PL 10/06/1976 - 30453CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CO3��•iISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 1976
-P�C�E � 1
CALL TO,ORDER:
Chairperson Haxris called the meeting to order at 7;38 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson (arrived 8;00),
Schnabel, Shea
Members Absent; None
Others P�esent: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
IS'ick Sobiech, Public Works Director -
APPROVE PLANNING CONfi7ISSI0N MINUTES: SEPTII��BER 22, 1976
M�TION by Sc.�nabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes
of September 22, 1976 be approned as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting
� aye, the motion caxried unanimously. ..
l. CONTINUID: PUBI,IC HEARING: COnSIDERATION OF A
1�T. B T
of Lot 19, except the East 19Q feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet
taken for highway purposes, and the West lIt7.71t feet of Lot 18, all in
Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allow the development of a 36 unit
townhouse site, the sar.ie being located at the intersection of Central
Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E.
. Public Hearing closed.
Mr. Evert R. Swanson� property owner, and Mr. A1 Hoffinei'�r, architect, wer.�
present.
Mr. Boardman explained that this was a preliminary plat on the townhouses
to locate the buildings on the site and also clean up the legal description,
and it was a typical townhouse type plat.
Chairperson Harris stated there had been a question at the last meeting
concerning parking stall locations, and Mr. Boardman shoiaed the Commission
a plan depicting parking stalls. He said that although these plans did not
show it, Mr. Hoff ineier had guaranteed he would also shift the bui7dings.
Mrs. Schnabel said that they should note that the number of parking spaces
� had changed from the plan presented at the last meeting. . I�i�, Hoff.meier said
�;� l
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 2
he had made a mistake in his mathematics on the first one. He stated that the
r�quirement was for ninety parking stalls, and they had 99, r`
Chairperson Haxris marked the plan showing the parking stalls as exhibit D.
MOTIOiv by.Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend
to Council approval of the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. �76-08, Central
Townhouse Addition, by Evert Swanson: Being a replat of Lot 19, except the
East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes,
and the West 11�7.7l� feet of �Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to
allow�the development of a 36 unit townhouse site, the same being located at
the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E.
2�Irs. Schnabel said that in looking back in the minutes from the last meeting,
one of their concerns was the review of the assessment type items relative to
73rd Street. Tir. Boardman stated that the sewer and water and storm sewers
that were in the streets were designed to carry capacity loads for development
in that axea. He added that this development would not overburden that load.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
2. CONT•INUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REZOPIING R�'QUr.ST, ZOA #76-05, BY WYI�iAN SNiITH:
Rezone the Easterly l00 feet of Lot 13, except the Northerly 30 feet
thereof; also the Easterly �0 feet thereof, Auditor's Sub�!ivision No. 89�
,from R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to C-1 (local busi.ness areas),
or�C-2, (general business axeas), ta allow.the construction of a speculativ� ^
building to be used for officzs and assemblies, generally located on the -
South side of Norton Avenue N.E. where it intersects with Central Avenue
. N.E.
Public Heaxing closed.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive
the letter dated October 5, 1976 to the City of Fridley from Leroy Smith
withdrawing this request. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Earl Dunbar, 121�5 Norton Avenue N.E., stated he had a petition which he
would like put in the files for future reference. Chairperson Harris read
the petition, dated October 1�� 1976, aloud:
We� the undersigned, as concerned residents of Norton Avenue Northeast,
City of Fridley� wish to make the following statement of our wishes
and desires concerning the proposed rezoning request� ZOA 76-05, to
rezone the Easterly 20� feet of lot 13, except the Plortherly 30 feet
thereof and also the Easterly 50 feet thereof, auditors subdivision
No. 89, from R-3 to C-1 or C-2:
It is our desire that the above request be denied, ancl that any
similax request be likewise denied; in short, that the property
mentioned, as well as a11 unoccupied property on Norton Avenue Northeast,
remain R-3. ��
�
Planning Commiss.ion Meeting - October 6, 1976 . Pa�e 3
� Our primary reasons for this position are:
l. That the proposed changes would lead to a decline in property
values.
2. That the increased personal and vehicular traffic on the street
would be disturbing to the residents.
3. That the increased traffic will endanger the safety of the
children and property of the homeowners.
Chairperson Harris noted that the petition had ten signatures.
MOTIOId by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, tliat the Planning Commission receive
the petition from the residents of Norton Avenue dated October 1t, 197b. Upon
a voice vote� a11 voting°aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris stated that he would give the peition to the City Administra-
� tion to be put in the fi�e.. .
3. TABZID: PUBLIC HE.�RING: CONSIDERATIOV �OF A Pr�ELIMII`�RY PLAT, P.S. #�76-05
V31 lYV.l�lll 1Vlv Z• JJ..IV1aW1�1
�CC�PORATIOAi: Eeing a replat of Lots 1 to inclusive, Blocks 21 t:�roug
� 2� and also part of I.ot l, Block 28, Innsbruck North Tokmhouses Third
Addition, to allow changes in the size of garagES, generally located on
� the Z�Test side �f East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road PJ.�.
Public Hearing open, tabled August 18, 1976.
Mr. Jim London with Darrel Farr Development, and Mr. Darrel A. Faxr were
present. �
Mr. Boardman explained that this had been tabled until Dar�el Farr Corporation
was ready to go�with it, and they were now ready to proceed. He s aid tha� this
was in the townhouse area and they wanted to increase the size of six proposed
single-car garages to double-car gaxages.
Mr. I,ondon showed copies of the proposed plat to thte Commission. He explained
that he and Mr. Farr had met with the Innsburck North Townhouse Association
Arch�tectural Control Committee and the Operating Committee of the Innsbruck
North Townhouse Association� and they had worked out this proposed replat of
the Third Addition. He said that their proposal was to provide 12 double
garages in lieu of the 12. single garages that were on the original plat.
Mr. London explained that they hadn't changed the total riumber of parking
spaces as they.had increased the-inside parking by 12 spaces and decreased
the outside parking by 12 spaces. He said that in their agreement with the
Innsbruck Townhouse Association they were moving blocks 5� 6, 7 and 8 to the
bottom of the page five feet to give a minimum of almost 50' betiaeen buildings
for movement of traffic� parking, and so forth. He added they had also moved
/'� the garages in blocks 5 and 6 so the garage and house. would be more in line
and open up the green axea between buildings. Mr. London added that they were
Planning Commission t9eeting - October 6, 1976 Page 4
going to offer a standard garage door operator to be sold with each garage so ^
people would use the indoor parking more.
Chai.rperson Harris asked Mr. London if he was aware of the letter from
Mr. Jerry W. Anderson, Cha3rman of the Architectural Control Committee, to
the Planning Commission, dated July 20� 1976. I`�'. London said he �ras, and
that �hey had had their meetings after that. He explained.that letter taas
written the first time they had appeared beiore this Com�ission, and.tr.ere
were three subsequent meetings after that when this plat Uras worked out.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there would be any outside parking, and Mr. London
replied that it wasn�t shoi,m on this plat, but there would be. r�r. Boardman
asked if units 7 and 8 were moved, and �Sr. London reolied they had been moved
back from the street. Mr. Boardman stated that Staff had no problem wit.� this
preliminary plat.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Comrnission close
the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. �76-0;,
Innsbruclt North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corpora-
tion. Upon a voice vote, all voti.ng aye, Chairperson Harris declared the
Public Hearing closed at 8:05.
Mr. Bergman stated that initially he had some concern about the lack of a letter
in writing from the Architectural Control Committee to mate with the letter
on pag^ �t5 of the agenda. However, he said, the letter from that Co�ittee
says they have a verbal agreement �,*ith Jim London, and "since Mr. I,ondon now told 'the
Commission �they are in accord, he didn't feel the concern that a letter �as need��
for reference purposes. Chairperson Haxris suggested it i•rould be well to have
thai letter zor the City Council.
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Bergmar:, that the Planni.ng Commission reco:nmend to
Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #76-�5� Innsbruck North Replat
Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation: �eing a re�lat
of I,ots 1 to !t inclusive, Blocks 21 through 26, and also part of Lot �, B�ock
28� Innsbruck North Toi�nhouses Third Addition, to allozr changes in tne size
of garages, generally located on the Tn'est side of East Bavarian Pass and South
of Meister Road N.E.
Nirs. Schnabel said that the original request form said to increase the'size of
five proposed garages, and the rea,uest was actually for s�. Pir. Zondon said
that was just an error, and it should be six. Chairperson Harris sug�ested
that be cleaned up before the request went to Council.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARING• GONSIDERATION OF A PR�LII�IINARY PLAT, P.S. #76-10, TiVI�'SBRUCK
VILLAGES SECOND ADDITION �Y DA.�REL A. F�'�tR DEVELOPASEP��T CORPO�ATI�N: Be3.ng
a replat of the Ea.stern bounda�ry of Innsbruck Village's Addition, cescribed
as follows: That part of Outlot A, Innsbruck North, lying West of a line
drawn from the most Northerly corner of Outlot C� Innsbruck Villages, to
the most Southerly corner of Outlot A� Innsbruck Village and said line
there te.rminating, the purpose of the plat to allow for a more feasible
�
,��
P�anning Commission Meeting - October 6, 197b
Page 5
,.,,� distribution of the same number of units in the development� generally
'' located North of North Tnnsbruck Drive N.Eo and West of the Black Forest
LL ' Apartment. �
Mr. Jim London, with Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, and 1�1r. Darrel
Farr were present.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission
open the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-10�
Innsbruck Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public
Hearing open at 8:10.
Mr. Boardman stated this was somewhat confusing, and directed the Commission
to turn to page 55 of t:�eir agendas t�hich showed what had originally been
proposed. He showed the Commissioners the new plat and explained what changes
had been made, and explained the land change �rould be equal. He said they
had felt that several buildings were too closQ to the apaxtment axea, so -�hey
were eliminating "B", i:ere switching "A" closer to the cul-de-sac, and putting
iahat had been "A" back into Outlot C. He stated there would be the same number
of units on the plat, but just in a different location. He added that �he
square footage would be adjusted to be equal.
Mr. London said that this.had b:�sn approved originally for 100 unit�9 and,they
n�w had 96, so there was a reductior�. He stated that.the land areas would be
^ an �equal swap; neither the Black Forest or Innsbruck Village would lose any
� land.
Mr. Milton Bullock, 5671� Arthur Street, Fridley, asked if he could see a copy
of the plat. I��ir. Boaxdrian showed rir. Rullock and other interested residents
the proposed plat and explained it to them.
Maxjorie Phelan, hiatternorn Drive, asked if an IIzvironmental Impact Study had
been done in this area. r;r. Boardman replied that none was done, and explained
that the only way they �aould have been required to do an Environmental �mpact
Study was through a petition, and no petition %ras drawn up. rIs. Phelan said
she lmew this was after the fact, but she felt what was being done in that area
was a shame. She asked if the City of Fridley didn't have any responsibility
to protect the environ�Tent. rir. Boardraan replied they did, and it would have
been up to the City Council at the time the first plats came in. He said the
City Council tried to realize some of the environmental problems on this; how-
ever, it would have been difficult when this came through to tell them they
had to do an environmental statement without the State EQC rules and regulations
to bacic them up. He added it was also pretty hard for the Council to deny some-
one use of his property, but they could put restrictions on that property to
be as environmentally conscious of the property as possible. .
Ghaa.rperson Harris stated that the City had spent a lot of time azd energy, as
did the developer, trying to work out a workable plan to save as many trees
and preserve the area as much as they could. He explained that they did not
have the tools at that time that they had now to require F�vironment,al Impact
� Statements. He further explained that didn�t take affect until the first part
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 6
of 197�, and this plat had been in the works since 1970.
��
Mr. Bergman stated that the history actually went back about 9 or 10 years when
the entire 130 acre site of Innsbruck North both in Fridley and New Brighton
was proposed for rezoning for multiple family apartments and townhouses. He
said the people in the neighborhood fought successfully against rezoning
efforts which would have converted the entire �creage to multiple far�ily.
The people in the neig::borhood ti�ere in contact with city, county, and state
agencies promoting all or part of that area as paxk land to try to retain its
natural state raithout success. 2�Ir. Bergman said it was rezoned about ten �
years ago for the purpose that the developer now wants, so he felt that the
ecology effort should :ave been applied 9 or 10 yeaxs ago prior to its rezoning
for multiple family.
Mr. Peterson said that he thought they had to realize that probably everybody
at this meeting who o�.�ned a home had,probably�cut down trees to build that
house. He stated it was al•�rays easy to say that somebody else should preserve
their property in its natural state, and he thought that the Daxrel Farr
Corporation had been very cooperative in trying to do all they could to preserve
the beauty of the area. 'rie added that he felt it should be pointed out that
people did have certa�z-rights to develop the property they owned.
Mr. Faxr stated that tzey had done as good a job as they could to maintain
the land. He said it �•ras costiv to develop, and because of that cost the
homes were more highT; priced than comparable homes in other axeas. Therefore,
he continued, they had t� have some competitive advantage from a business
standpoint, and that i•ras the trees and ponds. He added that they did dedicate �
a site to the City of :ridley for park purposes that was larger than the site
they were presently developing for the villages.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the two buildings th�.t were being currently constructed
on North Innsbruck Drive would be models. Nir. Farr replied that the first two
buildings would be soZd. He explained that the first building was intended
to be a mode]., but since the decision to incorporate double gaxages was made
along with other architectural changes of a minor nature,�the models i�ould
actually be block 19.
Asr. Bullock stated he had a question concerning the road. He said that at the
last Commission meetinb he attended he understood the road that would be
constructed between the divisions coming out; on Arthur Street would be single
lane and woul.d be angled to the North, and asked if this was still the case.
�ir. Zondon said the road would be built to the letter of the agreement with
the City of Fridley.
Mr. Bergman sa.id they had all spent a lot of time at previous meetings concerning
the building plan, street patterns, setbacks� etc., and he was just wondering
how approval of this plan w�ula affect the agreement, stipulations� and negotiated
compromises that were made through the previous process. Mr. London said that
the agreer�ent stands. He explained they tiaere.not asking for any changes in that
agreement. rir. Bergman then asked if the request could be rephrased to 1) include
a reduction in densit�r from 100 units to 96, and 2) to merely relocate units
A and B from the previous glat. Mr. London said the only other chan�e would be,.�-�
�
���
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page ?
��,_�_
- the land slot. Iie showed Mr. Bergman the plat and explained what he meant.
Mr. Robert �rek, 5629 No. Danuhe Road, asked if somewhere in the City there
was a master plan that shoiaed the way things were going to be. Nlr. Boaxdman
said they had an over-all concept, but it didn't show where all the buildings
would be. Chairpersun Harris said that they would have something on a11
buildings that �rere under construction at this time. Mr. �rek asked if he
could get copies of the letters that had been discussed, and �aas told he could.
Mr. Bullock asked if the direction of the road in question had been drawn
on any plan showing the degree oi angling to the Plorth, and 1°Tr. Sobeich
replied that construction plans had not been drawn. Mr. Bullock asked hoti�
they Urould be able to lmow when it had been drawn so they could express their
opinions, and Mr. Sobeich said the office could just take his name and if he
was interested show him the plans.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close
the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-10,
Innsbruck Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public -
Hearing closed at 8:1�8 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel commented that one thing that had concerned her before t,ras the
maintenance of North Tnnsbruck Drive, and she was noar happy to see things
� were moving along as approved.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the�Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #76-10, Innsbruck
Villages Second Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation: Being
a replat of the Eastern boundary of Innsbruck Villages Addition, described
as follows: That part of Outlot A, Innsbruck North, lying ��dest of a line
drat,m from the most Northerly corner of Outlot C, Innsbruck Villages, to the
most Southerly corner of Outlot A, Innsbruck Village and said line there
terriinating, the purpose of the plat to allow for a more feasible distribu-
tion of the same number of units in the development, generally located North
of North Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apartment.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that the planning and zoning form did not show a.fee paid
for the request. Mr. London said it had been paid, and Mr. Foardrian agreed
it had.
Mr. Bergman said he wouTd like to suggest an additional statement to the
motion saying "with the understanding that a11 stipulations and agreements which
were part of the previous preliminary plat recommendation be retained".
Mr. Peterson AMENDED the MOTION to include the s�atement by Mr. Bergman. Mr.
Langenfeld agreed.
' UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�^ � .
_ 5. PUBLIC HEAFtING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSID PLAT P.S. #76-07 ROTTLUND
OAKS, BY TIiE ROTTLUND C0�IPANY: Bein� a replat of Lots , 7� , 9, 10,
Planning Commission PReeting - October 6, 1976
Page 8
].l�� 15� 16 and 17, Block 1� Spring Brook Park Second Addition, together �\
with Lots 32 and 33, and the West 30 feet of Lots 3!t and 35s Block 10,,
Spring Brook Park Addition, zoned P.D. (Planned Development), generally
located between Ruth Street N.E. and East River Road N.E.� North of
Liberty Street N.E.
Mr. David H. Rotter of Rottlund Company was present.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded. by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission
open the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. #76-07�
Rottlund Oaks, by the Rottlund Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:55 P.AI.
Mr. Boardman explained this was a proposal for 13 lots off of a cul-de-sac,
and the lot widths at the 35� setback were shown. He said that Staff would
suggest a lot be dropped to bring it up to what the code requirements were
for lot widths, and also to make the lots more salable.
N1r. Peterson asked if all of the lots met the minimum area requireraents in
terms of square footage� and N1r. Boardman said he believed they uid. He
explained that lot 7 was a 50� lot that had an existing house on it. AIr.
Boardman said that they were asking a lot be dropped because aZthoug}-i the lots
might meet the square fooi.age requirements, in order to me�t the 75' �rid.th
or. the lot it may be rec�uired. to haiTe a setback of l��J �r �.5 feet.
Mr. Rotter stal;ed that they ��rere not trn,�ing to increase the number oi l�ts �
over the original plan; he said tihat in tnis area witn the original street
patterns there were the same number of lots. He er.plained the reason for
platting i-t this k*ay tiaas because of the unusual terrain of the property
and by pullin� the cul-de-sac back up they were forced �o reduce the lots.
He stated �-.,hey would like to leave these lots as they were buildable.
Chairperson Haxris read the following letter to the City of Fridley Planning
Commission from r�r. Rotter� dated October lt, 1976:
We would like to briefly explain our position in our request for
preliminary approval of Eottlund Oaks.
After si:udy on our paxt as �o the topography of the area and neighbor-
ing property, we felt the majority of this property would best be
suited for residential construction other than Lots 11, 12 and 13, of
Sprin� Rrook Paxk, 2nd Addition' which we would use as a multi-family
area.
In the past� this groperty has been approved for a 108 unit apartment
building. The high densitST use of this land would not be�conducive
with the neighboring streets of Liberty and Ruth, which now is single
family homes�
In order for -�his property to be developed both economically and esthetically,
we are proposing the replatting of the lots as indicated in our applica- �
tion and preliminary plat. The number oi lots we are requesting on the
replat is ths same :�umber of lots on the ariginal plat.
Planning Commission P4e.eting - October 6, 1976
Page 9
�;=� MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Plannir_g Com�ission
receive the letter from Mr. Rotter to the Planning Commission dated Oetober
4� 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unaniMOUSly.
Mr. Rotter stated that they zrere tryi.ng to utilize the property as economically
as possible, and were not trying to gai.n anything out of the property or pick
up an eytra lot. He added that hopefully the purchase of the exisiing horne
would be made by the Rottlund Company. �He said that they were also tne oVmers
of lots-1� 2, 3 and !t on the South portion of Liberty Street and �rere building
single family homes on this now. P�ir. Rotter said that as far as �r.arketability
went as mEntioned by Staff, he felt they h�ere marketable this wa;� and wanted
to hang on to a11 the lots they had.
Mr. Peterson asked what Mr. Rotter's plans •�rere for lot 7 if ne purchased the
existing structure there. P4r. Rotter replied his intention �ras to resell, as
there was nothing iarong with the house.
2�Irs. Schnabel asked z,�hy he was replatting from the original plan to t�e one
presented at this meeting. 2�Ir. Rotter explained that.lots llt, 1J, 9 ana s were
practically unbuildable unless the entire area was filled. ?:e said t�.e cul-de-sac
would be.at the top of a swale line tha� dropped about 18�� and t:�at by pulling
this back up they could leave the majority of the trees. He explained that
building on East River Road V�ouldn't be as salable with the trees gone. '
Mr. B�'rgman said he got the impression that every lot facing the cul-de--sac
�-, was more than 9,000 square feet� and asked i7r. � Boardrrlan if he had cnecked
the sizes. Mr. Boardman said the lots were all in excessof s,o�o �quare feet,
and.their consideration would be that no vaxiances be granted on these lots.
Chairperson Harris a5ked how far back the houses would be set from the cul-de�sac�
and 1vSr. Rotter replied that .on lots 3� !�, 5 and 6 the houses ��ou13 probabl� be
back about �5'. rir. Harris asked how far bacF: the house on lot 8��ould sit,
and Mr. Rotter stated that he would try to blend the houses so it would look
lilce a neighborhood. Chaa.rperson Harris explained that the �ity :�ad an ordinance
concerning average front yard setbacks'which 211owed, he believe�, only a
6' deviation. rlr. Boardman pointed out that on lot 8�Tr. Rotter could deviate
the house back fror� the one on lot 7, and rlr. Rotter said he could also put
the garage toward the front to bring it closer.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that in the original plan dated back in ?967 tYiere was some
discussion about commercial development. She said they were ignoring lots
11� 12 and 13, and asked if P�;r. Rotter still intended to put a corL�nercial area
in. pTr. Rotter replied he did not, and explained those lots were for multiple
purpose and noi for commercial.
Mr. Hoiaard Dumphy stated he was representing the owners of lot 15 of block 10,
Spring Brook Park, and lots 32 and 33 and the Trlest 30' of lots 3� and 35, Spr3ng
Brook Park. He said these lots were being purchased by the applicant and they
were willing to go along with the request, but�in the event the purchase was
not consumated they felt the.replatting should not be considered.
�
G .:.�.—;s:�
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6' 1976 Page 10.
Mr. Azad Mesrobian, 298 Ely Street N.E., asked for a definition of Planned Unit-_�
Development. Mr. Boardman explained that required the developer to bring in a�
plan showing how he would develop the property, and the code required the
deaeloper to appear before a Public Hearin� and have complete, complex drawings
of what was proposed. He explained that Planned Unit Development could include
commercial, residential, etc., in a combination. Mr. Mesrobian asked how many
of these planned units were multiple dwelling�, and P�7r. Boardman 'replied that
Mr. Rotter was d.eveloping the lots off, of Ely Circle into single-family homes.
Mr. Cha:les Sprafka, 280 Ely Street N.E., stated he wished to commend Mr. Rotter
and Rottlund Company for proposing the movement of the cul-de-sac away from
the street to preserve the beauty of the area.
Mrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Boardman had recommended that the petitioner
give up a lot in the proposed plan, and asked if there was some specific plan
in mind. P•1r. Rotter explained he had talked to Darrel Clark briefly about
this. He said that he did not iaish to drop a lot in the area as he �as trying
to operate withi.n the total number of lots originally platted.
Mrs. Shea asked if lot 5 was 100' wide, and Mr. Rotter said that lot was 75'.
Chairperson Harris asked if the lots would meet the minirmim requiremen-ts �or
width ii they were at the Lt5' setback line. P•ir. Boardman replied they would
in all cases except lot �7, where the existing house was. Mr. Boardman suggested
if this proposal was adopted that they woul� maintain a setbc•�k at some point
whe`rF.they could build. where the iot width was 75�. Chairperson Harris asked .
Mr. Rotter if he would be willing to agree tha-t the setback would �e at 1t�' ior �
a 7�' width. Mr. Rotter replied that it depended so much on the lay of.the
land. He said he didn't. want to end up pushing the houses back into the area
and defeating the purpose of the cul-de-s�c. I:e added that he would not
request a variance for any of the lots as proposed as far as side yard setbaclts,
Chairperson Harris said that the problem was they had a platting ordinance
that states that minimur► lot width be 75' at the 35' setback line. �ie explained
that if they approved this plat as it was, they were in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Rotter asked if they were suggesting that a setback be maintained that would
give them 75� at the building line, and NSr. Harris said that was correct.
Mr. Peterson said they had heard neighbors commend Nir. Rotter for a plan to
save the ecology of the area, and they on the Planning Commission were trying
to force Mr. Rotter to accept a plan that would force hi.m to destroy trees.
Chairperson Harris said he was not sure that was what they were doing. He
stated they required that the location of the buildings be presented before
they approved a Planned Unit Development, so all that work would have to be
done ahead of time. rlr. Peterson stated he ur�derstood that, but they did bend
the ordinances under certain circumstances and he thought that as a Commission
they should be listening to what the people in the audience were telling them
who were neighbors of the developer.
Mr. Sprafka asked if it would be possible to obtain an F�vironmental Impact
Statement that would have precedence over the local ordinance in this case
to waive that requirement, or if something could be done at State level. Chair- ^
person Harris stated they could handle this as a Planned Unit Development where
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 11
_�..- the locations of all the buildings w�uld have to be presented on a plan, showing
/"'1 contours and the Vrhole layout before the plan was approved. Mr. Boardman
added �hat actually the Planning Commission could not waive any of the codes�
but could make a recommendation to the City Council.
Chairperson Harris said that Mr. Rotter could draw the houses on the plat to
see if the setback requirements would destroy the tress or if they wouldn�t.
He added ihat the Commission should find out if A:r. F�otter felt that the
requirements would wor�c a hardship before they recommended approval of the plat.
Mr. Boardman suggested a motion that would say Mr. Rotter would attempt to
maintain the 75' lot width at the building site location, and would require
a eariance to this if that building location was any less than 75'. He said
that way the Appeals Commission could look at it, and he thought that in most
cases it wouldn't take the l�5� to get the 75�.width.
Mr. Rotter stated he wanted to utilize the property as best he could, and there
were 60' lots in the area where homes had been b�ilt. He said that if he had
to push the hor�es back to 50 or 60 feet, it might meet the letter oi the law
but it might not be presentable as such. Chairperson Haxris said that perhaps
he should determine where the 75� lines were and sketch in a rough dwelling size
and see how exactl�r they would fit in on the lot. Mr. Rotter said he �+ould
consider that, but he had already done the North section of the area without
follawing this forriat. Mr. Haxris said that apparently someone i.n the past
had decided not to follow �he ordinance.
�'`1 rir. Peterson asked Mr. Rotter what his plans were'in �terms of time, and N;r.
-f Rotter �replied he would like to start construction on lots 5� 1 and 7 in a
eery short time. '
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, to continue in two weeks the Fublic
Hearing on consideration of a proposed plat, P.S. �76-07, Rottlund Oaks, by
the Rottlund Company, and ask the developer to bring in a sketch �howing the
locaiion of the buildings regarding the 75� width and setback requirements.
Mr. Peterson explained that they really had nothing to go on at this tirr�e, and.
the sketch would let them know if they were causing Mr. Rotter a hardship or
not. P�,r. Bergman stated he thought they were overburdening this thing. He
said he was sure that eventually Mr. Rotter would have to do what had been
suggested, but he was not sure that what would be done to show the building
setbacks and 75� lot width at the builciing location would be th�.t firm or valid
� at this point as it would be at the.time PZr. Rotter would seriously construct
something. He stated that he was impressed that one of the public benefits
of establishing continuity caas not really that applicable around a cul-de-s�.c
as in a straight-line block. Mr. Bergman said he was recognizing that this
_particular piece of land was causing some development problems, and was consid-
ering that the 75' width was really not that uniformly adhered to. Chairperson
Haxris stated that in all new plats it was. Mr. Bergman said that it may be
adhered to on new plats, but not in building construction on presently platted
property. He said he was questioni.ng that that requirement was legally
applicable in a Planned Unit Development. rlr. Harris said it was.
�
���
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 12
Mr. Peterson stated his first inclination would be to vote for P4r. Rotter's �
request, but as the discussion went along he felt it was unfair to the Planr�ing '�
Commission to vote without knowing if it was one, two, or three lo�s t,hat would
be working a hardship on Mr. Rotter, and that vras the reason for his motion.
Mr. Langenfeld added that what it boiled down to was that -they were just asking
that the Planned Unit Development procedure be followed to the letter.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the mation carried unanimously.
Mr. Ro�ter said he wished to point out that the original development plan of
this property was for a 108 unit apartment building, which would have been a
disaster in that area. He saa.d he didn't ��rant to completely go through the
Planned Development procedure because of the length of time it would take,
but he was trying to better the property other than the previously planned
monster that was going to go there, and he wished the Commission would consider
that in their determination.
6. TABLED: COr1SIDERATION OF REZONING THE PD DISTRICT (PLt��1�TEU DE`JELQP?�7FNT)
IN THE 110 BLOCK GF E�►ST RIVER ROAD, TO 8-1 SIPIGLE r�'.P�iILY D�,�ELLII�G AREAS �,
Tabled at September 8, 197b P�anning Commission meeting.
Mr. Boardman explained that this item had to do with i�tem K, +he proposed
plat,?�y the ftottlund Company, and suggested that this be continued in two
weeks also. . �
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission
conti.nue i.n two weeks the consideration of rezoning the PD District in the
8110 blocic of East River•Road to R-l. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Rotter said that item 6 was an item brought to the Commission by Staff,
and explained he was not requesting rezoning on that property.
7. PUBLIC HEAR.ING: CONSIDE.RATION OF A PRELI?-1IIv'ARY PLAT, P.S. ;76-09,
DELIER ADDITION, BY DOiVALD iI. Z�I�R: Being a replat of Zat 33, Auditor's
Subdivision No 129, to allow t�e development of 3 R-1 lots (single family
dwelling area) and !� R-3 lots, (general multiple family units)� generally
located in the 1s00 Block between 73rd aaenue N.E. and Onondaga Street N.Eo
Mr. Donald Leier was present.
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Plarining Commission open
the Public Heaxi.ng on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. �76-09, Deleier
Addition, by Donald M. Leier. Ugon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:1t5 P.M.
Mr. Boardman directed the Commission to turn to page 72 of their agenda and
pointed out the general location of the area. He said there were plans that �
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 19?6 Page 13
�
s'`1� 73� would go through that property and connect up to Onondaga Street. He
explained that this �ras an existing plat from Auditor's Sub, and �hat was �
�being requested was.a replat of that Auditor's Sub. He stated that page 73
showed what was involved, and said at this time Mr. Leier was planning on going
� with single family homes in the R-3. tSr. Boaxdman said that if an apartment
unit was allowed in there as it was according to the zoning, he would suggest
that a stipulation be made allowing no access to 73 a St. He brought to �he
Commission's attention a memo from Tom �olbert dated October 5, 1976 concerning
the watermain, sanitary� and easements in the Deleier Addition.
Mr. Leier said he bought the property not lrnowing of the platting, and found
put Lakeside Road was supposed to extend to the cul-de-sac. He sa_id he had
i.nvested in this and would have to go ahead with it. N1r. Leier said the lots
were not 75� �ride, but 72.25� wide, and it was a tough situation. He added
that this was an area where large homes would not be built, and the square
footage on the smallest lots were 9,970 feet and and the largest was 11,000
square feet.
Chairperson Harris asked if the area designated as R-3 was all one parcel now,
and was told it was. He asked if Mr. Leier proposed to split that into four '
sections, and Mr. Leier replied he did in order to have a�ai.der range of
possibilities for it. Mr. Harris asked hot� large the total R-3 parcel was,
and Rir. Boaxdman saicl it was getting close to 1�0,000 square feet. NIr. Harris
asked how many units that would hold, and P�r. Boardman replied about 16.
Mr. Harris asked if there were any problems with any o�' the lots in the R-1
�� , axea, and Mr. Boaxdman sai.d there were not,
� Mr. Peterson asked if he understood correctly that Staff had no problems with
the petitioner's request with existing codes, other than the stipulation for
the egress onto 73 z• 1�'. Boardman said that was correct, and he didn't have
a big problem with that area goi.ng either R-1 or R-3. He said if it went R-3
he would suggest all traffic be connected_to 73rd. He added it was even
possible for half of that to go to R-1 and half go to R�3. �
Karen Eggert� 7351 Pinetree Lane� N.E., asked if the plan called for 7312 to go
through or if it would stop right there. rlr. Boardman explained the road would
�connect, and suggested that should be a stipulation. He added that he had
contact with the owner of 2180, and his intent over the phone was to go for
a lot split North and South� and he would be coming in to apply for that so:ne
time next week. However� he said, he still felt the stipulation for easement
should be connected to this plat in case he didn't apply for the lot split.
Mr. Sobiech interjected that in order to achieve the integrity of the future
development that was planned there� it was the City's intent to make that
connection� and in order to ma:lce that connection they must maintain that
easement. Chairperson Harris asked if the City would require these people to
acquire the easement� and NIr. Sobiech replied that was their intention. He
explained that to this date they had had the deve�.opers acquire the easements,
and it was not unusual. .
John Eggert� 7351 Pinetree Lane� N.E.� stated he lived on lot �{3, and in talking
� to the neighbors around the area they agreed they would like to see the area go
� R-1.
Pla.nning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 1�
Mr. Leier said it was his intention for the City to do this work and assess
hirn for it. He said he also contacted the ozuner of the apartment adjacent on �
the Eastern side, and that person also owned the property where 7 2 would go
straight East, and he was interested in doing something there, too. r7r. Leier
asked if, for er.ample, the City would ta�.e over the curbs, street, sewer, etc.,
if they would couple that bid with others in the area. Mr. Sobeich replied
that they tried to incorporate street projects with the annual city street
improvements, and would hopefully get the lowest possible bid for construction.
He added that- sanitary sewer and ��ater would be �another bid, but they'.tried
to combine as much as possible to get the lotaest possible price. •
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that �he Planning Corrunission close the
Public Hearing on consideration of a prelir�inary plat, P.Se �76-09, Deleier
Addition, by Donald M. Leier. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 Pv2•7.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if they were approving a replatting into four separate
lots of that R-3 section for the purpose of those parcels eventually being
built on as R-1 property. t•Ir. Board.�an said he was sure � that was what NIr.
Leier�s intention was. �Zrs. Schnabel then asked why they would.not rezone
at the same time they replat, and Mr. Boardman answered because R-1 could be
built on R-3 property.
Mrs. Schnabel stated that the lot size bothered her. She said that she had
some problems going along with repla�ting with lots of that size since they
were trying to be.consistent in the City to maintain 75' widths. Mr. Boardr�an
pointed out that it would be difficult tc do it nr_y differently. Mrs. ^
Schnabel said she didn�t have the magic answer, but felt it would require a
variance at the time it was built upon. �•Ir: Sobiech stated that a variance
��aould not be necessary if the glat vaas aFproved as such.
MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, tha�; the Planning Commission
recommend to Council approval of preliminaxy plat, P.S. #76-09, Deleier
Addition, by Donald M. Leier: Being a replat of Lot 33, Auditor's sub-
division No 129, to allow the development of 3 R-1 lots (single family dwelling
area) and !� R-3 lots, (general multiple family units), generally located in
the 1500 Block between ?3rd Avenue N.E. and Onondaga Street N.E. with the
following understaridings: 1) That street easements to complete 73 2 Street and
its intersection of Lakeside Road will be completed, and 2) That if the R-3
property is actually developed for Multiple family, that access not be off
7 2 Street. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye; the motion carried unanimously.
8. LOT SPLIT RE�UEST: L.S. �76-08 3Y NL�. & r�1RS. KENNETH GASPER: The �urpose
of the lot split request was to split off 5 feet of front footage of Lot
8, Block l, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and make it a part of Lot 9,
Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, but the request now includes other �
properties listed on their deed that has never gone through the lot split
procedure by the City. The complete request is as follows: That part of
Lot 8� Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, described as follo6,rs;
Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills
Second Addition, said point being located 97 feet Southwesterly of the r�
��
Planning Commission Megting - Octaber 6, 1976
�- Northeast corner
� �� Southerly point o
a distance of 75
AND� that part of
follows: Beginni
point being 15 fe
thence Northweste
of 137 feet to a
easterly to a poi
� Hii3s Addition, t
Mr. Kenneth A. Gasper
Mr. Boardman explaine
and said that Mr. Gas
Holiday Hills Second
been approved by the
that the petitioner d
Mr. Gasper explained
property, and he had
look at the geography
more than Zot 8, Bloc
1�OT10N by Peterson, s
to Cou.�cil.approval o
;-�i Gasper: The purpose
front footage of Lot
a part of Lot 9, Bloc
other pr�perties list
procedure by �he City
8, Block 1, Holiday H
a point on the Easter:
said point being loca
said Lot 8, thence So�
of 99.�5 feet to the �
a].ong the West line, ,
of beginning, AND, th�
as follows: Beginnin�
being 15 feet Northea;
Northwesterly along tt
a point on the Wester]
beginning� all to be �
501 Rice Creek Blvd. r
i"�'`l
Page 15
said Lot 8, a distance of 99.65 feet to the most
said Lot 8, thence Northwesterly along the titi'est line,
et, thence Northeasterly to the point �f beginning,
ot S, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition described as
at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, that
Northeast of the most Sostherly corner oi said Lot 8,
,y aiong the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a�distance
int on the 'r7esterly line of said Lot 8, thence South-
of beginning, a,ll to be part of Lot 9, Block 2, holiday
same being 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E.
present.
to the Commission what areas they were de2ling with,
r was requesting a lot split o?' an additional 55`from
dition. He said that since this lot split had never
ty, that should be done at this time also. He stated
have the approval of the property owners on each side,
at his children played on that particular piece of
nted this lot split for some time. He said that to
f the property, it looked like it belonge� to his lot
l.
conded by Bergman, that the Planning Corunission reco:nr,iend
Lot Split Request L.S. .�`76-08, by .I�Tr. & Mrs. Kennetz
f the lot split request tiras to split ofi' S5 feet cf
, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and ma�ce it
2, Holiday riills Addition, but the request not,r includes
d on their deed that has never gone throug?� the lot split
The complete request is as folloi5s: That part of iot
lls second Addition, described as follows: Beginning at
y line of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second �ddition,
ed 97 feet Southwesterly of the Northezst corner of
theasterly along the East line of saa.d Lot 3, a aistance
�ost Southerly point of said Lot 8, ther:ce north�;esterly
distance of 75 feet, t�ence Northeasterly to the point
t part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition described
at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, t�at point
t of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 3., thence
e Southerly line of said Lot 8, a dista�ce of 1�7 feet to
y line of said Lot 8, thence Southeasterly to a point of
art of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, tiie same
.E.
Mrs. Shea stated that for personal reasons she wished to abstai,n. UPON A VOICE
VOTE, Harris, Bergman I,angenfeld, Peterson and Schnabel voting aye; Shea
abstaining, the motio carried.
9.
T SPLIT
apli�c oi"i' the 5ou
subject to 9 foot
L.s. {�76-09.
rly 102 feet
easement
BY BENEDICT NOVAK:
or Lot ju, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77�
71'� Way N.E., to cr�ate a new building site,
�. .—..—�..
Planning Commission Meeting - �ctober 6, 1976 Page 16
the same being 11�5 71 21r7ay N.E. (The address of Mr. Novak's residence will '�•�
have to be changed when a building permit is taken out for construction on f
the new building site).
Mr. Benedict Novak was present� and stated he wan{;ed to take off 92 feet,
not i02.
Mr. Boardman explained that this lot split request was tentatively g^anted
by the City Council when zcs�.dway easement was given up by r;r. Novak to allow
development of 8 lots. He indicated to the Commission �rhere the pro�ert;�
was located on the map on page 82 of the agenda, Mr. Board.-�an said Staf�
would request the lot split be no less than 89' and that 9' of that ;:ould be
required for roadway easement. He said they would also request that the lot
split be no closer than 10� to the present structure. Mr. P�ovak said he had
had his property surveyed, and the lot split would be 8' South of his fence,
and the fence was over 10� from the existing house.
Mr.° Bergman questioned what could be made out of a 9' street easr�ent, and Mr.
Boardman explained they had a present road easenent there no�*, and �r
additional 9' would make it a standard size. I�1r. Sobeich added that :,he
additional 9' would make it 1�2', Z,rhich would be consistent i•:ith the aujacent
property.
Mr. Boaxdman said that the City Council allowed him only one '_ot split, �o
althoi�gh the lot to the South was large enough for another lot split, tne
Council said only one would be allowed. It had also been agreed, he added, ^
that the property would be split by a simple lot split instEad of platting.
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recorunend
to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #76-09, by �enedict Nova:�t:
Split off the Southerly 92 feet of Lot 31�, Auditor's Subdivision No. ?7,
subject to 9 foot road easement 71 2ti�1ay N.E., to create a ne�•r buildin� site,
the sa�ne being llt5 712 �aay N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, t^e Motion
carried unanimously.
Si.nce representativ� of Anoka County were present to discuss East Ri�-er Road,
Chairperson Harris suggested deferring Item l0 until after Item 11 0:� the
agenda.
MOTION by BergMan, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission take
the receiving of the Community Development minutes as Item 11-A. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously.
11. RECEIVE FRIDLEY ENVIROIVItiSF'.�TTAL QUALITY COI�Itii IISSION riI:1TUTES : SEPT�'BEH
21, 197
MOTION by L°angenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Com��nission
receive the Fridley Flzvironmental Quality Commission minutes of Septe:�ber �
21� 1976. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
,� :�..
Planning Commiss3on r7ee�ing - October 6� 1976
Page 17
�� MOTION by Langenfeid, seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive
the East River Road Project Committee report. .
Mr. Sobiech stated that Staff arid representatives from the County were not present
to respond to the minutes, but to perhaps provide additional information to
the Planning Corranission that Might help i,hem wher considering the minutes of
the Environmental �uality Commission.
PZr. Boaxdman stated that the recommendation fror� the Environmental Comraission
was threefold: 1) the approval of the Project Comrnittee report, 2) the �
recommendation of designation by the Fridley Parks and Recreation Co.mmission
for the East River Road as a parkway and establish controls by ordinance as
the Fridley Parkway System for its sccial and environmental signifieance, and
3) the recommendation tnat the Planning Commission and City Council set a
moratorium on project ST 75-3. He added that he thought the main thi.ng at
this meeting for the County would be the moratorium issue.
P�r. Sohiech stated that first of a11, it should be realized that the groject
as it exists now is not something that was just starting, but something that
-the previous Council had already ordered in. He said that back in 1970 and 1971
there were Public Hearings, and the resolution was made ordering the �mprove-
ment of �ast River Road irom I-691� to Mississippi Stre,et. He said that at that
time this was the norma.l. procedure to follow for an assessment t�pe improvement;
so they were not beginning sornet'iing at this stage, but tryi?:� to complete
, previous direction given by Council. NIr. Sobeich stated that at this time
^ there was a remaining section to be compleied. He said that during the Pu.blic
Hearing phase of the original proposal, there were three Public Hea.rings hPld
to receive input frorn ��ie a.rea residEnts. Based on thos� three Puhlic Hea..rings,
he said, there were sor:e real modifications to the original plan, and based
on the input revised plans were prepai•ed and the project improvement was ordered
in.
Mr. Sobiecl� continued that at that initial time there iaas some Federal funding
applied for and approved for that section; but �aith the modiiications that
were suggested and implemented based on the Public Hearings, the Fe�eral people
could not fund the revised project. He said that what developed at that time
was a stage-type construction, and the Federal people indicated they could
paxticipate in a different program for the improvement of East Rieer Road at
Piississippi,Street and a few blocks either wayo He said that was.Federally
funded and that set the stage for the construction stage as it was now. He
added that once the Topics Project was completed' then the City got pressure
from the property.owners to complete the next stage at the Georgetown area.
He said they then proceeded tdith the next stage of the improvement and the
County and the City*Yiad to provide their own funding for the completion that
had been done over the past several months. A1.1 that remained now, he said,
was one remaining �ection about four to six blocks long. He stated that the
City Council and the County stiTl wanted to receive the input from the project
committee, because the�� felt that any input was good.
Mr. Sobiech emphasized that the improvement that had been made and the improve-
�� ments that they intended to make were for safety fac�ors. He said they did
, not intend to increase the traffic lanes; four lanes of traffic were initiated
in 1955 or 1956 and had�been that way ever si.nce. He stated they hoped to
increase safety for the people travelling along East River Road and for the
a
Planning Commission Pleeting - Oct�ber 6, 1976
Page 18
residents to get on to East River Road. He said that with the section that
is proposed, they anticipated four lanes, shoulder sections and turning lanes� �
and their r.►ain objective was to get people on and off the road safely.
Mr. Sob3ech said that this project was pending. Because of the fact that
certain hoMes had been built since the project was initiated and certain
homes had changed hands, there had been a lot of escrow money that had been
aside for this improvement.. He stated that another reason for the completion
of this project was they felt that now with the completion of the Mississippi
underpass there would be a definite traffic pattern establishe.d urhereby a lot
of Fridley residents would use tY!at roadway. Ha explained that a traffic
count taken at the IJorth boundary line was about 10,000 to 12,000 cars per
day, but the count taken closer to I-691t reached 27,000. He s aid they felt
there was a considerable a.motant of use being made by this section of East River
Road by general area residents within the commtznity, so not only were they
trying to emphasize safety, but also allow a means for other area residents
to get through the area safely. He stated he felt the Project Committee should
be commended on all its Vaork, gathering data, and coming up with their plan.
A7r. Paul Ru.x�, County Engineer, and Mr. Bud Redepenning, Assistant County
Engineer introduced theriselves and said that they were at the meeting primarily
to answer �uestions. rir. Ruud stated that there ro�*as a ne�r program of Federal
funding for transportation in the urban area� and all agencies put project
requests into tne hopper and thej* were prioritized. He said that the project
on East River Road they �.�ere talking about did survive that prioritizing. He
added that their preliriinar^f report taas called a project development report9
arid ii. had been submitted to the State Highway Department last iaeek; it �.rould �"�'�
be reviewed by the State Hig'�wa� Department and the Federal Highway Administra-
tion. Mr. Ruud said that based on other projects they felt it would be
approved, and would not need an Fhvironmental Impact�Statement.
Mr. Ruud said that the County had several meetings with A7r. Paripovich, and
�hey did not feel that his request that this be turned into a parkway ar tt�•o-
lane facility was very realistic, although he was sure it would be nice for
the people living a,long the road. He explained it had been used quite extensively
as a four-«ray facility. A7r. Ruud added that there was one facility in Fridley
that is no*�r used as a t�o-lane facility that had heavier use orginally, and
that was Old Central Avenue. He said he thought that Piississippi Street IJorth
of East River Road was a different situation, and they didn't have any plans
to do any specific work on t:zat with the eacceptior. of one improvement of the
intersection of Osborne Road and East River Road.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that it defi.nitely was not the intention of the F.�viron-
mental Quality Commission to embark in a lengthy argume�ti, and he assumed that
everyone on this Conunission had read the preliminary recommendations from the
East River Road Project Committee. He said tYiat at this time he would like to
ask the Chair to recognize the Chairperson of the East River Road Project
Committee� i•iike Paripovich.
Mr. Paripovich stated that he felt the report from the Project Committee went
over the objections and he thought the Committee offered some axgument. He
said that the file ST 75-3 went back si.x or seven years, and the people zaho �
,.�-
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6' 1976
Page 19
" lived in those residential areas understood that the entire issue had been
�� dropped; they hadn't realized this was still an the burner. He said those �
residents �rere very much up in arms abo� this development to discover that
this wasn�t set aside but is a.n on-goi.ng project. He said that this should
- be looked at because these people represented a good portion of the citizens
of Fridley. rqr. Paripovich suggested they also make a good scrutiny of F�U
funds, and said they could use some help from the County on that. He satid
he would like to find out their ground rules and what their funds could be
applied to.
Mr. Paripovich said that as far as the Project Comr�ittee's plan versus the
County plan, there was only one main difference as they interpreted it. He
s aid they praised the County plan as it �rould improve the safety of the road,
and shoulders, medians and more signals were needed. tnrhere they differed from
the County plan, he said, was they were asking for one lane instead of two
going in each direction. Nir. Paripovich had a copy of a report given him by the
City Engineers which showed the traffic projections for 1980 and 1990 projecting
a decline i.n the use of East River Road and a very definite increase in trunk
high�ray 6� with a less pronounced increase in tru nk highd:ay 1c7. :ie stated that
for that portion of the road they were discussing, the projectior.s were only •
9,000 cars a day. T�Ir. Paripovich said that by improving the road and taidening
it at the least 32 feet, which the County's plans called for, i-t would take
a garage and a lot of property. He again reminded the Commission and the
Co�:nty �gineers that they Vaere ,dealing with people wro +hought t::is tirhole
matter was closed. He stated that if this was done, and then the Northtown
�, Corridor and the bridge came al�ng, they would have an obsoleie expanse o� highe:ay
on this side of the river. He said that what they did need was shoulders, a
center median, places for people to walk and the ability for cars to travel
tanencurnbered down the road at a safe speed. �Ie added that they also Taanted
to lower the speeds, but understood that had no connectien with the proposed
expansion of the road. He stated that if the Project Committee�s plan became
a physical reality, triey would have one strictly unencumbered lane. He said
that if they opened those areas up to accommodate more traffic through thaL
underpass across the railroad tracks, they would-be inviting traific to come
over.
.Mr. Paripovich stated that assuming the FAU end of this could be solved, he
wasn�t sure if there would be an impact on the fiscal ar�a of the project; but
it seemed to him that if the road wasn't expanded, and if what was already there
wasn't torn up, it would be a good deal less expensive. Funds had already been
set aside for part of it, he said, and if the FAU went along with this plan •
it would be more economical and better for Fridley, and would have no adverse
affect for the County. -
Chairperson Harris said that he would like to see a layout of the present plan
by the County, and h7r. Redepenning showed a map to the Commission and explained
what had already been done and what th�y were proposing. Mr. paripovich
showed the Commission a map of�the Project Committee�s proposal, and explained
it was just about the same except there was only one lane going in each direction.
He said he would like to change the concept fram a blazing highway to a busy,
n well-defined thoroughfare.
Mr. Ruud said that as an Engineer, there was no way he could recommend Mr.
Paripovich's proposal. He said it would be carelessness on his part, as there
Planning Commission Meetin� - Cctober 6, 1976 Page 20
were standards that they had to follow. Mr. Paripovich said that the only
area they differed on was the safety� because the County thought the Project i''�
Committee's proposal would cause accidents and he thought it would prevent
them. Mr. Redepenning said the Committee's proposal would cause accidents
because tY�ey were trying to. f.unnel four lanes of traffic down to two, and
there would be a bottleneck.
Chairperson Harris asked what trould happen to the amount of traffic on this
road if something could be �done vrith loiaer University Avenue. i�7r. Ruud
said that he was sure that discouraged a lot of people from using 1�7, and the
same was true with 65 going into Central. He added that another thing that
would help would be the bridge across the Northtown Crossing, but there was
a sixty-million dollar price tag on that project, and nobody �rnew when it
would happen. Mr. Harris commented that the reason most people used East River
Road was because it was a straight shot into downtown Ati.nneapolis.
Mr. Bergman said that he was impressed with one part of the project report
in particular, and that was the comparisons oi signalization on East River
Road as compared to University Avenue and Central Avenue. He stated that
the compaxison said they were apparently discouraging traffic on 65 as a
thoroughfare, were discouraging traffic on University Avenue, and had the
least amount of discouragement on East River Road. He said that iahat the
Project Committee was talking about was reducing traffic, and he didn't see
where the County glan addressed that. Chairperson Harris stated that as he
saw it, what they were trying to do was handle this as a County affair, and
he didn't believe that the total traffic picture was totally a County problem.
� �--1
Mr. Redepenning pointed out where there were signals along East River Road �.
as compared to 65. He said that each time that a signal tras installed, though,
there was a configura�.ion where the traf�'ic concentrated at that point. He
stated that from Mississippi Street south, there were as many signals as on
1�7 or 65. He continued that• one of the reasons there was a traffic buildup
was the main focus of the plan for the metro area of the strong doVmtown
Minneapolis and strong do�mtown St. Paul. He stated that people had to get
there, and what they found �n this stretch of road was not unique in Fridley.
He said a ring could be drawn around the Twin.Gities aizd the same thing would
be found on every feeder that was going in. He said there had been a basic
decision made that people had to get downtown.
Mr. Bergman asked what the cost would be to finish that section of the road�
and Mr. Redepenning said it would be about $l�00,000 to $500,000. Mr. Bergman
asked if that included funding from Federal, County and City along with
property assessments, and Mr. Redepenning said that what they meant by the
City's share was the assessments.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the speed limit was the same on East River Road as
it was on 65 and l�7, and was told that the speed limits varied. PIr. Bergman
said he could only see one dramatic difference in the�two plans, and that
was the iiumber of lanes. He asked if it wasn't possible that the project
committee's plan to narrow down and attempt to restrict tlie volume of traffic
�,
�.
�.� � .
Plar�ning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 . Page 21
��J ! on this road would be more a licable after the
pp pressure was rel�.eved by the
Northtown Corridor than at this point in time right prior to additional pressure.
Mr. Paripovich responded that the problem was once the improvements had been
made, they would be such a permanent thing they would be there for a long time.
Chairperson Harris said that statements had been made in the 1971 hearing�
that this was Stage 1. He said a study.had been done from 691t to the creek,
and that was the section that was proposed for improvement; then ,aher. tha�
was completed, it would be continued frorn the creek to the Northtown �orridor.
He commented tha�; he thought this was just Stage 1.
Mr. Langenfeld sai.d he had several comments to make, but would like to preface
them by reminding the gentlernen who were presenL that this was a controversial
problem, axzd would be even more so by Ply�rood �linnesota. He stated t�at �irst
off, the citizens were not a��are of stages as discussed; secondly, it was his
opinion that the inten tion of the Project Committee 1�as to divert the tra'fic
to the major high��rays such as b5 or �.7; and thirdly, as fax as being realistic,
Mike 0'Bannon himself supported �his idea and sta+ed that if thEy �rer� go�ng
to do something like this they had to start right here at ho�e. :•Ir. Langenfeld
suggested a noise and pollution report be abtained, as he thoughi that would
have some bearing on the project. Mr. Ruud said that it was their oginion
at this time that their statement would be accepted �hat their plan t,*as not
adverse. He aaded that there were four lanes of traffic in t.•are n�t�, anc
� they V.�uld just be upgrading ari existing facility �,nd tr-,�ing to ma.�ce it szfer.
�"�,
Chairperson Harris asked hot•r a speed limit was determined, and Nir. Pa,ripovich
said that he had c:�ecked to see what the criteria was for recucir.o a speed
limit. He statEd that the most important point �,ras a radar check was set up
to see what the average speed was, the reason being they wanied the motorists
to show them what they thought the speed limit should be. He added t�at
the number of schools, hospitals, driveways, etc., �aere also taken in�o
consideration. He stated that East River Road had eeery-thing that indicated
the speed should go down� except that people insisted on dri�Ting iast on that
road. rlr. Paripovich said that because of the situation there here t�:o groups;
one said they had to move traffic through toz,m, and the other group said tney
lived there and the County�s plans would be destroying their neig?�bor::ood.
UPUN A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously to receive
the East River Road Project Committee report.
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Schriab2l, that the Planning Corn�-aission
receive bath plans from the Anoka County and the East River r�oad Project
Committee. Upon a voice vote, a11 voti.ng aye, the motion csrried unanimously.
M�TION by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission xe.commend to Co�ncil that
a moratorium be set on ST 75-3. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he z�ould like to indicate�for the record that he
appreciated all the information they had received as the result af the East
,� River Road problem. He said they had heard Staff's comments and �noka
� County�s comments, and he wanted to emphasize the fact that�they had established
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6� 1976 Page 22
these committees to get ci�izen input. He stated that the East River Road
Project Committee was established in accordance with the Commission's ordinance �
and had done a fine job, and he wanted to underscore the fact that what they
had before them as far as the report was concerried was the citizens' concern.
Chairperson Harris said that with regaxd to Plywocd riinnesota, trying to solve
a traffic problem with a billboaxd wasn't his idea of good engineering. Mr.
�obie�h said that the County was in favor of closing one section off, but the
merchants were opposed. P1r. Ruud stated they could close the Northern access
off if they got some encouragement from the City of Fridley to back them in�
that. Mr. Boardman added that until the time the City Council decided they
wanted to close that Plorth entrance, he didn't think the County could do anything.
Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 12:06 P.A1.� and reconvened the meeting
at 12 s30 P.h7. �
Chairperson Harris noted that there ;aere three items they�should address
themselves to under ,'-#11 on the agenda, receiving the Fridley Environmental
Quality Commi.ssion minutes of Sept. 21, 1976:
a.
Recommendation from
be sPt on ST 7-3
Commission to Council that a moratorium
Mr. Harris pointed out that this item had been handled by Pir. Langenfeld�s
motion proposing the nioratorium, which died for lack of a second.
b. Recommendation of designation by the Fridley Parks and Recreation
� Commission for the East River Road as a ��.rl.�ray and establish controls
by ordinance as the Fridley Par1:h*ay S�TsteM for i�s social and
envirorunental si�nificance
c. Recommendation on the East R.iver Road Project Comrnittee Report
r10TI0N by Shea, seconded by Peterson, that thP Planning Commission send items
b and c to the Community Development Commission, Hunan Resources Commission
and Parks and Recreation Commission for their comments. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
rir. Peterson said that at the last Planning Corr�nission meeting he attended
there had been a lengthy discussion concerning procedure of Project Committees
and whether the East River Road Projec-� Committee was operating as a Project
Committee or a citizen's committee, whether it was operating within the frame-
work set up by the ordinance and if it ��as receiving direction from the
Environmental Quality Commission. He added that as a Chairman of a Commission
he was a little concerned as to how this was being handled and if they were�
operating within the frame�rork they zdere supposed to be.
P�r. Langenfeld replied that it was his impression at the time that particular
conversation took place, -there was concern that perhaps this Project Committee
�� �
�
�
,��'�
Planning Commission ?�eeting - October 6, 1976
Page 23
�y "� 'was going�to sky rocket in all different directions and there would be a group
of irate citizens up in arms. He said that he attended several of the meetings
� and found they were very controlled and could find no way the Committee was
operating out of the scope of th� City plans.
P�Ir. Peterson said i;hat the comrient had been made that the East River Road
Project Committee was going to be checking on funding available ar�d this
type of thing, and he was not sure that fell b�i�thin the scope of a Project
Cor�mittee's jurisdiction or if this k*as the proper direction for them to go.
r1r. Langenfeld cornrlented that tie thought they should seek a11 the information•
they could get relating to this particular project. hSr. Peterson asked if
they were speaking for t:�e Planning Comrnission or the Environmental Quality
Commission, and Nir. Paripovich said he would like to answer that. He invited
all i;he Corrrmission members to attend the neetings, and said he would be gTad
to answer any questions they had. A7r. Paripovi,ch said that for this project
they had had to gather information and really research it, and to do that it
was necessary to go t.o County Governrnent, etc. He said that in talking to
the funding people, he would only be asking them far criteria, and wouldn�t
be masquerading as part of the Fridley Staff or anything else. He stated that
in addressing these people had had only said he was part of the Frid�.ey
IIlvironraental Quality Cor.unission �rorking on a subcommittee project to gather
information for this. :ie said he never pretended to be anybody who represented
the City Council or the Planning Commission, and had taken great pains not to
do that.
�-.�, Mr. Bergman asked i� the mer�bership of �he Project Committee was made up entirely
of peogle living along East River Road. P-ir.�.Pari�ovich replied that they h2d
throh*n the committee open to everybody by putting a notice in the Fridlef Sun,
2.nd ?zad invited everybo�y to join the group. He said that the members live .
in the neighborhoods on eithzr side of East River Road� and almost everybody
lived iJest of the railroad tracks. Air. Bergman said he was iaondering if �,his
was true City of Fridley type input or neighborhood input with particular and
home-based interests on that street. Mr. Paripovich replied that of course
there was definite interest there, but they had tried to present all the facts.
Mr. Peterson asked if the East River Rozd Project Committee tiras actually
appointed and approved by the full E�vironmental �uality Comriission, and RZr.
Paripovich replied that the membership had never been approved, but it could be.
I�1r. Peterson explained that in Parks and Recreation they had gone through a
neighborhood recreation project committee type thing, and they were lead to
�elieve by interpretation of the ordinance that the members were to be approved
by the Commission before it started. I�Ir. Boardrhan explained that membership
approval was entirely up to the Commission itself and it could� if they chose
to, c�ntrol or approve Membership. rir. Langenfeld said that when Mr. Paxipovich
took the Chairmanship of the Project Committee he was in sole charge of the
committee. As far as he was concerned� he said, there was no rule or established
way that project committees �rere going to function. He stated that he didn't think
there was a set procedure, and just because one Commission handled it one way
did not mean that all Commission had to follow that.
� 11-A. RECEIVE COrL�NNITY DEVELOPTIENT CONIMISSION AiINUTES: SEPTEP�IBER llt, 1976
�.:��
Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976
Page 21�
MOTION by Ber�man, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the
Community Development Commission minutes of September 11�, 1976. Upon a voice ';-1
vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. _
Mr. Bergman commented that Cornmunity� Development had two Project Committees;
the Sign Committee was nearing �map-up, and they would be reviewing the Bikeway/
Walkway activity program at the next meeting. ,
12. RECEIVE APPr.ALS COP�fISSION I�1IiJUTES: SEPTEI�•?B�t 28, 1976
MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commissic�n receive
the Appeals Commission minutes of September 28, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
rlr. Boardman noted that there had been some confusion regarding rir. Paschke's
requests, and said he would have to give the Appeals Commission the standards
they used regarding this type of variance which were approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
Chairperson iiarris said the thing that bothered him was that !�0% always seemed
to be the governing factor; an d those lots in the Onaway Addition, because of
the peculiarity of the situation, could not aliaays hold !t0%. rir. Boardnian
added that it sras the petitioner's right to have !�0% coverage only if he could
follow all the codes and regulations. ,
. '
13. CONTINUED : REVIE'n� OF PROPOSID 1°1AINTEiVANCE CO�E �
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, to continue the review of the proposed
maintenance co�e until the next Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice
vote� a11 voting aye� the mol:ion carried unanimously.
11�. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION ON GARAGE RE�UIRF,TIENTS FOR SINGZE FAT�?ILY HOI���S
MOTION by Shea, seconded by Peterson, to continue the discussion on garage
requirements for single family homes until the next Planning Commission
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanir�ously.
15. CONTINUID: HUAqAN DEVELOP.��iT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
MOTIOIV by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, to continue the Human Development
Goals and Objectives until the next Planning Commission meeting. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
16. NIATERIAL ON THE YOUTFi CENTER
MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission
receive the Articles of Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center. Upon �
��
Plr�nning Commission Meeting - Octaber 6, 1976
Page 25
�
- a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
,
N10TION by Shea, seconded by I,angenfeld, that the Planning Commission send
the Articles oi Incorporation of the Fridley Youth Center to all me,nber
Commissions for their revieVr and comment. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the raotion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris coTM�aented. that they were not getting much support from
the school districts on this. He said it seemed like tk�e School Board was •
amiable to the proposal, but school staff was not enthralled with it.
17 . RECEIVE PARKS AND RECP�ATION COri��iISSION P�TIIVUTES : SEPTEP•��R 27 1976
MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission receive
the Parks and Recreation Cornmission minutes of September 27, 1976. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNASENT :
MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning
Commission meeting of October 6, 1976 adjourned at 1s06 A.P�I. by unaniMOUs
vote.
'"� _,
Respectfully submitted,
� � .�,
She�ri 0'Donnell
Recording Secretary
��
�