PL 09/08/1976 - 30451r
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SEPTEMBF�t 8, 1976
PAGE 1
CALL TO ORDER:
Cha:irperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALT� :
Members Fresent: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Gabel (attending ior
' Schnabel�� Shea
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 18, 1y76
,
�MOTIOA' by Shea, seconded b� Langenfeld, tiaat the Planning Commission minutes
of August 18, 1976 be �pproved as written. Upon a voice vote, a].1 voting ayey
�`� the motion caxried unanimously.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONIIVG RE�iU�T, ZOA ,�76-03, BY EVEFtT R. SjdANSON: Rezone
L.ot 19, except the East 190 feet thereaf, and except �he �brest �7 feet taken
for highway �u.rgoses, from C-1 (g�neral office and limited businesses)� and
the West 11�7.7�t feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family �.Urelling areas), al1
in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family d�ellir�gs)
to a11�w a condominium-type development, �he same being locaied at• ihe
intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E.
Note: See copies of a public hearing notice for a variance re�uest to be
heard by the Appeals Commission on September 15, 197b, and for a
Prc�l.iminary plat to be presented to the Planning Commission �i�
September 22, 19760 �
Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property ot,mer; P7r. li].bert Hofi'meyer, architect; and
hlr. rfichael Virnig of 1365 73rd Avenue N.E, were present.
MOTION by T,angenfeld, seconded by G�,bel, that the Planning Commission open tlie
Public Hearing on a rezoni.ng request, ZOA #76-03, by E�ert R. Sw�anson. Upon
a voice vote, all voi;ing aye, Chairperson Harri.s declared the Public Hearing
open at 7:1�5 P.I�. .
r-�� Air. Boardman�explained that a Townhouse Plan axid plat would come b�fore the
"`- Planning Commission at their September 22nd meeting, and this item would als�
"-`�-'` bQ goin� before tne Board of Appeals as it involved a variance request.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 2 �
Mr. Boardman stated that this property was located on the corner of 73rd and Old
Central Avenue� and the owner wished to develop owner-occupied townhouse units. �
He said�he had just received at this meeting a copy of what they were proposing ��
to do there, and it was somewhat different than what he had seen before. He
added they would have all the actual layouts and locations ironed out before
the next meeting. Mr. Boardman passed out to the Commission copies of the plans
for the development to give them an idea of the kind of proposal that was being
provided, and explained which axeas were zoned C-1 and R-1. He said the zoning
to the North of the C-1 property was commercial zoning, but the property around
the rest of the perimeter was R-1 zoning. He sxpl•ained they were asking for
R-3 zoning in this section to allow for 36 owner-occupied units, and that with
the squaxe footage they had uncler R-3 they would be allowed l�la units, one for
every 3�000 square feet.
2�r. Boaxdman said that Staff�s recommendation would be that rezoning would be
in order for that axea, and thought an owner-occupied developmen� would be
preferrable to renter-occupied. �
Mr. A1 Hoffineyer of Architects 1500 stated that he didn't think apartments
would be appropriate in that area and preferred the townhouse concept. He said
that rental property was not as desirable as owner-occupied property for many
reasons. He pointed out that the property would take L�.1�. units� but they were
putting in 36 units with quite a bit of green•area. Mr. Hoffineyer explained
that the units �rould be built in stages starting ��ith the Southern part of the
property� and the first building-,aould be on the corner of 73rd and Central.
He stated that the only drawback to the property that he was �concerned with
�ras the property on the West side of Central, but they planned to put up a
buffer on the West end of the property. Other than that, he said, he thought f'1,
the location was excellent and felt it would be a successful project.
Chairperson Harris asked if they were all six-unit buildings with options�
and Mr. Hoffineyer replied they were. He added that there were many different
plans that could be incorporated into these units. Mr. H�.rris asked what
would happen if the six units were built but did not sell irranediately, and
N1r. Hoffineyer said that �ras why they were building them in stages� and he had
no doubt that they would sell. Mr. Haxris asked if Mr. Hoffineyer would wait
until they had commitments on those first six units before he started another
unit. Mr. Hoffineyer replied they would have to meet HUD standards so they
could get FHA4or VA financing, and HUD said a project could not be staxted'
unless 80� of those units were presold. Mr. Harris said he understood that,
and asked if it was Mr. Hoffineyer's intent to have commitments on the first
six units before starting a second building. Mr. Hoffineyer sa.id absolutely,
and explained they would use the first six as models. He saa.d that the basic
unit they would be starting out with would include a single cax garage, and
they were all in the $lt0,000 to $50,000 price range. He said the options y:ould
include the number of bedrooms, room for expansion, and so forth. He added
that they could combine several different options, so there was a variety� and
the buildings would not a11 be of the same design. Mr. Hoffineyer explained
he couldn't tie down the exact composition of these units in terms of price
until they got approval from the Planning Commission because HUD wouldn't
look at �rhat they had until Fridley passed on the concept idea.
Chairperson Harris asked if� in the event the units weren't sold, they would �'���
possibly be rented. Mr.�Hoffineyer replied he had no doubt that they would
-:; ', :�
v
Planning Commission Meeting e September 8, 1976 Page 3
�"'�� sell, and he had talked to various financing agencies and their only concern
• was what was on the other side of Central Avenue. He stated that if they
couldn't sell them� they couldn't rent them. He added that they weren't in
this for rent--they were in this for salest and that was why they had all the
different options. He stated they could go from $40,000 up to $60,000. Mr.
Hoffineyer said they had enough safety factors built into this project that
they were not locked into a price range; they had a flexibility of price range,
a flexibility of market and a flexibility of financing.
Mr, Langenfeld asked if the six units would be within a common fire division�
a.nd N1r. Hoffineyer replied that in order to meet HUD standards.there would have
to be a one-hour fire wa11 between each unit. Mr. Langenfelri said that �Ir.
Boardman had stated the rezoning to R-3 was for oz,mer-occupied townhauses, and
asked if he could make stipulations like that on a rezoning. Mr. Boardman
replied that he could for owner-occupied i,rithin a R-3� and explained that under
the townhouse ordinance it set up certain square footage for each of the units
under each district. Mr. Langenfeld asked if it could actually be specified .
when an area was rezoned that. it be owner-occupied9 and Mr. Boardman said that
with the Townhouse Plan it could. Mr. Langenfeld aslced if all 36 units ��ould
be in one big cluster, and Mr. Hoffineyer explained that each building would
have six units, and_ there would be six buildings so there would be 36 units.
He further explained that each unit had its own ienced-in garden space and a
single-cax garage. He said the middle units had an interior fenced-in garden,
the end wnits had their own fenced-in garden, and each unit had its o4m outside
deck. He stated that it �*as like zero lot line concep-t. Mr. Hoffineyer said
� that ori�inally the concept they had consisted of nine units in each building9
but they didn't have the gree:� areas; naw they had plenty of space between them
and a lot of green area. He added there were no through streets; both streets
were dead end. -
Mr. Bergman stated that from the land-use viewpoint this seemed awkward to him.
He sa.i.d they presently had an area that involved zoning of industrial, single-
family residential and commercial� and now they were asked to grant a rezoning
of 3.1 acres of multiple family right in the middle of this. He said this
seemed awk�axd from a relationship to the different zones. Mr. Hoffineyer said
that there was single-family presently on the North, East and South of this
property right now. Mr. Ba�.rdman said he would attempt to clarify this, and
asked the Commissioners to look at page 30 of their agendas. He pointed out
the area that was a kind of island of residential area, and $howed how it was
completely surrounded by industrial9 commercial property. He explained that
along the edges of this island of residential �roperty there was a sprinkling
of commercial and R-3. He said that generally along 73rd there was quite a
number of apartment units. Mx�. Boardman said that he thought in order to be
on the future-p�anning end of this they should -try to look at that area as a
total residential unit in which there would be some buffer areas on the outside
of the apartment complexes ��here the R-1 could be included i.n more of a family-
oriented type operation on the interior. He said that.the more heavily traveled
roads• of Central Avenue and ?3rd would benefit higher concentrations of unit�
more than the i.nterior roads. He stated that this was one of the reasons they
,,� felt this development would be withi.n keeping in character with the residential
` island.
Plaruling Commission Meeting - September 8, 197b Page 4•
Mr. Bergman said he still felt they were talking about a spot rezoning of an
R-3, bord.ered by industrial on the South, Commercial on the.North (for a portion)�
and no other multiple-family. He asked if Mr. Hoffineyer had considered the
land-use relationships. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he wouldn't have come in here if
he hadn't considered it. Mr. Bergman explained he was concerned with relation-
ships in terms of traffic9 of sereices and of activities, in which an R-3 was
di.fferent from any present zoning. He asked if the request for rezoning was
to any extent based on hardship with the present zoning. Mr. Hoffineyer replied
that there were other things that could be put on that property that he didn't
think would be as desirable. He said a11 kinds of things could go there, but
that wouldn't make a buffer for the R-1 zoning that adjoins it. He added that
other ways of developing this property would not tie in, or from a planning
point of vi.ew make it as compatible as what he was suggesting. He further added
that this particular area was ideal for interspersing because of the green
areas around it� and he pointed out that behind Medtronics there was quite a
�ice apartment complex. He s'aid that he didn't think it was a haxdship type
of thing� but it would be the best use of the property.
Nlr. Peterson noted that the- 3•1 acres had ar, odd shape i.n terms of a pascel
of land� and asked what happened to the property owners immediately to the
East of this piece of property in terms of their deeeloping it or using it.
Mr. Boardman replied that it was all developed; there were a11 single-family
houses to the East.
Chairperson Haxris asked when the internal street pattern would be built and
who would mainta.in it. Mr. Hoffineyer replied that this would be the Home Owners
Association, and the �irst street t:�at would be put in would be the one on the
South. He added that they would keep progressing as the buildings were develop�'`,
Mr. Harris asked when the Home Owners Association would be formed to maintain
the streets, and Mr. Haffm�yer answered that it would be formed immediately.
He explained i;hat before he could even talk to any lender he had to have all
those documents. Mr. Harris said he assumed the green areas would also be
taken care of by the Home Ot,mers Association, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied yes,
just like Innsbruck. He saa.d the whole thing would be ma.intained as soon as
buildi.ng number one was erected.
Mr. Bergman stated he was unable to define from looking at the plan the green
areas. Mr. Hoffineyer directed him to look at sheet number one of the blueprints�
and explained that the buildings were a11 outlined and numbered, the driveways
were shaded i.n� and a11 the rest was green area. Mr. Bergman asked if he
pl�nnned anything in the development as fax as a common recreation axea� communal
area or playground. Mr. Hoffineyer answered that he did not, but there was
enough green area that they could put in some swing sets. He explained there
was no swimming pool� horseshoe area� or anything like that in this project.
Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of financing would be ava3lable as far as a
person desiring to purchase one of these units� and Mr. Hoffineyer replied
they were going to be flexible on this. He stated they would have conventional�
VA and FHA. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there would be such a thing as a contract
for deed if a person wished to sell. Mr. Hofineyer said he hadn't thought about
that� but he didn't think so. He added that from a planning point of view he
didn't think financing entered i.nto the picture� and it would be up to the �.,�
lender t,o analyze the financing. � ,
r��
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 page 5
� Mr. Michael Virnig� 1365 73rd Avenue N.E.., stated that his property �as right
� next to this parcel of land and he was totally neutral at this point. Fie
sai.d that he hadn't seen any plans or heard anything other �han what was in
• the notice that was sent to him. Mr. Hoffineyer shoured him a set of plans, and
Mr. Virnig said there was riothing further. ' - �
Mr. Boaxdman stated that this was the first time had had seen this proposal,
and there may be some S�taff requirements of this type of developmente He
suggested that the units in the "dog leg" be shifted North to provide a lit�le more
area bet�aeen the back end of those units to the South property line. He sa.id
another thing they would be looking for would be protection for the single
families on the other side by heavy screening in these axeas. He said this
wou.ldn't be just the normal landscaping but a screenirig landscape. He said
he felt some pretty nice things would come out of. this projec-� as far as land-
s'caping goes.
Chairperson Harris said that before this got too far down the line� he would
like the •Fire r2arshall to take a look at it. Rgr. Boardman stated the Fire
P�iarshall had looked at a similar plan and it was approved. However, he said'
the plan �hat he had seen had a loap in it as a drive, and he didn't know
what the Fire Maxshal]. would say about the two dead-end roads. He said they
would have those answers at the next meeti.ng.
Mr. Bergman asked if he assumed correctly that ihere trere two ordinance
concerns: 1) rezoning, and 2) a variance from the minimwr acreage requ:irement
''�'`, for townhouse development vahich woulcl be go.�.ng to the Board of Apgeals. Mr.
Boardman s aid that was correct. Mr. Bergman then asked if aside from -chat,
the plan they were looki.ng at met all other requirements as far as nur:��ers_
of garage stalls� open area� dens�-�y, lot coverage� etc. Mro Boardman said
that was right.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was an administrative report on �this, and Mro
Boardman replied there idasn°t. Mr. Langenfeld asked if r1r. Boardman could
foresee any problem with the drainage as indicated, and he answered not at
this time.
� Chairperson Haxris asked how far back from the intersection the access on
Central was, and Mr. Hoffineyer said it was 27d'from the corner. He stated
that the access from 73rd would be about 11�2�from the corner. P�ir. Lang�nfe�d
askPd if Mr. Boardmar_ could foresee any problems with the traffic control,
and P�Ir. Boardman replied iie couldnot at this time. He added that he didn't
think there.would be that much traffic.out of these units. Mr. Harris asked
if there was a four-way stop at Central and 73rd, and Mr. Boardman said it was.
MOTION by Shea, seconded tiy Gabel� that the Planning�Commission close the
Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #7b-03, by Evert R. Swanson.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M:
�� Mr. Peterson said that on page 29 of the agenda Martin 0. and Dorothy L.
� Erickson were listed us owners of property adjoining the parcel they were
considering for rezoning� but he didn't see them on the mailing list. Mr.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page b
Boardman explained that the owners had changed since that time, and to get ^
ihe names for the mailing list they went to their assessing files and the
owners were pulled off of those files.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that there was quite a number-of people ineolved as far
as the mailing list was concerned, and to this point there hadn't been much
input for or against the proposal by the surrounding residents. He said this
troubled him because he would like to see these poeple have a better chance to
view the proposal so they could voice their opinions. He asked. if the zoning
request was recommended for approval if the citizens would have an opportunity
to voice their feelings at another heaxing. Chairperson Harris said that
was correct. He added that if"the Planning Commission recommended approval
of this� it would go to the City Council and they would have final action on
approving or denying.
I�. Bergman said that because of the sizeable lis� of people invited to the
Public Heaxing and because not much had been heard from the public� he would
like to have a show of hands from the audience if this was the item that
brought them to the meeting. Four people raised their hands.
Mr. Boardman pointed out that the City also put up rezoni.ng signs on the property.
Mr. Langenfeld sa.id he assumed there was no correspondence from citizens
concerning their feelings on this item, and Chairperson Harris said that was
tru.r>.
Chairperson Harris sa.id that since the Staff has not had an opportunity to
study this plan and since the Fire Maxshall has not had had opportunity to ,�
loak at it, he would feel more comfortable tabling this�item until the appropriatc_
departments had a chance to look at it. Mr. Peterson stated he felt the same
way� because the gentleman who said he was an adja.cent property owner said he
was neutral because he hadn't seen anything on it up to this point. Mr. Peterson
added that somehow he thought this was the wealmess of the Public Hearing
system; a notice was sent but it didn�t inform the people what it was or cahy,
so people came to the Public Hearing to find out what was happening. He sa.id
he didn't think this was quite ri�ht. Mr. Boardman pointed out that people were
free to call the City Offices, and 1'�r. Peterson commented that it was sometimes
very difficult to get a hold of the right person to talk to. Mrs. Gabel added
that it was very hard to explain a plat over the phone. Mr. Bergman stated he
shaxed the concern on this item and thought there should be additional consider-
ation on the��part of the public and this body.
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission table
the request for rezoning, ZOA #76-03� by Evert R. Swanson, until the next scheduled
meeting.
Mr. Boardman explained that this had been the intent the way it �aas set up� and
it would not delay the petition. He said that this rezoning along with the
tobmhouse plan would all go to the City Council togeth �.
Mr. Peterson sa.id he wished the maker of the motion would have included something
about another opportunity to inform the public who were concerned on this issue. �
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. _
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 7
Chairperson Harris stated that this would come before the Planning Commission
�°� again on September 22nd. Mr. Langenfeld said he wished to let those people
present �rnow that they could come back again on that date. Mr. Bergman brought
up another mailing to the public� but P�r. Boardman stated he didn't see where
another mailing would be appropriate. He said they had mailed out the notice
of the variance request� Tezoning and the preliminary plat,and the dates for
�iwnl�,e..Deve1. and Plat were noted as September 22nd. Mr. Langenfeld noted
that those people present could also pass the word to their neighbors, and
' Mrs. Gabel suggested that if i;hey came to any conclusions before the Board of
Appeals Meeting, they should come to the Appeals meeting and voice them.
2. PUBLIC�HEARING: RE20NING REO.UEST ZOA #76-0lt BY GORDOIJ ASPENSON: Rezone
Lots 10 and 11, Block , Lowell Addition to Fridley Park from R-1 (single
family �.welling areas) to R-3 (general multiple dtaelling areas) to allow
the construction of a tri-�lex, the same being 6500 2nd Street.N.E.
Mr. Gordon �spenson was at the meeti.ng to present his request.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Ber�man, that the Pla.nning Commission open the
Public Heaxing.on rezoning request, ZOA �76-0l�, by Gordon'Aspenson. Upon a
voice vate, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declare� the Public Hearing
open at 8:50 P.M.
Mr. Bcardman explained that this property was located on -�he loop back ofi
of the ser�rice drive alon� Mississippi Street. He directed the Commzssioners
� to look at the map on page 37, and explained it would be on the corner c�i that
service drive and 2nd S�reet. He stated that on the property directly N�rth
of this there ��as presently a!t-ple�, and the properties across the street
were also apartment buildings. Mr. Boardman said that Mr. Aspenson had buildings
on Riverview Terrace and Mississippi Way,.and he was proposing three units
exactly like the four he presently hado He said that the buildings were the
townhouse type built on t�ro leeels, they were very attractive and he said he
wished they had more in the City. He stated that there were two residential
properties directly to the �iest of this property� and the. City Staff felt this
rezoni.ng would be in context with the plan of the City.
Mr. Aspenson s aid he was proposing What he thought was an efficient and
attractive building, He s�ated he intended to keep it in his possession and
maintain it' and he thought it would fit in very nicely with this particular
area. �
Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boaxdman if triere was a rezoning sign on t,his property,
and he replied there was. Chairperson. Hax°ris asked if when the underpass was
open that little leg that swings back to Mississippi Street would remain open
or be closed. A�r. Boardman replied that would all be closed. Mr. Harris asked
if then there ;rouid be access of£ from Mississippi Street on to Second Street
and to the service drive. r3r. Boardman replied thei•e would be. He explained
the building would sit right on the corner, and access to the garages would be
off the service drive. He said the units woulrl be facing Second Street, and
� entrance to the units would be on the West side.
` Chairperson Harris asked what the size o� that parcel was� and Mr. Aspenson
replied 90 ft. by 136 ft. He added that it was a couple of thousand feet
larger than was nacessary for a tri-unit. Mr. Harris asked what the minimum
Planning Commission Meet3ng - September 8, 1976 Page 8
� --
lot size was on R-3, �d Mr. Boardman answered it was 10,000 sq. ft. for a
three-fami.ly dwellinge He stated that Mr. Aspenson's �as close to 12,000.
Mr. Boardman said that it had been nip and tuck for �ile on the handicapped
codes� but they had finally gotten some clarification froin the state on that.
He explained that as long as the entrance to the unit �ras to the outside,
the three-unit buildings were not required to have handicapped facilities,
but a multiple unit would be req�.ired to have them.
Mr. Lynn D. Hansen� 210 67th Ave..N.F., stated that he oUmed the !t-plex that
was on the property adjoining P�Ir. Aspenson's, and asked if he could see the
plans for the proposed building. Mr. Aspenson showed him the plans, and Mr.
Hansen agreed it was a nice-looking and attractive building. Mr. Donald F.
Cable, 6530 Second St. N.E.� stated he was the caretaker for Mr. Hansen's
building, and he also thought the proposed structure would be beneficial.
Mr. Bergman said he would again like a shotia of hands of those people in the
audience who were concerned with this item, and two people (Mr. Hansen and
Mr. Cable) raised their hands. kir. Bergman asked if rir. Boardman could fill
him in on the zoning surrouncling the lots in question. Mr. Boardman directed
the Gommissioners to turn to the map on page 36 of the agenda, and explained
the property directly North was R-3 (1�-Plex)� the property across the street
was R-3 (apartment buildings), North of the �-plex was City park property,
ana 6525 Ma�n St. and the property �ust South of that were zoned R-1. Mr.
Bergman noted that there seemed to be some land le�'t af`�er the service drive
went•�trrough� South of lot 11 and the one to the West of it� and asked if
there were any plans for that property. Mr. Boardman sa.id that was county
right-of-way.
MOTION
Public
a voic
closed
by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the
Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #7b-0lt� by Gordon Aspenson. Upon
e vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declaxed the Public Hearing
at 9� :05 P.M.
MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council approval of rezoning request Z�A #76°0l�, by Gordon Aspenson:
Rezone Lots 10 and 11� Block lt� Lowell Addition to Fridley Park from R-1 (single
�amily,dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple dwelling areas) to allow the
construction of a tri-plex� the samE being 6500 2nd Street N.E. Upon a voice
vote� a11 voting aye� the motion carried unani.mously.
3. PUBLIC HEAR.ING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERt�1IT SP #76-13 BY KENNETH
BELKHOLI�i: Per Fridley City Code, Section 20 .0 1, 2, A, to a11ow the
construction of a second accessory building, a 20� x 26' detached garage�
to be located on Lot 1, Block 6, Bennett Pa].mer Addition, the same being
5870 6th Street N.E.
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Belkholm were at the meeting to present their request.
MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Plarining
Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP
Belkholm. Upon a voice vote� ali voting aye� Chai.rperso
Pu,blic Hearing open at 9:07 P.M.
/"'�
�
Co�nission open the
#76-13, by Kenneth
n Harri.s declared the r'"\
��
Planning Coirm�►ission Meet3ng - September 8 f 1976 Page 9
� Mr. Boardman explained that this was a request for a second accessory building
'� � to replace a gaxage that had burned down on this property. He stated that the
only question they �ould have had on this would have been if the set back of_
the neVr garage had been placed on the same foundation as the old garage. He
said it was his understanding that Mx. Belkholm had decided to meet the setback
requirements instead o.f going through a variance procedure. Mr. Boardman sa.id
City Staff had no objections to this request.
Mr. Belkholm said the purpose of the request was to replace the garage that
had been destroyed in the fire, and explained tha� his present setback was
two feet�short of what the requirements were now. He stated he had decided
he would reposition the slab of the gaxage to take care of that, so there
would be no need for a vaxiance.
Mr. Peterson asked what the added cost would be by having to change the slab
and fovndation9 and Mr. Belkholm said it would be around $600 more. He said
he lmew a variance �rould be cheapera but other factors were involved. He ,
s�ated that he was coupling the increased size with the variance change when
he was stating this cost. Mr. Belkholm explai.ned.the garage was originally
20 x 2J�t and he was adding.on.two feet� so the �600 involved the added increase
in size also. Mr. Bergman asked if he was saying he would prefer to relocate
it for reasons of his own, and %7r. Belkholm replied yes� he felt it would be
more advantageous to move the slab.
Mr. Peterson asked if it wasn�t for the nariance request if Mr. Be].kholm
could just add the two feet to the existing �la..b and h ave the larger garage
�� he wanted, and Air. Belkholm replied that was. true.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that this was a detached garage� and asYed if it zrould be
used primarily for automobiles. Mr. Belkho�.m replied it would. Mre Langenfeld
asked what the first accessory building was, and Mr. Boardman anstTered it was
the garage that was attached to the house. Mr. Langenield asked if the garage
would be constructed to be compatible to the house� and Nir. Belkholm replied
it would be. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was going to be any form of commercial
enterprise� and Mr. Belkholm saa.d there wouldn't be.
P�rs. Gabel asked what portion of the $600 extra he was spending to moee the
slab, and Mr. Belkholm answered that the insurance adjuster said �1�88 wou�'d be
for replacing the slab. Mrs. Gabel asked�if it would have to be replaced at
any.rate, and rYr. Belkho7m replied it wouldn't, it was just a matter of �ahat
he decided to do with i.t. Pirs. Gabel commented that she hated to see him spend
$600 when he could spend $50 for a variance.
Mr. Peterson asked if there was a Special Use Fermit for the building that was
destroyed by fire, and Mr. Boaxdman said there wasn't. He explained it was
there before the zonaxig• was passed. .
MOTIQN by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission close
the Public Heaxing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-13� by
Kenneth Belkholm. Upon a voice vote, a11 voti.ng aye� Chairperson Harris
� declared the Public Hearing cl�sed at 9:20 P.M.
Planning Commission Meetin� - September 8� 1976 Page 10
MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Peterson� tha� the Planning Commission ,
recommend to City Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit,
SP #76-13� by Kenneth Belkholm, per Fridley City Code� Section 205.051� 2� A�
to allow the construction of a second accsssory building, a 20' x 26' detached
garage� to be located on Lot 1� Block 6� Bennett Palmer Addition, the same
being 5870 6th Street N.E. Upon a voice vote� all vating aye� the motion
carried unanimously.
,�.�. CON3IDERAKIONSOFnFEROASTNRIVER ROADITORRCI {SINGLE�F�IILYODWELLINGNAREA.
Mr. David Rotter of Rot•tlund Gonstruction Company was present.
^.
Mr. Boa,rdman explained that Mr. Rotter was going to come in for a replat on
an area South of Springbrook C�eek' and they v�ant to discuss at this time the
possibility of the Planning Commission initiating a rezoning of the PD district
which is presently in there to R-l. He said that most of the property was
zoned R-1� and they would request that Mr. Rotter initiate the rezoning South �
of the creek� and the Planning Commission initiate the reaoning North of there.
Chairperson Harris asked who owned the property North of the creek at the
present titne, and Mr. Boardman replied it was. owned by various individuals ,
and single families. Mr. Harris asked how this wound up as PD� and Mr. Boardman
said that �ook place quite a whi?e ago. He explained that at that -time there
was a proposal for a commercial development North of the creek and an apartment
degelopment South of the creek. He stated he wasn't really sure of the background
on that zoning, but it was rezoned to PD so developers could develop both �
commercial and industrial. Mr, Harris asked what the zoning was prPVious to
tliat� and l�ir. Boardman answered R-l. Mr. Harris commented that what they were
talking abo�ionsewereSthatethe propertytownersgNorthZOf the c eekBwouraldnotaid
that �.ndica
have any objections to the rezoning.
Mr. Rotter said his co�npany was owner of the South section of this property
and builder of the North section. He stated that in 1973 he came before the
Planning Corm►ission to ask for permits to build single-family dwellings in
the PD area� and he was granted them. Mr. ftotter said he asked them to leave
the South section alone until they decided tahat to do iaith it. He referred to
the map on page 1�5 of the agenda, and said that South of the line �ahich said
359 there was about a five acre piece of land. He stated he would like to
rezone part of this or be allowed to build single-family dwellings, leaving
lots 11, 12 and 13 in either PD zoning or R-3 zoning rather than changing it
all back to residential. Mr. Rotter explained that one piece of property
abutted East River Road, and there was no access off Liberty or Ruth, and no
access off the extension of Ely. He said that rather than leaving it as
residential property and bring up three driveways to East River Road, he was
goin� to leave that as either PD or R-3 zoning and put something in there that
would be condusive ta the area. He stated he did not want to rezone the whole
entire piece because that would lesve a dead piece of property.
Chairperson Harris said it seemed to hi.m
leave it PD and have the developer bring
Mr. Rotter said that �aas what he wanted
the practical thing to do would be to
in a total plan on the whole area.
,o happen. He said they had already
�
.
�
, ;,�,, ,,�
Plsnning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Pa.ge 11
� handled the North section in this same fashion, taking out permits, without
submitting an oeerall plan. He.explai.ned he didn't sub:nit an overall plan
� of each hduse s�.tting on each lot as su�ch. .
Chairperson Harris said he wasn't so hung up on the exact location of each
structure� but would 13.ke to lanow what kind of structures they are� if they are
single-family, etc. Mx�. Rotter said he would be happy to do thate He said that
with the PD zoning of the property there was sup�osed to be some overall
drawing of the property consisting of where eacli unit was going to be, what
paxticular size, where each driveway would be located� etc. He said it was
prei.ty i..�volved. He stated that he would like to ctiange the street pat-�ern
of Ely� pulling the extension back and make it a cul-de-sac. He added that
the section containing lots. 11, 12 and 13 he wanted R-3 for apartments.
Mr. Bergman said he didrr't really understand who wants to rezone the North �
part� �aho Y78Y1'�S to rezone the South part, and what the purpose would be
in either case. Mr. Boardman showed him on the map which area Mr. Rotter
ot�n�ed and wanted to replal;� . and explained how he �aanted to pull �ly back
�into a cul�de�sac to allow for single-family development off of that-cul-de�sace
He also showed which property RSre.Rotter wanted to leave as PD. Nir. Bergman
stated he didn't understarzd why a rezoning. He said he thought the Pb was
established to provide flexibility� and asked if it vrasn't within the context
of PD to construct� where a plan•so dictated, single-family homes. Air. B�ardman
st�ted that PD in the code boc�k was very bulky and hard to administer. He
said he thouEht it was the position of City Administration that since Faarmont
^ Circle is developed R-1 property� it should meet the zoning requirements ior
an R-1 area, and when the plat from Rottlund comes in it shosld also bE rezon��.
to meet R-1 requiremerits. AZr. Bergman asked ii PD didn't encompass R�l
requirements' and P�ir. Boardman said it was easier to enforce and easier i�o
admin'ister under R-1.�
Mr. Rotter said they had develaped the Pdorth s.ection under this PD development
as residential already, and they would be willing to follow the same framework;
but ihey didn't want to take a piece of property that had value other than as
residential property and turn it all�into ft-1 zoning and have to come back and
ask �_ to have it rezoned to R-3. Mr. Boardman stated he was not saying that
m they would be rezoning the whole thing, but anything that was being developed
as R41 should really correspond to a R-1 district, Mr. R,otter said that would
be agreeable with him. He added he just wanted to change the s�reet pattern
to facilitate the use of the proper�ty as R-1, other than that one section where
he eventually wanted to build some�type of apartments or townhouse. �
Mro Boardman said that the purpose of the discussion c�ras to get the Planning
Coimnission's feelings on initiating a rezoning procedure of the PD property
North around tlie Fairmont Circle area. A2r. Bergman, asked who would pay �:he fee�
and Mr. Boardman explai.ned there taould be no fee if the City initiated it.
Mr. Langenfeld said he looked up the PD District Regulations 205012 and 205.123�
�'he Procedure for Establishing a Planned Development Zoning District. He
stated that it looked to him like it took a lot of doing and a great deal of
�� time to obtain this PD zoning� and in going through this he saw iahere they have
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 12
a prel3.minary development plan and spec3.fic plans or sta.ges involved. He asked �
if this couldn't all stay under PD and this particular development be considered
as part of the stages. He added that this was R-1 already, now it was PD,
and Mr. Rotter wanted to go back to R-1 again. He stated he would like it zoned
one way or another. � �
Mr. Boaxdman replied that because of the bulkiness of the ordinance the City
said si.ngle family units could be developed in there without having to go through
the procedure of PD.
Chairperson Haxris said that he would like to see some type of general plot
plan before they took any action. Mr. Rotter sa.id he Vranted to do a plan of
it� and this was just for discussion.
i�;r. Peterson asked if they were asking the petitioner �to spend more money on
rezoning than if he were to develop it under P.D.� and Mr. Boarcl�r►an said he
thought something like this would have �to be worked out as far as cost goes.
Mr. Harris asked where else the City had a PD, and Mr. Boardman said he thought
this was the only area in the Ci-L-y.
Mr. Bergman noted that N',r. Boardman had said the area North of the creek was
developed� and asked what public benefit ��ould be served by rezoning the area
around Fairmont Circle which was already developed. Mr. Boaxdman answered
tY�at it would stabilize the property the nouses were on.
Mrs. Gabel rai.sed the question of financing for struc�ures in PD axeas� and �
Mr. Rotter replied that there had been one question raised by an attorney
wlien the I�orth section was fi.nanced. He said he had shown the attorney the
minutes of the Council meeting saying they would allo� the area to be developed
as residential even though it was PD, and he said that was fine. Mrs. Gabel
asked about the feelings of the lending institutions� and T7r. Rotter replied
he had closed on all the loans himself and there hadn't been any problems.
Mr. Langenfeld said that si.nce it was his understanding that this was the only
PD area remaining in the City, one advantage in granting the request would be
eliminating another portion of the ordinance to deal ti,rith.. Mr. Rotter said
' he didn't want to change it, bu ��aanted to be allowed to build houses in the
axea. He explained if the property was all rezoned back to R-1 he would have
to come back in at a future date and ask for still another rezoning in order
to build the apartments. .
Mr. Bergman asked if rlr. Rotter was in a po�i.tion to come in with a preliminary
plat� and P•�r. Rotter sa.id he could do that. He said it was platted now and
he just wanted to replat it. He explained he �rould just.be changing some of
the lot sizes� and all he really wanted to do was change the street. Mr. Peterson
said that then the zoning request was really a Staff request, and Mr. Rotter
said that was correct. Mr. Peterson asked what the additional cost t,rould be
to the property owner if he.rezoned� and rir. Boardman said about $155 �otal.
Mr� Boaxdman said the only other w�y they would do it would be for the City
Administration to request the Planning Commission to petition for rezoning on ^
the entire PD area. Mr. Rotter stated he thought that was ridiculous.
`4v +�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 13
Chairperson Haxris said the problem�he �aw with the whole thing was the City
� Council had set a precedent. He said he thought it would be very difficult
to require the Planning Commission to initiate a rezaning without the petitioner's
concurrence. Mr.-Boardman ppinted out that they had never done it before� and
Mr. Haxris said he �rould like to ta].k to an attorney before they got too far
down the line.
Chairperson Haxris suggested that r1r. Rotter drata�up a plan and bring it in
for them to look at� because right now �hey �rere just batting at moonbeams.
Mr. Rotter said that whatever was decided, he wanted to gei; it expedited
so some engineering work could be done by early spring. He added that he would
bring in what he would like to do and l�t th� Commission review thaic, but
he wouldn't be here to rezone the property unless it w3s the only way he could
get residential in there.
NPr. Peterson stated that what bothered him was that it was a Staff situation
making a decision over something that had been done for the Staff's convenience.
Mr. Boardman said that Staff was noic making a decision, just a recommendation.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission 1:able
the consideration of rezoning the PD District (Planned Development) in the 8100
block East of East River Road to R-1 (single-family dwelling areas), until the
necessary information was received to make a proper decision.
�Mr.'Bc,rgman said his only comment was that•he was a little uncomfortable taith
this.
��
UPON A VOICE VpTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said that at this �tii.rn,e he would like to add to the agenda Item
16, a Discussion on the Beer Ordinance, as Mr. Marvin Brunsell was present to
give them additional information and answer questions on this topic. Chairperson
Harris said it would be in order to suspend the rules and take up Ttem 16.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission suspend
the rules and take up Item 16. Upon a voice vote, all vating aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
16. DISCUSS.ION ON BEER ORDINANCE
Mr. Brunsell stated that this had been before the Planning Coznmission, and it
came before them because of the fact that the City had a problem with issuing
a beer on-sale license at a particular location for a particular kind of event.
He said he didn't believe that normally the Planning Commission would be
involved with strictly licensing-type situations. He said this one was sort
of a�zoning type of thing and how the City controlled it, and that was apparently
how it got to the Planning Commission. •
�..1 Mr. Brunsell said that the Planning Commission, as he recalled, gave approval
to an ordinance that went to the City Council, and it Vras passed on the first
reading. He said that before it came back to the Couneil, Mr. Herrick redrafted
the ordinance based quite a bit on a model ordinance and substantially changed
the ordi.namce the City Council acted ono He stated that the Council now passed
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976
Page 1�
the ordinance that was before the Commission at this time. Mr. Brunsell pointed
out that Subdivision 2, Section 602.02, defined the areas or the types of
businesses that could be license� for on-sale beer license, and this was
probably the area they would want to discuss.
Mr.. Brunse�l explained that the ordinance further on advised that a Public
Heaxing would be held, which was somethi.ng new and was not required with a
beer license.previously. He stated tY�at the ordinance set forih the license
could be issued only to bona fide clubs, beer stores, exclusive "on-sale"
liquar stores, restaurants, and hotels�where food is prepared and served for
consumption on the premises.only. He explained.that a"Beer store" meant
an establishment for the sale of beer, cigars� cigarettes, all forms of tobacco�
beverages, and soft drinks at retail. Mr. Brunsell said he thought this would
probably control the situation they had as fax as that one application for an
ori-sale beer license.
n
Chairperson Harris asked how the beer store fit into the zoning districts,
and Mr. Boardman said it didn't. He explained the problem they ended up with
now was that before they gave a definition of a tavern in the ordinance,
and that tavern related to the C-2 districts where it says bars and taverns.
He stated they had changed that to make it Special Use Permit, and right now
they were sitting with bar and tavern under Special Use Perrnit in C-2 districts
without a definit•i_on of what a bax or tavern is. He said the only thing they
�fell'�.�.ck on was the bar and taaern licensing. He explained a bar was the sale
of 3•2 beer taith no enterta.inment, a tavern was the sale of 3•2 beer brith live
entertainment� and a liquor license relate� to food. ,..�
Mr. Brunsell said they were also in the process of looking at the tavern
ordi.nance because a tavern license was issued where there was live entertainment,,
and it might be either an on-sale liquor establishment or a beer establishment.
For instance, he said, Georges in Fridley had a tavern license because they
had live entertainment.
Mr. Bergman said �hat his off-the-cuff reaction was that someone had come up
with a new name called "beer store", and he couldn't identify with that. He
said he lrnew what a tavern was, what a bar was and what a restaurant was, but
questioned what a beer store was that could apparently encompass any or a11 oi
them. He said the definition was aV�kFrard, and he couldn't relate,� with the
title "beer store" or its definition. A2r. Brunsell said he thought he had the
same impression, but after N'jr. Herrick explained it he thought it would work.
He stated it was something he had never heard of before himself.
Chairperson Harris said he caondered if there was some sort of language that
could be possibly incorporated as part of the definition of a beer store
to tie it to�the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman said in other words, where
is the control on beer stores within the zoning ordinance, and where is a beer
store allo��ed? Mr. Brunsell suggested that maybe this was where the word
tanern should be used. He explained that they were probably going to end up
changing the tavern license to say entertainment, as that was really what they
were trying to license there.
Mr. Bergman said that the ciefinition of a beer stare left him cold. He said
a beer store was defined as a place that sold beer� aigarettes, candy, tobacco�
etc.� and to him that meant if a man sold beer only it was not a beer store
because he was not selling toba,cco and c�ndy. He said that to him a beer store
^
�� -
m
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 15
� was a place that sold beer--period.
Chairperson Harris noted that actually a drug store sold all of �hose things,
but not for consumption, and the prablem �aas the ordinance didn't say anything
about consumption. Mr. Langenfeld said there were definitely a lot of implications
there.
Mr. Bergman said he �rould like to back up a moment and ask what the problem was
with the Planning Commission's recommendation on ardinance change. Mr. Brur�sell
said he thought there were just other parts of the ordinance that had to•be
gone over. Mr. Harris commented that when they looked a.t the ordinance they
had looked at it i'rom a zoning standgoint, and hadn't taken into consideration
the implications of enforcement or administration. Niro Peterson commented they
had also been concerned about the temporary licenses, Special Use Permits, e�,c.
Mr. Boaxdman said that the ordinance gave a definition of what a beer store
was, and under that the�e were licenses required. He stated t�ere.were regular
on-sale licenses, temporar,y on-sale licenses, and off�sal.e licenses, and all �
of those would be classified under beer store, He said he was a bit confused
by this also, and thought the definition of beer store didn't reall� fit �ith
regular on-sale and could �.lso fit equally as �rell for off-sale. i�r. Brunsell
commented that he thought the idea was that the beer store �ould be a 3.2 bar.
Chairperson Harris said he iook it that tY�is particula.r ordinance u�as spca.kir��,
strictly to 3.2 beer� and Mr. Brunsell said that was correct. rir. Harris
said he was �rondering about the sale of 3.2 beer in a liquor store. Mr.
�� Brunsell said they could sell strong ber�r under their liquor license, but
one of the liquor establishments did have a 3.2 license so they could sell
beer on Sunday.
Mr. Langenfeld noted that it stated no minor shall be perm'it-�ed -to consu�+e
beer on the licenseii premises, and then on page �..in regaxd to cl.uhs under
Subdivision 5 it stated that no minor shall consume beer unless in the
company of his parent or guardian. He stated that seemed a bit pecvliar to
hi.m. Mrs. Gabel noted that Subdivision 1t stated -`�hat no minor sha11 have
beer in his possession with the intent to consume it at a place o%her than
the household of his parent or guardian. She commented that seemed to leave
it open. �
Mr. Bergman asked if it was the Planning Conunission's purpose to review a
proposed ordinance change, and Mr. Haxris said it t,ras. R7r. Harris said the
thi�ng that troubled him was he had the feeling they had gone through the �nJork
of trying to tie it to the zoning code, which was the original idea, and al?
of a sudderi they got it untied from the zoning code. Mr. Brunsell said he
thought Mr. Harris had brought up a good poi.nt, and suggested possibly putting
this asiae to see if they could come up with something that would tie into
the zoni.ng code. He said tha,t maybe by that time the tavern ordinance would
be far enough along for the two�of them to work together. Chairperson Harris
said that perhaps they would want to take a look a�t -the tavern ordinance
from a zoning standpoint a1so, and added that he was sure it could be handled
somehow by definition.
Mr. Peterson asked if it wouldn't be better for the other ordinances to use
the language that was use� in the zoning ordinance to make it consister� rattier
than chan�in� the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman stated that it was just a
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976
Page 16
matter of bringing the definitions together. He sa.id he did see some problems
with the definition of a beer store as it was too vague.
Chairperson Harris stated that another point that was brought up was whether
it was consumed or not consumed. He asked if they were saying a beer store
was a grocery store or a drug store. Mr. Brunsell said he didn't think that
was the intent. He sa.id he thaught the intent was to define the beer store
as a tavern where it was consumed on the premises. He explained they could
issue off-sale licenses and it didn't have to be a beer store, �ut it had to
be a bona fide club, beer store� exclusive on-sale liquor store� restaurant
or hotel where food was prepared to be issued an on-sale license. He said
they could issue an off-sale license to practically anybody. Mr. Boardman
commented that he thought they had better chan�e the definition they had of
a beer store. ,
Mr. Boaxdman explaa.ned that the zoning ordinance didn't have a definition
of tavern. He stated that the first time the ordinance went through they
defined what a tavern was under the beer ordinance, and by defining what it
was under the beer ordinance it was tied to the zoning coc�e that said a tavern
was allowed in a G2 district kri.th a Special Use Permit. He said it stated
you could have 3.2 beer iri a taeern, but it �aould only be allowed in a C-2
District with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Brunsell asked if that shouldn't be
in the zoning ordinaalce rather than the licensing, and P4r. Boardman said
the thing they had to do now was-carrelate def�nitions. Mr. Brunsell commented
that he could see there was a problem with this.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Ber
+�,o r;+.,r r.�,,,,�,1 to delav actior. on
u
on
s to tne z
� that the Pla
s o-rdin� ance un
ordinance. Up
slve
rig Commission request
some specafics are
a voice vote, all
Chairperson Haxris declaxed a recess at 10:15 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 10:lt0 P.M.
�
,�
5. DISCUSSION ON SURVEY PaLICY OF THE CITY
Mr. Bergman stated that he thought it was very clear. He said that it read
that each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by a Certificate
of Survey, drawing or plat. He said that then in the following paragraph it
read that once the construction of -the foundation had been completed, a
Certificate of Survey t,�as needed to see where a person built, whereas a drawing
would do before.
Mrs. Gabel said that in looking through �the Appeals Commission minutes, in
most cases she found that the Staff personnel tha�c went to the site was able
to determine fairly accurately where the lot lines were.
Mr. Boardman said that the City Code read that a11 building permits must have
a site permit� then, after the foundation was in, must have a verifying survey.
He stated that in order to maintain the �tebecausehofCthe cost of he�surveys��u�
putting an inordinate b�irden on the citizen �
�-�._,�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 17
the City had been following si.nce 1969 basically the follo�ing three steps on
�`'� surveys : �
1. All new construction requires.a certificate of survey and verifying
sur�rey. -
2. All additions or accessory buildings---surveys are not required if
the construction is 1� times the required distance by code with the
written consent of the adjacent property ou�ner. The �easr�n behind
this is to try to maintain the intent of the City Code without inordinate
burden on the citizen. The very cheapest survey ( new plat with well-
defined property lines)costs approximately $200, and some morz difficnit
surveys have been as much as $1500. -
3. Requests for variances in most cases require a survey. However�
requirement has been waived by the Appeals Commission or recommended
: by Staff to be waived when the addition follows generally the same
line of the existirig structure and approximate distance �,cari be �
determined.
Mr. Bergman said that his property stG.kes were exposed, so if he wanted to
build something near the lot line tnere was no auestion where ttie line was
and he shouldn�t have to spend $200 on a survey. I�1r. Boardman said that the
pa�blem was the stakes sometimes get maved. Mr. Bsrgman saa.d he a�reed that�
to require a survey blanketly was burdensome in some cases.
�� Chairperson Harris said it didn't bother him if �hey knew pretty well t�ahere
the lot lines were, but a case and point was �ahere a gentleman had come ir_
a while back and he wasn't that sure where his lot lines were. Mr. Boardman
said they had a pretty good idea in that case where the lines were because
hs had a right-of-way fe�ce on the back lot line put there by the State
Highway Depaxtment. Mr. Boardman s aid that in this ease the man had agreed
to move it more than doubTe �he required distance.
Mre Bergman said that in the interest of minimum g�vernment interference, if
a per.son came in with a request to build an accessory building and had a draVring
• but not a certificate of survey, and got cautioned to add. a foot and a half or
more and he built that out building, if there was an error �aith regard to the
property line it would be his problem and nobody elses. �Mr. Boardman said tha�
he could come back to the City because the Cit� approved the building perriit
and that location, and it was the City�s responsibility to check out alT the
things before the bu�lding permit was issued. So, he said, it caas possible
that it could come back at the City at some point in time. However, rlr. Boardman
added� it was a question of to �dhat extent the public would be penalized for
that chance it might happen somewhere down the line.. He said iahen they required.
surveys they used pretty good discretion as to where they felt the property
line was and that type of thing.
Mr. Bergman s aid that then the City took a risk.to reduce the cost to that
property owner� and Mr. Boardman s aid that was correct. He said it would be
fax easier for the City to say that a11 properties needed surveys with no
��� questions asked� but it would be pretty haxd to justify that if someone
• wanted to build an addition onto his kitchen and his kitchen was right in the
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 18
middle of his lot. Mr. Boaxdman said he fel� the risk was diminished because of �
the amount of data they had available to them.
Mr. Bergman questioned item 2 on page 1�6 of the agenda, which stated that once
construction of the foundation had been completed, a certificate of survey �
showing the location of the foundation shall be required. Mr. Boardman said
they didn't follow that on any of the additions or anything like that. He
said that would require the person to first of all get a survey of the property�
and after the foundation was in he would have to get that resurveyed. Air.
Bergman said. that wasn't what the code said� and read item 1 which said "Each
application for a building permit shall be accompanied by a Certificate of
Survey� drawing, or plat". He said that rrieant just a sketch would suffice.
He added that a pers�n could build a foundation based on a sketch, but then
the code said he had to have i.t surveyed to see if he built it in tYie right
place.
Chairperson Haxris said that second item was really kind of silly. He cited
an incident that riappened near his folks' place where the basement was already
in before they found out there was a foot mistake. He asked c�rhat could be
done then--move the whole basement? Mr. Boardman sa.id in some cases the City
required them to do that. I�Zrs. Gabel said that mistakes happeried a lot of
ti.mes and they just came in and got a variance.
Mr. Bergman stated that he thought if a certificate of survey was going to -
be required at all it should be required before construction �ras started.
Mr. Lang�nfeld asked Pir. Boardman how he would feel if he taas buildi.ng a
home and was required to have two surveys. P�r. Boardman said if he was i'"�,
building a new home he would have to have a survey anyway, but if he z�as .
building an addition he wouldn�t like it. P�Ir. Peterson asked if the original
survey woul.dn°t stand up� and Air. Boaa�dman answered that a lot of times there
wasn't an original survey or the original survey was lost or the company that
did the original survey was defunct. Mr. Bergman said he had no quarrel with .
the description of the way it was handled� and it seemed reasonable to him:
Mr� goardman said that in the case where written consent of the adjacent
property owner was required� he thought that perhaps there should be an upper
� li.mit of tv�o or three times what was required so they could make the construction
w3thout the cbnsent of the adjacent property otianer. He s aid that the w�.y it
�ras now if a person wanted to build an addition to his house and didn't have
it surveyed� then he has to ha�e the conseni of the adjacent property owner
regardless of where the addition was on the lot. Air. Langenfeld said that
even if the present adjacent property owner gave his consent, he could move
out and the new owner could haee it:surveyed and raise problems.
Nlr� goardman said there hadn't been any cases where the City had been taken
to court since this was adopted in 19b9; there had been a few cases where
there were some miscalculation5 and in most cases they were required to go
for a variance. He said tY�at in those cases where Staff felt there i►►ight
be problems� they did request the applicant to have a survey.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if establishedepropertyiline.eririre�7Petersonpsaidrhe didn't�
fifteen years it was an _y
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8� 1�76 Page 19
� think it had to be there for 15 yeaxs, and Mr. Boardman said he thought it
was seeen years. Chairperson Harris agreed� but sa.id he didn't think that
- really held water. He explained it didn't really mean that anybody had
received ownership of that; all the Cartway Ordinance said was that once it
was established over seven years they have the right of egress. He stated
it didn�t mean it became public right-of-way or part of the other person's
property or anything like that. Mr. Langenfeld said the way he heaxd it, it
was the establishment of the lot line. Mr. Peterson said no� it just meant
. he couldn�t force you to tear dovm the fence after a certain number of years.
Mr. Boardman asked the Commission if they would feel more comfortable if this
was written policy concerning surveys� and Chairpers�n Haxris replied it
was a good idea. He said that possibly at some point of time they might get
challenged, and it would be good to have it established in writing. Nir.
Boaxdman said the purpose of this policy would be to try to maintain the
intent of the City Code without inordinant burden on the citizen.
Mr. Boardman said that �.t the next meeting there wouid be something drayan up
as policy on this. � .
6. CONTINiIED: RECONL��NDATIOPI ON CITY CONTRIBUTING $1,000 TO FT:�TTE ARTS
COMMITTEE
' Chair�erson Harris reminded the Comm?ssion they had asked to see a budget
on what the I'ine Arts Coramittee was going to do with the rr�oney. He asked
�� I�Jrs. Shea wha-t was meant by a negative variance oi 1'�, and she saicl she Vrasn't
� familiar tiaith that. rlr. Harris also noted that below ti�at there was a
negative variance of 16�o Air. Boardman said they had probably budgeted on
1000 and only got 839. N1r. Langenfeld said it was his opinion on �the negative
variance of 1% that th�y could have that leeway either way.
Mr..Harris referred to the 197? �nding Source Request on page 65 oi the
agenda and asked if it was going to cost $5800 for those productions, and
A�rs. Shea said it would. Mr. Harris asked•if they had to return part of
that to Community Schools, and Nlrs. Shea said they didn't because they iaere ,
part of Community Schoolso
Chairperson Harris asked how we11 they did on the last play, and Mrs. Shea
replied they had �1�000 left over from their total receipts. Nir. Langenfeld
said that when this had been discussed last time, he thought they los�t money
on the ].ast production. ���rs. Shea said they lost Money on the first production,
but not on the second.
Chairperson Haxris asked where this money came from out of the City budget,
and Mrs. Shea said she believed it would come ou�t of contingency.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council approval of a contribution to the Fridley Fine Arts Commi.ttee
in the amount of $1,000. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion
/'�� carried unanimously.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 20
7. CONTINUID: DISCUSSION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM WITH APPROPRIATE �
STAFF PLRSON: .
Mr. Boardman stated that he had talked to Jan Konzak on this and she had talked
to the City Mananger, and they had come out with positions on the four motions
by Human Resources.
Mr. Boaxdman said the first motion was to accept a statement that said ��T-t
requires firms with whom it transacts business to do likewiseTM. In other words,
he conl;inued, i.n order for the City to.do business with a firm it would require
that firm to not discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of race, sex,
etc. Mr. Bo� dman said it was decided that Fridley already had one of the
strongest affirmative action programs in the 'I�rin Cities because they had
designated goals and timetables laid out. He said that the word '�require"
would be difficult to enforce, and there really was no major distinction between
encourage and require; therefore they would leave it as encourage.
Mr. Boardman said that with regard to the second motion to establish a training
program to qualify protected groups for advancement, the City already had an
educational assistance �rogram in which these educational programs were evaluated
on their current position and also anticipated responsibilities and is handled
on a case by case basis. He said i:hey felt they had already carried out the
intent of that motion.
Mr. $ot�,rdman stated that the third motion was to establish specific percentage
goals for protected classes in each job class and a semi-annual report be made �
of the progress to the Human Resources Commissiono He said that they felt they �_
had already provided this because they had set goals and timetables in their
Affirmative Action Program. He said they do not make any written reports� but
they did report to the Human Resources Co�nission as requested. He explained
that they felt to designate it as a semi-annual report was not really necessary.
Mr. Boardman said that the fourth motion involved the commitment to seek
placing of persons in non-traditional job classes, such as men as clerical
workers, women as police oificers, and so on. Air. Boardman said they were
already providing more than adequate opportunity for this to take place.
He said the City was not discriminating, but it just so happened that to date
they had not had any men appl�ing for clerical positions. He said that as far
as police officers went, this was handled by the Civil Service Commission and
to date the women had not scored high enough to place� but it was possible for
a woman to become a police cfficer.
Mr. Boardman summarized by saying that the City Manager and the Affirmative
Action (?fficer felt that three of the motions were already being carried out,
and in the other they felt that "require" tiaould be difficult to enforce and
"encourage" stood up to what they were trying to accomplish under the Affirm�.tive
Action Program.
Mrs. Gabel asked if there was a written Affirmative Action Program other than
�rhat was required by law, and Mr. Boardman said there was and it listed the �
goals and timetables. He stated that most cities had Affirmative Action Programs
but their goals and timetables were very vague, whereas the City of Fridley's �r �
�aere not. `';
Planning Commis�ion Meeting - September 8� 1976 Page 21
�OTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission concur
with the Staff Report as the official policy of the Planning Commission. ' Upon
�° a voice votes Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson and,Gabel voting aye, Shea
voting nay, the motion carried.
�1
8. CONTINUID; DISCUSSION ON GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES:
Continued to Septem er 22, 197
9. CONTINUID: HUI�AN DEVELOP1�fENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES; Continued to
September 22, 197
10. RECEIVE NOTICE AND MAILING LIST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN SPRING LAKE
PARK ON AUGUST 23, 197
MOTION by Langenfeld, Seconded 1�y Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
'the notice and mailing list �'or �a Public Hearing held in Spring Leke Park on
August 23, 1976. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried
unani.mously.
Mr. Boardman explained +,his item was on the agenda to let the Commission lalow
what was happening and that they had notified the people in Fridley that would
be affected by this. He said -th��� as far as City Staf� went, he didnst havc
any problem with what they were planning to do. He explained that this was
off of Old Central and Osborne Road, and it had been rezoned noi: long ago
from industrial to commercial. He said that now they were asking for a Special
Use Permit to develop a neighborhood shoppin� c�nter. He described the property
as being 1�11 feet East of Old Central, and North of Osborne.
Chairperson Harris asked if there had been any reponse from anybody� and rqre
Boardman replied they had some response on the rezoning request and severa7.
of the people had attended that meeting, but they hadn'•� any response on the
Special.Use Permi.t. Mr. Harris asked if the people were. general.ly opposed or
in favor of the rezoning, and P4r. Boardman said the�► hadn't gotten a reading
on that.
11. RECEIIiE ENVIRONMENTAI� QUALITY CONIMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 17, 1976
Mr. Berman stated he ieould like to comment that in reading the motions on page
51, he go�; the impression that members of the �vironmental Comm�ssion were
askin� City Admi.nistration to recommend the content of an ordinance and then
the Fridley F�vironmental Commission monitor and control compliance of' that
ordinance. He said that seemed to him to be the exact reverse oi how this
procesS was supposed to operate. Mr. Langenfeld replied he didn°t feel that.
He explained the i.ntent of the motions was to merely gick up the environmental
highlights within these various ordinances and incorporate them in a model
ordinance for Fridley, which they hoped that Staff would provide.
�-.� Mr. Bergman asked where the recommendations ��ere from the Environmental
Comm3ssion describing what they wanted in the ordinance from a policy view.
Mr. Langenfeld explained that what they wanted were the sources of information
such as the Golden Valley ordinance� the Coon Rapids Gonservancy District
�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 22
Ordinance #378, and so on. In other words� he said, they gave Staff the.�rerogative
to pick.out the environmental sensitive elements of those particular axeas �.,�
to incorporate in an ordinance for the Ehvironmental Commission to review. He
explained these were merely guidelines to help them.
Mr. Boardman explained that they wanted Staff to draft a comprehensive ordinance
to take the place of Chapter 212 and that it be presented at the next Environmental
Qualit�r Commission meeting for their review, He said that instead of drafting
one, they had received a model ordinance from rletro Council and would submit
that. Mr. Langenfeld said that they thought they were going to get one in the
first place, and were trying to ge1: some direcicion going to continue this.
NIr. Bergman noted on page 50� under Review Chaper 212, that the Fhvironmental
Commission requested they review all activities prior to issuance of a permit.
He said that put them in the day-to-day compliance of it. Mr. Langenfeld
explained that the Commission felt there should be some type of control on
this even though no ordinance exists. Mr. Bergman asked if this should be
by Commission rather than City Staff, and Mr. Langenfeld replied only for •
IIivironmental review. He summarized by saying they hoped�to get an ordinance
drawn up, and would then review it and provide their recorimendations to the
Planning Commission. He added that now they had the metropolitan model ordi.nance
which they would review and see what would taork for this particular axea. He
explained the only other thing i.n the minutes'were a couple of typos, which he
wouldn't take the time to correct.
ri0TI0N by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the �vironmental Quality Commission minutes of August 17, 1976. Upon a eoice
vote, all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unanimously. �'
Mr. Langenfeld informed the Commission that 1:he East River Road Project Committee
would be meeting the following evening, September 9th, and were going to submit
a proposed plan for East River Road, He invited anyone interested to attend.
Mr. Bergman noted that the East River Road Project Committee was a project
committee within the �vironmental Commission, which was a member corrunission
chaired within the Planning Commission. He asked how it was that the project
committee dealt directly with the County Highway Department. NIr. Langenfeld �
saa.d they had the right to go to any .source tney taished to obtain the info.rmation
for their committee. Mr. Bergman said he thought it was to propose a plan to
the county� which the Planning Commission or the City Council might disagree
with. Mr. Langenfeld said the committee wanted to slow the traffic up on East
River Road. and they had drawn up a propesed plan of the �ray the residents would
like to see it. Chairperson Haxris asked if they would be disposed to submit
it to the Planning Commission for review, and Mr. Zangenfeld explained that
this meeting was taking place tomorrow night. A�Ir. Harris commented that it
seemed they were getting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Boardman suggested to Mr. Langenfeld that he may have to ride rein on this
a little. He said that project commi.ttee wa�s established to come up with
recommendations that could be carried out by the Planning Commission or the
City Council. He said they were not set up to go out and make proposals and
offers to the county or the Metro Council or the government. ,�"'�
. yR.
.l �:!��:-�
y
Planning Commission Mzeting - September 8, 1976 Page 23
� Chairperson Harris stated that the group could go as a citizen's group anyplace
they wanted, but if they were representing themselves as a subcommittee under
the Planning Commission, they were out df line. He said that they were then
representing the Planning Cvmmission, and as spokesman for this Commission he
objected to that. He added that if they were going to represent the Planning
Commission in these matters, then they better get concurrence from the Planni.ng
Commission; and if they were going to represent the City Council in these matters,
they better get concurrence from the City Council.
Mr. Boaxdman agreed that they could take their propasal as a citizen's group
anywhere they wanted to, but as a designated project committee under the
Environmental Commission they�had obligations to meet to that Commissi:on
as set up by the scope of the proje�t committee and within the sc�pe of the
City ordinance. He.said their function was s imply a function of making a
report back to the �vironmental Commission. Mr. Langenfeld stated that zt
had staxted out fine� �nd what took place was they apparently�had gotten ahold
of an existing plan to completely revise East River Road and didn't go along
with�it because of saf'ety,factors and speed, and had drawn up a counter`proposal
to present �o the county to see if they could com� to a mutual agreement..
Mr. Boardman saa.d i� he was the County Engineer he would tell them to get the
concurrence of the City Council. He added that if it goes too much fu:rther
the Planning Commission might have to request that the Environmental Corrunission
�,n'1 in the reins on tl�em or dissolve the comm.i±•teea rir. Harris said that then
they could operate as an ad hoc committees and that would be perfectly fine.
� Mr. Langenfeld stated h� �sould have to tell the pr•o j e;,t commi ttee +..hat they
were running a little ahead of themselves, and 1VIr. Harris said he ��auld personally
really like time to look at tne.plan and study it. •
N1r. Boardman said the proposal should be looked at from the Environr,iental
Commission level first, so they could make recommendations,.and Chairperson
Haxris added that he would certainly like Communi�y Development to look at
it also. rir, Bergman agreed� and said it was much broader than just envirGn-
mental. -
.12. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION CON�IISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 23, 1976
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabel, that the Plannin� Commission receive
the mi.nutes of the August 23, 1976 Parks and Recreation meeting.
Mrs. Shea noted that uncler the neighborhood subcoruait�ees a deadline i,ras referred
to,. and.asked what that date was. I�Ir. Boardman said it was September 27th.
Mrs. Shea noted they had sent out letters for resident input and hoped to hear
from people, but that she hadn't seen anything and had yet to heax of anyb�dy
in her neighborhood who had heard anything. Mr. Boardman said they had not
gone to every resident� but had sent out 600 surveys.
Chairperson Harris referred 'to the Staff Report on Riversedge Property on
page 59� and asked if there was some proposal by somebody to buy those lots.
/`1 Mr. Peterson said yes, they thought all they had to do was-g�t the Parks and
Recreation Commission to agree to sell them. He said those people hadn't
Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 2�
realized that it was a bid procedure. Mr. H�.rris asked what the intent was on ^
that particular piece of property, and Mr. Peterson replied there were no plans
at the present time. Mr. Harris asked if that land was maintained, and Mr.
Peterson sa.id the City was supposed to cut the weeds. Mr. Harris commented
that the general topography di� not lend itself to a park. Mr. Peterson said �
that one of the things that might happen �ould be that some picnic tables and
chaxcoal grills were put in there.
Mr. Peterson stated that the Recreation Project Committee has really done a
terrific job, and hopefully they would get a lot of inforr►ation. He said they
had invited people to appear before them and give testimony, had the school
people in, and had really done a lot of work on it. He added that some of the
quality of work was going to be much greater than others, but with 11� different
project committees woxking this surrmier on Parks and Recreation, it Vras a feat
iri itself.
Mr. Bergman commented that he would be interested in seeing what area 13 came
up with, because as he and Mrs. Shea agreed, they were the largest so�called
neighborhood within the map. He said this included: Innsbruck South of Hwy.
69�� which �ras a neighborhood by itself, the area he was in including Innsbruck
ATorth� and extended way North from there. He saa.d there were at least three
neighborhoods in what was called ane neighborhood, and there was no cohesion
between them.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a17. voting aye� the motion carried unanimously.
^
13. DISCUSS DATE SET FOR JOINT MEETING tidITH T�-?E CITY COUN�IL ON 1�0 FOOT LO�S
Mr. Boardman said that if they wanted to discuss ichis at one of the workshop
me�tings� the next one would be Novemtier-22nd. Otherwise, he said, a special
meeting with the City Council could be requested.
Chairperson Haxris asked what Mrs. Schnabel's status was, and P7rs. Gabel
informed him that she was having some comglications. She said that the date
of November 22nd could be set tentatively, and if there were further problems
'it could be rescheduled. Mr. Boardman said that was fine, and would tentatively
set up the date of Nonember 22, 1976 for the joint meeting.
ll�. RECEIVE COPY OF PROPOSED MAINTr.NANCE CODE
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea' that the Planning Commission receive
the proposed maintenance code. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion
carried unanimously.
Nir. Bergman commented that he thought this pro�osed code should go to agplicable
connnissions. However, he said� prior to sending it to commissions some review
and direction from the Planning Commission should go along with it.
�
15. STAFF DISCUSSION WITH THE PL.'�NNIN� COMMISSION ON VARIOUS IT��.S '
�� ,
Mr.'Boardman said the Commission probably noticed that receiving of the minutes
m
4
Plannin� Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 � Page 25
was put in the back of the agenda instead of the front because entirely too
� much time was being spent on receiving the mi.nutes� and the Public Hearings
weren't started until 9:00 or 9:30. '
He said another thing he wanted to bring out at this time, although it wasn't
so bad at this meeting, was that the nit-picking on the minutes was getting
pretty awful. i:e s aid that, for instance� typos and things like that could
be passed over,without any comment. He said tha�C also, unless an item was
specif.ically requested to be brought out by that Commission� he felt �he
information could be picked up by each individual member without having to
restate items. He said that he thought the only items that should be brought
out were items that needed action by the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Harris said he felt that should be up to the di:scretion of the
member Commissioners. He said he could see at certain times they would rrish
to clarify their position or perhaps they felt the item was important enough
that they want�d to bring i.t to tt�e attention of the.Commission.
Mr. Boardman said he just wanted to bring this up, as this was similax to
the way the City Council handled it.
Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to bring up what NSP was doing to Fridley's
trees, He explain�d they were ta.�ing the tops of the trees off and just letting
them ha�ig thereo He further explained they would take ofi a major limb and
then mayk�e a�ead one, and just let it hang in open space, P�ir. Harris said
�� there was a real problem expecially when they�were trimming elms. He said
he wished N5P would have come to the City first when they started this program
with a proposal on what they were going to do. He added that he understood
it was a major maintenance problem.
r1r. Boaxdman asked if they were cutting the trees wi.thout the proper repair
to the limbs, and rir. Haxris said that was correct, especially with regard
to oaks and elms. Mrs. Gabel said they would cut a limb off and just let
the bark tear. �
Chairperson Harris said he could understand NSP's problem, but when they were
gaing to start a major project they should come to the Cit;�. He added that
the trouble was they had subcontracted this out to a private tree trimmer. �
rir. Bergman s�.id that it was VSP�s responsibility, and an executive of NSP L'nat
he had talksd to recently �ras very concerned about ihis. i�ir. Boardman commented
that NSP had a certain i..mage the;� were trying to maintain.
Mr..Langenfeld said that in his own personal situation� two very �ood shade
trees had to be remoeed entirely because of the way they were cliFped.
ADJOURNP�T:
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman� that the meeting be adjourned .
,� Upon a vo3ce vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
� Commission mPeting of September 8� 1976, adjourned at 12:15 P.�i. by unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted�
/� �
���'''7� V . /i�p_ l
� nt �..,,.,� a�...... ;.,,. �..,.� .,,....