Loading...
PL 03/23/1977 - 6606� 4'� � � City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 23, 1977 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: AAPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: PIARCH 9, 1977 1. CONTINUED: RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN CHAPTER 21; rnrn� r-v rrrv rnnr 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. ,� CONTINUED: PROPOSCD MiAINTENANCE CODE CONTINUED: INTERSECTION AT 53RD AND CENTRAL CONTINUED: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: ACCESS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: COMMUNITY VI7ALITY RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES fEBRUARY 28, 1977 'Y DEVELOPP1ENT COMMI! 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 21 � �: _�r`' � 22 23 24 - 32 ES: 33 - 34 9, RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 15, 1977 Note: Item 2 sent to Council without recommendation through the Planning Comnission ADJOURNAtENT: 35 - 56 � PLANNING COPSMISSION MEETING CITY OF FRIDLF•Y MARCH 9, 1977 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M• PAGE 1 ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris� Bergman, Langenfeld� Lynch (sitting in for Shea), Peterson (left 10:10 p.m.)� Schnabel Members Absent: Others Present: None Jerrold Boardnan� City Planner PfOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commi.ssion amend � the agenda to inciude an item concerning an alleged home occupation at �t591 2� Street in Fridley. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � DISCUSSION ON ALLEGID EOME OCCUPATION AT ltS9� 21� STREET, FRIDLIY Chairperson Harris explained he had requested this item to be on the agenda as he had received a phone call about one and a hal£ or two weeks ago concerning a use that a particular properLy was being put to at 1�591 2'=z Street in Fridley. He stated that an addition was being built to a garage which was apparently being used to park a truck with siding and for storage of siding material� etc. Mr. Harris said a building permit had been issued in November of 197$, and this had gone be£ore the Planning Cociriission and the Board o£ Appeals at that time. He explained that variances were granted and a Special Use Permit was granted for this particular item, and since then it didn't really appear that the prooerty had been used exactly £or what the Special Use Permit was intended at that time. Pir. Donald Kopecky� !�$91 2� Street N.E.� Fridley; Diane Bipes� l�601 2� Street N.E., Fridley; rlr. Adolph F. Bipes� lt601 2� Street N.E.� Fridley; and Mr. Charles Howe� lt560 3rd Street N.E.� Fridley� were present. Mr. Kopecky pointed out on the photographs the addition to his garage. He explained that the trailer with the tires was brought in on Wednesday, Thursday he couldn't pull it out because o£ the snow� and Friday he removed it, He said that the addition on the garage was started on the 28th and then it snowed for three days and rained for two days� so he only had about three working days to put it up so far. He said that now� since the complaint which he heard about on Monday� he returned the siding and it would take c--� Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 2 another four weeks to reorder the siding because it was a special order � so now everything would sit for another four weeks, Nr. Kopecky said he had never gone be£ore the Planning Commission or the Board of Appeals concerning this, but had just received a building permit. He stated he was following the directions of the building permit and had a£ire wall, removed the swirruning pool, and the 20 X 28 addition would be used for a storage shed. Chairperson Harris commented that the night he was there, there seemed to be a lot of equipment stored in the yard, ladders on the roof, trailers, etc. He explained that a.�R-1 district meant single family dwellings, not a commercial area. He asked if NIr. Kopecky was operating a business out of his home. Mr. Kopecky replied he was siding and roo£ing subcontractor and he did store some material on his property but didn't just throw it out in the yard. Chair- person Harris noted that was where he saw it piled� and that was what the neighbor had been complaining about, hir. Kopecky explained that while he was building the addition some material was stored in his yard, along side of the garage. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the addition was to be used as a storage shed, and Mr. Kopecky said it was, and would not be for an automobile. He explained he would be storing material he had left over from his job. Chairperson Harris asked about the trailer that was sitting there, and R�. Kopecky replied he used that for work. Mr. Harris asked what the tires in the back yard were usgd for� and Mr. Kopecky said they were used £or docks up at the lake. Mr. Boardman expla9.ned that home occupation was actually operating a business • out of your home� and it must be completely operated out of the residential building structure itself. He said that the Code was somewhat vague on what home occupation was, but it did not allow enployees, did not allow over a certain number of cars for the operation and did not allow a retail operation out of a home, but would allow an office and that type of thing. P•�. Boardman said they had allowed a certain amount of storage in an outer shelter as long as that storage was inside and concealed. He explained that when that storage material came outside, that was when there was a problem. He said that all storage materials must be stored within a structure. Mr. Kopecky said that was why he was building the storage shed, and he was not selling anthing out of there. Mr. Langen£eld viewed the photographs and asked what was on the trailer. P�. Kopecky said the trailer contained tires which he laid'around a lake for a snowmobile race. Chairperson Harris stated that the gentlemen who registered the complaint felt there was a commercial enterprise in a R-1 district. Mr, Howe stated that he had called Mr. Harris originally to ask about the apparent change of a R-1 district into a commercial/residential district. He said that in talking to the five closest neighbors around the area to see if any variation had been approved, he found the answer was negative. Ptr. Howe explained he had been told by the school districts that any building used for the storage of commercially-used goods was a commercial building. He added that whether this was true in Fridley, he didn't know, but it was true in the school district he worked in. Air. Howe continued that if the area changed from ;• � � Planning Commission M�eting - March 9, 1977 Pgge 3 � a R-1 to a commercial zoning� all the property owners felt they would be taking a financial loss. He said they were asking if this was being rezoned to commercial, and if they had to give variation to a 30 x 45' building before it could be built. i•Ir. Boardman stated that there had been no petitions for rezoning in the area. Ae explained that this was ari addition to a present existing garage so no Special Use Permit was necessary m it since it tiaasn't a 2nd accessory building. i�1rs. Schnabel stated that there had been no variance on this� either. Chairperson Harris said that it seemed like they were avrful close to the back lot line, but Mr. Kopec'r.y said he knew who 1•Sr. Harris �as thinking of and it wasn't him� but anoiher siding contractor. Chairperson Harris asked if it would be possible that the neighbors irould £eel better i£ a1.1 0£ the materials used in Mr. Kopecky's operation were stored inside and not visable to tne other property owners. }°ir. Howe said they would also like a guarantee £rom the Planning Commission that tnere would be no change in the zoning from .°.-1. Chairperson Harris s2id that without a Pu61ic Hearing and action by the Planning Commission and also action by the City Council� there would be no rezoning. He said that rras a guarantee� and to get anything rezoned was a tou�h project. P1r. Howe said that in other words� even if the building appeared to be corunercial and could be construed to be co,mr,ercial� it could not be rezoned out of a R-l. He then asked what the iimitations were on home occupations� and � Mr. L2ngen£eld read the de;inition of home occupatior. out o£ the zoning ordinance book. Mr. Kopecl,y said he understood the problem, but he had to build the shed before he could store the material in it, and if people kept complainino about it the material would be outside until he got it done. He state3 that he thought he iaas doing pretty good on it as he had gotten it roughed up in less than three days. Chair�erson flarris noted that it seemed the permit was issued in 1975� but i�s. Kopecky said he had gotten the permit last November. Chairperson Harris asked if it would be reasonable to assume that he could keep all the outside material in �he shed a£ter the shed was completed, and Nir. Yopecky replied he could. Plr. Langenfeld asked if he had people coming on the premises to look at any o£ the goods, and t•1r. Kopecky replied he did not� although occasionally a truck would come From the warehouse and deliver goods to the garage. P"s. LangenSeld asked what the average inventory was that he had on hand at a given time� and Mr. Kopecky ansc,ered $1�000 at the most. He added it probably averaged about $600 a mcnth. Plr. Bergman asked the size o£ the accessory building, and Pir. Kopecky replied the addition was 20 x 28�� plus t!�e garage �:hich was 21� x 28'. Air. Bergman noted that was roughly 130G square feet, and asked wiiat the finished square � footage in the home was. A4r. Kopecky replied the home was 1120 square £eet� so he could still build three more square feet if he wanted to. Planning Commission Meeting — March 9� 1977 Page � Mrs, Schnabel asked if the garage or the addition were heated, and Mr. Kopecky , said that he heated the front one when he worked on his snowmobiles. Mrs. Schnabel asked when he contemplated completion of the storage shed, and Mr. Kopecky replied it would be about four weeks because he had to wait for the siding. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he could store material in there now, and Mr. Kopecky replied he could as he was just waitin� to finish the exterior at this point. Mr. Peterson said that in the past the City Attorney had said there was nothing in the ordinance that said they could limit the size of a secondary building� and he didn�t see where they had a legitimate complaint unless he had missed something. Chairperson Harris pointed out it did not fall within the ordinance as a home occupation with storage oi material outside� and that was the basis of the complaint. Mr, L2.ngenfeld said he thought there was some problem where Mr. Kopecky had been mislead as to what he could and could not do, and Mr. Harris sai.d he believed that was correct. Mr, Howe stated that nobody in the area had ever complained about the home occupation; the question was the building storing commercial goods, and the other property owners were scared that the area might be rezoned, I•tr. Langen£eld asked horr pir. Howe� as the person submitting the complaint� would like to see this situation rectified i£ the area remained in its present zoning. A'Ir. Howe said he was just worried about cars, trucks and people gdir� in there with ahildren in the area� and having the area rezoned to commercial and taking a loss on his residential property, hir. Langenfeld . asked if Mr. Kopecky had any plans o£ e�anding his home occupation, and he replied he did not� and he was not selling material or having trucks come in there. Mr, Bergman said that as far as the rezoning went, a rezoning would have to be initiated by the property oimer and would require a Public Hearing before this body at which time Mr. Hows and the other concerned neighbors would have a chance to present their views. He said he didn't think it was very probable that this would be rezoned� and added there was quiie a process involved in that. Mr, Howe said that at one time multiple dwellings had been considered for the araa, and the nezghbors had to keep fighting the rezoning. Mr. Peterson asked if there had been a sign advertising a commercial venture at this particular location, and Mr, Howe replied there had been at one time, but not any more. Chairperson Harris asked if it would relieve the fears of the surrounding neighbors i£ A1r. Kopecky kept all his materials stored inside instead qS outside, and Afr. Howe replied he was no� worried about the outside storage as much as the rezonir.g. Mr, Langen£eld recommendeci that as the Planning Corunission they recommend to Mr. Kopecky that he talce all the necessary ef£orts to clean up the outside materials and get them undercover in the storage shed. He then told hSr. Howe � that if this home occupation showed signs of expanding the City would have Planning Commission Meeting - 1Sarch 9� 1977 + to step in and abolish that. Both parties agreed. Page $ Chairperson Harris said that if the neighbors still felt there was a problem he would suggest that they write a letter to be put on file with the City so that they would have a record of the concerns. Mr. Peterson suggested that Mr. Howe and the five neighbors put their objections in a letter regard- less if this was settled or not� and that way there would be a record even if the property changed ownerships. P+rs. Schnabel suggested that PIr. Kopecky also document his side o£ it� si;ating his current home occupation and that he had stated at this meeting that he didn't intend to expand his business. Mr. Langenfeld said that personally he was glad to see this come before the Planning Commission because it could be a potential time bomb, and by coming to this meeting they had clarified the situation at hand. APPROVE PLANA�ING COi�4•iISSION PSINUTiS: FEB3UA.RY 23, 1977 Mrs. Schnabel said that she had trro minor corrections. �n page ?� she noted that the 9th line in the second paragraph should read "itseli" instead of "himself°; and the second paragraph on page 21 should read "...on a systematic approach to rental." M•r,, Langen£eld exp'ained that the point he was trying to maY.e at the top-of • page 10 when he said "...if they felt P�oore Lake should be recreational� and so on" was he was trying to express whether Pioore I,ake rrould be a swimming beach or just plain recreational such as fishing and/or boating. � MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langen£eld� that the Planning Commission minutes o£ February 23� 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 1. RECCr�;E.^IDATIOn ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES IP: CH�:PTE.R 1'P !�7TTT^ST !'�TTV /�/lT^ P10TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Sc!uiabel, that the Planning Commission receive the revised copy oF Chapter 212, hIining. NIs', Boardman pointed out Vrhat had been eliminated in the first paragraph under 212.01 Finding and Purpose, so the first sentence would read "The City o£ Fridley recognizes that surface mining exists and that this rnining can be an aid to the preparation of development sites." Chairperson Harris said he felt much better about that. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that although the word "vital" had been struck from the first paragraph� it was still in the second paragraph. P;r. Board- man suggested that the second paragragn read '�The purposes of this ordinance are: To provide for the economical availability o£ sand� gravel� rock� 5oi1 and other materials.�� The Commission agreed. Mr. Bergman noted that this was called 'Tfining", yet in the body of the document other terms such as "extraction"� "alLeration"� etc. were used. Planning Cormnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 6 He asked if it was the intent of this document to specifically address • mining as opposed to extraction or land alteration. P1r. Langen£eld said that he interpreted this to be entitled "tdining" with the terms "extraction"� "alteration"� etc. to be a fuztction inside the mining. He added that these things were necessary before mining could be done. i�Irs. Schnabel pointed out that there was a separate ordinance that dealt with land alteration� and this should not be interpreted as the land alteration ordinance. Mr, Ber�nan sai.d he thought this was fairly confusing in the way it was written, He said that in looking at the permit application data in the previous minutes, he noted they were talking about land alteration/mining. Mr. Langen£eld explaiped that the permit was desi�ed to serve a dual purpose for mining and land alte:ation, but agreed it could be a little confusing. Mr. Bergman noted that halFzaay down page 1 the code read "To establish uniform and reasonable limitations, safeguards and controls in the City, for the £uture production of said materials". Ae suggested that the word °production" be changed to "mining". He also noted that near the bottom o£ the same page� item 2 talked about an"extraction permit". He said he felt they should use cormnon terminology so this would be less con£using. Mr. Peterson stated that he grew up on the Iron Range, and one of ihe things he learned was that mining was mining and extraction was extraction; theg were two completely different operations. He said he had problems classify- � ing taking black dirt or gravel as a mining operation. P1r. Langenfeld said that was correct as stated� but For six months the E,hvironmental Commission had discussed that particular point. He said that to try to resolve it they had thought about changing the name of this ordinance� but they just came to the conclusion that '^-tining" would be adequate in this case. He added that he realized the necessity o£ discussing these items� but by the same token the measure and scope of the operation so conducted in the City was so limited that he felt this ordinance would be appropriate. Mr. Bergman said that regarding item 2 on the bottom of page l, he would suggest they were talking about a mining permit rather than an extraction permit, his. Lynch questioned the wording of item 2� and Mr. Boardman said it should read F.�.ctraction permit or mining permit, i�ir. Bergman stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Bergman read to the Commission a portion of item 1 on page 2, which said "The City shall review the £acts and determine whether an emergency exists and shall by w-ritten memorandum, authorize commencement of the emerger.cy exception." He said he was a little concerned that somebody might die before that written memorandum got back in order for emergency work to take place to preserve li£e or property. He said he would suggest the phrase "by written memorandum" be scratched; he thought that maybe in certain cases to preserve life somebody from the City might have to agree over the telephone. Chairperson Harris said the way he read this, the City was requesting the work to be done; the City was the initiator� not the � propert,y owner. Plannin� Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 7 � Mr. Peterson said that if somebody got caught in a cave-in and had to wait ten days for a memorandum granting permission to dig him out� he might be pretty unhappy when he did get out. Mr. Bergman said that was his point, He said he did not read this to be limited to the City doing some work; his view was the opposite--the operator would ha�e to call the City and get from them a written memorandum for authority to commence emergency proceedings. Mr. Langenfeld said that in regard to that sar�e paragraph� he didn�t believe that meant human life, He said he thought it neant natural li�e, and pointed out the reference to "environmental impairment" in the last sentence. I`r. Peterson suggested that point 1 under 212.05 be rewritten to clarify wnat they were trying to get at. Mr. Bergman agreed, Mr. Bergman re£erred to point 2 under 212.05, and suggested changing 60 days to 30 and 90 days to 60, rfr. Peterson won3ered vrhy anybody should be given any time at all to apply. P1r. Boardman said they had to have a certai.n amount of time to prepare the documents that ti:ere required under this ordinance, and it was also protection for the existing operations, Pir. Peterson noted that in 60 days a lot of material could be hauled out. Mr. Boardman said then Ntr. Peterson was talking about requiring them to apply irenediately and then that application process m� take 60 days to issue a per.nit. „r. Langenfeld said he would like to see 15 days and 30 d�ys� but h±r. Harris said there had to be notifieation time and en6ineering that had to be done on some of the property._ � l�Ir. Peterson said that if someone came into the City and wanted to bnild on a lot� they had to get a permit before they couZd build. Here, he said� ihey were allowing someone to haul their City a:�ay and didri't recuire tn�m to do anything for sixty days, Chairperson Harris commented that he tiicught this was meant for existing operations. rir. Boardman said that actuall�, that paragraph was really meaningless anyway because they had alreat�* shut dowrt the operations until permits ti:ere issued. ?•Is. Lynch suggested siriking the word "but" in the third line oi that paragraph, and putting "30 da��s" instead of "90 days" so they r�ould have to apply right away. }•fr. Peterson agreed. He said he realized there had to be processing time� but he didr't see why they had sixty days to apply for the permit. 2;r. Boardman suggested making it stronger than that and shutting down the process until the permit was issued. Mr. Bergman stated that in general� he thought they were overdoing this a little. He thought some o£ the Corunissioners had a speci£ic operation in mind� which he thought was somewhat affecting their reasoning here, In general, he said, he thought that anybody who was in business now would certainly put up a high legal squawk if the new ordinance put him out of business. He thought that was unreasonable and also illegal, Mr. Peterson said he didn't feel it was unreasonable if someone was defacing the City and leaving it. He added that he was r.ot thinking of any one partic- ular operator� but he just t�ought that they had Ueen the least requiring o£ �that operation than anything they had in the whole City. Mr. Bergman sai.d he thought it was prudent of them to do something about it, but he thought it had to be done in a reasonable� business-likc fashion, Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 8 Mr, Langenfeld said he would like to point out that the old 212 did not have � any control whatsoever, and that was rrhy he was favoring this and felt it was the formation of a good ordinance. Fle said it was a difficult kind of thing to take care of� and recommended that items 1 and 2 under 212.05 be clarified. Mr. Boardman asked if they wanted to make the ardinance effective immediately� and Mr. Harris said he thought 30 days to make application with the City able to extend the time for the initial application to 60 days. P1s. Lynch said she felt they should make application right away. hfr. Hoardman noted that he didn�t see any tirne period written in after that application was made for them to get all of the requirements ful£illed. He asked if they could be operating within that period of time after application was made. He said there was nothing that said the operation had to be shut down i£ the materials were not gathered within a certain period of time. Chai.rperson Harris said that was a good point, Mr. Peterson said he really couldntt see the hardship of requiring them to apply ior the permit immediately and then have a t�metable for it to be completed. Mr. Boardman suggested they make application within 10 days� which 4rould give enough correspondence time. Chairperson Harris suggested 15 days, and t;r. Boardman said he thought ten da.,ys would be enough. Mrs. Schnabel asked if a person who was not currently in operation but made an application for a permit would be allowed to commence with any mining until that permit was approved. Mr. Boardman said ne would not be allowed to do � any mining until the permit was issued. After further discussion, the Comrnission decided there should be £ifteen days for notification and 60 days to bring it in to compliance. The Commissioners agreed that 75 days total should be a reasonable amount of time. btr. Bergman referred to 212.06� item 1� which talked about a mineral extraction permit. He asked why mining nermit wasn't used. rfr. Langenfeld answered it was because in the process o£ mining� mineral extraction took place. Mr. $ergman felt they should use consistent terms. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that on page l� under definition �2� they had added "or mining permit". She suggested that item 1 under 212.06 should read ��mining or extraction permit", Ptr. Bergman said that then 212 Mining should be changed to 212 Minin� or Extraction so there would be some consistency in terms. Mr. Boardman suggested eliminating "extraction" all the way through, and this was agreeable to the Commission. Mrs. Schnabel said she still concurred with what 4ir. Peterson said--that when gravel or soil was being removed, that was not mining. Mr. Boardman said they were talking about a degree; extraction was a lighter degree and mining was a heavy degree. Mrs, Schnabel asked if he was saying that for a person to remove gravel or soil he must apply for a mining permit, and Mr. Boardman said that was right. Mr. Bergman said that if they were talking about extraction as being mining � or considered wzthin that context, then mining should be defi.ned as including Planning Cwmnission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 9 • extraction on page 2� item !�, Mr. Peterson suggested that they stay with "mining° and use it all the way through, and then there wouldn't be any ' problems with consistency. He said he would Yeel comfortable with that. Mrs. Schnabel said she agreed, but she thought that in the definitions, under "Mining" they should include in the definition that r�ining shall be determined as extraction. hs. Boardman su�gested it read something like: "The removal or extraction and processing o£ minerals"� and this was agreeable to the Commission. Mrs. Schnabel noted that the re£erences to "mineral extraction oermit" in 212.06� items 1 and 2, be changed to "mining permit", Mr, Bergman added that Vrhenever there was mention of a permit it should be defined as a mining permit and nothing else. Mr. Langenfeld asked if any of the members had any problems with the !t' ta11 fence requirement. He said it seemed appropriate in his estimation. Chairperson Harris said he thought it would do the job. Mr. Bergman said he was reminded that they had proposed a revision to the swirr¢ning pool ordinance from 1�' to 6', and he was a little torn betireen reality and consistency here because he realized a snow fence was handy to put up around a hole, but on the other hand he wondered Vrhy they felt the need to go from 1�' to 6' around a szairmning pool. Chairperson Harris said he could see Mr. Bergman}s concern, but they didn't mak� 6' snow fences--only 1��, Also, he said, a 6� £ence aro•ar.d a s„imming pool ;:as a � permanent insta�lation, and a!t' fence :�ras a �emporary installation. Mr. Boardman said the only reason they put up a fence was to act as a deterrent to people who might want to ase the area for dumping. He added that if somebody wanted to get in badly enough� they could get in whether the £ence was 1�' or ��. Mr. Board:an said that if a 6� fence was reauired� they should just eliminate mining ccmnletel;� in the City of Fri3ley because the cost of pernanent £encing i�as astronomical. Ms. Lynch said she had a problem with this when it talked about 1=f' oi' water. She stated that small children could drown in less t�an that, and asked if this type of operation taas restricted to certzin areas not cicse to residential. Chairperson Harris said in practicality� yes, it snouldn't be close to residential. I•1r. Peterson pointed out an area that was not £ar •away from a heavily-populated residential area. T:s. Lynch suggested that any time there was any kind of excavation it should be £enced; not only vrhen water collected. Mr. Peterson stated that a I�' fence was usually not much of a deterrent to anybody or anything� and Mr. Harris added that most o£ tne time it delineated boundaries, rirs. Schnabel said that going beyond water� she remembered reading about children playing in �ravel pits that had beer. killed in land slides. She said t,hey were not talking just about water� but all facets of this type o£ operation that could be hazardous. T4r. Langen£eld stated that any person that was involved in this type of business would make � sure he had proper insurance� and in order to get that insurance he had to maintain certain safety precautions. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 10 Mr. Bergman said that his mai.n concern with the fencing was safety--not � whether it de£ined an area. He said he thought there was something lacking in item 3 on fencing to provide assurance of safety. If nothing else� he said� that it be controlled by a l�' tall fence of adequate structural soundness and such fashion as to eliminate any openings or ease of mal:ing same. He said it should be fortified so that it was clear that a contractor who was going to comply with the ordinance would not be leaving loopholes. Chairperson Harris said ihat a snoca fence wasn't that bad a fence if it was properly posted. Mr. Peterson agreed, and said it was hard for little kids to crawl over. However, he continued� the problem was the fences usually weren't properly posted but more or less just strung out. Chai.rperson Harris suggested rewriting that section to say the fence should be of some substantial. measure so it couldn't be easily knocked down. r1r. Peterson suggested requiring a post every 10 or 12 feet. Chairperson Harris continued on to number 4, Appearance and Screening, and read (a) aloud to the Commission: "Machinery shall be kept in good repair.'� He said they should say rrhat they meant or leave it out. P4r, Boardman explained it meazit the machinery should be operational. In other words, he said, they didn't want any junk materi�. stored there. Mrs. Schnabel noted they talked about explosives under number 5, Operating Standards. She asked if there yras any specific regulation for storage of that kind of material, and Chairperson Harris said it was covered in another • ordinance. Mr. Peterson brought to the Commission's attention item (e) under number 6, Rehabilitation Standards, and asked the reason For the points listed. ;1r. Boardman said this meant that afLer the excavating, the wate^ bodies should be rehabilitated iS a lake was going to be created. He suggested eliminating this if the Corr+mission didn�t want to deal with lakes with this ordinar_ce. Tir. Peterson pointed out there might be times in the rehabilitation that in the judgement of Styff and the Planning Commission the only way it could be rehabilitated was to have'a standing body of water. Mr. Langen£eld gave another example af a deep hole being dug and the side af£ect was a nice, big hill, and they might feel that would be a prime area £or a ski slope. P1r. Peterson suggested they might have a lake that could be beneficiaJ. to the City, but I�ir. Harris said that would be a special condition that would have to be engineered and handled di£i'erently. I�ir. Peterson suggested scratching i and ii, and P-Lr. Boardman agreed. Mrs. Schnabel re£erred to (f)� Final Elevation� and asked if "park° shouldn't be "part'�� and h1r. Boardm2n agreed. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that '�Paid a permit fee" be scratched from item l� 212.08. Mr. Peterson said he realized that they had peoole who were operating businesses and they had a certain obligation to them, but under 212.08 Fees and Bond, he felt a$1�000 per acre bond would not do much towards rehabilitating the land. Chairperson Harris said he thought that was sufficient. � Mr. Roardman also noted that number 2 under 212.08 should read "Post a security bond...". Planning Corrunission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Pago 11 Nir. Peterson asked if the Commission could consider Item 4 on the agenda next � as he might have to leave before they got to it. MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission suspend the..rules and consider Item 1� on the agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voti.ng aye� the motion carried unanimously. !t. DISCUSSIOPI Cid CHAidGIRTG hSEFTING DATE DUE TO Mr. Boardman said the reason they laere bringing this up was that the S�.ui Newspaper had changed their publication date� and instead o£ Wednesday they would be co,�ning out Thursday. He explained that this would nean a delay to the present fourteen days that they required for notification For another two weeks in most cases. 2�ir. Board,-�an explained that right now from the time an applicant submitted his application for rezoning or a Special Use Pernit until the Planning Coimnission heard it 4rould be almost £our weeks because o£ the change in publication date. He said i£ they moved the meeting date to Thursday it iaould mean about two oreeks. Mr. Boardman said that the only problem they had was i£ they changed the Planning Commission meeting date to Thursday it would conflict with the Human Resources Commission in April� ?Iay, AugusL and October. Mr. Bergman asked if the Fridley Sun talked with the City of Fridley at all � before changing the date� and why the date caas changed. t•?r. Boa^d*�an replied they changed it mainly because o£ the aray the City Council is set up. He explained that right now they had to go to print tionday afternoon� and the Council meetings rrere Monday night� so by the time the agenda got to the Sun Newspaper it was already a week old. He said that there?'ore they had changed their publication date to be more informational to the readers and to try to handle the news at the time it happened. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she i•rould have a conflict as she had a commitment on the third Thursday of every month� and Nr. Bergman said he had another comnitment £or every other Thursd�y. Mr. Langenfeld added that Thursday would also be in conflict with plans that he had, Mr. Boardnan suggested leaving the Planning Commission meetin�s on Y7ednesdays and having an extra two-week delay. Afr. Peterson said he would be in £avor of going to Thursday because he was a traveling salesman and the meetings now £ell in the middle of the week. Chairperson Harris said his impression �ras to leave the schedule as it was because it was all laid out and the calendars were printed. Mr. Bergman noted that they all tended to frame lesser priority things around higher priority things, and in his case since the Planning Co:nmission met on Wednesdays he didn't plan things for ;ti'ednesdays� but did plan other things £or Tuesdays and Thursdays. He added that if the schedule date £or the Planning Commission was changed durin� this coming summer� he could repackage around it� but his conflict conti.nued through the school year, Chairperson Harris suggested they continue the schedule the way it was £or the rest of • this year� then at the beginning o£ next year they could reschedule to Thursday and arrange the rest of the meetings accordingly. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 12 Mr. Boardinan said that for an example, if somebody made application on March . 4th for a Special Use Permit that sequired a Public Hearing, they wouldn�t be heard before the Planning Commission until April 6th. Mr, Peterson said the one thing that disturbed him was they were creating an undue hardship on the citizenry. Chairperson Harris said it was the Chairman�s prerogative to call a special meeting if it was necessary� and Mr. Boardman said they would have to Imow that before they made the initial publication. Mr. Bergman said his suggestion was that they continue as they had been with review in June� which was only three months away. t4r. Langenfeld commented that with a11 due respect to the newspaper 2nd the legal proceedings that took place, he felt uneasy when a newspaper changed its publication date and the City had to completely revamp the governmental meetings. MOTTON by Peterson� seconded by Bergcnan, that the Planning Commission continue to meet on �i7ednesday with the schedule to be reviewed at the first meeting in June. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 9:35, and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. � 2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTIIQANCE CODE Mr. Boardman sazd that from the discussion they had at the special meeizng with the City Council and from the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting� he took it upon himself to make some changes in the naintenance code, Iie said they were handling strictly residential interior for maintenance nurposes (not for upgrading). He said that anything that was built according to a code at the time it was built� vrould be maintained according to that code but not upgraded. He said they would handle the systematic enforcement of a].1 rental properties and their services would be available under the maintenance code to all owner-occupied structures upon their request. Mr. Boardman explained that there were seven items that they would call immediate health and safety hazards� and these would require immediate response £rom rental properties� and if they did do a voluntary check on a R-1 those seven items would also need an immediate response from all owner-occupied units. He exnlained the reason they stated that was because those seven items were not only health hazard items to the property owner, but also to surrounding property owners. He said that if they carie across those� even on a voluntary basis� they would require that property owner to comply with those standards. Mr. Peterson asked what this did to the industrial and commercial property� • and Mr. Boardman explained this didn't afiect industrial and commercial as Planning Commission Meeting - i4arch 9, 1977 Page 13 • they were reviewed by the Fire Inspector on a yearly basis. r�. Peterson commented that the Fi:e Inspector only looked at the property from a stand- point of safety, and if there were enough exits to get people out and no visable £ire traps. He said the Inspector didn't make any inspection in terms o£ whether or not there were other unsafe conditions that existed. Mr. Boardrnan said that was where OS�A carie in. Mr. Peterson said that then they had a health code and not a maintenance code, but h;r. Boardman disagreed. Mr. Bergman commented that he felt 'hnaintenance" was an overlapping term, and he could accept a maintenance code addressing the condition of plumbing when the end point might be the concern for health. He said there was nothing wrong with having that in 2 maintenance code. r1r. Peterson said that when they started talking about vermin and garbage, that was not a maintenance code; Mr. Boardman agreed that would be a health code. Chairperson Harris said that in his estimatiion, that cras the reason for this code. i3e said that the preamble to the codes or the charter mentioned "£or the health, safety an3 welfare of the comm�uiity". Air. 3oardcian said that was included in the preamble of the maintenance code. Pir. Langenfeld said that it seemed to him they had decided that the definition of maintena�ce should be included in the prea*!ble. I•'r. Boardman pointed out it was included in the scope. Mr. Langenfeld asked that the spelling • of "hazards" be corrected in 220.0!�. i•irs. Schnabel point.ed eut that "maintenance" was defined under 220.05 Definitions, nu_mber u3• N,r. Langenielri said lie thought this body had agreed that th= definition o£ "maintenance" would be clearly defined and highlighted in the scope. Mr. Boardman wondered i� that was really necessary, but said he h2dn't had time to study the nex copy of the code very care£ully. Chairperscn 3arris suggested that the�� receive this item and then go home and study it. 240TION by Schnabel� seconded by Langen£eld, that the Planning Co;unission receive the Residential i�Iaintenance Code. Upon a voice vote, all voti:ig aye� the motion carried unanimcusl5•. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Comrrission continue the discussion on the proposed Maintenance Code until the next meeting to allow time £or the menbers of the Comcnission to study it. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 3. CONTINUED: IPdTERSECTION AT $3'.� �+P1D C�NTRAL Mr. Boardman stated that Police Department hadn't come through with the information they were waiting £or yet as they had to get it from the State� but hopefully they would have that by the next meeting. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to mention to T1r, Boardman something that � came to her mind a week ago last Sunday. She explained that she had made the mistake of driving down Sunday afternoon to take the exit out of her Planning Commission Meeting - t4arch 9� 1977 Page 1� neighborhood at 53rd and Central, and it had taken her twenty minutes to • get through there. She said that it happened that Menards was having a sale� and the cars were lined up on the service road £or at least a block trying to get through� and they were also lined up within the parking lot area for at least a block. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought she would be clever and cut through the parking lot and come out at $2nd, but had found another line there� also. She explained it brought to mind that maybe in the design of that intersection some considera�ion should be given to the impact o£ what it would mean on 52nd as some people might choose to avoid that 53rd intersection and use 52nd, instead. I4r, Boardman said that he didn't foresee any problem, and thought that with the channelization it might be a little more accessible. He added he thought it would help 52nd more than hinder it. Mr. Bergman corunented that just immediately East of the City right of way going into that shopping area were a couple of the largest chuckholes he had ever seen. He asked if the City of Fridley should take any concern about that whatsoever. Mr. Boardman replied yes, as that was part o£ the Zoning Code. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission continue the discussion on the intersection at 53rd and Central until the next meeting. Mr. Bergman said that he was a little concerned that the City not be "Big • Brother" and try to be a11 things to all people, including the spending of taxpaye�s money to take over an internal parking lot directional problem which should be at the expense o£ the property oh�ner. Chairperson Harris said it would be at the expense of the property oomer as the City would condemn the property and put in the improvement, then it U�ould be assessed back against the property owner that bene£ited from the improvement, Mr. Ber�nan asked i£ the City could assess the eondemnation cost, l�s. Boardcnan said yes� and that was why it would be better £or him to give the City the right of way instead of having them condemn it. Chairperson Harris added that they were also allowed to charge 250 of the total cost of administration £ees. t4rs, Schnabel asked if the property owner was aware that these discussions were taking place, and A1r. Boardman replied not to his knowledge. Chairperson Harris said they would talk to him after the concrete proposal had been made. Mr. Bergman said he had a little trouble with tho,e comments. He suggested that if a call was going to be made to complain about the chuckholes� a comment should be made about the improvements at the same time. He said he didn't think they should deliberately withhold information. Atrs. Schnabel said she agreed� and she thought in fairness to the property owner he should be told that they were considering improvements on that intersection and he should be invited to attend the meeting that they discussed it at. She added that she thought that was only fair to him since it represented a sub- stantial amount of money. She said it was possible that he might even have some plans of his own. Chairperson Harris commented that he doubted it since � Planning Commission Meeting - March 9� 1977 Page 15 . there hadn't been any plans for £ifteen years� but he also be2ieved in commun- ication. Mr, Bergman suggested the City inform the property owner that they were actively reviewing plans on his prope:ty, but he didn't see a need to do anything more than that. Mr. Boardman said he would also inform the property ormer about the next meeting so he could attend i£ he so desired. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 5. RECEIVE hIATERIAL FROPi 2•fETRO COUNCIL OP: ?'ATTERS ALLEGED TO BE OF MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission receive the material £rom i�tetro Council on matters alleged to be o£ metropolitan significance. Mr. Boardman explained that this was for the member's review� and the information wasn't a matter for consideration by the Planning Commission at this time unless they so chose. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to know if thay were supposed to go Lhrough this and determine if it was of r,.etropolit__� signi£icance, and Afr. Boardr:a.n � replied he would do that. He exolair.ed that the State L^Y�vironmental Quality Council had a statement in their rules and regula�ions that dealt with matters of inetropolitan significance, and t�:ere had ne1•er been a definition of what metropolitan signi£icance really h�s. Therefore� he said, the Metro Council developed standards for deter:�ining rrhat metropclitan signif- icance was, and that was orhat this infornatior. Fras. 1•1r, Ber�nan commented that this seemed like a take-off or a duplicatior o£ the �vironmental �npact process. :s. Bo2rd.^.an said that +:as the purpose. He explaine3 that under the F�viron^�ental Ir•.pact process tnere e:as a s;ate- ment that an environmental impact statenent =hal1 be required if it was a matter of inetropolitan signi£icance� and tnere was no definit�on of what metropolitan significance was. �e said that �Ietro Co�ncil nad been given the task of deiermining what netropolitan significance �.ras or standards for establishing metropolitan signi£icance. P4r. Boardman said this was just a matter of review� and he had submitted it so the members would know some of the documents that the City was getting; no action was needed. He explained he would be reviewing it to see i£ any action was required from City Staf:. P1r. Langenfeld suggested that they just review this to the extent that they were £amiliar with it in case it was ever brought up again. UP(?N A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . b, RECEIVE MATFRIAL FROt•4TIETRO CC�UNCIL �r THE PROPOS�➢ APPLICATI�PJ �T� Planning Cotrmiission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 16 MOTION Uy Lan�enfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission • receive the material from 14etro Council of the proposed application� award� and disbursement of guidelines £or the administration of Planning Assistance Grants. Mr. Boardman said he didn't have much to say about this at the present time as he hadn�t had a chance to review it yet £or the Public Hearing. Chair- person Harris said he felt A7etro Counci7. had stretched the truth slightly about the amount of money they were to receive, Pirs. Schnabel said that she was really sorry she hadn't brought her notes, but at the Planning and Zoning Institute one of the seminars deatt with this subject matter and it had been explained by people from the t•Ietro Council about the awarding of claims� applications� and how the money was broken down into the five categories. She said that when she looked at everybody who was there and how many people the total was going to be divided among, she was surprised they got as much as they did, Chairperson Harris said he had attended a meeting in Spring Lake Park, and in their discussion he had been told they would get a0¢ per capita ior doing this (in other words� !�0¢ for every citizen Frid2ey had). He said that figured out to be roughly $12�000� and he thought that was rather low. No�r� he said� they ended up with $8�835� which was considerably less than what they had been told to begin with. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that was just money that had been granted � for the processing o£ the development o£ the Co�rmunity Development Plan {for the administrative costs of pre�aring a Cormnunity Develooment Plan). She added that once they had the plan, tnen they would start applying £or grants and they might get more money, depending on the amount of assistance they needed. Mrs. Schnabel continued that there t�rere certain communites that were going to receive a certain amount of money outright, and then other communitie^, would receive money based on need. Incidentally, she said� another thing that was broughL out was on Critical Areas there was a separate account to cover anything dealing with that; there was a different set of monies set aside £or that. Mr. Boardman sai.d they hadn't applied yet under that program because they didn't have the guide- lines for application at this time� but they would be making application soon. Mr. Bergenan said he noticed that Fridley was not listed in the collection of Flzlly Developed Policy Areas� but under Urbanizing Policy Areas� and he wondered what the di£ference was. Mr. Boardman replied that he would have to look it up. FIe added that the impact of the classification was probably that more monies would be available for urbanizing comrnmities than £or fully-developed communities. Chairperson Harris directed the Commission to look at the Summary of Community Fhtitlements By Cour.ty (page b5 of the a�enda), and pointed out that column 1 was the Community Comprehensive Planning Fund, and colwnn 2 � Planning Commission 14eeting - March 9� 1977 Page 17 � was the Inventory Activities Ft�nd. He said he thought the $8,835 was the whole amount they were to receive, and Afr. Boardman said it did look that w�y. Mrs. Schnabel explained that there had been .�57�000 allocated for the Inventory Activities Fund out of the total $1�050�000. She said she wished she had her notes because they explained why $�7,000 had been set aside £or that inventory� and she thought it was set aside £or those communities who had not done any work at this point on� for instance, their Community Development Plan, or didn't have a base map. Chairperson Harris said perhaps 1•irs. Schnabel vras right, and asked rir. Boardman to check into the situation. He said that his feeling rras� if they were going to give the City $8�835 to do the thing� then that r�as the kind of plan they should get--they get what they pa;� £cr. He added that he didn't think the co.mmunity should get into the planning game and spend $21��000 to do the work and oaly get 58,835 back on the deal., i�'Ir. Boardman said that the thing about it iaas, they rrould be doing it anyR.ray, Mr, Harris agreed� but said they Vronld be doing it to their oiv�n format and on their o+m time schedule. Mrs. Schnabel said the one thing that seemed to alarm peoole most at the seminar was covered on pages 1�6 - 1�7� under Step 1 of the Cor�imw�ity Comprehensive Planning F1uid. She said these were the factors and ue�ghts br`o`:an down into what they were �oino to use in determining how a co.^imunity • stood in their application. She said the tk�o th�ngs tha,t seemed to concern most of the people were at tne top of p�ge lt7--the orojected population increase and the project� emoloyment increase. She sta�ed the question ha3 arisen several times as to ho-� they were going to project those figures and what figures they were using For their base. Chairperson Harris said that then with the eligibility* and allocation criteria, the �8,835 was the maximum ariount, h'xs. Schnabel disagreed and said she still thought that that money cwas tne money that had been granted to the City to cover administrative costs in devzloping the Land Use Planning Grant Program, She explained that when the State Legislature passed the Land Use Planning Act in 1975 they a:rarded the ?•;etro Council $2�000�000+. She continued that of the monies that they were granted by the legislature� they broke it dovm into these £ive allocations based on what they felt were the specific needs to prepare docwaents to comply with this Land Use Planning Grant Program. Chairperson Harris said he understood that, but £rom reading the informa- tion provided it didn�t sound to him like they automatically got the $$,835; he thought that was the ma�cimum an!ount that had been allocated to the City. blr. Boardman explained that the appropriation allocation to the metro area was $1�050�000; t:�at was the whole ball o£ wax. He said that then the Community Comprehensive Pla*ming Flmd of $807�500 was the money they had allocated to the communities to complete the three- year comprehensive planning. }Ie said they would apply for more funds, � however� that was the allocation to be given to communities £or carryir,g out the intent of the law. Of that, he said, it looked like they had Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 18 already figured the factors and weights in order to get those allocations. � Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Boardrnan had given them a projection of population increase and employment increase� and Mr. Boardman replied that the Metro Council had done that. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that it said a community may utilize £unds granted under this section i'or the preparation or adoption of any required element(s) of its comprehensive plan or of£icial controls. Pfr. Boardman said that it looked like the $8,835 was the ma�timum �nount that irould be allocated to ��,City, and Chairman Harris agreed. , UPON A VOICE UOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. CONTZNUED: GOALS & OBJECTIVES: ACCRSS Mr. Boardman said there was one area left after this� and that was Community Vita7.ity} which should be ready by the next meeting. MOTIOAT by Schnabel� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission receive Goal Area: Access� and continue to the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. F, OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Langenfeld said he nad taken it upon himself to make copies of a � portion of the ➢epartment of Natural 3esources inforrnative brochure to pass out to the members. He said he wished to bring to the Commission�s attention the comments made in regard to the aeration systems as he thought they were very interesting. Mr. Langenfeld commented that every nola and then the Commission talked about the 208 Water P4anagement Program� and they now had available a 208 Planning Bulletin and he was wondering if anybody on the Commission would be interested in receiving that brochure. If so� he said� perhaps Mr. Boardman could make the arrangements. :•ir. Boardman said that he thought this Commission was on the mailing list, but he would check and have them start sending it to the Commission members. Chairperson Harris said they had gotten a Public Hearing notice from the City o£ Spring Lake Park concerning a request for a Special Use Permit to construct a local cartage and freight terminal on part of Lot 7� Auditors Subdivision No. 121�� the �enera7. location being 1229 Osborne Road, Iie informed the Commission the Public Hearing would be on Monday� March 28� 1977� at 7:�0 p.m, in the Spring Lake Park City Hall. rir. Boardman said this Special Use Permit would concern an area North of Osborne along Highway 65� between Highway 65 and Old Central. He explained it was across the street from Sambo's, and was zoned light industrial. P4r. Langenfeld asked if someone was going to represent the City, and Pir, Boardman replied that they didn't £eel it would cause that much o£ an impact on the City's � operation in that area and there£ore wouldn�t be worth their time. �� Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 19 � Mr. Boardman said he had been asked by Dick Sobiech to bring up for discussion the amount of information they should actually let out on the plat notifica- tions. He explained they had some problems at the City Council meeting with the DeLeier plat. The plat had been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council� he said, and then Yrhen it got down to improvement on the road itself the people came in and said they hadn't been aware it was going to cost them any money. He said ihat 2�ir. Sobiech was wondering if a noti£ication should be put on the platting notice that subsequent improve- ments might affect them. The oroolem was, he said� that the Planning Commis;ion wouldn't lmow hotu much it was going to cost the citizens� or even if they would be affected at all. He said he t•ras wonderin� if the Planning Commission uanted to get into that. Chairperson Aarris commented that it really was not a Sunction of the Planning Corunission to get into assessment hearings. F1r. Langen£e1d said he did think, however, it should be a kno::�n thing to the citizens involved. Mr, Boardman said it would be difSicult fo^ the Planning Commission to ' evaluate because they vrouldn't know N�hat the easements would be at that time. Chairperson Harris suggested that i£ they saw such a thing they could call it to ihe attention of the City Council when they se;.t their recommendation to them on the plat. Mr. Bergman asked if it was true that plattir.g actually could result in any costs to adjacent property owners� a�c T•L. Boardman said it could, i?e explained that Yrith a plat there could even be a road improvement that could • affect other property owners, and said that f`r. Sobiecn rras wor.dering if they shouldn't notify them at the time of the plat that this platting could result in subsequent improvements that mi�:_t affect them, t•4s. L3mcn commented that she thought it i•;as true that there c:*as no sense in platiing unless there �,�ers going to be improvements� and she thought the people would understand that. Mr. Bergman asked at what point after the platting there was an announcement or Public Hearing regarding the speci£ic street that ti.ould nou go in t::ere tand what it would cost� if there was to be a street improverent. h`r. Boardman replied that was totally up to the developer. Mr. Boardman suggested that he recommend to r1r. Sobiech Lhat they leave it the way it was and not make any statements that subsequent improvement might affect adjacent property owners. Mrs. Sc'nnabel suggeste3 that Nrhen the matter came before the City Council that mention could be made that there might possibly be expenses borne by adjacent neighbors. Chairperson Harris said he didn't underst2nd where the problem was� and ;�ir, Boar'waan explained that people were obviously unaware in the Public Hearings that generally in approvi.ng a plat, improvements generally £ollowed. Mr. Bergman said he thought a statement should be in the notice because some of those people might decide to come to the Public Hearing if they were made aware oF the possibilities. hSr. Boardman said he wondered if they wanted people at the Public Hearings asking what type of improvements � were going to be made when the Commisssion really couldn't tell them at the � Planning Commission Meeting — r�arch 9, 1977 Page 20 time of the platting how those things were going to affect them. Mrs. . Schnabel asked when the City could tell them, and Chairperson Harris answered at the impxovement hearing. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that platting notices should include a statement to the effect that as a result of platting, possibilities did exist that improvement costs would follow� or words to that af£ect. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought this would open a can of worms. She explained that while she felt the people in the area should be aware that.;they might be assessed £or improvements� she thought in terrns of the Public Hearing there would be a lot of peop�e attendzng Lo object to the replatting of property because they might possibly be assessed. She stated she didn't lmow if that type o£ input at a Public Hearing would be beneficial to the discussions in terms o£ replatting property, t4rs. Schnabel said she thought it would make an awkward situation, and would be very difYicult because they wouldn't be able to give the citizens any dollar amount. She added that she thought that would make the Commission look as though Lhey were acting a2most irresponsibly; they couldn't give them any idea o£ how much or when� and the citizens might think the Commission was trying to hide things from thern. Mr. Bergman said he thought they might ;ee2 that way notir. Mr. Boardman said he thought they had to look at, the a£fect o£ platting on the community as a whole� and i£ it oras a good idea and a step forward . in the development of the cammunity. Chairperson Harxis said it was even more basio than that. Fie said it was pretty tough to deny a plat i£ it followed the platting ordinance--there had to be good grounds. P4r. Bergman stated that his motion rras made in support of improving public awareness and communications� and he didn't see hotir it would have any af£ect on how they would judge a plat. He said he saw nothing wrong with public awareness--at least the citizens would be made knowledgeable. Or. the other hand� he said� he could see vine^e it might be a bit disruptive� but the platting ordinance was clear and the fact that sorebody dot•rn the street might now like it because it would cost him money is not a consider- ation in the right o£ a property owner to plat. Ms. Lynch stated that she agreed the pnblic had a right t.o know, but she couldn�t even imagine anybody not realizing that in the natural scheme ef things there had to be progress� and if they would look ahead they had to realize that it mighi cost the�a money. She said she couldn't see any reason the Commission should be hassled because of telling the citizens of a possibility that might not even happen. She added that she thought it would just cause problems. Mr. Langen£eld said his vote would be ior the motion simply because Mr. $ergman had added "or words to that af£ect'�. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman and Langenfeld voting aye, Harris, Lynch and � Schnabel voting nay, the motion £ailed 3- 2. Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 i Page 21 � Chairperson Harris said he had one more item which concerned a brochure from the Center for 5tudy of Local Governnent in St, Paul� Minnesota. He explained that planning seminars were to be held on Land Use Planning, Zoning functions� and Legal Foundations of Planning and Zoning and Subdivison Regulations, A,°ter £urther study, however� it �ras determined that the seminars had already iaken place with the exception o£ those that rrere to be held out of town. Mrs. Schnabel cornmented th2t the Planning and Zoning Institute she had attended was very excellent� and was something that anybody Urho was incolved in city governnent in any vray should go to, She added it was very informa- tive and very helpful, and she had enjoyed it. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to mention the Community Noise Contrcl meeting which taould take place on April 28th, and said he would bring the information back to the next meeting. ADJOURPR�IENT: MOTION by Langenl'eld� seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson ?iarris declased the Planning Corvnission meeting of Piarch 9, 1977 adjonrned at ll:�tl P.hf, � ri � Respectfully submitted� ��niTir_�> ! %�I�/I7r,�•n�� _� SHerri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary � Planning Commission Meeting - March 9, 1977 Page 21 � Chairperson Harris said he had one more item which concerned a brochure from the Center for Study of I.ocal Governr:ent in St. Paul� Minnesota. He explained that planning seminars were to be held on Land Use Planning, Zoning functions� and Legal Foundations of Planning and Zoning and Subdidison Regulations. After further study, however� it was determined that the seminars had already taken place with the exception of those that iaere to be held out o£ town. Mrs. Schnabel commented that the Planning and Zoning Institute she had attended was vexy excellent, and was something that anybody c�rho was invo2ved in city governrnent in an;� way should go to. She added it was very informa- tive and very nelp£ul� and she had enjoyed it. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to mention the Comrnunity Noise Control meeting which would take place on April 28th� and said he Vrould bring the information back to the next meeting, ADJOURnR•fENT • MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman� that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Earris declared the Planning Corrmiission meeting of Atarch 9, 1977 adjourned at 11:1�1 P.�i. • Respectfully submitted� �.�J�v!r�uJ ( '��] I!�I7�.9ro�� � Sherri O�Donneli Recording Secretary � � � � eJ� n) N�� GOAL AREA: ACCESS GOAL STATEMENT: Program Objective Program Objective Program Objective Program Objective Program Ob3ective Program Objective Program Objective Program Objective A100 Maximize accessibility to allow for 5afe, efficient movement of people, goods and services A110 Provide a transportation system which not only maximizes access to all parts of the City, but which also maximizes � access from within the City to other metropolitan areas. A120 Assure an effective choice of transporta�ian modes suited to various needs of potential users. A13Q Assure the coordinated design and operation of these transportation modes with each ather and with the area development policies and criteria for efficiency and safety. A140 Assure minimum conflict of routes with the functions of neighborhoods and business districts so as to reduce social and environmental impacts. A150 Promote increased public transportation service and facilities to provide better and more convenient transportation opportuni- ties to the City residents. A160 Provide a high level of maintenance to assure that the transportation system be free of a11 obstacles and maintained for safe, efficient flow. A170 Promote all pertinent measures for multiple use of facilites and land, especially in key travel-desire corridors and areas of concentrated activities. A190 Encourage participation by affected citizens in transportation decision making, planning ` and evaluation. � i � � GOAL STATEMENT Program Objective GOAL AREA: vt o0 i �� l.l COFIMUNITY VITALITY Develop and promote ideals necessary to maintain the economic well-being of the Conmunity. V110 Identify and pranote the kind of mix of activity of varying types and levels which will provide a rising standard of living for our residents at each state of development or redevelopment of our City. Program Objective V120 Pranote sound land management in order to provide for a well balanced land use system. r� Program Objective Program Objective GOAL STATEMENT Program Objective Program Objective Program Object9ve Y130 Develop and maintain an equitable system of assessment and taxation so as to provide a sta6le economic base to meet the changing needs of the comnunity. V140 V200 V210 Promote a desirable image of the City. Provide an effective system of government capable of ineeting the changing needs of the comnunity. Provide government functio�s adequate to meet the needs of the comnunity. V220 Develop high quality operational standards which will provide the necessary services needed to ensure continued camwnity development. V230 Provide essential comnunication and coordinatioA between tfie City and other agencies which may affect the operation of the City. Prograsn Objective V240 Provide the means for effective coimnunication between the City's governmental operation and its residents. , �4 � PARKS & REGREATION COMMISSION M&ETING FEBRUARY 28, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Peterson, Harvey Wagar, Leonard Moore, Dave Harris ME�ffiERS ABSENT: Jan Seeger OTHERS PRESENT: Charles goudreau, Parks & Recreation Director ,Terry Boardman, City Planner T,aurie Hillsdale, U. of M. Spring Quarter Intern for Parks & Recreation Department Frank Novak, 6241 - Sth St. N.E. - Fridley Senior Citizen Matt Szczech, 4820 - 3rd St. N.E. - Fridley Senior Citizen ,7uan Salas, 5810 - Sth St. N.E. Jim Langenfeld, Fridiey Environmental Commission Chairperson (also representing Lions' Club) � CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Peterson called the meeCing to order at 7;34 p.m. APPROVAL OF DECEhffiER 13, 1976, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Harvey Wagar, seconded by Leonard Moore, to approve the December 13, 1976, parks � Recreation C�ission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Mr. Boudreau stated that Mr. Boardman was at the meeting to talk about the status of the "Capital Improvements Plan" which he would like added to the agenda under "Old gusiness ". Mr. Soudreau stated he also wanted added to the agenda a request Erom the Fridley Firefighters' Relief Asspciation to use Co�ons park for their second annual softball tournament . Mr. Peterson sta[ed he had an item he wished the Co�ission to consider. It had to do with an ordinance City Council was considering passing which he did not think would come to the Parks & Recreation Commission and that was the"Ordinance for Industrial � Property". . �� �5 4 PARKS & RECRBATION COMMISSION t�ExING FF.BRUARY 28, 1977 PAGE 2 MOTIDN by Dave Harris, seconded by Harvey Wagar, of the above three items. Upon a voice vote, a11 unanimously. OPEN PORUM: VISITORS �uan Salas to adopt Che agenda with the addition � voting aye, the motion carried I�'. Salas stated that every year at this time he came before the Commission to ask for use of a school gymnasium for soccer training at least six weeks before the opening season. Mr. Peterson stated that last year, the Commission had asked the Parks & Recreation Director to meet with the school officials to work out some kind of program so that Mr. Salas could use the gymnasium at Parkview. � Mr. Boudreau stated he could approach the school about the use of the gymn.-:,�um for Mr. Salas' soccer program. He stated he must report to the C�ission that <;ome of the school personnel are less than enthusiastic about the City having a soccer program. He suggested that if they are going to make this request again this year, that Mr. Salas be employed by the City as a part-time soccer instructor for the City's program. Mr. Salas should be reimbursed for some o# his time, He also stated that if the City was going to underwrite this program, they should have some input on what they hope will come of that program, He said he would be happy to make this request in the name of the City. � I.qr. Peterson agreed with that and stated the Commission would Ieave the details up to Mr. $oudreau. He asked Mr. Salas to keep in touch with Mr. Boudreau to work this out. DIRECTOR'S R�PORT A !� Woodcrest Baptist Church Mr, goudreau wanted to report to the Commission that he had received a letter from Pastor Poorman of the Woodcrest gaptist Church dated January 5, 1977. pastor Poorman had stated that they had taken steps to close off the east driveway during the winter months by parking a bus there and in the spring they would close it off with a chain. Pastor Poorman stated they were glad to cooperate for the safety of the children. �urrent Status of Program Offerings rtr. goudreau re�iewed with the Commission members the programs tlxat were offered during the winter. He also reviewed the proposed programs for the spring which will be printed in the Community Education gulletin and in the quarterly City Newsletter. He stated they wanted to go to seasonal programs-- one each for spring, fall, winter, and spring, instead of combining them as they have in the past. � �� �T PARKS & RECREATION C0."4✓iISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1977 PAGE 4 iThe Commission membeYS stated that this was not true--that the Coum�ission did approve this request in the minutes and in the budget. Mr. Peterson stated that the Commission did approve a line item of $3,000 for Suhurban Community Services. Mr. goudreau sCated that to address the problem of the senior citizens, he had met often with Ms. Debbie nominick, who was the regresentative for guburban Community Services in this area. He said when he had first arrived on the job, he had spoken to the Senior Citizen Club and it had been his strong feeling that one of the prime objectives of Suburban Coomunity Services was to assist communities in starting a senior citizens' club where that club would become self-sufficient and Suburban Community Services would then drop by the waysidQ. Suburban Community Services would provide the leadership which was what Ms. Dominick had done for the last few years. Faced with this situation, Mr. goudreau had the strong feeling that we, in gridley, should take the same approach to the senior citizens as they take to the teenagers and that was that they owed the senior citizens a service and that service should be provided for by the city. He had told Ms. Dominick and others from Suburban Community Services that one of his prime goals by 197$ was that the City would supply the leadership for the senior citizens' club and that the $3-4,000 that they gave guburban Community Services every year for that same service could just as well supplemant a part-time or full-time person in our city for the same type of service. He said that was when he found out that the Suburban Co�unity Services had.not gotten the guaranteed ,53-4,000. . Mr. Boudreau stated that the City Cauncil had given him permission to advertise for a Recreation Program Supervisor. He said cr.ey were going to start processing applications the next morning. He said one of the primary functions of the Program Supervisor would be to supply leadership for the senior citizens. They have purchased these services from Suburban Co�unity Services until September; and they felt if their person was here in Fridley for six months prior to September, that person could work with Ms. Dominick to get the feel of what she had in mind for the senior citizens and then by September, they should be able to in-house supply equal to, if not better, leadership for their senior citizens. He said they were working with the school system to come up with some type of�suitable facility to house this program. Mr. Peterson stated that this reflected the feelings of the Commission because they had all felt that this money had been passed in the budget and that they were sorry about the budget mix-up. Mr. Novak and Mr. Szczech stated they felt these plans were more than satisfactory. Mr. Peterson thanked Mr. Novak and Mr. Szczech for coming and stated they were more than welcome to attend the Commission meetings at any time. i'�1 � �a �� . PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSiON MEETING FBBRUARY 28, 1977 PAGE 3 Mr. Boudreau stated that one of the programs he was excited about was the � "Donate a Tree" program. The �ity will be purchasing a tree spade for the transporting of treees and he felt it will enhance the nursery program. He said they are also planning a"PITS" (Playground in the Streets) program and also thinking of having "movies under the stars". C• Snowmobiling Policy Mr. Boudreau stated there has been a concern on the part of many Fridiey residents that the snowmobiling policy should be changed as the current policy really did not say anything. Mr, Boudreau stated they are looking at this policy and he had taken some suggested changes on the snowmobiling policy to the City Council work meeting, These suggested changes would not ban snowmohiles entirely ftum the city but would restrict the use of snow- mobiling to private property. Mr. goudreau said there has got to be either a restriction on snowmobiling to one locale or something done with snow- mobiles in general. He wanted to report that tha City Council was looking at a policy change that would, in fact, tighten the policy a great deal. Mr. Harris stated it would be fine it Statf wanted to bring back a policy change for the Commission's review at a meeting in the near future. Mr. $oudreau stated that Mr. Jim Hill, Public SaEety nirector, had written a work policy that Mx. goudreau would be happy to Uring before the Commission. D. Fee Policy Mr. goudreau stated that in resQonse [o a letter from the mayor, he had taken it upon himself to enciorse a policy that, in the future, there would be a statement on a11 flyers which would, in fact, say that anyone who cannot afford to participate in the programs, the fee wouid either be reduced or waived by talking to the Parks & Recreation Director, ge said they want it publicly known that no one'was to be excluded because they could not afford the fee. He said this had already been passed by City Council. The �ommission members were very much in agreement with this. E. Program Supervisor Positien Mr. Novak and Mr. Szczech were at the meeting to ask what the Co�ission's intentions were for a new program for the senior citizens beginning in September. � Mr..Boudreau stated that what had happened was that there had been a mix-vp and the Suburban Community 5ervices were under the impression that $4,000 had been earmarked from the Parks & Recreation budget for continued service through Suburban Co�unity Services for L-he senior cftizens. pSr. Boudreau said that, according to the Parks & Recreation minutes, this was not so and that Council had never acted on it. He said that the minutes had read to the effect that the Commission would consider this reQuest at budget time but were never positive or negativa. He said as he goi into the 1977 budget, � he got the request from Suburban Comm�nity Services for the $4,000. Then, he found out that it had never been approved by the Co�ission and that it was, in fact, not in the budget so there was a lot of confusion. , �� PARRS & RECREATEON COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1977 PAGE 5 � F. Intern for Spring Quarter Mr. Boudreau introduced ALs, Laurie Aillsdale to the Commission. He explained that Ms. Hillsdale was a senior at the University of Minnesota and would be working with the Parks & Recreation Department free of charge in return for the educational experience. He said she would also be retained in the summer as Summer Playground Supervisor. G• Softball- F.Y•S.A. Program Mr, goudreau stated that he had met with the F.Y.S.A. Their program was well. under way and that the City would be assisting with the program as they had done in the'past, Mr. Boudreau stated that instead of writing out a detailed description of this, he felt it was time that trust was built up between them and that these things should be understood. The F.Y.S.A. had agreed to that. In cottjunction with other softball programs, they had come up with the idea of an afternoon housewife or ladies' fun day, Also, since the attendance in the morning programs was way down, they were considering changing the program hours to 1-4:30 and 6;30-8:30 in the afternoon and evening, and have tennis and T-ball in the morning. This would open up a lot of areas for a family-type evening. OLD BUSINESS: • A. Request by Lion's Club Mr. Langen£eld stated he was at the meetins on behalf of the Lion's Club and thanked the C�ission for their time. He stated that the yion's Club had donated a great deal of money in an attempt to restore the lake, and other things, such as the dock. They had donated somewhere in the range of $20,000. The Lion's Club would appreciate the Coumission's consideration in changing the name of the park from "Moore Lake Park" to "Fridley Lion's Park". Mr. Wagar stated that he was not in favor of renaming the park. Mr. Moore stated that speaking as a coumiissioner traveling throughout the United States, it was nice to see that sign that said "Moore yake geach". It was a kind of recognition thing and was a part of the community. He said he would hate to see the name changed. Mr. Harris stated that he could understand the Lion's position in making this request and appreciated their interest and recognition. gut, he Eelt they had one Ching to consider and that was that if the Commission was to do this on the basis of contribution, they wrn:ld be negating some of their responsibilities because then names would have to be decided for all the parks. He did not think the Commission would want Co�ons Park changed to the Fridley Jaycees Park or another park's name changed to the name of come other developer that had helped. He felt there should probabLy be some way to recognize people who had done a lot for the parks. � ',�.9 � PARKB & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING PEBRUARY 28, 1977 PAGE 6 Mr. Boudreau stat�d it was not unusual for local clubs to make donations toward � the betterment of parks and recreation systems. He said around the country you did see some parks that aYe named after these clubs or individuals, but in Minnesota, they had stayed away from naming parks after individuals or clubs. gis personal opinion would be that, unless some long term arrangement for the complete development of park land was made, he woUld want to stay away from recognizing the parks in this way. gut, he agreed there had to be some other ways of recognizing the valyable contributions mac}e to these areas. Mr. Peterson stated that the City Council had named the parks with recommendation from the Commission. He stated that since Mr. Boudreau was in the process of working on a policy manual and with his contact with the civic organizations, maybe Mr. goudreau could come up with some way that would be appropriate to recognize what these clubs and organizations are doing. Maybe this should be looked at a Iittle more in-depth for those who had done a lot for the parks within the city. Mr. Boudreau stated that he thought there could be a firm policy recommendation. ge suggested that maybe the organization`s name could be incorporated in another way; for example, Moore Lake Lion's park. If the Commission agreed with that, he said he would come up with some alternate suggestions. Mr. Wagar stated that �ight be o.k., but he felt that naming the park,'°Fridley Lion's Parlc" was wrong. He also stated that maybe if an organization developed � a park--say 90% or so--that then it might be appropriate to recognize them. He said he would be willing to let Staff mske some recouenendations. Mr. Harris stated that he would be willing to name a softball diamond or a tennis court, for exampie, after a person or organization if that person or organization put that faci�ity in. Mr. Boudreau stated that he would add one word of caution and that was that many times when there was a donation from an organization, that organization was glad to give the donation, but they also wanted the string attached that, because they did it, that facility became the facility of the organization, rather than the City's. He had seen that happen often. But, he stated that ptr. Harris had brought up a good idea, that rather than number ball diamonds or tennis courts, they be called by the name of whoever would put them in. I4r. Peterson stated this item should be set aside until Mr. Boudreau could bring back some more information. Mr. Harris stressed that this was not to slight the Lion's Club, but they were just trying to find a co�on denominator for e.very group. Mr. Peterson thanked Mr. Langenfeld for attending and told Mr. Langenfeld that he would be notified when ehis item would again be on the agenda with Staff's recommendations. � M VV PARKS & RECREATZON COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 28> 1977 PAGE 7 � B. Moore Lake geach A',r. Langenfeld sY.ated that he wanted to stress the tact that in order to do anything with the lake, the City must detarmine what they really wanted it for-- whether it should be a recreational lake, a swimming lake, etc. He said the Bridley gnvironmental Commission are now going to wait for the feasibility study to be done. After the study had been done, then the City could determine what to do with the lake. Mr. Langenfeld stated he had been involved with trying to get a study done on the lake back in 1973 and gave the Commission copies of this material £or their information. He said at that time the study would have been $10-11,000 and currently it will be $14-17,000. This study was going to be done with Hitchcock & Associates with regard to the Rice Creek Watershed. He also stated that the Lion's Ctuh had been approached for additional monies because the City needed additional monies. Mr. Boudreau stated that he would bring the Commission up to date on this item stating that this subject was also on the City Council agenda for that same evening. He stated that out of the recent City Council work sessions had come up the thought that we have a valuable resource and ifit was going to become even more valuable to the community, something needed to be done. Mr, Boudreau stated that he had relayed the Commission's concerns to the City Council. They are now investigating and had talked to several firms, Hitchcock & Associates included, who made a living studying lake restoration. It appeared that Hitch- cock & Associates were far ahead, not only in their studies, but in their � attempts to receive grant monies for restoration. To employ Hitchcock & Associates to do a complete study to find out exactly what might be done with the lake would cost $14-17,000. The parks & Recreation budget has $7,000 earmarked for the study of the east side of the lake for Chis year. Hitchcock & Associates are talking about studying both sides of the lake for $17,00�. The Rice Creek Watershed District had verbally co�nitted to add another $3,000 for this study. He said someone had approached the Lion's Cluh for additional monies. He said what it boiled down to was that the Council had to make a decision on whether they wished to expend additional funds for a complete study of the lake or not. HaPefully, Chis decision would be forthcosing soon. Mr. Peterson stated that the summer swimming program was what the Co�nission had to face that evening. Mr. Boudreau stated he had already made the recommendation that he strongly advised the Conw�ission that they not offer the "Learn to Swim" program in the lake this suouner. They would run the beach as a recreational facility with lifeguards and safety, but it would be a volunteer beach with no classes. He stated he would be meeting with the school officials to see why the City could not use the Jr. High swimming pool for these classes. Pir. Peterson stated that this was agreeable and that, hopefully, by the next year, they could combine the Jr. High pool and the lake.for the swia¢ning pzogram. � °�1 F PARKS & RECREATSON COMMISSZON MEETING FEBRUARY 28> 1977 PAGE 8 C. Capital Improvements Plan Mx. goardman stated that in April they are intending to get a draft copy of the parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Hopefully, the Commission wi11 get these Ywo weeks prior to their meeting. He stated he had one fu11-time person working on the parks plan and he had a landscape architect intern working on Che development of concepts of future park systems, and another part-time person working on maps, etc. They are getting close to organizing the wri.tings, mappings, etc., and, hope£ully, by mid-April could get these out to [he Commissions. NEW BUSINESS: A• Commission Meeting Dates Mr. Boudreau stated he had a letter dated January 4, 1977, from the Council stating that it had been brought to the Council's attention that the parks & Recreation Commission met on the same night as the Council and that it created problems. The Council had asked that the Commission discuss this problem and consider going to Tuesday for their meeting as originally planned in 1976. The Counc�7 was just asking for feedback at this time. � Mr. Wagar and Mr. Moore stated they wantec� to keep the Monday meeting night and would hesitate to make a change. Mr. Harris stated he slso preferred � Monday night. �, peterson asked Mr. Boudreau to write a letter to the Council stating that the Commission had discussed this matter and at this time Monday night was the best night, 6ut that this would be brought up again at the June meeting to be discussed with the new Co�ission members. Mr, goudreau stated he would also check to see which Monday night it was that the Council did not meet. g.. Fridley Fire Fighters Relief Association Mr. Boudreau stated the Fridley Fire Fighters Relief qssociation had again requested permission to ho�d their second annual softball tournament at �ommons Park on J�e 10, 11, 12, 1977. Mr. Peterson stated that the Commission has a policy of $100 for clean-up. ge asked the question o£ whether the Commission would want to waive this for a city group or stay with the policy as deveioped by the Coamiission. MOTION by Harvey Wagar, seconded by Leonard Moore, to approve the Fridley Fire Fighters Relief Association's request to hold their second annual soft- ba11 tournament at Comu�ons Park on June 10, 11, 12, 1977, but that tre pssociation put dovni a$100 deposit for clean-up, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � �ti . PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1977 PAGE 9 � OTHER BUSINESS• Ordinance for Industrial Property Mr. Peterson stated Chat as he read the City Council minutes, City Council was contemplating changing the ordinance to require only 3% of the gross area of covm�ercial or industrial zoned property to be subdivided be dedicated instead of 10'/, as required for residential developments. Mr, Peterson stated that as a member of the Parks & Recreation C�ission, he was surprised to see that it went to the Council hefore coming to the Parks & Recreation Commission for two reasons: (1) It has to do with park 1and; and, (2) We get caught in the bind of always being asked for more teams and more park space, and it was not the residents who put on the pressure, it was the people who are in the industrial parks and co�ercial properties in to�an who came and said they were taxpayers and who felt they should have their teams entered in the various leagues. Mr. Peterson stated that now we are going to ask them not to participate and underwrite the developmenC of the parks and are still going to be asking developers of residential property to set aside 10% of their property for park land and he did not think it was equitable. Mr. Harris stated that the problem was that they ended up with small parcels of property that they cannot take care of. He felt the best approach to gain valuable dollars rather than land Chey cannot use would be Co set up a policy that, when a building permit was taken out, there was some equitable formula based on square footage .that the building permit pay a certain fee to Parks & Recreation. It should be set aside as monetary and whatever was equitable on a monetary basis and should be tied to the building permit. Mr. Boardman stated that the reasons the C�ission were bringing up were the main reasons for the ordinance change--so that these things would be done. Mr. Peterson stated that there had been some Council action on this at their last meeting as Staff had been directed to write an ordinance to change it. MOTION by Dave Aarris, seconded by Hazvey Wagar, that the Parks & Recreation �ommission would like any ordinance change relative to parks & Recreation land, either by land requirements or capital requirements,to be passed to the Commissicn for their review be£ore City Council took any action on it. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Harvey tdagar, seconded by Leonard Moore, to adjourn the meeting at 10;05 p,m, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. gespectfully submiteed, � .' it� �L q %e Saba Recording Secretary.• �7 � � COMMONITSi DIIVELOPMBNT COI�AtCSSIQN MBETING PfABCH 1, 1977 1�ERS P&SSBtiT: Herman Bergman, I,egoy pquist, �harles G�+oder Z�iBBRS ABSSN'� 01�IBRS PRSSHNT: CALL TO ORDSR• flubert Lindblad Ernie Mattila, planning Aide Pat Gabel, Sign prdinance Project Co�ittee_Chairperson Chairperson Sergman called the meeting to order at 7;35 p.m. APPROVAL OF JAN[TARY 11, 1977, COMMUNITY DEVII.OPMENT CUII�ffSSION MINUTES: MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by Charles Goodez, Co�unity Development Co�ission minutes as written. aye, the motion carried unanimwsly. REPORT FR�I THE SIGN ORDINANC& PROJSCT COZAfITTEE: �3 to apprwe the 3anuary 11, 1977, Upon a voice vote, all voting 1+�TI�T by LeRoy pquist, aeconded by Charles Gooder, to receive the Sign Ordinance Project Committee minutea dated January 24, 1977, aud additional material on �4Jsea permitted and prohibited in all zonings" and ��sizes, setbacks and other requiremeats for $1, RZ, g2�, g3 and g3A, and B4". IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion cartied unaaimouslq. Ms. Gabel stated that the Project Conmittee was now getting into the�4neat��of what the Project C�ittee was all about. At the January meeting, they detezmined the uses permitted and prohibited in all zonings and at the gebruary 14th meetfng, they added to this aad got into the particular zoninga. The Co�ission members and Ms.�abel spent the balance of the meeting reviewing the "[Tses Permitted in all Zonings", the "[Jses Prohibited in all Zonings", and the "Sizes Setbacks and Other Requirements for R1, RZ and RZA, R3 and R3A, and R4", which had been prepared by the project Canmittee. The Commission members recovmended and made changes where they felt they were necessary. Ms. �abel stated she felt this meeting was very valuable in that the Commission members � could work with this material and give their input. �4 COMhIUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPSISSION IIEETING MARCH 1, 1977 PAGE 2 NEXT MSETING DATE: � The next meeting was set for Tuesday, March 15, 1977, at 7;30 p.m. This meeting would again be with Ms. Gabel to further review material from the Sign pcdinance Project Co�ittee. ADJOULt1�II�SENT : , �IpN by �harles Gooder, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to adjourn the meeting at 11:13 p.m, IIpal a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion cazried unanimously. Respectfully aubmitted, - � ' .�� y Saba Recording Secretary _ � � = k��� i, U � t4EMBERS PRESET�T: r;EhBER5 ABSENT: OTHERS PRESEiiT: FRIDLEY APPEALS COi�IIdIS5I0N h1EETING 14ARCH 15, 1977 Schnabel, Barna, Gabel� Kemper Plemel Ron i;olden� Building Inspection Of£icer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7;31 P,r;. APPROVE APPEALS CO?-nIISSIOi? 1•`.I^;UTES: FE9RUARY 1S, 1977 P?OTION by Kemper, seconded by Gabel� th2t the Appeals Commission minutes o£ Pebruary 15� 1977 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l� REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE F'IDL;Y CITY CODE AS FOLLO�•?S: SE^vTICN ` 205.OS3, h, A, TO REDUCE THE F?ON: YARD SETBACK FRO;i Ti'„ ?:EaUIRED 35 FEET T(? 27 FEET� :tP1D SECTIO'� 2Cj.053� 11� 3� TO B: D'JCE T3E AiIP,'I?dL�i•` SIIaE LOT REQUIRE.T?E2dT NECESSAR`_! Ci: 'P:-IE LIVING SIDE OF A D;ti.T�,LLI.TIG r^iZOAi 10 FEET TO 5 FE�T, TO ALLC�J T5E CC;iSTRUCTIO*] OF AN ADDiTIO.d ON TO T'r.E HOUSE AND GARAGE, CN LOT 7, 3LCCY 3, EDGEKATER GARDEhS� TEE Sai•IF. BEIPIG 1�1 N.E, bbls i,�AY, FRIDLLY� :.+III'r:ESOTA. (Request by I.ac•:rence A. 5air,er� 1�1 N.E. 66?� Way, Fridley, Minnesota, 55�32). MOTION by Gabel� seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADrfINISiRaTN� STAFF PEPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRL;•�P;T: Section 205.053, L, A, requiring a£ront yard setback o£ 35 feet. Public purpose served is to allok for off-street parking without encroaching on public right o£ way. Also for aesthetic consideration to reduce the '�building line o£ sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. Section 20$,053, h, B, I requiring a 10 £oot side yard setback to living area in an R-1 zone. Public purpose served by this section oY the code is to maintain a � minimum o£ 20 feet between living areas in adjoining structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjoining structures� to reduce exposure to conflagration of £ire between structures. Also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas arovnd residential structures. `�Kp Fridley Appeals Commission Meetzng - March ls, 1977 , Page 2 B, STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner�s hard,hip is that he cannot get his two cars into his �arage with the present single door. He wishes to remove the closet which protrudes into the garage and needs the extra space for the closet and family living area. C. A➢]�IINISTRATIVE STAI'F REPORT: The house in question has an existing side yard of approximately 5£eet. The attached garage to the East is 12 feet £rom the common property line. The adjacent houses are all at approximately the 35 £oot setback line. The owner apparently plans to enlarge his garage door, delete a closet protruding into the garage and add scme living space onio the rear. Thus the need £or the variance from IO feet to 5 feet in the sideyard to accommodate the new living area. The new livir.g area orould be 17 feet from the neighboring garage, Proposed �uilding line is 8£eet ahead of the neighboring houses. A scale drawing, but no verifying survey� has been provided, t�Ir. Larry Aamer� 1�1 N.E. 661z Way; and Mr. Ronald E. Stec?cman� 58 Rice Creek Way were present. � Mr. Harier said that he had plans for the proposed addition� but didn't have them with him. He explained that the house was constructed in such a manner that 9_t had a closet in the gara.ge which cut do�.m on the usability cf the � garage to put the second ca: in. He said he iaanted to remove that closet, have the Family room upstairs� and use the basement for his hobby (working with �roodworking tools). He iurther exp].ained that nis main reason for the request V:as to allow him room to get both cars in his garage� and would also add a larger garage door. He showed the Comrnission on the drawing ho�r the addition would be laid out, pointing out the family room with the basement underneath. Mr, Hamer said he drove a city car (St. Anthony) and rarely drove his second car� so it sat out in front of his house� which he didn't feel was very fair to the neighbors. He said there were five people in his £amily. Chairperson Schnabel asked if N,r. Aamer intended to put a full basement underneath the back portion� and he replied he did, She asked i£ that would become the family room� and he replied no� the family room would be on the top level. Mr. Hamer said he had taken a petition around and had the neighbors sign it� and all were in favor of his proposal. Chairperson Schnabel read the petition to the Board, and noted it had been signed by 2?_ people. 440TION by Gabel, seconderi by Barna, that the Appeals Commission receive the petition oP approval signed by 22 of Tir, Hamer�s neighbors. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously, At this point Dtr. Hamer heard the £ire siren and had to leave as he in£ormed � the Board he was a fire fighter. Mr, kon Steckman approached the Commission and expiained he was P;r. Hamer's neighbor and had drawn up the plans, so Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - tfarch 15! ].977 ! Page 3 `� � � he could probably answer any questions ±hat the Commission had, ;;r. ;iarier returned a£eFr minutes later and reported that the fire had just been a dumpster, Afrs. Gabel asked if the taindo�r rrould be closed off and a£ire wall put up. Mr. Stecl:man said there were only windo,�:s straight out to tne �ast, F.e explained the plans� and it Vras decided that a£ire wall �.�asa't needed there; only between tn� gara�e and the l�ving area. ?-;rs, Gabel said there was a specific distance bet�:een two st�uctures that required a iire wall, and asked tir. Holden i£ he 'r,new ti�nat � �at was. ;•ir. ?iolden repiied that the Uniform Buildin� Code and t?�e Frid'_e,y Zoning Ccde said that if 15' �:as maintained bet�leen struc�ures, r,o protection v:as needed, :ie said this addition would be 17' away, so he sar: no reasoa for a i'ire wall. A1.s. Gabel asked if all the setbacks on the street �rere 35', �d I.r. :!olden replied it loolced like they all ;-;ere. ?r. Kemper asked rrhat the boulevard was in front of the hor�e, and Pir, i?amer replied 10'. P1r. Y.olden asked if ar.yone had voiced obiection to his plan, and 1•:ss. Ha�er answered no. He said he had gone �round to see vrnat the neighbors' £eelings were on this as he didn't ti7ant to start any o� this unless the;,r approv�3 of it. He explained t"at there :r2s one house on the block that looked similar to what he intended his to lod.�c l�ke� so he had used tnat as an example. � Chairperson Schnabel asked w,�en he nlanned to si,art construction on t�:ie� and Pir, Hatner replied he ,;ould start as socn as the road iir�its „ere liited. She noted he had a blacktop drive.;zy at the present time, and asned if that would remain as blacktop with the addit_on, c,nd :;r, :iamer sai� t:�at �,�,s correct. ' Afrs, Gabel asked if he s•rould tie the roo£ lines together so it o-rould be aesthetically pleasing� and rfr, Hamer replied ves and added 'ne dicL7't erant it to look hodgepodge. t;r. Steclman corrTented it weuld be a gable roof, and �rouid look nicer than it did right no:•r. 2•rs. Schnabel asked if this iaoald a££ect the walk-in door, and :ir, iiamer replied it Y:0111CiT1�t, ]:T`. Steck:u;an said he had no objections to the proposed plans :ahatsoever. h;OTION by Barna� seconded b3*3temper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unani;�ously, 1-irs. Gabel stated she didn�t have an�r objections, and she felt that a little bit of staggering o£ houses done with some consideration for the surroundings and done in a pleasing manner sometimes made the neighborhood more attractive than having all the houses set 35' back. She said that I•;r. iia:zer needed the room and didn't want his car parked out on the street� which could be a nuisance when it snowed, A1r, Barna said he didn't have any objection� and thought the staggering wouldn't upset anything. Mr. Kemper agreed. � MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper� that ihe Appeals Corunission approve the request for trariances as stated. � Fridl.ey Appeals Comr�ission P.eetinU - hfarch 1�� 1y77 Pa�e !� Chairperson Schnabel asked ii' Mr. Barna had any i'eelings in terrns of a stipulation requiring thai there be no windows on the side £acing the neighbors. Mr. 13arna At�'�I1D�"D the IfOTIb:d to include a stipulation that there be no windows on tne East side o£ the livin� quarters iaithin 15' of the nei�hboring garage� and tnere be a fire wall bet.-reer� the living area the the garage area. Chairperson Schnabel said she thought it orould be urell to di�ress for a moment and ask T4r. Harier� as a fire fi.ghter, tahat he thought in terms of people reo,ucstin� to put additions on to houses and getting livzng zreas closer to other living areas� 2nd so forth. She explained the Commission's concern had alrray, been to allow anple space for fire fighters to get between structures to get to a fire and attempt to cut dovm the spread of fire. Mr. Hamer replie3 that for an example, there had been a gara�e fire last raeek ,:here the garage tiras 5' £rom the structure. He said that by the ii;�e they responded (£rom their romes)� the i'ire was really going and 'nad scorched the house. He sain the fire had probably been going for £our minutes before the alarm uras sounded, and it probably took another three Minutes to get to the fire. He stated that at v distance of 15'� a fire trould have to create quite a bit of heat to do damage to a house. i�ir. Barna asked if there were any i�rindows tnat got scorched, and Pir. Harier replied that tero windows had gotten crac'.ced. Chairperson Schnabel said that in terms of bein� able to reacn the source of a£ire, they had a number of situations wnere people had wznted to go 3� to a lot line, and also fences going dorm in between. She said they had t^ied to be very consistent in mal;ing sure there was some access to the rear of the property in case o£ a fire, and asked ho.� important that was. P1r, Hamer said that if she was reierring to 1�' fences� they leaped over i�' fences all the time. He said the largest problem was in a storage yard� for instance� �inere they had to cut into the fence. He acided that norrnally in residential they didn't have much of a problem. NIrs, Schnabel said she appreciated that information very much. Mr. Barna D�LETED the AP-:ENDMEIdT in its entirety, t-1r. Holden pointed out that the £ire wall was a requirement o£ the building codea so that stipulation wasn't needed. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Gabel corm^�ended the Fire Department for doing such a good job. ASr. Kemper said he thought it should be mentioned that once the variance request had been approved� the petitioner should be reminded that he could now apply for a building permit. He said he had the £eeling sometimes that people wallced out of the meeting td}inking that they could start construction. Chairperson Schnabel said it was a point well taken. � � C� Fridley Appeal^, Commission I�feeting - i•iarch l�� 1977 , Page 5 `�� 2. RE�U�ST FOR VARIAI4CE OF Tii3 FPIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOZ•7S: SECTIOtd 205.103, � 11, A2, TO RE➢UCE T;il's SETBACY, uOR THE 7iAITd STRUCTURE FRG.I A PUBLIr RIGHT OF 4JAY, FR034 THE REQtiIRID a0 r��;..�I' TO 35 FF.ET ALONG 7°T� A'�NE (P:ORiH LOT LINE)� FP,OAf THE RF.'.�UIRED 8�J rrET TO 5Lt FL'ET ALOP3G EAST RIVER ROkD (SOUTH LOT LIi:E) � ATiU FROT-: TIiE RE�UIR� 80 FF,ET T0 20 FE�T 1:LCidG LIIiCOL*; STREET (EAST LOT LIPdE), kP;➢ SEGTIOi+ 20„103 l�B, TO REDUCE i:�� SID� YA?tD S�TBACK FR�;�: TftE R�rUIRED l� FEET TO 10 ri.ET ALOIQG T'r1� SOUTH LOT LIPdE� k,'<D SFCTIOPI 20j,104� 1� El� TO ALLO;d OPF STRE:T PARKIidG TO BE :tITIIi� S F�;T Or^ THE FR01dT LOT LIP;E ItdS1�AD OF SET3kC'{, iHE R��yUIt?�?D 20 FEEL� A`?D SECTIOI: 205.203, L� C2, TO 3r.,7UC�' TN� :::P�t YARD SETBACK FRO?; TH� .°.E',�JI?.:I) 25 FEET TO 20 FE?':, AITD S�CiSOi'i 2U5.103� 53, ?'0 �EDUC� Tf;E SE::.;CK FR0:3 1:� BOIINDARY LIT:E �P A;iCT?+:F�3 ZO�=IiiG DIST?ICT (it-3) FRO'.; SO :�.�`P `PO 10 FE�T (SOUTfI LO': LIA;w), F.LL TO ALLC;1 T:-i� COi�'ST�UCTIO:: OF A SP�GIILnTIVE :sL'ILDIPSG (C019i'1E:'tCIAL) TO BE LOCATF.D 0;+ LOT 1� B7AC;C l� PEA.RSOT;'S 1ST 6DDITIC,'�� THB SA'.i� BEI:3G 7899 EAST RIV� P0�'D N,E., FRIDLEY� iiI;;:vESOTA. (�eeuest by R.C.r.. Corporation� 7849 East River Zoad� Td.E., Fridley, i•iinnesoia 55�32). D�OTION by Bsrna� second�d by Kemper, to open the Public Learing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unatiiriously. ADT,SI.?IST�ATPJE STrL�F F.EPO;tT k. PUBLIC PURPCSE SE_RVF.D BY Rr.QUIP.�3EI3T: � Section 205.103, !�, A2 (Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3) requirin� an 80 £oct setback from the main structure to any public right of ;�.*ay. Public purpose served is to provide for adequate parkino as�d o�en landscaped areas as well as to cor.gestion znd provide adequate site clearances in commercial areas. Section 205.103� 1�, B, requring a side yard setback o° 15 feet froa a common property line. Public purpose served is to provide for adequate open areas around structures and clear access for fire fighting and to reduce the conflagration of fire. 5ectior. 2D�.10�� 1� E� prohibiting p�*king in commerci.al areas within any portion o£ the required 20 foot £ront yard, Public purpose served is to licnit visual encroachment into neighboring sight lines and to allow £or aesthetically pleasing open areas adjacent to public right o£ ways. Section 205.103, R� C� 2 requiring a rear yard setback o£ 25 feet. Public purpose served is to provide adequate access for £ire fighting and again to limit threats from con£lagration of fire. � Fridley Appeals Commission Meetin� - hiarch 1�� 1977 Page 6 �Q ----� --__ _ Section 205•103� 6B, requiring a minimum set back of 50 feet from a . comrnon boundary line of neighboring propert,y which is zoned other than cormnercial. Pnblic purpose served is to provide adequate open "buffer" areas between zoning districts for aesthetic and develop�,�ent reasons. B. FiTATED HAFiD"a�IP: Due to street setbacY requirements on three sides, the building ar�a available is only about �% (1}&'25 square £eet) o£ the to{,;al site area. of about L;2,226 square f�et. This is an extremely loc,� coverage £igure. In addition, the an�led geometry o£ the pronerty rr,akes £or an unusua2 configuratzon if the sit� is to be utilized properly or io its even small buildin� mar,i:num, The peti.ti.oner applies for a variance to bui7.d to the size and configuration sho+m on the enclosed drawing. C. ADi4IPdIST;?ATIV� STAF'F 2EVI�'7: The property in question was zoned as R-3 �rhen the original zoni_ng ordinance �rras adopted in 1956, in 1960 it 4ras rezoned to G25 (general shopping areas). Severai subsequent proposa2s, including a fil2ing station� were submitted and either denied or i�*ithdrairn, 6 similar request to this one, was approved by the Boasd o£ Appeals on rlay 13, 1975. It rras approved 'oy the City Council as well. Because no furtiier action was taken �d no building permi� i.ssued� the approved variances nave Iapsed, i The unusual circumstances of this corner property Ueing bounded on three of four sides by public ri.ght of �•ray extremely limits the available building area. The proposed 'ouilding of 7�008 sq_uare feet (compared to 5�2Q0 sauare feet in the Meridia_n Corporation request in 197>} .aill apparently house a 7-11 Stare with the remainder as of£ice space. (The 1975 request included a coin-operated laundry}. The bu;lding Z.;ill cover approximately 17i� of �ne lot. No plans are on £ile for the original 1975 request. A list of the stipulations whicn Council imposed on the 1975 request by P�Ieridian Corporation have been included as a re£erence. Please note that the request for the petitioner to petition Council for a rezoning from C-2S (general shopping areas) to C-1 (local shogping areas} would reduce the setback requirements £rom 60 £eet to 35 feet of£ 79th Avenue and East Hiver Road. A Bond� coverin� the costs o£ a11 stipulated improvements, rrill be required. Sn addition� all necessary and proper right of vrays� easements and letters o£ encroachment should be submitted and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. i • . � Fridley Appeals Corunission tfeeting - March 1�� 3977 Page 7 ,�� CITY COUtICIL RECOI•II-�P,D.'D APP�OVAL OF Tii� DEVIiLOPt4Eh'T AS PROPOSID BY 1-?E.RIDIAtd CORPpRATI0:�1 AT T;IE II1T .�SECTIO;I OF 79TH WAY AD]ll Ei+ST RIVffi ROAD WITii THE FOLLO`r7I11G STIPULl�TIONS: 1. Extensive landscaping on the site; plan filed with Planning Department. 2. Berming to be of sufsicient height to protect the residents frorn actomobile lightir.g. (as indicated on the plans) 3• Additional plants (as marked on the plans). t�. �tire bui7ding Urould be brick. 5. Buffer plantings ir.corporated s;ith berm. 6. Lighting £ocused down so as not to shine into the residential propert;� owner's windows. 7. All blacktop adjoining green area to be separated by noured concrete curbing. 8. No egress from the develonrnent onto East River Road; ingress on1J. 9. Refuse area should have solid screen, no gate opening onto the service � drive� the portior. not being used £or refnse storage and ha�dling to be used £or plantings. 10. SideFralk connectior. constructed to _T,ir.co2n Street. If an a�reement cannot be reached betrr:een :ieridian and FLtdali� t!-,e sidehalk connection should be consiructed anyway, t�ut onl�� on 2•feridz2n's property. ihzs :•:ill offer property protection Yrom nearby residents. 11. Parking moved do,�m to 20 feet to pick up additional room to enable cars to face in instead oF against each other. 12. Applicant will petition the City £or rezoning from C-2S to C-1 and there will be no contest on zoning change in £uture. 13• Easements to be dedicated to City of Fridley as noted on attached map. 1)�. Applicant uill construct a deceleration lane from the drive��ray abutting East River Road to tne south. The deceleration lane is to be a 12 i'oot wide bituminous section with a 2 foot gravel shoulder and is to e�;tend southward from the driveway entrance 100 f'eet southxard from tne south radius and then taper at 15:1 to tie back into the existing roadway. The typical section shall consist of 8'� Class V base, 1=;," asphalt Uinder course (T.SF{D 23�1) and 1'�' asphalt wearing course (1;"�3D 23l�1). All con- struction sha11 be in accordance with the tiinnesota Department oS I?ighways Standard Speci£ications Tor Highway Construction dated January 1, 1972, and as amended by Suoplemental Specification £or Highway Construction dated January l, 197�t. 15. A bond covering the cost of all stipulated improvements would be required, .�a Fridley Appeals Commission 2•ieetin� - March ].�, 1977 � Page 8 4� . Mr. Rich�rrd C. Erntit� representing the R.C,E. Corporation; and Mr. Robert � A. Minish� 331 Pearson Way� PI.E.� an intc;rested person� were present, Mr. Holden showed the Commission the p1an that had been submitted two years ago and told them how it varied. r1r. Piznish stated he hadn't received a notice two years ago, and wondered iF the sta_ndards had changed. P•4rs. Schnabel checked the £ile and determined his name hadn't been on the mailing list beTore� and there were a few more names on the present mailing list. Chairperson Schnabel as'.ced 1•L^. Ernst if either he or his £ather (laho is President o£ the R.C,E. Corporation) orere associated with the Nieridian Corporation, ,•4r. Ernst replied they were not� although their proposal was based on the i:eridian plazi. 1?e explained that their primary tenant would be 7-11� and they nad taken the recomncendations that had been stipulated in the first plan and incorporated those into this plan i-:hich they were presenting tonight. He said they had increase the size of the building for economic reasons and placed tne setback at 35�. 6ther than that, he said, there were no other changes in basic layout of the building on this propertv, He added that this prooerty �ras chastised quite a bit by the general ordinances� and that was the reason for the variances. Chairperson Schnabel suggested the Commission label the requests for vari:ances on the 0£ficial notice oi' the Public Hearing as "A'� through "G"� so they ti,�ould be easier to refer to. She noted that the request before Lhem � was for 7�008 square feet and the previous plans called for t'.�e building to be 5�200 square feet; so the only cha7ge from the previous request vrould be on request A1 which called for a reduction from �30' �0 3��• P?rs, Sc':mabel also pointed out to the Commission the area in blue on the plans� which represented the total area that wou13 be buildable if alI the setbacks were met (about 1�J}, Chairperson Schnabe7. stated that one o£ the major concerns two years ago was the fact that people caould Ue coming off o£ East F�iver Road onto this property and might be tempted to go back on East River Road £rom this property� and it had been suggested that a sign be put up sa„ving "No Raght Turn", P4r. Ernst stated that his en�ineer had designated that sign. Chair- person Sc}m abel said that the members o£ the Appeals Corrunission and City Council thou�lit it would be dangerous otherorise� and they eranted Lincoln Street to be the only source of egress and ingress. Dir. Flinish stated that he had been in a traffic accident at that corner and was very concerned about the safety i'actor. He said he didn't have any problem with the buildin� or any of the setbacics� but was concerned about the traffic it would generate. Chairperson Schnabel said the State and County would have to work together to get signalization put in at that corner� and asked what the status was on the proposed signalization. hir. Barna replied that it was in the planning stages at this time, possibly for next year. He said that the study had been • started� and plans taere for a complete improvement of the intersection. He said that right now that intersection was a death trap, and he was surprised there weren�t more accidents there. Mr. P7inish stated he just wanted the .�� Fridley Appeal^, Commission 14eetin�; - March 15� 1977 Page 9 �3 � Commission to realize what his concerns were for that corner, and then left the meeting. Chairperson Schnabel asked if NL^. Ernst had any communicatior, with I�ir. Flzdali or anyone from the Aleadow Run Apartrr,ents on this, and NIr. �nst replied he hadn't. 1•.rs. Gabel asked how this situation went from A;eridian to the R.C.�. Corporation, t•fr, Ernst exnlained that when i�feridi� i•:as going to construct the building, times caere quite diFficult in the :ortgage department £or inone;� to build, so it :ras dropped. tie said that 7-11 has interested in this particula_r site� and they rrere the company that Vras taking over th� plans. He szid they had an option on the property nofr. Mrs. Gabel asked wlly the previously-approved plan was no longer suitable for 7-11� and 1xs. Schnabel said the nea coatractor/develooer had a ne:r concept on what should be in there. :trs. Gabel asked vrhy a. larger building had been proposed, and ;ir. Ernst said it V�as for economic ^easons pri::zrily. He explained that 7-11 had increased the size of their s+ores over the past six months and :aere pla�ning on a lar�er store. Also� he said, iaere %ould be more room to rent. Mr. Holden said that tne previous plans had called ior a coin-operated laundry. Chairoerson Schnabel noted that on� of the thir.gs tnat nade thern hold back was khen PIr. :udzli told them there were man;� coin-operated laundries wit�:in the apari.ment compleaes themselves, h1r. E:nst ssid t:at there might be a dry cleaning estaolishrient included in the ne�r p1ans. � t�ir. Kemper as'.ced �ahat the outcome v�as of the original reqr:est made oy the Meridian group. Chairperson Sc_�nabel explained that the re,^uests ti•:ere approved with a nw^!ber of stiaula�ions, bui anpasently iieridiar. could not get financing so they dro�ped the idea. i:r. Kemper asked i, al� of t^e stipulations put on oy the Council at that time still apoiied, and ?:rs. Gabel replied they didn't because the tir�e had run out. ;`r. Ke.^:per ncted that the only actual change rras in the dimension of the building. Chairperson Schnabel said she had a question regarding the nu.^�ber of �arking stalls� and asked how many .,ould be required for this plar.. 1-;r. Holder replied that Sta£f had gone througn this, and £o•,v:d tnat 2.C.E, had an excess of what they considered to be an adequate nw�nbcr o£ parking stalls. He said there were enough stalls orovided that could accomnodate an even lar�er 7-11 operation and still meet t`,:e requirement. k°ter some discussion on how the number of parking stalls ti,as determined, 2=Ir. Ernst stated i'.at the actual store was divided up into three basic areas (o£°ice, retail and sales). Chairperson Schnabel asked if the number of parking stal� ch2nbed with each use o£ the building, or i£ it w�s consistent throughout the zoning area. hir. �-r.st said the zoning deterr!ined the parking requirements, a�d T7r. Holden added that under the zoning t.".ere were requirenents £or different uses. Mr. Barna read the zoning code regarding this, and noted that tney would still reqiiire three parking stalls for the storage area. He said that the warehouse area obviously didn't need parking spaces, so they could take that into consideration. • Chairperson Schnabel asked Ptr, Ernst if he was proposing 1�0 parking stalls� and he replied that was correct, He explained that in his neetings with �� "3�i � Fridley Appea2s Commi.ssion Dleeting - I�7arch 15� I977 Page 10 I�1r. Boardman and based on the city ordinances� they had determ9.ned that 38 � parking stalls were r.eeded� and they were provi.ding forty, i�Sr, $rnst said that a 7-11 only u�ed from five to six parking spaces because of the large turnover o£ peop].e. Chairperson Scnnabel stated that a consideration on variance E(to allow o£f-street parl;in� to be wi.thin 5 feet af the £ront �.ot line instead oF set back tiie required 20 feet) would be to eliminate two pa;'r.ing stalls because they trere not needed. She pointed out where that would add 20'� since eacl� of the stalls rias approximatel,y 10' in width� and pointed out that gr.een area would be gained on the corner. Chairperson Schnabel said another thing sne taas concerned about was that 7-11 anpeared to have changed its nolicies over the past number of years and no,a appeared to be open 211 hours a day. She said sne coulcin't speak for the adjacent neighbors� but she was concerned about lignti.ng in terms o£ this place being open 21� hours a da;y-. ;ir. Ex•nst said that lighting would b� direcLed ai,�a;� From the nei�hbors across the street and iaould be Frell-planned u:ith berming, etc. He said he didn't ]:ne-�a �rhat their po7_icies would 'oe concernin� being onen 21t hours a day, but tha.t =:rould probably be determined after a certain period of time. i•Ir, Hold�n asked iF it trould be possible to berm the iiorth edge of the property so the neadlignts t�rould get aUove 20'� and Iir. Ernst said that was possible. 67�^.irperson Schnabel sa.id another thing she 4rould like to cneck on was the back of the prop�rty line, a�d asked if they 4ntended to �rut in any � ]:ind of £encin�. T�ir. r^.rr.st said trat nad been suggested }ay Air. Boardme,n, and shovred on the plan how it would extend ac.ross the back. He added that the tenants of the apartment buildings would appreciate that, and said there z�:ouldn't Ue a�y storage or machiner;� in the back of the building. Chairper�on Schnabel aslced i£ tne ot,",er shops b�sides 7--11 :aould have back- door entrances� and i;r. Lrnst replied they :,�ould. She said it was for that reason tY:at fencing would be appreci2ted. Chairpersor Schnabel said that in 19%> oi.e of the stipuw_ations had beEn that t;e applicant petition for rezoning from C-?S to C-1 r-rith the under- standing trere would be no proble;ns in acY.iecir.g that rezoning, She said she thought. the intent t,ras to £ocus a littl_e closer on the type o° tenants that would go into that buildin�;, as C_1 requirements c•rere a little more stringent. She said it i;as not the A�peals Commission's prerogative to initiate any zoning change, but it mignt come up at the City Council leve7 and she thought Mr. Ernst should be a�;are of that, Chairperson Schnabel aslced what the exterior of the bui7.ding would be, and P.r. Srnst renlied it would be brick all the way axound with a shingled mansard all the w�y arourtd the Uuilding and a deck roof. Ghairperson Schnabel asked if they intended to channel the entrance off of East River Road so it wou13 be an entrance only and not an exit, and tlr, Ernst rep2ied they did. I?e said that would be done with curbing and they would talx to the higiur�y department about that, and he also thought a sign • would be desirable. 4i:1 rridley Appeals Cor.imission tleeting - PSarch 15� 1977 ! Page 11 . Mr. Holden asked i£ it would be possible for South-bound traf£ic to turn left into that enirance� and ;�irs. Schnabel replied no� not if they put some type type of curbing in there. P�Ir. Kemper sugge�ted a"No Left 'llirn" sign there. htr. Holden commented that he didn't think that was somethin� they could control right norr� and Chairperson Schnabel said it was something they could control if tney eliminated access oi'f of East River Road. T:r. Ker�ner asked if it would be possible to eliminate that entrance imtil such tine as the corner improver:ent on 79th and �ast River 3oad occurred� and then take another look at that entrance. i�4r. Ernst said that the �ray it stood now� tnere wasn't a right-hand turn lane, and they v�ould be constructin� t'�at themselves. He said what they were concerned ai�out tiaas seme dricer �rho :santed to go against the grain� and from th�ir standpoint they �,ould like to have that possibility elimin�ted. I�irs. Gabel noted that the hight•:af at that point was not divided� and l:r. Barna said thai caas correct. :;r, Ernst pointed out the intersection to the South of the:� where aeople z:ere making left-hand turns enterino the apartments� and he thoueht the incentive would be greater to �et into the apartrnents than to go to the store. ASr. 32xna pointed out tzat the people who were doin� that were doing so ille�ally� and complaints had been made. Pir. F�nst said that if access on East River Road �ras closed until the proposed improvement was made� that c:ould generate nore traf£ic or. 79th and that could cause problems also. � Mr. Barna said that his concern �rras that the intersection change that had been described to him by soneone from the iiigny:ay Department cras a i'lip-flop from the or.e at Ilississippi; i� ;aould be widened on the East side� not the West. There £ollo�yed a discussion on the easements� and the possibility of the City condemning a larger portion t'r.an the easemen+ for the ne:a intersection. Ts. Holden said he thought the county and Highi•:ay Department could possibly settle this. r;r. Ernst cor�mented that ne thougni nis pr000sed olan ��ias possibly the most li:iiting of a11 access plans. ;;r. Holden stated that the City Council had been rather descript as to ::hat that turn lane would incorporate, and it a.ounted to the develoner would really be pickin� up some of the tab £or putting in the curbing and addit�onal blacktop. i4r. E�nst stated that their tentative plans at this sta�e e:ere based on the easements the City had taken. Chairperson 5cnnabel said that according to orhat she had been able to research� the last tiroe there had been any correspondence concerning the signalization on 79th was June 16� 197s; it appeared there hadn't been anything since then. A;rs. Schnabel said that evidently, so�.�e of the City Council recommendations of 1975 incorporated the recommendations o£ the Appeals Cotmnission as erell as the Sailding Standards-Design Control Sub- committee that was in effect at that time. She said that according to tne minutes she had o£ the City Council meeting� there was a motion to approve the variances with stinulations by the 5oard of Appeals and the Building Standards Design Control Subcorunittee� and the additional stipulation that there be no access onto East River Road, that an easement be dedicated on � East River Road for right of way� and that the applicant will petition for zoning chas��;e £rom C-2S to C-1 and that there will be no contest on this zoning change in the future. That motion had carried unanimously, �� .-- Frid2cy Appeals Conunission ?feeting - Ilarch 15� :L9%7 � Page 12 4� and oras contained in the mimztes of the Council meeting of June 16, 1975. . P1r, Holden noted thcre was a conflict in i-rhat the minutes sa:id and the list of st:pulations that had come out later (i3/5/75): and tirs. Gabel su�gested that perhaps a change had Ueen made Uy the Counci2 at a later date. Mrs. Schnabel stated Lhat on July llt� 1975 Mr. 4darren CaldYaell, c-rho was the oVmer of the pronPrty� stated in a letter to IIr. Quershi: "It is our under- standing that additional demandS Y71�.1 �le made by �he Council in order to possibly obtain ir.�ress a.nd egress from Ea,t Hiver Ro�d. T'his has to do rrith in;tallatior. of accelleration and decelleraiion lanes along East Hiver ftoad. t•;e are in agreement to rezonir.g only if we c�n obtain direct access frora East River Road, and ere orould b� agreeable to right-tu�n traific only in er,it to East River Road. It is our unclerstandin� that this could �ossibly be worked out. On the assu:tption that I?eridiyn Corporation roTil] purch4se our site� �,•re are petiti_onin� for rezoning on behalf oi :?eridian Corpo:ation, based on tlie previously submi+ted plot plans� and uri!� if ingr�ss and egress along East River Road is �ranted by th� Cotmcil. Tni., site �aould have little value with no access along �ast °iver ioad". Chairperson Schnabel noted that if i•rhat she had read vras correct� they had agreed to rezone on].y i.f they could have access to East River Ro2d. Chairoerson Schnabel said there �ras another letter irom the President of the Y:eridian Corporation to F?r. Cald::ell ti-rhich read: "..th:is c,�i7_l confi;^m that the parties i�re have been negotiatin�; ,rith relata.ve�to �he East Hi�*er Road site {that is 7-11 and others) have e�.pressed tneir disintere�t iri the site i?i.thout d;_rect access _°rom East ??iver Road. The9s experience� ttiey • indicate� dictates avoidance of such a site as it has a ter.denc;,� to d:s- courage shcnpers by indirect access, If the entire high�•ray had liriited access to a].1 frontage� the shopper reaction ;,ould be d�fferent� 'out �ahere appiicd on an individual basis� tney oe=ieve it ps,ycYiologica?l�r dUtrir:iental, Based on the abo�*e experience of extreraely successful natio::al r�tailers such as 7-11 Food Stores and others� Fre ,aould not be interested in exerc�sing our option to ourchase the o:operty. ?de believn the site is no't marketable zaithout access from East River Road, especially vrith a long frontage oS 31t1 feet". Nirs. SchnaUel said that may be what prompted the City Council to reasse�s the proposal and allow an ingress only. She noted the list of stipulations was dated ku�ust �� ].975� and the other documents were dated J'an� and July. Chairperson Sehnabel stated this had talcen quite a bit c£ time, but it 4ras important to understand that if an access was to be allowed on r,ast River Road (and the Ietters had indicated ihat ��+ould be a requirement of the major tenants of the building), then she thought they �hould be very careful that that continue to be an ingress only and hope the design oS it would discourage egress and discoura;e a person travelling South on East River Road £:om atte:�pting to ma3:e an ei:trance there for purposes of safety. hfr. Holden canmented that normall,y that t��ouldn't be much of a problem� l�ut with that intersect.ion so close it could really back up cars. Chairperson SchnaUel said'she thought tiiey could draw the Council's attention � to the fact that the last correspondence with the county on the situation Fridley Appeals Commission t•feeting - Piarch 15, 1977 � Page 1�`% � at that corner of 79th and East Piver Road appeared to be June 16, 1975, and they could reaffirm their interest in seein� that intersection tak� care of as quickly as possible. Mr. Barna asked 2•Sr, lirnst if he would consider rezoning to Gl� and 1•;r, Ernst replied he didn�t think he would consider it. He said they wanted to keep the building as a 7-11 store and pre£errably o££ice space, but he didn't kno:a iahat Vrould happen thirty or forty years fro:� now. He said he didn�t want to restrict the proper�y an;� rnore than it was right noi:, and he thought the chances of the building bezng used for undesirable operations were not great. Hrs. Gabel explainec? they iaere thinkin� n:ore in terr�° that they didn't raar.t it to go to a heavier type oi use that 4;ouldn't be pernitted in a C-1 zone. 2ir. Kemper told 3ir. B nst he thought he should bear in mind that the City Council r:�i�ht insist it go to C-1. I•ir. Err.st then said he would be willing to cooperate on that, an3 didn't see any problem. rlr. Kemper stated that he Z,�as inclined not to approve the enirance of: of East River Road because o£ tne ver�r dangerous intersection. He said he had no objections to the building go=ng in� but he cras ver�,� concerned aoout opening up an entrance o1'f of East River Road until suc'r. tir,:e that entrance from south-bound traffic into that ga-r:King lot could be soraehoz•r restricted. hir. Ernst suggested a protruding isl2nd that crould restrici traific� and Mrs. Schnabel said that would have to be worked out with the county. P1r. Kemper said that he thought an er.trance off o£ East River Road into this � parking lot was a sensible thin� ii south-bound traffic couid be controlled. He added that one oi the reasons this Board was here was to analyze i;ny the ordinances t-rere there� and safety iras of paranount imnortance. I?e stated that zrithout that control, he thought they would be creating a trai'iic hazard, Mr. Kemper said he i,*ould be disposed to not app:ove the v� iance +:ith that in mind� but would put a cor.dition on that--that the entrance couid 'ue prepared and could be opened up at a later date. He said his stipulacion would be that no ingress or egress from iast River ,°,oad be Jlowed until such time as soath-bound traf'fic z•;as restricted irom entering; but t7e City Council mignt come to a different conclusion, Chairperson 5chnabel said that at this poi.nt there were probablJ no objections to any of the other requests :ait}: the possiblc exception of "E" (to allow off street parking to be within 5£eet of the front lot line instead o£ set back the require3 20 £eet), i•Ir. Ernst said he had no objection to eliminating the two parkin� stalls. 3e said he would like to start construction this spring and complete it 60 days afterwards. The Commission then went through the stipulations recommended by Council on the original proposal� and decided if they could be handled by Staff� were obsolete� or should continue to be a recommendation. P4rs. Gabel asked what the sign would be that was noted on the plans, and r;r. Ernst said thai 7-11 liked to have their oi,m sign but they have considered multiple-use signs. He stated that he really coulcin't say exactly what it • would be at this point, but thought it i-rould concur with all the ordinances. Chairperson SchnaUel explained it had been brought up because the sigi 4� Fridley Appeals Commission Meetin� - P�arch 1.5� ].977 : Page llt ordinance was in the process of being reurritten, t•ir. Ernst said he woul.d � cooperate with the City on that� and i;r. Holden mentioned the sign might have to be moced a little bit South. I•40TIOPd by Earna, seconded by Gabel, to close the Public Hearing. IIpon a voice vote� c+11 votir.� aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Schnabel said that she had not come across any correspondence from any person in the area stating objections, and it appeared that t:�e property olmers viere not ccncerned at this point z-�ith this construction. Mr. Fiarna said he had one conmuiicat;_on from D'.r. I,a.ry A:iller :rho lived right across the street from the proposed stxnzcture, and h:r. iiiller had felt it wouldn't do zny good to conplain. D4r. Barna said that P1r. tliller would prefer a four-plex� or something of that nature on tha� property. Mr. Barna stated that cne of his other concerns vras that in ten years it would be one more vacant business si�ting on the side of East River Road. He said that he persona].ly� had no obj�cticns to a store being there� and he had spoken to the o-�rner of tne : ridley Food h;a_ket and the,y had no objections and didn�t feel it would hurt their business at a1L He said his rnain objection Vrould be to any neia entr2nce or exit on ix:.st River Road� and the additional traffic it would generate crossing the River Road bothered 1}im extremely. Mrs. Schnabel asked i.f the school hus stopped at the intersection of East � River Road and 79th .day� and P4r. B2sna said it stepped further do�m. fle said they had stopped there at one tirie� but there �aere too many near-accidents. P3r. Kem�er asked if they discharged children that had to cross East River Road� and i•ss. Gabel said they did. P1rs. Gabel said that besides the problem of controlling that entrance, she thought it was also part of their .esponsibility to the com^�unity to not create a situation that tiaas urorse than it oresentiy was. She stated she thought iahen this happened toro years ago that they were squeezing everything out o£ this they possibly could� and she felt even more so now, although she did understa�d the problem orith the lot. She added that she could live with this plan. Chai;person Schnabe2 stated thaL without the real property oUmer at the meeting it would be ha:d to determine if he had ever had a buyer who was interested in putting any multiple due2ling on the pronerty. She added� however, that its present zoning might d�scourage someone from wanting to L�uy that property for anything other than a commercial structure of' some type. She said it had been zoned for 16+ years as comr:ercial. Mr. Barna said that one other concern he had was the statement in the letter from the 7-11 peonle that they iaould not consider building there if they couldn�t havr, ar. entry off of East River Road; maybe that vras the reason the other variances were allewed to expire. Pir. �rnst said he didn't have the specifics involved in that. � Fridley Appeals Commission i•teeting - i•Sarch 1�, 1977 `• Page 15 �� � MOTIOId by Kemper that the Appeals Commission recom�nend to the City Council, through the Planning ConUnission� that all the variances be approved with the exception a£ °E", erith the strong recommendation to Co,u�cil that no entrances or er.its be allowed at this time off of East River Road until such time that south-bound traf£ic could be controlled via the upgrading of 79th and East River Road. In addition to the above recor�endation, the Appeals Commission would recornmend the folloyring stipulations: 1. Bermin� to be of sufficient height to protect the residents fron sutoraobile lighting and huffer planiings incorporated ;�ith berm. 2. Lighting focused domm so as not to shine into the residential property ovmer's :rindoxs. 3. Re£use area should have solid screen, no gate opening onto the service drive, the portion not being used for reFuse storage and handling to be used £or plantings. l�. Side:�alk connection constructed to I.incoln Street. 5• Recommend City Council consider rezoning from G2S to G1. 6. A bond� covering the costs os all stipulated improvemen�s� will be required, In addition, all necessary and prooe: right o£ vrays, � easements and lett.ers of encroachment should be submit�ed and recorded prior to the issu�nce of any building permits. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Barna disagreed wiih the motior. on the grounds that as a resident alorg East River Road� he could not per�onally see any additional constr�uctio7 or increase in traffic i'low on East P.iver Road in its present co.^.dition. He added that he would not encourage an�•one to invest mo.ey on Easi River Road with the greseat East River P,oad Project Com�^�ittee's recoss,endations on future uses o£ East Paver Road. He said he would :eel more co.�fortaole denying the request, Mr. Ernst said that as £ar as the success o£ the neighborhoo3 shopning center went, 7-11 had done extensive studies and housing counts and projections as to the possibility of their success and had positive results as far as their projecting the net income in the area, He added that they had been successful in the past in projecting market areas. As far as P.C.�. is concerned� he continued, they felt confident they would do well in the area and would like to go ahead with this on that basis. He said that he didn't think the possibility 1.as very great that the property would be up for sale in the future. Mrs. Gabel stated that she had an internal battle with this. She could live with it, she said, but it uasn't something she really rranted to see � there. She said she ]:new people who lived in the area and they felt very strongly about their t_eighUorhoods and anything that would generate one more car driving down East River Road, She commented that she was having a lot of trouble with this, 5� Fridley Appeals Commis;ion Meeting - tdarch l�� 1977 F Page 16 Mr. }iolden orondered Frhy thcre hadn't been nny objections to the plan, and . thou�ht one reason cou7.d be because a simz].ar plan had already gone through this procedure and been approved. Also� he said� there was the possibility that they did not object to it, He stated that having a retail �rocery store, vrhich was tY:e prirnary structure, wa.thin walking distance may not be a problern. 1•;r. Kernper added that he iaas t.l�inking that the peonle w}io lived in the apartment buildings o:ould have fewer blocks to go to do their shopping. h1rs. Ga�ei stated it would be easier £cr her to vote in £avor of the propos�l iT it wa� rezoned G1, Slie sa.id that this was a sneculative venture; the 7-il mny be a sure th.i.ng� but thef couldn't control the other uses that, might go i.n there. I•,rs. Gab�l cor.iinued that in a G2S there uras a large variety allowec3, and read Lhat portion oP the code alou� to . the Co�r,ission. Chairperson Scnna_bel said that many o£ those uses 4rere also allo�;ed in a C-1 zone, and she didn't know what taas the right usage Por that corner. Mr. Iter.�per wondered hoti•r the City could have approved this trro years ago. He said that the Council had aporoved it� and if r4eridian had elected to go through ,rith t�e plans, there would be a b�i7.ding there at this time. t�1r, Holden commentcd that he didn�t thir.k it was within tneir right or jurisdiciion to second guess the success or iailure oi a business. :ie szil tk,zs oneraiion would be close to an awful lot o£ people� even by vray o£ £pot traific. � Mr. Barna stated he had good friends who i:Tere hurt in accidents .involvin� East River Road, ar,d if it tizas uo to him he wonl�n't have any businesse� in there �aith ingress cr egress of£ of East River Road. He said he 'r.new a lot of oeople do�.�m there, 2nd he knev: so�eone rrould get blasted at that corner svoner or later. Chair�erson Sc'.�nabel asked if that inter�ection had signalization i£ ne uould be �nore inclined to go alone with this, and Mr. $arna replied he would. P-Sr, Kemper stated that he thought their problem wasn�t with R.C,E. Corpora- tion or the 7-il Corperation, but with a notoriously bad 'nighway. He said that if 'oy denyin,�, this variance they could somehow speed up the imprave- ment on 79tn a�d �ast River Road, he would malce that rriotion ri�t:t now� but he didn't think that would make a bit o£ difierence. Chairperson Scimabel said that for A1r. Ern,t's irforrnation� there had been a study group lookin; for some time at E2st Piver Road in rridley� and the group ,aas composed mainly o£ residents al.ong both sides af East River Road, She explained the co:n�;ittee was formed because most of those residents were very concerned abvuL the speed, the amount of traffic� and the number of accidents along East River Road. She told P?r. Ernst that they had made recomsrendati.ons to the Planning Commission ann the City Council to try to make some ch;u;€te, on �ast River Road in terms of traffic flow; they rad propose.� a plan where the i:wo-lane would continue from South of 1•ii;sissippi to 69i� tiait,h rigiit and left turn lanes, etc. She said they had asked for � support of this plari throu�h the Cit}� to Anoka County to try to �et some- thing done about ttteit� concerns. Mrs. Schnabel said that the p1an was not Fridley Appeals Comrnission 1-leeting -',•'•arch 15, z977 � Pa�e 17 �l . successful wiih the county� but they were still continuing to study the problen. She state�i that in e£fect, they were told that until the North Corridor was developed the East River P.oad ;�ould probably continue in the manner that it Sunctions now� lrith some upgrading. So� she said� the citizens along there have had an overriding concern about this road:-iay for sone time� and it came to £ocus on the kppeals Coromission now in terrss of this request. Chairnerson Schnabel explained to i�ir. Ernst that they had no problem with him or his proposal, but their main concern was their responsibility to the effort� that h�d been done by a nw�oer of people in the City in regard to the traf�ic oroblem. She said she had �,:anted to rnake him aware of the history of ,rhat had happened on East 3ive^ P.oad. Mr. Ernst stated that the development z�:ouldntt create an;/ nev+ cars or generate more traffic; tl-iat nw�nber cf cars �as constant. He said that by taking that entrance away on the East River Road it :aould restrict the use of that property and the 7-11 store, and thereby restrict the o�mer of the property as iaell. He said 'r.e understood tne 3oard's concerns about tne added turning and the congesiion that �+iould causeg but based on what had happened up to now� he thought the plan they nad before them concerned itse�f caith those problems and tried to solve ther., as well 2s possible. Chairperson Schnabel stated he had made a good atter:,pt� and thou�ht the Bo?rd vrould agree that the store c�iould orobaoly not gEnerate any more nevr • tra££ic. However, sne said, she thought ihe concern was basically with that particular corner from a safety standooint in terris of tra_ffic soutn-bound on East River Road attempting to turn into that entrance on East River Road instead of using 79th. i,r. Kemper agreed that the problem wasn't with more trai'£ic, but with more cars stopping and st2sting at an already noto^iously dangerous intersection. He said he was not a traffic engineer or someone who could an�yze if the busir.ess would decline without that entrance� but he thought if somebody rranted to stop thsre� they Vrould. Chairperson Schnabel said they did have several options available to them: deny� approve, or table the request; but they were obligated to pass en to the City Council some type oS decision. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Gabel� that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council, through the Plaruiing Coruaission� that the request for variances be denied due to the adverse traffic conditions on the East River Road and specifically at the intersection of 79th 'r:�,y and East River Road. Mrs. Gabel stated that when she looked at this as a building olan she had no problems with it, but when the human aspect Vras added into it, that was when her proble:�s began (and that zras what the community was made up of). She s2id they had a responsibility to the citizens of t}:e com�unity� and that was her reason for seconding the motion. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Barna and GaUel voting �ye, Kemper and Schnabel voting � nay� the motion tied 2- 2 and failed £or lack o£ a majority. Chairperson Schnabel wondered if they must arrive at a majority opinion or could pass this on to the City Council a tie vote. 5� F'ridley Appeals Commission Meeting - March 15, 1.977 ! Page 10 Chairperson Schnabel declaxed a recess at 10:30 P.1�, and reconvened the , meeting at 10:1�6 P.24, Mrs. Gabel comrnented that she thought they had almost talked this thing to death� and she nad to vote the way she believed. Chairperson Schnabel said that basically, they had to really consider the various variances that were being reouested� and thought perhaps they might be putting more emphasis on traffic flow than the variances that had been requested of them. The other thing tYiey had to consider, she stated, was that there vrere tv�o more Uodies that th�.s �-�ould appear before which viould perhaps deal more directl�r �rith traffic flow problems as opposed to the specific variances the;� orere being asked to deal with. She said that their job iaas to look at the requests for vari2nces of the zonin� ordinance as they related to the public sa£ety and welfare e£ the citizens, and perhaps they had gone further than the zoning ordinance by getting themselves quite wrapped up in the East River Road tra££ic situation. She said this was not to den� there v:as a problem there� but she thought they Might be goin� beyond the ordinance. t4rs. Gabel said she understood what bfrs. Sc!�nabel zras saying, but in terms of looking at the public heal�h� safety and �,*e1°are, she thought their concerns all tied in. Chairperson Schnabel suggested the;� might be looking a little bit further than ro:hat this bodv really dealt with. ?-frs. Gabel stated they had to look at things as hcw they related to the community and � if they were good for the community. She said she cou2d nci ignore that the situation was there and the problems did exist. Chairperson Schnabel said that maybe the time to make that type of objection would be at the City Council; perhans they were getting beyond �heir scoDe. She said they were charged basicaZly c:�ith dealing ;�ith any variances of a zoning ordinance, and the traf£ic on East River Road was not a variance in the zoning ordinance. She sug�ested that perhaps the decision on whethe: or not any comriercial venture should be allowed on East River Road would more directly rest with the Community Development Conmission or iaith the Planning Commission or City Council. She said the Appeals Co.^�»�ission r�as charged nore specifically taith variances to the zoning ordinance instead, and that was their £unction. hir. Kemper said that in order to make those decisions, ho;:ever� they had to take �nto consideration the hardships involved; hardships not only to the person requesting the variance� but the hardships to the citizens of Fridley as �rell. hirs, Gabel said she wondered i£ they were not asking themselves to do the impnssible. She said they could sit there until I1:00 in the morning� and if they all £elt very strongly on this� they simply would not agree. She said at some point they would have to pass this on to the Council. Chairperson Sclm abel read to the Commission the duties of the Board of Appeals Yrom the code book, $he said she thought that the decision as to if anything shou7d be placed on that property or any other property along � East River Road riay more like2y be2ong in anotk:er• body than this Commission� Fridley Appeals Commission t�+.eetin� - 17arch 15� 1977 � Page 19 s3 � ancl thought the Appeals Cormnission may be simply structured to deal with variances of the City code. Mr. Kemper noted that the last paragraph she had read from the charter said they rrere charged .rith t'r.e responsibility o£ sa,feguardina the public interest and vrere told t"�ey snould anply stipulations to ensure public saiety. He said that frankl;/, he didn't see that either one v£ the motions was out o£ line, Chairperson Sckm aoel said she ro�asn't inSerring tnat� but was tz^�ing to rr,al;e the.a all understa^.� what their char�e was as a Co ��ni�sion and see if they couldn't reach a majority decision. 1•ir. Kemper said he thought it Yi25 not anpropriate for them to deny a private concern a variance £or sometning tha� was com^le� beyond his control znd something that rnay go azaay in the £oreseeable £uture. He said he �:ould like to i'ind asi avenue to ts�,� to e;ork around that particular prablem, and that was what he was trying to do in tne crigir.al notion he made. He said he didn't think this body could sit bac'r, and say, "PIo, ��ou can't do it and you can't do it £orever because oi tne bad trafiic situation on East River Road". He said he thought that vras a ie�porary problern. Chairperson Schnabel said she also had a problem saying a petitioner should be denied a request based on a r,ersonal ieelino o£ wnether or not t7at business taas going to sncceed. She noted that in the memorendum tney had received from the Cit-y I�ttorney on econo:�ic £easibility and economic h3_dship, one of the things they had never done was to reouest a finsncial • report from any peiitioner. Sne siated they never knew if the petitioner standing before them had a r..iilion dollars in tne bank or was rolling his last nickel around in nis pocket; they never kne:� if a person had the ability to succeed or ni�:�t £ail in any ventnre he had before the Poa:d. She stated she really 3idn't feel it z:as legitinate £or the:n to deny zny petitioner on that basis, but there iaere �a7y other reasons why they could deny a petitzoner. She adced t:�at sne didn't think they should second guess whether a business rrould succeed or fail. .`�r. Barna said 'ne was not basing his decision on that. He explained that t,ro years ago he had spoken in favor of a business on that corner� but that iaas before he had gotten involved in th° sa£ety factor. Chairperson Schnabel suggested that th� building could be reduced in size by about !t0',(reducing it from ll�b' to approximately 106'), and asked A;r. Barna i£ that c:oulri be more palatable to hi^� at that point. :;r. Barna said that wouldn't make a viable building, an� i�irs. Schnabel a�reed. She said that probably it iaoulon't be economically appeal�g to him because the square footage would be reduced. Mr. Holden coruaented that he had found subsequent action by the City Council on August 18� 1975� in which they did discuss and put together the list that they had before them of the lu items. MOTION by Kemper� seconded by Barna� that the Appeals Commission table this item until they had a£uil Uoard. Upon a voice vote� Kemper and Harna � voting a,ye� Schnabel and Gabel votSng nay, the motion tied 2- 2 and failed , for lack of a majority. �� Fridley Appeals Commission 1•feeting - 1�farch 15, 1977 t Page 20 Chairperson Schnabe:L sa.id she £elt a motion to table at thi_s point rrould • requ9.re that the missing Eoard rnernber be brought up to date� �and there was no �zarantee that he woald be at the next meeting. Mr. Ke:nper asked tlr. Ernst his opinion as to vrhat 7-11 would do i£ they were denied access of£ of EG,t River Road. Ftr. Ernst replied that it would make the site u.^desirable to them sinc^ their buainess laas based on tra£iic (either by cars or foot)� and it would cut them ozf from t.he=r main artery of survivaL He said they vrouldn't want that oroperty even if it was pos�ible thzt : t son�e later da{;e i;here rrould be an acces, off o£ East River Road� as it woul.d jeonardize the projcct, Chairoerson Schnabel asked �;hat ?1r. Err.st thou�ht 7-11's reaction wou7.d be if the City Co�mcil also deni�d a di.rect access onto �ast P�iver Road. P1r. �rnst repl,�ed that tl-,ey had to look at it in terms ef the :�hole ccncept, and if Fridley v;ould provide that access. As far as 7-11 was concernFd, he said, they £elt just �n inUress would bc enough for tii�::� but they vrould li.ke to have e�r°s, as well. r1rs. Gabel taondered if it .roul@ be zn ordar to nake a motior. that they pass this on to the City Council as is. S'�e �aid she didn't see that they were going to co;�e +o any conclusions. iir. Barna commenied that �hay cculcL-��t agrec on ever;�t:lin6 all of the time. ?s. Ker�per said that thA minutes would reflect ell o£ +heir concerns and tiaould �ell tiheir ieelin�s regardless of which ,rwy zny motion ,:ent. � Pir. Holden asked t•rhat t:�e mair. oojection :•;as to Fs. Kemper�s origina7. motion. P7r. Barna said his main objections were te two safety variances, B and G, Chairperscn Schr.abel asked P-Ir. Barna if he ofould be rlore inclined to sunnort the proposal if the petitioner ca:;e in �aitn a ne�:: plan that elir;inaied requests 3, E and G and if there Uras no access from East River Road. ;'ir, Barna replied he vrould not. ASOTIOId Uy GaUel, seconded by Barna, that t?ie Anpeals Cor.m ssion pass en to Council, tnrough the Plannir.g Commission� their t�_e vot� rrithout recom .endatior.. Chairpersen SchnaUel said t:�at in viei� of the Sact that they did seern to be at an inpasse and had attempted tnree Moticr.s� it cras possibly� advzsable to pass this on to Council as it �:Tas ar_d let the minutes explain uhat had happened. She said she did feel the necessity to get in contact tiaith the Chair of t?ie Pltnning Cor:mission and the Mayor to di,cuss trhat had happened at this cieeting hith botn aS then. Slie said tha1: if they Selt that the Board of Appeals should come back and try to reach some kind of majority opinion� she would r.otify each of the �;en;bers of the Corrunission. She added that she did feel obligated to at Iezst n;al<e those calls so t'riey could be aware of iahat had happened. UPON A VOIC� VOT�, Gabels $arna and Kernper votin; aye� Schnabel voting nay� the motion carried 3-�. • � �._.1 i Fridley Appeals Commission A�eetin� - t4arch 15� 1977 3. OTHER BUSI:"iF.SS: Page 21 `5�1 Mrs. Schnabel asked ii' a7y of the Commission members had any specific questions or comments concerning the me:�orandum she had received £rom the City Attorney. She revies:ed £or them that the two questions she had been concerned rrith were economic feasibility and devaluation of adjacent property. She said this had been discusse3 at the Pl�:nning Corunis�ion, and sne didn't believe they had co^:e to an,y conclusions on whht it meant. Cnairperson Scnr.abel stated tnat in terms of econonic £easibility, her interpretation i-ras that a person rrho made a request� and was himsel£ des+.itute, could r.ot be ccnsidered in terms of economic hardship. She said his £inancial resources m�ere not a consideration. Hovrever, she said� in the case pointed out in the memo that concerne3 a ten-uni_t apartrnent building, t:n� economic hardship r:as that the defendant could not rnake a go o£ it financially i£ ne rehabilitated the ten units. She said they had analyzed it snd decided that only i£ he built a thirty- unit building would he come out o£ it well £inancially. Chairperson Schnabel staied that in this case the court deter:nined that for this petitioner to rehabilia+e the ten-unit apartment to bring it into compliance with the code �aould cost rnore than the structure r:ould be worth� so under those cirew�stances it vrould be better io put up the thirty-wnit building. Pirs, Gaoel co.*nrnented that it i•ras still a very ambiguous-type thing, She said that each situation would still have to be analyzed, and perhaps they should discourage �eople £rom sayi_ng that economicall;,� this was what they could best ai£ord. Chairperson Schnabel said the other point was the consideration of the devaluation o£ adjacent propert�-, and it was determined that r*as a valid consideration. 2�Irs. Gabel said she agreed c•rith that. She thougiit they didn't run into that so much *„it?� residential, but referenced the P? & I item. NIr. iCemner said that iF he had thoueht that i•^. & I�rould have deteriorated the neighborhood� ?�e wouldn't have voted £or it. Nir. Barna said that just £or the Board�s information, the City Council had tabled the Berkeley Pumo item last creek and last night� aiso. He said he had discovered after the r�eeting was over that Ber��celey had changed their plan. Mrs. Gabel asked why� when a petitioner changed his ;�lans� he didn�t have to come back to �poeals but could go to City Council wiin an entirely di£ferent plan. tirs. Schnabel said that i£ they were witliin the limitations of the variances that the Appeals Commission granted� they didn�t have to come back. Mr. Barna said he thought it had been tabled because it was across the street from a park, and even thou�h they had created an industrial area and an industrial road (Ashton), ttiey didn't want an industrial structure less thatt 100' away from a R-1 zoning across the way. h'ss. Gabel said she thought some o£ the council people £elt this was becoming too he�vy o£ a use ior that area� and they tabled it in order to work sometning out. Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that the change in tlie plans had been noted at the previous Appeals Commission meeting, and showed 1qr, Barna where it was �� �� I'ridley ;,ppeal.s Commi.ssion Iieetin� - March 15� 1977 contained in the minutes. •' Page 22 tdr. Kemper said he would recommend that Sta£f be very diligent and be aw.are of any nlan chan�;es thai could alier thc course of their discussions� and if they found an;�� they should be brought bac'.c £or the Appeals Com.:�ission to t.ake anoiher look at. He asked tnat these concerns be brought to thc at,tention of iir. Sobiech and DIr. Eoardinan. ADJOURI»1iE'i; T : MOTIOid by Kenpera seconded by Barna, at 11:�5 P.?`, Upon a veice vote, all unanimously. Respectfully submitted� , �, � �� � Sherri 0'Donnell Recordir.g Secretary that the Appeals Commission adjourn voting a��e� the notion carried � � � f 2iz MiNiwc 212.0t F!�lDItJG AND PURPOSE � The City of Fridley recognizes that surface mininq exists and that this mininq can be an aid [o the �eparation of develooment sites. The City further finds that i[ is not practicable to mine minesals required by society without disturbing the surface of the earth and producing araste materials. The danger exists that noncompatible land uses could un- necessarily deny the benefit of these materials to society in the future. It is further found 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 proper)y regulated and if reclamation of surface mined iands is required, mining can take place a�ithin the City in such a manner that undesirable side effects of the operation may be restricted to an accep- table ievel. The purposes of this ordinance are: To provide for the economical availa- bility of sand, gravel, rock, soii and other materials. To establish uniform and reasonable limitations, safeguards and controis in the City, for the future mining of said materials. 7o control the effect of the mining operation upon adjacent property and other areas of the City. To provide for the restoration of the mining operation and mining area � during and after Yermination of the removal operation. 7o control and minimize pollution caused by erosion or sedimentation, all in furtherance of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of fridley, Minnesota. 212.02 RELATIONSHIP TO ZONING �RDlNAD:CE This ordinance shall apply to areas within the City of F�idley in i�ihich 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, rene�aal and termination of the mining permit required by Section IV. 212.03 DEFINITIONS ►_ J i l. Dust - Air-borne inorganic particulate matter other than smoke. 2. Mining Permit - The permit required by Section IV of this ordinance. 3. Minerals - tJonmetallic material found in tlie earth including but not limited to sand, gravel, rock and soil, which may be covered by overburden. �I. Mining - The removal or extraction and processing of minerals. 5• Overburden - Those materials which lie between the surface of the earth and the mineral deposit to be mined. 6. Rehabilitation - To renev+ land to a self-sustaining, long term use whicl� is compatible viith contiguous iand uses in accordance with Yhc standards set forth in this ordinance. 7. Topsoil - That portion of the overburden which lies closast to � the earth's surface and supports the grawth of vegetation. 212.04 tlltdttdG PEP,MIT Except as hereinafter provided in this ordi�ance, it shall be unlav�ful for any operator to engage in mininq without having first a v�ritten permit from the City of Fridley authorizing the same. 212.05 EXCEPTIOPIS The permit requirements established by this ordinance shall not apply to: l. Emergency rrork necessary to preserve human life or property. Emer- gency work performed under this sec jon st�all be reported to the City of Fridley e a"` �eS � �T�''' TF1P�r�� . sLia�l immediately rev' rti f, r ,+e�.-__:�_ .,�..,.ti,,. ,.� „ r -- eepL'yQa,., An operator corrmencin9 emergency work shall o-rithin 10 days folloa�ing the commencement of that activity, apply for the issuance of a mining permit and on the issuance thereof may be required to perforri such viork as determined to be reasonably necessary to correct any environmental impairment occasioned by such v�ork. � 2. Operators now conducting operations 9overned by this ordinance and for which this ordinance requires a permiG shall be notified �•�ithin 15��sA�,�e��¢ggtion of this ordinance that they are required to�e�ew a permit ��"Upon notification, operators shall have 60 days in which to complete permit applications. Failure to apply for a permit application within 60 days shall be a violation of this or- dinance, however, on request and for cause, the City may exYend the time for initial application to 90 days. 212.06 APPLICATION F(?R AP1D PROCESSIFJ, OF PERMIT 1. The min+ng permit shali be processed in accordance �aith the same procedures specified at Section of Ordinance �ti'o. adopted The mining permit may be processed at the same time and in conjunct+on tiaith an applica[ion for a buildina permit or any other permit required to be granted by the ordinances of the City of Pridley. 2. An application for a minin9 permit shall contain: (a) The name and address of the operator and o�vner of the land. (b) The correct legal description of the property wliere the extraction is proposed to occur. � ��(c) The names of al) land owners otmin9 property �aitfiin one-half mile of the boundary of the property described abovc. .�� {d) Specification of the following using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: i. the physical relationship of the proposed mining � area to the community and existing community dev- elopme�t. ii. site topography and natural features including IocaYion of water courses and water bodies within the planned mining area. iii. the quality and quantity of mineral5 to be excavated. iv. the depth of Y�ater tables throughout Yhe 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, including orocessing (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) Sravel routes to and from the site. � (i) The plans for drainage, wind and t:�ater erosion control, p �s�e.d.,,im-e�ntation and dust control. 3. �1�''�Cf�— 'f0 '?.C. ZO s . � °t�l 212.07 STANDARDSIQ,� l. Operation shall be conducted �aithin the confines of the property. 2. Operation shall not be conducted riithin: �\'p �el�a't�At+w (a) A Five feet of the ri9ht-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• Fen�ing - During operations, access to any area where collecYions of water are one and one-hatf 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 oCher areas a�here obvious danger to the public exists shall be controlled by a four foot tall fence. Set standard for fencing-�vith support posts spaced every 10'. � 4. A�pearancc and Screeninq: (a) Machinery shall be kept operational. -i►^+! _ �,� (b) Abandoned machinery and rubbish shall be removcd from the site regularly. � (c) A1l structures that have not been used for a period of one year shall be removed (rom Yhe site. (d) All equipment and temporary structur?s shall be removed and dismantled not later than six montl�s after termination of mining operation or expiration of this permit. (e) Idhere prattical, stockpiles of over6urden and materials shall be used to screen the mining zite. (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, maintained and supplemented by selective cutting, transolanting and replartting of trees, shrubs, and other ground cover along all setback areas. 5. Operating SYandards: {a) P7oise--the maximum noise level at the oerimeter of the site shall be tvithin the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and t�ie Er�vironmental Protection Agency of , '• the United States. � (b} Ho rs--all mining operations shall be conducted between 7 a.m. p�% p.m. Ftonday throuqh Saturday only. (c) Explosives--the use and handling of explosives shall be co- ordinated with the police de�artment. Blasting shali occur only at hours specified in the permit and at not other time. (d) Dust--operators shall utilize all practical means to reduce the amount of dust caused by the operation. In no case shail the amount of dust or other particulate matter exceed the standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (e) Water Pollution--operators shall comply with all applicable Ninnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations and Federal and Environme�tal Protection Agency regulations for the protection of tivater quality. No waste products or process residue, including untreated wash �aater, shall be deposited in any lake, s[reain or natural draina9e system, except those lakes or ponds �wholly contained within the extraction site may be so utilized. (f) Topsoil Preservation--all topsoil shall be retained at the Site until completc rehabilitatioi� of the site has taken � place according to the rehabili Wtion plan. 6. RehaUilita[ion Standards: (a) Rehabilita[ion shall be continuing operation occurring as quickly as rossible aftcr the mining operation has moved :±� s � � sufficiently into another par[ of the extraction site. (b} Slopes--all banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the rehabilitation plan submitted with the permit application, t10 rehabilitaced slopes shall be steeper than four feet horizontal to one foot vertical, except tfiat steeper slopes may be permitCed in accordance with the rehabilitation plan arhen said slopes are planned for slope related usages, for example, ski hills and sliding hilis. (e) Cover and Planting--slopes, r,rated, and backfilled areas shall be surfaced ��ith at least three inches of topsoil and p]anted with ground cover sufficient to hold the soil. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self-sustained. (d) Siopes 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 resulting from excavation shall be rehabilitated as follows: i. all standin storm riater fili materi ii. any a�ater b must he a�o ��rater bodies, exceD retertion, ti��ill 6e f v the e to be u ea those aoproved for led �,ri th acceptable �nstruction season. for storm ti-�ater retention gineerinG 9epartment. (f) Final Elevation--no part of the rehabilitated area �vhich is planned for utilization for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation loi�ter than the minimum required for gravity connection to sanitary and storm seo-rer. 212.08 FEES E BQNQ 1. The annual permit fee and expiration date shail be as provided by Chapter 11 of this Code. 2• Post a surety bond acceptable to the City or a certified check in an equivalent amount for the sum of 51,000 per acre or `raction thereof for the land to be subjected to the mining operation run- ning to Fridiey to secure satisfactory performance of the reGuire- ments set forth in this ordinance 212.09 VALIDITY The validity of any word, sec[ion, clause, paragrapli, sentence, part or provision of this ordinance shall not effect the validity of any other part of this ordinance which can be given affect without such invalid part or parts. 212.10 EFFF.CTIVE DATE � This ordinance shall take affect upon adoption by the City Council of Fridley, Minnesota. -F�"Y _� � }� ! � i� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION ME6TING MAftGH 23, 1977 PAGE 1 CALL'PTO �RDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLI, CAiL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, I,angenfeld� Peterson, Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark� Co�nunity DeveloFanent Administrator MOTION by 3hea, seconded by Schnabel, that item 10 on the agenda (receiving the Appeals Co:mnission minutes) and item 12 on the agenda (receivi.ng the Human Resources Commission minutes) be be made items 2A and 2B respectively, since there xereppeople in the sudience for those items. Upon a voice vote, all voting qye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel wondered if they shouldn't also move item 5 up since there were also people in the audience £or that particular item. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, to amend the agenda to make item 5(intersection at 53rd and Central) number 2E. Upon a voice vote, all voting a�ye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLANNING COI�ASIS5ION MZNUTES: MARCH 9, 1977 Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to make a fex corrnnents on the items contained from the bottom of page 15 tivrough page 18 (the discussion o£ the Metropolitan Council Application, Award and IIisbursement Guidelines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants), She stated she did have addit3onal information, and had it xith her this evening� so she could clarify a couple of things. Mrs. Schnabel explained that the total grant £or this particular program was 2� million dollars state xide; 50% which vent out s9ate, and 5Q� to the metro area, with $% retained for administrative purposes. She stated that in thai metro area allocation a Land Use Advisory Committee was established to discuss the priorities and allocations of that money, and the intent was for each comrmmity to receive a system statement before making application. She sai.d that not a11 of them had been mailed out yet, , ,,,�,. : � . Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 2 which was the reason for the delay in the appropriatioxis. Mrs, Schnabel explained $8�0,000 had been set aside for entitlements srith a minimum o£ $300 to the 189 communities involved. She noted the Planning Commission had talked about the five criteria £or the application, and said that besides that they also used an adjustment £actor of relatiae wealth (they looked at the communitjc's ability to raise money through taxes). She said that in terms of the money that they were looking at, $1t2,500 xas set aside for special planning problems; in other words, iP a community felt they had sanething unique Which caused a problem, they could apply for money out of that bulk. She continued that $57�000 xas set aside because $7 of the 189 communities had never done anything to get this implemented (that c�as a special $1,000 each of them could use to help them get started, and was called an Inventory F1uid). Mrs. Schnabel stated there was the County Assistance to Freestanding Grorrth Centers of $1,000 each, and a program called Couttty Plattning Assistance Fund of $129,000 which was set aside £or aid in planning solid waste sewage disposal systems and land use in unin.corporated tormships. Of that $129,000, she said, 25� uas set aside for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and 75� for the other five counties, She added that they were going to be pushing for more money in addition to the money that was available here in the metro area. Mrs. Schnabel said she had wanteil to bring those additional thoughts out so they would add to the information that was contained in the last minutes. Chairperson Harris asked if their assumption was correct that what they rrere going to get out of this whole thing would be $6,835• Mrs. Schnabel replied she aould assume so, but she could not say definitely. Mr. Langenfeld referred to the third paragraph under number 5 on page 15, and said he would like the Yirst sentence to read""...what is of inetropolitan significance" instead of "if it xas of inetropolitan significance°. I�TION by Schnabel, seconded by Langen£eld� that the Planning Commission minutes o£ March 23, 1977 be approved as amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. VACATION REQUEST: SAV �}77-01 CLIFI�iORD R. MISTAI.SKI: Vacate the outher 1 Street and Uti ity easement o£ Lot � Block 32� Hyde Park, to make this a buildable lot, xhen included x*ith Lot %, Block 32, Hyde Park, the same being 5801 6th Street N,E. (House addressed as 5801 bth Street on Lots 8 and 9, Block 32, Hyde Park will have to have an address change to 5811 6th Street N.E.). Mr. and Mrs. Clif£ord R. Mistalski were present. Mr. Clark directed the Coimnission to located Block 32 of f�yde Park on gage 22 of their Hal£ Section Plat books� and explained that in 1971 the City vacated the 3�� easement. He said that prior to that time, Lot 6 was going tax £or£eit and the Ehgineering Department had requested that the county Planning Coimnission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 3 keep 17� of street right of rray combined with what was there to make a 1�0' right of way. Mr. Clark stated that between the time it xas requested and the time the county actually had the tax forfeit sale, the City then vacated the 30' easement, so the 17' was really no longer necessary and should be vacated. He said that the Ftigineering Department recoramended that they retain the Southerly 10' of Lot 6 for utility easement because o£ a Water main in that area. Mr. Peterson asked if it vould impair the lot as a building site if the 10' utility easement was retaima�l,and Mr. Clark replied it should not. He explained the 10' easement could be used for the setback, and shouldn't reduce the buildable site at all. Mr. Mistalski asked if the lot would still come out to 1�ii'� and Mr. Clark replied it would. Mrs. Mistalski asked if they could sell it as a ltlt' lot, and Mr, Clark ansurered they could. Mr. Mistalski asked i£ they had been paying taxes on a corner lot all tkESe years, and Mr, Clark replied he didn't believe they srere} especially since the street was vacated. Chairperson Harris asked if the liistalski�sWere planning this as a home building site� and Mr. Mistalski replied they hadn't decided if they were going to sell it or build on it. Mrs. Mistalski said they might want a few £eet of I,ot 7 added on to their property� and Mr. Clark explained that would also involve a lot split. Mr, and Mrs. Mistalski stated they hadn't decided what they wanted to do tirith it yet. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission reconmend to Council approval of Vacation Request SAV �%77-01� Clifford R. Mistalski: Vacate the Southerly 17' Street and Utility easement of Lot 6� Block 32, F�yde Park, to make this a buildable lot, when included with Lot 7, Block 32, Hyde Park, the same being 5801 6th Street N.E., with the City to maintain a 10' easement on the South portion. Upon a voice vote, all voting qye� the motion carried unanimously. 2. r! �� �� _ . �/— ku�� �L1��� ��C, to make two parcels for tax purposes, the same being 7300 and 7320 University Avenue N.E. {zoned C-25) (Variance request will be heard by Appeals Coimnission on April 12� 1977)• Mr. Steven Coddon� property owner� Was present. Mr. Clark asked i£ there was some particular hurry with this, and Mr. Coddon replied there was as he had a closing coming up and he needed the lot split in order to get £ivancing. Mr. Clark asked Khat the target date was for closing, and Mr. Coddon replied June 1, but he would like to get this done as soon as possible. Mr. Clark said he asked the question because he thought they might be getting the cart be£ore the horse, and thought perhaps the Appeals Corrmiission should be hearing this £irst. .: �"'Y . _... <: . . Planning,Corruni.ssion Meeting g March 23� 1977 Page 1� Mr. Clark e�cplained that there were tvo car washes on this property; one was automatic and one was self-service. He said the txo buildings were buil�i at different times! and one was leased and one was owned. Ae stated they had separate sewer� water� etc. Mr. Clark stated that now they would like to split the parcel so there could be two separate owners, two separate mortgages� etc.� but the buildings would look the same as they do nox. He eacplained that Mr. Coddon also needed a variance because he would only be 5�' From the lot line instead of the required 15'. Mr. Coddon stated that even though the variance vas necessary, the buildings ceme together at a corner and were not side hy side� so there would be no change except the legal change. He said that the buildings were 10' apart. Mr. C�ark said the reason he asked about the scheduling of this xas because the Board of Agpeals would be looking at the request on April 12, and those minutes would come be£ore the Planning Con¢nission on April 20, and both sets of minutes would go to Council on M�y 2. Mrs. Schnabel asked what kind of vaziance they would ask for if this wasn't handled here tonight and there was no lot split approved. Mr. Clark said he felt the Board o£ Appeals could make a more unbiased decision i£ they lmeur the lot split hadn't alreac�y been approved. Mrs. Schnabel again wondered what type of variance they could ask for since there was no variance from a lot line unless there was a lot split. Mr. Clark said they vould appeal £or a hypothetical variance� and the Board of Appeals could pass a reco�aendation that the variance be approved contingent on the lot split being approved. He stated the end result vould be the same, since one vas contingent on the other. Mrs. Schnabel sai.d she thought it xas six to one and a half dozen of the other, and as long as the petitioner vas present she didn't see any real problem in hearing this. Mr. Langenfeld corr¢nented that it seemed to him that all they were going to do rras split this into iwo parcels for tax purposes and everything else would remain the same. Chairperson Harris said he remembered xhen this came before the Planning Coimnission in 1970, and was rezoned from C1 to C2. He said there was some concern at that time about the distance between the two buildings because they liked to:cunaintain 15' between structures for safety reasons, but it had been approved at thattime based on the �ray the buildings were now. Mr. Peterson said it seemed to hi.m that the circumstances when the petition xas presented in 1970 when there was one ormer and one parcel wae a lot different from now when there would be two parcels and tvo owners. He said it seemed to follow that next week, or whenever this had been conswnated, they might have a11 kinds of requests coming in for changes in use of the buildings, and so on. He stated he thought they would be opening up a Pandora's Box. Mr. Bergman asked what the hardship would be if this lot split was not granted. Mr. Coddon explained that there xere two owners at the very start. He said the hardhsip was that one of the owners owned the building but not .�m._ Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 5 the land� and financing was really a problem. He stated there was a definite hardship because ihe £inancing couldn't be restructured without the lot split. He added he was not asking for any change and there wasn't any contemplated chenge in what was going to be there in any way, shape or form. Mr. Bergman asked if he was correct in saying Mr. Coddon had a situation in which a building owner also wished to own the land on which his building resided. Mr. Coddon replied that vas a potential he was seeking to achieve� but there was also a tax situation and a financing.situation he xould like to resolve. He said he would also like to have the same ovner for the building and the land, but his £irst need was to be able to close the transaction. Mr. Peterson asked if Mr. Coddon would clari£y what h�s position in this might be, and Mr. Coddon explained that in 197� he bought the parcel on a land contract as an individual. He said he arranged for the construction of the Uuildings, the two separate or�mers and the tenants, then sold the developed package to an investment corporation. Now� he continued, that corporation was splitting up their partnership and wanted to split up the property and sell it. Mr. Coddon said he vas both the contract purchaser and the equity purchaser� and xould like to get a separate mortgage on the property. He stated he was the ovner right nosr, but in a mixed-up fashion. Ae said that Standard Oil was a leasee on a year to year basis, and the self-service car wash had paid of£ their buildi.ng and had another fifteen years as a land lease tenant on the Northern part. Ae said it was his feeling that they would very much like to have the parcel, but they already owned the building. He added that a lot split would solve everything and not harm anyone in ar�y wey. Mr. Peterson said that was true unless the people who had the self-seroice car xash decided in two months to_do something different and came in £or variances. He said he had been on the Planning Co�mnission two or three years and had seen all kinds of problmus arise as a result o£ things like this. Mr. Coddon said that if the lot vas split, the remaining two portions were legal lots nnder the zoning code� and anything anyboc�y did propose would be judged on its own merits. He said he didn't see where it would be a problem if they used their land for legal purposes and zoned purposes. Mr. Peterson gointed out that part of the lot split entai.led a variance, and that was not within the code. Mrs. Shea rrondered if one o£ the stipulations when this xent through Appeals could be that the use would be limited, but Chairperson Harris said he didn't thi.nk they could make it stick. Mr. Clark said they might be able to limit the enlargements of either structure by stipulating that any additions must meet all setbacks. 23r. Langenfeld commented that he had the feeling they were making this worse than it was. He felt it would perhaps be irise to make a motion with the stipulation that this property be split in trro parcels for tax purposes only. Chairperson Harris said he didn't think they could do that. Ae explained the assessments were split� the taxes were split, and there would be tvo separate owners on two separate percels. He asked how big the parcel was in total� and Mr. Clark replied about It3,�0 feet. Mr. Clark added that it Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 6 had more than 200' of frontage, so it did meet that zoning requirement. Chai.rperson Harris said they had a City policy on odd-shaped lots, and that was that the frontage was taken at the building line (for example, on cui,-de-sacs). He wondered vhat would happen with this frontage if it xas taken on that criteria. He noted the property was zoned G2S. Mr. Peterson commented that in 1970 a Special Use Permit also had to be granted because o£ the nature o£ the buildings, and Chairperson Harris said that was correct. Mrs. Schnabel asked if that vas a way in which to tie the two businesses to these two particular lots iftthe lot split was approved. Chairperson Harris sai.d he was not certain that it was the intent o£ the Council or the Planning Commission that the Special Use Permit could be split automatically. He said the Special Use Permit was granted to the property as a single entity� and now they were talking about two different entities; it seemed to him they vould have to go back through the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Clark said that a Special Use Permit would probably not be denied since the buildings were already there and it had been approned before. Ae added that if they were going to approve the lot split and approve the varisnce and then make them go back through the Whole process of a Special Use Permi.t� it certairily would not be denied. Chairperson Harris wondered how they could split a Special Use Permit� and said he had never heard of that bei.ng split with a lot split. Mr. Clsrk said he didn't Imow� either. Technically, he said� Mr. Harris was probably right, but if everything else was approved he didn't think a 3pecial Use Permit could be denied. Mr. Peterson said it seemed to him that if somebody xas applying for a Special Use Pemut in 1477 on that� there would be a lot of questions asked before that Special Use Permit Was granted, thinking ahead that it might be split. Chairperson Harris said that the situation that the gentleman vas eluding to (where there was one building on a parcel and a lease held on another section o£ the same parcel with a building on it) was not an unusual situation. Mr. Bergman stated he would like to regroup where they were at. He sai.d they were talking about a lot split with a fee of $30� a varisnce procedure sri.th a fee of $5Q� and possibly tvo Special Use Permits {one for each parcel) at $120 each� plus a faix� amount of Mr. Coddon's time. He sai.d he was just wonderi,ng if Mr. Coddon still thought it was worth it. Mr. Coddon replied it was well iaorth it, and he would do anything they wanted. He said his appeal was there was no change planned� and he wanted a lot split for what was already there. He added that he didn't see that what might happen in the future was a valid question in this matter. Mr. Peterson sai.d that Under G2S zoning, which was on the property now, there were all kinds of options in terms of vhat aould be done with that building for manu£acturing, etc. Mr. Clark said it would have to be a commercial use. Mr. Peterson asked if they would be able to ehange the building without coming in and making requests. He said they could be faced Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 7 with a lot of alternatives and have no control as far as the City was con- cerned. Mr. Clark said that i£ they did any construction at all� they srould have to come in for a building permit. He said that parking requirements� setbacks� and so forth were looked at before a building permit was issued. Mr. Peterson s�ated that once they had the zoning and were using the builcling in conformance with the zoning at that particular time� then the City would be hard pressed to not issue a building permit or grant a variance. Mrs. Schnabel stated that under one osmer, one of the txo buildings could still be converted if he so chose. She pointed out they could still have the same problem whether there was a lot split or not. She wondered if they were making a big "to do° about something that might never come up again, and asked hoN many other instances there were similar to this in Fridley. Mr. Clark said there xere a lot o£ situations like this where someone owned the land and someone else owned the building. Mrs. Schnabel said she was talking about the two buildings bei.ng so close together, which seemed to be the real problem. Mr. Clark said that the City didn't necessarily imow about them unless someone came in� like now. Mr. Coddon said that as Mrs. Schnabel had mentioned� these problems would be the same whether it was split or not. Mr. Peterson stated that couldn't happen at the present time, however, because o£ the £inancing involved. He said that right now the owner couldn't doiit because he didn't hane a clear title. Mr. Coddon pointed out that was the same situation as when it was built� so it could happen. He said that the car wash to the North might vant to add on. Mrs. Schnabel coimnented thatiif the owner had private financing, he could do it. Chairperson Harris added that the lot sizes did meet the code, depending on how much frontage could be considered as legal frontage. Mr. Bergman said it looked to him like xhat they were addressing here was� on one hand� a request Eor £inancial bene£it of a property owner; amd on the other hand� a variance from the ordinance. He stated he had listened back to history xhich involved at one point a rezoning and a Special Use Permit� and at this point a lot split of an existing C-2S property vhich in terms o£ £rontage and/or area was within the zoning ordiance. He said this put them back to the variance problem Frith regard to the setbacks. He stated he didn't see anything about what was being requested that was of material velue other than the £orthcoming variance request to reduce £rom 15' to 5' on the setbacks o£ each parcel in order to make this happen. He said that to him� the consideration got back to the variance request being they key item� and if they should agree to a lot split sThich would sutomatically involve two variances. Mrs. Schnabel added that the two Special Use Permit requests were also key items. Chairperson Harris said that it seemed to hi.m there were some stipulations either wi.th the rezoning or the Special Use Permit on this particular parcel when it had gone through before, and asked Mr. Clark if he could get the files on this. Mrs. Schnabel asked if Chairperson Harris could recall a similar situation where a petitioner went in a cotmnercial area and built two separate buildings Planning Con¢nission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 8 on one piece o£ property. Mr, Harris said that as he remembered, this was a unique situation� and he couldn�t remember it happening before or since then. He said there were situations vhere more than one building vas lruilt on the same parcel, but none with the buildings this close. Mr. Peterson commented that it seemed to him that any time they had a unique situation it kept coming back and coming back before the Planning Gommission, causing raore thinga to be out o£ the ordinary when it ceme back the next time, and that was his initial concern. Mr. Ber�nan said that apparently Mr. Coddon had been involved in the property from the word "go". Mr. Coddon stated that he bought the property as an individual, and a gentleman vho was developing car xashes came to him as a property owner and put the package together. Mr, Bergman asked i£ he recalled why the property wasn�t split at the time the two businesses were constructed. Mr. Coddon replied the main reason was because Co�nerce Park Investments xouldn't taice pqyment on the property until 1972 for tax purposes. He said it was bought on a contract for deed� so the £inancing far the buildings had to be arranged independently of that contract. He added they couldn�t be pai.d for at the time, let alone split. Mr. Clark returned �rith the requested information. He read £rom the building permit itself, Wh�ch stated that the Special Use Permit was only good for the operatiott of one self-service car xash and one automatic car wash, along with service pumps. No other business vould be operated without the explicit approval of the City Council. Both car washes are on one permit and on one parcel of land: and any time the oxnership changes on either of the ear washes a lot split will have to be approvqlby the City Council. Chairperson Harris sai.d that somebody violated the condition of the Special Use Permit, and asked if there veren't two separate parties on the car wash and the self-service. Mr. Coddon eacplained that the self-service car wash tenant was the original tenant, and the sutomatic car wash land owners leased to Damaron Corporation �,rhich went through Federal bankrup�yy. He said there xas also an equipment squabble involving the party that was a leasee of Standard Oil and the car vash. ASr. Coddon said that all this had nottung to do with the land xhich he purchased, then sold his interest out, and then purchased back. Chairperson Harris asked who owned the South one, and Mr. Coddon replied that he 6wned the land and the building (the automatic car wash). Mr. Coddon said that the self-service was the tenant in the lease� and the terms of the lease said the building would be built £or him and he would pay a rental o£ $850 a month until 60 payments had been made, in xhich case the building would become his and the rent would be reduced. Chairperson Harris said that rras the violation--that was not part of the deal when this started out. He said there had never been apy mention made at the time the requests were ma.de for the rezoning or the Special Use Permit that this was going to be a buy-back operation. Mr. Coddon explained what the lease had said� and stated that if there was an error he had not been aware of it. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 9 Mr. Peterson requested Mr. Clark to again read the stipulations on the Building Permit, vhich Mr. Clark did. Mr. Coddon then asked i£ that meant there should have been a lot split� and Chairperson Harris replied that the lot split should have been done previous to this time. Mr. Peterson stated that he suspected that if the Planning Commission and City Council had Imown of the buy-back arrangement on the lease and the fact that there uere two owners involved� they might have looked at it a little more carefully before granting the Special Use Permit. He said that in effect, the ordinances were violated right £rom the beginning without going through the process of a hearing; right Yrom the beginning there was a lease for a buy-back that the City never lmew of. He said he suspected that the lease was entered into before the bu3ldings were ever constructed. Mr. Bergman asked if there xere tvo buildings, and Mr. Coddon replied yes. Mr. Ber�nen asked i£ they were owned by the same party, and Mr. Coddon answered they were not, but he would like to get this corrected xith a lot split. Mr. Langen£eld said that he was ledata believe that an actual "buy-back" didn't exist. He thought the arrangement was such that due to the nature of the business (xith fixed equignent attached to the building) the building end this equipment could not be moved. So in this lease agreement� he continued� $$50 was to be paid for the equipment as well as the building for sixty months, and then a much reduced rental �rould be allowed. He sai.d that to him, that was not a buy-back yet. Chairperson Harris said that he was renting land space right now, but for all intents and purposes he owned the building. Mr. Eer�nan asked i£ the os+nership of the buildings or the land under the buildings had changed. Mr. Coddon said that in actuality nothing had changed, but the lease stated that after the sixty payments the building and the equipment became the property o£ the tenant but he could not move it off the property. Messrs Harris, Peterson and Bergman agreed that then it had changed. Mr. Coddon stated he vas just here to correct the situation that existed. Mr. Clark read from the minutes of the City Council meeting concerning this parcel� which said the owner o£ the land would remain the same. He said that apparently the land xas going to be owned by one person and the leases xould be of the type Where they didn't own the building. Mr. Peterson said that the intent of the lease was that the tenant would o�n the building in fact, but that wasn't told to the Council or the Planning Co�sission. Mrs. Schnabel said perhaps what Mr. Coddon was sqying was at the time he made the statement beFore the Covncil he did not own that building at that time, but £ailed to perhaps say that he would own it in the future. Mr. Coddon said �hat it hadn't seemed to him to hane any bearing on the requests. Chairperson Harris said he recalled he voted in favor of the Special Use Permit and the rezoni.ng, but the Commission at that time had some serious doubts about the spacing between the two buildings. Ae said:he felt that since they weren't talking about lot split at the time and since it was under Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 10 one oNnership� he had voted in favor o£ the recoimnendations on the Special Use Permit and the rezoning. He said that if he had ]mown at that time about the two owners, his vote may have been dif£erent. Mr. Bergman said he would like to clarify two points: 1. While the state- ment can truthfully be made that both buildings are today under one oener- ship as originally, a legal document has been established settiuig in motion a change of ownership on one of the buildings. 2. He was impressed with the wordage from the minutes which indicated that this whole discussion took place at that time xith some apparent acceptance that there could in fact be a future lot split, and they recognized that in that event there would be lack of setback. Chairperson Harris said he didn't recall it that way� but perhaps Mr. Ber�nan was correct. Mr. Bergman said he thought thexe was an implication in vhat Mr. Clark had read Yrom the minutes that the attitude was positive toward a lot split i£ the ownership did change. Mr. Harris said that was one oY the stipulations--the lot split would be applied for before the buildings changed oWnerships. Mr. Peterson said the implication he read was that the Planning Commission and City Council were very concerned in 1970, but reluctantly granted the Special Use Permit and building permits based on the fact that there was one owner and xould continue to st� one owner, and they were really setting up safeguards to keep it as one owner. He said that in e£fect, at the time that these were applied for an arrangement had already been entered into, as he suspected that the lease vas signed before the building permits were issued. Mr. Peterson said he felt the implication was that this was exactly what they didn't want to happen (the lot split and change of ownership), at least not without it being reviewed. Mr. Bergman said that in his opinion� that implied that the City had some control over a private party selling his private property (s �ri.ng he must come in for a lot split, and if='�he didn't get it� he couldn't sell the property). He said that seemed a bit akkward. Mr. Clark suggested that if the Planning Commission and Council had assumed that a lot split would have been approved� they may have asked that the buildings be pushed apart further. Chairperson Harris said he agreed, and he thought the ball geme vould have been di£ferent. He added that he didn�t remember why the buildings were so close together� bui it seemed to him they wanted more distance in there to begin with. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that they had now been discussing this one item for more than an hour, and suggested that this request be tabled so all those minutes that had been referred to could be reviewed since there seemed to be a great deal of confusion as to what discussions took place. She added that this item would come be£ore the Appeals Commission on April 12th, so if this were tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting it wouldn't throw the timing off that greatly. Mr. Coddon stated that he had a conflict on the 18�h, and asked if this could be put on the agenda £or the April 20th Planning Commission meetmng. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 11 MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Peterson, ihat the Plsnning Coimnission continue the request for a lot split� L.S. #77-02� by Park Metropolitan Investment FUnd, Inc., to the April 20th Planning Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said he would get those minutes together� and informed Mr. Coddon that after this had gone to Appeals and come back to the Planning Commission it would go to City Council on May 2nd. Mrs. Schnabel requested thai copies of those minutes be sent out be£ore the Appeals Commission meeting on the 12th. 2A. RECEIVE APPEAIS COhAffSSION MII�IUTFS: MARCH 15, 1977 I�TION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Appeals Commission minutes of March 15, 1977 be received. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she hoped the members o£ the Planning Coimnission had time to read through the lengthy discussion o£ the Appeals Coirunission meeting of March lsth. She said the second item on their agenda had been a request for 7899 East River Road by the R.C.E. Corporation, and that discussion had taken 3� hours of the Appeals Co�ission meeting. She noted that Mr. Ernst was preaent to answer any questions� and eacplained that he was the father of the petitioner that had been ai the Appeals meeting. Mrs. Sc?mabel said to briefly reviex xhat had happened, four:motions had been made on this particular item. She explained that the first motion was to approve the request for variances with $ie except�on of one and with some added stipulations. That motion died for lack of a second. The second motion� she said, was to der�y all the requests for variances. That motion was seconded but failed for lack of a majority vote. Mrs. Schnabel stated that the third motion xas to table the item until all Appeals Coir¢nission members could be present, and that motion also failed for lack of a majority. She said that the final motion was that the Appeals Coirunission pass on to Council their tie votes �ithout recoimnendation since they oould not reach a consensus opinion� and that motion passed 3- l. Mrs. Schnabel stated that just prior to the vote being taken on the final motion she told the members of the Appeals Conunission and the petitioner that she £elt she would be negligent if she didn't call the mayor and the chair o£ the Planning Commission to e�cplain to thera what had happened with regard to this request. She said that the following day she did call Mayor Nee and explained to him what had happened. She asked him i£ he would like them to take a second look at the request and try to reach some kind of conclusion� and he felt that they should pass this on through normal channels without recommendation. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she had contacted Chairperson Harris over the veekend and explained the situation to him. At that point� she continued, she did not feel it was necessary to call the petitioner to appear tonight; but when she had stopped by the office today she had been informed that the petitioner was planning to come in case any member of the Plann9ng Commission wanted to ask ar�v quest�ons about the request. Plantting Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 12 At this point, she said, it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide if they xant to review this and pass a recoimnendation to Council on their oxn,, or don't want to review it. Chairperson Harris said that as he read this� the two major hang ups seemed to be the access on East River Road and the problem with the intersection itself. He asked i£ it was Mrs. Schnabel's wish that the Planning Coimnission take under study the intersection of 79th and East River Road, and she replied she felt that was a viable concern of the Planning Co�ni.ssion. Mrs. Schnabel said that particular intersection o£ 79th and East River Road should be looked at with the idea o£ trying to come to some recommendation concerning that intersection. It xas stated by members of the Appeals Con¢nission� she said� that that intersection k�ppens to be a particularly dangerous one. She said that one member was well a�rare of several very serious aceidents that had occurieri there. Mrs. Schnabel stated that one member o£ the public had appeared at this meeting, and he had also expressed his concern for that particular intersection. Mrs. Schnabel said that when they revieved the correspondence that had occurred between the City and Anoka County on that intersection� it appeared that the last time there xas any correspondence was June of 1975. She thought the county�s focus had been further South on East River Road, and they had not particularly dealt xith that intersection. She said it was her feeling that they should perhaps have some kind of study organized of that whole Northerly section o£ East River Road to determine where the serious crossings occurred. She said4t,hat perhaps �9th was not as dangerous as some other intersection� and there may be some other inter- sections that were as serious or more serious. Somehow or other, she said, they should address that problem. Mrs. Shea wondered if the East River Road Project Committee had looked at some of those areas� and Mr. Langenfeld said they had not gone that far North. Mr. Langenfeld said he had read the minutes and saw where safety seemed to be the biggest factor as rrell as the lef�hand and right-hand turns and access to 7-11. He said that he felt this would be a good thing £or the East River Road Project Committee to extend their studies to� but he felt it did need some study whether it was that particular project group or not. Mr. Bergman asked if this was commercially-zoned property, and Mr. Clark said it was zoned C-2S� and the two abutting properties were R-3. Mr. Bergman said he had a general question, and asked why it was that a speculative building couldn't conform to City Code. Then, he said� a� he got further into the detail he found that because o£ the shape o£ the property, only 4% could be built on� and that was why he was in here for variances. He stated that m�ybe the property shouldn't be used £or commercial. Chairperson Harris said this was another unique situation. He explained that the whole parcel from 79th to 77th at one time was zoned C-2 or C-1 (the whole £ront half), and the back half toward the tracks was zoned M-1. He said that was about 1968 or so, then it xas all rezoned after a lot o£ Plaz�ning Ci%mnission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 13 h�ssle to R-3, except for this particular corner which was left as C-2S. He said that the City had actuall,y created a situation vhere only 1�% o£ the land was buildable. Chairperson Harris asked how this request differed from Meridian's request i.n 1975, and Mr. EY'nst replied that their building was 8� deeper and 10' longer. He explained that Meridian proposed a k0� bu�lding� and they Were proposing a l�8� building. He said they xere asking for a setback of 35' along 79th where the ordinance called for 80', but they would agree to doirn zone to C-1, which vould mean a side yard of 35� would be allowed. Mrs. Schnabel sai.d that the only difference in variance requests from 1975 to 1977 was the first request (the reqnest to reduce from 80' to 35�), and in 1975 it was a larger figure than 35�. She said that as Mr, h�nst had pointed out� if this was rezoned to �1 (which Was one of the stipula- tions the Council had attached in 1975) then it xould meet code with a 35' setback. Mr, Bergman asked about the variances that were requested in 1975� �d Mrs. Schnabel said that they had been requested':by the Meridian Corporation to build not quite as large a building as Mr. Ernst was now proposing. She explained that request was approved by the Appeals Coimnission Trith a number of stipulations, and it had also gone through the Building Standards- Design Control S�bconmittee and they had made some recommendations. Mrs. Schnabel stated it then went to the City Council and they denied approval. However� she said� after they denied approval Meridian Corporation came back with additional proposals and at that time the City Council said that if this cras re2oned to G1 azid met all the stipulations, it would be approved. She stated that happened in August o£ 197$, but then Meridian was unable to get £inancing so nothing happened until this time xhen Mr. Ernst had now piklced up t&is concept. In the meantime, she explained, %-11 had changed their requirements in terms of size £or the store and were proposing a larger building. Mrs. Shea said it appeared to her that the Appeals Coimnission's main concern was safety along East River Road� and she thought that was where they should be looking. Chairperson Harris said the problem was that the safety along East River Road was the City's and County's responsibility and not the petitioner's responsibility. He trusted the City and County would solve that� hopefully with the cooperation of the property owner. Mr. Clark stated that the o�+ner had agreed to the turn lane and cutting the sharp corner off. Mr. Harris said the problem was the egress onto East River Road, and he did think it xas xithin the city's prerogative to limit access to a major arterial highway. Ilowever� he said, he didn't think they could deny access to the property o£f of another street if that Was avail�ble. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Ernst if he was looking for action from the Planning Commi.ssion� and what he wanted them to do. Mr. E�nst said he would like them to do whatever xas necessary to get this on to the City Council so they could get final action. �� : Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 14 Mr, iangenfeld stated that he recalled from the minutes of the Appeals Commi.ssion meeting that the property had no value unless it had a proper access in order to conduct business. Chairperson Harris said there were many businesses in operation today that did not have direct access� and cited examples along University Avenue. Mrs, Schnabel said that if there Was a frontage road along East River Road it Would solve maqy problems� but there wasn't. Mr. Langen£eld asked if this was spot zoning, and Mr. Harris replied it was spot zoning from a planning standpoint. Mr. Bergnan stated he was trying to see what options were avai.lable� and thought one vould be to grant the vsriances, and that all those variances ssib were necessary in order to make some profitable use of the land or coimnercial paaposes. He said an alternative solution was that m�ybe that property should not be a G-2 zone� and possibly should have been rezoned to R-3 with the rest. Chai.rperson Harris pointed out that option would be with the land owner, and he had decided to try this. Mrs. Schnabel informed them that Mr. �nst just had an option on the property. Chairperson Harris said he did not see how the Council could deny this gentleman's request if the request was substantially the same as Meridian's request in 1975, and the conditions really hadn't changed. He said that Covncil couldn't s�y that because Mr. F�nst wanted to build it that the same conditions did not apply tod�y as they did in 1975• Mr. Bergman stated that he thought someone could make a point that conditions have changed. He said the City Council's judgement had changed, safety had been brought to the forefront, East River Road had been further ideniified and emphasized as a safety problem� etc. He commented that he didn't think it was fair to say blanketly ihat conditions hadn't changed. Chairperson Harris stated that the safety oonditiott of East River Road was not the land owner's problem� it was the City Emd Countyfs problem. Mr. Bergman argued that the setback ordinances were based on public health� safety and welfare and considered that. Mr. Harris said those had not changed since 1975 when the Council gave agproval to essentially the same program they were looking at nox. Mr. Bergman thought that someone could logically s�y that they were more concerned at this time with enforcing the setback from East River Road than they were i.n previous years. Mrs. Schnabel co7rmiented that she didn't think that was true. Mr. Clark stated that if it was a 7-11 store and some other coirunercial activity that went into this building� the people presently living on that side o£ East River Road (which ancludes the 295 tenants in the apartment complex) would not have to get i.tito their cars and create more traffic to do their grocery shopping. He said it was possible that it might help, if it sras done properly. Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Commission had discussed the fact that putting a 7-11 store there probably wouldn't generate any addit3onal traffic on East River Road itsel£. However� she sai.d, i£ there was another tenant in the building which was an attraCtive and unique tenant� that might generate more traffic coming to that particular location. She thought some of the Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 15 Appeals Commission members rrere concerned �bout the amount of traffic that might cross East River Road to go to that store� and that was a viable concern. She said that the biggest problem ooncerned those people travelling South on East River Road who might attempt to make a left-hand turn to go to the store; the raain probZem would be if they missed 79�h and continued on down and tried to make it into that additional access to try to get into that shopping center. So, she said, she agreed that the store probably wouldn't generate any additional traffic� but it might create problems in terms of access. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would reach the point of Public Aearing, and Mrs. Schnabel said there had been a Public Hearing at the Appeals Coimnission. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he was surprised so few people were there. He stated he tended to lean towards the stipulations made by the City Council on page 1�1, to start this thing moving. Mrs. Schnabel said that some of those items were incorporated into the motion made on page 1�9, and the developer had already incorporated some himsel£. Mr. Langenfeld said that there was no question about the safety element here� but £elt the property owner was really placed in a bad situation. Also� he added� with a specul�tive building the owner might £ind in 3- 5 years that business wasn't as pro�perous as he thought it would be and might place it up for sale again. Mrs. Schnabel said that was one of the concerns o£ one of the members of the Appeals Coimnission� also. She stated it was her feeling that that wasn't for them to judge at the Appeals Commission level. She said she also felt strongly that the traffic situation on East River Road was a legitimate concern of the City Council� but did not £eel it was a concern of the Appeals Coimnission because they had no power to control traffic situations. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting �ye� the motion sarried unanimously. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Langenfeld� that a study be conducted by the appropriate commission or subconunission on the traffic problems that occur on East River Road £rom the area o£ Osborne Road North to the City limits� with regard to safety factors to determine those intersections which are of particular coneern so that recoimnendations could be made to the City Council and passed on tocishe county in hopes of getting some type o£ better traf£ic control on East River Road. Mr. Langen£eld asked if this motion was being considered separate from the 7-11 item� and Mrs. Schnabel replied it was. She said her concern was that nothing that she had seen had been done with regard to the City and County in terms of dialogue on this particular intersection since June of 1975� and she thought that if this was going to be either approved or dis- approved� that intersection should be looked at. Certainly it should be studied� she said, if this proposal was going to be approved by the City Council. She stated that her concern was whether that was the most dangerous intersection in that area; m�ybe there was another one that Was equally as dangerous or more dangerous. She said it was her understanding that the County at this point had no plans to spend any more money in 1977 on East River Road, so she thought they should get the ball rolling. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 16 Mr. Clark stated that he didn't think the county would do anything on East River Road until directed unanimously by the City Council. He explained that whenever they started to draw something up� thinking they were reading the City of Fridley�s wants� there was a big hassle when they brought the proposal in. He said the county wanted to lmow what Fridley wanted before they did anything on design. Mrs. Schnabel coimnented that she thought that whoever did study this (whether it was the East River Road Pro�gct Con¢nittee or a new cortunittee) should take a look at the county's goals (one-year, two-year and five-year), the traf£ic counts, etc. She said that aIl these things should be checked out. Mr. �,angen£eld said that the decision of this project coR¢nittee would not have a bearing on this particular 7-11 item because of the time element. He stated that he could not s�y at this time whether the East River Road Project Committee had gone further North or not� but he would take it on himself to submit this request to the fiast River Road Project Committee to see what their feelings were. He added that perhaps they might be willing to extend their studies North. Chairperson Harris stated that he thought it was only fair to ask Community Development if they would like to get a look at this. Mr. Bergman commented that was a leading question. He said that without trying to be in any v�y antagonistic or derogatory� he would like to coimnent on it before answering. He stated that in his opinion he £elt, for one thing� that the East River Road Project Committee was ki.nd of a special-interest group. He stated that he said this seriously, and it vas his opinion. Ae didn't think that committee� �or whatever reason� fairly represented an objective City of Fridley populous with regard to studies of any street� and in particular one that ran by their homes. He stated he £elt they had a bias� and he he felt there was a lot of self-interest there. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the ffiivironmental Study Group look into this end they would show the Planning Cotmnission how unbiased they could be. Chairperson Harris suggested both Community Development and Fhvironmental study this so the Planning Commission could get two opinions. Mr. Bergman replied that he would have to s�y that he thought Community Development should get involved in general traffic pattern and the access program� and he would have to say "yes" to Cormaunity Development studying this. Mr. Peterson asked iY he was to asslune that i£ he voted £or the motion� the Chair would then use his prerogative and direct this to both of the commissions that had been involved ia the discussion. Chairperson Harris replied that was correct. Mr. Clark asked if the Planning Commission wished the Council to delay action on this request until the two commissions had time to study this, and Chairperson Harris said no� he thought that should be separate. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the Fiivironmental Quality Commission to have copies of the minutes of this particular problem. He said this would bring forth the problem that took place with a particular request on behal£ of a petitioner end IIot just the road problem� and the co�nittee would be able to see the whole thing in perspective and could readily see that it Planning Corrunission Meeiing - March 23� 1977 Page 17 involved a business and a person who owned property as well as the problem with transportation, safety and welfare. Mr. Clark said he would get the minutes £rom the Appeals CAIIIItL1S310h meeting to them, along with copies oY these Planning Commission minutes. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any other commission who wished to look at this, and there was no reply. UPON A VOICE�VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unani.mously. Chairperson Harris directed this item to be sent to the East River Road Project Coir¢ni.ttee through the Fhvironmental Quality Cormni.ssion, and also to the Coimnunity Development Commission. Mr. Peterson suggested that because there were other guests who had sat and waited, perhaps they should delay the action on this item and discuss items 2B and 2C and then come back to this. Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Commission wished to make a recommendation on this item or cranted it to go to Council rrithout recoimnendation. Mr. Ernst said he would defer to the other items i£ the Coimnission so desired. MOTION by iangenfeld� seconded by Peterson, that the Plaruhing Commission defer this item on behal£ of the Connnission and the petitioner to allow the other people in the audience to be heard, and then go back to this and resolve it to the best interests o£ the Planning Commission end the City. Mr. Bergman said that he was going to vote against the motion. He said they had spent a lot o£ tirae on this� but they did have a gentlemen in the audience for this item. He stated that they might get involved with the other pepple £or longer than they would keep this gentleman waiting� and he didn�t ]mov i£ they would be gaining ground by changing the agenda at this point. Mr. Peterson sai.d that vhen they moved to amend the agenda� they moved to receave the minutes xithout taking any further action. He stated he thought it xas proper to defer the action because they also agreed to hear the other gentlanen. He said he might not have agreed to amend the agenda had he realized they uould be taking some definitive action. He said he spoke in favor of the motion. Chai.rperson Harris asked if the chair of the Appeals Commission wished them to take action. Mrs. Schnabel replied that as she had mentioned previously� she had talked to the Mayor and he £elt this could go on to the Council without any further action. She said she didn�t want to persuade;this boc�y one x�y or another. She added that the Major felt comfortable with what the Appeals Coimnission had done in viev oi the brie£ outline she had given him of what happened, so she thought it was up to the Planning Commission members to decide. Mrs. Schnabel said that i£ they had some strong £eelings on it they should feel free to discuss them, but i£ they didn't have stxong feelings it might be better to pass it on just the vay it was. Planning Corr¢nission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 18 Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate one thing they should watch on this, and that was they could end up going on as the Appeals Commission did and then ending up in a tie vote as vell. He added that i£ there was something very pertinent that the petitioner wished to bring to them}to enable them to make a decision� then they should abide by it. UPON A VQICE VOTE, Harris� Langenfeld� Peterson and Shes voting aye; Bergman and Schnabel voting nay� the motion carried 1� - 2. Chairperson Harris said this item would be de£erred and handled after item 2C. 2B. RECEIVE HUMAN F:,�URCES GOA�ALISSION MIN[iTFS: MARCH 17, 1977 MOTION by Shea� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission receive the Auman Resources Commi.ssion minutes of March 17, 1977. Mrs. Shea informed the Coc�unission that Mr. Harold Belgum was present. She said that the Human Resources Commission had been talking about a better comrmmity nexspaper than they currently had, and Mr. Belgum had set up a subcommittee. She directed the Commission's attention to the motion on top of page 1t o£ the minutes, and said that Mr, Belgum would like to discuss that motion with this body. Mr. Belgum stated that the Human Resources Commission was attempting to represent what he called the °non-material" aspects of li£e in Fridley� and was supposed to £ocus on the human element rather than the property, buildittgs� real estate� and so on. He stated that the Human Resources Commission had come to the conclusion that a city the age of �idley was due £or some kind o£ a humane level exchange of news, and they thought that what the people did and thought xas very important to people living in FY�idley. He stated that people said FY�idley xas simply a bedroom conmiunity, but that was a misnomer because people's most important lives were lived at home with their families. He said they had a feeling that the news concerning the people of FY�idley uould be of great importance. Mr. Belgum said they had tested this out and had several meetings with representative citizens, and had asked them to indicate the kinds o£ things they would like to know about in their home town. He stated they had come up with the £ollowing main categories: political life� educational programs, overview of businesses in Fridley� cultural activities and religious life. Mr. Belgum stated that it could be said that was the intastion o£ cable T.Y.� but only 1�500 persons were tied into that and a limited amount of time was given, hir, Belgum said that the Sun Nexspaper helped rrith this� but it covered 25 or 30 suburbs and it vould be impossible £or them to cover in detail each of the cammmities they served. Mr. Belgum stated that because of this increasing desire o£ people to ]mow what was going on in their own neighborhoods, forty newspapexs had grown up Planning Co:rmiission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 19 in Minneapolis - St. Paul vhich addressed themselves to local news in the past three years. He said that this tendency of coirum�nities wanting to know what was going on in their comrm�nity had grown so much that the University of Minnesota was looking into that phenomenon and following this movement; they were very interested in the possibility that a suburb like Fridley might want to try something. He continued that one of the professors told him that there was a master's degree student ready to go to work to establish a questionnaire in a suburb like Fridley to see what type of neHSpaper people would like� what shape newspaper they wanted, and what it would be worth to them. Mr. Belgum said that people attthe School o£ Journalism had told him that the idea o£ a public non-profit organization supporting a local newspaper had been baited around b�;.many suburbs� but nobody had tried it. He said there was also the possibility that some other xay of £inancing might be developed. He stated that they were in the very beginning stages of this exploration, and that was wby he had been invited to this meeting. He sai.d that it seemed to him this would broaden the understanding o£ what kind of human beings lived here and what type of human interest potentials would help to elevate and improve the City and the neighborhood. Mr. La�genfeld commented that he felt the idea of having a comrmmity nexspaper xould� without question� benefit the entire community. He said there were many things that took place within this city� such as plays� that people were totally unaware of. One thing that troubled him� he said, was that it seemed there xere so many people here who came home from work� did their chores� and then left £or the xeekend. He said he just wondered if at that particular sta�e a newspaper wouldn't be that beneficial. Mr. Langenfeld explained that he thought this was a moving coaurtunity as far as the veekends were concerned, and people didn't seem to want to get that insolved during the evening. Mr. Belgum said he didn't Imow a great deal about how many people in Fridley left for the weekends or what interest there would be in a large number o£ people lmowing the overview of all of the activities that were going on. He stated that he could say that a nwnber of people he�;had talked to had indicated that they imefr very little about their own community and would like to have a small nexspaper that would give them a picture of �rhat was going on. Mr. Belgum added that one thing that characterized the forty coirm�unity newspapers he had mentioned was that they were pretty well divided between reporting news and giving opinions, so there was an exchange of ideas on important issues, Mr. Langenfeld stated that the designated paper certainly did not fulfill the £unction of informing the City sf what vas really going on or o£ the opinions of other citizens. He said it seemed that if a letter vas written to the Sun it had to be screened, and then only certain people got through. He added that he appreciated I�.-.Helgum's conmients. Mr. Belgum said he would like to leave with the Planning Commission copies of a letter that was going out to the people who agreed to serve on a stuc�y Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 20 committee concertiing this. MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the document from Mr. Belgum dated St. Patricks Aqy, 1977, listing the people who were willing to serve on the coirmiittee. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel noted that the Human Resources minutes said that 125 inter- views would be done. She asked if that was a valid statistical survey in' terms of the population. Mr. Belgum said he rras not an expert on hotir studies like this would be taken. He stated that the consultant they had talked to from the School of Journalism had said that if this sample was drawn right, it oould be a good sample. He added that a group of people ha had met frith a few daYs ago had suggested that the sample be doubled to 250. Mr. Belgum said that the cost for doing a 125 sample stady would cost about $500 for computer work, travel, etc. Mrs. Schnabel noted that vould come out to about $lt an intervierr. Mrs. Schnabel said that in view of the fact that the number of subscribers to Cable T.V, xas a small percentage of the population of the City, and in view of the £act that the subscribers to the S�n Newspaper were a rather small nwnber� she wondered i£ they had studied if there was a real desire i.n the cormmuiity £or a cotmnunity nesrspaper. Mr. Belgum said that the Wqy he understood it, the proposed study by the master's degree student vould be to address that very question. Mrs. Schnabel asked if it would cost $500 to $600 just to find that out, and Mr, Belgum replied that was correct. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would be an a�random survey, and Mr. Belgum answered that it would be designed to be representative. He added it would be a scientifically selected sample. Mr. I,angenfeld then asked the members of the Planning Conmission if they would be interested in a corrumuiity neWS- paper. Chairperson Harris replied that frankly, he hadn't thought about it before he saw the mi.nutes tonight. Mr. Ber�nan said he could respond to that. He said that Mr. Langenfeld had asked a very simple question, but he didn't believe it was a complete question. He said he was interested, but he wanted to Imow more about it before he could s�y he would subscribe. He wanted to lmow how much it uas going to cost him� if it was going to be self-supporting, if there would be advertising, and so on. He said he would have those kinds of questions in response to Mr. Langenfeld�s question. Mr. Belgum said that was precisely why they:.xere forming this conmittee-- to explore the various ways a paper could be developed. He stated that the Yorty community newspapers in the St. Paul - Minneapolis area were £inanced in an amazing variety of ways; soane had Federal grants� some were entirely supported by advertising� some xere private enterprises� etc. Mr. Belgum said that one thing they all seemed to have in coimnon was that they all told the news and also tried to tell what the people were thinking; and that seemed to be a very healthy thing £or the City of Fridley. Chairperson Harris asked if Human Resources was initially asking for the Planning Co�nission's recommendation to Council to fund a feasibility study Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 21 to the tune of $500. Mr. Belgum stated he was sirnply saying that was a possibility that did exist. He said thexeason he was here was because the Human Resources Commission hadaauthorized him to propose this to the City Council. Chairperson Harris asked out of whose budget the $5� �u.7-d come if the Planning �ormni.ssion recoirmiended this to Council� and Mrs. Shea stated that she didn't lmox. She said they didn't even lmow if they had a budget; they had been tryi.ng to get an accurate account of how much there was, and couldn't find out. Mr. Aarris suggested asking the Mayor or some of the Council people. Mr. Langenfeld said he•,yrould like to £ind out the same thing about his co�nission. Mrs. Shea noted that in the last Planning Coimnission minutes there had been some discussion on the nesrspaper and how they could arbitrarily change dates, and said that was something else to think about. She sai.d that if it was the City newspaper� hopefully that Wouldn't happen. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the intent was for this to become that type of newspaper or if it was to become the kind that was pretty oriented towards their partic- ular section of the city. She stated that kind did not serve as a vehicle for legal notices or that �ype of thing. She said that her impression was, in £act, that they became highly political vehicles within their particular areas. Mr. Belgum said that there were many questions concerning xhat type o£ newspaper would best serve the residents of �idley� and that was what the study coimnittee would try to find out. He said they were inviting anybody who felt this was worth discussing to come and tell xhat they thought; if the feeling was that the citizens of I�idley Wouldn't benefit from this� then there was no point in carxying this out. Mr. Peterson stated that he was alxays intrigued by this �ysterious "they"� and he heard it all the time. He said that Mr. Belgum had mentioned several timestthat enough people in Fridley thought they should have a newspaper, and he lived in Fridley and hadn't heard o£ a lot of people talking about the need for a newspaper. He said he was curious as to Mr. Belgum's point of reference--xho they had sampled and how they had arrived at this to make such a broad� general statement. Mr. Belgum stated that he hadn't said enough people thought there should be a nerrspaper so there should be a nesas- paper� but had said that enough people had expressed an interest in it to cause the Human Resources Commission to name a stuc�y committee. He explained that he had personally talked to forty or fifty people, and this possibility had been been boiling around in their Cormnission for a year. He sai.d they had discussions with people from the Slm Newspaper and discussions about the possibilities aE the Fridley T.V, system� and the commission came to the conclusion that there was enough evidence that a community newspaper would benefit the people. Mr. Peterson then asked if it would be £air to say, in siumnary, that the idea £or the newspaper originated within the Human Resources Commission rather Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 22 than enough people thought it was desirable. Mr. Belgum stated that he would say that 19 oui of every 20 people they had asked had felt a newspaper would be a good thing. He explained that it was within the territory of the Human Resources Coirmiission to discuss if it would benefit the human resources witimi the City of Fridley to lmow the nerrs, and they had concluded it would. He added that they had given thought to that for a year and had asked enough people to feel that it was�:�,rorth studying. Mr. Peterson said he would like to see the recoxd show that this was the idea of the Human Resources Commission and they bounced it o£f of the citizens on a random basis for their response� rather than enough people were interested. He felt that would present a more accurate picture o£ xhat was happening� and Mr. Belgum said he would go along with that. Mr. Bergman asked if it was the intent of the Human Resources Coimnission that a questionnaire be generated for a door-to-door survey, and that questionnaire would cover all questions, i.e.: Would you be interested in a nexspaper, and if so, what kind? At what frequency and at what price? With or without advertising?� etc. Mr. Belgum said that the number 125 referred to personal interviews to determine what kistd o£ news the people wanted to lmow about their city. He said there were no limits on what could be asked� and the idea �rould be to develop enough ansuers to see if it would be practical to have a newspaper in FY�idley, Mr. Bergman said he was wondering about the kinds of questions which would result in them Imor�ring whether or not the citizenrwould� in fact, be a subscriber, and at what price and at what frequency. He askedii£ it Was the intent that that would be part of this $500 expenditure. Mr. Belgum replied yes, they would try to make the stuc�y as useful as possible. Mr. Clark said that he didn't lmow hoW these surveys were done, but thought that part of the problem in doing this would be getting people to be inter- viewed. He stated that i£ they were going to conduct 125 interviews� they might have io ask 500 people if they wanted to be interviewed. He said he thought that information should be Imoxn because the l�00 who didn't srant the interviev weren�t even interested in talking about it, vhich shoxed him that only 25� of the people wanted to talk about a newspaper. Mr. Clark sai.d that if the survey fras to be random they should Imow how it was done, and the number of people contacted to get the information. He stated that if only 25� of the people cantacted xere intervierred� then probably that 25� would be in favor. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to bring out a point that came out of this kind o£ discussion. He stated that the present commission setup was designed for citizen input� output� and so on. Every now and then, he continued� when one corrm�iss"son or another seemed to fulfill their obligationss and goals and objectives to provide better communications throughout the city� then it appeared that that commission or another commission all of a sudden became a special interest within their own coimnission. He asked how else it would come about. Ae said that in other words, each one of these comuissions was trying to do exactly what they were designated to do for the good of the community. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 23 Mr. Peterson said that he would like to respond to those comments £rom the standpoint that he was only trying to determine where the original impetus had come from, and it had turned out that it came from the commission itsel£. He stated that he wasn't inferring there xas a special-interest group. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting �}re, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that $500 of Human Resources budgeted funds be applied toward the newspaper survey £or the City o£ �idley as recoimnended by Auman Resources. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 2C. CONTINUID: INTERSECTION AT 53RD AND CENTRAL Mr. Sheldon Mortenson and Mr. Gregory Mortenson were present. Mr. Clark showed the Co�ission the Highv$y Department plans for the inter- section and explained them in detai.l. He said that basically what they were doing was channelizing and creating turn lanes for 53rd onto Highway 65. He stated that the signalization would be with left turn arrows, and a relatively new concept would be used where East-bound traf£ic could go any direction it wanted and the Wes�bound traffic was held� and then the opposite. Mr. Clark said there had been two proposals drafted by Fridley�s F2igineering Department for the access to Menards and Skyvood Mall, and showed them to the Commission and the interested parties. He explained that one plan xas very similar except that one lane had been eliminated and the median had been made larger; he added that this plan was probably more aesthetically pleasing and would also be adequate for the traffic that would be using it. Mr. Peterson asked if this was basically the same plan that Mr. Boardman had last time� and Mr. Clark said it was. Mr. Sheldon Mortenson said he realized there was a problem and agreed it got paetty congested in that area. He asked if that would then be City property. Mr. Clark said there were two v�ys it could be accomplished. One would be strictly by private monies on private properties; and the other was that the property rnmer would dedicate the necessary right o£ ways to the City of Fridley, Fiidley would do the improvements and then assess them back to the properties. Mr, Mortenson commented that either way he would p�y. Mr. Clark said that the dif£erence might be that if they waited for the developer to do this, it might never occur. I£ the City did it� he sai.d� the financing nrould be spread over a number of years. Mr. Peterson said that it seemed to him that part of the problem at 53rd and Central was nut only on the East side, but also on the West. He said that if they were going to be dead-ending one lane at the first Target driveway, Target should share in the easements. Mr. Clark said that a representative of Target had been in the office at least weekly £or the Planning Con¢nission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 24 last couple of months� and before that possibly monthly. He said that Target would share on that side. Further discussion followed� and Mrs. Schnabel pointed out her concern on the plan. Mr. Clark informed the Co�nission that since 1971 the reported accidents in that area were 7, and the most was two in one year. He added he didn't lmow if all had been reported. Chairperson Harris stated that they were usually recorded if they took place on public property� but not necessarily on private property. Mrs. Schnabel said the additional problem was because Menards was generating more traffic than the previous tenant did. Mr. Bergman said he would like to briefly talk about the bikeway plan through this area. He stated that the present bikeway plan shoved a crossing at this intersection, crossing Highway 65 on 53rd� which was a problem that should be addressed. He pointed out on the plan the two routes going to the top of the hill; one followed the service drive and was ridable� the alternate suggestion xas not in the original plan, but was to run back on sidexalk and then somehow get up the hill. He said he didn't think they had really resolved the routing through there. Mr. Bergman stated that he did xant to bring out that the bikevay plan did get them on to the edge of this;.property� and there were those two possibilities. He added that he thought the property osrner should be aware there were bikexay plans for that area. Mr. Peterson comnented that the bikew�y had also been before the Parks and Recreation Coimnission� and the bikevay scheme that he had seen did.not provi8e for the crossing of any arterial or busy street. Mr. Bergman said he thought perhaps different @ommi.ssions were asking questions of di£ferent Staf£ people, and they weren't always getting the same answers. Chairperson Harris explained to Mr. Mortenson that these were the proposals drawn up by the City F]'igineering Department� and he didn't lmow if this was a hard and fast rule as far as they vere concerned. He sai.d that the Plazming Coirunission had gotten this £ar, and they xanted Mr. Mortenson to take a look at the plans and see what he thought. Chai.rperson Harris suggested that perhaps Mr. Mortenson could take copies of the proposals back and look at them and then come back and work with the City on the proposal. Mr. Mortenson agreed. Mr. Peterson suggested that it might be well to give Mr. Mortenson a copy of the fourth paragraph on page 1!� o£ the March 9th Planning Commission meetmng. He said it concerned the thinking and discussion that vent on at the Planning Commission regarding conde�ation� and he thought it would be well for them to have that information. Chairperson Harris asked hox much time Mr. Mortenson thought he would need to look over the propoaals and get back to them, and Mr. ifortenson replied a week or two. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission continue the discussion on the intersection at 53rd and Central to the April 6th meeting to allow the property owner an opportunity to respond. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 25 Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 10:50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 11:00 P.M. 2A. RECEIVE APPEALS COI�4IISSION MINUTFS: MARCH 15, 1977 (De£erred £rom ---_ , _ — -- Mr. Ernst said he wished to point out several items� and had colored up a site plan to show what he proposed. He stated that in reading the minutes o£ the Appeals Cotmnission meeting� he didn't think it was stressed enough that the right-turn lane from the Sonth was very important. He said that one of the conditions the City Council had asked for in 1975 was that the development pay for the cost o£ the construction of this righ� turn lane. Mr. F�nst said he pictured it being done in such a fashion that south-bound traffic from East River Road uould almost be prohibited from using it (by the design of it and also the signing of the righ�turn lane). Secondly, Mr. Ernst continued, they didn't carry the righ�turn lane far enough to the South as to make the turn onto 79th. He said another important consideration was dedicating the right of way to accommodate that turn lane (there would be two right turn-lanes onto 79th). Mr. Ernst noted that the Appeals Co�nission had discussed the possibility o£ eliminating a couple o£ parking spaces, as they did have a surplus o£ tt�ro, and this drawing did cut out t�,.o spaces. He explained that they had landscaped and greaned in those spaces along with part of the driveway that provided access to those parking spaces. Mr. F�nst stated that this allowed for corner visability and provided more green area. Ae said that it didn't eliminate the front setback requirement any, but it did allow for a better corner approach there. Mr. Ernst said he thought those points were valid� and added that the site needed the granting o£ the variances in order to be developed. He stated they had a lease ready to be executed from 7-11. Mr. F�nst stated that the speculative terminology o£ the balance o£ the building sounded rather degogatory� and it shouldn't be. He explained it was their intention to lease the balance of the building to o£fice-type use and pro£essional-type use. He said that he was ezperienced in building these structures and had been highly successful c�rith filling them up with high?guality t8nants. Chairperson Harris asked who would maintain the triangle on the corner, and Mr. Ernst replied that he would guess they would be dedicating that for public right of way. Mr. Clark pointed out that if the land was rezoned to �1� two of the setback variances they were looking at Would be eliminated� and he pointed out on the plan where they xould comply xith the ordinance. Mrs. Schnabel said that by eliminating the two parking stalls they had also eliminated one variance request because that brought it back within the lines of the Planning Co�rmii.ssion Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 26 zoning ordi.nance. She stated that the Appeals Conenission's reasoning for eliminating,txo parking stalls was that a 7-11 store usually had a maximum oi about six cars at any given time, so theSjc would only be using about six of the 38 stalls and the other 32 would be used by whatever other tenants would be in there. Mr. Peterson added that 7-11 did most o£ its business after hours when the other places might be closed anyway. Mr. Peterson asked how the channelization would allow the cars to get back on to East River Road xithout causing some very serious traffic problems. Mr. Ernst pointed out the only way they could get out on the plan; going out on 79th and then on to East River Road. Mr. Bergman sai.d he was impressed that Mr, F�nst had obviously spent quite a bit of time in trying to plan this out and to do a good job on it� and thought vhat he had was impressive. He stated that he was concerned vith the magnitude of the variances (along the lines that the ordinance was good and in some extreme cases some adjustment might be necessary, but the magnitude of the variances Mr. F�nst was requesting was great). He asked if Mr. Ernst had considered a multi-story building, and Mr. �nst replied he had not. He stated he did build multi-story buildings, but he required property with some slope so it could be;built in and a great amount o£ stairways wouldn't be necessary. Chairperson Harris coimnented that he didn't lmow how a multi-story building would match in aesthetically with the apartment buildings. Mr. Peterson asked i£ it was correct that in 1975 the City Council had promised Meridian C-1 zoning� and Mr. Clark replied it was done at the Council's request. Chairperson Harris said that the way it was written, the City Council was obligated to give C-1 zmning� which would eliminate several of the variances. Mr. Clark pointed out that there were more restrictive uses in a G1 than in a�25. He said that one of the things he he didn't think they would want in there would be a VFW Post or an American Legion Post where there might be traffic and alcohol mixed. He added they probably wouldn�t want any fast-food restaurants there, either, but wanted to try to keep the traf£ic at a minimum. Mr, Ernst sai.d that the total area o£ the i�uilding was 7,000 square feet, and the 7-11 took up 2,500 square feet, and out of the remaining space he could picture a dry cleaning shop, perhaps a beauty shop or small real estate office, and a dentist's or doctor�s o£fice. Chairperson Harris said that at the ti.me of the rezoning there had been some discussion on that corner, and asked Mr. Clark if he remembered what the strategy was. Mr. Clark replied that first of all, the petitioner propably didn�t petitione�_to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris stated that it seemed to him that there was some over-all plan they had £or the area, but he couldn't remember what it was. Mr. Clark said he could probably find out. Mr, Harris said he thought there was talk of a service station when it was rezoned, and he wondered if they intended at the time o£ the rezoning that it either be a service station or some kind of mini-shop on that corner. He asked Mr. Clark i£ he thought that information would . � Planning Commission Meeti.ng - March 23, 1977 Page 27 have any be�ring on the City Council's decision at this time� and Mr. Clark replied he thought it could if the minutes reflected that the owner thought a convenience store would be the proper thing to do and the Council thought it might or might not make sense. He added that he didn't lmow i£ the mirtutes reflected that or not. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she lmew that several of the area residents had expressed quite a bit of enncern about that corner through the years, and it had been brought out at the Appeals meeting that one resident across East River Road wondered why residential couldn't go onto that corner. She said she pointed out that this had been zoned G2S for 17 years, and the property owner himsel£ had not initiated a request to change it. She said she felt the City didn't necessarily have any control over that; if the property owner wished that to remain a commercial property, there was not much they could do about it in spite of what the area residents vanted to see in there. Mr. Bergman said he thought there was something they could do. He stated that their only concern at this point was because somebody wanted to build something commercial on the property. He said that if they were to deny the request to build and the oxner wanted to leave it �2S, there was no problem there, either. He stated that i£ they approved a commercial building of this nature on the property, that was the on],y way to� in fact, develop it commercially. Mr. Bergman added that either it didn't develop commercially or there was the option of rezoning and putting apartments on it. Mrs. Schnabel said that her point �ras that in 1%�years the property owner had not wished to have it rezoned. Chairperson Harris asked if the ownership of the property had changed, and Mr, Ernst replied it hadn't, to his lmowledge� in the past 7- 8 years. He sai.d that just paying taxes over that long period of time had priced it into the coTmnercial market� snd it rrould be economically unfeasible to develop it for multiple. He added that he was paying commercial price £or the property. Mr. Bergman asked if he had developed other 7-11 projects� and Mr. II�nst replied he had. Mr. Bergmsn asked if there veren't areas where he had built only a 7-11 store on a piece of property, and Mr. F.i'nst answered that he had built one £ree-standing 7-11 store (the £irst one in the Twin Cities)� and since then had developed nine centers like the one he was proposing over the last £our years. Mr. Bergman said his only thought Was that there were some options to reduce the con£licts with setbacks, and so forth. He said it was not really necessary that the building be of that size and on one floor and be that much in conflict with the setbacks. Mr. �nst replied that the economics required a building of that size to work. Chairperson Harris asked i£ it would be economically £easible to use the same proposal that the Meridian Corporation used in 1975, and Mr. IInst replied it would not, especially with the addition of the final requirement Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 28 of the Council to construct the right-turn lane. He explained there xas a ditch there that would take substantial filling� and they wanted to build it to state highway standards. He said that was his reason for requiring the increase in the building size. Mr. Clark had checked through the files, and in�ormed the Co:mnission that in 1962 there had been a permit issued to build a filling station on that lot, but it was never built. He said that apparently the petitioner waited too long to start and the permit expired. Mr. Clark added that it was possible that in 1962 the zoning ordinance didn't require a Special Use Permit; he thought that changed in 1969. Chairperson Harris asked if that was a%-11 store on Fast River Road and Mississippi� and Mr. E�nst replied it was, bit it hadn't been built as a 7-11. He said that was on the other side of the road and picked up different traffic. Mr. Harris asked what the total land area was they were talking about, and Mr. E�nst replied the land area was 1�2,000 feet-- just about an acre. Chairperson Harris asked if the Coimnission wanted to take ar�y action on this� and Mrs. Shea said she would recommend that they pass it on to Council and get on to the next item. Mr. Bergman said he would like to state for the record that he was concerned about the magnitude of the variances, and had some feeling that there were options open to the developer that could possibly reduce that magnitude. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission pass this item on to Conncil without recoimnendation. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. d CHAPTF�t 212 Mr. Langenfeld directed the Coimnission's attention to page 2 of the F�viron- mental Quality Corr¢nission�s mi.nutes, and pointed out that they had once again gotten tied up xith 212.05 FScceptions, especially concextiiing emergency work. He said that when they had discussed this previously he had indicated he didn't think it meant hvman life� and was wondering if it could be clarified a bit. He also pointed out that Afr. Olson had felt the ordinance should also specify who actually approved these mining permits. Chairperson Harris stated he thought Mr. Olson had a good point, and thought the City Council should approve the mining permits to begin with. He said that then� if the Council felt they could be handled by Staff, they could delegate that responsibility back to Staff. Mr. Langen£eld asked if the hang-up on this "emergency vork" involved human life and what constituted an �nergency� and thi.ngs of that nature. He noted that they had eliminated the written memo that had been required, Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 29 but he thought that within this emergency xork the commission got going on the idea that if a land slide took place it was still a waste o£ time to have the City authorize cocmnencement of the emergency vork. Ae stated that to him common sense would prevail� and the action had to be immediate. Hr. Langenfeld added that he thought this particular section was still delaying action� and he just wanted to bring that to the Planning Commission's attention. Mr. Bergman agreed and thought the wording should be revised. Mrs. Schnabel said she xondered if they shouldn't strike "human life° and state "vegetation or property". Mr. Bergnan said he was confused as to xhy emergency xork necessary to preserve human life should not be an exception. Mrs. Schnabel thought the point was that the way it sounded noit, if somebody was caught in a landslide the rescuers would have to contact the City and get permission before they could proceed to extract that person. Mr. Bergman suggested the vording be changed in paragraph 1 under 212.05 to read TMIInergency work necessary to preserve human life or property. Dnergency work performed under th3s section shall be reported to the City of Fridley at the earliest practical opportunity. An operator commencing emergency work ....... . Mr. Peterson said that because of that change and also the one that Mr. Olson brought up as to who was going to act on these permits, he would like to see this refrritten the vay it was going to be acted upon. He noted that they hadn't spelled out that the approval of the mining permits would be a City Council £unction, and he thought that should be in there. Mr. Clark stated that he thought that had to be decided� but it wouldn't have to be in the ordinance. Chairperson Harris suggested they could develop a policy that the Council would approve all mining permits to begin xith. Mrs. Schnabel said there were a couple of other things she would like to note. Under "EScceptions", in paragraph 2� the fourth line read "to upon a permit", xhich she thought should be changed to °to make application for a permit'�. She noted that further down the page under Application For And Processing of Permit, under 2b, the word °extraction" appeared, and she thought they had agreed to eliminate that word and substitue "mining". Mrs. Schnabel stated that she was a little concerned about 2c under the same section. She said it was not defined there whose responsibility it was to obtain those names. Normally� she said, in the application process the City provided the naznes through the tax records; but this inferred that the applicant should provide those names. She was wondering if that should really be in the ordinance or instead be a part of the permit where space was provided to list the names and addresses of people sri thin that radius. Chairperson Harris said he thought the intent of that section was for notification for possible Public Hearings or whatever. Mrs. Schnabel said she realized that, but didn't think it should be the applicant's responsibility to provide those names and addresses. She didn't believe they required that o£ ar;y other applicant. Mr. Clark suggested that if ■ Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 30 the application form was done properly� they could do it there. Mrs. Schnabel said that in order to be consistent� it should be deleted from this ordinance and could be included on the application. She stated that if there were going to be Public Hearings on any application £or a mining permit� then they might want to add a paragraph that said °Noti£ication of Public Hearings must be given to all persons within a half mile of the boiuidary of the property° (or whatever distance they decided upon). Chair- person Harris xondered i£ they were going to have the Council do this, if there shouldn't be a Public Hearing process. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought there should be� because it could affect adjacent land owners. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by LangenPeld, that item c under 212.06 be scratched £rom the ordinance� but the idea included on the application for a mining permit (the form should include space to list the names o£ the people within so many hundred feet of the property). Upon a voice vote, all voting &ye� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought they should add a number 3 under that same heading which vould deal with a Public Hearing; something to the effect that a Public Hearing would be held before Council. Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Coimnission wanted to get involved in this� like a Special Use Permit application setup. Mr. Peterson stated that he could see where Fhvironmental� Community DeveloFsnent and Human Resources xould have concerns, and i£ they xere digging a pit nezt to a park� then Parks and Recreation would be concerned also. M�r.Langenfeld thought that the Planning Commission should definitely get involved� otherwise there would be no reason £or the Fhvironnen�al Co'mmission to look at it. Mr. Bergman said he thought that would be in complete conflict with the defined process. He asked if they vere suggesting that permits be sent to all the con¢nissions for review, and Mr. 7,angenfeld replied no, just the Planning Coirunission. Mr. Bergcnan said then they would be reviewing a permit application rather than setting policy and establishing guidelines. Chairperson Harris said they had a precedent for that as they eacamined all Special Use Applications� and he looked at this in the same realm as a Special Use Permit. Mrs. Schnabel said that i£ it was agreed that the Planning Commission should review these applications, then she thought that rather than the Planning Commission deeiding on this language right now� perhaps Staff could take a look at the language that was already in the Zoning Ordinance under 205.193 and use similar language (dealing with application� referral to Planning Co�nission� Council action� etc.). Mr. Clark said he thought the purpose of the ordinance was to set guidelines so that Council or Staf£ could issue the permits without having each individual permit go through various subcomroissions of the Planning Commission, and from Planning Commission to Council. Ae said it xas his understanding that the mi.ning ordinance was to draw up some guidelines so that a mining permit could be acquired without having to go through Planaing Commission, and maybe even Council. He was under the impr �sion that the guidelines would be stringent enough so that Planning Cormnission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 31 if a person met all those requirements, then he would be granted a mining permit. Chairperson Harris said that it vouldn't go through the subcoyranissions, but would be handled like a Special Use Permit. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Peterson� that under 212.06 Application For And Frocessing Of Permit� an item number 3 be added which de£ined the method of obtaining permission Por mining by coming through the Planning Commission, and would use the language of the Zoning Ordinance similar to sections 205•193 through 205.195• Mrs. Schnabel said that perhaps the Staff would find some additional language should be included, and that would be fine. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Shea referred the Commi.ssion to 212.07 Standards, and sai.d she was sure that 5b should read Mbetveen 7 a.m. and � p.m....". The other members agreed. Mr. Bergman re£erred the Coimnission to 212.07, 2a� and sai.d that it seemed to him that in some cases five £eet xould be aw#'ully close. Chairperson Harris suggested they have it read "No less then five feet..." and then look at that under the Special Use Permi�type operation. Mr. Bergman said he thought they should make it 10' or even 15'. Mr. Harris said there may be some cases vhere that was not necessary. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Petersoa� that 212.07 Standards� 2a� be changed to read ^No less than £ive £eet....". Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Comnission continue the discussion on recommended changes in Chapter 212: Mining, Fridley City Code� Until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Fbterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Co7mnission continue item !t (Proposed Maintenance Code), item 6(Goals and Objectives: Access)� and item 7(Goals and Objectivess Conmunity Vitality) until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 8. RECENfi PARKS & RECREATION COI�IISSION 1�@I[TTES: FEffitUARY 28 1977 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Con¢nission receive the Parks and Recreation Cormnission minutes of February 28� 1977. Mrs. Schnabel commented that she couldn't help tnxt notice on page 29 in the first paragraph where Mr. Boudreau had stated that in Minnesota they Planning Coimnission Meeting - March 23, 1977 Page 32 had stqyed awqy from naming parks after indiviEivals or clubs. She said she couldn't-_help thinking of I,ocke Park or Aybe�t Kordiac Park, so there had been some parks named after individuals. 'Mrl: Peterson said he thought that meant i.n Fi�idley� because by City Counc� -�action and Parks and Recreation's recommendation they had tried ao to name parks after individuaTs. Mr. Clark thought there were quite a few parks named aftgr individuals, but thought Mr. Boudreau might have meant that you didn't take a city park that was not dedicated by a particular group or person and name it after them. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 9. R.ECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVII,OPMINT COMMISSION MINUTFS: MARCH l, 1977 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes of March 1, 1977. Mr. Ber�nan cormnented there had been a lengthy discussion on the Sign Ordinance Project, and when the Sign Ordinance Project Corr¢nittee carr�e through wzth their proposal, the result of all that discus"sion would be included. Mr. Bergman stated that the meeting for March 15th referred to at the top of page 2 of the minutes had been cancelled because of a confl�ct� but they would pick it up at their next regular meeting. Chairperson Harris asked when Mr. Bergman could foresee getting the report out on the si�s� and he replied that they were going per schedule.but noted that the schedule had gotten left out o£ the minutes. Mr. Bergman said that Mrs. Gabel had identified their schedule, which keyed off of a City Council deadline� backed up one month for submission to this body. He could not remember the dates� but said that information xould be included in their next mixtutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 11. RECEIVE ENVIRONlSIIdTAL QUALITY COM[�fISSION I�ffNUTES: MARCH 17, 1977 MOTION by I,angenfeld� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Cormnission receive the Fhvironmental Quality Co�nission minutes o£ March 1%, 1977• Mr. Langenfeld stated that in the minutes o£ the last Planning Coirunissnon meeting he had mentioned the fact that he would provide in£ormation on the Noise Control Seminar, and he passed out copies o£ the brochure to the commission members. He recormnended that anyone who could get away during the d�y attend this meeting� and he assumed the City would pay £or it. He mentioned that Mrs, Sporre of the Ihvironmental Quality Commission was planning to attend. Chairperson Harris said that i£ anyone was interested irt attending the seminar they should contact Mr. Clark or Mr. Boardman so they could make reservations. � 1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 23� 1977 Page 33 Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the staff to lmox hox much the Fhvironmental Quality Commission appreciated receivi.ng the State of the Region� T4�rin City Metropolitan Area booklets. Chai.rperson Harris sai.d that i£ any o£ the Planning Coimnission members wanted a copy� they shoiild contact Mr. Boardman. UPON A VOICE VOTE� �.7.1 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. o�mt sus�rrss: MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the noLification of hearing from the City of Spring Lake Park concern9ng a lot split request at 7705 Central Avenue N.E. Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Clark saw any problem with this� and he replied that he did not. Mrs. Schnabel asked if there vere any residential homes in Fridley in that area. Mr. Clark said that in the Southeast corner there was an of£ice building, and they had a petition for a double bungalow on the next txo blocks� and then the single-family dwellings started. Mrs. Schnabel wondered i£ the residents xho xere within so many hundred feet should be notified. Mr. Clark said that would be fine� hut they didn�t notify people when F'ridley was having a lot split and didn't hold public hearings. He said that he would, hovever, do those people the courtesy of notifying them. UPDN A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Shea informed the coimnission that this was the secretary�s last meeting with them, and felt they should publicly thank her for her hard work and the excellent minutes she had done £or them. The commission thanked her and said they were sorry to see her go. ADJOURNMIIQT: MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Cormmission meeting of March 23, 1977 a�ijourned at 12:20 A.M. Respectfully sulunitted, �,�C, ��t Ymiiho� Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary _ �,�, �y,�� i�-f � � _._ � - � 3, �-3 -7 7 �� � co��vn �' ���� . �«�s G ��:� 7001 �,�;�`� � - N. ��.� � �a����`e � � �3��� r� r�' � � �- f'�/l �'2�.t�c.. - o a- S T. �° e.� i� /; /, / , , � , �• � Llo r` ��.,��'��x��.�,.�; � l4i �`fr-�i � ., � �• � •b Ni��G!'LS'{ Vi K I� �