The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 11/03/1976 - 6597City of Fridley A6EHDA r� . ,` PLAt�NIN6 COMMISSIflN MfETIN6 f�3V�ER 3, 1976 .� ;; � CAIL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROYE PLANNING CONdd9ISSI0N MINUTfS: OCTOBER 20, 1976 N 1. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY REAL ESTATE 10 ADDITION, BY fW1NCIS J. G1KULtK: Being a replat of Lot 5, except that part there�f lying West of the Northeasterly right of way line of the outer drive of State Trunk Highway #65, and except that part thereof lying East ofi a line drawn firom a point in the North-line of said Lot 5, distant 1,305.96 feet West from the N.E. corner thereof to a point in tfie 5outfi line of said Lot 5, distant 1,393.62 feet West from the S.E. corner thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, tke same being 951 Hillwind Road N.E. 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1-22 23 - 27 2. LOT SPI.IT l2EQllEST: L.S. #76-10, BY THOMAS SKIBA: S�+iit 28 - 30 � i.ot 11, Audiior's Subdivision No. 129, into three parcels as fo7lows: tr�ct A: All of the West 165 feet of Lot I1, A.S. �f729, lying Northerly of the South 147 feet thereof: Same as 146� Onondaga N.E. (already built upon), Tract B: The East 75 feet of the West lfi5 feet of the 5outh 147 feet of Lot 71, A.S. #i29, same being 1467 Onondaga N.E. (vacant), and Tract C: The Wsst 90 feet of the South 147 feet of Lot 11, A.S. #129, the same being 7420 Bacon Drive N.E. (vacant). 3. CONfINUED: REVIEI+i OF PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE 4. CONTINUED: HUMAfl DEIIELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIYES 5. 6. CITY TES: 7. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSIDN MINUTES: OCTOBER 26, 1976 ADJOURNMENT; SEPARATE 31 - 32 33 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 49 i PLANNING COMMISSION MTG CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF FRIDLEY oCTOS� 20, 1976 Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M, ROLL CALL: _ PAGE 1 I+fembers Preser:t: Harris, Bergman, Bruce Peterson (sitting in for Langenfeld), Schnabel Members Absent; Others Present: Bob Peterson, Shea Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COhiMISSTON MINUTES: OCTOBER 6, 1976 � MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission ninutes of October 6, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. CONTINUID: 5 HU'1^1'LUtVll UAxS 2iY '1'dA: iLU1`1'LUNll cu_tratux: tseing a replaL oi LoLS o, �, o, � 10� 1, 1 1 and 17� Block 1, Spring Brook Park Second Addition, together with Lots 32 and 33, and the West j0 feet of Lots 34 and 3$, Block 10� Spring Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Development)� generally located between Ruth Street N.�. and East River Road N,E.� North o£ Liberty Street N.E. Public Hearing open. Mr. David H. Rotter, Vice President of Rottlund Company, was present. Mr. Boardman stated that Mr. Rotter had laid out the approximate building sites on his plan as was requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting� and there was a consistent setback of !�5' 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 in most cases there was about 80� at the building line. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any problem with the topography of the land on lot 7� and Rir. Boardman said he didn't think there would be too much of , a problem there. Mr. Rotter explained that house would have a walk-out. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Howard Dumphf 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 S property. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Plaru�ing Commission close the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. #76-07, $ottlund Oaks, By the Rottlund Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:1�5 P,M. Mr. Bergman said that at the last meeting Mr. Boardman had a£air amount of concerns, and was wondering how he £elt about the plat now. Mr. IIoardman replied that the plan was now acceptable. MOTIOPd by Bergman� seconded _Peterson that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the p pose p at, P,S, #76-07, Rottlund Oaks, by the Rottlund Company: Being a replat of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1l�, 1$, 16 and 17, $lock 1, Spring 9rook Park 5econd Addition, together with Lots 32 and 33, and the West 30 feet of Lots 3!t and 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 sugoested a stipulation be included concerning the !ts' setback for all construction. $ergman AMErTDED the MOTIpN to include the understanding that the development off the cul-de-sac would follow in general the !t5' setback. Agreeable with � the seconder. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any need for drainage and utility easements� and Mr. Boardman said that everything was all set. UPON A VOICE VOTs,, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris marked the plat Exhibit A to send on to Council. 2. Mr. David Rotter, Vice President of Rottlund Company� was present. Mr. Boardman stated that this had been discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting� and the City felt they should call a spade a spade and get the area 2oned according to how it was developed, �nstead of carrying on as a P.D. District which was a useless zone £or that area. He explained that most of the development in that area would be an R-1 zone� with probably a R-3 develogment on East River Roa3 on Mr. Rotter's property. Mr. Boardman stated that as far as City Staff was concerned, they felt it would be a good idea to get rid o£ 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 Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page � end that the City initiate a rezoning on that R-1 that was presently existing. . Mr. Bergman said he thought there should be some better identification of what they were talking about rezoning. He.also said that he felt there was merit to the suggestion and he understood administration�s proposal and it concerned itself tirith a couple of points; 1) that P.D, zoning was kind of a bummer, and 2) the solidification of land use� regardless of what happened, would be restricted to R-1 if it was rezoned. Mr. Bergman stated 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 what could happen next door i£ there was a tornado or heavy damage of some kind, He added that under these considerations, and considering the fact that the owner had in good faith £ollowed 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 i£ it would take place at no cost to him. Mr. Rotter referred the Commission to his letter of October l�, 1976, contained in the minutes of the last Planning Commission meeting, Ae said that even if there was no cost, if the zoning was changed on lots 11, 12 and 13 of the original plat he.would be spending the next six months in front o£ this Gommission to possibly get a multi-family dwelling in there. He explained that under the present zoni.ng it was possible for a multiple dwelling to be developed with some kind of a bu££er. Mr. Rotter said that it was the feeling o£ his company that they were tryi.ng to do everything they could to make it advantageous to sell the property� but they didn�t want to take a piece of property which they felt would be in their best interest to use £or multigle family and � rezone it back to R-1 and go through the hearings. He said that he would prefer to rezone one area first and zone the rest residential. Mr. Bergman suggested rezoning it R-3; thereby taking the whole P.D, area and rezoning it £or its intended use. Pfr. Rotter said that R-3 would be no problem; but problems did arise when residential property was rezoned to multiple family or cormnercial. Mrs, Schnabel asked i£ it was possible to split a section; for instance� designate all but lots 11, 12 and 13 as 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 leaving a P.D, situation wi.th those three lots. Mrs. Schnabel • pointed out that if the entire area was rezoned R-3, there might be some concern from the neighbors. Chairperson Harris said they could zone the lots around the cul-de-sac R-1 and the others R-3 at the same time. Pfr. Rotter commented that the letter that was read into the minutes at the last meeting stated what he Was going to do with the property anyvay� so that was a matter of public record. Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Rotter if he was rrilling to be pinned down to that rezoning plan; three lots rezoned from P.D. to R-3 and the balance of the P.D, rezoned to R-1 at no cost to him. Mr. Rotter said that was £ine. Mr. Rotter said he had one nther question; on the original plat of the Spring Brook Addition some money was placed on escrow with the City for park dedication. � He said he felt that since it had already been paid once, he shouldn't have to p�y it again. He further explained that since the park dedication had already been paid on this entire piece of property as it vas developed now prior to his petition, and he was replatt3ng within an existing area and losing a lot, he �rould like to have it Waived that he pay again for park dedication. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page � Chairperson Harris pointed out that that would be a City Counci2 decision. � Mr. Boardman stated that if the old plat was recorded the money should have been paid� but he wasn't sure where they stood on it. He said they would get it straightened out at the Council meetirig. - Mr. Bergman said he assumed a Public Hearing was requixed for e rezoning action, and Chairperson Harris said they wouZd have to make a request to City Council to initiate the action for the rezoning. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission pass a resolution to Council. that the present P.D. zoned area in the SI10 block of East River Road be rezoned at City initiative to R-1, with the exception of Lots 11, 12 and 13 to be rezoned to R-3, with the understanding that the prop- erty owner, Mr. Dav9.d Rotter, is in concurrence with this proposal and also with the understanding that the property oti,mer will 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 Fairmont Circle that was presently 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 o£ this plat. Chairperson Haxris suggested making two separate motions so there would be two Public Hearings. UPON ,'a VOICE VOTE, all voting ayet the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel asked who the developer was of the Fairmont Circle area, and � Mr. Rotter said he was. He gXPlained that all but one lot was developed, and thai would be developed soon. Mr, Bergman asked if the use o£ the total Fairmont Circle area was R-1, and Mr. Rotter replied it was. Mr. Boardman said it was all zoned P.D, except Lot 1, Block 2 of Bourdeauxs Spring Brook Addition, which was zoned R-1, Mrs. Schnabel said she was a little concerned that they were 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 Yact end it would be difficult to get the residents in to make the initiative for the rezoning. htrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Boardman i£ he felt fairly certain the residents in the area were in favor of this type of thing. She said she would hate to make 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 with and become upset with both the Planning Commission and City Council for initiating it. Mr. Boardman said he had talked to some of the residents and they had the general feeling they would feel more protected under this. He added that he hadn't gone into all the financia7. complicatiors on a P.D. zoning, but it seemed the people had gotten loans to build their houses even though it was zoned 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 was rezoned from P.D. to R-1, and Mr. Boardman said he doubted it. He explained that if anything� it would be more difficult under � Planning Cormnission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 5 . P.II. to get monies to develop. Mrs. Schnabel asked who xould bear the costs for rezoning this, and Mr. Boardman answered the costs would be waived since it rrould be initiated by the City. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Coimnission pass a resolution to the City Council that the P,D, area around Fairmont Circle be rezoned to R-1 with 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 Commission suspend the rules and move to item 8 on the agenda. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unani.mously. 8 REGEIUE APPEALS CO:�II"IISSION PiI1NTFS: OCTOBER 12, 1976 MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Cormnission receive the Appeals Commission minutes o£ October 12, 1976. Upon a voice vote,�all � voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . a, Request by Jerry Paschke o£ Paco, Inc, for permission to have the Planning Cormnission consider his variance requests for 7?51 Elm 5treet N.E. before this is heard by the Appeals Commission on October 26, 1976. This process would allow this request to go to the City Council on November 1� 1976 instad of November 15, 197b. Mr. Jerry Paschke o£ Paco, Znc.� 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 Commission and then to the City Council, and he preferred not to change that order. However, he said� due to time periods it did pose some kind of a hardship on Tir. Paschke. Mr. Boardman explained the major problem was with the zero lot line for the proposed building on the South property line. Mr, Harris turned the Chairmanship over to Mr. Bergman, since he was the affected property owner on the South side. Mrs. Schnabel said that when this came before the Appeals Commission Mr. Paschke had said he wasn't planning on building until next spring, and asked him if he had changed his mind. P9r. Paschke explained that for various reasons he had decided not to build on his property on Beech Street, so he � was goi.ng to proceed with this property, He said that the house was now vacant� althongh his daughter wanted to live in it for the winter. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 6 Mrs. Schnabel asked if he was planning to start right away, and Mr. Paschke replied he was� and explained the house was not affected by it. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the original discussion o£ this request appeared � on pages 114 through 116 of the agenda dated October 6� and said that there may be some information included in that discussion which would be pertinent now. She stated that at the time this came before the Appeals Commission on September 28, the proposed structure on this 7.ot covered more than !�0% oF the lot. She said that because it did go over 1�0% the Appeals Commission talked to Mr. Paschke about reviewing it with City Staff and coming up with a different size building on the lot� and about the problems of 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 presented that same night for another Zot, and that was why there was not a lot of conversation under that particular requesL� but a lot o£ it occurred under the other request, Because the building covered more than 1�0% of the lot, rirs. Schnabel stated, it was agreed that Mr. Paschke would work with the Staff snd come up with a new bui7.ding plan, She said he had indicated at that time that he didn't plan on building until next spring, so the Appeals Commission 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.$' in the rear of the building. Mr. Paschke said that originally the building was going to sit on the North zero Iot line, but Mr. Boardman wanted to have 5' on either side as a buffer strip between the parking lots. He explained thereason it was changed was because the plan that was drawn for the building on Beech Street had a vacated street that was 25', and when the plans were redrawn they were redrawn the same � as he hadn�t realized that on this site there was only a 7�' alley that was vacated. He said that was how it got over l�0�� and nobody realized that until a few minutes before the meeting. Acting Chairperson Bergman said he felt a bit awkward that the Planning Commission even had this item, He said he felt they were being asked to substitute for the Appeals Commission� and this item would be taken up before the next Appeals meeting anyway. He asked if this would.actually be saving any time, and Mr. Paschke answered it would be saving one month. Mr. Boardman said that the process they went through on a variance was that it was heard by the Appeals Commission and then it was sent to the Planning Commission £or policy review and then went on the the City Council. He said that in most cases the Planning Commission did noi take any action on a variance, but took a look at the variances when they received the minutes. He stated that instead of a discussion on the building tonight, what they were looking for was a motion to send this to the Appeals Commission and then from the Appeals Commission directly to the City Council without recommendation from the Planning Commission. In other words, he explained, skipping the process through the Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman said the Commission 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-- that was still up to the Appeals Commission. � Planning Cormnission Meeting - OCtober 20� 1976 P�e ? Mr. Paschke said it was all M-2 zoning, and he was just asking the Board of Appeals to allow them to build on 7 1/2' raYher than 25'. He said this was constant � in the area, and this would fit in with t}ie setback of other buildings in this block. Acting Chairperson Bergman asked Mr, Harris if he had any objection to the zero setback, and Mr. Harris replied he didn't. He said the only concern he had on the deal was since this was a parking lot and they xere going to zero lot line� there should be some curbing in there, Mr. Boardman explained that what the code allowed without a variance 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 in the past in this area they had allowed 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 allowed zero lot lines when there had been a written agreement with the adjacent property owner, and in most cases the adjacent property owner planned to build up to the zero lot line himsel£ so the two buildings would connect, i�r, Boardman explained the reason they did that was so instead oT having smaller sections o£ green areas between the buildings� they shoved the buildings together and got wider open spaces in there. FIe said he had some problem with the zero lot line in this case, mainly on the South side, because that zero lot line would abut a parking • lot' instead of another building. Acting Chairperson Bergman sai.d that requests for variances from 25� down to 7'�� upset him (just the magnitude), and variances down to zero upset him. He�said� however� that the request £or 2$' to 7�' would just allow the petitioner to do what others had already been allowed to do, which seemed like a good quaZification. Mr. Bergman.added that going to zero without a total plan for the area bothered him personally� and said that he thought they were talking about details When maybe 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 direction to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Boardman said that he felt the proposal Mr. Paschke had previously where he had zero lot line on the North property line was a much better plan. Mr, Paschke said he agreed with what Mr. Boardman was saying� but he wasn't the person who wanted to buy the building, Mr. Boardman said he thought they had io be somewhai conscious of what Was happening in this area, and if the only sray they could build that building was to go with zero lot line on that side, he didn't feel it should be developed yet. Mi'. Boardman said it would be up to the Appeals Coimnission as to what they thought� but what he didn�t want to see happening was another request coming in. He reiterated-that the question that should be before the Planning Commission would be to allow the Appeals Commission to make a motion directly to the City Council, and the Planning Commission would be able to see what � Planning Commission t4eeting - October 20, 1976 Page 8 took place after it went to City Council. Acting Chairperson Bergman said that apparently everything that was of concern � here was with the ordinance rather than policy, per se. Mr. Boardman said the only policy involved was the general feeling of what had happened in the area. Mr. Paschke said that he felt they had pretty much gotten this under control, and all of his buildings in that area were 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. Boardman said that his concern was that right now the parking lot for Sign Crafters was right up to the property lir.e. He asked hir. Paschke i£ he would get maintenance easements to go on the adjoining property £or maintenance oY the building. Mr. Paschke replied that would only involve painting once every fifteen or twenty years� and with the modern painting equipment it was almost unnecessary to go on someone else's property. Mrs. Schnabel nointed out it would be for his own protection so he �rouldn't be trespassing. Mr. Boardman said that if the variance was granted on that building, some consideration should be given to the parking and even the.setback of the building so that if a curb was placed on Sign Cra£ter�s property something would happen to keep the cars� signs, or storage off the building. Mr. P:aschke sugge,sted putting down curb blocks, and Mr. Boardman replied they were trying to get away from them. Mr. Paschke said if grass was put in there it would not be maintained, and ii' it was asphalt it would be used � for storage. Mrs. Schnabel suggested some kind of a small berm, but rlr. Boardman said if this didn't go to zero lot line he would like to see a poured concrete curb go along the property line. Acting Chairperson Bergman said that he would like to intervene and suggest the Commission was talking about other things than the policy suggestion. He said he didn�t think they wanted to substitute £or the Board of Appeals or try to do their job. Mr. Boardman said he thought that Mr. Harris could participate in a motion if the motion just made a reco:nmendation that the Appeals Commission review this with direct recommendation to the City Council. . Mr. Harris sai.d he would vote on that, but as long as there was discussion on the actual variance he thought there might be a conflict. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission recommend that the standard procedure be waived for review by the Planning Commission, and allow recommendation to go directly from the Appeals Commission to the City Conncil on Mr. Paschke's request for variances. Upon a voice vote� all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 8:55 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. 3. CONTINUID: REVIEW OF PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CADE Mrs. Schnabel commented that it seemed to her that perhaps this should be deferred again only from the standpoint that Mr. Peterson had not had a � Planning Commission tieeting - October 20� 1976 Page 9` chonce to review ity which left only three regular members of the Commission � to review it. Mr. Boardman said the intent of the last delay xas to have time to review it to give some direction to member commisaions. Chairperson Harris asked where they were on the study to find out how much this would cost to administrate. Mr. Boardman replied that at this time they were going to other communities that had this type o£ ordianance in op- eration and analyzing their costs. He said some of the cities that had such an ordinance were St. 7,ouis Park� Coon Rapids� Bloomington� Richfield and New Brighton. He explained they were not all as lengthy, but with this maintenance code they were also including one £or industrial and including exterior maintenance also. Chairperson Harris said he really felt that this should be handled in two sections; making it residential and non- residential. Mr. Boardman said ihat was the intent. He said the main thing the Commission should actually delve into was the administration of it and the operation of the code because that was where the major thrust of the matter was going to be--in enforcement. He commented that they did anticipate a drop in the number of permits with the completion of development in the City, and that Kould probably free up some of the time of the Inspectors. Mr. Bergman said he thought this kind of a code involved additional govei�n- mental control� specifically telling property owners what they have to do to their property which costs t'�em money. He said he had some conflict with � that� and asked "how far do you carry gomerment?" Mr, Boardman said it may mean the difference between a house that was unlivable, a house that was moderately livable� and a well-kept home. Mr. Bergman asked "livable for who-- the people or the City?" IAr. Boardman replied that building codes were for the protection of the people, whether they liked it or not. Chairperson Harris said it has been the policy in the past that government concern itselP 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 window was necessary � every room. D;r. Boarcl�nan� said that type of thing would be very di££icult to en£orce� and added there was also a clause which stated this might not be acceptable in all cases. PIr. Harris said it would be very difficult to say, for instance, that all houses in Fridley have 100 amp electrical systems. He stated that he understood that Minneapolis had done this in some areas end it had caused a lot o£ problems. P4r. Bergman stated that he thought courts upheld that kind of ordinance for new construction� but he was not familiar with that £or 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 comtmuiity on the elected officials, and with a community this size it would be tremendous with this code. He said he could foresee a lot of loca] political pressure, and he thought the elected officials would have a tough time adopting this� at least in its present £orm. He said he hoped . they could strike some type of accord which they could all live with. Planning Co7mnission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 10 Mr. Boardman said he thought the whole issue 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 that 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 wanted to do that. He 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 invaded as much, Also, he said, if someone is going to buy the house he should be aware of what was wrong with it. He stated that a lot of this took place with the mortgage companies and FHA or GI loans. Mr. Bergman asked if there weren't guidelines already against which these gauges were made, and if these weren�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 o£ Minnesota, He said the Attorney General ha5 an opinion that if a City had a building code they had to adopt the Dlinnesota State Building Code, but if they didn't have sny building code they wouldn't have to adopt that one. Mr. Bergman said he was suggesting that was the code against which the Inspectors worked� and asked i£ they weren�t to a great extent duplicating or expanding on that in this maintenance code. He said he was bothered because the cormnon understanding oY the term "maintenance" was the proper care and attention of existing facilities, and in a lot of the proposal they were addressing modification os those facilities; he said they were talking about construction and not maintenance. Mrs. Schnabel asked who wrote the proposed maintenance code, and P4r. Boardman • replied it was put together by one of his inierns who put it together through the present codes in existence. Mrs. Schnabel asked who requested l,hat this be written� and P:r. Boardman said it was r.equested with the approval of the Section 8 Progran by the Planning Commission and tne City Council. He added it was also talked about in the Housing Plan. Mr. Boardman said that the bugs had to be ironed out so this could be made a usable item that was enforceable. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission continue the review of the proposed maintenance code until the next meeting when full membership wou2d be presenL. Chairperson Harris said he didn�t think this should replace the zoning code� and t�s. Boardman said it wouldn't. Mr. Boardman said the problem they had right now was if they got a complaint £rom a�enant in an apartment building in Fridley� there was nothing they could do about it. He explained there was nothing that would allow the City to tell that property owner to upgrade or make those changes. Mr. Harris said he was not so sure that was their funetion, He said that suppose a tenant didn�t like the color of his wall, that might be a disagreement between the tenant and the landlord For one reason or another� and it seemed the City was getting in between. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought they had a responsibility io the person who owned the building as well as the tenant. Mr. Boardman said they did have a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the residents o£ the • City, and asked what could be done if a tenant in Fridley was not getting Planning Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 11 proper heat to his unit, Chairperson Harris si.d all the tenent would have to ` do is put his rent i.n escrow until he got his heat; that would be the quickest w�Y to solve that. He said he thought they would just be taking on more work than they were equipped to handle, as they xere not going to get more Staff. He added he didn�t feel it was government's function to act as an arbitrator between tenants and landlords. Mr. Boardman said he didn't think they would be acti.ng so much as an arbit�ator. He said that the City did enforce-building codes� and with that en£orcement they were taking on the responsibility of the protector o£ the residents--even on new buildings. Mrs, Schnabel noted that there was a lot in the proposed code about garbage and rubbish control� and the City had a very strong Barbage �d rubbish code already. Mr. Boardman said that was mainly in the R-1 properties. i�Ir. Harris pointed out that was why he would like to handle this in two sections. Mrs. Schnabel said that even R-1 should be broken down� as mobile homes and apartment buildings were listed in the R-1 section and she felt they should be handled separately. Mr. Harris agreed, and said that would make it easier to study. Mr. Peterson asked what the necessity of this was in regard to Section 8. Mr, Boardman said that it was recommended that with the Section 8 Program the City get a housing maintenance code� and the main reason for that vras 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 then it was a recommendation� but not something that had to be part o£ . the policy. Rfr. Boardman explained it was part o£ the Comprehensive Housing Plan that this be an implementation program, but whether this rras adopted or • not was strictly based on its own merits. Chairperson Harris read to the Commission part of the Non-Residential Mai.ntenance Section under Responsibilities of Owners and Occupants - Structural: 23�.31 Provi.sion and Maintenance of Basic Services and Utilities; 1) Plumbing� Heating and Electrical Service: �ery owner shall be responsible £or the provision and maintenance o£ plwnbing, heating, electrical and ventilating service to each non-residential facility. He stated that the problem with that was it was absolutely contrary to the terms o£ the leases. He explained that when a property owner had a renter there xas usually a lease agreement, � and there were many points in the proposed code which ran contrary to the provisions of the leases. Mr. Boardman said that what they were saying there was those services must be provided by the property owner; in other words, 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. Mx�. Harris pointed out in also said'maintenance o£ those services. He said that if a tenant dumped something doxn a drain which plugged up the sewer, under this code the landlord would have to clean the sewer out. He explained that his lease said it was the tenants responsibility to maintain the plumbing. Mr. Boardman said then he had transferred the responsibility to the tenant. Mr. Boardman explained that as far as the City was concerned� if anything went wrong with that property it was the owner�s responsibility, not the renter. � Chairperson Harris said he thought that all of a sudden they rrould be caught between the lease and the code� and they would have a three-ring circus. Mr. Planning Coimnission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 12 Boardman said that was the way'it was now, and explained the City could not enforce a lease but had to go to the property owner. He added that the code � did not say that it would take the place of all lease agreements. Mr. Bergman commented that he thought Mr, goardman had a clean way of handling it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission amend the agenda to include as item 9 the receipt of the Community Development Minutes of October 12, 1976, Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye� the motion carnied unanimously. �i. CONTINUID; DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Mrs, Schnabel asked what kind of time element they were dealing with on this, and Mr, Boardman replied there was none. Mr. Bergman said that he thought there were some strong feelings within the Commissions on this, and he thought it might be wise to continue this item. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to mention that on September 28 the Appeals Gommission did receive the Community bevelopment Commission minutes and held a rather lengthy discussion on garage requirements which was included in the • October 6th Planning Commission minutes on pages 116 through 120, She said thai they received the Community Development mi.nutes� and the Appeals Commission's basic consideration was they still really did approve having garages required. She suggested that i£ any nembers of the Planning Commission had not reviewed 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 40' lots. Mr. Bergman asked if the Appeals Commission had then concluded their review of this item� and Mrs. Schnabel replied that they had not been asked to make a specific recommendation to the Planning Comciission so they simply reviewed • what Community Development had stated and held a discussion. Mrs. Schnabel sazd that the meat of what they discussed was on page 119� when Mr. Holden asked the Commission what their reaction would be iS a motion was made identical to the one in the Community Development Commission minutes o£ August 10� 1976 stating that one enclosed garage space be provided per dwelling for those £ive reasons listed. She said that including Tir. Holden voting� because this had been informal� it had come out 3- 2 in £avor of the motion. She explained they felt there was a misprint regarding Mr. Kemper�s vote. Mrs. Schnabel added that they had not had Staff�s report at that time, and Mr. Bergman said the Community ➢evelopment Commission had not had the report from Staff either, Chairperson Harris asked if they wished to reconsider their positions considering the Staff report that was now available, and Mr. Bergman said he didn�t £eel inc2ined io. Mr. Bergman 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 Pamily dwelling � out of consideration £or safety, welfare of adjacent property ormers, to enclose automobiles and other things that could be of a nuisance or actual safety hazard to adjacent property owners and so forth. He said h� was wondering whether that ought to be required or i£ that was being too overbearing on someone about to build a house. Mr, Bergman stated they xere considering something of a similar general nature which was the housing maintenance code which would require more things that would also cost money, and he was just considering what the relative merits of those two things were. Mrs. Schnabel said that along with that� one o£ the thoughts she �ad on this was that perhaps somehow or another the percentage of lot coverage allowed should include space for the possibility of a garage to be constructed at a later date. She said that this tied in srith the size of a house thai could be built on a substandard lot� and this might be a way to get around that, She noted that ihe statement had been made that if people xere not required to build a garage at the time their house was constructed, they did tend to put a garage in at a later date. Mrs. Schnabel said it aas interesting because the Appeals Commission heard a request at the last meeting £or a garage to be built on a lot that previously had no garage, and the people had lived there for six years. She co�nented that she thought six years was a rather long time in a way, pir. Boardman said that he thought the decision was probably an economic decision, and in most.cases he thought it was an economic decision. bccept £or the £act, Mrs. Schnabel said, that thev had a driveway in all the time and a single car garage cost probably about �1,000 to $1,200. , Mr. Boardman said that was constructing a garage after the house Has built. He said i£ a garage was built rrith a house, it was about lOro o£ the cost o£ the total structure. He said that figure came £rom the N,etro Council Suhcommittee on Housing Industry Practices. Mr, Bergman commented 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 himself or with a little help. Mr, Bergman asked if the present code couldn�t allow for that. He said, £or example, if a man carr.e in with complete building plans r�hich included a garage, to his Irnowledge 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 of 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. Bergman asked what percentage of R-1 lots had not been built upon, and Mr. Boardman answered probably about 10�,. Mr. Bergman said that then they were talking about the advisability of revising the code requirenent £or the last 10�. Mr. Boardman said that possibly the last 1(7% may not need a garage. Chairperson Harris said he felt they ought to tighten up on the residential areas. He said that in some ways they vere pretty tight� but in other way pretty lax. Mrs. Schnabel said that the majority of the Appeals Commission did concur • with Community Development that there still should be a garage requirement. Chairperson Harris said houever� that didn�t address the !�0' lots. Airs. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 1� Schnabel said one of their thoughts was that this may be a way that reduces the number of buildings that are put on t�0� lots. Mr, Bergman said that i Community Development had a view of that also, and their view 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 Corrmiission minutes of September 28, 1976� which stated: Mr, Kemper said that maybe by requiring that each home have at least a single-car garage� it would automatically prohibit building on !t0', Iots, and that might be the appropriate criteria they should be using. She said that would be iying a garage to a house, regardless of lot size. Mr. Boardman referred to the Staf£ Report, ar.d said they were wonde:ing if they were providing adequate facilities for those people in the low and moderate income range. Iie was wondering if the people who were purchasing a house should have the option of buying it with their house� build9ng it at a Iater date� or perhaps not having one ai all. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that perhaps the size of the house should be restricted on a substandard loi 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 l�0+ lots in Fridley, but they were built a long time ago. She stated that some of those did have garages, and the problem was it was very difficult to squeeze both a house and a garage on a substandard lot. Mrs. Schnabel said that regarding substandard lots, she thought that the one person they had to geE :;o at that point was the contractor. She felt that the contractor uanted • to build as large a home as possible so he could make more money. She said with smaller homes on these 2ots the lower-income people could afford to buy. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to bring up one other point, She pointed out that Fridley was probably 90� developed in their residential area, but there were adjacent communities such as Coon Rapids and Blaine that !�ad a lot of open space to be developed, She said that maybe they� as a conUnunity� had to be slightZy selfish because they were so far along in their deve2opment process and still demand that a garage be built with a home. She stated that if a person didn't want to build a garage with a home, then maybe ne could go out to Blaine or Coon Rapids where that requirement didn't exist. ;�7s�, $ergman pointed out there were other options also, such as renting or moving into a townhouse, so the City wouldn�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 £orcing them to other areas the City would be creating hardships on them as far as transportation since there were jobs available for them in Fridley. Ae asked iY they wouldn't be denying that person the capability that could be available to him i£ garages were no longer required to purchase a home in the city and work in the city. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out she was not talking about existing homes, but about new construction, and that maybe the contractors should be forced to build smaller homes. She said she was not trying to be terribly hard-nosed about this, but maybe it was the only w�y to force some of the low-income homes to be built. Chairperson Harris asked what the minimum square footage of a living area could • be, and Mr. Boardman replied that the requirement was 1,020 for a 9,000 square Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 197b Page 15 � foot lot�and the minimum on lots less than 9,000' was 768'. Chairman Harris said he thought he wouldn't have any objection to a smaller house. Mr. Bergman suggested a variance could be requested in that case, and on a sub- standard lot xhere that occurred there wouldn't be any real problem: Mr. Bergman said he regretted the full Corrmiission wasn't represented, but he did feel somewhat action-oriented on this and would like to make a motion. MOTION by Bergman, seconded for discussion by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission reco�nend to Council that in consideration of the objective to upgrade or at least maintain the quality of the single family residential areas in the City of Fridley, the Gity Ordi.nance be modi£ied to require as a mi.nimum one enclosed garage space per single family dwelling unit for the following reasons: 1. Reduce outside automobile parking. 2. Provide £or enclosed storage o£ equipment and materials other than automobiles to enhance neighborhood appearance. 3. Reduce safety hazards which may result from outside storage of equipment and material. !t. Promote the preservation and upgrading of the neighborhood and maintain a quality of living environment consistent with the housing plan. 5, Provide for the securit� of stored goods in the neighborhood. . Mrs. Schnabel asked if the Planning Con¢nission wasn't awaiting reports from other subcommissions and i£ it wasn't the intent of this Commission to gather all the pertinent.information together before passing this on to Council. Mr. Boardman said this had been sent to Community Development and Human Resources. PIr. Bergman located the discussion on garages by the Human Resources Commission at their September 2nd meeting in the mi.nutes o£ the September 22nd Planning Commission meeting. He read the discussion to the Planning Commission, which cottcluded with a motion that the Human Resources Commission recommended to the Planning Commission that they did not condone the principle of a garage requirement as a stipulation for building; however, if the property owner decided to put up 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 suimnarized the situation by pointing out they had one Commission that said a single unit garage should be required with every single £amily dwelling� one Commision that said it should not be required� and a third Commission that gives no direct action. Mr, Boardman sai.d that_another thing they had to look at was what they passed on as far as the goals and objectives for housing. Chairperson Harris said he just didn't see hox adding a garage to a house could make or break the deal� and added that he didn't agree xith Metro Council. Mr. Bergman said that he thought this business of adding on a garage being • a problem for low and moderate income people was being w�y over done. He stated they had lots of opportunity in Fridley; they could bqy 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 would not be prohibiting low and moderate income people from moving into the City o£ Fridley by requiring a garage on new construction, Mr. Boardman pointed out that they would possibly be limiting their capability of diversity of purchasing, Mr. Bergman said that every code the City had xas restrictive; they were restrictive when they required minimum floor space and in all kinds of ways, and he thought they were overburdening this particular one. Ns. 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 accomplished 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 may not reduce it $5�000 in order to make it an acceptable unit for somebody to buy� but it may reduce it enough for some person who could not afford it right now to be able to buy it. Mrs. Schnabel said she felt that in their minds they were dealing basically Wi.th low and moderate income housing� and 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 passed that stated a garage wasn't required, it might open a new Pandora�s Box for those areas which had a],reac�y been developed and were nice home areas. She stated she was specifical]y thinking of the Innsbruck North area and the O�Bannon area� and thought they might be doing a disservice to the residents who already lived in those areas if a garage wasn�t required. Mrs. Schnabel • noted that Pir. Boardrian had talked about the City having an obligation to encourage low and moderate income housing, and thought maybe that obligation was to encourage the contractor to put that type of development in on sub- standard lots. She said she thought there could be two ways to interpret that type of statement. Mr. Boardman said that he thought the point that was brought out that they should require the space to be available For a garage on a lot, but not necessarily require a garage to be there, would restrict a smaller-size lot to be built with a smaller-size house. He said he thought that was a very valid point. He said that if a garage wasn't required by code� he would still imagine that garages would be built in areas such as Innsbruck North. Mr. Boardman stated that he thought where they had bo consider this type o£ thing was with the substandard lots and in areas such as Riverview Heights where there was some nice housing and some housing that wasn�t qnite so nice. Chairperson Harris stated that if there was going to be a garage, there should be some standards set up for that garage such as a certain size. Mr. Boardman said the only place that garage size was addressed taas under an accessory building for the amount of lot coverage. He explained that the coverage of both the main building and the accessory building could not be more than a certain percentage. Mr, Bergman cocmnented that he thought somewhere in the code it specified the minimum requirements for a single- stall garage. Mr. Boardman said it did give a minimum of 252 square feet, • Planning Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Page 1? � but it didn�t give a ma�cimum. Chairperson Harris stated they should have a maximum 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 variance�came in they both usually voted in favor of them for various reasons of hardship stated by the requestor. He said they ended up getting trapped because they didn�t want the clutter, and approved the request. Mr. 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 was outside material to store and it had to be put someplace. He said that if there were appropriate codes and appropriate enforcement of those codes, he didn't see where it was necessary to have a garage required. He suggested the possibility o£ a storage shed. Mr. Bergman said he didn't see how that would help the preservation and up- grading of residential neighborhoods. Chairperson Harris said they were really on the horns of a dilemma; on one hand they were trying to provide low and moderate housing, and he thought that sometimes they got that miuced up with substandard housing. 1`,�'. Boaz'dman 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, Pir. Boardman asked why a garage was necessarily the borderline between standard housing and substandard housing. He said a house could be just as well maintained without a garage, and he doubted very much i£ it would even affect . the cost of the neighbor's house. Mr. Bergman said he ihought they had a conflict between housing goals and residential integrity. He said that some of this conversation bordered on discrimination, and from the conments made it seemed that anybody who had enough money to be able to afford a standard size loi would be required by the City to spend more money to put a garage on it. However� he said� people of low or moderate income didn't have to spend money to put in a garage. Mr. Boardman stated they were not saying that. He said they were saying it should not be the City that was telling that person if he had to have a garage; i.t should be the person who made that decision. � Chairperson Harris said he thought the word garage was really a misnomer, and an accessory storage area would be a better choice of words. Mr. Boardman asked why they should require a person to build a garage for a storage area to keep clutter off his yard, when he could do the same thing {maintain his house well� keep the grass green and keep the clutter off his yard) by having an accessory storage building. Mr. Harris said that maybe that was what they should be saying--a storage building of a certain sise. Mr. Boaz'dman suggested that even better yet, allow absolutely no outside clutter and have that strictly enforced. Mr. Harris said that wasn't en£orceable�.and that was 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 necessity 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, Khich also hagpened to be his garage, there would be several items that would have to Plenning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 18 stored within the dwelling which he Would be very nervous about, such as items with gasoline tanks on them. Mrs, Schnabel said that this went back to promotin� the health, safety and.welfare of the residents of Fridley. Mr. Bergman read to the Commission the five reasons Coimnunity Development thought a garage was necessary� and Mr. Boardman pointed out that most of those were for storage purposes. Chairperson Harris reiterated that perhaps the word garage was a misnomer� and it should-be a storage area. Mr. Bergman said he couldn�t see that having those little tin sheds would be enhancing the neighborhood characteristics. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that if they said storage area, they would have to have some type o£ ordinance that dealt with the size, quality and mainten- ance of that storage area itself so it wouldn�t just be somebody's fish house that they set on the back of their property. Mr. Bergman said he thought it would be inconsistent if they would not maintain the position which they had for the 90� of the single £amily homes that had been built with a require- ment for a garage. Mrs. Schnabel said it would change the current code if they tied in a garage with a living structure, because currently a garage was not required on a substandard lot. Mr. Boardman said he thought they should think very carefully about what 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 may not be necessary to preserve residential enva.ronment. Ae asked if they '.rouldn't be putting unnecessary equipment in the Zoning Code which would provide something that may be done anyway, or if those options should be left uo to the people. Mr. Bergman said that • if he was asked if he thought a garage was an absolute necessity or require- ment, he might have to vacillate on that; but if he was asked if he thought it was highly desirable, he thought it was. He added that from a City view, they didn't have to £eel it was required in order to act positively to put it in the ordinance. He said the fact that it was highly desirable should be adequate consideration. Chairperson Harris pointed out there was always the variance procedure. Chairperson Harris said that i£ he had to choose between savings on the house and the heaZth, safety and welfare of the neighbors and the occupants of the house, he would have to go with the health, safety and welfare and felt that a storage area was a necessity. Mr. Bergman said that m�ybe a separate storage area wou�@ be an amenable alternative, but then they would have to get into code stipulations on what kintl, the size� the kind of structure� and security� and really define what they were talking about. He added that a separate storage area to somebody might be just a lean-to with ho £ront on it� which would be de£eating the purpose. Mr. Boardman said he was not arguing for or against this, but was just questioning some of the reasons why they wanted certain things. He said he was also looking at the goals and desires o£ what they wanted to achieve in the community. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought what they were hoping to achieve was the health� safety and wel£are of all the citizens of Fridley; whether they were current residents or new construction residents. Mr. Peterson added that at the same time they were trying to upgrade and maintain the • community. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20� 1976 Pa.ge 19 UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting sye, the motion passed unanimously. � Chairperson Harris said that as long as they were on this subject, he uould certainly like to have a recommendation from the Community DevelopQnent Chair- person on maximum sizes o£ accessory buildings. " Mr, Bergman said that he felt it was pertinent for him to point out that as Chairperson of Cvmmunity Development� they had discussed this very thing in their Commission meeting-and they had not come up with a concensus of opinion on limiting the size of an accessory building. He said he would be willing to readdress that question with Community Development if this Commission so zrished. He said that he, personally� had mixed enotions: on one hand he saw no reason why someone in an R-1 neighborhood should request an accessory building larger than his house� on the other hand ihey did have allowance £or home occupation. Mr. Harris said that home occupation could not be in the accessory building� but only within the dwelling. I�s. Bergman said they did have a lot coverage regulation which did tend �o control the size to sone extent, He added that he did not like over-governing, so he had conflicts regarding this. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Bergman would take this item back to Comnunity Development for their thoughts� and hir. Bergman said he would. 5. CONTINUID: HUI�fAN DEVEIAPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES • MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Comnission continue the Human Development Goals and Objectives since a representative from Human 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 £ew t�es. He said they had had a chance for input £rom the Coimnissions initially, and now the Planning Commission is establishing all the goals and objectives. He stated that when those goals and objectives were developed� then tney could send them to the subcommissions for their additional input at that time instead of having to wait for member commissions to act on separate issues. He added that this would eliminate this delaying process. Chairperson Harris said it was so noted. UP(3N A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. CONTINUED: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF FRIDLEY YOUTH CENTER Chairperson Harris said that there was a timing problem on this. He explained that the con¢nittee that was to organize this was set up by a charter fron City Council� and that charter xas £or thirty days. He said that the committee that had worked on this had acted very diligently and held many meetings and vorked very hard to put this to put this together� but their charter had run � out and he was not sure that without an eattension from City Council they would be able to meet again. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1976 Page 20 Afr. Boardman said he would even question the Planning Commission's role in reviewing articles and the charter and 1:hings like that. He said he felt � this would be more in the realm of the City Council. Mr. Peterson said this had been reviewed by the Lllvironmental Commission at their last meeting, and they had agreed with the Human Resources Commission that the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center be returned to the temporary Tesk Force of the Fridley Youth Center for further refinement, alignment, and siraplification, and that �,nzidance be sought Prom the City Attorney to accomplish these things, Chairperson Harris said that speaking as a member of the task £orce, he thought what they were looking for was any input� in£ormation or suggestions from the Planning Cormnission or member Commissiotts. He said it was their intent that it be sent to the City Council with any additional recommendations, but it would actually go to the City Council. Mr. Boardman said he thought it was sent down For an informational purpose, and shouldn�t necessarily have to be acted on by member Commissions. Mr. Peterson asked if when the artic2es of incorporation were set up by the task force there was any legal counsel involved or if this was patterned after previous articles o£ incorporation from other organizations, Afr. Harris said that was correct, as they felt they had to have a starting point, He said they wanted to move forward and get it to Council� so Council could t:ien give it to the legal staPf to refine. He stated that they riad felt they didn�t have the authority to give it to the City legal staf£ and ask them • to work on it without City Council direction. Mrs. Schnabel read to the Commission the motion made at the last Planning Commission meeting which sent the Articles of Incorpor�tion of the Fridley Youth Center to all member Commissions for their review and comment. Mr. Peterson asked if it wouldn�t then be appropriate to wait until all Commissions submitted their recorrunendations, and Mr. Boardman replied he thought this yras somethin� bhat the Planning Commission would have to decide now--whether they were going to take any formal motions on the incorporation or if it would be strictly a review thing and those revievrs should just be passed on. Mr, Harris said the task force felt they were sending zt back here for review, He said he would like some action on this, as without any action it would just stale- mate again� drag on some more� anfl pretty soon there would be no place Por the youths to meet at a1L MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission recognize the review and concerns of the Human Resources Commission and pass on to the City Council without comment the Human Resources Commission motion: "That the Articles o£ Incorporation of Fridley Youth Center be returned to the temporary Task Force of the Fridley Youth Center for further re£inement, alignment, and simplification, and that guidance be sought from the City Attorney to accomplish the above", Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. • Planning Cormnission Meeting - October 20, 197b Page 21 9. xECErvs xuMnrr xFSauxcES coru�ssiora rnxu�s: ocTOS�[t 7 i976 � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Co�mni.ssion receive the Human Resources Cormnission mi.nutes of October 7� 1q76. Upfln a voice vote� all voting qye� the mot�.on carried unanimously. . 9. RECEIVE COMMIJi1ITY DEVEIAPMENT CO;�II�QSSION PiINUTFS: OCTOBER 12, 1976 MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission receive the Comnrunity Development Commission minutes o£ October 12� 1976. Mr. Bergman said that he would like to point out the trend of the discussion on the Fast River Road Project Committee report was to retain the £our-lane system. He said they had yet to subject that to the metropolitan plan, which they would have at their neact meeting, and also a review of the original goals and o6jeci:ives from a transportation view. Chairperson Harris asked when he thought they would hane a recommendation on the signs, and Mr. 3ergman replied that was probably two to three meetings off� so it would probably be December. Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Bergman had requested that the CDC mi.nutes be received at the Planning Commission at the first meeting after the Community Development 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 handouts at the time of the meeting. He stated that if that was acceptable to the Commission they would attempt to do it that way. Mrs. Schnabel said the only problem was that they had to sit at the meeting and read the minutes. Mr. Bergman agreeii that was a problem, but said it was a question o£ which was worse. He said that as the person somewhat responsible to this group for what was in the GDC minutes, if he had to wait another two weeks it wasn�t as fresh in his mind any more. He stated that at times it even got conilising because the Planning Commi.ssion might discuss subject matter that was covered in Community Development a previous week, but the CDC minutes were not available and he had to rely on memory. He said he thought the information got stale three weeks after the meeting. Mr. Peterson said that he would like io comment on something along this line. He stated the agenda and minutes £or the �vironmental meeting held last night had been received on Ptonday. He stated the time £actor was a great problem� because one day was not enough time to review all that material. Mr. Peterson said there were a number of people concerned about this on the Fridley II�vironmental Quality Commission. He added that they would 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-Commissioners would receive then on Satdrday� but he would look into it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye, 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 Planning Commission Planning Commission rteeting - October 20� 1976 Page 22 agendas. He explained that right now when they set up agendas they had Staff 3.nput on the ageadas and then Dorothy had to call the Chairmen of the Commissi� to see iS they had anything to add. Mr, Boardman stated what they would like to have done was, instead o£ Dorothy calling the Chairmen, having a set date for the Chairman to call in to Dorothy to add anything he desired. He explained that there were many times Dorothy had to call all day long because she couldn�t get hold oS somebody� so if the Chai.rman could call in on the last Thursday o£ the week before the meeting� it would be more ef£icient for them. Mr. Bergman suggested that Dorothy could call just once. He said that usually she got hold o£ 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. $ergman said he thought it did the Chairman some good because frequently Staff added items to the agenda which the Chairman didn't ]mow about, so it xas a two-way purpose. Ae added that with one call, the Chairman ought to recognize that within his own committee meeting he had the prerogative of adding items to the agenda if he wished. Mr. Boardman said that in some cases it did require inforrnation that Sta££ had that would be helpilzl to the Commission if it was included in the agenda. He sai.d it also gave Staff a chance to prepare £or the meeting� because in some cases it did require a response from Staf£. Mr. Boardman said he felt that if the Chairmen of the Commissions cou2d take it upon thernselves to call with any items they wanted added to the agenda, it would be a more productive way of handling thi::. He added that if they had not received a ca11 from the Chairman they would assume there were no additions that would • go into the agenda. Mrs. Schnabel suggested that Mr. Boardman put out a memo to this e£fect to each of the Commission Chairmen i.nvolved and inform them by what date they should call. Mr. Boardr.�an said the other item he wished to discuss was the Chairmen of the Commissions informing their Vice Chairman to attend the Planning Commission meetings if they� themselves� would not be there. He explained that they had almost not had a quorum £or this meeting, He said that the process had been set up t:�at the Vice Chairman was to attend in the place o£ the Chairman, and in many cases he didn�t even Imow if the Chairman was asking the Vice Chairman. He asked all the Chairmen to please contact their Vice Chairmen instead of Sta£f trying to call to see if they could or could not make it. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the meeting be adjourned, Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of October 20� 1976 adjourned at 12s0$ A.M. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, �J'pl�l,'iJ �ii(Y �1�yt�!^ She i 0'Donnell Recording Secretary . � OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY RUBLIC HEARIP76 BEFORE THE PLANNING CQMMISSION TO WHOM TT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Cortanission of the City of Fridley in the City Hali at 6q31 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, November 3, 1976 in the Council Cfiamber at 7:30 P.N1, for the�purpose of: Consideration of a Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-11, Real Estate 10 Addition, by Francis J. Girdler, a replat of Lot 5, except that part thereof lying West of the Northeasterly right of way line of the o�ter drive af State Trunk Highway �65, and except that part � thereof lying East of a line drawn from a point in the North line of saia Lot 5, distant One Thousand Five . Hundred Five and Ninety Six Hundredths (1505.96) feet West from the Northeast corner thereof to a point in the South line of said Lot 5, distant One Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three and Sixty Two Hundredths (1393.62)• feet West from the Southeast corner thereof, Auditor's _ Subdivision No 25, lying in the South Half of Section 24, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located on the Northeast quadrant of Interstate 694 and Highway #65 N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. Publish: October 20, 1476 October 27, 1976 i RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION �3 NUMBGR V : � �7� // � APPLICIWT'S SIGNATUR£ Address ��I � b �� w • ��..; Telephone Number CITY OF FRIDLGY MINNGSOTA AND ZONING FORM z'�"'`f/^X�t � .� (o -(0010 lv� �,� TYPE OF RGQULST Rezoning Special Use Permit / _� Approval of Premin- inary $ Final Plat PROPERTY OIVNER'S SIGNATURC �� _ �ii /' Streets or Alley _ —_7 �c� �'��R-�r Vacations Address / � �1 � , `�`VL � '1 �`3 Other Telephone Number cS �� `- L 0 1 0 �'j � /'��()��o Fee�Receipt No. 3� r'/� Street Location of„Pr�erty �/S f %'-�l'X.��X '<^�/� ` � �-�— I��°�- N� c� �,�', �� 4�! � l�, 6 t Legal Description of Property �.cN � Present Zoning Classification �� Existing Use of Property ✓ k—��,,it Acreage of Property �� n �- �`-�- Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement �roposed ��?�� C�� -�- � Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, variance or special use permit o the subject site or What was requested and when? �c ,�s. ,�(,�s-/` ��_ plat, obtain a lot split or art of it?�_yes no. The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property Within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) Tliis application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanati.on given iahy this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list tlie names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in quest'ion, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch o£ proposed property and structure must Ue drawn and attached, showing thc following: 1. North Direction. 2. Loca�ion�of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setUacks. 4: Strcet Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (witliin 300 fcet). The undcrsigned here6y declares that all the facts and representations stated in tliis application are true and correct, � ^ O � DATE !i� r I LI �� 7(O • Date Filed ' Date of llearing /�• �,/ 9 7�i � Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved (dates) Denicd (dates) Dcnicd . Mafiling List P.S. �76-11 REAL ESTATE 10 ADDITION Mr. & Mrs. Narry McKinley 1010 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & �Mrs. Jerome Johnson 1000 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55A32 Lynde Investment Company 950 Lynde Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Bratt-Palen Builders 1776 Millwood Avenue West Roseville, Mn 55113 A. T. Gearman Pine Tree Lake Road White Bear Lake, Mn 55110 ` Mr. Jerome h�anley 660 Marigold Terrace NoE. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fiheelock Enterprises, Inc. 6225 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 8ronson Erickson Realty RE: Raymond T. and Marie Sullivan 3231 Central Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55418 Bronson-Erickson Realty RE: Lorne & Virginia 0'Donnell 3231 Central Avenue N.E. Plinneapqlis, Mn 55418 Francis J. Girdler Real Estate 10, Inc. 7420 Unity Avenue tyorth Minneapolis, Mn 55443 � /�lw IV y Planning Commission ]0/19/76 City Council / � �k, ' 1 ... s „ � �° • •�,fi ; .r�:�., . � . � ... , .:�: .::�.Q�.�.. -` CORNE74 � � J'� / 4;.,�+ ,,,\/ y` . s,, �'° ' �". �,y ' l.:i � Crxi�r l.i: � a ��1/� ; o H.I N I J! I At f1�p n �. E%:�.� 4.�.I.. . . \- � �-.�a HA�'ttP.�Q�N,.,•��. ,. v� n.�..��\. .a�.��aar��,.I �M ��j"y�� K � .. �� / :s_ � �_!�t�"_7'_ an .... . . : . yp -".'/ �:�,- - _ j • � � � .�.. � .:� �, a�. � . ��i Y �• 4.. � .. / `., � ,f�- � 1` 6� � , •.. ' e R �� Jl � N � � k� i�s°l �NI'4` � •li:�'� ♦/ _ �, e^ I� c � , , / � .sa..i�v�o.n: iJr-,. � f�• y'. �,a 'r '`+�ni I / ai e .., .: � � `\: : i �%P�p , J :1�, "°. s � . • . _. _�_ ._JJ� ! � !i�`� + � tp� �, •a _i� _- . � • '/ � �L X / l v � ,� �1/� L.Y, � � . I �� /.;p,� -•��n I � (. �X • /� S A�l M .y�A A.� IC �T• �1 f � � � , r /My RsC C� * �+,. YG� � I .1/ ��i� ry� � i ` w ., _. . rd .:y.nnr e � �.i �. �'�.'ni � 4T� N h� t /2� F' . 1'! 6f y�� Q ��p •p !�^7/ fy � �� % � � � � �4 � . „ , .� � r.p , _�� .o,, .a_e _. ,. , ._�._, T :iw�i- �.` w�JT N �'�)N. .+_e.�.... ../ .. /!I) h (/�Y .'3 'J .) .S .VHa()__ . �� ' '�•.1� (S60i � � � ' _ ; � �/ "�� d './!)I �.. �\/ �4.- . y � (S7? T Q O p� ry � i a a B� N N �� j � ��, .. .. .x:v.nq:. I � � � 'r I Q � � :''; d � I 1 � ' e a , � . � � sD b M��Ot�2 �f/'IaA� ° ` v ra•� jisrYri %nksa:�m�frssr �+ '+ '� u � >-. _'a`37��'� � aur u �.u..i � ��.�,.�.,a ._, .o.,, -- :.,.a . .>.LYNDE DRIV; ; oG:�. . ,. ,,,. � k )sr. � u n x n �s N ��y -• ns snr �rels � n�� '� F.:,'.rY. •� ' .:.�5 � i 2r�^a � �' � �. 1 .i�`d Y e.r.ry ��i�iq i iia t 5� m+d'y��aww j,i�' r: c�- .;. j � � �� 1 A �i i/ ..� J • w �'� " 1 f ' x ;;;`-�r � ` 3 S '��/ � � 3 3 1 � � Q' a � � " t' = s'i s. ° j 3 � iI �� /r , � r ;� s � �c. ` : ? {l � " �` � ; � - , , 3 _:.,h.�.,}.. � � . � , � , ; 1j ,s.: r /t ' ' . ' ____' ' .rr. I " x : eei.. u .rre � � � � f _ I� : �i .iwX � 1�vh _ . _ - . u�i _ � s. . _ _ ... ! , J w '��` '�"` ;'�`'; ' g AI;DITOR`S 3 p� Ii11 i.n�// Ji..< � :j =. - --- �--- ; � -- - - - - -- , �.. _ _. . � '":i:3.�t �. � ' "_ T �_�°1 8. ' ':-'. ��l30) � i : . � 4 a��,Llro�r ��- t (/zln• � . , 'ti S ' � � / ( %20� `-.,� .. � . ' _ ' '_ _ -._� _. � -Jy_ �.98 ' . , 1" _ � J . . � •. � T 4ra.l A• T- — - --J¢Z ' __ � _ Y'_"`_ �� ,+�' . � . __ - „ k .. � \ � - . t � , S. ; �oo, ;�` ,• rJ t , .' �.""'."""""".\__Y,'_� ,.r'� � i .r.e � .�-i '_—_.__—.T_ . �� __.. ___ ' ' � -'_ i'< �'� SU$DIVISION ,' �3" � "°� � �� ,._ � , ; 6 � _��_ . �� ,,�o� , ;' > � ,-` � ; � � � _ .... . .. ...... ....."' """"..."'.Kir""""' � � i� %77� _ . . .....' _ ._____'__�___ (_�(f..___. . . '_" : ' .. 1 . . _ ' -o- � �Z � i /Sia� .7l`� . fi ' � n:� •-°-•--'-----------------------_-•-._.._....---':s�- ' ""�_- ---'i� ' : -, _ a + •�--•----._...---° -- , _:��: � : y ._ _��.. �; � � � N0. � � <�o� 8 l (s6o) ' , ,.--------------------------..---------------.------ � . �-------- ---- - - - ------ --- � ; •••.•�• . _. _/AI�.__. .. RPflc�/J�IY.�2e'�_ �. . " --'.'_____ . : Yb : ,r.% � _ (,sso) (� , _, � . � • �_. ._.. - °-°°•-•- • - --... .---....... • • .... . .. . .... ... - ...... i . ,yn...__..._ ... "'....._... .""""""" . � -„" '-•.....-�_ � • !�i' Iw , . ' �'. - �-....,...,... ' - •. ; • � . .. .. _ _,�.... �' �. _?d tlZ flJ; . � , \ ! • S.�'��f ;• i... . 4• .. . '+-- _ ' , M. f... �� ' � � �1@4r ` . , � ;8��-_;:� �_...,14 ' � .,1' .�+.' _'' ._�Rxi.n.i�..t'�, r^ � . . � 1 ' .. :�".. � .�';� ---� --- - f�_-� _`--'--_.� . � 1 - � ..� ��,' ... � ' .'' ` ` ' � _ •�ti�4�_`~',�� y ! � . • := �: 'i ; • � ' - � '��— �� l I �tTERSTQTE s �� f. r. . • -�., ` � f__l. _ '--+ ��„'� .� ' — •' • • �..1 . •.•.... r I i• -t '�..�� :0 � ' I� IM.. P � � P ( I � I 1 1 1 � �� 0 N \ t 4q • Y� . �Y . Vd Z� '✓� /r I� ,� ! �/ ?68 � / I i � �II ' � "� ��!, 1 \S . ' �p �� '� � � $'. I Z 1 l ��7'1 / �� r% j �j�j�� / / I�II � �� ovs-/ j 1j1� .�� a •:,�u �Ili� � I� 1 �i �� 'z�=— i�� £u6^--= / / ..,�. � , /I /n � . :: � � � ' v .. ' `. � �, - �;� , ., � � �� (�� I' IN, I ''` � _ � /I OO6 � �� //.}%��I' � � / I 1 % / / / / q � /% � �__� J //�/ / �/ /��//��. �� /� % / T / / // /� %�i�� —`� % i � ii � \ � �� o ',/ � :i.� \\ � 1\�� i T I 4 � \ i;� 4 0 �i� � m i � i --�, �� _• � � ►-- q��0 \P P w O � P� �'� � " �� ` � �� _ �.=�.',� —` � �206 � • �'FO6 ' 1 � ..: Y j ��U � � � ; J I ? l, I ��y�_ �� —'--- —sars ��—�_'90! �� \ • � o �` � � �4 �� v� �� /eY ' � t , ��a// .ti/ �/f/ �i5 / �/.'� 1�1 �;�,'/ it� � � � � �� , !li ,% i�� ,� i I l a�, ;�/i ��. �. I�� \ ;� q�0 � ��i °�a � ;1_,//�.�- � � � 1� • C . M a Y 4 �i.CO�Y Y � p M N� C � L Y C crc.�s c.`..«Ea �~il>:Y9�9y4� � 'OYOLL NAV�(V ev �� >�� O� %^ O� 4 L O 2 A g JLL MF pd �Te�'04' M�� ✓TPOMOfuO�a+C M4� LNC � �� L y O Z Y O< � i N GMY� 'F4�NY' M P� W C i^ e N O E 2 _�.o oa c'�L« c°'_�.c.cS e`n TVTCC�~^V N � L~� y o N O� L N N • e'.°i+.�io°��i u.`. i i✓' Y e 4 L 4 L L� TY Y M LY O Y L F t Y Y. M C VYp4Y~4<L✓CtlV-�C VLLLf�VOJ Na 'o «�.c�vo�o�- u n� y o LL M W Y O y M Y� C P L� Oy�~L�wK� ��GO JOOM9V MYOS�YU 4 VY M M O C ` O CO OFO V � '�cc°u.°�b O�- �O L v' N 9 O� GVYO O trse✓oa�« �u'c°OUu F f rn N� M p�� s M L C �Z c `.i 4 6 � �M�i.i4.°-°u.i ✓�1 i f° � i°n - Y Y .• � r Y � F 9 C~� l l �'g'_".`-ov r�`� $r.°.R 8.:. L' Y « « :C'7 < . ��ITY -OF FRIDLEY ' � APPLICANT: J ;�. a .5'S_ �� CiC B� � Zip Coae A��S� v� Street City � -� clo-,3�TOFi TELEPHONE # �� Home Business /U C/� I PROPERTY OWNE�t(8) h �" _ — 1 ,J ,. icant' � IJa;c,e _/ Fee:u�o , Receipt #b'3y�; Council Action:Date�� itII`'[AIt�CS: � ADD:tESS(�� `�� r City -�Lip Co3e Streei L . P . ., </ d �� r City Zip Code Street TFyEpHaNE �(S� Fsusiness Home Property Location on Stre�t �� ,� N,'�� ,y� � or Exact Street Address (IF AY) 5y�-- Area L�tl�£ PI'Oy°Tt j : < i " Uc� l-' Lot Spli�: presen� `Lon--1i� G ��c. £t. ��,� I The undersigned hereby declaz'es that all the facis and pepresentatior.s st,�.ted i.n this application are true and correct. `--_�/ � DATE: SIGNATIIRE c `" A �� - BIIAW FOR CITY [1SF ONLY - (See reverse side fox additional instructions pI,ATS & STTIiS: Date of Consideration - r_ Remarka: pyPSiNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration - Remarks: CITY COtiNCIL: Date of Consideration - Remarks: � � ' /VGSI . iv� i o�o�o��A tECa: o�sceir*wss: S T. �o � ! r� W w � �- � �x o IiL ZI �, � Q �; zo -� W > � � C. ._ �� I / ScA�� i"=30` —� DENOT�� IFOH �7��7 - �;:/19-40 Z v � CL1 TftACT A: A1l of Lne Get; t65 feet of �ot :1, A1'O1Ti1R'S SUBDIVISION '!0. ?29, Anoka �ounty, F1lnneso+a lyinq twrtherly or the Sout- id' 'eet thereof. TWICT u: The Ktst ?i rcet af the �fest 1f,5 feet of tr.e South :37 feet of lot 11, AUll1TCK S- $UUQ1YiSi yti NC. 129, AnoYa Countv, t4innecota, TRACT C: Thc �vest 97 feet of the Sou�h 147 feet of lut 11, AL'CIiCR'S SUGDIVISIOi� ti0. 129, AnoAa County, Minneso[a. . �e ��.. 3, �� n, . s, �� I lu•trM crtuty �I�af �Ats 4wvey. 91an. a �ryat � rrn ryrpen•A hy m.� �( unAeY my du�•rt �uper� ', v�auwi aud Iliat I�n� a dulv Rr�;�ytrtcd l.and '�.. ti�q��rrir imA�•r �lir I�ws d t�e S�ale u( Mmn• �I r��: � > ; �� .�1� : . . �� . ° , ` /(% 1` . Z . � r. • /.l •, . . . ..,,u,� , . . : ; . ee. O . �I\ /9 P� 20 � � . �J. 3 ... . d��i ._1V�1_ LU � ; � � � C ' 26 w ' .�- UJ � /Ca ? < < dv� --� � ' �;ti ' -. ✓ s • n ar O /,� :°� 7 � ~. LL' � � � � t snh...n i . '��ot ry Ii. , : M �'.t� ..�i.�.us � ' � -li9 y � � ; _ ir, _. C] � � n - /ir�3L..J/ '.` Q:/S �a ��r� r 2� i� ��' ' =�9 F� T_ �t � e „ B � U? S ' t ; � 29 ; t,� � � : ,•., y . .,,..., '.• // � . � o � �iL1l^ y[ML. � , • � ..v ' !/ ? i/960. � � � . � ��Vdr° ��' . . : `� ./Trr w "' '�.. •..-.�. � . yl;�....';.��•....�� 1/f.'l�1CL�3L L. \ �% ( �.�� Ci �'I �% 4� 1 �� 7^ L '��.A � �� ,� :1� ' L i 9 i N �J• � rr. esfuo' S 1 �ti�J. � � : � o1e ^ � �� G . . � ... �.a `' ♦M�» a� e�n �l Q �Mr.: ]� N � . -'• "a f fila �.�•i � ••• • " �i' .' ''•'Vt1 �rn' ` a �91>/i�n ip . { ; :�� ;.,, , •,_ .,.,,,,,.. , '.�o ,., �__°�; ° /6 - �—m�--T-----�6-TY �' AVcNUE �-•�.. N.E. ----._----- ^ � : � . - ��! -..,, ; � _ :,'f �fO>� � i (960) f` � . N . . - . ... Pa.... . �_--1 �✓Ei/e�fJon � p ,. •=' r9ss.7 ` /J .. \ �' ` . ` '`ir... n'� � / � ?�.'r ..' (,-O> s;.t /Jl . /J6Bf �� `':ll - r.f 3�� . ��41i�. irixn:<� 3 .n, i � � °j. � °y � o � / � :: 0 0 ? ' iNenccrr �Ty'1p ii 'J�Fi 9�i 4�� y' `' � n ... Fs /j� �' /G . — `T '� V �ia 4� '�'s S� !i. l �� iaDDY� Pl•i Nr +� �j'� 297y'� �+^� . �:.. �o � ,� ��.:rb�<��r� � � it� >aa Z e j"" , 2 ''IL cvrloT/ �.� � 4 � �t `.'_ �; �% �,� > ,. _` i� � � � cn � „ � z f �i g :.�� .t I. ''.�'.��02> CY� -�=�j- h. . . �� 2 � � s135) �� . /1� ! 2 d �2 � , �/� �rJq \ L� ` ��`• 'L�a�-i� V/ � J�10 fA'lAl'A' 26S -.•i�/ • o . i6 �, a ` � > -, �� n h^♦ �nb. Lj� v, t�M ini.�.� -00" &f a�` B° O�' � 6o y ' �!� [S �aa ♦� . T ♦ f- �...sf � 1� � � • V 1 N V W ' � /5 ,. � i�4 y 13 �ry: � 6 ; 5 �? % i = �` yfi ¢ ." n'�`.p1��' ; 4 /■\��j{ o .� ry ,n �� , V �� ) IO 1- /� i:r .ssis, T �� .wri ~" „�n�r i � � -a. So I �� Y 6 `1� �y 1 � ; r;�� 30� 33 � " _ e y '� � :• c r �, ' : » � :. �t; Br . � e _ . , „ ._.. *t� : ..' '}' (� o _ �p�^•` H:'.� -�iCl3d'�.a.59�.,.f �9� . 7T'Tae rsS' -.F ' %Af �'�' f fT ¢��3l0 — '--��—^ _ n:� I'�� ;��R� ei . . r :.• �.�� ,s , �� ., .�, � . y-^'�r��3 ,�` n.s•le .� .��. iJD1TORs� ' M `, , � �w � �;: ; � ; :, � n� ae�lf��i'� �y��nlK .. ti��\-��1 V ::tL oti 63eJ �� GiY- otfi/d�y ..�. 8. �. 3 }'`14.. 5 ��,�1 . 7 t . � �i �5 �/ � ♦ n. Z .e � Sa� � . � y : � `� . 2 a-Y r/�r�-v,^w K � �� 2 a ' ,� I. % .. � . . �• . �� .. � � __! ° , r � i� � �. ...ev .. ea "ZZ��.- _.._ 3. ' ..e' `; ,c•. ,� � � � . ? ?/ . y ti l60aJ • /� �,,.7 .Z.Za `�l' ., :, � j� � (9to1 (91f1 i930/ � `1,;?CA� �9r�/ i9+.',�� u .�i i � (r1oJ ,°, � 1� ' f1t' u :."f � _ r.> te i (i�✓•Hi i N (!O: •, . .:r. " ' " ' : 1 � .. ..�,y•• � " :a -s _>� .- � . ..... 9J.� . w1 _... ... : �;.� _ . , y �o __ _ ro� Ro ....Z _ ' �` je dcz , u �_ ��4 -u trt'' °s. �� . � hFIRESI��E ' L`RiV.�- � .... F,. _.:� �i° IO '" �°' i, ..�v:��:.- =v. ; ,, �. .,, .�.. i ��za .aFn iro : �i� n. " :;:+- __ ` � 'Qy�� p� � f[OF.' � t �` ` =r.�._i i$:'\�� "�. �/ � � �� ' K 4, :� �: 3� � :: � : `< :� ` ..;sl�`��'.�, �fi r .� , .,, �e � .. �• �r�-�� . , �9U/�`�� ;� � � < �ol� �.�° =;:��'�f� :,-i ` !� �' �r ` ; 40 ,, � , A�, � \ ' 'b� � Aiais��t � i 1 � . . . '� 1 � � e Q Q 4I -n � . 1 ;� � � j�.t1/iIX' � p � ti 2 � �/OM/ ` Z � �� - v ' .} ' ✓ i .3 \� � '• n talo� — � .• i^�Onl' `:)I + i :S �� h !v � /f J � s e. (f 1YS /M '��. v ee a �; s ±� � OiVOIdUAGA,.,.F:STREET - r� _._. ...,. � � r.. .:.,• � :s ls 1f � io:• r- es eo /i ./O •� Ua' -°�" Y � : :� � 6'�i4 ��UT � a . "�" - .._. � ,� ::Z ,; � � , W � ; i � Z ; 3 � a : S � c~n '�3S � BDIVIS,ION �: ,/Il�.� _ �' ;': �A�d T/�� ; � �-,-.s .. ;.�,o� . �,,.� - >_•- -- � :«„ ; c. p� �,- s r. . 3c . .. , ._ .-{'_ —. ;'^` Z � 24 �! Z v 2 C7 � ., ,.-,.c , . .— =� � � �A/:Y?A'�+}.•a �• � (ir.ni GL 2 . v � 8 '�� : .. � �„zo� �,,,�_, 35 «�' ; x 9� �Ut. , � Q,1;.� , , s a i 7 �(�N': "' .�.. --�.,,A;, �, ,•.,: W '; _. a- -. , .:� � 3 4 �r � _ Y.. . ... __�rr. ._ ..r .r w - i d_ io %.� �%2 � . _' . ... � 2!f .-� _ _ � . .. q� .—.�. i • :: a d.: � � i7.:h.N v J....�..Ilr+ ' �.s i . . ' JFo✓%i:k ( .+F-�6 �111 � � - . . � !o Qwry 2:ntnii.. � �%1 t*' . �' a.0 . �rlr) V P . 1 lCp/0/� .^J/ — � ' , - � � �� ° M . i.iS>o.► ��rnt/ n:+.•Cl = w..:� vr (/s:o� G'.Fv7 � f.E�v!i:.f�aF�:� I` � I. J� f.. . � ,:. 27 29 �- � a 19 .: - , � — ---- --�, � I- 2 3 • 25 : .p .. 1� .W.:S�Ji ' .N1 � � (JJJ01 !/S00) �•..•�:•p:• � . $ � i /� a..i ��.t�I4•� �J�t� �O� \ S � % � C . � (� Jti.f ✓ f �iiu.. 1 �'' � � IDl � �JN..!.7�:cv� ;J I t+ � , i .3s_ GOAL AREA: HUMI`iN DEYELOPf4ENT GOAL STATEMENT DZ00: Help foster an attitude which stimulates life-long motivation for learning and cultural development. Program Objective: D210: Promote an awareness and appreciation of the Humanities. Program Plan D211: D212: D213: Program Objective: D220: Help stimulate appreciation and participation in fine arts in the community. Program Plan D221: � D222: D223: . Program Objective: D230: Encourage an interaction of learning facilities and programs necessary to allow residents a wide choice of pursuits in education, training and � cultural development. P.rogram Plan D231: D232: D233: D234: � � C� � ': 3� GOAL STATEMENT D300: Provide public information and correnunication � in order to foster an awareness of the City's varied activities and availability to these activities. Program Objective: D310: Secure and mainiain a'clearing-house of information' position with respect to public and aemi-public, cuttural, vocational and recreational program opportunities. Program Plan D311: D312: D313: Program Objective: D320: Provide for adequate and viable means of participation, redress and reasonable access to the affairs of local government for all . citizens. Program Plan Program Objective D321: D322: D32?: D324: D330: Provide for efficient method of dissemination of information. 0331: D332: D332: Program Objective D340: Promote a greater cooperation and mutual under- standing between the public, semi-public and private sectors of the population. � I � �,1 � � � 1477 Calandar Schedule Planning Cortanission Wednesday following lst and 3rd Monday Appeals Comnission Tuesday following Planning Commission . Cormnunity Development Commission Second Tuesday Environmental Quality Commission Third Tuesday Pdrks & Recreation Co�rmission Fourth Monday Numan Resources Comenission First Thursday " " Forum Meeting Third Thursday 33 � •MEMO T0: ALL CHAIRPERSONS OF CITY COMMISSIOt�S MEMO fROM: JERROID BOARDMAN, CITY PLANNER MEMO DATE: OCTODER 29, 1976 RE: Agenda's for Meetings In order for all Comnission's to receive their agenda far enough in advance for adequate review, the following schedule has been set: Planning Commission Delivered Fridley before meeting Appeals Coamission Parks & Recreation Comnission Comnunity Development Cormnission Environmental Quality Comnission Human Resources Comnission CAN Advisory Commission u� Mailed Thursday before Tuesday meeting Mailed Thursday before Monday meeting Mailed one week before the meeting Mailed one week before the meeting Mailed Fridley before Thursday meeting Mailed one week before meeting . Charter Commission Mailed one week beiore meeting � �For this schedule to work, it will be the responsibility of each Chairperson to contact the Planning secretary, Dorothy, at least one day before the � agenda is due to be sent out, for any items that you would want included in the agenda. (571-3450, extension 169j. � � � FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBIIt 26, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Schnabel� Barna, Gabel� Kemper� Plemel MEhIDERS ABSENT: None OTHEftS PRFSENT: Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:35 P.t�. APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSTON MINUTFS: OCTOBER 12, 1976 ASOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, to approve the minutes o£ the Oetober 12� 1976 Appeals Commission meeting as written. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. .� lr ,CONTINUID AT PETITIONER'S REQUFST: REQUFST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION � 205•053� �t, A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 3S FEET TO 20 FEET, TO pLIAW THE CONSIRUCTION OF A D'�nfELLIIdG AND GARAGE� LOCATID ON IAT 6} BIACK 1, HFv�THER HILIS ADDITIOAT� TAE SAME � BEING 62$0 BEN MORE DRIVE N.E.� FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, (Request by Mr. Thomas Briclmer� 62lt5 Ben More Drive N.E.� Fridley� Minnesota 55�32). MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, to open the Public Hearing. llpon 'a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC Pl3RPOSE SERVED BY REQIIIR4fEt1T: Section 205.0$3� 1t� A, requiring a front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on public right o£ xay. Also £or aesthetic consideration to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor�s front yard. B. STATID HARDSHIP: Lot narrows quite £ast toward the back of lot and lot also drops off quite fast. Without front yard setback variance, ihe house becomes too narrow in £ront. i � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26, 1976 Page 2 �t�'- C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: The lot in question drops o££ excessively in the rear. The problem can be resolved only by using unusual construction, excessive amounts of fill� or a reduced £ront yard setback. A lesser front yard setback xould not encroach into the front yard of the house at 6258 Ben More Drive. Should the cul-de-sac easements be vacated and the street go through� the house wonld be more than 35 feet £rom the front property 1ine. Staff has no objection to this variance request. Mr, and Mrs. Thomas Briclmer were present, along with Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Csrpenter, the adjacent property owners. � Mr. Briclmer gave each Commissioner a copy of a print showing the elevations and setbacks of the proposed house and the house to the East. He said that what they were attempting to do was the most feasible use of the property. He explained that with this setback they would still not be any closer to the street than the house to the East� and there was nothing to the West. He further explained that with the variance they could still build an aesthetically-pleasing house on that lot, but the contour of the land dropped so fast that as they got flirther back the lot go so narrow they could not get a nice-looking home on there. He stated that the proposed home was 1792 square feet, and it was just not feasible to put a house back 3$' on � that lot, Mr. Brickner said that this was a temporary cul-de-sac and the road could be extended some day� and if that was the case the driveway would even be longer. Mr. Briclmer said they were proposing a 20' wide garage, but would like to go to possibly 22' or 24'� and he thought that would be possible with this variance. He explained they had drawn up this plan so they were at a minimum of 5� and 10�, but when they took the £inal survey they felt it would check out to give them a little more width (possibly two to four feet). He said they would maintain the 5'. Mr. Briclmer stated he lived across the street from this lot and he wanted to look at a nice house. He added that they had a two-story structure proposed and a plan that took advantage o£ the grade. He said that actually, from the road the house wouldn't look that high from the front. Mr. Holden asked if he was going to have sewer of£ the front, and Mr. $riclmer said he would, and the sewer was 10' deep. Mr, Kemper asked if this was a speculative home� and Mr. Brickner replied it vas. Mr. Plemel asked if there weren't lots to the West of this cul-de-sac that would open up to the cul-de-sac, and Mr. Brickner said they didn�t Imow that, and said the land to the West was questionable. He explained it dropped off very rapidly at the end of that street, and if anybody deve2oped it he didn't Imow how they rrould be able to run the sewer. Mr. Holden said that it didn't appear there were any lots that were platted o£f the cul-de-sac. He said it � xas possible for that land to be developed, but one problem would be the sexer. � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26, 1976 Page 3 42 � Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Brickner what the house he lived in was set':.back, and Mr. Briclmer replied 35�. He said there weren�t any variances around the cul-de-sac, but there were several variances on Kerry Circle. Mr. Kemper asked if the curbs xere i.n now, and Mr. Briclmer said that they were, and they_followed the easement. Mr. Carpenter� 62Sg Ben More Drive� said he didn�t want to see the house built any further back that Mr. Briclmer had it, but the plan as he had it now was fine. He said he would pre£er that this request be granted. Mr. Holden asked iF there would be ar�y problem with elevation between the yards. Mr. Briclmer said they xould probably be pretty much the same, and would drop dovn on the West side. He explaaned it would be about the same grade that the Carpenter's tapered down on the West side. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by BaxTa, to close the Public Hearing. Dpon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barna said that his main concern would be the neighbor�s feelings� and since Mr. Carpenter was in favor of the variance he wouldn't have any objections. MOTION by Plemel� seconded by Barna, that the request for variance be granted. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. � 2. CONTINUED: (Original variance vithdrawn) RFQUEST FOR UARIANCES 0�' TiiE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLIA'+IS: SECTION 20$.131�, !t, C, TO RIDUCE THE REAFt YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRID 25 FEET TU 7.S FEET� AND SECTION 20S•13h, B� 20 REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 0 Fr,ET� TO ALIAW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECULATIVE BUILDING ON IATS 23� 21� AND 2S, BIACK 8� ONAWAY ADDITION� THE SAME BEING 7751 ELM STREET N.E.� FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA. (Request by Paco, Incorporated� �92� Airkwood I,ane, Minneapolis, Minn- esota, 554h2)• MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Sarna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice votes all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATNE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PiTRPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRII�NT: Section 205.134� 4, C� required rear yard setback of 2!� feet. Public purpo5e served by the requirement is to provide adequate open space around commercial structures for aesthetic and fire fighting purposes. Section 205.13�� 1t� B� requiring a 20 foot side yard setback in a M-2 District. � Public purpose served by the requirement is to provide adequate fire protection and aesthetically-pleasing open areas to industrial structures. �`�' Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26� 1976 Page 4 B. STATID HARDSHIP: iand cannot be built on to meet Code. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: StsPf has been in favor of rear yard setbacks in the Onaway area due to the shortness of the lots� and £eel that this request is justified in light of past variances granted in this block. � Section 205.131�� !t� B, subsection 3� allows for the exception to 0 feet where a common wall is constructed between two buildings, which meets the fire safety standards. A common owner of two adjoining properties can easily build on one property at the zero setback point 3.n anticipation of constructing a similar structure with a zero setback on the ac3jacent property. Ir� lieu of common ownership, a joint agreement with the adjacent property owner is in order� however, the adjacent property in this case (Signcrafters to the South) is developed in such a way that no common wall is possible. In other words this wonld be a single building with a zero clearance to the lot line. Staff does take objection to this variance request in that fire protection clearance and green areas are not provided. Mr. Holden said that Staf£ woi�ld also like to recommend a 5' reduction in the dimension of the building in order to allow for maintenance of the building and any possible problem of the building being hit by trucks, etc. � Mr. G. W. Paschke of Paco� Tnc., was present. Chairperson Schnabel stated that this request had come through the Planning Commission last week because Mr. Paschke had a potential occupant for the building and he wanted to have this proceed along as quickly as possible. She explained the Planning Commission took a look at it and had no specific suggestions to make� however� they were interested in reviewing the 0 lot line approach, She said that one concern that came about was building on the 0 lot line when there was not an adjacent building to be built up to. Mrs. Schnabel said that this was different from most� if not all� af the requests they had in the past; she didn't recall any 0 lot line construction When it was not the intent to build another building to the line adjacent to it. She said theie � be cases where they granted 0 lot line and the edjacent owner didn't build, and explained ttiis was dif£erent because there was no uay anyone could build. Mrs. Schnabel stated that the Planning Commission had passed a motion that the Appeals Commission could send this directly to the City Council. Mr. Paschke said that originally Mr. Harris and he had agreed to the 0 lot line� but then Mr. Harris realized there might be legal problems if someone ran into the buildi.ng and thought that perhaps 5' would sol�re the problem. Ae said he had gone over this with Mr. Sobi@ch and Mr. Boardman, and they felt the building should be set back 5'. � �� F�idley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26� 1976 page 5 I�� Mr, Holden said that the other suggestion acceptable to the Planning Degart- � ment xas to shiPt the parking area on the North to 0'with a fence constructed. He said the intent would be to shift the building over 5'� but the 68� width of the building would still be maintained. Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that shifting the parking xould require another variance on the North side, and it would require another public hearing. Mr, Plemel noted that this request was tabled once already. Mrs. Schnabel said that at the time it was first tabled Mr. Paschke didn't think he would start construction until next spring� and he was over the }�0� lot coverage. She said they had recotrmiended at that time that N,r. Paschke sit down with Staff and come up with a better idea, and in the meantime he had found some- body to occupy the building so he was arixious to build. Chairperson Schnabel said that possibly they could act on the request on just the building part so Mr. Paschke could start construction� and then handle the separate request for going to the lot line on the North at a later time. Mr. Plemel noted that if the variance for the parking area wasn't granted, it would cut do*an the size of the building. Chairperson Schnabel said that the 7'g' rear yard setback was consistent in the area� and Mr. Holden agreed. Mr. Holden asked i£ there would be loading docks in the back of this building, and Pfr. Paschke said there wouldn't be. Mr. Kemper stated that Staff made a strong objection to the 0'setback� and asked Mr. Holden what his position was on a 5' clearance. ::r. Holden replied • tliat Sta£f felt that with 5' and proper fire protection according to code there would be adequate means to fight fire all around the bui3ding and the 5� would also allow room to maintain the building. Pirs. Schnabel said that at the Planning Commission meeting Mr. Harris had been concerned from a legal standpoint about the O�lot line because large trucks could back inta the building and damage it� but the 5� would take care of that. Mr. Holden showed the over-all plan for the Onaway area to the Board and pointed out the various buildings and setbacks. Mr. Kemper asked for a review on space allowed for parking, and Mr. Aolden replied that basically a parking stall should be 20' x 10'. He said that 3n certain cases in other areas they had reduced it to 18'. Mr. Holden said that the driaing aisle should be 25', but in this case the Zoning Administrator was willing to go to 2lt�� and it was possible in some instances to go with less depending on the area. He added that the Code said $' was required from the edge of a parking stall to the building. Nfrs. Gabel pointed out that xith a speculative building they almost had to go with 2$' because they didn't know xhat was going in there. Mrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Paschke was 2' short on parking space and 1' short on drivewqy. Mr. Kemper asked what size Mr, Paschke wanted to make the building, and he replied 68'. Mr. Semper asked if he xould agree to the 5' clearance instead of 0� and he replied he xould. 1�J ��r. � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26� 1976 Page 6 �� Chairperson Schnabel said that the request before the Appeals Co�mnission basically had io do with the building structure, buL the building was tied to � the parking area� also. She said they still had a problem with the eliminatio of the $' strip on the North side. Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Paschke if he should acquire ihe property to the North if he wouZd iake down the £ence and make it a joint parking lot. Mr. Paschke replied he would� but he didn't see that in the future. N3rs. Schnabe7. said that they could grant the variances to shorten the driveway and the parking, but the final question that remained was the s' setback on the North property line. Mr. Paschke asked if the Board would have any objections to Lhat variance, and hir, Plemel explained that another request and Public Hearing was a formality. Mr. Holden suggested it would be possible to grant the variance to the 5' setback on the South side with the lmowledge that a variance would be required on the North and with the understanding that if there was some objection to that, the building would have to be reduced in size. Ntr. Paschke said that would be impossible because if he started construction all the outside walls would be up by the time this came up for another variance. Chairperson Schnabel said that essentially the two requests before them at this meeting dealt with the building, and she suggested that to facilitate Mr. Paschke they should act on those two requests and have the Staff work out the parking situtation with him. She said that if it iaas decidec3 that a 5' variattce was still needed i'or a parking lot then Mr. Paschke would have � to come back with a request For variance, Mr. Paschke said he didn't have time to come back for another variance, so he would have to make the building 63�. Mr. Kemper said that vnder those conditions he wouldn't have any objection. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to close the Public Hear3.ng. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Schnabel asked if basically Staff recommended a 5' reduction in the size of the building� and Mr. Holden said that it was Staf£'s recommendation not to reduce the building by 5� but to shift the building 5' to the North. Mrs. Schnabe7. said that if the variance was approved with the 5' instead o£ 0' setback� she would guess the StafF and Mr. Paschke would have to get together immediately and figure out the parking area� and if they found it would still requ3re the 5' then Mr. Paschke would have to reduce the building by 5'. Mr. Barna said he had no objection, and he thought the speculative bui�dings i.n that area looked better than some of the residences. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for variance to reduce the resr yard setback from the required 25 feet to 7.5 feet, and reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 5£eet� with the stipulation that the building • should be sized such that the parking to the North side meets Code and if the building size is such that parking does not meet Code, an additional variance request must be submitted. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �� n LJ � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26� 1976 p�e 7 4� 3. REQUEST FOR A YARIANCE OF SECTION 205.131�, 3, A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO INCREASE TNE MAXIM[TM PE.'tCENT �F THE ARF.l1 OF A LOT TO BE COVERID BY THE MAIN BUILDING AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM !�0% TO 61.s%, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FOOT HY 60 FOOT CEMENT BTACK ENCLOSURE FOR COLD STORAGE, ON LOT 7, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0. 39� �E SAME BEING �i3� MAI!`1 STREET N.E.� FRIDLEY� PSIS3PdESOTA. (Request by VID Properties� (Arvid R. Hanson), 4300 Main Street N.E., Fridley� Minnesota 5542i). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATNE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 2Q5•13�, 3, A, limiting lot coverage for a single story 6uilding in an M-1 Zone to 1�0%. Public purpose served by this section of the City Code is to provide for adequate parking, open landscaped areas, and to limit congestion o£ commercial and industrial areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Not able to be used for ii�:provement of outside spaoe. Used only for outside storage - more e£ficient use for cold storage. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEr7: VID Metal Products was issued a permit in 197$ to construct a retaining wall for an outside storage area. Their present request is to enclose this area for cold storage and exceed the �0� lot coverage limits. Review o£ this request uncovered the fact that an exit stai.rway had been removed and not replaced after constructing the retaining wall. This should be replaced if it is determined that the exit way is required. Tne £ormer use o£ the storage area was a dirt slope necessary for protection of the building foundation at that point. Therefore, the new storage platform and retaining walls essentially replaced the former slope. The adjacent areas are apparently used for temporary storage and handling of goods. In as much as ihere appears to be no other use £or this particular area� Sta£f has no objection to this variance request� provided adequate exiting is maintained and the remainder of the building is landscaped properly. Hr, Arvid Hanson of VID Metal, and Mr. Rex Fasching� Vice President of VID Metal� were present. Mr. Hsnson stated that the variance they were requesting would not take up ar�y more of the lot� and they would be covering an area that xas unusable !�, Q �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26, 197b page 8 right now. He explained that they would not be using a larger percentage of the land� but just wanted to come up on the wall so they could have storage � room. Mr. Holden said that VID had come in in 197� with a request to put up a retaining wall� and the wall was designed adequately that it could maintain a building. He said the lot xas 20B' x 2Q8�, minus 33� for right of way. He stated that if the proposed addition was granted� almost 56� would be covered. Mr, Plemel asked if they would be losing any more green area, and Mr. Hanson replied they would not. Chairperson Schnabel said that although it wasn�t necessarily germane to the addition, she was wondering if there was any problem with parking the cars so close to the entrance and hindering the line oY sight. Mr. Holden explained that Burlington Northern to the North was starting an addition, and in conjunction with that they would be reviewing the whole block area an@ could review that question at that time. Chairperson Schnabel asked if this addition that was proposed would just be used for storage, and D1r. Hanson replied that was correct. She asked i£ there was a need for an exit out of that end of the building, and Mr. Holden said they would have to review that as it might be necessary to put in a stairway. Mr. Holden explained to Mr, Hanson that there might have to be an egress for a person to leave the builcling at that point� and the Code was trying to avoid someone getting killed. He added that without #U11 pl',uis of the building he cou2d not evaluate iF it was necessary or not. D1r. . Hanson said he would go along with putting it 3n if it was thought necessary. MOTION by Plemel� seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Mr. Plemel suggested that the variance be changed to read from 40% to 61.SY 0£ area covered by the main building and all accessory buildings ov2r 40%, Mr. Barna suggested it be changed to an additiona2 1200 square feet, and the Commission agreed. HOTI�N by Plemel, seconded by Barna� that the Appeals Commission recommend to Counci2 that the vari.ance be granted to increase the size of the building by 1200 square feet. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1�. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 20S.OS3� 5� a� TO REDIICE THE SIDE YARD WIDTH ON A STREET SIDE OF A CORNER LOT FROM THE REQUIRED 1%� FEET TO ly� FEET� TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLTNG AND GARAGE ON LOT 6, BIACK 1� ZAPIDIIt�S FIRST ADDITION� TAE SAME BEING 6061� MCKINLEY STREET N.E.� FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA. (Request by Dailey Homes� 8510 Central Avenue N.E.� Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432). MOTION by Harna, seconded by P1emeZ, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. i Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - October 26� 1976 Page 9 ADMZNISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 4� � A. PUBLIC PURPQSE SERVED BY REQU IIiEMENT: Section 205.053, �t, B�5A) Corner lot side yard setback of 17.5 feet for living area of structure. PuDlic purpose served by this section oS the code is to maintain a higher degree o£ traffic visibility and reduce the line of sight encroachment into the neighbor's £ront yard. B. STATEA HARDSHIP: Because of road dedication given to the Citq, setback is impossible without a variance. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: It is possible, by turning the house and shifting the garage back, to build a structure on this lot within the code. Although a side yard o£ less than 17� feet is being requested, the excessive boulevard of over 22 feet does not appear to create any undue visual haaards on the corner. � Staff has no objection to this variance request, � Mr. Noward C. Thorson.of Dailey Homes was present. Mr. Thorson stated that there would be at least 3$� from the curbline to the house because of the easement. Chairperson Schnabel asked if he would be maintaining the regular 35' setback in front, and Mr. Thorson replied he would. Mr. Holden asked if the family room was to be deleted, and Mr, Thorson said it was not. Chairperson Schnabel noted that there was only 5' between the structure and the property line on the South side, and explained there had to be 10� on that side of the house. Mr. Thorson said that when he went in to get the permit the only question at that time was the side yard setback on the street side. Mr. Holden said he had been lead to believe that the family room was being deleted, 1�trs. Schnabel asked i£ there was a buyer for the house, and Mr. Thorson replied there was and they didn't xant to cut anything out of it. Mr. Kemper asked what the proposed schedule was on this, and h1r. Tliorson said the buyers wanted to have it started a month ago. Mr. Kemper said he could only see two alternatives: 1) Table the request and wait for another request with the additional side yard variance and the official notice, or 2) Act on the request as presented with the recogni- tion that they couldn't build the house as it was presently proposed. � �� i� Fridley Appeals Co�nission Meeting - October 26, 1976 Page 10 Mr. Thorson said Lhat he hadn't beeh aware that there had to be a minimum of 10' between the living area of a house and the property line� and he was � afraid the buyer would have a stroke if this was delayed any further. Chair-� person Schnabel explained that they were bound by codes. Mr. Thorson said he realized the Board�s position, but if he had been aware of it-he could have added that to his request. Chairperson Schnabel stated she felt they should act on the variance before them with �he understanding there would be another request. Mr. Holden added that the fee for the second request would be waived. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by P1emeZ, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Plemel asked if turning the house on the lot would be a problem, and Mr. Thorson said that would create a minimum rear yard, and the buyers wanted it the way it was proposed. MOTION by Gabel� seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission grant the reguest far variance with the stipulation that when the builder came in for the second variance request the fee be waived. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, ihe motion carried unanimously. 5. REVIEW OF ARTICLFS OF INi;ORPORATION OF FRIDLEY YOUTH CENTER Chairperson Schnabel stated that at the Iast Planning Commission meeting ;`� it appeared that there was a real time factor on getting the Articles of ��i 7ncorporation finalized and getting them into better language than they presently were. She said that it was hoped by the people who helped write them that they could get some legal help to shorten and rewrite them� so the Planning Commission decided to pass this on directly to Council and ask for their assistance and legal assistance. Chairperson Schnabel said it was then recommended that the subcommissions who had not had an opportunity to look at the articles yet could do so and offer sugge'stions, and the suggestions would be passed on. She explained this was merely for their reviewt and if there were any recommendations they could be made either to hersel£ or Dick Harris. Mr. Kemper stated that his only cotmnent was, TMis all this really necessary?'� Chairperson Schnabel said she thought that was their feeling, too. She said they didn't want to be bogged down with such an unwieldy document such as this, so they were anxious to move it to City Council. ADJOURNME'NT • Chairperson Schnabel adjourned the October 26� 1976 Appeals Commission meeting at 9:3o P.ri. Respectflil.ly submitted� \1�J/�:nn�l ( 'l � .l3r.J1t�O� � Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary � � �� . \�_ � , � �. CITY OF FRIDLS7C PLANNINa COtR�IISSION MEETING - NOVEhIDSR 3, 1976 PAGfi 1 C1LL TO 08DF.2: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. fl07.L CAI�L: ![embers Presentt Harris, Bergman, I.augenfeld, Peterson� Schnabel, Shea Members Absent; None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman� City Planner AYPRUVS PLANNING COZASZSSION HINUTES: OCTOBER 20, 1976 Mrs. Shea stated that she vould like to rebut Mr. Boardman's statement on page 19 under Human Development Goals and Objectives. She explained that the reason for delay vas not that this had been sent to Hwnan Resources se it had come right back from her Co�i.ssion, but it xas just the lateness of the hour that had caused it to be tabled so many times. Chairg�erson Harris said it vas so noted, MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Cominission minutes of October 20, 1976 be approved as xritten. Upon a voice vote, a],l voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. I�pTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, to add the Chenge in Minnesota State Aid Designation item to the agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voting qye, the motion carried �mnanimously. Chairperson Harris stated they xould make the Change 7n Minnesota State Aid Designation Item 8 on the agenda. 1. PUBI,IC NEARING: P80POSID PRELIMINARY PlAT P.S. 6-11 REAL FSTATB ITION, BY FRAN S J. �IRDLER: Being a rep a o£ Lot , except ---- t�ia�part thereo£ lying West o£ the Northeasterly right oY w�y line of the outer drive of State Trunk Highx�y �6$� and except that part thereof lying East of a line drawa from a point in the North line of said Lot 5, distant 1�505.96 feet West from the N.E. corner thereof to a point in the South line of said Lot 5� �iistant 1,393.62 feet West from the S.fi. corner thereof� Auditor's Subdivision No. 25s the same being 951 Hillvind Road N.S. Plannfng Commi.ssion Meeting - Aovember 3, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Francis Girdler was present, along xith Councilman Walt Starxalt; Mr. and Mrs. Harry C. McKinley, 101� Lynde Drive; end Mrs. Jerome Johnson, 1000 Lynde Drive. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Shea, that the Planning Co�nission open the Public Hearing on the Proposed Preliminary Plat� P,B. //76-11, Real Estate 10 Addit3on, by Francis J. Girdler. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:1�0. Mr. Boardmen explainad to the Planning Co�aiasion that they had seen this item before; it had gone past the time limit on it so it had to be brought back again for a plat. He stated they vere talking about parcel 1300 along Hillxind Road, xhich was being served t+ith sanitary sewer that xas coming in from Polk Street. He said that the City did have easement for that sanitary Sexer to parcels 1300 and 1130,"and water was being provided Co this property Yrom Hillkind Road. Mr. Boardman added that the developanent of the property vould be Por oYfice use, and it *ras z.oned C8-li which vas office zoning. Mr. Girdler stated that the reason this hadn't gone through before was that the ovner of the property to the North and behind didn't xaat to provide the easement to them, but apparently �anted them to buy the lot to the North. He explained they hadn't purchased it but another party had, and the nex neighbors to the North joined in putting the easement all the x�y through. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the property to the North xas zoned R-1, and Mr. Boardmen said it xas R-3� and there xas x-3 ��e way around. Mr. Girdler expla3ned that the one house that wss in there (two lots away) xas also zoned R-3. Mr. Ber�nnan asked i£ he understood that adminiatration had looked at this in regard to proposed water aervice and sexer, end there wss no additional concern for other utility easement for electrical, telephone� drainage, or gas, Mr, Boardman said those �rere all 3n Hillxind Road. Mr. iangenfeld asked iY there ahouldn't have been an Administrative Report on this, and ?tr. Boardman replied that was not required. II�runcilman Starwalt stated that he xas present at the request of a constituent, and had a couple of questions regarding this. He asked if there was any construction undertsken at the present time on this property, and Mr. Hoardman replied there vas not any that he vas aware oP. Mr. Girdler added that to the North there was, but not on this property, and said this xas not a rezoning. Councilman Stanralt asked when this property had been rezoned, end Mr. Boardman replied it had been rezoned to CR-1 about two years ago by an ordinance #�&&. Mr. MeHinley stated that he vas a bit concerned as he didn�t really understand what the plans vere tor that property. He said he understood there vould be a real estate office in that area, but there xas already construction started on a building and he jnst wanted to find out rrhat xas going on. Chairperson Harris sai.d that if he remembered correctly� Mr. Girdler was completing a requeat by the City Yor replatting thia from the time of the rezoning. Mr. Bosrdman agreed� and said that was one o£ the stipulations on the rezoning. Planning Co�isaion Meeting - November j, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Boardmen explained that bec�use o£ the lot descrj�ption they had requested a replat instead of a lot split. He said the actual legal description vould have baen too long and lengthy on this� so they had requ�ted it be replatted ittstead. He furiher ra�plained that ths building that was being constructed xas not on this property in question� but on the property just North of this. t4r. McKinley asked iP there wuld be a real estate o£f3ce there, and Hr. Boardman said he believed thai aas the intention and it was zoned properly for that. Mr. McKinley aske�dif there t�onld be approximately 125' of fronting, and Mr. Hoardman said that xas correct. Mr. McKinl.ey asked xhat the depth rrould be, and ?Ir. Boardman referred him to page 27 of the agenda which showed the layaut of vhere the building xould be located. He explained there would be a minimum of a 35' setback, and a double row of parkin� in front of the building Would put it back about 80'. Mr. McKinley asked if there would just be the real estate oPfice or i£ xqything fYu�ther to the East was planned. Mr. Boardman said just the one building �rould be allowed on the property. Councilman Starvslt stated that a pre-fab home had been mentioned, and explained that as he recalled vhen it was before Council nothing xas said about pre-fab and he just understood the residence that xas going in was a sing�e-family residence. Chairperson Harris said that a single-Yamily residence was allowed under this zoning� and Mr. Girdler said they vere referring to a Wausaw home. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the home that xas being constructed to the 13orth was being built by Mr. Girdler, and he replied it xas aat. Mrs. Schnabel noted that on the form Mr. Girdler had filled out for this requeat it stated a real estate oYYice building, and asked if there xould be other offices. Mr. Girdler replied there would not bej just their oirn facility. 2�Irs. McKinley asked if this construction would leave the wqy open for multiple d`rellings in this area. She explained the apartment building in back of the property in question was charging their te�aents extra rent for alloxing them to have pets. Mrs. McKinley said they had gone through the expense oY putting up a Cyclone fence to keep their dog in because of the le�sh lax, and the apartment dyrellers exercised their animals freely out there. She explained they xould like to keep other multiple dvellinga out of there because there s�as never enongh roora for the children and thereWwas also the pet problem. She stated she xas wnderin� if the replat xould in any way possibly allox a rezoning. Cha3rperson Harris said that this had nothing to do xith rezoning, and explained this xas already zoned cwmnercial. He said that to reaone vould take another Public Hearing by the Planning Cottunission, a Phblic Hearing by the City Council and final action by the City Council. Mr. Harris asked if the problem regarding the dogs xas thet they were running loose. Mrs. McKinley said that most ran looae� and only one appeared to be on a leash. She stated there vas a large Siberian Huslcy, a water speniel� and a couple of German Shepherds. Chairperson Harris said that Fridley did have a leash lar and a dog patrol� aad if the animals were unlesshed perhaps the City Staff could look iato it. Mrs. Shea commented that the dog patrol xas only available i.n the mornings, xhich xas quite disconcert�ng. Mr. Harris said that perhaps the situation should be examined and remedied. Planning Comoission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Pege tt MOTION bg Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Coaaaission close the Pnblic Hearing on the Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. �%16-11, Real Estate 10 Addition, by F'rencis J. Girdler. Upon a voice vote, all voting a,ye� the motion carried unanimously. Mra Schnabel said that she vas a little disturbed that they had one little section of land that was co�rcial; that bothered her more than the replatting process, but she said it vas beyond their scope at this point. She added that she didn�t understand hox one lot in the mi.ddle of all the R-3 got a commercial zoning on it, as that entire area was strictly either R-1 or R�3 rrith the eaception of the corner xhere the filling station was. Chairperson Aarris commented that he didn't lmox hov it happened as it occurred before he was on the Planning Commission. Mrs. Schnabel stated that it xas goi.ng to seem a little strange when that area got filled in� and Mr. Harris agreed but sa3d there ras nothing they could do about it now. MOTION by Bergman, saconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Coamiission reco�mnend to Council apgroval of the proposed preli.minary plat, P.S. #76-11� Real Sstate 10 Addition, by Francis J. Girdler: Being a replat of Lot 5, except that part thereof lying West of the Northeasterly right of vay line of the outer drive of State Trunk Highxqy �y65, end except that part thereof lying East of a line dra�n from a poi.nt in the North line of said Lot 5, distant 1,505.96 feet West fr� the N.&. corner thereo£ to a point i.n the South line of said Lot 5� distant 1�393.62 feet West from the S,E. corner thereof� Auditor�s Subdivision No. 25, the seme being 951 Hillw3nd Road N.fi. Mr. Langenfeld siated that he agreed vith Mrs, Schnabel in regard to the spot zotting, but felt they had no recourse but to grant the prelim3nary plat under the conditions. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. LOT SPLIT RSQUffiT: L.S. �'/6-10 BY THOMAS SHIBA: Split I,ot 11, Auditor's Su ivision No. 2, in o three parcels as fa orrs: Tract A: All of the West 165 feet of Lot 11� A.S. #129, lying Northerly o£ the South 1l17 feet thereof: Same as ].la65 Onondaga N.S. (already huilt upon)� Tract B: The East 75 feei of the West 165 feet of the South 147 feet of Lot 11, A.S. �/129, same being 11t67 Onondaga N.E. (vacant), and Tract C: The West 90 £eet of the South 1Lt7 feet of Lot ll, A.S. #129, the same being 7lt20 Bacon Drive N.B. (vacant). Mr. Thomas Skiba xas present. Mr.-Baardman eaplained that this was a simple lot split� and Mr. Skiba wanted to divide the property that was located on Lot 11 into three parcels: one 90' and txo 75'• He said there xas a house presently existing on the 9�' parcel. Mr. Skiba stated that Sacon Urive uas in and went all the vay through £rom Onondaga Street to 75th. Planning Co�mission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 5 Chairperson Harris asked hox far the house on Tract C was o£f oY the proposed center lot line betreen C and B, and Mr. Skiba replied approximate�y 32'. Mi'. Harris asked if there was some reason Hr. Skiba was maintaining 90' on the lot that the house Was alreac�y on� and Mr. Skiba ezplained he had purchssed the balance of the property w5ich resulted in A and B from the oirner of the original property� and this xas What the original owner xanted. He explained he did not own Tract C. Chairperson Harris asked if drsinage and utility easements xere provided, and 14r. Boardman replied that none were needed on the property. He explained that had taken 2Q' Yor the street and all uti13t3es were in the street. Mr, Boardman sai.d that as far as he xas avare, they didn't have a�y problem as tar as easpnents. Chairperson Harris noted that there appeared to be an alley or access easement that ran dovn the side of the property to Lot 5. He said it ras just to the West oS the property and appeared to be about 20r xi.de, Afr. Skiba explained that this xas a piece of property the original ovner had let go tax forfeit; he had traded the 20' that xas used for Bacon Drive for this 20', so it xas part oP the pareel. Councilman Starralt explained that the strpp in questioa at one time did belong to Mr. Flannery, but vas traded for street access. He stated it xent back to early d�ys oP survey *�rhen things didn�t quite line up as xell. Mr. Starwalt explained that originally it xas not Mr. Flannery�s, but he ended up acquiring it simply because nothing else could be don e with it; originally it xas not a part of this property+ but did become a part. Ha explained it vas an agree- meni betxeen Mr. Flannery and the City, Chairperaon Harris said that then the 20' vas part of the property now, and ?fr. Starvalt said that rras correct. He said that it was his impression that the property no�r looked at as A, B and C did include the 20', but txo years ago it didn't. Mr, Peterson asked iP he xas correct in seying that the 90' that xas preaently shown as Tract C included the 20' they Frere discussing� and Mr. Starxalt said that was correct. Mr. Boardman stated that then the dark line on page 30 should include the 20' strip. Chairpsrson Harris said he xas wondering about the legal description on A& C� and if it shonldn't.someLov include that 20'. He said that Lot 11 vould have been replatted when this other percel xas acquired to include the property. Councilmen Starwalt said that to his Imoxledge it vas replatted approximately two years ago. Mrs. Schnabel asked xhat the date of the survey was, and Mr, Boardman replied it sras done on October 21, 1976. Chairperson Karris suggested they check to see that Lot 11 vas replatted to make sure that the 20' xas included. Mr, Boardman said they would chekk that out in time for the Council meeting. He asked the Co�i.ssion if they wanted this to go on to Council� or if they would prefer to have it c�ne back to the Planning Co�ission. Chair- person Harris sai.d it was up to the membera. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Skiba 3P timing was of importance to him so he xould appreciate it being handled at this meeting, and i3r. Skiba replied it xas. Planning Co�mnission Meeting - November 3s 1976 Page 6 Mr. Bergman said he xas a bit conYused about the street pattern and right of x�. He stated that looking at Bacott Drive on page 30 of the agenda, there appeared to be a 30� dedication off of Hitzeman Addition. Mr. Boardmen explained the City did have a 50' right of way off Bacon Drive; the 30' off Hitzeman and the 20' to the west. He explained that the 20' xas the same 20' thst appeared on pgge 29 marked •taken for street", and xas an exiating right of xa�y. MOTIOH by Peteraoni seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Conmiission recoaonend to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. �76-10� by Thomas Skibas Split Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129� into three parcels as follotas: Tract A: All of the West 165 feet oP Lot 11, A.S. �7.29, lying Northerly o£ the South 11�7ffeet thereoP: 3ame as 1l�65 Onondaga N.E. (already built upon), Tract B: The Esst 75 feet of the West 165 £eet of the South ].47 feet oP I.ot ll� A.S. �7.29, same being 1l�67 Onondaga N.E. (vacant), and Tract C: The West 90 feet of the South lJi7 feet of Lot 11� A.S. #129� the same being 7420 Bacon Drive N.E. (vacant)� rrith the stipulation that the replat is as the Planning Coumission understaads it (the 20� noted on page 30 is indeed included in the 165' as shoxn an page 29) and Mr. Boardman is to have that assurance before it goes to City Council. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. CONTINUID: REVIEW OF PROYOS� KAINTBNANCS CODS MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission hold this discussion on the proposed maintenance code to '-� hour maximum. Upon a voice vote, all aoting aye� the motion carried nna�imously. Hr. Bergman stated th$t he had gone through initisl parts of the maintenance code and Pound a lot of persoaal disagreement xith srhat he had gone through. He said he vould be glad to briefly run through srhat he vas talking abaut for other members to co�mnent. Hrs. Schnabel said that beYore he proceeded� she vas wondering iP enything had been done concerning breaking up the maintenence code into various sections as discussed at the laat Planning Co�mnission meeting. Mr. Boardmen said that there vere four sections in the proposed maintenance code: residential, exterior maintenance £or residential� coromercial and industrial, and exterior maintenance for comnercial and industrial. Mrs. Schnabel noted that they had also talked about breaking out apartments and mobile homes from R-1� and t�lr. Boardman said they could easily be broken out because they were in separate sections of the code. He said that it xes his understanding that the intent for tabling s+as to give direction to the subco�maissiona. Mr. Boardman explained this wauld be s�t down to the member cot�nissions and at that time the Planning Commission should give them some direction ss to vhat to look at. He said he was xondering hrnr tSia vould fit in as far as breaking doxn the code and that type of discussion. Chairperson Harris suggested sending the member commissions one section at a time. __ Planning Co�nission Meeting - November 3� 1976 Page 7 Mr. Peterson stated that although he hadn't been at the October 20th meeting� he had tried to sense the direction of the discussion in the minutes and it seemed to him that one of the thinga everyone vas conceraed about was the invssion of hwnan privacy. He stated that in light of �ht Mr. Boardman xas saying� he thought that the Planning Commission should ask the Auman R.esources Corrmiission to look at this from the standpoint oP invasion of privacy. Mr. Peterson added that it also seemed to him that the F�vironmental Quality Commission should look at it £rom the standpoint of xhat it does to the total co�nunity. He stated that was xhat he thought they vere looking at in their action at this meeting in terms of sendi.ng it to other member commissions� end suggested asking the member cocmn.issions to look at the specific areas �here they had concerns rather than the members oY the Planning Co�niasion spending time discussing the specific concerns tonight. Mr. Bergman coimnented that he Yelt there xas a lot more to do xith it than that. He said he read through section 220.22 and had come up vith a lot of questioas. He said he didn't vant to sound derogatory on this� but asked what they xere trying to do. Chairperson Harris asked if he could interrupt� and suggested that perhaps they could iron out the procedural end of this first and then discuss Mr. Bergman's concerns x3th it at ihat time. He stated he xas in hopes of giving the member commissions the direction they had talked about £rom the Human Resources aspect and ffi�vironmental aspect, and suggeated that perhaps ihey ahould first carve it up into the pieces they xanted to send to them. Mr. Bergman stated that he did not agree they should send them this proposed code. He said that he got the impression that somebody did a lot of library work and pulled together a lot of dialogue Yrom different sources and put doxn whatever appeared relative. He said that this seemed to result in some- �at overbesring dielogue, such as i.n the Preamble� 220.02. He stated that 220,03 vas primarily directed at c�struction codes other than maintenance, and he thought it xas a duplication of construction code reference. Mr. Hergman said he didn�t think they had to take everything out of the Health Inspector�s Codea, building codes� Safety Inspector's Codes or all trades codes and put them together in sometfiing like this. He said he thought they should adopt them by reference relative to construction and cnt this doxn by 60X or more and address this as a maintenance code, which is xhat the title is. He added that itt the Scope� 220.03� x1z� at�es talking about becazne fairly obvious. Mr. Bergman stated there were a lot of duplications in the propesed maintenanee code� and even the Health 7nspector was brought in there and he didn�t knov why the Health Inspector should be included in the maintenence code. Mr. Bergman read one of the objectives under 220.O�t to the Coranission: "To correct and prevent conditions that adversely af£ect or are likely to adversely afYect the life� safety� general velfare, and health, including the physical, mental, and social well being of persons using non-residential Pacilities xlthin Frid].ey". He said he didn't lmox why they xere doing a11 that as an objective, Mr. Bergman stated that another objective, to provide minimum standards for heating, sanitary equipment� lighting, and ventilation necessary to health and safety� was another duplication of other codes, He said that providing Planning Coffiai.ssion Meeting - November 3� 1976 Page 8 minimum standards usually applied to a construction code rather than a mainten- ance code, and he thought a lot of this wuld be difficult to enforce. He added that also, there was ao definition of roaintenance in the proposed code� and he thought it was w�I overdone in general. Mr. Bergman said he also thought this was discriminating against lox and moderate income people� as the City could go into their homes and tell them they have to put in vindows, etc.� because their house doesnrt come up to this standard, Mr. Bergman said he felt there was a sizable reqork of this code before sending it dovn to member co�issions, and repeated that he felt it xas overburdening and xay overdone. He stated that if the purpose oY the code xas what he thought it xas� it should be more inclined to treat exterior aesthetics. He added that he didn't see why they had to tell someone that everything must be water-tight Yrom a maintenance viex� as the home oxner should be concerned irith that. He stated he vas not sure that xas an area xhere the City had to get involved. Mr. Boardmsn replied that in some cases, such as rental properties, they should get involved. He explained that i£ the maisbenafl�e on the property xent x�y down� the li�ability could be detri- mental to the health, safety and rrell being of the people who lived there. Mr. Peterson stated that basically What Mr. Hoardman Was s�yIng rras that they were putting together a residential and non-resident3al maintenance code so the City could qualif� to get rent subsidies through HUD. Mr. Board- man said that vas not true, and that they didn't need the housing maintenance code to get rent subsidies. He stated that one of the stipulations that the Planning Co�mnisaion placed on going to the Section 8 program was th�t a housing maintenance code be developed. Mr. Boardman said they had pulled ordinances together that other communities vera using� and also referred to a standardized housing maintenance ordYSance. He explained they had been in contact xith St. Louis Park� Bloomington� RichPield� Brooklyn Center� Nex Brighton� and MoundsvieW� and right norrrrere gathering information on how those conom�nities maintain them� xhat type of personnel they use, and the cost of the program to them. He said that it seemed to him that St. Louis Park xas probably the City in the metro area that vas doing the most rrith the program as far as going out and requ3ring work to be done at the time of change of o�erships and this type of thing. Hr, Boardman further explained that in most cases the codes vere set up strictly on a co�aplaint basis� and most of them dealt strictly with apartments and did not go into residential. Mr. Boardman said that they had put together something that ma�q be a little overburdening and m�y be hard to enforce� but suggeated that theyCv��asion xork on it and cut it down, and at some po3nt make a good code that xas enforceable and vou3d serve ita=purpose. Mr. Langenfeld sai.d that he agreed with Mr. Bergraan, and added that he fdlt it looked like mqvhe some o£ the inter� just threw� this code together. He stated he Pelt that this Was a violation of the original housing plan, and although they did vant a raaintenance code he felt this particular one was very discriminatory. Mr. Langenfeld said that in respeaise to the Hivlronmental aspects� it seemed to him that most of the code applied to alresc�y existing Plazming Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 9 dxellings. He said he felt that the major part of the environmental impact had alreac�y taken place. He suggested that pexiaeps this proposed code could be used as a guideline in order to mBir.ain I�idley�s maintenance code. Mr. Langenfeld said that with regard to Mr. Bergman�s statement� he felt that when you spoke in terms of waintenance, underneath that there xould be various forms of construction. He ezplai.ned that in order to maintain anything there had to be foxms of construction. Mr. Peterson asked xhat is vas they really vanted to accomplish xith this code. He stated that xhen the Comprehensive Housing Plan was adopted there vas a plank in it that said something about maintenance, but he didn't recall any specific objective that they hoped to cover under that plank o£ mainteaance. Mr. Peterson said he recalled the Chairman said at that time it made him nervous and thought it would be a rather explosive issue. He added that he still didn't Imox xhat they tirere trying to accomplish, and when they started writing a code xithout lmowing what they really xanted to accomplish they vandered and nothing really happened. Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they should define maintenance. Mr. Bergman said he had thought that they wuld be addressing sesthetics; neighborhood preservation, xhich is pri.marily an appearance factor, and control of degradation, which is primari�y an appearance factor. He stated he had thought it was primarily an aesthetic concern. Mr. Hoardman explained that a housing maintenance code was not set up necessarily for the outside maintenance of the house, but also for the structural maintenance of that house. He said that if there was structural damage to the house which made that house a hazard to live in or at least detrimental to the health, safety and xelfare o£ that person� there should be some code to require the repair of that structure. Mr. Ber�nan asked if they didn't have that nox, and iP a Building Inspector couldn't go to that house and s$yr the structure *ras detrimental to the health� safety and rrelfare o£ the occupants. Mr. Boardman said they did not. Mrs. Shea asked if there hadn't been a complaint recently concerning an apartment in the City being unsafe, and under what rule the City could act on that. Mr. Boardman replied that they might go out and tslk to the apart- ment owner about it, but they had no suthority to enforce any repair or mai.ntenance of that structure. Chairperson Harris stated that brought up another point, and asked for xhat reason they xere licensing apartments. Mr. Boardman said that the Fire Marshal did inspect the apartments� but only those public areas such as entrances� exits and that type of thing. Mr. Harris noted there xas a fee for the licensing procedure, and asked what the City did £or that fee. Mr. Boardman replied that as far as he lmer+, it xas for the fire inspection. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought when the code talked about mi.nimum standards and said there must be a table or counter for food preperation, it was getting beyond the scope of what they meant by mai.ntenence. She said she thought there vere a number o£ things they should get at in a maintenance Planning Commission Meeti.ng - November 3, 1976 Page 10 code: 1) Hcterior maintenaace of the property throughout the City in regard to private residential, rental properties and husineases� and 2} Something that would deal srith interior minimum structural design xhich rrould be beneficial for the health and safety of the persons in these structures, but most specifically in regards to rental property as well as public places. Mrs. Schnabel suggested they might have some type of maintenance code built around those two specific concepts (interior and exterior), xith a viev towards deterioration, particularly in rental property, as opposed to getting into such minute detail as there appeared to be in the document they had now. Mr. Peterson stated that he had txo questions: 1) In many households there was a shortage of cash with quite regular frequency� and if a Building Inspector told one of these homeovners that he had to do certain repairs to his dWelling and it was beyond that person's means at that time, were they going to kick hiw out?� and 2) Is the licensing of the apsrtment a yearly thing? Mr. Boardman replied it was. Mr. Peterson said that then he felt the licensing should be strengthened to take care of xhat they vere looking far as far as protecting the renter. He stated that if the tenant and the apartment ovner got in a dispute over the color of paint, this xas beyond xhat the City government xas meant to do. Mrs. Schnabel said that there were certain minimums which rental property must maintain, such as heat, lighting� proper safety exits, etc. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think the City should get into the Leating question. He stated that the Building Codes required adequate systems� and Srhat the person set the thermostat on should be betrreen the oceupant and the manager. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that the City of Minneapolis did have a regulation xhich stated that a minimum of 68�F. must be maintained in a rental structure� and she didn't think that was unfai.r. Mr. Peterson coimnented that he could see xhere stairvays and lighting should be maintained so the structures vouldn't become death traps. Chairperson Harris stated that their time limit xas almost up, and suggested that the Co�mission members take this under consideration and go home and think about it. He said that then at the next meeting they should put £orth some ideas on what they thought should be in the maintenance code and give diraction to Staff. MATION by Peterson� seconded by Ber�nan, that the Planning Camnission consider the proposed maintenance code and be prepared to contribute ideas on vhat they thought should be in the code at the next meeting, and at that time give direction to Staff. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. !t. CONTINUB�: HUMAN DEVFSAPMII�iT GOET.S AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman said that at this time he xas looking for direction on Human Development Goals D200 and D300. He said they had response back from the Human B.esources Commission, and his meaning in the Planning Commission minutes Planning Commission Meeting - November 3� 1976 Page 11 of the last meeting was not to say that the Auman Resources Commission was being slox, but £elt that the member cor�issions should have a chance to reviex the total package. He explained that instead of separating the goal statements and sending them doWn every time there xas a new one, he thonght they should xait until the xhole package was put together and send the xhole thing. Mr. Boardman said that he thought the Goal Statements had been approved in the whole Human Developnent srea, and nox the Program Objectives had to be approved. Hr. Bergman said he had looked it all over and thought it looked great xith one exception� and that was Program Objective D310. He stated that implied hiring someone to be that "clearing-house of information", and he didn't agree with that, Pfx�. Boardman said they wouldn't be hiri.ng any more people, and explained yrhat he mesnt xas the City of Fridley would have such an attitude that the citizens could call for inPormation. Mr. Bergmsn asked if he would be willing to change "position" to "poature°, and Iir. Boardman said that would be fine. Mrs. Schnabel noted that D300� D310 and D33a xere all dealing vith public information and vondered if Mr, Boardman re311q xanted three separate deliniations of xhat appeared to be three very similar-type operations. Mr. Boardman replied he did, and explained that D3� �+� a general Goal Statement. He said he Yelt there rrere four areas in which they could break this doxn: 1) Become an information storehouse for the residents� 2} Provide adequate redress and reasonable access to the affairs of local government� 3) Build an efficiency iato the dissemination of inPormation� and 4) Promote cooperation and mutual understanding. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission concur rrith the Goal Statements and Program Objectives on pages 31 attd 32 of the agenda (Goal Statements D200 and D300). Upon a voice vote, all voting �ve� the motion carried unanimous�y. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:10 P.H. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. 5. ci� MOTION by Lengenfeld� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive the memo to Al1 Chai.rpersons oP City Coimnissions from Jerrold Boardman dated October 29, 1976 regarding Agendas for Meetings. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman stated that they vere going to print xith the calendar for next year, and the dates noted on page 33 of the agenda were the dates being set for the various Couoissions. He said that he would like some kind Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 12 of concnrrence with these dates. Chairperson Harris noted that the calendar schedule was basically xhat they xere doing noW, and asked if this was agreeable to all the Co�niss3on members. The Commissioners agreed it was. Mr. Boardman ssid he also xanted to mention that if �he Chairperson from one of the member co�nissions could not attend the Planning Co�mnission meeting, it xas up to that person to contact his {/ice Chairperson. Mr. Peterson said that at the time of the last Plenning Comnission meeting he had been out of torm and his Vice Chairperson had also been out of town, and asked �rhat the procedure xas at this point. Mr. Boardman sai.d that i£ they were both,going to be gone� there xould be an empty seat at the Planning Coimoission meeting. He added he just wanted each Chairparson to understand it was his responsibility to contact the Vice Chairperson and get the information to him. 6. RECEIVE SNVIRANI�ffiJTAL QUALITY CdlAIISSION HINUT&S: oCTOSER 19, 1976 Mr. Langenfeld stated he �ould like the first sentence on page 1� of the Fridley Bhvironmental Commission minutes to be corrected to read that his motion to recoimaend the moratorium to the City Council died for lack oP a second. TSOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive the Eavlronmental Quality Commission minutes o£ October 19, 1976. Upon a voice vote, a7.1 notmng �ye� the motion carried unanimously. 7. RECEIPE APPEAIS Col�M,isSION--MIIdTiTES: OCTOBER 26, 1976 ", Chairperson Harris noted that as usual� the Appeals Comaaission was working vezy hard and diligently. MO'TION bq Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of October 26, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanvaously. 8. CHANGE IN MINNffiOTA STATE AID DffiIGNATION Mr. Boardman explained that this xas something that came yearly to the Planning Commission; every year they swmnarized the recoimnended State Aid designations end the elimination of certa3n designations. Ae stated that this item was this year's reco:mnendations� and that the Leigh Terrace plat xas approved by the Plenning Coirmiiseion. He further explained that they presently had a State Aid designation on 75th W�y out to East River Road� and vere suggesting that State Aid designation be changed to that portion of Osborne Way N.S. s+hich tied up to Osborne� as per E�chibit A. Planning Comnission Meeting - November 3� 197b Page 13 Mr. BBrgman asked if the original extension of 75th Way would be vacated� and Mr. Boardman replied they xould delete that from State Aid designation but it Would still be a street as there had to be a street thaee to serve the properties that Were off of that. Chairperson Aerris said it seemed those two intersections vere quite close together, and Hr. Boardman replied they xere, but that xas the x�v it had been approved by the City and County. MOTION by Peteraon, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council the change in Minnesota State 9id designations to allox modifications to the intersection of Osborne &oad and East River &oad as folloxs: A, Delete the M.S.A. designation of 75th Way and add Osborne Way N,E. as per IDchibit A. B. Rescind easament on Eest side of Talmadge Lane and acquire easement on West side of Talmadge Lane as per Ekhibit B. UPON A VOICE VOTS� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. OTHNR BUSINFSS: Hrs. Schnabel stated that she xould like to point out to the members of the Go�nission the City Council minutes of their October 18th meeti.ng and the discussion concerning the Appeals Co�ission minutes on the request by Mr, and Mrs, Robert Tomczak of 999 Overton Drive N.E. She said this dealt vith the matter of allo*�ring the construction of a srrim�ning pool in the front yard, and exp�ained the Appeals Corrunission and denied the request on a vote of 3- 1 and it vent to the City Council. Mrs. Schnabel explained the reason she xas bringing this to their atte�tion was that the City Council tabled that request and decided it xould appear as another subject £or their meeting of November 22nd rrhen they vould discuss substandard lots. She said that since they xere all invitad to attend that meeting, she xanted them to be axare that this xould be another item that xould be on the agenda. Chairperson Harris said that he had noticed a public notice in the nexspaper concerning an improvement to put in a rsilroad cvossing at 79th Street, and thought that beYore that happened it should come to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoardman said he lmex nothing about that, but kould eheck on it, PIr. Boardman said he wanted to mention that the City Council had discussed garage requirements at their last meeting, and xould be sending it back to the Planning Co�nission to act on accordingly when the City did a rezoning change. He said in other vords� they felt the present code was sufficient now to handle the situation� and i£ the Planning Commission vanted to make chahges it should be done at the time of recodification. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the Council agreed or disagreed with the philosophy behind the motion, and �. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1976 Page 7.l� Mr, Boardman replied they didn�t sqy. He stated that he vished he would have handled this a bit differently� and thought that from nov on instead of sending things on to the City Council asking �at they thought they should start setting them up as Public Hearings before the Planning Coimnission and send it on ss a resolution. Mr. Boardraan said then the decision would be made at this level and Council xould have to vote it up or doxn. Mr. Peteraon said that although the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Co�ission meeting of October 26th �rere not yet available� they did contain a discussion on the Fridley Youth Center. He stated that each of the member commissions had beett asked to look at the drticles of Incorporation� and the Parks and 8ecreation Camnission had stud3ed them and decided they didn't vant to get involved in telling the kids they had to change the articles. He said that Parks and Recreation did decide they xanted to handle this like any other non-profit organization operating within the City of Fridley Ehat had its own Articles of Incarporation. Mr. Peterson explained the agreement vould then be haumiered out between the Parks and Recreation and that organi2ation concerning the rules and terms en the x�r they could use the property� etc. He said that for instance� the Hockey association could use the rinks� but in order to use the rinks they had to agree to certain stipulations with the City. Hr. Peterson explained that if Parks and Recreation was going to be charged with the responsibility for the FSridley Youth Center, they irould allox the youths to have their ovn organization but wanted to rrork xith them concerning the agreement on how they could use the property. Ae further explained that *rhile the kids should have the opportunity to run their own organization, Parks and Recreation felt very uneasy about people using City property rrithout any type of agreement on rules and regulations. He said that this x�y they would be consistent xith every other non-profit orgenization. ADJOURN� MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission �eting of November 3� 1976 ad3ourned at 9:lt0 P.M. by unanimnns vote. &espectflilly snbanitted, � S�/�inr,.� Qmr� me� % Sherri 0'➢onnell Hecording Secretary �� FRIDLEY ENVIROP4fENTAL CO;�IISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Peterson, Lee Ann Sporre, Mike Paripovich MF,PIDERS ABSENT: ,7ames Langenfeld, Brother Thomas Sullivan OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Olson, Environmental Officer CALL,TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. APPROVAI, OF AGENDA: The Coc-,mission agreed to add the following items to the agenda: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM EAST R7.VER ROAD PROJECT COMMITTEE REPORT � MINUTES AND AGENDA FOR MONTHLY F.E,C. MEETINGS MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to approve the agenda with the above three addit�ons.Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1976, FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: Ms. Sporre requested that on page 4, paragraph 3, of the September 21, 1976, Fridley Environmental Commission meeting minutes, the words "or something like that" be omitted from the sentence. MOTION by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, that the minutes be approved with the above correction. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. LAND ALTERATION ORDINANCE: Ms. Sporre stated that efforts to bring the mining operation adjacent to North Park into line with the wishes of City Staff have been unsuccessful. One operator in particular has been asked to stop mining because he is affecting drainage into the North Park Nature Center. In view of the damage being done each day, Ms. Sporre made the following motion: �� FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 19, 1976 PaQe 2 MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, that Che City Manager take whatever legal steps he feels suitable to control the mining situation, including, if necessary, the securing of an injunction against the mining operators to cease and desist; and that the City Manager do so without delay. Upon a voice vote, all v oting aye, the motion carried unanimously. At the September 21, 1976, Commission meeting, there was a motion "that the q.uestion of a mining operation be referred to City Staff for further study of legal problems relating to the elimination of new mining operations in the City of Fridley." Mr. Olson stated that all he knew was that Mr. Boardman had told him that Mr. Virgil Herrick was working on it. MOTION,by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, that the "Land Alteration Ordinance" be tabled until more information is received from Staff on the legal ramifications of the elimination of new mining operations in Fridley. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECOMMCENDATION ON "ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF FRIDLEY YOUTH CENTER"; � MOTI�N by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to receive the "Articles of Incorporation of FridTey Youth CEnter". Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre to table this item pending comment,from the City Attorney. Mr. Paripovich stated that this didn`t seem like anything the Commission could really discuss, but'that he would like to see the Commission kept informed of the progress of the Fridley Youth Center committee. Ms. Sporre withdrew her motion to table this item. MOTION by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, that review of the "Articles of Incorporation of Fridley Youth Center" is an activity that should be performed by an attorney and that the Fridley Envirornnental Commission passes it on to Planning Commission without recoum�endation; but the Fridley Environmental Commission would like to be kept informed of the progress of the Fridley Youth Center committee. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: Ms. Sporre stated that since Dan Huff hasbeen on City Staff for a coupLe of years now in Interpretive Servicasand that the City has developed some fine facilities for environmental education, she thinks it is time to reap the benefits of some of what has been done. The reason she put the item on the agenda is because she ds on the park program co�i[tee which is a new committee formed under the Parks & Recreation Commission to evaluate programs of the City. She wanted some advice from the Commission as the committee'will soon formalize their recommendations to Che Parks & Recreation Commission about the park program. �� FRIDLEY EN�IRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1976 Page 3 Ms. Sporre stated it is her feeling that Fridley has a fine physical education program, but it is not making use of a lot of people in the city and their leisure time by using some of our natural resources. Sane good examples of fine areas to use are the one along the river, the Arthur Street Nature Center, the Rice Creek Center, West Moore Lake Dunes, and the North Park Nature Center. It has been her feeling that environmental education comes, not by building boardwalks, but by presenting a program to the community, and that Mr. Huff and his staff should now begin programming these areas. She wanted to know if the Commission thought something like this would be of benefit. One of the goals in the establishment of the Fridley Environmental Commission specifies the education of the natural systems for the community, and she is not sure the Commission has lived up to that. Ms. Sporre stated that the problem right now is that there is no commission guiding the Interpretive Services Department. It is reliant on the City's understanding of what the nature program is. Mr. Olson stated that he feels that what Ms. Sporre is asking for is already available at this time and wi11 become more available and more expanded, but has been limited as far as access, such as access to North Park. Mr. Paripovich stated he feels that the Covanission should have as one of its responsibilities at least the project of doing some planning or at least be con- cerned about environmental education. He feels the City of Fridley protably should be concerned with doing some informative services for the community letting them know what is available in the nature centers in the parks. He would like very much to have the Commission involved, but some research needs to be done. Mr. Peterson stated that he thinks the Co�ission does want to look at it and is interested, but the Commission needs some information so it has some starting point. He thinks, too, that as North Park is developed and there is some kind of center there, a focal point, he can see where there could really be a program. The first step is getting information from other nature centers before this Commission can move any further. MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, that the Fridley Environ- mental Commission requests that City Staff draw together the following nature progxam information for the next Commission meeting: the Hennepin County Park Reserve District, the Richfield Woodlake Nature Center, the Lee & Rose Nature Center, the Dodge Nature Center, the James Ford Be1Z Nature Center, and the Anoka County nature programs. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. EAST RIVER ROAD P$Q7ECT COI�AffTTEE REPORT: Mr. Paripovich stated he had attended the October 6 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission members asked really good pengtrating questions. They showed a good knoWledge of East River Road history and problems. Mr. Langenfeld $� •::+.�...-- �� FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CO�II,SISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19 1976 Pa e 4 supported the East River Road Project Committee report, but his motion to recommena Ehe report to the City Council died for lack of a second. The East River Road Project Committee report was sent down to the other commissions for reco�endation back to the Planning Commission. The County Engineers and Dick Sobiech were at the Planning Coum�ission meeting and argued against the East River Road Project Committee's recommendations. The Planning Commission passed the East River Road Project Coam�ittee''s report on to the City Council without recommendation. Mr; Bob Peterson was interested in knowing who the membership of the project committee was and who approved it. Mr. Peterson feels there is not enough repre- sentation by other qeighborhoods. Mr. Langenfeld assured him that the committee had made every effort to attract people from all over Fridley. Mr: Paripovich stated he was informed at 6:50 p.m., October 18, that their report was on the City Council agenda for that evening at 7:30. He had no time to call an�one except Bud Davis, the man with the best knowledge of the F.A.U. time problems. He and Mr. Davis were questioned about the possible expiration of a federal grant. The City Council voted 3 to 2 to grant a moratorium. M9TION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to carry this discussion over to the next Fridley Environmental Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, MINUTES AND AGENDq FOR MONZiII,Y FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CO:IMISSION MEETINGS: Mr. Paripovich stated that he thinks the minutes, agenda, and material to be studied for the monthly Commission meetings should be mailed the Wednesday prior to the meeting, rather than on the usual Friday. He feels the Commission can be more effective in discussing the material if it has time to study it in advance. Mr. Olson stated he could see no problem in getting this changed. NEW OR OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Olson stated that the City has recei�md $3,500 of matching grant money fran the Department of Natural Resources for a lake aeriation system to be installed in Moore Lake, The Lions Club had donated $2,700 for the puzchase of an aeriation system for Moore Lake. The system will probably be installed next week. It will improve fish habitat--will prevent winter and summer kill. Mr. Olson stated that he had received a notice from Ms. Barbara Hughes about Met'ro-Clean Air's symposium on air pollutance. It is a free seminar and he passed it on for the Commission's information. He stated he would find the information on it and notify the members. 39 FRIDLEY'ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1976 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT : MOTION by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, � Ly Saba Recording Secretary