn o, 1976 'f. We will q�atch the asphalt durin� the construction period and ' will sweep the sireets t�ecause of constr�ction mud as needed. i'his � will be done at the developer's expense. 5. The off-street parY.ing in the Fourth and Fifth Addition has been requested by the City and is shown on the plan. II Recreation building parking / .. 1. At the time of the planning and zoning, the City did not want to provide a lot of parking in the area of the recreation buildin� to pre- � clude the use of the recreation building for thinbs unrelatc�cl to the '� - � Homeowncrs Association, i.e., antique sales, etc. 2. He have provided parking for approximately 27 cars at present. 3. We can provide an additional 20 car parking on the east side of Meister Road and south of the recreation building. a. This parking, because of the topographical conditions, vrould require the partial filling of the low area east of Afesiter Road and the destruction of a very large area of trees. We intend to leave this decision to the Homeo�ner's Association. �III' Traffic ." 1. We have a traffic study prepared by Jack Anderson and used in our preseatation to tne City of New Bri�hton, re: zoning, that adequately sets forth the traffic conditions an3 concludes that the access provided on North Innsbruck Drive and the Silver Lake Road is no problem. �2. 'fhis was considering S50 dwelling units plus the single-family units, and, in fact, presently, we are 234 units less than this pursuant to our present requests. ,ZY Snow Storage � 1. The density in the Fourth and Fiith Addition is substantially less'than the density in the First, Second and Third Additions,. i.e., 5.5 un.its per acre in the Fotmth and PifCh; G.88 per acre in the Third, and 7 units per acre in the First and Second. Because of tfiiis and because of the smaller � buildin� sizes, there is �,rcater room heti•reen drives and more open area , adjacent road�aays £or snow stora�e than exists in the other three additions. rV' � In General � �-' ;�: The multiple d��elliny arca in Innsbruck North was zoned prior to the sale oi any sit�Elc-f.�:nily 1ots. All purchasers in the single-family area � r jr� r F� . . . . . . .. . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . _ ... . . . l _ .. .. . . . .. . . . . �,..` � . • Flemo - Plan approval Marcli E!, 1976 3 were awarc of the zuning and the possibility of 850 multiple darcllin� units existing in this area. All of the plats and maps used in any sales effort indicated the multiple d�rcllin� area and the fact that on the nortt� side oF tlorth InnsbrucY. Brive, 509 units ti�rere planned. .2. Wc are noor, presenily, propo;in� 100 additional units to the 258 already there, for a iotal of 358. 1'his is a 30$ reduction in ihe number of units. i3: He have, to the.best of our ability, lived up to our a�reement c�ith �the City of Fridley and, in fact, have incurred the follo4rino costw: Park dedication "A" Frame Dorm -stream improvements Concrete streets $ 70,000 26,00� 117,000 60,000 i Total $ 293,00��;� �"� ]..t �� ,r.�� ,�„ C��_c.:i� ry. 3 'd� These funds have been expended in addition to all of the "normal" evelopment costs for on-site and ofP-site streets and utilities. � � `°'3 6 �...--r� � . � NI�MO.TO: T1�MQ FROM: Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director Jerrold Boardman, City Planner MGMO DATE: March 16, 1976 RE: Memorandum From Darrel Farr Dated March B, 1976 Answering Planning Commission Concerns .� f � I am attaching a memorandum discussed with Jim London and Darrel Farr at a meetinq on March 8, 1976. The memorandum is their answer to the many concerns that were brought out at the March 3, 1976 Planning Commission Public Hearing meeting on their 3 new townhouse plats for Innsbruck North. At this meeting, I stated that the City Administration should respond to these same concerns in order to present our viewpoint to the Planning Commission and the City Council. I will first respond to the Darrel Farr memorandum and then the questions in the Planning Commission minutes of March 3, 1976 (attached). � I. Streets 1. &. 2. The City should not, at this time, take over the maintenance of the road easement from the City line to Silver Lake Road. This road is the primary entrance and exit for all construction vehicles and should be the responsibility of the developer so long as development is still occurring. Agreements for this maintenance should be drawn up as a stipulation for plat approval. At that time when construction is complete, and if New Brighton has not firmed up road development in this area, the City could consider ta};e over of the maintenance of this road if the developer would insure that the road is brought up to City standards. 3. The streets and utilities in the Townhouse Association property has been constructed to specifications approved by the City. There should be no additional burden on the Association for repair or maintena»ce over that of a normal residential street. Although the width of the private streets are not necessarily the same as a residential street for public use, they were approved by the City. 4. We feel the memorandum covers the Assocition's concern on street repair due to construction traffic. 5. Off-street parking is acceptable as shown on the plan. II. Recreation Building Parking 1., 2., & 3. Agreeable with the City Administration. III.. Traffic 1. & 2. Agree wiCh traffic statements. IV. Snow Storage � 1. Don't feel snow storage is a problem. --�,.�. n U � � Memo to D. Sobiech, March 16, 1976 Re: Darrel Parr Memorandum Page 2 V. General 1. & 2. Answered on I(1 & 2)�of inemorandum. "'5 . 3. Darrel Farr has agreed to provide the Association tennis court with the completion of construction of the first 20 units in Phase IV, the Association tot lot with the completion o£ the construction of the first 20 units in Phase V, the iwo public tennis courts with completion of the first 20 units of Innsbruck Village. 4., 5., and 6. Answered on Memorandum. The City Afiministion Should: 1. The street specification is ar,awlered under I(3) of the memorandum. To date there has been no parking problem related to emergency vehicle operation that we are aware of in the Association property. If this does become the case, it is anticipated that 'no parking' signs could be located where needed. 2. Taxation is based solely on valuation of property, and not on services provided. The City will not take over the maintenance of the streets in the Townhouse Assocation. The roads do not meet right of way, setback and �aidth requirements for public streets and any take over �aould set a precedence for the maintenance for other private developments. 3. The City of New Brighton wil not take any positive action on road construction until the property is developed. They have been granted a State Aid connection when final location �s decided upon. ATTAC}IMENTS ( 2 ) '�'.�� . �""#� " � U ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT ON PRELIMINARY PLAT AND TOANHOUSE PLAN FOR INNSBRUCK YILLAGE General Descriptio� r �� The preliminary plat and townhouse plan for Innsbruck Village is for the construction of 100 units grouped in 4 unit clusters. The units are well designed units that fit into the design scheme of the area. West Bavarian Pass will be a public street with private spurs off of it to serve cluster units. Each unit is provided with 2 stalls (1 garage and 1 outside space.) These units will be smaller and provide a lower range value of purchase units, Engineering We don't foresee any engineering problems with this plan. However, �.j a11 utilities will require further review for correct size and placement. � The standard residential road section if 36' for public residential road. � 7� There may be need for some size adjustment for the proposed West Bavarian Pass. �/ y (/ � �� Environmental: � e.y,� �� ° There will be a considerable amount of tree removal, however, they will� � be removing only those trees necessary for construction and will leave /,� as natural an area as possible. They have shown this concern in the pre�ioys,�F�" ' three townhouse additions. 'v't" � �'� �'� Stipulations �" ' 1. Plan specifications for streets and utilities are to be submitted to� the City for approval. 2: Additional dedication of property to the City adjacent to the �/% Innsbruck North Park is desirable to the City and Darrel Farr. 3. Two tennis courts will be built by the developer on public par property ( �+�o��not�Jbe.��teriqj.�edJ. yU /,�y,,�—,�11 _ 6� ��t�� / \ 4. Deed to the City, Innsb uck North Park, before aRy plat approval or building permits are issued. 5. Road design on West Bavarian Pass must meet City approval. � �f1 � �" � �..� � �,�, • � q- h� � �� s � �� l, �„� �.--- zso 3 ,,lN-� 5. , .�, ��--" g�-� �' �'� ' �� '-'`, �� -�� v� �� c�,.� � �� - . .-�- � • � � OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PU6LIC NEARING QEFORE TIiE PLAP�NIN6 C0�4MISSION TO LJHOi�I IT tAAY C6NCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearin9 of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on 4fednesday, March 17, 1976 in the Council Chainber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Proposed Pre7iminary °lat, P.S. �f76-03, Dorstad Addition, by Leigh Investm�r.ts; Inc., being a replat of Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, lying in the North Half of Section 10, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, hiinnesota. Generally located on the �;�est side of the in�ersection of Osbo�°ne Road and East River Road. Anyone desiring to be heard with rererence to the above matter may be heard at this time. Publish: hiarch 3, 1976 March 10, 197G RTCHARD H. HF.P.RIS CHAIRMIIY PLANNIMG C�t•iMISSIQ� �i .',,,...�_ � �3 � � CIT'Y 01' 3�I2IUl.GY P1I1•i;;1iSC)TA PLANNING AND ZONINC �ORh1 NUM6GR lo "D • �= iG N/� uEs rNr t',JrS, /.✓ 4 APPLIC/��7''S SICNA7URG Q�„ � ,Qr ./�„o . 6305 East I�ver r�oad � Address fridley, Minnesota 55�3z Telephone Number 560-2970 _ • � �i;,ti ��,/t"�'�%`�-s�' PROPCRTI OWNEl2' 5 SIGNATURC t 1;�� -zy.-,1.�. �� rio �c„' �•� ( O �u^ �- 1'YPE OP RGQUGST Rezoning Special Ose Permit XXRR Approval of Pr�min- inary $ 1'inal Plat Streets or Allcy Vacations Address 7�5� �st River Road, Fridley, Minn � Other Telephone Number 7�'-6556 . ,J�i7C xest side r.ast Hiver Road & Fee �50.00Receipt No. ` Street Location oi Pro�;erty � end of Osborne Road. '� Legal llescription of Pr.operty See attached Lsgal description � I Present Zoning Classification R-1 Existing Use of Pro�ezty �esidential Acreage of Property 2"3�� _ G�scriba Uriefly the pronosed zcning classification or type of use and improvement �roposed Reta.in H-1 classifica.tion and subdivide I : £or residential development. Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use permit on thc subject si*_e or part of it? X?CX yes no. What �aas requested and when? �ubdivision requested in 19?2 -- Prope�y owner had preliminary plat approval but did not submit hardshells for the final approval. The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all iesi.dents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) �ust l:e atcached to this application. (b) 17iis apglication must be sigr,ed by all oianers of the property, or an exylanation given irhy this is not the case. (c) ResponsiUility for any defect in the prccecdin�s resulting from thc failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and propexty owners of property in question, bclongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and struc±ure must be dra�v�� and attached, sho�aing the folloti.ing: 1. North Direction. 2. Location•of proposed structure on the lot. 3. lli�acnsions nf property, proposed strucT.ure, and front a�id side setbacks. 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing Uuildinas (wi.tliin 3G0 feet). The undersigned hereUy declares that all the facY.s and representations staCed in tliis,v application arc truc and correct. -^ - „ �'�"�� SIGNATUI:L � ,_/G�/v�/ � �� I �� DATE a - o? �F ` L� (APPLICANT) llate filcd Datc of Ileari Plunning Conunission Approved (dates) Denicd � City Council Approvcd (dates) Uenicd_ ��,,. .. � P.S. #76-03 Dorstad Addn. MpIGING LIST Councit D. G. Miner 12 Talmad�e Way I3. E. A. Fust 24 Talmadge Way N. E. � T. J, King 36 Talmadge Way N. E. L. F. Chevalier 48 Talmadge Way N. E. T. J. puffy 50 Talmad�e �Jay.N. i.. D. L. Greenwood 61 Talmadge 'rlay N, G. A. H. Lucast C. M. Kam I. D. Remacke G. Daniels B. C. �'llis M. C. Messer J. A. Fisher C. A. Nelson • G. J. Dean R. C. Frice H, J. Ploof W. H. Peters P. E. Fierce A. J. Hogen . J. E. Maloy D7. L. Rogne C. H. Olson M. Ban�sund �! . Gay Norman J. Hergog Raymornl A. Priem Leslie Miller Fridley A & W Restaurant 100 Talmadge Way N. E. 120 Talmadge 'rlay N. E. 123 Talmadge 'eiay H. E. 105 Talmadge �day N. E. llj Talmadge �lay N. E. 130 Talmadge '�day N. E. k5 - y5th Flay N. E. 55 - 75th way ;i . �.. 65 - 75tn �Jay N. E. �7 - %sth Y7ay N. E. 91 - 75th Way N. E. 105 - �5th Way N. E. 119 - %Sth Way N. E. 133 - 75th �iay N. E. 7509 E. River Road 7505 E. River Road 7501 E. River Road 91 Osborne Rd. y4�9 E. River Road llj Glen Creek Rd. 7356 E. River Road 7$6(1 E. River Road 7�z9 E. River Road Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Frldley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley r ridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley Fridley �� . . ��._. '✓" �: 3�� ,� � i�$ k / v/�� , ,g �rr , 6� � p '� v�i9 '' � r '; � .e� _ ..�.,... -- ='� -- . . , • , .... ` , „ ,� �, },%z , ► , �� : .i � `. � � � z � i . ^ .��`.i ��►,� � �S',s�•. ': f; � �,�4� /�� ,_ i�4. .--` � - y E.��__--- � i�� 7� P.S. �176-03 DORSTAD ADDITION i... Leigh Investments, Inc. `\� '.?�,/9�'� 8� Re�lat of Lot 39, A.S. #77 1 - �., / � , � " , �, bo� ", F-,� , ,f ,-- •` - o ` � - � 9 ��,as , � � . r l . !�Q''' �.� �;._\ r:� . � L?-� , � ', / , ` � � . : .�� . . .,` � �� . , , , .�,.. ,� � o �, �� , �ao�:..:.; q/,� � � �. �� /�J , - ' I..,.rt) � > '1 �� c11�1'a �,\, .\ I I � �` c1 1! � � �. S�3 R S t ;,1 � s�� •C" « ? ,�� ,1 % ',� ' ; `a1� I�' ��r " , /,`' `. ' �/S�o ,- /j ' •. ,-" f66 "! '��: . �JiQ�] �� i� � "_�, � ; � G \� ,: . � �w ,1 i.4; s .- j�� N � T,.� , . la jri'''�\4i.\. �i"OS .-.,�•� ''r /y' � t ,,�=� �``� '� � �� is .6 r \ � �\ G,�l r ,i �/'� �� f �f� // '. %% � '•. f � � �/� j`��` ^� � %/� �r:_`_ / : ` l� � a." 1 i� ` ;I^i^i�-7 �� V l { f. .; � r �w° f � �� `'d�� Z1"I� �r,'j�~� �e .�+- .. \ / + �") / �� ` _ � -� j'` - � - 4 . . , .:;'; , ,` - , <<�� a:3�� t - ` /._ f ,'•'`i � 1 � N., J `. � " � � �., �' . „ i�� i a ;�. �-`-'�� °t ` � T;i'� � , �;r� � /!� C,°'� 1 ', iF,� _.� i I�..I 1 .J -• � - .�� -__.._ � / � ��. , �:.:✓ � � � � , \ ' f .0 1 ��I �,w� � / i. E� - �.e�� '1 �'- �''r�: � , �� c� ��g � �a�.o ��"` , -s . "„�r''1�'� � .-- �•, � �� '/� �� • .+� �l �..��. �, � �. :x_., :�... , � a�� . :� ` ♦ � , ,� � Q�gr °�, ��. �, .� . , G' � � � �n � � � � � �, C� / . ' ��' ` �.� ,1', �S ,�°i � j �� -:L.a��.�9 � `,t r; �`. _ /�-�' �' `_ •;`e� =q - .l : ' .' ��9� ,`�', .i � r �... � t i=# � 1 t � � 1 � 1 � 1 � � Q �'•� `' � �' `� s � ^. � ' ..._.��_ � _.... '1 4 1 �/ 'I • I y yr ��i _ r /' ��'%�'�` [ ��' � /d0 � d i ; .f__"'_ 'i ^+° J �`;.y` jo � r � _7 1 � ./3O I g f, E : r.. ,t�s' ; ? -, �r+ ` %r ° .� ' ,��,...by3�-- ' �p - ' ' � l. Fa 'ry � `% _ � a n cu w< . s / , y� • � � - /y d �y. j . �' l � + ,: r r i �,r� �' . . � � � �; ;,- ,� , � c.� � ; � , , ,,� � t. r � 15 ��$ �;�,j � � i�-- .. � ' � �.._�- . i . .�,�� .. r"� ,.. ,,:. / '� ✓i � +� , , y,.+� +'� . % � � .I .,.....� . �v � f ,, '�, .. s� �'�', /iiacJ �:'r4 (] i +.� � �% � y F,� � � �.-.�^'� � � ' ,- 1 /.�. o.�:+>nr. � ::1 I V � � " �.l �� J � � : .1 '�� .a • � . � .::f%a/.n✓n f � � �. • ti' - . ; � ;� 93/os . , � - , . - . (s.f r.) I : F.,.'r.f.de,��. . � �. i' � � M+ . � �. 'i v 1 (/_ t ._`e Eelt. ( �A': � .. —..�� ' S . _ .. � . . , , � � , •,., .� .•�, i - �- ,� e • ,, F.. � .� �+ r:� p � a � 6 �3y,o;i -:" ;.--.. �i; ,�.��_.. :L' ', /y9 'l3� p I � _' ...:: (> n �._;_ w. � 3 : , � / . �� t� , f l � j� • .__. . �_. .[. N � •�••., i / � �s9 � /.s� : .. , � ;.1 . `,i r ^' . �` , , I�. . . ' '��' ; ., �1 I � � • ,��'.'s i •",.- : r /-r.. i> > .` /3 h' �,J „ � ' , c,J; _ � � f� ,,%'�" ! p0' �. :- ,, . ,M �� ✓�� .t.1/ . .; : � �,� � .-4 � . f ; � •.,.., a' ... `t � j�� ,: . . �� f iys � ,•c.. :, d ��f • V. � ., . ` _. � ?� � %� �p, / 1 � ; /f �/��. .-�" $ � rI ♦ '�•. r // 'fl - . � .�� :. �` �t `` ._..�..y 1' � ` .. :��..��., J �f'� ✓�•'. ♦ �. .��. .:..�- '�/�t.i�� •r �.:r�i . i . °%�'� � t f. � . � ^ +..• � ;�,,,�,) . . . .... . . ... .. .. � . � � .. 1 1}',' �. {n � �i 1 ,' � ,, , 1, ` �, , . " }, ' ; , ''� ' , � 'r 1 � � ��. S ' i �, 1 � Cit� o� ��'ialte� 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE M=. Eimer A. Huset General Manager Room 216 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Proposed Leigh Additionf� Dear.Mr. Huset: ANOKA COUNTY March 30, 1976 seo-3aso �2 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 Enclosed you will find three alternates for a road al.ignmeut recommended by Fridley's Engineering Division that will be required with ehe platting of this development. The reason for the different alignments is dictated by the location of the two ex3sting structures at 7450 East River Road. • Alteznate "A" assumes both structures will remain in their present location. Alternate "B" assumes the relocation and/or removal of the garage only, and Alternata "C" is based on removal and/or relocation of both stsuctures. � As can be seen on the attached drawings, all alternaCes require transitory easement rights to the City of Fridley over portions of your St.. Paul Water Works Easement similar to the one that presently ex3sts over the 66 foot strip as shown on the attached half-section map. Each of these alternates entail acquiring additional easements �yellot+�._in addition to relinquishing or turning back certain portions already dedicated.(red). We inYend to request State Aid designation. for this proposed road. Con- sequently, it has to meet Minnesota State Aid Specifications which entail a section of 5" Class V aggregate base and a 3" bituminous mat. These alternates are preliminary only and are submitted for your review and comments. If any alternate is not allowable please indicate such to me a's soon as possible so that it can be eliminated from consideration during the Gity's approval process. The Planning Commission will be reuiewing this plat and related items on April 7, 1976. � If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert Assistant City Engineer 7iAC/ jm 1 � . � � � 0 April �o � ;�,��`.�`''��.�.�'°'�' 21, 1975 Mr. John Penniston 17438 175th Avenue N.E. Anoka, MN 55303 Re: Dorstad Addition . Dear Mr. Penniston: Enclosed you will find 3 working prints of the property in concern with all re)ated information. When trying to derive a compatible subdivision for this parcel, tfie foilowing items should be con- sidered: l. After discussing the matter with Anoka County, they informed me that there are no plans for shifting Osborne Road in the near future. If, at some time, Osborne Road were relocated, it would most likely tie into 75th Way N.E. Therefiore a through road through this property should not be considered as was previously depicted. 2. Anoka County also expressed their desire to discourage any proposed driveway accesses directly onto East River Road due to severe traffic hazard potentials. • 3. The south 33 feet of this parcel will have to be dedicated to the City for roadway and utility easements to incorporate the existing sewer and water services. 4. A topographic survey should be completed to evaivate the feasibility of servicing all the lots off an extension of the utility mains on Talmadge Way N.E. due to difficulty that might be incurred by crossing the 5t. Paul Waterworks easement. 5. Contact should be made with the St. Paul Waterworks Depart- ment concerning the possibilities of extending utilities or road access across their easement. 6. If an additional 27 foot easement cannot be obtained from the St, Pau] Waterworks at Talmadge Lana and 75th Way N.E., a triangular corner in the northwest portion of the parcel will have to be dedicated for roadway easement. � �3 �� 0 Mr. J. Penniston -2- 4-21-75 7. If a short cul-de-sac could be incorporated in this plat entering from either Talmadge Way or Talmadge Lane, I think you might find this beneficial to the proposed subdivision. If you have any further questions, let me know. Sincerely, Thomas A. Colbert Assistant City Engineer 7AC/jm CC: R. Sobiech, Public Works Director File Dorstad Addition �� . ,'. . ;: s� �� f°1 L�.1 � 56¢,34s� �:J Ci�� o f �Y�dle� ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 February 17, 1976 Mr. Paul Ruud, P.E. County Engineer Anoka County Courthouse 325 E. Main Street Anoka, MN 55303 Re: Dorstad Addition (Lot 39 Auditor's Subdivision #77) Dear Paul, Enclosed is a section map shotaing a proposed subdivision located at Osborne Road and East River Road. I am sending this for your review to determine what easements if any might be required from this proposeii plat. In addition to any easement that might be required on the West side of East River Road, do you anticipate any need for an easement on the South side of 75th Way? This might be needed if Osborne Road is ever shifted to the North from its present intersection location. After your review and determination of needs would you please infottn me of such as soon as possible as we will be meeting with the developer this week, and your comnents might have a bearing on his proposal. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, C�� THOMAS A. COLBERT Assistant City Engineer TAC/as Enc: 1 _ _ --�s ^ ^ y . �� v . i. . . . . � . ` � � �� j C � �1 ' h. � • \• � ' .L . . � � . � � . ..� . a � N, ' ( .\k;/ '�Y �. 0 v, Q . ,u �� I . : �, -� ;� —.� a W � . `, . __ -.��-�� . \ . •`� � • •�., _ __ �tT,"sx:. , �' � � t"�I - '' .' I /� f ��A✓� Q� - ( I l :� - ` � � .; .•--" ". CSS : A1 - ..v.r �s•:�'�z" . �... �-"" » ✓� � : � • "-_ s- ; , -; �J' � . V' . _ - " ..._. rv- :u�a=...... �.=:� . 1' S� �'SI� �. --- ' •'. _,/ _.-��`l w. � i ' _ � _. _ <f �\ � . °47� _ � - ' S6N�Q / J ��O � , ." - . � ' O .�`� . • . . 'c w C�� • �'a3e' � _ �-- .. .... � - �.f ' o �,� . - . - r; Q:� .- --� r.o� ,« _ ,, ' .• fra�—^-i� �� ~ - �_°rQ' ��(�} - .�, � �n � . `: .,� . � ,; a. - . $ S�°�6 : ' , rr+' sn'�'� - � Hj w. � `�g 1 � - . � - ,,,,+ _a q° f ' u . . � : �4r � �a . tr�.... � - � , " �. �° t��".y' � j�'�. ; - .. �,�.- : r _ �3 ,._ � �, - . w �, � 1A ��( ��C�Y�•.%.. �- �)%z ORfJ1`�6Tl..tdj ��,• i�/J { N•� � , ��c � ., : �s� �y5° . .. a. -ft y 4'•. '�3i ge .j9:. - � � _,sc � r-frzP-- . ,i ,� � . v•, � � �- .a^�.��t� 4 .. h: - i w._ i T 9-.. \ �yl A- � w �' �'`i�: -yl� . �_ �.J. . e ';h.°/ .� . at. :�a[>.. � ai ::�.;- ;'- ry la °'" a : a ,, g � � ,�, -: t`t: . �'N . � � . a'�' • j ( o�`Z'�. M : s z �NG� V4..'• t,�, � �[�� -`�^_...� � as >� ►Y , o ,�� J � � /' ' " �, 1l'� o i `~ �- �: . � �a� ` �� '. � � ^-\�� ` � p_ �' 11 • N°�� . `G:� - �i h'� ', � . . . -.•, � � G 1t� � . � . - . �c.� ° �� J � O . � �� l , � . a':�k1 lr.ni '�° �.. ya or Mp.�', �; a.n � ° �+. . _ '` � � l0� �_\ .:`. � � � Hc.. i � O --. o �� \ . ~K � � �.; �� pq�-� . f - N, �>,_ � � � `� : . 0 m � �� ': � ��fGl . -. �.r Op � � � 6`i1 �� ' �i �} �j � � � � c�� ''� O r �. 1' '4 � /!t �� . : w � : Y � n (. � �Vl - � / v[ -ar , +�5�0 `_ � �� iV B7 w;` ` w . i '�l. ti,� " �0 [�\� 1 'i � Y s �.� ,�` � Vr � � . I��ATNN � : \ (} \ S �S"� ' �i� �.�j. s� �'� 9=s . . eS- :wlnJ. �° 0 �"'�4 . -� � m �`��:. � i.'C� �- �:s v:• . -� V�_ V�t� � �.�Jf`X't�� ..� e's� i, L S' 0° ti'w/ ��p'� - .- �a T - _ o£. .. ea� .:.�' ecc . 1 '� � �_ � ' �ZiCSC.^ \ '^+ra e�"" ' A . . - . _ , SE`� :0 nw , .s a # � � �i...-;' _^ � . , - R �• : ,a = �Q�,f�-1'��;-•, -rr �pq ' ; ��i ; 1 i�"n � � � s'.e. . +�.'2� �. � �3 j 1 , � . 6�" � �" � �O '� S V - ` �° 'Lb . . ` o�c.. f� i"ZZL ` i4 >� P` s � • a\ � ! +: � ' iv O . . o � '�=3��3 � `�o � � N al . . . � �\,--: -_ . � . ��s � iY.^ p� ^. � \� P ��rz� Fo/ _ � �� Q v � V • ti � �• a • ,, N � a � e � �.� M \ � !�� •�; p� � � � , � �_; ' ` � r�0 � �[: • Zf �3"' � � .. �.'�, �• � � - �l . �e � fii .O :6• . 7\ � _ � � � �'' hi � a � GL ��.53'/:C � s'G` Fo .� '' ^y\^ e i� 1 0 e+�" r i` il. `. � �• ° � �" `\ - � \ � . l� 2 8 ` . -.,` - _ .`Tl � $'rl� '� � ` �. �� ~�2; �' •. � ��`.�: ��— — r. r° r «� �—� , .�. .� o � ,Z°, �, - � � ° ±z : � :,� � � -g � � ° �..... ^ ', . +�i ; rry • . '� ' . ' .. `. ' _ G ' � � ...� r..i .. __ • 6f � � \�,. �J � � � � ' ai, . cU � . n� s, .., g.; -- •,. a: o� n 'ar9.: -•- yI "'� � '� e, ,o � r:� � �' �'� � .\ . ,�� //2 y. q� ��u -�'. .: r+� ., ` ��3% o �� ` e 3 ' C -Y' . �k} � o ' � " �! ,.: � .. , as_ �n : 2 ^ � J �� T��i��.� y r O � . :..�A e�p � O_9 'n y�T �� C' � • Q 1% " • V +Ql "' � ? � J Y _ c :A � -r � 1 �S � � � w .�'�� ti "�� :� iii ^��to�-=� � � �• �.'.' � ' �. :.. T�IiI V ^�. ..n V1 C _._ .•�• :�l � �� y C�S • ' ` `� � ` �`c�.. �5�, ,c- .- - vs�, l. ` p "-f � ��°_ - _'� � i. 9 �+• �p � � . {: �} . �'�� `_ Y ��i� �: ^' wr� ``� '�..�.• ` . _A��' 'J_ fs j�l M _ � p ��\ \�• \/ ..\ ^],li�.l �U ^`i`�� .iY/ ` . M �'�P� �2%__� �� . • a�+!`4 '_ �i Plats.& Subs.-Str. 6 Util. Mt�. - Julv 12 1972 PaAe 5 presently zoned C-1, contingent upon an applicaCion for rezoning R-1 for the � remaining C-2 area and that the cormnercia2 Zot be split into approximate2y 82 feet for Lot S and Lot 2 to be 72 feet with the necessary easements to aZ1ow crontinuing the water and sewer access for Lot 1. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the rreotion carried unanimously. � � � 4. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S. �72-02, DORSTAD ADAZTION BY EIIdAAR "TED" r DORSTAD: A replat of Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision 877 except that � part to Greeuvood (Parcel 5640). Mr. and Mrs. Dorstad were present. Mr. Clark easpl.aiaed that Mr. Dorstad requested re2oning to R-3 about a month ago: At that time the discussion was to divide into residential lots with a street running thiough Lhe center. The Planning Commission and people thought double bungalows on East River Road would be acceptable with single family residences on the remaining property. The next problem was the street. Some day there wi21 be a median put down East River Road and the interior streets will not have access to East River Road excepting to go Sauth. The traffic signal would be at 79th Avenue and Osborne Road and would take care of the left turns going North. He had talked to Mr. Lundheim recently who said he does not like the plat but caill continue to work on the design. They probably would have to get additional right of way on the West side. Mr. Limdheim asked about get[ing additional easements along East River Road for slope or sidewalk. The houses on the West side are located close to East River Road. The strnctures on the East side are set back pretty far. He asked to be given opportunity to give it more study. Mr. Clark said the lots abutting East River Rosd meet [he minimum area requirements for R-2. The watermain is on the East side of East River Roa3. The sewer wonld be open cut, and the storm sewer is in to Talmadge now. Refar- riag,�n Talmadge Lane, if gh� buiidings go through, Talmadge Lane would be surface3. There is ezou�h �ighE of c3ay. Usborne Road is 50 feet wide Yrith a G6 foot right of way. . � I Mr. Clark suggested Mr. Dorstad Kalk to Mr. Greemiood explaining that it �ould be to the City's >dvantage aad Mr. Greenwood's if he vould inclu�k� his parcel in the Dorstad plat. AA7TION by French, seconded by Neissner, that the P2ats 6 Subdivisions - Streets & Utilities Svbcoa�ittee rec�ortmwnd approval of the preliminary plat, � P.S. #7Z�02, LbrsWd Rddition to the P�a_ nn*�� Cammission, to repZat Zot 39, Xevised Ruditor`s Subdivisian �77 e=csp� that part to Greenwood (Parcal 5640) s�b,ject to pvssible easemenLS for utilifies an the West side of East Rtver Road, 3aeifrr> C1k. �'astex:Iy side of the proper�g, and considaratio� be given to the s�Zicyn�nt of Osborne Raad so�wheres close as shorvn on the proposed plat. Opvn a woice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried vnanimous2y. 5. LOT SPLIT REqUEST: L.S Moo=e Lake Highlands to ltrs. Marion Johnson was present. BY MRS. ?fARION SOHNSON: Lot 1, Block 2, into tvo lots: 80x100 and 120xI00. �' $lanning Com�ission MectinR Juiv 14 1572 _ Page .3 _� Mr. Clark added that there was a pretty good chance 79th Avenue WpVld �a � Cqpstructed, probably as soon as next year. It would have an intersactiari wlth Uuiversity Avenue along the Southbound lane. The crossover is at 8�sC AveAUe� .MO'lION by Fitzpatrick, sevonded by Zeqlen, that the PZanninq CO�;sS�QA F�9s6 the Public (tear:ng of thr� Special Us� Permit, SP k72-U9, by :'�egele Oµtdooz' advertisiny Co. to construct a side 6y side poster on Parcel 5400• VjX�n a Y4�Ce VOte, all voting aye, the moEion carried unanimottsly. Mr. Minish asked if the Environmental Committee was actually fupctipplTig, He thought this sign problem could be sosething Chey might like to wv=k with� Mr. �rickson asked how many more slgns could be legally placed• Mr. Clark answered that most of the signs are in the lasc blocks betweeA $3rd �nd $Sth At�enues. Some are advertising signs and not the size of billboards. 'rhexe could be one more besides this sign. MpTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the PIanF7ing Cqieqq7ss�o�l , r�cqrtunend approval to Council of tne Specia] Use Permit, SP N72-Q�. wiY� the �plio��ing stipulations: The sign shnuld be 12'x1" s:.�4le faced. If thez'� ].� COAStruction of an indastrial or com��ercial building �:tY�ir. 300 feet, the Si.gn would have to be removed. When the construction of ?9th Rvenue ar.d UniveFSity �venue is beyun, the sion mast come down six aronths after commencement of th� po�struction since 79th Avenue wou13 be an intersection which r��ui;es a s;g�1 �o be 500 feet from the incersect.o:;. Upon a voice aoee, all roting aye, �tQ � {�Ot]on carried unanimousiy. � � �, PUBLIC HEARING• PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S.fl72-02, B' � DORSTAD -- DORSTAD ADDITION: A replat of Lot 39, Revised division i177 except part to Greenwood (Parcel 5640). Mr. and Mrs. Dorstad were present. CP�" � plOTION by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning C4�mn�SS�Pii N'a�P@ �e reading of the Pub2ic Hearing notice�for the Proposed Prelxm;rtaT'� 8�a4�f P,�, q72-02, D�orstad Addition by Einar porstad. Upon a voice VoGe. �jj vati�s aye� �g np�,ion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said thaC at the first meeting in June, Mr. Dorstad {?ds� ��'&�rP�11A$ j,teq� for thls parcel. The Hearing was closed and action delayed 4�qC11 k11� g��G was ready for review. After looking at the plat. Mr• Dorstad would ��CVh��g� xhQ rezoning request. jl;, Clark continued that the preliminary plat ahovs a street TYAA�:+$ $�$L �d West from Talmadge Lene connecting to 75th Avenue and East {t�YeF �p$d ��3�t7.R NqF6b pf QSbprne road. Previously there had beea some diacuss;pp p$ Hyt43A� a Cpil1 aiot+nd on Talmadge Lane, but the nev plan made it unnecessa;y� '�eFQ ji��l 9tj,11 be acceas to Che Southbound lane, but not on the Northbotxnd. �I1Qig �11 ba 81S►6ie family homes on the lots except that the lots on East Rive� RSIa{� WO{dld �� tCZpned to R-2 for double bungalowe. ,� � � ��9 yj,anning Commission Meeting - Julv 19 1972 Pa_._r_,Y? ;._,,,,,^ MT. I.undheim had not had time to look the plat over, but IC w11�, b� cvnsid�Yed 1A GOnjunction with the plans far East River Road. The houses oR th@ �aSt 61da OP ESet River Road are set back further than the ones on [he west which are alose tq the xoad. Ghairman Erickson said he thought, ae long as the minimum 1pt &i�e ia 14,004 �quare feet, something could be worked out with the intersecCi9A at ��sC Kiv�r Road and the road that goes through the plat. If the line on LOt 7 cauld be appved back a little ftom East River Road, there vould be a little mor� f9t 11ghC oE WaY� As £ar as utilities go, Mr. Clark said the water line runs doc..� the WesC 61de of East River Road on the West side of the curb. Sever runs out Go �dsC giver Road or South to Talmadge Way. The storm aever is on Talmadge Way snd drains towards East River Road. The suggestion was made to Mr. Dors�ad to �pproach Mr. Greenwood, who owns Parcel 5640, asking him if he wouJ.d wa�t t0 jpi�n 1n the platting. Mz. Greenwood's lot is 80'x165' or 13,240 squar� ��C* �Sr. Clark eontinued tha[ the lots along East River Road wuuld have �es��iCCEd a�G@ss So $ast River Road,�but they would be able to come out by one p� th� ri�igbbqring streets to the Highway. There would be seven R-1 lvts and ChS�e ii,2 14L9. FJOTSON by 2eglen, seconded by Schmedeke, that the P2anning Cq�9Si4R cjqse �he PUblic Hearing of the request for a Preliminary Plat, P.5. li7�=Q,�� Agi'stad Add,Et;on by �'inar "Ted" Ibrstad. Upon a voice vote, alI voting ay�, th� m4tiQn OdTF3e�j unaRimously. Tf�, Fitzpatrick referred to the residents North of Osbotne Roa� arsd �ast oE ��s� &iVer Road stating he felt they were very much involved Taitb �his pia�• }i� Wae S4X�y the Co�i.ssion had not heard from them. It seemeQ Stt �it4 t11�F.� F'4u151 '�@ � great advantage for them,in the planning of the new Osb4FA� R91d, S9 be pseaenC. Mr. Clark said they had received noticea of both the platt��g 2�Rd rB�oA1t4$� Mr. Schmedeke said the general feeling of the Plata 5$ubdlvisl4A@°SCS�BC� � � UC111�ies Subco�ittee was that this was a logical plat. IX was alvng �h� 1�A�e ghg planning Co�niseion was thinking at the time of the rezoniug. �}le �kT�t E1Hx9 t�4g ebj�C�$qn was the R-3 rezonina. Nw that the lots meet the pa�oper 1=�a r��ui�'ement, the plat eeemed the logical road to follow. He W�s ��4rp��@e� �h�C the people on the East side did no[ show up. The atteet going �h�P��h fille Alld$�@ p� �h� plat may vary eome. It may slip South to meet Oeborne Rvad dep�nd�R� vR4n Mx, Limdheim. His recommenda[iou would be for approval subject tq �a8�tN4At6 Ri1 �he West side, possible alignment of the atreet further South if qee$ be, $�4�1�1� �g�$ qn Weat aide of East River Road are to be double bungalows (R-�) P�IS� Lh9 palaace of the plat R-1. �ttairman Erickaoa said that Osborne Road reallgament �ouid be tain�tniw�d by �Qy�.Ag Chs bovndaries of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lote 1 and 7, Block 2t xQ Ch� dQ�C�1e jC popld perhaps cut off only 20 feet of that corner but Would haip mi�►��.ee the �o6t oP moving Oaborne Rosd. _. - -- ,, _ _ _ _. _ — - . _ .._. -^.ws,� " `°0 IplanninK Counnission Meeting - July 19; 197� Page 5 , Mr. Clark said he was thinking about the cost to the City. The oorner would have to be condemned. You can't ask Mr. Lundheim to go ve=y far 1A the. study uAt$,1 � he ktiows the land will be platted '. p1pT70N by Schmedeke, seconded by Ml.:ish, that the Planning Co7qmisS�OA T�GO78^ mend to Council approval o_° the Preiimin..�y �Iat, P.S. q72-02, Dorstad Addlt30nr by Einar "Ted" Dorstad beiny a rrpZat of l...c 39, Revised Aud.itoT's SRbdzVislPA � ((77 except that part to Mr. Greenwood (Yarcel 5640) subject to possible utlljty j easements on the West side of East River Road, that the extension of 75th Way � � 7noved as far South as po�sible thus creating a minimum sized building 1ot to � line �p with Osborne Road, and reqvesting Council take whatever steps necessary i ' Lp acquire as much of the corner o` OsY.orne Road and East River �24ad tp allow the extension of Oslwrne Road. Upcn a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the m4t�on Fa�Fied ; vnanitrously. � �fOTION by Fitzpatrxck, saconded by 2eyJ.en, that the Planning Cp�issio�i reopen the Rezoning R��v��st, ZOA b'72-05, by Fi�...�r "Ted" Dorstad to Te�ne fTOm R-1 to R-3, Lot .39, R�:�ised Avditor`s Subdivisiur, #:7 except part to GTeenwpqd (Parce2 56401• Upon a voice vote, aZl voting aye, the motion carried pnanimous�y. Chaizman Erickson asked if there vere any commen[s from the audlence regard- i�sp Che rezoning. The original tequest was to rezone the property t4 R�3. The p;oposal now is to change only ihe thzee lots along East River Road to R�2 1?SV1Ag ��g rest of the plat R-1. There were no comments. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Co�sSion clgse the Public Hearing on the Rezoning Feqoest, ZOA N72-05, by Einar "�'ed" P?rsfiBd to rezone from R-1 to R-3, �tevised Auditor's Subdivision q77 except Parcel $¢40, Upor� a voice erote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Erickson said the only comment he could make was that khe deCisiQn o£ #he Planning Cou�ission was not final, but it more or less coimu�t�ed �he f,pu� �ateslon. Going back in the history, Mr. Dorstad vas not inYerested �n d�V�loR'� ing R-1 originally. Mr. Schmedeke said for his own protection, becauae he is goi�g �o R-2 �ex� �p East Rivez Road fiom R-1, Mz. Dorstad should provide some kype o� btt�fOTt preferably evergreens, to make iC compaCible with the area and prot�cting Che ueighbora. ' Chairman Erickson asked Darrel Clark if he vere certain the C4un�y W�.�1 put in a median. M7C. Clatk ansvered hia undeYStanding was "yes", but no time Was Sek, ' lA�TION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Plaruiing Co�$5.�017 xe�A�eAd to CO�ci1 approval of the Rezoning 7tequest, ZOA N72-O5, by fiilidz' «Ted° DoTSt�Q Go rezone from R-1 (sing2e family dwelling areas) to R-2 (tvo family dwejllnq Rreas) Zot 1, Block I. Lots 1 and 7, 81ock ?, IJOrstad P1at (Proposed) dAd ;A Ch6 development of these Iots no access be onto East River Road, svb�e�t �? f.1ik�� apprpva2 of the p2at, P.S. }f7Z-02, Dorstad Addition. Upon a Vp�Ce YOte� djl ypt�ng aye, the motion carried unanimously. - _._.�..__. .A.,�._-._______�.�. ____,.�._._..�..-.�� OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC AEARING BEFORE.THE PLANI32NG COMMISSZON TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the Ci-ty of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, April 7, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose ofs Consideration of a rezoning requesL-, ZOA #76-01, by John W. Haluptzok, to rezone Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor, from C-1S (local shopping areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas) to make zoning consistent with adjoining property, all lying in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley. County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located just West_of 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above lnatter may be heard at this time. Publish: RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMt�N PLANNING COMMZSSION March 24, 1976 March 31, 1976 �1 �i'i►° • cr7�r or• riun�rr MrNNr:so�rn �2. PLANNING AND ZONINC �U1LM NU�SAEP, i�i� �%�- p/ TYPE OP RGQUEST —� . APPLICA T'S SICNATURH .)i� . �N� �.�� %�� i � Rezoning Address f�� CiilJ-?l?j� /%",��5� �/�'��3��'� Special Use Pei�nit Telcpho . h,l'•� '�, . ��r�� 'ROPCRT '�`�/'�' Address Approval of Premin- inary $ Final Plat Streets or All ey Vacations Other 'felephone Number �Y�C�" � Fee $40.00Receipt Na. /� ; .�iLTC;Ct LG^,::�I;:.� .^,F P:^j !:Y't)' � � Legal pescription of Properr.y Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition � • ! Present Zoning Classificati.on C-1S _ E�i;tir.g Use of Property Acreage of Property Describe bri.efly �he proposed zoning classification or type of use and irnprovement proposed Rezone from C-1S to M-1 to make zon consistent with the present use of the property and the block �_ , Has the present applicant previously sought to razonc:, plat, obtain a iot split or variance or special use permi� on the subject sitc or part of it?__yes X�lo. l+lhat was requested and whcn? -- The undersigned understar�ds that: {a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet. for rezoninoj must Ue attaclied to t;iis ap�lication. (b) 'I'lus application nntst Ue sipred 'by all owr.ers of the propert� , or an explanation given wity this is not tlie case. (c? Responsi.bility for �ny defect in the yroceediiios resultiro f+_•em th�> failure Yo list the rzn:es and addresses of all residerts and property otianers of proporty in question, hclongs to Yhe iindersigned. A sketch of proposed property an3 structure r��:ist Ue dra��m anci attached, showing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of propo�ed strtacture ou the lot. , 3. Dimensiuns of property, proposed structurc, 1nd frmrt and side setSacks. 4. Street kames. 5. Location and use of adjacenL existing buildings (+citLin 300 feet). The undersigned hereby dcclares tnat al the facCs and representations stated in this application are true and correct.� � _�� '� . DATG � � ? — /`� � �. Datc fi.led Datc of Iteari Planning Commission Approved (dates) Ucnied_ City Council Approvcd (dates} Denied_ _ __._. _ .._ __. . ---_ • _ . __ . ___ ��Y"' Mailin9 List � ZOA #76-01, JOHN HALUPTZOK Rezone from C-1S to M-1 Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor Cooper Construction Compsny 8437 University Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55432 John W. Haluptzok 15444 Hornsby Forest Lake, Mn 55025 Central Auto Parts 1201 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Determan Welding, Inc. 1241 72nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Joseph R. Miller, Jr. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Mn 55431 • Bryant Franklin Corporation 900 West County Road D New Brighton, Mn 55112 • Arline Saba 7345 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 John J. Richtsmier, Cdr. American Legion Pos� #303 6319 Hi9hway #65 Fridley, Mn 55432 Walter E. & Floyd 6ustavson 7410 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Leroy Haluptzok 1631 Cloud Drive Blaine, Mn 55433 John G. Bell, Attorney at Law 3585 N. Lexington Avenue Suite 155 Rrden Hills, Mn 55112 _. .._ , _. _. . _ _ .,.- _ _ _ ----__ Planning Commission 3/31/76 93 j I i �I C7' ��. Z; �-' Q ... � 2 . ��. �i �' �� i `AI �I N� , �, � ♦ ,sa , �� . . ---- � ---... � a,�.., o..- �r.../•r .:..�., :.: ) n� rw. • � . }�� .r �. j __— �-.C__' _��_ . .. �. �,r,.,., 3.... � .. _ _.. _–_ .i ___ . . ` Joe � � � . .._ . • ��1. �'� y . ' � lr�a//r � L'en•�: : in6a%:'�an � : � _ _ Y— _'_' —' ,� . (✓, :Cr r � 0 �rw. _ (�SaoJ ssya� � ZOA #76-01, JOHN W. HALUPTZOK �; I�C-1S to M-1 ��.�. '�' - N�w luu.'>>.� , �- . I � F \ !, � " • �• ♦ � --___ . _ .. - – ---- _-- __ _ _. _ . � � v; I �. � /� ,� � w. t- I — � • j��. .. ��..-. -�_ . --� V��.I I �;, �� ! a_ . � ` ./! ::•s 3 o,..s•�/ri'i .ti J.i� a�; . ,� . ( rO • ' . I I � � � ..._ .__ _ . . . _ i ��._ � _ . . . .. ' • . ' . ... � I � , I . � I ' I I . � . � i %r: / r. ; �Y✓.�n � �y= � - jat �r,� . 05 .. , . � 'i .._,. `; � I ' � . `;... <. .. � ____ _ _ _ __. _ _ _... ___ __ _ ------- -- .8.. W rJ ; :;� ;�,,.>,; cJ ti :i ' raa --r ,. i . . . i _ .. I .. � La � 2,/. a ��I I I I , I � � I � , j I ,\O I ��:��.;.!1_, �,/�2� 3�• �•:�;, ::�aa :F` l� � a�i i I i � `i �_ b C.�. �r•73 ii2 s�;�lE. f3.C:. � �. ^ —,--�—�--- — V � I., .. . � .. ' I '�� J ,/ � Z 3 4• 5� Fv 7" 6" `� i �—�'� � I � �I � �� 1" i 7 /7 � / � y .' 7 'j . v � . u '� � ' � ^ • E a'� � Li �— °a! ^ � i o,;.`'. � � . '. � . ' . .. .. I ; .V; - .. •.:y ,rs `q� �J i e ,� :� _ � �i/'l�/.1e /4 /5i/F.'%7�i' %3t•u) /�, ��oo: : �..! �zr s J 'j k s ,H i 5��,: � � •� 4 —___�. �,� ��st {S � i � R�i IF � .._.... R&ST� ;' :NTARY )Ql }' ti {6�� 11� �' �.:1 �. • -r n 1 �� I �� ' J r a_� 1: � / "_ � _' ?�-1 ?. 1!� 3 1' I 4 z. T. � � � �5 : �+r — 1�� 1! � 1� ! z. ; � K I ( a wl i Commruol �--- �r,eoau�.- — T�� : ��r.��;s:r,;l ;,,��"��aa�'� �' ��: - fa `' 1� --•• �:v .jl - r �4 1 � / � ' � � ��%��,�/� � �1 ,, � i =�� wi , � ...,. :i 4 � . N1 ': f i =a i , E :� �'_� i _. ,y �f' � � ! e ^��p.. �Gr�_�.: ` f ��i' i '� �� k � � i; � u . / e.. � ' �. =; :. j 6 :�' .. .:.�j � I � `� �"` F'- �`Y' - - 7 p... f� t I �� I � . � �,¢z :,� 1 i' � i s(' ! �. �.: i j€.:._3. �/ .;'":+' f _,...:_:.. f .. t [ t'- � \ \` \ �\ �\ � � ,.. i �' � �.* �� . � r �� f.c i, � .�1.__- N M' � :� � r-�—_ i v.o ��,,� �. �. ...' . !��i �, , : ,. , '�+�,. -.,n x. � • �'.. � ro��r„',n•• , Y'. .. i q.' � j o� � s .. _. � _ 1� . 11 Y•�� L:.� iY _. ___�— �. ^# Y: `� ' 1{ '11J R� :{�1 �l� � :{:l� �. � f �. �, , 1� _`' ; . � _ � �, I •. - 5 •�f � � � , � • . �S� � - } r '., . i. � r. � ,r`-�{.—_ _ w-� � . � . \\� � o � . i � L � , f . \ �1 � � a s ', .. � .`r` �,,:�; __ : ��- , �„ 1 . � � '�' t f.�'f,l '� �• { \\��/_ a .!' .-��.^ .'.1.__�,;j �• �'144 r.— _Y � �� ' � f � � . -. r: ,Fift�,.. �'� t-j�i_ \ i':�` : r .._..-{�__ 1 : t :�,... ` � ' � _�. . .': .': .'.e I . —� � � � � �;.-�,� � ��:::�: � � ,£ : �.f .� :.�..... , ,� . ;' v�f�.t f... '`� ' �ao t';,�,�. i �_ I . . ;li: --07 ) :v � ...,�.., ..r:��:n.n.�• - , � i .f�'?"S'_ .r�'� _' . P��`�, {F yl4 • � ,"�,�-� :� � , !; ��,: , t �! f � • i� // lr`! F 1f137�JJ ��ij . . %l�" f '. � � f�f.,.. . . . ,� _ :,e.,�E } �. � . ; ,; '`!' " 'i' , �i/Ki�' ' ii /iii F .'/� • � � r; t;,s �,'�3;;»;s: ? ;' . �; �, „:� ''.. ' � ' �! � f< Q' ; 24z ; v ,� �". , ,' s',�} j�5'/�+'+ I l � �`� '..', ' .t < �, .S, .� .µ ' - � 1:fI ,' i -T",':1.1:�� .� �. � ��_ _ . a � , ', �: .. .. . �:, • ;r '�I24Z; ;i ; ,. . ��`/j� � �1�;� •�- . � ''' �'��'.J,T , •"- :,�i�/,.,!...�/�%t. � =��j;� r � • , j''' �. �' �'.:.1.'j .d j/ j i ! % � ��-:_:,i�>��;;��/ !%,�.• ^f-� 'i: �;1;: �F,'�i*n„_,�r'�^'��d�..��•� .l"r�.�;�•�; �/��/ , I i � ". !�t�� ' , r` 1 . � _ � i �e -.. � 1,,._ � v, ' ��t,' I.l � ✓ .. �. . .� +�._..,, r/ � / ! '� � ' ' i � . j''l.rr �../' i � . �`�1' ?;r% �i, =. 1 %�s: �j� � .� • �� , ,� �'v.'. • ..•�Ji. f ` t ,;% °' - :f r r..i �.. � ` � . � 'Jy•.'s,::'r, /��-:::,�:� �rr.-;r �-.:�; �. : �'..�_ ',i� '�'' ��e' 'r%%r �• �` �_f W ( ,, r ��: ::�/r '�r.. �'� � ttf�,l�%` /��'�' A �!,/"�f'��.'.:,: � ��:'. :'.�� w �.�/ '�%/y rf f. . ,r Fj/�ia/`��%y:'.' .if �� a �+��jr�',' . .{ . �! f ' . • • � , � � r��' ' f l �f �. ' �~ >rm"#5-68 `�� LOT SPLIT_APPLIC�TIOPI CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICA;IT: a. � �� r ��G. 3 � � � � � �n �.�� txeet f'iit�y Z'� T��riiorr� #��f �G �F �� s 3 5� � 0 2— �M o� I r Hone Bueinee� � PROP�'i?TY D1,2T�"2(5)`%c�d-1� � ��x�� - Sd_-�^-.�- . �v��ss( ; s et - ty �G t' s Lot Split � " -(�o De,te I�'iled: Fee:��`��eceip� , Council Action:I)ate RFIhAItKS; l;ale St,eet City Zip Code TELr�PHOH'r� �`( S � Hcme Busineso a.�� . Prot�rty L�cz�tion os Str�ei n �{� � �— or Ergct Str� tid��ea3 (Ir fit;Y� l L V��n� �(' � O S ��o v.� � - �� .%� Cr 't C� � scription o£ Property: , I o �-- 3 `(� � �C 1 �VO , �'s �-�- �� „� Reason for Lot Split: � V� +c�� , �v��P�O 5 1�� - Area oi . ft. Zoning L'lasaiSica The underni�ned hereby dec�area that all the facta snd representntiona stated in thia app " "on are true and correct. � DATE: � ��'�(O SIGN.�TUFt� . BFLOW FO:i C7T" i7S� OtdI�Y (Se0 teverao side for sriditionci3 inatrueti.ona� PLATS & SUDS: Date of Conaideration - Remarka: � PI,ANNING CO*"�lI5SI0:I: Datc oi Conaideration - Remcuka: CITY COtR3CII,: Date of Considexation -_`�, Remsrke: > . �� ., 9 ;� � i P � �IBD� ' [i01 )) .� e �po 1 /6J , " _�_�N. -fl k1! D. -- ...o : ai V -. e� � �n_ '" 9 � 5�1. �� ; � �. �. \.�31E 'uQ� _ , rR 1 ),Y , / ' � :� �' `��; �3 = °,� � r:;,-y e _ ,, ;. , � _ � �', ^, = ,rya :I 0 3- 1 ` � u w�� 'S w i� � � � . 9� ��- �.; �c�,',• \I` � � > : o�i �" � � ''��^ i �t ��✓`02 ` . 3 ' y a �� S j: ;/ f:".-� L Y U � � t t 1 � /O � �'� � �'1' l � 19 . � '� a � •.: / { I a � L.S. #76-02 Donald F. Sexter ; Split Lot 3, Block 1, Froid's Addition �'. into 2 10,000+ si'tes for double bungalows. �; Zoned R-3 �; Li i V �.i� ,_cc�;�� =t�� .. -- ..pri.l s C. --�-� �G:.f - � I -:r-: s .`s� �4 � 41 � i� �fi v [s.� !� � � .�_: �i��tf6L,.e J o 6 � � : - � �(swI �+ � N % -C`f �� O�' . � +' '�1 �' u �, w..e� � 9. I �� l ,,`� .3�� `�:�e_�— 1 v b �� 7� ?i '.r � ' . a � S i . r-� � (�', � : "_"//TS.29__'__ . .✓C6o.Y9�- . _ \. /af0 t9'• •' i W'��v �vd r � ; : � ` �p .;. \ l � J� �� 11F q �:-�"a� E!��_S 1 i��] '-'T��'T. �_ .? a. 0 :°;.�„��.�1�:� [ G /pnr � � n �! `'� L^ � jbi �I 335 , .<: �r ._.._ ,��'� . , /ha :-�i T'-�" , _�yt:. ^�'.� , � . _�<\r1 p /�` � . i �. .... I' � �, � � �'._. _ . ��_� :Zl):/'`e:'_.-� :" •!'� . J.>s � �. J�] / . ` 9��I •T'�/��:JiO i-. /d �'L... � :.i . �:7:; '1�=.r' • i ._ •'� �—__ �'- •�q 'C `� � L+;'��,D .� i � . ��: .� , r : '� i : �. � .V � �� ( Sd , ; ' � i O•�.1 ^ � �v � _ x.'' :r .. �h V� ., ��' F�� ': E/''.:.� ta� r, . ai''�. �?��;a��cni ' .. �; .'. •.-P � . �°�F•'��/�'I;i le,�'.a ., . 'Cf '� -j/, � ) �j }�g��i+: ,'. ' �� .�. -, � �:, z= :� , : �v � �; �' '$�L ' j Land Plonnin � 1/ y 6875 Hi hwoy No.65 N.F. land Surveying t��' rf �� . . 9 � (, Minneppolis� son. Te�,,�9 , ��ri��r��r�� •Ij1C� Minn. 55417 ilEngineering � Telaphone 784-6066 unicipal Fngineering E��ngineers & Surveyors Area Coda b�Z Certificate of Survey for (�-tL ��?C-,�. FRC>ID �_ i - -i - - ....)��.f.�o , .''_. ._�-]`.c-�1-iC.�l , , .. _— _ \ �'. . . <. i _ _ .. S `1 i'� � � � i ; " ` �_ , , -.�' c ; ,, � ie < �� , ..i..o��'a Lc_�u�-i- 1 , I hereby certi(y �ho/ fhit is a true ond corre<t representotion o/ o survey o( the boundories of �he abova d��cribed lond� wnd of tbe Iocalion of oll buildings� Ihcreon� and ali visible encroochmnnts� if ony� from or on said lond. q� aurveyed by me fhis day ol__�____p,D. 19�L.. � — . � (', .-. ��r, 'e.,; � :,c.�c • t ?'�t __. ��s� SUB!lRBAN ENGINEERING, INC. Engincers � - yeyors bY�." l . cJt::- �:.: � , � .. Planning Commission Meeting - Decenber 8 1971 Pa e 10 N04'ZON by Schmedeke, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission �: table the Lot Sp1it Request, L.S. N71-15, by John M. Metca2fe to split Lot 16, except the Easterly 165 feet thereoF, Revised Ruditor's Svbdivision No. 23 ontiI January 12, 1972. Upon a voice vote, a13 voting aye, the motion carried ananimoasly. � � ! ' H 8. SET PUBLIC HEARING D9TE OF JANUARY 12 1972: Re.QUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP (E71-17, D0�'S GULF SERVICE STATION. Request for U-Haul rentals on Easterly 351 feet of Lot 12 and Easterly 351 feet of the Southerly 20 feet of Lot 11. Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, except that part taken for highway and street purposes, per Code Section 45.101, Subsection 6, Paragraph 3E. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Conm�ission set the Public Hearing date of January 12, 1972 for the Specia2 Use Permit, SP N7I-17, by Don's Gu1f Service Station for U-Hau1 rentals. Upon a voice vote, a2I voting aye, the motton carried unanimovsly. 9. COM2REHENSIVE PLAN FOR TELE CITY OF FRIDLEY: Tne Co�ission set the date of January 26� 1972 as a study meeting for the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fridley. 10. SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER (DECAMBE$ 22 19Z1). The Commission decided to forego the Planning Commission meeting of December 22, 1972. The next regular meeting of the Planning Co�nission will be January 12, 1971. 11. GIIIDE LINES FOR LOTS SUBSTANDARD IN SI2E: Chairman Erickson said the question is if a petitioner, when he purchased� a 40 �oot lot, could legally build on it. In 1956 he could not build on 40 foot lots, nor can he today. The question now is what should the Planning Commission do about these lots. The City Engineer referred to the McCline lots: They were tax forfeit before 19b3, since then no Caxes were paid and the lots went tax forfeit again. On two of [he lots East of 3r3 Street in the Plymouth Addition, there would be a way to build by vacating the street and add3ng the additional land to the lots. This would give Mr. McCline 70 foot lots. The Chairman said that wherever possible, the Commission should try to wotk out some guide lines or statement of policy. The study this evening eould be confined to Plymouth Addition. After a lengthy discussion among the nembers of the Planning Co�ission, Mr. Qureshi eu�arized the Comnission's commeats a� follows: / ," � . � 1 .� �� planning Commission MeetinR - December 8� 1971 PaRe 11 47th Avenue: Lot 30� Block 9(Lot East of 3rd St.) 48th Avenue: Lot 30, Block 8(Lot East of 3rd St.) To be allowed to build by vacating the Southerly half of the atreet making the lots 70 feet wide. Total structure to be built on the 40 foot part of the lot. . 48th Avenue: Lot 15, Block 2(Lot on West aide of 3rd St.) Coneider allowing to build a small house 1� atories high with 5 foot side yard to the North. Housa to f1t 1n witr the neighboring structures. _ .-�� 48th Avenue: Lot 15� Block 3(Lot West of 2� Streat) Consider allowing to build a single story, small house with 5 foot eide yard to the Notth. Hou�e to fit j.n with the ueigh- boring etructurea. _ k6th Avenue: Lot 16, Block 11 (Lot East of 2nd Street) Single siory small houae with 5 foot eide yard to the North to 6e conaidered. House to fit 1n witt, the nelghboring ' structures. 3rd Street: Lot 11, Block 10 The Commission wanted to check further abovt the ownership and background. 47th Avenue: Lot 3�, Block 12 (Lot East of Main Street) Should not be considered for construction becauae of the traffic and crosaing street traffic visual problems. 49th Avenue: Lot 30, Block 2(Lot on coraes of 2� Streat) 49th Aveaue: Lot 30, Block 1(Lo[ on corner of University Avenue) Should not be considered for coastruction because of the erafflc and crosaing street traffic vlsual problema. Mr. Qureshl said that the Planning Comaiesion indicated that these recom- mendations should be foxwarded to the Council with the following additional co�ents. The requeat for construction [hese lots should still go through the Board of Appeals for variances so that there will be a chance of additional discusaion with the neighborhood before the City makes the final decision on ellowing the construction. They also waated these reco�endations made available to the Board of Appeals. "__"__--`---- pDJOURNMENT• �_ , There being no further buaineas� Chairman Erickeon adjourned the meeting at 11:40 P.M. Respnct�fju/l�lyr submitted Gs��cs� E4 ('j,W/✓�-[Lv�. 11azeY O�Brian - Recording Secretary ' �� .. �-�_�. � ERCERPT: ReQular Council Meeting of April 17, 1972 Pag�e6&7 � � FORTY FOOT LOTS IN FRIDLEY: ��Mayor I.iebl said that Fridley still has some 40 foot lots left undeveloped, and if anyone should show an interest in purchasing them, he would like to have a policy already formulated that would be fair and impartial to all. The Engineering Assistant pointed out that last December the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the use of some of the 40' lots i.n Plymouth Addition. There cannot be a blanket policy for use on all 40` lots, hecause some of them are in the interior of a block and some are on a corner where if they were built upon, they would create a traffic fiazard. Mayor Liebl said that over the pasti five years, he has received calls from people having 40' lots and they wondered what they should do with them. He said he would like to see every lot utilized and on the tax rolls. He urged the Planning Commission to continue working on some sort of a policy.�� N�TION by Councilman Breider to receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY DIVGLOPPiHNT COMMISSION ME�TING, MARCl{ 9, 1476 �� PAGL•' 3 • S. Validity of survey: Mr. Bergman stated he would question the validity of tlie surveys. Although more than 50% of the youth stated ihey would like a teen center, he wondered.how many youth would actually use it. Mr. Ptattson stated he had suggested the YPC organize a "town meeting° to be held in the old library space to get input from tlie youth and really determine whetlier this space would actually be put to good use. MOTION by pennis Sclineider, seconded by Hubert LindUlad, that tlie Community Development Commission communicate with the Human Resources Comu�ission to see if the CDC can ohtain a tentative schedule of the YPC's plan and table any action on this requesC until tlie CDC hears from the HRC regarding [he questions raised, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. V. DISCUSSZON ON 40 FOOT LOTS: Air. Pfattson stated a request to the Appeals Commission made on Pebruary 10 precipitated the discussion on 40 foot lots. � Ae stated a request was made to build on a lot which was 40 feet in width. He stated the motion was made at the Appeals Commission to table this request until the opinion of other commissions could.be heard. Mr. Oquist asked what the ocaner wanted to build on this 40 foot lot, Mr: Pfattson stated they c�anted to build a small house. Pfr. Forster stated it was hi.s opinion that houses 6uilt on lots of this.size would not fit in c.+ell with the rest of the neighborhood. He added problems could arise with the garage, etc. Mr. Mattson stated the proposal made in this case was feasible and quite reasonable. Aowever, the Appeals Commission felt it should be discussed at length since it was the firsC one r-equested. He added no 40 foot lots have as yet been built on. Mr. Schneider asked how many single 40 foot lots exist. Mr. Mattson answered qnite a number of them. Mr. Sclineider suggested changing the buildin� requirements such that if we do allow any building on 40 foot lots, it is only in those cases thaC it is impossible to br3ng tflat up to the 50 foot level, Mr. Lindblad stated he did not think building should � allowed on single 40 foot lots. He added building a withouC a garage uas a gross misdemeanor March 31, 1976 T0� Fridley City Council C!0 Mayor, City of Fridley Reference: ^Consideration by the City of Fridley of the proposed Preliminary Plat, P•S• Number 76-02� Innsbruck Village Addition, by Darrel A• Farr Development Corporation, being • a replat of Out Lot B• Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210 feet, Auditor's Subdivision Number 92, all lying in Section 24, T-30, R-24 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota ••• including the request to waive the �ity Setback Ordinance from 35 to 0 feet.^ We the undersigned, hereby petition the Fridley City Council to condition acceptance/approval of the above captioned project upon compliance by the developer {Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation} with the following restrictions: I. °That the City of Fridley in consideration of its tax paying resi- dents, establish standards of year-round maintenance for the North Innsbruck Drive Extension {that section of black top road beginning at the Black Forest Apartments, and running East to Silver Lake Road}, and that said developer {Darrel A• Ferr Development Corporation} shall file a suitable performance bond with the City of Fridl�y� which shall be renewed annually� and shall be adequate to properly maintain said road through completion of construction activities in the Innsbruck North Addition•^ II• ^That the City of Fridley disallow waiving the City Setbac{: Ordinance in the above referenced area on the grounds that it would be dis- criminatory� that it would create an unsafe condition due to a minimum of two blind spots on the proposed City Maintained Road connecting North Innsbruck Drive to Auther Street; that due to the narrowness of this City Maintained Road, and in view of assumed parallel parking on both sides of this road, it will prove to be a major hinderance to Fire and/or Police emergency vehicles access; and as a result of garage/dwelling structures close approximation to the road itself, prove to seriously inhibit adequate snow plowing of road surfaces, {�� short of truck removal from the immediate area, at City expense•^ - III. ^That the City of Fridley obtain from the Dar�el A• Farr Deve2opment ` Corporation an official and acceptable understanding as to Quad- Townhouse home owners financial responsibilities for maintaining all non-City Maintained Roads in the above referenced area, as well as the upkeep of townhouse exteriors and common grounds•" Sincerely, Goncerned Area Residents, Innsbruck North Addition Attachment �_,�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITIUN COVER SHEET Peti�io„ No. 6-1976 Date Received April 7, 1976 Petition ,�T�e Fri eyc71 C ty Counc� to con ition acceptance approval of proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Village Addition, by object Darrel A. Farr Develo ment Corporation, being a replat of Out Lot B, nnsbruck P�orth Addition, alo�g with Lot 49, except the Weste'rly 210 feet, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, all lying in Section 24, T-30, R-24, City of fridley, County of Anoka, t4i�nesota ... including the request to waive the City Setback Ordinance from 35 to 0 feet. Peti[ion Checked By Percent Signing Referred to Ci[y Councii Di8posi[ion Date �� '�� . �� C `� �� r:�'ir�o_�.G� �c.eu-.� �� G��`�" � �/� ��5� � � Po - 44�`h.�vc A�� - � /d ��c. 9 r 4 W ��i o vYc .� � l� � � o yo - � y '�..�' G��. °�� 33��" �r�-��-- �� / � � 7d� �r/� �ic�. /�U i�� [y� O , I i �<. -� CITY DF FRIDLEY PLANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 7, 1976 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 Members Present: Shea, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Wahlberg, Langenfeld Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Ciark, Comnunity Development Administrator Mrs. Wahiberg said that before the Planning Cortmission began their agenda items she wanted to propose a timetable for the Commission to follow in dealing with this agenda. She said the Planning Comnission meetings had been running extremely late, and her proposal would allow 30 minutes for each item on this agenda so they could be through by 12:00, Mr. Bergman said that at the last meeting, some of the petitioners had to leave before their item came up on the agenda, so if this time- table could be used as a guideline, he was in favor of it. Mr. Harris said he was in favor of it also, but if there was an fi.tem that brought in a large audience, he felt that every citizen who wanted to speak should be heard. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she thought the only alternative was to hold additional meetings to handle the large agenda's and she wasn't in favor of additional meetings. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Cormnission follow the guide2ine proposed bg Virginia Wahlberg which wovld Iimit the time spent on each agenda item to 30 minutes. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting age, the motion carried unanimous2y. APPROVE PLANNING COhMIS5I0N MINUTES: MARCH 17, 1976 Mrs. Wahlberg said she didn't understand the motion made on the bottom of page 8 of these minutes. Mr. Harris said it should say Appeals Comnission minutes instead of Appeals Comnission meetfi.ng. MOTION by Peferson, seconded bg LangenfeZd, that the Planning Commission minutes of the March I7, I976 meeting 3� approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimous2y. [�ECEIVE PARKS& RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 22, 1976 MOTION bg Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanaing Cormnission receive the Parks � Recreation Conmiission minutes of the March 22, 1976 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 11, 1976 MOTION by LanqenfeZd, seconded by Wahlberg, that the PZanning Coaun.is- sion receive the Auman Resources Commission�minutes of the March lI, Z976 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a22 voting aye, the motion carrie"d unanimous2y. Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 2 RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COM1�tIS5I0N MINOTES: MARCH 23, 1976 Mr. Peterson questioned one of the recomnendations on 40' lots from these minutes, but Chairman Harris said that as the 40' lot problem was the last item on this agenda, Mr. Peterson should save his remarks until that time. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded bg Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Environmental Quality Co�nission minutes of the March 23, 1976 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. Mr. B. Lee Johnson, Assistant Area Engineer for Burlington Morthern, was present. Mr. Clark said there wasn't a�ninistrative reports Prepared for these two requests. Mr. Peterson asked why there hadn't been staff reports on these two requests? Mr. Clark said i�,was because we still haven't gotten confirmation from all the railroad officials in concurrence with what the staff was going io recommend. Mr. Clark said that basically what the railroad wanted was to move an existing stick builE'building to a location under the present overpass. They later brought in another plan for another structure located between the rai]road overpass and the sewage treatment plant. This building was of inetal construction. He said that we vrere.told that the first building was going to be out of view from the East River Road traffic. We told them that the City was quite discouraged that the landscaping that had been talked about for four or five years that none of it had taken place. We informed that railroad that we definitely needed a landscape plan before any building permits were issued, for any structure on railroad property. We went down and looked at the site and found that both structures will be in full view of East River Road. Therefore, the staff felt the structures should be built out of brick since they will be adjacent to another brick structure that the railroad had already built-in the same va7cinity. We couldn't reach tfie right officiais who could say they would put up brick or they wouldn't put up brick. Mr. Clark said that what he thought the Planning Commission could do was to tell the railroad that the facilities that they want to put in at these locations would be all right, if the structures were the same architectural design as the buildings they were adjacent to and that they would bring in landscaping plans for the oii storage tank, the �ewage tt�eatment plant, the berm and around the hump tower. They should agree that they would bring these landscaping plans in with a timetable for these plans before they request a building permit for these two buildings. We couldn't get cor�firmation on the brick construction, therefore there was no administrative staff report written. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission had several choices. TheY couid continue these requests or tfiey could just apprave the type of faci'liti�s that these buildings were going to house at these locations if they mee� the architecturai design, brick, and the screerting plans are brought fortb: Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Lee Johnson said he would like to further explain what was invo7ved in this request. He said that he was not directly involved in the Northtown yard project and he was not in a position to discuss the landscaping, but he could explain the use of these buildings. Mr. Johnson said that first of all the small building that wouid be located under the bridge would be used as an office, lunch and locker room for our car men. The location was convenient to their work area. It was important that they had that building at that loeation. 7he second larger bailding would be used as a luncheon and locker room for our main line track forces, bridge and builder forces and our water service man. This location was picked because the track forces have on-track main line maintenance equipment and they have to have access to the main line. The buildings we are proposing to use are good second hand surplus buildings that were presently located in the City of Minneapolis. The reason we have not proposed new buildings was because of economics. We already have these buildings, and we would like to use them, and we would be willing to screen the area if these buildings were approved. Mr. Harris said then what Mr. Johnson was telling the Planning Corr�+is- sion was that they wanted to move two buildings from Minneapolis into Fridley. to these sites. Mr. Clark said he understood that the smaller building was being moved in, but he didn't rea7ize that:the large metal buitding was an exist- ing building. The stick built bui9ding was open construction so it could be inspected as far as the construction. Mr. Johnson said this was a wood frame building with aluminum sheeting. It was a modular build- ing. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Johnson if the larger metal building was a manufactured building. Mr. Johnson said 'it . was a Armco building with colored panels, and they intended to paint these buildings so they would blend in with other existing buildings. Mr. Clark said there were other metal buildings on this site, but they were surrounded by other buildings and were not visable from the street. Mrs. Wahlberg asked what would happen in case of fire for this building that was under the overpass. Mr. Clark said the bridge was quite a bit higher than this building. He said this structure was only about 10' high. Mr. Clark said the staff saw no probiem with this. Mr. C1ark said that at the present time there was no fire hydrant, but that ane would be installed. Mrs. Wahlberg said that the administrative staff report would have requested that these buildings conform to the exteriors of the other buildings that are adjacent to tfiem. Mr. Clark said yes, and aiso that they bring in landscape plans and a timetable of when the various plans would be completed. The staff felt that all the buildings between the railroad tracks and East River Road should be compatible. Mr. Harris asked how large these buildings were. Mr. Clark said that the small building was 10' x 56' or 560 square feet, and the large building was about 1200 square feet. They aren't very large buildings and they are one story structures. Mr. Clark said it may be possible to bring in heavy growth year around screening for these structures. Mr. Harris said that what bothered him was that there was a metal building almost directly across the street from this location which was put there by the City of Minneapolis who didn't have to ask Fridley about anything. Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 4_ _ Mr. Clark said that these structures would be located 30, 40, or 50' awa�y from the boxcars. Mr. Harris said that because of that location, masonry construction may not be the best solution, with box ca�s humping around the area. Mr. Johnson said that it was a matter of economics, or they would construct new buildings instead of using used buildings. Mr. Harris asked if they really thought they were going to be saving money by the time they tore these buildings down and moved them and put them up again. Mr. Johnson said they would only have to dismantle the large building, the small building could be moved on a flat car. Mr. Harris asked if they really thought they were going to save money? Mr. �ohnson said that was not his decision. Mr. Harris said he had brought this up because economics was the criteria they were using for bringing in used buildings. Mrs. Wahlberg said Mr. �ohnson mentioned that these buildings would be painted to match existing buildings. Mr. Johnson said they would be painted light green to match the existing diesel shop and car shop. Mr. Clark said that what the railroad really wanted to know was if the City had any objections to the railroad having these types of facilities at these locations. Mr. Clark said that he couldn't see any problem with having these type of facilities. Mr. Cla'rk said that if it would help get the railroad off dead center in providing the various landscape plans, he saw no problem in giving concept approval to these requests. MOTION by Langenfeld that the P2anning Coir�.ission accept the conversation that has taken place, but not approve any building permits unti2 we get an administrative staff report and the comp2ete package, because this was quite incomplete.to make a decision_ Mri'_Clark said he thought the railroad wanted assurance that these facilities could be located at these locations. Mr. Peterson said they could make a motion accepting the concept and principle, expecting further clarification, which would not uive them permission to move the buildings in, but wquld give them the assurance that we have no objection to these facilities it they meet our recomnendation. MR. LANGENFELD WITHDREW his MOTION. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission has no objectzon to..the_concept and_$z�inciple of BuPlington -- Northern Iocating a freight car inspectors 2unch and Iocker room and a Iunch and lockar room for railway maintenance employees at the proposed 2ocations on their propertg, expecting further clarification of the buildings themselves and various landscaping plans. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carzied unanimously. RECEIUE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: MEDTRONIC, INC: 6975 Central Avenue Northeast for a production and storage addition. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the P2anning Conunission receive ari administrative staff report on a production and storage addition Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 5 to Medtronic, 2nc., 6975 Central Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT For: Medtronic, Inc., 6975 Central Avenue N.E. General Descri tion: This permit is for an addition to an existing manufacturing plan located at 6975 Central Avenue N.E. This addition will be providing an additional 67,200 square feet to the existing facility and will match the existing design. Engineering: We foresee no engineering problems. Environmental: We foresee no environmentai problems. Design is compatibie to the surrounding area. The company is extremely conscientious in the preservation of Rice Creek and provides every precaution in maintaining its natura7 setting. Rice Creek Watershed has been notified and approval is forthcoming. Building Permit Stipulation: 1. That the landscaping Central and along h with this additita� on the North parking lot along Old North property boundary be completed Mr. Clark said there was a berm without any plantings on it and we feel that this landscapirig should be completed along Central and also along the North boundary line for at least 200' West of Central Avenue. He said they did show some heavy landscaping between the building and Central Avenue, which was acceptable. It may change slightly from what was shown because this hasn't been approved by the Board of Directors as yet. They are going to the Rice Creek Watershed, prior to this request going to the City Council. He said the estimated cost of this addition was around two million dolJars. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt it was a little premature to say that the Rice Creek Watershed had been notified and approval was forthcoming. Mr. Clark said that Medtronic had verbally talked to people from the Watershed and they said that they saw no problem with this addition. It has not had official action. They have brought their plan to the Rice Creek Watershed consulting engineers. Mr. Harris asked if there would be any traffic problems or parking problems. Mr. Clark said no, they still have quite a bit of empty space in their North parking lot. They weren't anticipating increasing their employee load very much. Most of the addition would be used for their existing employees. Planning Comnission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 6 MOTION by Petexson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Cormnission concur with the Ad�irrfstr�tive Staff reppr� on �h� request to construct a product�on and storage addition to Medtronic, Inc., with the stipulation that the Iandscaping on the North parking 2ot along OZd Central and along the North property boundary be completed with this addition. Upon a voice vote, all voting age, th� motzon carried unanimously. 4DMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: LAMBERT PETERSON, INC. 7691 Central .E. for an office building. MOTION BY Bergmen, seconded bg Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive the administrative staff report for Lambert Peterson, Inc., for the constraction of an office building at 7691 CentraZ Rvenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT For: 7691 Central Avenue Northeast by Cambert Peterson, Inc. — General Description_: This permit is for a four unit office building to be located at 7691 Central Avenue N.E. The building is a brickstrn��u"s� with a mansard roof design providing approximately 2,704 square feet of office space. The building meets all zoning code requirements and is providing larger parking facilities than is required by present codes. En ineerinq: We do not foresee any engineering problems. Environmental: We do not foresee any environmental problems. The design is compatible with the surrounding area. Building Permit St�ulations: No stipulations necessary. Mr, Ctark covered the points in the administrative staff report and said this building would be located at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and Osborne Road, in the Southeast quadrant. He said it did meet all the setback requirements and he thought Mr. Boardman had suggested more berming to protect the lots to the rear of this property. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the F1ann.ing Commission concur with the AdminisErative Staff report on the request to construct an office buiZding at 7691 Central Avenue N.E. by Lambert Peterson, Inc. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried nnanimous2y. IVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT:: MAPLE LANES, 6310 Hi9hway 65 N.E. inside improvement and outside development plan by Donald Savekout. Planning Corrmission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 7 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfe2d, that the Planning Commission � xeceive the administratide staff report on the exterior development plan � to be part of the interior davelopment at Map1e Lanes, 63I0 Highway #65 N.E. by Donald Savelkou2. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. _ ---i ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT For: Maple Lanes, 6310 Highway �65 N.E. General Description: Interior remodeling. Engineering: We foresee no engineering problems. Environment: We foresee no environmentaT problems.� This item was brought before the Pl.anning Commission on7;y for the purpose of informing you of the required exterior landscaping that will be tied to this building permit. Building Permit Stipulation: 1. That the exterior development for Maple Lanes be completed according to the attached plan dated 4-7-76. Aaen..ocmen.rs w�... Mc.Si�..<(��e.�-I a . � . ... . .__. . _.._. .. o,.cw�>� �a y 2-7G s p« n �--,__..._. .. . _ . . . _._. � �r � e I _o..� Ac�c<«cvr5 �c x�coeo �� / t ; V'. 1 `i i— T �� I j I( T i T I(�;:,� I � � � � N��-1-I,�? i; i�i i i� i ��='; ;I `''' � �� ' � � � I '� t� —=-$ ;_'!-� I��li�ll �II � � � —;-f — � 'el� i I:.. — ,r i'I i � � � j� i � � I' I � � i s� I _ I �� i �.� � �.�� i I.I � I � �+ Y �—.— _ `= �•° ,.I I � � � ��'; � I i Ii � � �, � � . � ji."� °"� t .: .._ i -� �— � � � —..1_.__ _—.: � �. _cxk - — � - .,,,y��,., - ' ^ �./ �,�''� �`_.... ...I i...,'� ___— — ' � I r-�..�: e Lc,.� `� I .� �� izr . ) i � � � -,' .—! — s' � �. c -_ .... - ' _ i ! � — F`it — � I . _� _ '• j3p P.t:..'t 1�1u7�. �. - _ Q2PAV66MEUT �uRN . . I . IM1A0.6 WuES � _j_ .. I � �. I— — . . CH1.'me�ewg t — — I � i _ - ' g\4C4q�Q � I. .. �+ M<r 1 wr8 i y a� ' j , .. — LF---� ; � � ; � , �, ; _� �. – -- � —REST oc w..owa�v To 0a ��...v�Erea v..w NEEO Fe¢ qOOn�e�p�, �%4N.'JNG' �=�1lfG tilar 1,1479 � � � . � : � r . ,� . _ . .�. . ' �� PCANNING COMMISSION MEETING - April 7, 1976 Page 8 Mr. Donald 5avelkoul was present. Mr. Clark said that Maple Lanes was going to convert part of their eating area and some vacant �rea in their building to a restaurant so that hopefully they can obtain a liquor. license<from the Caty. Council. The exterior of the building will not change in size. He said the Planning and Enqineering Department have been �ostly concerned aboat the exterior development. He said the scheduling of outside improvements have been scheduled over a three year period as shown in the small drawing of this property. The dates on this plan were agreed upon by our planner, Jerry Boardman, and Mr. Savelkoul. He felt the plan was self-explanatory. Mr. Savelkoul said that Maple Lanes had attempted to cooperate with the City and we have agreed to the upgrading of the property. We have encountered about $12,000 in road improvement, and even while that was going on, we have agreed with the City to landscape and we have put in $2,000 in landscaping along the service road. We also installed a sprinkler system so this landscaping will be permanent. He said that when he met with Jerry Boardman, he told us what the City would like to have done to further upgrade this property. He said that they wanted to do it and wanted to cooperate 100% with the City. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Coancil that they_concur.with the Iattdscaping plan for - Map2e Lanes, 6310 Highway 65 N.E. Upon a voice vote, a21 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 7765-7795 Main Street N.E. by Richard and aro Harris ..Chairman Harris asked Mr. Peterson to take over the Planning Commission meeting for this item and excused himself from the Cortmission. MbTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, tt�t the Planning Commission receive the administrative staff report on an office-varehouse building to be located at 7765-7795 Main Street N.E., by Richard and Harold Harris. Upon a voice vote, aII voting aye, the motion carried unanimovsly. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT For: 7765-7795 Main Street N.E. , by Richard & Harold Harris General Description: This permit is for a 100' x 110' speculative office-warehouse building to be constructed at 7765-7795 Main 5treet N.E. The building is the first phase in a two phase deveiopment proposal, in which another structure, 1D0' x 110' would be attached to this structure and extend North. It will be a masonry structure, with a break-off or split block texture. The building meets all the zoning code requirements. Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 9 Engineel^ing: We don't foresee any eogineerfng problems. The site provides sufficient easement to handle drainagee Env9ronmental• No foreseeahle environmental impact on the area. The building will be located where present sign storage is takfna p7ace. This sign storage wi11 naw be remaved. Building Permit Stipulations t� To provide for shared driveway easements along South property line. Mr. Clark said there had been discussions between Mr. Harris and the staff for a couple weeks on this building, but when all the material had been assembled it was too late to put this item on the agenda, but there was time to prepare a staff report, so this was why it was being handled at this time. Mr: C1ark said that this would be a block structure which will be built on land presently used by Signcrafters for sign storage. The staff report was quite self-explanatory. He said the driveway was on the property line, which normally should be five feet away. He said that Mr. Harris would probably build another structure South of this structure. and will put a driveway adjacent to it. �There wiil be joint use of this driveway so there will be haue to be some sort of an agreement for easement for this driveway, so that each would have rights to use 20`feet o� the other person's driveway. This building wil] be quite similar to other buildings in the area and he was sure it would be an asset to the area. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if Mr. Harris owned the adjacent property where the easements would have to be obtained. Mr. Clark said he did, and this didn't present any problems. Mr, C1ark said the City encouraged the use of joint driveways because then there were less driveways out onto the street. Mr. Bergman asked what the zoning was in the area. Mr. Clark said it was industrial. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Harris if he intended to sell this property or to lease it. Mr. Harris said the building would be leased. MOTION bg Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission concur with the Administrative Staff Report on the request fo construct an office-warehouse at 7765-7795 Main Street N.E. by Richard and Harold Xarris. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. urr�tni tuKruru+itun: tseing a replat ot Uutlot 6, lnnsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210', Auditor's Subdivision No. Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 10 2. 92, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of Black Forest Apartment. Public Hearing Closed Mr. Darrel Farr and Jim London were present. MOTION by Langenfe2d, seconded by Shea, that the PZanning Conenission receive tlxe exerpt from the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of Apri1 1, 1976, on the deliberation on Darrel Farr's applica- tion for development of Innsbrvck Village. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION bg Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Iettez written by Darre2 A. Farr Development Corporation to the Planning Conmiission members dated ApriZ 2, I976. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. Mr. Clark said the City had received a petition that was directed to the City Council, but as it concerned the development of Innsbruck Village he thought the Planning Comnission should see it also. MOTION bg LangenfeZd, seconded bg Peterson, that the Planning Commis- sion receive Petition #6-I976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris read the petition: "Petition the Fridley City Council to condition acceptance/approval of proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Village Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a replat of Outlot B, Audi- tor's Subdivision No. 92, all lying in Section 24, T-30, R=24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota...including the request to waive the City Setback Ordinance from 35 to 0 feet. We the undersigned: hereby petition the Fridley City Council to condition acceptance/approval of the above captioned project upon compliance by the developer, Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, with the following restrictions: I. "That the City of Fridley in consideration of its tax paying residents, establish standards of year-round maintenance for the North Innsbruck Drive Extension (that section of btack top road beginning at the Black Forest Apartment, and running East to Silver Lake Road) shall file a suitable performance bond with the City of FridlQy, which shall be renewed annually, and shall be adequate to properly maintain said road through completion of construction activities in the Innsbruck North Addition." Planning Co�nission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 11 II. "That the City of Fridley disallow waiving the City Setback Ordinance in the above referenced area on grounds that it would be discrimina- tory; that it would create an unsafe condition due to a minimum of two blind spots on the proposed City maintained road connecting North Innsbruck Drive to Arthur Street; that due to the narrowness of this City maintained road, and in view of assumed parallel parking on both sides of this road, it will prove to be a major hinderance to Fire a�d/or Police emergency vehicles access; and as a result of garage/dwelling structures close approximation to the road itself, prove to seriously inhibit adequate snow plowing of road surfaces, short of truck removal from the immediate area, at City expense." III."That the City obtain from the Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation an official and acceptable understanding as to Quad-Townhouse homeowners financial responsibilities for maintaining all non-City maintained roads in the above referenced area, as well as the upkeep of townhouse exter- iors and common grounds." Sincerely, Concerned Area Residents, Innsbruck North Addition" Chairman Harris said this petition was signed by many names. Mr. Clark said the staff had a meeting with Darrel Farr after the date of the letter written by Mr. Farr to the Planning Cortmission, but prior to us receiving it. There were a couple af items that were verbally agreed to that would change come of the cortments in the petition also. The first thing that wasd�tscussed was the width of West Bavarian Pass. He said the other streets in North Innsbruck were 28 feet back to back. Mr. Clark said that Darrel Farr was proposing thlt West Bavarian Pass 6e built to 31 feet wide. Mr. Bergman asked for clarification of the street width. Mr. Clark said that North Innsbruck Drive and Matterhorn Drive were built to State Aid standards, but North Danube, South Danube, West Danube and East Danube were all 28 foot streets, and they are public streets. Mr. Clark said they recognized that there might be less residential parking on these streets than there would be on West Bavarian Pass. As a compromise, we have agreed that the 31 feet might be adequate, provided no parking was allowed on one side of the street, preferably on the inside of the curve, so you could see around the curves easier than if there were cars parked on this side of the street. He said the second item that they discussed was the setbacks. He said that if the 31' street was approved, there would be about a 10 foot boulevard, because there was a 50 foot right of way. We felt that the garages should be at least 5' off of the right of way so that we would have 15 feet for the storage of snow. The exception to the 5 foot was at the point of a sharp curve in the road. He said that the minimum sight distance on a residential street with a 30 M.P.H. speed limit was 200 feet. To get that 200 feet of sight distance, one garage would have to be located about l0 feet from the right of way. Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 12 Mr. Peterson asked if Mr. Farr had agreed to this and if there was room to move this garage in 10 feet? Mr. Clark said this data was just compiled by the Engineering Department and this was the first the developer was hearing of this. He said that Mr. Farr did agree that whatever it took to get the 200' sight distance on a 30 M.P.H. residential street, that he would abide by that. Mr. Farr said that was correct. Mr. Clark said that the third item discussed was the maintenance of the extension road of North Innsbruck Drive to Silver Lake Road. Darrel Farr agreed to. keep up the surface, patching it as necessary, the same as was done on any other residential street. He asked the City if we would plow it. We have said that we would, but at the lump- sum of $500 a year. Mr. Clark said that should be more than adequate if we plow it when we plow our own streets, and sand it when we sand our own streets. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Clark what conversations there had been between the City of Fridley and the City of New Brighton regarding that extension road. Mr. Clark said that North Innsbruck Drive will be connected to Silver Lake Road, but not at the present alignment. This was definitely a temporary situation. He said that New Brighton had no plans for when this road will connect, but we do know that it � will be a State Aid street. A lot will depend upon the development of the land in New Brighton. He said that if someone came in and purchased this land, this road could be completed as soon as next year, or it could be as long as ten years. Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason she asked the question was because she wondered is some agreement couldn't be worked out with New Brighton that they would pay Fridley something for maintaining and plowing this street as New Brighton was receiving the taxes on the property adjacent to the road. Mr. Clark said he didn't think they would go along with anything like this because New Brighton could care less if the road was there. It was not a road that was necessary to New Brighton. It was a road used by the residents of Fridley. Mr. Clark said that as to the maintenance of this extension, when the developex:finishes thgonstruction of the last townhouse, the maintenance of this road would revert to the City of Fridley, because we own the ease- ment for this road. Mr. Peterso� said this easement was 66 feet and he didn't think that a 26' street would serve this area for 10 years. Mr. Clark said the street width was adequate for what it was being used for. Mr. Clark said that the problems that have occurred with this road in the winter time was because of the way it was plowed. It was probably only plowed to about 16 to 18 feet. He said that when the City plows this street to its full width, this should eliminate a lo� of problems mentioned at other meetings on this development. He said that 26' was two 13' driving lanes, and this was adequate when there was no reason for anyone parking on this street. Mr. Bergman said it was brought out at the Public Hearing that there were many people who walked this road to catch the bus at Silver Lake Road, and he didn't think that this road was wide enough to handle both automobile and pedestrian traffic. Mrs. Shea asked why Mr. Farr was the only developer in the area that had to maintain that extension road. Mr. Clark said it was because he had been the petitioner for rezoning this property, and the City wanted Planning Cortmission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 13 this road so that it would be used during the construction of the townhouses and provide another access for the homeowners in this area. It seems as this road was a more.convenient route to I.694. He said that if this road had only been used for automo6ile traffic, it wouldn't have broken up as it Bas. Mr. Clark said that if this extension road had been a public road, it would have 6een posted during the spring. As this was about a 7 ton street, and the construction vehicles using this extension were probably about 9 ton, was tfie reason wfiy this road has broken up. Mr. Peterson said that after listening to people from this area complaining about this road until all hours of the night, he felt that something would have to be done with this road, but he didn't feel that this was completely the problem of the Farr Corporation. He felt the City was going to continue to have problems and complaints on this road. Mr. Clark said that if Darrel Farr wasn't involved in this street at all, and it was the sole responsibi9ity of the City, as this was on1y a temporary location of the road he couldn't see spending tax dollars to upgrade this road to a wider width. He said that when the City plowed this street, they could probably put the wing down and plow the boulevard so people could walk along the side of the road. Mr. Bergman said he had a problem with this because no one could put a time frame on when this road would be permanently constructed in New Brighton. Mr. Harris asked if New Brighton would take over this connector road when it was constructed in New Brighton, or would Fridley still have an obligation. Mr. Clark said that the road in New Brighton would De a State Aid road when it was constructed and there wasn't a tax burden on maintaining a State Aid road, so there was no reason for Fridley to have an obtigation in New Brighton, when the road was permanently located. Mr. Harris said the Planning Comnission was concerned because in the memo from Jerry Boardman to Dick Sobiech that they had received, it was stated that the City had no responsibility for this extension, but it was also brought out at these meetings, that the contract between Darrel Farr and the City had expired, so it seemed as if no one was responsible for this road. Mr. Clark said it was the intent of the agree- ment that the developer would maintain this road until the construction was completed, and then the City of Fridley would take over this road until the permanent alignment was constructed 6y New Brighton. He said the extension of this agreement during construction should be part of the plat approval, and Mr. Farr has agreed to this if the City would take over the plowing of the road. Mr. Peterson said that he felt that the problem still hadn't beer}} solved with this street. It was so constructed that water stood in the street, and it was not wide enough to provide for either pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Mr. Clark said that the solution would be for the City to widen the street and install sidewalks. In order to do that, the City had to get the money from some place, so we would hold a Public Hearing on the improvement. He would venture to say that the residents of Fridley may not want that improvement made, when they had to pay for it. Mr. Harris Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 14 said he didn't know who the City could assess to improve this road. Mr. C1ark said then the City Council may be reluctant to order that road improved. Mr. Bergman asked if the City had a set of specifications for curb to curb street width standards. Mr. Clark said there were many different width streets in the City. He said that it may not sound logical, but there was logic behind each street width. He said that on residential streets that were side streets where there were no homes facing that street, the normal standard was 31 feet. On residential streets such as North Innsbruck and Riverview Terrace, the width was 36 feet, and these were residential streets that had housing facing these streets. He said that most coilector streets were 40 ft. to 44 ft., unless ft carried a heavy traffic loa�, and then they could be as wide as 50 ft. He said that some service drives, where there was no parking, are 26 ft., where we have a 30 ft. right of way, but in industrial parks, these can be a wide as 36 ft. Mr. Peterson said then the extension of North Innsbruck Drive was classified as a service road. Mr. Clark said there was another.:width such as on North D��be and S�il�h Uahube where the street was concrete the full width, and this was 28 ft. Mr. Peterson said that he was sympathetic to �he Darrel A. Farr Corporation because he felt they had tried to cooperate with the City and they seem to have developed a good rapport with the staff in terms of their willingness to compromise, but he felt badly because we were not solving the problems of the citizens in Fridley who have been to these hearings complaining about the road extension. Mr. Harris said that rather than widening out this extension street, he wondered if it would be possible to grade a strip 6 to 8 feet wide along side of the road that could serve as a walkway. He asked Mr. London what kind of soil was in this area: Mr. London said it was clay. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Farr if it would be possible to have his bul]dozing equipment grade a 7 foot strip along this road. Mr. Farr said he would be willing to do this. Mr. Clark said that ff the City had any extra wood chips available, they may be able to use them on this walkway, so it wouldn't be so muddy, but he could not make any comnitment'on that. Mr. Harris said that if the City plowed this area in the winter time, it could provide a walkway in the winter also. Mr. Peterson said that if the City would plow this street to the full width, and if a walkway of sane type was put in along the road for pedestrians, he felt this was as far as they could go at this time in solving the problems with this road. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission take the consideration of a pre2lminary pla.t, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck VilSage, and the consideration of a 200 vnit townhouse development, T-#76-02, for Innsbrack ViZlage, by Darrel A. Farr Develop- ment Corporation, from the table. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voti�g:.age, the motion carried unanimoasly. Mr. Bergman said that it seemed to him that Darrel Farr was doing his job, 6ui it seemed that the City of Fridley was remiss in putting forth any effort for the residents ofi the City. Planning Commission Meeting - April 7 1976 Pag� 15 Mr. Harris said that probably in a moral sense, it should be the City of Fridley putting in the walkway, but to be realistic, he didn`t think that Frid1ey had the kind of equipment that would be needed for such a job. There might 6e complaints if Fridley equipment was seen working in New Brighton. He said that with the equipment that Mr. Farr had, this job could probably be done in six hours, and it would take much longer for the City to get it done, and it would cost a lot more money. Mr. Ser�nan said his concern was more for who paid for this, rather than who did the job. _ . Mr. Farr said one and he agreed with do it, but they won't, appreciated that. he thought that Mr. Harris' suggestion was a good it. He said that he agreed that the City should so he would do it. Mr. Harris said that he really Mr.'9ergman said there was a wash area in this road that should be handled. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark if there wasn't an old culvert around that Mr. Farr could use. He said he thought the City should cooperate with Mr. Farr also. Mr. Clark said that probably wouldn't be any problem. Mr. Peterson said,that in the last meeting the.staff-had wiSh_Mr. Farr that they were in basic agreement on the plat as presented except f.or the parking on the street and the changes in the 0' setbacks. Mr. Harris said that he would rather see a 36 ft. wide street so parking could be on both sides of the street. Mr. Clark said this town- house plan was a little different than the other townhouse plans, in that there cou1d be parking in the driveway to the garage. He said that if the street was widened there wou7d be less room for snow storage, and more snow to put there. Mr. Harris said he thought that parking on one side of the street could be a cause for neighborhood friction. Mr. Clark said that if the road was posted for no parking before the townhouses were sold, people would know that this was the way it was going to be, and there would be a townhouse association to settle any neighborhood problems. Mr. Harris asked how many units would be next to this street. Mr. Glark said 60 units. They would have one car garages with space in the driveway to park one car, so there would be off street parking for two cars for each unit. He said that these were one and two bedroom units, designed toattract_ the retired couples on a fixed income, and young marrieds, so they felt that most people would only have one or two cars. These townhouses weren't designed for large family units. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Farr has tried to have housing in all price ranges, and if there were wider streets and two car garages in this development, then the costs would be much higher. He said that to provide housing in this price range, there wouldn't be all of the amenities that you would get in higher cost housing. Mr. Bergman said they weren't talking about two car garages, they were talking about an extra 5 feet of street widtfi. Mr. Clark said that would add to the cost of the construction of these townhouses. Mr. London said it would cost $3500 to widen this street. He said that in the Vienna Townhouses, there were one car garages with no parking in the garage area, and when people buy these units; they know what they are buying. He said they may have lost some sales on these townhouses because of this, but any problems the people had were handled internally by the Townhouse Assn. �lanninq Commission Meeting - Apri1 7 1976 Page 16 Mr. London said he was not in favor of a wider street. He would rather see more green area. Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission felt strongly that they would like a 36 ft. street in this plat, then that was what their recotoroendataon should be to the Council, and let the Council decide how they wanted it. Mr. Langenfeld said that he had never seen a group of business people such as the Farr Development Corporation who were so accortmodating to the City, but he thought that all the problems on this street should be settled so they don't have another problem like the North Innsbruck Drive extension. Mrs: Shea and Mrs. Wahlberg said they lived on a 30 ft. street, and there has never been any problems with parking or the movement of traffic as far as they knew. Mr. Peterson said that he felt that the extra 5 ft. of green area that they would have with a 31 ft. street was very important. Mr. Langenfeld asked what street width was originally proposed for this piat. Mr. London said 24 feet. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought 31 feet was already a compromise, so he was agreeable to the 31 feob width. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission reco�tend to Council approva2 of a preliminary p2at, P.S. N76-02, Innsbruck Vi2lage, and approval of a proposed townhoose deveIop- ment of 100 units, T-#76-02, for Innsbruck VilZage, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the WesterZy 210', Avditor's Subdivision No. 92, genera2ly Iocated North of North innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apartment, with the following stipulations: 1. P2an specifications for streets.and utilities are to be submitted to the Citg for approval. 2. Deve2oper deed to the Citg, Innsbruck North Park, before any plat approval or building permits are issued. 3. The part of Lot 49, except the Westerly 2I0 feet, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, that wasn'tpart of the p1at, be dedicated to the City, as this was adjacent to Znnsbruck North Park. 4. Two tennis courts wzZZ-be buiZt by. the�developAr on�.pubZic park property, the Iocation to be decided by the City, with the completion of 20 townhouses in innsbruck Village. 5. Road design on West Bavarian Pass must meet Citg approva2. 6. West Bavarian Pass sha11 be 3Z' wide, with no parking allowed on the Western curb of this street. 7. The minimum setback for any garage on West Bavarian Pass sha22 be 5'feet, with one garage being approximately 10 feet from the property Iine so that 200' sight distance from the curb Planning Commission Meeting - april 7, 1976 Page 17 is maintained on the curb. 8. The developer wi11 maintain the extension of North Innsbruck Drive from the City of Fridley line to Silver Lake Road unti2 the 2ast townhouse was completed. This extension wi1Z be plowed by the Citg of Fridley for a fee of 5500 per year, to be paid by the deveZoper. 9. The developer will bulldoze a 7 foot strip a2ong the extension road to be used as a walkway. Mr. Bergman said he questioned the setbacks for this plat. Mr. Clark said that the reason they weren't following the 35' setback was because it would push the units back so far that there wouldn't be any open area. Mr. Bergman said the problem he had was that the City of Fridley had set up certain standards and one of those standards was that structures be 35' back from the property line. He said that he didn't understand .�hAt if a 35' setback was deemed good in all residential districts, why it wasn't deemed good for a townhouse development. Mr. Peterson said that he was•sure that the houses on Rice Creek Boulevard where he lived, were not 35' from the property line, and he assumed that this was done to preserve the integrity of the back yard which was next to the Creek. He said that in looking at this townhouse plan, he personally feit that the open space, the effort that had been made to have these units fit into this site, and the integrity of the natural landscape and the trees, was more important than a 35' setback.,because he didn't see anything sacred about a 35' setback. He said that the setback requirement sometimes resulted in land waste, and as Will Rogers said, they aren't making any more of it. Mr, Peterson said that the way this plat was being developed was good sound planning. Mr. Clark said that the difference in a residential development and a townhouse development was that there were no setback requirements in the townhouse ordinance. He said the only reason the setback require- ments applied to part of this plat was because there was going to be a public street to meet the F.H.A. requirements. If this was a private street, the 35' setback would not apply. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think it was right not to have setback requirements for townhouses. Mr. Clark said then the code would have to be changed. Mr. Langenfeld said that in Seciion 205.051 of the Code, it states " for other uses, other than dwellingunits, permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permit, requirements as to lots, setbacks, build- ings, parking, landscaping, screening, and exterior material shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other districts, but also subject to additional provisions as provided by the City:" He thought the Planning Comnission would be the one to establish the additional provisions and therefore, we can eliminate the 35' setback. Mr. Harris said that he f�lt that this proposal tears up less landscape than if it had to have a 35' setback. He said that if this development was he7d to a 35' setback, it would destroy the natural characteristics of the area. He said that in hiS travels through?the townhouse areas that have already been completed by the Farr Corporation, he felt that they had done an excellent job of fitting the structures into the landscape. He said the proposed plan for Innsbruck Village _ �,; _ .�. , Planning Commission Meeting - Apri1 7, 1976 Page 18 was the best way to fit the units into the existing landscape. He said that he did not favor a 0' setback on a public street because if a small error was made, a structure could encroach into the public right of way, but with a 5' setback, there would be enough room so that this shouldn't happen. Mr. Harris said that at this time he would like to make a statement to the City Administration, before we vote. As we are allowing a 31 ft. street in this devel�pment, he felt it was incumb�nt upon the City Engineer- ing Department to treat everybody else in town equally as fair, and it was not necessary, therefore, that every frontage street be 36 ft. wide in the rest of the City. Mr. Clark said that there was a street deing built this year that wouldn't be 36 ft, wide. Mr. Harris said he objected to that because he felt it was arbitrary. Mr. Clark said that as he has said before, it might not be logical, but there was logic behind these decisions. He said that he was referring to the Leif Henrikson plat off of East River Road, where there just wasn`t room to provide for a 50` right of way and a 36' street. Mr. Harris said that if they were going to pave Riverview Terrace and it was 36' wide, he would have to pay for that. Mr. Clark said that was not necessariTy so, because there was a Public Hearing before any improvement was ordered in, and if an entire block said they didn't want a 36' street, it would not be ordered in. Mr. Harris said that in the ten year street plan, which must be almost completed, he felt that the attitude was to take it the way it was proposed, regardless of whether the people in the area agreed or not. He said he felt the City, the staff and the Engineering Department had been arbitrary in the meting out of street widths and assessments, and that it had been unfairly administered. He thought he could find 30,000 people in Fridley who would agree with him. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL voting aye, the MOTION carried unanimously. Chairman kiarris declared a r.ecess at 1O:1Q P.M. and reconvened the Planriing Commission-rr�eting at 10:25 P.M. 3. CONTINUED: PUBLTC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #76-03, LEIGH TERRACE, BY LElGH INUESTMENTS, INC.: Being a rep at o Lot 39, evised u itor's Subdivision No 77, (excepting parcel 5640), generally located on the West side of the intersection of Osborne Road and East River Road.(Same property as the Dorstad Plat which was never recorded.) Mr. John Doyle, of Leigh Investments, Inc. was present. MOTION bg Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the PSanning Commission open the PubZic Hearing on the consideration of a preliminary p1at, P.S. #76-03, Leigh Terrace, bg Leigh Investments, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Aearing open at 10:26 P.M. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Doyle and the staff have worked on this plat for some time. He said that the original plat that Mr. Doyle submitted was a plat in which the lots were served with a cul-de-sac off of Talmadge Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7 1976 Page 19 Way. Mr. Doyle tfiought this was a good plan for his plat because he wouldn't have any through traffic. Mr. Clark said the old �orstad-Plat joined 75th Way to East River Road, in t�e�c}�se�proximity of Osborne Road. The developer didn't feet that this alignment would induce a quiet neighborhood type atmosphere, but after the petitioner had discussed the plat with the City, and was informed of the problem that would arise �f- this alignment wasn't followed, he did bring in a different plan. This plan has gone back to connecting up 7�L1tWay with Osborne Road, about 50 feet North of the present center line of Osborne Road, which means that the County or the City would have to bring this alignment up to meet the street in-the plat. This can be done without the purchase of any structures. Mr. Doyle has also dedicated additional land for the widening of East River Road. Mr. Clark said the Engineering Department gave Mr, Doyle three differ- ent alignments for the connecting street and Mr. Doyle chose the aTign- ment that was being presented at this meeting. This plan was perfectly acceptable to our Engineering Department, the exception being that the center line of Osborne Read should be moved 5 feet to the South, which Mr. Doyle has agreed to, so we wouid not have to obtain addition land unnecessarily across the street. Mr. Clark said the plat consisted of 11 lots. They all meet or exceed the lot requirement of 9,000 square feet, with the exception of the 3 lots North of Osborne Road. Lot 1 will be 7,700 sqyare feet, and Lots 2 and 3 will be 8,000 square feet. Mr. Doyle was going to try and negotiate with the St. Paul Waterworks about being able to use the 40' St. Paui Waterworks easement as part of the lot. Obviously the use of that part of the lot would be restricted as to having any structures on it, or the planting of any large trees, etc., but the use of th� easement for yards and gardens would not be prohibited. I$ he can utilize this land, then these 3 lots would meet or exceed the 9,000 square ft. requirement also. There is some question as to whether the St. Paul Waterworks has fee title to this 40' strip, or if was just an easement. If it was just an easement, then it would be Mr. Doyle's land, and there would be no reason he couldn't include it with the lots, because he would be the fee owner. If the St. Paul Waterworks was the fee owner, then Mr. Doyle would like to get permission from them to allow a fence to be put on this property, and from the street it would look as if the easement was part of these lots. Mr. Clark said that Talmadge Way would probably come up and dog-leg to meet Osborne Road more or less at a right angle. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Clark how this plan affected the 6eveloper in terms of lots as far as if it were developed according to the cul- da=sac plan or the plan presented at this meeting. Mr. Clark said he would have one 7ot more with this plan. Mr. Peterson said then they were not working an economic hardship on the developer by insisting on this plan. Mr. Clark said that if you counted numbers, no, but if you could the total value of single family residential lots, then maybe yes. Mr. Peterson asked if from the City's standpoint, if it was necessary to have this thoroughfare on the plat. Mr. Clark said that he could only respond to what the Engineering Department had said, and that was that in Planning Comnission Meeting - April 7, 1476 Page 20 working with the County, they were trying to eliminate as many streets as possible coming on to East River Road at uncontrolled intersections. This would allow the people in this area to come out to a signalized intersection on East River Road. Mr. Peterson said that because of the problems we have heard about on East River Road, he thought this was desirable. Mr. Clark said the County Engineering Department has been confronted with this plan, and they: were in agreement with it. Mr. A. J. Hogen, 133 75th Way N.E., asked what the �fdth of the street would be on the proposed Osborne Road io this plat. Mr. Clark said the right of way width was 60'. The pavement width would be between 40' to 46' where they have the center median. It will allow one lane of traffic coming � in and two lanes of traffic going out. Mr. Hogen asked if this property was going to be developed as R-1.. Mr. Clark said that it would be. Mr. Doyle didn't have.�any plans to rezone the property as far as he knew. Judy Beine, 180 Talmadge Way N.E., asked if 75th Way would be joined to this road and if it would be improved. Mr. Clark thought that when this plat had been approved by Council that Talmadge Way might be upgraded, but then there would be a Pubiic Hearing before any improvements were made. Mr. Clark said that the North-South portion of Talmadge Way was an unimproved street at the present time and was used for traffic between Talmadge Way and 75th Way. Mr. Hogen asked if there was anything about stor,m sewers in this plan for 75th Way? Mr. Clark said thatalT the area in the plat will drain to East River Road on the road. Mr. Hogen said that some drainage was all that he wanted. Mr. Clark said he couldn't answer that question. Mr. Harris said that Mr. Hogen had a special problem where he had standing water in front of his residence, and he wass�re thatwas what he was alluding to. He said that Mr. Hogen wanted to know if there was some way to drain this water through this plat. Mr. Doyle said that he felt there was a very big problem with this area. He said that on the South side of 75th Way, they were faced with the problem of two water pipes which were 72" pipes, which would make it impossible to put any kind of storm sewer from the South to the North without going prohibitably deep. Then you would have the St. Paul Waterworks to fight it out with, so you were almost faced with having surface drainage. Mr. Clark said that he had misread the question. He thought they were asking if a storm sewer system would be put in. He said that he didn't think the Westerly part of 75th Way was high enough to drain to East River Road. He said that part of 75th Way was built to drain that way, but at some point, and Mr. Hogen would`:know where that was, it was designed to drain towards the river. There was a low swale that was apparently right in front of Mr. Hogen's property. Mr. Clark said that originally there was a sha7low sump constructed on the St. Paul Waterworks easement, for the water to drain into. He said it may work in the summer time, but he could understand that during normal winter thawing, that the water would stand in the street. He thought the only way to remedy the problem was to put in a storm sewer conduit which would more than likely have to run to the Mississippi River. Mr. Hogen said that had already been proposed, but the St. Paul Waterworks would not Alannin Commission Meeting - Apri1 7, 197b Page 21 allow their property to be used for the water going towards the river. He said they had blocked this proposal before, and they probably would again. He said that sump was in the yard, but it did not drain any of the water from the street, because the curb kept it from going into the sump. Mr. Hogen feit that if they hadn't put that swale in front of his house, the water would have drained to East River Road. Mr. Clark said he didn't think the land in that area was high enough to drain to East River Road on the surface. He said this road was dirt for many years, which was sand. The reason there wasn't.ar�y water problem then, was because the water just drained into the sand. When the street was constructed, it was put in as flat as possible and drained as much as possible toward East River Road. It got to the point that to continue that, it would have got above the yards on the North side of the street. Mr. Harris asked why they couldn't have crowned the streets so the rest of the water could have drai�ed towards the river? Mr, Clark said the corner that Mr. Hogen referred to was probably three or four feet higher than 75th Way. and in order for the water to get to the river it would have to run to Alden Way, North on Alden Way, around the corner to the catch basin on Alden Way, a little further to the North. Where Alden Way was going North and turns West was anather hill. He said that between 75th Way and the catch basin on Alden Way was where the hill was located. Mr. Hogen said that 3' hill could have been graded down. He said that they have been pleading for a ditch on the side of the road so the water could drain into a ditch, just to get it off of the street, but they won't give it to us. He said he had dug some by hand, just to get the water out of there, but the sand was hard to dig because when it was dry, it was just like cement. Mr. Hogen said the ditch �as supposed to be part of the original plan for this area, but for some reason the City would not give us this ditch, which was some thing.he just couldn't understand. Mr. Clark asked where this ditch was supposed to run to. Mr. Hogen said they just needed the ditch to hold the water until it had time to soak in. Mr. Clark said that this problem could not be solved at this meeting. He said that he recalled that a sump was put in 8 to 10 years ago, and maybe this was silted in and wasn't there anymore. Mr. Harris sa�id that maybe Mr. Clark could check on this to see if they couldn't get some of the water drained from in front of this man's house. Mr, Clark said there was a smail house on one of the lots in the plat. The alignment of the street would make this house the required 35' from the street. The alignment would necessitate the removal of the garage. He said that if the road was pulled down to save the garage, there would be another lot that would be too small to make it feasible to build on. Mr. Doyle said he had talked to the Engineers of the St. Paul Water- works concerning the use of their property, and they declined in making any absolute comnent about whether it would be allowable to use part of their easement on the three lots adjacent to this easement. He was going to discuss this with the Commissions, but he did assure me!.that there were many people making use of this easement for green area. Essentially they do object to the placerr�nt of buildings or trees on this easement, because these things would have to be removed if they had to come in and work on these lines, but they didn't object to grass or a garden. He said the Engineer said they were also working with the County and the City, and he wanted to reserve and comment until they had it all in one packages'� � Planning Comnission Meeting April 7, 1976 Page 22 Mrs. Wahlberg asked if it would be the deueloper's responsibility to inform the buyers of tBese three lots that if they were aJlowed to use tfiis easement as part of their lot, that they couldn't locate any structures or plant any trees on that portion of the 1ot? Mr. Doyle said he would put a covenant on those lots, so that the buyers would be aware of the restrictions on this easement. Mr. Clark said that if it was a private covenant, it would be part of the abstract. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to have the East River Road Project Comnittee look at this development. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langenfeld if he thought this was going to have a significant impact on East River Road? Mr. Langenfeld said he thought that giving them a chance to review this proposal would be in order. He said that if the Planning Comnission recommended approval of this plat at this meeting, then they could review the recomnendaions. Mr. Clark said there would still be a hearing on the final plat by the Council, so there would be time for the Environmental Quality Commission's project comnittee to review the plat, even if it was approved at this meeting. We are getting to the time of the year when any developer was anxious to get started on their projects, so this had to be a consideration also. He said that by the time the contracts had been let for the sewer and water and the streets, sometimes weeks, or even days, get to be quite valuable to the developer. Mr. Langenfeld said it wasn't his intention to hold up the approval of this plat, or to delay the developer: Mr. Doyle said that this plat was the result of very close coordination between the Administrative Staff of the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka, taking into consideration their apparent plans for the improve- ment of East River Road, which included the area up to 79th. This plat was the result of those plans. He said that Osborne Road wou1d be blocked off on his plat until the intersection of East River Road and Osborne Road had been improved. Mr. Bergman asked about drainage and utility easements on the plat. Mr. Clark said that all the necessary easements were already included in the plat. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doyle if he had considered underground utilities? Mr. Doyle said that he would explore the possibility of having underground services, but it would depend upon the�=existing area and if Northern States Power Company felt they were practical in this area. Mr. Harris asked if there had been any negotiations by the City or the County to obtain the property they would need to change the alignment of Osborne Road. Mr. Clark said he didn't think so. Mr. Clark said Osborne Road and East River Road were both County roads, so he didn't know who would be negotiating for the purchase of the property. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Doyle has already dedicated land from his plat for the widening of East River Road. Mr. Bergman said he was concerned about the configuration of Osborne Road in this plat. He said the present location makes Lots 1-3 less than the 9,000 square ft, code requirement, a�d'due to the extensive changes thete would have to be across East River Road to have the'0sborne Road meet this extension, he wondered if it wouldn't be better to have the Osborne Road in this plat moved sti]1 further South. Mr. Clark said Planninq Comnission Meetinq- April 7, 1976 Page 23 then Lot 7 would be unbuildab7e. Mr. Bergman said there wasn't much land to work with. Mr. Clark said the configuration of Osborne Road was not the most desirable because it wasn',t at right angles, and pulling it up to meet the Osborne Road of this plat will improve that situation. He said that as far as Mr. Doyle's comments on whether he would be able to use the St. Paul Waterworks easement in this plat physically or on paper, as you drive past this area it will look like it was part of the rear yards of these lots. Mr. Hogen asked if there would have to be any more land dedicated for the widening of 75th Way. Mr. Clark said there was enough of the existing right of way to allow the widening of this street. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission c2ose the PubZic Hearing on the preliminary p1at, P.S. #76-03, Leigh° Terrace, bg Leigh Investments, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting age, Chairman Harris decZared the Pvblic Hearing closed at I2:I0 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Co�nission recormnend to Council approval of a preliminary p2at, P.S. #76-03, Leigh Terrace, by Leigh Investments, Inc., being a replat of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, excepting Parcel 5640, generally located on the West side of the intersecion of Osborne Road and East River Road, (former porstad P2at), with the folZowing stipulations: 1. The alignment of Osbonne Road be moved 5' to the South. 2. That confirmation be obtained_from_the St. Pau1 Watezworks as to the specific use of the property, and that be reflected in a private covenant to be filed with the plat. Upon a voice vote, aIZ voting age, the motion carried unanimously. a. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONIN6 REQUEST, ZOA #76-01, JOHN W. HALUPTZUK: Rezone from C-1S local shopping areas to M-1 light industria areas), Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, to make zoning consistent with adjoining property, generally located just West of 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. MOTIUN bg Bergman, seconded �y P�ferxon, that the P2anning Cormnission open the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #76-01, bg John Haluptzok. Upon a voice vote,��all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 1Z:11 P.M. Mr. Clark said that this rezoning request was the result of a stipulation of the Planning CommissTOn on a previous rezoning request, ZOA #75-07, to rezone Lot 18. This will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent property. MOTION by Wah2berg, seconded by Peterson, that the P2anning Commission c2ose the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #76-01, by John Halvptzok. Upon a voice vote, aI2 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at I1:12 P.M. . MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the PZanning Commission Planning Comnission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 24 recommend to Council approval of a rezoning request, ZOA #76-OI, by John Haluptzok, to rezone from C-IS (ZocaZ shopping areas) to M-I (Zight industrial areas), Lot 17, B1ock 2, CentraZ View Manor Addition, to make zoning consistent with adjoining property. Upon a voice vote, aII voting aye, the motion carried onanimously. 5. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L S. #76-02, BY DONALD F. SEXTER: Sp}tt Lot' 3, 67ock 1, Froid's Addition into two building sites, each at least 10,000 square feet, for the construction of double bungalows. (Property zoned R-3), generally located on the corner of East River Road N.E. and Ironton Street N.E. Mr. Donald Sexter was present. Mr. Clark said this property was zoned multiple, and as recently as last October, Mr. Sexter planned to build an 8-plex on this site, and due to the handicap requirements that come into play when you build an 8-plex, and other pro6lems relating to the.lot, such as drainage, made it economically unPeasible to build the 8-plex. He was now proposing to sp9it the lot into two pieces and construct double bungalows on this property. Mr. Sexter has presented surveys of the two lots which show that both lots will exceed the 10,000 square foot requirement for double bungalows. Mr. Clark said one of the surveys shows the setback as 30' for the structure, and this will have to be moved back 5' to meet the 35' front yard setback requirement. Mr. Clark said there was another small problem in that he did not quite meet the garage requirements for a double bungalow. The zoning code states that you have to have 1 1/2 stall garage for each unit of a double bungalow. Mr. Clark said that if you use the paeking stall aequirementof 200', this would mean that there would have to be 300 square feet of garage area for each unit. He said the garages in this plan total 572 square feet. He said he feTt that it was the intent of the ordinance to provide two stalls for storage, and one stall for parking. Mr. Clark said that maybe the garages could be enlarged to meet this requirement. Mr. Clark said Mr. Sexter didn't want to widen the garages because it would obstruct the view from the house, but they could be built two feet aeeper. Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Sexter if he was in agreement to increasing the size of the garage by 2 feet? Mr. Sexter said he was in agreement becaase the house could be moved back two feet on the lot. He said that everything could be adjusted so they met the setback requirements of the code. Mr. Clark said the staff recomnendation was that this lot split be granted. FlUT20N by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, tttat the P2anning Cormrussion recommend to Council approval of a request for a lot sA1it.L.S. #76-02, by DonaZd F. Sexter, to split Lot 3, Block 1, Froid's Addition, into two buiZding sites, each at Zeast 20,000 square feet, for the construction of double bungaZows on R-3 zoned property, generally Iocated on the corner of East River Road N.E. and Ironton Street N.E. Upon a voice.vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 7, 1976 Page 25 6. RECO�MENDATIONS AND POLICY STATEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 40 FT. Mrs. Wahlberg said she appreciated the cansideration that each of the other Comnission's made on this request that came from the Appeals Commission, through the Planning Comnission. She appreciated the diligence and speediness wi�h which they were able to get this information back to the Planning Commission, because she was sure that the petitmoner who wanted to build on a 40' lot was anxious to have his request handled so he could start construction now that the warmer weather was here. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she thought what the Appeals Comnission would like would be a sumnary of the recommendations made by the Cortmissions. She said that most of the recomnendations were quite similar, and the only thing that bothered her was the recommendation that each 40' lot be handled individually. Mr. Clark said he didn't think these lots could be handled any differently than that, because it was a variance to the zoning code, and he thought what they were saying was that there shouldn't be one standard placed on all 40' vacant lots in our City. Each one should be considered ieparately, and_have separate action because each lot may be unique in its own way. Mr. Langenfeld said that he thought the recommendations of the Human Resources Comnission could be used as the guideline. Mr. Bergman said he would like to call attention to the recommendations made by the Cortmunity Development Comnission at their meeting of March 9, 1976,� He said that the Environmental Quality Comnission concurred with these recomnendations, and the Human Resources Comnission's recommendations had some of the same stipulations, so he thought they could use the motion of the Cortmunity Development Comnission as a guideline. Mr. Bergman said the first recaionendation was "If the land is available on either side which can be purchased,such that the lot can be brought up to code, then building would be denied on a 40 foot lot". Mr. Harris said he didn't think that recomnendation would stand up in court. Mrs. Wahlberg said that back in 197� they did make some recomnendations as to what type of home should be built on a 40' lot, but she didn't think that recortpnendation was good now with the present housing trends. SBe said that one pertinent fact was that water, sewer and electricity were already in on these lots. so they problably should be developed. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she had a problem with the 3rd recomnendation that the proposed house on a 40' lot blend in aesthetically with the rest of the neighborhood, and her guess was that most of these 40' lots were in older neighborhoods. Mr. Bergman said he could understand the problem with this, but these recomnendations were only meant as guid'e9ine�, and maybe they all couldn't t�e met all of the time. Mrs. Wahlberg said that what she got from all the Commissions was that there was concurrence that building on 40' lots should be allowed in the City of Fridley. She said that had 6een the basic question that the Appeals Co�nission had. They didn't know if they should open the door on this kind of a request. Planning Comnission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 26 Mr. Harris said that he was more concerned with what size house they were going to allow to be built on 40' lots. He said it was addressed by saying that there be no variancealfiowed from the present ordinance requiring a maximum of 25% lot coverage. Mr. Clark said that most 40' lots had about 5200 square feet. This would mean that the house and garage could only cover 1300 square feet of the lot. He said this would allow for a 1,020 square foot rambler, which was code, with a 14' x 20' garage. He said that if they built a split entry home, they could build one with 768 square feet of l�ving area with a 252 square foot attached garage. — Mr. Bergman said they didn't want to get more restrictive on 40' lots and that was why they stayed with the 25� of lot coverage which was in the existing code. We "recomnended that no variance be granted which exceeded this requirement, because this would tend to control the size of the house on these lots. Mr. Clark said it would be possible to build a marketable house on these lots, even if they had to stay within the code requirement. Mr. Harris asked -if the City was requiring attached garages. Mr. Clark said they were required on a two story house. Attached garages were required except on ramblers and split level housing. You also have to have an attached garage on any property that was the result of a lot split. Mr. Peterson said he thought it would be consistent with the housing plan they had developed that they encourage the developrr�nt of 40' lots because it would decrease the cost of building a hane. If we don't encourage people of different economic levels to move into our City, then we wouldn't be following the goals that we established. Mrs. Wahlberg said that if they allowed more than 25% lot coverage, then there would be more variances needed also. She wondered if they could set the maximum square footage they would allow for a house on a 40' lot such as 1300 square feet for the house and garage. Mr. Clark said he would hesitate to mention square footage, because some lots may be 39' and some may be 42' so the square footage allowed in the 25% of lot coverage could vary also. Mr. Harris said that maybe they could have a standard requirement for the size of a house on a 40' house. Mr. Clark said this would just be something else that they would ask for a variance on. Mr. Clark said �e thought that these recommendations were meant as a guideline and the Appeals Commission can try the 25% and if this was unworkable, they may have to come up with a diffierent percentage then. MOTION bg Langenfeld, seconded bg Bergman, that the P2anning Cormnission felt that 40' 2ots should be deveZoped in Fridley, each Iot to be considered on an individual basis,.subject to the guidelines set forth by the various Member Co�nissions. � Mr. Harris asked how they were going to deny a varianGe for a house on a 40' lot just because there was a vacant lot adjoining it. Mr. Clark said that every time you denied anything, you could end up in court, but he thought that the Comnission owed it to the other people in a block who had built on 2 40' lots so they had 80', to try to have the other building site be 8(Y. This would depend upon the person who had a lot to sell, offering Planning Comnission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 2� it at a reasonable market value price. Mr: Clark said that if two 40' lots were side by side and under two ownerships, fie thought these owners should reveal to the Appeals Commission what their differences were in regard to the price of either lot,. Mr. Bergman said that anyone who awned a 40' lot had a problem�lot. The purpose of the first recommendation was that the Camnunity Developmant Comnission felt that the owner of such a lot should make so� effort to solve that problem. They felt that if there was vacant property next to this lot, that an effort should be maae to purchase the lot, so �h�t a house could be built on a combination of lots that would meet the code requirements. He said that in that context, he thought it was a reasonable request. Mr. Harris said he had a problem with the denial of a building permit on any 40' lot, whether there were two vacant lots togAther, or 10 vacant lots together. Mr. Harris said he thought �he combining of 40' iats should be encouraged, but he di�n't want the City to be in a position of using a club between two owners of 40' lots. Mr. Harris said they could try it, but if any denials were made, the reasons for the denial should be stated and documented. Mrs. Wahlberg said she would like the Appeals Comnission to get a copy of these minutes on this item, and she would like the guidelines put in a concise form, so the Appeals Comnission could refer to them for any requests to build on 40' lots. Mr. Harris said that if this was going to be a policy statement, he thought that would have to be approved by the City Council. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Commission only asked for an opinion from the member Comnission's and the Planning Comnission. Mr: Harris said that any policy statement had to be approved by the City Council. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Comnission was concerned with the request they had tabled on a variance for a 40' 7ot and this petitioner had been delayed quite some time already. Mr. Harris said it would be hetter in the long run to have Council approval on a policy statement, but they could use the recomnendations from this meeting as guidelines until the policy statement had been approved by Council. Upon a voice vote, a22 voting aye, the.motion carried unani�rousZy. 7. ELE�TbON OF VICE CHATRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Harris said that the Planning Commission hadn't had a Vice Chairman since Mr. Drigans resigned from the Planning Commission and he thought they should take care of this at this meeting. He said he was open to rsominations. Mr. Bergmannominated Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Peterson nominated Mr. Bergman. Mr. Harris said they would vote by ballot, and when the votes were counted, he declared Mr. Peterson Vice Chairman of the Plannin9 Correnission. 8. TIME SCHEDULE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Mr. Harris said he felt that setting a time period on each agenda item was a good idea and thought it should be continued. Mr. Clark asked how they wanted to handle this. Mr. Harris said that after he received his Planning Comnission Meeting- Apri1 7 1976 Page 28 agenda, he would call Mr. Boardman or Mr. Clark, and they couTd;work out a time schedule so the petitioner could be told approximately what time their �tem would come up on the agenda. Mr. Peterson said this would eliminate people waiting three hours for discussion on the item they were interested.in. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Shea, seconded by Peterson, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting age, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Cortmiission meeting of April 7, I976 adjourned at 12:I6 A.M. Respectfully submitted, �� Dorothy Evens , ecretary