PL 05/05/1976 - 30443.
,
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 1976 PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:42 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Shea, Bergman, Wahlberg, Langenfeld, and
. Peterson, who arrived at the meeting at 8:40 P.M.
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PL►;NNING C01`�MISSION MINUTES: APRIL 21. 1976
MOTIOI� by Langenfeld, seconded by Wah.Zberg, fhat the Planning Commission
approve the m.znutes of the Apri1 21, 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice
vote, al.i voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 20, 1976
Mr. Langen�"eld asked if anyone on the Planning Commission wanted
. clarification of the Environmental Quality Commission minute� of the
�'1 March 23, 1976 meeting. He said that the minutes as written didn't
really represent what was said about the stand taken by some of the
members oi the Planning Commission on including-East River Road in
the Cri�ical Area Corridor.
Mrs. Wahlberg said that it sounded like she was anti-East River
Road, but she would discuss this with Mrs. Sporre personally. She
was happy to see that.the East River Road Project Committee was moving
along in the right direction.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langenfeld why they had tabled their.recommenda�ion
an Leigh Terrace? He said it was his understanding that this item would be
handled as quickly as possible so this recommendation could �o through the
Planning Commission to the Council for the Public Hearing by them on May lOth.
Mr. Langenfeld explained that he had asked that his Com mission look at this
plat just because of their interest in development along East River Road.
There was discussio�� by the members of the Planning Commission that due to
the new structure of the Planning Commission, they didn"t think any af the
member Commissions should make recommendations directly to the Council.
� Mr. Langenfeld brought to the attention of the Planning Commission a
�"� motion that was made on page 6 of these minutes. He said the motion v�as
" .recommend to the Planning Conunission the adoption of Chapter 70 of
the�Uniform Quilding Code as�a replacement for the present Chapter 212,
` known as the Miniii� Ordinance, and that any proposed ordinance be brought
r"1 back to the Environmental Qua1ity Commission prior to being submitted to
the City Council for its approval."
Mr.�Boardman said this would be on the next Planning Commission agenda.
:
�
Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1976 Page 2
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission
receive the minates of the Apri1 20, Z976 meeting of the Environmental Quality �
Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ,
Mr. Boardman said the next item on the agenda should have been to receive
Parks & Recreation CorrIInission minutes, but they haven't been completed because
the�items or the agenda of the April 26th meeting were not completed, and they
had another meeting on May 3rd to complete their agenda. He sai�d there were
items discussed at these meetings that were going to be going to Council, so
they should be discussed, but he thought they should wait until Bob Peterson,
the Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission arrived for this meeting.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission delay
their discussion on the i_tems from the Parks & Recreation Commission meetings
of Apri1 26th and May 3rd until Iater on in'the meeting. Upon a voice vote,
a1I. voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE /�FF'tALS COMMISSION t�IIWUTES: APRIL 27, 1976:
Mrs. Wahlberg clarified some discussion on a variance request for
1411 Kerry Circle. Mr. Mike 0'Bannon, who was in the audience for another
item on the agenda, said that the statement he made in these minutes was
correct, because he had gone aut right after the Appeals Commission and
measured it, and it was 37 feet from the curb to the garage, on the lot they
had been discussing at that time.
Mrs. Wahlberg explained what Mr. Villella had decided on his request to
cdnstruct a home on a 40' lot. Mr. Harris asked if the City Council had
come.up with any recommendations on 40' lots. Mr. Boardman said that they
had discussed this at their workshop meeting on April 26th, and basically
agreed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. They said that
each lot had to be considered on its own merits.
MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
•receive the minutes o.f the April 27, 1976 Appeals Commission meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all vot.ing aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #76-02, BY ROBERT D. DEGARDNER:
Rezone the South 150 feet, front and rear of Lot 9, and ihe West 47'feet
of the South 120 feet of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, from R-3A
(apartment and multiple dwellings district), to CR-1 (general office arid
limited businesses), the same being 6431 Hi�ghway #65 N.E.
Mr. Robert DeGardner was present.
MOTIDN by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open
the Public Nearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #76-02, by Robert D. DeGardner.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Nearing
open at 8:05 P.M.
,�
Mr. Boardman said that this property was just North of the apartments
on Highway #65, and South of the apartments was a ski shop, with a gas station
on the corner. All the four corners at Mississippi and Highway #65 were - �1
residential. Ne said the property that Mr. DeGardner was making the rezoning
request on had been zoned residential (R-1) until 1972, when in was rezoned to
�,,,�,,.�,:,�,.,R
�
Planning Commission Meetin� - May 5, 1976 Page 3
R-3A, for apartments. He�said this request for CR-1 zoning, which was
for general offices and limited businesses, which limited the occupancy
��� of the proposed building to offices for real estate, lawyers, medic�l,,�:dental,
. optical, clinics and apothecary shops, and harmless arrd inoffensive laboratories
accessory to the permitted uses in the same building. �
Mr. Boardman said that he had some serious reservations about the
approval of this request. He said that in the first place, it would be
spot rezoning. The second concern he had was that this area still had
a residential atmosphere, and rezoning this property would set a precedence
for commercial development in this area: He said there had already been
pressure put on people owning R-1 property on these four corners to sell
their property for commercial development, and if this rezoning was approved,
that pressure would increase.
Mr. DeGardner said that he had been looking at this property for about
two years. The reason he wanted to construct a building for offices at this
time was because his lease was running out on the office he had leased in
Blaine. He said that he had previously tried to rezone his residence in
Fridley to commercial, because he had his real estate office in his home at
� that time. He said he could see why that rezon9ng request was turned down,
but he felt this rezoning request was different, because this was a perfect
site for a commercial building. He said he had outgrown the office facility
in the home he had owned on East River Road, so he had sold this home and
now lived in Inns�ruck. This site would be very convenient from his present
home. He said that he preferred to have his office in Fridley, rather than
Blaine. He said that this property was presently zoned for apartments, but
�� you couldn't get financing for apartmen�s at this timee He presented plans
for the building he proposed to build on this lot, and said this building
would enhance the area. He said he realized there were some other commercial
areas in.Fridley, but there was no commercial area available whe'r.e the
building would blend in as well. He said he was constructing this same
building on 103rd and University Avenue Extension, which was 30 days from
completion. He invited the Planning Commission and the people from this
area to go ou� and look at that building, so they could see what type of
construction he was talking about. He said this building in Blaine was built
on a flat piece of ground, and this building on the site in Fridley would be
built as a walk-out, so it would be even more attractive on this lot. He said
the building would be 100' x 40', two story, and would be all brick with a
mansard roof. He said that it would be at about the same elevation as the
apartments next to this site, and would be a walk-out in the rear, the same
as the apartment buildings. He felt that this proposal would disrupt the
neighborhood less than another apartment building, because the occupancy would
, be limited to a working day, rather than 24 hours a day that there would be
� in an apartment building. Ne said the fact that this building was a walk out
in the rear would make it easy zo meet the handicap requirements. He said this
. was the only building site in Fridley that would really set the building off.
Mr: DeGardner said there would be a six foot cedar fence on three sides of the
site. He said this would be what is known as a free standing building, that
could be partitioned as the tenan�s rented space. He said his own company
would be using about 1/4 of the building which would have 4,000 square feet
on each floor, a total of 8,000 square feet. He said there was a great need
�i in Fridl�ey for a building for professional people. He had inquiries all the
time f.rom people looking for comnercial office space.
Mr. DeGardner said that he had built many quality homes in Fridley, and
.y
Pl�anning Corrnnission Meeting - May 5, 1976 Page 4
this commercial building would be the same calibre. Mr. Harris said that he
krtew that Mr. D�eGardner had built some ni.ce homes in his area.
Mr. Arnold•Elmquist, 8140 Long L.ake Road, said that he owned the three �
apartment buildings South of the site in question. He said that he had always
been in favor of this site staying residential, but he was inpressed with the
building that Mr. DeGardner was proposing. He said he would rather see another
apartment bui]ding on this site however.
Mr. DeGardner said that if this property remained zoned R-3A, it would
probably sit vacar�t for another ten years, because there just wasn't financing
available for apartment buildings. He said this site was only large enough
for an eleven unit apartment, and the numbers just wouldn't work out, as far
as for investment purposes. He said that if this property was developed as
commercial, you can get-higher rent for commercial offices, so the numbers would
work out. Mr. Elmquist said that he would rather see a variance granted to
allow a 14 unit apartment on this site, than to see it be rezoned to commercial.
He said he felt the rent structures would be changing in the near future, so
the financing picture would change tao. �
Mr. Harris asked if this lot and proposed building met all the requirements
of CR-1 zoning? Mr. DeGardner said there was an 150 foot frontage on this lot
and his building would be 100' x 40'. He said the side yards would be 15'
and 35' on the side of the building next to the apartments. He said there
�buld be a 20' driveway on the 35' side. There would be 28 parking stalls.
Mr. Boardman said this proposal meets all the zoning requirements.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked about the access to this site and if it would have �
direct access to Highway #65 or would they have to use the service drive
down at the corner of 63rd. Mr. DeGardner said they would be using the
service drive. Mrs. Wahlberg said she was concerned about people traveling
North of Highway #65 at 55 miles per hour and looking for this building. �
She wondered if it would need a right turn lane?
Mr�a Euyene Lane, 1132 Mississippi, said they had been approached many
times about selling their property, so that they coul.d rezone it to another
use. She asked Mr. Boardman if he had any idea what use their property would
be put to, if they sold it. Mr. Boardman said it would be hard to say, because
that would be up to the person petitioning for rezoning. This was one of the
concerns he had, that if this rezoning was approved, more pressure would be
put on the present owners of R-1 property to sell their property so it could
be rezoned to another use.
Mr. Langenfeld said that he thought the residents in the area should be
aware that sometimes a multiple dwelling could be more unpleasant in a residential
area than this type of an office building. He s.tressed what kind of occupancy
wo�ald be allowed in this building if it was zoned commercial.
Mr. Russell Burris, 1150 Mississippi Street N.E., said that he had lived
in�this area for 25 years, and if commercial development was_coming into this
area, he would sell his home, because he wanted the area to stay residential.
He said that years ago he had been a member,of the Board of Appeals, and they
would never have allowed a commercial venture in a residential neighborhood.
He said.he was glad to see that the Planning Commission was concerned about
the traffic generated by this proposal.
. _; . ,�.�,
r; ..,
�"�
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 1976 Page 5
Mr. Peterson arrived at the Planning Commission meeting.at 8:40 P.M.
Mrs. Shea said that if the people who wanted to visit this building had
to take the seryice drive, she thought this would eliminate some of the
traffic problems. Mrs. Wahlberg said she felt it could be a situation like
had been created with Wickes and Plywood. People would be traveling 55 miles
an. hour on Highw�y #65, drive past this building, and then create a traffic
hazard when they tried to find the entrance to the building. Mr. DeGardner
said that a sign could be placed at the entrance of the service drive, and
he felt that this would eliminate a lot of the traffic problem. Mrs. Wahlberg
said that if this building wasn't on such a heavy traveled highway, she
wouldn't be as concerned about the traffic situation.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman how this area was treated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Boardman said it was recommended that this area remain residential.
Mr. Bergman said that it was his cancer�n that i-f �this rezoni�g req�est
was approved, we would be getting into a situation that couldn't be stopped,
and the area might completely change. He said this spot rezoning could have
far-reaching effects. He ques�ioned if the proposed building could be tied
into this rezoning request. Mr. Harris said it could be, if it was so
stipulated. ° .
Mrs. R. L. Anderson, 6428 Dellwood Drive, said she had no objection to
this proposed building, or its use, but she would be opposed to mor,e of the
^ area being rezoned from R-1.
Mrs. Wahlberg said that she thought this was a very attractive building
and that it should be built in Fridley because it was something our community
needs, but she felt that she could not approve�of the rezoning of this
� particular site, mostly because of the concerns she had with the traffic
si�ua�ion.
Mr, Langenfeld said tha� he had to agree with Mlr. DeGardner that this
proposed building would prabubly enhance the area, but it was still spot
rezoning, which was against City policy.
Mr. Peterson said he did not wisn to make any comment on this proposal.
Mrs. Shea said that her primary concern was the additional pressures that
would be put on the adjoining property owners to sell their property for
rezoning.
Mr. Bergman said that he agreed with the comments that had been made, but
he was very impressed with Mr. DeGardner's proposed building, and with his
presenta`tion. Mr. Harris said he also agreed with all the comments. He said
� that he would like to see this �uilding constructed in Fridley, and he would
like h1r. DeGardner to be able to work in Fridley. lie said that he had done
an admirable job in making his presentation, and he could understand that Mr.
DeGardner felt this was an ideal location for this commercial building, but
n . he felt it wasn't in the best interests of the community to approve rezoning
this property from the present R-3A zoning.
MOTTON by Bergman, seconded.bc� Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission
close the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA #76-02, by Robert DeGardner.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 19Z6 Page 6.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing
c2osed a� 9:05 P.M.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by LangenfeZd, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council denial of the request for rezoning, ZOA #76-02, by n
Robert D. DeGardner, to rezone'the 5outh 150 feet, front and rear, of Lot
9, and the West 47 feet of the South 120 feet of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision
No.�88, from R-3A (apartment and multiple dwellings district) to CR-1 (general
office.and limited businesses), the same being 6431 Highway #65 N.E. for
the following reasons:
1. Th.is would be spot rezoning.
2. If this rezoning request was approved, additional pressure would
be put on adjoining property owners to rezone their property, and
change the residential character of the area.
3. The additional traffic problems created with commercial use in
this area.
4. This proposal contrary to our approved Comprehensive Plan, and,
would not be in the best interests of the community.
5. Because of the objections o.f the adjoining property owners.
Upon a voice vote, Shea, Bergman, Harris, Wahlberg, Langenfeld voting aye,
Peterson nay, the motion carried.
Mrs.� Wahlberg told Mr. DeGardner that she hoped he could find another
site in Fridley to construct�this building, because it would be an asset
to the community and the type oi° building that Fridley has a need fore �1
Mr. DeGardner said he thought that he had found the perfect site for this
building. Mr. Langenfeld said that he felt this was a.good proposal also,
but the Planning Commission had to consider the City as a whole unit, and
there could be major problems with the rezoning of this property.
Chairman Harris asked the secretary to make sure that Mr. DeGardner
got a Copy of these minutes.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATNONBOFMAKERELIM�IBANNONLATBeing�a#rep�at
HEATHER HILLS THIRD ADDITIO ,
�of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivison No. 22, that was not already platted
as Heather Hills 2nd Addition, gerierally located South of Heather
Hills Second Addition and West of Rice Creek Estates Second Addition.
Mr. Mike 0'Bannon was present.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission
vpen the Public Hearing on a preliminary plat, Heather Hi11s Third Addition,
by Mike E. Q'Bannon. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris
declared the Public Hearing open at 9:16 P.M.
Mr. 0'Bannon said that all the lots would exceed the 9,000 square foot
requirement for residential lots. He said the lots were comparabl�o the
lots in the other Heather Hills addition. There was a 50 ft. right of way
for the streets, and the streets would be 36' from curb to curb. He said �"i
he had been working closely with the Engineering Department on this plat,
and everything was as it should.be.
�
�
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 1976 Page 7
The Planning
they all checked
�� the plat.
n
�"1
Commission hadn't seen the plat before the meeting, so
their half section maps to determine the exact location of
Chairman Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to
speak on this plat. There was no response.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Comrn.ission
close the Pub.Zic Hearing on a preliminary p1at, Neather Hi11s Th.ird Addition,
by Mike E. O'Bannon. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, Chairman Harris
declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:26 P.M.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Feterson, that the Planning Commission
recommend to Council ap�r.oval of a preliminary p1at, Heather Hi11s Third
Addition, by Mike E. O'Bannon, being a replat of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 22, that was nof already platted as Heather Hills 5econd Addition, generaZly
Iocated South of Heather Hi1Zs Second Addition and West of Rice Creek Estates
Second Add�tion. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 9:30 P.M. and reconvened the Planning
Commission meeting at 9:50 P.M.
REVIEW OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETINGS OF APRIL 26TH AND MAY 3RD, �.�76
Mr. Peterson said the reason that the Planning Commission hadn't received
the minutes from the Apri1 26th meeting was because the Parks & Recreation
Commission had been requested at 9:30 to come to the Council workshop meeting,
so our agenda wasn't completed until May 3, 1976. He said they had discussed
with the Council recreation in the City of Fridley, the direction they should
take on a new Director for the Parks & Recreatio�n Department, and a proposal
by the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation.
Mr. Boardman said he didn't know af thie Planning Commission wanted -co
get too involved with the nature center, but the Parks & Recreation Cominission
did make a recommendation on the teen center.
Mr. Peterson said the Parks & Recreation Commission voted not to concur
with the recommendation from the Human Resources Commission, for several
reasons. One of the reasons was that vrhile the young people felt that this
proposal should be under the Parks & Recreation, b�t they didn't recommend
that anyone from the Parks & Recreation Comrnission should be on the Board
of Governor's� although that wasn't the reason that they didn't concur with
the original proposal. He said the Park & Recreation Department did not have
the personnel or budget to handle this proposal. There were several Corr�nissioner's
who felt this would be dupliQation of services and there could be potential
or duplication of services in the "Y" moves out to �his area. They asked tbe
young group io get in touch with the Northeast Y and find out the status of
their program and see if a workable solution could be made with their facility
and their intended use. Another reason for their decision was that the Park
& Recreation Commission did not feel that the room that was being asked for
could be vacated or that the �ibrary room should be used for that purpose.
Those were the reasons we voted not to accept the recommendation of the Human
� Resources Commission.
Mr. Boardman said that another item that had been before the Parks &
Recreati�on Commission was on tax forfeit property. Mr. Peterson said this
Planning Commission Meeting - May .5�,. 1976 Page 8
was a proposal to red tag some,tax forfeit lots to park development so �
they weren't put on the iax forfeiture sale. He said he couldn't give
th� Planning Commission all the locations at this time, but there were
six or seven parcels of property. He said the Parks & Recreation Commission
voted to accept the Springbrook Nature Center as presented, with four more
stipulations which were: l: An additional 10% (Or $5,400) budgeted for
contingency before approval of this plan is given. 2. $2,000 for maintenance
costs that may be reimbursed by the Foundation back to the City, be escrowed .
before our construction. 3. The City should protect itself, under provisions
of accepting this or any other plan, from the City having to operate this
at the City's expense on a continuing basis. �. That the Parks & Recreation
� . Director's time under no �ircumstances be allocated to Springbrook Nature
� Center. Mr..Peterson said there was also a proposal for a sign, which he
noticed was approved at the Council meeting on May 3rd. He said he didn't
agree that the City could put up any type sign they pleased because there
t,►as nothing in the sign ordinance about ��vernment signs,. bu�._he, was outvoted. .,
He said he didn't know if this was a c�nforming sign or not. Mr. Boardman
said that all it says in the sign ordinance was that any sign that the City
might want to have had to be approved by the City Council. Mr. Peterson
said that it was his interpretation that because.the land in North Park
still belongedoto the City, this was the reason the development plans had
to be reviewed by the Parks &�Recrea�tion Commission so that any development
wouldn't be at cross-purposes with any plans this Commission or the Planning
Commission and Council might have.
Mr. Harris said that he felt tha� action from these meetings should be �
delayed until the Planning Commission had the actual minutes, because it
seemed like this Commission had covered a lot of material at these meetings.
He'said he was particularly interested in the red tagging of tax forfeiture
lots. Mr. Boardman said he would have the maps for the next meeting.
Mr. Peterson asked if there were any other questions, because he did
have to leave the meeting. Mr. Harris said he was excused, and Mr. Peterson
left the meeting at 10:05 P.M.
3. REVIEW 3.2 BEER LICENSE REOUIREMENTS
Mr. Boardman said the City Council had asked the Planning Commission
to review the 3.2 beer license requirements because they thought the requirements
were quite weak. He said this ordinance had been reviewed by most of the
member Commission's and there recommendations were in the agenda. There was
discussion on all the commission's recommendations, but Mr. Bergman felt that
the four recommendations by the Community Development Commission encompassed
all of them. Mrs. Wahlberg questioned the feasibility of putting this under
a special use permit requirement, but it seemed to be the consensus of opinion
that this would give the City more control along with the annual renewal of
a beer license. The four recommendations from the Community Development
Commission were: Restrict the beer tavern licensing to C-2�or C-2S districts.
2. Require a special use permit for additional control. 3. The definition
or a tavern include any beer sale operation intending to operate over any 6
day consecutive period or more than 6 days during any 6 month period. and, 4. �
Temporary beer sale operation can be allowed only with Council approval.
Mrs. Shea pointed out to Mr: Boardman how the sexual bias ed language could
�a..,...,;
w
�. �
Planning Commission�Meeting - May 5, 1976 Page 9
be taken out of this ordinance. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to rewrite thP
^ 3.2. beer ordinance requirements into a proposed ordinance change using the
recorrunendations made at this meeting. so the Planning Commission could review
this at their next meeting.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
. Mr. Boardman said these were the same recommendations the Planning Commission
had looked at their last meeting.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission table �
their recommendation on Human Development Goals and Objectives until they have
more information. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously. '
5o RE-EVALUATION OF STREET LAYOUT NEAR NORTH PARK (PETITION 8-1976)
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning Commission
receive Petition 8-1976, which was a request for street c.Zarification on
Ironton Street and Ashton Avenue in the vicinity of 83rd Street. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said the City Council had sent this down to the Planning
Commission. �
MOTIDN by Langenfeld, seconded By Bergman, that this petition (8-19.76)
n b� referred to the Environmental Quality Commission and the Community DeveZopment
Commission for review before the Planning Commission makes their recommendation.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the raotion carried unanimously.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. 6oardman to give the member Commissions and the
Planning Commission any o'cher pertinent information that would help them
in making a recommendaion on this petition.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld that the mee.ting be adjourned.
Upon a voice vofe, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of May 5, 1976 adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
pectful.ly submitted,
City Planner
'-1