PL 09/08/1976 - 6594CITY OF FRIDLEY
,
�PLANNIBiG C01R�fI5SI0N MEETING SEPTh'l�SR 8, 1976 PAGE 1
r
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meet3ng to order at 7:lt0 P.M.
RALL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Gabel (attending for
Schnabel), Shea
Membera Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman� City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISS20N MINUTFS: AUGUST 18, 1976
MOTION by 5hea� seconded by I.angenfeld, that the Planning Cott�ission minutes
of August 18� 1976 be approved a� written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARIAiG: RE7ANING REQUffiT, 7AA #76-03, BY EVEEtT R. SWANSON: Rezone
I.ot 14, except the East �90 £eet thereof, and except the West �7 feet taken
£or highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and
the West ].l17.7lt £eet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all
in 9uditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings)
to allox a condominium-type development, the same bei.ng located at the
intersection of Central Avenue and %3rd Avenue N.E.
Note: See copies of a public hearing notice Por a variance request to be
heard by the Appeals Commission on September 1�, 1976, and Por a
Preliminary plat to be presented to the Planning Commission on
September 22, 1976.
Mr. Enert R. Suanson, property oxner; Mr. Albert Aoffineyer, architect; and
2ir. Michael Virnig o£ 1365 73rd Avenue N.E. were preaent.
MOTION by Lengenfeld, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission open the
Public Hearing on a rezoning request, 7AA �76-03, by E�rert R. Svanson. Upon
a voice vote, all voting sye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing
open at 7:1t5 P.M.
Mr. Boardman explained that a Townhouse Plan and plat would come before the
Planning Commission at their 8eptember 22nd meeting, and this item xould also
be going before the Board of Appeals as it involved a variance request.
Planning Coauoission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 2
Mr, Boardman stated that this property xas located on the corner of 73� and Old
Central Avenue� and the owner xished to develop owner-occupied townhouse units.
He said he had just received at this meeting a copy of what they xere proposing
to do there, and it was somexhat different than what he had seen before, He
added they xould have all the actual layouts end locat3ons ironed out be£ore
the nea�t meeting. Mr. Boardman passed out to the Commission copies of the plans
for the denelopment to give them an idea of the kind of proposal that was being
provided, and explained which areas were zoned C-1 and R-1. He sai.d the zoning
to the North of the C-1 property xas cwmnercial zoning, but the property around
the rest of the perimeter was R-1 zoning. He explained they were asking for
R-3 zoning in this section to allow for 36 owner-occupied units, and that `rith
the square footage they had under R-3 they xould be allowed lil� units, one for
enery 3,000 square feet.
Mr. Boardman said that Staff�s recommendation would be that rezoning would be
in order £or that area, and thought an oxner-occupied development vould be
preferrable to renter-occupied.
Mr. A1 HoPflneyer of Architects 1500 stated that he didn't think apartments
xould be appropriate in that area and preferred the tosmhouse concept. He said
that rental property was not as desirable as ovner-occupied property for many
reasons. He pointed out that the prope8ty xould take lal� units, but they xere
putting in 36 units xith quite a bit of green area. Mr. Hoffineyer explained
that the units would be built in stages starting with the 5outhern part of the
property� and the first building Would be on the corner of 73rd and Central.
He stated that the only drawback to the property that he was concerned srith
was the property on the West side of Central, but they planned to put up a
buffer on the West end of the property. Other than that, he said, he thought
the location was excellent and felt it would be a suceessflil project.
Chai.rperson Harris asked if they vere all six-unit buildi.ngs irith options,
and Mr. Hoffineyer replied they irere. He added that there xere mar�y diP£erent
plans that could be incorporated into these units. Mr. Harris asked what
xonld happen if the six units vere built but did not sell iwaediately, and
Mr. HoffSneyer said that xas xhy they jrere building them in stages, and he had
no doubt that they would sell. Mr. Aarris asked if Mr. Hoffineyer vould xait
until they had coimnitments on those first six units before he started another
unit. lir. HofYmeyer replied they wouZd have to meet HUD standards so they
could get FHA,or vA £inancing, and HiTD s�i a project could not be started
unlesa 80� of those units were presold, Mr. Harris said he understood that,
and asked i£ it xas Mr. Hoffineyer�s intent to have comnitments on the first
six units be£ore starting a second building. Mr, Ho£flneyer said absolutely,
and explai�ded they would use the first six as models. He said that the basic
unit they xould be starting out xith xould include a single car garage, and
they rrere all in the $110,000 to $50,OQ0 price range. He said the options would
include the number oY bedrooms, room for expansion, and so forth. He added
that they could combine aeveral difPerent options, so there xas a variety� and
the buildings xould not all be of the same design. Mr. Hoffineyeraexplained
he couldn't tie doxn the exact composition of these un3ts in terms of price
until they got approval from the Planni.ng Co�aniss3on because HUD wouldn't
look at xhat they had until Fridley passed on the concept idea.
Chairperson Harris asked if� in the event the units weren't sold, they *rould
possibly be rented. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he had no doubt that they vould
Planning Caarni.ssion Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 3
sell, and he had talked to various financing agencies and their only concern
was xhat xas on the other side o£ Central Avenue. He stated that if they
couldn't sell them� they couldn't rent them. He added that they veren�t in
this for rent--they were in this for sales� and that Was vi�y they had all the
different options. He stated they could go from $i�0,000 up to $60,000. Mr.
Hoffineyer said they had enough safety Yactors built into this project that
they were notlocked into a price renge; they had a.flexibility of grice range,
a flexibility of market and a flexibility of financing.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if the six units would be with3n a common fire division,
and Mr. Hoffineyer replied that in order to meet FitiD standards there would have
to be a one-honr fire rrall betrreen each unit. Mr. LangenPeld said that Mr.
Bosrdman had stated the rezoning to R-3 Was for oxner-occup3ed tovbhouses, and
asked if he could make stipulations like that on a rezoning. Mr. Boerdman
replied that he could for oxner-occupied within a R-3� end explsined that under
the toxnhouae ordinance it set up certain square fooiage £or each oY the units
under esch district. Y,r. Langenfeld asked if it could aotually be specified
xhen en area was rezoned that it be orner-occupied, and Mr. Boardman said that
with the Torrnhouse Plan it could. Mr. Langenfeld asked if all 36 units xould
be in one big cluster, and ?!r. Hoffineyer explalned that each building Would
have six units, and there would be six buildings so there would be 36 units,
He Yurther explained that each unit had its own fenced-in garden space and a
single-car garage. He said the middle units had an interior fenced-in garden,
the end units had their own Penced-in garden� and each unit had its oxn outside
deck. He stated that it was like zero lot line concept. Mr. Hoffineyer said
that originally the concept they had consisted of nine units in each building,
but they didn't have the green areas; nov they had plenty of space betrreen them
and a lot o£ green area. He added there were no through streets; both streets
were dead end.
Mr, Bergman stated that from the land-use viesrpoint this seemed awkxard to him.
He said they presently had an area that involved zoning of industrial, single-
fam3ly reaidential and commercial� and now they xere asked to grant a rezoning
of 3.1 acres oY multiple femily right in the middle of this. He said this
seemed awlc4ard from a relationship to the different zones. Mr. Hof£meyer said
that there ras single-family presently on the North, East and South of this
property right nox. Mr. Hoardman said he zrauld attempt to clarify this, and
asked the Comoitssioners to look at page 30 oP their agendas. He pointed out
the area that vas a kind o£ island oP residential area� and shored how it xas
complete�y surroundid by industrial, co�rmiercial property. He explained that
along the edges of tfiis island oY residential pro�rty there vas a sprinkling
of commercial and R-3• He said that generally along 73rd there xas quite a
number of apartment units. 21r. Boardman said that he thought in order to be
on the future-p3ianning end o£ this they should try to look at that area as a
total residential unit 3n wh3ch there vould be some buffer areas on the outside
of the apartment compl�es �+here the R-1 could be included in more of a Family-
oriented type operation on the interior. He said that the more heavi�y traveled
roades of Central Avenue and 73rd xould benefit higher concentrations of units
more than the interior roads. Hesstated that this vas one of the reasons they
felt this develo�nent would be wi.thin keeping in character with the residential
island.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 197b P�e �+
Mr. BBrgman said he still felt they were talking about a spot rezoning of an
R-3, bordered by industrial on the South� Co�mnercial on the North (for a portion),
and no other multiple-family. He�asked if Hr. Ho£fineyer had considered the
land-use relationships. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he rouldn't have come in here if
he hadn't considered it. Mr. Bergmen e�cplained he was concerned with relation-
ships in terms of traf£ic� of services and of activities� in vhich an R-3 xas
different from any present zoning. He asked if the request for rezoning Kas
to eny eztent based on hardshig xith the prasent zoning. Mr. Hoffineyer replied
that there xere other things that could be put on that property that he didn't
think rrould be as desira6le, He said all kinds oP things could go there, but
that wouldn't make a buffer £or the R-1 zoning that adjoins it. He added that
other rrays of developing this property would not tie in, or from a planning
point of vie`r make it as compatible as xhat he xas suggesting. He Yurther added
that this particular area xas ideal for interspersing because oY the green
areas arovnd it� and he pointed out that behind Medtronics there xas quite a
nice apartment comple�c. He said that he didn't think it xas a hardship type
oY thing� but it a*ould be the best use of the property.
Mr, Peterson noted that the 3•1 acres had an odd shape in terms of a parcel
of land� and asked what happened to the property owners immediately to the
East of ihis piece o£ property in terms of �heir developing it or using it.
Mr, Boardman replied that it was all developed; there were all single-family
houses to the East.
Chairperson Harris asked xhen the intsrnal street pattern xould be built and
who would maintain it, Mr. HoPfineyer replied that this would be the Home Ormers
dssociation! and the first street that xould be put in aould be the one on the
South. He added that they xould keep progressing as the buildings xere developad.
Mr. Harris asked vhen the Home O�mers As�ociation would be formed to maintain
the streets, and Mr. Hoffmp�ree ansxered that it would be formed immediately.
He explained that before he could even talk to any lender he had to have all
those docuarents. Mr. Harris said he assumed the green areas srould also be
taken care of by the Home Ovners Association, end Hr. Hoffineyer zeplied yes,
juet like Innsbruck. He said the whole thing xould be maintained as soon as
building number one rras erected,
Afr. Bergraan stated he Was unable to deYine from looking at the plan the green
areas. Mr. Hoffineyer directed him to look at sheet nwuber one of the bluepri.nts,
and explained that the buildings vere all outlined and nwnbered� the driveways
vere shaded in� and a11 the rest vas green area. Mr. Bergm� asked if he
planned anything in the development as far as a coimnon recreation area, co:mnunal
area or playground. Mr. Hoffineyer anssrered that he did not, but there was
enough green area that they could put in some swing sets. He e�cplained there
vas no sstinuning pool� horseshoe area, or anything like that in this project.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of financing would be available as far as a
person desiring to purchase one of these units� and Mr. Hofflneyer replied
they xere going to be flexible on this. He stated they xould have conventional,
VA and FHA. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there rrould be such a thing as a contract
Por deed iF a person xished to sell. Mr. Hofineyer said he hadn't thought about
that� but he didn't think so. He added that from a planning point of view he
didn�t think financing entered into the picture� and it would be up to the
lender to analyze the financing.
Planning Coimnission Meeting - Segtember 8� 1976 P�Be 5
Mr, Michael Virnig, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E., stated that his property was right
next to this parcel oi land and he xas totally neutral at this point. He
said that he hadn't seen ar�y plans or heard anything other then what was in
the notice that Waa sent to him. Zlr. Hoffineyer showed him a set of plans� and
Mr. Virnig said there xas nothing further.
Mr, Boardman stated that this rras the first time had had seen this proposal,
and there may be some 8taff requireraents of this type of development. He
suggested that the units i.n the "dog leg" be shiPted North to provide a little more
area between the back end oY those units to the South property line. He said
another thing they xould be looking for zrould be protection for the single
Pamilies on the other side by heavy screening in these areas. He said this
vouldn�t be just the normal landscaping but a screening landscape. He said
he felt some pretty nice things would come out of this project as Par as land-
scaping goes.
Chai.rperson Harris said that before this got too Yar dosrn the line� he would
like the Fire Marshall to take a look at it. Iir. Boardman stated the Fire
Harshall had looked at a si.milar plan and it xas approved. Hoxever, he said�
the plan that he had seen had a loop in it as a drive, and he didn't lmow
what the Fire Marshall Would s�y about the tvo deac�end roads. He said they
srould have those ensvers at the next meeting,
Mr. Bergman asked if he asswned correctly that there vere two ordinance
concerns: 1) rezoning, and 2) a variance f�om the minimum acreage requirement
for toxnhouse develoFaaent sihich would be going to the Board oP Appeals. Mr.
Boardman said that was correct. Pir. Bergman then asked if aside from that,
the plan they were looking at met all other requirements as far as mimbers
of garage stalls, open area, density, 2bt coverage� etc. Mr. Boardman said
that xas right,
Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was an administrative report on this� and Mr.
Boardman replied there wasn�t. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Boardman could
Yoresee ar�y problem rrith the drainage as indicated� and he ansxered not at
this tisie.
Cha3rperson Harr3s asked hov £ar back Pr� the intereection the access on
Central was, snd Mr. Hoffineyer said it xas 270�from the corner. He stated
that the access from 73rd frould be about 1�2�from the corner. Mr. Lengenfedd
asked if Mr. Boardmen could foresee any problems xith the traffic control,
and Nfr. Boardman replied he conldn't at this time. He added that he didn�t
think there xould be that much traffic out of these uni.ts. Mr. Harris asked
iY there was a Pour-xqy etop at Centrsl and 73rd� and Mr, Boardman said it vas.
I�TION bq Shea� seconded by 6abe1, that the Planaing Cowaission close the
Public Hearing on the rezoning request, 7AA //']6-03� by Ebert R. Svanson.
Upon a voice vote� all voting qye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M.
Hr, Peterson said that on page 29 0£ the agenda Martin 0. and Domtk�y L.
Erickson �rere listed as oumers of property adjoining the parcel they were
considering for rezoning, but he didn't see them on the mailing list. Hr.
Planaing Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 6
Boardman explained that the owners had chenged since that time, and to get
the names for the mailing list they Xent to their assessing files and the
owners �ere pulled o£f of those files,
Mr. Langenfeld noted that there �as quite a numher of people involved as Yar
as the mailing list vas concemed, and to this point there hadn't been much
input for or against the proposal by the surrounding residents. He said this
troubled him because he would like to see these poeple have a better chance to
viex the proposal so they could voice their opinions, He asked iS the zoning
request xas recommended for approval if the citizens would have an opportunity
to voice their feelirigs at another hearing. Chairperson Harris said that
was correct. He added that 3f the Planning Com�nission recommended approval
of this, it xould go to the City Council and they xould have final action on
approving or denying.
Mr. Ber�nan said that because of the sizeable list oP people 3nvited to the
Public Hearing and because not much had been heard from the public� he would
like to have a show of hands from the audience i£ this vas the item that
brought them to the meeting. Four people raised their hands.
Mr. Bosrdman pointed out that the City also put up rezoning signs on the property.
Mr. Langenfeld said he assumed there was no correspondence from citizens
concerning their feelings on this item, and Chai.rperson Harris said that was
true.
Chairperson Harris said that since the Staff has not had an opportunity to
study this plan and since the Fire Marshall has not had had opportunity to
look at it, he xould feel more comYortable tabling this item until the appropriate
departments had a chance to look at it. Mr. Peterson stated he felt the same
vey, because the gentleman who said he xes an adjacent property os+ner said he
was neutral because he hadn't seen anything on it up to this point, Mr. Peterson
added that somehow he thought this xas the wealmess of the Public Hearing
system; a notice was sent but it didn't inform the people what 3t Was or why,
so people came to the Public Hearing to find out what xas happening. He said
ha didn�t think this was quite right. Mr. Boardman pointed out that people xere
free to call the City Offices� and Mr. Peterson coimuented that it xas sometimes
very difficult to get a hold of the right person to talk to. Mrs. Gabel added
that it vas very hard to explain a plat over the phone. Hr. Bergman stated he
ahared the concern on this item and thought there ahould be additional consider-
ation on theppart of the public and this body.
MOTION by Bergmen, seconded by Langenfeld, that the planning Commission table
the request for re2oning, ZOA #76-03, �Y �*ert R. Srranson, until the next scheduled
meeting.
t3r. Boardman ea�plained that this had been the intent the x�y it was set up, and
it would not delay the petition. He sai.d that this rezoning along with the
toKnhanse plan n*ould all go to the City Council togeth a.
Mr. Peterson said he rrished trie ia�ker of the motion xould have included something
about another opportunity to inform the public xho were concerned on this issue.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Pege 7
Chairperson Harris stated that this would come before the Planning Commission
again an September 22nd, Mr. Langenfeld said he r�ished to let those peagle
preaent lmow that they could come back again on that date. Mr. Bergman brought
up another mailing to the public� but Mr. Hoaniman stated he didn't see vhsre
another mailing rtould be appropr3ate. He said they had mailed out the notice
of the varience request� .�ezoning and the preliminary plat,and the dates for
`f'wnii�e..Devel. and Plat were noted as September 22nd, Mr. Langenfeld noted
that those people present could also pass the vord to their neighbors� and
Mrs. Gabel suggested that if they carae to any conclusions before the Board of
Appeals Meeting, they should come to the Appeals meeting and voice them.
2, PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING UffiT 7AA �%76-0l� BY GORDON ASPENSON: Rezone
Lots 10 an 11, Block � Loxell Addition to Fri ey Park from R- (single
family dwelling areas) to R-3 iB�eral multiple direlling areas) to allow
the construction of a tri-plex, the same being 6500 2nd Street N.E.
Mr. Gordon Espenson xas at the meeting to present his request.
M6TION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Co�mni.ssion open the
Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA //'76-Ot�� by Gordon Aspenson. Upon a
voice vote, all voting ave, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing
open at 8:50 Y.M.
Mr, Boardman explained that this property was located on the loop back off
of the service drive alo�g Mississippi Street. He directed the Commissioners
to look at the map on page 37, end explai.ned it would be on the corner of that
service drive and 2nd Street. He stated that on the pro�rty directly North
oP this there vas presently a 1�-plex� and the propexties across the street
srere also apartment buildings. Mr. Boardman sai.d that Mr. Aspenson had buildings
on Ftiverview Terrace and Mississippi WFqr� and he xas proposing three units
exact�y like the Your he presently had. Ae said that the buildings xere the
toxnhouse type built on two levels, they srere very attractive and he said he
irished they had more in the City. He stated that there wsre trro residential
properties directly to the T�asst o£ this property, and the City StaPf felt this
rezoning xould be in context xith the plan of the City.
Afr, Aspenson said he xas proposing what he thought was an efficient and
attractive building. He stated he 3atended to keep i�6 i.n his possession and
maintai.n it, and he thought it would fit in very nicb�y t+ith th�s particular
area.
Mr. I,angenfeld asked Mr. Boardman if there was a reaoning sign on this property�
and he replied there was. Chairperson Harris asked if when the underpass xas
open that little leg that s�rings back to Missisk�ppi Street xould remain open
or be elosed. Mr. Boardman replied that wuld all be closed. Mr. Harris asked
if then there vould be acceas off from Mississippi Street on to Second Street
and to the service drive. Mr. Boardman replied there would be. He explained
the building would eit right on the corner� and access to the garages rrovld be
off the service drive. He said the units would be facing Second Street, and
entrance to the units xould be ott the West side.
Chairperson Harris asked what the size of that parcel xas, and Mr. Aspenson
replied 90 ft. by 136 ft. He added that it Was a couple of thousand feet
larger than was necessary for a tri-unit. Hr. Harris asked xhat the minimum
Planning Cotmnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 8
lot sise vas on R-j, and Mr. Boardman answered it was 10�000 sq, ft. for a
three-family dxelling. He stated that Mr. Aspenaon's vas close to 12�000.
Mr. Boardman ssid that it had been nip and tuck for �ile on the handicapped
codes� but they had finally gotten some clarification from the state on that.
He expffiined that as long as the entrance to the unit vas to the outside,
the three-unit buildixigs xere not required to have handicapped facilities�
but a multiple unit would be required to have them.
Mr. I�}mn D. Hansen, 210 67th Ave.,N➢iE., stated that he ovned the !t-plea� that
xas on the property adjoi.aing Mr. Aspenson's� and asked if he could see the
plans £or the proposed building. Mr. Aspenson shoved him the plans� and Mr.
Hansen agreed it was a nice-look3ng and attractive building. Mr. Donald F.
Cable� 6530 Second St, N,E., stated he was the caretaker for Mr. Hanse�
building� and he also thought the proposed structure would be beneficial.
Mr. Ber�nan said he would again like a show of hands of those people in the
sudience xho rrere concerned with this item� and two people (Mr. Hansen and
Mr. Cable) raised their hands. Hr, Bergman asked if Mr. Boardman could fill
him in oa the zoning surrounding the lots in question. Mr. Boardman directed
the Couunissioners to turn to the map on page 36 of the agenda, and explained
the property directly North xas R-3 t1t-Plex)r the property across the street
was R-3 �BP�'��t buildings), North of the 4-plex vas City park property,
and 6525 Main St, and the property just 5outh of that tirere zoned R-1. Mr.
Bergman noted that there seemed to be some land left a$ber the service drive
went through� South of lot 11 and the one to the West of it, and asked if
there were any plans for that property. Mr. Boardman said that xas county
right-of-way.
MOTION by Peteraon� seconded bq Shea, th�t the Planning Commission close the
�ublic Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA N'T6-01�, by Gordon Aspenson. Upon
a voice vote� all voting aye� Ghairgerson Harris declared the Public Aearing
elosed at �:QS P,M.
MOTION by Peterson, aeconded by Bergman, that the Planning Coaanission recoiranend
to City Council approval of rezoning request ZOA #76-0ly, by Gordon Aspenson:
Rezone Lots 10 a�d 11� Block �t� Lowell Addit3on to Fridley Park £rom R-1 (single
Samily)dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple drrelling areas) to allow the
construction of a tri-plex� the same being 6500 2nd Street N.E, Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3. PUBLIC HEAFtING: R�UEST FOR A SPEC7AT. US& PERMIT, SP #76-13, BY KENNETH
✓uuivaviu'a• aca rwiuicJ viry vvua� vc�,�ivaa �vl�vJi) c� n� �.v ai+vw w�c
conatruction of a second accessory buildin�� a 20� x 26� detached garage,
to be located on Lot 1� Block 6� Bennett Palmer sddition, the same being
5870 6th Street N.E.
Mt�. and Mrs. Renneth Belkholm were at the meeting to present their request.
MOPION by Gabel� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Conanission open the
Public Aearing on a request for a Special IIse Permit, SP #76-13, by Kenneth
Belkholm. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperaon Harris declared the
Public Hearing open at 9:07 P.M.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 9
Mr, Boardman explained th�►t this was a request for a second accessory building
to replace a garage that had �med down on this property. He stated that the
only question they rrould have had on this would have been if the set back of
the new garage had been placed on the same £ounda�ion as the old garage. Ae
aaid 3t iras his underetanding that Mr. Belkholm had decided to meetthe setback
requirements i.nstead of going through a variance prncedure. Mr. Boardman said
City Staff had no objeetions to this request.
Mr. Belkho�m said the purpose of the request was to replace the garage that
had been destroyed in the fire� and explained that his present setback was
tvro feet short of vhat the requirements were now. Ae stated he had decided
he would reposition the slab of the garage to take care o£ that, so there
would be no need for a variance.
Mr. Peteraon asked vhat the added cost uould be byhhaving to chenge the slab
and £oundat3on� and lir. Belkho3nn said it rrould be around $600 more. He said
he lmev a variance would be cheaper, but other factors xere involved. He
stated that he xas coupling the incressed size xith the varience change when
he was stating this cost. Mr. Belkho�ca explained the garage was originally
20 x 21�� and he was adding on trro feet, so the $60� involved the added increase
in size also. Mr. Bergman asked if he was saying he would prefer to relocate
it for reasons of his own� and Mr. Belkholm replied yes� he felt it would be
more advantageous to move the slab.
Mr. Petersott asked if it Wasn't for the variance request if Mr. Belkholm
could just add the two feet to the exiating slab and have the larger garage
he wanted� and Mr. Belkholm replied that was true.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that this vss a detached garage� and asked if it would be
uaed primarily for automobiles. Mr. Belkholm replied it xould. Mr. I.angenfeld
asked yrhat the first accessory building was, amd Mr. BoaYdman answered it xas
the garage that was attached to the house. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the garage
would be constructed to be compatible to the house� and Mr, Belkholm replied
it vould be. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was going to be any form of coimnercial
exiterprise� and Mr. Helkholm ssid there xouldn't be.
t�frs. Gabel asked what por'tion oP ihe $60d extra he was spending to move the
slab� aztd Mr. Belkholm answered that the insursnce adjuster sai.d $1{88 rrould be
£or replacing the slab. Mrs. (3abe1 askeiidif it vould have to be replaced at
any rate, and Mr. Belkholm replied it xouldn't, it was just a matter of what
he decided to do xith it. Mrs. Gabel cotmnented that she hated to see him spend
$600 irhen he could spend $50 for a variance.
Mr. Peterson asked if there was a Special Use Permit £or the building that was
destroqed by fire� and Mr. Boardman said there wasn�t. He explained it was
there before the zos�ig��ras pessed.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-13, b3'
Kenneth Belkholm. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye� Chairperson Harris
declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:20 P.M.
Planr►ing Comnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 10
MOTION by Zangen£eld, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission
recommend io City Covncil approval of the request £or a Special Use Permit,
SP �j76-13, by Kenneth Belkholm, per F�idley City Code, Section 205.051� 2� A�
to allow the construction oP a second accessory building, a 2�� x 26� detached
garage� to be located on Lot 1� Block 6� Bennett Palmer Addition� the same
being 5870 bth Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimausly.
�t.
�
Mr. David Rotter of Bo�,'tlundConstruction Company xas present.
Mr. Boardman explained that Mr. Rotter was goi.ng to come in £or a replat on
an area South of Springbrook Creek� and they xant to discuss at this time the
possibility of the Planning Gormnission initiating a rezoning oi the PD district
which is presently in there to R-1. He said that most of the property was
zoned R-1� and they would request that Mr. Rotter initiate the rezoning South
oP the creek, and the Planning Co�nission initisie the rezoning North of there.
Chairperson Harris asked aho oxned the property North of the creek at the
present time, and Mr. Boardman replied it was oxned by various i.ndividuals
and single families. Mr. Harris asked hov this vound up as PD, and Mr. Boardman
said that took place quite a rrhile ago. He explained that at that time there
was a proposal £or a commePCial denelopment North of the creek and an apartment
develop¢nent South o£ the creek. He stated he xasn't really sure of the background
on that zoning, bnt it was reaoned to PD so developers could develop both
commercial and industrial. Mr. Harris asked what the zoning was previous to
that� and Mr. Boardman answered R-1. Mr. Harris commented that what they were
talking about then was reverting it to the original zoning. Hr. Boardman said
that indications were that the property ovners North of the creek would not
have any objections to the rezoning.
Mr, Rotter said his compar�y vas owner of the South section of this property
and bu3lder oY the North section, He stated that in 1973 he came before the
Planning Co�i.ssion to ask ior permits to build single-Yamily dxellings in
the PD area, and he was granted them. Mr. Rotter sai.d he asked them to leave
the South section alone until they decided xhat to do with it. He referred to
the map on page h5 of the agenda� and said that South of the line xhich sai.d
359 there wes about a five acre piece of land. He stated he vould like to
rezone part of this or be allowed to build single-family dwellings� leaving
lots 11� 12 and 13 iri either PD zotting or R-3 zoning rather than changing it
all back to residential. Mr. Rotter eaplained that one piece of property
abutted East River Road, and there was no access off Liberty or Ruth, and no
access oPf the extension of Ely. He said that rather than leaving it as
residential property and bring up three driveways to East River Road, he Kas
goin� to leave that as either PD or &-3 zoning and put something in there that
xould be condusive to the area. He stated he did not wastoto rezone the whole
entire piece because that xould leave a dead piece of property.
Chairperson Harris said it seemed to him the practical thing to do xould be to
leave it PD and have the developer bring in a total plan on the whole area.
Zfr. Rotter said that xas what he wanted to happen. He said they had already
Planning Commiasion Meeting - September 8, 197b Page 11
handled the North section in this same fashion� taking out permits� without
su}�aaitting an overall glan. He explained he didn't submit an overall plan
of each hnuse sitting on each lot as such.
Chairperson Harris said he wasn�t so hung up on the exact location of each
structure� but wou].d like to lmow what kind of structures they are, i£ they are
single-family, etc. Mr. Rotter said he xould be happy to do that. He said that
vith the PD aoning oP the property there xas supposed to be some overall
drawing of the property consisting of where each unit was going to be� xhat
particular size, where each drivexay would be located� etc. He said it was
pretty involved. He stated that he would like to change the street pattern
of Ely� pulling the extension back and sake it a cul-de-sac. He sdded that
the section conta3ning lot�:: 11� 12 and 13 he wanted R-3 for apartments.
Mr. Bergman said he didn'i really understand xho wants to rezone the North
part� who wants to rezone the South part� and what the purpose xould be
in either case. Mr. Boardman shoxed him on the map wliich area Mr. Rotter
owned and wanted to replat� and explained how he wanted to pull Ely back
into a cul-de-sac to alloW Yor single-family developnent o£f of that cul-de-sac.
Ae also showed which property Mr. Rotter wanted to leave as PD. Mr. Bergn+an
stated he didn't understand rrhy a rezoning. Ae said he thought the PD xas
established to provi.de fle�ci.bility� and aske�dif it wasn�t within the context
o£ PD to cottstruct, where a plan so dictated, single-fami.ly homss, Mr. Boardman
stated that PD in the code book was very bulky and hard to administer. He
said he thought it xas the position of City Admi.nistration that since Fairmont
Circle is developed R-1 property, it should meet the zoning requirements for
an R-1 area� and Khen the plat from RQttlundcomes in it should also be rezoned
to meet R-1 requirements. Mr. Bergman asked if PD didn't encompass R-1
requirements, and Mr. Boardman said it vas easier to eniorce and easier to
edminister under R-1.
Mr. 8oiter sai3 they had deneloped the North section under this PD developnent
as residentisl already, end they vould be xilling to folIDov the same framesrork�
but theq didn't xant to take a piece of property that had value other than as
residential property and turn it all into R-1 zoning and have to come back and
asked to have it rezoned to R-3. I'Sx'. �ardman stated he Was not s�ying that
they rrould be rezoning the rrhole thing, but anything that rras being developed
as R-1 should really correspond to a R-1 diatrict. Mr. Rotter said that would
be agreeable xith him. He added he just vanted to change the street pattern
to £acilitate the use of the prope�ty as R-1, ather than that one aection where
he eventually xanted to build some type of apartments or tosihhouse.
Mr. Boardmen said that the purpose of the diseussion xas to get the Ylanning
Co�rQnission's feelings on initiating a rezoning procedure of the PI1 property
North around the Fairmont Circle area. Mr. Bergman asked who srwld pay the fee�
and Mr. Boardman explained there would be no fee if the City initiated it.
Mr, Langenfeld esid he looked up the PD District Regulations 205.12 and 205.123�
The Procedure for Fstablishing a Planned Developnent Zoni.ng District. He
stated that it looked to him like it took a lot of doing and a great deal of
time to obtain this PD zoning� and in going through this he saw where they have
Planning Couunisaion Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 12
a preliminsry developanent plen and specific plans or stages involved. He asked
if this couldn't all stay under PD and this particular development be considered
as part of the stagea. He added that this wa.a &-1 already� now it was PD,
and Mr. Rotter wanted to go back to R-1 agaia. He stated he vould like it zoned
one xqv or another.
Mr. Boardman replied that because of the bulld.ness of the ordinance the City
said single family units could be developed in there without having to go thsbugh
the procedure of PD.
Chairperson Harris said that he would like to see some type of general plot
plan before they took ar�y action. Mr. Rotter said he xanted to do a plan of
it� and this xas just Yor discussion.
Mr. Peterson asked iP they were asking the petitioner to spend more money on
rezoning than if he were to develop it un�er P.D.� and Mr. Boardman said he
thought something like this xould have to be worked out as far as cost goes.
Mr. Harris asked where else the City had a PD� and Mr. Boardmen said he thought
this xas the only area in the City.
Mr, Ber�nan noted that Mr. Boardman had said the area North of the creek vas �
developed� and asked what public benefit would be served by rezoning the area
around Fairmont Circle xhich was alreac�y developed. Mr. Boardmen ansxered
that it would stabilize the property the houses were on.
Mrs. Gabel rsised the question of financing for structures in PD areas� and
Mr. Rotter replied that there had been one question raised by an attorney
vhen the North section was financed. He said he had shoxn the attorney the
minutes of the Council meeting s�ying they Would allow the area to be developed
as residential even though it Was PD� and he said that Kas fine. Mrs. Gabel
asked about the £eelings of the lending institutions� and Mr. Rotter replied
he had closed on all the loans himself and there hadn't been any problems.
Mr. Langenfeld said that since it ras his vnderstanding that this vas the only
PD area remaining in the City� one advantage in granting the request would be
eliminating another portion o£ the ordinance to deal yrith. Mr. Rotter said
he didn't want to change it� but wanted to be alloxed to build houses in the
area. He explained if the property vas all rezoned back to R-1 he would have
to come back in at a future date and ask £or still another rezoning in order - -
to build the apartments.
Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Rotter xas in a position to come in taith a preliminary
plat� and Mr. Rotter sai.d he could do that. He said it was platted nox and
he just xanted to replat it. He explained he would just be changi.ng some of
the lot sizes� and a12 he really wanted to do was change the street. Mr. Peterson
said that then the zoning request Kas really a Staff request, and Mr. Rotter �
said that was correct, Mr. Peterson asked What the additional cost would be
to the property owner if he rezoned, and Mr, Boardman said about $155 total.
Mr, Boardman said the only other way they xould do it uould be for the City
Administration to request the Planning Co�oission to petition for rezoning on
the entire PD area. Mr. Rotter stated he thought that was ridiculous. �
Planning Co�aission Meeting - September 8, 19�6 Psge 13
Chairperson Harris said the problem he sa�r zrith the whole thing was the City
Council had set a precedent. He said he thought it xould be veryidifficult
to require the Planning Conaoission to initiate a rezoning without the petitioner's
cottcurrence. Mr. Boardmsn pointed aut that they had never done it before, and
Mr. Harris said he xould like to talk to an attorney before they got too far
dozrn the line.
Chairperson Harris suggested that Mr. Rotter drarr up a plan and bri.ng it in
for them to look at� because right now they Frere just batting at moonbeams.
Mr. Rotter said that whatever was decided, he xanted to get it expedited
so some engineering work could be done by early spring. He added that he xould
bring in what he would like to do and let the Commiasion reviex that, but
he wouldn't be here to rezone the property unless it was the only r+ay he could
get residential i.n there.
Mr. Peterson stated that vhat bothered him xas that it xas a Staf£ situation
making a decision over something that had been done for the Staff�s convenience.
Mr. Boardman said that Staf£ xas not making a decision, just a recommendation.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Co�mnission table
the consideration of rezoning the PD District (Planned Develo�nent) in the 8100
block Sast of East River Road to R-1 (single-family dwelling areas), until the
necessary information was received to make a proper decision.
Mr. Bergman said his only comment vas that he rras a little uncomfortable with
this.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said that at this time he xould like to add to the agenda Item
16, a Discussion on the Beer Ordinence� as Mr. Marvin Brunsell vas present to
give them additional information and answer questions on this topic. Chairperson
Harris said it would be in order to suspend the rules and take up Item 16.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Carmaission suspend
the rules and take up Item 16. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
lb. DISCUSSION ON BEER OR➢INANCE
Mr. Brunsell stated that this had been before the Planning Conanission� and it
came before them because of the fact that the City had a problem irith issuing
a beer on-sale license at a particular location £or a particular kind of event.
He said he didn�t believs that normally the Planning Commission would be
involved with strictly licensing-type situations. He said.this one xas sort
of a zoning type of thing and hox the City controlled it, and that was apparently
hox it got to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brunsell said that the Planning Commission, as he recalled, gave approval
to an ordinance that went to the City Council, and it was passed on the first
reading. He said that before it came back to the Council, Mr. Herrick redrafted
the ordiaance based quite a bit on a model ordinance and substantially changed
the ordinance the City Council acted on, He stated that the Council nosr passed
Planning Coimnission Meeting - 5eptember 8, 1976 Page ].li
the ordinance that was before the Commission at this time. Mr. Brunsell pointed
out that Subdivision 2, Section 602.02, defined the areas or the types of
businesses that could be licensed for on-sale beer license, and this was
probably the area they would xant to discuss.
Mr. Brunseil explained that the ordinance further on advised that a�ublic
Hearing vould be held, which xas something nesr and xas not required with a
beer license�previously. He stated that the ordinance set forth the license
could be issued only to bona fide clubs, beer stores, exclusive "on-sale"
liquoT stores� restaurants, and hotels xhere food is prepared and served for
consumption on the premisesoonly. He explained that a"Beer store" meant
an establishaent for the sale of beer� cigars� cigarettes� a11 forms of tobacco�
bevereges� and soft drinks at retail. Mr. Brunsell said he thought this would
probably control the situation they had as far as that one application for an
on-sale beer license.
Chairperaon Harris asked hox the beer store £it into the zoning districts,
and Mr. Boardman said it didn't, He explained the problem they ended up rrith
nov was that before they gave a definition of a tavern in the ordinance�
and that tavern related to the C-2 districts xhere it says bars and taverns.
He stated they had changed that to make it Special Use Permit� and right now
they xere sitting with bar and tavern under Special Use Permit in C-2 districts
vithout a definition of what a bar or tavern is. He said the only thing they
fell back on was the bar and tavern licensing, He explained a bar was the sale
of 3.2 beer with no entertainment, a tanem was the sale of 3.2 beer frith live
entertai.nment, and a liquor license related to food.
Mr. Brunsell said they were also in the process of looking at the tavern
ordinance because a tavern license vas issued xhere there was live entertainment,
and it might be either an on-sale liquor establishment or a beer establishment.
For instance, he said, Georges in Fridley had a tavern license hecause they
had live enter6ainment.
Pfr. Bergman said that his off-the-cuff reaction vas that someone had come up
with a nex name called "beer store", and he couldn't identify t+ith that. He
said he ]rnex what a tavern vas, vhat a bar was and xhat a restaurant Was, but
questioned what a beer store vas that could apparently encompass any or all of
them. He said the deYinition xas axkxard, and he couldn't relate. wi.th the
title "bber store" or its definition. Hr. Brunsell said he thought he had the
same impression, but after Mr. Herrick exp�ained it he thought it s�rould xork.
He stated it was something he had never heard of before himself,
Chairperson_Harris said he wondered i£ there was some sort of language that
could be possibly ir�corpora�ed as part of the definition of a beer store
to tie it t� ?the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardmsn said i.n other words� xhere
is the control on beer stores within the zoning ordinance� and where is a beer
sbore allowed? Mr. Brunsell suggested that maybe this xas vhere the word
tavern ahould be used. He explained that they i+ere probably going to end up
changing the tavern license to say entertainment� as that was really what they
vere trying to license there.
Mr, Bergman said that the definition of a beer store left him cold. He said
a beer store was defined as a place that sold beer� eigarettes, can�ly, tobacco,
etc., and to him that meant if a man sold beer only it xas not a beer store
because he xas not selling tobacco and candy. He sai.d that to him a beer store
Plann3ng Coimnission Meeting - September 8, 197b Page 15
was a place that sold beer--period.
Chairperson Harris noted that actually a drug store sold all of those things,
but not for consumption� and the problem vas the ordinance didn't say ar�yt.hing
about consumption. Mr. I.angenfeld said there xere definitely a lot of implications
there.
Mr. Bergman said he xould like to back up a moment and ask what the problem was
with the Planning Coimnission's recommendation on ordinance change. Mr. Brunsell
said he thought there were just other parts of the ordinence that had to be
gone over. Mr. Harris co�nented that s►hen they looked at the ordi�nee they
had looked at it from a zoning standpoint, and hadn't taken into consideration
the implications of en£orcement or administration. Mr. Peterson coc�nented they
had also been concerned about the temporary licenses� Special Use Permits� etc.
Mr, Boardman said that the ordinance gave a definition of xhat a beer store
xas� and under that theee were licenses required, He stated there rere regular
on-sale licenses, temporary on-sale licenses� and off-sale licenses, and all
o£ those would be classified under beer store. He said he xas a bit con£used
by this also� and thought the deYinition of beer store didn't really fit xith
regular on-sale and could also fit equally as xell £or o£f-sale. Mr. Brunsell
commented that he thought the idea was that the beer store would be a 3.2 bar.
Chairperson Harris said he took it that this particular ordi.nance was speaking
strictly to 3.2 beer� and Mr. Brunsell said that was correct. Mr. Harris
said he �as xondering about the sale of 3•2 beer inaa liquor store. Mr.
Brunsell said they could sell strong beer under their liquor license� but
one of the liquor establishments did have a 3.2 license so they could sell
beer on Sunde�y.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that it stated no minor shall be permitted to consume
beer on the licensed premises, and then on page !t in regard to clubs under
S�bdivision 5 it stated that no minor shall consume beer unless in the
company of his paTent or guardian. He stated that seemed a bit peculiar to
him. Mrs. Gabel noted that Subdivision !� stated that no minor shall have
beer in his posseasion with the intent to consume it at a place other than
the household of his parent or guardian. She co�ented that seemed to leave
it open.
Mr. Bergman asked if it xas the Planning Commission's purpose to review a
proposed ordinance change, and Mr. Harris said it was. Mr. Harris said the
thin� that troubled him xas he had the feeling they had gone throggh the work
of trying to tie it to the zoaing code, irhich was the original idea, and all
o£ a sudden they got it untied Prom the zoning code. Mr. Brunsell said he
thought Mr. Harris had brought up a good point, and suggested possibly putting
this aside to see i£ they could come up vith so�aething that would tie into
the zoning code�°+-�Fie sai.d that maybe by that time the tavern ordinance xould
be far enough along for the two of them to xork together. Chairperson Harris
aaid that perhaps they would want to take a look at the tavern ordinance
from a zoning standpoint also, and added that he xas sure it could be handled
somehow by defin3tion.
Mr, Peterson asked if it rrouldn't be better for the other ordinances to use
the language that was used in the zoning ordinance to make it consistert rather
than changing the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman stated that it was just a
�
Planning Conunission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 16
matter of bringing the dePinitions together. He said he did see some problems
with the def3nition of a beer store as it was too vague.
Chairperson Harris stated that another point that was brought up wes whether
it vas consumed or not consumed, He asked if they rrere syying a beer store
vas a grocery store or a drug store. Mr. Brunsell said he didn't think that
was the intent. He said he thovght the intent was to define the beer store
as a tavern frhere it was consumed on the premises. Ae explained they could
issue ofP-sale licenses and it didn�t have to be a beer store� �ut it had to
be a bona fide club� beer store, exclusive on-sale liquor store, restaurant
or hotel where �ood was prepared to be issued an on-sale license. He said
they could issue an oif-sale licbsae to practically a�ybody. Mr. Boaz'dman
commented that he thought they had better change the definition they had of
a beer store,
Mr. Boardman eaplained that the zoning ordinance didn't have a deYinition
oP tavern. He stated that the £irst time the ordinance went through they
defined what a tavern was under the beer ordinance� and by defining �rhat it
xas under the beer ordinance it was tied to the zoning code that said a tavern
was allowed in a C-2 district rrith a Special Use Permi.t. He said it stated
you could have 3.2 beer in a tavern, but it xould only be allowed in a G2
District with a Specisl Use Permit. Mr. Brunsell asked if that shouldn't be
in the zoning ordinance rather than the licensittg� and Mr. Boardman said
the thing they had to do now was correlate deYinitions. NIr. Brunsell coimnented
that he could see there vas a problem xi.th this.
Chairparson Harris declared a recess at 10:15 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 10:1t0 P.M.
5, HISCUSSION OK SURYEY PdLICY OF THE CITY
tir. Ber�nan stated that he thought it sras very clear. He said that it read
ihat each application for a bnilding permit shall be accompanied by a Certificate
of Survey, drawing or plat. He said that then in the following pexagraph it
read that once the construction of the foundation had been completed, a
Certificate of Survey was needed to see vhere a person built, whereas a drawing
would do before.
Mrs. Gabel said that in looking through the Appeals Commi.ssion mi.nutes, in
most cases she found that the Staff personnel tha�t went to the site was able
to determine fairly accurately srhere the lot lines rr�re.
Mr. Boardman said that the City Code read that all building permits must have
a site permi.t, then, after the Poundation was in, must have a verifying survey.
He stated that in oxder to maintain the intent of the City Code as written without
putting an inordinate burden on the citizen because oP the cost of the surveys,
Planning Co�mtission Meeting - September 8� 197b Page 17
the City had been £ollofring since 1969 basically the follv�ing three steps on
surveys:
1. All nesr construction requires a certificate of survey and verifying
survey.
2. All additions or accessory buildings---snrceys are not required if
the construction is 1� times the required distance by code with the
written consent of the adjazfent groperty owner. The reason behind
this is to txy to ma9ntain the intent of the City Code without inordinate
burden on the citizen. The very cheapest survey ( new plat with well-
defined property lines)costs approximately $200, snd some more difficult
surveys have been as much as $1500,
3. Requests for variences in most cases require a survey. Horrever,
requirement has been vaived by the Appeals Co�aission or recommended
by Staff to be waived when the addition folloxs generally the same
line of the eacisting structure and approximate distance can be
determined.
Hr. Bergtaen said that his property stakes Were exposed� so if he wanted to
build something near the lot line there was no question xhere the line �aas
and he shouldn't have to spend $200 on a survey. Mr. Boar<iman said that the
problem was the stakes sometimes get moved. Mr. Bergman said he agreed that
to require a survey blanketly xas burdensorae in some cases.
Chairperson Harris said it didn't bother him if they imew pretty well vhere
the lot lines xere, but a case and point xas xhere a gentlemsn had come in
a while back and he xasn�t that sure zrhere his lot lines were. Mr. Boardman
said they had a pretty good idea in that case where the lines were because
he had a right-of-way fence on the back lot line put there by the State
Highrray Department. Mr. Boardmen said that in this case the man had agreed
to move it more than double the required distance.
Mr. Bergman said that in the interest of mi.nimum government interference, if
a person came in with a request to build an accessory building and had a drawing
bnt not a certificate of survey� and got cautioned to add a foot and a half or
more and he built that out building, if there vas an error xith regard to the
property line it would be his problem and nobody elses. Mr. Boardman said that
he could come back to the City because the City approved the building permit
and that location� and it xas the City�s responsibility to check out all the
things hefore the building permit xas issued. So� he said, it was possible
that it could come back at the City at some point in time. Hoxever� Mr. Boardmaa
added� it wss a question of to what extent the public would be penalized for
that chence it might happen somexhere drnm the line. He said xhen they required
surveys they used pretty good discretion as to where they felt the property
line was and that type of thing.
Nr. Bergman said that then the City took a risk to reduce the cost to that
property owner, and Mr. Boardman said that was correct. He said it would be
far easier for the City to sqy that all properties needed surveys �rith no
questions asked, but it would be pretty hard to justify that if someone
wanted to build an addition onto his kitehen and his kitchen was right in the
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 18
middle of his lot. Mr. Boardman said he felt the risk was diminished because of
the amount of data they had available to them.
Mr. Bergman qnestioned item 2 on page 1t6 of the agenda, rrhich stated that once
construction of the foundat�on had been completed� a certificate of survey
showing the location of the foundation shall ba required. Mr. Boardman said
they didn't follow that on az�y of the additions or anything like that. He
said that irould require the person to first of all get a survey o£ the property,
and after the foundation was in he srould have to get that resurveyed. Mr.
Bergmaz► said that xasn't what the code said� and read item 1 vhich said "Each
application for a building permit shall be accompanied by a Certificate of
Survey� draving, or plat". He said that meant just a sketch would suffice.
He added that a person could build a foundation based on a sketch� but then
the code said he had to have it surveyed to see if he built it in the righi
place,
Chairperson Harris said that second item xas really kind of silly. He cited
an incident that happened near his folks� place where the basement was alrea�y
in before they found out there was a foot mistake. He asked *�rhat could be
done then--move the whole basement? Mr. Boax'dmen said in some cases the City
required them to do that. Zfrs. Gabel said that mistakes happened a lot of
times and they just came in and got a variance.
Mr. Bergman stated that he thought if a certificate o£ survey was going to
be required at all it should be required before construction was started.
Mr. LangenPeld asked Mr. Boardman hox he would feel if he xas building a
home and �aQerequired to have tyro surveys. Mr. Boex'dman said if he xas
building a new home he xould have to hane a survey anytray� but i£ he was
building an addition he wouldn't like it. Mr. Peterson asked i£ the original
survey wouldn't stand up, and Mr. Boarclman ensvered that a lot of times there
wasn't an original survey or the original survey was lost or the company that
did the original survey sras defunct. Mr. Bergman said he had no quarrel vrith
the descr3ption of the waq� it xas handled, and it seemed reasonable to him;
HIr. Boardman said that in the case xhere written consent of the adjacent
property otmer was required� he thought th6t perhaps there should be an upper
limit of two or three times r�rhat was required so they could make the construction
raithout the oonsent of the adjacent property o�+ner. He said that the w�}* it
xas now if a person wanted to build an addition to his house and didn't have
it surveyed� then he has to have the consent o£ the adjacent property owner
regardless of �rhere the addition was on the lot. Mr. Langenfeld said that
even i£ the present adjacent property oxner gave his consent� he could move
out and the nea owner could have it�.aurveyed and raise problems.
Mr, Boardman said there hadn't been any cases where the City had been taken
to court since this was adopted in 1969; there had been a few cases xhePe
there vere some miscalculations and in most cases they were required to go
for a variance. He said that in those cases xhere Staff felt there might
be problems� they did request the agplicant to have a survey.
Mr. Langen£eld asked if it was correct that if a fence was on a property for
fiFteen years it was an estahlished property line. Mr. Peterson said he didn't
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 19
think it had to be there for 15 Years, and Mr. Boardman said he thought it
vas seven years. Chairperson Harris agreed� but said he didn�t think that
really held vater. He explained it didn't really mean that an,ybody had
received oWnership of that; all the Cartw�y Ordinance said was that once it
was established over seven years they have the right of egress. He stated
it didn't mean it became public right-of-wz�p or part of the other person's
property or anything like that. Mr. Langenfeld said the w�y he heard it� it
was the establishment of the lot line. Mr. Peterson said no� it }�ust meant
he couldn't Porce you to tear dovn the Pence after a certain number of years.
Mr. Boardman asked the Coaonission if they xould Peel more comfor�able if this
rras irritten policy concern3.ng surveys, and Chairperson Harris replied it
xas a good idea. He said that possibly at some point o£ time they might get
challenged� and it tirould be good to have it established in trriting, Mr.
Boardman said the purpose o£ this policy would be to try to maintain the
intent of the City Code xithout inordinant burden on the citizen.
Mr, Boardmaa said thet at the next meeting there rrould be something draxn up
as policy on this.
6.
Chairperson Harris reminded the Commi.ssion they had asked to see a budget
on what the Fine Arts Coimnittee was going to do srith the money. He asked
Mrs. Shea what was meant by a negative variance of 1�� and she said she wasn't
Pamiliar with thaL. Mr. Harris also:noted thst below that there xas a
negative variance of 16,�. Mr. Boardman said they had probably budgeted on
1000 and only got 83q. Mr, Langenfeld said it vas his opinion on the negative
varianee of 1� that they could have that lee�r�y either xay.
Mr. Herris refarred to the 1977 Plmding Source Request on page 65 of the
agenda and asked if it was going to cost $580� for those productions, and
Mrs. Shea said it rrould. Mr. Harris asked if they had to return part of
that to Co�minity Schools, and Mrs. Shea said they didn't because they were
part oP Coauwnity Schools.
Chairperson Harri.s asked hoW vell they did pa the last play, and Mrs. Shea
replied they had $1�000 left over from the3r total receipts, Mr. Lengenfeld
said that when this had been discussed last time� he thought they lost money
on the last production, Mrs. Shea said they lost money on the first product3on,
but not on the second.
Chairperson Harris asked xhere this money came from out of the City budget�
and Mrs. Shea said she believed it would come out of contingency.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recoimnend
to City Council approval of a contribution to the Fridley Fine Arts Coimnittee
in the amount of $1,000. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion
carried unan3mously.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 20
7. CONTINUID:
.G"��9;7
Mr. Boardman stated that he had talked to Jan Konzak on this and she had talked
to the City Mananger� and they had come out wi.th positions on the four motions
by Human Resources.
Mr. Boardman said the first motion was to accept a statement that said "It
requires firms with whom it transacts business to do likevise". In other words,
he continued, in order for the City to do business xith a Yirm it would require
that firm to not discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of race� sex�
etc. Mr. Bo�dman said it �ras decided that �idley already had one o£ the
strongest afYirmative action programs in the �i.n Cities because they had
designatsd goals and timetables la�.d: out. He said that the xord prequire"
would be difYicult to enforce, and there really vas no major distinction betveen
encourage and require; therePore they Would leave it as encourage.
Mr. Boardman said that with regard to the second motion to establish a training
program to qualify protected groups for advancement, the City already had an
educational assistance program in xhich these educational programs xere evaluated
on their current position and also anticipated responsibilities and is hsndled
on a case by case basis. He said they felt they had already carried out the
intent of that motion.
Mr. Boardman stated that the third motion was to establish specific percentage
goala for protected classes in each job class and a semi-annual report be made
of the progress to the Human Resources Coimaission. He said that they felt they
had already provided this because they had set goals and timetables in their
Af£irmative Action Program. He said they do not make any xritten reports� but
they did report to the Human Resources Comnission as requested. He explained
that they felt to designate it as a semi-annual report ras not really necessary.
Mr. Boardman said that the fourth motion involved the commitment to seek
placing of persons in non-traditional job classes, such as men as clerical
workers� xomen as police ofYtcers� and so on. Mr. Boardman said they were
already providing more than adequate opportunity for this to take place.
He said the City vas not discriminating, but it just so happened that to date
they had not had any men applying Por clerical positions. He said that as far
as police ofPicers went, this xas handled by the Civil Service Commission and
to date the xomen had not scored high enough to place� but it was possible £or
a xoman to become a police officer.
Mr. Boardman aum�arized by sayi.ng that the City Manager and the Af£irmative
Action Officer felt that three of the motions xere alreac�y being carried out,
and in the other they felt that "require" xould be difficult to enforce and
"encourage" stood up to r�that they xere trying to accomplish under the Affirmative
Aetion Program.
Mrs. Gabel asked if there vas a xritten Affirmative Action Program other than
what was required by la1r, and Mr. Boardman said there was and it listed the
goala and timetables. He stated that most cities had Af£irmative Action Programs
but their goals and timetables rere very vague� whereas the City oY Fridley�s
were not.
Planning Co�ission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 21
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langen£eld, that the Planning Comnission concur
xith the Staff Report as the official policy of the Planning Commission. Upon
a voice vote, Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson and Gabel noting �ye� Shea
voting nay, the motion carried.
�
9. CONTINiJID: HUMAN DEVELOPMSNT GOA7S AND OBJECTZVFS: Continued to
ep ember 22, 197
10.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Coffinission receive
the notice and mailing list for a Public Hearing held in Spring Lake Park on
August 23, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unenimously.
Mr. Boardman ezplained this item xas on the agenda to let the Cornnission lmov
what was happening and that they had notified the people in E�idley that xould
be affected by this. He said that as £ar as City Staff xent, he didn�t have
any problem xith vhat they were planning to do, He explained that this xas
off of Old Central and Osborne Road, and it had been rezoned not long ago
from industrial to commercial. He said that now they were askipg for a Special
Use Permit to develop a neighborhood shopping center. He described the property
as being 1t11 feet East of Old Central, and North of Osborne.
Chairperson Harris asked if there had been any reponse from anybody, and Mr.
Boardman replied they had some response on the rezoning request end several
of the people had attended that meeting, but they hadn't any response on the
Special Use Permit. Mr. Harris asked i£ the people xere generally opposed or
in Yavor of the rezoning, and Mr. Boardman said they hadn't gotten a reading
on that.
11. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUT&S: AUGUST 17 1976
Mr. Berman stated he would like to co�nent that in reading the motions on page
$1� he got the impression that members of the Fhvi.ronmental Commission were
asking City Administration to recommend the content of an ordinance and then
the Fridley I�Ytvlronmental Cou¢nission monitor and control complience of that
ordinance. He said that seemed to him to be the nzact reverse of hox this
process vas supposed to operate. Mr. Langenfeld replied he didn't feel that,
He ezplained the intent of the motions was to merely pick up the environmental
highlights within these earious ordinances and incorporate them in a model
ordinance for Fridley, which they hoped that Staff xould provide.
Mr. Her�nan asked where the recomnendations were from the Fhvironmental
Coimnission describing frhat they xanted in the ordinance from a policy view.
Mr. Langenfeld explained that What they wanted vere the sources of information
such as the Golden Valley ordinance, the Coon Rapids Conservancy District
Planning Commission Meet3ng - September 8, 197b Page 22
Ordinance #378, and so on. In other xords, he said� they gave Staff the prerogative
to pick out the environmental sensitive elements of those particular areas
to incorporate in an ordinence £or the Hnvironmental Co�nission to review. He
explained these rrere merely guidelines to help them.
Mr. Hoardman explained that they xanted Staff to draft a comprehensive ordinance
to take the place of Chapter 212 and that it be presented at the next hhvironmental
Quality Cornmission meeting for their review. He said that instead of drafting
one, they had received a model ordinance from Metro Council and would submit
that. Hr. Langenfeld said that they thought they were going to get one in the
first place� and xere trying to get some direction going to continue this.
Mr. Bergmen noted on page 50, under Reviex Chaper 212, that the IIivironmental
Co�mnission requested they review all activities prior to issuance o£ a permit.
He said that put them in the d�y-to-d�y compliance of it. Mr. Langenfeld
explained that the Coimniss3on £elt there should be some type o£ccontrol on
this even though no ordinance ezists. Mr. Bergman asked if this should be
by Conuni.ssion rather than City Staff, and Mr. Langenfeld replied only £or
hhhvironmental review. He swmnari2ed by s�ying they hoped to get an ordinance
drawn up, and xould then review it and provide their recoimnendations to the
Planning Commission. He added that nox they had the metropolitan model ordinance
which they rrould review and see r�rhat xould xork for this particular area. Ae
explained the only other thing in the minutes were a couple of typos, vhich he
wouldn't take the time to correct.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the Eaivironmental Quality Commission minutes of August 17, 1976. Upon a voice
vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Langen£eld informed the Co�.ission that the East River Road Project Committee
would be meeting the following evening, September 9th� and were going to submit
a proposed plan £or East River Road. He invited anyone interested to attend.
Mr. Bergman noted that the East River Road Project Committee xas a project
conao3ttee xithin the FY�vironmental Co�nission, which rras a member coimnission
chaired vi.thin the Planning Coimnission. He asked how it was that the project
co�r¢ni.ttee dealt directly with the County Highvay Department. Mr. Langen£eld
sai.d they had the right to go to any source they wished to obtain the information
for their coimnittee. Mr. Bergman said he thought it vas to propose a plan to
the county, ehich the Planning Co�mnission or the City Council might disagree
with. Mr. Langenfeld said the co�mnittee xanted to slow the traf£ic up on East
River Road and they had drawn up a proposed plan of the x�* the residents would
like to see it. Chairperaon Harris asked i£ they would be disposed to submit
it to the Planning Commission for reviev, and Mr, Langenfeld explained that
this meeting was taking place tomorrow night. Mr. Harris coimnented that it
seemed they were getting the cart before the house.
Mr. Boardman suggested to Mr. Langenfeld that he may have to ride rein on this
a little. He said that project connnittee vas established to come up vith
racommendations that could be carried out by the Planning Commission or the
City Council. He said they xere not set up to go out and make proposals and
offers to the county or the Metro Council or the government.
Planning Cormnj.ssion Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 23
Chairperson Harris stated that the group could go as a citizen's group anyplace
they xanted� but if they yrere representing themselves as a subcommittee under
the Planning Commission, they were out of line. He said that th�y were then
representing the Planning Commission, and as spokesman for this Commission he
objected to that. He added that if theyexere going to represent the Planning
Cotmnission in theae matters� then they better get concurrence £rom the Planning
Commission; and if they xere going to represent the City Council in these mattera,
they better get concurrence from the City CounciZ.
Afr, Boardman agreed that they could take their proposal as a citizen's group
anyxhere they rvanted to, but as a desi�ated project committee under the
Nhvironmental Commission they had obligations to meet to that Commission
as set up by the scope of the project comnittee and withi.n the scope oY the
City ordinance. He said their function vas simply a f�nction of making a
report back to the Fhvironmental Comnission. Mr. Laugenfeld stated that it
had started out fine, and xhat took place was they apparently had gotten ahold
of an existi.ng plan to completely revise East River Road and didn't go along
with it because of safety factors and speed, and had draxn up a counter proposal
to present to the county to see if they could come to a mutual agreement.
Mr, Boardman said if he ras the County ffi'igineer he would tell them to get the
concurrence of the City Council. He added that iP it goes too much further
the Planning Couunission might have to request that the Fhvironmental Commission
pull i.n the reins on them or dissolve the cwmnittee. Mr. Harris said that then
they could operate as an ad hoc committee, and that would be perfectly fine.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he xould have to tell the project cormnittee that they
were running a little ahead o£ themselves, end Mr. Harris said he would personally
really like time to look at the plan and study it.
Mr, Hoardman said the proposal should be looked at from the FSivizronmental
Commission level first, so they could make reco�minendations, and Chatrperson
Harris added that he would certainly like Co�mnnnity Development to look at
it also. Mr. Bergman agreed� and said it xas much broader than just environ-
mental.
12. RTsCEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION COI�AIISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 23, 1976_
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes o£ the August 23, 1976 Parksaand Recreation meeting.
Mrs. Shea noted that under the neighborhood subcommittees a deadline was referred
to� andaasked what that date xas. Mr. Boardman said it xas September 27th.
Mrs. Shea noted they had sent out letters for resident input and hoped to hear
from people, but that she hadn't seen anything and had yet to hear of anybody
in her neighborhood vho had heard anything. Mr. Boardman said they had not
gone to every resident, but had sent out 600 surveys.
Chairperson Harris referred to the Staff Report on Rtversedge Property on
page 59, �d asked iY there rras some proposal by somebody to buy those lots.
Mr. Peterson said yes, they thought all they had to do wasrget the Parks and
Recreation Commission �o agree to sell them. He said those people hadn't
Planning Comnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 2�
realized that it was a bid procedure. Mr. Harris a�ked xhat the intent was on
that particular piece of property� and Mr. Peterson replied there were no plans
at the present time. Mr. Harris asked if that land was maintained, and Mr.
Peterson said the City was supposed to cut the weeds. Mr. Harris commented
that the general topography did not lend itself to a park. Mr, Peterson said
that one of the things that might happen rrould be that some picnic tables and
charcoal grills xere put in there.
Atr. Peterson stated that the Recreation Project Co�nittee has really done a
terrific job� and hopef\illy they vould get a lot of information. He said they
had invited people to appear beYore them and give testimony� had the school
people in, and had really done a lot of work on it. He added that some of the
quslity of work was going to be much greater than others, but trith lli dif£erent
project committees working this swimer on Parks and Recreation, it xas a feat
in itself.
Mr. Bergman commented that he would be interested in seeing xhat area 13 came
up with� because as he and Mrs. Shea agreed, they were the largest so-sa3led
neighborhood T.rithin the map. He sai.d this included Innsbruck South of Hxy.
694, which xas a neighborhood by itself, the ares he was in including Innsbruck
North� and extended way North £rom there. He said there were at least three
neighborhoods in vhat was called one neighborhood, and there xas no cohesion
between them.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting qve, the motion carried unanimously.
13. DISCUSS DATE SET FOR JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCII, ON 1�0 FOOT IATS
Mr. Boardman said that if they ranted to discuss this at one of the workshop
meetings, the next one Would be Kovember 22nd. Othenrise, he said, a special
meeting �+ith the City Council could be requested.
Chairperson Harris asked what Mrs. Schnabel�s status was, and Mrs. Gabel
i.nformed hun that she was hav�ng some complications. She said that the date
of November 22nd could be set tentatively, and if there were further problems
it could be rescheduled. Mr. Boardman said that was fine, and would tentatively
set up the date of November 22, 1976 for the joint meeting.
1lt. RECEIVE COPY OF PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission receive
the proposed maintenance code. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Hergman co�nented that he thought this proposed code should go to applicable
commissions. Hoxever, he said, pr�or to sending it to commissions sbme review
and direction £rom the Planning Commission should go along with it.
15. STAFF DISCUSSIaN WITFI THE PLANNING CO29�ff5SI0N ON V9FiI0US ITEMS
Mr. Boaxdman said the Commission probably noticed that receiving of the minutes
Planning Co�mnission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 25
vas put in the back of the agenda instead of the front because entirely too
much time was being apent on receiving the minutes� and the Public Hearings
weren't started until 9:00 or 9:30.
He said another thing he xanted to bring out at this time, although it wasn't
so bad at this meeting� Was that the nit-picki.ng on the minutes was getting
pretty awilil. He said that, for instance, typos and things like that could
be passed over wifihout any comment. He said that also, unless an item was
speciPically requested to be brogght out by that Coaunission� he felt the
information could be picked up by each individual member xithout having to
restate items. He said that he thought the only items that should be brought
out were items that needed action by the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Harris said he felt that should be up to the discretion of the
meraber Commissioners. He said he could see at certain times they wuld wish
to clarif� their position or perhaps they felt the item was important enough
that they wanted to bring it to the attention of the Co�nission.
Mr. Boardman said he just wazited to bring this up� as this xas similar to
the xay the City Council handled it.
Mr. Lan�enfeld said he would like to bring up what NSP was doing to Fridley's
trees. He eaplained they were taking the tops of the trees off and just letting
them hang there. He flirther explained they would take off a major limb and
then maybe a dead one, and just let it hang in open space. Mr. Harris said
there was a real problem ea�pecially Khen theywrrere trismning elms. He said
he Hi.shed NSP �ould have come to the City first xhen they started this program
with a proposal on what they irere going to do. He added that he understood
it xas a major maintenance problem,
Mr. Boardman asked if they xere cutting the trees without the proper repair
to the limbs, and Mr. Harris said that was correct� especially irith regard
to oaka and elms. Mrs. Gabel said they would cut a limb of£ and just let
the bark tear.
Chairperson Harris said he could understand NSP�s problem� but when they were
going to start a major project they should come to the City. He added that
the trouble vas they had subcontracted this out to a prmvate tree tri.wner.
Mr. Ber�nan said that 3t was NSP�s responsibility� and an executive of NSP that
he had talked to recent�y Nas very concerned about this. Mr. Boardman commented
that NSP had a certain image they were trying to maintain.
Mr. Langenfeld said that in his own personal situation� two very,good shade
trees had to be removed entirely because of the wqy theq were cligged.
ADJOURHI�'1�T:
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman� that the meeting be adjourned .
Upon a vo�ce vote� all voting qye, Chairperson Fiarris declared the Planning
Coimnission meeting of September 8� 1976, adjourned at 12:15 P.M. by unanimous
vote.
Respecti'ully submitted,
�1�
���C% �m�mo
�fi�'rri onne co � g ecre�uy _
R"i R' z " ?1�e to11o�.�n� �s �a ee�• Ca�tr�e d ovt 51 ri C 1� 14 ia9 �
.. �.: �'� Q�� fl1tJ CON1TfJL'��01A ce9�1�tL� �'.lf�at�GO�[! OT 3UfV�V1 0.M�
J
� ���f1�lf��MS� SattlL'A ..
� !'
Exuw�.��e� -.�
2. QII pdrf;�ions or arCe�sor7 6/�91 — 3u.euEVS 4E� nior �qu.�cr,� i{
�E �+e Caws�ruo�-?e�r. ia 1`/z '�;...eo �1�e �Qyo.�ecQ c�:a�an.ce
by Cade Iai}� 'TKe. wn�}en Eo+►sut} O� � O�je.ce.tiT
�'eYar�.,� C►.rntv� .
� i p
�,�*, ; l�� -�o «.a:.�.}..:.. '�e i•�.i�+.,._1 a'S �e C+'}.� �ccte
.i �(1.{� .
w��v.� ►�Re� �= -�Y.► oy l^'Q t���Lw. .
��
., ve�y C�ee{aee� �wv�., — wewp�at wi�1. u+el1 C�e�.��ned% Qrdtu-�y �:.,��
Q�M� �7��� ^ .�Ohl ►10i`� (}�T11l1�'t sV1UlYS l�4J! 1�Kh .
!
O.S +��� 4S � E t �
LD�S�L
I'L%
ta�y o. 'SUrue�! ��y 7
{ ��:x wlrw� , o �t
Gc°s°� "PPt� 1:.N:3?
yo'
!o'
20� �_ '
�t ��' k
3. l�Zeques� fo�- Va�ia�v�ces �.� �.osi' ea5e�s t�ea�utirc
C� Surueu� y howevet' rtx�v��eme�n� �aa 1�eev� wQ. vec�
b+� y(�ua1s (bmvHt3s�ov� W�� s�cR w�neu� •
C�lc1; � :o,.. �o llcv.�s o��►Z `�,u so.� S�, �.it�,,t ,s,crs�4, ..�
����� � ��. �� � � ,�,��
I
405.156. Auto Parking Stalls �VarianeeJ —
4�'i
7. In a case where ezisling ol6slreel parking facilities, Io thn. use ol Ihe public Irae ol charge o/ at reasonable
ral?s. hnvr unused parking r,apacily. Ihe Boerd ol Appcals may recommenU �o Ihe City Councit Ihe redur.UOn of
ihc parking spaco requirement lor �ny use not mure ihan 500 leel distani, by not more Ihan U�n, numDer o! staRs
nt unused c�6pacily. .
1!
2. In a case w�ere any public or private oft-street parking lacitily, to bep{�en lo the use ol the public free of
charge or al reasunable rales, is under construr,tion or plannetl. and where t�ere is reasonable assurance Ihai
such Aevelo0ment will be carried to complelion and will when completed relieve ihe parkin� clemanA �n an area
within 500 feet Ihereof in some measure or in full measure. the Board of Appeais may recommend to the City
Council (o estabiish a reasonable lime period vnthin which any use or uses wiMin such area shall provitle
requireA spaces lor parking slalls. Upon completion nf a�1 or a portion ot sucA de4ebpment. the provisions of
ihe preceeding paragreph p1 may br, applied. �
3. In a case where Ibe customary mode ol transpurtation ol a majority of tAe palrons, employees and
proprielors of any use, to antl irom the area in which such use is located, is other lhan by private automobile.
t�[s Board of Appeals may recommend lo the City Council a reduclion, Dy not more pihan 50 per cent, the
parking sDace requiremenl for such use. -
4. In a case where it is ciearly shovm by the applicant �hat ihe provision of space requ�red herein for parking
slalls, due fc, the particular nature of a Rroposed use or cther conditions, would be unnecessary hardship, the
board may recommentl to Ihe City Council a variance o( such reduirement.
5. In a case where it is clearly shcwn by �he City that Ihe provisions for parking space reqwred br specific
dislrict uses is inadequate. atltlitional of!-streei parking wiil be required by the City. �
. . . , . � . : . . . . - ' � _ � . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . � , .. . . . .
205.76. BUILDING PERMtTS �' - �
205.161. Ali Districts •
A boildin� ;=rmi1 shail be acquirec ��fore the ereclion, construcl�on, reconstrucLOn, alteration, enlarg2m2nt or
moving of any building excepl that ;uch permit shall not be r=quired if ihe� (yII v,�alue of saitl work is less tAan
$150:00.. . G�' 4��.1'+.i ce-. a+..t-'ZS �2�v
7. Each application for a b�ilding permit shalt be accompanied by a Certificate of Survey, drawing, or plat,-in
tlupiicale.. drawn lo sca�e and shov:ing the lo[, the proposed building and dimensions of the lot anC building;
the localwn antl proposed use of the buildings; the localion, dimensions; present and proposed use of any
existing building on the same lot; th2 setback and Aimensions of front, side and rear lots and such other
jn(ormalion as the zoning administrator shall require for the enlorcement of this ordinance. II interior finishing
of a home or bailding is to be Oone. ihe malerial accompanying the application. as noted above, lor a permit wilt
not be requireA.
2. Once construction ol the foundation has been r.ompleted, a certificate of survey showing the localion of lhe
foundaiion shall be reduire4 belore ihe framing of the structure is Uegun.
3. Construction shall commence within ninety (90) tlays trom the date of the issuance of the buildinq permit
unless �eriiten application is made fnr Ihe extension of said time, in which event Ihe eztension of time sha�t be at
thediscreUOn ol the zoning aAministralor. If not commencetl v�ithin said (90} day period of extension as grantetl
by the aAministrator, such permil shall .be void. � �
4. No builcfin� permi( sha11 be issiied lor the consiruc�ion, reconstruction, alteration, enlargement or moving of
any buildin� unless said proposed �ti�ork is in confnrmity with Ihe Fridley building code.
205.162. Permit Requi�ad
in addit�on to olher rv�alations and requiremenls herein, no building or usc sAall be petmlited In any District rtor
205 162
Aut� Pzrkinq
Stalls
jVarianee)
Building
Permits
an
nistric�s
Ptunit
Required
:1�5 63
. �-�
s
AGREEMENT
0
t
I, , owner of the property
located at , have no objection to the
City allowing the construction of a to be
located at without the required
certificate of survey that the City ordinarily requires for all new
. construction.
tness
Signature.
Address
Date
4'7
� . �. �
_ 48
OFFICIAI PUBLICATION .
NOTICE OF HEARING
CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARK
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held
by the Planning & Zoning Comnission of the City of Spring
Lake Park in the City Hall, 8429 Center Drive N.E., on
Monday, Au9ust 23, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the
following:
Request for a special use permit to allow th
operation of a neighborhood shopping center,
on Lot 24 and that part of Lot 22 Auditors
Subdivision 152, lying South of a line drawn
parallel with and 187 feet North of the center
line of Osborne Road and lying west of a
line drawn parallel Nith and 411 feet East
of Central Avenue, Anoka County
The general location of said request is Central
Avenue N.E. and Osborne Road.
Any and all
matter will
and place,
persons desiring to he heard in regard to this
be given an opportunity at the above stated tirt�e
�
. � .� �l
. ��L�'�..�, l.L-� /. vL �/�
Donald 6. Busch, Clerk-Treasurer
Hotices sent 7-2fi�76
MAILING LIST
Rezoning in Spring Cake Park
M. G. Astleford Co. Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Melbie
1200 West Highway 13 1346 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Savage, Mn 55378 Fridley, Mn 55432
Anderson Trucking Service, Inc.
203 Cooper Avenue North
St. Paul, Minnesota 56301
Ed Chies
7651 Central Avenue N.E.
@ridTey, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Dale Thorp
1376 Osborne Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Frankhauser
1392 Osborne Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Larry Prescott
1400 Osborne Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Loyd Erion
1412 Osborne Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Maxey
1413 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. William Baerboom
1401 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Daryl Rollog
1391 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. William Sharp
1377 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Lindman
1378 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Castro
1362 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Pavlik
7651 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
49