PL 10/20/1976 - 6596� ._,.
�
i
;
,
PLANI�ING COMMISSIaN MTG
CITY OF FRIDLEY
OCTOBER 20, 197b
PAGE 1
CALL TO 4RDER.:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P,M.
ROLL CALI� •
Members Present; Harris, Bergman� Bruce Peterson (sitting in for Langenfeld),
Schnabel
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Bob Peterson, Shea
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPRAVE PLANNING CONAIISSION HINUSES: OCTOBBS_b, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission minutes
of October 6, 1976 be approved as xritten. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye� the motion carried unanimously,
1.
ROTTLUND OARS BY THE RATTLUAD COMPANY: Being a replat ot' Lots b, 7, a:
� � , an 7� B oc , pring Brook Park Second Addition�
together uith Lots 32 and 33, and the West 30 feet of Lots 3i� and 35,
Block 10� Spring Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Development),
generally located between Ruth Street N,E. and Bast Riner Road N.E.�
North of Liberty Street N.E.
Public Hearing open.
Mr. David H. Rotter� Viee President oY Rottlund Company� was present.
Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Rotter had laid out the approximate huilding sites
on his plan as was requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting,
and there was a consistent setback of b5' around the cul-de-sac. He explained
that Mr. Rotter had dropped a lot} and the type of lot line requirement that
was needed had been picked up. He added that im most cases there was about
SO' at the building line.
Chairperson Harris asked i£ there was any problem taith the topography of the
land on lot 7, and Mr. Boar�dman said he didn't think there would be too much of
a problem there. Mr. Rotter explained that house xould have a valk-out.
Planning Conmiission Meeting - October 20, 1976
Page 2
Mr. Howard Dumphy stated that the same condition applied as he had explained
at the last meeting, and that the replat was subject to the purchase of the
property.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by 5chnabel, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration oP a proposed plat, P.S, �(76-p7, Rottlund
Oaks� By the Rottlund Company. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the T'ublic Aearing cloaed at 7;l�5 P,M.
Mr. Bergman said that at the last meeting Mr. Boardman had a fair amount of
concerns� end vas wondering how he felt about the plat now. Mr. Boardman
replied that the plan was now acceptable.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the Plennittg Commission recommend
to Council approval oP the proposed plat� P.S. #76-07� Rottlund Oaks, by the
Rottlund Company: Being a replat of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, lla, 15, 16 and 1?,
Block l, Spr3ng Brook Park Second Addttion, together vith I,ots 32 and 33,
and the West 30 feet of Lots 3�t �d 35, Block 10, Spring Brook Park Addition�
zoned P.D, (Planned Development)� generally located between Ruth Street N.E.
and East River Road N.E.� North of Liberty Street N.E.
Mr. Boardman suggested a stipulation be included concerning the lt5� setback
Yor all construction.
Bergman AMENDED the I�TION to include the understanding that the development
of£ the cul-de-sac vould follow in general the 1�5' setback. 9greeable with
the seconder.
Chairperson Harris asked if there was any need for drainage and utility
easements� and Mr. Boardmen said that everything was all set.
DPON A VOIC& VOTE, a11 voting �ye� the motion carried unani.mously.
Chai.rperson Harris marked the plat F�ctiibit A to send on to Council.
2.
Mr. IIaaid R&tter, Vice President of Rottlund Company, xas present.
Mr, Boardman stated thab this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission
meeting� and the City felt they sho�il.d call a spade a spade and get the area
zoned aCCOrding to -how it-w$S deaeloped, �nstead of carrying on as a P.D.
District xhich vas a useless zone £or that area. He expla3ned that most of the
development in that area would be an R-1 zone, with probably a R-3 development
on East River Road on Mr. Rotter's property. Mr, Boardman stated that as far
as City Sta£f was concerned, they felt it rrould be a good idea to get rid of
the P.D. in the area and call it what it was going to be, He explained that
they were suggesting that Mr. Rotter petition for a rezoning on his property�
Planning Com�ission Meeting - October 20, 1976
Page 3
and that the City initiate a rezoning on that R-1 that was present].y existing.
I4r. Bergman said he thought there should be some better identi£ication of rrhat
they vere talking about rezoning. He also said that he felt there was merit
to the suggestion and he vnderstood administration's proposal and it concerned
itself with a couple of points: 1) that P.D. zoning was kind of a burmner, and
2) the solidi£ication of land use! regardless of what happened, would be
restricted to R-1 if it Was rezoned. Mr. Bergman atated he thought that it also
ought to have some benefit to the occupants of that land, as there would be
one less concern as to rrhat could happen neact door 3P there was a tornado or
heavy damage of some kind. He added that under these considerations� and
considering the £act that the rnmer had in good fai.th followed ordinances and
process, that he not be charged with such costs. With that as a base, Mr.
Bergman said, he would like to ask the property owner if he would have an
objection to this rezoning if it would take place at no cost to him.
Mr. Rotter referred the Gommission to his letter of October !�, 1976� contained
in the minutes oi the last Planning Co�aission meeting. He said that even iY
there was no cost, iP the zoning was changed on lots 11, 12 and 13 of the origmnal
plat he would be spending the next si.x months in front of this Commission to
possib2y get a multi-family dwelling in there. He explained that under the
present zoning it was possible Por a multiple dwelling to be developed saith
some kind of a buffer. Mr. Rotter said that it was the feeling of his
company that they were trying to do everything they could to make it advantageous
to sell the property� but they didn't xant to take a piece of property which
they felt would be in their best interest to use Por multiple family and
rezone it back to R-1 and go through the hearings. He said that he would preYer
to rezone one area first and 2one the rest residential.
Mr. Hergman suggested rezoning it R-3; thereby taking the xhole P.D, area and
reaoning it for its i.ntended use. Mr. Rotter said that R-3 �u1d be no problem;
but pEOblems did arise uhen residential property was rezoned to multiple family
or commercial.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if it xas possible to split a section; for instance, designate
sll but lots 11� 12 and 13 8s R-1 and leave the others P.D. or change them to
R-3. Chairperson Harris said they could rezone to R-3 and R-1, but he would
be opposed to leavirtg a P.D. situation vith those three Zbts. Mrs. Schnabel
pointed out that if the entire area was rezoned R-3� there might �e some concern
from the neighbors. Chai.rperson Harris said they could zone the lots around
the cul-de-sac R-1 and the others R-3 at the same time. Mr. Rotter co�nented
that the letter that vas read into the minutes at the last meeting stated what
he was going to do xith the property anyway, so that was a matter o£ public
record.
Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Rotter if he was xi.11ing to be pittned dovn to that rezoning
plan; three lots rezoned from P.D, to R-3 �d the balance of the P.D. rezoned
to R-1 at no coat to him. Mr. Rotter said that vas fine.
Mr. Rotter said he had one other question; on the original plat of the Spring
Brook Addition some money xas placed on escrov with the City for park dedication.
He said he felt that since it had already been paid once, he shouldn't have to
pap it aga3n. He further explained that since the park dedication had already
been paid on this entire p�ece of property as it was developed now prd�nr to ,
his petition, end he was replatting srithin an ezisting area and losing a lot,
he would like to have it waived that he pay again for park dedication.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 1�
Chairperson Harris pointed out that that xould be a City Council decision.
Mr. Boardman stated that if the old plat vas recorded the money should have
been paid, but he xasn't snre where they stood on it. He said they would get
it straightened out at the Council meetit;g.
Mr. Bergmen said he assumed a Public Hearing was required for a rezoning
action, and Chairperson Harris said they rrould have to make a request to
City Council to initiate the aation for the rezoning.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Co�nission pass
a resolution to Council that the present P.D. aoned ares in the 8110 Dlock of
East River Road be rezoned at City initiative to R-1, vi.th the exception of
Lots 11� 12 and 13 to be rezoned to R-3, xith the understanding that the prop-
erty ovner, Mr. David Rotter, is in concurrenee xlth this proposal and also
vith the understsnding that the property ovtter irill not be charged for this
rezoning.
Mr. Boardman said they were also talking about all P.D. in the area including
North of this around Fairmoat Circle that was presetttly developed. He
suggested asking the City Council to also petition for a rezoning on that
with no charge to the property owners. He explained that was outside of this
plat. Chairperson Harris suggested making tvo separate motions so there would
be txo Public Hearings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting sye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Schnabel asked who the develover was of the Fairmont Circle area, and
Tir. Rotter said he was. He �xpiained that all but one lot was developed�
and that xould be developed soon. Mr. Bergman asked if the use of the
total Fairnwnt Circle area was R-1, and Mr. Rotter replied it was. Mr.
Boardman said it was all zoned P.D, except Lot l, Block 2 of Bourdeawcs
Spring Brook Addition, which was zoned R-1.
Mrs. Schnabel said she vas a little concerned that they frere taking the
initiative to do this, and was wondering if that Would be jumping the gun on
the residents of the area. Mr. Harris said the problem was it was an existing
fact and it would be difficult to get the residents in to make the initi�tive
for the rezoning. Mrs, Schnabel asked Mr. Boardmaza i£ he felt fairly certain
the residents in the area were in favor of this type of thing. She said she
would hate tbem�ke this motion and get the Council going on this and then find
suddently that the people in the area didn't want it to begin �.*ith and become
upset with both the Planning Coirunission and City Council for initiating it.
Mr. Boardman said he had talked to some o£ the residents and they had the
geHeral feeling they ,aould feel more proteeted under this. He added that he
hadn�t gone into all the finencial complications on a P.D, moning, but it
seemed the people had gotten loans to build their honses even though it was
aoned P.D.� but he thought it would be more secure for them if the area was
zoned R-1. Mrs. Schnabel asked if their applications for loans would change
in any way if it vas re2oned £rom P.D, to R-1, and Mr, Boardman said he
doubted it, He explained that if anything, it would be more difficult under
Planning Conenission Meeting - October 20, 1476 Page 5
P,D, to get monies to develop. Mrs. Schnabel asked who would bear the costs
for rezoning this� and Mr. Boardman answered the costs would be waived since
it t.rould be initiated by the City.
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Paterson, that the Planning Corruaission pass
a resolution to the City Council that the P.D, area around Fai.rmont Circle
be rezoned to R-1 tirith the understanding there would be no cost to the residents.
Mr. Boardman said he would like to point out that they did have on record
that an apartment building was approved in there, so by going R-1 it would
be protecting the residents.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Coimnission suspend
the rules and move to item 8 on the agenda. Upon a voice note, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
8. RECEIVE APPEALS CoI�IISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 12, 1976
MOTIOI3 by Schnabel, seconded by Ber�nan� that the Planning Cotmnission receive
the Appeals Cam¢nissiott minutes of October 12� 1976. i3pon a voice vote� all
voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
a. Request by Jerry Paschke of Paco, Inc. for permi.ssion to have the
Planning Comnission consider his variance requests for 7751 Elm Street
13.E, before this is heard by the Appeals Commission on October 2b, 197b.
This process would allow this request to go to the City Council on
November 1� i976 instad of November 15, 1976.
Mr. Jerry Paschke o£ Paco� Inc.� was present.
Mr, Boardman stated that to a certain degree he disagreed to the thought that
was behind this request. He said an order had been set up that such items
would go to the Appeals Commission� then to the Planning Coimnission and then
to the City Council� snd he preferred not to change that order. Hoxever� he
said� due to time periods it did pose some kind of a hardship on Mr. Paschke.
Mr. Boardman explained the major problem �ras with the zero lot line for the
prnposed building on the South property line.
Mr, Harris turned the Chairmanship over to Mr. Bergman, since he was the
af£ected property o�rner on the South side.
Mrs. Schnabel said that when this came be£ore Che Appeals Commission Mr.
Paschke had s�i.d he wasn't planning on building until next spring, and asked
him if he had changed his mind. Mr. Paschke explained that for various
reasons he had decided not to build on his property on Beech Street� so he
was going to prooeed with this property. He said that the house was now vacant�
although his daughter wanted to live in it for the winter.
Planning Co�nission Meeting - October 20� 1976
Page b
Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was planni.ng to start right away, and Mr. Paschke
replied he vas� and explai.ned the house was not af'fected by it.
Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the original discussion of this request appeared
on pages llt� through 116 of the agenda dated Octoher 6, and said that there
may bs some information included in that discussion which would be pertinent
nou. She steted that at the tirae this came before the Appeals Commission on
September 28, the proposed structure on this lot covered raore than 1t0� of the
lot, She said that because it did go over 1t0� the Appesls Coimoission talked
to Mr. Paschke about re�lew3ng it with City StaYf and coming up rrith a
different size building on the lot� and about the problems o£ the zero lot
line and the setback of the parking stalls. She explained that the proposed
building he presented that night for this address was the exact building he
preaent�d that same night for snother lot, and that was vi�y there was not a
lot of conversation under that particular request, but a lot o£ it occurred
under the other request. Because the buildi.ng covered more than 40$, of the
lot� Mrs. Schnabel stated, it was agreed that Mr. Paschke xould xork xith the
Staff and come up t,rith a new building plan. She said he had indicated at that
time that he didn't plsn on building until nezt spring, so the Appeals Commiss�on
tabled it so he could have time to revise his plans. She asked Mr. Paschke if
basically he was planning to go from 25� to 7•5� in the rear of the building.
Mr. Paschke said that originally the building was going to sit on the North
2ero lot line� but Mr. Boardman Wanted to have 5' on either side as a buffer
strip between the parking lots. He explained thexeason it xas changed was
because the plan that xas dra�+n for the building on Beech 9treet had a vacated
street that xas 25', erid when the plans vere redraHn they were redraxn the same
as he hadn�t realized that on this site there sras only a 7�' alli� that was
vacated. He sai.d that was hov it got over l�0�� and nobody realized that until
a few minutes before the meeting.
Acting Chairperson Bergman said he felt a bit aKkrrard that the Planning
Commission even had this item, He said he felt they were being asked to
substitute for the Appeals Cormnission� and this item would be taken up before
the next Appeals meet9ng anyw�}*. He asked if this saouldaactually be eaving
any time� and Mr. Paschke ansxered it vould be saving one month.
Mr. Boardman sai.d that the process they rrent through on a variance was that
it was heard by the Appeals Coireaission and then it was sent to the Planning
Cormnission £or policy review and then went on the the City Council. He said
that in most cases the Planning Co�mnission did not take any action on a
variance� but took a look at the variances when they received the minutes.
Iie stated that instead of a discussion on the building tonight� what they
were looking for was a motion to send this to the Appeals Coimnission and then
from the Appeals Co�u ssion directly to the City Council rrithout recommendation
from the Plenning Commission. In other xorda� he e�cplained, skipping the
process through the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman sai.d the Commi.ssion
should look at it to see if there was any policy that might arise, and then send
it on to the Appeals Commission; their job was not to approve the setbacks--
thst xas still up to the Appeals Commission.
i,�,.�.�,,
:'i
Planning Coumiission Meeting - October 20, 1976
Page 7
Mr. Paschke said it wae all M-2 zoning, and he was just asking the Board of
Appeals to allow them to build on 7 1/2' rather than 25'. He said this was constant
fn the area, and €S�i€a wnuld fit in_w3tH �lie setback of other buildings in Chis block.
�tting Chai.rperson Bergman asked Mr, Harris if he had any objeetion to the
zero setback, and Mr, Harris replied he didn�t. He said the only concern
he had on the deal was since this xas a garking lot and they were going
to zero lot line, there should be some curbing in there.
Mr. Boardmazi explained that what the code alloxad without a eariance was
a developer could go to zero lot line if� and only if� his building would be
abutted by another building. He said that anything other than that would
require a variance to go to zero lot line; so even if agreements were signed
it would still require a variance. He said that i.n the past in this area
they had s1loWed zero lot lines mainly because they had agreements on buildings
to abut those zero lot lines, but in all other cases zero lot lines were not
granted.
Mrs. Schnabel said they had only allorred zero lot lines when there had been
a irritten agreement with the adjacent property owner, and in most cases the
adjacent property owner planned to build up to the zero lot line himself
so the trro buildings vould connect. Mr. Boardman explained the reason they
did that was so instead of having smaller sections o£ green areas between
the buildings, they shoved the buildings together snd got wider open spaces
in there. He said he had some problem irith the zero lot line in this case�
mainly on the South side� because that zero lot li.ne would abut a parking
lot instead of another bw'Filding.
Acting Chai.rperson Bergman said that requests for variances £rom 25' down to
7'-�' upset him (just the ma�itude), and variances doWn to zero upset him.
He said� hoxever, that the request for 25' to 7�' rrould just allow the petitioner
to do what others had already been alloeed to do� w*hich seemed like a good
quali£ication. Mr. Hergman added that going to zero srithout a total plan
Por the area bothered him personally, and said that he thought they were talking
about details vhen mqybe they should be addressing policy. He stated that he
would be open to administration or other Commission members with regard to
any concerns for policy diraction to the Board of Appeals.
Mr, Boardman said that he £elt the proposal ASr. Paschke had previously vhere
he had zero lot l�ne on the North property line was a mnch better plan. Mr.
Paschke said he agreed wi.th what Mr. Boardman xas saying� but he xasn�t the
person vho xanted to b�r the building. Mr. Boardman said he thought they had
to be somexhat conscious of What was happening in this area, and if the only
way they could build that building was to go with mero lot line on that side�
he didn't feel it should bs developed yet.
Mr, Boardman said it would be up to the Appeals Commission as to what they
thought, but xhat he didn't want to see happening vas another request coming
i.n, He reiterated that the qnestion that should be before the Planning
Comcai.ssion vould be to allow the Appeals Commission to make a motion directly
to the City Council, and the Planning Commission would be able to seQ xhat
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page S
took place after it vent to City Cauncil.
Acting Chai.rperson Bergman said that apparently everything that xas of concern
here was rrith the ordinance rather than policy, per se. Mr. Boardman said the
only policy inaolved was the general feeling oi what had happened in the area.
Mr. Paschke sai.d that he felt they had pretty much gotten this under control�
and all of his buildings in that area �rere good-looking buildings. He said
that realistically you had to think, do you want something in there or not?
He said that could not be built without zero lot lines.
Mr, Hoardman said that his concern was that right nov the parking lot for
Sign Crafters xas right up to the property line. He asked Mr. Paschke i£
he rrould get maintenance easements to go on the adjoining property for
maintenance of the building. Mr. Paschke replied that would only involve
painting once every fifteen or txenty years� and +rith the modern painting
equi�anent it xas almost unnecessary to go on someone else's property. Mrs.
Schnabel oointed mtt it would be for his own protection so he Kouldn't be
frespassing.
Mr, Boardman said that if the variance Kas granted on that building� some
consideration shonld�be gi�en:to the parking-=and even.ths-setback of the
building so that if a curb was placed on Sign Crafteris property something
xould happen to keep the cars, signs, or storage off the building. Mr,
Paschke suggested putting down curb blocks, and Mr. Boardman replied they
were trying to get au�y from them. Mr. Paschke said if grass vas put in
there it srould not be maintained, and if it vas asphalt it would be used
for storage. Mrs. Schnabel suggested some kind of a small berm, but Mr.
Boardman said if this didn�t go to zero lot line he vould like to see a
poured concrete curb go along the property line.
Acting Chairperson Bergman said that he wuld like to intervene and suggest
the Commission was talking about other things than the policy suggestion.
He said he didn�t think they xanted to substitute £or the Board o£ Appeals
or try to do their job. Mr. Boardman sai.d he thought that Mr. Harris cauld
participate in a motion if the motion juat raade a recommendation that the
Appeals Commission review this with direct reco�endation to the City Council.
Mr. Harris said he xould vote on that� but as long as there vas discussion
on the actual variance he thought there might be a conflict.
MOTION try Peterson� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Coimaission
recommend that the standard procedure be xaived for revi.ev by the Planning
Commission, and allox recommendation to go directly from the Appeals Commission
to the City Council on Mr. Paschke's request for variances. Upon a voice
vote, all voting ryye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chai.rperson Harris declared a recess at 8:$5 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 9:20 P.M.
3. CONTINUSDt REVIEW OF PROPOSID MAINTENdNCE CODE
Mrs, Schnabel cwmnented that it seemed to her thAt perhaps this should be
deferred agai.n only from the standpoint that Mr. Peterson had not had a
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1q76 Page 10
Mr. Boardman said he thought the whole isaue that would be involved with this
was the question of if this code would allow the City to go into a resident's
home at any time and any place and tell t�at person to upgrade his property.
He said he didn't think that was what they were going to do, he didn't think
they could do that or vanted to do that. Ae suggested that perhaps upgrading
should take place at the time of a sale, when it would be more impersonal
and the rights of one person wouldn�t be i.nvaded ae much. Also� he said, if
someone is goi.ng to buy the house he should be as,rare of what was wrong with
it, He stated that a lot of this took place with the mortgage compsnies and
FHA or GI loans.
Mr. Bergman asked if there weren't guidelines already against which these
gauges were made, and if these veren�t the building codes. Chairperson Harris
said that the code ten years ago was not the same code as it is today� and
explained that they had adopted the Uniform Building Code as amended by the
State of Minnesota. Ae said the Attorney General ha� an opinion that if a
City had a building code theq had to adopt the Minnesota State Building Code,
but if they didn't have any building code they wouZdn't have to adopt that
one. Mr. Bergman said he was suggesting that was the code against which the
Inspectors worked, and asked iF they weren�t to a great extent duplicating
or expanding on that in this ma3ntenance code, He said he was bothered
because the coxmrwn un@erstanding of the term "maintenance" was the proper
care and attention of existing facilities� and in a lot of the proposal they
were addreesing modification of those facilities; he said they srere talking
about construction and not maintenance.
Mrs. Schnabel asked who wrote the proposed maintenance code, and Mr. Hoardman
replied it was put together by one of his interns who put it together through
the present codes in existence. Mrs. Schnabel asked who requested *hat this
be written� and Mr. Boardman said it was r.equested with '�ite agprovai'of the
Section 8 Program by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He added
it was also ts7.ked about in the Housing Plan. Mr. Boardman said that the bugs
had to be ironed out so this covld be made a usable item that was enforceable.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, thet the Plsnning Cotmni.ssion continue
the reaiew of the proposed maintenance code until the next meeting when iull
membexship would be present.
Chairperson Harris said he didn�t think this should replace the zoning code�
and Mr. Boardman said it wouldn�t. Mr. Boardman said the problem they had
right now was if they got a complaint from a tenant in an apartment building
in Fridley, there xas nothing they could do sbout it, He explained there was
nothing that would allow the City to tell that property owner to upgrade
or make those changes. Mr. Aarris said he was not so sure that was their
function. He said that suppose a tenant didn't like the color of his wa11,
that might be a disagreement between the tenant end the landlord for one reason
or another, and it seemed the City rras getting in between.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought they had a responsibility to the person
who owned the building as well as the tenant. Mr. Boardman said they did hane
a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the residents of the
City, and asked xhat could be done i.f a tenant in Fridley was not getting
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 9'
chance to review it, which left only three regular members of the Commission
to revie*a it. Mr. Boardman said the intent of the last delay vas to have
time to review it to give some direction to member conuai.ssions.
Chairperson Harris asked where they were on the study to find out how much
this would cost to adminiatrate. Mr. Boardman replied that at this time �
they were going to othsr coimnunities that had this type of ordianance in op-
eration and analyzing thsir costs. He said some of the ciiies that had such
an ordin8ane were St. Louis Perk, Coon Rapidsy BZoomi.ngton� Richfield end
New Brighton. He explained they were not all as lengthy� but with this
maintenance code they were also including one for industrial and including
exterior ma9ntenance also.
Chairperson Harris said he really felt that this should be handled in two
sections; making it residentiat and non- residential. Mr. Boardman said
that was the intent. He said the main thing the Commission should actually
delve into was the administration o£ it and the operation of the code because
that was rrhere the major thrust of the matter was going to be--in en£orcement.
He commented that they did anticipate a drop in the number of permits wtth
the completion of denelopment in the City, and that would pro�ably free up
some of the time of the Inspectors,
Mr. Bergman said he thought this kind of a code involved additional govern-
mental control� speciFically telling property owners what they have to do
to their property which costs them money. He said he had eome conflict with
that, and asked "how Yar do you carry govnerment?" Mr. Boardman said it may
mesn;the difference between a house that was unlivable, a house that was
moderately livable, and a well-kept home. Mr. Ber�nan asked "livab2e for who--
the people or the City?" Mr. Boardman replied that building codes were for
the protection of the people, whether they liked it or not.
Chairperson Harris sai.d it has been the policy in the past that goveanment
concern itself primarily with the health� safety and structural soundness
of the buildings. He said he noted as he went through the code that it
stated a wi.ndow was necessasy in every room. Mr. Boazr3man said that type of
thing would be very diYficult to enforce, and added there was also a clause
which stated this might not be acceptable in all cases, Mr, Harris said it
would be very difficult to say, Por instanee, thatalll houses in Fridley have
100 amp electrical systems. He stated that he understood that Minneapolis
had done this in some areas and it had caused a lot of problems. Mr. Bergman
stated that he thought courts upheld that kind of ordinance for new construction,
but he was not familiar irith that for upgrading property. Mr. Boardman
commented that the code had been around for a long time, and he imagined that
there were a lot of court cases.
Chairperson Harris said he thought it went beyond the legality to the political
pressure from a community on the elected oYficials, and with a community this
size it would be tremeridous u*ith this code. He said he could foreseee a lot
of loca7 politieal pressure, and he thought the elected officials would have
a tough time adopting this, at least in its present form. He said he hoped
they could strike some type of aecord which they could all live with.
Planning Conmeission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 11
proper heat to his unit. Chairperson Harris �id all the tenant would hsve to
do is put his rent in escrov until he got his heat; that would be the quickest
w�y to solve that. He said he thought they would just be taki.ng on more work
than they vere equipped to handle� as they vere not going to get more StafP.
He added he didn't feel it was governmeniSs function to act as an arbitrator
betveen tenants and landlords. Mr. Boardman said he didn't think they xould
be acting so much as an arbitaator. He said that the City did enforce building
codes! and with that enforcement they were �aking on the responsibility of
the protector of the residents--even on nex buildings.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that there was a lot in the proposed code about gar�age
and rubbish control� and the City had a very strong 8arbage �d rubbish
code already. Mr. Boardman said that xas mainly in the R-1 properties. Mr.
Harris pointed out that xas Why he would like to handle this in two sections.
Mrs. Schnabel said that even R-1 should be broken down, ss mobile homes and
apartment buildings Srere listed in the R-1 section and she felt they should
be handled separately. Mr. Harris agreed� and said that xould make it easier
to study.
Mr. Peterson asked what the necessity of this was in regard to Section 8.
Mr, Boardman said that it xas recommended that wi.th the Section 8 Program
the City get a housing maintenance code, and the main reason £or that vas
that if people accepted units under a Section 8 Program the City should in
some manner insure proper living conditions for those people. Mr. Peterson
said than it was a recommendation� but not som0thing that had to be part of
the policy. Mr. Boarclman exPlained it was part of the Comprehensive Hwsing
Plan that thi.s be an implementation program� but whether ihis xas adopted or
not was strictly based on its oxn merits.
Ghairperaon Harris read to the Comctiissmon part o£ the Non-Residential
Maintenance Section under &esponsibilitiea of Oimers and accupants - Structural:
230.31 Provision and Maintenance of Basic Services and Utilities: 1) Plumbing�
Heating and Electrical Service: Etirery owner shall be responsible for the
provision and maintenance o£ plumbing� heating� electric� and ventilating
service to each non-residential facility. Ae stated that the problem with
that was it xas absolutely contrary to the terms of the leases. He explained
that vhen a property owner had a renter there was usually a lease agreement,
and there vere many points in the proposed code which ran contrary to the
provisions of the leases. Mr. Boardmen said that what they s+ere saying there
xas those services must be provided by the proparty ovmer; in other Kords�
he had to provide sewer to the property, electrical� etc.� and if that was
not provided to that property then that property should not be occupied.
Mr. Harris pointed out in also said maintenance of those services. He said
that if a tenant dumped something down a drain srhich plugged up the sewer�
under this code the laadlord srould have to clean the sever ont, He explained
that his lease said it was the tenan�s responsibility to maintain the plumbing.
tsr, Boardman said then he had transferred the responsibi].ity to the tenant.
Mr. Boardman e�cplained that as far as the City was concerned� if anything went
wrong with that property it was the ot+ner�s responsibility, not the renter.
Chairperson Harris said he thou�ht that all of a sudden they xould be caught
between the lease and the code� and they would have a three-ring circus. Mr.
Planning Co�nission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Pa�e 12
Boardman sa3d that was the w�y it Was nov, and explai.ned the City could not
enforce a lease but had to go to the property o5rner. He added that the code
did not say that it would take the place of all lease agreements.
Mr. Bergman cormnented that he thought Mr, Boardman had a clean w�y of handling
it.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Coimaission amend
the agenda to include as item 9 the receipt oY the Community Development
Mi.nutes oP October 12�..1976. Upon a voice vote, all wting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
4. CONTINUSD: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE RSQIIIRII�fENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Mrs. Schnabel asked what kind of time element they were dealing with on this,
and Mr. Boardman replied there xas none. Mr. Bergman said that he thought
there were some strong feelings xithin the Commissions on this, and he thought
it might be srise to continue this item.
Mrs. Schnabel said she xould like to mention that on September 28 the Appeals
Commission did receive the Conmiunity Develo�ent Commission minutes and held
a rather lengthy discussion on garage requirements which was included in the
October bth Planning Commission minutes on pages 116 through 120. She said
that they received the Community IIeveloFanent minutes, and thei�ppeals
Con¢nission�s basic consideration was they still really did approve having
garages required. She suggested that if eny members of the Planning Commission
had not revievred those minutes that they do so, because the Board of Appeals
did have quite a long discussion and delved into many areas of it, particularly
with 1�0� lots.
Mr. Bergman asked if the Appeals Go�ission had then concluded their review
of this item� and Mrs. Schnabel replied that they had not been asked to make
a specific recoimnendation to the Planning Commission so they simply reviewed
what Cowrsunity Development had stated and held a discussion. Mrs. Schnabel
said that the meat of what they discussed was on page 119� vhen Mr. Holden
asked the Co�anission what their reaction would be if a motion was made identical
to the one in the Community Development Commission minutes of August 10, 1976
stating that one enclosed garage space be provided per dwelling for those five
reasons listed. She said that including Mr. Holden voting, because this had
been informal, it had come out 3- 2 in favor oP the motion. She explained
they felt there was a misprint regarding Mr. Kemper's vote. Mrs, 5chnabel
added that they had not had 5taPf�s report at that time, and Mr. Bergman sai.d
the Community Development Co�nission had not had the report from Sta£f either.
Chairperson Harris aaked if they sri.shed to reconsider their positions considering
the Staff report that was now available� and Mr. Bergman sa3d he didn�t £eel
inclind�dto.
Mr. Hergman commented that they were talking here about whether or not they
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 13
should require as a minimum a single unit garage for a single family dwelling
out of consideration for safety, welfare of adjacent property owners, to
enclose sutomobiles and �ther things that could be of a nuisance or actual
safety hazard to adjacent property owners and so forth. He said he xas
wondering +�rhether that ought to be required or iF that was being too overbearing
on someone about to build a house. Mr. Bergman stated they were considering
something of a similar general nature which was the housing maintenance code
which xould require more things that would also cost money, and he was just
�onsidering uhat the relative merits o£ those two things were.
Mrs. Schnabel said that along xith that, one of the thoughts she had on this
xas that perhaps somehox or another the percentage of lot coverage allowed
should include space £or the possibility of a garage to be constructed at a
later date. She sa3d that this tied in �+ith the size of a house that could
be built on a substandard lot, and this might be a way to get around that.
She noted that the statement had been made that if people xere not required
to build a garage at the time their house xas constructed, they did tend to
put a garage in at a later date, Mrs. Schnabel said it �as interesting
because the Appeals Commission heard a request at the last meeting for a garage
to be built on a lot that previously had no garage� and the people had lived
there for six years. She commented that she thought six years was a rather
long time in a way. Mr. Boardman said that he thought the decision was
probably an economic decision� and in most cases he thought it vas an economic
decision. F7ccept Por the fact, Mrs. Schnabel said� that they had a driveway
in all the time and a single car garage cost probably about $1�000 to $1,200.
Mr. Boardmen said that was constructing a garage after the house was built.
He said if a garage was built xith a house, it was about lOX oP the cost
of the total structure. He said that Figure cazne from the Metro Council
Subcommittee on Housing Industry Practices. Mr, Sergman co:mnented that he
couldn't believe a person would save money by going in at a later date and
adding a garage. Mr. Boardman pointed out it was possible for a home owner
to build a garage h3unself or with a little help. Mr. Bergman asked i£ the
present code couldn�t allow for that. He sai.d, for example, if a man came
in with complete building plans which included a garage, to his imowledge
that set of building plans didn't necessarily attest to the fact that the
contractor was going to do it rather than the man himself. He added he
really couldn't see the tremendous impact o£ taking that $1,200 or $1,500
for a single unit garage and adding it to the mortgage and paying for it
over 25 years.
Mr. Bergnan asked What percentage of R-1 lots had not been built upon, and
Mr. Boardman anst,rered probably about lOR. Mr. Bergman said that then they
were talking about the advisahility of revising the code requirement £or the
last 10%. Mr. Boardman said that possiblg the last 10� m�y not need a garage.
Chairperson Harris said he felt they ought to tighten up on the residential
areas. He said that in some xays they xere pretty tight� but in other way
pretty lax.
Mrs. Schnabel said that the majority of the Appeals Commission did concur
with Coirmmnity Development that there still should be a garage requirem�nt.
Chairperson Harris sai.d however, that didn�t address the 1�0� lots, Mrs.
Planning Coaenission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 1�
Schnabel said one of their thoughts was that this may be a xay that reduces
the number of buildings that are put on lt0� lots. Mr. Bergman said that
Community Development had a viex oF that also, and their viex as that it was
entirely misstated. He said a lot should not require a garage; a house
should. He said a garage should be disassociated from a lot, and a dwelling
unit should require a garage.
Mrs. Schnabel read from the Appeals Co�ni.ssion minutes of September 28, 1976�
which stated: Mr. iCemper said that maybe by requiring that each home have
at least a single-car gargge, it vould sutomatically prohibit building on
1t0' lots� and that might be the appropriate criteria they should be using.
She sai.d that rrould be tying a garage to a house, regardless o£ 1ot size.
Mr. Boardman referred to the Staff Report, and said they were wondering if
they were providing adequate Facilities for ihoseppeople in the lov and
moderate incrune range. He was xondering if the people who were purchasi.ng
a house should have the option of buying it with their house� building it at
a later date� or perhaps not having one at all. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that
perhaps the size of the house should be restricted on a substandard lot so
that if a garage is not required at the time of construction� it could be
built at a later date. She said that at the present time there were houses
on 1y0� lots in Fridley, but they were built a long time ago. She stated that
some of those did have garages� and the proplem was it rras very difficult to
squeeze both a house and a garage on a substandard lot. Mrs. Schnabel said
that regarding substandard lots, she thovght thai the one person they had to
get to at that point was the contractor. She felt that the contractor vanted
to build as large a home as possible so he could make more money. She said
xith smaller homes on these lots the lower-income people could afford to buy.
Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to bring up one other point. 5he pointed
out that Fridley was probably 90� developed i.n their residential area, but
there vere adjacent communities such as Coon Rapids and Blaine that had a
lot of open space to be developed. She said that maybe they� as a commun3ty�
had to be s2ightly selfish because they weresso far along in their development
process and still demand that a garage be built *.rith a home. She stated that
if a person didn't uant to build a garage with a home, then mqybe he could
go out to Blaine or Coon Rapids r�here that requirement didn't exist, Mr. Bergman
pointed out there were other options also, snch as renting or moving into a
townhouse, so the City roronldn't be closing them out entirely.
Mr. Boardman said that Fridley was an area that was getting more low and moderate
income people� and by forcing them to other areas the City would be creating
hardships on them as far as traz�sportation since there Were jobs availab2e For
them in Fridley. He asksd if they xouldn't be de�ying that person the capability
that could be available to him if garages were no longer required to purchase
a home in the city and work in the city. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out she was
not tallring about existing homes� but about ner� construction� and that maybe
the contractors should be forced to build smaller homes. She said she was
not trying to be terribly hard-nosed abont this, but maybe it was the only way
to £orce some of the low-income homes to be built.
Chairpeaeon Harris asked what the minimum square footage of a living area could
be� and Mr. Boardman replied that the requirement was 1,020 £or a 9,000 square
Planni.ng Cormnission Meeting - October 20, 197b Psge 15
foot lot�and the minimum on loCs less than 9,000` Was- 768'. Chai;man Harris
ssid he thought he wouldn�t have any object3on to a smalter house. Mr.
Bergman suggested a nariance could be requested in that case, and on a sub-
standard lot xhere that occurred there xouldn't be any real problem.
Mr. Bergman said he regretted the full Commission wasn't represented� but he
did feel somexhat action-oriented on this and xould like to make a motion.
MOTION py Her�an, seconded for discussion by Schnabel, that the Planning
Cou¢nission recommend to Council that in consideration o£ the objective to
upgrade or at least maintain the quality of the single family residential
areas in the City of Fridley, the City Ordinsnce be modified to require as
g minimum �e enclosed garage space per single family dxelling unit for the
folloxing reasons:
1. Reduce outside automobile parking.
2. Provide for enclosed storage of equip9nent and materials other
than sutomobiles to enhance neighborhood appearance.
3. Reduce safety hazards vhich mqv result from outside storage of
equipment and material.
1�. Promote the preservation and upgrading of the neighborhood and
maintain a quality of living environment consistent wi.th the
housing plan.
5. Provide for the security of stored goods in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the P1A*+n;ng Cotmnission wasn�t awaiting reports from
other subconanissions and if it wasn�t the intent oP this Bommission to gather
all the pertinent information together be£ore passing this on to Council.
Mr, Boardman sai.d this had besn sent to Coimminity Develo�anent and Human
Resources. Mr. Bergman located the discussion on garages by the Human
Resources Co�nission at their September Znd meeting in the minutes of the
September 22nd Planning Comoussion meeting. He read the discussion to the
Planning Comoi.ssion� which concluded with a motion that the Human Resources
Conanission reco�mnended to the Planning Co�ission that they did not condone
the principle oY a garage requirement as a stigulation £or building; hoxever,
i£ the property owner decided to put ap a garage� standards should be set
for the structure. The motion had passed unanimously. Chairperson Harris
noted that then they had all the necessary input. Mrs. Schnabel su�arized
the situation bg pointing out they had one Commission that said a single unit
garage should be required with every singZe family dwelling, one Coirunision
that said it should not be required, and a third Co:mnission that gives no
direet action.
Mr.-Boardmanesaid�t�at:another thing they had to look at xas xhat they passed
on as far as the goals and ob3ectives for housing. Chairperson Harris sai.d
he jnst didn't see hox adding a garage to a house could make or break the
deal� and added that he didn't agree srith Metro Council.
Mr. Bergman said that he thought this business of adding on a garage bei.ng
a problem £or low and moderate income people was being w�y over done. He
stated they had lots of opportunitq in Fridleq; they could buy a used house�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 16
they could rent, they could move into a townhouse. He said that therefore
they xould not be prohibiting low and moderate income people from moving
into the City of Fridley by requiring a garage on new construction. Atr.
Boardman pointed out that they would possibly be limiting their capatnility
of diversity of purchasing. Mr. Bergman said that everg code the City had
xas restrictive; they were restiictive when they required mini.nwn floor space
and in all kinds of ways, and he thought they were overburdening this particular
one. Mr. Boardman said that the Housing Goal stated the necessity of providing
a diversity of suitable housing and living environment for all persons, and
it suggested this be aceomplished by encouraging programs to provide housing
at costs a£amily could afford without compromising essential needs. He
explained they were trying to support programs that would reduce the cost
of housing. He said it ma�y not reduce it $S�OOQ in order to make it an
acceptable unit for somebody to buy, but it may reduce it enough for some
person who could not affoxd it right now to be able to b�y it.
Mrs. Schnabel said she felt that in their minds they were dealing basically
rorith lov snd moderate income housing� aad they had quite a few lots that
were being built on right now that were in no way being built for low-income
families� but probably middle income and up. She stated that if an ordinance
was psssed that stated a garage wasn't requi.red� it might open a new Pandora's
Box for those areas which had already been developed and were nice home areas.
She stated she vas speci£ically thinking of the Innsbruck North area and the
0'Bannon area, and thought they might be doing a disaervice to the residents
who already lived in those areas iF a garage xasn't required. Mrs. Schnabel
noted that Mr. Boardman had talked about the City havi.ng an obligation to
encourage low and moderate income housing, and thought maybe that obligation
xas to encourage the contractor to put that type of develo�nent 3+n on sub-
standard lots. She said she thought there could be two ways to interpret
that type of statement.
Mr. Hoardman said that he thought the point that was brought out that they
should require the space to be available £or a garage on a lot, but not
necessarily require a garage to be there, Weuld restrict a smaller-size lot
to be built with a smaller-size house. He said he thought that was a very
va13d point. He sai.d that if a garage wasn�t required by code� he vovld
still imagine that garagas Would be built in areas such as Innsbruck North.
Mr. Boardman stated that he thought srhere they had to consider this type of
thing xas xith the substandard lots and in areas snch as Riverview Heights
where there xas some nice housing and some housing that xasn�t qnite so
nice.
Chairperson Harris stated that iY there was going to be a garage� there
should be some standasds set up for that garage such as a certain size.
Mr. Boardman said the only place that garege size was addressed was under
en accessory building £or the amount of lot coverage. He explained that
the eoverage of both the main buildi.ng and the accessory building could not
be more than a certain percentage. Mr. Ber�nan commented that he thought
some�rharre in the code it specified the mini�m requirements for a single-
stall garage. Mr. Boardman said it did give a minimum of 252 square feet,
Planning ComQnission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 17
but it didn't give a mnX;��m, Chairperson Harris stated they should have a
maY;,m,m size� as occasionally it got ridiculous when the size of the accessory
building exceeded the size of the house. Mr. Bergman said he agreed with Mr.
Harris� but pointed out when these varianc� came in they both usually voted
in favnr of them for variaus reasons of hardship stated by the requestor. He
said they ended up getting trapped because they didn't xant the clutter, and
approved the request.
t�tr. Boardman said that he thought a lot of it boiled down to enforcement
of the clutter. He said he heard time and time again that garages should
be required in residential areas because there vas outside material to store
and it had to be put eomeplace. He said that if there were appropriate codes
and appropriate enforcement oY those codes, he didn�t see where it xas necessary
to hane a garage required. He suggested the possibility of a storage shed.
Mr. Bergman said he didn't see hox that wuld help the preservation and up-
gradiag_of residential neighborhoods.
Chairperson Harris said they were really on the horns of a dilemma; on one
hand they rrere trying to provide low and moderate housing, and he thought
that sometimes they got that miaed up �ri.th substandard housing. Mr. Boardman
said that he didn't believe that by not providing garages there would be
substandard housing. Mr. Bergman said he thought it bordered on it. Mr.
Boardman asked why a garage was necessarily the borderline between standard
housing and substandard housing. Ae said a house aould be just as Well
ma3ntained rrithout a garage, and he doubted very much if it would even affect
the cost of the neighbor�s house.
Mr. Bergman ssid he thought they had a coni'lict betxeen housing goals and
residential integrity. Ae said that some of this conversation bordered on
discrimination, and from the co�ents made it seemed that anybody xho had
enough money to be able to afford a stasdard size lot xould be required by
the City to spend more money to put a garage on it. However, he said� people
of lo� or moderate income didn't have to spend money to put in a garage.
Mr. Boardman stated they were not sqying that. He said they were s�ying it
should not be the City that vas telling that person if he had to have a garage;
it should be the person who made that decision.
Chairperson Har�is said he thought the vord garage was really a misnomer,
and an accessory storage area xould be a better choice o£ words. Mr. Boardman
asked why they should require a person to build a garage £or a storage area
to keep clutter off his yard� xhen he could do the same thing (maintain his
house well, keep the grass green and keep the clutter of£ his yard) by having
an accessory storage building. Mr. Harris said that maybe that vas srhat they
should be s�ying--a storage building oY a certain size. Nr. Boardman suggested
that even better yet� allow absolutely no outside clutter and have that
strietly en£orced. Mr. Harris said that wasn�t enforceable, and that xas
the problem. Mr. Boardman said that he thought it boiled down to more than
the affordability of the garage; it boiled down to the question of a garage
being a mecessity to maintain a quality of living in a neighborhood. Mr.
Harris said that he, personally, believed it xas--or at least a storage area.
Chairperson Harris said that if he didn�t have a storage area, which also
happened to be his garage, there would be several items that frould have to
Planning Co�ission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 18
n
stored within the dwelli.ng vhich he would be very nervous about, such as items
with gasoline tanks on them. Mrs. Schnabel said that ihis xent back to promoting
the health, safety and welfsre o£ the residents of Fridley. Mr. Bergman
read to the Commission the five reasons Co�unity Develo�ent thought a
garage vas necessary, and Mr. Hoardman pointed out that most of those were
for storage purposes,
Chairperson Harris reiterated that perhaps the xord garage was a misnomer�
and it should be a storage area. Mr. Bergman ssid he couldn't see that having
those little ti.n sheds rrould be enhancing the neighborhood characteristics.
Mrs, Schnabel pointed out that if they said storage area, they would have
to have some type of ordinance that dealt xith the size� quality and mainten-
ance of that storage area itself so it wouldn't just be somebody�s iish house
that they set on the back of their property. Mr. Bergman said he thought
it vould be inconsistent i£ they would not maintain the position which they
had for the 9� of the single £amily homes that had been built with a require-
ment for a garage. Mrs. Schnabel said it vould change the current oode
if they tied in a garage with a li.ring structure, because currently a garage
was not required on a substandard lot.
Mr. Boardman said he thought they should think very carefully about xhat
they Were trying to do. He said that in the Housing Plan they were trying
to discourage putting an unnecessary burden on a resident through various
requirements which may or ma}* not be necessary to preserve residential
environment. He asked if they rrouldn't be putting unnecessary equiFsnent
in the Zoning Code which would provide something that may be done anyway,
or if those options should be left up to the people. Mr. Bergman said that
if he was asked if he thought a garage was en absolute necessity or require-
ment, he might hane to vacillate on that; but if he was asked if he thought
it was highly desirable, he thought it xas. He added that from a City view,
they didn't have to feel it xas required in order to act poaitively to put
it in the ordinance. He said the fact that it was highly desirable should
be adequate considerat3on. Chairperson Harris pointed out there xas alvays
the variance procedure.
Chairperson Harris said that if he had to choose betxeen savings on the
house end the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors and the occupants
o£ the house, he would have to go +Irith the health, safety and rrelfare and
felt that a storage area was a necessity. Mr, Bergman said that maybe a
separate storage area would be an amenable alternative, but then they would
haae to get into code stipulations on rrhat kind, the size, the kind of
strueture, and security, and really de£ine what they were talking about. He
added that a separate storage area to somebody might be just a lean-to yrith
no front on it� which would be dePeating the purpose.
Mr. Boardman said he was not arguing Por or against this, but Was just
questin�ing some of the reasons rrhy they wanted certain things. He said
he xas also looking at the goals �nd desires o£ what theq vanted to achieve
i.n the conanunity. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought what they were hoping to
achieve xas the health� safety and crel£are of all the citizens o£ Fridley;
xhether they were current residents or nev construction residents. Mr. Peterson
added that at the same time they irere trying to upgrade and maintain the
comrwnity.
Planning Co�ni.ssion Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 19
UPON A VOICE YOTE� all voti.ng �ye, the motion paased unanimously.
Chai.rperson Harris said that as long as they xere on this subject, he would
certainly like to have a recommendation from the Community Development Chair-
person on maximum sizes o£ accessory buildings.
Mr. Bergman said that he felt it was pertinent for him to point out that
as Chairparson of Commun3ty Develo�nent, they had discussed this very thing
in their Coannission meeting and they had not coiae up with a concensus of
opinion on limiting the size of an accessory building. He said he xould be
willing to readdress that question zaith Co�unity Develo�nent if this
Commission so wished, He said that he, personally� had mixed emotions: on
one hand he sax no reason wt�y someone in an R-1 neighborhood should request
sn accessory building larger than his house, on the other hand they did
have allowance for home occupation. Mr. Harris said that home occupation
could not be in the accessory building, but only within the dxelling, Mr.
Ber�nan said they did have a lot coverage regulation vhich did tend to control
the size to some extent. He added that he did not l�ke over-governing, so
he had con£licts regarding this.
Chairperson Hsrris asked if Mr. Bergman xould take this item back to Community
Develo�snent for their thoughts� and Mr. Bergman said he would.
5. CONTINIIED: HUMAN DEVELOPME3IT GOAIS AND OBJECTNFS
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Coffinission
continue the Human Development Goals and Objectives since a representative
from Hwnan Resources was not present.
Mr. Boardman said that this had been sent to Human Resources for their review�
and this was the main reason it had been delayed the last fex times. He said
they had had a chance for input from the Cormnissions initially, and now the
Planni.ng Co�ission is establishing all the go�ls and objectives. He stated
that xhen those goals and objectives were developed, then they could send
them to the subcommissions for their additiona7. input at that time instead
of having to wait for member co�i.ssions to aet on separate issues. He added
that this wonld eliminate this dela4y�ing process. Chairperson Harris sai.d it
was so noted.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6. CONTSNUED: ARTICLFS OF INCORPORATION OF FRIDLEY YOUTH CEPiTER
Chairperson Harris said that there was a timing problem on this. He explained
that the coimaittee that was to organize this was set up by a charter from
City Council, and that charter was Yor thirty days. He said that the committee
that had worked on this had acted very diligently and held mar�y meetings and
worked very hard to put this to put this together, but their charter had run
out and he xas not sure that without en extension from City Council they would
be able to meet again.
Planning Co�ission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 20
Mr. Boardman said he would even question the Plannixig Commi.ssion�s role in
reviesring articles and the charter and things like that. He said he felt
this vould be more in the realm of the City Council.
Mr. Peterson said this had been revieved by the �hvironmental Co�.ission at
their last meeting� and they had agreed irith the Human Resources Comnission
that the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center be returned
to the temporary Tesk Force of the F�idley Youth Center for £urther refinement,
aligament� and simplification, and that guidance be sought from the City
Attorney to accomplish these things.
Chairperson Harris said that spesking as a member of the task Yorce, he
thought what they Were looking for was any input, information or suggestions
from the Pla*+n;ng ��ission or member Cou¢nissions. He said it was their
intent that it be sent to the City Council irith any additional recommendations�
but it would actually go to the City Conncil. Mr. Boardman said he thought
it was sent down for an inYormational purpose, and shouldn't necessarily have
to be acted on by member Co�.issions.
Mr, Peterson asked if when the articles of incorporation rrere set up by the
task force there vas any legal counsel involved or if this was patterned
after previous articles of inoorporation from other organizations. Mr.
�arris said that was correct� as they felt they had to have a starting point.
He said they wanted to move fox�rard and get it to Council, so Council could
then give it to the legal staff to re£ine. He stated that they had felt
they didn�t have the authority to give it to the City legal staff and ask them
to rrork on it without City Council direction.
Mrs. TBhnabel read to the Comwission the motzLon made at the last Planning
Commission meeting which sent the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley
Youth Center to all member Co�issions for their reviex and coamment. Mr.
Peterson asked if it wouldn't then be appropriate towxait until all Gommissions
aubmitted their reco�m¢endations� and t4r. Boardman replied he thought this xas
something that the Planning Commission xould have to decide now--whether they
were going to take any formal motions on the incorporation or if it would be
str3ctly a reviex thi.ng and those revievs should just be passed on. Mr. Harris
said the task force felt they irere sending it back here £or reviex. He said
he would 13ke some action on this, as xithout any action it s�ould just stale-
mate again, drag oa some more, and pretty soon there wuld be no place for
the youths to meet at all.
I�TION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission
recogniae �he rev�ew and concerns o£ the Human Resources Commission and pass
on to the City Council without con¢nent the Human Resources Cotmnission motion:
"That the Articles o£ Incorporation of I�idley Yauth Center be returned to the
temporary Task Force of the FY�idley Youth Center for f5irther re£inement,
ali�unent, and simplification� and that guidance be sought from the City
Attorney to accomplish the above". Upon a voice vote� a11 voting �ye, the
motion carried unanimously.
x
Planning Co�nission Meeting - pctober 20� 197b Page 21
7. NECEIVE HUMAN ItE.SOURCSS COA4LCSSION MII�IUTES: OC3'OBF.Et 7, 1976
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Co�oission receive
the Human Resources Commission minutes oY October 7� 197b. Upon a voice vote�
all voting ave, the motion carried unsnimously.
9. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVF.LOPMENT COt�AffSSION MINUTFS: OCTOBER 12, 1976
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Co�nission receive
the Community Development Comnission minutes of October 12, 197b,
l�Sr. Bergman said that he would like to poi.nt out the trend of the discussion
on the East River Road Project Conunittee report was to retain the four-lane
system. He said they had yet to subject that to the metropolitan plan, which
they would have at their nea�t meeting, and also a review of the original
goals and objectives from a transportation vierr.
Chairperson Harris asked vhen he thought they stould have a reco�nendation
on the sigas, and Mr. Bergman replied that xas probably two to three meetings
off, so it would probably be December.
Mr, Boardman said that Mr. Ber�nan had requested that the CDC minutes be
received at the Planning Coimnission at the first meeting after the Co�nunity
Develop�nent meeting. He said that in order for them to get these minutes
done� they would not be able to include them in the agendas, but they would
be handauts at the ti.me of the meeting. He stated that if that was acceptab�i
to the Co�ission they would attempt to do it that way. Mrs. Schnabel said
the only problem was that they had to s3t at the meeting and read the minutes.
Mr. Bergman agreed that vas a problem, but said it rras a question of xhich
xas worse. He said that as the person somevhat responsible to this group for
Hhat was in the SIDB minutes, if he had to wait another two weeks it xasn't
as Presh in his mind any more. He stated that at ti.mes it even got confusing
because the Planning Commission mi.ght discuss subject matter that was covered
in Coimmmity Develo�nent a previous veek, but the CDC minutes were not avai.lable
and he had to re�y on memory. He sai.d he thought the 9n£ormation got stale
three weeks after the meeting.
Mr. Peterson said that he would like to comment on something along this line.
He stated the agenda and minutes for the F2igimonmental meeting held last
night had bnen received on Mond�y. He stated the time factor was a great
problem, because one day was not enough time to revi.ew all that material.
Mr. Peterson said there were a mimber of people coneerned about this on the
Fridley Ehvironantal Quality Commission. He added that they irould like to
see the agenda and minutes at least by the weekend prior to the meeting. Mr.
Boardman commented that they tried to send them out by Friday so the Commiasioners
would receive them on Saturday� but he vould look into it.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr, Boardman said that he had a couple of additional items he would like to
discuss. He said that the first thing concerned the Planni.ng Commission
Planning Colwnission Meeting - October 20, 19T6 Page 22
agendas. He explained that right nox when they set up agendas they had Stafi
3nput on the agendas and then Dorothy had to call the Chairmen of the Coimnissions
to see if they had anything to add. Mr. Boardman stated rrhat they vould like
to have done xas, instead of Dorothy calling the Chairmen, having a set date
Yor the Chairman to call in to Dorothy to add anything �e desired. He explained
that there vere many times Dorotl�y had to call all d�r long because she
couldn't get hold of somebody, so if the Chairman could call in on the last
Thursday of the week bePore the meeting, it would be more e£ficient for them.
Mr. Bergman suggested that Dorothy could call just once. He said that usually
she got '�old of him the first time she called. He explained that it wasn't
just to call on items on the agenda, but to also have some discussion, Mr.
Bergman sai.d he thought it did the Chairman some good because frequently
Staff added items to the agenda srhich the Chairraari didtt�t lmow about, so it
was a two-way purpose. He added that xith one cell� the Chairman ought to
recognize that wi.thin his oxn conm�ittee meeting he had the prerogative o£
adding items to the agenda if he trished.
Mr. Boaxdman said that in some cases it did require information that Staff
had that would be helpflil to the Comai.asion if it was included in the agenda.
He said it also gave 5taff a chance to prepare £or the meeting, because in
some cases it did require a response from Staff. Mr. Boardman said he felt
that if the Chairman of the Cormnissions could take it upon themselves to
call with any items they wanted added to the agenda� it xould be a more
productive way of handling this. He added that if they had not received a
call from the Ghairman they xould assume there vere no additions that would
go into the agenda.
Mrs. Schnabel suggested that ATr. Boardman put out a memo to this effect to
each of the Co�nission Chairmen involved and inform them by what date they
should call.
Mr. Boardman said the other item he rrished to discuss was the Chairmen of
the Commisaions informing their Vice Chairman to attend the Planning Comnission
meetings if they, themselves� xould not be there. He explained that they
had almost not had a quorum for this meeting. He said that the process had
been set up that the Vice Chairman vas to attettd in the place of the Chairman,
and in meny cases he didn't even imox if the Chairman was asking the Vice
Chairman. $e asked all the Chairmen to please contact their Vice Chairmen
instead of Staff trying to call to see if they could or could not make it.
� � • ��
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, all voting ays� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of October 20� 1976 adjourned at 1E:05 A.M. by unanimous
vote.
Respectftzl.ly submitted,
OiiA/�inil /[Y iYYt��
She i 0'Donnell
&ecording Secretary
�I
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AGENDA
PLANNIN6 COMMISSiON MEETING � OG706ER 20, 1976
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNIP�G CONiMI5SI0N MINUTES: OCTOBER 6. 1976
1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING:
2.
!�; 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
�
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 -�25
Please use your 10/6/76
IOii OF A Agenda for continued it
vc av 56 - 61 \
rrtvrw�� r�..� � � ..,, .. ., .,• , �-- � - �
THE ROTTLUblD C0�•1PANY: Deing a replat of Lots 6, 7, 8>
9, 10, 14, 15, 6 and 17, Block 1, Spring arook Park
Second Addition, together with Lots 32 and 33, and
the West 30 feet of Lots 34 and 35, Block 10, Spring
Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Development},
generaily located between Ruth Street N.E. and East
River Road N.E., North of Liberty Street N.E.
Public Hearing open
' GONTINUED; REVIEW OF PROPOSED hiAINTEf�ANCE CODE Cu11�
CONTINUEQ: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FORJ�'/
SINGLE FAPIIL HO E '���
CONTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
CONTINUED: ARTICLES OF INCORPOP.ATION OF FRI�LEY,�
Wait for input from member Cottanissions
EIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COh1MISSION MINUTES:
62 - 67
Separate
121 - 127
129 - 133
26-30
8. :.RE6EIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: DCTOBER 12, 1976 31 - 36
a. Request by Jerry Paschke of Paco, Inc. for permission 36A
to have the Planning Cortmission consider his variance
requests for 7751 Elm Street N.E. before this is
heard by the Appeals Comnission on October 26, 1976.
This process would allow this request to go to the
City Council on November 1, 1976 instead•of November �O
15, 1976. '
ADJOURNMENT:
�
�
�
CI'17 OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION rIEETING OCTOBF�t 6, 1976
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDIIi:
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M.
ROLL CALI.:
Members Present; Harris, Bergman, Langen£eld� Peterson (arrived 8:00),
Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent:
Others Present:
None
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
1�.ck Sobiech, Public Works Director
APPROVn PLANNING CC,liiISSION MIA'UTES: SEPT��IBER 22, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Con¢ni-;sion minutes
of Se�tember 22, 1976 be approve3 as written. Upon a voice vote� all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. ' CaNTINUID: PUBLIC n�ARIt1G: COIr'SIDt'�iATION OF A PROPOSED PRELII4IIdAi?Y PLAT
P.S. 7-0� CEI:TRAL TO:i;�HOUSE ADDITZON, BY E'�1"r.RT S19ANS0�: 3eing a repla
of Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the 'r7est 17 feet
taken for highway purposes, and the West 11�7.74 feet of Lot 18, all in
Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allow the development of a 3b unii
townhouse site, the same being located at the intersecticn of Central
Avenue and 73rd Avenue N,E.
Public Heari.ng closed,
Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. A1 Hoffine-i'ar, architect, vere
present.
Mr. 9oardman explained that this was a preliminary plst on the townhouses
to locate the buildings on the site and also clean up the legal description,
and it was a typical toWnhouse type plat.
Chairperson Harris stated there had been a question at the last meeting
concerning parking stall loeations, and Dfr. Boardman showed the Commission
a plan depicting parking stalls, He said that although these plans did not
shox it, Mr. Hoff ineier had guaranteed he would also shift the buildings.
Mrs. Schnabel said that they should note that the number of parking spaces
had changed from the plan presented at the last meeting. Mr. lio£f.meiet said
�� �
Planning Commission bieeting - October 6, 1976 Page 2
he had made a mistake in his mathematics on the first one. He stated that the
requirement was for ninety parking stalls, and they had 99.
Chairperson Harris marked the p2an showing the parking stalls as exhibit D. �
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Cormnission recorrmiend
to Council approval of the proposed preli�inary plat, P.S. �76-08, Central
Townhouse Addition, by �ert Swanson: Being a replat of Lot 19, except the
East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 1� feet taken for highway purposes,
and the West T�%,7� feet of Lot 28� all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to
allow the development o£ a 36 unit townhouse site� the same being located at
the i.ntersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E.
Mrs. Schnabel said that in looking back in the minutes from the last meeting,
one of their concerns Was the review of the assessment type items relative to
73rd Street. N�. 5oardman stated that the sewer and water and storm sewers
that were in the streets were designed to carry capacity loads for development
in that area. He added that this development would not overburden that Ioad.
UPON A UOICE VOTE, all voting �ye, the motion carried unariimously,
2. CONTIIdUED: PUSLIC HEARING: REZONING RE�UEST. ZOA //76-05, BY WYPfAN SI�fITH:
Rezone the Easterly 200 £eet of Lot 13� except tne Northerly 30 feet
thereof; also the Easterly $0 feet thereof� Auditor's Subdivision No. 89�
from R-3 (general r�ultiple family dwellings}� to G1 (local business areas),
or G2, (general business areas), to allow the construction oi a speculative �
building to be used for of£ices an3 assemblies, generally located on the
South side of Norton Avenue N.E, where it intersects with Central Avenue
N.E.
Public Hearing closed.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the letter dated October 5� 1976 to the City of Fridley #'rom Leroy Smith
withdrawing this request. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Earl IJUnbar, 12l�5 Norton Avenue N.E., stated he had a petition which he
xould like put in the files for future re£erence. Chairperson Harris read
the petition, dated October 4, 1976, aloud:
We, the undersigned, as concerned residents o£ Norton Avenue Northeast,
City of Fridley, wish to make the following statemeni of our wishes
and desires concerning the proposed rezoning request, ZOA 16-05, to
rezone the Easterly 200 feet of lot 13, except the Northerly 30 feet
thereof and also the Easterly 50 feei thereof, auditors subdivision
No, 89, from R-3 to C-1 or e-2:
It is our desire that the above request be denied, and that any
similar request be likewise denied; in short� that the property
mentioned, as well as all unoccupied property on Norton Avenue Northeast,
remain R-3. �
�-;�:.�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Yage 3
�' Our primary reasons for this position are:
1. That the proposed changes would lead to a decline in property
values.
2. That the increased personal and vehicular traf£ic on the street
would be disturbing to the residents.
3. That the increased traffic will endanger the sa£ety of the
children and property o£ the homeowners.
Chairperson Harris noted that the petition had ten signatures.
MOTI021 by Shea, seconded by I.angenfeld, that'the Planning Commission receive
the petition from the residents oF Norton Avenue dated October 11� 1976. Upon
a voice vote� all voting aye� the noiion carried unani.mously.
Chairperson Harris stated that he would give the peition to the City Administra-
tion to be put in the file.
3. TABLED: PUBI,IC HEAi ING: COIcSID�ATI0,1 OF A
CORPO�ATIO,+: Being a repiat or 1,ots 1 to u inclusive, �locxs cl �:«��u�,
� 2� and also part o£ Zot 1� Block 28, Innsbruck North Townhouses Third
Addition, to allow changes in the size of garages, generally located on
the West side o£ East Bavari2n Pass and South of Meister Road N.E.
Public Hearing open, tabled August 18, 1976.
Mr. Jim London with Darrel Farr Develo�xnent, and Mr. Darrel A. Farr were
present.
Mr. Boardman explained that this had been tabled until Darrel Farr Corporation
was ready to go with.it, and they Nere now reaciy to proceed. He said that this
was in the townhouse area and they wanted to increase the size of six proposed
single-car garages to double-car garages.
Mr. London shoiaed copies of the proposed plat to the Commission. He explained
that he and Dfr. Farr had met with the Innsburck�North Townhouse.Association
Archftectural Control'Committee and the Operati.ng Commitiee of the Innsbruck
North Townhouse Association� and they had xorked out this proposed replat of
the Third Addition. He said that their proposal was to provide 12 double
garages in lieu of the 12 single garages that were on the original plat.
Mr. London explained that they hadn't changed the total n�unber of parking
spaces as they had increased the inside parking by 12 spaces and decreased
the outside parking by 12 spaces. He said that in their agreement with the
Innsbruck Townhouse Association they were moving blocks $, 6, 7 and 8 to the
bottom of the page five feet to give a minimum o£ almost 50' between buildings
� for movement of traffic, parking, snd so forth. He added they had also moved
the garages in blocks 5 and 6 so the garage and house would be more in line
and open up the green area between buildings. FIr. London added that they xere
Planning.Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page �
going to offer a standard garage door operator to be sold with each garage so
people would nse the indoor parking more. . �
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. London if he was aware of the letter from
N�. Jerry W. Anderson, Chairman of the Architectural Control Committee, to
+.he Planning Commission� dated July 20, 1976, Nir. London said he was, and
that they had had their meetings after that. He explained that letter was
written the first time they had appeared before this Commission, and there
were three subsequent meetings after that when this plat was worked out.
rSrs. Schnabel asked if there would be any outside parking, and Mr. London
replied that it wasn't shown on this plat, but there would be. Mr. Baardman
asked if units 7 and 8 were moved� and rir. London replied they had been rnoved
back from the street. A1r. Boardman stated that StaSf had no problem with this
preliminary plat.
PSOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration oF a preliminary plat, P.S. �76-0$,
Innsbruck North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corpora-
tion. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Public Hearing closed at 8s05.
2dr. Bergman stated that iniiially he had some concern about the lack of a letter
in writing from the Architectural. Control Committee to mate with the letter
on page 1�5 of the agenda. However, he sai.d, the letter from that Coimnittee
says they have a verbal agreement with Jim London, and "since Mr. London now told�
Commission the3r are in acEOrd, he didn't feel the concern that a letter uras need
£or reference purposes. Chairperson Harris sug�ested it would be well to have
that letter for the City Council.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by 3ergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to
Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S, #76-05, Innsbruck Pdorth Replat
Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr ➢evelopment Corporation: Being a replat
of Lots 1 to 1� inclusive, Blocks 21 through 26� and also part of Lot 1, Block
28� Innsbruck North Townhouses Thira Addition, to allow changes in the size
of garages, generally located on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South
of Meister Road Td.E.
Mrs. Schnabel said that the original request 1'orm said to increase the size o£
five proposed garages� and the request was actually £or six. Mr. T.ondon said
that was just an error� and it should be six. Chairperson Harris suggested
that be cleaned up before the request went to Council.
UP(1N A VOICE VOTE� aZl voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
4.
as follows: That pa�t of Outlot A� Innsbruck North, lying west oi' a line
drawn from the most Northerly corner of Outlot C, Innsbruck Vzllages, to
the most Southerly corner of Outlot A, Snnsbruck Village and said line
there terminating, the purpose of the plat to allow for a more feasible
�
� _
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 1976
Page 5
distribution of the same number of units in the development, generally
�' located North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E, and West of the Black Forest
Apartment.
Mr. Jim London, with Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation� and I�rr. Darrel
Farr were present.
MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
open the Azblic Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat� P.S. #76-10�
Innsbruck Villages Second Addition� by Darrel A. Farr Developnent Corporation.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing open at 8:10.
Mr. Boardman stated this was some�rhat conYusing, and directed the Commission
to turn to page 55 of their agendas which showed what had originally been
proposed. Re showed the Commissioners the new plat and explained what changes
had been made, and explained the land change rrould be equal. He said they
had felt that several buildings were too close to the apartment area� so they
aere eliniinating "B", c�rere switching "A" closer to the cul-de-sac, and putting
what had been "A" back into Outlot C. He stated there would be the sazr.e number
o£ units on the plat� but just in a di£ferent location. He added that the
square footage would be adjusted to be equal.
Mr. London said that this had been approved originally for 100 units, attd they
now had 96� so there was a reduction. He stated that the land areas would be
� an equal swap; neither the Black Forest or Innsbruck Village would lose any
land.
Mr. Milton Bullock� 5671� Arthur Street� Fridley, asked if he could see a copy
of the plat. Mr. Boardman showed !!r. Bullock and other interested residents
the proposed plat and explained it to them,
Marjorie Phelan� Matterhorn Drive� asked i£ an IIlvironmental Impact Study had
been done in this area. NTr. Boardman replied that none was done, and expiained
that the only w�y they would have been required to do an IIlvironmental Impact
Study xas through a petition� and no petition was drawn up. Ms. Phelan said
she lmew this was after the fact, but she £eli whai was being done in that area
was a shame. She asked if the City of Fridley didn't have any responsibility
to protect the environment. A1r. Boardman replied they did, and it would have
been up to the City Council at the time the £irst plats came in. He said the
City Council tried to realize some of the environmental problems on this; how-
ever� it would have been dif£icult when this came through to tell them they
had to do an environmental statement without the State EQC rules and regulations
to back them up. He added it was also pretty hard for the Council to deny som�
one use of his property, hut they could put restrictions on that property to
be as environmentally conscious of the property as possible,
Chairperson Harris stated that the City had spent a lot of time azd energy, as
did the developer, trying to work out a workable plan to save as many trees
and preserve the area as much as they could. He explained that they did not
� have the tools at that time that they had now to require Davironmental Impact
Statements. He further explained that didn't iake affect until the first part
�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 1976 Page 6
of 1974, and this plat had been in the works since 1970.
Mr. Bergman stated that the history actually went back about 9 or l0 years'when �
the entire 130 acre site of Innsbruck North both in Fridley and Tdew Brighton
was proposed for rezoning for multiple family apartments az�d townhouses. He
said the people in the neighborhood fought success£ully against rezoning
efforts which would have converted the entire acreage to multiple family.
The people in the neighborhood were in contact with city, county, and state
agencies promoting all or part of that area as paz^k land to try to retain its
natural state without success. Mr. Bergman said it was rezoned about ten
years ago for the purpose that the developer now wants, so he felt that the
ecology effort should have been applied 9 or 10 years ago prior to its rezoning
for multiple family.
Mr. Peterson said that he thought they had to realize that probably everybody
at this meeting who owned e home had probably cut down trees to build that
house. He stated it was always easy to say that somebody else should preserve
their property in its natural state� and he thought that the Darrel Farr
Corporatiorr had been very cooperative in trying to do all they could to preserve
the be2uty of the area. He added that he felt it shoul@ be pointed out that
people did have certain rights to develop the property they ohned.
Mr, Farr stated that they had done as good a job as they could to maintain
the land. He said it was costly to develop, and because of that cost the
homes were more highly priced than comparable homes in other areas. Therefore,
he continued, they had to have some competitive advantage from a business �
standpoint� and that was the trees and ponds: He added that they did dedicate
a site to the City of Fridley for park purposes that oras larger than the site
they were presently developing for the villages.
Mrs, Schnabel asked if the two buildings that were being currently constructed
on North Innsbruck Drive would be models. Mr. Farr replied that the first two
buildings would be sold. He explained that the first building was intended
to be a model� but since the decision to incorporate double garages uas made
along with other architectural changes of a minor nature, the models 4rould
actually be block 19.
� Mr, Bullock stated he had a question concerning the road, Ae said that at the
last Commission meeting he attended he understood the road that would be
constructed between the divisions coming out on Arthur Street would be single
lane and would be angled to the North� and asked i£ this was still the case.
Afr. London said the road would be built to the letter of the agreement with
the City of Fridley.
Mr. Bergman said they had all spent a lot of time at previous meetings concerni.ng
the building plan, street patterns, setbacks, etc., and he was just wondering
how approval o£ this plan wou2d affect the agreement, stipulations, and negotiated
compromises that were made through the previous process. Mr. London said that
the agreement stands. He explained they were not asking for any changes in Lhat
agreement. Mr. Bergman then asked i£ the request could be rephrased to 1) include
a reduction in density from 100 units to 96, and 2) to merely relocate units
A and B from the previous plat. Mr. London said the only other change would be �
, �
��
�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 1976
Page 7
the land slot. He showed Mr. Bergman the plat and explained what he meant.
Mr. Robert T13rek, 5629 No. Danube Road, asked if somewhere in the City there
was a master plan that showed the way things were going to be. Mr. Boardman
said they had an over-all concept, but it didn't show where all the buildings
would be. Chairperson Harris said that they would have something on a11
buildings that were under construction at this time. F1r. 1�rek asked if he
could get copies of the letters that had been discussed, and Vras told he could.
Mr. Bullock asked if the direction of the road in question had been drawn
on any plan showing the degree of angling to the North, and T4r. Sobeich
replied that construction plans had not been drawn. h;r. Bullock asked how
they would be able to know when it nad been drac.m so they could express their
opinions� and Atr. Sobeich said the office could just take his name and iS he
was interested show him the plans.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration o? a preliminary plat, P.S. ,;�76-10,
Innsbruck Uillages Second Addition� by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation.
Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Aarris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 8:l�8 P•N•
t+Irs. Schnabel commented that one thing that had concerned he�Jbseerthinssthe
maintensnce of North Innsbruck Urive� and she xas now happy g
were moving along as approved.
MOTIOA by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of preliminary plat� P.S. �'76-10, Innsb:-uck
Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation: Being
a replat of the Eastern boundary of Tnnsbruck Villages Addition, described
as follows: That part of 0utlot A, Innsbruck North, lying Idest of a line
dratm From the most Northerly corner of 4utlot G, 7nnsbruck Villa�es, to the
most Southerly corner of Outlot A, Innsbruck Village and said line the^e
terminating� the purpose of the plat to allow for a more feasible distribu-
tion of the same number of units in the development� generally located horth
of North Innsbruck Drive N.�. and West of the Black Forest Apartment.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that the planning and zoning form did not show a£ee paid
for the request, Mr. London said it had been paid, and Ns. Boardman agreed
it had.
Mr. Bergman said he would like to suggest an additional statement to the
motion saYing "with the understanding that all stipulations and agreements w'�ich
were part of the previous preliminary plat recommendation be retained".
Mr. Peterson AMENDED the MOTION to include the statement by Mr. Bergman. Mi'•
Langenfeld agreed.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
� 5, PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF
f1AKS_ RV THF. RnTTLUND COAIPANY: B�
a
P.S.
� �� �> >s
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 1976 Page 8
1�� 15� lb and 17� Block 1� Spring Brook Parx Second Addition� together
with Lots 32 and 33, and Lhe West 30 feet oi Lots 3� �d 35, Block 10, �
Spring Brook Park Addition� zoned P.D, (Planned bevelopnent)� generaily
located between Ruth Street N.E. and East River Road N.E.� North of
Liberty Street N.E.
Mr. David H. Rotter of Rottlund Company was present.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Zangen£e2d� that the Planning Co.-unission
open the Public Hearing on consideration o£ a proposed plat, P.S. �76-07�
Rottlund Oaks, by the Rottlund Company, Upon a voice vote, all voting a;,�e,
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:55 P.TS.
Mr. Boardman explained this was a proposal for 13 lots o£f of a cul-ce-sac�
and the lot widtts at the 3�� setback c;�ere shocm. He said that Staff would
suggest a lot be dropped to bring it up to what the code recuire:�ents �ere
for lot widths, and also to make the lots more salable.
Mr. Peterson asked if all of the lots met the rninimum area requi:eMent� in
terms of square £ootage� and Mr, Boardman said he believed i':�ey 3id. He
explained that lot 7 was a 50� lot that had an e.xisting house on it. f:r.
Boardman said that they were asking a lot be dropped because although the lots
might meet the square footage requirements� in order to meet the 7s' caidth
on the lot it may be required to have a setback of 1�0 or !;5 f�et.
btr. Rr�tter stated that �hey ;Jere not trying to increase the nwnber oi' icts �
over the original p1an; ue said that in this area with tihe original st:eet
patterns there iaere the same number of lots. Ae explained t::e reasor, for
platting it this way was because of the unusual terrain of the property
and by pulli.ng the cul-de-sac back up they were forced to reduce the lots.
He stated they would like to leave these lots as they rrere buildable.
Chairperson Harris read the following letter to the City o£ rridley °lanning
Commission from hlr. Rotter� dated October It� 1976:
We �rould like to briefly explain our position in our reGuest £or
preliminar5 approval of Rottlund Oaks.
A£ter study on our part as to the topography of the area and neighbor-
ing property� we £elt the majority of this property would best be
suited for residential construction other than Lots 11, 12 and 13� of
Spring Brook Park, 2nd Addition, which we would use as a rmilti-fz:iily
area.
In the past� this property has been approved £or a 108 unit apartment
building. The high density use of this land would not be conducive
with the neighboring streets of Liberty and Ruth� which now is single
family homes.
In order for this property to be developed both economically and esthetically,
we are proposing the replatting of the lots as indicated in our applica-
tion and preliminary plat. The number of lots we are requesting on the �
replat is the same number of lots on the original glat.
Planning Commission Meeting - Octoher 6, 1976
Page 9
� F10TIOt7 by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
receive the letter from tir. Rotter to the Planning Commission dated October
4, 2976. Upon a voice vote� all voti.ng aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rotter stated that they were trying to utilize the property as economically
as possible� and were not trying to gain anything out of the property or pick
up an extra lot. He added that hope£ully the purchase o£ the existing home
would be made by the Rottlund Company. He said that they were also tne owners
o£ lots 1� 2, 3�d l� on the South portion of Liberty Street and were building
single family homes on this now. Hfr. Rotter said that as far as marketability
went as mentioned by Staff, he felt they were marketable this way and wanted
to hang on to all the lots they had.
2•;r. Peterson asked what Mr. Rotter�s plans were £or lot 7 if he purchased the
existing structure there. P4r. Rotter replied his intention was to resell� as
there was nothing wrong with the house.
HIrs. Schnabel asked why he was replatting from �he original plan to the one
presented at this meeting. h3r. Rotter explained that lots 1l�, 10, 9 and 8 were
practically unbuildable unless the entire area Nas filled. :ie said the cul-de-sac
would be at the top of a swale line that dropped about 18'� and that by pulling
this back up they could leave the majority o£ the trees. He e�cplained that
building on East River Road �rouldn't be as salable rrith the trees gone.
� blr. Bergman said he got the impression that every lot facing the cul-de-sac
was more than 9�000 square feet� and asked i1r. Boardiaan if ne had checked
the sizes. Air. Boardman said the lots were all in excessof 9,000 square feet,
and their consideration would be that no variar.ces be grented on these lots.
Chairperson Harris asked how far back the houses would be set from the cul-de-sac,
and Air. Rotter replied that on lots 3� 1t� 5 and 6 the houses h�ould probably be
back about Lt5'• Mr. Harris asked how £ar back the house on lot 8 would sit,
and Pir. Rotter stated that he would try to blend the houses so it r�ould look
like a neighborhood. Chairperson Harris explained that the City had an ordinance
concerning average front yard setbacks which alloxed� he believed, only a
6� deviation, bir. Boardman pointed out that on lot 8 Mr. Rotter coul3 deviate
the house back from the one on lot 7, and Pir. Rotter said he could also put
the garage toward the front to bring it closer.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the original plan dated back in 1967 there was some
discussion about commercial developnent. She sai.d they c�ere ignoring lots
11� 12 and 13� and asked if 31r. Rotter still intended to put a commercial area
in. FIr. Rotter replied he did not, and explained those lots were for multiple
purpose and not for commercial.
Mr. Howard Dumphy stated he was representing the owners of lot 1$ o£ block 1�,
Spring Hrook Park, and lots 32 and 33 and the 4lest 30' of lots 3�t and 35, Spring
Brook Park. Ae said these lots were being purchased by the applicant and they
vere xilling to go a].ong with the request, but in the event the purchase was
not consumated they felt the_replatting should not be considered,
�
r s 6
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 10
Mr. Azad Mesrobian� 29$ Ely Street N.E., asked for a definition o£ Planned Unit
Development. I�Ir. Boardman explained that required the developer to bring in a�
plar� showing how he would 3evelop the property, and the code required the
developer to appear before a Public Hearing and have complete� complex drawings
of what was proposed, He explained that Planned Unit Development could include
commercia2� residential� etc.� in a combination. Mr. Mesrobian asked how many
o£ these planned units were multiple dweilings, and h4r. Boardman replied that
N1r. Rotter was developing the lots o££ o£ Ely Circle into single-family homes.
Mr. Charles Sprafka, 280 Ely Street N.E., stated he wished to commend hfr. Rotter
and Rottlund Company for p�oposing the movement of the cul-de-sac away from
the street to preserve the beauty of the area.
Mrs, Schnabel noted that Mr. Boardman had recommended that the petitioner
give up a lot in the proposed plan� and asked•if there was some specific plan
in mind, Mr, Rotter explai.ned he had talked to Darrel Clark briefly about
this. He said that he did not wish to drop a lot in ihe area as he was trying
to onerate within the total number of lots originally platted.
Mrs. Shea asked if lot 5 was 100' wide, and l�r. Rotter said that lot was 75'.
Chairperson Harris asked if the lots would meet the miniimzm requirements for
width if they were at the 1�5' setback line. Mr. Boardman replied they would
in a27. cases except lot �7, where the existing house was. Afr. Boardman sug�ested
if this proposal was adopted th,t they would maintain a setback at some point
where they could build where the lot width was 75�, Chairperson Harris asked
Mr. Rotter if he would be willing to agree that the setback �,�ould be at 1y5� for �
a 75' width. h1r. Rotter replied that it depended so much on the lay o£ the
land. He said he,didn�t want to end up pushing the houses back into the area
and defeating the purpose of the cul-de-sac. He added that he would not
request a variance £or any of the lots as proposed as far as side yard setbacks,
Chairperson Harris said that the problem was they had a platting ordinance
that states that minimum lot width be %5' at the 35' setback line. He explained
that if they approved this plat as it was, they were in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Rotter asked if they were suggesting that a setback be maintained that would
give them 7$� at the building line� and Ffr. Harris said that was correct.
Mr. Peterson said they had heard neighbors commend NIr. Rotter for a plan to
save the ecology of the area, and they on the Planning Commission were trying
to force �1r. Rotter to accept a plan that would force him to destroy trees,
Chairperson Harris said he was not sure that was what they mere doing. He
stated they required that the location of the buildings be presented be£ore
they approved a Planned Unit llevelopment, so a11 that work would have to be
done ahead of time. t•1r, Peterson stated he understood that, but they did bend
the ordinances under certain circumstances and he thought that as a Commission
they sriould be listening to what the people in the audience were telling them
who were neighbors o£ the developer.
Mr. Spra£ka asked if it would be possible to obtain an Fhvironmental Impact
Statement that would have precedence over the local ordinance in this case
to waive that requirement, or if something could be done at State level. Chair- �
person Harris stated they could handle this as a Planned Unit Development where
_ -�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6! 1976 Page 11
the locations of all the buildings would have to be presented on a plan, showing
� contours and the Nhole layout before the plan was approved. Mr. Boardman
added that actually the Planning Commission could not waive any of the codes,
but could make a recommendation to the City Council.
Chairperson Harris said that Mr. Rotter could draw the houses on the plat to
see if the setback requirements would destroy the tress or if they wouldn't.
He added that the Commission should find out iS T!r. Rotter £elt that the
requirements would work a hardship before they recommended approval of the plat.
Mr. Boardman suggested a motion that would say Mr. Rotter would attempt to
maintain the 75� lot width at the building site location� and would require
a variance to this i£ that building location was any less than %5�. He said
that way the Appeals Commission could look at it, and he thought that in most
cases it wouldn't take the Jy5' to get the 75� width.
Mr. Rotter stated he r:anted to utilize the property as best he could� and there
were 60' lots in the area where homes had been built. He said that i£ he had
to push the homes back to 50 or 60 £eet� it might meet the letter of the law
but it might »ot be presentable as such. Chairperson Harris said thaL perhaps
he should determine where the 75' lines xere and sketch in a rough d:�elling size
and see how exactly they would £it in on the lot, Mr. Rotter said he would
eonsider that� but he had already done the Morth section of the area without
following this forriat. Mr. Harris said that apparently someone in the past
had decided not to follow the ordinance.
� Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Ratter what his plans here in terms of time, and Mr.
Roiter replied he would like to start construction on lots 5� 1 end 7 in a
very short time.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Langen£eld� to continue in tuo weeks the Public
Hearing on consideration o£ a proposed plat, P.S. //76-07, Rottlund Oa:cs, by
the Rottlund Compax�y� and ask the developer to bring in a sketch showing the
location of the buildings regarding the 75� rridth and setback requirenents.
Mr. Peterson explained that they really had nothing to go on at this ti:r�e, and
the sketch would let them ]mow iF they srere causing Pir. Rotter a hardship or
� not. 2�Ir. Bergman stated he thought they Were overburdening this thing. He
said he was sure that eventually r1r. Rotter would have to do what had been
suggested� but he was not sure that what would be done to show tY;e building
setbacks and %S' lot width at the building location would be that firm or valid
at this point as it would be at the time 41r. Rotter would seriously construct
something. He stated that he was impressed that one o£ the public benePits
of establishing continuity was not really that applicable around a cul-de-sac
as in a straight-line block. Mr. Bergman said he was recognizing that this
particular piece of land was causing some development problems, and was consid-
ering that the 75' width was really not that uniformly adhered to. Chairperson
Harris stated that in all new plats it was. Mr. Bergmaa said that it may be
adhered to on new plats, but not in building construction on presently platted
property. He said he was questioning that that requirement was legally
applicable in a Planned Unit Development, A3r. Harris said it was.
�
Planning Commissiorr Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 12
Mr. Peterson stated his first inclination wou2d be to vote for P4r. Rotter�s
request, but as the discussion went along he felt it was unfair to the Planning
Commission to vote without lmowing if it was one, two� or three lots that would �
be working a hardship on Mr. Rotter, and that was the reason for his motion.
Mr. Langenfeld added that what it boiled down to was that they were ju�t asking
that the Planned Unit Development procedure be followed to the letter.
UFON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rotter said tie wished to point out that the original development plan o�
this property rras for a 108 unit apartment building� which would have been a
disaster in that area. He said he didn�t want to completely go through tne
Planned Development procedure because of the length of time it would take,
but he was trying to better the property other than the previously planned
monster that was going to go there� and he wished the Commission would consider
that in their determinatior..
6. TABLED: COPISID'��'2ATIOiV OF RE20NITIG THE PD DISTRICT iPLP..IPIED DE`7ELOPMENT
Tabled at September 8, 1976 planning Cor,mission meeting.
Mr. Boardman explained that thi° item had to do with item 5, the proposed
p2at by the Rott2und Company, and suggested that this be continued in two
weeks also. �
MOTION by Langenfeld� secon3ed by Peterson� that the Flanning Conunission
continue in two weeks the consideration o£ rezoning the PD District in the
8110 ulock of East River Road to R-1. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye�
the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rotter said that item 6 was an item brought to the Commission by Sta£f,
and explained he was not requesting rezoning on that property,
7. PUBLIC HEAcZING: CONSID�.RATION OF A PRELTMINAHY PLAT ?.S. �76-09
DELIEc� ADDIiIO:I, BY DC;d:,?.D I•i. L�IER; Eeing a replat oi Loi 33� Auditor's
Subdivision tio 129� to allow the development of 3 R-1 lots (single £amily
dwelling area) and l� R-3 lots� (general multiple £amiiy units), generally
located in the 1500 Block between 73rd avenue tJ.E, and Onondaga Street N.E.
Mr, Donald Leier was present.
MOTIO,I by Peterson� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission open
the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. �f76-09, Deleier
Addition� by Donald M, Leier. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:1t5 P.M.
Mr. Boardman directed the Commission to 'turn to page 72 of their agenda and
pointed out the general location of the area. He said there were plans that �
Planning Commission Meeting - October b, 1976 Page 13
� 73� would go through that property and connect up to Onondaga Street. He
explained that this was an existing plat from Auditor's Sub, and what rras
being requested was a replat of that Auditor's Sub. He stated that page 73
shoWed what was involved, and said at this time Mr. Leier was planning on going
with single family homes in the R-3. r�. Boardman said that if an apartment
unit was allowed in there as it was according to the zoning, he would suggest
that a stipulation be made allowing no access to %3� St, He brought to the
Commission�s attention a memo from Tom Colbert dated October 5� 1976 concerning
the watermain� sanitary� and easements in the Deleier Addition.
Mr. Leier said he bought the property not knowing of the platting� and £ound
out Lakeside Road was supposed to extend to the cul-de-sac. He said he had
invested in this and would have to go ahead riith it. Mr, Leier said the lots
were not 75' wide, but 72.25' wide, and it yras a tough situation. He 2dded
that this was an area where large homes would not be built, and the square
footage on the smallest lots were 9,970 £eet and and the largest xas 11,000
square feet.
Chairperson Harris asked i£ the area designated as R-3 was all one parcel now�
and was told it was. He asked i£ Pir. Leier proposed to split that into £our
sections, and Mr. Leier replied he did i.n order to have a wider range of
possibilities £or it, i•1r. Harris asked hoia large the total ?t-3 parcel was,
and Mr. Board.man said it laas getting close to lt0�000 square feet. A'"s. Harris
asked how many units that would hold� and i•.r. Boardman repliec about 16.
� Mr. Harris asked if there were any problems with any o£ the lots in the R-1
area, and rfr. Boardman said there were not.
Mr..Peterson asked if he understood correctly that Staff had no problems �i.th
the petitioner�s request with existing codes, other than the stipulation for
the egress onto 73�. Mz'. Boaz'dman said that was correct, an3 he didn't have
a big problem i+rith that area going either R-1 or R-3. He said if it went R-3
he would suggest all traffic be connected-to 73rd. He added it rras even
possible £or half o£ that to go to R-1 and half go to R-3.
Karen Eggert, 7351 Pinetree Lane, N.E., asked if the plan called for 73'z to go
through or if it would stop right there. Flr. Boardman explained the road would
connect, and suggested that should be a stipulation. He added that he had
contact with the owner of 2180, and his intent over the phone tiaas to go for
a lot split 13orth and South, and he would be coming in to apply for that so:ne
time next xeek. However, he said, he still felt the stipulation for easement
should be connected to this plat in case he didn't apply £or the lot split.
Mr. Sobiech interjected that in order to achieve the integrity of the future
development that was planned �here� it was the City's intent io ma;ce that
connection, and in order to make that connection they r�ust maintain that
easement. Chairperson Harris asked i£ the City would require these people to
acquire the easement� and P7r. Sobiech replied that was their intention. He
explained that to this date they had had the developers acquire the easements,
and it was not unusual. •
John Eggert� 7351 Pinetree Lane, N.E.� stated he lived on lot /(3� and in talking
-� to the neighbors around the area they agreed they would like to see the area go
R-1.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 1�
Mr. Leier said it was his intention for the City to do this work and assess
him for it. He said he also contacted the owner of the apartment adjacent on �
the Eastern side� and that person also owned the property where 73'z would go
straight East� and he was interested in doing something there, too. hir. Leier
asked 9.f, for example, the City would take over the curbs, street, sewer, etc,,
if they would couple that bid with others in the area. Mr. Sobeich replied
that they tried to incorporate street projects with the annual city street
improvements� and would hope£ully get the lowest possible bid for construction.
He added that sanitary sewer and vrater would be another bid, but they',tried
to combine as much as possible to get the lowest possible price.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the
Public Hearing on consideration o£ a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-09, Deleier
Addiiion� by Donald N,. Leier. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 P.P1.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if they were approving a replatting into four separate
lots of that R-3 section for the purpose of those parcels eventually being
built on as R-1 property. Mr. Boardnan said he rras sure that was what t•tr.
I.eier�s intention was. ,Irs. Schnabel then asked why they would not rezone
at the sar2e tzme they rep]aL� and 2�s. Boardman answered because R-1 could be
built on R-3 property. -
Mrs, Schnabel stated that the lot size bothered her. She said that she had
s�me problems going along with replatting with lots of that size since they
were trying to be consistent in the City to maintain 75� widths. I�4r, Boardman '
po�ted out that it would be diFficult to do it any differently. Mrs.
Schnabel said she didn�t have the magic answer, but felt it would require a
variance at the time it was built upon, rir. Sobiech stated that a variance
would not be necessary if the plat was approved as such,
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. �76-09, Deleier
Addition, by Donald M. Leier: Being a replat of Lot 33, Auditor�s sub-
division No 129, to allow the development of 3 R-1 lots (single family dwelling
area) and Lt R-3 lots� (general multiple family units)� generally located in
the 1500 Block between 73rd Avenue N.E. and Onondaga Street N.E, with the
following understandings: 1) That street easements to complete 73z Street and
its intersection of Lakeside Road will be completed� and 2) That if £he R-3
property is actua�Zy deve7.oped £or multiple family� that access not be of£
73� Street. Upon a voice vote� all voting ayea the motion carried unanimously.
8. LpT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #76-08 BY MR. & P1RS. KENN?�'TH GASPER: The purpose
o£ the lot split request was to split off feet o£ front footage o£ Lot
8� Block 1� Holid�y Hills Second Addition� and make it a part of Lot 9,
Block 2� Holid�}* Hills Addition� but the request now includes other
properties listed on their deed that has never gone through the lot split
procedure by the Ciiy. .The complete request is as follows: That part of
Lot 8� Block l� Holiday Hills Second Addition� described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Easterly line o£ Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills
Second Addition,, said point being located 97 feet Southwesterly of the �
�n
Planning Cortunission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 15
Northeast corner of said Lot 8, a distance oS 99.�5 £eet to the most
� Southerly point of said Lot 8, thence Northwesterly along the West line�
a distance of 75 feet� thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning�
AND, that part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hi11s Addition described as
follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, that
point being 15 feet Northeast oF the most Southerly corner of said Lot B�
thence Northuesterly along tne Southerly line of said Lot 8, a distance
of 137 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 8, thence South-
easterly to a point of beginning, all �o be part of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday
Hills Addition, the same being 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E.
Mr. Kenneth A, Gasper was present.
Mr. 3oardman explained to the Commission what areas they were dealing with�
and said that i�:r. Gasper was requesting a lot split o£ an additional SS'£rom
Holiday Hills Second Addition. Ae said that since this lot split had never
been approved by the City� that should be done at this time also. Ae stated
that the petitionsr did have the approval o£ the property owners on each side,
Mr. Gasper explained that his children played on that particular piece of
property, and he had wanted this lot split for some time. Ae said that to
look at the geography of the property, it looked like it belonged to his lot
more than Lot 8, Block 1.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by 3ergman, that the Planning Commission recomnend
� to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. /#76-08, by hir. & Mrs. Kenneth
Gasper: The purpose o£ the lot split request r�as to split off 55 £eet of
' front footage oi' Lot 8� Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and make it
a part of Lot 9� B1ock 2� Holiday Hills �ddition� but the request now includes
other properties listed on tneir deed that has never gone through the lot spiit
procedure by the City. The complete request is as Follows: That part of Lot
S� Block 1� Aoliday Hills second Addiiion, described as follows: Beginning ai
a point on the EasterZy line of Lot 8, Block l� ;ioliday Hills Second Addition�
said point being located 97 feet Sout:^.westerly of the Northeast corner of
said Lot 8, thence Southeasterly along the East line oF said Lot 3� a distance
of 99.65 feet to the most Southerly point of said Lot 8� t?�ence Northwesterlv
along the West line, a distance of 75 feet� thence Northeasterly to the point
of beginning� AND, that part of Lot 8, Block 2� Holiday Aills Addition described
as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8� that point
being 25 feet Northeast of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 8� thence
Northwester],y along the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a distance of 137 feet to
a point on the Westerly line of said I,ot S, thence Southeasterly to a point of
beginning� all to be part of Lot 9� Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, the.same
501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E.
Mrs. Shea stated that for personal reasons she wished to abstain. UPON A VOICE
VOTE, Harris� Bergman� Langenfeld� Peterson and Schnabel voting aye; Shea
abstaining� the motion carried.
9, IAT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. �6-09 FY BENEDICT NOVAK:
� Split off the Southerly 102 £eet of Lot 3, Auditar's Subdivision No, 7%,
subject to 9 foot road easement 71� Way N.E., to create a new building site,
�--:+
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 16
the same being lla5 71� W�y Td.E. (The address of Mr. Novak's residence will
have to be changed when a build_ng permit is taken out £or construction on �
the new building site).
Mr. Benedict Novak was present, and stated he wanted to take off 92 feet,
not 102.
Mr. Boardman explained that this lot split request oaas tentatively granted
by the City Cbuncil when ro�dway easement was given up by t�1r. Novak to allow
development of 8 lots, He indicated to the Commission where the property
was located on the roap on page 82 of the agenda. 2•4r, Boardman said Staff
would reauest the lot split be no less than 89� and that 9� of that would be
required £or roadway easement. He said they would also request that the 1ot
split be no closer than 10� to ihe present structure, Mr. Novak said he had
had his property surveyeda and the lot split would be 8' South of his fence,
and the fence was over 10� £rom the existing house,
Mr. Bergman questioned what could be made out of a 9' street easment, and r]r.
Boardman explained they had a present road easement there now� and an
additional 9' would make it a standard size. Pir. Sobeich added that the
additional 9' would make it 1�2', which would be consistent with the adjacent
property.
Mr. Board:man said that the City Council allowed him only one lot split� so
a7.though the lot to the South was large enough for another lot split� the
Council said only one would be allowed. It had also been agreed, he added, �
that the property would be split by a simple lot split instead of platting.
ASOTION by SchnabeT� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission recorimend
ta Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #76-09, by Benedict Novak:
Split off the Southerly 92 feet of I,ot 3�y, Auditor�s Subdivision No. 77�
subject to 9 foot road easement 711glday N.E.� to create a new building site,
the same being 145 71� Way N.E, Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimously. ,
Since representativ� of Anoka County were preseni to discuss East River Road,
Chairperson Harris suggested deferring Item l0 until after Item 11 on the
agenda.
MOTION by Bergr�an, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission take
the receiving of the Community Development minutes as Item 11-A. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
11. RECEIVE FRIDL�Y ENVIRONt•IENTAL QUALITY COhII•?ISSION b,INUTES: S]
21, 197
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Petersott� that the Planning Commission
receive the Fridley IIlvironmental �uality Commission minutes of September �
21� 1976. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously.
��,
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 17
� MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the East River Road Project Committee report.
Mr. Sobiech stated that Staff and representatives from the County were not present
to respond to the minutes� �t to perhaps provide additional information to
the Planning Coirm�ission that night help them when considering the minutes of
the Environmental Quality Commission.
Mr. Boardman stated that the recommendation £rom the Environriental Comnission
was threefold: 1) the approval of the Project Committee report, 2) the
recommendation of designation by the Fridley Parks and Recreation Commission
for the East River Road as a parkway and establish controls by ordinance as
the Fridley Parkrray System for its social and environmental significance� and
3) the reco�unendation ihat the Planning Commission and City Council set a
moratorium on project 5T 75-3. He added that he thought the main thing at
this meeting for the County would be the moratcrium issue.
Mr. Sobiech stated that first of all� it should be realized that the project
as it ex'ists now is not something that was just starting� but sonething that
the previous Council had already ordered in. He said that back in 1970 and 1971
there were Public Hearings, and the resolution was made ordering the improve-
ment of East River Road from I-691t to Aiissiseippi Street. He said that at that
time this was the normal procedure to Follow for an assessment type impro��ement;
so they were not beginning something at this stage, but tryir.g to complete
� previous direction given by Council. Mr. 5obeich stated that at this time
there was a remaining section to be completed. He said that durir.g the Public
Hearing phase of the original proposal� there Vrere three Public Hearings held
to receive input fron the area re�idents. Based on those three Public Hearings,
he said, there xere some real no3ifications to the original plan� and based
on the input revised plans were prepared and the project improvenent was ordered
in.
Mr. Sobiech continued that at that initial time there was some Federal funding
applied for and approved for that section; but Hith the nodifications t:�at
were suggested and implemented based on the Public Hearings� the Federal peopie
could not iluid the revised project. He said that what developed at that time
• was a stage-type construction, and the Federal people indicated they could
participate in a dif£erent program for the improvement of East River Road at
ASississippi Street and a few blocks either way. He said that was Federally
flu�ded and that set the stage for the construction stage as it was now. He
added that once the Topics Project was completed� then the City got pressure
from the property okners to conplete the next stage at the Georgetown area.
He said they then proceeded with the next stage of the improvement and the
County and the City liad to provide their own fluiding £or the completion that
had been done over the past several months. All that remained now, he said,
xas one remaining section about four to six blocks long, He stated that the
City Council and the County still wanted to receive the input from the project
committee, because they felt that any input was good.
Mr. Sobiech emphasized that the improvement that had been made and the i.mprove-
� ments that they intended to make were for safety factors. He said they did
not intend to increase the traffic lanes; £our lanes of tra£fic xere initiated
in 1955 or 1956 and had been that way ever since. He stated they hoped to
increase safety for the people travelling along East River Road and for the
a�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 18
residents to get on to East River Road. He said that with the section that
is proposed, they anticipated four lanes, shoulder sections and turning lanes, �
and their main objective was to get people on and off the road safely.
Mr. Sobiech said that,this project was pending. Because o£ the fact that
certain homes had been built since the project was initiated and certain
home, had changed hands, there had been a lot of escrow money that had been
aside for this improvement,. He stated that another reason for the completion
of this project was they felt that now rrith the completion of the Aiississippi
underpass there would be a de£inite traffic pattern established ti�rhereby a lot
of Fridley residents would use that roadway. He explained that a traffic
count taken at the Tdorth boundary line was about 10,000 to 12,000 cars per
day� but the count taken closer to I-69iy reached 27�000. He said they felt
there was a considerable amount of use being made by this section of East River
Road by general area residents rrithin the community� so not only were they
trying to emphasize safety� but also allow a means £or other area residenis
to get through the area safely. He stated he felt the Project Committee should
be commended on all its work� gathering data� and coming up with their plan.
Mr. Paul Ruxi, County Engineer, and Mr. Bud Redepenning, Assistant County
F�gineer introduced themselves and said that they were at the meeting primarily
to answer questions. Mr. Ruud stated that there was a netu program of Federal
fluiding for transportation in the urban area� and all agencies put project
renuests into the hopper and they were prioritized. He said that the project
on East River Road they were talking about did survive that prioritizing. He
added that their preliminary report iaas called a project development report, •
and it had been submitted to the State Highw�y Department las£ week; it r�ould
be reviewed by the State Highway Department and the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, h1r. Ruud said that based on other projects they felt it would be
approved, and would not need an�'tvironmental Impact Statement,
Mr. Ruud said that the County had several meetings with Mr. Faripovich, and
they did not feel that his request that this be turned into a parkway or two-
lane facility was very realistic, although he was sure it would be nice for
the people living along the road. He explained it had been used quite extensively
as a four-way facility. Mr. Ruud added that there was one facility in Fridley
that is now used as a two-lane facility that had heavier use orginally, and
�that was Old Central Avenue. He said he thought that biississippi Street North
of East River Road was a difFerent situation, and they didn�t have any plans
to do any specific work on that with the exception of one improvement o£ the
intersection of Osborne Road and East River Roa3.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that it definitely was not the intention of the Fhviron-
mental Quality Commission to embark in a lengthy argumenti, and he assumed that
everyone on this Commission had read the preliminary recommendations from the
East River Road Project Committee. He said that at this time he would like to
ask the Chair to recognize the Chairperson of the East River Road Project
Co�tittee� Mike Paripovich.
Mr. Paripovich stated that he £elt the report from the Project Committee went
over the objections and he thought the Committee offered some argument. He
said that the file ST 75-3 went back six or seven years� and the people who �
Planning Commission Meeting - October b� 197b Page 19
lived in those residential areas understood that the entire issue had been
� dropped� they hadn�t realized this was still on the burner. He said those
residents were very much up in arms aboit this development to discovcr that
this wasn�t set aside but is an on-going project. He said that this should
be looked at because these people represented a good portion of the citizens
of Fridley, i•ir. Paripovich suggested they also make a good scrutiny of FAU
funds, and said they could use some help from the County on thaL. He said
he would li:te to find out their ground rules and what their funds could be
applied to.
Mr. Paripovich said that as far as the Pro,ject Comnittee's plan versus the
County plan, there was only one main diFference as they interpreted it. He
said they praised the County plan as it would improve the safety o£ the road,
and shoulders, medians and more signals rrere needed. Where they differed from
the County plan, he said, was they were asking for one lane instead of two
going in each direction. t•:r: Paripovich had a copy of a report given him by the
City Engineers which showed the traPfic projections £or 198o and 1990 projecting
a decline in the use of East 3iver Road and a very dePinite increase in trunk
highway 65 with a less pronounced increase in tru nk high.:ay 1t7. He stated that
for that portion of the road they were discussing, the projections were only
9,000 cars a d�y. I�Ir, Paripovich said that by improving the road and widening
it at the least 32 feet, which the County�s plans called £or� it would take
a garage and a lot of property. He again reminded the Commission and the
County F1�gineers that they kere dealing wit!: people who thought this whole
matt�er was close3. He stated that i£ this was done, and then the Northtown
� Corridorand the bridge ca*�� along, they would l:ave an obsolete expanse o: hignwa��
on this side of the river. He said that what they did need uas shoulders, a
center median, places ror peorle !o walk and the ability :o: cars to travel
unencumbered do•an the road at a sa£e speed. He added that they also wanted
to lower the speeds, but understood that had no connecticn with the proposed
expansion of the road. He stated that i£ the Project Comnittee's plan became
a physical reality� they would have one strictly unencumbered lane. He said
that if they opened those areas up to accommodate more trafFic through that
underpass across the railroad tracks, they would be inviting traffic to come
over,
Mr. Paripovich stated that assuming the FAU end of this could be solved� he
wasn't sure if Lhere would be an impact on the fiscal area of the project; but
it seemed to him that if the road wasn't expanded, and if what was already there
wasn't torn up, it would be a good deal less expensive. Fhnds had already been
set aside for part o£ it, he said, and i£ the FAU went along with this plan
it would be more economical and better £or Fridley� and would have no adverse
affect for the County.
Chairperson Harris said that he vould like to see a layout of the present plan
by the County, and P1r. Redepenning showed a map to the Commission and explained
what had already been done and what they xere proposing. Mr. Paripovich
showed the Commission a map of the Project Committee�s proposal, and explained
it xas just about the same except there was only one lane going in each direction.
He said he would like to change the concept Srom a blazing highway to a busy�
� well-defined thoroughfare.
Mr. Ruud said that as an E2�gineer, there xas no wa,y he could recommend rtr.
Paripovich's proposal. He said it would be carelessness on his part� as there
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 1976
Page 20
were standards that they had to follow. Mr. Paripovich said that the only
area they differed on was the safety� because the County thought the Project
Committee's proposal would cause accidents and he thought it would prevent �
them, Mr. Redepenning said the Committee�s proposal would cause accidettts
because they were trying to funnel four lanes of traffic down to two, and
there would be a bottleneck.
Chairperson Aarris asked what would happen to the amount o£ traffic on this
road if something could be done with lower University Avenue. h9r. Ruud
said that he was sure that discouraged a lot o£ people from using 47� and the
same was true rrith bs going into Central. He added that another thing that
would help �,*ould be the bridge across the Northtown Crossing, but there was
a sixty-million dollar price tag on that project, and nobody knew when it
would happen. 2ir, Harris corti-nented that the reason most people used East River
Road was because it was a st:aight shot into downtown P7inneapolis.
Mr. Bergman said that he was impressed with one part of the project report
in particular, and that was the comparisons of signalization on East River
Road as compared to University Avenue and Central kvenue. FIe stated that
the comparison said they were apparently discouraging traff?c on 65 as a
thoroughfare� were discouraging traffic on University Avenue, and had the
least amount of discouragement on East River Road, He said that what the
Project Conunittee was talking about 4rzs reducing tra££ic, and he didn't see
where the County plan a3dressed that. Chairperson Harris stated that as he
saw it� what they were trying to do was handle this as a County affair, and
he didn't believe that the total traf£ic picture was totally a County problern. �
Mr. Redepenning pointed out where there were signals along East River Road
as compared to 65,' He said that each time that a signal was ins+alled� though�
there was a configuration where the traffic concentrated at that point. He
stated that £rom Mississippi Street south, there were as many signals as on
It7 or 65. He continued that one of the reasons there was a traffic buildup
was the main focus of the plan for the metro area of the strong downto*.an
Minneapolis and strong downtown St. Paul, He stated that people had to get
there� and what they Pound on this stretch o£ road was not unique in Fridley.
He said a ring could be drawn around the Twin.Cities and the same thing would
be £ound on every Feeder that was going in. He said there had been a basic
decision made that people had to get doomtown.
F1r, Bergman asked what the cost would be to finish tnat section of the road�
and Mr. Redepenning said it would be about $1t00;000 to $$00,000, Mr, Bergman
asked if that included furiding from Federal� County and City along with
property assess^�ents, and Mr. Redepenning said that what they meant by the
City's share was the assessments.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the speed limit was the same on East River Road as
it was on 65 and �7, and was told that the speed limits varied. Pir. Bergman
safd he could only see one dramatic difference in the`two plans, and that
was the number o£ lanes. He asked iS it wasn�t possible that the project
committee's plan to narrow down and attempt to restrict the volume of tra£fic
�
a� �
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 21
� on this road would be more applicable after the pressure was relieved by the
Northtown Corridor than at this point in time right prior to additional pressure.
Mr. Paripovich responded that the problem Nas once the improvements had been
made� they would be such a permanent thing they would be there for a long time.
Chairperson Harris said that statements had been made in the 1971 hearings
that this was 5tage 1. Y.e said a study had been done from 6911 to the creek�
and that was the section that was proposed for improvement; then when that .
was completed, it would be continued from the creek to the Northtown Corridor.
He commented that he thought this was just Stage 1.
�Ir. Langenfeld said he had several comments to malce, but would like to preface
them by reminding the gentlemen who �rere present that this was a controversial
problem, and would be even more so by Plywood riinnesota. He stated that £irst
off� the citizens were not avrare o£ siages as discussed; secondly� ii was his
opinion that the intention of the Project Cormriittee was to divert the tra££ic
to the major highways such as 65 or 1�7� and thirdly� as far as being realistic�
:Hike 0'Bannon himself supported this idea and stated that if they were going
to do something like this they had to start right here at home. Mr. Langenfeld
suggested a noise and pollution report be obtained, as he t?�ought tha.t would
have some bearing on the project. bir. Ruud said that it was their opinion
at this time that their statement would be accepted that their plan was not
adverse. He added that there wE�e four lanes of traffic in there now, and
� they would just be upgrading an existing facility and trying to make it sa£er.
Chairperson Harris asked horr a speed limit was determined, and Mr. Paripovich
said that he had checked to see xhat tre criteria was for reducing a speed
limit. He stated that the most important point was a r23ar check was set up
to see what the average speed was� the reason being they wanted the motorists
to show them what they thought the speed limit should be. He added that
the number of schools� hospita7.s� drivewa}rs, etc.� were also taken into
consideration. He stated that East River Road had everything that indicated
the speed should go down, except that people insisted on driving fast on that
road. Mr. Paripovich said that because o£ the situation there were two groups;
one said they had to move traffic through town, and the other group said they
lived there and the County�s plans wonld be destroying their neighborhood.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously to receive
the East River Road Project Committee report. .
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Schnab2l� that the Planning Commission
receive both plans from the Anoka County and the East River Road Project
Co�ni.ttee. Upon a voice vote, aIl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ASOTION by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that
a moratorium be set on ST 75-3. The notion died for lack of a second.
?Ir. Langenfeld stated he would like to indicate for the record that he
appreciated all tne information they had received as the result of the East
� River Road problem. He said they had heard StafS's comments and Anoka
County's comments� and he wanted to emphasize the fact that,they had established
R .K
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 22
these committees to get citizen input. He stated that the East River Road
Project Coimnittee was established in accordance with the Commission's ordinance �
and had done a fine job, and he wanted.to underscore the fact that what they
had before them as far as the report was concerned was the citizens' concern.
Chairperson Harris sai.d that with regard to Plywood Niinnesota� trying to solve
a traffic problem with a billboard wasn't his idea o£ good ettgineering._ Mr,
Sobienh said that the County was in favor of closing one section of£, but the
merchants were opposed, Mr, Ruud stated they could close the Northern access
off if they got some encouragement from the City o£ Fridley to back them in
that, Mr. $oardman added that until the time the City Council decided they
wanted to close that North entrance, he didn't think the County could do anything.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 12:06 P.P4., and reconvened the meeting
at 12:30 P,M.
Chairperson Harris noted that there were three items they should address
themselves to under #11 on the agenda, receiving the Fridley Environmental
Quality Commission minutes of Sept. 21, 1976: '
a. Recommendation from
a
Mr. Harris pointed out that this item had been handled by Fir. Langenfeld�s �
motion proposing the moratorium, which died for lack of a second,
c. Recommendation on the East River Road project Corruaittee Report
MOTION by Shea� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission send items
b and c to the Community Development Corunission, Human Rssources Commission
•and Parks and Recreation Commission £or their comments. Upon a voice vote,
a21 voting aye, the motion carried iananimonsly.
Mr. Peterson said that at the Iast Planning Commission raeeting he attendec2
there had been a lengthy discussion concerning procedure of Project Committees
and whether the East River Road Project Committee was operating as.a Project
Committee or a citizen's committee, whether it was operating within the frame-
work set up by the ordinance and if it was receiving direction from the
Blvironmental Quality Commission. He added that as a Chairman o£ a Commission
he was a little concerned as to how this was being handled and i£ they were
operating within the framework they were supposed to be.
Mr. iangenSeld replied that it was his impression at the time that particular
conversation took place, there was concern that perhaps this Project Committee
�
'�.
Planning Cormnission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 23
� was going to sky rocket in all dif£erent directions and there would be a group
of irate citizens up in arms. Ae sald that he attended several of the meetings
and found they were very controlled and oould find no way the Committee was '
operating out o£ the scope oY the City plans.
Mr. Peterson said that the cottunent had been made that the East River Road
Project Committee was going to be checking on funding available and this.
type of thing, and he rras not sure that £ell within'the scope of a Project
Committee's jurisdiction or if this was the proper direction for thcn to go.
2•`x. Langenfeld commented that he thou�ht they �hould seek all the information
they could get relating to this particular project. Mr. Peterson asked if
they were speaking for the Planning Commission or the �vironmenial �uality
Commission� and Mr. Paripovich said he would like to answer that. ?3e invited
all the Cormnission menbers to attend the neetings� and said he would be glad
to answer any questions they had. iir. Paripovich said that ior this project
they had had to gather information and really research it, and to do that it
was necessary to go to County Government, etc. He said that in talking to
the funding people� he would only be asking them for criteria, and wouidn't
be masquerading as part of the Fridley Staff or anything else. 3e stated that
in addressing these people had had only said he was part of the Fridley
Fhvironmental Quality Commission Vrorking on a subcommittee project to gather
information for this. He said he never pretend.ed to be an�body who represented
the City Council or the Planning Corimission� and had taken great pains not to
do that.
� Mr. Bergman asked if the membership of the °roject Committee was made up entirely
o£ people living along East River Road, iir. Paripovich replied £hat they hacl
throrm the committee open to everybedy by putting a notice in the Fridley Sun�
and 'nad invited everybody to join the group. He said ttiat ihe members live
in the neighborhoods on either side of East River Road� and slnost everybody
lived West of the railroad tracks. Air. Bergman said he z•ras �,ondering if this
was true City of Fridley type input or neighborhood input with particular and
home-based interests on that street. Mr. Paripovich replied that of course
there was definite interest there� but they had tried to present all tne £acts.
Nr. Peterson asked if the East River Road °roject Committee r:as actuall,y
appointed and approved by the full D�vironmental C�uality Comr�ission� and A?r.
,Paripovich replied that the membership had never been approved� but it could be.
Mr. Peterson explained that in Parks and Recreation they ha3 gone thrcugh a
neighborhood recreation project committee type thing, and the;� were lead to ,
believe by interpretation of the ordinance that the members k�ere to be approved
by the Commission before it started. AIr. Boardman explained that mer�bersnip
approval was entirely ug to the Co.-mnission itself and it could� i£ they chose
to� conirol or approve membership, rir. LangenSeld said that when �fr. Paripovich
took the Chairmanship of the Project Cor.�mittee he was in sole char�e of the
committee. As £ar as he was concerned� he said� there was no rule or established
wqy that project committees were going to function. He stated that he didn't think
there was a set procedure, and just because one Commission handled it one way
did not mean that all Commission had to follow that.
� 11 A RECEIVE CAPL�il1NITY DBVELOPPIENT COAIMISSIOh DiINUTES: _ SEPTEAiBI'sR Il�, 1976
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 pa�e 24
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the
Communitf Development Commission minutes of Septemher 1l�, 1976. Upon a voice �
vote� all voting �ye, ihe motion carried unanimously.
A1r. Bergrnan commented that Cotnmunity Development had two Project Committees;
the Si�n Committee was nearing „rrap-up� and they would be reviewing the Bikeway/
Walkway activity program at the next meeting.
12, RECEIV� pPPEAIS COP�II�IISSION I°IINUTES: SEPTEhiBEFt 2Fi 1976
MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission receive
the Appeals Commission minutes oP September 28, 1976. Upon a voice vote� all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously,
pir. BoarcL�nan noted that there had been some cdnfusion regarding Air. Paschke's
requests, 2nd said he would have to give the Appeals Commission the standards
they used regarding this type of variance which ro�ere approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
Chairperson Harris said the thing that bothered him was that !t0% always seemed
to be the governing £actor� and those lots in the Onaway Addition� because of
the peculiarity o£ the situation, could not always hold i�0�. hlr. Boardman
added that it was the petitioner's right to have �t0� coverage only if he could
follow all the codes and regulaiions.
13• GONTINUED: REVIE;J OF PROPOSED MAIP7TEYANCF CODE
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Shea, to continue the review of the proposed
maintenance code until the next Planning Commission meeting, Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
14. CONTINU�: DISCUSSIOt1 Otd GARAGE REQUTR�•1;,NTS FOR SINGLE FAtffLY HOi��S
bfOTION by Shea, seconded by Peterson� to continue the discussion on garage
requirements for single family hor�es until the next Planning Commission
meeting. Upon a voice w te, aI2 voting �ye, the motion carried unaninously.
1S. CONTINUID: HU2�SAN Dh'VELOPt�fENT GOAIS AND OBJECTIVES
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� to continue the Human Development
Goals and Objectives until the next Planning Commission meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
16. MATE.TiIAL ON TH�' YOUTH CT�'�NTER
�
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission
receive the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center. Upon �
i �■
�
Plannin� Commission Meeting - October 6, 19�6 Page 25
a voice vote� all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission send
the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center to all member
Commissions for their review and comment. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris commented that they r�ere not getting much support frorn
the school districts on this. He said it seemed like the Schcol Board Vras
amiable to the proposal� but school staff was not enthralled with it.
17. RECEIVE PA_RKS AND RECP.EATIOi7 COMM!ISSION t1INUTES: SEP':"r^..•:?�'.'. 27 1976
hI0TI0N by Peterson, seconded Uy Schnabel, that the Planning Comrnission receive
the Parks and Recreation Cornmission minutes o£,September 27� 1976, llpon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURPPiENT:
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the meet=ng be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Cormnission meeting o£ October b, 1976 adjourned at 1:Oo A.P4. by unanirious
vote.
�'
Respectfully submitted,
��aa,rli ( % �rU'�rnn�-C�
• Sherri O�Donnell
Recording Secretary
�
� ;� �, ,
�
� �� � «� -
� �� �: � � .
€, ..,�, �'. y� ��-� - - a�.
�*''`�i w - � �
,: <t�� '� ..J- .�'f_':�
� �
L 'i
� f-
x£� oy T
�
g4y � y-� ^
� ' F
� �""�` � WF+}q.s"� "�' A � � . .:' . . . . �
� � �, x �
'� ��-� � � A �8S008CBS:.G�
� j : �`�
� -��< <.. 1�6
,� ,, �,�� �, �, " -
,, �" t;IG'1'OE�& 7," 1Yl�x -
,� ���''' � s�, �
�
.� £ ,i. „^1 .rc , �� , , . -
,�.
E: . ��
� r �- .,�• � . .
z� �-$'<_=e.
��';
� #4=
Kk��
�s1°iiaiGa �heg, itil�.ia� �t�t�j'G.�€`�►3xR:,'�ymch, Harold $elgum,
l�AS}+ 3.e�bert
Ihine
�l�.ed the -m�eiti�g: ta otder ai ,7;/+1? g.m.'
t-%
iE�s :'j?s�t� ad�i�}'to the a�,enda: ',,
� <.
.. '; liSii �T R�FEK' R(IAD PR[1iR(:'�' �-�. , -
- . •��l�nbl T�8 F�S AitTS:Q
f�' �, serao�clEd lt�r Grace Lyaeiz�
� ��;'� B}�on 6 v4fee-vote, a�l �o�ii
�. �^ '
.: Che Goal S�gtepeat .1330i1 wcn�ld-:itot-
1�sr . .
:�C� isi � �8� , �o D300,: t�e ,F`it� -Az
�.,r�q�s�s�_ tha�'the Fine A�te :�
�e �zeSra��tter:;iccwas out quar�e�°�y.�
�� Liu Pkt��i=Ciita �fieir act�.�tit�s�.,' $
�;
o�t the agenda with-the.
, the moti�a carrfed
bs':camiag up at the Plam►ing
� Gvumfttee had seat a
.Eae have space fn.Che,City
I'the Pine Arts Committee
: stated that, in t6e �:sst
� iittee's news,,and she assumes
� � � �
��� 3�e, dtd�c`k us�leratatn� P�st��;�eatiya D31D--the statPme¢i :
s�, ,�
�a�rti�t ke f�lt•sil the grogram ts�,j?�ct�'v�- could be gathered, up iuto
s�tti;
�
r-.�.a:w._:� .. � �;:;�� �.���. :"' , ' _ _. _-�.:. . �� _.. .___.,,__-.'�;
, .
, . . --. • .. -
, -. �.. �-- „ <:� . -.. . . . ..
�" . ., . — �- --- :`' x�.�}r _ __� - . . �
2�: _ : _`� �
�� �
//�� z-, :�
�( ���e -1 � ��'
� `�� q ".k
_ x�tr"` i+`D1�rrt,sszort ��p o�rOB$� i. ����s' ; r8$2 2
� . ,.
1`h�'3�ta �paoutcea 6t?�#ssi� rett,b'a�nded the �ai,loving �hacr�ea ia the Frogram �
E �., �
b��e�„t` +,ess _. ; , ,
Pro$r�m,t��c�.iardy� tl3��is Es�'lfa �' e ublic i��o�mac��° , ition
�� h, to �c i�h t�he g�al etatfem�a� attd
�, pY�. am� ��,ectivss. . . .
. . � . � . ;� � .
�� � .- .� �� � .�
�� ��c��� Pro�de €t�t ade�uats aad vieb�;e means of
;, arta;c� Sac� rc�dress ,�nd'�re�sonable
�. , acceas sct'the.affat�'s vf 1 a� ratk�er ;
� tbaa loc��suii},�aar��nme�t �or ali .citizens.
;� = = �< � !`
� �"��p: Prs�3de �'sff#ciemti method' �or Cke 1 ,l
_ �� gather�. e� �i#�se�nineti�i o� iAforuwation. 1
- �� � � . � ` �
t
� ��1: (io-oa-eteatt�}�2'�r+�aC• a �reate�-;�oopsration f ?
^��' and muts�aei.�rs�takading b8tvreen the
�` public, .�ii-.p�k'i�� ans} priv�te secCOrs
� �� oi �fie �i:eC3�tY.
'�
xn � �
� �5U: Maiitiai�=��l �tY tiya CikY I�evSleL�ex. �. 'I
` :� �
_Y� « ���t: Enhancaj�Yt�,ra�t�ma� �Ti�h ad�acent comwnntttes. �
�° " s �
. ,�� � �- �
. s'i' ' . . � � �:
���z#RFS����°AY�X� F� .
_ . ' , �. : - : ', . . ' . . . �, �.
�i{#d� by Nar'vId Be�.$�u� e��':�y Wi11fe�+�p�C, tt+ zeceir+€ t�e.�'�rEici:es af '
�r�r�'etit�c► �£ F��* Y��t�C�t�er." 1ip9a �t -�oiae-�taCe, all nro�in�-age�, Che
tn
'�' 'maEfan car`Y€ea unfn��usi�.�`` "� _" � � � � =- �
.._ r . 1
l�a� SH�a �ta��� that ;�he ��` �s�#tn ehou];d c�t oic. �the� ti�gez "Artic2es of
�tc�`a3�.tm" filY. Ehe "':±� r�tsould, are ��;�8 thistge thfft s�'h�?t��.Q' ir� a3zted, or I
�z��-ShouLd �'t}i}ie1�. „} : " ,
_ �
;��Esr eame 8#seus ,� � � itaa me�iets�'��'�t �%r"'�ers`noG queli£led to act �
#i the "A3`t3c.iee t+�`, �� at thf�! t� tittti.l iC is �,n a a�t1�e` reffned state. �
. ` � a �: ; �
3�'!i� �r� �����e" t, � X 9c��isy �asatd 8e��> tl�s6 the n4ttt3�les of Iacorp9r- �
. - a�Qtt;o� �i�d�ey Ya��t Cch �; , � gxeaeti�ed Co-'2he� i!� �fi€eiiocnCCe� Gbei�iasion, � �
e' �
Tt9 .9� . to the t�pora� 3� �F.axce of et� �e3d1�s y�nth Ce��� fo� furzfier
r�riYt�i�aent, sif�n�en�� �1 icatioiti, �rtd �t'-$�.danc� be ss�i�ht from the � �
�� �E�t l4r�oriiey� e�o `scc�mg�� � `�osie. lfpoit � el�tc�3s -+Ya�e, ,a11 VQt� age,� the� ��J'
� metfatt earzied aaa�ir�ou�T�,�: �
� �
�$rt �_..
�� � � m�.
"; r � . �. . �
��� �' } w
`. ,
� . # �`� 3 .. . } : �:'� �.
. �� �� d � # � - ..� ' �..'�
. � a M; � � . . �
. �. i�y e . � �.. �.c .'L.<.._ `�,�nm ., .� u,�e -v � .u"i . � '� . . � _. �'..if'� ... __ .� . ...:��.�``6.�.-a....x. .. .i
;
�:,
.. i�. �. F��-.
. ,n . _ ,
� -�
� 1�lISSI�i.l�iti�. ��� ' �ues 4" ` '
,� _
,���� �� �,:.�
. � . � ��.„�;.
�z 3,-� . . - _.
1. �x�
y ' v a'�
�� �� ��
,� � :�. �., 4 - ; .
�6at it is�'C ala+ays pe�s•ihle to i3a'f,� s�thiag every moath.
�'_ iy sha�ld ba Bcheduied fa�ch�qr,.apaaE� a�d be moze carefully
�,,�rs: i�reaeive.
�� �.... �� �
.��iti����:�3sa att�iddance. st �he :•fos�s ttas been very paor--vsually
�-�E�`.cL�eY.�h� the-;five G1�eln[s�h� �Ers. She.hates tasee
��tue3 �ee�ss af poor att�nd�tre;. #�nt. iC is discouraging to.do
�,�1.ave t�an�ge 1t�t4�?.up. Ske. fee�8 ,peoP��=�e tuo busy. She sug�e'sted
��#.+�, `13ke ���,n�� mighe:bsi�a& io►��'tseoPle•
��t�tats ,ia Lhwatk reg�rrnii, tha C,e�eqf,�o�iant-�lti set a certain data
E�n .�$#��ce wl�tb a apec�Fic puzgase 4� �ad .and then it could be
��� ��a� t�= usual thfrd ltiaesday t��a3r�y: m�Eh.
�-�?4tt: �cor��ed ]ty lissttld Be�a�•�t;the Humaa Hesou=�ea
���aean. ���¢a P�slit �o3�k a�>�u as-needed basis upon a� �
;�#ssi�n ;�pu � x�ite voLe, , a'�,Y .�*eit�ag ape, the aotioa casried
� �a -.- ,�
�.��<�RB�a - S,
,;
I�t`;C�t Ci� C�SSi�.has t$ce#.'{±ed �e Yrid�ey Sm.iYonmenEaY
r: �t."21, 7.�94",=�ating-sim�tL6q,�-�h� !;$ast $iver Road Project
-� � � .&�s�snd'a�i!tm to $�ley: $4'�3.ri�ws�tal �Co�isaioa". �Le_
��49�mfe8isan taas no� .s�ked. tp sul�o#,t- am�`�re,e�me�ations or 'retriew
,� �
�:: ..
ti� �h, Sec.e�ded �y ��ttcY �,aq�bezt, >��� the "East River Hoad
� PreJ��inPrg<��i+tom�adat1p14-tD Bt^13�'$av£ro�ental Cc�maissi.on^
�� fhe°.i�eext--�Svw�i $�+O�urCeB ��mfi6si�ial,tn�estia$. Upon a vofce vote,
k}L��3t, and Lmab�s�t ;�rvting a}�,--�att=vat�.ng aay> the uwtion carried.
����-CQ4�',,,�,e,1�: ,. �
F�e�_, ta C�u�,Como�#,ss3qu t�E the F,i�ae vlrts 6ao�ittee did a gYaq
��'�=y��e p`e��`s; the plaq,sEt�a��i§cl qver Sfl0 people. �n tfie
�; #�e F�e �t�ta_�orq�t,t�e 7� ag a3C�`:N�v ia conjunction with `the
��s4Yq. 4vrar 3d.ar�fsta � 1��-int,�he Gity of Fridley partici-
:�� :�s Fisi� Arta �nqaitt&e's,tfi�#s t�aii'g8rson, 4iaxy Martfa,
,w:&'t�l.:"a se�ie9 A£ ChT�e:>ct�erts, tlti� �i�CSL of 'which wiYi he Suddaq,
�Tb.s � 7.U8.p:.aa. 3n� the DiaLiGle�: �t�` H�gh) AuditaYiwa: �he.
irY�a:�oncet�a Wtil be "Music'::'�fi`��xg�,�d Ages��. The first_coucert
����:ea�ly�med#.eval�-i�rid ba�oque �st�- ThG ascond: c�cert rtill
� aAii t�" E�hh3rd'eaa�cert wiil b� �$; _ r 1477.
x : ; :.
.�.J. _ `R.� . . . _ . . ..
.�.1K.'�"i`.. v "i .. s 'Sr. i _-.- � c. -. � . . . . . � . . .
�, ,
� e. z.,nz . -5 � .
i4f-. �cca�t Y{ta�ed`t��#e �
tasEa�GiSllt,,�Ii� - €t �i[e��ta E+
����hea stated thaC'°�'1�e £,
ifit�t the Rtidley 7F�4ii�i ��i
Ms,. �yn�it r�€errezi xck si►'s
.�utsG#:c�-Sys[�sr. Tk�'�rt�t
s,�*etetn foi grantiag;.��rot�
u�ss±n: arfina� in pxi��►:- i�
� t�� aua,�cer verles xac�rdizi
bhis r.uq�bsr'apd cs�e,� che
BC�t�d ti°�t' i£ a javehi:3e `
Parale $o�tl knoW t:iz3� .
lfie.'I+ynCfi s�s'�ed t119�'tlie�+
th4$:=a juv�uike's s��r`d�`,.;
st��ed C[&=•6� aea€.8� st e
�e�ie�a t}�ey axe tte8�xc��t1
aY°e aea��ii, htns dcr� tlre 8
i��"� �duit and elf;gl;L�e f
liet. L3'�ch �eted t1� Gk�a-
a#tsuld �fsck eut. hov �eay j'
rti�sltS.oihs. a javeni2:�'��e �i
tr[�ia;. ia ps�$tioa �!� prt�
.�.
�r�t� t�y �$��ia $���; ��
Ce�s�ias i:nvite t�"; ��
�<�nt�ss�.a�a.mee�ingr .#�o't�e#�ti
i��tr tha'.I�rfdleg Fi�i�? q
1tea�ure�s C�iss3cri� �i°ti��:
�''�a3,ee.+�a[e, �21 �'iu��a
�e+. ��alteit s�ated t�tat, #:
�� 8es�ree�a Ccm�6�irnf
tnois�ut�aa�tx#' to see �s� St�
;�
�€iS8 CfHVT1NUAiiBk�� "�
�
Ma �;ytzeh. ��+�sd ti�� ��e .i
� ' a�[ �t#4s .keepi� ari �
{ �
3
"K
: �C
;�
,�
, .r �
i
E , . . <, . . . >� . i,
xe.:�`�rEicles �
Ht� ia sw�e ki,
G�� woula L�k
r' � the SApte
�.�'vith tlie S
i �}+stem is ea
,
� 28
E. �l�4.
E�ir � PBS� 3
Ciureo�d�3.on" have a laf 'of #he �'.
�£ a�Lr:.
i��"�r�tqd Hs. Lyi�ch fpr her work
��:6, i9TXi, 'R��ibTme �n t�e Sr3minal �
:� ' Parple-:��d at�d 'the new rsting `
;� :the "ma€ri3t" s.y8�i�m. Eaah ininate,
i�ntfstg �e �Ct�-he will serve;
�r�^e �e_-Eacturs; us�c! in determi.ning ;
ks �ith when t� ^�tes� V�ss a juvett%�.g, 1�fs: Lynch �
i�t`d� are seale��-a� ag�:38s'haw wdr�}.d the state k
. : ._: � � ° - .' . . . `
c�iqcussed juve»d.l�>ci�i�+ti�s $boue p pgar ago: and i
u�fosed co;be s' ee�e�� snd -t�tt �his-,�s�tYrds sre %
.,:'�f not destz�e&.: �. i,yA�h saf3 -she doasn't �
�"�esn't belie±�, t�e�=ate even ssal�ti. Ef' the records `
�ale Board`i�,"abtiu� t&eae ci�at�rons ozhen � persan ;I'!
ioa?
8�an shotyid �t ��_u�ttate �oA thfs ��r#�+st�. .They ;
�;ciLatits�is � #��3�g�gi.'v�n out sa� how u�nY ��- � �
��r�e he is es��f!-iu i�tbt�rer gs�� quastion is � `�
� �
rj
�d• by PFaney L�►a�t, 'E'�et the Ha�an �sqs�rces
�;",Fuhlic Safei�` ti�.x��ttrt, tA t1� �i�cS��uman Resousces ' �
��j76, for: a d��9s3.gxt on: the g��al contzibution 1
me�tt -may be aH��e;ba:�e to the d�e>�c af the Auman ,
a�4 updets ott-�Js?'�i[� Citation.,P3`ogram. Upor �
Ia4F<motion eax�e� �e8n�ou81Y- �'�
;�iF1 acc�pts �'�inviGatipn to attend ihe aext f
t�,- that the .�is��:c s�oetld be i�rvi:�ec}. She f i
Cs,pttblietzed:#u�the'Dew�p�ipQt's. � �
P�t7At: } . �
� @
�
�' � : , �
te," f�t was guod .�qs' 'the cv�unity to lmow xhat thg ` g
t '�iti;tgs . �.
� � ;
. � �>,
,;
_ ;
� � � .� ��'
_ i ,,
� �� ; � I
� �
� � . � t -. �-..
,. 'x z � �
.� . .:_ �,u °s,., -.. . ., .. .
.��.�. �� �. � :� � `. ��.. .� � � � ,
�
� � { i �
� : ;�.
, `� � *'",t �
;
' � �$�1�$- .CfJ!&�IS$ION MBB'tf�, OClt�BR � �� Page 5 �" °.
w. �- �
. .. �` , x � . .. a > ^ . . � . . . ... V i� e . . °n.�...�
a �, I r
0 J
tiy' .. ..I . . — � — . LL�" . ' -- 4�
. � . ��-: . ' :, x �.
K.. ja . . . .. � .
r �s. ��� S.�ated that the Fine Arts CrnmfCE�e �s.�cided to do two p18�a
�t�C yf���? '�i,rs;t one wi}1 be ia Januarq L3�� �t-the second one in S�pEr.mber
i�i� �;: Plsy cho��1-.is "Dracui�e[".
31s..�{;&�ateil Lhat the Fine'�4rts Cammittee w#1# �ave been ia operation far
a�e ��11 �r as a� [he first of 1lovember. Every �e of the 13 original;members
h#_a ��i,t►uqid as aetive membera sad four new aies�bex8 have been added, as well,
-,- ,$�i���.t��..as the Canmission knows, the Ce�ittee has asked for $1,OOU from the
' .����r�t€ �i��id'�ey-and $1,000'from the G�Qity Schoois. The $1,000 from Che City
4 �'. $�i��� haa g�te thraug,h.
-;�S7C. �cott�btought to the attention_of the Co�fasi�►.IDembers that; in an artiele
,� ��;-,�8-$un Newspaper receatly, there was a graat �3ren to the Anoka Sudicare
,�='t�=��t �t $St7,000 by the National Legal 8e�+t*#�es Corporatioa to test a
�#i�qrYynsy�t� mcsdel, which ie a-staffed attorney, in Judicare in this county.
��s•,is fus� otte tsf many delfvety systems ta be tesESd, a� Anoka was one=of
=6��a�#ea cotv�ties acress the couatry to be seleet!�. Apparently the National_
�� �e;�.Ece&:ls�oked at.Jtidicare,'s plau, thought 'it had �rit, and funded it.
r ±t- , - - - - ' ^
�`�_�; �;�ir ,1��,gt� s�ated h� had sent l�is tetter eatieled "tJ�at is a City for" to
� �•
� -�` _
'�,�k�,'liasold Belgum, secande� by-Grace Lyaeh, ta sdjaum•the meeting aC
��,--;i�p�q a Vpice vote, all votiag aye, the mOt#on carried unanimously.
����jcEia��y aabmistted,
.:s����
_. : E � � :
: ���� ��G����
fi _. .. . - . . � � . .
�,, ..
(�r• �
:>
� �.
�_
�.� � � � �
�
�� ~
, <apy . . , . � . . .
. j .-. � . . . � .
. . �} ° . . . . .
�
�.
j
:i
,
E ';
;
i
,,
,
.
'k
� Y
I
�
�
�
�
31
FRIDLEY APPEALS CCI�ASISSION i-IEETING
OCTOBER 12, 1976
MEi•IBERS PRESENT: Schnabel� Barna� Gabel� Plemel
MII•SBERS ABSENT:
OTH�HS PRESENT:
Kemper
Ron Holden, Building Inspection Of£icer
The meeting was called to order by Cnairperson �chnabel at 7:32 P.I':.
APPROVE APPEALS COA'II•ffSSIO;J i:InIITES: SEPT�:B�`? 28, 1976
Mrs. Gabel said that regarding page 16, parag:aph 1�� she tnought the last
sentence should be ch2nged to read t^:at Pir. hernper stated ne xould be in
favor of the motion, Ptr. Barna agreed.
MOTION by Barna� seconded by Gabel, to approve the minutes of the September
28� 1976 Appeals Cormiission meeting as amended. L'pon a voic,e vote� all
vot;ng aye, tae motion carried unanimously.
l.. REQUEST FOR VA�IAidCES OF THE FPIDLEY CITY CODB, AS FOLLOZ^7S: SECTIO:�
205•053� 4, A, TD Rr."DtiCr� TEn RE:.liIRED FIiO:dT YARD SSTBACK FROM 3S FEFT
TO 3�•9 FEET� kND, SECTION 20�.053� l�, (B,2) TO REDUCE THE REQUI�ED
FIVE FEET SIDE YARD FOP. AI3 r1TTA�'iID GARAGE, TO 0 FEET, TO ALIA`�F TAE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GAP.."-.Gi. TO AN F.XISTING D:•iELLING LOCATED OTd
LOT 6, BLOCK l� HERYJAL ADDITION, ?'HE St„•� BEI1dG 31t0 IRCNTON STREET N.E.�
FRIDLEY� tiINNESQTA. (P.equest b•,- David Swanson, 31x0 Ironton Street N.E.,
Fridley� hfinnesota 55432).
MOTION by Plemel� seconded by Gabel, to open tne Public Hearing. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye� tne notion carried unanimously.
ADbiINISTRATNE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIc���wNT:
Section 205.053, 4, A, requiring a front yard setback o£ 35 feet.
Public purpose served is to allow £or of£-street par�cing without
encroaching on the public right of xay. Also £or aesthetic consideration
to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's
front yard.
Section 205.053, !t� (B�2), requiring a minimum of 5 foot side yard from
an attached garage.
�:l �
Fridley Appeals Commission rieeting - October 12, 19?6 Page 2
a,.
32 Public purpose served is to provide space between individual structures
so as to guard against radiant heat which would spread a£ire from one
structure to another. It also provides su££icient access into the rear
yard £or emergency purposes. It also reduces the condition of overcrowd- �
ing of the resi.dential neighborhood.
B. STAT�D 3iARDSHIP:
This is the best alternatice in order to (1) save the kitchen window,
(2) maintain lower level bedroom on the blest side of the house, (9)
retain trees� landscape and creek surroundings on the West side of house,
and (!�) provida ior a patio on the 'vJest side o£ the house.
C. ADi.INISIRATIV� STAFF H;;VI�!�,:
The proposed garage addition wil2 project 17.� feet £rom the house to
the East property lin�. It uill also er.croach approximately !y feet into
the £ront yard. The Southeast corner o£ the proposed garage will be
approximately 20 feet irorn the neighbor's detached garage which is set
back near the rear property line. The neighborts house is over 20 £eet
from the proposed gar��e �all, The petitioner would like to shift the
garage forward into the E��nt yard in order to save the kitchen window
on that side. �
In addition te the exi.s�ir� curb depression and driveway� the other reasons
given for placing the garase on the East side are to save a lower level
bedroom� retain landscapin� and trees and provide for a patio. Technicall�
it vrould be "possible" to build on t:�e l9est side, but it would be more
costly, The soil conditions on the West (creek) side may also increase
the costs of alternative construction on the West side of the house. Tne
zero setback 1•rould not restrict rear access to the house for £ire fignting
purposes, and the separation between buildings is 20 feet. A full one-
hour rates separation wall with no openings will be required in the East
wall of the garage.
Sta£f feeZs that the owner should be advised to enter into some recordable
agreement with the neighbor to the East in order to trespass during
construction, snow removal and £uture maintenance on the East rrall of the
garage, The front and sideyard setbacks as a matter o£ objection will
have to be considered in the light of any o£ the neighbor�s concerns.
Mr, and Pirs. David Swanson were present, along with Nir. Kenneth Sporre, builder.
Mr. Sporre showed the Commission plans of the house and explained how they
would be attaching the garage� and said it would basically be a duplicate of
the Capp model home with the brick and the trim. He explained that it would
look like a split-entry home� and said they would be adding windows and
improving the whole house, and wouldn�t be just adding the garage.
Mr. Sporre stated they had asked the neighboring properiy owners if they had
any objections� and presented the Board with seventeen letters from the residents
stating they had no objections to the building of the garage.
�
�
Fr3dley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 12, 1976
Page 3 :° 33
MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission receive the
� seventeen letters in reference to the request £or variances. Upon a voice
vote� all voting qye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Sporre stated that this was basically the only place a garage could be
put on the property. He said that they would note on the survey that the
neighbor�s garage was very close to the lot line in back, and that was why
the Swansons would have to go forward; also because the^� was only one windox
i.n the kitchen at this time and they didn�t want to losE it. He explained
the garage would be brought right up to the window. Mr. Sporre added that
the other side o£ the lot was low and close to the creek� so this was about
the only place a garage could be built. He said it would be a small double
garage, but two cars would fit.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the garage would protrude slightly in £ront of the
house. Mr. Sporre answered that it would, and explained that was why tney
were going with the rooF line they had cnosen--to tie them together, He
said that the way it existed now the front of the house faced tne street, but
in essence when they got done it c.�ould face the creek. He added that both
sides oi' the garage would be fire walls.
Mr. Gabel said she had gone out and looked at the property, and it seemed
to her that this was the only feasible plan.
T�rs. Schnabel asked how soon they planned to start construction, and ?�r. Sporre
answered they would start as soon as they were granted the variances. h,r,
� Swanson said that the drivew�y and curb depression were already in. He said
the house was about 12 years old� 2nd they had owned it for almost six years.
He did not have a garage at the present time.
�
Mrs. Schnabel said there had been some discussion in the Staff Report on
making an a�reement with the neighbors as far as tresspassing for snow
removal and during construction o£ the garage. She stated she thought that
maintenance of the East wall should be a consideration £rom the neighbor's
standpoint because that side of the garage vrould face the Seegers. h;r.
Swanson said that he lmew the Seegers and that would be no problem. }-Irs.
Schnabel asked if the overhang would stop at the property line� and P1r. Holden
said it would. Mr. Holden commented that other than the agreement with the
neighbor to the East concerning trespassing, he had no quesiions,
Mrs. Schnabel asked about the strip of land between the two pronerties� and
Mr. Sporre stated that most of that belonged to the Seegers. Ae said they
had some small trees there now� and would probably just plant some shrubbery.
Mr. Barna asked what type o£ siding they would be using� and i�ir. Sporre
replied they would use masonite, the same as the house.
MOTION by Barna� seconded by Plemel, that the Appeals Commission close the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
Mr, Plemel said he was wondering i£ the agreement should be in the farm oS
an easement and be recorded, and Mr. Holden said that was basically what he
had in mind. AIr. Plemel said he thought it probably would be besi to have
� �
�L� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 12� 1976 Page �
the property owner give an easemenL for the maintenance of the property,
and Mr. Holden said that would probably be the easiest thing. �
Mr. Barna commented that he thought the plan would be a great improvement,
and the hardships were all viable and sensible. Mrs. Gabel added that even
if they could build the garage on the other side� they would have no yard.
Mr. Plemel asked how wide the lot was� and Mr. Barna said it was 83.64�
in the front and fi2,3' in the rear.
MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, that the Appea2s Commission approve
the request for variances r.�.th the stipulation that a three foot easement
be obtained from the property owner to the East for m2intenance of that
side of the garage. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously,
Mrs. Schnabel explained to the Swansons and Mr, Sporre that this was the
fina2 deczsion and ihey were free to apply for the building permit and
proceed with construction.
2. TABL�: REQUEST FOR VARIA1�dCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOTdS:
SECTION 205.131�, 4, C� TO RIDUCE THE P�EAR YARD SETBACK FR0;�1 TfIE R.EQUIRED
25 FEET TO 7.S F�ET� AND� SECTION 205.135� 1� (E�3)� TO ALLOi�'OFF-STRSET
PARKING TO BE WIiHIN 0 FEET OF THE ZOT LINE INST:.AD OF SET BACK THB
RBQUIRED Z FnBT� AND SECTICPI 205.135� 1� (E�1�)� TO ALLO11 OFF-STREET
"�,PARKING bJITHIN 3 Fr,ET OF THE riAIN BUILDING INST.;A➢ OF SET BACK THE
RSQUIRED S FEET� ALL TO ALLOW THE COP]STHUCTIOP: OF A SPECULATIVE .
BUILDIPIG ON LQTS 23, 2!t A,'JD 2S, BIACR 8, ONAi^7AY ADDITION, THE Sk1�1E
BEING 7751 ELt4 STnEET N.E.� FRIDI,E�'� i�SINNESOTA. (Request by Paco�
' Incorporated, 5920 Kirkarood Lane, Minneapolis, P�Yinnesota 55�27?•
This item was tabled until the meeting o£ October 26th at the petitioner's
request.
3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 20S.�S3� �t� a, FKIDLEY CITY CODE� TO
REDUC� TA� REQUIRID FRONT YARD SETBt1CK FHCM 35 Fr,ET T� 20 FEr.T, TO ALTAW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DF7�',.LLING AND GARAGE� LOCAT:D ON IAT 6� BLOCK 1�
HEATfiER HILLS ADDITION� THE SAI�fE BEI�'G 6250 BEN PIORE DRIVE N.E. � FRIDLEY�
MINI3ESOTA. (Request by rfr. Thomas Briclmer� 62l�5 Ben Plore Drive N.E.,
Fridley, hiinnesota 55432).
Petitioner asked that this request be tabled until October 26, 1976. A££ected
property owners noti£ied that this will be heard on October 26th.
�
�-� r
Fridley Appeals Commission Meetin� - October 12, 1976 Page 5
� Chairperson Schnabel said she would like to discuss one item that wasn�t on
the agenda. She said it Nas her understanding that the Appeals Commission
was to receive the Articles of Incorporation of the Youth Center for their
review. She said she would like to request that when they were available
the members of the Co�ission could receive them in the mail, and thereby
have a chance to look at them £or the next meeting. She explained they zaere
being asked to review them and make coimnents before the� xent back to the
- planning Commission.
ADJOURNAfENT:
Chairperson Schnabel adjourned the October 12, 1976 Appeals Commission
meeting at 8:10 P.rt.
Respectililly submitted,
� %'�/7�i> ( � /! Y /YN /)'�i'�
� Sherri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
�
35
r ,:, �r
;�'
OFFICTAL NOTICE
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Pl1BLIC IiEARIN6
BEFORE THE
APPEALS COM+IISSION
TO MIF{OM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTT.CE TS HEREBY GIVEN TNAT the Appeals Comnission of the City
of fridley will meet in tBe Councii Cham6er of the City Ha71 at 6431
Unfversity Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, October 26, 1976 at 7:30 P.M.
to consider tRe fol1owing matter:
A request for variances of the Fridley City Code
as follows: Section 205.134, 4, C, to reduce the
rear yard setback from the required 25 feet to 7.5
feet, and Section 205.134, B, to reduce the side
yard from 20 feet to 0 feet, to allow the construction
of a speculative 6uilding on Lots 23, 24 and 25,
61ock 8, Onawdy Addition, the same being 7751 Elm
� Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request 6y Paco.
Tncorporated, 5920 Kirkwood Lane, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55442).
Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at this meeting.
VIRGINIA SCHNABEL
CNAIRWOMAN
APPEALS COM�IISSION
N�
36 I�'
i �
�_
4 e
�4
i'�
�
J
`�
�
�
a
iti
f
� �
6
��
{ !
�, �
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONAIISSION
MEETING
OCTOBER 12, 1976
MEMBERS PRESENT: Herman Bergman, Dennis Schneider, LeRoy Oquist, Hubert Lindblad,
William Forster (arriving at 9:30 p.m.)
MP.MBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Boardman, City Planner
CALL TO QRDER:
Chairperson Bergman called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO2�AffSSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1976:
MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to approve the minutes as
written of the September 14, 1476, Co�unity Development Co�issicn meeting. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE FRIDLEY EtaVIRONMENTAI; COrAIISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTE2IBER 21, 1976:
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by Hubert Lindblad, to receive the September 21, 1976,
Fridley Environmental Co�ission meeting minutes and the September 21, 1976, "East
River Road Project Committee Recommendation to Fridley Environmental Commission."
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1.
AS THE FRIDLEY PARKWAY SYS':EM, FOR ITS SOCIAL AND ENVIRONPIENTAL SIGNIFICANCE.
2. RECOP47ENDATION ON THE EAST RIVER ROAD PRQ7ECT COMMITTEE REPORT.
Mr. Bergman suggested that the order be reversed on these two items and that
Item 2 be discussed first.
Mr. Bergman stated that the key document is the "East River Road Project Committee
Preliminary Recommendation to Fridley Environmental Commission", Item 2 was on
the Planning Comm�ission agenda at the last meeting. Mr. Mike Paripovich was at the
meeting and made the presentation for the East River Road Project Committee along
with a plan, which is attached, in reduced form, to the Fridley Environmental
� m
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 12 1976 Pa e 2
Commission meeting minutes. There were also two gentlemen'from the County at
the'Planning Commission meeting with the county plan since East River Road is a
county road. Mr. Paripovich presented the Project Committee's plan first,
talking about lack of signalization, too high speed, too much noise, too much
pollution, a need for right and Left turn lanes, and, most importantly, the
reduction from four lanes down to two lanes. The entire discussion at this time
has only to do with the 3/4 mile section souCh of Mississippi to Georgetown
Apartments. The county improvements have aiready been made on Mississippi/East
River Road intersection and from �eorgetown Apartments south to 694. The County
has no plans for East River Road north of Mississippi Street. East River Road
right now is four lanes all the way to Coon Rapids Boulevard, The purpose of
the Project Committee is to reduce it to two lanes in that 3/4 mile section.
Mr. Bergman stated that the two major differences between the Project Committee
and the County is the reduction from four lanes down to two lanes, and the Project
Committee feels strongly that the speed limit ought to be reduced to 30 m.p.h.
The County with the four lanes could give no assurance that the State would concur
with a 30 m.p,h, speed limit, although the County did indicate that they would
like to see the speed limit dropped.
Mr. Oquist stated he felt they do not need a county road through Fridley with the
speed limits they have got. If people want to travel through Fridley, then they
can do so at 30 m,p.h.
Mr. Lindblad stated that reducing the East River Road section from four lane to
two lane and reducing the speed limit would be like going back to the horse and
buggy days. Reducing the speed limit to 30 m.p.h. is going to cause bumper-to-
bumper traffic in that area.
Mr. Bergman stated that
could have some say as
Fridley.
there should be some process by which the CiCy of Fridley
to what the speed limit should be going through the City of
Mr. Lindblad suggested the elimination of left turn lanes on East River Road. The
two center lanes could be going at all times and cars could loop around and cross
at the lights.
Mr. Oquist didn't agree with no left turn lanes, hut he thought the reduction in
the speed limit to 30 m..p.h, is important.
Mr. Boardman stated that in order to better service the area as there are so many
city streets emptying onto East River Road, he thinks limiting cross traffic only
at lights would be defeating the purpose of serviceability of that area. Whereas,
the channelization can provide the same type of cross traffic movement ihto the
areas and service the areas better but still allow the traffic flow to continue
without interruption.
u6
.��
.�
COMM[TNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1916 Page 3
Mr. Boardman stated that another thing to consider is the two Lane road as proposed
by the Project Committee will not meet the requirements for any F.A.U. funding.
F.A.U. is 70% Federal funding, 25% County funding, and S% City funding. If the
East River Road Project Coomiittee proposal goes through, it would be quite a bit
more of a burden to the city, cost-wise, because it would be a share-cost road
between the City and the County with no Federal funding.
After much discussion, the Co¢m�ission members were in agreement that reducing
East River Road from four lanes to two lanes in that area would be impractical.
Mr. Bergman stated that, before reco�renendation by the Commission on Items 1 and 2,
the Coumiission should review the Metropolitan Council's Transit Plan, the Community
Development Goaw� and Objectives, and the County's plan.
MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by Hubert Lindblad, to table consideration
on Items 1 and 2 until the next C w�munity Development Commission meeting pending
receipt by the Cou�ission mem�ers of the latest Planning Commission meeting
minutes, the Metropolitan Council's Transit Plan, and an informal presentation
of the County Plan by Mr. Boardman and Mr. Bergman. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON STATUS OF Ti� BIKEWAY/WALKWAY PRQ7ECT COMMTTTEE:
Mr. BerFinan stated that he had reviewed the "Bikeway/Walicway Syster�s P1an" and he
felt there were items that the Commission ought to discuss relative to proposed
activities or reviews by the Bikeway/Walkway Project Cammittee. He brcught up
the following items for discussion;
1. Under "Scope" of the "Project Committee Description of the Bikeway/
Walkway Project Committee of the Coum�unity Development Covmission,"
Item 1: "The Bikeway/Walkway Project Co�nittee will evaluate the
development of the system and monitor public reaction of the total
bikeway/walkway system," and Item 2: "The Bikeway/Walkwap Project
Co�ittee will eva2uate changes to improve the total system and make
necessary recouunendations to the Con¢nunity Development Commission."
Mr. Boardman stated that there are some changes that Staff will be
recou�ending because they are now working with Federal funding on
this. One of the changes they will recommend has to do with right
of ways that�e available for the bikeway. One of these is on East
River Road, the connection that goes across Rice Creek on East River
Road.
Mr. Schneider stated that he has had a request that Matterhorn
be changed from a bike route to a bike lane and be moved up in
res[oration to Phase 4.
�
COMM[TNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 12 1976 Page 4
2. Goal ikl, Objective A of the Goals and Objectives of the "Bikeway/
Walkway Systems Plan": "Promote safety education program to instrucC
the pedestrian, the bicyclist and the motorist in the motor vehicle,
bicycle and pedestrian traffic laws and promote the strict enforce-
ment of these laws."
Mr. Boardman stated there is a constant Police program that is being
operated now for education. The question is how far the City Council
is going to go as far as the education program? It is something that
is going to take a great deal of study yet. The City's involvement
thus far has been primarily through the Police Department within the
schools.
3. Goal �1, Objective B of the Goals and O�ijectives of the "Bikeway/
Walkway Systems Plan": "Review the present ordinances regarding
bicycle and pedestrian regulation and modify where necessary."
4. Goal 4k5, Objective A of the Goa1s and Objectives of the Bikeway/
Walkway Systems Plan": "Establish a review process that wiil a11ow
the use of alternative, or additional routes as demand increases or
decreases in certain areas of the community."
5. Under "Recommendations", comments about signage, both in regard to
traffic and informational-type signing. There was a section addressing
licensing of bikes.
Mr. Bergman stated thaC this all boils down to one consideration and that is that
the Bikeway/Walkway Project Committee should review status to date as compared to
the documented implementation plan and have them report back any concerns they
have, including the five items he has mentioned above. In addition to that, he
said the Commission should pull together those recommended changes.
Mr. Bergman stated thaC, to his knowledge, the project committee is sti11 short
one member; and, according to the ordinance, the Co�ission should be naming a
person to that committee.
Mr. Boardman stated he had talked to Councilman Fitzpatrick because the person
who is missing is in Mr. Fitzpatrick's ward. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he might be able
to cose up with a couple of names.
Mr. Bergman asked Staff to review the addresses of the list of people who helped
in the development of Che "Bikeway/Walkway Syatems Plan" and provide to Mr. Bergman
the names and addresses of those people who live in the right ward. Mr. Bergman
also asked Mr. Soardman to report back as to whether Councilman Fitzpatrick had
found anyone to fill this vacancy.
�
��
�F
L
��
COMMfJtAITY DEVELOPMENT COA4IISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 12, 1976 Page 5
Mr. Boardman stated that at the next Community Development Co�ission meeting,
if the Co�ission decides that the Bikeway/Walkway Project Cammittee should meet,
the Cov¢nission should put together a list of items in the form of an agenda to
submit to Mr. Moen so Mr. Moen can set up a meeting of the Bikeway/Walkway Project
Committee.
REPORT FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE PR0.TECT COMMITTEE:
MOTION by Hubert Lindblad, seconded by Dennis Schneider, to receive the
September 27, 1976, Sign Ordinance Project Coumittee's meeting minutes. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schneider reviewed the minutes with the Co�ission members. He stated thaC
at the next Sign Ordinance Project Committee meeting, they should be making
specific reccmmendations towards a sign ordinance. It was agreed that many of
the Project Co�ittee's recom�endations will take the form of an ordinance and
that Staff can then reword as necessary to make the ordinance legal.
Mr. Boardman asked Mr. Schneider if the Project Co�ittee would like some written
input from Staff discussing the sign ordinance as Staff sees i[ from their stand-
point for enforcement procedures. Mr. Schneider agreed that it would be valuable
information to have.
REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION GOALS AND OHJECTIVES;
Mr. Bergman stated he had included the goals and objectives on the agenda for
the Commission memhers' review. He stated that it is pertinent that the Commission
refer to these goals and objectives on their discussion of the East River Road
at the next meeting.
AD.TOURNMENT:
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by Dennis Schneider, to adjourn the meeting at
10:15 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
E3S�7(� .C�-!X�
Ly e Saba
Recording Secretary
--- _ '4u r�!__t� ���-�i�---- --- �r /o� GZ��4 s�, �, `- —
o�l �7 2 �!v � 1` �