Loading...
PL 02/23/1977 - 6604� �� � , City of Fridley AMENDED AGENDA PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 1977 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: � PA6ES ROIL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: fEBRUARY 9, 1977 7- 15 7, LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #77-01, ABLE WELDING INC.: 16 - 17 Split of t e Sout 5 feet of Lot , Block 1, naway Addition (7860 Main Street N.E.) and add to Lot 8, Block 1, Onaway Addition, (7840 Main Street N.E.) to be used as part of a parking lot. 2. RECEIVE P1EMORANDUM FROM DAVID NEWMAN TO UIRGIL HERRICK 18 - 20 3. RECEIVE LETTER FROM JIM HARRINGTON, COMMISSIONER, MINN- 18 - 20 ESdTA DEPA ENT 0 T NSPORTATI N, DATED FEBRUARY 8, 1977 4. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: AT MEETING � ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES 23-36 Copies of existi�g and proposed Chapter 2l2 and existing and new land alternation/mining permit application. 6. PROPOSED REGIONAL TRAILS POLICY PLAN FROM ME7ROPOLITAN AT MEETING ,.,,��.�„,� 7. 8. 9. 19. REGIONAL SPECIAL USE POLICY PLAN CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINU7ES: FEBRUARY 15, 1977 RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION MINUTES:_ FEBRUARY 3 11. OIHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: AT MEETING 37-41 MAILED BEFORE MEETING City of Fridley � AGENDA PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETIN6 FEBRUARY 23, 1977 CALL TO ORDER: R06L CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMPIISSION MINUTES: PEBRUARY 9, 1917 1. 10T SPLTT REOUEST. L_S_ #77-n1_ AeIF wF�nrNr, rNC,� 2. 3. �. 4. � �.�.v v.• �w �� r•GV4 V� LV4 /� YIV{.p 1� VIIaWQy Addition, (7860 Main Street N.E.� and add it to Block 8; Block 1, Onaway Addition, (7840 Main Street N.E.) to be used as part of a parking lot. 7:30 P.M. PAGES 7 - 15 16 - 17 L HERRICK 18 - 20 [�PI Copies of existing and proposed Chapter 212 and existing and new land alteration/mining permit application. *See Environmental Quality Camnission mi�utes. 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE 6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMTSSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 15, 1977 7. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: 21 - 22 23 - 36 37 - 41 at meeting yyv'� �� ADJOURNMENT: i' �j � � �G� /� - � ' �/" - � �� �� �� � � J/�� � � � �� � � � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 9, 1977 CALL TO ORDE6: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.Hf. PAGE 1 ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Peterson (arrived 8:15), Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: Others Present: Langenfeld Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING C0:�IISSION MINUTFS: JANUA.RY 19, 1977 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission minutes of January 19, 1977 be approved. Mrs. Schnabel noted that on page 11, the third paragraph, there should be a comma after the word "continuing". UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimqusly. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED P�LI?•lINARY PLAT, P.S. //77-�1, ARNAL BY ARNOLD AIVD ALVAN TOi:JS: �eing a reptaL oz tinaL parti oi cne osv 4 �� the NE y of Section 3, lying !�lesterly of the Westerly rignt o£ way line of Burlington Northern, Znc.� lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of the SW 4 of the NE 9 and said Westerly right of way line; thence on an assumed bearing of N. 18°26�10"W, along said Westerly right of way line 293•25 feet to the actual point o£ beginning; thence on a bearing of West 292.20 feet to the Easterly right of xay line of Ashton Avenue, and there terminating� the same being 8101 Ashton Avenue N.E. MOTION by Shea� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on Proposed Preliminary Plat P.S. �77-01, ARNAL ADDITI�N� By Arnold and Alvan Toews. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:Ltl� P.Mr Mr. A1 Toews was present and stated that Arnal Addition did not need all the land they had� but their neighbors� Berkeley Pump Compeny� needed more room and wanted to bqv 1� acres. He explained this had never been recorded Planning Corr¢nission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 2 a§ being private property, so this was what they had to do. Mrs. Schnabel asked if Berkeley Pump had ever attempted to purchase this � property before, and Mr, Toews replied that this was the first time. Nrs. Schnabel said the reason she was questioning this was she Imew Berkeley Pump had a'request £or a variance coming through the Appeals Commission on that same property, and Mr. Toews said he was aware of that. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr, Toews knew i£ it was the intention of Berkeley Pump to put an addition on, and he replied that he didn't think it was their plan to add on. Mr. Toews added he didn't }mow i£ they could add on i£ they wanted to because there was an easement involved, Chairperson Harris said a site plan had been submitted to the City £rom Berkeley Pump dated January 31, 1977, which showed a proposed addition. He noted that it was zoned Industrial. Mrs. Schnabel said that in reference to this, the existing building was on Lots 3, �t and 5, and at one point they had wanted a permit to add on to the West side of that building. She explained they were denied that permit, but were granted a permit to add on to the North side o£ the building. Chai.rperson Harris said it appeared from the plat that Berkeley had taken into account the 10' drainage and utility easement on the Easterly side of the property. He noted the property was an acre and a hal£, so it did con�orm with the zoning requirements. Pirs. Schnabel pointed out this had been rezoned to Ml in 1971t. After some discussion on if the zoning was M1 � or M2, Mr. Bergman said it should go into the minutes that this was being considered an M1 property, Mr. Bergman asked what the variance was for, and Mrs. Schnabel explained it was a setback variance to reduce the building setback £rom lOQ� to 73'. / MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Shea� that the Planning Commission close � the Public Hearing on Propose Preliminary Plat P.S. #77-01, Arnal Addition, by Arnold and Alvan Toews. Upon a voice vote, all voting a}re� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:58. MOTION by Shea� seconded by Hergman, that the Planning Commission recorunend to Council approval o£ Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. J/77-01, Arnal Addition� by Arnold and Alvan Toews: Being a replat of that part of the SW 4 of the NE 4 0£ Section 3, lying Westerly of the Westerly right of way line of Burlington Northern, Inc., lying Easterly of the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue and lying Southerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the intersection oF the South line o£ the SW 9 of the NE 4 and said Westerly right o£ way line; thence on an assumed bearing of N.18°26�10"W� along said Westerly right o£ way line 293.25 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence on a bearing of West 292.20 £eet to the Easterly right of way line of Ashton Avenue, and there terminating, the same being 8101 Ashton Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 3 � 2. PUBLIC HEARING: COA'[h;UNITY DEVEIAP:�fENT BLOCK GRANT PREAPPLICATION MpTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the Community Development Block Grant Preapplication. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at $:02. Mr. Ned Storla was present. Mr. Boardman explained to the Commission that in 196lt the 0£fice of Housing and Urban Development grouped al.l o£ their funding possibilities into one lump sum and called iY a Block Grant, instead of having twelve or thirteen separate grants. Out o£ that Block Grant� he continued� were entitlement cities and discretionary funds; the entitlement cities got an automatic grant out oY those Block Grant monies� and the discretionary i�u�ds were then opted For by all other bodies that want to try to get monies. h's. Boardman said that what they were going through now was the preapplication-- this is an application to HUD to see if they could gei invited to make application for monies, Mr. Boardman informed the Cocrmiission that a public information meeting had been held about a week ago on the preapplication form as to what type of projects were eligible for i�nding and this type or thing. He said that � actual],y there were three categories� but the two that were of main concern were: 1. Acquisition of real property for redevelopment, parks� or any other public purpose permitted by state and local larr. 2, Acquisition.construction or reconstruction of public works such as neighborhood and community centers, streets� strezi lights� wells� water and sewer lines, and pedestrian malls, He said that some of the other eligible activities were code enforcement; demolition, clearance or rehabilitation of buildings; relocation costs; and administrative expenses. Mr. Boardman explained that the application was judged according to a certain 100 point scale process� and the criLeria by which the preapplications were judged were mainly based on low and moderate income housing statistics. Mr. Bergman asked if that meant if a city had enough low and moderate incorne housing they would have a better chance of getting money, and Mr. Boardnan said that was right. Mr. Bosrdman said there were £ive criteria for selection. The first one was based on the extent and percentage of poverty and substandard housing� and a city could get 20 points maximum. He explained that five points would be aj,.arded for each of the following factors: l. F�ctent (number of poverty � persons)� 2. Percentage of poverty persons� 3. Extent (number) of substandard housing units, and l�. Percentage of substandard housing units. r1r. Hoardman said that each city was based on every other community in the Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 19i7 Page � metropoliLan area, and got a certsin number of points on that scale. Mr. Boardman stated that the second areafor criteria was the benefit of the � project to low and moderate income families, with 35 points maximum, The third criteria� he said� was the expansion and conservation of low or moderate income housing stock, with a maximum of 25 points, The fourth was if there was a condition which was a serious threat to health or safety and the project did something to prevent that (10 points maximum),.and the last was that points would be awarded when the funds would be used in combination with funds from other Federal or State sources (10 points ma�cimum). Mr. Boardman said that the activities that had been set up for the pre- application were mainly; 1. The development and enforcement of a Housing Maintenance Code - $21t �000. 2. The development of a Rehabilitation Grant Program -$100,000, 3. The development and operation of a Housing and Maintenance Resource Center and Workshop - $6,000. He stated that there were several stipulations: the grant couldn't be directed toward a city-wide operation, it had to be directed to more of a neighborhood pperation; and any rehabilitation grants or loans had to be done in connection wiEh some city work in the area, such as a street improvement program. He � said the grants could be tied in with a street improvement program i£ the program had been done a year be£ore or scheduled £or a year ahead, f�ir. Boardman statect that in Primary Focus Area II a street improvement project had gone through last year, and in the Hyde Park area (Primazy Focus Area I), a street improvement program was scheduled £or next year, so those two £ocus areas wou2d fit within the criteria of rehabilitation. / Mrs. Shea asked if the compiled statistics weie based on the whole city or just the certain areas that would receive the money. Mr, Boardman said that the criteria was for within the areas. Mr. Bergman wondered how many of the public attended the public meeting held last week� and Mr, Boardman said there were about 11� people, three of which were not connected with government. Mr. Bergman noted that there would be a preapplication made to the State Office of the Federal HUD Department £or $2it�000 £or the development and enforcement of the Housing riaintenance Code. Ae said that the City had alreac�y spent six months or more developing this code� and asked if they were already spending some of that $24,000, hir. Boardman said no, that the monies would be strictly for the enforcement of the Housing Maintenance Code. He said they couldn�t get money to pay for something they had already done. Mr. Bergman asked if there was some history that said proceeding with the development of a Huusing Code at city expense and then requesting funds for � �� � Plan»ing Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 5 � the enforcement of same had a more successful ri.ng to it (stood a better chance of getting the money) than holding off on the development and request- ing financing for both. Mr. Boardman commented that it was hard to say, but he thought they did look more favorably on something that already had money spent on it as they wanted to make sure the project was off the ground. Chairperson Harris said that socnething about this bothered him, and asked Mr. Boardman to go over the Focus Points again. Mr. Boardman explained that Focus Area I was North of Holiday Village between Main Street and University up to 61st (the Hyde Park area)� and Focus Area II was 61st to 53rd between 7th And University. Chairperson Harris asked i£ those were priority one and two, and P�'s. Boardman said that was correct. Mr. Harris said that it seemed to him that this proposal may be contradictory to Focus Area I in its present zoning, hir. Boardman said that only about half of that was zoned Cor,unercial� if that, and at least half was still residential and was zoned as such. Air. Harris said that until they got that situation straightened out one way or another, maybe they ought to delete the C2 area from the Focus Area. Mrs. Schnabel said she disagreed with that, She stated there was residenti� in the C2 that was really going to ruin because those people couldn�t get any kind lf loans to rehabilitate their housing. Chairperson Harris said the problem was they were running contradictory to the zoning codes by doing this. Mrs. Schnabel said i£ the C2 wasn't included in the program £or � rehabilitation� she was afraid that area would get even worse and the surround- ind areas wouldn't i.mprove tneir property, either. Mr. Boardman stated that they were really not going in contradiction to what the zoning ordiY�ance said, He added that upgrading or rehabilitating the property was allowed, but the use could not be expanded. Chairperson Harris said the thing that disturbed him was he felt they would be perpetuating the situation down there i£ they did this. Ae said that i£ they kept promoting rehabilitation and upgrading of the residential area� it never would go to C2. Mr. Bergman commented that it sounded to him like an example xhere a city administration-sponsored rezoning might be a wise move. Chairperson Harris said he discussed that with some Council persons and the consensus o£ opinion was that be£ore the City would initiate a rezoning action there� they would like to see a petition from the af£ected residents and get their feelings. He said it seemed like they were running kind o£ contradictory here; i£ they were going to preserve the integrity of a residential neighborhood it Nould be one thing, but it uas not really a residential neighborhood, rfr. Boardman said it was a residential neighborhood as the existing use was. Mrs. Schnabel asked what the proportion of residential versus coimnercial was in that C2 area� and Mr. Boardman said it was about 80� residential, Mr, Bergman asked how they ever got single family in a C2 zone. Mr. Boardman � explained that it was zoned R3� then in 1968-1969 the residents along there petitioned £or a rezoning to Commercial thinking that they could sell their property for great profits. He added that they had a consultant do a report on that and he recommended against Commercial zoning in there, but the City Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, I977 Page 6 Council at that time did their own study on it and came up with the exact � opposite, and rezoned it Commercial. Mr. Peterson asked how deep the C2 was from slst, and Mr. Boardman replied about a block and a half deep. Mr. Peterson said he traveled that street quite a bit and found it hard to believe that that property would ever be choice residential area. He added he thought there was some justification for leaving 1t Commercial, He said there was quite a bit of traffic and noise in that area, and it was going to continue to be a problem. He further added that it was not an R� area by defi.nition in terms of what they felt people should be living in. Chairperson Harris commented that there was quite a bit o£ Coimnercial in there when he stopped to think about it, and he was uncertain aSout this whole deal. Mr. Peterson stated that in his mind that was not R1 property� and they were just kidding themselves because people were not going to be happy with the noise on University. Chairperson Harris said that maybe what they should be doing is looking at this as some other zoning. Mr. Bergman said it would seem odd to him� if he was HUD� to receive a request to aid housing that was on property that had just recently been rezoned to Commercial. He said he thought something ought to change, although he wasn't sure what. Chairperson Harris said that was what had been bothering him. Mrs, Schnabel sai.d she thought that the City should make up its mind which w�y they wanted to go with this area, and if they didn't want to rezone it back to R3 then it was useless to go through this application. A1r. $oardman � commented that he thought the City had put quite a burden on those people; they had come in to get it rezoned, and the City shouldn't have gone along with them. He said the City should have used its better judgement, based on the consultant�s reports, and not rezoned it Commercial. He stated that the road patterns were poor and not geared toward Commercial property, so if the City manted that to go with Co�ercial properLy they �vJOUld have to take initiative on it through street improvement. p1r. Boardman added that if the City went along with the scheduled street improvement plan in that area with the road pattern that was presently there� it would practically kill any Commercial development in that area. Mrs. Schnabel said that she felt that the residents in the area living in owner-occupied homes had something at stake� and that was their neighborhood was deteriorating and that deterioration was encroaching on those owner- occupied homes. She said that somehow or other those people would like to have that area preserved and upgraded to protect their own property. Chairperson Harris suggested that perhaps they should be looking at a special zoning £or that area. Mr. Boardrian said at present there were three zones there: R2 primarily along blst; R3, which was the balance of property between Main Street and 21-� Street; and Commercial in the inverted °I,° shape bordering University. Mr. Bergman said that one clean approach would be to limit this appZication . to the presently zoned Residential portion of the block, but Mrs. Schnabel Planning Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 7 � disagreed. She said there xere private family dwellings that vere being rented out that were in the Commercially zoned area� and that xas the area that was deteriorating so badly. She asked if they wanted to let it just fall apart with the hope that those people would sell their property commercially, Mr. Peterson cormnented that if the area xas upgraded there would still be problems because of the traf£ic noise, and Chairperson Harris added that if it was upgraded it would just perpetuate the situation. Mr. Bergman said he thought it was a zoning question. He said that i£ the zoning shown on a map was good zoning, then they should face up to it. Chair- person Harris asked whoever said it Was good zoning, and said that maybe what they needed was something like a_planned unit development. Mr. Boaxdman stated that if the City went along with Commercial, the only way Commercial would develop would be with a renewal project. The City would have to purchase the property, bulldoze it down, and put it up for sale with a new road pattern. He said that the units that are along a lot of that Corvnercial property are apartment buildings--buildings on a Commercial property that would have to be torn down in order to rebuild. He continued that the lot situation in the area rtas an old plat type thing, similar to the Onaway area� and the street pattern was poor for Corimercial development. Mrs, Schnabel said that iT the City applied £or a Block Grant and it became ]mown that monies were available for rehabilil-ation, some people would take advar�tage oP it and some would choose not to. She said that there may be � a number of those particular dwellings that were getting in poor condition, and those owners might choose not to apply for a loan on the chance they could still sell the property for a commercial venture. She stated that those residents who did decide to apply would have to be aware of the type of zoning they had and that there was a possibility that there was a chance that commercial property may go in. She said she didn't necessarily think they should eliminate that area From the rehabilitation progr,am� but thought the people living there had to be aware of what their zoning problem was. Mr. Boardman comr.tented that he thought there would be a point in the near future when the City would have to make a commitment in that area either one way or another, He said the Hyde Park issue had been brought up time and time again, and a study had been done a couple of years ago to see how it should be developed. Mr. Boardcian said the City would have to make a decision on it at some point in time� and i£ they were going to go with Corunercial they should start taking a look at redevelopment in the area. He said that if they don't want redevelopment in the area� they caill have to face up to the fact that it will never be Commercial, but would be a real mess. Mr. Bergman said he dic��t believe the City would ever make a cor�mitment. He thought that if anything changes it would be because a commercial developer came along and wanted that property to develop. Mr. Boardman said that the problem with that was it was not good planning and was not good for the City, and they would end up with a mix o£ uses in there that were not necessarily good neighbor uses. Mrs, Shea commented that she thought the City would � have to decide within the next month which way they wanted that area to go. Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 8 Mr. Bergman said he thought the problem was they were ta2king about putting money into R1 and R3 property in a present C2 zone, He said he did feel fairly comfortahle with the thought that as far as the preapplication grant � went� it should not include requesting money to put into residential property in a present and recently rezoned C2 area, Mr. Boardman said he thought they could safely maintain this application mainly because the areas they were applying £or were block rg ouP areas, He said that whether it was Commercial or had no Commercial , it was a hlock group area. He explained that the boundaries for the Primary Focus areas were the boundaries because the data that was available for the areas was based on that boundary area. Mrs, Schnabel said that she disagreed with Mr. Bergman, and felt there was a lot of potential for housing in that area. She said it was not a total commercial area, and felt there were residential iulits (whether they were R1 or R3) within that Focus Area that needed rehabilitation that might be accomplished through a low-interest loan or a grant of some type to get the property upgraded. She said there vrere some homes that were very nice� and those people would like to preserve their neighborhood. Mr. Bergman asked if this grant would give the property owners the opportunity to get a low-interest loan. Mr. Boardman replied no, this would be a direct grant and would cost them nothing if they met the criteria. He said that he doubted very much if the City would want to get involved in the low- ir:terest l.oan businesss but the City would do the screening for the grants. He stated that out of this $130,000 program, money could be used for adminis- � trative costs. Mr. Bergman asked what was expected of this body on this subject, and Chair- person Harris said the Commission should recommend to Council either their concurrence� concurrence with changes or their disapproval. Ae_explained the Council was looking for some recommendation from the Planning Commission� and that recommendation had to be given tonight as the dead�ine was rebruary 18, 1977. Chairperson Harris cited an eacample of a house in a C2 zone that met all of the criteria for a direct grant. He said that if this property owner received a grant of $5,000 and upgraded his house, raising its market value by $5,000, this would be a non-con£orming use in a C-2 zone perpetuated by the City. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that they also had a goal to provide low and moderat,e income housing in the City. Chairperson Harris said that i£ they wanted to perpetuate non-conforming use in a different zone� then maybe that zone was not the correct one. Mr. Boardman explained that a non-conforming use was allowed in a dif£erent zone and was allowed to remain a non-conforming use as long as that use did not expand� although it could be maintained and upgraded. Mr. Harris asked why it should then be a non-conforming use, and Mr. Boardman explained that t:�ey didn't want that non-conforming use to expand or get larger. He explained that if there was a non-con£orming Commercial use in a Residential area� that Commercial would not be allowed to expand with another addition to perpetuate that Commercial, although it would be allowed to continue and could be maintained. � Planning Coimnission Meeting - February 9� 1977 P�e 9 Mrs. Sohnabel cormnented that she was sorry that the people who live in the � area hadn�t gotten a petition together up to this point as that would give the City an idea of how the property owners felt. MOTION try Shea, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the Community Development Block Grant Preapplication. Upon a voice vote� all voti.ng aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:1b P.M. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, with the following considerations: 1) Time available appears to be limited to tonight and recognizing that this body had not had a chance to allow for time to explore alternatives� and 2) Recognizi�g that the zoning and actual use in Focus Area 1 are mixed� the Planning Conunission recorimends to Council that the Co�unity Development Block Grant Preapplication be revised to encompass only the property presently zoned Residential. Chairperson Harris asked if t4r, Bergman would consider adding the following sentence: 7n the event that the sections 2oned C2 would be rezoned to residential, then that also would be included in Focus Area I. Mr. BergMan said he"`agreed with the thought behind that� but wondered if it was germane. He added that one of his considerations was the lack of time. ASr. Boardman said he wished to point out that this was a�re_application, and it would be back again i£ they Here invited to apply £or a Conmunity � Development Block Grant application. He said that Public Hearings would again be held, and added that he felt corifortable with the preapplication as it was laid out. He stated that if they started revising the preapplication he would £eel uncom£ortable selling it to HUD. Chairperson Harris said he thought they would have trouble selling it to HUD with the C2. Mr. Peterson said that he would like to speak in favor of the� motion for two reasons: 1) As a member of the Commission he felt more comfortable by deleting the Commercial section from the preapplication and avoiding spending bad money after good money� and 2) He felt ihey were highlighting what the problem was and were sending it on for other people to wrestle with. Mr. Boardman said he was not sure how Atr. Bergman's motion couZd be written into the preapplication. He said that as far as policy went on en£orcing this� the policy could state that no grant monies would be approved in Commercial areas. As far as the application went, he said, it was based on the information they had broken down by block group, and data by block was not available. Mr. Boardman stated that as far as the policy went in dispersing that money out, they could say they would only give monies in Focus Area I to non-commercial properties, but that did not have to be written in the preapplication. Mr. Bergman said he would like to make several comments. First, he thought if City Adriinistration could successi'ully sell that kind of thing to the City Council� that was fine. Secondly� he said� he thougnt that as citizens � and taxpayers they had some responsibility to apply some conservatism to the _ �� Planning Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 20 expenditure of their own money. He said that if they were going to make use � of the grant he thought they should be a little bit prudent in how they were going to do it. He continued that his best judgement said that if they had to make a decision tonight, they had to deal with the facts they had and the situation as it exists, and he could not in good conscience ask for governmeni money to be spent to perpetuate the situation of Residential property in the Commercial area. He said he did not feel the sureness that this was the right way to go� so therefore his view was "don�t spend the money". Ne said he preferred to leave the motion as it stood, N1r. Boardman stated that as he had said before, he thought it could be handled as a policy matter. He said he pre£erred to leave the preapplication written as it was because the information that was broken,down for the area was broken down for Primary Focus Area I. He said that was done by Block Group, and that area was a Block Group, and the criteria they had to use was based on . that area, Mr, Peterson commented that iC sounded like what had happened was Holy Writ and there was no way to change it. He said he couldn't see why the application couldn't read the same, less that area that is C2. Mr. Boardman said that would then change their data. Chairperson Harris said that he thought if the app2ication was approved as written, those people in C2 could go ahead and get those grants. Mr, $o,ardman pointed out that they would be allowed to set criteria where tYie C2 districts would not be eligible for the grant. Pir. Bergman questioned that, and said that if they applied for a block grant £or upgrading residential � property and outlined the area� and then excluded hal£ the residential property� that eras not setting criteria but changing the plan. UPON A VOICE UOTE, Harris, Bergman and Peterson voting aye; Schnabel and Shea voting nay� the motion carried 3- Z. ' / Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:35 �d reconvened the meeting at 9:50 P.M. 3. RECOA4�NDATION ON EAST RIVER ROAD PROJECT REPORT Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that the parkway suggestion from the East River Road Project Committee had been sent down to Parks and Recreation� Human Resources and Community Development, and they had responded. Fiowever, he said, there was never a Planning Conmission response on that inforraation and now it would be appropriate £or the Planning Commission to give a response on that. He added that the subcommissions' recommendations wer.e included in the agenda. +, Mrs. Schnabel asked if the City Conncil had had already acted on this� and Mr, Boardman replied they had not. He said that the Planning Commission had sent on to Council without recommendation the rnoratorium on East River Road� and the other part of that motion (development of the parkway system) was sent , Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 11 � down to the member commissions for review. He said that each one of the member commissions had made a motion on that, and added that the Council had approved the moratorium. Mr, Bergman said he thought the project was disapproved. He stated that there were two items sent to Community Developnent; one was the question of designating East River Road as a parkway, the other was a review of the East River Road Committee plan as opposed to what exists and the county plan which would leave the two-lane linitation existing. He said they had been sent both questions. Mr. Peterson said that he thought Mr. Bergman was right. He said that in term5 of City Council action, he thought they had already acted on it with plans to finish East River Road. They had received the input, he continued, evaluated the information and had given permission to the county to apply for funds. Chairperson Harris explained that the county had applied� with City permission, to the Federal government (possibly the Department of Transportation) for funds to do the work on that 3/� of a mile. He said that whether the application had been approved� he didn't know� but he suspected that i£ it hadn't been approved the work would not be done. Mr. Bergman said that he agreed that Council had apparently taken action� but it was done without recomriendation fron this body relative to which � plan had the most merit (the two-lane or four-lane). He added that ma�be it was all redundant at this time. Mr. Bergman stated that he felt a bit awkward on this as they had spent some time verbalizing about the way that subcommittee was operating and how they were bypassing process and how they should be going through proper channels (through Fhvirorunental to Planning Commission to City Council). He stated that this Com^iission had-dropped the ball as far as proper route because they hadn't said "ye�" or "nay" as to what they spent all their time on. Mr. Bergman said that a Sair amount of time had also been spent at Comrti.ssion levels on this, and Community Developnent had done a fair aznount of research. lie noted that those minutes had come to the Planning Corimission and it had been suggested that he wait until other Com�nission reports ca*^.e in, and that was the end of it. 'Mr. Bergman stated that in the Comrmmity Development minutes there were some things that were germane. He said that C.D.C. thought this plan was ten years too early at the present time� they thought that until the Horthtown corridor was completed the trend was £or more and more traf£ic to come in on East River Road and that to reduce East River Road now to two lanes was completely out of context, He added that he thought they could all benefit from some mutual understanding of the scene, and his commission £elt the subcommitte's plan was ten years out of focus. Chairperson Harris said that they could take action on this� but because of the time frame he didn�t think it xould be worth a hi12 of beans. Mr, Boardman stated that he thought a recommendation that might come out of � this on these two issues (the recommendation on the parkway system and the East River Road Project Committee report recommendation) could be si.milar to what Community Development came up with in that these two items would be considered under a transportation plan. Chairperson Harris Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 Page 12 coirmiented that was part of the mandatory comprehensive planning process, � and this xouZd work very well into that. Mr. Peterson stated that basically Parks and Recreation agreed with what Community Development had said� and their motion was very similar except that Parks and Recreation had combined both issues in one motion. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that relating to the past studies and discussions concerning the East River Road Project Committee recommenda- tion, which addressed two main controversial points (1. The proposal to reduce a section of East River Road from four lanes to two lanes, and 2. To develop the East River Road area as a parkway), the Planning Commission pass on to Council their thoughts, which are: 1. That the plan to reduce the width of East River Road is in conflict with the present trend of traffic volume. 2. That the possibility oS the proposed changes might be more feasible at the time of the development of the North Corridor. 3. That any further consideration of East River Road traffic patterns be considered in the "Comprehensive Transportation . . Plan". UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 4. OF THE THE Mr, Boardman informed the Commission that the two plans that.had been requested at the last meeting were included in the back oF ihe agenda. Chairperson Harris noted that this had been precipitated by the Pako Photo that went in the Skywood P4a11's parking lot, and there had been some lengthy discussion about the area � block away from the intersection of 53rd and Central where the driveway entrance on private property tied into a street intersection. He said they had asked I9r. Boardman to get a proposal together to remedy that situation, and that was what was before them now. Mr, Boardman stated that they had two proposalsfor street imgrovement of that area, and both were in the neighborhood of about $10,,000 to $12�000. He said that was actual cost of the project improvement, not including conderrmation costs. Mr. Boardman added that he couldn't really foresee any condemnation costs because any such costs would be charged back to the property ovmer through assessment taxes. Mr, Peterson asked how the plan would a£fect the Pako Photo Shop� and Mr, Boardman pointed it out on the plan and said that was where they had wanted to build it in the first place, h1r. Peterson asked which � plan Mr, goardrian would recommend of the two plans that had been submitted, and he replied the first one. Planning Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page 13 � Mrs. Shea asked how much land xould be condeirmed, and Mr. Boardman replied it would be a strip about 200� in length. Mr. Peterson said that when this had been discussed previously, Chairperson Harris had been concerned that the Ground Round not be disturbed. He said he noted on the first plan that the Ground Round parking was leFt pretty much the way it was. Mr. Boardman said that was correct. Mr. Bergman stated that as he understood the plan, a great portion of the money would be spent on what is now private pro�rty, but some of it would be spent on public street dedication, Mr. Boardman said no, that was already part of an urbanization project. Mr. Bergman commented that if he was the property owner� he didn't think he would agree with the plan. Chairperson Harris said that they had been txying to get the property owner to do something for at least twelve years and he hadn't been willing, so this might be an incentive. Chairperson Aarris asked i£ there was any information available on the number of fender-benders in that area� and rfr. Boardman replied that there probably were reports with the police department. N.rs. Shea said she felt there must be quite a few� and nany close calls. DTr. Harris said they should get that information to go with this package if this went to Council. Mrs, Schnabel asked PTrr. Boardman why he pre£erred plan A over B, and he replied that he felt it had better potential For traffic control. Hainly� � he said� because one lane going up witn a direct lane into the Skywood h?all would give more control at the end of the channelization area. tss. Schnabel pointed out where she thought there may be some conftzsion witn plan A, and Mr. Boardman commented that he felt there taould be r�ore traffic confusion going with plan B, and pointed out what he meant on the diagram of B. Chairperson Harris said that he thought from an aesthetic-standpoint, plan A would have sone merit. He noted that there would be �bout 20' with greenery and trees, while plan B wovld be just concrete ribbons and blacktop. Mrs. Schnabel asked if that power pole would be shifted, and p1r. Boardman said it would. She asked if he could foresee any problem with people crossing Central (perhaps coming from Target) and channeling into one lane. Mr. Boardman said there would be two lanes, not one. Mrs. Schnabel noted there was a proposed sidewalk shown, and asked if there was a sidewalk planned within the parking area itsel£. Mr. Boardman replied there was not. He added that according to the bikeway plan� the bikeway would be running straight East through this area and up the hill. Mrs. Schnabel said she was wondering if it wouldn�t be consistent to include a sidewalk within the parking area itself (on the North boulevard). She said that if there were bicyclists going through the parking area, at least it would keep them off the roadway. She noted there was also some pedestrian traffic through there because of the bus. Mr. Boardman stated that if the Metro Transit went along with the proposal, that property that showed a proposed sidewalk � would also be a bus turn-out area. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she still Planning Commission Meeting - February 9� 1977 Page ].11 tended to prefer plan B personal.ly. Mr. Bergman noted that on both plans there was a pravisiorr for a shortcut • right hand turn, and he assumed that the only reason for that was £or the convenience of the Ground Ronnd customers who might be parking on the other side of that barrier. Mr. 9oardman said no� the purpose was to keep traffic from coming out of the Skywood Ma17. area lot into that area. He explained that was a right only in, into the Skywood area. Mr. Peterson stated that he gathered from sone of the comments that the Commission would feel more comfortable with more data to submit with their recommendation. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of the proposed improvement at the intersection of s3rd and Central Avenue N.E, to the next meeting� asking Staff to provide the needed information, Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTEPIAPdCE CODE Mr. Soardman told the Commission that at Dlonday night's City Covncil meeting concern was expressed as to the direction the Planning Commission was going trith the Maintenance Code, and the Council at that time requested a joint meeting with the Planning Gommission for next �dednesday, February 16th. He � stated that the only topic would be the Housing Maintenance Code, and the Council felt that at this time they would like to try to give the Planning Commission some direction as to what they are looking at. He added that the Council did request information on the codes from St. Louis Park� Minneapolis, etc., so they could prepare for this meeting. - Afr, Peterson said he would like to express his confidence in �the Commission's Chairman in that if there was going to be a joint meeting they at leasi get their input into that agenda before they met. Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a concern in that it was taking so long or in the direction the Planning Commission was going� and Chairperson Harris replied both. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Gommission continue the discussion on the proposed Maintenance Code to the next Planning Commission meeting pending the results of the meeting with the City Council members. Mrs. Schnabel said she Would also like to recommend that pir. Harris, as Chairperson of the Planning Commission, have an opportunity to have some input into the agenda for that meeting; and also that the City Council members have a copy of what the Planning Commission was dealing with and what they had done to date, Mr. Boardman stated that the Council had received copies o£ everything the Planning Commission had. Chairperson • Harris asked what input Mrs. Schnabel would like into the agenda. She ,.� Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 1977 PBBe 15 � replied that her feeling was that at least he� as Chair of the Planni.ng Commission, should be apprised of what they were thinking of in terms of the agenda and Nhat their concerns were so }te could elaborate on the agenda if he so desired, or whatever. Mr. Hoardman told the Commission that it sounded like the discussion at the Wednesday meeting would be Council trying to give their thoughts to the Planning Commission as to the direction that they think the Maintenance Code should go. He said that they felt that maybe there is some misunder- standing as to what the Maintenance Code should be trying to accomplish, and they want to shed some light on that. He added that Council wanted to add some direction to the way the Planning Corunission was looking at it. Mrs. 5chnabel stated that in view o£ the fact that it had taken the Planning Commission this long to get through two paragraphs, she didn't find it offensive at all. Mr. Bergman said that concerning the reference to time, at their first meeting on this subject there xas the understanding that the Planning Commission was going to send the code down to the member commissions for study. He said he felt there Was a lack of direction to the member conmtissions and the Planning Comriission was going to establish some guidelines before sending it down to the co;nmissions. He said he didn't lmow i£ that was still the plan, but they hadn't even approached that yet. � Chairperson Harris said he thought they had to have something to send to the member commissions� and right now they didn�t have anything to send to them. That was this Corunission's purpose� he said� to direct them what to look at. Mr. Bergman stated that initially the plan was to send it to the commissions ior development, but he felt the Planning Commission was now developing the thing and Would send it to them for review. / UPC1N A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the moLion carried unanimously. 6. OTHER &USINFSS: Cha3rperson Harris informed the Co�tission there was a Planning Seminar to be held at the Radisspn South on February 22�th and 25th� which would be similar to the one he and rlr. Bergman had attended last year. He said he vould strangly recommend it to anybody on the Commission that would like to go� and informed them the City would pick up the admission fee. He said it was a two-day affair� and very worthwhile. Mrs, Schnabel said that she would like to attend. ADJOURNMENT: ASOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting eye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning � Gommission meeting of February 9, 1q77 adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �d�irri+..c� ��i»tirn�% �' e ri 0'Donnell� ,ecording becre ary '� LUI OI L11 �ti i �i�n� ivi. CITY FRIDLEY � ��, <> K ��A R t 5 E,4 �-�._. r--- AYPLICANT:�I3LE I,�(lELOI�✓q /NC ADDRESS: ) � � D /�j � %Y]1�111� ��II�CEV 3.3 f�„ TELEPHONE �� �7/ �a-� 3c"� Home Business �or�mr owrrgt(s )���i— /t� �{' ', � �- ADDRESS(ES � !�? f{�%�,- . , � _ U �� y^ ,�l„ a ,�i., I,� 66 �., << ty Zip f�� 613 0� t'� Idame Lot Split 2�1 • a i Date Filed: Fee:B.�.�Heceipt {( �Fi3 Council Action:Da�e RFMARKS: Street City Zip Code TEI,EPHONE �( S)� ' 3- H�r � I Anma . B113].Y1233 . . Properi:y Location on Street or bcact Street Address (IF ANY) �7 �i (� � %�� �l ° !•� Legal Description of Property: 50 5� O F Co-i 7�x �n I O,� aw t� �? Reason for Lat Split: . �...�l.Cf�[� ��--��r Area 1-y sq. ft. ' Present Zonino Classii"ic�.tion?�- The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations siated in this applica are"-'ti��e� correct. � ��--� ]]ATE: 2- 2 - 7'1 $Ei,OW FOR CI'PY LTSE ONLY BY ST.�1rF DdTE 2-'f �• // . �teWarkB �� side for additional instructions PLATINING COt�ASISSION: Date of Consideration - � RemarkP: CITY COUNCIL: Dute of Consideration - Remarks: � - �7 ;ii ;��; ' � �. ='+I I �! 1 uo` '. ! � ' i � /%eso/ � .<.r� � ~`� � - � 1 ��;:' : � 24 � � � r-e, .�.r,4'.�/<,� s ! �� � , I �'�• " � �+ii � L.S. �i77-Ol ABLE iIELDING, $ ', ,� .I �Q �Q �� a � nz 1 l H � ��1:=' � � -Jy - -- ? � 1i�� 1 i p � � --- `'• � r\ --L� �J �..._� _— � � �' rJ3U lJ ' °o :�_ _ — � � _ � 1 �'I .�� �,�'i. � .4 .�� �AA x...-..`.r..�.:e: • s�- _ .. e ir�.r A 3G - a . . .�..r . . -;�j .. / i � i/f.f ; . NO.f' ,F.�. � piJyO� !'. .� h oC �.g�1 —1V i ' :tp. .� 2SJ ! � LO � /C ; � I '�..:..�107�1IC'f � / ' r, '��% P 'i 2 4� . s �C P39.3 ' F. � /7 i v` Z c�� �+1�'71_ ° r � �: l�� � . � 3'� ' W ,� ; �- :;> r.3 Z t:! i3- '- iv.: „� �Ra :i .a 3 ' � ' �8 3 �_ 41 _fi7� _ 4 . � :��, 4 4� =is� �i�' � . /� : 4 � ' � � /9 �" . ZG S. ` 'v7 � . �� oe.a `t � �- }- � zc S ` N ' — � i. �� �e� s < N 2C S � N` �-- 6 ;� f • 6 .� a.. 6 � ' Z/ 6__ z' —7 :7 y< 7 `1 �^ `�,� 7 < P2 �. 7 22 `� ' ; �} = & ti . \\ 1�.�8 23 •. 8 h. 13 9 r z4 •: ,. �$ \� � z.a 9 ` • '�j Z s �!o . \, �' ;:' � o v )- . 23 /p . r,+ , �� S , /O 4ti� "i ,: // \� � . �u. � fY : 1G 1! : , � 2` . � // � 2 �" /2 N Y\�� v O �� z y� : /2 ,' ' p � ' � ; �G • Z 7 �Z c � oij ; '� , : o .�s.a V 28 /3`'�0 = 2B-, : : ,(3 F � �E � !l0 : . ., , pg : ��/�t : `�, v � ' Z9 , : / -... `� 39`, ° +� f; f5s v° EC a° �a.r tl �i �>o.s v°_ ?G . a O a isr � 60 v ii..�`+ ,, �c O Q 4i,. Lo F U�.J '�c !� e� � � b 78TN � ALJ�NUE .�e�' s S�.L. iii.s �,��:; »es n 30 � � `V �Je.r ' a ss n� .. �(-. iJ>.r e 6G � / `�tl�� � >. � /' � `e /9!'.i � � SG q / p %G J� J ,.� �a � P D �b 4 i .3 w �—�Rf �?"1-� . a;:�� � y � .-f3:a-= f„ �: , /7 � _ _ _—_ 4 Ci t Q �e z �; w � �qi ; ';_ , � ;aAe„'�'� � o iS� 3 � �.1:• -� 1�7-._ _' /9 ' � ' . —j� � � ' _ Y9� � — u g . �, \r.`'z _ S : 10 � ° .S � 1 w : �3, 5 �. (� ` �':= . �. = ` zG-fj�- , � ' 6 . 1 l 6 � -7 � _.l ,° : �r m. 6 m h}- � ZZ ,:� : , - ,� r: _� 7 � . � Q' res` '� �- _ �d R - 7 '� i 8—qt �.��� �;o..t;� � „ 7 , E � � ° ,?�`3' . _'l��a- : �s��: 9, . . . x .s.�. . 9 !tJ ' . � • r " 7e. s ' ' ` �; j � f �/•� • /O o ��.-�' i ZJ� a �� °� � .. • � _ . � -�� O r % V [i.l j � �� ; // ; � a 2b ���i /\/! � :. /�Ar3 � � /3 1 }_m S /ie.5 �."��� d � /JO w ��in .5.., 'r .,. . .1' - J . i I ...I.. ' I YIiS , V � .. . � � q� � ....:�� ��':�` '7313< 3343 "-a� 'i P773d,3P�?:3. -534�37 . 1 –; 1 3 /3��6 � n � � � � � � ( � j0 . `' Eo 'I�at �9i j S 6° .,,�„ • so . " ' ^� �. .. .. u:_. ::..'. .. {. . _ - :•�iiwV _ _ "' • . � Z H_.�.---= - ' " S. £. CORNE� " . • , SEC.3 � .r . � .: . . . ' . � . _ � � � - . . e...r-cr-� . � . s...,-...,. . R,,r,T.I-7 . . . ��. � � Rer !•G-if � , � ', � � A�ie /•1a.e1 � •S.• 9.1.�t/ � � .4i �r.��u Rtr�1�s0 an<JJ:.r , ... 1 ' �y.� e. � 09 �i, t: �� r . s -o /!:-r '/-//-Fy Ah' �vao? .irvl-�'�F � .. - . . � �,, r.o-.v �PNr J'JU�eZ ,p �YA. / . . � t . . R.v'/-6�'�. lrr Y-"� �:/ � _ � . . � I . . . ....... . � . .. . ._..- 1 , � � � T0: Virgil C. Aerxick FROM: David Newman r�r9oxnr�nurt DATE: January 12, 1977 RE: City of Fridley Planning Comr�ission TSSITE: Economic feasibility - does this mean econom3c hardship? Merriam Park Community, Inc, v. McDonough. Generally I would conclude yes. However, I. do not believe that economic hardship would apply where the economic hardship is the property owner himself. A destitute property owner does not constitute economic feasibility. : The facts in the Merriam case should shed some light on this subject. In [his case, the defendant owned a piece of property on which he desired to build a 30-unit apartment. The zoning on this particular piece of property testricted construction to 10-unit apartments. The city granted the variance 8nd upon appeal, the court looked to the neighborhood. They determined that tt�e.current structure was in such disrepair that to repair it and bring it 3ntu compliance with the code would cost more than the structure would be worth. Further, they determined that the revenue generated from a 10-unit apartment would be insufficient to support the construction costs and that the proposed structure would benefit the neighborhood. This is what the court meant by economic feasibility. TSSUE: Can devaluation of adjoining property be considered in denying a variance request? / ,- / . Yes. §205.182(2) of the city code states that: "in recommending a variance, Che board, and the council on approval, may impose conditions to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties". This clearly gives authority to the city Co consider adjacer�t property. This is supported by PISA §462.357 subd. 6(2) wliich gives the city authority to grant the variance only "when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and inCent of Che ordinance". This implies that the city must consider the overall picture when granting a variance for a particular piece of property. Finally, aa adjacent property owner, whose property values are adversely affected by a variance, has standing to legally challenge the variance, 8A PIcQL'ILLI�, PNNICIPAL CQRPORATIONS §25.292. Therefore, since the city must consider adjacent property when granting a variance and since an adverse effecC in property values gives an adjacent property owner the riglit to challenge a variance, the city can and should consider the devaluation of adjoining property when considering a variance request. ■-.�- ! /� �Z_ � J ISSUE: What authority does the city have to issue a moratorium? The leading case on this topic appears to be Almquist v. Town of Marshan, ---Mn---, 245t3Sd2d 819 �1976). In this case, the respondent attempted to reccive a sQecial use permit for the residential developmeat of some agricultural property that he owned. Although the court acknowledges some con#usion as to when the application for the special use permit was actually made, it appears that when tl�e application was made, the town declared a six-month moratorium on new construcxion. The court ruled that under current law, municipalities have author- ity to adopt moratorium zoning ordinances of a Limited ducation, provided they are enacted in good faith and withoui discrimination. This was reason- able even though the respondent had made application for development as a permissible use under existing zoning ordinances. The court applied a further condition that when a municipality enacts in good faith, and without. discrimination, a moratorium of a limited duration, on development, it is valid if upon enactment, a planning study proceeds promptly and appropriate zoning ordinances are expeditiously adopted when the study is complete. As an indication of what consCitutes good faith, Che court in this case looked to the facts that the town board of a relatively small community was confronted with four developers proposing plans which woold have a profound e€fPCt on economic, esthetic and engineering problems for many years to come. They also stated that an equally persuasive reason for permitting moratoriums � is to prevent nonconforming uses which might destroy the comprehensive zoning plan ultimately adopted, as well as to derive the benefits of permitting a democratic discussion and participation by citizens and developers in drafting long-range land use plans. ISSUE: What time period does [he city have in which to issue or deny a special use permit? �/ The city code supplies the following procedure: - The planning commission must hold a puhlic hearing on the applica- ' tion for a special use permit within 60 days. The commission must then report its findings to the council indicating its approval or denial.�b205.194. - Upon receiving the recommendations of the planning commission, the council must take action within 60 days and may affirm or deny the application. s�205.195 The code does not specify within what period the commission must make its recommendaCions. Nowever, I believe that if the coimoission fails to make recommendations within a reasonable time, the city may be snbject to a lawsuit. The applicant could proceed along the lines of a constructive moratorium. If the city cannot show the conditions previously discussed, they could be compelied to issue a recommendation. • If the commission delays in making recommendations, Che applicant will more likely go to court sceking issuance of ihe special use permit. 0 20 -�- . .. ..�.� r r . . � . .. - The applicant will probably succeed. The appiicant would argue that the failure to make recommendations is fn effect a denial. There is substantial case law which requires a city to issue a special use permit when the requested use is compatible with the basic use authorized within the zoned area and when there is no showing that granting the special use permit would adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare of the commiun- ity. Fairbanks v. City of Blaine, ---Mn---, 242 NW2d 99 (1976), Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Ptn 192, lb7 NW2d 45 (1969). ISSUE: What consCitutes moving a request from the commission to the council? �205.194 states that the co�ission must report its findings to the council indicating its recommendation as to approval or disapproval. §201.03 states that the commission must make its recommendations to the council through the city manager, These two elements constitute moving a request. ISSUE: What alternative procedures does the city have? Of course, there exist variances or special use permits. However, these are not alternatives. Unlike a special use permit which permits property, within the discretion of the city council, to be used in a manner expressly authorized by the ordinance, a variance provision permits parCicular property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance by varying the terms of the ordiRance. There also exists the possibility of a condi[ional use permit. �205.19k gives the city the authority to place condi[ions upon a special use permit. �5205.196 further provides that such a: "use permit may also be subject [o conditions in ordef to protect Che public healtl�, safety, convenience and weifare, or to avoid traffic congestion, or hazard, or other dangers, or to promote conformity of a proposed�use with the character of the adjoining property and uses, and the district as a whole, or to protect such character". • Generally a conditional use permit expires after a set period of time, altheugh it may be renewed by the city. Another option for the city is rezoning which contemplates a change in existing zoning rules and regulations witliin a zoned district. The procedure for doing this is spelled out thoioughly in Doug's memo. In spite of this variety of alternatives, if Naegle has complied with the requiremenCs of a special use permit, then the ci[y must grant it unless ttie city can show that the granting of the permit would adversely affect the public }�ealth, safety, or general welfare of the community. Thus, this discussion of alternative procedures available to the city becomes moot. s DN:JLH � \ t�'NN�r4 � ., � �r �'� a ���5� � � O(tlu oi Commissioner February 8, 1977 Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Fellow Minnesotan: We need your help. 21 612-2953000 The law which created the Minnesota Department of Transportation requires that our depaztment prepare a comprehensive transporta- tion plan by July, 1978. We agree that Minnesota needs a plan to guide transportation decisions and that this plan must respond to the needs and interests of all Minnesotans. 7'his is where we need help from concerned organizations like yours. We need to know what you and the people you represent think the principal transportation issues are. Your response could cover a].most anything--from repairing roads, relieving traffic congestion or alleviating restrictions to im- proving railroad service, or building more airports. You could tell us to build more roads and bridges, or to stop; to emphasize rail or truck or water transport; or, to establish more bikeways or promote improved public transit. You might have sugqestions on energy convervation, regulatory matters, environmental issues 'or use of pipelines; or electronic cominunications to decrease transportation needs. Finally, you might wish to comment on the most appropriate role of state government in any or all trans- portation issues. We have developed a three-phased approach to involve you in the development of the plan. Currently, we are in the first phase o£ our transportation plan. We call it the "issues identification" phase. We need to hear from as many people as possible, telling us what they think the issues are and what a transportation plan should include. In Phase II, we will be looking at alternative approaches to addressing issues identified in Phase I. How do we balance all the competing issues? Here we will need your help again--to review our evaluaCion of the issues and tell us which issues are more important and which are less important. In Phase II we may be asking citizens and groups with widely different viewpoints to meet together so that trade offs between issues can be identified. An fipuet Opporhmlfr Emp7oYer � � i 22 February 8, 1977 Paqe 2 In Phase III we will be formalizing a draft plan. Based on the alternatives discussed in Phase II, we will be looking for your inpnt one more time to help us decide which alternative to recommend. Trta are calling this entire pr-ocess MnJDOT/P7�AN. The emphasis will be on public involvement and pazticipation. To make this participation process work, I repeat, we need your help. Please do the followinq three things to insure the most effective participation in Mn/DOT/PLAN. l. At your next meeting discuss the transportation issues you think aze the most important and send your list to us by liay 8, and/or plan to attend one of our March or April regional public meetings to present youz views in pezson. 2. At the same time, designate and identify to us someone who will be your MnfDOT/PLAN liaison. That person will receive regular mailings on tiie progress of the plan, upcoming meetings, etc. 3. Be convinced that we want your input and that it will help us. Yon are the only one who can assure that the plan reflects your interests. Any questions? Send them or any other correspondence to Mn/DOT/ YLAN, State Transportation Building, St. Paul, Mn 55155 - or call Mn/DOT/PLAN at (612) 296-3152. _ / ,- i9e l�ok forward to working with you on the development of Mn/DOT/ PLAN, our State's Transportation Plan.. Harrington FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONAIISSION MEETING ' FEBRUARY 15, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sames Langenfeld, Bruce Peterson, Brother Thomas Sullivan, Lee Ann Sporre, Mike Paripovich MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Leek, Planning Aide Dan Huff, CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Langenfeld called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. DECEMBER 21. 1976. FRIDLEY ENVIRObAfENTAL COMhfISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Brother Sullivan, to approve the December 21, 1976, Fridiey Environmental Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: Dr. Huff had been invited to attend the Commission meeting in a motion made on page 5 of the November 16,1976, minutes that"Dr. Huff be invited to appear before this Commission at their next meeting to clarify these areas and explain the Nature Interpretive program and be given a copy of the budget conceming the Nature Inter- pretive program," � 1�Js. Sporre stated she had been asked to serve on a park program project cou�ittee under 011ie Erickson. In the discussions, the question of environmental education came up. The project committee wanted to come to grips"with that so she had asked this Commission to give some input to the Planning Commission about the role the city should be playing in environmental programming. At that time, the discussion was whether the progra�ning should be left under the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation, the Natural Resources Coordinator solely, or under Parks & Recreation. She said there had been a lot of cross discussion. Dr. Huff stated he has been involved in nature education and beyond that he has not seen fit to get into a more extensive [ype of environmental education program. He doesn't think the City is ready for this and the business of providing education as such, especially at this point in time. He has other duties as Resource Coordinator that involve city and county projects and quite a variety of bther things. The level of programming that he has been carrying out has been basically the developing of two areas--the Innsbruck Park Area and the West Moore Lake Dunes. He has been dedicated FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1977 PAGE 2 to doing the physical developments on these two sites and the resources used have basically been C�TA personnel--two full time professional people and a larger number of temporary seasonal laborers. They had twelve SEDA people in 1975 and eleven in 1476. This summer with new arrangements with Springbrook Nature Center, they will probably be spending all the building season using SEDA staff to develop the Spring- brook Nature Center. Basically, they have accomplished two things: (1) they have finished the Wesh Moore Lake Dunes and Innsbruck Park Area as far as the development part; (2) they have got'City Council to agree to use SEDA staff available to them for this type of work even though the Foundation has the clear-cut responsibility to develop the park. The City has been trying to help the Foundation and are willing tb help as much as possible within the ramifications of the agreement. So, it did not preclude the City to be able to marshall county forces,which are what the SEDA people are actually paid for by federal funds administered through the county to help the Springbrook Nature Center get ofE the ground. There will be no tax dollars involved. It was advantageous to use federal funds to help develop something in Fridley. The City Council has agreed that Dr. Huff can be involved in this development and the Springbrook Nature Center wi11 reimburse the City for all of his time. Records will be kept of the SEDA staff time,and the amount of money paid them and their salaries through this program can be counted as matching funds against state funding which haye been awarded for this development. The City received a grant of $27,000 last suumier which was half of a 50/50 matching grant. The other $27,000 may be in-kind contribu- tions and volunteer labor as well as cash. This suum�er, Dr. Huff stated they wi11 be basically developing North Park. As fir as educational programming, Dr. Auff said since he has been here for 2 1/2 yea, he has provided a service whereby groups can call him and request tours of any of the nature areas or North Park. Either himself or the naturalist who worked with him will meet these groups and give them guided tours. Basically, these tours are general informa.tion-type tours, although they have had several specific-type tours when an environmental lesson has been taught. Basically, their commitment has not been to develop a tremendous amount of environmental curriculum resource material. He said, of course, the goal of the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation was event�ally to build a fu11-fledged nature center operation at North Park. He also mentioned that there have been many other groups who have helped out with the nature areas, particularly the Jaycees. Mr. Langenfeld asked Dr. Huff how the City had informed the city residents of all the parks and nature areas that they can visit and participate in the nature studies. Dr. Huff stated they have used practically a11 the methods available. They have advertised in the City Newsletter; in all the Parks & Recreation brochures, they have listed aIl nature interpretive programs along with the recreation programs; the city calendar has listed on one of the months the nature operation and what was available; and the Fridley Sun in which a lot of pictures have appeared. For the last two years, he has had workshops in the Fridley school districts for interested science teachers describing the areas and the operation and programs provided, where the North Park Development was, what stage it was in, the future plans, etc. Alsa, groups who have had the tours spread the knowledge by word of mouth to other groups. �gain, he said the participation has been rather limited because they do not provide a large yaxiety of programming. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 15 1977 PAGE 3 Ms. Sporre stated that a problem she had in her mind was that most programs have some way of evaluating their effectiveness or at least a goal you are trying to .reach.' She felt that right now they are having a hard time evaluating this program. She knew the teachers were interested and the Scouts were interested, but what she was trying to get at was the environmental awareness in the co�unity. Environmental awareness was one of the goals of this Commission and they are supposed to promote that. It was hard for the Commission to know how much progress was taking place and to judge if Fridley was doing as well as it cauld. , Dr. Huff stated there was a loC more to environmenCal awareness than nature education, and that was basically the only thing he has been into. As far as the overall, entire realm of environmental quality, he was only a small part of it. Mr. Langenfeld stated that one of the points the Covmiission was after and that he would like to see was to give each of these parks and any other form of park the.same recognition by the public as an available source of recreation or nature interpretive studies as has been given soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. He said he had made a state- ment some time back where he felt that even some members of the commissions did not know these various areas exist; for example, the &urlington Northern Park. What he was leading to was something like the Woodlake Nature Center-type of brochure, referring not only to Springbrook, but any of the parks--one comprehensive-type of availability nature study for Fridley. Dr. Huif stated that the Comprehensive Park Plan will list all the natural resource areas and what was available. Mr. Langenfeld stated that was fine, but the public does not see this, He was referring to something that would reach the hands of the public. Dr. Huff stated that he really believed that the majority of the people concerned about natural areas and natural parks facilities did know very distrinctly about these parks; including the nature center being developed. He said the question was whether the Commission wanted to overkill the whole problem and try to convert those other people who are really interested in other things. He was not so sure the Commission wanted to overdo it. Mr. Langenfeld stated the Commission's main concern was just to make the information known to the public and create awareness. Ms. Sporre stated she felt the Commission was Calking about something broader than a recreation program. They are talking about maybe social attitudes, trying to get at the attitudes of the general public to include environmental concerns. They are trying to get at the public's attitudes in more than just what the public did with their leisure time. She felt that was a parC, but what the Commission was trying to decide was whether they shouid be ge[ting at the attitudes through the leisure time through the nature programs. That may not be the way and maybe there should be an entirely different approach. ��� FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAI, COMMLSSION MEETING FEBRUARY 25 1977 PAGE 4 Dr. Huff stated he thought leisure time was a big part of it, but you cannot force people. He said they have done quite a bit of advertising; and unless they get into ' something like RichEield where they offer programs a11 the time, he felt they were pretty limited as to what they could do. The natuYe center at North Park was a thing to look forward to, not just with nature education, but with all sorts of environmental education. If they can start there with a big resource, they could draw the people in, Mr. Leek stated they will have the nature center and the other natural history areas in the city in the Comprehensive Parks Plan. In addition, the Parks & Open Space Plan might have a subtle long range impact on the type of participation they get. What he was talking about primarily was that in the Parks & Open Space Plan they wi11 be talking about development of corridors of open space through or by some of the natural history areas. It seemed to him from his experience in riding the trails in Minneapolis, the existence of thaC kind of network would generate some kind of interest. At this point, they may have hit the point of dimishing returns as far as advertising, but need to loak at the tong range for moiding people's attitudes. Ms. Sporre stated it was so easy to sit back and say they are doing a good job, but what the Co�ission was trying to say was whether there was a better way that this Co�ission could get into the fieid of environmental education. The Commission has an objective that spelled out environmental education, Brother Sullivan stated he felt there was a difference between direct and indirert education. He was not sure if he saw the Co�ission's responsibility of dealing with direct :^ducation as much as indirectly seeing that the environmental education was there through acquiring the programs, £inding out what was available, offering suppor� whenever the Commission could or when they thought something should be pushed. He saw that as more the Commission's purpose than in directly educating. Dr. Huff stated he agreed with Brother Sullivan. If the Commission had some ideas, Chey could direct them to something like Community Education which was an excellent source as there was money available and the facilities are there. They could also get individuals together who would be interested in forming a commitkee to develop certain things, etc. Mr. Leek stated that one other outlet would be letting the city staff know what the Commissfon's concerns were regarding open space and environmental education. He was writing the comprehensive plan right now cahich addressed that. Also, one of his tasks right now was to go back over the goals and objectives of the Planning Commission, Frid2ey Environmental Canmission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Community Develop- ment Commission to see how they addressed questions on recreation progravmiing to open space preservation and to natural history areas, and try to incorporate these into Parks & Open Space. But, he said, it might behoove this Co�ission to also give their concerns. Ae suggested that when the Parks & Open Space P1an comes to the Planning Cammission and then [o this Commission, the Co�ission woutd then have a chance to speak what they want to that plan and make sure some form of implementation of the goals and objectives they have talked about are included. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONAff SSION MEETING FEBRIIARY 15, 1477 PAGE 5 MOTION by Brother Sullivan, seconded by gruce Peterson, that the Fridley Environmental Coamiission's Goals and Objectives be put on khe March meeting agenda for review and discussion. ppon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Sporre stated that out of the park project coomittee came a statement which concerned her about coordinating the use of the naturalist's program budget. That was why she wanted the feelings of the Commission. Dr. Huff stated that his department was separate from Parks & Recreation and his budget was directly under the City Manager. Mr. Paripovich stated that he has read a few of the Parks � Recreation Commission minutes and he felt the Commission does not act like a parks and recreation commission. They seem more like a physical education commission. He stated this was a real concern on his part. He was concerned that these people who are supposedly protecting our parks program and representing our interest are so biased toward physical education. It would seem to him that it would be a good idea to split the co�ission in half--a parks and recreaCion portion and a physical education portion. He realized, of course, [hat there was a real need for the physical education portion, MOORE LAKE: Mr. Langenfeld stated that this item had 6een carried over from the last agenda of the January meeting which had been cancelled. pt this time, it was in the hands of the city who has hired a consultant, Hickok & Associates, to do the study on the lake, rIe asked the Commission members if they had any comments on what they thought should he done with the lake. MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Brother Sullivan, that this Commission wanted to review the consultant's report before any actionc,as taken by the City Council. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED: LAND ALTERATION ORDINANCE: Mr. Langenfeld stated that it was his opinion that this ordinance was now in line with what the Commission had been after. Mr. Leek stated he had again gone through the mining ordinance to determine what stipu- lations of the ordinance were not covered by our application and tried to cover those stipulations and make it emphatic that the terms of the ordinance must be met before any permit was granted. He stated that the Engineering Deparement will be taking these applications; but it was his intention, if this ordinance was passed and the applica- [ion adopted along with it, to monitor the application procedure. He stated he has not yet determined the fee increase, but that the cost of the application will only be based on administrative time. There wi11 be a cost in the permit sufficient to cover any administraCive time used in Che evaluation. The burden of the cost of reviecazng the application wi11 be on the developer. He stated he was making a careful effort to inventory this process and it will have to be monitored to make sure the fee does cover all administrative time, He said he has discussed this with the 'ngineering Department and has told them of this ineent, FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1977 PAGE 6 MOTION by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Brother Sullivan, that this Commission has recownended to Planning Commission that the 212 Mining Ordinance and the Application for Land Alteration/Mining Permit as they now read be adopted by the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motiou carried unanimously. grother Sullivan expressed the Commission's thanks to Mr. Leek for all the work he has done on this. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like the Commission members to bring the ordinance and application with them for the next couple of ineetings in case of any future discussion. Mr. Leek stated that the Commission should also keep in mind that the appLication procedure for this ordinance should be reviewed possibly on a yearly basis to make sure that the burden of the cost for that evaluation of development was on the developer. Costs go up yearly, and if the fee remains the same for a long period of time, it outlives its usefulness. The fee schedule should be adjusted accordingly. MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by grother Sullivan, that the Commission has recommended that the application procedure for the 212 Mining Ordinance be reviewed on a yearly basis to make sure that the burden of the cost for the evaluation of a development was on the developer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. EAST RIVER ROAD PROJECT COMMITTEE REPORT: Mr. Langenfeld stated he had not attended the last Planning Commission meeting, but at that meeting was a compiled summary from various commissions regarding the East River Road Parkway. They did not come to any unique position as such, but all the inEormation on East giver Road will be placed into a Comprehensive Transporation P1an which was part of a mandatory Metropolitan Land Development Act, on a Zong term basis. Mr, paripovich stated that the East River Road Project Committee met shortly after the Commission's December meeting and since then they have not done anything. He stated he has been in touch with the State, but they are having difficulty getting a speed limit study taicen because the County sat on the thing for such a long time, and now was a bad time of year to do the study. They are a littLe bit disappointed that the City of Fridley does not appear to be doing anything to expedite getting that function performed by that end of the job that was done by Anoka County. We kind ot left it in theix hands and nothing has 6een happening. There are a lot of people talking about doing s�ething separste from the project committee, because the committee has tried to remain within the formal confines of action as specified by the Charter. The Fridley Environmental Coam�ission cannot enter into a special interest-type activity. Some of the people are forming to agitate for the State , Legislature to investigate why Anoka County was doing some of the things they are doing. The project committee was not getting involved with that at all. qs far as their activity, they are going to get in touch with Mr. Qureshi in the near future and start digging again. FRiDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETZNG FEBRUARi' 15, 1977 PAGE 7 Ms, Sporre stated that the report developed by the East River Road Project Committee had been sent to Coon Rapids. She asked Mr. Paripovich if he had had a chance to talk to the Coon Rapids City Planner and get his �eactions. Zfr, paripovich stated he had not yet done that but intended to do so. Mz. Langenfeld briefly informed the Commission of the present situation with the Bikeway/Walkway project Coa�ittee. It was something that was 6eing discussed; it was not being left in the closet, and that all possible means are being taken hy city staff to obtain funding. Air. Leek stated that some time back he had been requested to get input £rom the Parks & Recreation Director, Mr. goudreau, specifically on how Mr. Boudreau felt about the East River Road bike route. It was Mr. Boudreau`s feeling that it would be most logical at many points along the road to link up with Minneapolis along the river and follow the river as much as possible, possibly swinging over Co East River Road whenever it was impossible to follow the river corridor, if necessary, hooking up wiCh Coon Rapids, gut, given the sCatus of East River Road as a county highway and given the availability of the river corridor land, Mr. Boudreau did not feel it was beneficial to run the bike route all the way along the East River Road. Ms. Sporre stated the Legislature had set up a proposai for a block of.money for river front appreciation. She wondered if anything was going out of Fridley to Metro-Council relative to that. Mr. Leek stated he was not sure aboue it; they may even have made an application. He said he could explore that and get back to the Commission. He felt prc3ably the best way would be to wait for the application to come to us. OTHER $USINESS: 208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING SESSION: Mr. Langenfeld stated that he did have to go before the City Council to geC permission for the Commission to co-sponsor this session. Ms. Sporre stated that she thought the Commission should recoamend to Metro-Council that their Planning Department become more aggressive in the pollution control and non-point source pollution, that the problems that affect Fridley wi11 not be addressed in any substantive way by the 208 Pollution Control program. Springbrook, 61en Creek, Stoneybrook Creek, Rice Creek are not eligible for review because at this point there isn't anything icky in the water, It was a toCal planning program that was not going to be esta6lished by the Metro-Council. She believed it was as valid to negotiate on where the parks' monies go in terms of water management policies as it was on housing. She thought Fridley paid a price for neighboring c mununities on water management as other co�unities paid a price hecause of Fridley's policies on hous ing . FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 15 I977 PAGE 8 MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, that the Fridley Environmental Commission urged the Metropolitan Council to take an aggressive role and seek funds, if necessary, to develop a non-point source pollution control policy plan for the metropolitan area, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, hhe motion carried �nanimously. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Leek to check into the content of this letter as to what Mr. Leek thought should he done and then to check as to whether Council approval was needed to write this letter. AGENDAS: Ms. Sporre felt it would be advantageous for the Commission members to receive copies of the agendas of a11 the co�issions, particularly City Council, so they would know in advance what was going to be discussed aC those meetings. MOTION by Lee A� Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, that the Fridley Environmental Commission receive copies of all the commissions' agendas, particularly City Council's, and that each agenda item be spelled out clearly. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mr. Langeafeld wanted to remind the members that the election of officers would be at the next meeting and to be thinking about it. ENVIRONMENTAL SEMINARS: Ms. Sporre stated there was going to be an environmental series of seminars in Fridley which she thought were going to be tremendously important in developing the attitudes of the people in Fridley. The seminars are entitled "Appreciating the Out of Doors" and will be held March 28, Apri1 4, and April 18 at the Fridley High School, Room 108. The speaker will be Dr. Walter Breckenridge. Dr. Breckenridge wi11 be contributing his time and all proceeds will go to the development of the nature center. 'lhe fee schedule is "pay at the door" and will be $4 per person for the series of three lectures, $1.50 for each lecture, or $5.00 for the family. The lectures are being promoted by the gpringbrook Nature Center. She asked that the Commission members spread the word of these seminars to others. She also asked Mr. Leek if he would look into the possibility of having this information put on the agendas of all the commissions. MOTION by grother Sullivan, seconded by Mike Paripovich, [o adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. UQon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, � �� Ly �� Saba Recording Secretary :{ EXISTING CHAPTER 272. MINING SAND AND GRAVEL � 212.01. Minl�g Permit Pequired 4 mining permit shall be appiied for and shall be issued by the Zoning Administrator (or the minign ot sand, pravel, rocks, minerals, peal or dirt of any kind in Fridley w�ere such operations will substantially alter the ezisting ground contour or would change existing drainage or would cause tlooding or erosion or where dynamite or other expfosives are used generally or incidentally in said mining operetions or where sucn operaifons affect the value, use and enjoyment ot other property in Fridley. (Ref. 79) 212.02. Appliealion Any person desiring a permit shall first submit a written application setling forth the foilowing (acts ?. Names and addresses of applicants 2. lepa� descriptions ot land to De mined. 3. The names and addresses of all owners ef said land. �. The nature of the mining operatiort. 5. Whether dynami[e a� other explosives wiil be used either incidentally or qenerally B. Details ot how long mining operations have existed in the past and when mining operations will next aommence or continue and ihe approximate completion darq �f the mining operations. �� 272.03. Fees, Bonds and Conditions � 4 permit may be issued by the Zoning Administrator after lhe applicant has: 5. Submitted the applicalion. 2. Paid a permit tee. The annual permit tee and expiration date shall be as provided by Chapter'? of tbis Code. / 3. POSted a surety 6onC acceptable to the City or a certified check in an equivalent amount tor the sum of 51.000.00 per �� �of fraction thereof for ihe lantl to be subjecte0 to the mining operation +unning to Fridley te aecure satisfac[ory performance of the }ollowing requirements: a) The pit shall be surrounded by a lence 4 feet high and adequate as protection against accidental lall or injury. D) No water a' other waste s�al� be allowed ;o ruc �it from any pit into any stream, lake o� pond so as to DOIIUte the same. - e) Operations shalt be limited to reasonable hours that will not interfere with the healtF: and safety of surroundi�g residents and the premises be so operated as not to creale a nuisance. d} When explosives are used the permitee shall use the utmost care and take all necessary precautions not to endanger lifp and damage and tlestroy property. . e) Ail ezplos.ves�shall be stored in a reasonabiy secure and safe place or places and all such storage . places shall be clearly marked "Dan9erous — Explosive". ( • �. `� , f) lhe method of slorfng and hantlling explosives and highry inllammable materials shall conform with all laws and regulations relating thereto. 9► A�og o� the time and day and personnel tamfllar with the work shall be kept of all 6lasting and a 23 212.03 Mining Pe[mH Required Applieatlon Fees, Bond And Conditions 2:2-. � � �pY o( sald bp shatl be mada avallabte to tbe officiale of tha Ctty. h) At 1he end ot each season's ope�attons and no latrsr than Ihe last day o( �mber of each year, Ihe plt Is to be lelt In a neat and orderly conditlon, wlth reasonably uniform slopes wlthout overhang and witbout vertleal banks and with a levol botlom. ' 212.04. Wa(rar of Regufremenls . The Council may waive the requirements of the surety bond and certlHed check depostt when the apDlkant or eppliwnts are the owners of the property to ba mined. 212.05. De(InNlons The mining of sand, pravel, rocks, minerals, peat, or other dfrt of any kind sAall mean and fnclude any excavailon in tha earth tor the purpose of removinp any sand, pravel, rock, minerals, peat or dirt of any kind Including the removal with any over burden necessary to reach said sand, gravel, rcck, mfnerals, peat or dirt of any kind, other than an excavation intended and used solely as a basement of a buildtng. 412.08. Hours All operatlons shall be Ilmited to reasonable hours that will not Intertere wNry the healtA anG sa/ety o} aurroundlnp residenta and tAe premiaes are to be so operat� a5 not to create a nuisance. 21Z07. Publlo Nulsanee 24 212.09 WetYor ol Requ(rementa Deflnitfana Moun Any mininy operation not consistent with the reAulations provided hereln or with the intent and purpose of thls �blfc chapter are declared to be a public nuisance. N���C° 212.08. pemedy o} Council �he Council may fn addltion to any or a{I other remedies available for vlolafions of this ordinance, after a public R��y Of , hearing he�d upon ten (10) days notice by mail to the lasf known address of the owner or owners of the propeAy, Councll may proceed to have the necessary work done to comply with the provisions of this chaptatand assess all of tha coata and axpense thereof against sald property. 272.09. Penaltfss Any violatlon of f�is chapter is a misdemeanor and Is subjec( to all penaltles provfded for sueh violationa under the provisfons of Chapter 901 0( thls Code. \._J Peneltlea n2.s a PROPOSED CHAPTER 212 CITY OF FRIDLEY � 212 HINING 212.01 FINDING AND PURPOSE The City of Fridley finds that the extraction of minerals by surface mining is a basic and essential activity making an important contribu- tion to the economic well-being of the cortmunity. The economical availability of sand, gravel, rock, soil, and other materials is vital to the continued growth of the region and the City, The City further finds that it is not practicable to extract minerals required by soci- ety without disturbing the surface of the earth and produ�cing waste material.s. The danger exists that noncompatible land uses could un- netessarily deny the benefit of these mater=ials to society in the future. It is further fou�d that the character of mining may create undesirable land and water conditions which can be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare and property rights of the citizens of the City of Fridley. However, if properly regutated and if reclamation of surface mined lands is required, mining can take place within the _ City in such a manner that undesirable side effects of the operation may be restricted to an acceptable level. The purposes of this ordinance are: To provide for the economical availability of sand, gravel, rock, soil and other materials vital to °-the continued growth of the region and the City. � � To establish uniform and reasonabte limitations, safeguards and con- trols in the City, for the future production of said materials. � To control the effect of the mining operation upon adjacent property and other areas of the City. - i �+To provide for the restoration of the mining operation and mining area during and after termination of the removal operation. +To control and minimize pollution caused by erosion or sedimentation, all in furtherance of the heatth, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of Fridley, Minnesota. 212.02 RELATtONSHIP TO ZONING ORDINANCE This ordinance shall apply to areas within the City of Fridley in which the removal of minerals including sand and gravel is a permitted or special use. The standards and requirements set by this ordinance shall govern the issuance, renewal and ternination of the mini�g permit required by Section IV. 212.03 DEFINITIONS � 1. Dust - Air-borne inorganic particulate matter other than smoke. 2. Extraction permit or permit - The permit required by Section IV of this ordinance. 3. Minerais - Nonmetallic material found in the earth including but not limited to sand, gravel, rock and soil, �rhich may be covered by overburden. 2� � 4. Mining or extraction - 7he removal and processing of minerals. S• dverburden - Those materials which lie between the surface of the earth and the mineral deposit to be mined. � 6. Rehabilitation - To renew land to a seif-sustaining long term use which is compatibie with contiguous land uses in accordance with the standards set forth in this ordinance. 7. Topsoil - That portion of the overburden which lies closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of vegetation. 212.04 MININS PERMIT Except as hereinafter provided in this ordinance, it shall be unlawfu) for any operator to engage in the extraction of minerals without having first a written permit from the City of Fridtey authorizing the same. 212.OS EXCEPTIONS The permit requirements established by this ordinance shall not apply to: 1. Emergency work necessary to p�eserve life or property. Wfien anergency work is performed under this section, the operator performing it shall report the pertinent facts relatin9 to the work to the City of Fridley prior to the comnencement of the extraction. The City shall review the facts and determine • whether an emergency exists and shali by written memorandum, authorize commencement of the emergency exception. An opere- tor commencing emergency work shall within 10 days following . the commencement of that activity, apply for the issuance of an extraction permit and on the issuance thereof may be re- quired to perform such work as determined to be reasonably necessary to correct any environmental impairment occasioned by such work. 2. Operators now conducting operations governed by this� ordinance and for wfiich this ordinance requires a permit may continue such operations, but within sixty days of the effective date of this ordinance shall make application for a permit. Failure to apply for a permit shall be a violation of this ordinance, however, on request and for cause, the City may extend the time for the initial application to ninety days. 212.06 APPLICATION FOR AND PROCESSING OF PERMIT 1. The mineral extraction permit shall be processed in accordance wlth the same procedures specified at Section of Or- dinance No. adopted The extrac- tion permit may be processed at the same time and in conjunction with an application for a building permit or any other permit required to be granted by the ordinances of the City of Fridley.' 2. An application for a mineral extraction permit shall contain: � (a) The name and address of the operator and owner of the land. 2� (b) The correct legal description of the property where the extraction is proposed to occur. � (c) The names of all land owners owning property within one-half mile of the boundary of the property described above. (d) Specification of the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: ;i, the physical relationship of the proposed mining area to the canmunity and existing community dev- elopment. � i. site topography and natural features including � location of water courses and water bodies within the planned mining area. iii. the quality and quantity of minerals to be excavated. iv. the depth of water tables throughout the planned mining area. v. the average thickness of overburden in the area. (e) The purpose of the operation. (f) The estimated time required to complete the operation. • �(g). The plan of operation, includi�g processing (any operation other than direct mining and removal), nature of the pro- cessing and equipment, location of the plant, source of water, disposal of water, and reuse of water. '(h) T�avel routes to and fran the site. i %(i).The p)ans for draina9e, wind and�water erosion control, sedimentation and dust control. •212.07 STANDARDS 1. Operation shall be conducted within the confines of the property. 2, Operation shall not be conducted within: (a) Five feet of the right-of-way of an existing public utility. (b) Fifty feet of the boundary of any zone where such operations are not permitted. (c) Thirty feet of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use. � 3• Fencing - During operations, access to any area where collections of water are one and one-half feet in depth or more or where excava- tion slopes are steeper than one foot vertical to one and one-half feet horizontal and any other areas where o6vious danger to the public exists shall be controlled by a four foot tall fence. � � � 4. Appearance and Screening: (a) Hachinery shall be kept in good repair and painted regu- larly. (b) Abandoned machinery and rubbish shall be removed from the site regularly. (c) All structures that have not been used for a period of one year shall be removed from the site. (d) pll equipment and temporary structures shall be removed and dismantled not later ihan six months after termination of mining operation or expiration of this permit. (e) Where practicai, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used to screea the mining site. (f� Where practical, the perimeter of the mining site shall be planted or otherwise screened. (g) Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the extent feasible, r.iaintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transplanting and replanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground cover along all setback areas. ''5. Operating Standards: (a) Noise--the maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States. (b) Hours--all mining operations shall be conducted between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays only. (c) Explosives--the use and handling of explosives shall be co- ordinated with the poli�e department. Blasting shatl occur only at hours specified in the permit and at no other time. (d) Dust--operators shall utilize all practical means to reduce the amount of dust caused by the operation. in no case shall the amount of dust or other particulate matter exceed the standards estabiished by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (e) Water Pollution--operators shall comply with all applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations and Federal and Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the ,protection of water quality. No waste products or process residue, including untreated wash water, shall be deposited �� in any lake, stream or natural drainage system, except those lakes or ponds wholly contained within the exiractio� site may be so utilized. �� ?9 �: (f) Topsoil Preservation--all copsoil shall be retained at the site until complete rehabilitation of the site has taken � place according to the rehabilitation plan. 5. Rehabilitation Standards: (a) Rehabititation shall be continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the mining qperation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site. (b) Slopes--all banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the rehabilitation plan submitted with the permit application. No rehabilitated slopes shall be steeper than four feet horizontal to one foot vertical, except 'that steeper slopes may be permitted in accordance with the rehabilitation plan when said slopes are pla�ned for slope related usages, for example, ski hills and stiding hills. (c) Cover and Planting--slopes, grated, and backfilled areas sha{1 be surfaced with at least three inches of topsoil _ and planted with ground cover sufficient to hold the soil. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self-sustained. •.; (dj Slopes to Water Bodies--no slope descending to a water body shall exceed one foot vertical to four feet horizontal. � (e) Water Bodies--all water areas resu)ting from excavation shall be rehabilitated as follows: i. the bottom contour must be gradually sloping from the shoreline to the deepest portion. � ii. the water depth in the deepest portions must not be less than five feet measured from the low water mark. (f) Einal Elevation--no part of the rehabilitated area which is planned for utilization for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an etevation lower than the minimum •required for gravity connection to sanitary and storm sewer. 212.08 FEES 6 BOND 1. Paid a permit fee. The annual permii fee and expiration date shall be as provided by Chapter 11 of this Code. 2. Posxed a surety bond acceptable to the City or a certified check in an equivalent amount for the sum of $1,000.00 per/�� of fraction thereof for the land to be subjected to the' mining � operation running to Fridley to secure satisfactory performance of the requirements set forth in this ordinance. 212.09 UALIDITY The validity of any word, section, clause, paragraph, sen[ence, part or provision of this ordinance shall not effect the �alidity of any other � part of this ordinance which can be given affect without such invalid part or parts. r1 LJ L_ J 212.10 EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take affect upon adoption by the City Council of Fridley, Minnesota. � m 30 � . ' CITY UF fRt�lCY � r�. -.+ � (EXISTING) AI'PLIGATIUId �U1 lP.l.fr RL7CRA1'IQI!(tfllltNG PLR!".17 3S. � CI1hPTER 212 � ' 1. APPL I CI1t9T: . APPLICA710N N Name DATE Address Office Phone Hane Ption� 2a YROpcRTY 0:•tt:ER(S) : ►Jaxe Name pdJress Hddress Ofiice Fhone� Hcxne Phaie Office Phane Nome Phor+e� � 3. LEC,AL DESCRIP710:1 Qc PROPEP.TY TO BE ALTER�D OR P11NED: 4. NA7URE OF LF.KD kLTEP,AiIOh/PfIMIP:G OP�PJ:T101c (f3; ief Descripzio� oi wiiat is to be done}: _ 5, PROPOSED STAP:fIt�G D,ATE: LOMPLETIGN DATE: 6. ATTACHFIENTS (Information P:eeJed to Properly Ev�luate Application): The folla��in9.pl�ns, dra�•,ings, calculations, bonds and/cr statements �+i11 be required Uy the Public Works Department. . [� Half sectior. map or sketch of property sf�ewing all adjacent property htidic:,tin, the existinc,� buildings and/or structures. [) Grading plan sho�.•ing existing and pr'oposed finished contours and ele- VaY.ions. • [� Drainage plan shaoing ;ili existing and propnscd drainagc structures, stabilization S1•alis or eribbii�g, dams, or o;hcr prot4etive items. ❑ Calculat+c+ns for�and approxim�t�� quantiYics of exc�vation and/or fill rcquired. �----�. � SigncJ statcmr.nlJfroni the property ovmcr acceptin,ry responsibility for `;'� the operation anJ granting permission for lanJ alCcration/mining oper- ation. � ❑ Statcment to be att�ched to dced advisin9 0£ potcntial need for soil tests prior to any construetion on tots where addicianal fill material has been place�l. Q other 7. S?IPULATIOt7S - READ eEFORE SIGIlil:G APFLICAITOPl: a. A surety bond or cerYified clicck in the amo�int of $ must be submitted after approval ofi application and prior to arry work corrr�enciny. • 7his bond or cFeck is to ensure satisfactory performance and compliance with the belovr stated stipulations. T�ie surety bond or check shali be ' kept active untit the co:npletio� of work and/or expiratiun of permit and tan only be rejeased by a�riYten notification nf the city after a satis- facto:y final inspection has been performed by city forces. b. All access and street frcntage of the land alteration/mining site m�st be controlled by a fence, a minim� of four (�+) feet in height. All entrances must ha��c-. gates that are capable of being locked. c. Only rock, sand, gravel, dirt, or similar natural eartn fill is p°rnitied. � ko eonw-ete, asphalt, or demolit:ion o-iastes taill b� permitted as fill ur,lc:ss a demolition landfill pernit is first obtainzd fraro Ar.oka Coun;y. d. Operations shall be limited to daylight hours and shall not interfere with the health and safety o� surrounding residents and the pr:s.�ises shall be �raintained at all tir�es so as not to create a nu-isance. , e, Any ex�losives used must be done so in accordance taith Chapter 'Li2.3, par�graphs d, e, f and g, of the Fridicy Cit}� Code (see attached) and any oYFer applicable standards e.y. Fadere.l, St�te, Industrial, etc. f. A± t:Le end of each season's operations and nu iater than the last day of December of each year, the site is to be left in a neat and orderty co�di- tian, with mar.imum slopes of 2:1 with no overhanq or vertical 6anks and with a level botto:n. c�. On the Friday of cach arork week, or ti�hen required by the City, material fran this operatiwi that is found to exist on City streets shall be eleaned to the City's satisfaction 6y thc applicaot. h. Upon completion of land alterotion/mir.in9 o�crations, the land must be left �r.cording to ihe plans and contours submiCted �iifh Lhis application and plantcd with suitable vegctotion to prevent crosion. �1. Upon ec�anpSetion of land altcration/minin9 operaCions or capiracion of • this �icrmiY, an inspecCion by Che City �aill l+c made of the pre�nises �n�i adjoiiiinq strcets. /1ny Jama�c found co liavc hci:n eauscd by these opera- tionS taill bc corrcctcd by th�: .ippliconl u�:on notificaCion by thc City. ; , • � � � 33 8, PCRNIT F[F.: Land Altcration Hining (As per Uniform Uuilding Gode (As per Chaptcr 11 Fridicy City Codc) � Applicant's I:ame Print ProperCy O�aner's Name Pri�t Applicant's Signature Property Oa:ner's Si9neture --------------------------------------------------------s---------------------- CI1'Y USE ONLY: Recommended For Approval Ey: " . Assistant City Engineer Approved By: _ Public lJorks Director Permit Lxpiration Date: � Comments: � . ✓ f NE�[� . CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOP, LAND ALTERATION/MIP�ING PERMIT � CHAPTER 212 1. APPLICANT: . APPLICATION il Name DATE Address Office Phone Home Phone 2. PROPERTY OWNER(S): Name Name Address Address Office Phone Hane Phone Office Phone Home Phone � 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ALTERED OR F11NED: � 4 E LAND OWNERS WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABCUE: PURPOSE OF LAND ALTERATION/MINING OPERRTION (Brief Description of what is to be done): 6. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: COMPLETION DATE: 7. REQUIRED ATTACHME�dTS (Information Needed to Properly Evaluate Application): The following plans, drawings, calculations, bonds and/or statements will be required by the Pubtic Works Department. QHalf section map or sketch of property shoti�ing all property within 1/2 mile indicating the existing buildings and/or structures. ❑Grading plan showing existing and proposed finished contours and ele- vations. e 3� � �J ❑ Average thickness of over6urden in the drea. DDrainage plan showing all existing water bodies and proposed drainage structures, stabilization walls or cribbing, dams, or other protective � items. oCalculations for -.nd approximate quantities of excavation and/or fill required. � Map showing travel routes to and from the excavation site. QA description of the plan of operation, inciuding equipment to be used, source of water, disposal and reuse of water. oSigned statement from the property owner accepting responsibility for the operation and granting permi5sion for land alteration/mining oper^ ation. QStatement to be attached to deed advising of potential need for soil tests prior to any construction on lots where adclitional fill material has been placed. ❑ Other B. STiPULATIONS - READ BEFORE SIGNING APPLICATION: � a. A surety bond or certified check in the amount of $ must be Submitted after approval of application and prior to any taork commencing. This bond or check is to ensure satisfactory performance and com�liance with the below stated stipulations. The surety bond or check shall be kept active until the completion of work and/or expiration of permit and can only be released by written notification of the city after a satis- factory final inspection has been performed by city forces. b. All access and street frontage of the land alteration/mining site must be conirolled by a fence, a minimum of four (4) feet in height. All entrances must have gates that are capable of being locked. c. Only rock, sand, gravel, dirt, or similar naturai earth fill is permitted. No concrete, asphalt, or demolition wastes will be permitted as fill unless a demolition tandfiit permit is first obtained from Anoka County. d. Operations shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. on weekdays only, and shall not interfere with the health and safety of surrounding residents and the premises shall be maintained at all times so as noC to create a nuisance. e. P,ny explosives used must be done so in accordance with Chapter 212.C7 paragraph 5L, of the fridley City Code (see attached) and any other applitable standards e.g. Federal, State, Industrial, etc. � f. At the end of each season's operations and no later than the last day of December of each year, the site is to be left in a neat and orderly condi- tion, with maximian slopes of 2:1 with no overhang or vertical banks and with a levei 6ottom. g. On the Friday of each work week, or when required by the City, �terial � fran this operation that is found to exist om City streets shall be cleaned to the City's satisfaction by the applicant. h. Upon completion of land alteration/mining operations, the land must be left according to the plans and contours submitted with this application and planted with suitable vegetation to prevent erosion. i. Upon canpletion of land alteration/mining operatio�s or expiration of this permit, an inspectioo by the Lity will be made of the premises and adjoining streets. P�ny damage found to have been caused by these opera- tions will be corrected by the applicant upon notification by the City. 9, PERMIT FEE: La�d Aiteration Mining (As per Uniform Building Code (As per Chapter ll Fridley City Code) Applicant's Name Print Property Owner's Plame Print Applicant s Signature Property �amer's Signature � -------------------------------- CITY USE ONLY: �£ ----°----------------------------- i Recommended For Approval By: Assistant City Engineer Approved By: Public Works Director Permit Expiration Date: Comments: � `.__.J � �� � 3� FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING �sxuaxY i5, 197Z MII�tBERS PRESENT: Schnabel� Barna� Gabel, Kemper MF�ffiERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESINT: Plemel Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:31 P.M. APPROVE APPEALS COM.hiISSION NfINUTES: JAh'UARY 13, 1977 Mrs. Gabel said that she xould like to comment, because she didn't think secretaries got enough recognition, that she thought the secretary was to be commended as the minutes were alvrays accurate and concise. The other members agreed, and Mrs. Gabel stated she thought that should be in the minutes. Mr: Barna stated that he had a correction in the second paragraph on page 1�� and noted that into Stoneybrook Creek should read £rom Stoneybrook Creek. MOTION by Barna� seconded by Gabel, that the Appeals Commission minutes of January 13� 1977 be approved as ar.�ended, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ,- / 1. REQUFST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 20$,31� (6), FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO RIDUCE THE Rr.QUIRED 100 FOOT SETBACK RECL'IREu^•'.EN2 FIH�iE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO A DIFFERENT DISTRICT, TO 73 FEET, (M-1 AND R-1), TQ ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN I,IDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON LOT l, BIACK 1, OF THE PROPOSID ARNAL .1DDITION� (M-1� LIGriT INDUSTRIAL AREAS)� THE SAI�'.E BEING 8101 ASHTON AVEt�IJE V,E.� FRIDLE7, 1�fINNESOTA. (Request by Berkeley Pump Company, 181 Ely Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota $5lt32). MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMZNISTRATNE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SER.VED BY REQUIRII�tENT: Section 205.131� (6), requiring a 100 ft, front yard setback for M-1 zoned buildings from street lot lines adjacent to other zoning. Public purpose served by this section is to avoid congestion in the public street and traffic hazards and other dangers and to protect and conserve the character of any adjoining neighborhoods and £uture neighborhoods in the same vacinity, '�� � r% Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - February 15� 1977 Page 2 B. STATED HARDSHIP: Variance is necessary in order that the proposed building can be compatible with existing building for efficiency and aesthetics. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW; A 100 foot setback is required because the property to the West (across Ashton Avenue) is a City Park, The existing building is at the 78 foot setback point because it xas built on Lots 3, !�, and 5 which were interior lots, Lots 1 and 2 were acquired later� making it a corner property. The owners were refused a permit to add on the West side, but were granted a permit to add on to the North side of the building in 1966. The corner lots.(Lots 1 and 2) were rezoned to M-1 in 1971t. The proposed Arnal Addition structure will occupy less than l�0� of the lot. The additional vehicles wi11 occupy the existing parking areas for Berkely Pump Company, 181 Ely Street N.E. Letters of encroachment will be required from t:�e a££ected utility easement holders for construction in the vacated alley area. Mr. Lee Snead was present representing Berkeley Pump Company, He stated that they were asking for a variance from 100 feet to 73 £eet as they would like to put an addition on their present property as their current building was no longer sufficient or adequate for their needs. He added that indica- tions were that their needs would increase considerably over the next £ew years� so an addition was badly needed. Mr. 5nead said that in order to make the addition efFicient and usable� they would like to be able to use the same Pacing line as the present building. He said that i£ tRe proposed addition was to sit back too £ar� they would lose valuable a¢cess between the two buildings. Mr, Snead stated that the new building would follow the general angle of the road� and they also thought that having the two buildings of somewhat similar construction and the same distance from the road would be more aestheticalZy pleasing. Mr, Snead explained that they were not going to actually connect the two buildings together wall to wall, but would have an enclosed walkway between them measuring 12� high by 1l�� wide. He stated that in between the two plots o£ land was a 6� utility easement, and they had received letters from all of the utility companies in the area saying that they did not mind if Berke�ey crossed that easement with what they proposed. Mr, Snead added that they did have to guarantee their right to access� and noted that the walkway could not be over 15� high because of an overhead power line. He further added that they felt the building would contribute to the neighbor- hood by providing a nice place, and Berkeley would provide shrubbery and grass. Mr. Snead said that he had just returned from talking to the main office in California, and they had a deviation from the original plans in that � U � • Fridley Appeals Cormnission Meeting - February 15, 1977 Page 3 39 � one xall would be moved back a bit. He explained that the owner wanted to use the full lt0� coverage instead of having square corners on the building� and it was also the owner's suggestion that the property follow the contour oS the road to give them more office space in the front. Mr. Snead pointed out on the diagram where they had originally planned to keep the office space, and where they had decided to move it. He said that the parking area would be extended out a little bit £nrther than it showed, and where they had open space on the drawing they would just carry their parking over. He noted that the drive areas showed only 20' and 16�� and said they would probably want to make that wider so the trucks would have more room. He.showed how the ramp would also be moved back to give them more room £or office space. He explained this would be a completely- covered walkway with walls of similar construction as the building, and with a roo£. He said it would not be as high as the rest of the building. Chairperson Schnabel asked what the purpose of the proposed addition would be. Mr. Snead explained that his company xas in the assembling� warehousing and sale of pumps. He said that the present building would be primarily used £or warehousing, and the proposed addition would be used for all three purposes. Chairperson Schnabel asked if the number of employees would be increased, and Mr. Snead replied that they presently had eight i1i11-time employees and anticipated going as high as about 12 - 15 in the next year or two. He added that he didn't think they would go over £ifteen employees at any �• time. Mrs. Gabel asked if the drivewag areas were large enough, and Mr. Holden replied that they should be increased to 2$'. Mr. Snead said he would do whatever was necessary to meet code. _ Mr. Holden asked why Berkeley didn't just add one building st�raight through. Mr. Snead said the basic reason was that if tbe business grex and they expanded out to the North, the small building that they now occupied could be lmocked down and that property sold separately. Mr. Holden . explained that a 15' sideyard setback xas required in M-l� so then they would either need a variance fro:� IS' to 0', move back 15 feet, or plan not to sell the original (existing) building. Mr. Snead said the easiest thing would be to plan not to sell it. He stated he didn't want to join the two buildings together because he thought the new building would look better than the old building. Chairperson Schnabel explained that one of the reasons there would have to be the 15' in between would be for fire protection, unless a"0" lot line construction was added with a£ire wall. hfr. Holden said another option would be to go back to the utility companies and ask for a greater square footage. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he xas to go with the "0" lot line if a double £ire wall would be necessary, and Mr. Holden replied that was correct--it would mean building a new wali ri�ht next to the existing wall. Mr. Snead commented that their insurance company required that sprinklers � be put in the new building, so they would add them to the existing building at the same time. He said the buildings would have good fire protection. Mrs. Gabel asked what kind of traf£ic was generated in terms of large trucks, and Mr. Snead replied that during the busy season (early summer to late fall) �i Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - February 15, 1977 Page L ��� there could be seven to eight trucks a day. Mrs. Gabel asked if there was a fence around the park area, and Mr. Snead replied there wasn't, but all • the playground equipment was on the other side of the park. He added that near his building was mostly a grass area, so there was no danger to children, Mrs. Gabel looked at the photograph of the present building and asked what was kept in the fenced area next to the building. Mr. Snead replied that was outside storage. He said he didn�t anticipate any more outside storage, and would like to eliminate what they had. He added that they kept the area quite clean� and everything was neatly stacked. Mr. Holden asked the petitioner if he had understood what was said earlier about the different options� and Mr. Snead replied he did. Chairperson Schnabel said that if he wanted to go to the "0" lot line concept and abut the two buildings together� he would have to apply for another variance. Mr. Snead said he didn�t intend to� and wanted to stay with the present plan. Chairperson Schnabel said that if the proposed addition was built as shown on the present plan, the petitioner wouldn't need another variance if he didn't intend to split this off for sale. Mr. Holden said that r�as correct; if they went with the present plan it would have to be with the intention of not splitting if off to sell at a later date. Mr. Kemper asked wi�y it wasn't necessary to go down to the "0" side yard setback, and Mr. Barna explained that it wasn't a side yard. Mr. Kemper asked if the existing building belonged to someone else if it would be a side yard, and Mr. Holden said that was correct. Mrs. Gabel asked if the only reason the two buildings weren�t being put � together was because of the easement� and P�Zr. Snead said that was correct. Mr. Barna commented that he had no objection, and thought it was one more reason to have signal lights at 79th. Chairperson Sc�nabel asked T4r. Snead if he had the letters o£ encroachment, and he replied he did. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the Public He-aring. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council� through the Planning Commission� approval of the request for variance with the following stipulations: 1. The letters of encroachment go on record with the City. 2. The existing building not be separated and sold off from the proposed building because the petitioner did not present a request for a 15' setback variance, and the petitioner understands that at this time. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. r 1 � �,.� � � � Fridley Appeals Cormnission Meeting - February 15, 1977 Page 5 41 OTHER BUSINFSS: Chairperson Schnabel handed out to the Commission copies of a letter she had received this last week from the City Attorney concerning the request that she had made to him o£ the interpretatioris o£ two items. She noted that pages 2 and 3 of the letter did not contain information tuat she had requested� but probably information that the City Council had asked £or. Mrs. Schnabel stated that this was for the Commission's enlightenment, and it would be put on the agenda for the next Appeals Commission meeting. ADJOURNhIENT: MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel, at 8:38 P.i•i. Upon a voice vote, all unanimously. Respectflilly submitted, n, ,nn '/ �'. Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary that the Appeals Corr¢nission adjourn voting aye� the motion carried � k � � 3 � � � . L , 'I,�'�. _ . . . ry . � ���. . . . � � . . � - � . .1 .. ' .. . ... .. ... �.. . �: ��UAAY 3, 1�77 �R � �: :�ace Lyach, aersla selg�, �ii�.�Otc,. aea scorla s',; ; -88rbara Sh�a �T; ' iiervic� J. Harzmana, 278 �sry.��°- City Aseeasor ��'. - h:d,: r ' _ .. � . - :�i ! �t�`' ��peze� Grsee Lpach,cslYed the me¢�i:ng tc�a�de� at �:39�p.m. �,..t�xv�aav � te�� �;mtfa►�r.�nnarvmroc��rv�ierira¢�uc�s.arvc. . . 41& Aee],gum, secanded bp Ned Sto;la, Ca�,�tove the January 6; 1977, ss'Commi.asictt �3nutes as vriEtea. tipoa � voice note, all votiseg ape, ta�f.ed�. su�au�mouelg. -GR;AiPf„_,��AM: ` :�at appsre�ttly this inforoAa! - � C�asmcil. Ms.,Lytxh said 8�e ia£osmatian -Che`Cammissioa li xmcil are the's�e as ihe Gb Gq make use oi:ii. Me. Lync ¢ Week to qn��i€y. S6e uid. iRiui-GraPt Progrnm had aot ' to Ms . Carrall Rukort�ski a� ��rogrem,. Apparently, the This monsy was'available ^ vould need $O hours of tke to see it used for the ��er, ,.. . o7C��L:.�ugg�Fted that th8 �'aa�rteaion obtaia apc•�i�Cation form and applp. q;:,bp��s�F.:�utt.> seconded by Bed Storla, �a ta�b2e the Hini-Grant Progrm agaiu �'�ct:�tiag for further Yliseusaioa, Ugae a-�{aice wte, all voting aye, the i�arr#ea:i�tmousay. : ��.x�►�t�s� �;�3�ttad that- the Coeoiasion has -ratogD.iso� t.�tlt- ve have h�an probleoos �hen '�gs.3+�[s3ty popu3atiomG, i.e.,'agax�t Aauses, tovahousea. etc. What �q liss been trqiug to do, at lea�L t#lt�gh �,lte-A-95 review processes, has ,� I nYa heea r high + epgalc lfvi�y Mr. 3� 1� . & �is t� ` impor the l�i t}iE C+ that � ' to be. Ms. � proae� pt#ma p�rnri; for a, :p�t stated qh�t,he orea h+e itad v o€ the a+ to give the . � -�i'L'. H@2'.L`108IIt1 SCBC� i26St� �,�: particuTBr prapet�ies are ; tha a8sessment d� tpraisi�►$; thetei sute of``the"treni sccor�inglY• The ttfe area�. the hoi far tltai` house. 17�e hwra that are the mas the vay `the asaessar gces propa�tq. 1'k. St�tt asked A[r. Het Mr. Helttmaan etated tha � assesa�� valae chat'tr�l G t4 � 1tVDbVIDV� 7 1M��:, � . . . ,� � �aste 2 different things that affact pea�e �her Iive in Comuilsstan had:�X. ,Tfm Hi�,1, Publ,�c "�afetq Directo� .1 aiade the pairtE that whetit ycu h�!ve a high density :lta �ublia 8afe�� pepartzctaat, i�cr�astd s#gnificantly. ' c"etiona £rdm tTie Park Dfrector`that trhen there was .hia� foz Chs Ydut'►8 People to do. � to-do, as a memb�r of a project tomd�fCtee on this, vE "�he pzoblem:-' Qite o€ iiie th'ings he th�ught was k+p€'.the service�,'Eite fac=ilities, tts� &�ntiness, or 4�1�ed in deve$;dq�� "3�asa�n3ous retationBhips'within ��fit� to the uaa p�"the s�rvices. I�It. �cott stated �;to attead �i8 tpeat2ng, iie Wanted Clse Cammisaioa hute�;aad have iE-r�carded in thie miaute�': He asked €�t�cfptioa of �e "B�SStssiag pr+ocedura. The �ssessing `�lia'communfty aad aas done through tht property tax : �.t�i be aware a€ �ere the. moaey: �ao� £r�rrm that a6 �heq cas�id bt �ware of the pro�esi� titiat was used Nx�+'�ov1d then Er�Ik abovt the differet�t elaeaes of tt +pi idea �s# h� !�e dffferer�: clhsaes are assessed ride� titeae serv��: �, 4��T3 �ildin� th8t 1188 ri0 OW$!i' ki'Vi apglied szfll ha 4t91: oir ,'�>9QR: livit�=•itt it, th±e 'f1rsC $�$stif�( � $33,Ot'ti�.�+ill be mnitipt3� §y � The mill�akte, if a11 tha°jb� vCUI#!`fre.eXS�CIy tfie a8�e„�g�ii vas taiard lok+er than th� �es�;. ma da about $Sfl0 lesa tttatit ti� c. w- ; _ _ . _ ..�,._ _ _ _ .� _, .. , >� � ' I-.�IDStEE �� �e ara � r Jnne for 6 to 8 mon he"Creud v use wliat SS O� � C�ifl S�lE6> 88=. Cl"9� 4)t18.t �..: . � �� �e witix commer�ie;1 and industrial : �eg ar� "historiaa", not ,�arp Z,d nf the fallb�tf.ng year, � previaxs of tke aff��tal date o€. go upward. Th{�Y are not alwsys - hav�'a�d adjust Cbei� rates q�siifications. TheY look at „ axad 'by L�at.� �t�y $elact a rate -3ns, centCa� a,ir-�amd��loning, wali opu3,ar =�tcime ia 'thB ��Plit entryr'. iag ti�e.�eX. m�ae�. �ie said thi.s was ; value of dlfferent t�pes and size pf little a#nd# �he di€f�'ent-clasttts of propertg. -Endustri.al-ty�e propertiea o� $50,OD0, the 1`be'4� 0�',�7.,SflQ. Far`� $54,{it7Q: axtment e propertq, t�e asse�aed v�lu� t�at t��Yl be $50,004 � or eparCment thet has t�e owner . caultiplied�bg YS'.4 or'$3,250 and Lke atlser' 4,800, maki�g:.the aseaased vaiue at $18,050. che saa�e �elioot di�ts#fit, �axfa� cFfetrict, etc., cne. iFe s+ldd �r�n t�h thE �es#�ential. home :mer:$325 was takea off tre�au�re of ho�estead, which 'tment . � � � �:;,,; �'.. � -. :., ,..-. . . � -. � . �.� �. _ ��.�._ . ..��. � � ��. .. .... . .. .. . . .. .. ,.. .� ,x��,�.�rnac�cclQii'1'�TIIis. PESRnART-3 P'��7' P+q[e S ���� ,�� � t�1afi the mobile twK was aseessed 1� t�te County. It fia va3ned � " " � ;�f="�_claseif�.eei ss.#o�eatmai if awq�: ��ypidgd. aad`l�s a :very "' ;"�a�4C ��tir3e itoae- f.a usua]1P Pa'� p�- aad that doesn' C get � �� � � Y_y� � _� �. - - � t� s��,�:.+��++±�..o :�.,.., ..�.o.. t �,;�...�..��. . �. . ' � - r �,-"` . . �t �L� C1Wt' �� bo `s�Ne. tryi.ng to arT% �` iy�►S �L�at the ap�tt�en� dweiler aas +if�;��wic -t3ira�h •.rent. ,��t return for thokt, ��tey' $et less city services than 4'�AtaL�i. =�1►sscwha used- Che. a� servfeea. 2i#ta ia the same comunity, and paye �:�1�8�. � said he �s •stok �►e4. s�r$ .whaC-' aeott7id be fair. He just vanted �� �,a b� a�� af tt��.tax3ng procedure thet AYS 8one on, and the services the uF'; `.�fot Gi�y dwc�2�ers egeeiflcaliy, Msybe-the-builder of apartment dvellinga ` , __ � g��g=a taz break ia �etusn for providiag e�rs.services oa their property. Ae ����: "��IE"�o 9ag=1L�t ��ybe � the .�kaxiirp; s3�e ha8 pra�oted t�e kind of �� �� f;i�tt #or eaaq�gie, tTie- poiice tiave to-snke. -Hr. BQrxmana stated that oa a �,..��a agartmetrt e� is ecarparahle ox maqbe iq+►sr• �fii� , _3lr. Hers�wa for attendfng the eeet�.ng. : . , ...:. , � _ � '�IYE.�it.�: -, ��,.� � e�nted t6at;m�ay maa�t�s age the Aeoks C�wa�g-.Csmprehensive Health had written f� �g�uiisteii wtEk� #ru� qutstioas they'would i#,k� Co hsve answered. City Council s�d,#�#t t�e�+e .s�uLd be sea��. to Hti�an �ea+�r¢�8..�isaion. Ma. Lynch eaid tiiat �-�sttp Comps�ehenaiee HealLh needed thi� tttpitt'b� April lst. She aslced the �s��T �.�#t�y ►Ta�tted to -�eap�aid to this.. 7{���i�ated-he vas tl� S�L@£lBGtd �II 8889/ELfA$ ��t$ffl t��128[1�8 SS it waild take �� L�'.�o reseaTCh these ques�ions. Ife said ihe �noka County Camprehensive �'i sb�.s� be gi�.tag the Cae�iaeiow the ans�a ��o T.fisae queations. �a �uggegt8� Ufat Me. Lyneh resd tbe s�e�ti�4s 8nd the C6mmisaion could give ��#�y waat�: � � ;T �' ' • �#I: (�st are the humasn aervice needa �f po�r xeaidenta? � �. :�a Center '#. `7grproved edcia3, se�vice deliverg syaC�-€or familiea with �DC �. .Zqproved �uitural awareness p�tograms < ':il. �mities Pro$ram , '1�:, ,Ia�rwed. oa�unicaEions �i' :F; 3�ansporLatian �. Pt�Per health care' � $. �t$r �acceas to judicial, sgsta� < I. �rime Fra�rsnt�oa� `: � �. �4�cm fn j+�cial : system = -°�. ° is�ove child�en�.a righta in p�bi#s ac�hools I,. BetCtitiun eianteY "` ` 1�C. C.hahical dependent trea�eat ce��eac A. Adequato housiag for difftrmt l�rt��s,;c+f incdae `€_ ... , - . � - �� _ _,�, . _ `;� , : �; �. t� IiARY , '� e 4 Qt►e�a6toa �2: Whose a�€e�sf��ty #s it to rea�aqd,to �s� needs-•Cfis3+, ewntq, � BtsC�, Utlit�d 1�sy��' ` .Al� cf°t1�=a�i��: >. ` Question #3: Wtfnt ageti�e�es,� �ations, or i�d3vidu�.� are ��rsent'�p respnnding to �i�ese ne�c19? Tl�e .Coae�ssi�- � " a:felt the A#iq�a Goctslty `�omFiek�a�ve Hea2th � � -�s�iktid='lca+�at► E�= � " � z ��o thi�s��. � , ,. ,, a -� � � QuaeC�aa �#: iihat ageacies, z�aaizations, or ft[�ifuiduals are 8etter abte to respond to theaff �t�eds2'. l�micipai gov�Ent • r I�T7.�i by Asrold Belgimr� eeac�red'by-�ed 3toila, i#rtt a IeCter s�sould be sent to � Anoka-�aux�ty'CQmprehernif� etating that tire �umat� 8eernisces Ctsm�iseioa would ! like ars cancise statemeaG- a,f •: f f�he Anoka Gauztty E�pre#�usivA �Iealth has clong' and tt� amqrsYtt of m�m�es. �e�'38= �". lsai tyro pear�. #Tpon a vo�;ce uote, Se2gum, Seott, a�d ffEoria vat9.� aqe, �rsael��<�_. �g �Y> the mot�am caY�3r+d. s ,�,r,� Mt. Be1� atated that two �hs sgia, he wax ag�i�ted #rp the Co�iseioa tn chair a"P�islley Cenmuaity i�t�egap� �rtrj�C �o�+}ttee'*. He asked tlte Ctmm%ssi6n members � i'f tifeg iutew af ascy�'�� �'ii �e �rtterested i'� �ervi�g-e� sush a e�ittee ar who ; vss a�ite�es[ed fu jau�ll�>:�itt�, or cot¢m�uu�t}� slea�lop�ent, t6+ iat` hi� kneii�r. He ' hoged to have a:eum�l�L�a e�ite�_#�t a mouEh, �� L�east o}te trmn ��ech preeiact in ',' the eo;monunity: � � . ;., '. .. ' i : : Mr. R�igarn siso 6ro+uglit-up a ptrdperlt�. �#xich�aooui� $o Eo tite-�tiiauesbta ihmtaitities ` �-- Ccor6l.asion, �Ae safd ite.had ai�t`e�dq :tgkked Co tkkm abbut 3C a� he had in mind ask3ng ? tE�em for $S,O�BO witH` tha idea ai #x�iag in fius signific�t speakers for September- � Oct�r=Noves�rer. Th�.s : cwld 8eiwe �a a foxum.' The "purt��e" wouTd be "to improve � ¢Cm��i,r8ti�� withfts:+�e Cit�t 'n€ F�fc�ley; to p1�cm�c+te ae�u�nt�ceB b8t+�en the special S istte�st eo+�emi.ties; i�s �eu�trage, p�blic debat+�'' �d excAaiage on m�jot i9sues affecting � ai1 pe+o�2e," The'"th��� titxa2rt be: '*i�tivat�-la�+�Cffists fr' Pu#tlic :Rig�tB'; 'Ehis theme was ! vhat tt�e Miew�sols �i�ies3_�a��siva wag: sg�aeqring. �fr. Belgkzm i'eviewed the ; "epE�ti3s� ittttte8t Ct�iC�c.+s'.{� Ehe ?�possihle ii�u�e fos` dtacnsaida"f' and the "Potential �' agealtex's". I�. �s2g4q� sCated he is�1 gxas,+t�ted �hi� to the t�iem�iinit�g 8ducation Advisary Cemmissfaa and `�hep ;�tad xgrsed t�+ �e eo-i�pansa°r. He ssfd he �op�.ta present this to the League of Memrett �FOCera, Chamber of Cs�rce, ath�r organ#�at�o�, ch�rches, eCC. He said GTV-�tad agreed ta co=spc�ar �i t�e at�l �ei�se aact� �ve�tt i� pzt�r�i it tmfce in : Lhe #ollusti3�g week. ` � ` ��� � � .. � . .. � � � �� a3 ! ,: . /`Y` � �. , , � ` �: : . . • . 5... � . . . � . . �_. . �p-rc a� ... . _�... ...� ... 't �.. . �� �-. . _ - `S� r > . _. � y = � � ... - ' v$'v _ ' . � `_ � � - .� . . , . . ..I. . . . . . . .. . . . . � � :� ,. k - _ . .. , t 4.: ��." � � � . ;%�. . . � _ . . _ y � � ��, P • � J _ _ __ _ � - �>�>�� `�`� °� �G �-� �977 G'G��'��� �-b �-.._ 7 ir � a ��� �l �-�-� _ . _ __ _ , --- _ — --- __ _ - _ _ _ —