PL 09/22/1976 - 6592City of Fridley
•"�: AGENDA
, . .:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1976
�
�
: �
CALL TO QRDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 8, 1976
1.
2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 - 25
T. ZOA 26 - 31
#76-03, BY EUERT R. SWANSOR: Rezone Lot 19, except the
East 190 eet thereo , and except the West 17 feet taken
for tiighway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited
businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18, from
R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Sub-
division No. 1'L9, to R-3 (general mu'itiple family dwellingsj,
to allow a condominium-type development, the same being
located at the intersection of Centra7 Avenue and 73rd
Avenue N.E.
Public Hearing closed.
C
R. SWANSON: A replat of Lot 79, except the tast �yU re
thereof, and except the West li feet taken for highway
purposes, and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18, all in
Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allow the developruent
of a 32 unit townhouse site, the same being located at
the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E.
and,
3. T-�`76-03,
3 Unit T
Addition.
4.
,_.
32-34&
28 - 30
R. SWANSON: 28-30, Page 34
use and 35
Note: See Appeals Comnission minutes of September 15, 1976, 58 - 63
with the recoirrnendation to Council through the Planning Comnission
of approval of the variance from 5 acres to 3 acres for this
townhouse development.
ZOA
36 - 41
amiin: rcezone Lne casceriy cw reec v� ��ti ��, c,c�mN� �nc
Northerl,y 30 feet thereof; also the Easterly 50 feet thereaf,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, from R-3 (general multi.ple
family dwellings), to C-1 (local business areas), or C-2
(general business areas), to allow the construction of a
speculative building to be used for offices and assemblies,
generally located on the South side of Norton Avenue N.E.
where it intersects with Central Avenue N.E.
�l
Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting of September 22, 1976, Page 2
/ PAGES
5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #76-06, BY EVERETT MADSEN: 42 - 43
Split Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, Rice Creek Plaza North
Addition, so the new property line runs at an angle
6.40 feet from the existing Northwesterly corner of
Lot 10,'to 36 feet northeasterly of the Westerly
line of Lot 9, as per survey of record with the �ity,
Parcel A describing the new lot line for 61ock 1fi,
250 Rice Creek Blvd, tl.E „ and Parcel B describing
the new lot line for Block 9, 246 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E.
&. LOT SPLIT REQUFST: L.S. #76-07, FRANK J. VOTH: Split
the West 210 feet of Lat 49, Auditor's Subdivision No.
49, into three parcels as follows: Parcel 1(5801
Arthur Street N.E.) The South 80 feet of the West 210':
Parcel 2(5805 Arthur Street N.E.) The North 80 feet
of the South 120 feet of the West 210 feet: Parcel 3
(5809 P.rthur 5treet N.E.) The West 210 feet of Lo� 49,
except the South 1fi0 feet thereof: all measured along
the West line of said Lot 49, and all parcels subject
to an easement for road purposes over the West 30 feet.
7.
� 8.
9.
10.
11.
�
WRITTEN SURVEY POLICY
REVIEW OF PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
ED: DISCUSSION ON GARA
fS FOR SINGLE
CONTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
IVE HUMAN RESOURCES
. 12. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 15, 1976
ADJOURNMENT:
44 - 48
49
50 - 55
56 - 67
C �, �i
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CONiNL[SSION MEETING SEPTII4iBER 8, 1976 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:1�0 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris� Bergman� Langenfeld, PetersonJ Gabel (attending £or
Schnabel)� Shea
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Ylanner
APPROVE PLANNING COPR�fIS5I0N i7INUTES: AUGUST 18, 1976
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission minutes
of August 18� 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
� 1. PUBLIC i-Ir,A.RIIdG: 4�ZO.dITiG �&�UriT, zoA :ft76-o3, BY EVi..TiT R. S•,•.AidSON: Rezone
I,ot 19� except the East 190 feet thereo£� and eaccept the ��Jest 17 feet taken
for highway purposes, From C-1 (general o:fice and Iimited businesses), and
the West 1�7.74 feet o£ Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas)� all
in Auditor's Subdivision No 129� to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings;
to allow a condominium-type development, the same being located at the
intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E.
Note: See copies o£ a public hearing notice for a variance request to be
heard by the Appeals Commission on September 15, 1976, and for a
Preliminary plat to be presented to the Planning Commission on
September 22� 1976.
Mr. Evert R. Swanson� property okmer; ASr. Albert Hoffineyer� architect; and
Mr. Alichael Virnig of 1365 73rd Avenue N.E, were present.
MOTION by Langen£eld� seconded by Gabel� that the P2anning Commission open the
Public Hearing on a rezoning request� zoA #76-03, by Psvert R. Swanson. Upon
a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing
open at 7:lt5 P.M.
Mr. Boardman explained that a Townhouse °lan and plat would come before the
Planning Commission at their September 22nd meeting� and this item would also
� be going before the Board of Appeals as it involved a variance request.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 2
Mr. Boardman stated that this property was located on the corner of �3rd and Old
Central Avenue� and the owner wished to develop owner-occupied townhouse'units. �
He said he had just received at this meeting a aopy of what they were proposing
to do there, and it was somewhat different than what he had seen be£ore. He
added they would have all the actual layouts and locations ironed out before
the next meeting. Mr. Boardman passed out to the Commission copies of the plans
for the development to give them an idea of the kind of proposal that was being
provided� and explained which areas were zoned G-1 and R-1. He said the zoning
to the North of the C-1 property was commercial zoning} but the property around
the rest of the perimeter was R-1 zoning. He explained they were asking Tor
R-3 zoning in this section to allow for 36 owner-occupied units� and that with
the square footage they had under R-3 they would be allowed !�!� units, one for
every 3�000 square feet.
Mr. Boardman said that Staff�s recommendation would be that rezoning would be
i� order for that area� and thought an owner-occupied development would be
preferrable to renter-occupied.
Mr, A1 Hoffineyer of Architects 1500 stated that he didn't think apartments
would be appropriate in that area and preferred the townhouse concept. He said
that rental property was not as desirable as owner-occupied property Por many
reasons. He pointed out that the property would take 1t�t units� but they were
putting in 36 units with quite a bit of green area. Mr. Hoffineyer explained
that the units would be built in 5tages starting rrith the Southern 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 with
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 successful project.
Chairperson Harris asked if they were all six-unit buildings with options,
and Mr. Hof£meyer replied they were. He added that there were many di£ferent
plans that could be incorporated into these units. Mr. Harris asked what
would happen if the six units were built but did not sell immediately� and
Mr. HoF£meyer said that was why they were building them in stages� and he nad
no doubt that they would sell. Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Hof£meyer would wait
until they had commitments on those Pirst six units before he started another
unit, Mr. Hof£meyer replied they would have to meet HUD standards so they
could get FHA,or VA £inancing� and HUD said a project could not be started
unless 80% of those units were presold. Mr. Harris said he understood that�
and asked if it was Mr. Hoffineyer's intent to have commitments on the first
six units before starting a second building. ASr. Hoffineyer said absolutely�
and explained they would use the first six as models. He said that the basic
unit they would be starting out with would include a single car garage� and
they were all in the $110��00 to $50�000 price range. He said the options would
include the number of bedrooms, room for expansion, and so forth. He added
that they could combine several different options, so there was a variety, and
the buildings would not all be o£ the same design. Mr. Hof£meyer explained
he couldn't t3e down the exact composition of these units in terms af price
until they got approval from the Planning Commission because HUD wouldn�t
look at what they had until Fridley passed on the concept idea.
Chairperson Harris asked if� in the event the units weren't sold, they would �
possibly be rented. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he had no doubt that they would
I �_�
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 3
� sell, and he had talked to various financing agencies and their only ooncern
was what was on the other side of Central Avenue. Ae stated that if they
couldn't sell them, they couldn't rent them. He added that they ueren't in
this for rent--they were in this for sales, and that was why they had all the
different options. He stated they could go from $l�0,000 up to $60,000. Mr.
Hofflneyer said they had enough safety factors built into this project that
they were notlocked into a price range; they had a£le:cibility of price range�
a flexibility of market and a flexibility of financing.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if the six units would be within a common fire division,
and Mr. Hoffineyer replied that in order to meet HUD standards there would have
to be a one-hour fire wall between each unit. A1r. Langenfeld said thaL rir.
Boardrrtan had stated the rezoning to R-3 was for owner-occupied townhouses� and
asked if he could make stipulations like that on a rezoning. Mr. Boardman
replied that he could for owner-occupied vrithin a R-3, and explained that under
the townhouse ordinance it set up certain square footage for each of' the units
under each district. hir, Langenfeld asked if it could actually be specified
when an area was rezoned that it be owner-occupied, and t•fr. Boardman said that
with the Townhouse Plan it could. Mr. Langenfeld asked if all 36 units would
be in one big cluster, and Mr. Ho£fineyer explained that each building would
have siac units, and there would be siac buildings so there would be 36 units.
He iltrther explained that each uriit 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 fenced-in garden, and each unit had its oNm outside
deck. He stated that it was like zero lot line concent. Mr, Hoffine,yer said
� that originally the concept they had consisted of nine units in each buildings
but they didn't have the green areas; now they had plenty of space between them
and a lot of green area. Re added there were no through streets; ootl-i streets
were dead end.
Mr. Bergman stated that from the land-use viewpoint this seemed awkward to him.
He said they presently had an area that involved zoning o£ industrial, single-
family residential and commercial� and now they were asked to grant a rezoning
of 3.1 acres of multiple family right in the middle of this. He said this
seemed awkward from a relationship to the different zones. P1r. Hoffineyer said
that there was single-family presently on the North� East�and South of this
'property right now. Mr. Bonrdman said he would attempt to clarify this, and
asked the Commissioners Lo look at page 30 0£ their agendas. He pointed out
the area that was a kind of island o£ residential area, and showed how it was
completely surrounded by industrial, comcnercial property. He explained that
along the edges of this island of residential pronerty there was a sprinkling
of commercial and R-3. He said t'�at generally along 73rd t,here Lras ,uite a
number of apartment units. Mr. Boardman said that he thought in order to be
on the fliture-planning end o£ this they should try to look at that area as a
total residential unit in which there would be some buP£er areas on the outside
of the apartment complexes where the R-1 could be included in more of a£amily-
oriented type operation on the interior. He said that the more heavily traveled
roada of Central Avenue and.73rd would bene£it higher concentrations of units
more than the interior roads. He stated that this was one of the reasons they
felt this development would be within keeping in character with the residential
� island.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 4
Mr. Bergman said he still felt they were talking about a spot rezoning o£ an
R-3� bordered by industrial on the South� Commercial on the North (for a portion�
and no other multiple-family. He asked if Mr. Hof£meyer had considered the
land-use relationships. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he wouldn't have come in here if
he hadn't considered it. Mr. Bergman explained he was concerned with relation-
ships in terms of traffic, o£ services and of activities, in which an R-3 was
different from any present zoning, He asked if the request for rezoning was
to any extent based on h�,rdship with the present zoning. Mr. Hoffineyer replied
that there were other things that could be put on that property that he didn't
think would be as desirable. He said all kinds of things could go there� but
that wouldn't make a buffer for the R-1 zoning that adjoins it. He added that
other ways of developing this property would not tie in, or from a planning
point of view make it as compatible as what he was suggesting. He Yurther added
that this particular area was ideal £or interspersing because of the green
areas around it, and he pointed out that behind Medtronics there was quite a
nice apartment complex. He said that he didn't think it was a hardship type
of thing� but it would be the best use of the property.
Mr. Peterson noted that th� 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 o£ this piece o£ property in terms o£ their developing it or using it.
Mr. Boardman replied that it was a11 developed; there were all single-family
houses to the East.
Chairperson Harris asked when t:ie internal street pattern would be built and
who would maintain it. Mr. Hoffineyer replied that this would be the Home Owners
Association� and the first street that would be put in would be the one on the
5outh. He added that they would keep progressing as the buildings were develo�
Mr. Harris asked when the Home Owners Association would be £ormed to maintain
the streets, and Mr. Ho£fineyer answered that it would be £ormed immediately.
He explained that before he could even talk to any lender he had to have all
those documents. Mr. Harris said he assumed the green areas would also be
taken care of by the Home Owners Association, and Mr. Ho££meyer replied yes,
just like Innsbruck. He said the whole thing would be maintained as soon as
building number one was erected.
Mr. Bergman stated he was unable to define from looking at the plan the green
areas. N1r. Hoffineyer directed him to look at sheet number one of the blueprints,
and explained that the buildings were all outlined and numbered� the driveways
were shaded in, and all the rest was green area. Mr. Bergman asked if he
planned anything in the development as far as a common recreation area� communal
area or playground, hir. Hof£meyer answered that he did not� but there iaas
enough green area that they could put in some swing sets. He explained there
was no swimming pool� horseshoe area� or anything like that in this project.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of financing would be available as £ar as a
person desiring to purchase one of these units, and Mr. Ro£flneyer replied
they were going to be flexible on this. He stated they would have conventional,
VA and FHA. btr. Langenfeld asked i£ there would be such a thing as a contract
for deed if a person wished 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 Comm3ssion Meeting - September B� 1976 Page 5
Mr. Michael Virnig, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E., stated that his property was right
� next to this parcel of land and he was totally neutral at this point. He
said that he hadn�t seen any plans or heard anything other than what was in
the notice that was sent to him. Mr. Hof£meyer showed him a set of plans, and
Mr. Virnig said there was nothi.ng further.
Mr. Boardman stated that this was the first time had had seen this proposal,
and there may be some Staff requirements of this type of development. He
suggested that the units in the "dog leg" be shifted North to provide a little more
area between the back end of those units to the South property line. He said
another thi.ng they would be looking for would be protection £or the single
femilies on the other side by heavy screening in these areas. He said this
wouldn�t be just the normal landscaping but a screenirig landscape. He said
he felt some pretty nice things would come out of this project as far as land-
scaping goes.
Chairperson Harris said that before this got too £ar down the line� he would
like the Fire Marshall to take a look at it. Mr. Boardman stated the Fire
Marshall, had looked at a similar plan and it was approved. Hovrever� he said,
the plan that he had seen had a loop in it as a drive, and he didn't know
what the Fire Marshall would say about tne two dead-end roads. He said they
would have those answers at the next meeting.
.Mr. Bergman asked if he assur.�ed correctly that ihere were two orriinance
concerns: 1) rezoning� and 2) a variance ;rom the minimum acreaoe requirement
for townhouse develo�nent which would be going to the Board o£ Appeals. Air.
� Boardman said that was correct. htr. Bergman then asked if aside from that�
the plan they �aere looking at met all other requirements as far as numbers
of garage stalls, open area� density� lot coverage� etc. Plr. Boardman said
that was right.
Mr, Langenfeld asked if there was an administrative report on this� and �ir.
Boardman replied there wasn't. r3r. Langenfeld asked i£ i•Ir. Boardran could
foresee any problem with the drainage as indicated, and he answered not at
this time.
Chairperson Harris asked how £ar back £rom the i.ntersection the access on
� Central was, and Mr. Hof£meyer said it was 270'from the corner. He stated
that the access from 73rd would be about 1lt2�from the corner. Dir. Langen£eld
asked if Mr. Boardman could foresee any problems with the trafFic control,
and Pir. Boardman replied he couldn't at this time. He added that he didn't
think there would be that much Lraffic out of these units. Dir. Harris asked
if there was a four-w*ay stop at Central and 73rd� and .ir. 9oardman said it =,,�as.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Gabel� that the Planning Gommission close the
Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 8:35 P•M•
Mr. Peterson said that on page 29 of the agenda Martin 0. and Dorothy L.
. Erickson were listed as owners of property adjoining the parcel they were
considering for rezoning, but he didn't see them on the mailing list. Mr.
Planning Commission Meeting - September S, 1976 Page 6
Boardman explained that the owners had changed since that time, end to get
the names for the mailing list they went to their assessing files and the �
owners were pulled off of those files.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that there was quite a number of people involved as far
as the mailing list was concerned� 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
view the proposal so they could voice their opinions. He asked if the zoning
request was recommended for approval if the citizens would have an opportunity
to voice their feelings at another hearing. Chairperson Harris said that
was correct. He added that if the Planning Commi.ssion recommended approval
of this� it would go to the City Council and they would have final action on
approving or denying.
Mr; Bergman said that because of the sizeable list of people invited 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 if this was the item that
brought them to the meeting. Four people raised their hands.
Mr. Boardman 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 Ch'airperson 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 would i'eel more comYortable tabling this item until the appropriat�
departments had a chance to look at it. Mr. Peterson stated he £elt the same
way, because the gentleman who said he was an adjacent property owner said he
was neutral because he hadn�t seen anything on it up to this point. Mr. Peterson
added that somehow he thought this was the wealmess of the Public Hearing
system; a notice was sent but it didn't inform the people what it was or why,
so people came to the Public Hearing to find out what was happening. He said
he didn't think this was quite right. Mr. Boardman pointed out that people were
free to call the City Of£ices� and Mr. Peterson commented that it was sometimes
very dif£icult to get a hold of the right person to talk to. Mrs. Gabel added
that it was very hard to explain a plat over the phone. Mr. Bergman stated he
shared the concern on this item and thought there should be additional consider-
ation on the'part of the public and this body.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission table
the request for rezoning, z0A y76-o3, by Evert R. Swanson, until the next scheduled
meeting.
Mr. Boardman explained that this had been the intent the way it was set up� and
it would not delay the petition. He said that this rezoning along with the
townhouse plan would all go to the City Council togeth a�.,
Mr, Peterson said he wished the maker of the motion would have included something
about another opportunity to in£orm the public who were concerned on this issue. •
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all vating �ye� the motion carried'unanimously.
� .--�:; ,ti
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 P�e �
� Chairperson Harris stated that this would come before the Plann3ng Commission
again on September 22nd. Mr. Langenfeld. said hs wished to let those people
present know that they could come back again on that date. Mr. Bergman brought
up another mailing to the public, but Mr. Boardman stated he didn't see where
another mailing would be appropriate. He said they had mailed out the notice .
of the variance request� rezoning and the preliminary plat,and the dates for
7'wnhse,.Devel. �d Plat were noted as September 22nd, Mr. Langenfeld noted
that those people present could also pass the word to their neighbors, and
Mrs. Gabel suggested that if they came to any conclusions before the Board of
Appeals Meeting� they should come to the Appeals meeting and voice them.
2, PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REC;UEST ZOA �`"16-0� BY GORDON ASPENSON: Rezone
Lots 10 and 11, Block , Lowell Addition to Fridley Park from R-1 (single
• family dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple dwelling areas) to allow
the construction of a tri-plex, the same being 6500 2nd Street t1.E.
Mr. Gordon Aspenson rras at the meeting to present his request.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission open the
Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA �76-04� by Gordon Aspenson. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Aearing
open at 8:50 P.M.
Mr. Boardman explained that this property was located on the loop back off
�, of the service drive along Mississippi Street. He directed the Co�nmissioners
to look at the map on page 37� and explained it would 'pe on the corne: of that
service dri.ve and 2nd 5treet. He stated that on the property di*_�ectly D;or�h
of this there was presently a lt-Plex, and the properties across t'r:e street
were also agartment buildings, t�s. Boardr.ian said that Pir. Aspenson had buildings
on Riverview Terrace and Mississippi Way� and he was proposing tnree uniLs
exactly like the four he presently had. He said that the buildin�s were the
townhouse type built on two levels� they were very attractive and he said he
wished they had more in the City. He stated that there we^e two residential
properties directly to the West oF this property� and the City Staff felt this
,rezoning would be in context with the plan of the City. �
Mr. Aspenson said he was proposing what he thought was an efficient and
attractive building. He stated he intended to keep it in his oossession and
maintain it� and he thought it would £it in very nicely wi+.h this particular
area.
Mr. Langenfeld asked Air. Boardmazi if there was a rezoning sign on this property,
and he replied there was. Chairperson Harris asked if when the underpass was
open that little leg that swings back to Mississippi Street would remain open
or be closed. Mr. Boaidman replied that would all be closed. Mr. Harris asked
if then there would be access of£ from Mississippi Street on to Second Street
and to the service drive. Pir. Boardman replied there would be. He eacplained
the building would sit right on the corner, and access to the garages would be
� off the service drive. He said the units would be facing Second Street, and
entrance to the units would be on the West side.
Chairperson Harris asked what the size o£ that parcel was, and Mr. Aspenson
replied 90 ft. by 136 ft. He added that it Was a couple of thousand feet
larger then was necessary for a tri-unit. Mr. Harris asked what the minimum
Planning Cormnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 8
lot size was on R-3� and Mr. Boardman answered it was 10,000 sq. ft, for a
three-family dwelling. He stated that Mr. Aspenson's was close to 12,000.
Mr. Boardman said 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 explained that as long as the entrance to the unit was to the outside,
the three-unit buildings were not required to have handicapped facilities,
but a multiple unit would be required to have them.
Mr. Lynn D. Hansen, 210 6%th Ave..N.E.� stated that he owned the �-plex that
was on the property adjoining Mr. Aspenson's� and asked if he could see the
plans £or the proposed building. Mr. Aspenson showed him the plans� and Mr.
Hansen agreed it was a nice-looking antl attractive building. Mr. Donald F,
Cable, 6530 Second St. N.E.� stated he was the caretake: for Mr. Hansen�
building� and he also thought the proposed structure would be bene£icial.
Mr. Bergrnan said he would again like a show o£ hands of those people in the
andience who were concerned with this item, and two people (I�Ir. Hansen and
Mr. Cable) raised their hands. Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Boardman could fill
him in on the zoning surrounding the lots in question. Mr. Boardman directed
the Conmissioners to turn to the map on page 36 0£ the agenda� and explained
the property directly North was R�3 �b-plex)� the property across the street
was R-3 (apartment buildings)� North o£ the !�-plex was City park property�
and 652� hlain St, and the property just South of that were zoned R-1. Mr.
Bergman noted that there seemed to be some land left a3'�er the service drive
went through, South oF lot il and the one to the West oi' it, �nd asked iF
there.;aere any plans for that property. 1✓r. Boardman said that was county
right-of-way.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close the +
Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #76-0�� by Gordon Aspenson. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing
closed at }:O5 P.ti.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recorunend
to City Council approval o£ rezoning request ZQA �76-0lt, by Gordon Aspenson:
Rezone Lots 10 and 11� Block !�, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park from R-1 (single
.�amily.dwelling areas} to R-3 (general multiple dwelling areas) to allow the
construction of a tri-plex, the same being 6$00 2nd Street N,E. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: RECtUES'� FOR A SPECIAL USE PERi�IIT SP /{76-13 BY KENNETH
BELftHOLDi: Per Fridley City Code� Section 20 .0 1� 2� i�� to allow tne
construction of a second accessory building� a 20' x 26' detached garage�
to be located on Lot 1� B1ock 6� Bennett Palmer Addition� the same being
5870 bth Street N,E.
Mr, and Mrs. Kenneth Belkholm were at the meeti.ng to present their request.
MOTION by Gabel� seconded by Peterson, that the Plaraning Commission open the
Public Nearing on a request for a Special Use Permit� SP #76-13, by Kenneth
Belkholm. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the •
Public Hearing open at 9:07 P.M.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 9
Mr. Boardman explained that this was a request for a second accessory building
� to replace a garage that had burned down on this property. He stated that the
only question they would have had on this would have been if the set back of
the new garage had been placed on the same foundation as the old garage. He
said it �as his Understanding that Mr. Belkholm had decided to �eetthe setback
requirements instead of going through a variance procedure. Mr. Boardman said
City Staff had no objections to this request.
Mr. Belkholm 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
two feet short of what the requirements were now. He stated he had decided
he would reposition the slab of the garage to take care of that, so there
would be no need for a variance.
Mr. Peterson asked what the added cost would be by having to change the slab
�d £oundation� and Mr. Belkholm said it erould be around $600 more. He said
he ]mew a variance would be cheaper� but other factors were involved. He
stated that he was coupling the increased size with the variance change when
he was stating this cost. Dfr. Belkholm explained the garage was originally
20 x 21t� and he was adding on two £eet, so the $600 involved the added increase
in size also. Mr. Bergman asked if he was saying he would pre£er to relocate
it £or reasons of his own� and i4r. Belkholm replied yes� he felt it would be
more advantageous to move the slab.
Mr. Peterson asked if it wasn�t £or the variance request if hlr. Belkholm
could just add the two feet to the existing s2ab and have the larger garage
he wanted, and Mr. Belkholm replied that was true.
� Mr. Langen£eld noted that this was a detached garage� and asked if it would be
used primari3y for automobiles. Mr. Be2kholm replied it would. N,r. Langenfeld
asked what the first accessory building was� and hir. Boardman answered it was
the garage that was attached to the house. Mr., Langenfeld asked i£ the garage
would be constructed to be compatible to the house, and Mr. Belkholm replied
it wouZd be. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was going to be any form of commercial
enterprise� and Nir. Belkholm said there wouldn't be.
Mrs. Gabel asked what portion of the $600 extra he was spending to move the
slab� and Mr. Belkholm answered that the insurance adjuster said �y1t88 would be
for replacing the slab. Mrs. Gabel asked if it would have to be replaced at
any rate� and Pfr. Belkholm replied it wouldn't, it was just a matter of ?,�hat
he decided to do with i.t, rfrs. GaUel commented that she hated to see him spend
$600 when he could spend $$0 for a variance.
Mr. Peterson asked if there was a Special Use Permit for the building that was
destroyed by fire, and Mr. Boardman said there wasn�t. He explained it was
there before the zoning was passed.
MOTION by Langeafeld� seconded by Peterson, that the Planni.ng Commission close
the Public Hearing on the request £or a Special Use Permit� SP //76-13� by
Kenneth Belkholm. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris
declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:20 P.M.
�---�c
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 10
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission •
recommend to City Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit,
SP �76-13, by Kenneth Belkholm� per Fridley City Code� Section 205.051� 2� A�
to allow the construction of a second accessory building, a 20' x 26� detached
garage� to be located on Lot 1� Block 6, Bennett'Palmer Addition, the same
being 5870 6th Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
4. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING THE PD DISTRICT (PLANNED DEVELOPh1ENT) IN THE
Mr. David Rotter of BotClundConstruction Company was present.
Mr. Boardman explained that hlx�. Rotter was going to come in £or a replat on
$n area South of Springbrook Creek� and they want to discuss at this time the
possibility of the Planning Commission initiating a rezoning of 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 Tir. Rotter initiate the rezoning 5outh
of the creek, and the Planning Commission initiate the rezoning North of there.
Chairperson Harris asked who o�rned the property North o£ the creek at the
present time� and i�ir. Boardman replied it was owned by various individuals
and single families. Mr. Harris asked how this wound up as PD� and N,r. Boardrran
said that took place quite a while ago. He explained that at that time there
was a proposal £or a co7mnercial development North of the creek and an apartment
development South of' the creek. He stated he Vrasn�t really sure of the ba.c'.tground
on that zoning� but it was rezoned to PD so developers could develop both �
commercia2 and industrial. P•4s�. Harris asked what the'zoning *,ras previous to
that, and Mr. Boardman answered R-1, rir. Harris commented that what they irere
talking about then was reverting it to the original zoning. Mr. Boardman said
that indications were that the property oi,mers North o£ the creek would not
have any objections to the rezoning.
Mr. Rotter said his company was owner of the South section of this property
and builder of the North section. He stated that in 1973 he came be£ore the
Planning Coir¢nission to ask for permits to build single-family dwellings in
' the PD area� and he was granted them. Mr. Rotter said he aslced them to leave
the South section alone until they decided what to do with it, He re£erred to
the map on page !�5 of the agenda� and said that South of the line which said
359 there was about a five acre pie.ce of land. He stated he would like to
rezone part o£ this or be allowed to build single-family dti•rel].in�s, leaving
lots 11� 12 and 13 in either PD zoning or �-3 zoning ^atner th<ui c7anEin� it
all back to residential. rir. Rotter explained that one piece of property
abutted East River Roafl, and there was no access off Liberty or Ruth, and no
access off the extension of Ely. He said that rather than leaving it as
residential property and bring up three driveways to East River �oad, he was
going.to leave that as either PD or R-3 zoning and put something in there that
would be condusive to the area. He stated he did not want to reaone the whole
entire piece because that would leave a dead piece of property.
Chairperson Harris sriid it seemed to him the practical thing to do would be to �
leave it PD and have the developer bring in a total plan on the whole area.
Mr. Rotter said t!�at was what he wanted to happen. He said they had already
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 11
� handled the North section in this same fashionx taking out permits, without
submi.tting en overall plan. He explained he didn't submit ari overall plan
of each house sitting on each lot as such.
Chairperson Harris said he wasn't so hung up on the exact location of each
structure� but would like to Imow what kind of struc+ur��s doethate� He said hat
single-family, etc. Mr. Rotter said he would be happy
with the PD zoning of the property there was supposed to be some overall
drawing of the property consisting of where each unit was going to be, what
particular size, c.*here each driveway would be located� etc. !ie said it was
pretty involved. He stated that he would like to change the street pattern
of Ely, pulling the extension back and make it a cul-de-sac. He added that
the section containing lots- 11, 12 and 13 he wanted R-3 for apartrnents.
Mr. Bergman said he didn't rea2ly understand who wants to rezone the North
part� who wants to rezone the South part, and what the purpose would be
in either case. Mr. Boardman showed him on the map whicn area I•Sr. Rotter
owned and wanted to reglat� and explained how he wanted to pull Ely back
into a cul-de-sac to allow for single-family development off o£ that cul-de-sac.
He also showed whicn property Mr. Rotter wanted to leave as PD. Pir. Bergman
stated he didn't understand why a rezoning. He said he thought the PD was
established to provide flexibility� and asked if it wasn't within the context
of PD to construct� where a plan so dictated� single-family homes. Pir. Boardman
stated that PD in the code book tias very bulky and hard to administer. He
said he thou;ht it rras the position of City Administration that since Fairnont
� Circle is developed R-1 property� it should meet the zoning requirenents for
an R-1 area� and when the plat from Rottlund comes in it should also be rezor.ed
to meet R-1 requirements. P1r. Bergman asked if PD didn't enoompass R-1
requirements, and bir. Boardman said it was easier to eniorce and easie; to
administer under R-1.
Mr. Rotter sai3 they had developed the North section under this P4 development
as residential already, and they xould be willing to £ollow the same £ramework�
but they didn't want 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
ask . to have it rezoned to R-3. N1s'. Boardman stated he was not saying that
they would be rezoning the whole thing� but anything that was being developed
as R-1 should really correspond to a R-1 disi:rict. Mr. Rotter said that would
be agreeable with him. He added he just wanted to change the street nattern
to facilitate the use of the property as R-1, other than that one section rrnere
he eventually wanted to build some tyne o£ aFartments or townhouse.
Mr. Boardman said that the purpose of the discnssion was to get the Planning
Commission's feelings on initiating a rezoning procedure of the PD property
North around the Fairmont Circle area: Mr. Bergman asked who would pay the fee�
and Mr. Boardman explained there Would be no fee if the City initiated it.
Mr. Langenfeld said he looked up the PD District Regulations 205.12 and 205.123,
The Procedure for Establishing a Planned Development Zoning Dis�rict. 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 Commission Meeting - September S, 1976 Page 12
a preliminary development plan 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 stages. He added that this was R-1 already� now it was PD,
and Mr. Rotter wanted to go back to R-1 again. He stated he would like it zoned�
one way or another.
Mr. Boardman replied that because of the bulkiness of the ordinance the City
said single family units could be developed in there without having to go through
the procedure of PD.
Chairperson Harris said that he would like to see some type o£ general plot
plan before they took any action, Mr. Rotter said he wanted to do a plan of
it, and this was just for discussion.
Mr. Peterson asked if they were asking the petitioner to spend more money on
rezoning than if he were to develop it under P.D., and Nir. Boardman said he
thought something like this would have to be worked out as far as cost goes.
Mr. Harris asked where else the City had a PD� and Tir. Boardman said he thought
this was the only area in the City.
Mr. Bergman noted that Mr. Boardman had said the area North of the creek was
developed� and asked what public benefit would be served by rezoning the area
around Fairmont Circle which was already developed. Mr. Boardman anso,*ered
that it would stabilize the property the houses were on.
Mrs. Gabel raised the question of financing for structures in PD areas, and
Mr. Rotter replied that there had been one question raised by an attorney
when the Idorth section vras financed. He said he had shown the attorney the
minutes o£ the Council meeting saying the,y would allow the area to be developed .
as residential even though it was PD� and he said that vras fine. P4s�s. Gabel
asked about the feelings of the lending institutions� and Afr. Rotter replied
he had closed on all the loans himsel£ and there hadn't been any problems.
Mr. Langenfeld said that since it was his understanding that this was the only
PD area remaining in the City� one advantage in granting the request would be
eliminating another portion of the ordinance to deal with. Mr. Rotter said
he didn�t want to change it� but wanted to be alloiaed to build houses in the
area. He explained if the property was all rezoned back to R-1 he would have
to come back in at a future date and ask for still another rezoning in order
to build the apartments.
Mr. Bergman asked i£ I�Ir. Rotter was in a position to come in iaith a preliminary
plat� and S•Sr, Rotter said he could do that. He sai.d it was platted r.n�.a and
he just wanted to replat it. �Ie explained he would just Ue ciian�ing some of
the lot sizes� and all he really wanted to do was change the street, rir. Peterson
said that then the zoning request was really a Staff request� and Mr. Rotter
said that was correct. Pir. Peterson asked what the additional cost would be
to the property owner if he rezoned, and Mr. Boardman said about $15$ total.
Mr. Boardman said the only other way they �rould do it would be for the City
Administration to request tiie Planning Commission to petition £or rezoning on
the entire PD area. Mr. Rotter stated he thought that was ridiculous.
�
f�,
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 13
� Chairperson Harris said the problem he saw with the whole thing was the City
Council had set a.precedent. He sai.d he thought.it would be very difficult
to require the Planning Commission to initiate a rezoning without the petitioner's
concurrence. Mr. Boardman pointed out that they had never done it before, and
Mr. Harris said he would like to talk to an attorney be£ore they got too far
down the line.
Chairperson Harris suggested that rir. Rotter draw up a plan and bring it in
for them to look at, because right now they were just batting at moonbeams.
Mr. Rotter said that whatever was decided, he wanted to get it expedited
so some engineering work could be done by early spring. He added that he would
bring in what he would like to do and let the Commission review that, but
he wouldn't be here to rezone the property unless it was the only way he could
get residential in there.
Mr. Peterson stated that what bothered him was that it was a Staff situation
making a decision over something that had been done for the Staff's convenience.
Mr. Boardman said that Staff xas not making a decision, just a recammendation.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission table
the consideration of rezoning the PD District (Planned Development) in the 8100
block East-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 was that he was a little uncomfortable with
• this.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said that at this time he would like to add to the agenda Itero
16, a Discussion on the Beer Ordinance, as Mr. Marvin Brunsell was present to
give them additional in£ormation 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 Coranission suspend
the rules and take up Item 16. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimously.
16. DISCUSSION ON BEER ORDIIdANCE
Mr. Brunsell stated that this had been before the Planning Commission, and it
came before them because o£ the fact that the City had a problem with issuing
a beer on-sale license at a particular location for a particular kind o£ event.
He said he didn�t believe that normally the Planning Commission would be
involved with strictly licensing-type situations. He said this one was sort
of a zoning type of thing and how the Gity controlled it� and that was apparently
how 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 ordinance based quite a bit on a model ordinance and substantially changed
the ordinance the City Council acted on. He stated that the Council now passed
�---
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 14
the ordinance that was before the Commission at this time. Mr. Brunsell pointed �
out that Subdivision 2� Section 602.02� de£ined the areas or the types of
businesses that could be licensed for on-sale beer license� and this was
probably the area they would want to discuss.
Mr. Brunsell explained that the ordinance further on advised that a Public
Hearing would be held, which was something new and was 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� re°aredVand servedt'for
liquor stores� restaurants� and hotels where food is p p
consumption on the premises only. He explai.ned that a"Beer store" meant
an establishment for Lhe sale of beer, cigars� cigarettes� all forms of tobacco�
beverages� and so£t drinks at retail. Mr. Brunsell said he thought this would
probably control the situation they had as far as that one application £or an
on-sale beer license.
Chairperson Iiarris asked how the beer store fit into the zoning districts,
and Mr, Boardman said it didn�t. He explained the problem they ended up with
now was that before they gave a definition of a tavern in the ordinance,
and that tavern related to the C-2 districts where it says bars and taverns.
He stated they had changed that to make it Special Use Permit, and right now
they were sitting with bar and tavern under Special Use Permit in C-2 districts
without a de£inition of what a bar or tavern is. He said the only thing they
fell back on was the bar and tavern licensir.g. He er.plained a bar was the sale
o�' 3•2 beer with no entertainment, a tavern was the sale of 3.2 beer with live
entertainment� 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 was issued where there �aas 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 because they
had live entertainment.
Mr. Bergman said that his off-the-cuff -reaction was that someone had come up
with a new name called "beer store"� and he couldn!t identify with that. He
said he lmew what a tavern was, what a bar was and what a restaurant was, but
�questioned what a beer store was that could apparently encompass any or all of
them. He said the definition was awkward� and he couldn't relate• with the
title "beer store" or its definition. Mr. Brunsell said he thought he had the
same impression, but a£ter r=r. Herrick explained it he thought it would work.
He stated it was something he had never heard of before himself.
Chairperson Narris said he wondered if there was some sort of language that
could be possibly incorporated as part of the definition of a beer store
to tie it to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman said in other words, where
is the control on beer stores within the zoning ordinance, and where is a beer
store allowed? Mr. Brunsell suggested that maybe this was where the word
tavern should be used. He sxplained that they were probably going to end up
char�ing the tavern license to say entertainment� as that was really what they
were trying to license there.
Mz�, Bergman said that the definition of a beer store left him cold. He said i
a beer store was defined as a place that sold beer� oigarettes, candy, tobacco,
etc.� and to him that meant if a man sold beer Nelsaid thatnto himearbeerrstore
because he was not selling tobacco and candy.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 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 �as the ordinance didn't say anything
about consumption. Mr. Langenfeld said there were definitely a lot of implications
there.
Mr. Bergman said he would like to back up a moment and ask what the problem was
with the Planning Commission�s recommendation on ordinance change. Mr. Brunsell
said he thought there were just other parts of the ordinance that had to be
gone over. Mr. Harris commented that when they looked at the ordinance they
had looked at it from a zoning standpoint, and hadn't taken into consideration
the implications of enforcement or administration. Mr. Peterson commented they
had also been concerned ahout the tempor2ry licenses, Special Use Permits� etc.
Mr. Boardman said that the ordinance gave a definition of uhat a beer store
was� snd under that there were licenses required. He stated there were regular
on-sale licenses� temporary on-sale licenses� and off-sale licenses, and all
of those would be classi£ied under beer store. He said he was a bit confused
by this also� and thought the definition of beer store didn't really fit with
regular on-sale and could also fit equally as well for of£-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 ordinance was spealting
strictly to 3.2 beer, and Mr. Brunsell said that was correct. I�Sr. Harris
said he was wondering about the sale of 3.2 beer in a liquor store. Mr.
Brunsell said they could sell strong beer under thei.r liquor license� but
. one of the liquor establishments did have a 3.2 license so they could sell
beer on Sunday.
Mr. Langen£eld noted that it stated no minor shall be permitted to conswne
beer on the licensed premises� and then on page !t in regard to clubs under
Subdivision 5 it stated that no minor shall consume beer unless in the
company of his parent or guardian. He stated that seemed a bit peculiar to
him. Mrs. Gabel noted that Subdivision 1� stated that no minor shall have
beer in his possession with the intent to consume it at a place other than
the household of his parent or guardian. She commented that seemed to leave
it open.
Mr. Bergman asked if it was the Planning Commission's purpose to review a
proposed ordinance change� and Mr. Harris said it c�ras. Air, Harris said the
thing that troubled him was he had the feeling they had gone through the work
of trying to tie it to the zoning code, which was the original idea, and all
o£ a sudden they got it untied from the zoning code. :ir. Brunsell said 'ae
thought Mr. Harris had brought up a good point� and suggested possibly putting
this aside to see if they could come up with something that would tie into
the zoning code. He said that maybe by that time the tavern ordinance would
be far enough along for the two of them to work together. Chairperson Harris
said that perhaps they would want to take a look at the tavern ordinance
from a zoning standpoint also, and added that he was sure it could be handled
somehow by definition.
iMr, Peterson asked if it wouldn't be better for the other ordinances to use
£he language that xas used i.n the zoning ordinance to make it consistert rather
than changing the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman stated that it was just a
1�■
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 16
matter of bringing the definitions together. He said he did see some problems �
with the definition of a beer store as it was too vague.
Chairperson Harris stated that another point that was brought up was whether
it was consumed or not consumed. He asked if thep were saying a beer store
was a groce�,� store or a drug store. Mr. Bzw�sell said he didn't think that
was the intent. He said he thought the intent was to define the beer store
as a tavern where it was consumed on the premises. He explained they could
issue off-sale licenses and it didn't have to be a beer store, but it had to
be a bona fide club, beer store, exclusive on-sale liquor store, restaurant
or hotel where food was prepared to be issued an on-sale license. He said
they could issue an of£-sale license to practically anybody. Mr. Boardman
commented that he thought they had better change the definition they had of
a beer store.
Mr. Boardman explained that the zoning ordinance didn't have a definition
of tavern. He stated that the £irst time the ordinance went tnrough they
defined what a tavern was under the beer ordinance� and by de£ining what it
was under the beer oxdinance it was tied to the zoning code that said a tavern
was allowed in a C-2 district with a Special Use Permit. He said it stated
you could have 3.2 beer in a tavern, but it would only be allowed in a G2
District with a Special Use Permit. I�ir. Brunsell asked if that shouldn't be
in the zoning ordinance rather than the licensin.g, and i•Ir. Boardrian said
the thing they had to do now was correlate definitions. Mr. BrUnsell commented
that he could see there was a problem with this.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 10:1$ P.Pi. and reconvened the meeting
at 10:1�0 P.M.
•
� 5, DISCUSSION ON SURVEY POLICY OF THE CITY
Mr. Bergman stated that he thought it was very clear. He said that it read
that each application for 2 building perr.�it shall be accompanied by a Certificate
of Survey, dra:ing or plat. He said that then in the following paragraph it
read that once tYie construction of thc foundation nad been complcted� a
Certificate of Survey was needed to see where a person built� whereas a drawing
would do before.
Mrs. Gabel said that in looking through the Appeals Commission minutes, in
most cases she fo,uzd that the Staff personnel thai went to the site was able
to determine fai.rly accurately whare the lot lines were.
Mr. Boardman said that the City Code read that all building permits must have
a site permit� then� after the Foundation was in� must have a verifying survey.
He stated that in order to maintain the intent of the City Code as written withc�
putting an inordinate burden on the citizen because of the cost of the surveys�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 18
middle o£ his lot. Mr. Boardman said he felt the risk was diminished because of
the arnount of data they had available to them. •
Mr. Bergman questioned item 2 on page k6 of the agenda, which stated that once
construction of the foundation had been completed, a certificate o£ survey
showing the location of the foundation shall be required, Mr. Boardman said '
they didn't follow that on any of the additions or anything like that. He
said that would require the person to first of all get a survey of the property�
and after the foundation was in he �rould have to get that resurveyed, PYr,
Bergman said that wasn't what the code said� and read item 1 which said "Each
application £or a building permit shall be accomnanied by a Certificate of
Survey� drawing, or plat". He said that meant just a sketch would suf£ice.
He added that a person could build a fonndation based on a sketch� but then
the code said he had to have it surveyed to see if he built it in the right
place.
Chairperson Harris said that second item was really kind of silly. Ae cited
an incident that happened near his folks' place where the basement was already
in before they found out there was a foot mistal�e. He asked what could be
done then--move the whole basement? PSr. Boardman said in some cases the City
required them to do that. Mrs. Gabel said that.mistakes happened a lot of
times 2nd they just carr,e in and got a variance.
M�•. Bergman stated that he thought i£ a certifi_cate o£ survey was going to
be required at all it should be required before construction z•ras started.
I•Ir. Langenfeld asked A1r. Boardman hora he would feel if he was building a
home and was required to have two surveys. Mr. Boardman said if he was �
building a new home he would have to have a survey anyway, but if he t�ras
building an addition he zaouldn�t like it, P�1r, Peterson asked if the original
survey wouldn't stand up, and Mr. Boardman ansrrered tnat a lot of times there
wasn't an original survey or the original survey was lost or the company that
did the original survey was defunct. Ptr. Bergman said he had no quarrel with
the description of the way it was handled� and it seemed reasonable to him:
Mr. Boardman said that in the case where wri_tten consent of the adjacent
property owner was required� he thought that perhaps there should be an upper
limit of ttao or three times what was required so they could make the construction
without the consent of the adjacent property owner. He said that the way it
was noU* 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 nroperty owner
regardless of where the addition was on the lot, rir. Langenfeld said that
even =f the present adjacent property owner gave his consent, he couid �ove
out and the new owner could have it:surveyed 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£ew cases where
there were some miscalculations and in most cases they were required to go
for a variance. He said that in those cases where Staff felt there might
be problems' they did request the applicant to have a survey.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if it was correct that if a fence was on a property for
fifteen years it was an established property 2ine. Mr. Peterson said he didn�t •
Planning Cortunission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 19
think it had tp be there for 15 years., and Mr. Boardman said he thought it
� was seven years. Chairperson Harris agreed, but said he didn°t think that
really held water. He explained it didn't really mean that anybody had
received ownership of that; all the Cartway 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-o£-w�y or part of the other person's
property or anything like that, h1r. Langenfeld said the way he heard it, it
was the establishment of the lot line. Mr. Peterson said no� it just meant
he couldn't force you to tear down the fence after a certain number of years.
Mr. Boardman asked the Conmi.ssion if they would feel more comfortable if this
was �rritten policy concerning surveys, and Chairperson Harris replied it
was a good idea. He said that possibly at some point o£ time they might get
challenged� and it xould be good to have it established in z+miting. Mr.
Boardman said the purpose of this policy xould be to try to maintain the
intent o£ the City Code without inordinant burden on the citizen.
Mr. Boardman said that at the neact meeting there would be something drawn up
as poZicy on this.
6. CONTINUID: RECO,�II�LNDATIODI ON CITY CONTRIBUTING $1,000 TO FINE ARTS
Chairperson Harris reminded the Commission they had asked to see a budget
on what the Fine Arts Committee was going to do with the money. Ae asked
• Mrs, Shea what was meant by a negative v�r_ance of 1�� and she said she tirasn't.
£amiliar with that. D1r. Harris also noted that belo4r that there iaas a
negative variance o£ 16ib. Mr. Boardman said they had probably budgeted on
1000 and only got 839. �1�'. �genfeld said it was his opinion on the negative
variance of 1% that they could have that leeway either way.
Mr. Harris referred to the 1977 �nding Source Request on page 65 of the
agenda and asked if it wa.s going to cost �5800 for those productions, and
Mrs. Shea said it would. Mr. Harris asked if they had to return part of
- that to Community Schools, and Pirs. Shea said they didn't because they were
part of Community Schools.
Chairperson Harris asked how well they did on the last play, and Airs. Shea
replied they had $1�000 le£t over £rom their total receipts. Mr. Langenfeld
said that when this had been discussed last time� he thought they lost money
on the last production. Airs. Shea said they lost money on the first oroduction,
but not on the seeond.
Chairperson Harris asked where 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 recommend
to City Council apgroval of a contribution to the Fridley Fine Arts Commi.ttee
in the amount of $1,000. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye� the motion
� carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 20
7. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM WITH APPROPRIATE
STAFF PERSON: �
Mr. Boar��nan stated that he had talked to Jan Konzak on this and she had talked
to the City Mananger, and they had come out with positions on the four motions
by Human Resources.
Mr. Boardman said the first motion was to accept a statement that said '�It
requires firms .rith whom it transacts business to do likewise". In other words�
he'continued� in order For the City to do business with a firm it would require
that firm to not discriminate in hirit�g practices on the basis of race, sex�
etc. Mr, Boardman said it was decided that Fridley already had one of the
strongest affirmative action programs in the �rin Cities because they had
designated goals and timetables laid out. He said that the word '�require"
would be difficult to en£orce, and there really was no major distinction between
encourage and require; there£ore they would leave it as encourage.
Mr. Boardman said that with regard to the second motion to establish a training
program to quali£y protected �;roups for advancement, the City already had an
educational assistance program in which tHese educational programs were evaluated
on their current position and also antici.pated responsibilities and is handled
on a case by case basis. He said they felt they had already carried out the
intent o£ that motion.
Mr. Boardman siated that the.third motion was to establish specific percentage
goals for protected classes in each job class and a semi-annual report be made
of the progress to the Human Resources Commission. He �aid that they felt they •
had already provided this because they had set goals and timetables in their
A£firmative Aciion Program. He said ihey do not make any written reports� but
they did report to the Human Resources Cor,unission as requested. He exolained
that they felt to designate it as a semi-anr.ual report was not really necessary.
Mr. Boardman said that the fourth motion involved the commi_tment to seek
placing of persons in non-traditional job classes, such as nen as clerical
workers� women as police officers� and so on. Mr. Eoardman said they were
already providing more than adequate opportunity for this to take place.
He said the City was not discriminating� but it just so happened that to date
°they had not had any men applying for clerical positions. He said that as £ar
as police of£icers went� this was handled by the Civil Service Commission and
to date the women had not scored high enough to place, but it was possible for
a woman to become a police officer, .
1•fr. Boardman summarized by saying that the Cit,y Tlanager and the Affir^�a'..ive
Action Officer felt that three of the motions were already being carried out,
and in the other they felt that "require" would be difficult to enforce and
"encourage" stood up to what they were trying to accomplish under the Affirmative
Action Program.
Mrs. Gabel asked if there was a written A££irmative Action Program other than
what was required by law, and h1r, Boardman said there was and it listed the
goals and timetables. He stated that most cities had A£firmative Action Programs •
but their goals and timetables were very vague� xhereas the City of Fridley's
were rtot.
�1�
Planning Co�mnission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 21
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission concur
� with the Staff Report as the official policy of the Planning Commission. Upon
a voice vote, Harris� Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson and Gabel voting aye, Shea
vot3ng nay, the motion carried.
8. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY H�MES:
Con inued to Septem er 22, 197
2
�
Continued to
10. RECEIVE NOTICE AND MAILING LIST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING H
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive
the notice and mailing list for a Public Hearing held in Spring Lake Park on
August 23� 1q76. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Boardman explained this item was on the agenda to let the Commission ]m ow
what was happening and that they.had noti£ied the people in Fridley that• wculd
be affected by this. Ae said that as £ar as City Staff went, he didn't have
any problem with what they were planning to do. He explained that this was
� off of Old Central and Osborne Road, and it had been rezoned not long ago
from industrial to commercial. He said that now they �aere asking for a Special
Use Permit to develop a neighborhood shopping center. He described the property
as being t�ll £eet East of Old Central, and North.of Osborne.
Chairperson Harris asked if there had been any reponse £rom anybody� and Mr.
Boardman replied they had some response on the rezoning request and 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 were generally opposed or
in favor of the rezoning, and Pir. Hoardman said they hadn't gotten a reading
on that.
11. RECEIVE ENVIRONhfENTAL QUALITY COPL�iI5SI0N MINUTES: AUGUST 1% 1976
Mr. Berman stated he would like to comment that in reading the motions on page
51� he got the impression that members of the Fhvironmental Commission were
asking City Admi.nistration to recommend the content of an ordinance and then
the Fridley Ehvironmental Co�nission monitor and control compliance of that
ordinance. He said that seemed to him to be the exact reverse of how this
process was supposed to operate. Mr. Langenfeld replied he didn�t feel that.
He explained the intent o£ the motions was to merely pick up the environmental
highlights within these various ordinances and incorporate them in a model
ordinance for Fridley, which they hoped that Staff xould provide.
�` Mr. Bergman asked where the recommendations were from the F�vironmental
Commission describing whaL they wanted in the ordinance from a policy view,
Hr. Langenfeld �plained that what they wanted were the sources of information
such as the Golden Valley ordinance, the Coon Rapids Conservancy District
Planning Commission Meeti.ng - September 8, 1976 Page 22
Ordinance #378, and so on, In other words, he said, they gave Staff the prerogative
to pick out the environmental sensitive elements of those particular areas �
to incorporate in an ordinance for the ]hvironmental Commission to review. He
explained these were merely guidelines to help them.
Mr. Boardman explained that they wanted Staff to draft a comprehensive ordinance
to take the place oF Chapter 212 and that it be presented at the neact Fh vironmental
Quality Commission meeting for their review, He said that instead of drai'ting
one� they had received a model ordinance from Metro Cauncil and would submit
that. Mr. Langenfeld said that they thought they were going to get one in the
first place� and were trying to get some direction going to continue this.
Mr. Bergman noted on page 50, under Review Chaper 212� that the F7ivironmental
Commission reouested they review all activities prior to issuance of a permit.
He said that put them in the day-to-day compliance of it, Mr. Langenfeld
explained that the Commission felt there should be some type o£ control on
this even though no ordinance exists. A4r. Bergman asked if this should be
by Commission rather than City Staff, and Mr. Langenfeld replied only for.
Environmental review. He summarized by saying they hoped to get an ordinance
dradm up� and would then review it and provide their recor�mendations to the
Planning Commission. He added that now they had the metropolitan model ordinance
which they would review and see what would Work for this particular area. He
explai.ned the only other thing in the minutes were a couple of typos� which he
wo�ldn�t take the time to correct.
MOTIQPi by Langenfeld, seconded by Ber�man� that the Planning Commission receive
the Environmenial Quality Corrmission minutes of August 17� 1976. Upon a voice �
vote� all t�oting aye� the motion carried unanimously. .
Mr. Langenfeld informed the Commission that the East River Road Project Committee
would 'tie meeting the fpllowing evening� September 9th, and tiaere going to submit
a proposed plan for East River Road. He invited anyone interested to attend.
Mr, Bergman noted that the East River Road Project Committee was a project
committee within the E�vironmental Commission� rrhich was a member commission
chaired within the Planning Commission. He asked how it was that the project
,committee dealt directly with the County Highway Department. Mr. Langenfeld
said they had the right to go to any source they wished to obtain the in£ornation
for their committee. Mr. Bergman said he thought it was to propose a plan to
the county� which the Planning Commission or the City Council might disagree
with. rir. Langenfeld said the committee wanted to slow the traffic up on East
River Road and they had drawn uo a proposed plan of the rray tne residents c:oiild
like to see it, Chairperson Harris asked if they would be disposed to subrnit
it to the Planning Commission £or review, and D4r. Langen£eld explained that
this meeting was taking place tomorrow night. Mr. Harris commented that it
seemed they were getting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Boardr.ian suggested to Mr. Langen£eld that he may have to ride rein on this
a little. He said that proj'ect committee was established to come up with
recommendations that could be carried out by the Planning Commission or the
City Council. He said they were not set up to go out and make proposals and •
offers to the county or the Metro Council or the government.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 23
Chairperson Harris stated that the group could go as a citizen's groug any.place
� they wanted, but if they were representing themselves as a subcommittee under
the Planning Commission� they were out of line. He said that they were then
representing the Planning Cormni.ssion, and as spokesman £or this Commission he
objected to that. He added that if they were going to represent the Planning
Commission in these matters, then they better get concurrence from the Planning
Commission; and if they were going to represent the City Council in these matters,
they better get concurrence from the City Council.
Mr. Boardman agreed that they could take their proposal as a citizen's group
anywhere they wanted to, but as a designated project committee under the
Environmental Commission they had obligations to meet to that Commission
as set up by the scope of the project committee and within the scope o£ the
City ordinance. He said their £unction was simply a function of making a
report back to the Fhvironmental Commission. Mr. Langenfeld stated that it
had started out £ine� and what took place was they apparently had gotten ahold
of an existing plan to completely revise East River Road and didn't go along
with it because of safety factors and speed� and had drawn up a counter proposai
to present to the county to see if they could come to a mutual agreement.
Mr. Boardman said if he was the County Fligineer he would tell tttem to get the
concurrence o£ the City Council. He added that if it goes too much fu^ther
the Planning Cormnission might have to request that the D�vironmental Commission
pull in the reins on them or diss�lve the committee. Mr. Harris said that then
they could operate as an ad hoc committee� and that would be perfectly fine.
Mr. Langen£eld stated he would have to tell the project committee that they
�were running a little ahead o£ themselves� and Mr. Harris said he would personally
really like time to look at the plasi and study it.
Mr. Boardman said the proposal should be looked at from the Fhvirorvnental
Commission level first, so they.could make recommendations, and Chairperson
Harris added that he would certainly like Cormnunity Development to look at
it also. Mr. Bergman agreed� and said it was much broader than just environ-
mental.
12. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION CO;q+IISSION MIISUTES: AUGUST 23 1976
MOTION by Peterson� seconded hy Gabel, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the August 23� 1976 Parks and Recreation meeting.
Mrs. Shea noted that under the neighborhood subcorruaittees a deadline was referred
to� and asked ��✓hai that date was, hlr. Boardman said it was September 27tn.
Mrs. Shea noted they had sent out letters for resident input and hoped Lo hear
from people, but that she hadn't seen anything and had yet to hear of anybody
i.n her neighborhood who 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 Riversedge Property on
page $9� and asked if there was some proposal by somebody to buy those lots.
•Mr. Peterson said yes, they thought all they had to do was^get the Parks and
Recreation Commission to agree to sell them. He said those people hadn't
Planning Commission Meeti.ng - September 8� 1976 Page 2�
realized that it was a bid procedure. Mr. Harris asked whaL the intent was on
that particular piece of property, and Mr: Peterson replied there were no plans •
at the present time. Mr. Harris asked ii 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 itsel£ to- a park. Mr. Peterson said .
that one of the things that might happen would be that some picnic tables and
charcoal grills were pui in there.
Mr. Peterson stated that the Recreation Project Committee has really done a
terri£ic job� and hopefully they would get a lot o£ in£ornation. He said they
had invited people to appear before them and give testimony, had the school
people in� and had really done a lot of work on it. He added that some o£ the
quality oi work was going to be much greater than others, but with 1� different
project committees working this summer on Parks and Recreation, it was a feat
in itself.
Mr. Bergman commented that he would be interested in seeing what area 13 came
up with, because as he and Mrs. Shea agreed, they were the largest so-called
neighborhood within the map. He said this included Innsbruck South o£ Hwy.
69�, which was a neighborhood by itself, the area he was in including Innsbruck
North� and extended way North from there. He said there were at least three
neighborhoods in what was called one neighborhood� and there was no cohesion
between them.
UPON A UOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motien carried unanimously.
13. DISCUSS DATE SET FOR JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL OTI �0 FOOT LOTS �
Mr. Boardman said that if they wanted to discuss this at one of the tiaorlcshop
meetings, the next one would be November 22nd. 6therwise, he said, a special
meeting with the City Council could be requested.
Chairperson Harris asked what Mrs. Schnabel's status was� and Pirs. Gabel
informed him that she was having some complications. She said that the date
of November 22nd could be set tentativ�ly� and i£ there were £urther 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 PROPOSED MAIn'TENANCE CODE
P10TION by Langenfeld� seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive
the proposed maintenance code. Upon a voice yote� all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Bergman commented that he thought this proposed code should go to applicable
commissions. However� he said� prior to sending it to commissions some review
and direction from the Planning Commission should go along with it.
15. STAFF' DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING COhL^IISSTON ON VARIOUS IT�.T1S •
Mr. Boardman said the Commission probably noticed that receiving of the minutes
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 25
. xas put in the back of the agenda instead of the front hecause entirely too
much time was being spent on receiving the minutes, and the Public Hearings
weren�t started until 9:00 or 9:30.
He said another thing he wanted to bring out at this time� although it wasn't
so bad at this meeting, was that the nit-picking on the minutes was getting
pretty awful. I:e said that, ior instance� typos and things like that could
be passed over without any comment. He said that also, unless an item was
specifically requested to be brought out by that Commission� he felt the
information could be picked up by each individual member without 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
member Commi.ssioners. He said he could see at certain times they would wish
to clarify their position or perhaps they felt the item xas important enough
that they wanted to bring it to the attention of the Cor,unission.
PIr. Boardman said he just wanted to bring this up� as this was similar to
the way the City Council handled it.
DSr. Langenfeld said he would like to bring up what NSP was doing to rridley's
trees. He explained they were taking the tops of the trees o£f and just letting
them hang there. He further explained tney y:ould t.^,]ce of£ a major limb and
�' then maybe a dead one� and just let it hang in open space, T�ir. Harris said
there was a real problen exoecially when they�were trim:ning elrr�s. Se said
he wished NSP would have come to the Cit,y first when they started this program
with a proposal on what they were going to do. He added that he understood
it was a major maintenance problem.
2�fr, Boardman asked i£ they were cutting the trees without the proper repair
to the limbs, and Mr. Harris said that xas correct, especially with regard
to oaks and elms. Mrs. Gabel said they would cut a limb off and just let
the bark tear.
Chairperson Aarris said he could understand NSP's problem, but when they were
going to start a major project they should come to the Cit;�. He added that
the trouble was they had subcontracted this out to a private tree trimmer.
hlr. Bergman said that it was �SP�s responsiUility, and an execntive of NSP that
he had talked to recently was very concerned about this, i•Ir. �oardman commented
that P1SP had a certain image they were trying to maintain.
Mr. Langenfeld said that in his own personal situation� two very �ood shade
trees had to be removed entirely because o£ the way they were clipped.
ADJOURNMEnT:
.MOTION by I,angenfeld� seconded by Bergman� that the meeting be adjourned .
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of September 8, 1976� adjourned at 12:15 P.Af. by unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
���r, ���' M.o / � �
�
_ TQ WHOM IT f��,Y CONCERIJ:
OPFICIAL f;OTIC[
CITY OF FRIDL[Y
PUGI_iC HEANIhlG
QEfORE THE
PLANiJIt1G CONN'iISSI01�
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Cor�eaission of the City of Fridley.in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on tlednesday, Septe^uber 8, 1976, in the
Cuuncil Chainber at 7:30 P.t4, for the pu�°pose of:
Considerztion of a rezoning request, ZOA n76-03, by
Evert 2. Sv�a��scn, to rezone Lot 19, except �hU East
190 feet thereo`, and er.cept the 4lest 17 feet taken
for high�-;ay pur�,oses, from C-1 {general office and
limited bus�nesses), and the 41est 147.74 feet of Let
1£? fro;n R-1 (sinyle family dwelling areas), all in
Auditor`s Subdivision P�o. i29, to R-3 (general multipie
fam4ly dti�ellings) tc allo�-, a condominium-typ� �,.velcr,���ent,
�`. located in the �orih Half cf Sectior 12, T-30, R-24,
Cicy of i=ridley, Lounty cf Nnoka, Fiinnesota.
� Generally located at 7325 Centrat Avenue Iy.E.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matt�r
may be heard at this tir.i�.
Publish: August 25, 1°7G
SeptemLer 1, 1976
�
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRNu1N
26
h
i
NUMI3ER
APPLICAN'C'S S
Address �/ �
CIT1f Of PRIDLGY MINNCSUTA
FORM-
Telephone Number1n �5 •� - � � � �
PROPEItTY OIVNGR'S SIGNATURE ,�; �;- 1i1,c'
Address^�J � ; /!� �
Telephone Number_
Str•eet Location of Property
Legal Description of Property
L-
.-Z S �'.
t
2'7
TYPG OF REQUt:ST
�
Rezoni.ng
Special Use Pexmit
Approval of Premin-
inary $ rinal Plat
Stxeets or Alley
Vacations
Other
�4 %
Fee .5 � Receipt No ,.7
�
�,S j Yi
/� f /�/ .� /
Present Zoning Classification L-/-/� / Existing Use of Property �'�'3�
�—
Acraage of Property �'.i �C�2E:1 Describe hriefly the proposed zoning classification
i 7
ox type of use and i.mprovement prnposed � J-.GL �/
• Has the present applicant previously
variance or special use pernit o� e
What was requested and when?
�:,.
.GJ
�.
�
sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
subject site or part of i_t?�_yes no.
� 7� ' �J� �'D« . CO . 197/
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of properYy
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and
property owners of property in qt�estion, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketcli of proposed property and structure must be dra�an aiid attached, sho�aing tlic
following: 1. Nortli Direction. 2. Location oF proposed struct��re on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposeJ structure, and front and side setbacks,
d. Street Names, 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet)
The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and mpresentations stated in this
application are true and correct.
DATE � G - G SIGNATURC C/ �' ' !/ �`-' t l �
,. �PI;j.ICANT) , �
Date Piled Date of Ficari
Planniitg Commission Approvcd City Council Approvcd
(dates) Denied (dates) Denicd
�
.
Mailing list
ZOA �76-03 EVERT SWANSON
Part of Lots 18 and 19 A.S. #129
Mr. & Mrs. John Dickenson
1360 Onondaga N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Becktin
1405 Onondaga N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Grant
7314 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kohlrusch
1398 Fireside Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Czeck
1395 Onondaga Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. Charles Bitzan
1360 Fireside Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 5543Z
Mr. & Mrs. Harold Tieden
1365 Onondaga Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
A J L& S Investment Company
7500 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Carlson
5214 36th Avenue N.
St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Knutson
1366 Onondaga Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Chester Cole
1382 Onondaga Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Roy Fosse
1390 Onondaga Street N.E.
� Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. David Porath
744 Polk Street N.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55413
Planning Comnission �� j `� � ,� �
Council
Mr. Kevin Olson
1370 Fireside Drive N.E.
fridley, Mn 55432
Michael W. Bayer
1381 Onondaga N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Arline E. Saba
7345 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr::& Mrs. Melroy Krugerud
7356 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Albert Pomper
7370 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. Evert Swanson
258 Windsor Lane
New Brighton, Mn 55114
Mr, & Mrs. Lawrance McCabe
7328 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Harland
7342 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Jeanette B. Huber
7300 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr, & Mrs. Clarence Fosse
1367 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Young
7343 Hayes Street N.€.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Seger
1401 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrsa Elmer Hallatz
7395 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
r—�
Mailing List
� Page 2 ZOA #76-03
Evert Swenson
Mr. Russell Rankin
7385 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. James Hinricks
7355 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Roger Fredrick
7371 Hayes Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
John D. Babinski
1290 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
John W. Haluptzok
Route 2, Box 381
Forest Lake, Mn 55025
Mr LeRoy Halupzok
1240 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
� Mr. b Mrs. Clifford Thoe
7250 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Walter & Floyd Gustavson
7410 Central Avenue N,E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Onan Corporation
. 1400 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. Michael Virnig
1365 - 73th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn. 55432
n
�
�.
�
!
�'L7i9,�
liiraa F(r.c%'Y, /x.
/z6y�
tuH. � �b-u3 tvert swanson
(4zoal
isli/ionGO�imeffe (//OGood
a.00.�
i
,.�F6�>
esaas.
tf�eJ
.. .. ' Co <' e3 0
. ^r
» 1 Y
/2 /3 iF �' /S :'6 � /7 \ /8
.. . . . a�' 2;/
4
.. ('�—'T—T'T—`P'� »iq izt
/3
.
p 60) �
/S /E /7 w � /� (900)
/.✓.Gqclldmi �A� r
-- V
(�Y �»$� F
.• �.' / /r.�y.v� '.
��`^}� � t _ ' N.' �
+'( ._. . u /11 /J�O I i3� i'•J. _. `�-:
1 ( o� �cb .r:� e`c
1 r �Mi.�rEY.w,rr � L... [1� �.. , 3 ,./�� � 1 . q •, %/(. ,.
�� . %/%6GL11 `V�V•♦t ` I�� ffi' x.�t 4�< __. j�_��i '
V�.(.. -�- �. V./ n.! ��, C id J `� —T� la„ a.
� i' � � I%.i:w,ia � v ' � � c.y,ti �) y f : z � .• ; LuTI
� 0 4 !�
� ♦ � �% � ` I . � � L. . /Zf �'� � ` /
�Y �` . .:. P��t 1 '�<+ �J �"� .
� _1 �
!zi �i:� (2 . .Gr , -..�, .y 3 W flJ:: ^ 3 � r.�sr,::.
t �
p �6 �• �� i. i �� � i� ir.�>%�n � S�! I'_Nir , s �" I
� ' a�` ' ,. � ,iE— --�:.--� !. � , '
�.rT"9s—� .s ,� V� o� � � � Jr .;.. y ? S �I ,; 7 �{
� ;�/5 � ` � � ,..;, ti �,�E. ai: �= ...-!s � }:,��1
� •. ;- c `•,. .;.- as � r I� r� ,.._.:: ..,�`. i � r .1
� ��
rnJSr B-°9er
."r.f-:.-�-- =s7J'��firc_. __...'S':'—:.=s�»%r`czcs__-:�.:...._:ir�
(%} 'M .:o ...
'AI ic:._ j - . � n � f/ i.i �.:5 )s �.v P:
' 'I w� '�43 oli j .� �VA+6 Jo .roi4:l�'
�:,. < � �
` N
F'.'�.� /-�w�£ �p .3 �`�F.l��j' ..�•��.� c ��<1J_eo �(�0��
2. <, .t�['�� F t��Y I� � M..�. e'_._ ✓
�i g . 3 . 4ti� 5 �5���A 7; } ,� Z
� � � '�.r� �i�n��w�k , �. �� �,r � i /2 � .c-� Ye � F
se r�.� _.. p� z. W
•� o.S • � 4 (6��%
Y� ..,a, . � _ �� —, z 23 �o � _ ' �
� � lWn1 (91s1 . (9701 ���/9�d1 �9� ��95,%i'+ � 3 a e s' r � (a2o' � ;
� 1 f.7.!' ', • ,.. 6 /6a i;
�'. 1..n so j9�-r-,_. ..... ... ui���. �'S`-4 t`r rrC�.
6
-- �..hFiRESivE _�, QR1�'E; h ,:' .,b,,.'=b, , ao 14
�, ..-e•�E��,� -:ro,,- t. ; �•. i.
,. s.
I 1 Jtii l0 /nf// /LO :� �Rl1 l6J ' L�•' •d •q �4 1
��^f(Of' I.uTiJ�"Jt:3 ��t }i (64
e � � R'WM'ii'� � �1, _�bS-- �
j ¢ :: `� ` W! 6 �a !
�� ti � , �/ : 3 � � : � ,�.;r :; � ,.�
� � Si.i£ `4V'��J /��y{��—�[��{ �.7.. \ a � �7fO�I
I� \ si/\CiV �' ' ��� P� os� 'j�� �
a �C.��`�E. ` , \ : °° ' i I I
� . � S • 2 ; $ F :: c S c I �! u %p � ' I �
p � � 2 � (romi � ? �j � � .
-i ' � � .�i:�
� � 1 a?'oak6' -31 � >J Pa « _
.wi Lie 1 3sl n •. n. ,: ..•
y �� �a iu..�.r +.o..�..� ne
� �, �f�0►lESAGE
!• - upsb!` // Q 7f l5 /O.' 3�j ' 65 8u
�� 1 `��i�iF�f � � ol ' `�. �^`�� i2?<C)
, � �.2 �3a4� 5 � ; 33SWEDVI
�, , o
� � ; �..������k�i� �'��,, 1 ^,
•� ISflI " - �� / � '
1 ' ,o� -. ,� -r- ,z?F�� 1 �.
-- - ; Ar�xr?wct«m. I �...:,�;
j� r,«o, 1 �.�o,��-- �35 J �,ti
1 Y y�BJ_
1 C I� ' �.. zeo) "�_-' a4c� I
� �. � , -
M f ~ �I
. .a.,.,...en e:� ^ '
" � � '����.� -{ --� =—!1@ '"". :� co •
\ � '
� - '-- d2^�'" { �lqita.N �-- ..i.[%tFr! �
� ' SFad/nck{' �o�yc ;� J y+!!roe
to6wer�m<a'�o� //�F7al Faf",'r�aa> �
y t' 1 Nw /o36GSJ ` � /�.� //i.r � ,
`+� t' , '9 �.3Cw; 1 ;:r=�� _ {µ�l1e N�y /;Fc:
rsm i n 'S
G�"SNTE R
SEC. /2
� �
�'�—
. ,: L
__ ' ' � -L-J � _
ea. nrs.
S:MOOL ( ' W.l� P3 lI�
U15TRICT �
13
ZOA #76-03 Evert war�sc�h B
(/
SPR�N 3
W
.._. � � �� � � l . � .. ` �M , 1 ... ,...... ' .... .__... . ",� LAKE '
, .
'� ._�r l� .:.•, .
e�._ M �'^ J—.. �a�j7� /••�GU•—�— . i .� � ��+47.� �••Z• ��- � t.sr..n.i —'
�� Kt '�• �' ��ENEMi�9f � r J N ' f� I .
l0' .D iCNDOI ` �.. / Y �� !� I � ��� S
-Y . � _". � I : 1�r1bi� ��///.. � r�� `I . Y , . • F� ��[a ' I b
"4L �a� �•� 1� •/. !r%� . �// 1 �,G`��. �. �_4����l�v�{{.�.
. � � �2 �`.e � I 4 J �: � �.. /�.�,J (_.°�_ J � . . ,c., r ,�k.I � I f . :�i
/ s�' [ 'y%� M�� - bP Al` . � �:�°9 � II + 0
� �'� ��~ �+j' V 1 // �y/ �1� �li �� � P��. I f�.... �� ' tia�,e> Z
�, - •, ,, ' � r `,.
� Y " �� � .;.. �.���� � �r��
< < E�..E,� ���1�',�'�'1.
.. i , �. ' r ,. �at+enY� . . �� r `.r,�.T—"'� p C
►� _ h ' � /�t��'PAl{K -�t rf �'�.--�I �
; r . - � + � ' � — �. � c°8. ��'�..'' �s�&otw�, _? �* �.
`� 6 � , 4 � � = .�"�=--^`—. : �.-��� �� 1 � ;
z � � + t � i�. Y �,aa �'�ara.ri s; �j Nc /z9 1 ?�d'° � - �I .
r PARMEN • C � I. v �i/.� � .f r �.1. .� d -• ��
. � ' �C_ J.: .1�� t �.' � �'l��/�/� � I�.: . �-3 � �:� f i � 1
� ,�- � , � . i . �� � _ _ .
_��° ��`� � .
�,� � � -�Iv
a ,��
: � �ro�� / �l�� ;
///////J/�, � /{//� 1�
� J' ' - � //l/Yfll'�p // // lryi '//// �A4l+.'AO $�'Q .JZ �? .-; �' �. . �. �- �I
:. : , . . , � ; F J
y
IOCKE qpRK ' -7�0 ' ' '
. 1\ � i � _' ' .r
f/�'� .;,� ; : ��V
��1 � . ` ��� -- ' ��
._ • �._�.:� � � � M < .
_REg;d'�1 : - i ��-... .. ' �. ., ... . . ..-T--- �ya..-: ' ---�— -- ..c."'ec�:�
�, '
3 L�^�. Y� �''�_ ,�iPP� A� � { � �� � , � z
.Qap t� � �' °' .. _�t.'. f�\ i a �s�n . I f _ 'J�3 .
�Y � �R� � `�' ' M`� v� ! �� _ }
w(./,� � 1f E• �� , � 1 �. �
T" .� . f� i R'0 . . t!
/: •:.L � i . � ;1-�" � �.. '�`(,._, f �-`Si_S �1N R0 � .: U � .
��b. �� ��� daKYZfXr � S 2�B- N�s� i- A�_•� -. 1 auoiroNS Sue ��� - .
��• - -�-} �,. �1 ;�,�°( � � _ .' � .
• . f �� N� . . �y�lit� �lC9tfr.
�f� � 4�t � '.... �.. � � .� �i e� �'` � �.�...: . �
i
ql ! � � e' � �. ' V �l�
_ 1 �"1 $ �� Jz�,. ' � "' `'e ACO.� ^ �� 6 i
�I I �. �. . . ; - . �' Tf 1 i ; d�� �. i rttcc
' �� � I� �'�� � ,.N�tS�f�3 ' ' 2 � :��� - I -; cectt� � � r °��
� NQ ,p �. = flE� . ..
� Jt�,.��a.,.. ' ' ✓'} ':� �., "'.' �{ . � " � M(� �d-. ScHOOI i I" �� � z �I�
. t a..� 1�� � J�+ 4 i ... t� � � �< a•y ��^ °�L�\��l M'� ` uKe �s � � � i � y�
E«���:,, - wt - �iia�i�� � �_ �i�1�{��,� ��_ I����1 ° � � �: � o ��
: >��a , o,sr ,,; � , � , . � � �� :�.�
' ���� ��� �f7'T.fTfiTt�I�V �(Ti ��i:�i•( �-7 f�,_lf'•TII�1"-� � .�'.�`I�l �:1 � lf; ..,,1 i rl -:.'�5 ��..>._�Y
3�
OFFICTAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
� PUDLIC HEARING
SE.1"ORE THE
PLANI�IPlG C0141�iISSION
TO 67HOt4 IT MF,Y COiVCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
P1ann�Tit] COT�misaion of the City of Fridley in the City Yell at 6-i37 Universi�y
Avenue P;ortl}east on l�lednesday, Sepzen�ber 22, i°i6 in the Council Ch?�ir,ber
•at 7:30 P.P3. for the purpese of:
Consideraticn of a proposed preliminary plat, P.S.
�76-08: Cent_ral Joi:nhouse Addition, by Ever•t S�;�anson,
be�ng a rep a o 9, ezCep-C the [ast 190 feet
tiiereof, and except tltie Viest 17 feet tal:en for hight•:ay
purposes, ar.d the ldesti 147.74 of �ot 1f3, all in Auditor's
Subdivision No. 129, to allotiv developme�i of a 32 unit
townhouse site, lecated in the i�orth Half of Secticn 12,
T-30, R-24, City of Frid�ey, C�unty of �,roka, M�nnesota.
� Generally located at 7325 Cent�-al Ave»ue T�.F.
.
�
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above mztter may
be heard at this time.
Publich: 5cptein6er II, 1�iE
September 15, 197u
RICi1ARD fl. FIARRIS
CHAI I.hiAFd
PLA�t�_NG COP1'��iS�IO'@
E
�
e
A
a
� , - � -' . SoD:i
�._ . _ . .
r--- r � ,
�"`�'�`�� �� r�.�1°�
. � - 4 D�CAIr
r ; �- �
1"�_�
�� .
' i
_�` '
IS , t8
�
w LLi � � � �j,`;
> �
3 ` ,'✓7.
� 1 ' �I ' -
�( a ' t �
� � ru � � *. s/ ;
� z � N \;
u.
a? � ' � n
.� �, ; �
I o�j
I ; t.,');
. ) 'v A�R'r.•
1 1 �
�.
, �--��
. i
��r� J-i
a !MC
, �� 7
�
i.--� :�1-1
.
, • � ,ai-ra• . , :--�- �--�---
. � �r� • -�-.-�. s'- J �
'�� /�-_ :t � �_� •� � - ; ��'„ � I
� �ll !
, f
� �, ��\� p � � ..`v/
VI � ��
�
� f _ -- . � ��
, c;� , . ss „� � � °a' ,4.1
- y�: / n
� _ : r; �
i� +i,'r.'14 .' %i J" ;,__ A6"�
'___ ....._. �
` . % • -' - --. .� .
i` f ',��;
-,, 1` i .` �� � - � __ '
-r�_•' ----� � --.- � < .
C.�'`�=�- ` `-:%'i�' . �.J -- �..r,
'�'��eaur _ `- � � ,N ;�.��
, . �� . I � �
J--� c�.—'�i /! -:7 � ��
�.J —� \ ' l , _ � • : i
�° p� . � •CA I 15 —�—� 5U .'.' �,�/
Id 15 -i4 I I1 �_� .
�) tl � � _�_
- j - - ?`' . . �. 1 i 4�no- � to ot o...____I �t b•.o"_ -�. L� "??.
-'--1 � _1—_..
r� _
D t9
T N�
�
,. . • . � '.' . -y � . . � . . � /� � i`{(y l i /
. ' , � .'_' , `� �: p 1� :1T. � 3��
i`��...� 6EEA� �_' ;.� 6! 1 � � �-:�.V ` —i �_�_" /ti� -
i
�� �
., . . _.__ - _�_ _� , . � � . - - ,- _ �
. r rr 1�'��Y
� � �. ._i r�i E�F.NWU; ;
'l \L
. 5""_6'' ' -_" . . li 'i�-y .. ��/. l�.'l���vrt il��l i<�:t:� Li.J.��{F/:�Fl!
� ..a
_- ;
- 1
�i£.
0
� _
a
o �,
� i
e�..
�'� ji ��
; _'�� i�
1`�-% , ��so �-�t �
�. . �_ . _ .._... _
. 73t� AVh.N�.
Nozrp
�c�Nre�n� ��cune.e.r��a�N.N�r�� , �
� !' • 4r,••�'�' .1.
� ' C 5.5 10'•O'pF.EF
� •' YTORM ��E W E�P_
0
a� urm�
-- " i Nsup:�i•;7,�P�!i:�.3(nJ�ifr';
�'q , �T-t AI.I._^T,d: ;.. AP_[!, FJZ E( DG.'i �,
� �; ,�•�I�'-• ";'� "LDLS. - 5'.,911. S.F- �
FA � _ g9, 4 DS �. F.
_ � �ti..� �;LF?.iF-:...F�
8` . i �jtikr
yt•_4; �: i�t�i. P�, �I;:r ?(0 41NleLE,h?q cii
r-= �0$hIN(dE P[ ,:�
�� . -. e1�iiAl.1 r�' j!:;i, lA-0 ii.r'k' c. �FA'..L.i
�� , .
� ...�
;�r-� � - . '. i } .
e
' F02, �K,hW�1N50N ItOI.DRJC� G0.
'�7.C,iITf'_�P� I�,� O
:�<.: � ��.; �,� �,,, � .-fN �6'E.
i11�L', i,lu.J��i :;r..11�
� ti;'�:�'r.: i'N_,.''�1?G '
� �:1 • 3• 1";'7:
�.,', . r r . .E.��,
�
�
CITY 0� PRI[1LEY MINNGSI)TA
�7� � PLTINNINC `AND ZONINC FORM
uoMacR � _ ,
. ��/
!�_�.� �- � �%
APPLICANT'S S
Address -� S
r
Telephone Number r, �� ,�j - � � /�;
�_ __ :
PROPGRTY 0{PNGR' S SIGNATUR� � ,�/ g,�
Address -^ � �j``C/�_
Telephone Number %
Street Location of Property � � 'ic '1l�
1�3.:-v?o��
�rrr; or �cQucsT.
Rezoning
35
Special Use Permit
Approval of Premin-
inary $ C•inal Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
{G�,,� �,1 � � ;L ther
aj
Fe�' ID Receipt
No�3 �L��
Legal Description of Property
. �>
Fresent Zoning ClassificationT ExisCing Use of PropertyL /(y.0 <cEcL
Acreage of Property4�, ��7��(,G� DescriUe briefly the proposed-zoning classification
(�/ ' �' / /
or type of use and improvement prc;�osed (•%7i'�t. �7/iz- �' �t �.!-T��� Ls'��. %�^<-�
Has the present applicant previously soudht to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? v yes no.
What was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this agplication.
[b) Tliis appIication must be sisned by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not tlie case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceelings
resultinF from the failure to list the n�mes and addresses of all residents and
property owners of property in qucstion, belongs to the imdersigned.
A sketich of proposed property and struchu•c must be drawn and attached, sho�ci.ng the
followinfi: 1. NorYh Direction. 2. Location of propose<1 structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and sidc setbacks.
4. Street Names, 5. Location and use o{ adjacent existing buildings (within 300 fcet).
The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and.repre entations stated in this
application are true and correct.
i,_ . ..
DATE � :l[C'. •�Z f - i � SICNA7'ORE _ � �, . < ��1�17�
� ( t%1'L1CMI'P)
Date Filed Qatc of Elearing
Planning Conunission Approved City Council Approved
(datcs) Denied (dates) OenieJ
orrzcrn� i�ortcE
CI7Y Of� fRIDLEY
PU�LIC HE/4RI��7G
BEFORE THE
PLANNIP�G COi�1•tISSIOfJ
TO WHOM IT tdAY COhCERI�:
36
Notice is hereby given that there will b� a Public Hearing of Lhe
Pianning Coni�nission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 Univer-
sity Avenue Idortheast on I�tednesday, September 22, 1976 in the Council Chamber
at 7:30 P.Ft. Sor the purpvse of:
Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA r76-05, by
Wyman Sinith, to rezone the Easteriy 200 feet of Lot
13, except the tvortherly 30 feet thereof; also the
Easterly 50 feet thereof, Auditor's SU�JdI��ISIU� tJo.
89, from R-3 (general multiple family d;-lellings) to
C-1 (local business areas) or C-2 (genei°al business
areas), to allo;v the construction of a speculative
building to be use�i for offices and assemblies,
locaied in the Soutl� Hal� of Section 12, T-30, R-24,
City of Fridley, Count� of P,roka, Mir:r,esota.
! Generally 7ocated on the South side of Yorton Rvenue
N.E. ��rhere it intersects ��1ith Central Aver,ue Pt,E.
Anyone desiring to be heard i,�ith reference to the above matter a;ay
be heard at this time.
Pu�lish: September 8, 1976
September 15, 1976
�
LJ
RICIiARD H. HARRIS
CHAI RPiAh
PLANP�IfrG COP��'ISSIO�
���
CXTY 0� rRIDLGY MINNf:SOTA
• � PLANNIN6 AND ZONING FORM
NI1hfI3ERG/�/1 q6 - U�
� ApPLICANT'S SIGNATURG � �IM/JN S�'1 �/ �
Address �Z i�0 (�u � � p61t S � YG �
M p � r ,iT'y o Z
Telephone Number � 2�_/�� /
�
PROPGRTY OIVNER'S SIGNATURE
Address ��� �-✓+�j � 7/ �
Telephone Number �� y — 3 6 a r
Street Location of Property �i�jj,�ih � ��
—�
Legal Description of Property
,/ ,.,� � �t,�- .
f ' � � 3'7
{, ,
TYPG OF REQl1EST.
Rezoning
Special Use Permit
Approval of Premin-
inary � Final Plat
Streets or A1ley
Vacations
Other
Fee���� Receipt No. �3 �S
• r �-�,
Present Zoning Classification_�_Existing Use of Property ��•�
Acreage of Property Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed ��/ or �" Z
_�`��— . .
Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, oUtain a lot split o
variance or special use permit on the suUject site or part of it? yes "no.
What was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: {a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) nust be attached to this application.
(b} Tliis application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given iehy this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting fron the failure to list the names and adQresscs of all residents and
property owners of property in qucstion, belongs to the undcrsigned.
A sketcl: of proposed property and structure must Ue drawn aitd attaclied, sltoti.�ing tlic
folloi.ing: 1. I�orth Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on thc lot.
3. Dinsensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
4. Street Names. 5. Locatio❑ and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 fect).
71�e undcrsigned hereUy declares that all the facts and representations stated in this
applicati n are truc and corrcct.
OATC ��SLGNATURE
�
Date Filed Date of Hearing
T
Planning Commission Approved City Coimcil Approved
(dates) Denied (dntes) Denicd
� I i.z-,
� . -- _ f . -- -- .__
.'N6/ . .. ..
: I ✓ �//.br�I3 /�fIC. I •
.'!/.1t. ' .
i
�
�
. '
_"' `'r�%
. , .
�t:.� ,'�i>'�Cv, `� •
�� . `� J !
�',1�f�!1" ,� .
` f. �:�j: ,. 5 �
,• , r: ti� '
-i.'. //, t7 �:6 19 JC�','' 6 �.
; - � 7
. �� 's', i��i` F ..
.. . - �-_ .. _ _
, ,�„H
, .ra:. . ,..,;�....:/,�,.
? %6.. .r. F./.i rf N., r
1
�
�.
i;
i
;;
�'.
i ���:
•"4
.�` ;
'� i
�>.
� . �_... .�—.... {.:,�
,�
____T._._,y._� -. ,..., . . ,
�-w--��_ l. f i .� ♦. .__.' .. _ � " Z� �.. _..' I �
4 P� � iie?�./! /( ff F
i ' � �t j �: \ lU✓� 1.� �•n. ✓.
� ' � � Ea.L-ic- ,§ro'- � ��
c r
.`-�i..— F�. �_J�L`ji}'�'Vl�i�.'i': � �r.t("� C;:,'"` i
- --1 / ` � �•. ; '
_ — :...- .
. .-- --. _. _ c : . , :
� i ! l_�•=_� i 'j T' :i.'�. - .
i
i ,� i�r ; ,
� ti i V? O�J� i(G�l � �Sn`a) �
I , �� s�� �r.,>� ' 1 ,;.
, r
... :, . i.n - �'. I. �,:-oa ,.,.,: -s�. � �'7
. �.�� , - . . . . o .
,j- �: , � �, � ,�,
\� F f � i/ 7 i i � � � h /» I zLt"... .�
,�_ ' i_ � �- � G�.e, �, ,.�,', f r F�i.• I (s�.• �
: i � r i '� :a ;�. . , . _.
< ` Y ! 1
� � i : � L.) { . t -�. /. I � 1 � � (f `.
�il�' , �. ! � w� ��..! � a . . ��msc ` ..w_:.S
�� rvcw.n.� � `.�. �..«..�u�m. �.�n... '} '�..�... - .i,f-
1 �i � j
� «)
� I (i�..h �.
�'i I � ` • � �.+� Fc90 i . ia<_! l'.,5
� r_ i � J •.:, �. ,.f �
_ "� �
\ ;�_
�-�__ _ -� '"-,._` ` �- -�_ �
� �_ _
`;`�-- ,�•_ -::;�;`
�' 'v 1
. .__ --� `.._` c _, _.
__ � -_ _ . � ..
._.��. � _
�' - `
.
J�c�� �s
` O o�Q ,�'
�
�[CtJ)
.'J.�'.:�.,.._�:f� :�c
... z-s �.. � �.
--�--
_�
��
hj
��
, �T
�
- � :�) '
.. �� ' � i.J I
� r. i
_ , . ; .. ,�,..
- �4 � , - ,
�`,\`�` , ``'i
t-r.,. . -�.:i•,�� ' � � '
(iKL . +, p -_
L J Jf` CYo
` i ` � I
�
�:;
�
{�
�
�
�
��' I
v.,
h ry�
�? �
i •
S :\
i1 O'O!' KY. f� (�
.1� r
` _ .�
\_ _�
.��\ i R,; j � \_ ` %-�_ _
r r--.. _ ..
�._ �_�� , �� __ r'...`
�'..�n ��_ - � `'� . . \
.r_� \�;_.� �_v \ .
��' �t `
\� ,
� ..."
i
,�
n a � i �1_d t'I 1
• } r �',:• �-,�:
S �n oanar
R �i�'C'1 s FItMQMi�llx .
�+ w� �.0 � . i SCHOa .� � 1::
+� -� �eist icr',�
�:i,� �� '1 � –
� �r • . t
" ;+�� �3 �y�
�� � hi ` ;
..�T'�; - S�,! � �o
, 4
aoseN} e � ,� �' ; ` �
� f..' . . ♦� �
_ v
OLKE ^ 1 PqRK , � ��
�
1.:
� '� v . . . . .' .
. . J. :
� � �� �.
��l .� a. �• -��.�-11
.�,�f i i.�A
rrs
Ni4FY
( DISi 1�
. � , .,�-� �-
,..<<< ._�,���
(' G c .Rio.�. ��
( � C•
i . x' xww �c:o11li
. ..,.�
�� ��.. , i �, ''
����
�• . I•
'�
i� � � � ��t'���c .� . � °nR � �: v�
T
1__ 1
� � nJ'�'w�^i `� �p� ,y� � I 2a'ry_ .�S � I � �
vt `^',; a " I+C� .. t .
ti ]
� ��.�F��f2��" �L _ � �� tBJ���-a3cn__a
� � —T� . ._�F�'EAHEAYi-T,�� 0 C
-,{i,/�/1! i]' � I, u i__ :'ra�fK � F�� 4�r 6`
�f s�eAVispn,f �i��;l �
W��a r �.:d, G t ,
�J � `1 l.y.J�
o°
s_ . ' T"c' .�
i � j �.
'_� -� � • i I ivo "iz9� .'+*�d'`
� �- �c� — ' . '
_ � I i;� I. �:.; ; I , , � i .,. ,
�a�.--- � � - ��- - - -�_ . � --
�
_ sca,
o'_gs _ ?�?_
–.,�
- : za, .
��
� � � l � ,'�-� w BFTM
� � I � f
0 �i i � Z
�w ��y 1' � - � J
�_ � �� "G'�5�0 i I � _ k ',�
r � � � I
1 1 ' � � �
V� -�� . ¢'0 �I '. f� F4�'�'�`' t�
Mu�xE � � pQ.RK ' �
r�'ys; is� � � � . � � ' � - ..
Jl I AUO/TOAS SUB �
� ��{ �� �
�,r a . '.
er { ��`_,r/�s.fa _ -.r.♦ �- ��I �F_� � C
p t G
_I r ��
�- . at-, - T��'.y�n ��'"�{b`� �+ ;ti I' l�
-:�r �. ; t .� ri m�c � s
crttic
�'� . � . . EIEM � F L � YT �- t�.v
�..:� �. µ� ' SLHOD4 I n 1 C-- —���
-�i� JI ��.d...{ . � � �tl
�� �i'�,p � ,� �.:.�
�'� Qil -� �v l= � '''� � �S� �9 �M �__�� ♦`i �Le ��g.;
'�� �� 1- . _��L. —..1 L1J � ��� L�`�`� –
f[r [ i
�- �� r�� ����-
SU6 ,• �.. � t� � I� � �.In" W- ✓.
. � ' � y��. L_ . ,.
MQBB . .. �» QJS� �� �T f "iy . ` � I'I�.�FOj, � QKE �,
� � '�
"'– �.$� �'T�� '' - � � I 4 ESTATES �`�', �. ^ ,
a
� S il±
y � �R,�,� . F% j., ��bQ��� � � �\�`; ! I i-'_.
1} a13 cqen. �.� . �lc �. Y� .
� �c
�;.�� �z A:r! ,��+ , ' �-�'�i'i '
y f �" � n°m/ ;2� � .
�:� .x,.�„�,I$°� :� � �� ,1y�0.1 (__' l_
b� a� nl nq�. � � � � �. , ..'.
�i;\\ � � � � .� �
,\\�\��. �.\ �,�,. no °�L� �,�� . hJ ry : � ....
i��,� �\�\\\ °. � - } - ' � - � ., �
1 !f' :''d�',d'��Y'� �.9�..: ' �+ :�:a.. �� �i
�
I nrm �f5_68 LUI �F'L1 I HI'YL1l,lil 1UIY
- . �� CITY OF FRIDLCY � g3 63 '�2
� �
�xa
�d°i o
a�t� o
�a �
+� ,c .d
m � �
R 3 O
O �:
a � v.
� [�i� ,�z o
� W C �
wo� c`�i
O .-1 N •r�
fi r-1
��dya
o v � a
+� N i' CJ
Q1 O V
xw:s�n
m � H �
� am+�
W
U
�
H
O
�
�
APPLIC1iNT: EVERETT MADSEN
All➢RESS; 246 Rice Creek Blvd Fridley. MN 554�7
Streei: City Zip Code
T�L�PFiONE � 574-9068 336-8641
Hou�e Business '
PIiOPEEiTY OWN�t(S) EVERETT MADSEN
MARGRET R. MURPHY
nPpl��:�.,� � � :;
Lot Split �/ % -v�
Date iled:
F'ee: $ c' ;;'.i 13eceipt �/
Council Action:llate
RFS1Allt1{S:
ADDRESS(ES� 246 Rice Creek Blvd Fridlev MN 55432
StTeet City Zip Ca3e
250 Rice Creek 61vd Fridiey MN 55432
Street City Zip Code
TELEPFIOPTE �(S� 574-9a68 336-8641
Home business
Fi•cp�-rcy Location on Street
or r'�cact Street Addre�s (iF ANY� 246 and 250 Rice Creek Blvd.
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
i.egal Aescription of Property:
See attached Survey by DEMARS-GABRIEL Survevors
Reason for Lot Split:
More loqical placement of Lot lines in relation to the two buildinqs located
on
0 oer attached
�t #�o. i%�ti c
Property sq.
The undersi�;me3
representations
correct.
a11ow better access
,�_� ��zz,,( l�L.�J
r
�ent yonin_o Classi*.
hereby declar.es that all the facts and
stated in tliis application are true and
�
DATE: Sept. 3, 1976
fif'LO',J POR C7TT II:�E ONi,Y
of
ca',:ion
n
(See reverse side £or additional instructior_s�
�
PLATS & SUBS: Date of Consideration -
Remarks:
PLANi1ING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration -
Remurks:
C3TY COl�NCIL: Dai;e of Conaideration -
Remsrks:
C�
�
� ��>
1, t. _
O U ul w 4 C �
V �. .V+ u>. .; 4: .: L � a.
f 7 a W E 4� ,�i �� s. �
G C .C� ' ot� �
V +1 D 0� . 1: ••
o E� r„ c o. .. . j':' �.. .c �
L� U Oq"; U i.. >G fi
Y 4 O U X N:: C' �• J
^ 1 , 1
40 d R(1 R L 1� C. �. , W i
r.a. .4t.sr �v
.a0 O'1 .4�4.:- 4r
^04 TG
4'� i� • � �� �: J•. n� � 1 ..-.
Ea fF.4UQ��.��'�1u=li
� 7 �L1�. Yi Y� � 4.+�
cn � .a � '~ G' F :
'rsa ,� x c r •� .,
c m .r'+ i. i .,�s ' �
.. u
0 Y�[ ):. �j p L
�IO �in0..�i.-'.4-1._ - �
• C �'C ��O ' �L
YG �G6 U GC.�� "a:-�:.
t. �� !C O - :' U c
U✓ �iQt.R'J :. -
•. j t A� G c f� ..
e51 V O t
'J C }. 4Y L C J C
„ .. �
i.0 v. -��v r c. I�r � i
u 4 � C z G c c
c _ r. :, u . . . ., c. _�
.. i:
Y p
w >
W J
�am
� m
4 � ^,1 .^. � y
.� u � : '. „ . O .
c: c' re u� c
p q c O�)
� L.. y
� [: • G F C
� C p T� Y O�
: 4.. d '• Y � t. :�
[�G t1 L.. .�~: , N 9� V.�-.�v
C :. ' . !y`
�: � C..1 s p ' L G. P
:. .t - . p n 1.. �
i O Q�.. ... f! ,; 7[ S
s�. a.,c.. ;>,� n ✓
�:a.<o
G� i. :.. O t. e�
C� I_ 4 .�. [ G.� L
` U , L ^ : C • . T
. G L 'v' L] ,..
- 6 U C .•� 2•. Y•) Y: .ti V^.
. �. a . � c, c -t
r.� - _ um
.. .. - 0 IZ 1,
� ' ' �.;
� �• r.
a . c a' i,
� ' - < ., b �i p L1
4. �L.
uT..-:: - CU',
' � G
: rv � � - •. � i
- � ( ' . J
p ) _ ,� 4
. � C �+ . . 4 � , c
L .
L�� . < .. . � C. Y s
o �.
n n
a = �
�\ �
��
�� .
v �° \ �3J�
CF�d �, �, � �
J
° �\ .
.`•.A `\.
�� ` �:: � d
^,y> .. tD•.`,�: \'. `�i
�,r ;.,s d,
M \.
'' :
g� ' ' J
,�y : �. `•� \�.
„9 � � �I � i.
s'E w �,, J, Q . �'�
J� ti.,..,. r p,l _ �
. i._ � �. K: ! ut o� \ ,
t_ �._ ___ ,..� �y,n, - T...
` -- '#s; � :
�� I
„' /� '1:
� ....-3 �
4 ' �'.
;
.... ' � �
J �; �', -Y6
_.... W I
� � �� �
,, Q� ;' \
C �"� � \,,
� '
\�
\
� �,..r... _ _ _ _
�. � v � �
C Yf Y �
. . - .\�!�i � "
i �
1
�
t.
P
a
1
e
�
E
C
0
�
C
Y
n
0
�i
. �o
)
,�
1
1 i�
���
/�
a �
Q �
�" N�
Z Q
0
N �'
o{ �-
Q' �.
J! W
,�
Q W
N v
°a; (Y.
a' ��
U
Z
W ~ � z
� J .
�
m O �� �_
Q r ,
�W iy:
� % ' h'
�,a =�
a� ?
Q N G z
M�
�lI � 1� �4
oz
Q
J
� _� ���_�8 LQT SPLIT APPLICATION
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPLICANT: %/-r -� u �� �.l v 7`'`� —
ADDRF.�S: ���r I� I��� E_., •-. ��_ l�r�% 5"5 �13
Stxeet City 'Lip�Code
T�LEPHOI�IE �f S- �/ �eS � 2 !-1 2 7�LC z t,
Home Dusiness
PROPERTY O:dNI��S� M7 a At-�s �a�� 6 W iens
ADDRESS(ES
TEL�PHONE ��( 5
,P,e � ' 44
FOR CTTY TTSI
Applicant's Ilame
Lot Split �{ ,
Date Filed:
Pee:$ �o"� Receipt
Council Action:Da
RFI�1AItKS :
�ou--(
S�oS /a-r tS��,r St-rc.�+ N� �+► � d(�
Itree City Zip Ca.3
S
City
Business
y3Z
Yroperty Locaiion on Stree� �I
or F�cact Street Address (IF ANY) SaO� IVE �-t'f'�v�y 5'f" _
Legal Description oS Propertiy:
2 / o � �-E �
s
Re�.son ior Lot Sg1it: '
��f d ° !'CtJL•
or Property - sq. £t.
Cj,
The undersigned hereby declares that all the £acts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct.
DATE:�% �'�;/?C' SICNATUF{E �b�t� 'l ��� f: LC- trL.?�
�
BLI�O`� l�R CITY IISF ONLY
(5eo reverse side £or additiona.l instructions)
PLATS & SUBS: Date of Coxi�ideration -
Hemarks:
• PLAPINING CONS'IISSION; Da.te of Consideration -
Remarka:
CITY COt3NCIL: D�te of Coneideration -
Remarka:
�5
I � " /
.^ /f'o� 1! /�dP or / oi /'�l i�t/� S�Ih /ID 92
� � 1 . ...
� ^ I � , ;° //''/88 ° 2l0 .SO .. i / 2/O.O O , �=—h SnGJ .
ir
� � � � 0 10 — �
3 l i
30 !' 3� azs � j►� a ri /80.Od I � //y29
� n _ � - - � .
. zc � a
� ^
�- ' ' rs w I
r z. • N
' Bf 5 _ a �,Jse ti �
I � O
� � �,,:�z ; � �
� � ' iB a � B}"� � " � .
, w �6
� l
; � � � �{ 3 `� _
� %� � ry 4 � � y%'� _ ^ �
� � p� !�, 29' �� Q' � �`
; � o � N �
� � ti ��
`� 'S � `,�
j �-� �E� .. > , � s .s..�. .�:s,-- �, �
R f s s�.� f.�.� .,'b,yh � ��
, � " �P
; , �
� �� �
�� a 4 � °�
,
� � e o � , �
; h� c - 6� - � - - ' /b �B 20 �'9 ,.W . � O
�
� ' /8d.oa • ty
� o h 2 4�
i � _V ' a ° �
m ��, ^� o ,,. 0 3
; `^ ° �� a N�� r� o
I M„� o D 4 sq� � ��
° \ �� � (� /¢, 39 � �
� � �, � �A�GE �
��z � �
��,,i --�- --- � �,os ,y�Bd °2a'.�9'yS� �
, � � /�'D.DO � �
+ � Q �. �
� � � o �v�� n
0 o r �� o
� 3o a 30 � �a y s� O
; R�Ei� ;�, � �
� � ' PA
,. �
� � . � ` _ , /BO. 00 ' , _ _ .. .. UR �� . - - - --
I � /L� �'B °-2D "¢9 "<Y 2/0 • o 0
� � �" ,S:?vt`h : i�?� or � ��T 4y, �i'r�c�% Su �i. �Vo, 92
iER �11NTER 8� ASSOCIATES I�C.
EO PROfESSIOMAL � LANO SURVEYORS
�:��'�i�IC�3��: �t�
Tetephon� 561 2505
�s
SUITE 308
VILLAGE NORTH PROFESSlONAL BLDG
7120 UNITY AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 554�3
�� � �.
PROPERTY OF Frank Voth
de� rib�d as fol lows � Parcel No. 1; The south 80 feet of the west 210 feet of
�ot 49. Auditors Subdivision o. 9 no a oun y. inneso a. �u 3ec to
an easement for road purposes over �he west 30 feet thereof.
Said south 80 feet being measured along west line of said Lot 49.
�° ``I.
i � ��
♦
�X
� �
���� M�D
!
C1��:
�}, C
V '�
�. �
0
C� �'
\1 = O
�__ __
•,{ ' 4
\; �
s \�
i�
Q
�
/YOrYh �%72 O � �oULh on0 t.�?J-
! OY' �✓2;i! : �:/_> IJ_ET o � �i�;L �=�
� i!` o. � � -
; �/ //
; ( 5�..�i� /i�- � �' �5f 2,0 �"ee�
. o� Lo� �'r9
N
.,\f
e
�
�
Iy
1 �f.
� ��
��
�
0
\ � .`tl
\ ��
�
w�
� Nr�Dy c�rr�/r tnm ��i� lYIY�Y, Dlon, or raport wos pryar�d D� m� or � Sce{►�. I inrA Nuafs_, ��Q _.t��f
vndp my a�ncf �oDVrision and tAof 1 am a d�ly R�qnt�r�d Land Surr�yor �- MOrceln Iroe Nar�nt SN
undu tA� �ows o} tM Sto1� ot/�YmN, oto • O- InOie�N� Iron Mowrw�nl forM
�,/'�lT.i.I� J�Y • /%'+l�F/L!/i�% BeeM pa f{, •
M ... .. Je� Ns. ...7°:�...c^......
nor: 9/l�-7G� ao4 Na 9�.�•i=
CHERRlER �11�VTER & ASSOCIATES
VtEGISTFRED PROfESSIONAL � LAND SURVf YORS
�:��'�o���Cc'7�@�
Telspho��
SU4TE 306
VILLAGE NORTH PHOFESSIONAI BIOG.
7120 UNITY AVENUE NORTH
BHOOK�YN PARK, MfNNESOTA 55443
��: f {,.. :�.�
PROPER7Y OF Frank Voth �
d�scrib�d as Mllor�� Parcel No. 2s The north 80 feet o£ the soutli 160 feet of
the west 210 feet of Lot 49, Auditors Subdivision No. 92, Anoka County,
Minnesota. Subject to an easement for raod purposes over the west 30 feet
�_ ................... ........ . .
thereof. S3id south 1b0 feet being measured along the west line of sai
Lot 49. �
�
bo
I `�;.
.
,'-
- �
� �•
� 30
. l, — —
��
�
�a �
v � C
�. � �,
;. �
�
�`
� i
�i- _.' �
. � __
\ti
V i
�
' - �\
' \
I �
�
/t���� �i'P G �Sou�� �GU � .�r 4y
� — �eo.Qo
_ —,
��
• ..70!/ Yn,
\ J�� � �,
/80, a�-�
. �
�%''E O r
�60 iJ-:f
�
�
,
�:
; : ` .�
, ;�_
-�. �,.
�,
�i
Q �.r �
� .`� C,,
� t1 1
� V �,�� . �
' ��J
/� i/• i0 r!�:.'[� f' Ye�
. . �j
i/�� ��I._,' ci�-� Jcr:�
_+
I 60 � /r'
` � �^. .
1 Mr�Dy c�rhlr Inm 1Ais surv�Y� Dlon, or roport .o� prqortd Uy m� or
unda my Oint! �oparri�ion and IAet I om o d�ly Rr9�st�r�d Lond Surwra
und�r t�r iowt ol �na Stote o} Mmn�ota��� '
/� � �(�Fi4
Dott 7 ��C°_�� Ruq Mo
Scoi� � 1 incA e�ual�...¢�.....t�N
• - InAreeln Iron Abu�wnf S�t
O- Indit�M Iron MawwwH feuM
8eo� . PrN ._ ..le� ►N. _.¢�/o.......
CHERRiER 1NiNTER � ASSOCIATES
pEGJSTfREO PROFESSJONAL � LANO SURVf YORS
f3::�,]�:i►s•?9
��I�
�i�'�'�0 �i ��:c��� ��
Frank Voth
Telephorn 56/
'Z �
SU�TE 308
VILLAGE NORTH PROFESSiONAL BLDG.
7420 UNITV AVENUE NORTH
BROOKLYN PARK, MiNNE507A 55t�3
�� i� �' I
:�
d�scriD�d os fotlowc• Parcel No. 3: The west 210 feet of Lot $9, exceot the
south 16Q feet thereof, Auditors Subdivision No. 92, Anoka County,
Minnesota. Subject to an easement for raod purposes over the west 30
---. . . . ... .
feet thereof. Said south 160 feet being measured along the west line nf
said Lot 49.
� 30 _ 1 _
f � � � '�
f
I '
;^� ..
t
� �
l� I `�
� � �'�, n
��� ^. �M{
�� � 1
\ �.1'•
� ,
q \f
� �
I �' f
e ;
� � .
�
,
.,� � ` i
�3 �
. ;
�
, �i
� �; _�o .-��
/'�r-�h �/'� ;�=i La� 4° 7
Z' � .2p /
�� m
I.� N
fT
.. 26 _ __
�� S .
:� .•
G s, c. s��c. s/g6
� S.s da. �a.�.� 6'�i�l�
a
`�.-_� a �/"�"�
_ _ � _ \"' Z°-^ 6.s
�l
.-� -�
:,
'� ^ `
. �'� �'•
\ '
-S .
` �at . �.
\9 ,
\ ,i ,
�
��'-
.S
^.
� � ��I,
I �, ,
� �•:
�
,
�
i
i � �Bo. �<, Q _ ," /
� �n '/ / / � /
f/2����0�/h y^� L /✓s+�^�/7 //lf i�✓ON�� �D� 't"
1` Mr�p� c�rhly tnat 1Ai� aurvsr, plon, or iuport ros prqorrd Dy m� or Scofe: I incA Nuab....%�".... NU
LnO�r mr dvect �oparri�ion aed I�at I am a d�ly R�q���n�d Lond Surr�yor •- MCKatn Iron A4enuw�t 5�1
und�r IM �/lars of t�o Staf� of M�n��sota - O' InOie�Ns Uon Alo�uwMl FowM
i�,�� t�� i��,i.t,�/.._ � „
eoo► va� .._ �.� w.. �~:-.......
Dnft ����/ �O Ru9 No �
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY ON SURVEY REQUIREMENTS
� R-1 and R-2 ( Single and double family units)
1. R11 new.house construction requires (1) a land survey showing
the proposed structure location draw� to scale, and {2) a
verifying survey indicating where the structure is built on
the property, before capping.
2. Existing structures
a. Additions or accessory structures require a verifying
survey if the structure is to be placed at the minimum
required setback, If the structure is placed one and
a half (1 1/2) times the minimum required setback from
the property line and the adjacent neighbor(s) give
written release(s) that they do not object to such
construction without a survey, construction will be
allowed without a survey. No survey, or written release,
will be required if the structure is placed twice the
required minimum distance from the property line, provided
the the lot line in question can 6e established by some
occupancy or landmark.
i
A1l Other Construction Types - R-3, R-4, P, P,D., C-1, C-1S, C-2, C-2S,
CR-1, CR-2, M-1, and M-2
1. All new construction requires a land survey
�
� y
ii V
IiUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION
MEETING
SEPTII�iBER 2, 1976
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Shea, William Scott, Grace Lynch, Harold Belg�
MEMBERS ABSENT: �Nancy Lambert
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Barbara Shea called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Coffinission members added the following items to the aoenda:
DISCUSS CO�fGNITY FOU:H CEN7ER
FRIDLEY.POLICE DEPARTIdENT
SPRING HILL CONFERENCE - LEAGUE OF HiTNfAN RESOURCES COr�^SISSION
MOTION by William Scott, seconded hy Grace Lynch, to adopt the agenda with the
above three additions. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1976, INMAN RESOURCES COPiMISSION MEETING
NIOTION by William Scott, seconded by Grace Lynch, to approve the minutes of the
August 5, 1976, Human Resources Co�nission meeting, with the correction that on
page 4, Sdilliam Scott's name be deleted and only Grace Lynch be named as the
representative from the Human Resources Commission to serve on the Board of
Directors for the Youth Center. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
RECEIVE COMMUNITY DE4ELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTTiS.OF AUGUST 10, 1976, ON ZONING
REVFliId ON GARAGES PLUS ADDITIONAL INFOR2•fATION
Ms. Shea stated that these minutes and information were sent to us because the ,
Planning Commission wondered how this would involve the real human needs of being
able to afford housing if a garage is required. They have asked for input from
the Human Resources Covmiission.
�1
tIUP1AI�I RESOURCES COMMISSION M�ETTNG, SEPTEt��R 2, 1976 RaQe 'L
hir. Scott ctated that he did not concur with the idea that a garage has to be
attached to a lot. He feels it is a violation of civil ri�hts; that it is
establ.ishing standards for human developrient where none is required. IIe stated
he felt L-he ordinance should read that if a family does want a garage, then they
should have to establish standards on that �axage.
Ms. Lynch stated she alsc disagreed that a garage has to be on a lot. A standard
garage does not fit everybody's needs. She stated she woul.d like to see a require-
ment for off-street parking for at least teao cars.
MOTION by Cdilliam Scott, seconded by Harold Belgum, that the Human Resources
Commission recommends to the Planning Commission that they do not condone the
pr.inciple of a garage requirement as a stipulation for Uuilding; however, if the
property owner decides to put up a garage, standards should be set for the
structure. Upon a=voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
PfOTI0P1 by Grace Lynch to require off-street parking for 2 caxs if a garage is not
built. Moti.on died for lack of a second.
P.LVIEI�T GOAL AkEAS FOR HUMAN DEV�LOPMENT
Ms. Shea stated that D100 is completed and :ahat the Commiseion is to be concerned
about and Iook at is D200. She said this wou]d be used the same as the compre-
iiensive housir.g plan was used, and it was hoped that it erill be.comp].eted *_hrnugh
DSGO oy Sanuary. She stated that the Commission should input their ideas for a
"Program Plan" under each "Progran: Objective."
GOAL STATEMEPIT D200: $elp fr>ster an atti.tude ca::ich stimulates li.fe-
long motivati.on for le.aening �ad cuJ.tural
development:
Program Objertive D210
Prosram Plan D211:
D212:
D213:
Program Objective D220:
Program Plan:
D221:
D222:
D223:
D224:
Promote an awareness and apprec�ation of the
Humanities.
Promote the lib�ary as a center in our communi.�.
Sdork with the State Humanities Commission to
develop a local Humanities council.
Promote special intexest y,roups within the
Humanities. �
Help stimulzte appreciation a.nd participation in
fine arts in the community.
Develop a Fine Arts Commission.
Fund local fine arts project.s.
�stablish relationship with State Arts Council.
Encourage ballet and modern dance.
��
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEE'PING SEPTENQ3ER 2, 1976 PaQe 3
Program Objective D230: Encourage an interaction of learning facilities
and programs necessary to all.ow residents a wide
choice of pursuits in education, traininn, and
cul.tural development.
Program Plan D231: Promote interest and use of Fridl.ey Public
Library as a source of intormation and
ins9iration.
D232: Establish relationships ��ith Community School
Advisory Council.
D233: Establish and fostez relationships caith institutions
with higher and vocational education, i.e., Anokz
Technical-Vocational Institute, F:noka/Ramsey
Community College, etc.
D234: Encourage the development__of
P4s. Shea asked Mr. Belgum to describe the Aumanities.
Iir. B�lgum stated that they are literatuxe, history, political science, religion,
philosophy, those studies which are not natural sciences or social sciences.
iN FORUM MEETING ON T
Pfr. Belgum stated he was in favor of resuming the forwn but doing it in a different
way. He suggested the idea of having the meetings he13 in elementary schools in
different school districts. They could invite the people in a school district and
try to promote the meeting. He felt this way they �aould find out whether there
was any advantage in trying to localize the issue and the discussion and whether
people would like the idea.
Ms; Lynch agreed that unless something different is done that will bring people to
the meetings, there is no point in having the forums.
Pi0TI0N by Grace Lynch, seconded by William Scott, that the decision on resuming
the Human Resonrces Commission Forimm Meeting on the 'third Thursday of each month
be tabled until the next meeting in order that the Comnission members may give it
more thought and try to come up with some different ideas. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF HAROLD BELGUM'S LETTER
�� liUMAN R�SOURCIiS CdAlMISSION MEETING, SEPTEI�ISER 2, 1976 Pa�e 4
Mr. Bel�um stated that after Mayor Nee was elected, Mr. Pelgum had asked him if
he'had any interestinQ ic�eas of what a city should be and ttiat maybe Mayor Nee
could write something about it. Since Mayor Nee had never done it, Mr. Belgum
stated he had decided to write something. He said the city is the only hope of
connecting people with each other, and he thinks the city could be a lot more than
people think it can be. He stated he wanted the Commission memUers to tell him
if it has any merit or not and if they thovght it should be sent to Mayor Nee.
Mr. Scott stated that he felt Mr. Belgum':s letter had merit, that it should be
sent`to hfayor Nee, and that it sfiould be included as goals for human developmen[.
MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by William Scott, that the Human Resources Co*.nmission
recommends that Mr. Harold Belgum send his letter entitled "What is a City for°
to Mayor 3dee as a private citizen. Upon a voice vote, a11 ioting aye; the motion
carried unanimously.
COPI�TONITY YOUTH CENTER
Ms. Lynch staLed she had attended the Youth Center meeting the previous night.
The meeting cras mainly for getting everyone's ideas and views. There were a few .
things settled. One thing discussed was the hours for the different age groups.
One suggestion was to have children uader 12 years of age between the hours of
4:00 and 6:00; children 12-16 years of age between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00;
and children 16 years of age and older between the hours of 8:00 and 11:00.
OthFr suggestions were T.o aiternate the nights or. to put a11 the children together
aiid see what happens. There was really no defirite conclusioa on this, but they
thought tne first choice might work o��t the b�st. The suggeeted t�r..:c ?or r_h�
center to be open on weekdays was 4:00-11:00. She stated the r.ext.meetiiig tiill
be held in Locke Park in the building where the vouth center will Ue located and
that �aill give the membere a bette�; idea of the size ar.id what it can contain.
Pis. Lyndi ctatea that there was a suggesi.ion that there would be one foosball
table,`,one pingoong table, and one pinball machine. One-half of the money
coll.ected by these machines goes to the owner and one-half goes to whoever runs
them--in this case, the City. It caas suggested that a separaYe fund be set up
so that money goes back ir.to the Youth Center. Hopefully, there will be
expansion; if there is any turnout at all, the building now caould be too small,
so it �aill te on a temporary basis. There was discussion of having carpeting on
the floor and this would be donated. Painting coill be done by the youth. There
will be two cardtables in the one room for card playing.
:1s. Lynch stated that if was pretty much decided that in the beginning they �aould
not be able to hire a staff person or director. Ms. Lynch stated she is against
this but was outvoted. The Police Department has volunteered to supervise it.
She brought up the fact that from the studies that have been made, the cl.oseness
to the Police Department has to do with how successful or unsuccessful the Youth
Center will be, The police representative at the meeting felt it would keep the
bad kids out, but Pfs. Lynch stated it might keep more than just the bad kids out.
i
'
��
` 5��
HUMAN RESOURCES COAIMISSION MEETING, SEPTfiI�3ER 2, 1976 Page 5
Ms. Lynch stated that there is no wa.y she can bring things back to the Co�ission
for their review before she votes on them. She will have to use her owm discretion.
She stated that if there was any input from the Commission to let her know. Tne
charter is supposed to be ready in a month: The reason for it is that they could
lose the building.
MOTION by Harold Belgum, seconded by William Scott, that the Human Resources
Co�nission is strongly convinced ttiat the Youth Center requires a professional
director, caho could begin as a part-tim2 director, and cohose salary wi11 be paid
by the Parks fi Recreation Depaxtment. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
FRIDLEY POLICE DEPARTNfENT �
Mx..Belgum stated thaC he had had an appointment coith Mr. James Hill, Public �s'
Director, but was unable to make the appointruent. .fr. Belgum was going to ask �ir.
Aill that if we had a monthly description of the police calls, the kinds o£ police
calls in the City of Fridley, we would have some idea of the health of the comsunity.
He stated that in Brooklyn Park, the Police Department caorked with the Yuman Rela-
tions Department very intimately and found out that there were so many domestic
calls that it led to the City Cuuncil forming a family counseling center. Ae caould
like to know what the Fridley police are using their time for.
Mr. Scott agzeed and stated he would like to icnow if the police get any s�r.sitivity
training.
ii0TI0N by [dilliam Scott, seconded by Grace Lynch, that the Human Re ou es Cor�ission
recoimnends thaY Mr. Harold Bengum meet caith P;r. James Hill, Pub1iC �s Director,
to present this idea to Mr. Hill to see if some kind of gauge can be established in
the community. i?r. Belgum is to report back at th2 next Hisnan �esources Cotmnission
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
SPRING HILL CONFERENCE - LEAGUE OF HiJI�fAN RESOURCES CO"SMIS�ION
Ms. Shea gave each of the Commission members a copy of the schedule for the Spring
Hill Conference to be held October 22-23. She stated that on October 22 at 8:15-
9:30 she caould he chairing the topic "Powers and Functions of a Local Human Rights
Commission." She asked that the Commission members allew hex to attend this confzrence.
h10TI0N by Grace L}mch, seconded by Harold Belguu!, that because Pfs. barbara Shea
will he at the Spring Hill Conference of the League of Human Resources Commission
on human resources business as a board member, the fee oL $20 be paid by the Human
Resources Commission. Upon a voice vote, Belgum, Lynch and Shea voting aye, Scott
wting nay, the motion carried.
Mr. Belgum again brought up the possibility of the Human Resources Commission
stag3ng a meeting where Pir. Charles Boudreau, Director of Parks & Recreation
Department, could present his standard philosophy of recreation.
�� HUMHN R�SOURCCS CC[R�tISSIdN :�ETIiIGi SEPT&�4BPR 2, 1976 �PaFe b
A1s. Lynch suggested the idea of having a puUlic forwn and inviting tQr. Boud:eau
to the fotum for that purpose and also to meet the people of Fridley.
The Commission memUers agreed that this was an excellent idea for a public forum
in September.
i10TI0N by Grace Lynch, seconded by Harold Lelginn, that the Auman Resources Commission
invite Mr. Charles Bovdreau, Director of Parks & Recreation Department, to a public
for�me the third Thursday in September (September 16, 1976) to be held in the
Community Room of the Civic Center at 7:30 p.m, upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
2frs. Shea asked Mr. Scott if he would be able to handle the newspaper publicity
tor this forum. 'tir. Scott stated he could not.
Ms.�Lynch stated it is her feeling that the Commission should act together in.
planning the public forums, not as individuals. One per�on can do a good joh but
five people can do a better job. She feels there is more cooperation if all the
members get involved.
AD30U'R;dMENT
:•i0TI0N by Harold Selgum, seconded hy Grace Lyr.ch, that the meetin� be adjourned
st;,9:20 p.rn. Upon a voice vote, a=1 voting aye, the motioa carried unani.mousl.y.
Respectfully submitted,
� � �c� r,C,�'CG,.�I-z��
Ly ' e �Saba
Recording Secretary
�
FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1$, 1976
MEMBERS PRFSENT: Gabel, Barna, Kemper
ME�iHERS ABSENT: Schnabel� Plemel
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer
The meeting �ras called to order by Acting Chairperson Gabel at 7:3� P.A1.
APPROVE APPEALS COMN;ISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 197b
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the
minutes o£ the August 10, 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
J�
1, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SE;,TION 20S.�S3� �i, B(5a), FRIDiEY CITY COD��
TO REPUCE THE REQUIRED 17 � FEET FOR A SIDE YARD WIDTH 0�] A STREET SIDE
OF A CORNER LOT TO 11� � FEET TO ALIA'+J THE CONSTRUCTION Or A lf� FT. BY 2%
� FT. ADDITION TO Ai3 EXISTING STRUCTURE� LOCATr,"D ON LOT 1t, BTACK 3, ?ICE
CREEK TERRACE PLAT 6, THE SAME BEING 6875 WASAIP3GTON STREET �v.E,, rRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA. (Request by Mr. David Skjervold, 6875 YJashington Street N.a.,
Fridleya Minnesota 55lt32).
PfOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper� to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice
voie� all voting aye, the mot.ion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205•053, 1t� B(SA) Corner
lot side yard setback of 17.5 feet £or living area of structure,
Public purpose served by this section o£ the code is to maintain a higher
de�ree of traYfic visibility and reduce the line of signt encroachment
into the neighbor�s front yard.
B. STATID HARDSHIP:
Family needs more space. The addition they propose is the best possible
plan considering their needs and plans £or the future.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
• The verif�ing survey shows a street side yard setback of 28.8 feet, An
addition on that side of the house would reduce the side yard setback to
i �-a
s�
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September �$, 1976 Page 2
1li.8 feet. A variance to 14.5 feet has been requested to allow for any
error in survey or construction. Although this proposed construction would �
limit "building line of sight" vision for neighboring properties, the
existing house is over 60 feet from the South property lzne. She addition
would not impair viszon across the corner in the "vision safety control"
area.
Staff £eels that the neighbo�s concerns should be considered first in
this matter� but staff has no objection to this variance request.
NOTE: Subsequent to P¢blic Plotices being sent� a verifying survey with the
addition drawn to scale was submitted. The drawing indicated that the
owner intended to also encroach into tne front yard by 2 feet, Tnerefore
a front yard variance� Section 205.053, 4, A, from the required 35 feet
to 33 Seet� as well as a side yard variance is required to build as
. planned. The owner asked if he couldn't include the front yard request
with this request. Staff gave the petitioner a list of all neighbors
within 200 feet and asked that all those on the list sign an agreement
to waive the 10 day notification requirement, It was explained that
perhaps the Appeals Commission vrould then be willing to consider both
the front and side yard variance requests at this time.
Mr. Skjervold stepped forward to present his request. He stated that Lhey
had decided aver the irinter that tney wanted more space in their house� but
they didn't lrant to move and leave the corranunity they were in. He showed
the Ccr�unission a plan and photographs of the existing nouse and explained
where the addition would be. He explained the roof wouln be the same as the �
house, and there would be a patio in the Southeast corner. Mr. Skjervold
told the Commission that after they applied £or the variance, they found out
iheir addition would also be encroaching into the front yard and City Staff
had informed him the only thing they could do would be to apply for another
variance or have all the neighbors sign a waiver. He presented the Commission
with that waiver.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission receive tne
waiver for the 10 day notification period concerning the front yard variance
and signed by 22 of t•1r. Skjervold's neighbors. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Chair�erson Gabel checked the signatures against the mailing list, and found
that all o£ the neighbors within 200 feet had signed the waiver.
Chairperson Gabel asked 'now many children the�� had, and Tir. Skjervold replied
they had three children; 2 boys ages 12 and 8, and a girl 5 years old, Mr.
Skjervold explained the addition would be a family room with f1i11 basement
underneath for storage and a game room, and there would also be a large walk-in
closet. Mrs. Gabel asked if this connect,ed to the kitchen, and hlr. Skjervold
replied the entry would be through the kitchen to the family room. Mrs. Gabel
asked about the trees, and rir. Skjervold replied that one was in danger, but
he had been advised by a nursery man thrst it could be moved.
Mr. Skjervold showed where the front steps were� and explained how they would
bring the roo£ out two feet over the front steps £or protection from the weather.
�.im r
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 1$, 1976 Page 3
58
He showed on a diagram how the eave would extend over the steps.
. Mr, Barna asked if this was going to be contracted out, and Mr, Skjervold
replied it would be,
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna� to close the Public Hearing. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Kemper� seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the
variance requests for both the side yard and Front yard setbacks as presented.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.142, 1 FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO R�UCs.
THE MINIPNM ACREAGE FOR A TO'vlNH0U5E DEVELOPh1ENT FROAi 5 ACRES TO 3 ACRES �
• IACATED ON LOT 19, EXCEPT THE EAST 190 FE�T THEREOF� AND EXCEPT TH� i:�ST
1� FEET TAAEN FOR HIGHFIAY PURPOSES, PRESEPdTLY ZOnID G1 (GENERAL OFFICE
AND LII�fITED BUSINESSES)� AND THE i+iEST 11�7.7L� FEET OF LOT 18, PRESEYTLY
ZONED R-1 (SINGLE FAI•1ILY D'vJELLING AREAS)� ALL IIv' AUDITOR'S SU3DIVISICi1
N0. Z29, �.L OF SAID PROPERTY IS NOW IN 1^HE PROCESS OF BEING COPISID�r.D
FOR REZONING TO R-3 (GENERAL hNLTIPLE FA-ffLY DWELLI�iGS), THE SAt�IE BEIi1G
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTIOT3 OF 73� AVEI4i]E N,E. AND CENTRAL AVE.vUE N.E.
(Request by Evert R. Swanson, 258 Windsor Lane, New Brighton, Niinnesota�
5511t, ) .
MOTION by Barna� seconded by %emper� to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice
� vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously,
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF t�EPORT
A, PUBI,IC PURP(7SE SERVED BY REQUIRII�fENT: Section 205.153, requiring five
(5) or more acres for a townhouse development.
Review o£ code indicated a conflict between 5 acre request and area/unit
request. After staff discussion it was suggested that perhaps the public
purpose served by this section of the Code was to provide an adeouate
number o£ units which make the af£iliated townhouse association economically
feasible.
B. STATID HARDSHIP: Restriction would make owner-occupied townhouses impossible.
C. AUi�fINI51`RATIVE STAFF REVIEyd: This request is being presented at this �ime
in order that the variance and rezoning requests m�y be presented to Co;u�cil
at the same time, This would eliminate the request having to be returned
to either one or the other Cormnission if only one aspect were handled first.
As nearly as staff can determine, the five (5) acre requirement evolved
from an estimate of the minimum number of units that would be required
to make the townhouse association economically practical. The other portions
of the code limit lot coverage and regulate open areas. (See Section 205.1lt3�
' A& B). 5taff feels that the petitioner should show how the proposed
� development will�in fact� provide for a townhouse association which will
not be an excessive burden of the occupants.
� �
��
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 1$� 1976 Page 4
Mr. Evert Swanson, property owner� and Mr. Albert Hoffineyer, architect, approached
the Board to explain the request. Mr. John Young, 73�3 Hayes St. N.E.; Mr. Jim �
Hinrichs, 7355 Hayes St. N,E,; Mr. Michael J. Virnig, 1365 73rd Ave.N.E.; and
Mr. Lawrence McCabe, 7328 Hayes St. N.E, also stepped £orward to view the plans,
Mr. Hoffineyer showed the Commission and the interested parties a color-coded
plan for the townhouses� and explained what the different colors represented,
He stated they were proposing six buildings with six units each� so there would
be a total or 36 units in all. He explained that they would be putting a fence
all around so people wouldn't walk through, and would be landscaping behind this
fence so there would be complete screenin� from the adjoining property. He
said they were proposing that this be built in stages, goin� in sequence £rom
one to sir., and shorred on the plans where building 1'/1 would be located. He said
they hoped to do this over a period o£ about one year.
MP. Hoffineyer was asked if these buildings would be classified as townhouses�
and he replied that they would be owner-occupied condominium toumhouses. He
explained they would cost between $40�000 and $60�000� and could have one� two
or three bedrooms, He was asked if he taas talking four or £ive people per
unit, and he answered that there probably would be no more than iour people
to a unit, He said that as far as traffic and interference 4rith the neighborhood
went, the arnount of people that these townhouses would generate wouldn�t malce
a signi£icant di££erence. He explained they wanted this to be a communiiy uato
iLcelf, and they didn't want kids trar�ping through ±here. He showed vrhere the
Fence would be� and explained it would be eight £eet high, 2�Sr. Holden stated
that seven feet eras the lunit� so Mr. Hoffineyer said f,hey would make it seven
feet, �
Mr. Hoffineyer was asked if there vrould be rental with ontion to buy, and he
replied there would not be. Mr. McCabe noted that i£ there were four people
in every unit, there would be a total of 1�c1A people on three acres, and thought
that wonld be quite crowded. Mr. Hoffineyer said that if they didn't rezone,
they would go commercial and put in an office building or a restaurant rrith
a parking lot in the back, A1r. Young asked when the fencing would go up, and
Mr. Hoffineyer replied it would go up first. He added that they wanted to save
as many trees as possible. .
Chairperson Gabel asked ii there would be any tot lots, and Mr. Hofflneyer answered
there wouldn't be, as theq didn�t want to enconrage children, He added that
there wouldn�t be wel£are people in there or a lot o£ kids. Pir, AlcCab� com,�ented
that he £ound it hard to believe that anyone tM1*ould want to invesi $1�0,000 to
$60�000 in a tol�mhouse with a junk yard across the street, ?ir. Iioffine,yer
explained they would be putting up a buffer.
Mr. Hoffineyer explained that they had a£lexible plan, He said they had a
basic split-entry plant with one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen, living room
and dini.ng room, He said they could expand those unzts with options and they
could have a loft� another bathroom upstairs� a recreation room� etc. He
explained that a person could even finish it himsel£; buying a shell and expanding
as the need arose. Air, Hofflneyer stated that they tiaanted these units to be
attractive, and he was concerned about the surrounding neighborhood. He stated •
Fridley Appeals Cormnission Meeti.ng of September 15� 1976 Page 5 60
they were also concerned about the junk yard and had Knutson� Eberhardt� Edina
� Realty and others look at it and they all recommended the townhouses be fenced
in. �
Chairperson Gabel explai.ned to the interested parties that everything rir.
Hoffineyer did would have to meet City Code and would be inspected periodically.
Mr. Holden commented that the code didn�t say he had to have a£ence, but
they would encourage it. 1�Irs. Gabel noted that could be a stipulation. hlr.
Young asked if that could be put in writing� and Mrs. Gabel said it could be.
Mr. Young asked if these could end up being built over a period oP three or
four years� and rlr. Hoffine,yer replied it i�ras possib].e but it i•rouldn't be a
very good project if it had to be dragged out that long. P•;r. Young asked if
there were people interested in the townhouses at the present time� and i�ir.
Hoffineyer replied there were. i9r. Young asked i£ the zoning was the same £or
rentals as owrier-occupied, and IIr. Holden replied it was.
Mr. Hoff}neyer stated that the people YTYlO moved into these units caould also
be concerned about Vrhat happened to the rest of the property, and that is where
the flak would come from. He said the people in the first units could say
"you're not living up tc your proposal", and take him to court, Mrs. Gabel
asked if there wouldn't be a To*.:nhouse Association that could step in, and PIr.
Ho£flneyer replied absolutely. Pir. Holden asked if the nur,iber of units would
,be su£ficient enoug'n to generate capital� and hlr. Hof£meyer rc�;�lied it was all
propo_',:ionate and all related to the size of the developmen�, He explained he
had I�2 units in iaayzeta on a little less acreage than this, and there :�ere no
• problems. He added it had been suggested that a Legion Club be put on this
property� but he thought that was not the nighest and best use i'or the property.
He stated that townhouse units fit very well in there because they trere a bufFer�
and a lot of thought had gone into this.
Chairperson Gabel pointed out that even i£ Mr. Ho££meyer resorted to renting
the units at some time, the rent zeould be high. t�tr. Hof£meyere agreed� and
added that they wouldn't ever. go ahead and build number one if 80I orasn�t sold
beforehand. Ae stated that Knutson �aould give them a loan on the rrhole thing,
but they wanted to presell 807� of the entire project. He said that each one
o£ these buildings would run about $250�000 to �300,000 apiece, and if they
had to pay interest on all 36 at once it would really add to the price of the
proje�t� so they wanted to make it simple.
Mr. S��•anson said that the land was originally purchased to put a warehouse in
there about four or £ive years a�o� and cc:runented that they couldn't afford
to just have the land lay idle.
Mr. Virnig stated that the condensity oF the area had him bothered� and ihought
it was quite a bit on three acres. Air. Hofi}neyer said he lmeca Mr. Virnig would
like to see single family dwellings or gardens in there� but that wasn't
realistic. He stated that single family dwellings were not economically £easible.
Mr. Young asked if they were going to do anything with the rest of the property�
and Pir. Hoffineyer replied they were going to make the property presentable
• enough to make the units salable.
e ��Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page b
Mr. Virnig said he was also worried about what would happen during construction,
and Mr. Young raised the problem of the dust and wondered about the length o£ �
time the buildings would be under construction, Mr. Aoffineyer replied that
there would be some dust� but they didn't really lmow for how long. He added
that they wanted to move the project as fast as possible,
Mr, McCabe noted that hir. HofiSneyer had mentioned that he cou2d build anything
he wanted commercially, and asked i£ that was true. Chairperson Gabel said
that it was zoned that way. hlr. RScCabe comrrtented that he couldn't see where
commercial would be that bad� and TIrs. Gabel pointed out that a shopping area
might generate a Iot more traffic.
Mr. Holden asked i£ anyone had any other questions in regard to the plan 2ayout,
or any concerns with the design o£ the buildings� and h9r. ]�icCabe replied they
didn't Imow that much about it. ?�r. Hoffineyer stated they would have to make
them attractive enough that they would sell, and explained he had been in tha
architectural business since 19b� and had done a lot of projects,
Chairperson Gabel asked Mr. Holden if he didn't think this would raise the
value of the homes in the neighborhood, and he replied that it was a bu£fer�
it was less dense than what the code required� and the tra£fic it caould generate
would be extremely low. PQx�. Kemper said that it seemed to hin that the properties
wouZd be increased nore by this than by the development of some corunercial
property.
Mr, Virnig stated that he thought everybody�s concern taas that this wouldn�t
Ue a loi•r-income type of project, and Mr, Hofflneyer again stated that they �
would cost between $1t0�000 and $60�000. Mr. Kemper asked if this satisfied
the neighbors, and t•ir. Virgig replied that as long as he knew Mr. Hoffineyer
had to take this in steps wi.th the City Council and if it met all City codes,
and iF there were any major deviations he would have to come back for approval,
he would be satis£ied.
Chairperson Gabel said that in terms of rent� if these units were rented
they still would not be for low-income families. NIr, Hoffineyer added that
they wanted to have a good community.
Air, Barna explained to the neighbors that the Townhouse Association was almost
like a city within a city. He said it was a group o£ people banded together
to maintain the toc,mhouses and grounds on a group basis, and when people bcu�ht
a townhouse they were locked into the Townhouse Association.
Nir, rfcCabe said that they did not have the majority o£ the neigh'bors with t':iem
tonight� and asked at what point wouZd be the last tine £or them to say "No"
to this project and stop the whole thing. Chairperson Gabel informed them that
would be at the City Council meeting, and told them it would be a good idea to
attend the next Planning Commission meeting and voice their opinions there also.
Mr, Kemper pointed out that aIl they were doing at this meeting was talking
permission to reduce the coverage.
Mr. Kemper said he would like to lmow if everyone's concerns had been discussed •
and satis£ied. He asked Mr. McCabe if his concerns about density had been
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15� 1976 Page 7
6�
satisfied, and Mr. McCabe replied that as long as it met code he would have to
. be satisfied, but he still thought it would be heavy. He said he had no more
questions on this at this time� but would like more of the neighbors to come in.
Mr. Young asked about the £encing, and i£ it would be just a verbal commitment,
Mr. Kemper said no� it would be in writing. Mrs. Gabel pointed out that they
could make that a stipulation when it came before the Planning Commi.ssion.
Mr. Kemper a.nformed the interested parties that they should be sure to get as
many of the neighbors as were interested in this to come to the Planning
Commission meeting, and he said he would also encourage them to look at the
alternatives because obviously the owners were going to develop this.. He
eacplained that this proposal would be attraciive to the neighborhood and
increase the property values� or it could be developed into something which
would be more appropriate to the existing zoning such as a warehouse. *Ir.
Kemper added that he caould also suggest they take the time to visit some
townhouses. The neighbors asked where they were� and Iir. HoFfineyer and PIr.
Swanson gave them directions. Ptr. Barna added that another point to consider
would be that there would be more people paying taxes to the Cit;� of Fridley.
Chairperson Gabel asked �ahat it would cost the people for the To:mhouse
Association� and hfr, Ho£fineyer said it would be �28 a month. hirs. Gabel
asked if there was a specific organization these people went to, and r;r.
Swanson said they had directors and so forth, and had meetings once a montn.
He explained that all the residents were r.elcome to attend the meetings and
object to anything they didn't like. For instance� he said� i£ there vras
inadequate sno:a removal or the grounds weren�t kept up� they could voice
their opinions. He said that motorcycles and snovmobiles i�reren�t allowed
� to drive around on the grounds� and garbage cans couldn't be left outside
(they must be in the garage). He explained that this �aould be a lot neater
than with regular residents. P;rs. Gabel asked if they would become a member
of an already established organization, and Mr. Barna said tnis would be an
individual association. :•irs. Gabel asked if they t•rould 'nave guidelines� and
Mr. Hoffineyer replied they iJOUld have the bylaN:s. 11rs. Gabel asked how they
were going to forn this to get financing, and PIr. Hoffineyer replied that the
people in there didn't determine this association; it was determined 'oefore
the project was built. I•1rs. Gabel asked if the £irst building was constructed
and the residents paid the �28 and the snow was very heavy for a month� :aould
�that be enough to take care o£ all o£ the snow? rtr. Hof£meyer replied that
it was flexible.
PIr. Virnig said that the proposed project would probably be more beneficial
as far as property value than anything else thst could oo in tnere. I:r. :`.cCabe
said that one of tneir primary interests ��ras ttiat it y:asn't a welfare projECt.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Kemper stated that the matter before them was reduc9ng the minimum acreage
from five acres to three acres, and that provision seemed to be there because
of a concern by the Toianhouse Association. He said he felt that three acres
� was certainly satis£actory for a Townhouse Association, and for want of any
statistics he had to accept that.
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 8
fi3 _ — ---- --=
Mr. Barna stated he had no objection, and was satis£ied with the cost require-
ments per unit. Mr. Kemper added that he believed the plans that were presented �
were quite well thought out and he was impressed. .
Chairperson Gabel stated Lhat the traf£ic patterns rrere well planned� and she
would rather see the toumhouses on that property than some type of business.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend
to Council approval o£ the variance to reduce the minimum acreage for a
townhouse development from five acres to three acres. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
3. RE!2UEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLO:dS: SECTION
20S.o63, 1�D� TO REDUCE TH8 BACK YAI� SETBACK OPd A DOUBLE FROPdTAGr� LOT�
' FROii 35 FEET TQ 1E3,1�S FEFsT� TO ALLG?1 THE COIdSTRUCTTON Or A DETACY,EI? G9R.kG�
ON LOT 13, ��CK 2� HAGEL�S l•t00➢LANDS� THE SAI;E BETNG 7lt31-7�33 ABLE STRE�T
N.E,� FRIllL�Y� NIINNESOTA. (THIS PROPERTY IS ZO.TIED R-2� T;�10 FA23ILY Di^J�LLIIV�G
AREAS). Request by I•Ir. Marvey MayerJ 7431 Able Street N.E.� Fridley�
Minnesota 55l�32
MOTION by Barna� seconded by Kemper� to open the Publie Hearing. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
' ADi-SINISTRATIV� STAFF REPORT
A, PUBLIC PURPC?SE SERVED BY REQUIREMEiai: Section 205.063, 1�D, requirement of .
35 £t. rear yard setback on a double frontage lot.
Public purpose served by the requirement is to alloor for adequate open
rear yard areas should any of the buildings in a double frontage block
face the "rear",
B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petit�oner states tha� he laid out his proposed garage
directly in line with the garages to the south and north of his property
so the setback from the house to the garage caould be the same as his
neighbors,
C. PDMINISTRATIVE STAFF R.�VIEtv: In June of 1975, Portfolio Realty was granted
10 similar front y2rd variances from 35 £eet to 20.5 £eeC. These garzges
have been constructed. This request is for a garage with an attached porch�
that is twice the size ef the neighooring garages and a slightly greater
variance. The difference of 20,5 feet to 18.l�5 feet could be made up by
moving the garage closer to the house, The petitioner's garage plans
shoia a three car garage which would increase the lot coverage to 2Lt%.
Staff feels that there is not sufficient hardship shown to warrant the
variance to 18.l�5 feet� and that the 20.5 foot setback should be maintained,
The difference of tiao feet could be made up between the dwelling and the
garage i,tsel£.
Please note that due to the R-2 zoning� this request must proceed through �
the Planning Commission and City Council,
�,�._
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 9
6�
Mr. M�ver approached the Board and stated that last year garages were put up
� to the South and North of him� and he had lined up his proposed construction
with the rest of the garages, He said he wanted his to be two £eet larger,
so it would be 21�' x Lt0', with 10' £or an extended porch, A1r. Holden explained
that this was a double £rontage lot, and a11 the adjacent properties had also
gotten variances.
Chairperson Gabel asked if there was some reason he could not line up his
structure with the others� since there was a di££erence o£ two feet (the
other garages had 20,$' setbacks, and l�Ir. Mayer was requesting a setback to
18.1�5`). He replied he preferred it this way, Mr. Holden explained that
when this vias measured, PSr. t�ayer had measured how close it caas to the house
and the code measured from the street. He asked tir. �ayer if it would be
possible for him to move it back two feet, and t;r. Mayer replied he supposed
he could, He added that it burned him up that the other garages went up
last year and he had never been notified. Chairperson Gabel said he should
have received a notice.
Mr. Kemper noted that on the survey there was 20' between the garage and the
house� so if the garage was moved tti��o feet closer to the house there would be
18� between the two structures. Idr. PIayer said i£ that ti�as what he had to do,
that is what he would do, Mr. Kemper said there were several alternatives:
1j accept the proposed plan� 2) move the garage back two feet so the street
edges lined up, or 3) make the garage the same size as the ne;ghbor's, h1r,
T9ayer objected to the third alteinative as he said that Vrou2d be too narrow.
Mrs, Gabel said they were talking about the line oS sight� a*�d were �ust
asking if it would matter to i�1r. 1•fayer if it was moved back t:ao feet. Nir,
� Mayer replied he could do that.
Mr. Kemper as;ced if there were going to be two parking stalls, and 1�:r. Afayer
replied ihat was correct. He sai.d he was going to put in a 9' door and a �6'
door. Mr. Kemper asked hlr. Mayer to show him khere the partition would be�
and Mr. Mayer drew it in for him. Ffr, Kemper noted that there was room for
three cars� and asked what the purpose was of the 10' x 2l�� area. I•Ir. Piayer
replied he wanted to put an extended roo£ over that £or a covered patio. He
added it could be used for parking� storing a boat, or whatever. He explained
that part would have a roo£� but not be enclosed. AIr. Kemper asked if there
were codes required for the construction o£ a car port, and Air, Holden ans��;ered
they would be the same as the rest of the building, Mr. Kemper asked how man3�
cars t4ere were between the two families presently in the double bungalow,
and I•Ir, i�Iayer answered that there here three at this time. I�:r, Kemper asked
how Ior,� the curb depression w2s� and P;r. hiayer replied he didn�t kno:a for =ure�
but there were two 3epressed curbs.
Chairperson Gabel asked how much hard surfacing he would have to have� and hlr.
Holden answered only where the cars would be driving. Mr. h:ayer showed on the
diagram how he planned to go out at a diagonal� and Mr. Holden said that would
be fine, birs. Gabel asked if he would go along with making tnis 20.5 rather
than the 18.l�5� and hir. Pfayer replied he would.
MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna� to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice
� vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 10
e- 6�J
Mr. Barna and Mr. Kemper agreed they had no objections, as long as the setback
was 20,5 feet to coincide with the neighbor's, �
MOTION by Kemper� seconded by Barna� that the Appeals Commission recor,mend to
Council approval of the variance request to reduce the back yard setback from
35 feet to 20.5 feet. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously,
1�. INFORt�fA2I0N F'ROM ACTIOId TAIiEN BY COUIdCIL AT TH� AUGUST 16, 1976 COUDICIL
MOTION by Barna� secanded by Kemper� that the Appeals Corr,mission receive
excerpts from the Council meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the
motion carried unanimously.
AIr. Kemper said he would like to discuss the variance request by NIr. 3urkholder
which had gone from the Appeals Commission to Council. He said the Appeals
Commission had talked about Barry Blocaer and joint parking� put apparently� it
surfaced again at the Council meeting. Mr. Barna stated that the City had
contacted the o�,mer of the business and he had said he thought joint parking
wou2d create more problems than it was worth, and then the Council ap�roved
the request.
Mr. Holden said the oti,mer had inforcned him that as far as parking went, there
was a pecking order� ete., and the owner had gotten in contact with :�Ir. Burkholder
and told him a joint agreement would not be in oraer. ilr. Barna noted that the �
only change from the Appeals Commission recommendation was that the City Council
did uphold the solid curbing.
5, EXCERPT FROM
MOTION by Barna� seconded by Kemper, that this item Ue tabled until there was
a£ull Comr�ission, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
.unanimously.
6, TSEAIO TO APPEnLS COP•G`ISSION ME".uE�:S rRO;" ROPd HOLDEi'd R�GA�DIiGG I;dC3�,4S;D
L�r.z rrc.� vnnTnr,�r. nc�v,�cmc cvnr:s c� , nn +„ .,r� nn
hfOTION by narna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission receive ihe
memo £rom Mr. Holden on the increased fee for variance requests. Upon a voice
votey all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Gabel said that she hadn't realized that alI the Staff wasn't salaried�
and now that she saw a breakdown she understood and felt it was reasonable.
Mr. Kemper said that one thin� Tfrs. Gabel had 'orought up previously was that
she felt it was excessive when it came to the smaller request� and he thaught
her suggestion had been to charge less to the R-1 and more to commer8ial, �
Mrs. Gabel said she still felt that way because the homeowners and R-1 zoning
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 12
6�
ridiculous to have to ask the neighbor when the structure would be 20' from
� the property line.
Mr. Holden said another point he would like to bring up in regard to two or
three items that the Appeals Commission handled lately� was that the City had
started to receive flak that the Public Hearings were getting atiafully long and
winded, and sometimes points were heard over and over. He said that the request
by I�cI came to mind. He su�gested the Commission try to limit the discussion
. or cut if oSf at a point where it was becoming redundant and make a decision.
Chairperson G�tel sai.d she thought this was a result of people in the pasi saying
they didn't get heard. I�ir. Holden staied this wasn�t a criticism� but just a
point of interest,
ADJOURI�R�'NT :
I•10TION by Kemper, seconded by Barna� that the Appeals Commission meeting oi
September 15� 197b be adjourned at 9:55 P.rf. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye� the motion carried unanir.iously.
d_I
Respectfully submitted�
��F�� ��!
Sherri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
�
Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15� 1976 Page 11
6"�J
paid the taxes in the City, She added that now that she understood where the
costs were coming from, they were justifiable, hir. Holden stated that if it �
was salaried staff the cost would probably be reduced from $25 to $18, so the
reduction wasn�t that great. Mr. Holden said that another thing about the
dif£erence between the $15 and $50 £ee was some of the homeowners felt that
for that price they could look over their plans again� and they are more serious
about their variances. Mrs. Gabe1 said her concern was for the person wno could
barely scrape together the money and legitimately naeded the variance� to �rhom
the $50 would be a burden. Mr. Holden said that was true� but the cost of that
person's addition was probably about $L,000, and he fPlt it was justified,
Mr. Barna said he would like.to comment that at the September 13th Council meeting
they approved the first reading of an ordinance reducing the fee for a second
awcilliary building (Special Use Permit) from $120 to $80 because this gnnerally
involved residential property, He stated that staff cost v�as justi£ied fnr
the �80� and it was also justi£ied for the $50 variance request £ee. He said
it would cost a person more to put in a second garage than it Urould to get a
variance on the property. gfrs. Gabel corunented that was encouraging.
Mr. Barna informed the members o£ the Corunission that r&I had gone to the
Gity Council meeting vrith a beautiful architectural drawing of the proposed
building. He said that along the rear property line they are putting a$'
redwood fence, and olive trees where there are no trees, He cor�mented that
ihe neighbor to the rear once again created static by complaining to his
Councilman that he would like to have something in ti,rriting� so it was tabled
until the next meeting. He said that hopefully by the time it came up again�
some arrangement wculd be nade between the two parti�s, ?•1r. Barna exDlained ��
they were sinking do�st a portion of the building so it,would slope and make
the building much less objectionable.
Mr. Barna stated that he would appreciate it if on business concerns that ca,ie
through the Appea7.s Commission� they iaere required to nave some type o£ a
building drawi.ng, He explained that sometimes the Cor�missioners had to go
out and do on-site inspectirg, and didn't feel that should be required, i•irs.
Gabel agreed they c3idn't always have the inFormation t!�e,; should, i�1r. Holden
said they taould encourage drawings being provided on elevations and conmercial
property, rir, Barna asked if it would inerease the City's cost to require
'these or to check over the draz�rings, and Mr. Holden replied there night be a
small ariount of time involved, but the time that would be saved on tnis end
would mal:e it ti�*orth it,
P•Ir. Holden infor.ied the Commi,sion that apparently the Plannin� Co�:Lmiesion :;as
going to be reviehing and trying to establish a r:zitten polic�� i��i�h rs�;;3rd io
surveys, He e�cplained what the present policy was� and stated that at some
point i,t should be established that with two, three or four times the dist�nce from
the property line a consent from the neighbor shouldn't be necessary.
Chairperson Gabel said the Planning Commission had decided that since the cost
of a survey could run from $200 on up, the City was sometimes laying a burden
on the citizen. She explained that sometimes Staff could determine iahat Che
property lines were, or there was a survey in the file or a release could be
signed by the neighbor. Pir. Holden commented there was a point when it became �;
µ� ,
1
�
E
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTB�SBER 22, 1976 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER.:
Chairperson Aarris called the meeting to order at 7:3% P.M.
RdLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld� Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent: Peterson
Others Present; Ray Leak, Planning Aide
APPROVfi PLANNING COMMISSION MZNUTES; SEPTH+IBER 8 1976
Mrs. Schnabel stated she would like to a£firm on page 24, item lj, the date
set for the joint meeting rrith the City Council on Lt0' lots. She said she
Was sorry she hadn't been able to set up the meeting earlier, and November 22nd
would be fine with her. She added she appreciated it being set up and would
get in touch xith the appropriate peop�e.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Coimnission minutes
of September 8� 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote� all voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously.
SWANSaN: Rezone Lot 19, �cept the East 190 feet thereof, and except the
West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from G1 (general office and
limited businesses), and the West 1J�7.74 feet of Lot 18, £rom R-1 (single
family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Sub-division No 129� to R-3
(general multiple family dvellings), to allow a condominium-type develop-
ment, the same being located at the intersection o£ Central Avenue and
73rd Anenue N.E.
Public Heartng c2osed.
Mr. Evert R. Swanson� property owner, and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were
present.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission reopen
the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA J/'76-03, by Evert R. SWanson. Upon
a noice vote, all voting sye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing
open at 7:�t3 P.M.
Mr. Leek stated there was no £urther input from Staff other than what was discussed
at the last meeting. Chairperson Harris asked if the Fire Marshal�ad looked at
the plans� and Mr, Leek replied he had and there was no problem xith it.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976
Page 2
5A
----�---
Mr. Swanson stated he now had some elevations to show, and invited the interested
parties to vieW them� which they did.
Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Sxanson would be in agreement with the stipulation that
i£ this was approved� these townhouses would be owner-occupied. Mr, Swanson
answered he would be. Mrs. Shea asked i£ anything had been done to move those
condominiums back, as one had been only 20' from the residential property line.
Mr. Olson stated the plan he had before him shoxed a 26� setback and a 30'
setback� and pointed out on the plans where those setba�ks vere.
Mr. James Hinrichs, 7355 Hayes St, N,E., asked khat the term "oondominium" meant,
and i£ it was any different than a townhouse� and if one xas more desirable
than the other. Mr. Swanson said that although the notice did read this was a
condominium�type development� which was oxner-occupied apartments� this project
was actually a toraciliouse develoFsnent. He said the occupants would own the land
that their particular part o£ the'�building was on� and xould have their own
yards and patios. Mr. Leek coumented that there was no de£inition £or the term
"condominium" as such in the City Code� but it did define tormhouses and the
develo�nent in question fit that definition. Mr. Hinrichs stated they were
trying to keep the value of the neighborhood up, and he xouldn't object to a
toirnhouse development.
Mr. Larry HcCabe� 7328 Aayes St.� N.E.� stated that he had txo petitions to
present. He explained thai one xas in disagreement with the rezoning and was
signed by two neighbors� the other was in favor oY the rezoning with stipulations
and had 18 signatures.
Chairperson Harris read the Pirst petition, which stated;
We the undersigned group, heretofore to be Imown as "neighbors", hereby
agree to the rezoning of the property lmown as Lot 19, except the East
190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes�
from C-1 (general office and limited businesses) and the West 7.LG7.7tt feet
o£ Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision
No. 129, to R-3� subject to the Polloxing stipulations concerning the
construction� occupation� and maintenance of said property:
1. No.structure shall be constructed any closer than currently
indicated on the plans dated 9/8/76 and retained by the "neighbors".
2, All structures ea�ceeding 1(one) story in height, shall be con-
structed at a minimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering property
line of the nearest "neighbor°.
3. The "neighbors° shall not be burdened with aay assessments� levies,
or t�es of any kind, now planned, or planned in the future, as
a result of the construction, occupation, or maintenance of the
aboce described property, as the result of good or poor planning
on the part o£ the developer or the City of Fridley, £or a period
of up to 5(£ive) years folloWing the completion of said consiruct3on.
The costs of all assessments, levies, or taxes shall be borne by
the developer� and/or the City of Fridley for this period.
Also, if any assessments are now planned, the '�neighbors" *,rould like
to be informed of them at this time (9/22/76).
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 22, 1976
Page 3
Chairperson Harris noted that petition had 18 signatures. He then resd the
follo�ing petition:
We the undersigned gmup, heretofore to be]morm as "neighbors"� hereby
disagree to the rezoning of the property lmown as I,ot 19� except the`
East 190 feet thereof� and except the West 17 feet taken for highWay
purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the
West 1�7.7l� £eet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) all
in Auditor� Subdivision No 129� to R-3.
Mr. Harris noted that patition had two signatures.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Comm�SSioll receive
the two petitions. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
�
Chairperson Aarris asked Mr. Swanson if he had any concerns about the stipulations,
and he answered thai the only one vould be the second stipulation requiring a
two-story structure to be a mininwn distance of 35 feet £rom the bordering
property line of the nearest neighbor. Mr. Olson asked if it was the intent
of the neighbors to question the 26� setback which he indicated on the plans,
Mr. McCabe stated that at the ti.me the petition was put together 35` was
arbitrary� and ihe general feel3ng at that time xas since they did not have
any idea of the exterior o£ the buf�ldings they did not want just a large straight
wall any closer than 35' to their property lines. He explained they had asked
a week ago for an idea of the exterior or total height o£ the townhouses, but
hadn't gotten any help at that time. Mr. Olson stated that the total complex,
including floor plans with detai.ls and elevations had been draWn up according
to the City's requirements for setbacks. He added that the measurements on the
plans were actually a little in excess o£ the minizmims xhich were required.
Mr. S�ranson asked if the neighbors would have the same complaint if it was a
two-story single-family dwelling that was being constructed, Mr. McCabe said
they intended to bring this in as a matter o£ arbitration, although 35' was in
agreement among the neighbors. t�fx�. Hinrichs commented they just didn't want an
IDS Towsernext to their back doors. Mr. Swanson stated he understood that, and
the buildings wouldn't be any higher than any other txo�story dwelling would be.
Mr. Hinrichs pointed out that there presently weren't any two-story dwellings
in their area.
Mr. Olson stated he wanted to point out that the entire project would be meticu-
lously landscaped, and it was possible to bring a tall building down in height
by the plant3ng o£ tress and so forth. He added they should also bear in mind
that this wouldn't be a straight xall going up as there vould be areas on the
second floor that would come out two to four feet, there would be xindows that
�*ould project out, and so forth, Mr, Hinrichs stated that the building on the
Southeast corner did not follow their stipulations� and asked that the architect
reconsider and move the building over five feet and in nine feet.
Mrs, Schnab�l noted that Mr. Olson had mentioned there would be extrusions of
two to four feet on the second floor elevation, and asked if those extrusions
vould extend over the 26 £oot setback. Mr. Olson replied they would not, and
said the grc>und line of the building might possibly have more than a 26� setback.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page �
5C
Chairperson Harris stated it xould be a good idea to number the documents� and
identified the petition in faiaor oi the rezoning with stipulations as ESchibit A�
the petition in opposition as Fychibit B, the color-coded layout plan as
Ekhibit C� and the floor plans as E�chibit D.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like to point out that when a husband and xi£e
signed a petition, it Hea counted as one signature and not two� and Chairperson
Harris said that was correct. Mr. McCabe explained they were just a;mir,g for
a representative as a property ofaner, whe��igr it was one or both.
Mr. Hinrichs state� that in their petition, they agreed to the plan dated
9/8/T6 with stipulations� and noted that there was a d�screpancy between those
plans and the plans Mr. Swanson had with him. Mr. Sxanson commented that the
plans had been revised, and the one dated 9/8/76 xas obsolete. Mr. Hinrichs
said he would 13ke the petition to be changed to read "the plans as shown in
exhibit C°, and Chairperson Harris said it wauld be so noted.
Chairperson Harris said he wished to speak to stipulation #3, and commented
that he hoped it would be good planning. He sai.d that concerning a guarantee
that there would be no assessments or levies agai.nst that property, he wasn�t
quite sure what the neighbors were driving at. Mr. McCabe explained they
were talking about assessments or levies that would be a direct result of that
project. Mr. Langenfeld said he also felt they meant if there Weae major
street improvements within that area as a result of this construction, the
neighbors did not �rished to be assessed because of that, Mr. MeCabe said that
was correct.
Chai.rperson Harris asked if there vas aiLy proposed construCtion or assessments
for this area, and Mr. I.eek replied not to his lmowledge. Mr. Harris asked
if the storm eewers rrere in, and itr. Sxaason said he believed they were. Mr.
Harris asked i£ there were storm sewer assessments now� and rras told that
there were on Hayes. Mr. McCabe stated that they felt that the assessments
that were in now were paid for by the neighbors� and if nev ones arose they
didn't want to split the difference with the new people and let them get a
free ride. Mr. Langenfeld co�ented that one of the functions of the Planning
Coimnission was not to become an assessor� bui the possibility could exist
xhere this might be beneficial to the tax sitnation and be a reverse situation.
Chairperson Aarris stated the reason he brought this point up was because the
Planning Conunission could notmmake any agreements or commitments for the City;
that Was up to the City Council. He added that from his past experiences with
the Council, he thought it would be di£Yicult to get the City to agree to that
last stipulation. Mr. McCabe stated that the word °City" could be eliminated
from the petition. Mr. Harris said that xould have to be an agreement between
Mr. Swanson and the City, i£ he would consider making such an agreement. Mr.
Swanson commented that to his lmowledge there were no assessments against this
pmperty at the present time. Mr. Harr3s explained the neighbors didn't want
additional expenses because of the development for street improvements or
modi£ications in the street to facilitate traffic or excess drainage o£ storm
xaters, and things like that.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 5 5�
Mr. Langenfeld said he noted that one individual was concerned about a large
wall adjacent to his home� and pointed out that the request they were considering
was changing this area from C-1 zoning, and rrith that type of zoning something
could be constructed that would be much more unfavorable.
Mr. Hinrichs asked i£ this property could be used as rental at a later date
if the project got ha7.f completed and the money ran out or the units didn't
sell for some reason. He�n+asr�oncerned that coastruction costs xould be cut
to get the costs of the building dosm to be used for rental. Mr. Swanson
said that anybody vho owned a piece o£ property had the right to rent it out;
but that was not his aim, He added that if they couldn�t be sold and had to
be rented out, it would be better than having them stand empty. Mr. Leek
commented that there was nothing in the ordinance that prohibited rental.
Mr. Langenfeld stated this brought concern to him when it had come up previously�
because he didn't see how it could be stipulated that it be only owner-occupied.
Mr. Hinrichs said in that case he xould like his name taken o£f the petition
in agreement with the townhouses and be put on the opposition one, and not risk
Mr. Sxanson missing his target. Mrs. Shea said that at the last meeting Mr.
Hofl7neyer had stated that they xould build one building to sell, and wouldn�t
start on another until 80� of it vas sold. Mr. Swanson said that was correct�
and he couldn�t afford to rent them any�a�,y.
Mr. McCabe sai.d he thought they rrere vorried about the intent� atid at what
point Mr. Swanson would say is a turning point and decide they couldn't be sold
and just throW something up to rent. Mr. Aarris explained that once the
toxnhouse denelop9nent plans were approved� they xere tied by building permit
to a specific type of construction and could not deviate in major ways from
that type of construction. Mr. MeCabe said they were concerned because the
tovnhouses were going to be turo stories high� and in spite of the redwood fence
the occupants xould be able to see the txo junk yards, trailer court, auto
dealers, etc. in the area� and r�rereo:wondering what �ras going to sell these
units for $li0,000 to $60,000 since there was nothing on the order of a swiimning
pool or other luxuries planned. He said that seemed like a steep price for
what they were getting. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she had read a copy oP the
report that came out recently by a study group formed by the Metropolitan Council
concerning housing in the metropolitan area. She informed the Commission and the
citizens that the current situation in housing was very critical in the metro
area, and a sungle-family home vas a rare find these days. She said that if
they could compare what you got for $h0�000 in a single-£amily home today with
what you got £or the same price in the late 1950�s� they would be amazed at
the difference in the quality o£ housing that is aeailable. She added that there
is a market £or housing and a very strong demand ior it. Mrs, Schnab�l said
that there were many people who reached the point where they didn't wish to
have a great deal o£ maintenance in a private dWelling of their own. She ssid
she thought that basically the main concern right now was whether or not to grant
a rezoning on this property. She stated that their concerns as neighbors were
well justified� but she thought they had to let Mr, Svanson worry about how this
would be marketed end who would buy it. According to the sGtrdies� she said,
there 3s a great demand £or this type of housing; single family houses are so
e�cpensive and the amount you are getting is so little in comparison to what it
xas that there is a great demand for the toxnhouse concept. She added that
there probsbly r+as a market that many of them didn't realize, but iP they checked
with other builders or realtors they would find there was a definite market.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 6
5E
Mr. Bergman asked what the code requirement was for setback of a townhouse
structure Prom R-1 property, and Mr, Leek said it was 15' xith appropriate
screening. Mr. Olson pointed out that they were 26� from the property line
on the East side and 30' on the other side� so they were in excess of the code
by quite a bit.
Chairperson Harris aeked Mr. S�aanson i£ he would be agreeable to moving that
building from 30' to 35' from the R-1� and Mr. SWanson said that should be
discussed with the architect. Mr, Olson said that would decrease the distance
between buildings !t and 5 by ly�� and there would also be four feet less green
area. Mr. Olson asked if it xas the Planning Carmiission's suggestion that the
architect restudy buildings 5 e�d b according to 35' instead of irhat the present
codes requi�d. Mr. Harris said he couldn't speak for the whole Commission,
but in his own opinion he thought it would enhance the property if they had a
little more space on those particular sides. He said there vould then be 31'
between the buildings� and it would mean shifting 5 and 6 to the North. Mrs.
Schnabel asked what that xould do to building /J6 on the West property line�
and Mr. Olson stated that xould be reduced by roughly 9�.
Mr. Olson said he would like to point out that across Central Avenue to the
West was some unenvironmental property, and i£ he lived in the neighborhood
he Would welcome the proposed development on the suggested site rather than
thinki.ng what could be developed on the site in lieu o£ the townhouses. Mr.
S�renson stated that if it went cotmnercial the neighbors would have the back
yards of stores facing them, xith those large garbage containers and a lot of
debris. Personally, he said, he couldn't see why anyone would object to it.
Mr. John Young� 73k3 Hqyes Street N.E.� stated that he didn't think they were
against the development. He said they were agreeable to it in their petition�
but wanted to make sure it was a good developnent and aesthetically pleasing.
?1r. Svanson said that question had come up before and he had done all he could
to assure the neighbors on that point. Mr. Olson pointed out that once the
plans were accepted� that is what had to be developed. He said that these
plans also carried an architectural stamp with a state registrai�on number,
so the architect �rould not be zri.11ing to jeopardize his own profession and
xould see that the plans were carried out as proposed.
Mr. McCabe said he was basically reassured about stipulations one and tvo� but
would like a little further reaction from Mr. Swanson on the assessment end
of it. He added that he couldn�t see any bene£it to the neighbors from any
assessment that had anything to do with the develojxnent. Chairperson Harris
said he uas wondering if there was an area assessment £or storm sewers� and
that got to be a rather technical question as to whether it beneYits the total
area or xhat area it bene£its. He said that was why storm sexers xere taken on
a general area assessment. He added that if the storm sewers were in, and
the streets� sewers and water were in� he couldn�t see any future improvements.
Mr. Skanson sai.d that he didn't lmow if one person could be individually taxed
and not the conummity. He added that no matter what went in on that property,
the same thing would apply, whether it was cormnercial or residential. Mr.
McCabe asked if Mr. Swanson would or would not be willing to pick up the tab
for any future developments that were related to the project� and Mr. Swanson
replied by asking how en individual could commit himself to paying for improve-
ments that would benefit the whole area. He added he didn�t foresee any coming
up. Mr, Hi.nrichs said ihat Mr, Swanson couldn�t foresee any, but asked �,rhat
would happen i£ the sewers weren�t big enough to handle all the water £rom these
units.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 7
5F
Mr. Swanson said that if the area was coimnercial they might have the same
problem. Chairperson Harris suggested clearing up the matter of what could
be constructed in a commercial district� and Mr. Leek read the permitted uses
for C-1 districts.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if Staff had prepared an administrative report on this�
and Mr, Leek replied they had not. Mr. Langenfeld asked if they had found
any problem with drainage, and Mr, Leek said no such situation had been mentioned
to hi.m. Chairperson Harris said he had talked to Mr. Boardman earlier in the
evening and asked if the administrative departments had looked at this, and
Mr. Boardman said they had. Mr. Harris said he had asked if there were any
comments or documentation� snd apparently there vasn't any.
Mr. Michael Vimig, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E., asked how far back the screening
would be off the property line. Mr. Leek said the code didn't stipulate that,
but just stated 1$� wi.th the landscaping located on the R-3 property. Mr.
Virnig said that he had a£ence on his property at the present time� and was
wondering if there xould be txo fences just 6* apart with no maintenance in
between. He said he was also wondering how far the fence would extend� because
if it extended too far he would have a problem goi.ng in and out of his driveway.
Mr. Aarris said the fence could not extend 7' in height all the way to the
street. Mr. Leek read from the City Code vhich stated nothing would be allowed
to impede vision� and Mr. Langen£eld commented that Staff would make certain
that the £ence woul�i not be a visual barrier. Chairperson Harris said that
with regard to the tWO £ences together� he hoped that the two adjoining
neighbors could work that out.
Mr. Virnig asked if there could be some stipulation on completion of the £ence
after initiation of the project, and Mr. Swanson said that they would do the
landscaping on eaeh building after it was constructed. Mrs. Schnabel asked
if he was talking about the landscaping surrounding the building itself� and
Mr. Swansott said yes. Mrs. Schnabel asked about the landscaping of the
eaterior portion of the property running around the pmperty line itselP. Mr.
Swanson replied they would do all the landscaping for a particular building
out to the lot line for each building. Mrs, Schnabel said that one of the
neighbors was concerned because he was surrnunded by buildings number 1 and 5,
and asked if the landscaping would be done around building number 1 upon its
completion� and finish the landscaping around building number 5 when it was
completed. Mr. 9wanson said that xas right� and added that up until that time
his back yard xould have the same vi.ew it had right now. Mr. Langenfeld commented
that particular pice of property xould remain in its natural state until
construction coirunenced.
Mrs. Schnabel stated she was still quite coneerned about stipulation number 2
in the petition agree�sg with the rezoning. She said she didn't think they had
ena�rered that to the s��isPaction o£ the petitioners or the builder or the
architect, and she felt they were leaving something hanging i.n mid air i£ they
didn�t address themselves specifically to the problem of the 3$' setbaek the
petitioners were requesting, Mr. Olson sai.d that the plans, Imown as eshibit C,
met all setbsck requirements, and asked if it was now also part of the require-
ments to meet stipulation number 2 of exhibit A, Mr. Young, speaking for the
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 8 5 G
neighbors� said they felt i£ it was within the code they vould strike stipulation
number 2 from their petition and would go along with it as planned.
MOTION by Lengenfeld, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZAA �/76-0�� by Evert R. Swanson.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Aarria declared the Public
Hearing closed at 9:71� P.M.
M�TION hy Langen£eld thet the Planning Coraaission reco�mnend to Council approval
o£ rezoning request, z0A #76-03, by Evert R. Sxanson: Rezone Lot 19, �cept
the Fast 190 feet thereo£� and except the West 17 feet taken for highsray
purposes� from C-1 (general o£fice and limited businesses), and the West
11�7,74 feet of I.ot 18� from R-1 (single family dwelling areas)� all in
Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dWellings),
to allow a condominium-type developnent, the same being located at the
intersection of Central Avenue and 73� Aqenue N.E. �rith the following
stipulations: 1) Every effort be made to mainia3n the seibacks as shown in
Pqhjbit C� and 2) All the necessary studies be made on behalf o£ the assess-m
ment procedure.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that perhaps the stipulations were premature.
She said this hearing was strictly on the rezoning request, and thought
consideration of the stipulations might fall under consideration o£ the
prelimi.nary plat or the townhouse develo�nent plans. Mr. Langenfeld agreed.
Mr. Langenfeld AMENDID the MOTION to recommend approval of the rezoning
request ZOA #'76-03 by Evert R. Swanson without the stipulations. Seconded by
Bergman.
Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it would be ttise to point out that the majority
of the adjacent neighbors did concur with the rezoni,ng request as indicated
by their petition.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
highw$}* purposes, and the West 11t7.71t feet of I,ot 18, all in Auditor's
Subdivision No. 129� to allow the development of a 36 unit townhouse
site, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and
73rd Aaenue N.E.
Mr. Evert R. Swanson, propetty ovner� and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were
present.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by I,angenfeld� that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed prelimi.nary plat, P.S. #76-08,
Central Tokmhouse Addition� by E�ert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote� all voting
aye, Chai.rperson Harris declared the Public Aearing open at 9:20 P.M.
Planning Commisaion Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 9
�� 5 H
Chairperson Harris stated that this xould enta3l a new legal description, and
Mr. S�ranson asked if that meant putting it �4nto simpler language. Mr, Harris
replied yes� they would just be cleaning up the legal description.
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. S�ranson i£ he had a replat plan, and he replied
he had no other documents other than what had already been discussed. Mr.
Harris asked if he was replating, and Mr. SHanson replied not that he ]mew of.
Mr. Langanfeld pointed out the Planning and Zoning Form on page 27 0£ the agenda,
signed by Mr. Swanson. Mr. Harris noted he had also paid the fee. Atr. Harris
said he._was wondering why a replat vas needed, and asked if somebody ai Staff
level had requested a replat. Mr. Swanson said he didn't lmow. Mr. Leek said
he had no other information other than what was in the agenda.
Chairperson Harris sai.d he thought they crould be bringing the lega]. description
into one lot because they had parcels o£ two difPerent lots� and the legal
description xas very unwieldy the w[�y it read nov.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Ber�nan, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration oi' a proposed preliminary plat� P.S. #76-0$,
Central Towhhouse Addition, by Ebert R. S�ranson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye� Chairperson Harris declared the PublichHearing closed at 9:30 P.M.
Mr. Langenfeld said it was his opinion that since they were lacking the speci£ics
as far as the replat descr�ption, they could not make a decision. Chairperson
Harris said he thought it would be proper �t this time to recommend approval
of the preliminary plat, i£ that was the Commission's wish, and refer to
exhibit C.
MOTION by Langen£eld� seconded by Shea� that the Planning Cormnission recoirmend
to Council approval of a proposed preliminary plat� P.S. �/76-08, Central.
ToWnhouse Addition� by Enert R. S�ranson, as i.ndicated in exhibit C: A replat
of Lot 19� except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken
for highway purposes, and the West 1lt7.7� feet of I,ot 18� all in Auditor's
Subdivision No 129� to allox the developnent of a 36 unit townhouse site� the
same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Asenue N.E.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she was a little upset that Staf£ had no lmowledge
of what was going on at this point� and that the Chairman o£ the Commi.ssion did
not have any information on this either. She said she felt Staff should have
informed the Chairman since the person who normally services the CoTmnission
couldn't be present. She added that she felt they were shooting i.n the dark�
and didn't really ]mow for sure what was intended, She said she could not xote
in favor of the motion because of that, Mr. Leek said he apprecisted Mrs.
Schnabel�s concern, and said that part o£ the fault was he had failed to ask
the appropriate questions during his brie£ing. He stated his understanding
was that the situ2tion was understood� but apparently it xasn't, Mr. Aarris
coimnented that it hadn�t occuresd't�bo him to delve_into it ftirther.
Mr. Langenfeld said he was certainly in agreement with Mrs. Schnabel, but sinee
this �rould be a simplification of a legal description he didn�t think it should
be something that should hold back anything they had already started moving
forward. Mrs. Schnabel stated that was just an assumption as to what this
was about; it appeared th�t nobody lmew for sure xhat the request Was really for.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 10
5I
Chairperson Harris said he agreed wi.th Mr, Lengenfeld� and as long as the
recomraendation would be tied to exhibit C, he didn't see rrhere there was ar�y
problem because that located the buildings, the landscaping and everything on
the property. Mrs. Schnabel said that was really relevant to item 3 on the
agenda, and Mr. Harris stated that they could all be iied together.
Mr. Bergnan stated he thought there was more involved in the preliminary plat
than what they were discussing. For example! he said� he would like some
addit�Lonal confirmation on utilities, any easement requirements and drai.nage
problems. He stated that with that in mi.nd he felt it would be proper to
defer action on this item until they got a preliminary plat with those things
checked out by administration. Mr, Langenfeld stated he wished they would
have a Staff Report available when they took on projects such as this.
Mr. 7�aggenfeld WITHDREW THE MOTION.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission table
the consideration o£ a proposed preliminary plat� P.S. #76-08� Csntral Tovn-
house Addition, by Ebert R. Swanson, subject to receipt of a preliminary plat
including Sta£f input with regard to drai.nage� utilities, and also revierr of
assessment-type items including streets, curbs� sewer, and water relative to
73rd St. Upon a voice vote, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris stated that this it�m would be tabled until October 6th�
and informed Mr. Swanson this action would probably not delay him because the
City Council would have to set a hearing for the rezoning.
T-#'%6-03 TOWI�IIOUSE DEVIIAPMIIdT PLANS BY EVERT R. SWANSON: 36 Unit
Townhouse Develo�ent for Centr To ouse A ition.
NOTE: See Appeals Commission mi.nutes of September 1�� 1976, with the
recommendation to Council through the Planning Coimnission of approval
of the variance from 5 acres to 3 acres for this townhouse development.
Mr, Evert R. Swanson, property oxner� and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were
present.
Chairperson Harris asked what size, initially� the trees i.n the landscaping
would be. Mr. Olson replied the landscap9.ng would be a combination o£ berm,
£ence, and trees; theuuaaal type oY planting. He stated the trees would be
reco�ended by a nursery, the evergreens being about £ourtto six feet. Mr.
Olson added that the other types of deciduous trees would vary in size according
to species. Mrs. Shea noted there were trees on that property now, and asked
if any effort would be made to try to save them. Mr. Olson replied that every
e£fort xould be made to try to maintain as many as possible.
Chairperson Harris asked what the exterior £inish on the buildings would be�
and Mr, Olson replied they intended to use textured one-eleven, which was a
commercial wood siding. He added that the buildings would be stained, which
vould weather better than paint, and the roofs vould be regular asphalt shingles.
Mr. S�ranson added there would possibly be some brick facing on the lower part
of the buildi.ngs� end anything other than what rras shown on the plans would just
be an impnovement in appearance,
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 11
5J
Chairperson Harris asked in what direction the garages were going to £ace� and
Mr. Olson replied that rrould vary according to what particular building he
was referencing. He shonred the Coimnission on the plans the different ways
the garages were situated, thereby not having a long row of garage fronts on
the street.
Mr. Bergman stated he xould like to lmow xhat the $20�000 difFerence was between
a$lF0,000 and $60,000 townhouse, and particularl,V if there xere ar�y plans to
use di£Yerent construction materials between thai range o£ price. He was
wonderi.ng if this was including or ezcluding fixtures and appl�ances, or if
the difference had to do rrith the size of the units� and so on. Mr. Olson
said that a leeway of $20,000 was established because they had no contractual
estimates as to what it would cost to build a build:ing, and with inflation
prices for building costs vere changing tremendously. He said this was more
or less a figure to xork wi.th. Mr. Olson added that a$40,000 house might have
no brick� one bedroom and one bath, whereas a$fi0�000 home might hane brick,
two bathrooms, three bedrooms, etc. Mr. Sxanson added that the intention was
not to cheapen any o£ the construction.
Atrs, Schnabel asked if the guest parking would be in the center areas between
the garage areas� and Mr. Olson replied it would, and alsa aprons were provided
in front of the gareges for additional parking. Mrs. Schnabel noted that
these were single car stalls, and asked xhere an occupant srould park his second
car i£ he had one. Mr. Olson sai.d he t,rould have to park it in front of his
first ear's parking stall. Hrs. Schnabel said her concern ste�ned from the
fact that if en owner had two cars and one had to sit out� and if they or
someone else had guests overy there could be a problem-with congestion of cars
in that area. She added that there might be a safety hazard as £ar as fire
trucks and ambulances getting in and out. Mr. Olson said there would be ample
room on the street where cars could also park, but he didn't lrnow if the
Townhouse Association would allow parking there.
Chai.rperson Harris noted on page 31� o£ the agenda ihe plans s�ated 36 single
garages� 108 single aprons� and a total of 1li1j parking spaces. He asked Mr.
Olson if they were proposing 1l�lt parking spaces irithin the development, and
Mr. Olson stated that according to his plan that was correct, Mrs. Schnabel
asked if he could identify where those 108 aprons were� and Mr. Olson sai.d he
xould have to plead ignorance. Chairperson Harris stated that if ihis was
recommended to Council for approval, it would be in order to stipulate that
a more detailed parking and plat plan layout be provided than xhat they had
now as exhibit C.
Mr. Ber�nan said he would like to pay some recognition and compliment to Mr.
Swanson and Mr, Olson because they had put a lot of thought into the plans,
and the plans represented good and professional efforts in most cases. He
added that they had obviousiy spent a grest deal oY time on them and had done
a good job.
MOTION by Bergraan� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of T-#'%6-03� Townhouse Development Plans, by Ebert R.
Swanson: 36 Unit Townhouse Development for Central Townhouse Addition, referencing
e�Tnits C{E D� and with the understanding that this is townhouse construction
intended for oener occupancy, with two stipulations:
�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 12
5K
l, That as the property is developed from building 1 through subsequent
buildings� the landscaping, including £enci.ng, be completed as
construction stagesaare completed.
2. That prior to Council view the parking proposal be clarified Hi.th
regard to identif�ing the total parking as indicated on exhibit C.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
PUBI.IC HEARING: REZONING REQUFST: ZOA /{76-0$ BY WYMAN SMITH: Rezone
the Easterly 200 feet o£ Lot 13, excep the orther y 30 Yeet thereo£;
also the Easterly 50 feet thereof� Auditor�s Subdivision No, 89� from R-3
(general multiple family dwellings), to C-1 (local business areas)� or
C-2 (general business areas)� to allow the construction of a speculative
building to be used for offices and assemblies� generally located on the
South side of Norton Avexrue N.E. where it intersects with Central Avenue N.E.
Mr. Leroy B. Smith� property osrner, and Mr. Wyman Smith, attorney, were present.
MOTION Uy Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission open the
Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA //76-05� by Wyman Smith. Upon a
voice vote� all voting �ye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing
open at 10:05:
Mr. Leek stated that there xere a couple o£ concerns th � Staf£ had regarding
this� end was somewhat uncertain about how they feel it should go. He said
that Mr. Boardman and Mr. Clark felt that ideally the area in question should
be industrial since it is surrounded by industrial (he referred the Commission
to the maps on pages 40 and !�1 of their agendas); however, there were presently
single-£amily dwellings in the area. Mr. Leek said the £eeling had been
expressed that if there was an ideal location for an apartment structure in
the city� that *.rould be it. He added that there was no one recoimnendation
regarding the property as £ar as Sta££ xas concerned,
Mr. Wyman Smith stated that Mr. I.eroy Smith had owned this lot £or more than
fifteen years� and the taxes and assessments were norr $9� a year. He said
that in spite of Staff�s suggestion that this would be ideal for apartments�
the property has been £or sale £or an apartment site for 15 years and no one
had put together a package where it could be developed £or apartments. He
said that something had to be done zrith it, and Mr. Leroy Smith thought there
was a need for some retail shops to serve the public that is in that area.
Mr, Wyman Smith stated there was a very definite market in Fridley for an
assembly room that wedding parties could rent and public assemblies convene.
He said the assembly room would be on the second floor, and that could also
be modified into o£fices if there was a need. He stated that probably this
would be an o£fic building, as Mr. Leroy Smith was talking about finding a
place for accountants and that type of thing. He presented the Coimnission xith
a rough sketch of the floor plan of the building.
Mr. Langenfeld stated this request confused him a bit. He said there was nothing
wrong with a rezoning request from R-3 to C-1 OR C-2 (one or the other), but
Planning Coimnission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 13 5 L
he had never seen a request like this before. Mr. Wyman Smith said this had
come about because he had filled out the form C-l� had seen Darrel Clark� and
Mr. Clark had suggested making C-1 or C-2, He stated he thought C-2 gave them
a little more selection, but they would be satisfied zri.th G1. Mr, Langen£eld
noted that a"speculative" building vas mentioned, and said that implied this
building would go up and if it didn�t work out something else �+ould be tried,
and so on. Mr. Wyman Smith said that the term speculative in the market meant
that there wasn�t a buyer. He sai.d it *.rould be financed and built, and then
a buyer would be='found to own thebbuilding.
Mr. Ber�nan referred to the map on page !�1 of the agenda� and asked if all of
the property in the white rectangle was now undeveloped or unoccupied. Mr.
Leek replied that portions of that property contained single-family dvellings
and an apartment building. Mr. Bergman referred to page l�0, and asked vhat
the present use was of lots 9� 10� 13 and any other large portions of that
property. Mr. Wyman Smith ans�ered that lots 10 end 13 were vacant, and lots
b� 7� 8� 9 and 12 were all single-family houses. He said there were a total
of eleven residences on Norton� and south of that property vas Medtronics.
Mr. Bergman asked what the zoning was in the area circled on the map on page
l�1, and Mr. Leek replied it was zoned R-3 and had been changed to that in 1963.
Mr. Wymen Smith stated that the zoning at one time was C-1, and that the
residences on Norton had been there a long time.
Cindy Mabel, Z27.1� Norton Avenue N.E., stated that everyone on the block felt
it xas a residential area. She said that two years ago it xas all open, and
now Medtronics had a parking lot right next to her yard. She said she vas
wondering irhere parking for the proposed building would be, and she assumed
they had plans £or both lots. Mrs. Mabel stated the proposed plans would
certainly deteriorate the neighborhood, and added that the houses were not
old as her house had been built in 1961. Mr. Leroy Smith stated he just owned
that one piece of property; the other property xas in litigation and he had
nothing to do with that. He said that it would just be an oPfice building
of 50' % 110', consisting of txo floors� and there xould be plenty o£ space
on the lot to accommodate the building and the parking.
Mr. Jer�y Sympson, 1175 Norton Avenue N.E., asked i£ Mr. Smith had sat doxn
and figured out how many vehicles could be parked in this space. Chairperson
Harris said he would like to clarify one thing; they could not use the rest
of the lot for parking in total. He explained there vere certain green area
and setback requirements that the City required. Mr. Ronald J. Risk, 750 Ione,
Spring Lake Park� asked what percentage of the lot aould be allowed for parking.
Mr. Leek read the City Code xhich stated that o£f-street parking stalls shall
be provided in the ratio of one stall for each three seats provided in such an
assembly hall. He explained that if the hall would accormnodate 340 peopl.e� that
H*ould necessitate 100 parking stalls, and that didn't include office parking.
Mr. Bergman determined that 8 additional spaces would be required for the o£Pice�
or a total of 108 parking spaces would be necessary in total.
Chairperson Harris said that if they tried to have a meeting hall and an office
together� it would be awfully tight� but if the building wss used totally £or
offices they might make it on parking. Mr. Risk asked if the street could be
utili2ed for parking since Old Central xasn't a very busy street in the evening�
and Mr. Harris replied they did not encourage on-street parking.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 P�Be � 5 r�
—�_
Mr. Earl Dunbar� 121�5 Norton Avenue� asked rahere the access xould be. Chair-
person Harris replied itccould be on either one or both streets� probably both,
but there rras a minimum distance from the corner that the driveway could be.
Mr. Leek stated that was 75� £rom the right-of-way.
Mrs. JoAnn King, 1301 Norton Avenue N.E., stated she was opposed to this building
because she thought it xould be an invasion o£ her privacy. She explained she
had just lost many irees to the Dutch Elm Disease which made her lot less
private than it was� and she felt there would not be enough parking places and
she xould have cars lined up in front o£ her house and she didn't want that.
Mr. Dunbar said they Were talking about an assembly hall xhere liquor would be
consnmed, and this meant 100 cars coming in and out of that lot with the people
being in no shape to drine. He said he was vorried those people would find
e street that vas a dead-end street, and would run into problems turni.ng their
vehicles around, and so forth. He stated he didn't see xhere this would be of
any betterment to the area, and he xas totally opposed to any type of assembly
place.
Mrs. Mabel stated that even if nothing xas presently being done about the lot
next to this one, since it xould be zoned Commercial eventually another type
of building would go up and there srouldn't be parking for that, either. She
added she £elt they were opening up a uhole bag of,problems.
Mr, Wyman Smith stated there wuld not be any parking problems, and the plan
would be built xithin code. He explained vhen they talked about the number o£
300 for assembly, this was because the code had set that as maximum. He
continued that if the assembly hall worked out and this beceme practical and
feasible as a trusiness venture, it would have to be measured down. He sai.d
if there �,ras only room for 50 cars� then there would only be spaces for 50.
He added that the code had been very carefully drasrn to accommodate this
sort of thing, and these plans were flexible. Ae said that Mr. Leroy Smith
was not asking to put up a McDonald�s Drive-In, and he had to do smmething
xith the lot. Mr. Wyman Smith said that ii seemed to him that an office
bu3lding would be an improvement over almost az�ything they could have there�
and he thought it was £easible and practical.
Mr. Dunbar said that to cite an example, the Frontier Club had a parking lot�
and yet a�y night o£ the xeek 25 to 100 cars conld be found parked on Central
Avenue and the side streets� and tearing up and doum Central like it was a race
track. He said that this would be the same type o£ assembly place with the
same type of clientele� snd asked hox they could keep the cars o££ the streets.
Mr, Wyman Smith stated he xas familiar xith the Frontier Club, and explained
thYt xas grandfathered in before the code was updated. He saa.d the code was
now changed, and this wasn't going to be a Frontier Club. He added that at
the present time there was only one place to go in Fridley £or a wedding
party� and a coimminity of 30�000 deserved to'-have a community building that
could be used for that purpose. He stated that Mr. Leroy Smith might change
his mind� and if he could rent both floors for o£f3ces he would.
Mr. Ber�nan said his obsereation was that a key hang up on the rezoning request
was with the idea of the assembly hall and a concern as to the type of activity
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 15 5 N
that would go on there, and the traffic over-£low and traffic problems. Mr.
Bergman said that Mr. Smith was right in saying the code would restrict what
he could build there within the constraints of how much parking they could
work out of the lot, which apparently hadn't been worked out yet at this
point. He said that secondly, it rrould seem conceivable that there was some
risk on ]�r. Smith's part in that this zoning request could get approved and
that when he worked out the amount of parking spaces available with setbacks
and green areas as required by code and city administration� he might find
there weren't enough parking spots to accommodate the building, Mr. Bergman
said he would then have to be restricted to that, so there was some risk
involved in not having this all put together at this point, He added that it
would seem the assembly hall which xould need 100 parking spaces was out of
context xith the size of the property.
Mr. Louis C. Gray, 1170 Norton Avenue N.E.� stated that he felt the traffic
problem was the greatest concern because it xould vary, and he was also
worried about drunken drivers in the area.
Ruth J. Norton� 1252 Norton Avenue N.E.� said she was against the assembly
hall because the amount of cars going to a place like that couldn't be
determined. She said they felt it would be a terrible thing to have in their
residential area with all those people drinking and causing the residents
problems they shouldn't have to put up with.
Mr. Langen£eld asked under which category the assembly hall would £all,
C-1 or C-2. Mr. Leek replied it could be either, and the di£ference depended
on the capacity of the hall. He explained that under 300 would be C-1
and over 3� Kould be C-2.
Mr. Bergman said they were considering Central Avenue as one boundary street
and a primarily residential street on the other side o£ the property as a
boundary, and this added some additional concern to the parking situation.
He stated that the code rec}uirement for the assembTy hall which was one stall £or each
seating capacity of three was a code minimiun requirement� and in a condition
where parking was a particular problem Council could request something
additional to that. He eacplained he was referring back to the assembly hall
and a capacity of 300. He said the code might say a minimum number of parking
stallsof 100� but it was entirely conceivable that r*ith a capam3cty of 390
there could be 300 cars� and that would be taken into consideration.
Mr. Risk stated that at the last four weddi.ngs he had attended, there were
usually three people per car and many times two couples per car. He said
that if some of the other halls were looked at that had a capacity for 300
people� that many cars wouldn't be found in the parking lot. He added that
he didn't see any conflict betveen the aPfice parking and the hall parking
because the o£fice would be closed at 11:30 or 5:00 and assemblies didn't
start until 7:30 or 8:00.
Mrs. King stated she thought the building would stick out like a sore thumb
in that area because all the residences were one story structures with large
trees. She felt it should come down to a one-story building to £it in more
sesthetically Wi.th the neighborhood. Mr. Smith explained that it was a split-
entry building, so would actually be only a story and a half.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 16 5 O
�--__-
Mr. LangenYeld said he wished to point out to the Commission and the citizens
that he flilly realized the situation the property owner had here because he
was getting tired of p�ying taxes on property he couldn't utilize; however,
the xhole intent on this rezoning was to build the office spaces and the
assembly hall with hopes to sell the property and make a profit. APter that�
he said� the Lord only lmex what this xould turn into. He stated he was
de£initely agai.nst tha assembly hall part of the proposal.
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Wyman Smith if he recalled xhat the circumstances
xere when this property was rezoned from C-1 to R-3. Mr. Smith replied that
Went way back vexy early before Highway 65 was put through and 01d Central
was the main thoroughfare� and that area was one of the business sections.
He said he suspected it was zoned R-3 �Y the £irst major comprehensive zoning
plan. Mr. Leek said he would have to disagree rrith that to the exten�lthat
it was rezoned to R-3 in 1963. Mx'. Harris asked Mr. Leroy Smith if at one
time he had contemplated an apartment structure on that property, and he replied
yes. He said they had the plans all drawn for both lots for lt2-units. Mr.
Wyman Smith said he thought someone xho had an option to buy the land may have
instigated the rezoning.
Mrs. Schsabel said she.felt they vere kind ef�grasping in the dark here. She
stated she xould Yeel much more comfortable in making a decision on this if
they could see the actual architectural plans on this. Mrs. Schnab�l stated
she felt the petitioner himselP was unclear in a number o£ areas� and she xould
prefer that they continue this discussion at another time when the petitioner
had actual plans which could be seen by the Coimaission and the neighbors shorring
the number of parking stalls, office spaces� ete. She said that at this point
they were being asked to grant a blanket rezoning on something the petitioner
himself is not clear on what he wants to do.
Mr. Leek said that in answer to the question regarding zoning, the ordinance
xhich was passed in August, 1963, changed that area in question from R-1 to
R-3. He then read to the Comoiission the code on<setback requirements to
adjacent districts. The rear yard cou].d not be less than 25', where a side
yard abuts a street of a corner lot the side yard requirement was a minimum
of 35�, and the other side would be 15'e Chairperson Harris noted it would
be very difYicult to fit that building on the lot� and agreed zrith Mrs. Schnabel
that he would also like to see a plat plan of the building.
Mr. Wyman Smith asked why Staf£ hadn�t worked this out with them. He stated
they paid $155 £or this request and thought that Staf£ should communicate with
them and work it out trith them. Mrs. Schnabel asked if StafF had given them
copies of the code pefztinent to C-1 and C-2� and Mr. Wyman Smith said they
xere of£ered that information. He stated it was true they didn't know exactly
irhat they wanted� but their aim xas to try to use this lot. He said that if
this possibility d3dn�t make any sense, they would try something else. He
explained that Mr, beroy Smith wanted to have some ]mowledge if this could be
rezoned before he hired an architect, as that usually involved a commitment
oY more than $1,000� and he xanted to avoid that until he found out if this
proposal made eny sense. He stated he thought they needed to work with Staff
on this, and explained that he hadn�t actually asked them for any help to this
point.
Mr. LangenPeld stated that he thought they could relate to item #� as a rezonin�
.�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page �7 5 p
�__
request� and not actually a construction approvsl� and could take it £rom there
xith stipulations, Mr. Bergman said that rrith parcels o£ land of substantial
size and of continuous zoning and without concerns for parking capacities� he
Would agree with Mr. Langenfeld. However, he said� with a parcel of land this
small and with the kind of proposed occupancy that had been mentioned, he
thought concerns were logical in regard to the kind oF activity and the parking
question. He added that with concerns for those two items he personally
didn't feel in a position to £eel positive about the rezoning at this point.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that the fee was $i55, which was a sizable amonnt of
money. He said he agreed with Mrs. Schnabel in trying to obtain more concrete
ideas for the uses o£ this property, rather than denying outright the request
£or rezoning. He said he also £elt they were in the dark �rith regard to
this item.
Mrs. Schnabel explained she vas not necessarily aski.ng the petitioner to go
out and spend $1,000, but with the information that had come out at this
meeting and with review of the zoning ordinance with regard to putting the'
building on this particular site� she thought the petitioner himself could
possibly come up xith a structure the size he wanted and that would fit the
setbacks the �ity required. She thought he also=unight want to put a little
more thought into i£ he still t.*anted to pursue the assembly hall idea with
the lmowledge of the parking requirements. Mrs. Schnabel said that perhaps
if she hadn't heard an assembly hall was planned� she xould be a little more
disposed to act on the rezoning, but in light o£ what the neighbors had said
she would be reluctant to vote £or a rezoning, She added she would be more
inclined to vote £or a tabling motion to give the petitioner time to reassess
the situation. Mr. Langenfeld agreed completely, and said that at this point
his vote would also be a denial. He suggested they could come up with a better
idea that would be more feasible.
Mr. Sympson stated that he realized Mr. Smith had owned the lot for 15 Years
end Wanted to get his money out of it. He said that if Mr. Smith could drav
up a plan and make it attractive and fit on the lot with no parki.ng problems,
this would be completely agreeable. He added that then he xould have no
objection to the rezoni.ng� and would be in £avor of ar�ything that would bring
less people into the area.
Mr. Leroy Smith stated that he thought the building would £it in completely
with what was along Central Avenue and with Medtron�cs. He said they had been
asked to bring a survey and a rough plan, and that is what they did. He
stated that he hadn�t anticipated any problems with the neighbors and didn't
want ar�y problems with them. He added that he could see no use in tabling
this, and said he would like to irithdrax the request. Chairperson Harris stated
he wished Mr. Smith would consult with his attorney taefore he made that request,
Mr. Wyman Smith stated tha� an attorney only did what his client requested� but
he did wish to point out that one concern his client had was trying to do some-
thing this fall before the frost came in.
Chairperson Harris said that be£ore he closed the Public Hearing he wanted to
mention that he had been playing with some �igures and he cou�d onZy get about
G� .
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 18 5 Q
12 or 13 pax'king spaces on that lot along xith the building, tirith the required
setbacks snd green areas that �aust be maintained. He stated that even in the
parking lot the City required a parking stall to be 10' x 20' in size� and
there must be a place to back out o£ 25' to get out of the parking stall. He
said that in trying to lay it out several different ways, the maximum he
could get in parking stalls was 12 or 13.
Mr. Risk said they might as well throv axay the plan that xas submitted since
it wouldn�t fit, and would try to come up with a building that would fit on
the lot and raset codes. He stated that they xere trying to avoid a time lapse,
end once it was rezoned it would be easy to fit a building on there. Chair-
person Harris said that he couldn't in good conscience sote for a rezoning
without lmowing what would be on there.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if this request Would be good for six months iF it was
tabled� and Chairperson Harris said that was correct� but if it xas denied
the petitioner could not return for six months to make another request, Mr.
Bergman asked what af£ect the removal of the request would have with regard
to fee� and Mr. Harris said the peitioner would lose the fee. Mr. Leroy Smith
stated that since he would have nothing to lose� he would like the request to
be tabled.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Coirmii.ssion close the
Public Hearing on Rezoning Request ZOA #76-05� by Wyman SSnith. Upon a voice
vote� all noting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed
at 11:25 P,M.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission table
Rezoning Request ZOA //76-05, by Wyman Smith, until the next meeting. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the aation carried unanimously.
IAT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. //76-06 BY EVERETT MADSEN: Split Lots 9 and 10�
B ock � ce Creek Plaza North A dition� so the new property line runs
at an angle 6.1t0 feet from the existing Northwesterly corner of Loi 10,
to 36 feet northeasterly of the Westerly line of Lot 9� as per survey
of record with the City, Parcel A describing the nex lot li.ne for Block
10� 246 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E., and Parcel B describi.ng the new lot line
£or Block 9, 250 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E.
Mr. Everett Madsen was present. He stated that he was the owner of Parcel A,
and this request was a mutually agreeable situation between the txo neighbors.
He explained he had this house built xhen he was in Los Angeles, and the builder
made a mistake. He stated he Felt it rras a logical request. Mr. Leek said
that it was Staff�s opinion that the request made sense� and xas not objectionable
to them.
Mr. Bergman asked if both ovners of Parcels A and B were present, and Mr. Madsen
stated that the owner of Parcel B� Mrs. Murpk�y� was not interested in attending
the meeting. Mr. Bergman asked if there was anything in writing £rom her� and
Mr. Madsen said he was told that wasn't necessary. Mr. Bergman stated that from
what he could see� approval of this request xould reduce the size of Parcel B�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 19 5 R
and the ot+ner of Parcel B ought to therefore testi£y in writing that she agrees
to the shrinking o£ that property. Mr. Madsen said he hadn't knovn it was
necessary to have her signature� but he would get it.
Mr. Madsen asked if it vas any concern of the Planning Commission or the City
Council the amount of funds that would ezchange hands. Chairperson Harris
explained that in Minnesota it would be necessary to give Mrs. Murphy a dollar
and other valuable considerations to make it legal and binding, but it was
no concern of the Planning Commission or Council how much money exchanged hands,
MOTION by Sk� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission recoimnend
to Council approval o£ Lot Split Request L.S. #/6-06� by Eberett Madsen:
Split Lots 9 and 10� Block 1�, Rice Creek Plaza North Addition� so the new
property line runs at an angle 6.l�0 £eet from the existing Northwesterly
corner of Lot 10� to 36 £eet northeasterly of the Westerly line o£ Lot 9,
as per survey o£ record with the City� Parcel A describing the aew lot line
for Block 10� 2l�6 Rice CSeek Blvd. N.E.� and Parcel B describing the nex lot
line for Block 9, 250 Rice Creek Blvd.� N.E., irith the stipulation that Mr.
Madsen obtain a written statement from Mrs. Murphy stating this is a mutually
agreeable situation. Upon a voice vote, all ooting sye, the motion carried
unanimously.
LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #76-07 BY FRANK VOTH: Split the West 210 feet
of Lot 9� Auditor s Subdicision No. 9, into three parcels as £ollows:
Parcel 1(5801 Arthur Street N.E.) The South 80 feet o£ the West 210':
Parcel 2(5805 Arthur Street N.E.) The North 80 feet of the South 120
feet of the West 210 feet: Parcel 3(5809 Arthur Street N.E.) The West
210 Peet of Lot 49� except the South 160 £eet thereof: allmeasured along
the West line of said Lot l�9, and all parcels subject to an easement for
road purposes over the West 30 feet.
Mr. Fraak Voth xas present.
Mr. Leek stated that StaPf had no problem vith the lot split itsel£, but £elt
there were two considerations. He said that Staff felt perhaps this should go
to the Parks and Recreation Commission as currently the garage on Parcel #3
was two £eet on park property, and also� there was a road easement of 20' going
through the middle of that garage. He added this was all zoned R-1.
Mr. Voth stated that Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Wiens had lived on the property since
19110� and they would like to be able to straighten out the matter of the gargege
and the lot split. However� he said� at the current time they had Mr. Wiens�
abstract being continued at Anoka Title, and added that vasn't done for many
years. He shoved the Commissioners on�the survey where Mr. Wiens' property
wss, and which property was now being dedicated by Darrel Farr as park property,
Mr. Voth stated that he would like to take care of the matter o£ the lot split
first as he wished to build a house this fall, and would iimnediately thereafter
take care of the other matter at a later date Yolloxi.ng any recommendations £rom
Council.
Chairperson Harris commented that the lot sizes appeared to be more than adequate,
and asked if there was any necessity for drainage or utility easements. Mr. Voth
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 197b Page 20 � S
�
replied that services were in and poxer lines xere up.
Air. Bergman stated that he was of the impression that the intent here was to
establish Parcels one and two for building purposes� and that these parcels
were on the East side of Arthur Street; the garage infringement was on the
wildlife center; and ihe park dedication from Darrel Farr was on the East end
of the property. Mr. Voth said that was correct. Mr. Harris asked if access
xould be off of Arthur Street, and Mr. Voth replied that xas correct.
Mr. Ber�nan asked Mr. Voth if he had been talking to City Administration with
regard to the right-o£-xay and the infringement, and Mr. Voth answered he had.
Mr. Leek said that actually there were three considerations, the third being
the minor consideration of the shed. Mr. Voth explained that Mr. Wiens did
not use the shed� but did keep up the maintenance on it.in order to keep up
the appearance, even though it was not on his property. Mr. Bergman asked if
it Was Mr. Voth's intention to get back to Darrel Clark regarding alternatives
for the trro considerations, and Mr. Voth said he xould, Mrs. Schnabel asked
who ovned lot !t5 to the North� and Mr. Voth replied that xas park area.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council approval o£ Lot Split Request L.S. #'76-07 by Frank J. Voth:
Split the West 210 Feet o£ Lot 49� Auditor�s Subdivision No. 1�9, into three
parcels as folioxs: Parcel 1(5801 Mthur Street N.E.) The South 80 feet of
the West 210': Parcl 2(5805 Arthur Street N,E.) The North 80 feet o£ the
South 120 feet of the West 210 feet: Parcel 3(5809 Arthur Street N.E.) The
West 210 feet of Lot ly9, e�ccept the South 160 feet thereof: all measured
along the West line of said Lot l�9, and all parcels subject to an easement for
road purposes over the West 30 feet, and requesting of Mr. Voth continued
co�nun�cation with City Administration concerning tvo someKhat related elements:
1) right-of-way, and 2) infringement on park property. Upon a voice vote, all
voting qye� the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langen£eld, that the Plsnning Commission direct
the encroachment of the garage on Parcel #3 to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Upon a vaice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 11:$0 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 12:10 A.M.
WRITTEPt SURVEY PQLISY
Mrs. Shea noted that this was the same information that had been received at
the last meeting� and the Commission had just requested that it be made into
written policy.
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission connur
with the Administrative Policy on Survey Requirements as written. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye} the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22� 1976 Page 21 5 T
RE4TIEW OF PROPOSID MAINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Coimnission table the
reviex of the porposed mai.ntenance code until the next meeting. Upon a voice
vote� all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REQUIR�NTS FOR SINGLE FAI�ffLY HOMES
MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Coimnission receive
the Planning Review on Single Family Garge Requirements. Upon a voice vote�
all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planni.ng Co�ission table
the discussion on garage requirements for single Pamily homes until the next
meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUID: HUMAN DEVEIAPMENT GOAIS AND OBJECTNFS
MOTION by Berginan, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission table
the discussion on Human Development Goals and Objectives�.until the next
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unan�mously.
RECEIVE HUMAN RF,SOURCFS COMMISSION MINUTFS: SEPTENIBTR 2, 1976
MOTION by Shea� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission receive the
mi.nutes o£ the September 2, 1976 Human Resources Coimnission meeti.ng.
Mr. Langenfeld noted on page 51 the reviex on goal areas for human developanent,
and stated he was glad to see somebody was working on it. He asked i£ this
xas actually going to be proposed to the Planning Conunission� and Mrs. Shea
replied it vas simply their input to the Planning Commi.ssion. Mr. Langenfeld
commented that the Plannirig Co�nission should bear this in mind when they
discussed Human Development Goals and Objectives. Mr. Bergman suggested it
vould be pertinent to request Staf£ to include pages 51 and 52 of the Human
Resources Commission minutes in the next agenda under the discussion o£ goals.
Chairperson Harris said that with regard to the Teen Center, they have had
several meetings and were dra�ring up the bylaws and articles o£ i.ncorporation
to operate under. He stated they had met and looked at the facility� and it
was his opinion that the facility was very i.nadequate. Mr. Harris said they
were endeavoring to vork with the Districi 1}� schools to obtain a different
location� but were meeting with some resistance from their staff. He added
that hope£ully this project would be o££ the ground and they xould be able
to hold elections for their Board early next month.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE APPEAIS COMMISSION MINUTFS: SEPTF��ER 15 1976
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive
�t.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 22 5 �
the minutes of the September 15, 1976 Appeals Commission meeting.
Chairperson Harris commented that it seemedtto him that lately they had been
getting a lot of petitioners through here that weren't very vell prepared,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. 5hea stated that she didn�t rrant to insult anybody� but she did have a
complai.nt about this Cotmnission. She said she thought they wasted a lot of
time because the Coimnissioners did not go to look at the property that was
to be discussed beforehand, artd she felt that maybe they could do their home-
work a little bit better.
Mr. Bergman said that he would like, through the minutes� to request of
City Administration that steps be taken to more promptly type and provide
minates from the Community Develo�rtent Commission, For example, he said,
their meeting was a week ago tonight� and he didn't ]mox why their minutes
couldn't be beYore this Cormnission srith that amount of time to type them.
He requested that some attention be 8iven to that.
ADJOURI�iT :
MOTION by I.angenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Coirm�ission meeting of September 22, 1976, adjourned at 12:32 P.M. by unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Tl�onr�c. � ��r/3t nrn��
Sherri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
�