PL 08/04/1976 - 6590�
�
�
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION �EETING
CALL TQ ORDER:
ROLL CALL•
CITY QF FRIDLEY
A6ENDA
AUGUST 4, 1976
AAPROYE PLANNIN6 C0�44ISSION MINUTES: JULY 28, 1976
Il
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMTSSION MINUTESt JUCY 27, 1976
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TION OF A
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
�7 ��� ��� 6 l�� �
7 - 12
t�e�ng a replat of Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, 8locks 21
through 26, and also part of Lot 1, Block 28, Inns-
bruck North Townhouses Third Addition, to allow
changes in the size of garages, generally located
on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of
Meister Road N.E. _0 , � � � �,
t'l+�-
Public Hearing open.
�r �io-ii �T �uaern aLnl�t��iu: rer trsdiey tiity
o e, ection 0 0 , 2, , to allow the construction
of a second accessory building, a 24 ft. by 32 ft.
detached garage, on Lots 18 and 19, Block 8, Plymouth
Addition, tfie same being 4713 3rd Street N.E.
MA1'�R NEE
I��IZe
UT
CONTINUED: HUMAN �EVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
REVIEW PARKS & RECREATID�' COMMISSION MINUTES:
JULY 6t and JU t,�:97b
?. �EE� V�D�J►�A�7C�
13 - 23
24 - 29 ' �
. �
�f�" � 1
� °A `��
�o `��r.��6.
�`4,�p��
30 - 33
:34 - 38 ��kSNOP
MtEr�No
E wIc«>.xt,.
- 39 Op `I0� IAZS
�M+s a„�
40 - 47 ��,� �
�
Sent Separately
CITY OF FRIDLEY
� PLANNING COMMISSZON MEETING JULY 28, 1976 PAGE 1
�
CALL TO ORDIIt:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
P.OLL CAI,L:
N.embers Present: Harris, Bergman, Bruce Peterson (attending for Langenfeld),
Schnabel, Lambert (attending for Shea)
Nembers Absent: Robert Peterson
Others Fresent: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION PiINUTES: JULY 11�, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Lambert, that the Planning Commission minutes
oY July llt� 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously,
RyCEIVE SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION MINUTES: JULY 6 1976
Mrs. Schnabel said she wasn't able to find the total dollar amount i.n the minutes,
and asked if that was because they were tentative figures or if it was omitted,
Sne stated she was just curious as to vhat dollar amount they were talking about
for the total budget. Mr. Boardman stated that this was the total capital outlay
budget, so if all the items were added together it would be the total of capital
outlay.
Chairperson Harris directed Mr. Boardman to look on page 29 under Administration
and GeneraZ Use (Program 237)} and asked why there were so many zeros in that
column. He wondered why those particular items were listed i£ there was no
budget for them. Mr. Boardman suggested that perhaps they were listed initially
and have been deleted. Mrs. Schnabel said it appeared that items 11 through 1$
in that same colwrm took care of some of the items starti,ng from 5 on. Mr.
Boardman said in other words, they were asking originally £or a tractor with a
rotary morrer� but instead dropped thatr-equest and went with three hand mowers.
Mr. Harris asked what type of hand fertilizer spreader cost $150, and Mr. Boardman
said it might be a large one, but he didn't lmow. He added that if Mr. Peterson
or Mr. Dave Harris had been at this meeting� they could have gotten some answers.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Coimnission receive
the minutes of the Special Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting
� of July 6, 1976� and hold them for questions until the next regular meeting of
the Planning Commission to get interpretations on some o£ the items. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 28, 1976
Page 2
RECETVE SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION MINUTFS: JULY 2�y, 1976
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Lambert, that the P2anning Commission receive �
the minutea of the Special Meeting o£ the Parks and Recreation Commi.ssion meeting
of July 14, 1976, and hold them £or questions until the next regular meeting
of the Planning Commission to get interpretations, Upon a voice vote, all
voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris called the Commission's attention to page 38 and the list
of project committee members that were present at the special Parks and Recreation
meeting. Mr. Boardman explained that the meeting was just for the chairpersons,
and all of the neighborhoods except one were represented at that meeting. He
stated the chairperson for neighborhood 10 wasn't in attendance because she was
sick.
Mrs. SchnabeZ asked if she could reeeive a map of the various districts, and
Mr.� Boardman passed out maps to both Mrs. Schnabel and Mrs. Lambert.
Mr. Boardman said he wanted to add that last Monday night there was a meeting
of Parks and Recreaiion and the organization for the overall Recreation Committee
Was set up.
REGEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 13, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Cormnission receive
the minutes of the Appeals Commi:ssion meeting of July 13, 1976, Upon a voice �
vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris said that it again appeared that the Appeals Commission had
been working very diligently and hard� and they were to be commended for their
good work.
RECEIVE COMMtJNITY DEVELAPMENT MINUTES: JULY 13. 1976
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commissioa receive
%he minutes of the Community Development meeting of July Z3, �976. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman said that regarding t,he Si�n Ordinance Cormnittee, there have been
two meetings of the project committee. He stated the second meeting was held
July 26th� and he was not in attendance. He said he did attend the £irst meeting
and reported on that one previously. Mr. Bergman explained the subcommittee
met on the fourth Monday of each month� and he thought it got fairly well organ-
ized at the first meeting. He commented that he thought the committee members
would find it was a much more complicated and diverse challenge than it appeared
on the surface. Mr. Bergman said that three representatives from sign �ompanies
were invited to the second meeting, and added that Dennis Schneider was spending
quite a bit of his personal time. He stated that it would take awhile to wade
through a lot of detail and arrive at some breakdown 8nd enumeration of what
kinds of things they were really concerned about. He said that there was not �
yet a completion date� but they were moving forirard.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - July 28� 1976 Page 3
19r, Ber�nan continued that they had a second project commi'ttee--the Bikeway/
Walkxay Project Committee, which was a continuating project committee. He
�stated that at their last meeting Mr. Vern Moen, the on-going chairperson of
Bikeway/47a1'sw�, was in attendance. Mr. Bergman.said they discussed the status
and ezgectations of the committee with him� and approved a proposed project
committee delineation scope with current view. He stated that the project
committee had been dormant for some time, but Mr. Moen was planning to call a
meeting sometime within the next month to month and a half to review where
things are and identify things that ought to be attended to or further reviewed.
Hr. Bergman said that at this point he would like to raise a problem they were
having in the Sign Committee getting mi.nutes recorded, typed and distributed.
He said that as an example of that, he had requested at the last Cormmmity
Development meeting that minutes of the Sign Committee be attached to the
Community Development minutes and carried forth as part of those minutes� but
that hadn't been done. He said they also have the typed project cormnittee
description for Bikeway/Walkway. Pfr. Bergman said he would like to ask what
Kas normally done with regard to 1) How do other projects solve the secretarial
problem without Staff assistance, and 2) How do those minutes get carried forth,
or don�t they? He furiher stated that ai the last CDC meeting ihey were handed
roughly-typed copy of the Sign Committee meeting minutes, and did receive them
at Cozmnunity Development level. He said that vnless something else happened,
that was the end of the travel of those minutes.
Chairperson Harris said he thought that was probably all that was necessary
for those minutes until Community Develo�anent took some type of action or made
a recommendation. Mr. Harris told Mr. Bergman that if he wished to include
�those minutes with the recommendation or action from that committee to the
Planning Commission� it could be done that way. He then asked Mrs. Lambert
how it was handled in Human Relations, Mrs. Lambert replied that as far as
she Imew, the Fine Arts Committee was the only active subcommittee in Human
Relations at this time, and she happened to be the secretary of that.
Chairperson Harris said there was a problem with that in the ordinance. Mr.
Bergman stated they were working on the problem, hut he didn't know how sucessful
they would be.
Mr. Bergman said that as input from the Bikeway/Walkway Project Committee
and from administration, they received and approved a project committee
description for the Bikeway/Walkway Subcocmnittee. He said that this should
be then processed in the minutes o£ the Planning Commission as Community
Development had taken action on this. Mr. Aarris said that should then appear
in the mi.nutes from Community Development.
1. TABLID: PiIBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIOA OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S
eirig a replat oi' Lots 1 ao U inclusive, cslocxs ci tinrou
oy an so part of I,ot 1, Block 28, Innsbruck North Townhouses Third
Addition� to allow changes in the size of garages� generally located
on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road N,E.
� Public hearing open.
���
Planning Coimnission Meeting - July 28, 1976 Page !t
Mr. Boardman explained to the Commission that he had talked with Jim London,
and Mr. London aske@ again that this remain tabled because Darrel Farr has
been gone and they haven't been able to sit down with the Townhouse Association �
yet. Mr. Boardman brought to the Commission�s attention a letter to the
Chairman of the Planning Commission from Mr. Jerry W. Anderson, Chairman of
the Architectural Control Committee� dated July 20� 1976 which said that in
lieu of a request Yor withdrawal they would like this letter part of the record of
the Planning Commission,
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive
the communication from Mr. Anderson to the Chairman of the Planni.ng Commission
dated July 20, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Lambert� that the Planning Commission table
the Public Heari.ng on consideration of a preliminary plat� P.S, #7b-05,
Irmsbruck North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corpora-
tion, with the Public Hearing open, until the next regu2ar meeting of the
Planning Cocmnission, Upon a voice vote, aIl voting �ve� the motion carried
unanimously.
2.
ESTATE 10 SECOiID ADDITION BY BRATT-PALE:I BIIILilF.Efi3 Being a replat oi'
Lot � Auditor's Subdivi;ion No. 2, to clarify the legal description
of a building site generally located at 941 Hillwind Road N.E.
DSOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning CorUnission open �
the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-06�
Real Estate IO Second Addition� by Bratt-Palen $uilders. Upon a voice vote}
all voti.ng aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:05 P.M.
Mr. Francis Girdler, representing Real Estate 10� and Messrs Don Bratt and
Elmer Palen� Builders, were present.
Mr. Boardman said that first o£ a71, he wanted to correct the map on page 6S,
and explained the dash l.ine should be moved Lo the property to the South of
that (parcel 1130). He stated that this was a petition by the owner of the
property to approve a preliminary plat on the property, He exp7.ained the reason
for the preliminary plat was because the legal description on the property
as is was very� very lengthy and the owner would like it simplified. bfr.
Boardman said the property to the South of this had been platted in a similar
situation to this� the proper.ty to the East was platted in an apartment ownership,
and the property to the North does have an existing building on it.
Chairperson Harris asked if they were planning on building a fvture building
on this, and Mr. Bratt replied they had to get an easier legal description
because they were building a home there. He explained it was presently an
empty lot. He added that Real Estate 10, Second Addition, was not the correct
name� and asked that it be changed to Lot 1� Aillwind Addition.
�
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - July 28, 1976 Yage 5
Chairperson Harris asked if that was the proposed structure pictured on page
�6�� and Mr. Bratt replied it was. He said it was basically a Irshaped split-
entry. .
Chairperson Harris asked if the lot met all of the zoning requirements, and
Mr. Boardman replied they would have to pick up some easements on the property
to the East of this in order to allow for sewer easement on this road. Mr.
Bratt explained that the owner of the apartments there oxned that land� and
they had arranged with him for that easement.
Mr. Girdler stated that he owned the property to the South (1340) and had the
same no-sewer situation. He agreed with Mr. Bratt that they should get together
and pay for it.
Mr. Bratt stated that if this Commission recommended to Council approval of
this, they would also like to have them recommend that a building permit be
issued upon approval of the preliminary plat, with the idea that they wouldn't
be able to move in until after final plat approvalMr• $ratt said he understood
this had been done before ¢�ite a few times, tIe �lained the reason this request
was made was because the cost of the proposed house would go up approximately $1,000 by
the middle of August, S3�d their mortgage co�itment was about to run out.
Mr. Boardman asked i£ all code requirements would be met, and Mr. Bratt replied
they would. He said they even had a building permit subject to these things.
Chai.rperson Aarris asked if there were any other drainage requirements, and
Mr. Boardman replied nothing else was necessary.
� Mr. Bergman stated that this particular lot was.zoned R-3, and he believed
some additional property in that asea vas zoned R-3. He said Mr. Bratt�s
intention was to make a R-1 use of this particular lot, and asked him if he
Imew if there were any similar plans for surrounding land, Mr. Bratt replied
that he didn�t lmow. He said that Real Estate 10 had the property to the South,
but beyond that point going South he didn't lmow what anybody's plans were.
Mr. Bergman said that there were plans at one time considering a neighborhood
shopping area. Mr. Harris said he recalled that� but that would require
re-zoning.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the
Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat� P.S. #76-06, Real Estate
10 Second Addition, by Bratt-Palen Builders. Opon a voice, vote, all voting
aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8;17 P.M.
idOTION by Bergman, seconded by Lambert, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of a preliminary plat, P.S. �/76-06, Real Estate 10 Second
Addition, by Bratt-Palen Builders: Being a replat of part of Lot h, Auditor's
Subdivision No. 25, to clarify the legal description o£ a building site
generally lacated at 9ltl Hillwind Road N.S.� subject to identification oY sewer
easement from the Easterly direction.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Bergman wished to also recommend the issuance
�of a building permit if the preliminary plat was approved, and Mr. Bergman
said his motion did not include that. He said he felt nothing would be served
by that recommendation� and preferred to leave it to the City Council.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting qye� the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 28� 1976
Page 6
3. CONTINUID: HUMAN DE`/EIAPMENT GOAIS AND OBJECTIVFS
Mr. Boardman informed the Commissiqn that he had nothing further to discuss �
on this at this meeting.
Mr. $oardman brought to the Co:mnission's attention the Official Publication
Notice of Hearing by the City oY Spr�ng Lake Park. He explained it was a
rezoning request concerning the general location of Centnal Avenue N.E. and
Osborne Road, and that it would be heard by the Spring Lake Park City
Council on August 2, 1976.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Cormnission receive
the Notice of a Public Hearing on the rezoning request concerning the general
location of Central Avenue N.E, and Osborne Road. Upon a voice vote� a11
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNriENT:
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned, Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of July 28� 1976 adjourned at 8:43 by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Q�/,'9 r�. 7 ( -/ � �YY,' �l01' .
She •ri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
�
�.
���A
�
i1Bii8&RS �SE1�T:
PARKS At3D &BCREATIOdP COM�ILSSION
r�esxixc
J1II.Y 26, 1976
' ..
Dave Sar ; Harvey Wagar, I,ea�nard M4ore
Bob Peteraoa, San Seeger
4Tl�R$ 7:'B$SBl�T: Charles Boudreau, Parks & Becreation Director
Jerry Boardman, City Planner
Lewis L. Farr - f57 Riversedge Way N,E.
V81me Farr - 157 Riversedge Way N,S,
Patricia S�i.th - 660 Hugo St. N.B,
Henry Welk - 11112 Madison St, N.S.
Jusa Salas - 5810 - Sth St. N.B..
�eley Graadstrand - 5431 Madisoa St. N,S,
f '' 011ie Erickaon - 6056 Woodq Laae N,$.
�° Ted Rue - 170 - 63rd Way N.Br � .
R, C. xelly - 6230 - 7th St. N.S, �
Yicechairperaon Aarris called-the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
i
.,
AFPAOVAL �+ AGENDA: .
lir. tlarrts euggested that "GUESTS" be inserted ia the agenda after °INTRODUCTION
O8 CHABi.ES;BOUBRBAU, TSE NSW PA&RS S� EBCEBAITON DIRSCTOB".
110TIfAi by Leonard Moore, seeoaded by Harvey Wagar, that the agenda be approved as �
changed: Upon a wice vote,- all voting aye, the moti� carried unanimously.
APPBUi�AL 9F MiNUT65 OF THB RBGOLAA PhRKS �&BCREATiON COPTIISSION MEETING OF ,TpNE 28 1976t
?�Yr'tdN by Leamard 2ioore, seconded by Harvey Wagar, tp approve the minutes as
written of Ehe regular Juae 28, 1976, Parics S� Becreation Ca�oisaion meeting. Upon a
vo3ce yote, all votfng aye, the motion carried vnani.mouslq.
APPROVAL QF 1�[INUTI:S OF Ti� SPECIAL PARKS & RBCSEAIZ(kI CO�B�fISSZON MEETING JULY 6 1976:
MOTFf#d by Leonard Moore, seconded by Aarvey Wagat, to approve the minutes as written
of the'Special Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, July 6, 1476. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�� , � .
_ _
t
S `` .
PARKS 6 RLCREATiON CQZ�fISSION MEETING JULY 26 1476 Pa e 2
�
APPROVAL QF MINUTES pg THg SPECIAL PpRKS & RECRBATION COI�R4LSSION MEETING JULY 12 19i6;
MOTION by Leonard Moare, seconded by Harvey Wagar, to approve the minutes as wrftten
of the Specisl Parks & Recrea[io�► Ccimcnission meeting, July 12, i9i6. Upon a voice
vote, akl voting sye, the motion carried unani;mously.
�NTRODUCTIt�+1 OP C}IARLSS (CHUCK) $pUD�fiAU THE NSW PARRS 6� gECggATipN DIRECTOR:
Mr, Boudreau �ras introduced to E arks & RecreaCioa C�mission and to the viaftors
presant.
Mr. Herris warmly welcomed Mr. Boudreau aboard a � that Che Parka & Recreation
Ca�missian �ould work with him to try to continue to upgrade a,�rks and recreatton
facili.ties.and programs wit,hin the City. �4
GUSSTS
1. Lewis & Velma Farr - 157 Riversedge Wa N E
Mr. Harris read to the Commissinn the letter received from Lewis & Ve1ma Farr.
Lewfs aad VeZma Ferr were present at the meeting to ask that tha Parks & Recreatioa
- Coi�miission consider their request to purchase the adjacent park land wttich abuts
their lot on the weat side. They would also Iike the C1tp to abandon the 20-faot �
easement which leads to park p�operty but retain the right to drive across thia �
property any time for inspection of atorm sewer outlet located on park land, With
the new IsLands ,of Peace Park to the south of them, they ao lougez feel there is
a need for ehis park, This wouid eliminate the prohlems of peopie trytng to drive
down this easement and then turning around in their yard.' Also, the easement poses
a problem for their neighbor south of them as the easement is notir physically in the
wroug p2ace and noE in the proper iocation the aurveq shows, A new ptoperty line
could then be establlshed at the abandonment of this easement and both patties
ia�olved would benefit. They would be willing to talk about any ideas the Commfssion
might have.
Mr. Aarris stated that he felt this item should be referred to Sta£f. Ae atated
the Commission could not aet on this other than make a recoatme�dation efter it has
heard back from Staff.
Mr. Boardman atated this ahould al.so be referred to Che Neighborhood Project
Comm3ttees to,give Lhem a chance to look at the area and come up with any recommenda-
tiona they may have. This area is in Neighborhood 3.
MOTION by Harvey Wagar, seconded by Leonard Moore, that the Parr/$iversedge Park
item be referred to Staff for their xeview and recammendatiott a�1d that this item
also be referred to the Neighborhood Project Committee for that area, Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye; the motion carried unanimousip.
�
�� � :*�.
� � ,
,
,, ;
� -}
��
SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETZNG
JULY 6, 1976
ME�ERS PRESENT: Bob Peterson, Dave Aarris, Harvey Wagar
ME�ERS ABSENT:
OTHfiRS PRESc.DTT:
Jan Seeger, Leonard Moore
n
Dan Huff, AcCing Director of Parks & Recreation Department
Jan Konzak, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager
Chairpzrson Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:k5 p.m.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PARKS & RECREATION BUDGE'.0 FOR 1977, INCLUDING PRIORITIZATION
OF CAPITAL QUTLd� ITEMS
Coumiiss ion
AGCOUTT �+50�J. (Land) A roval 1971
1. 'Sp�eial Assessments - $ 20,000
2. Land Purchases (general) -
Mr. Peterson questioned i£ at this point in time,with
all the propertg they have, if "Land Purchases" is a
vfahle goal. �
Mr, Auff stated that it was his understanding that it
wa, only in the budget in case somethin� came Up--a piece
of lan3 that was adjacent to a park where more space was
needed, for example.
3. Islands of Peace (due in 1977)
Tha Cou�mission e�reed that the $10,240 be put under
Ccannission apprrn•al for 1977, *with the requirement that
this item ba considered outside the Canmission's b%
incteased request for 1977 and that if any rapayment be
received from Islands of Peace, it be earmarked for the
Parks tc Recreation C:.pital Outlay budget in exeess of
that to be allotted in the year of reimbursement,
7,000
10,240*
:�
,�
�...-.
-- `�!!'� :
i'� r
SP�CIAL
PAItKS & RECRlATION COMMISSION MEETING JULY 6 1976 FAGG 2
Commission Approval �
1977
ACCOUNT 451a (IIuildin�s & Structures)
Administration (Program 237)
1. Remodeling part of old library -
*Phe Commission sti11 felt that this should be with
the contingency tUat the Police Deoartment (or whoever
uses the old office space)reimburse the Parks &
Recreation Department for this expenditure.
2. Fencing & security (general)
�Area 1 (Program 241)
1. City garage (mortgage payment) -
2. Locke Park Shelter (mortgage payment) -
3
4
5
Activity Building at Madsen Park -
�$alance of $20,000 to be financed over 4 more years
($5,000/yr.), possibly from pension fund.
Mr. Harris stated that maybe after the Commission has pre-
pared the budget, that maybe Mr. Qureshi cou2d meet with
them to discuss the budget. He said the ori�inal item on
the shelter building was $18,000 and now it is up to
$25-28,000 when Parks & Recreation could have borrowed
fhe $18,000 and had it paid up by now.
Locke Park footbridge - low priority
Coacrete floor ("O1d Garage") - low priority
Area 2 (Program 242)
1. Siding for 5ylvazi Park Warming House -
2. Siding for Logan Park Warming House -
3. Fencing (Glencoe & Springbrook Park)
Area 3 (Program 243)
1. PermanenC concessions building at Commons �2 -
$ 3,500*
2,500
6,243
5,000
5,000*
�
_p_
_ a_
i,000
1,000
2,000
-0-
Mr. Yeterson said he could see a concession stand at
Commons �k2 and see it paying for itseLf, but all the money
coniing from thc.concessian stand goes into General Fevenue
and they get the'concession building in l-he Parks & Recre-
ation Uudget; z+nd there really should 1ae an offsetting credlt.
On that bASis, it is a low priority �tem.
�'J
r . .
Bk
b ....�.. � . .
� SPECIAI.
� PAP,KS & RF,EREATION COMhikSSION MEETING TULY 6 1976 PAGE 3
� ;, Commission Approval
� ,
. 1477
2. Siding & fir.tures for HAF, FYSA, City Storage/
Restroan bui2ding at Commons - $ 3,500
Atea 4 (Progarm 243)
� I. Picnic canopy - Flanery Park - 375
Area 5 (ProQram 244)
1._ Fencing (Summit & Altura Parks) -
. *S0� of this cost to be provided by adjacenC property
� owners following a study by the neighbarhood project
com:nittee.
Area 6 (Progarm 246)
1. Fencing at Meadowlands Park -
ACGOUNI 4520 (Furniture & Fixtures)
Adminiatration (and general, Program 237)
�" - 1.. 10 Park Benches (at $70} -
2. IBM correcting typewriter -
Ar�a 1
1.. bandscaping and general equipment for Unity Park -
*Final expenditure for leased property coithout longer
term lease.
There was a question among the Co�ission members about this
item. They thought there had been an exchange of property
with [Inity Hospital and that should be park land. They
questioned the lease. Mr. Huff was asked to check on this.
2. Picnic tables, trash cans, and charcoal burners for new
Locke Park picnic area -
3. 1 set, 5 seat x 18' bleachers for Locke Park softball fields
3,300*
2,000
700
1,200
2,500*
1,000
:��
;:;.�
yj:,
,�
#-
�
�
:�
SPECIAL
PARKS & 2CCitrhTION CONAfISSION MEF,TING JULY 6 1976 PAGE 4
Area 3
1. 2 benches for Cammons -
2. 1 set, 10 seat x 18' bleachers for Commons �2 -
ACCOUNT 4530 (Machinery & Anto Equipment)
Administration and general use (Program 237)
x
Commission Approva�
197�
lr 3/4 ton 4wd pick-up L-rade w/plow (w/trade-in) -
2. 1 ton stake bed truck (w/trade-in) -
, 3. 1/2 ton pick-up truck - �
4, 2-way radio for truck (above) -
5. Tractor (5000 series) -
6. Rotary mower (for above) -
7. Fertilizer spreader (for �5) -
8. Snowblower (7', 2-stage) (for 4�5) -
9. Brush chipper (self-contained} �
Z0. ❑tility vehicle (Jacobsen UD-4} (for snowblowing, -plowing,
mowing, sidecoalk, and trail maintenance) (w[attachments) -
The Commission felt this should be budgeted in lieu of ��5.
11. liand mowers (3 Ea $200) -
12. Sweeper repair parts -
13. Fertilizer spreader {hand) -
14. We2der (gas) -
15. Welder (arc) -
ACCOUNT 4540 (Other Improvements
Ad��inistration and general use (Program 237
� 1. 1° water hose, 1;000 linear feet -
2. Cedar post's for landscaping, 950 at $2/post -
3. Snow fencing
Area t
1. Resurface infields at Maetsen Park ,�kl and �2-
2. Walkcaays aC Locke Park -
$ I50
Mr. I�arris su�gested that maybe $1,000 could be put in this
year aud $1,000 next year.
3. "Color-Kote" Pfadsen Eennis courts and l�asketb��ell court -
4. P�ve Locke Partc West paricing Lot - very low priority
S. Replace Locke Paric archery butts
i
2,200
6,400
6,600
_ p_
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
7,000
4,800
600
400
150
190
350
1,520
1,900
600
a,.aov
1,500
-0-
300
�
��
a
r � t, �
N SPECIAL
Y�-- -PARKS & RIsCRF:ATION COhS1ISSI0N N�E'PINC JULY b 19�6 � PAGE 5
�� • Commission Approval
r Area 2
1977
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 .,
6.
Resurface infields at Sylvan, Logan an� �raig P.3rk
softball fields -
Construct softball field at Ruth CiYCle Park -
Resurface and "Color-Kote" tennis court at Craig Park
"Color-Kote" court areas at Ruth Circle, Glencoe (exc
prop. tennis court.) and Skyline Parks -
Tennis Court at Glencoe Park -
Preliminary Development-"Ashton-Mississippi St. Park"
Area 3
$ 900
1,000
- 2,600
- 2,500
10,000
- 2,D00
, 1. Basketball Court at Coum�ons Park - low priority
2. irrigation Additions at Commons (sledding hill) -
, Commission didn't feel this was necessary at this time.
3. Pave new walkway and South Parking lot at Commons'- low priority
4. Tennis Court lighting at Commons (coin activated) -
Mr. Peterson stated that this is one of those items where it
would be better if they could work in cooperation with the
schools as the schools' tennis courts are farther away from the
residential areas, and it would make more sense to light the
schools' tennis courts.
5. Resurface infield at Commons �5 softball field -
� Area 4
1. Topdress Moore Lake and Flanery Park ballfields -
2. Resurface infields at Moore Lake and Flanery ballfields -
3. °Golor-Kote" court area at Hackman Park -
4. Preliminary development - Briardale Park -
5. Preliminary development - Harris Lake Park -
The Commission hapes they will get some input from the
Neighborhood Project Committees for development of these parks.
6. Erickson Beach ieiprovement -
7. ltto footbridges at Moore Lake - low priority this year
8. Improve Moore Lake swimming docks - low priority
Azea 5
1. Improve ballfield at Burlington Northern Park -
The Commission agreed to cto the minimum as this ballfield is
used mainly as a practice field.
-Q-
-Q-
-�-
-0-
300
600
1,200
725
3,000
2,000
i,000
-0-
-0-
300
� -
_�� .
i )I
SPECIAL .
PARKS & RtiCRF.ATION COMMISSION MF.ETING, JULY 6, t976 �PAGL' 6
Cwnmission Apprqrial
Area 5 (continued) ' 197�
2. "Color-Kol-c" new Summit Park tennis court - $ 1,500
3. Tot-lot improvements at Farr Lake Park - 1,000
4. Preliminary developmcnt - Cheri Lane Park - -�-
The Commission decided to eliminatc this item from the budget
as it is a leased area from Target and they feel Target
should do some of.the developing.
Area 6
' 1. Charcoal burners at Meadowlands Park - -�-
The Commission decided to wait to see wliat happens in the other
garks where some charcoal burners were budgeted and to see what
input they get from [he Neighborhood Project CommiEtees.
2. Pave Meadowlands Park parking lot - -�'
3. Engineering study - Mead�wlands Park improvement and future -0-
developmenC -
ACCOUNT 4510 (Buildings and Structures)
�
Program 274 - Iiockey
1. 1/2 cost of new toarming house at Madsen Park - -0-*
* Badgeted under Page 2, Area 1, Item 3
Prog:�m 276 - General Skating
1., 1/2 cost of new warming hovse at Madsen Park - =�-
• Pro�ram 284 - Swimming Beaches
1. 3 new Iifeguard towers (2 - Erickson, 1- Moore Lake) - 900
ACCOUNT 4520 (Furniture & Fixtures)
Program 276 (General Skating)
1. Benches, etc. for proposed Madsen warming house - -0-*
� included on Page 2, Area 1, IL'em 3
Pro�;rnm 262 (Playgrounds) '
1. Shelving for equipment storage - 320 �
M :�
-�L
�. ACGOUNT.45�0 �coatinueJ�
PraRram 28k (Swinaning Beaches)
1. 3 benches for 6each house -
Pt�ram 286 �Concessionsl
.. .:-:T: ..� . .
2. Hot dog prep. equipmenC for Moore Lake Beach and Commons
concessions - .
2. Freezer for Commons Concessions
The Comnission then discussed increasing fee revenue.
co,ron#ssion epprovat
1977
$ 150
300
200
Ms. Kanzak gave to the Commission members a list of recommendaCions for
increasing feas.
4 �
1�t3TItIN,by Dave Harris, seconded by Harvey Wagar, that the Parks & Recreation
CQ�tisslon reco�end the following increase in fee revenue:
Softball - 1977 Entry Pee/Team
Men's Open Slow Pitch & Indus. Slow Pitch 5160 from $190
Men's Rec. Slow Pitch & Indus. Slow Pitch 155 " 135
: Men's "Over 30" Fun Slow Pitch 155 " 135
Couples 16" Fun Slow Pitch 110 " 95
Glomen's Open Slow Pitch 145 " 125
' Women's Rec. Slow Pitch 190 " 120
1.
;�'
Women's Pun Slow Pitch 130 " 115
Swimaning - $2.50/ child
Yauth baseball - increase of $1
Girls' softball - 51.00 to the City
Giris' football -$l.ao to the City
Playground - $6jindividual; $12/ maximum per family
Ba�ketball - raise Men`s Team from $75 to 5100/ no iit�xease in youth team
Hockey - $Za00 to ttae City
Sroomball - $2.00 ta the CiYy
Football- $2.00 to the City
Valleyball - Team fee raised fran $45 to $55
The Commission will �o inform the Associations that they are to collect and identify
the numbcr of pUrticipants and the money will be due the City within 30 days aftcr
cotn}rletion ot regtstration. (Tliis is tu stnrt in 197?.} Upon a voice vote, all
;,., - voting aye, the motion esrried onanimously. �
�
_ . �
SPECIAL PAGE 8 �
P.SRRS & RBCREATION COMMISSION MEET"tNG JUI.Y 6 1976
Mr. Pe[erson stated that he felt the Parks & Recreat,ion Department has an obligal-ion
to Ue looking at the total fce strucCure £or any organization that uses its
facilities to make sure these organizations are not over-pricing the tar.payers who
furnfsh these facilities.
Mr. Harris stated that the fee revenue increase should be re-evalaated next year
by determining how many houz�s each person is paying for, excludin� the maintenance
factor, because,percentage-wise, some are being increased more than others.
ADJOURiIMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully•submitted,
c
�t•�-- '
Ly e �S=*�a
Re.^.ording Secret:�ry
�
�
�
�_
�� � .
x .:
�`t � �
� �,. ,
SYECIAL PARKS & RECREATION'COMPilSSION
MEETING
JULY 12, 197b
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Peterson, Dave Harris, Harvey Wagar, ieonard Moore
MSi9BERS ABSEy'T; Jan Seeger
OTH�RS':PRESENT; ,Terry Boardman - City Planner
Neighbonc�od Project Committee members
�hairperson Bob Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:35'p.m.
DISCUSS SCOPE OF RECREATIO:S AA'D NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT COr4SITTEES
Mr. Peterson thanked all the me�bers for atCending this special meeting and told
them hocr the Commission appreciated their willingness to serve as Neighborhood
Project`Coum�ittee members. He then asked Mr, Boardman to go through the materials
that were handed out to the committee members and if -there were any questions, they
�_
were to feel free to ask them,
Mr: Boaxdman stated that the maps that were given out were outdated, He stated
that in'the next couple of weeks the City Staff will be submitting to Che Neighbor-
hood Yroject Camimittee members new material including the breakdown of neighborhood
chsracte,ristics within each of the neighborhoods, a new updated park map as well
as aerial maps of each park so the commiteee members will know what park is in
each:neighborhood and what is in those parks, The Coumii.ttee members will also get
d-breakdown as to what some of the recreation standards are, such as park space
needed per population. These will be available merely for their use or view, to
see if these standards meet the criteria for each of the neighborhoods, City
Staff wi11 also put in their recommendations as to the type of activities
they feel should be happening in neighborhoods with these characteristics,
Mr. Boardman then outiined the Purpose and Scope of the Neighborhood Project
Committees as written on the sheet entitled "NeighUorhood Parks Project Committee
vf the Parks and Recreation Commission", He stated tUat right now they are in the
process of pu[ting together a Parks and Recreation c.omprehensive plan for the city,
In tbis Parks and Recreation comprehensive plan, they will be delineating neighbor-
hoods,'discussing those neighborhoods as to what tl�eir needs are, what their
priorities are as far as fundiag goes, and at the end of that they will set up
reetmmendaCions and an implementation process for these Parks and Recreation
neighborhoad areas, Out of this will come a five-year capiCal improvements
�� :
SP�CIAT. PARKS & RECRCATION COMMISSION �GTINCj 3ULY 12, t976. ' Page 2
program.in which they will establish priorities, ranking;. etc. This will all be �
established through the Parks and Recreation Coaunission through the City Cauncil.
The project cotmnittees' input into this plan is the knowledge they have of their
neighborhoods and the needs of their neighborhoods. Mr. Boardman said they are
looking to the citizen to give them this type of information, have the citizens
take a look at their parks, ta2k to their neighbors, and find out what their
neighhors and themselves feel is needed in their neighborhood park to meet the
requirements of their areas.
Under'Scope", Item 1, Mr. Boardman stated that the projeet committees should see if the
facilities of their neighborhoods meet the requirements of their neighborhoods.
If they don't, then that is what should be evaluated.
Under "Scope", Item 2, Mr. Boardman stated that in most cases there is no more park
land 'space available. In that case, the project committees will just have to keep
in mittd the amovnt of space that is available, Maybe the use of the parks at this
time are not the right use for the neighborhood. .
Under "Scape", Item 3, Mr. Boardman stated that they want the project canmittees
to see if some facilities are not suitable to a neighliorhood or are not providing
the recreation they £eel is needed in a neighborhood, then they are to list their
priorities as to what they do need in the neighborhood. This will help in the
evaTuating and planning far bud�eting for the dif£erent items for those neighborhoods.
Mr. Boardman stated that the three areas which the Neighborhood Project Committees �
will not be evaluating are Locke Park, North Park, and IsLands of Peace. The only
part of North Park that will be analyzed by the project committees is the portion
on the west end.
Mr. Boardman stated that the membership oi the committees should be 5-9 members.
He pointed out that it was up to the chairperson, with the help of his coimnittee
members cahen possible, to fill out the membership of his committee. When the
project committee is filled, then the chairperson is to submit a list af aZl his
coumiittee members to the Parks & Recreation Commisszon. The chairperson has the
big responsibility in carrying out this program and Mr. Boardman outlined the
chairperson's responsibilities.
Mr. Boardman stated that on September 28, 1976, which is a.Parks & Recreation
Commission meeting, the Commission wi11 be lookzng for findings from the committees.
Mr, liarris stated to the committee members that by m otion, Monday nights were
designated as meeting nights for the Neighborhood Project Cornnittees. They are
welcome to meet at City Hall as there is space available for the meetings and it
provides the Commissian members with an opportunity to provide a staff person,
if necessary,tor questions to be answered and to help formulate or better formulate
their programs.
PSr. Peterson asked Mr, IIoardman if he would Ue sending out to the committees
a suggested form for them to use in filling out their reports.
Mr, Soardman answered tha[ he felt that was a very good idea. ,� �
�
(
� � �� �� �
Y
}� 4 � .
3E�L'LYi/fL � � .
� PA�#�$ & RECREATION COM
�:
�� t
'
The gueeeion was asked
CoumeLCCees do.
that when there•is no park to evaluate, r�ha[ do the
3
Mr. Bs3ardman answered that they should take a look at what facilities axe available
within the whole scope of Cheir neighborhood. Maybe the only pro�lem in the
neighborhood is an access problem. And, maybe [hat could be the committee's
reccunmendation.
Mr. Harris stated that if the cocmnittee members have any open areas, they should
put down what they think the layout of that area should be. The information could
be of great benefit.
The question was asked if the co�iCtees should evaluate any schools in the area
exen if'the school is in a different school district. The answer was, yes, as long
as the schoot is within the confines of Fridley.
One co¢mi[tee member stated that she wislxed these project cos�ittees could have
heen formulated sooner. She is very concerned as a tennis court is going up in
her neighborhood taking the place of the little children's skating rink, leaving
no activitias for the smaller children. She wanted to know who ordered this done.
Mr. Boardman explained that a tennis court survey was t3iken throughout the City
�s.to how many people were playing in s�hat areas and divided the City according to
serviae areas as Co the number of hours fhat were being played in different
�`— neig�borhoods. They came up with certain areas that had shortages of tennis
courta. Every 200 hours of tennis play within an area would require a court. It
was up to the City Council.and they budgeted for two .tennis courts, one for the
norttr and one for the south.
Mr. Peterson stated that the City Council,is often handicapped by lack of informa-
tion from the diiferent neighborhoods and this same problem can possibly ba
prevented fn a�other area by input from the project coaanittees.
Mr. Harris stated to the co�rznittee members the impor[ance of getting members for
the committees frr.n all areas of the neighborhood and not just people from one
street so that a broad segment of Chat neighborhood is represented. He said they
don�t need to feel they must canvas the neighborhoods and knock on doors as it
is naC one o£ their requirements, alChough they may do so if they wish.
The question was asked if there would be any problem with neighborhood work groups--
the City providing the equipment and the neigliborhood providing the lahor.
Mr. Harris stated that this should not be included fn Che reports to he passed on
to the CiCy Council. Because of priorities, the project may be delayed a couple
ot years and the people who were going to provide the labor may have moved or may
no longer be interested. •
IJ
�
SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATTON CdMMISSIOV MEETING JULY 12 147b Pa e 4
Mr, Rarr,is told the committee members that if [hey had any questions that they �
should feel free to calt Jerry Boardman or any of the Parks & Recreation Commission
memhers.
Mr. Tom Nielsen expressed his personaL Chanks to the Parks & Recreation Commission
for their participation in the youth programs.
Mr. PeCerson stated that the Commission members would like to attend some of the
Heighhorhood Project Conan3ttee meetings and would appreciate the coQanittees
calling the City office about their meeting schedules so that if any of Che
Commission members are free, they could ateend. •
Mr. Peterson again thanked alI the project commiteee members for attending this
meeting,
ADJOURNMENT;
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p,�,
Respectfully submitted,
Lyn�_C�
Recording Secretary
0
�
�
. . . .. � . . ..� �
. . . � � .. � _ . i .
� � � . . . . . � � . � �.+-.-•�::.
� -�,..
. r
��
�'a
SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION MEETING
JULY 12, 1976
NEIGHBOR}100D PRQ7ECT COhII�fITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT AT SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION MEETING
Name
Betsy Sauer
,�ayne Noble
Tom Nielsen
Byron Butters
Karen Budnick
Elaine Lawrence
Betty Bonine
Ted Rpe,
Bruce Holmes
Ron Stecknan
�Lathy Divine
Sandy Bacon
Clayton L• Storley
Dorothy Breza
Daryl Roltag
Chuck Lindman
Judi Janiak
Jim Richardson
Joe Matusovic
Dan Sullivan
Don Pullen •
Alice Senson
Claydon Polzin
Address
5189 Horizon Drive
7381 Jackson Street N.E.
7583 Lyric Lane
260 - 67th Avenue N.E. •
601 Iror.ton St. N.E,
595 Ironton St. N.E.
601 Glencoe St.
170 - 63rd Way N.E.
6813 Hickory Dr. N.B.
58 Rice Creek Way
6170 Benjamin St. N.E,
1350 - 69th Ave. N.E.
414 Rice Creek Terrace
5221 Capitol St.
1391 Meadowmoor Dr.
1378 Meadowlnoor Dr.
1655 Mississippi St.
6371 Squire Dr. N.E.
6361 Squire Dr. N.E,
1161 Regis Lane
6899 Madison S[. N.E.
640 -SSth Ave. N,E.
6220 Jupiter Rd. N.E,
,
Neighborhood (if known)
6
7
7
4
(1)Riverview Action '.:�
'�
u n �41) �� ��
3
Recreation Project�
Committee
2
�
,
3 '
13
12
a
8
6
11
�
11
12
12
12
13
8
9
5
�.�
�., ;
� �t
_*, �"
PARKS & &E�F
�'" 2. J�an Salas - 5810 - Sth St N E
�
3
�
I�Er, 5a1as was at the meeting to ask the Parks 6 Recreation Caomission how soon the
soca¢a ffeld at Locke Park would be improved.
1�. tt�rrf:s atated that it was discusaed at the speciaL Parks bo Recreation Commission
budget meetiag and moaey �aas appropriated for ft in the budget. He said ae soon as
the budgat ia approved, he hopes that work vill be started by this fall.
Mr.-9alas also astced if it would be possible for him to use the city footbal2 field
wiEh light� October 27-28 for a tournameat.
Mr. }�trrls said he could talk to Mr. Bardreau about this, but it was Mr. Harris'
utuierstsadiag that Mr, Salas could use it if it was not already being used.
3. Wesley Grandstrand - 5431 Madison St N S
t3r. 8randatrand atated that he is a new property owner ia Fridley and had purchased
some Iand that was adjacent to the Cheri Lane Park area. For the last year and three
moaChs, saheaeyez the park land haa needed maintenascce, he has had to call the Parks
& Recreation Department to get it done, He said he is referring to onlq mowing as
no ot&er#,m�nbvements has been done to the park tand. He xould like to see regular
mainteaaace done on this park Land without h1s having to call all the time. He also
sugget�ed that the area be posted with "No Motorized�Traffic" signs as there is a
�lot of motorcycle and four-wheel drive traffic on the land.
"Mr. Harris stated that they would get some information back from Staff on ways to
improve this area and would put the park on a regular maintenance schedule.
DISCUSS SG�P& OH RECREATI�I PR0,7ECT COM�IITTSE
Mt, Erickstxi, Mr, Rue, and Mr. Kelly, members of the $ecreation Project Co�ittee
�aere greeent at the meeting.
Mr, $oardman reviewed the"Purpose" and "Scope" for the Recreation Prpjeet Committee.
He stated [hat the membership was eatablished by the Parks 6� Recreation Commisaion
and each member of the Commissioa chose one member of the project c�ittee and tvo
membeYS of that project co�ittee are to be chosen at-large by the project co�ittee
itseif. The chairperaon was designated by the Parlcs � Recreation Commission as
Mr. O11ie Erickson. Mr. Boardman also reviewed the duties of the chairperson and
the length of project.
Mr. Ha�ris stated that the Commission hopes to take the information from the
HecresCion Project Co�nittee and the Neighborhood Project Cov�ittees and make an
updaCe on the Parks & Recreation program. It is an update, basically, to bring
back into focus what was done in 1965 when they had a long range planning program
for the Parks •& Recreation Department that was used and has been used up until this
time as a guide. It�was used specifically at that time for a bond issue thaz did
not pass. Ae said he hopes that the information they will be getting from tbe
��&ecreation Praject Committee will tell the Co�ission what it should be doing in
reiationship to the recreation program.
1.0
YAItKS & RECREAIZON 60AfN�CSSION MEETING JULY 26 1976 pa e�
Mr. Erickaoa stated that he felt the Recreation Project Coutaittee should haye an �
organizational meeting as soon as possible and set Mnnday, August 2, 1976, at
J;30 p.m, at City Hall for thetr first meeting. He also stated that he falt it
vas necessary to have a staf£ person present at their meetings.
Mr. Harris agreed tI�t a sfaff person is necessary to answer q�xestions and provide
some professional asaistanae to this project eo�ittee.
Mr.'Harrie zemiaded Che pro}eet eammiCtee that at thefr first meeting, they ehould I
appaint two at-large members. He-said the Parks 6 Recreatfom Co�ission would be
willing to aet a spec4al meeEing with the project co�ittee if, at any time, thay
h8ve queations and vish to meet with the Cammisaion. He thanked the project
committee members for attending the meeting.
PROBI.EM WITH GLENCQE P.tyB,K: PATRICIA SMITH 660 HUCA STREET N.$.
Ms. Smith was at the meeting to tell the Cou�isaion about damages her propertq has
austained during the'construction going on in Glencoe Park. Her property adjoina
the park and, since it is not fenced, ia open to public acceas to the park. She
stated Lhat she was aever notffied that anything was going to happen and one day
oame hame to see conatruction already started. Since that time, she has speat $400
for damages from cars driving through her backysrd, bike traffic, and damage to
her houae siding. She said a copy of the police report was supposed to have heen
sent to the Coa�ission. Ms, Smith asked the Commission i£ they would consider
putting up a fence, of whieh ahe understood she would pay half the cost. �
Mr. Harris stated that if Ms. Smith didn't object to a anowfence, that oue could �
be put up temporarily fpr immediate help in stopping the traffic through her yard
autil a permanent fence cquld be put in.
M02ION by Harvey Wagar, seconded by Leonard Moore, that the Commiasion recommend
tkat the City erect a temporary snowfence at Ms, Smith's property, 660 Hugo St. N,fi „
and that permanenfi fencing be put in at that locatioa at the earliest posaible
time, with the underatanding that Ms, Smith will pay half the cost of the fencing,'
Upon a vofce vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Smith also told the Coum�ission that she felt they should he aware of the fact
that motorcyclists are driving on the park's new blacktop which could ruin it
before it is finiehed.
Mr. Boadreau stated that he thought it would be good relations to notify residents
in an area that is going to be developed. He stated that, with the Commission's
approval,-he would draft a letter that could ba aent out to these people so they
�.ould have prior notice of any construction.
The Commission agreed that this was a good idea, but that just a general t�otice
should be sent out--t�at specific construction should not be defined.
i
S � 4n � �.� . . .
� _��,x.
�
�
� ,
� �
UPDATffiD LEST fJF YEOPLE WHO BAVE A6�EED TO SBBVB ON Tk}E �SfGNBORHO� PROJECT
�
....a�frxw.f�.v� �w�.. �r�r.+xa.au av ahwa aaaw✓ws an� auuan vvrxuslGno
�
ilx. ��tstt etated the Che Coumission members had an updated lis[ of the people
on t�te �p,�ect committees to date and more names aze still coming ia. He said
if the Cam�i;sai� members had anp aames to add, to give th� to him so the list
couid:be apdated agaia.
Mr. Harri� atated that Enf�hould get in touch vi.th the chairpeople again this
week and auggea hem that if they are not up to the aumber of people required
£or th4 iCtee that they either do so at the earliest posaible date or ask
ssian to give them same help. He also atated,that when these chairpeople
aze soatacLed t}tat they be as&ed if they have had their meetings and, if not, when
they are--if they are not planning aae, why not.
Hr, Ba�rdmaa etated-that Mr. Peterson stated at the last Ylanning Co�mission meeting
thst ff Nei$hborhood 11 doean�t have a chairperaon within a week, he would appoint
oae.
DESIGNATIO�T OF A COPAffSSION MBMBSB TO SSBVE AS QN B%-OPFZCTO �ER OF THE YDUTH
CENTSR,BOARD � DIRBGTORS
MOTiQN��y Le�tard Maore, secoaded bg Harveq Wagar, that Pfs. Jan Seeger be desigaated
�Aca Che Ex-Officio Member of the Youth Center Board of Airectors. Upon a voice vote,
BLI. voCing aye, the motfon carried unanimouslp.
OTHBR BttS��fiS -
Mr: Haore staE�d that next July 1, the Hennepin County Park System w1.11 operate
and open the park around the Coon Bapids Dam. He said one thing they were going
to have.is patking factlities £or boats on the north side of the dam. Wlxat
ilr. Moore wanted to imo�:t was what the Parks � Reereatioa Ca�mission�felt abaut
Fxidley having boating facilities � the south side.
Mr. Ha�tis,auggee,ted that this idea could go Co the &ecreatian Project CounnitCee
with tt�e suggeation that.they evaluate it as �rt of their werall rec=eation
progi`�t.
MOTIU�E by Leonard Hoore, seconded bp Harveq Wagar, that boat docking facilities at
Coon Rapids Dam or ia the City of Fridley somewhere along the Mississippi River
be re�exzed to the Recreation Project Ca�ittee for their input in the recreation
prpgr8m, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boudteau read to the Co�issioa a letter #rom Mrs. Lesley Tikkanen regarding
a safe crossing for children across Rice Creek.
{� :
�.2 :
: PARK$ & RECREATION COMPIISSION MESTiNG JULX 26 1976 p& � 6
M(3TIOPJ by Aarvey Wagar, secoade@ by Leonard Moore, to receive Mrs. Lesley Tikkanen'�
letter. ,iTpon a-voice vote, all votiag aye, the motion carried unanimonsly.
Fli�. Harr3a staCed that the thing to do with this item is to wait for Staff�s
recommendatioa as t4 what shauld be done. He thimka thi� goes beyond what the
City is involved in because it is Erying eo wotk an an excharige of property c�ith
the county which invo3ves their chaitt of lakes acquisition and their walkwaqs,
pathw�ys, and bikeways Co the Miseissipp3 River th'rough Liao Lakes and traveraiag
� the whole eounty. 2€ the c�ty is going to acquire the property, maqbe the couaty .
shnu2d be involved in �mrkilsg witk an�e kind of cr ng at that lacation, He stated
thxt Staff catt c�e back at the neXt re�ular Parks & Recr em Cc�iasiar� meeting
wi,th information on it.
AU.TWRIiMEP7T; �
MOTION by Leonard Mooxe, seconded by Harvey Wagar, to adjourn the meesing at
9:00 p.m. Upon a voice vote, al]. votfng aye, the moCion carxied unan�tmously.
ReRpectfuLly submitted,
L Saba
�
Recording Secretary �
,:
4 _ _.,.��`i , . _ ..�a� _
. "
N'ridley Appeals Cor_^�ission Meeting of July 27� 1976 Page 2
1� drive;;ay becau-� of t?�e parkin� b�n on 77th 1•Iay. The 'property across thc
street is .^.eavy coru�=rcial (Barry lilower Company� and to the East of
� subject propert;/� B?rry Blor�er's parking lot for their employees,
C. t.DMINISTRA;IVE STAFP' REVIEW: 'StaSf investigation shows a similar !t-Plex
apartr.ent r.ext :oor at '7673 East River Hoad which has parkin�; in the front
yard 29 feet from t::e curb. 106-�7th 47ay 1�.E. is setback approximately
5� feet fr.� tce cur'� with a 2$ ft, bouleva.^d intervening. ?he rear af this
build'_ng has 3 parking stalls, which are the only existing o£f-street
rarkir.; stalls `or t^is building. For k dovble units the renuired nu�ber
o£ of�-street garking stalls is 8.
2he "no ua^king� an�:time" signs were posted on 77th Way during September,
1971t� to control excessive on-street parking by Barry Blower employees in
response to a complzint by Donna Mderson of 106 77th 47ay N.E,
The p=titioner is t�:e owner of the !�-Plex at 7673 East River Road, as w�ll
as the corner lot situated between the two apartment buildings. This corner
lot i� not deveiooed, and appears to be available for tenant parking. Tnis
may be a v'able ?1te�native to this request, The vacant lot xould acconmodate
at least a 3-plex apartment and joint parking arrangements could be made.
Staff feels tha� all viable alternatives to this request should be consid-
ered.
Mr, Burkholder approache3 tha Board and explained to the Corranissioners the
photograp7s and a eiagra^� showing present parking and the proposed parking.
�He explair,ed t^at one o? his tenants had complained to the Police Department
that people frcm Ba�ry clower were blocl:ing the driveway, so the "no parking�
anytime" signs were posted, He said that now crhen �,nzests came there tiaas no
room for them to park} and said he discovered this after he had received a
parking t'_cket. 14r. Surkholder explained he also owned the empty lot on the
corner which is zor.ed for a 7-Unit, but he tisas not doing anything ��ith it
presently. Fle stated that no�a he �aas being faced with the problem o£ oeople
pulling or.to t_:e grass, �nd he would like to nut in about a 30' blacktopped
area which would st:ll leave about a 20' setback, and there i•rould be pleniy or
room for ^eople to get out. He showed on the diagram where the parking lot
would go, and expla�ned 'ae was no� anxious to put in a great big parking lot
because blacktop w2s so expensive.
Mr. Barna asked if the depth would be just enough for a parking stall� and Pfr.
Burkholde^ said yes, wita a little bit extra. Pirs. Gabel asked about parking
for the proposed %-cnit building� and ?ir. Burkholder said he would probably
have to request ano�her variance at that time as it was not desirable to have
any more traffic ce:^ing in ofr of East River Road,
hir, Kemper asked if the only reason for this additional parking area would be
to facilit.ate truest parking� and h±r, Burkholder reolied it would be For ihe
tenants a�so, as sere oi them had two cars. He e,xplained he has had Lhis
building :or acout iour �*ears, and three or four cars in the back is no problem,
but any mc+re a�ould 'ee a problem. He added that with no parking on either side
of the st;eet it was a difficult situation.
.
�
FH1uL�Y APPcALS COt4MIS:,IOtd MELTIWG
JULY 2%, 197b
�IEFItsENS Piir':,Efa'P: Virginia Schn3be2, Alex narna, Pat Uabe1, llick Hemper,
Jim Ylemel
MEMBEitS An;ENT:
OTHEHS PRE�ENT:
None
Ron Holden, Auilding Inspection Officer
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson :;chnabel at �:30 P,1•?,
APPROVAL OP' APPEAIS CONI�'ISSIO;� P;INUTES: JU��� 29� 1976
,�:GTlON by Barna, seconded by Plemel� t!�ai the Appeals Co�mission ap�rove ttie
minutes of the June 29� 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, aIl votir,g
aye� the motion carried unanimously,
APPROVAL 0� APPEALS COPE•?TSSIOCI MIP?UTES: JULY lj 1976
M^. Aolden inSormed the Commission that the date of July 26th on page ?� 1�th
paragraph from the bottom, shauld be changed to August lbth.
MO'rION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel., that the Apaeals Comc�iss9-on approve tne
minutes of the July 13� 1976 meeting as �aritten. Upon a voice vote� a21 voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
1. CONTINUED: REQUrST FOR A VAHLAtvCE Cr' SECTSC�J ?05.07;, 1, (E,1) FHIllT,EY
CITY CODE, TO ALLO.•! TSNA1vT AivD GU�ST OFF'-STR�ET PdRKIPv'U IN TH� F'RO^!T YA3D
OF Aiv EXISTIDiG 1�-PL:X� ZU?VED R-3 (G�NERAL hNLTIPLE FA;ffLY DbInLLIhGS),
LOCAT�➢ ON LOT 1, IiLOCx 1, AUS ADDITION, THE SATnE BEIiVG 106 77TH ?;dpy N.E,,
, FRIDLEY, MINnESOTA. (Reauest by Paul Burkholaer� 7860 Alden �aay N.E.,
�'ridley� Minnesota 551t32).
A40TION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the public hearing, Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADh1TNTSTRATIVB STAr'F HEPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SEHVED BY HEQUIRF.I�IENT: Section 205.075, 1� (E,1) prohibiting
parking in the required front yard,
13
i
�
B. STATED HARDSHTP: Petitioner stated that he needed to install 2 to 3 additional
parking spaces in front oF said 1�-Plex to accommodate �;uest and tenant
paricing since 7%th Way has been designated a"no pArking an,ytime" street.
This situation has created a prob2em for the petitioner because guests could •
previously park at the curb� and now wi11 sometimes be i'orced to park in the
� �
Fridley Appeals Commission 14r_eting of July 2%� 1)76 �aY,� �
1
Mr. Kemper commented that it appeared to nim thr.re tiras °ront-yard parking a12
over that area, h]r. Plemcl asked if the parKin� lot covld be limited to a smalJ.
� an area as possible and tnere be no eneroachment on the 1>' boulcvard. iie
added that if i-Ir. �urkholder intet:ded to bui7.d in a;;car or ti:ro� i'., �;oi�ldr.'t
be feasible to insist on parkin� in the emnty lot, Mrs, Gabel �aid she a,^,reed�
and would also like it limited to three stalls so there w�asn't h].acktoF� fro�
one end to the other.
Mr, Barna said that being a heavy contributor i;o the tralfic on ti�at street�
he didn�t see where parking in the front lot s�ould mn'r,e it c:or� cii±'i'icul+ :'or
people to see. He stated that cahen P-ir. 3urknolder built on tne otii�r loL� it
would just continue that £ront yard parking all around that corner. !?e s-ua
he would have no objection.
hirs. Gabel asked iY there was some kind oS code requirenents for �erir��t�rrs,
or if curbing was reouired. Mr. Holden said there were no requirements for
off-street parking. 1�ir, Burkholder said it sras very difficulC in tne i�rintertir.ie
when the snow came to remove the �r.osr iY there v�as curbing, ii� ^dded that t�e
definition would be very clear t�r'nen the blacktop �.aas do*.-m� ar:d cr. Lh= :rzr'z
laci.^.g 77th ne t�:ould pui in some hedoes to ma':e it more aesthetica�l;r pleas-a�.
MOT10N by Barna� seconded by Plemel� that the Aopeals Commission recommend
to the City Council that the request for a front yard variance be approved.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, tne motion carried unanimousl;,�.
Mr. Plemel stated that the city should ensure there was no encroachm°nt on the
15' boulevard. Chairperson Scnnable in£orned :�Ir. 3urkholder tnat this t•rouZd
� go before the City Council on Au�ust lbtn.
2. TA�LED: HEQUEST FON A VAkIAf'dCE OF S�CT10N 214.053� z, r`3IllL,'Y CITY �ODE,
TO RAISE T:-1E 100 S(:�UARE �'E:T 'riAXLluh! SIZa Or' A P'Rr�r. STAid➢INti SIUt� IN G-2S
ZONING (GEC�E2AL SHOYPING Ac�E.AS), TO 108 S^;UA1tE r'E�`P, TO ALLO':i A 12 SoUAitE
r'06T INP'Ot"tY�1ATIC3a S1liN TU BE �D'c.� `i'D AiG E�CIS^lIivU 9b S�UARE r'001 SIiiN,
LOCATED ON Ti3E SOUTH 20k f�'EET 0�' THE EitST'r:�iLY 200 r'��:T OF LG:' 3, ��CF, 7_,
EAST RANCH ESTP_TES SECOND AL'll1TICN, Ts3B S�� 73Eliau 7'�3n JNI'dk,ItSITY AvE'taUE
N,E.� k'HIDLB;Y, I4INtvESUT."v. (Reouest bv the TOl:Rl Crier Pancake riouse, 7730
. _ University Avenue N.r.., P'ridley� i•iinnesata 554321.
T:OTION by Kemper� seconded by t�a�-na� to remove this iter.n from the taole. Uoon
a voice vote� all voting a4ye, the notion carried unanimously.
TSOTION by 13arna, seconded by Kenper, to ooen the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADt-IlNISTBATNE STAH'r' REPOHT
A, PUBLIC PURPOSE SEEiVr."D BY RE�O1REhiEIVT: Section 214.0953, 2� limiting size
o£ Sree-standing signs to 100 sauare feet.
Public purpose served by this section oT the Code is to limit visual
• pollution from £ree-standing signs in business areas,
B, STATED HAkDSHIP: Petitinner wants to add 12 square foot infoxriation sign
s�ying "Open 24 Hours" to exisiing 96 square foot sign. Variance from 1Q0
square ft. to 108 square ft.
'�
Fridlc,y Appeals Commission Mectinf; of Jiil.,y 27, 1976 Paf;e 3 �.Jr
Mr. Kemper ask�;d �rhy the streat oras desi�;nated no p:�rl:inF anytine, ar�d P�9r, Rolden
r_r.plain�d it c2me about 2> �. rr��ulf, of z cor��lnint from on� �` thc t rnant:„ �
He added that thvre wPr� r,hi]dren in t�e ap�rt,m�nts, ;�nd 77th ?�rnv ha� her�m�
a shortcut with heav,y traffic� so it was a7so a saf'et,y prer.aution, i'r. Ilolden
added that P,arr;y �31o*.•r�r t�ras asked about h_i.s emnloyea�, and he s�id there rr}s
no problem at a7.1 as he had adequate parl;in�. Chairnerson Sci�nabFl asked �if'
Barr,y B].o�aer ran 7)i hours a dap� and 1�ir, Hnlden ren7ied that he bF]ievPd the�i
hed two shiSts, 17r, P7.er,iel asked i£ the ca.t,y cou7-d restrict street parkinr, to
tenants and gu�sts� and Nr. Barna sa�d thr�y cou7d not,
1•!r, flurkholder stated that was a busy street and he thouFht it ��as going t�
get a Iot busier� and he used zt him�elf as a shortcut, iie said ther�a reall,y
wouldn't be any problem as there wasn't a blind corner there, but no*,r peoole
:aere parking right up on the grass.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if there s�ras a fence t�at run acro�s the ba.ck of'
the lot, and P�1r. Burkholder replied there taas a 6' C�clone fence that sepa.^ated
the properties. t-irs. Schnabel asked how man,y tenants in this building had
cars at this time, and f4r. Burkhoider replied ti�ere rrere five cars, i4rs.
Schnabe]- asked t-ir. Holdsn i£ there were any other viable solutions otner than
the suggestion o£ perhaps going into the empty lot. T•ir. Holden replied thera
really weren't� as it was so ti�ht up against the property lines in either
direction. He said that building another multi-unit apartment complex on the
corner could alleviate the problem, but that was in ine distani future.
Mr, Burkholder stated.that he thought he rrould put soroe ned�e� along t�e street
if the request was approved� because he wanted it to be aestheticall,y nleasing. •
He said that he only lived five blocks from there� so he �aas concerned� and
added he thought this was a reasonable request,
Mr, Holden said that both buildings ,•rere setback in such a way that the parking
wouldn't obstruct any vision in the area, Chairperson Schn2bel s2id she could
see� too� that even i£ P-fr. &urkholder zass to build on tne e:ant,y lot� he w;�;
goin� to have a si{�t-line problem keepirig the buildi.ng ba.ck far enou�;h so tnere
wouldn't be any visual blockage o£ tne intersection. IIr. Burkholder .=,aid that
eventually, if the buildin� ;aent up, he w.ould be appl,ying for front narki.ng
again, He added that he thought it could look nice. Cnairperson Schnabei
•asked about a green 2rea� and T1r, Burkholder replied he would still have a green
area as his tenants had children.
Mr. Plemel asked if' he just int•ended to put in three stalls in front, and A'r.
Burkholder replied that was his intention. He said that #'rom an aesthetic
standpoint� four would look like the whole front yard caas a parking lot. Pirs,
Schnabel said 4f he had siY stalls and the tenants had five cars, that would
leave only one soace for guests. Mr, Burkholder said that sometimes they
parked next door in the Barry Blower lot.
bi0TI0N by Barna� seconded b,y Piemel� to close the oublic hearing, ❑pon a voice
vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Schnabel stated that it would appear the problem was the landlocked
position of this particular unit and the property it si.ts on� and the fact that �
the petitioner really has no where else to go to provide parking accommodations
for tenants and guests.
�
Fridle,y Anpeals Commission Afeeting of Jul,y 27} 1976 Paf�e 5 1'7
C. AUI•11N15I'kATIVk; S'PAPr' HEV1��J: 'Phe petitioner i:: presentl,y u�in�; temporar,y
. banner� saying "Open 21� iicurs" FrY�ich are con::idr.r?bl;= nore d��tractin„ th^n
the 1?_ square £oot sign proposed. The er.isting 96 snunre f�ot si.�n �s lorat�d
21� feet behind the curb and is i7.luminated, The sign is wel_1 kept and
propr_rly nainta9ned.
Staf£ feels th�t t'�i^ is a reasonable reouest� but rzo��ld li?:r; to r,nr.our� c�
that the additional sign be of such a design as not to de�ra.ct fror� the
anpearance nf the ori�inal �i�n.
rlr. Craig J. Vargo, o:•mer and manr.�er of' t7e Toem Crier F��nca�e :iou�e, rra�
oresent to explain the reauesL, cle �^ologized for not bein�; at t':e last meot:n�,
He stated that at the present time they had a temnora_ry nlastic banner s•�ying
"Open 2!� Hours"� and shoi,red the dnard a nicture of. the pronosed sign ��:�� c� '::�uld
sit directly belov� the light, He said their ootion ��rould be to take that li�-:nt
out and put the nex sign directly undernsath the originai. sign, i,r. Vs.rF;o
explained tne ne�,r sign �:ould have a bro�:m background s=ith yellow letterine, anci
�roulci be n2de by Sign Cra£ters, S•ir. Kemner a.sked the purnose of the ].i[;i�t,
and DSr. V.argo said it .�as put in -anen the buildin� was built to tr�� to sto� a
dark snadow.
rlrs. Uabel asked if the sign had been c?�ecked out as far as heigrt� r-nd ?ir.
Vargo said it v72s plenty high enough� but he didn't kno��r if tnere iaa,s a minimiva.
Mr. Kemper stated it had to be 12' of'f t'r.e ground� and Alr. 'Vargo said it would
be.
� Chairperson Schnabel said the preliminary sketch o£ the sign sno-,reiit would be
2$� f'rom the ground to the top, ar;d the si�n ��:ou1d Measure 8' long by 1%' icide.
1�fr. Holden said tne minimum hei� hi. :�ras 10' � and that lockin; at i� 'r,e t:�oug:! �
there ti�ould be adecuate roora w.ith a6out 8 or 9£eet to nlz}� F�it�,.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if tne sign ��*ould be illuninated, and ;•ir. Vargo
replied it r:ould. He explained there •:rould be t�ro �enar�te sigr,�� ?nd �acr
side would be illur�inated £ror �rithin. iie saic it �aould loo}: ii'r.e one sif;n.
htr, Holden commented that he tnought the iown Crier sign i;as t'ne best lco}:in�
of all tne other ones there.
� P3r. Remper asked rrhat would be done c•rith tiie sign it� for some reasori, tne
Pancake House caouldn'i sta,y open 2� hours, iir. Vzrgo said tiieir intentions
were to sta,y open 24 hours� but if that c!:2nged they would take it do*.•m. i1e
added that if he ,•*asn�t at that location, he would 'nope tne company ;.rouid taxe
it dotiLm, l�ir. Holden said he dian't tnink it r�ould be out of order to add a
stipulation that i£ the sign isn't bein� used it would have to �e taken do,rn.
rlrs. Schnabel asked P1r. Holden if this ioould be rev_ec,=ed vezrl,y, �nd 'ir. Fiolden
replied he did not knoia hoia often it would be reviewed.
rf0'1'I�N b,y Plemel� seconded b,y hemper� to close the public he.aring. Upon r:
voice vote� all votir.F*, r,�e, the r.iotion carried unanir.ously.
PIr, s�a.rn2 s•_sd ':c would have no objection to t.his si,gn at a1L fle said he
• thou�ht people drivin; by on that busy street i:�ou13 like to know tnere ti,�as �
restaurant open 2!� hour:, a day.
�
,��ridley Appeals Commission Meeting of Jul,y 77� I.976 Page 6
_�.
2'.�'i'IO�v by Ker�per� ;,econded hy Barna� that th� Appells Commission recommend to
Cit,y Counr.i.l anprnvnl of' the renuest, fnr variance to rai.se thr, 1�0 s�uare feet �
m3ximum .^,ize of a free-sLandin� si�n in C-2S zoninF to 10E3 square feet, urith
t,ro stipul.ations: 1) 7'he City Administration should be advised that sinr.e it
is a?_1i Hour sign� if the busi.ness i.^> nnt onen 21i hours, ar.tion shoul.d be ta}:en
to renove the sign� and 2) The bann�rs must come do:•.�n,
A?r. }iolden °.�zgg��ted adding th�t the 3ddit�.ona7- si�;n nofi, be a_ny clnscr than
1G' froTn the center line of the road� but added that iaa� part o1' the Code.
U?ON A VOTCi, VOT'E, all voiing 2,ye, the notion carried unanimousl,y,
Cnairperson Schnabel ini'orrned '.�Ir. Vargo that this wou7.d no?a go be£ore the
Cit,y Council on l�ugust 1.6tn £or their reviewal.
3.' RE2liEST FOR A Vf,�lANCE OF S�CT10N 20S•�53, �� (�3,2) TO REDUCE THE RECiUI:tED
STDE YARD FRU.9 13 I'EET TO 12 E'EET TO ALLO'vI TH� COidSTRUCTIO,'J Cr' A HOUSE A�vD
UAZ�iuE� LOCA'PED ON LOTS 33 AIdD 31�, 3�,OCK 11� SYRING I3HOOK PAHK ADDI'P10iv,
THr. SAflE BEINU 238 ELY STREET ?d,E., FHIDLliY� 241i�Id�SOTA. (Request by
Rodney Sandmon� 3511 - 173rd Lane N.�d.J Anoka� PIinnesota 55303)•
P;OTION b,y Barna, seconded by liabe], to open the public hearing. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye, tne motion carried unanimously.
ADh1INISTRATIVE STAI�'F REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY RE��UIR��'IEN'1: Section 205.053� it (B�?). On �
lots up to 60 £eet in width without an attached garage, at 2east one szde
yard of 13 feet is rec?uired in order to allow access to the re�r yard
detached gara�e.
B. STATED HARDSHIP: Lesser house size would be too restrictive and petitioner
is contracted to build the house crhich is proposed.
C. ADFIINIS'1�RATIVE STAr�F' REUIEtd: 238 .u71y Street, N.E. is a 60 foot wide lot.
The petitioner has been issued a building permit for this lot to build
the size of house proposed� provided::he be granted a variance to do so.
Should the request be denied� he will be obligated to reduce the size o£
the house by one foot. Apparently the petitioner is already contracted
to build the house as proposed. The house to the East {?p8 Ely Street)
is located ten feet from the common property line on the side for �ahi.ch
the variance is requested, I£ approved� this would leave 22 £eet bet�<reen
structures with an interveni.ng drivevray, The plan shows a door opening
into this drivei,ray area on the West side of the proposed house, This doorti•ray
should be deleted from the house plan in order to avoid lzmiting this
drivevray area.
Staff feels that the neighbor to the East would be the most interested
party in this request. Stafi' has no objection to this variance request,
Rev. 53ndmon was present to explain his request. Mrs. Gabel asked if this house
was on the same street that the alley vacation request was on, and Rev. Sandmon �•
replied it was. He explained he wanted to build a house and garage and was just
�
N'ridley e.ppeais Corr,mission 14eetin�; of duly 27� 197b Ya{;e 7
one �oot snort of cnde, li� .^,tatFrd he }iad 12' �nd hie needed 13'. He said his
house was 3�� �on�;, and clioxe� on a diaf+ram �fhere the driveway and �ara�e
. would Ue, He said the garage v�ould be back 3l'� and he eliminated the kitchen
door so t:,ere ,r�uld be noti�ing in: thr wa,y. Pir. tiolden 'explained if' Lnat
door ,rere to sxing out it would limit the alread,y small driving snace.
t•ir, Plemei asred i£ there i.�ould r,e a nroblem dronning the one Foot� and Etev.
�':nd;�on srid i:�:ere :��ou1�i be, �r; �tated the kitciien was quii,c� sna�] alr��Zd;��
and it would .__�o r:a�r a_n additi.oa�l cr.PF�nse.
Cnairper=on Sc::7abei said that according io tne Staff ftenort tne existing
nouse nex� docr is 10' fron tne 1ot line� so if tnis rec�uest �aas �ranteci� tnere
*.vnuld still l�e 22' 'oct�: een the t;�o structu*es. Hev. Sandmon com.ent�d tha� ne
h3d talked tn �:�e neighbor i+ taould ai�ect, and �e szid that as far as }ie :-_as
concerned t.here r;a� no p.^oole�. I'ss, Schnabei asked if ne intended to live in
tnis house hir.=_eZf� and 'ne repliea he did.
Chairper�on Sc:nabel said that it seemed the only o�her alternative �.aould 'oe
to a=k }:r: to °^�ove one .00t cif of the bedreom side of the nouse, raa::ing
tne bedroo�s 1' shorter. ;3r, rsarna oointed out that tne oedroo:�s arere not
very oig i� be�:n v�ith, i�irs. Schnabel asked horr soon he nlanned to begin
construct�on, :.nd Rev. Sapdmon renlied as soon as possi.ble. F.e added he nad
already started on the garage,
??OTI0.1 by �arne., seconded by Uabe1� ta clese the �ublic hearing, llpon a. voice
vote, aIl voti.^.� aye, the motion carried unanimous].y,
•is. P'_emel cor._-ente3 that he ;•rould be in favor ci tnis variance since i`,ti,as
onl,y 1�. Cnai�oerson Schnabel stated that in addition to tne hardships :rhich
Staff had stataa� it should be noied th�t it r.*ould be some�:�hat oz a;inancial
hardsiiip to the petitioner to reduce i�e size oi' the nouse as changing plans
�aould cost more.
A`:0'1'ICti by ?lemei � seconded b,y Barna� �nat tne Appeals Com�nission aoprove the
request for va^?ance, lipon a voice vote, all vvt�.nE, a,ye� t.`�- ^:^ticn ca^ri=:i
unanir.�ous'_;�,
Pss. Uabel stat�d that she would lil:e to comment that she tnous;ht the ��0
for requests fo^ va�iances for residential purposes was ridiculous and sorne
adjus't.*�ent. sho��d he made, ;�,r. Barna ?greed that for owner-occupied 'no^es,
$>0 wes excessive. ;•;r. Kemoer asked wno changed the iee from �15 to :�50� and
',•frs, Uabel repiied t�e City Council.
?10T10ti by vabei� seconded by 3arna, tnat the City Council reconsider the fees
for variance re:uests on o�rmer-occupied residential properties as the Appeals
Commission £eels the $50 fee reauired is excessive and feels w25 ma�cimum
would be sufficient. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye= the motion carried
unani^�ously.
U
19
��
t..
20
r'ridlr.y Appf:als Comrn:lssion hleetin� ci' July �7} 1`J7b Pa�;e f%
riSCc.IVIs 'ftiis 14is1"0 Fi�OM hikYOd i!@;is UA'1'�.0 Jt1LY 1�, ].97�, OIv 1':li; UTII,I7_ATIO;V OP'
Chairper�on Schnabel said that she had��;one baek and revi.F�,red r�ll di:cu�.ion �
that has occurred on 1�0� lots� and there wr.re tcae7v� senarate t,imes thi� d?scussion
had come up. She staLed she re-read everything that was relative tF:at tne .;p�ca7s
Commission discussed and that other Cnmmissions discussed :and hrought to i�he
atLention of the Appeals Commi,sion.
She stat��l that ;irst of a73, the kppeals Com•^.is:.�on should ex.c,ress the:ir
appreczGtion to 1�;ayor idee for taking the time ta *.arite to th�r,. She sai<i t,ne
comrmmication was enli�;htening, and more in£ormative than so:ae atner inf',r:ca�zon
they have received sometimes. She stated she appreci.ated tne re:�ar'.2s and concurred
c�ith some and disa�;reed �,rith otners.
Chairperson Schnabel said she had roade some notes on her letter, but it ^�ight
be appropriate, if the other members wis'.ied, that this Coruaission draft co^�e
response to send to 24a;�ror tvee and to the other peorle cvho received his letter
so the,y osild understand this Comrlission's thoughts also. Mr. Plemel asUed if
it would�'oe necessary to answer, and i�irs, Scnr,abel said it wa.s ner feeiing there
were some inaccuracies, and i£ the o'ther people had the benefit o£ the Anneals
Commission{s position it might clear it up a litile.
Chairperson Schnabel said that on the first pa{�e of his letter, r;ayor Nee
talked about the Ci-ty Policy and said he knew of no such poiicy. Sne stated
she thought this came from the very first time there iaas a re�uest on these
lots �February 10) and tnere was a siatement made in the Administrative Staf'1'
Heview �•rhich said "This would establish the policy to be folloured on oth�r !�0' �
lots". I�irs. Schnabel said tnat nerhans they slipped into using the langua�e
of City Policy as a result of that, She said tRat she didn't think �hey� ac any
time� felt there was a Ciiy Policy; that •�ras why they c�ranted other Commissions
to look at 1t0' lots so they could find out what other neople £eIt about bui.lding
on these lots so a policy could be �stablished. I•1rs. Schnabel said she concurred
with �iayor Nee�s statement that there is no City Policy, and t}:oughi perhapr�
he misunderstood the Commission's use of the term.
She continued that on page 2 Ma,yor lvee stated "Consider whaL�s happeninn in
, Mi.nneaoolis� where man,y homes i�:ere built on 40 foot £rontages, and h�d the
added important advantage of exce].lent back alley service. These are the neigh-
borhoods that have han the worst history of urban decay and pooulation �light."
Mrs. Schnabel asked if this could be substantiated. She said she didn't Imo�a
if this was necessarily true� and questioned that statement. I°1rs. Schnabel
added that maybe the rSayor has tnose iigures, but sne knew or areas ti��here
there were !�0' lots that were tivell-maintained and not in a state of decap,
Chairoerson Schnabel said that further dorm on page ?, under �i2� the Mayor
wonders if that is a false economy. She said that her only thought on t':iat is
that the statement was made in one of the reviei,*s that tne uater and ser.�er
connections were already in� and she didn't know if that uras an economic factor
to consider. She continued that he states that putting in a$30,000 house on
a 40 foot lot, chances are that the tayces it generated �,rould not pay the cost
of public utiliiies. Mrs, Schnabel said she didn't have those fi€;ures and
didn't lmow wnat those homes would pay. She said she tended to agree that t,tao •
forty-foot parcels make a good 80' site� and that was the way the Commission
felt about it; they would pre.fer the lots be larger than t�0',
Fridle,y Appenl.s Commission Mec�ting of .luly 27, 197b �'�Ce 9 21
Mr^,. Schnabel stated that on F>a�e 3 the ;da;�or sai.d it wa:s unforturiat� t't,ab Ltic
Appea2; Commi ��� on did not h�vr ���e �� i�c ialori ��ition pacKage on ttii s n,ur.sti_on
�_ t!:at� the Cit;,� "q�_mcil h��?. S';e :,�id hn sras rnrrer.t that, it. �•as �mfortun:ate,
and this Commissi.on 4ia,� very unhappy tne;/ did not h2ve the s�-nr infor�ation
thr, Ci.ty Cauncil h,3�1 �.inen they �::ent �nto t:�is r�atter.
P•;r. Holden n��snd o�.�t t^, th? ^�r.�ber^ of t?�e Cem^�issi�n a mero fmr� Di.r.'r. °,ob��ch
dated lepr3l 3�� 19%6 on eutsianaard cu fo,�t lo�r. �°. Gabc' cor^�: nte:l tP .t
±here �a!�ren't tr.�_t �:�np L')' 70+.- h;� +h,M�:�l�. ,, nnd ian,Y o£ th�x-�: �se on _r�rnr.rc,
t;rs. Schnabel a:'r.ec'. :f t:-�r:re cre c, y'.-r�:; ' 1�0� lots togetner, t� �.c::
,�,�r,_��:_::� to the memo th�re ti;�ere not, ?:r. Uold�r. ?aid t�:at accor�!in�- '.,o tFi�
7.ist tney nad� there �+ere trro� or at th� ir,o�t� _°our lots in 2 block tnat *.•r�re
adj�cent,
Cnairp�rson Schnabel said tne Council did have additional infcrmation that the
Appeals Cor�mission did not have at the time they r�ere acting on t:�e variance recuest,
but how that rrould nave afi'ected t:eir decision, she dicin't kno�:. Sne stated sne
tnougnt they still ;�ould 'na.ve asked ttie °i2rining Corr;ission to �.s� ihe . ��cc::.r:i�sions
to do a review of it.
�trs. Schnabel said that unaer �jl� on page 3, the ?layor says "As a simple, practical
legal matter, the City cannot defend the kind oi' discriminatory criteria ^ecorrmended
by the Appeals Cora-�ission." She said she questioned tnat statement, and didn't
know exactly iahat ne meant ty discriminatory criteria. She said tne Appeals
Commission diti not establish any c^iteria, but the Planning Comrnission did.
D1rs. Schnabel explained ihe Planning Co*�mission adopte� some tentative �uidelines
, which they sent on to the City Council, �d the Appeals Cor.iriission agreed �::i;,h
what the Planning CorLmission had said; '�ut as far as the Appeals Commiss�on is
concerned, they didn't establish the criteria. She saio that t,ype of statement
was the reason they should respond to his memo.
1�Ir. Barna said that i;ayor P;ee had explained t'r.is to him last nighi; he had
misunderstood :aiiat had been said or had impronerlv re:�embere�3 it. "•�r. �3arna
said that the ^la;yror �aas not at�rare of t'r,e eaistence of the tentative guidelines
or the recommendations and �olicy siate�ent on the development oi !!0 foot lot;
in the City of Fridley (contained in tne minuies of t;�e �.prii 7, 1976 Planriing
Commission meeting). ;tr. Barna said the ?'�ybr eras addressing hi,::se.li to the
Appeals Commission minutes o'' that April neeting basically, and those roae^e the
guidelines received fron the Cit,y Council.
Mr. Kemper said it would appear as t!�ough Piayor Nee had put his thougnts on
paper� and though he may have been misinformed, he does have his tnoughts doum.
Mr. Keniper said it seemed to him the,y should someho,a get the proper people
together and establish a euideline that enough peop�e ��ould agree on to become
policy. He added that i•rritin� a letter to the ht�yor might set the record
straighi� but it wouldn't accomplish that.
Chairperson Schnabel said she was glad the Afayor wrote the letter becau^,e it
gave them a better ide� of why he voted no to the requests f'or variances. She
said she thought his points orere well taken, and there i•ras still time to look
at.this. Sne added she thought A:r. Kemper had a good suggestion� and said the,y
� should understand better what everybod,y else was thinking.
22 Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of July 'l_7, ly'�6
Y�ge 10
Mr, Plemel stated he thought they shauld r,ontinuF their work :�n�i kFep tho;.P
Pive P,uidelines in mind on an,y 40' lot variance that might come up in trie
future.
Mr, Barna asked what problems there had been in the past with 50' ].ots, and
Mrs. Schnabel said she wou].d have to �o back and look at the reyuest.,. ;ir.
Barna stated he owned two houses sitting on fift;,� £oot lots and 'ne saw no
problem. Mrs, Schnabel said they ditl have neighbors compla.ining on some ;0'
lot requests. Mr. Barna said that the ma.jority of houses in itivervieti•� :ie;;�%;+.s
were on �0' lots, and the biE„er lots were uncomnon.
Mrs. Gabel said the point w2s well taken. She stated that zf they kept iaorking
irith ihese lots and the size icept getting smaller and snaller� there .�ould te
prohlens. hirs. Schnabel said tne T:a,yor had stated tihat Lne peop2.e +:rho bui�t
here have an investment in rridley's housing� and that c.as a good point. i.rs.
Gabel agreed it was a valid statement.
Chairperson Schnabel said tnat on page 5, 2nd paragraph, it said the Appeals
Commission recommended reduction in lot size requi;•ements, Sne ;aic siie didn't
think the� had ever done that. She read ine second to last paragr�nh on pa�e
5� orhich said "Perhaps the Planning Deoartment� the Planning Cornr,�ission and
Corru7unit,y Development can come up �aith �. new approach, Aut I dan't think a
policy change of this magnitude shoula evolve through the process of variances
by tne Appeals Commission." ;•".rs. Schnabel said tnat vras exactly their noint;
that was exactly frrhy the Aopeals Commission asked tne Planning Commi<sion ?na
subcommissions to revier: thzs and come up rrith some guidelines, She sai.d tne
Appeals Commission didn't want to handle this in the i'irst place� but did want
some guidelines on it.
Mrs. Schnabel said that if' the rest of the Board wou7.d concur� she �rou].d dra.ft
some t,ype of response to Nayor Nee clarif',ying some of these points �nd suE,rest:ing
that t}�,�try this again; and see if t,he,y couldn"t get seme betier guidelir.ee,
going to deal with this. She stated that the Coimnission probabl,y agreed iai�h
some o£ the things he said, and he brought up some ne�r points to.consid�r, so
it shouZd be di=cussed again. She added that perha.pe. at the next Planning
Commission me°ting tney might get a better feel as to how it �aas received, out
personall,y, she would lzke to make a response to the letter to clarify sorne
• points.
gSOTIO:v by tsarna, seconded by G��bel� that the Aupezls Co.mmission receive the
letter to the Appeals Commission from A1�or ivee dated Julv 1S, =976 on t'�e
utilization of !t0' lots. Uncn a voice vote, all voting a,ye, the motion carried
unanimousl,y.
ADJOUHN?•SlitvT:
Mr. Kemper asked what happened to the recuest that the members oY the Appeals
Cocunission receive copies of the City Coim cil minutes concernin�; actions by
this Commission, rir. Holden said they ��ere �;oing to start sortin� ont i.he
in£ormation� and they would be getting t`iern along wi'th the other information
Yor the nexG meeting.
Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that there were two iterrts they handled tonight
that would �o on to the City Council� so they would like a review oS' that.
�
�
�
��
�
�
` I
A'ridley Appeals Commission Meetin� of July 27, 197b
Pa�;e 11
',•:r. Kemper stated that Lhe one mailin�{ hr, rer.r.ived x�orked ver,y irell and roras rrtuch
bet,ter than receivin� one letter ever;,� da��, t':r. Plemel added that it would a7.so
save some postage. Mr. Holden said they would use the.same method next ti.me.
140T10N by Kemper, second�d by Gabr•1�
of July 27 � 1976 at 9:3z Y.1•i. tipon �
c�rried unanimously.
c�espectfull,y submitted,
�('Q[�'i l C ��i��Z�Y/o /�1:
Sirerri 0'Donnell
necording Secretary
to acijocrn the Appeals Corulie.sion meeting
Z voice vote� all voting aye� ttie r�otion
23
�� �
�
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CZTY OF FRIDLEY
� PUBLIC NEARING
BEFORE THE
PLAISNIt1G COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
24
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
Northeast on Wednesday, June 9, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P_M, for
the purpose of:
Consideration of a Preliminazy Plat, P.S. #76-05, Innsbruck North
Replat 3rd Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation,
beinq a replat of that part of Innsbruck North Townhouses Third
Addition, described as follows:
� Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, �lock .'.1�
Lot^ 1 to 4 incLi:+iv�, Rlock ?_2�
;,o's 1 to 4 -i,clusive, ;lork ?j�
� � Lots 1 to 4 inclusivn. ;Ix'r. 24i �
Lots 1 to �t i�tcl+�s?ve, 91oc< 25i
� Lo±s 1 to 4 inclusive, :�lock 25�
also th2t part ef I.o+. 1, Sloc:: ^1 CescriSed as fullows�
�. � 3e�inning at Liie r.ortnw�as' c_'rrr o-` .. „ 91ock 21� ti;ence
i�IOrth 9 de, 5J r.�ir.ut� ��r -.:con•': a di�*ance o° i6 ft:ets
thenee t?orth''�G fla,^rees �? ._... 1'' �eccndc ::sst a dict?�cr of
3} feeti tnenr,e Sou;h 9 de>r�~e 5� ❑inucu.; 49 secon::s ::a�t a dis`ance
o£ 16 fea:. t� the nort':e�s� co_^Pr eT ;aid Bloc!c 23y ther.ce to the
point of beginnin.,^,�
al.co that nart of ;,ot 1, ;:ec'� 25 descrii:ad as foll.ows�
Eeginnia� at �the nor'h�.�osi ccz-,�r o' ,�;d k31ocX 22t thence
?!orth 2 de°;re?c 3y !.:;nct^s .�•*. <. Cier'.,.:ce of 10 f,ett th�nce
�7orth 8y �c-recs 5'1 rai^u�b�::� �=.�� ^a �'i.�,�aace oi 33 feett thoace
�outh 2 der;r.�.�; ;9 cu�:i-oc,.s . -�tya . -ac�re of LQ ieet to the
northaa5t conr�r oF yc;i:i �7.oa3 22; *�:e,�ca to the poirst of „��i:min��
also thrtt ra:t oi Lot 1, �ico'- 28 c- _ri:ed as follov:s�
D�-;Lnnin,^,. a: ?he cu:!�eas: co=aac a;'s.�id °Locic 2: ; thpnce South
2 de�rnes ;9 nim:t:,^ ..- _�i.=-.. .._ oi 6 ieett thence South
87 degrces" ,1 z,t,z*°; �y�^�t^a �:ic:t� .c: o- 33 feeci ihence North
Z 4Pd1'89.^, 3? r.�im�tee %iest 3;_,.�unca o' o foet to tSc southwest
corner of ssiti Sl-.r.k ^2� t`:�te? to t'ie �oint of Levinningr
al�o that �n^t of Lo! 1, ?l�o�: :9 dr�;,:�i?±ed as °OLLOW51
[)c�innin�; nS r7;e ;out!ie:st ccr.^.�er o1' ^1i.d i;lo�k 23r therice South
� AeRrees OC niiiu#es y. seco��_'s �Sar,t� a distance ol 16 £eet� thence
South `32 d:��re.^ .? nimire�� :�� seco�ds '+:e:.t a di:;tance of j3 feett
t7:^nce irorth ? ne,.raes QQ r.�in•,�`eG �si� ::.�::onds ��Ye�3t n distance ol Yb
fee: to the soutii�,�est cor.ter of �;ni: 31cc;: 2�t thenc� to the point
of beginnin��
� nlso that p:art of Lot 1, ^lac> 2s; decrribed :�s follo•xs�
°;e ;innfn� at tlie north�ve: C conier o: _;�;.id �loc:t ^��r thence `lorth
a distance oi' 15 fect; tP.cs:ce �:n,t �� �iistance oY 3'3 feett thence
� South a di.^.Lance o1' 1<i .eet io th�*. norti�eas;t cun�cr oL a3id Jlcc;
24� thence ta the point ot' berinnin,>,�
�'�
1C,J
Page 2
. nL.^.,o that p�irC oP Lr,t 1, .;lock ?(5 dn;;Ct'i6^d a� fbllows�
6e(;innint( at +,h�� ::r»�t.lv�=�•;t. r�rner oY r:;ii.0 9inck ?5t thenre South
�� 13 de�rees �'3 rr�in�.i*�. �1 rern�l� � Pt �_nes oi i�i .°eetp th�nce
IiDI'C)1 �6 n � r��•�a 2$ �3�utrc 1� eco ���eo! a diselnce of 77 teeti
. t?:encc r;o:tn lj de,,r_�..�. j) ^�i.iutee: il ��rr,�nG:• ca�.*, u cis�ac�ce oY' 16
1'eet to thr. southwe�t coirier of said lilnck 25t t���ce `•.o the point
of be�inni.n��
�
also that part of Lot 1, F:lcck 28 ee:;rr•Ibed as iO110WSt
3eginnin� et !iir, sautheast con�r oi �aid °lock 25i thence :;outh
11 de�rec� 41 ni��ltn�:; 11 srr.o�ris '.�'e��t ,i Aistnncc ef 1G Ceet�
thence t�crtt� 73 dc[;reec 1; ::�ir:ut^_s L�) eeconAs West � distance of
33 fen�; :� enca tior�?h 11 dc��r�,e� '+1 -il.nute3 11 secnndr: ":^;�.t a di,tance
of Ih feet to the :�outhwest corne� of s:id BlocX 25� thence to the
point of br.gi.r.ningl �
all lying ir, the South Half of Section 24, T-30, R-24, City
of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota,
Generally located on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and
South of Meister Road N.E.
Anyone desiring to be heard with re£erence to the above mattes will be
heard at this meeting.
Publish: May 26, 1976
June 2, 1976
iuc�uan x. ��zs
CHAIRMAN
PLZiNNING COMMISSION
,°at ,`
�
CI'fY Of 3�RiDI.iiY �1INNESt)'i'A
,��� � � P�ANNTNC AA'D "LON7IJC, FORM
NUMRGR +' •-)- f- %.(, - u� TYVL• OF RlQi)G57'
APPI.ICANT'S STGNA'PURr / :yi:r' ,-i'. •-n„- �' _ r - ,, 7 .: :.�_ Rezoning
Address ' /
Telephone Numbcr
PROPGR7'Y OIY�CIZ'S SIGNATURG
Rddress
Telephone �umber
,. .
Street Locati.on of Froperty � r�
Legal Description of Property :� "
Present Zoning Classification
Acxeage of Property
,.. .
ti�
Special Use Pcrmit
!� Approval of Premiu-
inary F Pinal P7at
Strects or Allcy
Vacations
Othcr
Fee,��) R ceipt No.�l�4�i
Existing Use of Property
DescriUe briefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed - _
, �
s�. a:' ; � � _ ,
ij �i" ( � �
� tias tlee present applicant pre��iously sought to xezone, plat, oUtain a 1ot split or
vaxiance or special use permit on the subject site or part.of it? � yes no.
ltlhat iras requested and ivhcn?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list o£ all resi_dents and owners of property
taithin 300 feet (s50 feet for rezoning) must be attachecl to this apylicati_on.
(b) This application must be siyned by all owners of the property, or an explanation
gi�ren ti��hy this is not the case. (c} Responsibility for any defect i�i the proceedinos
resulti.ng from the failure to list the names and addresses of a11 residents and
property owners of property in qucstion, belongs to tlie imdcrsigned.
A sketch of progosed propexty and structure must Ue dra�an and attached, showing the
follo�aing: i. I�orth Dii�ection. 2. LocaCion of proposed structure on the let.
3. Dimensions of property, yroposed structure, nnd front and sidc sethacks.
4. Street Nmnes, 5. Location and usc of adjacent cxisting buildings (tirithin 300 feet).
�The us�dersigncd hereby dcclares that all the facts and representations stated in this
application are true and correct.
DATE ' :., j'.; , SIGhATURE �� /-� � _
i(AYPLICAVP)
� `, � �
Datc Filed Date of llcaring
Planning Gommission Approved City Councii Approved
(dates) llenicd (d�tcs) Denicd
�
LJ
�
f��#�6-os
Darrel Farr Development Corp
Replat Blocics ?.1-26 to Lots 1-6 to
allow 2- 2 car garaqes and 2 single
car garages in each block
Ms. Pamela J. Braun
5562 Meister Road N.E
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Donald J. Kunshier
5558 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Daniel Shaw
5554 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. James Hanson
3550 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms. Margaret Schweizez
5546 Meister Road N.E.
Fxidley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Karl Klopfer
5542 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Stephen Tollison
5538 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Paul Leibman
5534 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms. Alice Shaughnessy
5530 Meister Road N.E.
, Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms. Susan Sisson
5526 Meister Road N.E_
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Donald Olmstead
5522 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Harry Zook
5518 Meister Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn, 55432
Mr. Kent Koch
5514 Meister I2oad N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mx'. Robert Cargill
5510 Meister Road N.E
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Richard�Nafstad
5575 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Terry Wiley
5571 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms. Mary Blisha
5565 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. James King
5561 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Douglas Van Arkel
5563 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Planninq Commission „j � 5= 7�
Mr. Ronald Ferkingstad
5567 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Thomas Hummel
5545 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. William Goon
5541 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms. Ann Neher
5543 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. James PYies
SSA7 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Murray Aeatley
5533 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Wayne Bothun
5535 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Lynn Castner &
Ms. Deonne Parker
5537 E. Savarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Charles Franke
5529 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Steven Kessel
5525 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms. Shirley Dickey
5531 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. John Becker
5521 E. &avarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ns. Edward Englund
5517 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Pir. Gary Odegaard
5519 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Ms.�Linda Borry
5523 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Leonard Rutter
5540 E, Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. David Johnson
5544 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Lorin Woods
5542 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn. 55432
Mr. Richard Sharpe
5578 E. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Mn, 55932
1 `
?� C �L�i�/�, �
� -�
�
�
�
i
� rf
1
�
t:
I
�,',
�r
'4
�
F;�
; �;
r a
< �
a
i ='
;
:
i �
�
__.__ _ • �
Z �
�
�
�
�
;
;'
��
.. li�l��ii.r,\':l_r. . ,. ` _ _�`- - � � .... ---
"_.
_. - . " - ... - : ��
_-^-_-'""_'-- _' .
� — ` .
i �� �_-�_-� `� 1 / �r--_; -_
' � I � I =- _� �`I� � .;.. —ii ;� ..-r I .
i � ' �.;
� ; [__:=j� : __. � �% �� �� �,
� r �`' �
l r-,_� �� � _�°1 �
���� ( / Jl i.`r�- ' � - -�_'
, U 1 L.�_e �_. .
� /� /�'/:�I'r�,
V �
� �—� �AV.i �-t._/u . .
(
� `\�1�/� �
/, �` 4 ��,� `� \ `
I � , � l ..� �\ � -� � ' _ �;
L�;!I " �`�� �-�� . �4 - --�
. J . - � � .�. �
�� G�� ,:,� � �;r..
. j �. �
. . . T—_ _ � I. '- � �
' : n`3 ' � � � , 'r� I
.; i �_ J i :., .
� —� �
. ' ' _.•�� � �� ; �—� �,'.;'
e� ,' � � _�_�:
! i__1
l-�_= � I ;-!-� - -- - -
�-_
� �L�_ .
. (` r, i r� � �
r <. s_' , �
. i :-" .:, �' � �� /��
1 _. � F/ J � ` 1 �',
�,_y `l1/� �����
r=._ ,_-`- r -�� �:=�'-�:��_=�° `�
r._ __ -;; � _ / � - _ �
, — �:, r —
') /��
�i. � `� �- .. _ ._
-�__-1��' ��=:;--s� _-
:; _
N -;�;;_ u - � = �
,-L,; ,, _��_, .
c_ ^, . ,
� Ly, ' �__j.
�• � _ - �� I `(J � .� .
I �'� 1 r. ? t''
� ' � � -� 1�—��i ' 1 �:
;` y�� : -•_� _ , r; ,;:,` •--�.
r �i :� i` � �..' ;' �� -, 1;
�� , _- � � � _ __ _ -_- .
-. _ �- J 7' � -''
_ _.�y.'_� `� � y� � _ . _—
.,---, ` � ,
_.
j", �� J� -
:1-�-'�:����'-' ��- 'I.� �.��
� � � i:�.. �
. _.. � �
_ _._
---- F
.. _._... . �.J_ . J _.__ .'__'." ...
�
i�
;
,:
,;
j {
S
�
OFFICIAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PCANNIN6 COMMISSION
TO l4HOM 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 Northeast on Wednesday, August 4, 1976 in the Council
Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of:
A request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-11, by
. Joseph Sinigaglio, per Fridley City Code, Section
205.051, 2, A, to allow tlie construction of a second
accessory building, a 24 ft. by 32 ft. detached
garage, on Lots 18 and 19, Block 8, Plymouth Addition,
all lying in the South Half of Section 26, T-30,
R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota.
� Generally located at 4715 3rd Street N.E.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity
at the above stated time and place.
Publish: July 21, 1976
July 28, 1976
.
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
��
NUP1P,IiR�/J% ,, %� i � ' //
✓ � �.l ct�rra�f /.!'�lis
CI'I'Y OP FRIDI.f:Y MINNf:SOTA �
PLANNING ANU ZONING PORM
� APPLICAN'C'S S1GyA7UI2Ii .��S� p� �S/pb11 �r,��1-L � Q
Address �I � � � � � (�� C -� ��.
Telephone Numbcr ��j � — � il , j .�,
�
PROPEKTY O{9NL'R�S SIGNATURG
Address �-� % ( ��
Tc l ephone Number S� � r-� L(�(,
Street Location of Property �� 7 �� �,� 5-�. ���
Legal Description of Property�,a� ����% ��
TYPE 01� RL•QUI:S'C
31
Rezoning
� Special Use Yermit
Approval of Premin-
inary F, f in�l Plat
Streets or Allcy
Vacations
Other
S/
Fce�� JReccipt NoY.'�S�y
�
� �/ .
Prescnt Zonieg Classification ,� � � Existing Use of Property ,:wy����„�[:--�
Acreage of Property Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed�/b� . lQtLy�'�J���?_
� Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject si_te or part_of it? yes no<
N'hat was reqiiested and t•rlieit?
Tlie �indersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and o�aners of property
within 300 fcet (SSO fect for rezonin�) must be attiched to this application.
(U) This application must Uc signed Uy all o:s�ners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for an�� defcct in thc proccedin�s
resulting from thc faitiire to list tlle �ames and addresses o£ all residc�its and `
pro��crty owners of groperty in question, belongs to the undersi�ned.
A sketcli of proposed property and structure must be drawn ancl attached, showing the ;
follow•ing: i. �orth Direction. 2. I.ocation of proposcd structure on the lo*. '
3. �imensions of property, proposcd structure, and front and side setbacks.
4. Street Names, 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings („�ithin S00 feet).j
�Thc tmdersigned hcreby dccl�res that a
app�ic tioj are true and correct.
DATG �� , SIGNA1v
� Date Filed �� pate o
the facts nd representations stated in this
� i � �
���1'i� �2��1 % l L-f7
i� rrnvr�T �T--
Ilcaring ��� _ �, / �j J (o
Planning Coimnission Approved City Council Approved
(dates) OcnieQ (dates) llenied �
�
�� r
Planning Commission 7-23-76
L�
MAILING LIST
SP #76-11 JOSEPH SINIGAGLIO
2nd Accessory Building
Mr. & Mrs. George Merz
4744 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. �oseph Wadnizak
4732 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. Kendal Knutson
4720 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Harwell
4710 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Nogman
� 4700 3rd Street N.E.
Fridiey, Mn 55421
Katherine E. Riley
4703 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Sinigaglio
4715 3rd Street NDE.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. Harley Peltz
4727 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Donna Bergler
4739 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421�" .
Mr. & Mrs. James Haugan
4751 3rd Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Cornelius Warzecha
4675 3rd Street N.E.
� Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. & Mrs. Richard iundquist
4650 3rd Street N.E.
fridley, Mn 55421
32
�.rrl rI[: (� .
r V
! 49-�-�,� SP N76-11 JOSEPH SINIGAGLI,VC
—: —� -- S �Qy� A CFE$�Q@Y �1 - ;
,. r
., . ` �o ..F � �» �� ��;, �
,''�{Z4��:, � t�Jl'u�� ;l-io'�� .�� N� °�� ; ��p1� ,' rrt`�t'� ������� � • . �t ��
I
ii �f8�$ ��5�� �I �.I��J� i{`�.�� �_ -," �� - � �
��4Y� � �8b3 H�63 5 . _.r ,� '
N85� ..I` �gl� ��5� 1�d5� . . ,�1, ,s �
�
, -
1 i
�� �� yl�� I -� N`�'(. �� NaS� � r•�i > i
H�d�S � II� •��i <� ��� H � �y�`��� � ah-'=' , ?.
, 3� Ng3 �, Hz3, � , ,�gsq 9�f 1� .-.
��
H�33 �,! vig � ��3� � N'�3� ,�C� � � � �
� �18Z� yIZ2? , yN?? ���; F' �- I
p2D ` ocV t
,� . _ }a U. �e � �z . : i
3 .� ��,5 , ��,s y ,i�;� _ f
bS ,as�� " �` ` �
_ `' _ ' �g'03 _ �� 03 r_ � 03 :'. " I
B � �.
. ,r . - .v ; ; , y� „ , _ ,s :_ , �-- L
a
.' G 8T{-I. '.r' AVE. ,. ,�,�._ ,
� �� �
z :
, ><,3� ° I
N ,.� i ,: t �,% H7 0- ,.� �b ,..�, -
a�j1� i.y75� ; . �l1. . � i ,.. U ? � :+t71 ,. �5 , z , ��
' ' -- l =- -
, - ;
,: v r#17 �. i It, r
, ��45- -,�iN� -��yR- K��2- ��;9 - t ��'$ � — - �
. � . : z� s r � ?.
j " 1 I1
16. . ' _.._ ( .....�C f ��`. _. .�_ �$d _—zY _.
+�11t� _ 1 i� u7+J1 - N77rIo f F �y75(e— S ` - � -- '
--- 3 . . � i
, —
I .
z� 1yZ ��� I ., ,; , N�S,> , i � I
-µ y � y9�f%�-_ 3`;aH9NH � --- — � ;
� .. .
. , +..
- � :s t `' 1 " 3 1' ' 8 - ' �-j
f' � �I7y`�.. H1?, ; 'l� � •r�72�i ; • ,�-r39 s; 1
� `" �
�q�5� � N93�- u�3z � � �a _ ' i;
-- a �_N��7 — - �12�
ro . f. ��Ib� y7!_7 � o �,_ 1 „ .- , �= �, -� i
H�p4 �.— , � "� �—i • � � � N�Z� .� � �.. ,3 � �
H�as i �� %0� �. � `��07 ,; "�'2' �'�`�a � ti��v �7i'S ,,c�. _ �I
i ..,3 ' _ :.1 � .. i7 i i
� �t7,ot .� ;. Y}1�� N'�� :.�1 �190'! :N7A3 �y700 N9o3 � - -
, "z, ,. I � r i _
`° �r7TH. f �1t��. �Es.E ° J--
<, ; : . . � . , r -,, , ° r � '�
Hb�° ' N�,S� � HGSic �v'S�' . �• ��5�= ' ( !�_ _ ` ' :
�N62� + _ ° � , ' ,�� Z 'N67'S , 2-- . .v
i���8 ' -ut�HT NbH$ �6N1 "�� y�t�N �. �-- :: �,�o� �,�
N6�3 k�3 - --- '
,. _ I N656 - �,='y639 N&3� NL'�1 N�'�q - f r _�.
6
�'�'i ,3. " " �. ub�► ,r�Z= ��
��• 4`> ��'�N N43J ,: r NG3Z Nb?3 ; � N&3o -. __ I �' `
yb3`1 "'' ;'�' � • i �� NG99 9 -, , , --
N`3z- y��23 �,�Zy ��ZS N"ZN `
yyzy ' ���� __� . ;,�.:. �
�fG?D Nbrs ���o ,�bi7 � -.� ..
,. o; .
� :� . � � : N%.10 ilG'? ;y' '•
� r ` o ,� , .
9 . ��J� H6� {6 9 _- ,aF— ' �
- �(,0.� � K". �ib�y, ,NbOi � N�(}O ,�y0� -. - �� ,,.•-
— � v c ".. �..� _.
� ^,,.•,,, 46'tH. AVE:.., . � .; N.E. �,, �;: �
f-'��f�`,—� I--,—'�i-"'. �� .
�� f.�-1t�� :. ,.� .. .., ,; . .. ' � �
,
�
#
.�
3
;
;;
r�► '
/`l %��...._r_..:�,�,
A� �' ,��.
, �,�f!
�
� �
fi
J
,'��
.'�
;� r
�Q`�'��' �� �=����_��
�� 8431 UNIVERSITY AV[NUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
. . TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450
1TE: JULY 15, 1976
T0:
FROF1
RE:
l4EMQERS, APPEALS COt1f4IS5I0tJ
BILL FIEE
UTILIZATIOh7, 40 FOOT LOTS
I just received my copy of the Appeals Commission Minutes of the meeting
at which a City Council discussion on 40 foot lots was revier+ed.
There seemed to be some concern, or perhaps a misunderstanding of my
position regarding the utilization of these parcels.
I know you will bear in mind that I have no special standinq in this
tna±ter, bei,ng only one o�� five members of the Council. On"the other hand,
I have had considerable more experience than any other member with the
problem of dealinq with the birds as they actually come home to roost.
(Being the person on whom the "Summons and Complaints" are served.} So
let me cen:ment on the recent deliberations on the 40 foot lot ouestion.
I don't have the various "Minutes" readily available as t t•�rite this,
so I hope you tvill forgive me for a certain inevitable lack of precision.
� I think there are four points I should make:
1. There was a comment in the Appeals Commission deliberations that it
was "City Policy" to try to facilitate the utilization ofi these 40 foot
parcels.
I know of no such City Policy.
It`s true that former P1ayor Frank Liebl took that vietiv. That does not
make it "City Policy" any more than the statement of my vieyrs makes my
position "City Policy". Obviousiy, "City Policy" in such matters is set
by the entire City Council, and I know of no such policy being established.
Fot• vahat it's tiaorth, it has been and is my vie�v that in the present
circumstances the 40 foot parcel cannot be co�sidered a bu�ldine site.
I tivant to underscore that there may be reasonable tvays of dev�loping
the 40 foot parcel as a building site, but I have not seen such a proposal
yet. It tiaould certainly have to have some very fundamental planninq �•�ork �
done on it 6efore I G:ould see the result� as beinq consisteni �•rith broad
co���munity goals in "Quality of Life" teims. Such a solution mi,ht involve
some kind of zero,lot-line development concept, or potentially a sFecial ��' �1
building and design contr-ol code which �aould accomodate a smaller building ��i
scale but �vould maintain Quality of Life values by the use of innovative V�
forriats.
�"`' `�'4
� �``�i.� �F. . v�+ �
� :;
A1��
. '
s'%tr•.r>n. �
�� y
r
July 15, 1976
Members, Appeals Commission
Page 2
But, presently we do not have anything like this for the 40 foot parcel.
� Instead, what we're really doing is trying to apply design and buildin9
concepts intended for 75 foot parcels to 40 foot lots -- and still expecting
to maintain the "Quality of Life" standards the corrmunity has today.
1 want to raise the question -- Ylhere has this been accomplished?
Consider what's happening in 14inneapolis, where many homes were built on
40 foot frontages, and had the added important advantage of excellent back
alley servir,e. These are the neighborhoods tliat have had the worst history
of urban decay and population flight. People don't want to live in those
crowded settings if they have other options, and as soon as they can afford.
to get out, they do.
In those areas tahere t4inneapolis is investing redevelopment resources in
residential neighborhoods, they are making efforts to solve the very
problem i-re're considering creating! (And in our situation, vre're not
even talking about op�ning back alley service, which would make 40 foot
site development even marginally tolerable.)
�3J
2. There t•;as some discussion by P1ayor Liebl, aahich was recapitulated in the
Appeals Commission discussion, concerning the desirability of "getting
this property on the tax roles". (Presumably to make an economic contribution
to the commu�ity's tax basc.)
To accept this as a general proposition is a false economy.
� We are not iegally justified in entertaining this as a factor in our
deliberations concerning rihether or not to permit 40 foot building
sites; but I think that since th� r,iatter was raised in the P?inutes, I
might be permitted a brief cor!nnent.
If you are talkin9 about putting a$30,000 house on the 40 foot lot, chances
are.that the taxes it generates ��:ill not pay the cost of public services.
. Given the history of such developments, this will be increasingly true
as the housing ages.
As far as "getting it on the tax roles" is concerned, there are several
ways to do that without creating 40 foot building sites. T�ti�o 40 foot parcels
make a good 80 foot building site -- just 5 feet more lavish than the
City's minimum. Three 40 foot parcels make 2 less acceptable, but still
viable 60 foot sites. Or, one 40 foot parcel makes a dandy garden -- a
perfectly reasonable use of land.
All of these options are consistent r�ith the "Quality of Life" values
held by the people who have built this conmunity and have invested tfieir
savings on certai� de��elopment asswnptions, such as those expi�essed in
lot size and setback criteria. '
�
��
3s
July 15, 1976
Members, Appeals Comnission
Page 3
`� 3. It's unfortunate that the Appeals Commission did not have the same
information package on this question that the City Council had. It might
have made some difference in hoar the Commission vieared the entire question.
As it turned out, the City Council did have more extensive information on
the question. This included a detailed survey of all of the vacant
40 foot lots, or end-of-the-block lots. This report showed the true
dimensions of the issue. It showed long strips of 40 foot lots. On
several blocks, these sequences of vacant 40 foot parcels r�ere the dominant
characteristic.
4. This indicated to me that if we accepted the proposition that �0 foot
frontaqes satisfied the City's criteria on "health, safety and aielfare,"
all of these lots a�ould be eligible for development as seoarzte building
sites; and that we would have, in fact, the development of several blocks
characterized by this building pattern.
As a simple, practical legal matter, the City cannot defend the kind of
discriminatory criteria recommended by the Appeals Corrunission.
The consiitutional basis for our land use regulatory porrer has to be our
findings that certain minimums are necessary to the prot°ction of the
pub'ti� health, safety and ti•relfare. If the City finds that a 40 foot
� frontage satisfies those cri�eria, ti•�e simp7y cannot deny building permits
to those long strips of other 40 foot lots. (And the next issue may well
be t•ihat to do �aith the vast number of 25 foot lots we have cn record! Are
they also buildino sites? The same case can be made for them.)
I think the situation is not yet legally irretrievable, since the building
permit which �vas issued was for a corner lot, which could be the basis for
a distinction bet�•;een this act and a future claim for a building permit
on an interior 40 foot site.
Bu� I am convinced that once the City issues a building permit for an
interior 40 foot lot, �ae are going to have to yield on all interior 40 foot
lots. This �vill be the new minimum lot size and "minimums" soon become
the "maximums". I have personally �vitnessed this phenomeria �•rith reference
to 50 foot lots in Rivervie�a Heights.
In the early 1960's we had tried to hold out for the 75 foot frontage
(i.e., three 25 foot lots per building site) but; at some point the Council
decided to issue a per�nit on a 50 foot frontage, and then another, and
another -- and notiv it tivould be legally imoossible to deny a permit. The
50 foot site has beco�»e the defacto "maxirium" lot size in Riverview Heights.
Yet you all are �aell ataare of the very su6stantial development difficulties
tide are experiencin9 with 50 foot lots; such as providing adequate sideyards,
garages and off-street parking.
� I recognize that the Commission expressed their concern tiaith the potential
for a string of ten or tti•�elve housin9 units, all side by side on 40 foot. lots,
This concern was indicated by the stipulatlon that a buildin9 permit would
riunurr
Paye 4
not be given in cases o-rhere adjacent land is available "unless the owner had
made an attempt to buy the adjacent land and had been unsuccessful".
� There are taro prablems with this. First, it's simply unenforceabTe, and
any experienced developer/builder will know it. Second, the economic dynamics
work against any possibility of two adjacent landowners getting togethEr.
If you assume Jack owns 40 foot lot �18, and John owns 40 foot lot n14,
you rrill have the follov�ing situation. 4Je say to Jack that you can't have
a building permit for n18 unless John refuses to sell �19 at a reasonahle
price. Vle have already said to John that he can't have a permit to build
on �19 unless Jack refuses to sell ,-"18 at a reasonable price. All it takes
is for Jack and John to agree not to sell to each other and then they both
have building permits for 40 foot lots! —
Assume I'm a speculator and am aware of the discussion no�•� taking place.
I buy a strip of 40 foot lots, say lots 5 throuyh 16 in a block. This
could be worked up as six 80 foot sites, or eight 60 foot sites or tv,elve
40 foot sites. Al1 I have to do is sell e�ery other lot to my wife. Then
I ask her if she will sell me her lots (beina adjacent lots) at a reasonable
price. She says "No", so I go to the Appeals Commission and say I own lots
5, 7, 9, it, 13, and 15.
I-h�ve asked the owner of lots 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 to sell at a
reasonable price so I can make 80 foot lots. But, the ot•rner of those lots
won't sell at a reasonable price; so I should get a Quilding Permit for
40 fbo.l lots.
� You give me the building peirnits.
Then my wife comes in and says she o�:ns lots 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 and
they are impacted by buildinqs on lots 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15. No adjacent
land is available. You must give m2 building permits. And under the logic
of the rules proposed by the Appeals Commission, she would be right.
I have, of course, oversimplified what is likely to happen. But the fact
is, the economics of land developr.tent �•iill mitigate against adjacent owners
selling to each other. And in any event, the condition is le9ally unenforce-
able because it cannot be related to "health, safety and welfare." criteria.
So the direction the Conenission is recommending will result in strips of
homes on 40 foot sites.
That is �ahy I voted against the Variances which you recomnended granting.
The Ethics of Che Question
On the one hand w� have just adopted a Housing Plan which acknowledges an
obligation to provide opportiniities for a saide spectrum of housing. (Inciudin9
"low cost" housing.)
� I have agreed ���ith that general goal statement.
�
�- ���y �✓� ��iv
� Members, Appeals Commission
Page 5
The problem with implementing that goal is the rapidly escalating cost of
the free-standing single family residence. As the situation is developing,
Sit raises the very real question of whether or not there can be such a
housing unit in the near future as a low cost single famity residence.
One thin9 the City could do {�t is argued) is reduce lot size requirements,
and this step, recommended by the Appeals Commission, rrould accomplish that.
I don't really agree that such a step would materially change the price of
the finished product, althouah it erould probab)y provide some incentive to
certain speculative builders. knd on the other hand, at the time 4re
recognize an obliaation to provide lo�a cost housing for ne4� residents, 4re
aTso surely must recognize another obligation aie have to.the people who
have already invested here.
They have invested their savings in Fridley housing based in part on
assurances we have given them concerning the standards we �iill enforce. We
have said there will be "elboo-i room" and all that goes with it in the way
of amenities ar.d quality of life. That has been a factor in all of the
investment that has been made in Fridley in the past 25 years.
4lhile vre admit an obligation to provide for people rrho would like to build
here, don't we also have an obligation to those who have already helped
build the City?
I think so.
� I don't want to comptetely close the door on the p�ssibility of some
innovative utilization of 40 foot residential buildin� sites.
Perhaps the Planning Department, the Planning Comr.iission and Community
Development can come up ��rith a ne�v approach, But I don't think a policy
change of this ragnitude should evolve through the process of variances
by the Appeals Coirmission.
� If, someho�a, I have uiisunderstood the actual proceedings of the Corr.nission
as I read the htinutes, I�•rould be happy to meet at any time to discuss it.
WJH:ejt
cc: Ci ty Coimci 1,
Planning Cor.;mission
Community Developsiient
�
u V �¢
�
MEt40 70:
MEt10 FROM:
MEt40 DATE:
RE:
Williain Nee, Mayor
Virginia Wahlberg, Chairwoman, Appeals Commission
July 30, 1976
Utilitzation of 4D foot lots
The Appeals Cominission wishes to thank you for your memo of July 15,
1976 concerning your thouyhts on 40 foot lots in Fridley. The minutes
of the July 27th Itppeals Commission meeting o-�ill reflcct details of our
discussion of your memo and I riould refer you to them.
I have reviewed all discussions of 40 foot lots (there being 12 separate
discussions, not including your me�o). 41hen the first variance reouest car�e
before the Appeals Commission on February 10, 1976 , the members of the Com-
mission o-�ere reluctant to act upon said request until the Planning Commission
and several other mem6er Comr�iissions had an opportunity to discuss the
problems associated i��ith building on 40 foot lots. Accordingly, the
Community Development, Human Resources, and Environm�ntal Quality Commissions
held.discussions and passed recommendations on to the Planning Commission.
These recommendations were put into the form of "Guidelines on 40 foot lots",
which the Piannin9 Commission reviewed and passed on to the City Council.
On April 27, 1976, the Appeals Commission rece�ved the 6uidelines from
the City Council, and acted finally on the original request for building
construction on a corner 40 foot lot.
On May 7, 1976, the �ity Council received the recommendations from the
Appeals Commission, f�eard additional input from the City Staff, and approved
� construction on a recommended 45 foot lot site. Because the City Council
vote tvas close (3-2) and the final approval varied considerably from the
Appeals Corrknission's approval, �ve felt perhaps o-�e needed further infori�aticn.
Accordingly, ��e listened to the tape recording of the 1�1ay 7th Council meeting.
The recording was not very clear• (due to background noises - there seemed to
be a lot of shuffling of papers) and much of the conversation �aas lost, but
we felt r�e should try to be better informed.
r�
�..J
Out of all this, we concur i,rith your memo that policy changes should
not be hit and miss through the process of granting variances by the Appeals
Commission. Your remarks were probably the most concrete feelings tae have
received to date from any source. 6ecause of this, and because we feel thei•e
is still time to make decisions on 40 foot lots before vre receive any further
requests for a variance, ���e �aould like to recommend that all interested
parties get together for an open discussion of the situation. I would like
to suggest that members of the Conmunity Development, Hu+nan Resources,
Environmental Quality, Appeals and Planning Commission, City Council members
and appropriate Staff persons meet at one time, with an established agenda
and appropriate infonnation available.
Finally, the Appeals Commission wishes to thank you for the time and
thoughtful remarks included in your memo. hiany.new ideas were raised and �ae
appreciated your input. The doors of discussion have not been closed and we
are concerned that we can act in the best interests of the community.
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
_�anmurit Dev.elapinent Conmiission
ppeal s '�oi�u�n ss�on
��
; -°r „
�-�
�
PLANNIN(i COMMZSSION MEETING
CITY OF FRIDL&Y
AU(fUST i�, 19T6
�
PdGE 1
CAI,L TO ORDfft:
Chairperson Harria called the meeting to order at 7:30 P,M.
EOLL CAI.L:
Hembers Present: Harris, Bergman, Lambert (attending for Shea), Langenfeld,
Schnabel
Members Abaent:
Others Presenta
Peterson
Jerrold Boardaan, City Planner
APPRQVE PLANNIHG COMI�IISSION MINQTES: JULY 28, 1976
Mrs, Lambert said that regarding the third paragraph on page 3, the Fine Arts
Comtaittee Was not the only active subcoireaittee, hut the Youth Yroject Conenittee
waa aleo very active. She also pointed out in the seme paragraph that Human
Selationa should be changed to Suman Resources.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langen£eld, that the Planniag Con�ission
minutes of July 28, 1976 be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all
voting �ye� the motion carried unani�usly.
REC&IVE PARKS ADID RECREATION COHI4ISSION ?QNOTFS: JDLY 26, 1�76
Mrs. Schnabel stated she had a question oonceraing pege 3 of their minutes,
under item 2. She said the questioneias raised concer�ing the soccer field
at Locke Park� and Idr. Harris said that money had been appropriated for it in
the budget. Horrever, she said, ehen she vent through the �dget she did not
see any money appropriated £or it and xondered if that was an error or if she
had diPficulty Pinding it. Mr. Boardmen said that Parks and Recreation had
asked for it last year and it vas cut out by the City Council. He stated that
this year he thought they asked Yor it again, but he was aot sure. He suggested
that vould be a good thing to bring up at the nezt Planning Co�miission meeting
when a repreaentative from Parks and Recreation would be in attendance.
Nrs. Schnabel said ahe had raised the question at the last Commission meeting
of xhat the dol�ar amount of the total Parks and Recreation budget was. She
stated that she had added the figures up herself� and thought the other members
would be intereated. She explained she had taken the top dollar emount oP
everything, vhich didn't include any monies that might come back to them through
conceseions or other resources� end it came to $148,613.
�
�
�
Planning Coffinission Meeting - August 1�, 1976 Page 2
Mrs. Schnabel stated that her next question in relation to that would be, is
the Planning Coimnisaion to make any decisions on this budget or i� it totally
xithin the realm of the Parks and Reereation Department? Chairperson Harris
stated that he thought the Charter was set up so that B�rks and Recreation
propc3ses a budget� but the approval of that budget was completely up to the
City Council. He addsd that if Mrs. Schnabel vished to discuss it� they �rould
be rtithin the realm of operation. Hrs. Schnabel said that if the Planning
Commission was responsible to make any co�eats on it or ask any questions
about it, she Would feel inadequate in asking those quest�ons as she didn't
]mox what the past procedure had been xith regasd to Parks and Recreation.
She continued that iP they xere required to do that, then she, personally,
would like some budgets from other years to make comparisons.
Mr. Boardraan said that the Parks and Recreation budget had never been reviewed
by the Planning Co�nission before. He stated the only reason it goes before
the Planning Conmiission vas to see if it fit in yrith the adopted goals and
objectives of the community. In other words, he said, if they said they needed
a tennis court and according to the goals and objectives it wss not needed,
it would then be up to the Planning Co�ission to say that vasn't an objective
of the city to provi.de that. He said that this is where the realm of the Planning
Commission would come in� but not neceasarily an item by item budgeting boing
through past budgets, etc, Mr, Boardaan said he felt that xould be very rreighty
to go throngh two Commission pro�esses oP going oeer a budget and then to the
City Council. He added that Parks and Recreation vrsa supposed to be a responsible
enough Co�m�ission to promote this irith jnst a review by the Planning Conunission
as far as the application to the overall goals of the city.
Mrs. Schnabel said she appreciated that explanation. She added she was not
aware of the process and xanted to be better informed if they were called upon
to do anything xith it.
Mr. Langenfeld asked to be corrected if he xas xrong� but said he thought that
this xas nothing but a proposed cash outlay and guide. Mr. Boardmen said these
were outlay costa--what Parks and Recreation felt they needed to develop these
things. He eaplained the City Council xould nov take a look at it and cut it
in areas and add in other ares�. Mr. Boaidm�an flirther explained the Planning
Commission should reviex it according to the overall viesrs of the co�aunity,
EIe said the whole purpose of the Planning Conuoission was an over-viejr Commission.
He added that all the other Commissioffi below them were to wrk on implementation
of policies and then the Planning Co�oission vas to see that the implementation
vas carried out and to see that they �rere going in the right direction,
Mr. Hergman said that he noticed that out oY thirteett park areas, the Parls and
Recreation budget only pro�rided funding for numbers one through six. Mr. Boardman
explained there were six maintenance areas in the citg� and the budget was
developed according to thoae maintenance areas. Mr, Bergman asked if he xas
sqying that in addit3on to the map which had thirteen areas� thsae xas another
map which had six areas, and Mr, Boardman said that xas correct.
Mr. Berg�an asked if it was the long-range Parks and Recreation Plan that Innsbruck
North Park be a n�ture center, and Mr. Boardman answered not necessarily. He
said that all parks within the co�nunity except Locke Park, North Park and the
Planning Goffiaission Meeting - August !�, 1976 Page 3
Island of Peace had been given to those thirteen neighborhood project committees
to see if the uaes within the park area xere compatible �rith.the neighborhoods,
He added that they xere waiting for response to�srd the end of September on
those, Mr. BorgmeM said ne noted there was no money indicated in the budget
tovard Inuabruck North Park, and Hr. Boardman said he thought it xas just about
completed.
t�TZON Hy Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutea of the Parks and Recreation Cou�ission meeting of July 26, 1976.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the motion should state they could hold addit�onal
questions until the neat meeting. Chairperaon Harris bronght to the Co�moission's
atte�tion Item 1Jo. 6 on the agenda� which concerned revieving the Parks end
Recreation Commission minutes of July bth and Julq 12th, 1976, and said that
particular item could be tabled unti2 the aext regular meeting. Mrs. Schnabel
pointed out that the question she had asked earlier about the soccer field
xould be included in the Jnly 26th minutes, and Chairperson Harris suggested
she make a note of it and bring it up at the next regular meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motioa carried unanimously.
R&CEI11E APPEA7S C014IISSION AINUT&S: JULY 27, 1976
Mre. Schnabel said that she xould like to bring to the attention of the Planning
Comaission a motion that was passed by the Appeals Coeuaission on the bottom of
page 19. She explained the City Council had raised the Yees frithin the city
recently� az►d it xas the feeling of the members of the Sppeals Commission that
on oxner-occup�ed residential properties the $50 fee from $15 vas excessive,
and thought $25 maximum xould be a aufficient fee. She ezplained that they
asked that the City Council reconsider that one fee. Mrs, Schnabel said that
to give them an example� at their July 27th meeting they had a reQuest for
a variance of one foot by a property or�mer. She said it vas felt that for that
propertq oxner to p�y $50 for one foot appeared to be an excessive amount of
moneq.
Chairperson Harris asked hov those fees xere arrived at, and lir. Boardiaea replied
they xere arrived at according to StaYf costs. He eaplained that xhether the
vari �►ce was for one foot or one hundred feet, the same amount of notices had
to be sent out and there was the same amount of work as far as Staf£ operation
costs vent. Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Go�nission realized that at the
time. Horrever, she said, they did feel that on that particular seetion of
owner-occupied residential properties the Yee was excessive, and they had �hp
quarrel ri.th industrial or anything else. Mr. Boardman added that the fees were
also �Parab�.g to the co�unity Yees.
Mrs. Schnabel seid she xanted to bring it to the attention of the Planning
Commission ss the members of the Appeals Co�ission wanted to express their
feelinga on it. Chairperson Harris said it xas so noted.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive
the a�inaiea of the Appeals Co�.i.saion �eting oY July 27, 1976. Upon a voice
vote� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimous�j*.
Planniag Co�isaion Meeting - August �, 1976
Page !�
1.
UVHiViLATlUN1 lSBlri$ S P8P18L OI LOtB 1 LO 4 7IlC1t391Y@� tS10CKS 'Ll triTOtlg
,�an aTso part of I,ot 2, Block 28, Innsbruck North TSrynhouses Third
Addition� to allow changes in the aize o£ garages� generally located on
the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Roade N.E.
Pnblie Hearing 6pen.
Mr. Boardman explained that Darrel A. Farr Ilevelopment Corporation was trying
to work ont �ome arrangementa xith the Townhouse Associstion� and reqnested
that this item be tabled again.
Mr. Lsngenfeld raised the question oP hov loag something like this could be
tabled� and Mr. Boardman replied about sixty dRys.
Hrs. Schnabel said she would like to rel� something that she thought was
rather interesting to the Co�nission. She said that as she drove out North
Innsbrnck Drive, the City of Neu Brighton's survey crex was surveying the road
at the EY�idley border. Whether or not they were going to do anything on it�
she didntt lmow, She also said she vandered r�rhether or not part of the stipulatioa
oP the Darrel A. Farr Corporation proceedi.ng tirith building the to*.mhouses vas
that theq should grade out North Innsburck Drive, and said it was her nnderstand-
ing that a culvert should be pnt i.n the lox spot xhich xater is draining into
current�y. Mrs. Schnabel said that perhaps since they already have a model
built and it aas nearing final stages, they should be reappraised of that
stipulatioa.
ilr. Bergman stated that each meeting they had this item on the agenda� typical�y
as number oae, and each meetiag they spent time on it. He said he would like
it removed from the agenda until Darrel Farr Corporation indicated some Purther
interest. Chairperson Harris said he thought becanse of the time element
involned� since they xere getting close to the time limit when they would have
to reapplq� they should table it until the neat meeting.
MOTIOA by Ber�an� seconded by LengenYeld, that the Planning Co�nission table
the Pnblic Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-05� Innsbruck
North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Developanent Corporation� zrith
the Public Hearing open� nntil the nezt regular meeting of the Planning Co�nission.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously.
2. YUBLIC HBARIN(1: RE UF.ST FOR S SPECIAL USE PERt4IT SP.
SINIGA(iLIO: Per F4�i ley Ci y Co e� ect on 20 .0 1� 2
eonstruction of a second accessory building� a 2� ft.
gara�e� on I,oj�s 18 and 19, Block 8� Pl�vmouth Addition,
4715 3rd Street N.E.
Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sinigaglio pere present.
:' � a�a.
� n� �v ¢t.avw utio
by 32 .ft. detached
the same being
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Conm�ission open the
Public Hesring on a request for a specia2 use permit, SP #76-11� by Joseph
Sinigaglio. IIpon a voice vc3te, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared
the Publie Hearing open at 8:00 P.M.
Planning Co�nission Meeting - August 4� 1976 Page 5
Mr, Boardman explained that this vas a request for a special use perrrniit for a
24' X 32' detaehed garsge. He said the applicant presently has an attached
garage to the building, end the lot that he is on is 80' % 129', xi►ich made
it about a 10�000 square foot lot. He stated that this was in the Plymouth
6ddition� end there have been several requ47sts in that area Yor garages of
this size. Mr. Board�an stated the applicant said he has about five cars, and
the second accessory building vould be used as a garage. He added that he had
driven by the property and he had no problem xith graating the application.
Mrs. La�abert stated she had driven by the property and it looked to her like
th�re vere fences az►d things to the edge on either side of the property� and
asked hox they proposed to get to the back. Mr. Sinigaglio replied he vould
remove the F�ce on the North side to get access. He added that his current
garage was oa the South side� and presented the Co�ission �rith a drawing of
his proposal. He said he had to plat or survey.
Nr, Boardman said that as far as setback requirements xent� lAr. Sinigaglio
xould be alloxed to go doxn to three feet on the property line srith a survey�
and without a survey it rrould be It'� feet setback. Mr. Sinigaglio said he
didn't ImoK ahere his lot line vas, but just took it for grsnted the telephone
pole xas the lot line. Mr. Boardman informed him that he really should get a
survey on the property before the garege vas built in case a mistake xas made�
as it conld make a difference in selling the property.
Ghairperson Harris asked jrhat he xas planning to do rrith theggarage, and Mr.
Sini�aglio replied that he had several cars that rrere sitting in his yard.
He aaid he didn't vant to sell them and they were more or less deteriorating.
He explained they t+ere vintege cars� and this xas his hobbq. He further
explained he couldn�t get in his present garage becanse he kept his snowblower�
table sav� etc. in there� and he needed the extra room. Hr. 3inigaglio said
the garage vould be 2!�' % 21�', and the last 8' on the South end xould be
encloaed like a patio or �musement room.
Chairperson Harris asked if he was planning on having utilities i.n tfiis
structure� snd Mr. Sinigaglio replied he srould have electricity. Mr. Harris
asked hov large the attached garage vas that he presently had� and Mr. Sinigaglio
replied the garage itself xas about 18� % 24'. He explained he had a f`ire wall
which put a breezeway bet�reen the houae and garage, and that cut dorm on his
garage area.
Mra. Schnabel asked iF therewvas a limitation or reatriction on a secondary
use bnilding as far as combtn� living quarters per se and garage space. Mr.
Boardman said there xas no restriction as to xhat it vaa to be used for. Mrs,
Schnabel then asked if someone could then build a secondary use building and
nse it as living quarters. Mr. Boardman replied no. He explained the code
said an accessory use was somethi.ng like privately-oxned recreational facilities
such as axi�mning pools� tennis courts, etc.� whieh are for the convenience
of the residents end their guests. Ghsirperson Aarria said he thought they
would have a hard time stretching that to liviag qnarters.
?tr. Langenfeld pointed out that the petitioner indicated the use of the garage
and that is xhy the Special Use Permit xas being requested� and if the special
use was granted then the City Would have control over that particular piece of
Planning Cor�ission Heeting - Augnat !y, 1976
C _J
Page 6
property. He ststed he noticed that Mr. Sinigaglio had a lot of neighbors�
and asked �rhat their general feelings were. Hr. Sinigaglio replied that his
neighbors on both s3des had asked if he had an,q ulterior motives for building,
but he stated he did not. He said he just wanted to get the cars out of the
yard as they »ere deteriorating, and stated that the neighbors said they
didn't care what he did ia hia back yard as long as he didn't put the garage
in the �'ront yard. He stated he didn't believe there �+ere a�y objections�
and felt that getting the cars out of sight would be an improvement.
Hr. LangenfeZd asked vhat his hobby xas, and Mr. Sinig�glio replied he worked
on the cars he had. He ezplained that parts taere difficult to find, aad over
the last couple of years he xould b�y a bumper here and a grill there. He said
he would just leave the cars in the garage and talce them out xhen the Tresther
vas nice. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the garage wonld be compatible vith the rest
of the houae� and Mr. Sinigaglio replied it xould, He said it vould have
vertical xood like his home and the same roofing, and would essentially look
Iike a smal.e model of his house but it xo�ldn't be as long.
Mr�. Schnabel noted that he did the reconstrnctioa Por his ovn personal benefit}
but asked if he vas in the buainess of doing this type vf vrork for other people
or doing it with the iatent of reselling the automob3lies. Mr. Sinigaglio
replied he xas not� and said the cars were just for his oWn use `rhen he felt
like it. He explained he did the vork in his oxn garage nox� but xould like to
be able to jack up the car and leave it there instead of tak; � it up and dovn
evexy night.
Mr. Ber�nan asked if Mr. Sinigaglio hired so�aeone io come in and rrork on the
automobiles� and he ansxered he did not. Hr. Bergmen ssid he had no other
cottcerns vith regard to the general plan and concept, but was a little concerned
about the dimensional validity. He stated there rras no registered survey of
the lot}.and he was not sure thai other than approving the eoncegt in generaZ
there xas aqy more they cotil.d do prior to City Covncil reviex xithout verification
or dimen*ioas.
Chairperson Harris stated they could send this on to Council irith their
recoaam�dstions aad stiptiZations� and one of those stipnlations could be that
the petitioner get a sursey before he goes to City Council. Mr. Boardman said
he real�v didn't Imorr if they needed a survey beFore they got to Covncil. He
explained their main concern was that they don�t take up more thsn 25� of their
lot. Mr. Harris said he thou�ht it wonld save a lot oP time if before this got
to Council there xas a survey and all these things were checked, Mr. Langenfeld
said he xonld like to aupport the suggestion and comments regA*�� the survey�
and added he was sure Covscil vould ask Mr. Sinigaglio to do that anyxay.
MOTIOA by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Co�ission close
the Pablic Hearing on the request for a$pecial Use Permit� SP #7b-ll� by
Joseph Sinigsglio, Upon a aoice vote, all voting aye� Chai.rperson Aarris
declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P.M.
i�TION by Bergman� seconded by Larnbert, that the Planning Commission recomnend
to Council approval of the request for a Speciel Use Permit� SP /�76-11� by
Joseph Sinigagltho, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to allov the
\
Planning Gw�ission Keeting - lugust �� 1976
Page i
construetion of a second accessory building� a 2!t ft. by 32 £t, detached
garage, on Lots 18 az►d 19, Block S, Plymouth Addition, the same being 1�715
ard Street N.E.� indieating general concurrence with the request and the
proposed con�truction snd usage� but subject to a dimensional verification
through lot survey prior to City Covncil reviex.
Hr. Laagenfeld said he tended to wazet to indicate •iP possible". He said he
got the feeling they were pushing these people for a survey� and they should
have one� but wondered xhat xould happen if they couldn't come up rrith one
before this saent to Couuci2 on August lbth. Cha.frpers� Harris said they
could leave it as one of their stipulations, and if the City Couxicil wanted
to change that� it vas their prerogative. Mr. Harris said he would like to
recommend that the motion include something about limitation of the structure
for any future use as a home occupation. Mr. Bergmaa said he xas open to that
thought, and asked if that xasn't adequately covered in the present ordinence.
Mr. Boardman said that no accessory building could be used as home occupstion�
but there were some around, Mr. Harris said that some ti.me dosm the line Mr.
Sinigaglio m�v desire to sell his home or get out of the classic car storsge
business� and he would like to make it clear to everyone involYed that the
accessory building could not be used as a cabinet shop� body repair shop, etc.
He stated he felt it would not hurt to state it as a atipulation in the
recommendat�on so everyone innolved vould be clear on the matter.
lir. Bergman A�IDED the MOTION to inclnde limiting the accessory buildi.ng
use to exelude home occupation. Seconded by Lambert.
Chairperson Harris wondered if it rrould be necessary to inclnde in the motion
something about the garage being compatible vith the existing structure. Mr.
Bergman said that the peitioner had stated it would be� and that discussion
xould be in the minutes for reA�� by Council. Mr. Harris said the problem
vas that when they got down the line at a later period, sometimes the discussion
parts were oaiitted and the only thi.ng that can be found is the motion xith the
stipulations. Mr. Bergman asked iP there raasn't some type of incentive
provided to the owner to make the aesthetic treatment consistent at the time
he applied Por the building perndt. He said that regardless of vhat the
Cormaission said� the building permit process xas vhere it really happened.
Hr. Boardman said that was usually a stipulation on the building permit.
UYON A VOICE VOTE, all voting �e, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris dec2ared a recess at 8:30 P,M. and reconvened the meeting
at 8:55 P.M.
3. BECEIVE MEMO FROM MAYOR NSE TO THE APPEATS COI�4IISSION: DATID NLY 15 1976
140TION by Langenfe2d� �econded by Bergman� that the Plaaning Commi.ssion receive
the memo from Mtkyor Nee to the Appeals Comnission dated July 15, 1976.
Mr. Boardman said that studies show that only about 25� of families can afford
housing the way it is now. He stated that there would be some point in time
__ when these 40' lots would have to be usedand the resent standards would have
Planning Comoission Meeting - August !c, 197b
Page 8
to be dropped or changed so:that people would be able to afford housing. He said
that right now about 758 of the faznilies were really strugqling in buying houses
which they really can't afford because they c�'t find a needed home in a lower
price range�.� - . .. .
2�Ir. Ber�an sa3d he recalled the 40' lot consideration vhich xas brought to the
Plenniag Co�ni.ssion's attention from the Board oY Appeals based on�a pending
variance request. The Planning Co�oission� he said, then sent the question to
the subcotrmiiasions to come back to the Ylanning Co�ission Kith regard to policy.
Mr. Hergman said that Co�unity Development was one of those that reviewed
whether or not }�0' lots should be considered developable lots £or housing� and
they co�unicated back to the Planning Co�iasion, as did a couple other
Coaroaiasions� and the PZSDR�ttg COINf1�S910A then pulled together or endorsed a
policy-type situation in that regard. He asked 3f it vas the Planning Co�ission
dialogue that Bill Nee xas referencing in his letter� or if it vas something else.
Mrs. Schnabel enssrered that it wasn't really clear, but she thought it xas the
Appeals Commission minutes oP June 15th that prompted the letter. She stated
she xould like to review for everybody's benefit what has happened in order to
help clear the matter up a bit, She said that on February 10, 1976, the Appeals
Co�nission recefved a request for variance Trom a Mr. Denis L. Vil2ella to
constrnct a residential d�relling on a�t0' lot. At that time the Appeals
Cor�iasion decided that since this xas the first request to build on a 40' lot�
they should perhaps request ths Planning Comnission and other subconunissions
to try to develop some type oP policy statement regarding !�0' lots. She said
the Words �policy statement" came about because in revie�ring the Administrative
Staff Report to the Appeals Co�ni.ssion on that reqnest� the remarks said something
about city policy statement. She commented that the term got to be used a bit
loo�ly, but it got to be used.
Mrs. Schnabel continued that on Narch 9, 1976, the Co�muunity Deeelopsent
Comaission reviewed 1�0' lots, on Harch llth it was reviewed by Human Resources
and on Harch 23�d by the Fridlep Fhvironmantal Quality Coromission. She stated
that on April 7th the Planning Co�+ission received the minutes from the three
subcowai.ssions and on April 27th the Appeals Co�mniasion received the guidelfnes
from the City Conncil. The City Council received those guidelines prior to
April 27th Yrom the Planning Co�ission. Mra. Schnabel explained that once
the dppeals Co�ission received those guidelines on April 27th Prom the City
Council, they removed the request from Mr. Denis Villella from the table.
Mr. Bergman asked Prom what body the Appeals Coimniasion received those guidelines,
and Mra. Schnabel answered from the City Council. She ezplained that the three
subco�issiona came to the Planning CoAmi.ssion with their recommendations� azid
ttte Planning Commission de�eloped tentative guidelinea xhich were aent to the
Gity Council for their approval. She stated that the Gouncil held two discnsafons
on that� as ahe recalled, She believed one xae during their informal meeting and
the second xas at a regular Council meeting� and they aent their recoamendations�
y+hich vera not easetlq in a Pinaliaed form.biit in :a s�s�.the`appraved tentative
guidelinea o£ the Pianning Commisaion� back to the Appeals Cormaission.
Hrs. Schnabel stated that oa April 27th the Appeals Comai.ssion acted on the
request to bnild on a 40' lot. Mr. Villella had made six requests Por variances�
az►d the Appeala Cam�isaion approved four of the sia and d�nied txo, and passed
Plenning Co�ni.ssion Meeting - Augnst �� 1976
Page 9
their reconrmendations on to the City Coancil. She said at that time they had
seked Mr. Vfllella iY he �rould consider applying for a lot split and gaining
five additional feet from the adjacent ne3,ghbor, xho also owned the !�0' lot.
Mr. Villella had not �rchased the lot yet but had made a purchase agreement.
On May 3rd� Mrs. Schnabel contimied� the City Covncil heard the request from
Mr. oillella with the reco�endations from the Appeals Co�aission, and passed
on a 3- 2 vote approval to lruild on a 1�5� lot. She said that Conncil's rnotion
stated he must purchase five additional Peet Prom the adjacent neighbor, so r�hat
they approved was builcli.ng on a 45� lot--not s!t0' lot. She explained that the
adjacent lot xas two 40� lots� or 80�. Nrs. Schnabel informed the Co�mission
that the peiitioner had not come 3n and requested a lot split to date, and the
house xas not under construction.
Mrs. 3chaabel sai.d that because the Council vote was close and because they had
made quiie a few ehanges in their recommendations as opposed to what the Appeals
Co�nission had done� the Appeals Co�aission felt that perhapa they needed
additional information aad maybe they srere acting under false premises. She
said the Appeals Coimnission didn't understand why Council overturned everything
the;T had done� so they then requested a transcript of that May 3rd Council
meeting. l�tx�s. Schnabel explained that it had been impossible for the City to
get it off the tape� and it had been abont a f3fty minute discusaion. All
the Appea3s Co�mnission received rras one short paragraph jrhich said "conaiderable
discussion ensued" , the vote xas 3-2 end this recommendation was made. She
stated that then the Appesls Coauaission asked if they sould listen to the tape
recording of the City Council meeting instead� hoping they could find out more
information becanae it had come to their attention that there Was more information
provided to the City Canncil thatithe kppeals Comoissiott did not have. On June
15th they did listen to that Council tape and held additional discussion at that
time. Then on July 15th, Mra. Schaabel said� they received the memo from Mc{yor
Nee concerning the remarks the Appeals Comaission made at the time they listened
to the tape on 3une 15th. She added that at their July 27�h meeting� the Appeals
Coam�ission diacnssed his letter in detail and agreed to respond back to Ma,yor
Nee frith s letter from the Appeals Co�ni.ssion, As far as she could pinpoint�
she stated� there have been thirteen separate discussions on !�0' lots starting
at the Appeala Co�ission and including the Co�unity Develo�ent Co�nission,
Human &esonrces� Fhvironmental Quality� Planning Cotrnaission, the Mayor� etc,
Mrs. Lambert stated it had been mentioned that Mr. Villella made several requests
Por cariances and the Appeals Co�aiasion approved four oY the six. She asked
if he had six forty-foot lots. Mrs. Schnabel replied no� on one !t0' lot he had
sia variances he requested: rednction in lot siae� rednetion in lot width�
mA=�+�+m lot coverage increase, side yard reduction� setback reduction� and
additional side yard reduetion. She stated that two o£ the requests xere
becanse the lot ras amall, but the other four kere becauae oY the size and type
of house he xas bu�ldittg.
Mrs. I,ambert said that Mr. Boardman had mentioned that only about 25� of today�s
vege earners could afford a home� and questioned if the size of a lot xould
really make that much difference in the cost of a home. She wondered rrhat the
difference in cost xould be between a 1t0' lot end one that was 75's and suggested
it might be about $3,000 -$1��000, Chairperson Aarris said he would guess a 1t0'
lot wonld be about $4s000 -$5��0� with all the utilities. He said there was
Planning Co�i.ssion Meeting - Angust Lt, 1976 Page 10
ffiore involved here than �ust land areas� and sihen they vere talk3.ng lot costs
they were talking raw land plus utility assessments and street assessments, and
many times the street and utility assessments xere in excess of the raw land
costs. He stated thfs happened quite frequently. Hr. Bergman said it vasn�t
co�manon in lotirer-priced development areas. Mr. Boardman said one thing about
that was al,l. the utility and street assessments were by front Yoot� and Mr.
Harris said that was correct� so therefore there xas a considerable amount of
di£ference.
lirs. I,ambert said that in trying to provide homes for en average home owner,
did the size of the lot make that much dif£erence dollar-wise or the type of
structure? Chairperson Harris ssid there were a lot of things that entered
into the total cost of a home on a lot. Mrs. Lambert asked hrnr �ch did land
entar into it. Mr. LangettPeld suggested they use about $30 a square Poot.
Mr. Berglean asked if it xouldn't be fair to s�y that land and assessments
srere noratally 15 - 20� of the b6ta1, and Mr. Harris said that xas reasonable.
Mrs. Lambert said that in order to provide homes for people xho may not be
able to afford them, would a 110' lot be that much of a benefit? She aske�d
if they vould be able to afford a home because they had a!�0' lot.
Mr. Boardman said he thought there were other things that irere involved� and
asked the Coimnission to note liqyor Nee's statement at the bottom of the first
page� which said "I xant to underscore that there � be reasonable ways of
developing the !�0 foot parcel as a building site, but.I have not seen such a
proposal yet. Tt would certainly have to have some very fundam@ntal planning
work done on it,..". Mr. Boarduan said the problem �rith 1�0f lots right now
was that they xaztted to put standard size houses on them� and mt�rbe that was
not the vsy to go on it. He suggested that the standards that are set up under
code for housi.ng� snch as sqnare footage requirements, should be dropped so
that developeent of these lots conld make it more affordable and smaller houses
could be bnilt on them,
Mr. Bergraan asked t4rs. Schnabel if she could read to the Planning Coaunissioxi
the guidelines that vere passed to City Council and apparently approved by them.
Mrs. Schnabel said she xould first like to say that when the reqnest £or variance
came bePore the 9ppeals Coauaission in February� it xas the hope of the Appeals
Co�uisaion that perhaps there rrould be more definite gtiidelines snch as reducing
the size of house necessary on a!t0' lot. At that time� she stated� they were
into approving the whole housi.ng plan for the City and getting into lox-income
housing. She contixmed that the Appeals Coimnission £elt this was an opportunity
to find some taethod of providing lov-i.ncome housea by utilizi.ng !�0' lots �rithin
the citp.
Mrs. Schnabel read the folloxing excerpt from the minutes of the April 27� 1976
Appeals Coimoiesion meeting: °Chsixtiroman Wahlberg stated that in addition to
the minntes o£ the subco�issions:am the !�0 foot lots which srere distributed at
the last Appeals meeting� there is nox available a list of tentative guidelines
From the Planning Commission on substaadard lots. She explained that the Piart*�=ng
Co�aission had passed these guidelines oa to the City Conncil for their reviex�
and at this point the Council had not yet come up with an affirmative plan. Mr.
Holden said that this was discussed at the City Couneil meetiag last night� and
they coneluded the Plenning Coffiai.asion guidelines were good pints to consider.
�
Planning Coaenisaion Meeting - Augnst ly� 1976 Page 11
He added that the Council sgggested they should be considered on an individnal
basis� irith reviex and i'inal approval to be by the Cormcil. Chairwoman Wahlberg
said that all the subco�mnittees felt the city should go along with building on
!y0' lots� but there were stipulat3ons they felt ahould be adYiered to.
T&NTATIVPs aUIDELINFS FROM THE PLANNIIdG COMMISSIOti 013 SUBSTANDARD 7ATS:
1. The Planning Co�ission feels that it was consistent with the
Comprehensive Honsing Plan that sub-standsrd lots should be
developed in F�idley� but each sub-standard lot should be con-
sidered separately.
2. That there be no variance alloved From the present ordinance
allowing a max o 2 lot coverage. (For example, on a
5200 square foot lot� which vould require a variance £or lot
size� only 1�300 square �eet of the lot could be coeered by
the house and garage.)
3. If theee ia land aeailable on either side of a sub-staadard lot�
every effort should be tnade to purchase that lot �t a fair pri
market price by the petitioner� so the lot siae Would be consistent
frith the existing building sites in the area. If the petitioner
refuses to try and negotiate for additional vacant laad� consideration
should be given to de�lring the variance. All denials have to be
based on good� sowad consideaations.
!t. That the osrner/builder make as much of an effort as possible to
meet the eaisting eodes.
$. That thehhonse being built on a sub-standard lot blend in as
aesthetically as possible with the existing houses in the neighborhood,
realizing that a nex home cannot alvatps blend into an old neighborhood.
STAFF'S COM�lLtiTS:
a. Statement oP hardship must include statement regarding length oY
owaership �hich wonld give indication if property xas oxned Yor
a nweber oY years� or recently acquired with the intention of
speculating on developeaent of a!�0 foot lot.
b. All variances associated vith the develop�ent of It0 foot lots xould
require final approval by the City Council."
Mrs. Schnabel siated ihe Mayor posed two valid probleias in his memo, One xas,
in spiteo6f the Compreheasive Housing Plan, does the City have an obligation to
the existing home owners in Fridley tiho perhaps moved to the subnrhs rrith the
idea of acquiring additional space � themselees, She �aid to then start
bnilding on !�0' lota rould p�rhaps not fit in xith the general size of lots that
the majority oP the residents of �3.dley nowhl�ave. 3he said she thought that
was a valid poirtt which had not been considered be£ore.
Iirs. Schnabel said his second point was� hov do you Porce a persoa to buy
additional land £rom the adjacent property owner i£ it is avai.lable? She stated
Planning Co�mnission Meeting - August �, 2976
Page 12
that in his memo the Mayor xent through that quite thoroughly. She said that
additional inPormation had come to their attention since the memo which shoved
pretty much where Lt0' lots ezisted in the City, and evi.dently there irere few
It0' lots which were clustered together� or in stripa.
Mr. Bergman aaid that surprised him, because when they reviewed 1�0' lots in
Coanmtnity Develo�snent, they vere given a location oY every !�0' lot and every
50� 2ot. He stated that all the addresses were listed and they even had
section� oY the city plan shoxing lbcations, and they concluded there waaeaa
lvw of ad�acent small size lots. Now, he continued� it comes out there aren�%.
Mr. Bergman said they had concluded that in most cases there xas adjacent
property that a 1�0� lot ovner could buy and expand his lot.
Mrs. Schnab�l said she xould like to correct him on that� and noted that
according to the listing of 1�0' Zots that she had, there were five existing
strips. She stated that three of th� srere two !�0' lots together, and txo of
them vere three !t�' lots together. She added that there were a number of other
lots xhich varied 3n size from lt7' dorm to 25� and any number in betveen, not
adjacent to b0� lots, which rrere i.ndividual, laddlocked, interior lots. She
eaid that as Par as 1t0' lots in atrips, there were very £ew of them in the City;
there were many more that xere interior lots or comer lots where there xas no
additional property available.
l�tr. Bergmen stated he thought it vas a key point that what Mrs. Schnabel vas
describing as strips were very, very limited atrips oY !�0' lots� and there were
just�ro or three cases where this kind of thing could be possible. He said
that this was an entirely difYerent conclusion thati they had reached in Community
Developanent. Mr. Bergman said the conclusion they reached was that in most
cases where there vas a 40' Iot, there ras an opportunity to expand that 1ot.
He said he wasnrt necessarily 2imiting opportunity to another adjacent 1�0�
lot, but there xes some property snch that a eombination could be made. Ae added
that he vouZd have to review the data and the dialogue they had. Hr, Boardman
said he didn't think they had been looking speci£ically at !y0' lots at the time,
but rrere also looking at 25' lots and that type of thing. He said that in most
cases the smaller lots did have adjacent property.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought psrt of the problem was that st the time these
requests came to the subcou�issions as vell as the Planning Coimnission, a lot
of this inPormation was not availab2e. Mr. Bergman interjected that he did have
the data--a listing of the lots xith their dimensions. Mrs. Schnabel shoved
him the listing she thought he had which showdithe number of 1t0' lots and also
went doxn to 25' lots. Mr, Ber�aan said he didn't think they had that data.
Mrs, Schnabel gaid there Was another memo datad April 30th on substandard lots
from Dick Sobeich, snd a list of subsiandard lots under 50' �rith no adjoining
vacant property and sIl zoned residential, She stated that these lots ranged
in size £rom 25' �!�2', end there were 2!t of them. Mr. Bergnan said he rras
confused r3ght now as to irh�t ds�a�they had�had in Co�mmmity Denelopnent.
Chairperson Harris adked Mr. Boardman irhat percentage oY the substandard lots
made up the available building sites that remained in Fridley. Mr. Boardman
replied he couldn't give a percentage figure� but there xere probably about
150 lots left. Mr. Harris said that according to their survey, they xere 85�
built on R-1. Mr. Boardman pointed out that was back in about 1972, and they
had been doing a lot of building. Mr. Harris stated he thought they vere missing
Planning Commission �eeting - August �� 19T6 Page 13
a couple of points. He stated that the problem vas th� available building sites
that jrere remaining in Fridley, and one of these d$ya they xere going to wake
up to the fact that the oaly thing left to build on as far as R-1 vithout some
rezoning wuld be substandard lots. He said they should start facing up to that
fact.
Chairperson Harris said the Ma�ror also brought up the point of taxation, and
asked how these lots xere taxed, Mr. Boardman said they were probably taxed
as buildable sites. Mr. Harris said if that vas the case� he had a feeling
they xere legally in trouble. He stated he had been after the City Attorney's
office to get a memo out on where the City stood legally on 40' lots� and
after all these discussions he had yet to see such a memo. He wanted to Imox
iP they could legally deny a building permit on a k0' lot, and sai.d that was
really the crux of the whole situation. Mr. Harris stated that if the City
wss taxing them as buildable sites� then he thought they vere morally obligated�
iY not lega],ly.ob�igated,'to make some provision to build on them. He added
that if they xere not going to allow construction, they should be obligated
to ehange the taxing structure on them; not only as £ar as general taxes xent
but as far as special assessmeats also. He said that if they were going to be
turning them into gardens or somethi.ng else� perhaps they should be taxed as
agricultnral. He said he xould like the City Attorney to tell him what kind
of ground they were on.
Chairperson Harris said that a nuuber of those !t0' lots vere ta�c delinquent�
aad a lot more rrould go that way if they made a decision that under no circum-
stancea would building be allowed on them. He said that then they would be
sitting srith substandard lote which srould turn into neighborhood junk-collection
ground� or the adjacent property owners xould use them. Mr. Boardman pointed
out that the problem was the City xould have to maintain the taeeds. He said
that under the normal weed program that would be charged off to the o�rner of
the property� but srith taz-forfeit property it xas just assessed against the
property.
Chairperson Harris said he thought they had to look at the alternatives. He
stated that all the things that have been said are very true, but behooved them
to start putting a plan together. Mr, Boardman said he thought the Matiyor's
statement xas valid xhen he talked about xhat vas meant under Conmwnity Goals
by "quality of life°. Mr, Boardman said Mayor Nee had stated that a ly0' parcel
under the present code xas not a buildable parcel, and he tended to agree with
hira.
Mr. Harris said he disagreed vi.th the I�tayor�s one statement �rhere he said that
these were the neighborhoods that had the T,rorst history of urban decay. He
said he wished to take issue on that, and xanted to say that he ras born and
raised in Northeast Minneapolis and moved to South Minneapolis and grev up there.
He stated they had never lived on anything larger than a 1�0� lot end he didn�t
consider the neighborhooc� to be in a state of dec�y. Mr. Harris stated he vonld
like the Mayor to go to Northeast Minneapolis and tell the residents that their
neighborhood vas in a state of decay.
Mr. Ber�an said that he *aould like to make tvo co�aents: 1) He ssid he would
like to suggest that the reason the Council vote of 312 xas so cloae iasHr.
Villella's request was because he did a marginal job in app7.,ying effort to the
stipulations. 2) He said he xould like to point out the Cowminity Develop�ent
Planning Co�i.ssion Heeting - August !�� 1976 Page lIi
minutes from their meeti.ng of March 9�h. He stated that item on� in their motion
xas that iP land Kss avsilable on either side tkat could be purehased such that
the lot could be brought up to code, then building wvnld be denied on a 1�0' lot.
He said that was a pretty specific condition Yor deaial and that aa� their
recommendatioa� but he didn't see it put in that oontsxt in the guidelines that
xere received. Mrs. Schnabel read aloud point number 3 oP the tentatiee guide-
lines, and Mr. Bergmam said that rras quite a different statement.
Mr�. Schnabel said that in this particu2ar reqnest there was no land� per se�
avai2abke. 3he continued that the adjacent property oxner vas wi.lzing to sell
Five feet of land, bnt the problem created by his se].ling five feet was that
� garage xas 5� from the lot line end he would then have a non-conforming
garege. She said that was one of the problems the Appeals Comm3.ssion had with
the City Couneil's decision; they felt Council was ere�ting a neT.r problem by
demanding that the petitioner buy five feet of land.
Mrs. Schaabel said she rtould alao like to respoud to the 3-2 vote. She stated
that one of the Appeals Coaaaission�s conceras in listening to the Counci2
miautes nes that Councilwoman $ukowski asked one queation that they could
detect through listening to the minutes and voted tto� and M�yor Nee made a
statement indicating that he vorxld not necessarily vote aga:i.nst the request
but then he did vote against the requsst. She said the Appeals Coamiission
vas not sure rrhy they voted against it� and xere not atire rahat their thoughts
were. Mrs. 9chnabel se.id the Appeals Commission wanted to get ss much information
as possible becanse they felt they srere in the dark as to xhat Council�s reason-
ing xas. She added that she xanted to point out that the fact of the matter
xas the Appeals Co�uission heard a request on a it0� lot and approved 1� of the
6 variences; when the City Council finished with it they approved building oa
a 1�5' lot, so the question of building on 1t0' lots has not yet occurred in the
City of Fridley.
Mr. Ber�an asked ff one of the variance requssts was a request from the maximwn
25� coverage. Mrs. Schnabel ansrrered that it was one of the variance requests,
but the Appeals Corrm�ission recoa�ended the petitioner reduce the size of his
house by goi.ng from a double car garage to a sing2e ear gerage, �rhich zaould
rednce the total size dovn to come �*ithin the 25% maximum lot coverage. Instead,
she continued, tha City Council agreed to the double esr garage and in order to
make up the additiona2 Zand asked him to purchase an additional five feet. She
said this then caused a code violaiion setback Srom the neighbor's garsge, which
the Council did not discuss as Psr as they could determine.
Mr. Langenfeld sa.id thaL xithout question ss the Chairman of the Fridleq Environ-
mental Quality Comusission he could not deay Mc�yor Nee's eo�ents concerning
quality of life, the affect on present home owtters, and so forth. He s�iid that
Yirst ofP� they must have some kind of Iegal document regarding these lots;
and secondly� if they are taxed as bnildable sit�s it is implied they can be
built upon. Mr, Langenfeld said that out of atl this diseussion he got the
impression that City Conncil, as well as the Mayor, may have felt that the Appeals
Co�mnission was just handling these !t0' lots as part of their Commission procedure.
He said that he Wes thinking that Council and H�ror Nee vere s�ing "hold it�
becanse manq faetors enter into this picture and the next thing you imox they
Plenning Coimdssion Meeting - August 4� 1976 Page 15
m3ght be handling 3$' lots snd 25' lots. He said he was just tryiag to simplifjT
this thing by making that statement� Bad thought they had to draw the line
somesrhe�e. Mr. Langenfeld asked vhat eould stop an oxner of a 1�0' lot from
asking for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Boardmsn ansvered that there was no condition
for a 9pecial iise �ermit on this. He explained that a Special Use procudure xas
set up for a special use on a�operty, and a living unit was not a special use
on a R-1 property. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he certainly felt that this
Co�ission�s cormnents s+ere really the right route to follow.
Ghairperson Hsrris asked rrhat the attitud� o£ the neighboring comm�nities rrere
on 1t0' lots, such as Columbia Heights, Hilltop, and Nex Brighton. Mr. Boardman
replied that he didn't think Columbia Heights �as having that much of a problem,
and some of the newer co�eunities xeren't experieacing that problem because there
were plenty of bnildable sites around. He said he xould imagine that C�iumbia
Heights had reduced their sqnare footage requirements nnder the UBC, and there
was quite a bit of difference betveen square footage requirements.
Chairperson Harris said that m$ybe it should behoove them to make this a project,
and Mr. Bergman coaflaented that they had one related project going on in CDC.
He said the question before the Community Development Comraission vas speci£ically
xhether or not a garage should be a requirement on supstandard lots. He said
they xould be addressing the question oY a garage being required on a!�0' lot
at the next meeting. He added that the discussion held at a previons meeting
seemed to slant toward the need to specifjr a garage regardless of the size lot
for aesthetie reasons.
Nr. Harris said that perhaps this should go back through the committee process
to be eonsidered again. He stated he had thought they had looked at it at one
time� but suggested they look at it from a dif£erent standpoi.nt such as different
house design or smaller houses more compatible with the lot size. Ae said he
had the £eeling they had to start soneplace end they had better start doing
something. Mr. Harris stated he would find it very disagreeable if the court
wvuld decide this issue before they had an opportunity to plan it out so it
would xork.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if handling this on an individual basis vouldn't do the job
since there veren't that man�. Mr. Harris said perhaps that xas true� but perhaps
vt►at they should be ].00king at is smaller� more compatible structures for !�0'
lots. Mr. Boardman said then xhat they were looking at is possibly a separate
code section xhich said that on substandard lots or on lots under a certain
square footage the minim��m building area on a house should be reduced. Mr.
Langenfeld commented that he didn't £eel the Elinironmental Quality Commission
could astually say how large the house should be or if a garage should be
required or something like that as they xere not qualified to speci£iy a form
of constrnction.
Mr. Boardman said they did have one square footage size limitation, and that
was the UBC. Ae ea�dithe IIBC stated that no house shall be smaller than this.
Mr. Boardman said that what Mr. Sobeich was talking about was that maybe they
should come back and take a look at the substandard houses and ask themselvea
1rhat they vanted to reqaire on these lots. He said they would still want to
maintain a maximum 25� lot coverage, but should take a 13ok at the min�mum square
footage requirement for housing units. He suggested that mry}rbe on those sub-
Planning Coaimission Meetin� - August �} 1976 Page 16
atandard lots they shoill.d go down to the UBC miniiamm, He co�ented that they
srouldn't have to say anything on the design of the thing� but say that a garage
was not a requirement on substandard lots and that xay the option would be open
to the ovaer.
Atrs. Schnabel pointed out that in the letter she wrote in response to M�YOr
Nee�s memo� she made a suggestion that the persons involved in these origina2
discussioas (the Planning Co�mnission, subcwmnissions,.-Counci3 and appropriate
StaYf) should get together and have some type of open discussion vhere they
could get some of these ideas out.and From there proceed to start to develop
a new policy regarding building on 40' lots. She stated she thought the Mayor�s
remarks were vell-taken and she felt he came up xith some very good new ideas,
end she thought the point brought out at this meeting concerning taxation on
these �t0' lots was a good point that hadn�t been fully discussed yet. Mrs.
Schnabel commented that the problem xas all of them had not gotten tagether to
ta7.k this out at one point to come np vi.th some ideas to start to develop codes
that xould be pertinent to Lt0' lots. With regard to garages, for instance�
she added, attached garages xere on],y required on ramblers, split-levels and
lot-splits, but xere not required on other iypes of houeas (such as a twa-story
honse), She stated that there were some sitnations oa substandard lots xhere
the ea3sting code was so unclear that they xere not sure garages were required
at all due to the xording int�he code book. Mr. Bergman said this was the subject
they wuld be addressing at their next meeting in Co�uniiy Development, and
Mr. Boardman suggested that rather thaa jnst substsndard lots they take a loqk
at garege requirements on all lots. Chairperson Hariis said that maybe vhat
they should do at this point in time� since there seemed to be a communication
difficulty with Couneil, is request a time slot �tith them on that fourth Mond�r
to sit down at a�rorkshop meeting and discnss this to see if they conldn't get
some sense of direction or policy. Mrs, Schnabel said that was precisely vhat
she had requested of the Ma�ror in her letter.
Mrs. Schnabel said that ta2ki.ng about codes and types of dvellings, there �as
a problem in the existing code book xhich could be relevant to building on !�0'
lots. She stated there was a description of a single-family dxelling unit of
spli�level design� and then there was a deacription of a two-story dWelling
unit o£ a split-entry design. She said she did not Imow qrhat the difference
was betxeen those tuo� and they had different minimum square footages. Mr.
Harris said there vas a difference betveen a split-level and a split-entry.
He explained that a split-entry xlas where you valked in oPf the street and there
xas a stair�ray going to the dosrnstai.rs and one going to the upper level. He
said a split-level was where there vas no stairv�y at the entry and the rooms
on three or fotar levels were � story apart in height, and that sometimes a
split-level would have half a basement, Mr, Boardman cited the exaraple xhere
the garage Was sometimes belox the bedrooms,
Mir. Bergman asked if it Would be a true statement that in the City o£ Minneapolis where
there are a lot of homes built on 1�0' lots, that they are aormally greater than
25% coverage. Mr. Aarris said he didn't think so� but it xas possible. Mrs.
Schaabel i.nterj�seted that they didn�t have those Yacts and figures available.
Mr. Ber�nnan asked what rras implemented in the 25�� and Mr. Boardman replied
building structures and accessory* buildings. Mr. Bergman said some of the homes
mnst come pretty close to exceeding the 25% coverage. He stated there xasn�t
much of a back yard and there mas typica2lq a garage in it Prom an alley, and
Planning Co�i.ssion M�eting - Augnst 4, 1976
Page 17
very little side yard.
Mrs. Schnabel said that dles Barna on the Appeals Co�nissioa had brought in books
oY house designs vhich could fit on lt0' lots xithout any variances reqnired.
She said that perhaps the desigas xere more modern than the City of Minneapolis
was familiar with since those homes buiit on li0� lots in Minneapolis were basic-
slly older homes� but there vere some verq imaginative ki�ds of constructioa
that co�ld be put on !�0' lots. She added that the price might be another subject
as they didn't lmox xhat it would cost to fiuild some oP these new and different
type homes that would fit on !�0' lota srith no variances. She suggested that maybe
the price xould be prohibitive to qualify Yor low-cost housing and that it might
have to be a higher-priced home. Mrs. Schnabel said the point xas there xere
houses that xould fit on 1�0' lots wi.thout any variances at all. She added that
aome of tha questions that had to be resolved �rere: Do ve rrant to save the Lt0'
lots Yor low-income housing? Do we xant those 1t0' lots to be built with any
type of dwelling? Do ve xent to rednce the requirements for size of structure?
She added that there were mar�y problems associated vith building on a 1�0' lot
which she £elt hadn't been fully covered to this point, and that xas why she
vanted to get into this discuasion again.
Chairperaon Harris said he didn't feel they vere �oing to accomplish a lot by
discuasing this any further, and called the question on �he motion to receive
the Hayor�s memo.
UPON A VOICE �OTE, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Lambert, that the Planning Co�nissign be
allowed to attend the next inPornal City Counci� meeting �o r-esaiae the problems
��concer-ning 40'- Lots-. �
tlra. Lambert said she wondered iY that might not be a good time to ask the City
Attorney a6out the legality of this� and Mr. Lengenfeld said he thought this
would be taken care of within that discussion. Mr. Boardman said he would make
a point of having that informltion available at that meeting.
UPON A VOICE I/OTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
4.
YG':i�
MOTION try Langenfeld, secoxided by Bergman, to receive the memo from Mrs, Sehnabel
to Mayor Nee dated July 30� 1976.
Hrs. Schnabel said she would like to point out the memo should read from Virginia
Schnabel, not Virginia Wahlberg. She stated that they did truly appreciate
receiving the memo from M�yor Nee because they felt many of the points that he
raised xere good� valid points. She said she thought it was pertinent that
thia came up at this time before they received another request to build on a
!t0' lot. Mrs. Schnabel cownented that the Appeals Coimaission concurred wi.th
the Mayor that they did not like the hit and miss proposition of granting variances
on !t0' lots xithout anything more than the gnidelines that had been established.
She eaid they felt there xould probably be other problems that wuld arise xhich
had not been looked into, and some oF these had been raised by MqYOr Nee and the
Planning Co�ission Meeting - August �, 1976 Page 18
Planning Com�ission at this meeting. She stated they Were hopeful they could
get some new dialogue started.
Air. Langenfeld asked if Chairperson Harris thought they might have to have some
kind of consolidation oY sll the previoas material pr3or to the meeting xith
Council� and Mr. Harris said he didn't think that was necessary. Heasuggested
everyone juat come in and put their carda on the table and leave 3t informal.
Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Comaission would appreciate getting all the
various thoughts out in the open and finding out as much.information as they
could.
Hr, Bergiaat► told Hrs. Schnabel that he got the impression that '.ihe xas looking
for something that she probably vasn't going to get. He stated that Appeals
had a problem� and they conld not escape the individual request burden and
there vouldn't be aqV panacea. He said tl�e Gomdauait�s Deee2opmenE Gpnnni§sion
su�i�ted a license Por denial� which somehow got turned into a license for
approval and the context turned over from xhat they had intended.
Nrs. Schnabel said Mr. Bergman was correct that the Appeals Co�aission had a
problem, but they dfd not have any type oY �ehicle which xhich to solve the
problem other than to come back to the Planaing Gommission and City Council.
She said they had used the guidelines vhich had been sent to them as the basis
for approving and denying the variances� but they Yelt the problem xas larger
than srhat it appeared to be and felt some oP the points the M�yor raised
(i.e., the effect on the exist3ng residents of Fridley) xere xell-taken and
had not come up before. That, she said, is xhy they felt it should all be
revieired again. ,
Chairperson Harris said that hopeflilly something would come out oY the �oint
�' _;. meeting and they srould get a concensus of direction. Mrs. Lambert asked
t xho xould be the participants of the! joint meeting, and Mr. Harris replied
the Planning Co�nisaion and anyone else who xished to come. Mrs. Schnabel
stated that in her memo to Mayor Nee she i,ncluded members o£ Co�unity Develop-
mant� Human Resonrces, Environmental Quality�a�l�peals Couuu3ssion and Planning
Co�maisaion as xell as City Council members and appropriate StafY persons. She
said that it may be a large body, but ti�t xas the Ma�Yor's prerogative to make
that decision, and he ma,y substitute the Planning Commission's rootion over
her suggestion to him.
Mr. Langenfeld said that it was his intention when he made the motion that the
meeting Would include the Planning Commission� but be an informal meeting open
to the entire public. Mrs, Shhnabel said thst the Appeals Cormnission felt there
may be mmabers of the other subcounnissions vho had some ideas or thoughts that
they vaz►ted to related to the rest of them, and theq might have some very valid
thoughts. Mr. Hoardman explained that as far as the motion went� the Planning
Commission reqnested to be on the agenda . as a Planning Cownission,
Hoxever, he sai.d, as Chairpersons they could invite their Cormnissioners to
attend as participants because it vould be an open mseting.
UP()N A VOICS VOTE, all voting aye, the motion to receive the memo from Mrs.
Schnabel to M�yor Nee dated Ju�y 30, 1976 carried unanimously.
r
Planning Coanniasion Meeting - August k� 1976 Page 19
r
S. CONTINUF.d: HUMAN DIIVII.OP!ffitiT GOAI.S AND 0&TSCTIVES
Mr, Boardman stated he had nothing to discuss on this and xould like 3t
continued.
Mr. Langenield asked Mr, Boardman iY he couldn't incorporate somevhare under
Program Objective D11i0 something about the handicapped. Kr. Boardman replied
they xere going to do that� and asked if he meant the Program Plan and not
neceasarily the Program Objectives. Mr. Langenfeld said he xas getting the
impression that this was getting pretty much set and perhaps the handicapped
had been omitted, Mr. Boardman replied that under II].1i0 "&►courage the advance-
ment of recreation opportunities for all residenta"� they xould hane something
on activities for the handicapped. He explained that the Progrem Plans rrere
not set and were pretty open, but xhat they xere eatablishing now vere the
Goals and Objectives.
t�lOTION by Lengenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Conrtaission
continue the Humen Development Goals and Objectives until the next scheduled
meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. RS{1ISW P6EK5 & RECESATION COMl�ISSION MINUTFSs JULY 6TH AND NLY 12TH, 1976
1�TION by Lengenfeld� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission tab2i
the Parks and Recreation minutes of Ju�y 6th and July 12th, and also the
minutea of the July 26th meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman brought to the Co�mnission�s attention the Beer Ordinance as
revised by the City Attorney. He explained he had just received it today
and brou�t it before the Planning Co�matssion for their review.
I�TION by T.angenfeld, seconded by Bergman�
receive the revised Heer 8rdinence. Upon a
motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURlII�NT s
that the Planning Co�aission
voice vote, all voting aye, the
A�DTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Hergman� that the meeting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vote� all voting ep�e� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Comoi.ssion meeting of Auguat 4, 1976 adjourned at 1Os35 bY anenimous vote.
Respectfnlly submitted,
��)
�MOO�
Sherri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary