The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 04/07/1976 - 30441� a .'4 , ��, � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: APRIL 7, 1976 Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Shea, None Darrel PAGE 1 Bergman, Harris, Peterson. Wahlberg, Langenfeld CTark, Community Development Administrator Mrs. Wahlberg said that before the Planning Commission began their agenda items she wanted to propose a timetable for the Commission to follow in �!Qaling with this agenda. She said the Planning Commission meetings had been running extremely late, and her proposal`would allow 30 minutes for each item on this agenda so they could be through by 12:00. Mr, Bergman said that at the last meeting, some of the petitioners had to leave before their item came up on the agenda, so i:i� this time- table could be used as a guideline, he was in favor of it. Mr. Harris said he was in favor of it also, but if there was an i.tem ihat brought in a large audience, he fe1t that every citizen who wanted to speak should be heard. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she thought the only alternative was to hold additional meetings to handle the large ayenda's and she wasn't in favor of additional meetings. � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson,.that the Planning Commission follow the guideline proposed by Virginia Wahlberg which wou.Zd Iimit the time spent on each aqenda item to 30 minutes. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. APPROVE PLANNTNG COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 17, 1976 Mrs. Wahlberg said she didn't understand the motion made on the bottom of page 8 of thesc minutes. Mr. Harris said it should say Appeals Commission minutes instead of Appeals Commission meeti:ng. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission minutes of the March .Z7, 1976 meeting h� approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, a2Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . RECEIVE pARKS& RECREATTON COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 22, 1976 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the Paaks & Recreation Commission minutes of the March 22, 1976 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 71, 1976 ,�; �, MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commis- sion receive the Hvman Resources Commission mi.nutes of the March 11, 1976 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried vnanimously, , , Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 2 RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 23, 1976 . �^�-��- Mr. Peterson questioned one of the recor�nendations on 4�0' �lots . �h� from these minutes, but Chairman Harris said that as the 40' lot problem ,� was the last item on this agenda, Mr: Peterson should save his remarks ; until that time. � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission �receive the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of the March 23, 1976 meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unaniircously. RECEIVE REQUEST FROM BURLINGTON NORTHERN, 4055 EAST RIVER ROAD, TO HAVE L_UNCH & LO�KER ROOMS �b� FREIGHT CAR IN�,FP�,CTORS,& RAILWAY MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOY Mr. B. Lee Johnson, Assistant Area Engineer for Burlingto.n IVorthern, was present. Mr. Clark said there wasn't administNative �eport.s prepared for these two requests. Mr. Peterson asked why there hadn't been staff reports on these two requests? Mr. Clark said i�,was because we still haven't gotten confirmation from all the railroad officials in concurrence with what the staff was going �o recommend. Mr. Clark said that basically what the railroad wanted was to move an existing stick built building to a location under the present overpass. They later brought in another plan for another structure located between the railroad overpass and the sewage treatment plant. This building was r—•� of inetal construction. He said that we were_told that the first building was going to be out of view from the East River Road traffic. We told them that the City was quite discouraged that the landscaping that had been talked about for four or five years that none of it had taken place. We informed that railroad that we defin�tely needed a landscape plan before any building permits were issued, for any structure on railroad property. We went down and looked at the site and found tha-� both structures will be in full view of East River Road. Therefore, the staff felt the structures should be built out of brick since they will be adjacent to another brick structure that the railroad had already built in the same v�icinity. We couldn't reach the right officials who could say they would put up brick or.they wouldn't put up brick. Mr. Clark said that what he thought the Planning Commission could do was to tell the railroad that the facilities that they want to put in at these locations would be all right, if the structures were the same architectural design as the buildings they were adjacent to and that they would bring in landscaping plans for the oil storage �ank, the sewage tr�eatment plant, the berm and around the, hump tower. They should agree that they would bring these landscaping plans in with a timetable for these plans before they request a building permit for these two buildings. We couldn't get confirmation on the brick construction, therefore there was no administrative staff report written. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission had several choices. Thev could � continue these requests or tl'aey could just appro.ve the typ�e of faci'lities ; �that these buildings were going to house at these locations if they meet � the architectural design, brick, and the screening plans are brought fortt��: ,' � :� � Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page_3 - Mr. Lee Johnson ,,� in this request. He -. '� yard project and he . - he could explain the said he would like to further• explain what was involved said that he was not direct1y involved in the Northtown was not in a position to discuss the landscaping. but use of these buildings. Mr. Johnson said that first of all the small building that would be located unde.r the bridge wou�d be used as an office, lunch and locker room for our car men. The location was convenient to their work area. It was important that they had that building at that location. The second larger building would be�used as a luncheon and locker room for our main line track forces, bridge and builder forces and our water service man. This � location was picked because ' the track forces have on-track�main line maintenance equipment and they have to have access to the main line. The buildings we are propo�ing to use are good second hand surplus buildings that were presently located in the City of Minneapolis. The reason we have not proposed new buildings was because of economics. We already have these buildings, and we would like to use them, and we would be willing to screen the area if these buildings were approved. Mr. Harris said then what Mr�. Johnson was telling the Planning Commis- sion was that they wanted to move two buildings from Minneapolis into Fridley, to these sites. Mr. Clark said he understood that the smaller buildinq was being moved in, but he didn't reayize that:the large metal bui�lding was ari exist- ing building. The stick built bui�ding was open construction so it ,''� could be inspected as far as the construction. Mr. Johnson said thi�• � was a wood frame building with aluminum sheeting. It was a modular build- ing. Mr, Harris asked Mr. Johnson if the larger metal building was a manu�actured building. Mr. Johnson said �it was a Armco building with colored panels, and they intended to paint these buildings so they would blend in with other existing buildings. Mr. Clark said there were other metal buildings on this site, but they were surrounded by other buildings and were not visable from the street. r�. Mrs. Wahlberg asked what would happen in case of fire for this building that was under the overpass. Mr. Clark said the bridge was quite a bit higher than this building. He said this structure was only about 10' high. Mr. Clark said the staff saw no problem with this. Mr. Clark said that at the present time there was no fire hydrant, but that ane would be insta1led.. Mrs. Wahlberg said that the administrative staff report would have requested that these buildings conform to the exteriors of the other 6ui1dings that are adjacent to them. Mr. Clark said yes, and also that they bring in landscape plans and a timetable of when the various plans would be completed. The staff felt that all the buildings between the railroad tracks and East River Road should be compatible. ' � Mr. Harris asked how large these buildings were. Mr. Clark said that the small building was 10' x 56' or 560 square feet, and the large building was about 1200 square feet. They aren't very large buildings and they are one story structures. Mr. Clark said it may be possible to bring in heavy growth year around screening for these structures: Mr. Harris said that what bothered him was that there was a metal building almost directly across the s�treet from this location which was put there by the City of Minneapolis who didn't have to ask Fridley about anything. � Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 4 Mr. Clark said that these structures would be located 30, 40, or 50' away from the.boxcars. Mr: Harris said that because of that location, - ,�"'� masonry construction may not be the best solution, with box ca�s humping - around the area. Mr. Johnson said that it was a matter of economics, or they would construct new buildings instead of using used buildings. Mr. Harris asked if they really thought they were going to be saving money by the time they tore these buildings down and moved them and put them up again. Mr. Johnson said they would only have to dismantle the large building, the small building could be moved on a flat car. Mr. Harris asked if they really thought they were going to save money? Mr. Johnson said that was not his decisian. Mr. Harris said he had brought this up because economics was the criteria they were using for bringing in used buildings. Mrs. Wahlberg said Mr. Johnson mentioned that these buildings wauld be painted to match existing buildings. Mr. Johnson said they would be pajnted iigh-� green �to maich �the existing diesel shop and car shop. Mr. Clark said that what the railroad really wanted to know was if the City had any objections to the railroad having these types of facilities at these locations. Mr. Clark said that he couldn't see any problem with having these type of facilities. Mr.�Cla"rk said that if it would help get the railroad off dead center in providing the various landscape plans, he saw no problem in giving concept approval to these requests. MOTION by Langenfeld that the Planning Commission accept the conversation that has taken p.Iace, but not approve any building permits until we get an administrative staff report and�the complete package, because this was quite incomplete.to make a decision. Mr: Clark said he thought the railroad wanted assurance that these facilities could be located at these �locations. Mr. Peterson said they could make a motion accepting the concept and principle, expecting further clarification, which would not give them permission to move the buildings in, but wodld give thero the assurance that we have no objection to these facilities it they meet our recammendation. MR, LANGENFELD WITHDREW hi5 MOTION. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission has no o�jection to the.concept and_�rinciple of Burlin�ton Northern locating a freight car inspectors lunch and locker room and a lunch and 1oc.F:�r room for railway maintenance employees at the proposed .Iocations on theix property, expecting further clarification of the buildings themse3ves and var.ious Iandscaping plans.� Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIUE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: MEDTRONIC, INC: 6975 Central Avenue � Northeast for a production and storage addition. �I MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission a� receive•an administrative staff report on a production and storage addition � � :�'y . ', Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 � Pa e 5 to Medtronic, Inc., 6975 Central Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mot.ion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT For: Medtronic, Inc., 6975 Central Avenue N.E. General Descri tion: This permit is located at 6975 Central addii;ional 67,200 square existing design. En �ineering: for an addition to an exi;�:ing manufacturing plan Avenue N�. E. Thi s addi ti or, �; i 11 be provi di ng an feet to the existing facility and vrill match the �Je foresee no engineering problems. Environmental: We foresee r the surrounding area. pr�servation o� Rice � i i.s natura'I setti ng. ' is forthcam�ng. �.� ;� , �, o environmental problems. Design is compatib1e to The company is extremely�conscientious in the Creel: and provides every pt°ecaution in main�aining Rice Creek 6Jatershed has been notified and approval Building Permit St;pulation: 1. Tliat the landscap�ng on the North parking lot along Old Central and along the Norih property boundary be completed with th�s addition Mr. Clark said there was a berm without an� plantings on it and we feel that this landscaping should be completed along Central and also the North boundary line for at least 200' West of Central Avenue. said they did show some heavy landscaping between the building an Avenue, which was acceptable. It may change slightly from what w because this hasn't been approved by the Board of Directors as ye are going to the Rice Creek Watershed, prior to this request goin City Council. He said the estimated cost of this addition was ar million dollars. along He d Central as shawn t. They g to the ound two Mr. Langenfeld said he felt it was a little premature to say that the Rice Creek Watershed had been notified and approval was forthcoming. Mr. Clark said that Medtronic had verbally talked to people from the Watershed and they said that they saw no problem with this addition. It has not had official action. They have brought their plan to the Rice Creek Wa�tershed consulting engineers. Mr. Harris asked if there would be any traffic problems or parking problems. Mr. Clark said no, they st�ll have quite a bit of empty space in their North parking lot. They weren't anticipating increasing their employee load very much. Most of the addition would be used for their existing employees. . ,�_.�,: � Plannin�Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 P�9e 6 � MOTION by Peterson, s2conded by 5hea, that the Planning Commission concur with the Admini'strative Staff report on the request to construct a production and storage addition to Medtronic, Inc., with the stipulation that the landscaping on the North parking lot along OId Central and along the North property boundary be completed with this addition. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: LAMBERT PETERSON, INC. 7691 Central Avenue N.E. for an office building. MOTION BY Bergmen, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive the administrative staff report for Lambert Peterson, Inc., for the construction of an office building at 7691 Central Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADt�IINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT For: 769� Central Avenue �!ortheast by L'ambert Peterson, Inc. General Description: . This permit is for a four unit office building to be located at 7691 Central Avenue N.E. The building is a b�°ick structuv�e With a mansard roof design providing approximately 2,704 square feet of office space. The building meets all zoning code requiremeni:s and is providing largPr par4�.ing facilities than is requi�°ed by present cades. � Engineerin�.• We do not foresee any engineering problems. Envirornnental: m � We do not foresee any environmental prob1ems. The design is co►r�patible vrith the suri°ounding area. Building Permi�t Stipula�;ions: No s�L-ipulations necessary. Mr. Clark covered the points in the administrative staff report and said this building would be located at the intersection of Old Central Avenue and Osborne Road, in the Southeast quadrant. He said it destedet all the setback requirements and he thought Mr. Boardman had sugg more berming to protect the lots to tfie rear of this property. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comm�-ssion concur with the Administrative Staff report on the request to construct an office building at 7691 Central Avenue N.E. by La.mbert Peterson, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEFVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT:: MAPLE LANES, 6310 Highway 65 N.E. for inside improvement and outside development plan by Donald Savekoul.. i� Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 7 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission � receive the administrative staff report on the exterior development plan � to be part of the interior davelopment at Map1e Lanes, 631D Highway �65 � N.E. by Donal.d Savelkoul. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATI�E STAFF REPORT For: Maple Lanes, 6310 Highway #65 N.E. 0 General Description: Interior remodeling. Enginee�°ing: We foresee no engineering problems. Environment: We foresee no environmental pro6lems.� This item was brought before the Pl.anrring Commission only for ihe purpose of informing you of the required exterior landscaping that will be tied to this huilding permit. Building Pcrmit Stipulation: . �1. That the exterior development for h9aple Lanes be completed according to the attached plan dated 4-7-76. ,'`� . _ . QaanNecme.vTs w�,-.. h1�.5aoellc....-{ asPc� -. . .. _.. .. - �---_.._ ` D�scvar�an � y 2-?i� . .. �..o.,.�.=a.�..v.o ..,.,..�.-- ��h�:,.�—�,�:->,�,��-��: . _ `., � L �.s:— __--w � :� �.�.� : . , _: � �..1_ : :_ i �� . __ _ ,,;..� _,��._�:I f�T..�� i._I l�T�i:T11 a . ,� +-�.iw�-- L . J�/� �!^ . t�. "" �GST cC L.A�iaac�ao�u� /'S, �-ro�rM�a� c" ..s v�.�oea .. r ��'t�l Jo.�r Raa�c«wr �e k:toEV .� I �` T� 4,L, Caenv�e:rCa w�era ""�� — F � i i .� . � . �: �f . i � AfcAUS6�i¢�r W�tN {Mh.6 L4a.�E� � CHr.e+trn�eac �, S\MC4R\R � M4Y I, tn�g ' I I I I I I I( I I I �, � ��0 FOR /�DDlT10NCL .; ^ . '� . F4.iC/i/G• �aeta�NG _-.,�- H_-�-�--�-;---► � �� ; :� , �, � �- � _,. . . � �== , , . ':y . . , ��. .�:_ � I! I � I I,11 I I I �.4 ..�:. �I 11i111i�11� --r � � � � �y r-�� ; _Y '� ��j�i ,:..,_. {iiilil�!+lii'!1��-�� . I�� .;; il.iliililiil.ill I =_��°� � �--'- -- � _ —r., , I, � ��..�,.� ' � i i� I� ( i�!�� i,a,,�' 4=' t � � L.. _ , 1 �__� ! � � � :i � j .( -,--- � �.-i -��;..� I � I__ .—"� j . i--' r�u:T� t . _....._-- 1 i' .G,�{L�. f. _ � I �' .. i . .�. •� "—'' ="^' � •.� •�^I�.� { w�l ��_ . .:. = r__ �ao�:.e►ma�vey.rsa , � ., ;�; :� . 1 -_ i p.;��r�s �a�.:;; "! �. .. ,� �2:,J t�--:a:.tir: r.+ �•:) I il� �._ I �C �'y � t ti�I C:IT.�. 'F:. f3YZv — � •I -- i j3Y 4.1s� 1� li77 i._ _ - � � �: ;- �' ` .� I � ' , , r�.i l� t �' +��1.►'��qIN�{-� � f `.. . K.�. �N-"� PFn �JiCavT � �-:`r�.�4� !M �: .: � � . . ,'S " . _ i�:i: i. _. � _ �.± _'. „` � �.' f '_ ! . � •�.� L3y l.1aY 1,197g �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - April 7, 1976 Pa9� 8 Mr. Donald Savelkoul was present. Mr. Clark said that Maple Lanes was going to convert part of their . eating area and some vacant��rea in their building to a restaurant so that hopefully they can obtain a liquor. license from the C�ty.Council. The exterior of the building will not change in size. He said the Planning and Engineering Department have been mostly concerned '� about t�e exterior development. He said the scheduling of outside improvements have been scheduled over a three year period as shown in the small drawing of this property. The dates on this plan were agreed upon by our planner, Jerry Boardman, and Mr. Savelkoul. He felt the plan was self-explanatory. � . Mr. Savelkoul said that Maple Lanes had attempted to cooperate with the City and we have agreed to the upgrading of the property. We have encountered about $12,000 in road improvement, and even while that was oing on, we have agreed with the City to landscape and we have put in �2,000 in landscaping along the service road. We also installed a sprinkler system so this landscaping will be permanen�t. He said �hat when he m�:� with Jerry Boardman, he told us what the City would like to have done to further upgrade this property. He said that they wanted to do it and Wanted to cooperate 100% with the City. � '—�1 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that they_concur.with the 1��cPscaping pZan for Maple Lanes, 6310 Highway 65 N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �"� RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 7765-7795 Main Street N.E. by Richard -_ and aro d Harris . Chairman Harris asked Mr. Peterson to take over the Planning Commission meeting for this item and excused himself from the Commission. MbTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive the administrative staff report on an office-t�arehouse bu.ilding to be located at 7765-7795 Main Street N.E., by Richard and Harold Harris. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REFORT ' For: 7765-7795 Main Street N.E. , by Richard & Harold Harris General Description: This permit is for a 100' x.110' speculative office-warehouse building to be constructed a� 7765-7795 ��1ain Street N.E. The building is the first phase in a t�-�o phase developmeni: proposal, in v�hich another structure, 100' x 110' would be attached to this structure and extend North. It will be a masonry structure, with a break-off or split block texture. The building meets all the zoning code.requirements. i� ..�� '1 � Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 9 Engineerin9: 41e don't foresee any engi neer� ng probl ems e The s�e 1;e provi des sufficien� ea�ement to handle dr�inageo � Environmentalo No foreseeable environmental impact on the area. The build�ng wi 11 be 1 ocated vrhere presen� si yn storage '� s d:a ki ng r�1 �icc�. �h� s s i gn storaye will now be removed. . Bui1ding Permit Stipulations 1. To provide for shared dri�eway ��semen�s along South property line. Mr. Clark said there had been discussions between Mr. Harris and the staff for a couple weeks on this building, but when all the material .had been assembled it was too late to put this item on the agenda, but there was time to prepare a staff report, so this was why it was being handled at this time. Mr: C1ark said that this would be a block structure which will be ;"`� built on land presently used by Signcrafters for sign storage. The si:aff report was quite self-explanatory. He said the driveway was on �che �' property line, which normally should be five fee� away. He said that Mr. Harris would probab1y build another structure South o� this structure. and will put a driveway adjacent to it. 7hc��-� wial be joint u�� of this driveway so there will be have 'to be some sort of an agreeme�� or easemen� for this driveways so that each would hxve rights to use 20'feet':of the other person's driveway. This building will be quite similar to other buildings in the area and he was sure it would be an asset to the area. '� Mrs. Wahlberg asked if Mr. Harris owned the adjacent property where the easements would have to be obtained. Mr. Clark said he did, and this didn't present any problems. Mr. Clark said the City encouraged the use of joint driveways because then there were less driveways out onto the street. . Mr. Bergman asked what the zoning was in the area. Mr. Clark said it was industrial. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Harris if he intended to sell this property �r to lease it. Mr. Harris said the building would be leased. . MOTIDN by Langenfe.Zd, seconded by Berg�rtan, that the PZanning Commissivn aoncur with the Administrative Staff Report an the request to construct an office-warehouse at 7765-7795 Main Street N.E. by Richard and Harold Harris. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously. i . iH��.tu: cuNrlNUt�TI LIMINARY PLAT, P.S. PMENT CORPORATION: along with Lot 49, ON OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PRE- #76-02, INNSBRUCK VILLAGE, QY DARREL A FARR DEVEL- Qe�ng a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North ddition, except the Westerly 210', Auditor's Subdivision No. Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 10 92, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West � of Black Forest Apartment. � ' � 2. TABLED: A CONTINUATION OF A CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE f DEVELOPMENT OF 10 UNITS, T#76-02, BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT i.nnnnnnt�nu rnn r��unnn��nv ��r� � llnr - Public Hearing Closed Mr. Darrel Farr and Jim London were present. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by 5hea, that the Planning Commission receive the exerpt from the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of Apri1 1, 1976,- on the deliberation on Darrel Farr's applica- tion for development of Innsbruck Village. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the letter written by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation to fhe Planning Commission members dated April 2, 1976. Upon a voice vote, a1.I voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. h1r. Clark said the City had received a petition that was directed to the City Council, but as it concerned the develeument of Innsbruck Village he thought the Planning Commission should see it also. MOZ'ION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commis- ' sion receive Petition #6-1976. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the - motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris read the p.etition: "Petition the Fridley City Counci�l to condition acceptance/approval of proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Village Addition, by �Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a replat of 0!�tlot B, Audi- tor's Subdivision No. 92, all lying in Section 24, T-30, R=24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota...including the y°equest to waive the City Setback Ordinance from 35 to 0 feet. We the undersigned: hereby petition the Fridley City Council to condition acceptance/approval of the above captioned project upon compliance by the developer, Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, with the iollowing restrictions: I. "That the City of Fridley in consideration of its tax paying residents, � establish standards of year-round maintenance for the North Innsbruck Drive Extension {that section of black top road beginning at the Black Forest Apartment, and running East to Silver Lake Road) shall file a suitable performance bond with the City of Fridl�y, which shall be . renewed annually, and shall be adequate to properly maintain said road through completion of construction activities in the Innsbruck F�l North Addition." j _ . ' �.-' 0 - Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Paqe 11 ._ _ II. "That the City of Fridley disallow waiving the City Setback Ordinance in the above referenced area on grounds that it would be discrimina- tory; that it would create an�unsafe condition due to a minimum of two blind spots on the proposed City maintained road connecting North Innsbruck Drive to Arthur Street; th�t due to the narrowness of this City maintained road, and in view of assumed parallel parking on both sides of this road, it will prove to be a major hinderance to Fire and/or Police emergency vehicles access; and as a result of garage/dwelling structures close approximation to the road itself, prove to seriously inhibi� adequate snow plowing of road surfaces, short of truck removal from the immediate area, at City expense." III."That the City obtain from the Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation an offic�al and acceptable understanding as to Quad-Townhouse homeowners financial responsibilities for maintairing all non-City maintained roads in i:he above referenced area, as well as the upkeep of townhouse exter- iors and common grounds." Sincerely, Concerned Area Residents, Innsbruck North Addi�ion" Chairman Harris said this petition was signed by many names. �, � N9r. C1ark said the staff had a meeting with Darrel Farr after the date of the letter wri�tten 6y Mr. Farr to the Planning Gom�nission, but prior to us receiving it. There were a couple of items that were verbally agreed �Go that would change come of the comments in the petition also. The � first thing tha-� wasdiscussed was the wid�h of VJest Bavarian Pass. Ne said the other stree�s in North Innsbruck were 28 feet back to back. Mr. , Clark said that Darrel Farr was proposing tha�c West Bavarian Pass 6e built to 31 feet wide. Mr. Bergman asked for clarification of the street width. Mr. Clark � said that North Innsbruck Drive and Matterhorn Drive were built to State Aid�standards, but North Danube, South Danube, West Danube and East Danube were all 28 foot streets, and they are public streets. Mr. Clark said they recognized that there might be less residential parking on these streets than there would be on West Bavarian Pass. As a compromise, we have agreed that the 31 feet might be adequate, provided no parking was allowed on one side of the street, preferably on the inside of the curve, so you could see around the curves easier than if there were cars parked on this side of the street. He said the second item that they discussed was the setbacks. He said that if the 31' street was approved, there � would be about a 10 foot boulevard, because there was a 50 foot right of way. We felt that the garages should be at least 5' off of the right of way so that we would have 15 feet for the storage of snow. The exception to the 5 foot was at the point of a sharp curve in the road. � He said that the minimum sight distance on a residential street with �� a 30 M.P.H. speed limit was 200 feet. To �et that 200 feet of sight distance, one garage would have to be located about 10 feet from the right of way. . ' Planning Commission Meetin - April 7, 1976 Page 12 Mr. Peterson asked if Mr. Farr had agreed to this and if there was • room to move this garage,in 10 feet? Mr. Clark said this data was just compiled by the Engineering Department and this was the first the ;--� developer was hearing of this. He said that Mr. Farr did agree that whatever it took to get the 200' sight distance on a 30 M.P.H. residential street, that he would abide by that. Mr. Farr said that was correct. Mr. Clark said that the third item discussed was the maintenance of the extension road of North Innsbruck Drive to Silver Lake Road. Darrel Farr agreed to. keep up the surface, patching it as necessary, the same as was done on any other residential street. He asked the City if we would plow it. We have said that we would, but at the lump sum of $500 a year. Mr. Clark said that should be more than adequate if we plow it when we plow our own streets, and sand it when we sand our own streets. . Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Clark what conversations there had been between the City of Fridley and the City of New Brighton regarding that extension road. Mr. Clark said that North Innsbruck Drive �ill be connected to Silver Lake Road, but not at the present alignment. This was definitely a temporary situation. He said that New Brighton had no plans for when this road will connect, but we do know that it � wi11 be a State Aid street. A lot will depend upon the development of the land in New Brighton. He said that if someone came in and purchased this land, this road could be completed as soon as next year, or it could be as long as ten years. Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason she asked the question was because � she wondered is some agreement couldn't be worked out with New Brighton , that they would pay Fridley something for maintaining and plowing this street as New Brighton was receiving the taxes on the property adjacent to the road. Mr. Clark said he didn't think they would go along with anything like this because New Brighton could care less if the road was there. It was not a raad that was necessary to New Brighton. It was a road used by the residents of Fridley. Mr. Clark said that as to the maintenance of this extension, when the developer:finishes th�onstruction of the last townhouse, the maintenance of this road would revert to the City of Fridley,Abecause we own the ease- ment for this road. Mr, Peterson said this easement was 66 feet and he didn't think that a 26' street would serve this area for 10 years. Mr.. Clark said the street width was adequate for what it was being used for. Mr. Clark said that the problems that have occurred with this road in the winter time was because of the way it was plowed. It was probably only plowed to about 16 to 18 feet. He said that when the City plows this street to its full width, this should eliminate a lo� of problems mentioned at other meetings-on this development. He said that 26' was two 13' driving lanes, and this was adequate when there was no reason for anyone parking on this street. Mr. Bergman said it was brought out at the Public Hearing that there were many people who walked this road to catch the bus at Silver Lake Road, and he didn't think that this road was wide enough to handle both automobile and pedestrian traffic. Mrs. Shea asked why Mr. Farr was the only developer in the area that ,�� had to maintain that extension road. Mr. Clark said it was because he _ had bee•n the petitioner for rezoning this property, and the City wanted : .` - � ", b Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 13 � this road so that it would be used during the construction of the townhouses � and provide another access for the homeowners in this area. It seems as this road was a more.�convenient route to I.694. He said that if this road had only been used for automobile traffic, it wou1dn't have broken � up as it has. Mr. Clark said that if this extension road had been a public road, it would have been posted during the spring. As this was about a 7 ton street, and the canstruction vehicles using this extens.ion were probab1y about 9 ton, was the reason why this road has brok�n up. Mr. Peterson said that after listening to people from this area complaining about this road until all hours of the night, he felt that something would have to be done with this road, but he didn't feel that this was completely the problem of the Farr "Corporation. He felt the City was going to continue to have problems and complaints on this road. Mr. Clark said ��ha�: ii Darrel Fa�r wasn't involved in this street at all, and it was the sole res-ponsibility of the City, as this was only a temporary location of the road he couldn't see spending tax dollars to upgrade this road to a wider width. He said that when the City plowed this s�reet, they cAUld probably put the wing down and plow the boulevard so people could walk along the side of the road. Mr. Bergman said he had a problem with this because no one could put a time frame on when this road would be permanently constructed in n New Brighton. Mr. Harris asked if New Brighton would take over this connector road when it was constructed in 11ew Brighton, or would Fridley ~ sti11� have an obligation. Mr. C1ark said that the raad in New Brighton wou1d be a State Aid road when it was constructed and there wasn't a tax burden on maintaining a State Aid road, so there was no reason for Fridley to have an obligaiion in New Brighton, when the road was permanently located. Mr. Harris said the Planning Commission was concerned because in �the memo from Jerry Boardman to Dick Sobiech that they had received, it was stated that the City had no responsibility for this extension, but it was alsa brought out at these meetings, thai the contract between Darrel Farr and the City had expired, so it seemed as if no one was responsible for this road. Mr. Clark said it was the intent of the agree- ment that the developer would maintain this road until the construction was completed, and then the City of Fridley would take over this road until the permarrent alignment was constructed by New Brighton. He said the extension of this agreement during construction should be part of the plat approval, and Nir. Farr has agreed to this if the City would take over�the plowing of the road. Mr. Peterson said that he felt that the problem still hadn't beer�} solved with this street. It was so constructed that water stood in the street, and it was not wide enough to provide for either pedestrian or bicycle traffic. ` Mr. Clat�k said that the solution would be for the City to widen ��, the street and install sidewalks. In order ta do that, the City had to get the money from some place, so we ►vould hold a Public Hearing on the improvement. Ne would venture to say that the res.idents af Fridley may not warrt that improvement made, when they had to pay for it. Mr. Harris � _ �� Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 14 said he didn't Clark said then improved. know who the City could assess to improve this road. Mr. the City Council may be reluctant to order that road � Mr. Bergman asked if the City had a set of specifications for curb to curb street width standards. Mr. Clark said there were many different width streets in the City. He said that it may not sound logical, but there was logic behind each street width. He said that on residential streets that were side streets where there were no homes facing that street, the normal standard was 31 feet. On residential streets such as North Innsbruck and Riverview Terrace, the width was 36 feet, and these were residential streets that had housing facing these streets. He said that most collector streets were 40 ft. to 44 ft., unless it carried a heavy traffic load, and then they could be as wide as 50 ft. He said that some service drives, where there was no parking, are 26 ft., where we have a 30 ft. right of way, but in industrial parks, these can be a wide as 36 ft. P1r. Peterson said then the extension of North Innsbruck Drive w�s classified as a ser��ice ��oad. Mr. Clark said there was another..width s.uch as or� .Nor�k� Danilbe and Sou'th Danube wh�re the street was concrete the full width, and this was 28 ft. Mr. Peterson said that he was sympathetic to �he Darrel A. Farr Corporation because he felt they had tried to coopera�e with the City and they seem to have developed a good rapport with the staff in terms of their willingness to compromise, but he felt badly because we were not solving the problems of the citizens in Fridley who have been to these hearings complaining about the road extension. Mr. Harris said that rather than widening out this extension street, he wondered if it would be possible to grade a strip 6 to 8 feet wide along side of the road that could serve as a walkway. He asked Mr. London what kind of soil was in this area: Mr. London said it was clay. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Farr if it would be possible to have his bulldozing equipment grade a 7 foot strip along this road. Mr. Farr said he would be willing to do this. Mr. Clark said that if the City had any extra wood chips available, they may be able to use them on this walkway, so it wouldn't be so muddy, but he could not make any commitrnent on that. Mr, Harris said that if the City plowed this area in the winter time, it could provide a walkway in the winter also. Mr. Peterson said that if the City would plow this street to the full width, and if a walkway of some type was put in along the road for pedestrians, he felt this was as far as they could go at this time in solving the probiems with this road. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Peterson, that the �'Ianning Commission take the consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-OZ, Innsbruck Village, and the consideration of a 100 unit townhouse development, T-#76-02, for Innsbruck Village, by Darrel A. Farr Develop- ment Corporation, from the table. Upon a voice vote, all vot�.ng:.aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bergman said that it seemed to him that Darrel Farr was doing his job, but it seemed that the City of Fridley was remiss in putting forth any effort for the residents ofi the City. � '''1 � �� . Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 �' �� Page�15 Mr. Harris said that probably in a moral sense, it should be the �--� City of Fridley putting in the walkway, but to be realistic, he didn't � � think that Fridley had the kind of equipment that wou1d be needed for such a job. There might be complaints if Fridley equipment was seen working in New Bright�n. He said tbat with the equipment that Mr. Farr had, this job could probably be done in si�x hours, and it would take much longer for the City to get it done, and it would cost a lot more money. Mr. Bergman said his concern was more for who paid for this, rather than who did the job. . Mr. Farr said he thought that Mr. Harris' suggestion was a good one and he agreed with it. He said that he agreed that the City should do it, but they won't, so he would do it. Mr. Harris said that he really appreciated that. ' � Mr.:Bergman said there was a wash area in this road that should be handled. I��r: Harris asked Mr. Clark if there wasn't an old culvert arou:�d that Mr. Farr could use. He said he thought the City should coopera�te with Mr. Farr also. Mr. Clark said that probably wouldn't be any problem. ' Mr. Peterson said ;that in the last meeting t��..staff.h�,d wi:t�. Mre Farr that they were in basic agreement on the plat as presented except f.or the parking on the street and the changes in the 0' setbacks. Mr. Narris said that he would rather see a 36 ft. wide street so r'�1 parking could be on both sides of the street. Mr. Clark said -�this town- � house plan was a li��le different than the other townhouse plans, in that ther� could be parking in the driveway to the garage. He said tha� if the street was widened there would be less room�for snow storage, and more snow to put there. Mr. Harris said he thought that parking on one side of the street could be a cause for neighborhood friction. Mr.�Clark said that if the road was posied for.no parking before the townhouses were sold, people would know ihat this was the way it was going to be, and there wou1d be a townhouse associa�tion to seitle any neighborhood problems. �� Mr. Harris asked how many units would be next to this street. Mr. Clark said 60 units. They would have one car garages with space in the driveway to park one car, so there would be off street parking for two cars for each unit. He said that these were nne and two bedroom units, designed ico attract the retired couples on a-fixed income, and young marrieds, so they felt that most people would only have one or two cars. These townhouses weren't designed for large family units. Mr. Clark said that Mr. �arr has tried to have housing in a11 price ranges, and if there were wider streets and two car garages in this development, then �he costs would be much higher. He said that to provide housing in this price range, there w�uldn't be all of the amenities that you would get in higher cost housing. Mr. Bergman said they weren't talking about two car yarages, they were talking about an extra 5 feet of street width. Mr. Clark said that would add to the cost of the construction of these townhouses. Mr. London said it would cost $3500 to widen this street. He said that in the Vienna Townhouses, there were one car garages with no parking in the garage area, and when people buy these units, they know what they are buying. He said they may have lost�some sales on these townhouses because of this, but any pro�lems the people had were handled internally by the Townhouse Assn. . Plannin Commission Meeting - April 7, 197fi Pa�e 16 _ 0 Mr. London said he was not in favor of a wider street. He would rather see more green area. �r� i Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission felt strongly that they would like a 36 ft. street in this plat, then that was what their recom+mendataon should be to the Council, and let the Counci1 decide how they wanted it. Mr. Langenfeld said that he had never seen a group of business people such as the Farr Development Corporation who were so acco►r�nodating to the City, but he thought that all the problems on this street should be settled so they don't have another problem like the North Innsbruck Drive extension. Mrs. Shea and Mrs. Wahlberg said they lived on a 30 fi. street, and there has never been any problems with parking or the movement of traffic as far as they knew. Mr. Peterson said that he felt that the extra 5 ft. of green area that they would have with a 31 ft. street was very important. �Mr. Langenfeld asked what street width was originally proposed for this plat. Mr. London said 24 feet. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought 31 feet was already a compromise, so he was agreeable to the 31 foo� width. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission zecorrunend to Council approval of a preliminary p1at, P.S. . r"1 #76-02, Innsbruck VilZage, and approval of a proposed townhouse develop- ment.of 100 units, T-#76-02, for Innsbruck Villaqe, by Darrel A.�Farr Aevelopment Corporation, being a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck 1Vorth Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210', Auditor`s Subdivision No. 92, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black �'orest Apartment, with the following stipulations: 1. Plan specificafions for streets.and utilities are to be submitted to the City for approval. 2. Developer deed to the City, Innsbruck North Park, before any plat approval or building permits are issued. 3. The part of Lot 49, except the Westerly 210 feet, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, that wasn'tpart of the p1at, be dedicated to the City, as this raas adjacent to Innsbruck North Park. 4. Two tenr�is courts wi11 be built by. the develop�x on public park property, the location to be decided by the City, with . the completion of 20 townhouses in Innsbruck Village. 5. Road design on West Bavarian Pass must meet City approval. 6. West Bavarian Pass shall be 31' wide, with no parking allowed on the Western curb of this street. 1� 7. The minimum setback for any garage on West Bavarian Pass sha1l � be 5'feet, with one garage being approximately 10 feet from the property line so that 200' sight distance from the curb ' -��,�.�� . � Planning Commission Meeting -�pril 7, 1976 Page 17 is maintained�on the curb. 8. The developer will maintain the extension of Drive from the City of Fridley line to SiZve until the Iast townhouse was completed. Thi be pZowed by the Czt� of Fridley for a fee o to be paid by the developer. North Innsbruck r Lake Road s extension wa11 f $500 per year, 9. The developer wi11 bulldoze a 7 foot str�p along the extension road fio be used as a walkway. Mr. Bergman said he questioned the setbacks for this plat. Mr. Clark said that the reason they weren't following the 35' setback was because it would push the units back so far that there wouldn't be any open area. Mr. Bergman said the prob1em he had was that the City of Fridley had set up certain standards and one c,f those standards was that structures be 35' back from the property line. He said that he didn't understand �h�t if a 35' setback was deemed good in all residential districts, why it wasn't deemed good for a townhouse development. Mr. Peterson said that he was sure that the houses on Rice Creek Boulevard w.here he lived, were not 35' from the property line, and he assumed that this was done to preserve the integrity of �che back yard which was next to the Creek. He said that in looking at this townhouse plan, he personally felt that the open space, the effort that had been made to have these units fit into this site, and the integrity of the natural landscape and the trees, was more important than a 35' setback „ because he didn't see anything sacred about a 35' setback. He said that the se�;back requirement sometimes.resulted in la��d wasie, and as Will Rogers said, they aren't making any more of it. Mr, Peterson said that the way this plat was being developed was good sound planning. Mr. Clark said that the difference in a residential development and a townhouse deve1opment was that there were no setback requirements in the townhouse ordinance. He said the only reason the setback require- ments applied to part of this plat was because there was going to be a public street to meet the F.H.A. requiremen�ts. If this was a private street, the 35' setback would not apply. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think it was right not to have setback requirements for townhouses. Mr. C7ark said then the code would have to be changed. Mr. Langenfeld said that in Section 205.051 of the Code, it states " for other uses, other than dwel,ling units, permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permit, requirements as to lots, setbacks, build- ings, parking, landscaping, screening, and exterior material shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other districts, but also subject to additional provisions as provided by the City:" He thought the Planning Commission would be the one to establish the additional provisions and therefore, we can eliminate the 35' setback. Mr. Harris said that he felt that this proposal tears up less landscape t�han if it had to have a 35' setback. He said that if this development was held to a 35' setback, it would destroy the natural �j characteristics of the area. He said that in his �travels through the townhouse areas that have already been completed by the Farr Corporation, he felt that they had done an excellent job of fitting the structures into the landscape. He said the proposed plan for Innsbruck Village Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 18 was the best way to fit the units into the existing landscape. He said ' that he did not favor a 0�' setback on a public street because if a small error was made, a structure could encroach into the public right of way, �"1 but with a 5' setback, there would be enough room so that this shouldn't 1 happen. Mr. Harris said that at this time he would like to make a statement to the City Administration, before we vote. As we are allowing a 31 ft. street in this development, he felt it was incumb�nt upon the City Engineer- ing Department to treat everybody else in town equally as fair, and it was not necessary, therefore, that every frontage street be 36 ft. wide in the rest of the City. - Mr. Clark said that there was a street being built this year that wouldn't be 36 ft. wide. Mr. Harris said he objected to that because he felt it was arbitrary. Mr. Clark said that as he has said before, it might not be logical, but there was logic behind �hese decisions. He said that he was referring to the Leif Henrikson plat off of East River Road, where there just wasn't room to provide for a 50' right of way and a 36' street. Mr. Harris said that if they were going to pave Riverview Terrace and it was 36' wide, he would have to pay for that. Mr. Clark said that was not necessarily so, because there was a Public Hearing before any improvement was ordered in, and if an entire block said they didn't want a 36' street, it would not be ordered in. Mr. Harris said that in the ten year street plan, which must be almost completed, he felt tha� the attitude was to take it the way it was proposed, regardless of whether the people in the area agreed or not. He said he felt the City, the staff and the Engineering Department had been � arbitrary in the meting out of street widths and assessments, and that - it had been unfairly administered. He thought he could find 30,000 peaple in Fridley who would agree with him. . UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL voting aye, the MOTION carried unanimously. Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10:10:,P.M. and reconvened the Planriing Commission�meeting at 10:25 P.M. 3. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #76-03, LEIGH TERRACE, BY LEIGH INVESTMENTS, INC.: Being a replat of Lot 39, Revised uditor s Subdivision No 77, (excepting parcel 5640), generally located on the West side of the intersection of Osborne Road and East River Road.(Same property as the Dorstad Plat which was never recorded.) Mr. John Doyle, of Leigh Investments, Inc. was present. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning Commission open the Public Hearing on the consideration of a preliminary plat, F.S. #76-03, �29h Terrace, by Leigh Investments, Inc. Upon a voice vote, aIZ voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 10:26 P.M. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Doyle and the staff have worked on this plat ,,,,.� for som�e time. He•said that the original plat that Mr. Doyle submitted ' was a•plat in which the lots were served with a cul-de-sac off of Talmadge _ ri�M ry Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 19 4 Way. Mr. Doyle thought this was a good plan for his plat because he ^ wouldn't have any through traffic. �� r Mr. Clark said the old Dorstad Pl�a�' joined 75th Way to East River Road, in.the�close�proximity of Osborne Road. The developer didn't feel that this alignment would induce a qui�t neighborhood type atmosphere, but after the petitioner had discussed the plat with the City, and was informed of the problem that would arise �� this alignment wasn't followed, he did bring in a different plan. This plan has gone back to connecting up75thWay with Osborne Road, about 50 feet North of the present center . line of Osborne Road, which means that the County or the City would have , to bring this a1ignment up to meet the str�� "the plat. This can be �done without the purchase o-F any structures. Mr. Doyle has also dedicated additianal land for the widening of East River Road. Mr, Clark said the Engineering Department gave Mr. Doyle three differ- ent alignments for the connecting stree� and Mr. Doyie chose the align- ment that was being presented at this me��tingo This �lan was perfectly acceptable to our Engineering Department, the exception being that the center line of Osborne Read should be moved 5 feet to the South, which Mr. Doyle has agreed to, so we would not have to obtain addition land unnecessarily across the street. Mr. Clark said the plat consisted of 11 lots. They all meet or exceed the 1ot requiremen� of 9,000 square feet, with the exception of the 3 lots North of Osborne Road. Lo� 1 will be 7,700 sqcrare feet, �--� and Lots 2 and 3 will be 8,000 square feet. Mr. Doyle was going ta try and negotiate wi-th the St. Paul Waterworks about being able to use the 40' St. Pau1 Waterworks easement as par� of the lot. Obviously the use of that part of the lot would be restricted as ico having any �tructures on it, or the planting of any large trees,�etc., but the • use of the easement for yards and gardens would not be prohibited. If, he can utilize this land, then these 3 lots would meet or exceed the 9,000 square �Ft. requirement also. There is some question as to whether the St. Paul Waterworks has fee title to this 40' strip, or i�' was just an easement. If it was just an easement, then it would be Mr. Doyle's land, and there would be no reason he couldn't include it with the lots, because he would be the fee owner. If 'che St. Paul Waterworks was the fee owner, then Mr. Doyle would like �o get permissian from i,hem to allow a fenc�e to be put on this property, and from the street it would look as if the easement was part of these lots. Mr. Clark said that Talmadge Way would probably come up and dog-leg to meet Osborne Road more or less at a right angle. � Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Clark how �his plan affected the 8eveloper in terms of lots as far as if it were developed according to the cul- de-sac plan or the plan pr�sented at this meeting. Mr, Clark said he would have one lot more with this plan. Mr. Peterson said then they were not working an economic hardship on the developer by insisting on this plan. Mr. Clark said that if you counted numbers, no, but if you could the total value of single family residential lots, then maybe yes. Mr. Peterson asked if from the City's standpoint, if it was necessary to have this thoroughfare on the plat. Mr. Clark said that he could only respond to what the Engineering�Department had�said, and that was that in .. ��. � � Planning Commission Meeting -�April 7, 1976 _ Page 20 working with the County, they were trying to eliminate as many streets as possible coming on to East River Road at uncontrolled intersections. This would allow the people in this area to come out to a signalized intersection on East River Road. Mr. Peterson said that because of the problems we have heard about on East River Road, he thought this was desirable. Mr. Clark said the County Engineering Department has been � confronted with this plan, and they: were in agreement with it. Mr. A. J. Hogen, 133 75th Way N.E., asked what the width of the street would be on the proposed Osborne Road in this plat. Mr. Clark said the right of way width was 60'. The pavement width would be between 40' to 46' where they have the center median. It will allow one lane of traffic comirtg � in and two lanes of traffic going' out. Mr. Hogen asked if this property was going to be.developed as R-1.. Mr. Clark said that it would be. Mr. Doyle didn't have�.�any plans to rezone the property as far as he knew. Judy Beine, 1&0 Talmadge Way N.E., asked i� 75th Way would be joined to this road and if it would be improved. Mr. Clark thought that when this plat had been approved by Council that Talmadge Way might be upgraded, but then there would be a Public Hearing before any improvements were made. Mr. Clark said that the North-South portion of Talmadge Way was an unimproved street at the present time and was used for traffic between Talmadge Way and 75th Way. Mr. Hogen asked if there was anything about storm sewers in this plan for 75th Way? Mr. Clark said thatall' the area in the plat wi11 drain to r^ East River Road on the road. Mr. Hogen said that some drainage was all � that•he wanted. Mr.�Clark said he,couldn't answer that question. Mr. Harris said that Mr. Hogen had a special problem where he had standing water in front of his residence, and he wassu�e thatwas what he was alluding to. He said that Mr. Hogen wanted to know if there was some way to drain this water through this.plat. Mr. Doyle said that he felt there was a very big problem with this area. He said that on the South side of 75th Way, they were faced with the problem of two water pipes which were 72" pipes, which would make it impossible to put any kind of storm sewer from the South to the North without going prohibitably deep. Then you would have the St. Paul Waterworks to fight it out with, so you �rere almost faced with having surface drainage. ' Mr. Clark said that he had misread the question. He thought they were asking if a storm sewer system would be put in. He said that he didn't think the Westerly part of 75�h Way was high enough to drain to East River Road. He said that part of 75th Way was built to drain that way, but at some point, and Mr. Hogen would know where that was, it was designed to drain towards the river. There was a low swale that wa�s apparently right in front of Mr. Hogen's property. Mr. Clark said that originally there ��vas a shallow sump constructed on the St. Paul Waterworks easement, for the water to drain into. He said it may work in the summer time, but he could understand that during normal winter thawing, that the water would stand in the street. He thought the only way to remedy the problem was to put in a storm sewer conduit which would more than likely have to run to the Mississippi River. Mr. Hogen said that hard already been proposeci, but the St. Paul Waterworks would not ,..v _ ,n f'lanning Commission Meeting - Apri1�7, 1976 Page 21 allow their property to be used for the water going towards the river. �'"1 He said they had blocked tfiis proposal before, and they probably would again. He said that sump was in the yard, but it did not drain any of the water from the street, because the curb kept it from going into the sump. Mr. Hogen felt that if they hadn't put that swale in front of his house, the water would have drained to �East River Road. Mr. Clark said he didn't � think the land in 1:hat area was high enough to drain to East River Road on the surface. He said this road was dirt for many years, which was sand. The reason there wasn't any water problem then, was because the water just drained into the sand. When the street was constructed, it was put in as flat as possible and drained as much as possible toward East River Road. It got to the point that to continue that, it would have got above the yards on the North side of the street. Mr. Harris asked why ihey couldn't have�croti,rned the streets so the rest of the water could have drained towards the river? Mr. Clark said the corner that Mr. Hogen referred to was probably three or four feet higher tha�, 75�h Ways and in order for the water to get �� the river it wou1d have to run to Alden Way, North on Alden Way, around the corner to the catch basin on Alden Way, a little further to the North. Where Alden Way was going North and turns West was another hill. He said that between 75th l�ay and the caich basin on Alden Way was where the hill was located. Mr. Hogen said thatc 3' h711 could have been graded down. He said that they have been pleading for a ditch on the side of the road so the water could drain into a ditch, just to get � it off of the street, but they won't give it to us. He said he had dug some by hand, jusi: to get the water out of there, but the sand was hard - to dig because when it was dry, it was just like cemen,t. Mr. Hogen said the ditch t.�:as supposed to be part of the original plan for this area, but for some reason the City would not give us this�ditch, which was some thing��he just couldn't understand. Mr. Clark asked where this ditch was supposed to run to. Mr. Hogen said �hey jus� needed the ditch to hold the water until it had time �o soak in. Mr. Clark said tha�t this problem could not be solved at this meeting. He said �hat he recalled that a -sump was put in 8 to 10 years ago, and maybe this was silted in and wasn't there anymoree Mr. Harris sa•�.d that maybe Mr. Clark could check on this to see if they couldn't get some of the water drained from in front of this man's house. Mr. Clark said there was a small house on one of the lots in the plat. The alignment of the street would make this house the required 35' from the street. The alignment would necessitate the removal of the garage. He said that if the road was pulled down to save the garage,athere would be another lot that would be too small to make it feasible to build on. Mr. Doyle said he had talked to the Engineers of the St. Paul Water- works concerning the use of their property, and they declined in making any absolute comment about whether it would be allowable to use part of their easement on the three lots adjacent to this easement. He was going to discuss this with the Commissions, but he did assure me:that there were many people making use of this easement for green area. Essentially they do object to the placement of buildings or trees on this easement, because these things would have to be removed if they had to come in and work on these lines, but they didn't objeet to grass or a garden. Me said the Engineer said they were also working with the County and the City, and he wanted to reserve and comment until they had it all in one package.:� Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Pa�e 22 Mrs. Wahlberg asked if it would be the developer's responsibility to ` inform the buyers of these three lots that if they were al1owed to use this easement as part of their lot, that they couldn't locate any structures ^ or plant any tree� on that portion of the lot? Mr. Doyle said he would � put a covenant on those lots, so that the buyers wauld be aware of the restrictions on this easement. Mr. Clark said that if it was a private covenant, it would be part of the abstract. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to have the East River Road Project Committee look at thiS development. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langenfeld if he ihought this was going to have a significant impact on East River Road? ,. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought that giving them a chance to review this . proposal would be in order. He said that if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this plat at this meeting, then they could review the recommendaions. Mr. Clark said there would still be a hearing on the final plat by the Council, so there would be time for the Environmental Quality Commission's project committee to review the plat, even if it was approved a� this meeting. We are getting to the time of the year when any developer was anxious to get started on iheir projects, so this had to be a consideration also. He said �hat by the time the contracts had been let for the sewer and water and the streets, sometimes weeks, or even days, get to be quite valuable to the developer. Mr. Langenfeld said it wasn't his intention to hold up the approval of this plat, or t.o delay the developer. Mr. Doyle said that this plat was the result o� very close coordination between the Administrative S�aff of the City of Fridley and the County of Anoka, taking into consideration their apparent plans for the improve- '� ment o� East River Road, which included the area up to 7.9th. This plat �— was the result of those plans. He said that Osborne Road would be blocked off on his plat until the intersection of East River Road and Osborne Road had been improved. Mr. Bergman asked about drainage�and utility easements on the plat. Mr. Clark said that all the necessary easements were already included in the plat. � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doyle if he had considered underground utilities? Mr. Doyle said that he would explore the possibility of having underground services, but it would depend upon the existing area and if Northern States Power Company felt they were practical in thi.s area. Mr. Harris asked if there had been any negotiations by the City or the County to obtain the property they would need to change the alignment of Osborne Road. Mr. Clark said he didn't think so. Mr. Clark said Osborne Road and East River Road were both County roads, so he didn't know who would be negotiating for the purchase of the property. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Doyle has already dedicated land from his plat for the widening of East River Road. Mr. Bergman said he was .concerned about the configuration of Osborne Road in this plat. He said the present location makes Lots 1-3 less than the 9,000 square ft. code requirement, and due to the extensive changes the�e would have to be across East River Road to have the'�Osborne Road �''`� meet this extension, he wondered if it wouldn't be better to have the Osborne Road in this plat �� moved still further South. 'Mr. Clark said .e Planning Commission Meeting- April 7, 1976 Paqe 23 e — then Lot 7 wou1d be unbuildable. Mr. Bergm�n said there wasn't much land ,� to work with. Mr. Clark said the configuration of Osborne Road was not �� the most desirable because it wasn',t at right angles, and pulling it up to meet the Osborne Road of this plat will improve that situation. He said that as far as Mr. Doyle's comments on whether he would be able to use the St. Paul Waterworks easement in this p1at physically or on paper, as you drive past this area it will look like it was part of the rear yards of these 1ots. Mr. Hogen asked if there would have to be any more land dedicated for the widening of 75th 4day. Mr. Clark said there was enough of the existing right of way to allow the widening of this street. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, tha� the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the preliminary p1at, P,S. #76-03, Leigh Terrace, by Leigh Tnvestrr�ents, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a1l voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing cZosed at .Z1:10 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recorrunend to Council approva.Z of a preliminary p1at, P.S. #76-03, Leigh Terrace, b� Leigh Investments, Inc., being a replat of Lot 39, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, excepting Parcel 5640, generally located on the West side of the intersecion of Osborne Road and East River Road, (former porstad P1at), with the following stipulations: 1. The alignment of Osborne Road be moved 5' to the South. � . 2. That confirraation be obtained from the St. Pau1 Waterworks as to the specific use of the property, and that be ref.Zected in a private covenant to be filed with the pZat. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. a. PUBLIC NEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #76-01, JOHN W. HALUPTZOK: Rezone from C-1S local shopping areas to M-1 light industrial areas), Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, to make zoning consisteni, with adjoining property, generally located just West of 1240 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. MOTI�UN by Bergman, seconded .�y Peterson, that the Planning Cozrmiission o�tien the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #76-01, by John Haluptzok. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 vofing aye, Chairman Harris decZared the Public Hearing open at 11:11 P.M, Mr. Clark said �hat this rezoning reques`t was the result of a stipulation of the Planning Commission on a previous rezoning request, ZOA #75-07, to rezone Lot 18. This will make the zoning consistent with the adjacent property. MOTTON by Wahlberg, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #76-01, by John Naluptzok. Upon.a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, Chaixman Harris declared ''~' the Publac Hearing c.Zosed at .Z1:12 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission _� Planninq Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 24 e recommend to Council approval of a rezoning zequest, ZOA #76-01, by John Naluptzok, to rezone from C-IS (1oca1 shopping areas) to M-1 (light � industrial areas), Lot 17, Block 2, Central View Manor Addition, to make � zoning consistent with adjoining property. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. 5. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #76-02, BY DONALD F. SEXTER: Spiit.Lot 3, B1ock 1, Froid's Addition into two building sites, each at least 10,000 square feet, for the construction of double bungalows. (Property zoned R-3), generally located on the corner of East River Road N.E. and Ironton Street N.E. � Mr. Donald Sexter was present. Mr. Clark said this property was zoned multiple, and as recently as last October, Mr. Sexter planned to build an 8-plex on this site, and due to the har�dicap requirements that come into play wher� you build an 8-plex, and other problems 'rela�ing to the_l�t, such as drainage, made it econ�mically unfeasible to build the 8-plex. He was now proposing to spjit the lot into two pieces� and construct double bungalows on this property. Mr. Sexter has presented surveys of the two lots which show that both lots will exceed the 10,000 square foot requirement for double bungalows. Mr. Clark said one of the surveys shows the setback as 30' for the structure, and this will have to be moved back 5' to meet the 35` front yard setback requirement. Mr, Clark said there was another small problem in that he did not quite meet the garage requirements for a double bungalow. The zoning code states that you have to have 1 1/2 stall garage for each unit of a double bungalow. Mr. Clark said that if you use the parking stall r.'equirement of 200', this would mean that there would have to be 300 square feet of garage area for each unit. He said the garages in this plan total 572 square feet. He said he felt that it was the intent of the ordinance tv provide two stalls for storage, and one sta71 for parking. Mr. Clark said that maybe the garages could be enlarged to meet this requirement. Mr. Clark said Mr. Sexter didn't want to widen the garages because it would obstruct the view from the house, bwt they could be built two feet deeper. Mr. Bergman asked Mr. Sexter if he was in agreement to increasing the size of the garage by 2 feet? Mr. Sexter said he was in agreement becaase the house could be moved back two feet �n the lot. He said that everything could be adjusted so they met the setback requirements of the code. �� _� Ptr. Clark said the staff recorrannendation was that this lot split be granted. MdTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of a request for a 1ot sP1it,,L.S. #76-02, by . Donald F. 5exter, to split Lot 3, B1ock 1, Froid's Addition, into two building sites, each at least 10,000 squaenerally located onntheucorner�f double bungalows on R-3 zoned property, g of East River Road N.E. and Ironton Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . s� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 7, 1976 Page 25 _ ' 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY STATEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 40 FT. LOTS IN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. � . Mrs. Wahlberg said she appreciated the consideration that each of � the other Correnission's made on this request that came from the Appeals Corfonission, through the Planning Commission. She appreciated the diligence and speediness with which they were able to get this information back to the Planning Co►�nission, because she was sure that the petiii�oner who wanted to build on a 40' lot was anxious to have his request handled so he could start construction now that the warmer weather was here. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she thought what the Appeals Commission would like would be a surrm�ary of the recommendations made by the Commissionse She said that most of the recommendations were quite similar, and the only thing that 6othered her was the recommendation that each 40' lot be handled individually. Mr. Cla►°k said he didn't think these lots could be handled any difterently tnan that, because i� was a dariance �a �he zoni�g code, and he thought what they were saying was that there shouldn't be one standard p1aced on all 40' vacant lots in our City. Each one should be considered separatel�, and_have separa�te action because each lo� may be unique in its own way. Mr. Langenfeld said that he thought the recommendations of the Human Resources Commission could be used as the guideline. n Mr. Bergman said he would like to call atten�ion to the recommendations � made by the Community Development Commission at their meeting of March 9, 1976. He said that the Environmental Quality Commission concurred with these recommendations, and -rhe Human Resources Commiss.ion's recommendations � , had some of the same stipulations, so he thought the� could use the motion of the Eorrununity Development Commission as a guideline. Mr. Bergman said the firs'c recommendation was "If the land is available on either side which can be purchased,such that the lot can be brought up to code, then building would be denied on a 40 foot lot". Mr. Harris said he didn't think that recommendation would stand up in courto � Mrs. Wahlberg said that back in 1971 they did make some recommendations as to what type of home should be built on a 40` lot, bu� she didn't think that recommer.dation was good now wi�h the present housing trends. She said that one pertinent fact was that water, sewer and electrici�� were already in on these lots�s so they problably should be developed. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she had a problem with the 3rd recommendation that the proposed house on a 40' lot�blend in aesthetically with the rest of the neighborhood, and her guess was that most of these 40' lots were � in older neighborhoods. Mr. Bergman said he could understand the problem with this, but these recommendations were only meant as guid'elines, and maybe they all couldn't be met all of the time. Mrs. Wahlberg said that what she got from all the Commissions was that there was concurrence that building on 40' lots should be allowed in the City of Fridley. She said i=�, that had been the basic question that the Appeals Commission had. They _ , didn't know if they should open the door on this kind of a request. �� Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 2B _ Mr. Harris said that he was more concerned with what size house they � were 9oing to allow to be bui1t on 40' lots. He said it was addressed ^ by sayin� that there be no variance alfiowed from the present ordinance � requiring a maximum of 25% lot coverage. Mr. Clark said that most 40' ' lots had about 5200 square feet. This would mean that the house and garage could only cover 1300 square feet of the lot. He said this would allow for a 1,020 square foot rambler, which was code, with a � 14' x 20' garage. He said that if they built a split entry home, they coul� build one with 768 square feet of living area with a 252 square f6ot attached garage. Mr. 6ergman said they didn't want to get more restrictive on 40' lots and that was why they stayed with the 25% of �ot coverage which was in the existing code. We recommended that no variance be granted which exceeded �his requirement, because this would tend to control the size of the house on these 1ots. Mr. Clark said it would be possible to build a marke�table house on these lo�s, even if they had to stay within the code requiremen�. Mr. Harris asked if the City was requiring attached garages, Mr. Clark said they were required on a two story house. Attached garages were req�ired except on ramblers and split level housing. You also have to have an attached garage on any property that was the result of a lot split. Mr. Peterson said he thought it �aould be consistent with the n housing plan they had develo�ed that they encourage the development of 40' lots because it would decrease the cost of building a home. If � � we don't encourage people of difterent economic levels �:o move into � our Gity, ther� we vaouldn't be following the goals that we established. Mrs. Wahlberg said that if they allowed more than 25% lot coverage, then.there woulcl be more variances needed also. She wondered if they could set the maximum square iootage they would allow for a house on a 40' lot such as 1300 square feet for the house and garage. Mr. Clark -said he would hesita�te to mertion square footage, because some lots may be 39' and sonte may be 42' so the square foo�age allo4ved in the 25% of lot coverage could vary also. Mr. Harris said that maybe they could have a s�andard requirement for the size o� a house on a 40' house. Mr. Clark said this would just be something else that they would ask for a variance on. Mr. Clark said f7e thought that these recommendations were meant as a g�ideline and the Appeals Commission can try the 25% and if this was unworkable, they may have to come up with a dif�erent percentage then. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission felt that 40' lots should be developed in Fridley, each 1ot to be considered on an individual basis, subject to the guidelines set forth by the various Merr�er Corrm�issions. Mr. Narris asked how they were going to deny a var.iance f�r a house on a 40' lot just because there was a vacant lot adjoining it. Mr. Clark said that every time you denied anything, you could end up in court, ^ but he thought that the Commission owed it to the other people in a block -'''"`'� who had built on 2 40' lots so they had 80', to try to have the other building site be 80'. This would depend upon the person who had a lot to sell, offering ..,.. -- .+ _ .� � Planning Commission Meeting - April 7, 1976 Page 21 it at a reasonable market value price. Mr. Clark said that if two 40' � lots were side by side and under two ownerships, he thought these owners should reveal to the Appeals Commission what their differences were in � regard to the price of either lot, � Mr. Bergman said that anyone who owned a 40' lot had a problem lot. The purpose of the first recommendation was that the Corr�nunity Developme.nt Commission felt that the owner of such a lot should make some effort to solve that problem. They felt that if there was vacant property next to this lot, that an e�ffort should be ma�e to purchase the lot, so �h�t a house could be built on a combinaiion of �ots that would meet the code requirements. He said tha� in that contex�t, he thought it was a reasonable request. Mr. Harris said he had a problem with t�he denial of a building permit on any 40' lot, whether there were two vacant lots tog�ther, or 10 vacant lots together. Mr. Harris said he thought the combining of 40'��ots should be encoura��.d,� bta� i�� '�dc�'t want the City t� be in a p�sition of using a club be�;ween t�•�o owners of 40' lots. Mr. Harris said they could try it, but if any denials were made, the reasons for the denial should be stated and documented. Mrs. Wahlberg said she would like the Appeals Commission to get a copy of these minutes on this item, and she would like the guidelines put in a concise form, so the Appeals Commission could refer to them for any requests to build on 40' lots. Mr. Harris said that if this was going to be a policy statement, he thou.ght that would have to be approved by �he City Counci1. h1rs. Wahlberg said �he Appeals Commission only asked for an o.pinion from the member Commission's and the Planning Commission. Mr. Harris said that any policy statemeni had to be approvecl by the City Counc�l. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Commission was concerned with the request they had tabled on a variance �or a 40' 1ot and this peti�:ioner had been delayed quite some time already. Mr. Harris said iic would be bet�er in the long run to have Council approval on a policy statement, but they could use �he recommendations from this meeting as guidelines until the policy statement had been approved by Council. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the.motion carried unanimously. 7. ELEGTI�ON OF VICE CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Harris said that the Planning Commission hadn't had a Vice Chairman since Mr.. Drigans resigned from the Planning Commission and he thought they should take care of this at this meeting. Ne said he was open to nominations. Mr. Bergman nominated Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Pe�erson nominated Mr. Bergman. Mr. Harris said they would vote by ballot, �;�d when the votes were counted, he declared Mr. Peterson Vice Chairmart of the Planning Commission. 8. TIME SCHEDULE ON PLAr��iT�1G COMMISSION AGENDA � Mr. Harris said he felt that setting a time period on each agenda item was a good idea and thought it should be continued. Mr. Clark asked how they wanted to handle this. Mr. Harris said that after he received his � Planning Co�unission Meeting- April 7, 1976 Page 28 � ^ agenda, he would call Mr. Boardman or Mr. Clark, and they couTd,work out a time schedule so the petitioner could be told approximately what time � their i.tem would come up on the agenda. Mr. Peterson said this would eliminate people waiting three hours'for discussion on the item they were interested.in. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Shea, seconded by Peterson, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the P.Zanning Commission meeting of Apri1 7, 1976 adjourned at 12:16 A.M. Respectfully submitted, , � D�rothy Ever,sq�, Secretary �� r-- .,--�