PL 06/08/1977 - 6611�
�
City of Fridley
A G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JDNE 8, 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
ROI,L CALL:
AFPROVfi PLANNING COMMISSSION M2NLiTES: MAY;18, 1977
lo
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1 - 19
CONTINUED: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #7'7-03, BY C. D. 20-:27
CHA3�DLER: To rezone Lot , Bloc ,. o son s River
Latne d tion, from R-1 (Single family dwelling areas) '
to R-3 (multiple family dwelling areas), and rezone
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnson's River Lane Addition.
from C-15 (local shopping areas) to R-3 (multiple
family dwelling areas), so these three lots can be
used for the construction of a row house development
and/or townhouses, generally located between 64 1/2.
and Mississippi Place, on the West side of East River
Road.
PubTic Hearing open,
2. LOT SPLIT REOUEST: L.S. #77-05. SY MORRIS J. LONGER- 28 - 31
$ONE: Split Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92,
into three parcels as follows: Parcel i: The 5outh
72 feet of Lot 28(5895 Arthur Street N.E.), Parcel
II: T.he North 72 feet of the South 144 feet (5875
Arthur Street N.E.) both as,measured at right angles
to the South line thereof, subject to the rights of
the City of Fridley in Arthur Streeti N•.�E., and Parcel
III: That part of Lot 28, lying North of the South 144
feet as measured at riqht angles to the South line
thereof, together with that part of Gardena Avenue
vacated, also sub}ect to the rights of the City of
Fridley in Arthur Street N.E. and in Gardena Avenue,
(1494 Gardena Avenue N.E.)
3. VACATION REQUEST, SAV �77-05, CITY OF FRIDLEY: 32 - 35
Vacate the 25 foot riqht of way or Lakeside
Road for 276 feet on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision
No.108, because of a change in street pattern.
(The City now has a 50 foot right of way for
73 1J2 Avenue that cul-de-sac`s on the Replat of
Marxen Terrace.)
'� 4. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL �UALITY CON�IISSION MINUTES: 36- 42
_.. MAY 17, 1977
�
�
�
Planning Commission Agenda
June 8, 1977
Page 2
5. RECEIVE PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSIO�
M&Y 23, 1977
6. RECEIVE CONAfIIi1ITSC DEVELOPMENT COMNSISf
MAY 25, 1
7. CONTINUBD: PROPOSED ASAINTENAI3CE CODE
8. OTHER HUSINESS:
�^
�
ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES:
ON MINUTES:
PAGES
43 - 51
52 - 57
Separate
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 18, 1977 '
� CALL TO ORDER�
Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:4� P•M•
�
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Storla, Bergman, Harris, Schnabel,
Langenfeld
Members Absent: Peterson
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: May 4, 1977
Mrs• Schnabel clarified the ninth paragraph on Page 8,
the second sentence• She said it should read, ^She said
that each of the four lots individually••••^
Mrs• Schnabel corrected a typographical error on Page 21�
fifth paragraph• It should read ^Mr• Frank wanted to know if
the entire area on the drawing was zoned as R-1"•
Mrs- Schnabel wanted the eighth paragraph on Page 22 to
indicate that Mr• Wyman Smith was
representing Dr• Sakamoto, the owner of the property-
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
Planning Commission minutes of May 4, 1977, be approved as
amended• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
1• PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST ZOA �77-02, BY
ROBERT FLATEN� Rezone Lot 41� Block 1, Spring Brook
Park A ition, from M-1 {light industrial areas} to
R-1 {single family dwelling areas}, so it can be combined
with Lot 42, Block 12, Spring Brook Park Addition,
{already zoned R-1}, to make a residential building site,
the same being 176 Ely Street N•E�
MOTION by Mrs• Schna6el, seconded by Mr- Langenfeld, to open the
public Hearing Rezoning Request ZOA � 77-02, by Robert Flaten•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, thairperson Harris declared
the Public Hearing open at 7:48 P•M•
�r• Robert Flaten of 7424 West Circle was present-
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ME[TING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 2
Mr• Boardman explained that the petitioner planned to combine
Lots 41 and 42 so that he could construct a one-family residence•
Lot 42 is zoned R-1, however, Lot 4L was zoned M-1• The request �
is to rezone Lot 41 to an R-1 Lot•
Mr� Flaten sai� that he wanted to build a house on the Lots•
He said that when he applied for a Building Permit he had been
inFormed that he would have to apply for a Rezoning of Lot 41•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted Co know if he planned to live in the house
or if he planned to build it for re-sale•
Mr• Flaten indicated that he intended to live in the house•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know the frontage on the two lots•
Mr• Boardman explained that both lots were 3D-foot Lots• He said
that the two lots combined would make a 6�-foot Lot upon Which
Mr• Flaten could construct a single-family dwelling•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if there were any adjacent
M-1 properties�
Mr• Boardman explained where the industrial sites were located
in regards to the lots in question�
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Bergman, to close the
public Hearing Rezoning Request ZOA #77-02 by Robert Flaten•
�pon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared
the PuBlic Hearing closed at 7:55 P.M-
MOTION by �r• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
planning Commission recommend.to the City Ceuncil approva� of
the Rezoning Request ZOA �77-�2, by Rabert Flaten, to rezQne
Lot 41� Block 12, Spring Brook Park Addition, from M-1
{light industrial areas} to R-1 {single family dwelZing areas},
so it can be combined with Lot 42, 81ock 12, Spring Brook Park
Addition, {already zoned R-1}� to make a residential huilding
site, the same being 176 E1y Street N•E•
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Boardman if there would be any
easement problems-
Mr• Boardman indicated that there would not be any easement
problems�
UFON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• �
�
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 - page 3
� 2• PUBLIC HEARING� REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �77-03, BY
C• D� CHANDLER= ftezone Lot 1� B oc , Jo nson s River
Lane Ad ition, from R-1 {single family dwelling areas}
� to R-3 {multiple femily dwelling areas}, and, rezone
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnson's River Lane Addition,
from C-1S {local shopping areas} to R-3 {multiple family
dwelling areas} so these three lots can be used for the
construction of a 7 unit row house development and/or
townhouses, generally located between 64 1/2 Way and
Mississippi P1ace on the West side of East River Road N•E•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, to open
the Public Hearing on the Rezoning Request, ZOA �77-03, by
C• D• Chandler. Upon a voice vote. aI1 voting aye, Chairperson
Harris declared the public hearing open at 7:58 P.M.
Mr• Boardman explained that there were three lots involved
in the request• He said that Lots 2 and 3 were zoned C-1S and
Lot 1 was zoned R-1� He said that the request was to rezone
all three lots to R-3 so that the lots can be used for the
construction of a row-house development and/or townhouses•
Mr• Boardman continued to explain that Mr• Chandler had proposed
building a certain type of dwellings, however, with that
particular design he could only fit six units on the property
while the square footage of the property would allow the
� construction of eight units• Therefore, he said that
Mr• Chandler decided to first get a rezoning of the property and
then he would proceed with the planning of exactly what
would be built on the property�
Mr. Chandler of 11320 Mississippi Drive and Mr• Talbot of
Calhoun Realty were present•
Mr• Chandler explained to the Commission that he had owned the
property for about 15 years and was now trying to build
something on the property in order to get back his investment•
He had pictures of the property, surrounding areas and buildings,
and the types of units he was contemplating• He indicated that
he felt that what he planned for the property would be a good
use for the particular lots and location-
Mrs• Luckow of 161 - 64 1/2 Way N•E• wanted tn know if
Mr• Chandler had any definite plans of what he was going to
build on the Lats and if they would be for rental or re-sale�
She also wanted to know what size the units would be•
Mr- Chandler indicated that at that point he had no definite
pians• He pointed out that whatever he would do would meet
all the existing codes- He wasn�t sure if the property would be
for rental purposes or sold• He also said that he wasn't sure
� of the size uf the units•
I'LANN�NG CUI'!!'11S�1VN PlttlllV[a — I'IHT Ln, L�rr rtlye Y
hlr• Talbat of Calhoun Real.ty explained that everything they
had proposed to that point in time had not met various codes
and would have needed numerous variances• He indicated that
the owner had decided to first get the rezoning and then get togeth�
with the City and decide exactly what could be built on the
property that would meet all existing codes•
Mr• Fred Poster of 6441 Riverview Terrace expressed
disappointment that he had not been notified of the Public
Hearing especially since they would be greatly effected
by the proposed plan since they lived'on the corner of
64 1/2 Way and Riverview Terrace• He also indicated that
he was greatly disappointed in the present multiple dwellings
in the area• He said that the people living in the apartments
in the area didn�t pay attention to posted speed signs; he said
that there wasn't adequate off-street parking so that cars
were always parked up and down the streets• He continued by
saying that the nearby apartments were not neat and were not
kept up• He said there was a7.ways garbage around the yard
and most were detrimental to the area• Mr• Foster felt that
with the taxes he had to pay he didn*t want to see any more
apartment buildings in the area•
Chairperson Harris tried to explain to Mr• Foster why he
hadn`t been notified of the public Hearing• He said that
City Hall couid have slipped up and not sent him a notice•
However, he continued by saying that there had been a sign
posted on the property indicating that there was to be a
Public Hearirg on the property• He said that City Hall most �
definitely tried to be sure that everyone that would be
concerned or effected by the rezoning was notified• He
apologized for the oversight•
Mr• Dennis Phitzner of 6430 Riverview Terrace agreed with what
Mr• Foster had said regarding the present apartment buildings
and the people living therein• He felt that more apartment
buildings would only give more headaches to the home oidners in
the area•
Mr• Luckow of 161 - 64 1/2 Way N•E• questioned the construction
of a seven-unit row house on the three lots- He wanted to
know how many square feet would be for off-street parking•
Chairperson Harris said that an off-street parking stall was
10 x 20 feet or 200 square feet•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that the current ordinance required
off-street parking• She said that 1-1/2 stalls had to be
allowed for each one-bedroom unit and two stalls for each
two-bedroom unit and 2-1/2 stalls for each three bedroom unit
�
PLANNING CO�MISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 - Page 5
� Mr• Chandler indicated to the audience that he was requesting
a higher and better use for the property•
Mrs• Foster indicated that all•the children played in a
park located near the lots in question• She said that the
park was the only play area for the children and she couldn't
see bringing in seven more families, with children• She
said what the area really needed was more recreation area
and not more apartments•
Mrs� Luckow wanted clarificetion as to exactly what could
be constructed on a C-1S Lot•
Chairperson Harris read to the audience exactly what would
be allowed on a C-1S Lot•
pt that point Mr• Boardman said that on C-1S properties,
160 foot frontage was required• He said that the Commercial
property did not meet that requirement• He said that the
Commercial only had about y/2 of the required square footage•
Mr• Chandler indicated that what he had been told by the
guilding Inspector did not agree with what Mr� Boardman had
said• He said that he would take it back to Court• He
said that he had an investment of over $40,��0 and he wasn't
• going to put up with the City condemning his property from
any use•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know if Lats 2 and 3 were ever large
enough to build as C-1S-
Mr• Boardman indicated that Lots 2 and 3 were never large
enough to meet the square footage requirements to build as
C-1S• He said that they could be buildable with a variance-
Mr• Boardman went on to exp�ain that there was an exclusion
in the R-1 District code that would allow an R-1 lot to be
used as a parking lot by getting a Special Use Permit�
He said that together with Lots 2 and 3, Lot 1 could be used as
parkin9 area, therefore, making lots 2 and 3 buildable C-1S
Lots•
Mr• Chandler indicated that his request was a very natural
request and it would be an upgrade for the property• He asked
them to realize that the entire street had apartment buildings•
� Mr• & Mrs� Foster indicated that they would like to see some
plans•
PLANNING CO�MISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 6
Mr• Chandler said that he didn�t have any definite style plans f
at that time• He indicated that whatever was planned for
those lots, that all City Codes would be met• He said that
the first thing he wanted to do was to get a rezoning of
the property and that he would proceed from that point•
Mr• Foster asked Mr• Chandler that if.he got the lots rezoned
to R-3, would he try to get eight units on the property•
Mr� Boardman indicated that if Mr• Chandler had the right
design, that eight units could be constructed on that property•
�rs• Foster asked if Mr• Chandler planned for a yard area•
Mr• Chandler said that he would have alI the required setbacks�
Mrs� Lukow wanted to know if provisions would be mada for
chiidren•
Mr• Boardman indicated that there were no requirements to
provide play areas for the children•
Cl�airperson Harris made reference to the Plat as to the
20•1� foot ailcy that was iocated next to 64 1/2 Way-
Mr• Foster indicated that when they moved into the area, they �
had a private drive-way onto E�st River Road- He said that
now the street had taken up the alley•
Chairperson Harris wanted to I<now how much of the property
in question had been taken for the East River Road and
Mississippi Street intersection improvement�
Mr• Chandler indicated that approximately 30 feet had been
taken from both ends of the Lot•
Chairperson Harris asked if the property would have been a
legal C-1S lot before the condemnation•
Mr• Boardman said that even before the condemnation, the lots
were not buildable C-15 lots� He said that very probably the
City would have NAD to grant a variance since Mr• Chandler
would have had just cause for a hardship•
Mr• Langenfeld asked Mr• Chandler if his plans were speculative
at that time• '
Mr• Chandler said that he had a contract for the purchase of
the land if and when the property.was rezoned•
�
�
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 7
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Chandler if his contractor would
draw a site plan•
Mr• Chandler indicated that he had already drawn up three site
plans and had gotten no resul•ts• He said that they really
needed the rezoning first�
Mr• Boardman explained the other requests that Mr• Chandler
had made and whaC had happened on each of them• He said that
the last plan he saw was for five two-bedroom units and
three three-bedroom units•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the plan would be for a two-story
unit in answer to a question by Mr• Foster•
Mr• Phitzner didn't like the idea that the City put in a park
that was not and would not be large enough to handle the children
in the area• Also he said that the Park was located on a
street that was basically dangerous due to the abundance
of traffic contributed to by the apartment complexes in
the area•
pt that point, Chairperson Harris said that he considered this
request a major rezoning and that i.t was not unusual to require
a site plan• He indicated that he would not be able io vote on
the request until he saw a site plan•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know, if the rezoning was granted,
when Mr� Chandler would plan ta start constructinn•
�r• Chandler responded that actually he had no idea but
figured probably sometime in the Fall•
Mr• Langenfeld explained to the audience and Mr• Chandler that
the Commission had to make their dec�sions based on the City
Codes and Ordinances• Ne said that in this case it should be
noted that the members of the Commission were very concerned
about the safety of the children in the area as well as the
general safety of the public• He continued to say that they
had to keep in mind that the request was to rezone two lots
presently zoned C-1S and one lot zoned R-1 to three lots
zoned R-3- He said that it should 6e kept in mind that any
of the previously stated commercial enterprises could be
constructed on the lots in question• He said that he only
made the statement for informative purposes�
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know Mr• Chandler's explanation of
Row Houses and Townhouses�
PLANMING CO�MISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 ' Page 8
�r• Chandler first wanted to explain that what was stated on �
the Public Hearing notice was not actually what was being
planned• Ne said that the notices had been sent out before
he had withdrawn his initial plan• Mr• Chandler then explained
that he felt the definition of the two housing types were
interchangeable�
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that she did not feel comfortable
giving approvals for rezoning without seeing a site plan•
�r• Talbot asked for verification as to exactly what the
Commission wanted in regards to a site plan•
Chairperson Narris showed Mr• Talbot an example of what
he wanted•
At that point, Mr� Talbot showed the Commission the site plan °
that had originally been drawn up before they decided to
first rezQne the property and then draw up plans that would
meet all City Codes•
Mrs• Foster asked Mr• Chandler if he could try to plan the
units so that the traffic from the units did not go to
Riverview Terrace•
Mr• Chandler felt that it would be impossible co say what the •
traffic would decide to do•
Mrs• Foster indicated that she felt the City should buy
these lots•
Mr• Chandler said that he didn't care who bought the lots•
Mr• Langenfeld asked Mr• Chandler if he had considered putting
up single family dwellings on the lots•
Mr• Chandler indicated that the lots were too expensive to
try to sell single family dwellings•
Mr• Boardman explained that when they were going through the-
layout of the property with a particular type of construction,
they could only get six units on the property without a
variance• The owners of the property felt that six units would
not pay for the property•
�
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING — MAY 18,'1977 Page 9
Mr• Bergman explained that he thought Mr• Chandler would like
to do something with his property after many years of tax
1� paying and ownership• However, he felt that the neighbors also
had justifiable fears of more children in the area ,
inadequate playgrounds and more traffic problems• He said
that it did bother him to have a plan su6mitted that would
require variances• He felt that if the best use of that property
was for townhouses, then the problem that should be dealt
with would be one of density•
Mr• Chandler pointed out that the site plan before the
Commission was not the plan that they were going with•
He said that the new plan that would be drawn up would
meet all requirements that the City needed•
Mr• Bergman said that a request for a plan did not imply
approval even if the plan did meet codes• He said that
basically the request at hand was for rezoning and the site
plan would not commit the owner to do exactly as the site
plan stated•
Mr• 8oardman indicated that it also would not bind him to
that site plan•
�rs• Schnabel pninted out Co the audience that if the
rezoning was granted, that any requests for variances would
have to go before the Appeals Commission• She said that
� at that time the neighbors would again be able to express
their feelings in regard to the number of units and the
layout of the units• Also she said that the requester would
have to have concrete plans before he could appear before
the Appeals Commission•
Mr• 6ergman indicated that the Commission was dealing with
Mr• Chandler regarding a request for a rezoning- However,
he said that once the rezoning was granted, they would have
Co deai with the developer and he could come up with anything
within the ordinance for that zone and the Rlanning
Commission would have no control• He said that the developer
could have a whole different picture as to what he wanted
to do with the lots-
Mr• Langenfeld said that he understood Mr• Chandler's position
as far as he had property that he was paying taxes on-
However, he said that he could not vote for a rezoning
until he knew exactly what was going to be done with the
Lots in question• .
At that point there was much discussion amongst the
Planning Commission as far as putting stipulations on the
rezoning and whether the stipulations could be enforced•
�
pLANNING COM�ISSION_MEETING — MAY 10, 1977 Page 10
Chairperson Harris said that stipulations could be enforced
as far as the location of the unit> on the property, the
num�er of units, and the access.to the units�
Mr• Chandler felt that putting stipulations on a rezoning was
not part of the Planning Commission*s jurisdiction• He felt
that since the rezoning would be an improvement to the property
and that as long as they met all the City Codes and
requirements, the Commission should not 6e able to put any
stipulations on the rezoning request• He continued to say
that the Planning Commisssian was not putting enough confidence
in the City Planning Department• He felt that most of the
issues that were being 6rought into the rezoning request
were already contro2led by the City Codes•
Mrs. Schnabel indicated that she was aware of both sides of the
issue• She sai.d that the residents in the area definitely
had to be concerned about the safety of the children and that
they also had a definte traffic problem� However she said that
if the property were to remain commercial, it mould result in
a hardship for Mr• Chandler in ter•ms o.f access to and from the
property�
Mrs• Foster said that she felt adequate off-street parking
HAD to be required-
Mrs- Schnabel said that the current ordinance required orf-
street parking�
In response to Mr• Bergman's question regarding the zoning
of the neighboring areas, Mr• Boardman explained all �he
zonings in the area• „
Mr• Beryman indicated that he personally felt there was no
problem with an R-3 zoning for the lots; however, he felt
the problem was the density• He said that he would be far
the rezoning if a limitation could be set on the density
but he was not sure how that could legally be handled•
Mr• Chandlar felt that that was covered in the Building Code•
Chairperson Harris
with his contractor
property and have a
said that he wanted Mr
and decide what wuuld
site plan drawn up•
Chandler to get
be done on the
Mr• Chandler agreed that he would try to get in touch with the
contractqr and have a site plan drawn up•
Mr• Foster wanted to know exactly how many units were being
considered•
Mr• Chandler indicated that seven units was the tentative
plan•
!
�
u
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 11
�. Mr� Phitzner said that no
plan, he didn't feel the
or any more people•
�
�
matter how many units were in the
neighborhood needed any more traffic
Chairperson Harris told the audience that the Planning
Gommission had to respond to Mr• Chandler's request•
Mr• Bergman indicated that just because'the Ordinance would
allow seven or eight units, it didn't mean that the de�eloper
would HAVE to put the maximum number of units on the property•
He said that perhaps the developer could consider a little
more green area and a few less units•
MOTION by Mr- Bergman, seconded by Mr• �angenfeld, that the
planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the
Rezoning Request, ZOA � 77-�3, BY C• D• CHANDLER, to rezone
Lot 1� Block 2, Johnson's River Lane Addition, From R-1
{single family dwelling areas} to R-3 {multiple family
dwelling areas}, and, rezone Lots 2 and 3, Block 2,
Johnson's River Lane Addition, from C-1S {local shopping areas}
to R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas} so these three
lots can be used for the construction of a 7 unit row house
development and/or townhouses, generally located between
64 1/2 Way and Mississippi Place on the West side of East
River Road N.E• until the next Planning Commission meeting
{�une 8, 1977} at which time Mr• thandler and the developer
would come before the Commission with a definite site plaii•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the planning Commission
wasn't allowed to tell Mr• Chandler how to draw his site
plan, he said that the Commission could only respond to a
site plan and his request• He said that Mr• Chandler was to
have a plan drawn up and the Planning Commission would respond
to the request•
UPON A VOICE V4TE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
MOTION 6y �r- Storla, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission suspend the rules and handle Item 76 of the agenda
RECOMMENDATION FOR $2�0 FOR TEEN CENTER- Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETTNG — MAY Z8, 1977 page Z2
76 RECOMMENDATION FOR $2DO FOR TEEN CENTER
Ms• Mary Anderson, the Coordinator for the Fridley Teen Center
was present�
Ms• Anderson indicated that it had been brought up at the
Human Resources Commission that a fund be established to help
start up the Frid7.ey Teen Center• She then presented a report
listing the items that were needed to help the Teen Center get
started•
The Planning Commission took a few minutes to study the report•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfald, seconded by Mrs� Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the report from Ms• Anderson�
Upon a voice vo�te, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Ms• Anderson briefly explained the items listed on the report�
She a2so answered a few questions that the Commission had on
several of the items•
�
Mr• Storla explained that the Teen Center personnel had been
economical with the money it had previously received from the
Fridle� State Bank to help them put on a dance• Ne said that �
the dance went fairly we11 considering it had been held on the
same night as a student–faculty basketball game- He said that
the Committee ended up with about $2� down• Mr• Storla said
that at thattime they needed money to help to notify people
that the Teen Center was open and to help the Teen Center get
off the ground•
Mrs• Schnabel asked if the report indicated the dollars that
were needed•
Ms• Anderson said that they were only requesting $2Q0•
MOTION by �r• Bergman, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission recommends to City Council approval of
the request for 5200 for the Fridley Teen Center•
Mr• Langenfeld made a suggestion that the Teen Center try to
sell Stock in the Teen Center• He felt that possib2y the
suggestion would get more people interested in the Teen Center•
Chairperson Harris and Mr• Storla expressed that they felt it
was a good idea worth looking into•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
�
�
�
u
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 13
3•
CHURCH: Vacate the utility easement over the South
5 feet of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and the North 5 feet of
Lots 22, 23, 24 and 25, all in Block Z, Christie
Addition, to allow an addition to an existing church,
the same being 666 Mississippi Street N•E•
Mr� Boardman said that this request was a requirement of the
Building Permit- He said that they had applied for a Building
Permit which the City was qoing to hold up unless they had
approval from the City Council for encroachment on the
easements• The Council approved their request for easement
ancroachment with the stipulation that they appiy for a
vacation of the easements• The Vacation Request, SAV � 7?-04
is for that vacation�
Chairperson Harris said that the drawing looked as though
the Church was already over the easements•
Mr• Boardman responded that they were•
Chairperson Harris asked if the easements were still there•
Mr• Boardman didn;t know•
Mr• Berqman asked Mr• Boardman if Fridley Methodist Church
also owned lots 22, 23, 24 and 25•
Mr• Boardman said that those lots were the Church
parking lot•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla, that the
Planning Commission receive the two letters from Northern
States Power Company and the one letter from Minnegasco
regarding Fridley United Methodist Ghurch vacation request•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know if the Planning Commission was
being requested to obtain easements•
Mr• Boardman said that the church is requesting the vacation
and the Staff is asking that the Planning Commission, as part
of the Vacation, stipulate the rededication of easements•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 14
MOTION by Mrs- Schnabel, secohded by Mr- Bergman, that the `
Planning Commission recommends to City Council agproval of
tfie Vacation Request, SAV �77-�4; Fridley United Methodist
�hurch to vacate the utility easement over the South five feet
of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and the North five feet of Lots 22, 23,
Z4 and 25, all in Blod< 2, Christie Addition, to allow an
addition to an existiny church, the same being
666 Mississippi Street N-E• and that they stipulate the
rededication of easements of ten feet along the west property
line of Lot 3; 15 feet along the west property line of Lot 22;
and five feet along the north property line of Lot 22•
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried•
Cahirperson Harris declared a short break at 9:50 P.M.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at m
10:OQ P•M-
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded 6y �r� Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission suspend the rules and handle Items 5, 6,
7, and 7a and hold Item 4 until after adjournment• Upon a
voice vote, aIl voting aye, the moticn carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris ind'zcated that item 4 CONTINUED. PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE CO�E be handled as Workshop after adjournment *
of the Planning Commission �eeting•
5•
,
TION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr� Bergman, that
the Planning Commission receive the parks & Recreation
Commission �inutes of April 25, 1977•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that on Page 64, the second paragraph,
second to last sentence should read -•• ^The real solution
would be to outlaw utilization of motorized RECREATIONAL vehicles
in Fridley, •••^-
Mrs• Schnabel indicated on Page 64, the last paragraph, had
what she believed to be typographical errors� Reference was
made all through the paragraph to St• Louis Park and she felt
that they should have been Spring Lake Park•
UPON A VOICE UDTEa all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING — MAY 18, �977 Page 15
, 6• RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MSPJUTES� MAY 1D, 1977
MO�ION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that
the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission
Minutes of May 10, 1977•
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that on Page 79 at the end of the
fourth paragraph, a sentence should be added —^Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously^•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if a motion was necessary to
take an item from the Table•
Chairperson Harris indicated that it was necessary•
There was some discussion regarding Mr• Peterson's variance
requests• Mrs• Schnabel said that at the Appeals Commission
meeting, �r• Peterson, had withdrawn his request to build
multiple dwellings on Meadowmoor Drive• She said that after
that statement, the neighbors in the audience were not very
vocal•
Mr• Boardman indicated that it had gone to �ity Council and that
Mr• Peterson had decided to build single family dwellings on
� Meadowmoor Drive•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
7• RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES CO�MISSION MINUTtS=
MOTION by Mr• Storla, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes
of May 5, 1977•
Mrs• Schnabel asked Mr- Storla if there had been any problem
regarding the Tenant/Landlord Project Committee with two people
on the Committee from the same Complex•
Mr• SCorla responded that they preferred that the Committee
had only one tenant from each complex• However he said that
that was a large complex and there did appear to be more
interest in that complex than in most of the other places•
Therefore, he said that they decided to allow it•
Mr• Storla continued to briefly explain the actual function
of the Committee•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know what the Tenant/Landlord
� Project Committee's objective was•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 ' Page 16
Mr• Storla indicated that the Fridley Tenant/Landlord project
Committee shall act as an advisory committee to the Fridley
Human Resources Commission for the purpose of maintaining a
quality of life in residential rental stock consistent with
the standards of aII residents in the community; and
developing methods, policies, and means of ensuring that the
rights af Cenants and landlords are protected and harmonious
relationships facilitated• He said that basically the objective
was to maintain the quality of life and to increase communication
between both the tenants and landlords to try to work out any
problems before they become so accute that the tenants are
evicted or a tenant ^skips^ out on his rent•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to kno�� if the members af the Committee
would be serving as a screering board for future rental
applications•
Mr• Storla said that they would have some set committee
to do the screening•
�r• Bergman wanted t.o know if this Committee was connected
with the Tenants Uriian•
Mr- Storla said that 'there was no connectian� The Tenants
Union was.for the peaple in the City of Minneapolis� He
went on to say tha* the Tenants Union was more of a"2ast
resort^ type thing• He said that the Tenant/Landlord Project
Committee was formed to qet the communications established
betw�en the tenants and landlords before the problems resulted
in an eviction or someone ^skipping out^ on his rent•
Mr• Langenfe7.d wanted to make a point regarding a statement
made by �ir• LIilliam Scott on Page'95, seventh paragraph, in
which he stated ^•••under the influence of alcohol to use the
restroom facilities; and, whereas, the Commission did not
consider that kind of influence conducive to the well-being
of Fridley's young people; •••"• I1r• Langenfeld felt that
Mr• Scott was labeling people without ha�ing all the pertinent
facts•
Mr• Storla indicated that Mr• Scott only made the statement after
several paople had made the staLement to him•. He was taking
someone else's word�
Mr• Boardman said that the Rest Rooms were open to the public
and asked Mr• Storla what the Commission intended to
recommend•
Mr� Storla said that they made a motion to have satellites
set up•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
There was a shart discussion vn the elections of officers
at the various Commission meetings•
�
0
L
C�
.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 18, 1977 Page 17
� 7a• RECOMMENDATION fOR �1,�Od FOft SENIOR CITIZEN WELL CLINI
{CAP} ,
�Mr, Storla apologized that he couldn't give much 6ackground
on the item• He indicated that Mr• Kline was going to be
present at the Planning Commission meeting to give a formai
presentation• However, since Mr• Kline did not show up,
Mr• Storla said he would try to answer any questions as best
he could•
Mr• Stnrla circulated copies of a booklet he had regarding
the Seniar Citizen Well Clinic Program-
Mr• Boardman asked where the Clinic was located-
Mr• Storla said that it was in the North Suburban Family
Clinic in Goon Rapids-
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if the Program was just
for the Senior Citizens in Fridley and Columbia Heights•
Mr• Storla said it was For all Anoka .County Senior Citizens•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how long the Rrogram had
been in operatian-
� Mr- Soardman said that it was in its third year of operation•
He said that the Program needed local funds to keep going�
Chairperson Harris wanted to knaw how much money the
County was contributing-
Mr• Storla didn't know�
Mrs- Schnabel referred to the booklet and that that Anoka
County was contributing $56,000• She said that according
to the booklet the Program couldn't get United Way funds
until June 1979•
There was much discussion as to where the funds were going to
come from and how much they would be receiving from the
different sources•
Mr• Storla read a list of the a9encies that had already been
approached• He said that the Program was trying ta get $9,500
from businesses and organizations-
Chairperson Harris felt that this particular program was a
County function and should be funded by the County•
� Mr• Bergman indicated that $1,OQ0 was a lot of tax-payer's
money•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 1b, 1977 Page 19
� The Planning Commission discussed at length the Hyde Park
rezoning issue• They arrived at several different thoughts and
ideas of what they would like to see and not see done•
They indicated many questions that they felt had to be answered
regarding the subject•
Chairperson Harris suggested that the Planning Commission attend
the City Council conference meeting on May 23, 1977.
Mr• Boardman made reference to several points he had made
in the memo and reiterated his reasoning for making several
of the comments he had made.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The memo was received-
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1977, be adjourned-
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission Meeting
of May 18, 1977, adjourned at 11:15 P•M-
�
The Planning Commission held a workshop on the PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE CODE after the formal adjournment of the
May 18, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting•
Respectfully Subm�
Mary Lee Carhill
�
�
PUI3LIC HEARING
BEFORE TNE
DLANNING COh1MISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of
the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at
6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, May 18, 1977 in the
Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of:
Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA #77-03,
by C. D. Chandler, to rezone Lot 1, Block 2, Johnson's
River Lane Addition, from R-1 (singTe family d�aelling
areasa, to R-3 (multiple family dwelling areas� and,
rezone Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnson's River Lane
Addition, from C-1S (local shopping areas) to R-3
(multiple family dwelling areasj, so these three
lots can be used for the construction of a 7-unit
ro�•r house development and/or townhouses, all located
in the South Nalf of Section 15, T-3�, R-24, City of
Fridley, Co�!nty of Anoka, Minnesota.
Generally located betvreen 64 1/2 lday and Mississippi
� Place on the 47est side of East River Road N.E.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter
may be heard at this time.
Publish: May 4, 1977
May 11, 1977
I�_ J
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
�.�iSi
�T
CIT'Y OP PRIULGY MINNIiSOTA
• ,/ PI.�NNING nhfD ZONING FO12M ,
NUMIiGR ��7+ �� �3
� � ��' ^ f'�GX!'
��� APPEi 7''S SIGNATURL• .�/b� ��� � �1 _
Address %( 3,� � ��'l f S S/ S S/�'�'1 ��'. �f%�%i(�C, ll�%
�
�
Te2ephonc �Number �� � ' .� �'% S' `% �
, ,
PROPE2T'Y OI4NGR'S SIGI�ATURE�,�� ��,���!;'-�' C�,:� ,
Address /,� � --°���
Telephone Number
StreeY Location of Property
Legal Description of Proper
Present Zoning Classifica
.�i '
TYPE OF REQUGST
� Rezoning
Specia2 U5e Permit
Approvai of Premin-
inary $ Final Plat
Strcets or Alley
Vacations
Other
t�__ '�/'.�.TT...�..:.�4 Al.. V/ ��/
.��
Acreage of Property ,�O,�il1� r Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
s / / /
or type of use and improvement proposed� � i�.� %2 c� 7: �?�.� .�- -; ?d.%� C;:r G��� yzz/�
..u'_." /l.(,'�(_!^t-/"�!�2�:2 ` �`ZC*�-:E_ ;�� ��� - . �/
Has the present applicant previously souglit to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on tlie subject site or part of it? yes�_no.
iVhat was requested and when? �
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all oivners of the property, or an e�planation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsi.bility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the namcs and addresscs of all residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to tlie undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drati.�� and attached, showin� the
follo�aing: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on ths lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
' 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing builJings (within 300 feet)
7'he undcrsigned hercUy declares that all thc facts and representations stated in this
application are truc and corrcct. ., '
�( �
DATB � ��'�+�� ��11Q7� SIGNAI'URE ��� J�,(!�/��'�'���'l-�
(APPLICe\N't) .
Datc Filecl Datc of ltearing
Planning Coennission Approved
(dates) Uenied
City Council Approved
(datc5) Denicd
�• ZOA �77-03, Rezone �
Lots 1,2„3 Block 2
. Johnson's River Lane
MAILING LIST
n
l�
��
r1
u
River Road East Corporati.on
6540 East River Road
Fridley, Mn 55432
Robert & Gerald Schroer
& Peter J. Lindberg
6330 East River Road
Fridley, Mn 55432
D. C. Chandler
11320 Mississippi Drive
Champlin Mn � Si ��W
Robert H. Schlecter
6520 East River Road
Fridley, Mn 55�32
Mr. & Mrs. Carl Moen
6502 Nickory Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mary Dolin
95 Mississippi Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr: & Mrs. Michael Zgodova
6501 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Duane Oftelie
4511 Gettsburg Avenue
Minneapolis, Mn 55428
Mr. & Mrs. Louis Nash
6509 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Allen Ericks�n
6551 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Schneck
6601 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55�32
Charles E. Johanson
580 69th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55A32
�fr. & Mrs. Eugene Andersori
6661 East River Road N.E.
fridley, Mn 55G32
Planning Gomnission 5-2-77 "
Cauncil --�
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Sutter
98 Rice Creek Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Lyle Kulenkamp
58 Mississippi Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Darryl Ericson
6468 Ashton Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr, & Mrs. Harlin Cook
6446 Ashton
Fridley, Mn 55432
Ms. Annella Lee
6434 Ashton Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Hughes
6424 Ashton Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Arne Lundgren
6412 Ashton Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Emerson
99 64th Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Kenneth Gillette
6409 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Warren Palm
6421 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert Felt
Rt. 2, Box 727
Wyoming, Mn 55092
Mr. & Mrs. LeRoy Erlandson
60 Mississippi Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. Donald Wescom
117 Mississippi Place N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
�
��
��
\
1R„! _'
ZOA �77-3 Page 2
Mailing List
Mr. & Mrs. Albert Johnson
� 137 Mi§sissippi Place N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55.432
`J
�
� Mr. & Mrs. Allen Mattson
;� 157 Mississippi Place N.E.
- Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Aspenson
6489 Riverview ierrace N.E.
Frid1ey, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Mattie
140 Mississippi Place N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. Chris Jelavarou
160 Mississippi Place N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432!�
Mr. & Mrs. John Koprowski
6470 Rivervi.ew Terrace N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Murco Stations, Inc,
6485 East River Road
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Leif Henriksen
6434 Riverview Terrace N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Zera, Inc.
6500 East River Road
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Sakry
121 64 1/2 Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Walter Luckow
161 64 1/2 Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs, Larry Gilmer
141 64 1/2 Way N.E,
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Harold Beckman
6430 East River Road N.E.
Fridley,Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Raymond
6420 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Ms. Leora Smuder
6414 East River Road N.E.
Fridley Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Sibell
6408 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Kimbler
80 Mississippi Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Leo Carda
6443 East River Road N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. 4arre Pa1m�
�4�, E t R er R ad
,�d� e , 5 32
�j`y ,� �'�, �� %""^�
// ��Z� � �
b�i �.�-��
�.,
YG!
��
� .�"�
. . � , i��i�'� • .
� �'°��_, �
� � E � '� � • •� I
`
N T 3� 427 51 �' � 3� ` �
g4.55 3 , �
. . 1 � �
� •. ; j� ZI
� � � d ' W , J� .
5� o � w m
l i 3 ,%� �'& ��� `i 6
: �,
� i -.' . N d u"o�` � ,> .
. �1 �
� ` � � p� � � d .
; � � � N
�� --�L'� "` � � �� c�
w � �
� �i;-• � rQ s� 1
� . ' -�. W m�� � �
r
� " 127 q� � � \� ` ��
� y325 � . � N a,\ o �
1 N� o �
� � 9 '� ;p '�l ` u� �
. . � �' �' � � d
� Z N� � , �y �
•� � �`�N> SCALE—i"= 30�
z \ , - � d
N N`n /� ��:,i`c ., � i j����; Y � pC T. 1973
o p\ li � ` �,
� Q
� - N�is p" `' ,Z� 2 3`� J uN ` N"' �`4 WZ �
, . ,� \-1 9 , , N V \
� L � �
'�: \ ` Y SITj, '� y � � �
� � � � � r" N� - � � �Q
� � ..a '� �,, °'� a i°m� v�
` � '�, N.�-�, \
� � � =_1 �
` Y �` `
,�� � - ' - �
o �, ; ./ --' . Sjr _\�
a�
\ ' . `� � � '�
� \ 7 _ � 01
Sz7'4 \ o �_.
E 5(r 90'S6 � � � � �
�
, �.� �� ` � _ . �
1� \O
�.
�
A�'�' � �
,73o5g1Q� Y� �� 2
$
��.��
/
i,r >:, r �-�, ny�r t'�p��s� r�-�p ;�
. e* :i� �� ��f \' +r.. G' p�f' i�
a
� SURVEY OF LOT 1, 2, Q 3 BLOC K 2
� JOHNSON�S RtVER LANE ADDiT10N
...... .. �•..�••�"""" • MTV nC cn�n� r�
�.
��,�
i .�
� ;t r. ' 4;
��
�
G
r�
�
i,' o �' ,, � (r � o f._;�;»
,.� �
�"l�i�°� i�-
�
�r-°,
� ' °" .�.< ...,, ,�.;. '�.� .�P • ,,.;
(� _r�. . ,�._ �^��, .,, � sei,��
�'�. ` r /. � i °. .. . . .
, •. .:JYn",\�Y� ..r
.'Ct ,J
.2:�
.: / � . \\
' ' .' . . ..s 1! . m , ' ' _..
'�^ � � set��fs ,,:
°1 � � - -� `�� .:e.
t �Fi.fi �� •. '..��Ir � � � t � _ . ...
v.�� F -. r r-' � r- �
� � � �� - 9{� -�
, � .�,� ,c ,P�..r- � : . ` ., ..-,.-�.-_----- y'. �
� � ��`�� � �'1 :'k� .^r'.., \��i � '' �`y.'Orsl ; r'�$�:� _ 1 S r ~ - y� �
, __ � ,, , �
,, , F � a � 1` .� .
L r�l � f ..'vi� �i/ F.��:�.
J�°� ;. � � � \ _..._
� `�� (�` �' rt\i����1�'.'�i F�.
��: ..:). \.U1` F� C�i7`l G`,1 _ r� ��
I> � � � i 41:.i �� ±u �ti �00_ I .'
� f,y� '1 l ' / "� �. ` . �T , - ��r�� � .� aJ
� �..(�i'�' ��. .N"'�i � `y [ -•., �-. ♦� } � ���
G z � ,. � -, t ♦ ,1.
��• � � �}.�`�?. i (.�i �'"� = `, ; �J;
� `
�a t c/"� 72• 'i 4� f i:o ,�1��� �
� � V ( � ��� . a� ' � ' � � • `��
�� � � f�,l i� , ..., � 5 < � :, ; � �' � �
' � j �j �i < i - ` i' � ,�i"` �
_�_ `ti ' t(/ //�/�� � ^ ;
�� a4� , I ���✓��{.S+.l iY ` �J 8..
f � ✓��� `�" 5 " � :,�. 2 �0� =-
�,« � � �� �� � �
b;;�'- � s--'; C7% . �`'` , _ , 2� �.
z
..,
i:
�' ;...
�.� f � ,,: r�,T�y1 t '3 - — 2
—•.`' ' `�' `` —
( . �.a �}rl.,r x (�Ll . ��:�1 �-- + i\,� �Y .,,.R �F`� ��` i
� �R
'. � -. ' �? `' � �`��J ' „ � �',, � i � :, � �f -- �,
/ �-: .:�: {� '� i� � �7 � �
'�t r �fyi, ��a�tif, �<�u' hC7 �,N`� .l\(j�i� �V�` � � ;,� __�.
�H�,_ f_._ ( h i� ' t'.. �B �` . -� �4�Tt'� 5 y..
; �„�.��; :; �. �, ..E , 5 �.�_ _. �y
as •. ` �'- ; :�: � , � -. 2 � . _..•:.�,"t -, � ` ,
r � -��r-� � , � , ? ;
Z -;-�� ,f r' �,p�1 i4J' ..``iL! �J��� �/f � L\ :'� 3� u /'�i� B 7 f 3`
Y.e � t �F
'J� :�`,`{' t .7 f, �}s �. • � ` r ' ` �.`, I i /1 ' Vfy9 ' .
}��; ,- � , � � , _. R \1,� , 13� 123 `\\ -.� " .�" �
I' J `i�'��� J� , ( }�` i'��/' J �e,,`I1 �,t 1 �i � � ^ ' J
V
F ' i; , , ` 1... � 97 ��� ' c, � 5c� � r,:-�'`� >t : .r, i� :,r.� Zi z,r
�. t '' ,--�i ;,,� �h} �� � � � ��� 1 � --�'-'�" �'� a� Y-�"�� o �' ��. , � � ��_
, N � s ..
�,�rd ;:,
b , f/ :�.
� �i, i "��y ._----Y'` °, +hb t'�� �,12? , � �. . ` � �e' �3 1 %� _,
. t ,,� c3.Y �-.. � �-�n l5 . .. w :. �',��
,� � �,�VJ `; '' ^' � ��a I ^��� ' , i: > �d pn``�� �'D'�°-y !':�
� , ^ � _ C` � ,. , �; � �� , :`` � t� � _ q ,, ., ,,. � ; � ,
. S. r �1.''v q Lr
p • i .. � . , � ��;q-, �}i� ��� t�r ,. r:7' I �... .�..-1--,. I .-
9
� ' � r �
f� 7
i , 'I -' ', L
._ � �
�L.
� ." . �
\ , .f''. 3 `,.(
<, . � �
� ' � i��,
1 '�1;` I ;s^ r., ; ��� - �
.... ;::
W
�
��._
�
�
�
�`
a
�
�
�..
�
�
� _
7
/
� � e� scwn (•+�/4' 41 . 4 �%
CAM� LOCRlL[� Oy' J' 'u P� .. / e� �
J� /
W _-; /. �.r�/�
4. i 1
[w4C � ' s � � 8
> .s , f,.x t z '.. .,. A : G,�.' ,�;�i'
�, � ,��, ,
� . � o ( � �_� � •
z !�lg. ,` : :4
- �• ' ��, ' ":,
:.�r r � � p' Oc . , .,
� � � ,. .
�.
� � N vai .,� ) rg I �� '�K�
. � �`� �� '-.'�p '�,�f�T�iL f• � fN�'
' a . . NJl )�',��: j
Y ' ,� / I p�•� J �' y,,� i
i�"1Y it4l 'fiS.< .•' 1�� a�%.� t-?_ ��
�—� . . - . r � - . .
��
• '�6•?�P...,�.
�� . <.��,,�FT'
:, . �.'- r� 7 .�.
U ' �--A09T. �OUIS
'.6�� �"STEYENSONC
., t��, '° ELEM.�SCH:
O µ'.'�i ^ � r � .
�y�� �_
-J . A... h`r
�-� c _ (`; ,.� �-'
,�g� z ��
ISLANO ."' EST. 6
s��, T
� K[ <
� 0 ..
W�Aru��
¢`
,.K� r �� y�
t �
GN
�z I� �i�
�i!%2
il�
x %°
#��
IF �
�y
�f�� o
/'./fi � .
om�
A
assr�
e�
YO
■� ��
�I�
e
f' �:: .. ...
% s,� .
� 9F�JI
_ t,
� 4N" ^ -,� i` � .
° -; HO��AY���-
�__..
s j
, ��- '2�
� , �� ��:
�,?ao� s� �
��! � �I1��"l�
n -�t
. r+: . . .. ..:i
•R/G� ..2 4'R�,� � ;
�.,. ...,, .
*. •I£RRACE3 aifi.
�J I ,._,�e �� �
.� _::� ��=�
� . q , t --�--� � C.'
° _ � ��+.:
.� � aVi f'�"_'� ����
•��
� � r�1
J{ -� .
q�' 1ti�g8
��.�
4; I �t f. 1
.!" � [f ,y'
3adN� [ " i
��y��q� ��J��J
�n'^_ ..�.:
����'i �-:
�'�- !
�n��� 1�.�'.
f�_-3_:=t.i �,
;� r=:-, ;
�.
0
LOT 1 TOTAL '
! � 12,644.09
5Q. FOOTAGE •
TAK.EA1 F�R �R�MAINnER
HIGHWAY
3,556.75 9,087.34
2 6,335.82
' ,� r
�� 1 �
3 9,342.89
�� _• ,.. ,_ .
;
..` G .: r' fi- !' -+
1,72Q24
2 �46 4.48
7���1' ;f
�
SU�1/�Y �OR :
_____
��Q�� co��T�
4,6 tS.58
6,878.41
�.I� �� � �}
• \ � 1 . � J � � �
� 6Gd � C�
�? j�� _�l
�7+N
••. s
AT�ro� � � �
;
1 m:i.;,c ..;�ii�. ,'ac [n!+ �u:r�r5"� :i:o�, .
rr�'„r a:�; p,} ; r.r::9 l�y m� or u�d,�r my �3ir, ,
... . ,.� .... i �: , .. .. �i�.:lc lc•�:i> . �.
:,ec•.. . : „tri�. .... !.... vt tn.• . �+r�. .
_.t:; �:��. . n
' Gti �
. �
. -- ---------------_..
i>,.�,•_/%�e1T�.---u•,:..�,,. S7/S_
rJifl�
f` �
rv �
�-_,
Ac�c
:��2�
1�'�! '
l_UI Jt'L1 I Hr�LIV��� i„i�
CI1Y OF FRIDLEY . Z�
_Y ' �
APPLICAN`f• �`° - .. „�; - r --,,�'; s. —
,, . ._- . .
� � r'rZ �c7�%` 7 .
nvv�ESS: ' G ' l, - f I ; �- < < � ` _
Street City Zip Code
TELFPHONE �� � � / ` n�
Ifome I3usiness
PROPr.`�ZTY 047;dE'it� S� i in ^'i� i' �.< n/ �!' [= k' i' rsN x' '
anvxESS(�s
TELEPHONE #(S
£ %�i � J�/aN
Date Filed: �/a' �7?
Fee:$�Ll'�Receipt ��(ny4
Council Action:Date
RII�iARKS :
7
Street CitS Zip Code
xome .5,� _09b'(o
Property Location o.n Streei
or Facact Street Address (Ir^
o£
i
Business �y�_`���
�
�
Reason for Lo� Split: , , „
t
�- �i �
.1,�y The undersigned hereby declares that all the £acts and
� Ctl�t" representatio.n� stated in this application are true and
correct. � / /%
11ATF.: � � SIGNATURE �s� �s�
BELOW FOR CiTY I1SP ONLY (Se2 7ceverse side or a.ddi
BY STAFF
�
ca
instructions
Hemarks: Sewer & Water services available to Par
Parcel I sewer serv3ces would come out of Manhole in Arthur Street just south
�Of Parcg+�ING CONIMISSI(�Tateratis 5� Wes of1West n er ine.
Remarks•
� CITY COUNCIL: Date o£ Considexation -
Remsa: ks :
.2� �
� crrY nF �au�s.�Y.� SUBJECT; _
rtimrunre�ara I COMMISSION APPLICATION
REVI�W
� Uepar�mrntNivizi�lanning � � � �, .. „ �Number � �ev a99 AOyrwed by - � .Dafe
GCMPLETE qEV1EW CHECKLIST FlL6 NO/ AOOqE38
L.S #77-05
RETUani TO Pt�anintnu� � 1494 G.ardena Avenue N.F.
� ���� C�MMEN
5-12-77 '
c onTa . . . ,
5-19-77
5 i tv �Ao a-v�w-Qu.Pr�° �i �o�.fa, ,T�'f.pl' I
� . ���'�'i .
` .
P�..�.� _ .�.�.�.. .�.w„�:� �.�-�a� �-�...�.
4•� �� ���r� o-.�"v� in �f H- i4 nti�ww S-E � �...�' Ss ��a^^�.�
�: . wa�"an, ,..0 5' w� w-�'�' �. a/�/��
� ���'�''�' V��2.
�
�
��
�
��
�; �
.; �
�
/
�w ���i
�
.� i
ecSi:
V �, N u
C p N
-_ T ��
. • • � �C . u N q
� N ' � ' .o .
O M 9 4 f A� Ci N
NN N1
''ci . u� �
� C l V N y✓
o n u�LL y C
oa y..
a� �.' [ o ° t ' .
o c u ' •`c c`v �
�o°' - -ia'i
pVN N'y QpAY.
L u � N d l
LCY JNU 2GqS
N� O���C
a O y� p O C
�PC YZ v ,�
+ N 4
NSV' ~6t
� u ¢v
CD� �O� dY.�
C V u�4 �4
Nr�o Nc`� .°,.°-✓°
a« «m . v<';Y
��c� ��uYi CpbV
4 ~ CI �' h q
�pN �t NdNM
Y
YM4 40✓O - j ✓O
4?O �4NO2 �
d4Y oD �
� G L � Y C f�.l Z V C
C Z�£N F) LOy,i
Y�p L i w �L �J
W NNL J ����� C'
nI LT�w�
d fYY Q 1-'9O6 �' ¢
ov vd�
__ ��. .
,� � t�
r � Z
I� �� �
r
� `
' � �`4 � 3 yi S
�,..�� �' I
_. __�`� _ i.'.
\�'�.,, I �.
� n9z
z�
Y� ��1� . I
�.1 �C
- ' 3 O
` •�' .r �'
�9
�
• -1J A� �
;� �
`�, \i
rl
p �
^1 � .
� � �
�
� i �1
� Q
�
_..._. __------_._
. - a.:>
' _ . "___._.._._._._.__.'_
. . ._ _ ...�rn- .
-� � �� _ ���_ 1-. -�- -.
t
.., - --
I . / i.Z�'.'S•
'� /o .
,.t a� / •,•'
.�
,• / �
._.. _.....�.. .l _{___ i:.J'..,_.....
�
.Y,�,�i.i.Y,•'/ " •.
Q
�
G
1 '�
h
ti
Q�
N �
S
� C
V
`o ;,.
.� �
� `�
s ��
� �
1
na4 � t� ,+q
, \ �'�
t3'� .. .
, , •'"
+3:
, . - 'h i.0
'--T _=<
: y���r'°�y�`h�� � � p51 .17 y'' ,•
,� � b � ,. •.
'oN. ��
I , ' ;•E;,� ��,� 6�Y - � i ' ' L,:
t. ,�1 �, ,��i �541 �ti�� ` � ` �
, . ,�`` `� `5 `
;' �__�-- `
,' - - - ; ,.
_-_+'( If:i°� � , . .. r1/l:��i� . � (� .
� �� f"� 1 . . � � . ..."" .,.�. '• � . .
✓,� i {�
_I I i i5� .. �
' iSa`� i5�� `` �titi .i, T toK�_ : < M ���
� . i�-i ` `''. �;p} jSGg I �oip ` _• ��i( ' '
� �, �. �� � --- f � ` �o�, . -
���- : , r- �) � �
, C\ � .(^.'!J/ /.i�;f-.JV�1�i,1 .'���� a4:s .i��rir�,r�
�y . i �. (I�� 1)/ i . ��!y0
�� ' z('�� � F�� �i ..r� I I�i) h'IQfT`��,� �� 5j:''.
�•��ii•�� i�,li i5?l ��Tt�? �.:1_L r5`i_-' S�` , I_
. - .. '1 .. _. �f . �-. . ..T.� r� i i � 't _ . - �-y � � -r- -- -, ..... .
" �� � �' "__.-- , __ -� .' ", � i I
j' ��� '��"5�65� , �5�0 ,�ro � �5q� � ' � � '�- . �
�t . ,
---- � �tf j EiA P,l ±i %� �%��'�/� J �_Sc�R'1 �
:>:c��, j , __.tta_-1� a "� ..° ,r� A ' ,. /:� C -.
I r i
f'u � � i ` 1.,� • ,� .zo �t ��_;�?t,�iF!r�4i � ,.
�t�F�C�1 �. C�v` ? I' l �+ .
., � 1; h �e[�[jt Tl �il' � � �y�S�� �;n ; .
� �. _ . 1 i i f • n. s a£ ( � `'M. r+,l.: • ,
'`��ti�, 1 4``��g� �.�.➢, �-,�, 5-' � L----- ._._
.:_,_ .
i , .� y'� y:l.
� ,� • �7 ,�. � � ,�:; �.i, .
♦�<r I �A�� r ,i< <S I •
� �.'� ' r �; SR�y � 5_' , ��.j �'� : -� �.. , ,
; ��7'�f'Y' ° �, , � A �,� �. s�� <:� ; �
i,�� i ° � :., � ;� ' ;'7 �� . �� .a:
�i` 1ry._ ���/ , � � =`� -�-4'} c� ?�
�� 1 l.�iR f"°'' t u>p � -� e � �y . . ' .
C . si /.Yo..y, bol �. ��; �` 'V i_J.� S r- �
�� . ,"i`_ I� -.. � r \f4 r�3 .,�
:. 1 � / di ( %� �j
�;z357 (z 5) .i .t„s> � �,o�, �._7. , tp i5�5 ��5!�� 1 �5� 15� � : J16o� �r . �; ,
� c
> �� � , /;{�(�
'({,%�a�b; ..enns, q,�.� ano�"-%s�n L � - -. , ° "'�i�ifitJ�t(t.�a ` -�.�/��F.... '_ -...
� I aa`' ��' � Y }.bW, ,` �a�h ��.�f�y°' �53�.s 5��� - �g i`, ;' �. 1b�,p 1�Za ' �G �,;,
5 ��q�7,� ,� � �So� 1 '���b ,�' � `�.��.°� . � :`'
' .. .-. . . C � 1 (�{ 1 3 ^ .
tS-..= _ � . . _�.w�r 4� lI P .' 2 � 1`�. 'Jy � �•1 . Y.�f ,i
. .. ._.... � is� �RI� . ��`... . ♦ a.� r _ .
l. "� i, �
l 5 29 `__- 3; V�32 t�'(�' -�., �
, �'�, .
, 5$� ,;3�. � Q a'- - _�
� , � ., - P� �� `c---_
� �-��s . �:. a _,.r - x ,
�. .x� .� .wn..Y_
.`
r�J.J . -• '�'
� w `` i
�... _. . . . . _ _ ' - r
• �� t.
F'= �ie¢�! ` ._ i , %.�e.�:
e;,, (E� ` ���
� 5�3� , •
� ' �.
..: c� ,
. .•
. _:-•�. %
` Z . ; ,
cJ • ,
• .. _•— __ _ � - - --- .. .
< < • • - -� ---; r -
, � ; r.. � �
'~ .�• I \��• �
4: , • -'-� �� �zr,�• :
� ' .- �.. '46 .. � 47��i1
�. ... . . ' 4 l
0
�
CITY OF PRIDLCY MINNCSO'I'A
� PLANNING AND ZONING FORM
NUDtne�"�s .
� nrrLicnr�r�s sicNn�vae�o9 .�i�,�,
hddress �!,/.�/ ��..�..,r,0.,,?`.v !�li�-� 7i �
---�
Telephone Number �}`'%/- ��J �
PROPERTY 014NL'F'S SIGNATURE��2� �ay
V.Q�rv-�-- � -�'-
Address
Telephone Number
Street Location of Property � �
' ��
r�r�e or aequesT
Rezoning
Spccial Use Pcrmit
APproval of Premin-
inary f, final Plat
_�_ Streets or Allcy
Vacat-ions
Other
Fe v� Receipt No.
Legal Uescription of Property�Q�,Q��Lc /id! ,�i:,�-�"-!� q 6Llt.v
r�—�—�
Present Zoning Classification��Existing Use o£ Property
Acreage of Property
Describe Uriefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed
! Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or Part of it? yes�_no.
it'hat was requested and when? '
�
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and otianers of property
teithin 300 feet (350 feet for rezo»ing) must be attached to this application.
(b) Tftis application must be signed by all oivners of tlic property, ar an e�plaiiation
given �,�hy this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from thc £ailure to list the names and addresscs of all reside�rts and
property o�anexs of property in question, belongs to thc imdersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dras,�i and attached, showing the
follo�aing: 1. North �irection. 2. Location of proposed structure on tlie lot.
3. llimensions of property, propo�ed structurc, and front and side setbacks.
' 4. Street Names. 5. LoCation and use of adjacent existing buildings (within S00 feet).
17ie unclersigned'hercUy declares that all the facts and representations stated in this
upplication arc truc nnd corrcct.
.
pATG� ��,/ J%% SIGNATURE "' ;;v :,.2�����^�! ��
�d � „ �
�- (AYI'LTCAN7') �,r'' ��
Datc Filed Datc of Ilcaring /�C.. �.v O���j � � �
Plunning Commission A��proved City Council Approved
(dates) Denicd (dates) Dcnicd
,
.e••4._
^ � /6 ��'+''i � ` u y � � I�.! �' .' �! r \
.. ' ^ '�'!1' ry �_c79fu .i.n.� Q . ♦ 1 .. : 1 .. �
_I .� L :,I
� .. .J•1I• � O Y ..__ I��Hj�' _ � I .W "I.I�J _. .
, ° �s; �A NDC � "' ,
; , o o, � -
� � i ..,: - � � /.� ti I s� �I .2snJ °
, -- 9Y�P � �iir � )� i r. it � ,
� �. ni i ; �c � 3 ,� ._ _. ,-••�• -- - �� _ �� .
��y ///��� �'' y '� � " � , i —1 , ' . , ^ . y.. ,.
.. � \ I��� l' ` ��/'l W f `1_ I nn C � i�l l',� .
er IF,: �' , n„ / 7� � � il,.� `( '`A" �Q a�, i. �t.
` � '
,••_. r ^�� `_Tl'i • :9. : � - .. �j �y.i` I �q�,�✓� f;�, v o, �
} s � � � �J,f .� ,.JVi� '.w-\ : + g.. c.
? � �i4 i 3 N� c Y n r ;�a �C i n , � p� �� i � .31�(['_. . ° ,
� .� .`— � � �!`� �3. � �i/✓S� �lSC/ Q ..:iir + /� � _� e � e �J �'I � '
„ __—._. 2 �o— _ ;1^-� ,� - ;,af J: .> l �?%°aJ �. �i�"F '3 m t
� y . lF T
1 � �� y� ry iwr� -s''r.<.v ji, r.l xt� .pn`•] e�. t>' ,f .:Zi .
f1�)oo~ ' h ::Xfbi `Z� (� V h; ^ ,,l� ; C — � . \ C'/!�:• � ��3]O) :�9t9
! - /1:[. A � � ��9��� �� , � .
• .�A., 3ai;=° +� � � ° Ik ' `�1_' :. �vz ' .4.� .i36u} 9 ��,sol ��
lf � I
�� 29 .CO :f- o� t 66 � o ' < � �. ( ,
.m • • ' a .�� zs�t5 •• �' �r I ., vzn �° .
. _ "' -: �' _". ^ ,. ... : .
�yj 'i3�'.____�_'f-�! ' T:Ji _ _ - " J<P67�-' _ „� '
;�d .:.._ AVE.- –�:--�-�—<��E--- °+°c.,
� .- .
, i �--1 � " .' '
. � I R � .. I r.. a.. a..-. , � :l � :6 � r
. . . (BO) (3D1 .� � '"rYrSP So ,_`.. � 7� �..,,��
IMarfiR ��.� c, p� > °� �,,; °�c rJ'�
. . _. {HMn/er � p ^ i 2 � 3 F � � � � 2 ,3 �
r (ss) `�i�a �isJ� m� --� ssz� sa ss °'
(R � �s.,n.-o.r/JUS9 p) e �-.r.31 y
I �� 'a �/
^ ` �e1d '�^m Y � r. e /Y' .tm a !%� c
. .�.:�1. a � _ �oe'... f �� "• ' O
ry �¢� N; ; 1ao1 /3 y ��,y o , .��� �
.. `.� y�_� T % �� .s s �'b c ,� <'+ /3 X* ��� �
- �v os�i �i iro iio �ro- � ."�--L�JB r � �'�'.,aa.7 m
q /3l E � �
1 w /I����! � � d � � � .a
a
1 �i� (90,� ✓-C"'Y_� 1 � � �:� ���..Sa 6 0 '.
� 9 / B_ � b
. � ,�� e + � � y, 3, _
`i. \ �� ] ��'. o `�y� `� � m � i � `� t.
., � o< , rizo
�,i., � i ° 'y "i ° � Ci ` � '�'e o 4
� I 5 4 :� _�_.—�.�s � r b. � m; --
' .1 �` .4/YJi4f� I �� � 3 i ..z/B �': 3. w-� �/37 . ..
� a; Z ° A/�z'v4re9 � I ,, i"W ti � + ,� 94 de 4 i 9J i s_
^ > /G a, 9 :� B
. , . (aso) � s v -� i<' �; 9 t1 B _" �::
. iM 8.. > oe ,'�Y I � *.L ati�,'�q I I
.,.. •o , 52f '.:
.• � ° � -/ I -' S° '�P � e . 33 r�'
n: oo :.c ..s?
� �� : '
. ..-... .... . �_-r ' j$ � ....
- cF'� j 1'L'_
� . � ��O . 11.✓i 11 � JJ psf y �£ � h T . gf � �a --..i�: .a .; P' i
T ��
� `4, �y 2+ [.rc��� 'ro ' '.f t- , .
.�/ ;lc 'j'°c93 e` ¢ a —�'; / M:' ^ :
`� ) (' ro ,�. � ,`� .
. .�. \ LQ,/ I/ / � /� c �� o e (��� .� �� / �, 2 o e �So� 5�
r asa+ � , , '" � `'E ��.Q'�� "' ri�o.< t " �. � � 1 $
� i rn.> >s ��` �� � �i � i
: 28�, <�p��< ��;. 5 �'y22:, AU ��,.��, _
. 8.
- .
,,.
. , 9 � a�J)J/�/ .ver-so°_, r t .r;vo�E ' ' � (sz¢i .
� �� � �• Y N � 6' � � , � I . �� � .M1'Yi .____.._.
� ..x �.� . j : ✓..c�ruf : 3/ _ -�----- - .
�{Y F fa , J ,. �', q y �� "� (3Bo% -i
` ^ a
♦ r. < i ..�a + . � .
♦ �
'.�1!/� za:J h �. �' ; - ` t
` � 73 i/2 � , ;• . 4 0 ,: ,
i ti Y ;,�'�� 6� SU80.
i •'• ,.,, ,,. 6s .. � .�•« , ,
1 ^ ti Z �.� I: 4 � Y rmN(� .: PJ 1 (.,Vl
, ��,w„� � � ' � 9
�'<%dBOJ i � / � �� s: 'p' danntoi ; � t
_7,' 2� o ���r., „ ? <�c�� ' ��,, L��. �:
i f ir � ,e . r � ' \ ;, :.,,
� �
3 , 31 � ,. , S, :Fj�� I ,Fs��
:B : T, s s:r r'�A lo ! 11
, . � �1 1 p
f ' '��- --- - Z 0. �L✓ ;(r<.>I �; �V�.fOV
---- ---
._ .. �, �, , . if
� . . �.1. ; . .'.. � " . . . . . .. ..__ .. .
- --=�AVE. ��Jli .v. C'rltt-dl.� . __ _ _ � � + _ _ . �
- � . L - _'.. .. . _ . _ ..' _" . . � . . e . _ _ C '
. , E//�st CORNER
� S£C. /2
� CiTY OF FRIflLEY,� SUBJECT� '
MINiVE9�TA I COMMISSION AP6�LiCQT10N
� REV{EW
�. :,�_
L4LY
f,UBJc:Ci'
�/ C17Y O� Fi7t�l.GY,I i
't� MIIVNF.3t7TA C�3t\f:i1�'s;55',l�3'�.! t'�t��LE��'i"IOiV
I , R�'tPB's=W
lepertment/Ua�sion, '��"r'�' . �
— _ ' . . . . . . .. „ �iJUmb�r � �tlav f YuU? Apprmcd 6y
i
� FIL6 NO/ AOOUES3 FfLE pAYE .
CON1F-iLETE RSVIEW CF�ECKL,157 / i � � ����
FlETL1FiN TO Pi.RtVNtiiFG '� ��`�Xl, 1 OUB OATC+ ..
--- - . �cc,z.�/,.�/�.,/- /u'�d.�%,i.O /2�,-.�✓ �
�.�.r.y! sp;z+.� e � nf,r �?`:r�. {.�
��vs.i� !d i:��✓�
�;;` 4e�:�i4aT%Y tA�
,
jN n
.l']!as�9:i.�
- ��i�,.�.::Jki'�
�?r�°+
��t�s
✓�� �� �
il � �. �y: C t,
RpOtT� oN� �
:�'irg\lJ ('
Lu'7S_ �
pata
�fZilU<�fC'ti JHOUW �1C;:.'•'Jtk�„i .
I..H-�D 'j� 'T 10 E l.�012.'S� i 0
�On.r C0� J�C.v;�U�K.w 5''=ECi o
I�{' A�otd�Jif� C-�Au4 WOota •
GIVi'. �Fi(��, �Wil r.11TriS 7�}rL IC�QJ��'r�Y�Y3
�''j Q0O � J
CZi 'TWr� VRCS�-�iu.+
L �1`L, �.+9 2 C.��
k��vL� lJc� n�a�t,r ��'; r
�NDu4�k ru.. �j O:�c:�� rS"f,.3
C(.�.� T�lr� fZxr+c.h 4c:�'"5`r3 �1UUll� ��}t:.a �aeu�. /a- ��ncnr Cu.u� � �
CJ G c.r�a- � t� �� �. � Jk 1ii e.0 �-+
�tK1fs-
� Sae. aa"=.,.ce.�%er� �E'r.C�t�t+ �.,� �.e ��,.�� .�� '�at.:� %S o-�.a. ��.t��/°
,{ / �7 /, l �+ ,/
/1�c./...�.au�,...:.. .f..� n..i/_�� _ _tn� /�in_ l� A-�-�"C�'� .%l.ca.w%-Lc.s .�%.:�e•.
��r(� / r ) � �J �
lC� G� b1�LaLc.G�O � � `� (�.�.�-e'-E�l G�^�" •� �t.�..K
t,f N�-4'�� G� �
l� ��� � � � ��¢��� �� /� �.YG
�..-r-i-E� v�+'��- 'd°'�'- � O
OZ , Cc/ �¢.��..-tis.ca a�s.� f¢-u� dv-ui o..�.�wu S S 5 S c.0 �`i L! ow Y' ��¢
��s�+:u. � a. �w�u.nG Pu�� ..�r� j�/l'.� � 5 �7�7t �j.��
..��?/,{� J/J��,j /j/ �y;,,//,' /���f1� �%� ��, %�
C61i.���L-�%U�+! �DCL' •�'� . �'U��^�'^-�' %� ��+�'IL%'u-cct N'C. �4�-ta��-C.L{; . `�'i'
V'".�f� �t-/�(1 ��� �% /�%
���'�1/�tl''�-• (�L11�(A���i11�.�-���� �.i1:�r����il/��j%.�/�7Lr�(�2�c�-/�"� �`✓
d�;-� ,���.�,ti};;.a,�`,(�.-� ��y�rC.i�li�'1���/-��f��'�'�''�-�'��,1�Xf,�"{ �//+��/%', i
/`
_L}� � 1���. �a�o..� 5-20-71 . i-iC t�S�t 0.`iy� �o Tc,��a� V�
e'�a.�:�:'.-�:�.�,9- 1�.� ¢u,��.e��o..,a.,
�
3�
FRIDL�Y ENVIRONMENTAL COI4tI5SI�N
MGETING
t�fAY 17, 1977
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Langenfeld, Bruce Peterson, Lee Ann Sporre, Mike Paripovich
MEMBERS AI3SENT: Connie Metcalf
OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Leek, Planning Aide
,7an Seeger, Parks & Recreation Commissioner
0
CALL TO ORDER°
Chairperson Langenfeld calLed the meeting to order at 7;43 p.m.
APPROVE APRIL 19, 1977, FRIDLEY ENVIRONMLNTAL CONMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to approve the April 19, 1977,
gridley Snvironmental C�ission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
REVIE�d PROPOSED PARKS AND OPEN SPe�CE PLAN:
MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to receive the "Parks and OPen
gpace Plan". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Leek stated that this was a draft copy which he, along with a couple of other people,
had been working on for about a year. He said the format was fairly self-e�planatory.
He wanted to mention that there caere components missing and these were so noted on the
blank pages, and some mapping could not be reduced down. i�en all the Commissions got
down to fosmally reviecaing the plan, Staff would be there with the laxge scale maps
for further information. He advised that the Commission table this until the next
meeting or a special meeting so the Coamiission members could go over it in more detail.
Ia addition, there would be other material in the mail that week. He said they caere
probably looking at a deadline to City Council of late June or July.
Ms. Sporre asked what the purpose of this plan was and how would it be used2
Mr. Leek seated that it would be used essentially as a policy guideline for the city
in developing its park system and, secondarily, its recreation system. In other words,
it would provide direction by which to decide what lands to acquire, what lands are
not useful £or the City's Parks and Open Space System, and provide guidelines as to how
those spaces should be developed on the basis of the classifications Chat have been
developed for them.
�� .
I'RIDLL'Y L'NVIRONMEN'fA7. COMMTSSION MEETING MAY 17, 1977 PAGE 2
Ms. SPorre asked how this implemented the policy guidelines of the referendum in Fridley,
referrin� Co North Park.
Mr. Leek stated L'hat a policy guideline was not an implementaL'ion. The plan was
essentially a statement of what the communit'y's goals were with regard to a particular
area and a set of oUjectives and policies directed towards those aims, but was not, in
itself, an implementation program.
Ms. Sporre stated she liked plans that were implementa6le so that everyone got [he
same meaning as to what was going to be done. She said she did noe find that in this
plan. She understood what they were going to do with the neighborhood parks, but there
was a category Y.hat was North Park and any dialogue discussing the City's responsibilities
and their commitments to this park were void.
Mr. Leek stated the plan did not talk about North Park. It talked about a general
policy issue of natural open space, not of developing specific parks by name. In other
words, they had held of£ making decisions in some cases about whether or not a specific
component that was existing now was a valuable component for the total system as it
could be envisioned 10, 15, 20 years in the f uture. Instead, they had attempted to set
up some criteria by which to judge those areas as they arose in the implementation program.
Ms. Sporre referred to the "Parks and Open Space Plan" under "Policy & Reco�endation",
Objective 4, Item 5, under "$ecoaunendations" (page 23): "Develop a natural history
study program for use by schools and civic groups describing the ecology of natural
history areas in the City of' Fridley." She said th±s s�atement was very evasive. Zt �
did not in any way tell the policy guidelines in developing the parks. If that related
to the area called North Park, then that should be put in the definition of the regional
parks, but it was not.
Nis. Sporre referred to the chart in the "Parks and Open Space Plan" which listed the
categories of parks for the City of Fridley (page 26). She advised the Commission
members, as they go through the plan, to notice the total omission of that kiiid of
statement as referred to on page 23 regarding -<egional parks. She telt this would
help the members review the plan. Ske said it was the biggest void she had found in
the "Parks and Open Space Plan".
Mr. Paripovich stated that one of the Co�iission's big objectives should really be
looking for the omissions. They could hardly deal in planning for the neighborhood
parks; but he felt it was the responsibiliCy of the Commission to ensure some environ-
mental protection, at least in the North Park area,
Mr, Langenfeld stated that, in reviewing the plan, i£ the members felt there was any-
thing of environmental concern, they should bring iC up. He also suggested that the
members review the Commission`s goals azzd objectives in addition to the plan.
Ms. Sporre stated she felt it would be important for the Commission members to also
review the Parks & Recreation Commission's Goals & Objectives.
MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to acquire the Goals and Objectives
as approved by L-he Parlcs & Recreation Commission. Upon a voice vote, all votiizg aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
3�
PRIDLF.Y ENVIRONMENTAL CO2�1MISSION MGETING MAY 17, 1977 PAGH 3
Ms. Sporre asked Mr. Leek if they focused on other �areas or facilities in Fridley
whicti were not Fridley parks, but serviced a special kind of recreational use.
Mr. Leek stated that the Plan made mention of the need for eying in with those kinds
ot things, but it did not delve into the analysis of them.
Ms. Sporre stated there was nothing that really talked about the river--a riverview
marina, for instance.
Mr. Leek stated that the "CriCical Areas Flan" which he had mentioned at previous
meetings was something that the City would have to accomplish before the end of next
year, and they would probably be working on it for the next six months. The information
that was required for that with regar.d to river recreation potential was quite elaborate,
specific, and detailed. He invited the Commission members to come at any time and look
at the work program and the required tasks £or its completion. The fact of having to
do that document was the reason why they would not see references to, particularly,
river recreation or things i¢miediately adjacent to the river up to, and including �
East River Road. A11 of the parks within that area were within the rivex corxidor
area, but not all of them would be considered as having river recreation potential,
Islands of Peace, Mahnomen Park, and probably Riverview Heights, would be. Ed Wilmes,
the Cot lot facilities and/or neighborhood parks which were primarily in Neighborhood ,'kl
were not dealt with in the "Critical Areas P1an;' but were addressed in the "Parks and
Open Space plan".
Ms. Sporre stated she felt Locke Parlc should be considered a regional park rather than
a community park as i*_ serviced more than just the Fridley area.
Mr. Leek referred to the description of a"Community Park" under "policies and Reccam�en-
daCions", "Recommendations", Item 1-D: "C�uniCy Park; An area of natural or
ornamental quality for passive outdoor recreation and some field or court games. A
community park should cousist of 25 to 50 acres and Ue placed in proximity to other
community facilities and be caithin easy reach of all residents of the community."
ge said this did not preclude the fact that some of those areas were used by outside
groups. He said there was a lot of discussion as to how Locke Park should he classified.
Since the City was likely to maintain ownersizip and maintain its integrity, it had been
decided that yocke Park be refetred to as a"Communitg Park".
Ms. Sporre stated it was inconsistent that, because the City retained ownership of
yocke park that it should Ue a c wwiunity park when North Park was a regional park and
was also owned by the City.
Ms. Sporre stated that if Locke Park was called something more than a community park,
it might be eligible for some kind of funding. If one day there was a Metropolitan
park System, if Locke Park had not even been identified as serving a regional base, .
then it caould not be eligible undex a11 the metro guidelines.
Mr. Leek stated he could not foresee any real problem in the fact that Locke Park was
not defined as a regional facility. If at the end, City Council concurred with this
classification as a municipal-caide facility, this would be fine because it provided
a parCicular orientation. At the same time, it probably would not inhibit fundi�,n;
because even though the plan said it was a municipal facility, Metro-Co�cil said it
was a portion of the regional system; therefore it cuould be eligible for available
funding,
; ?.� .
PRTDLPY ENVIR0I�TMENTAL COMMISSION MEETTNG PtAY 17, 1977 PAGE 4
Ms. Sporre stat-ed she sti11 felt they would be coming out ahead for funding, etc.,
by recognizing Locke Park as a regional park.
Ms. Sporre stated that one thing the Co�ission might want to address was: How do
the use facts apply to the chart (pa�e 26). If Locke Park was truly being used as a
regional park, it should be listed that way.
Mr. Faripovich stated he thought if liast River Roaa was now being tied into the
Mississippi Corridor, it would make common sense to put a bikecaay on East River Raad;
and it should be reconsiaered.
Mr. Leek stated the Critical Areas document would not address the East River Road at
a12--on1y using East River Road as a demarcation paint. They were not concerned with
it other than as a point of vehicular access. He was not sure what would happen with
the bikeway system.
0
Mr. Paripovich stated that the children ride on East River Road anyway; a bikeway
system should be established to protect them.
MOT20N by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to table the "Parks and Open
Space Plan" item until the next meeting or a specially designated meeting. Upon a
voice vote, alI voting aye,the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. �;eek stated he would check to see when the City Council deadline was and let
Mr. �,angenfeld know if a special meeting would need to be called to review the "Parks
and OPen Space Plan".
EAST RIVER ROAD PROJECT COMMITTEE RSPORT:
Mr, paripovich stated tfiat on the question of the 7-11 Store which came up at the last
Commission meeting, he had talked to some people on the Project Committee and discussed
whether they shouZd or stzould not do a study on the signalization (as requested by the
Commission) since the Project Committee had done so much along the same lines before.
In the report they had submitted to the Planning Commission, they had addressed that
the intersection at 79th was dangerous and needed a stoplight. The Project Committee
did spend a lot of time discussing this with the County and doing safety research, etc.
What they found out was that the County Commissioner, Mike 0'Bannon, said he had
investigated this and he knew that the City had set aside funds to put a stoplight in,
but the County could not do it because the intersection did not meet warrants. In
other words, wheu the County ran a test to take a count of the amount of traffic passing
through that intersection, there was not enough traffic to warrant a stoplight.
�:. Paripovich stated the problem that existed was that there �vere a nuYnber of inter-
sections, many little side streets, with approximately the same number of cars coming
off all of those different outlets, so there was not a focusing of t6e traffic into
that particular intersection. The obvious thin� was that if the stoplight was put in,
all the traffic would go onto that intersection and there would be safe access on to
gast River Road. The Project Committee went over this with the County, got absolutely
nowhere, came back to the City Council who rehaslted it again, said they had asked for
the stoplight, had set aside funds, reminded the.County, and had gotten nowhere.
��
ggIDLLY L�NVIRONMENTAL C0:•4�1ISSION MGETING MAY 17, 1977 PAGE 5
�, parigovich stated that, at this poinE, the County was being very unreasonable about
the lights, and iC was very dif£icult to define the lack of safety features on thaL-
intersection because of the diffused traffic among the many little intersections. This
was a situation where the County had intentionally ignored the City's request for
approximately four years; and in view of all that, the Pro}ect Committee did not feel
it was worthwhile to do the study.
Mr. Paripovich stated that the Project Committee had also suggested lights at 79th and
132 as being the two primary candidates and one somewhere just north of Mississippi
and one just south of Mississippi. They had specified Chese intersections, but none
as critical as 79th. As far as putting in a business establishment and increasing the
amount of traffic that was already dangerous, they did not feel it was necessary to
dignify that subject with any more effort. Obviously, Che County did not want a stop-
light because stoplights interfere with traffic f1ow--the County was automobile-oriented
and did not care about the neighborhoods in Fridley or Fridley itself, although Fridley
did contribute 1/3 of i•ts revenue to the County. He said it was definitely something
that should he looked into; he was surprised more citizens had not been irritated about
it.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he wanted to poinC out that Planning Commission had quite a
discussion as to �.anether Community Development Commission should get involved in this
study, and they had refused to take it. He had told the Goc�unity Development Commission
that they were involved with East River Road and they, too, were interest grovps.
After more discussion, the Community Development Commission had decided they wanted
nothing to do with the East River P.oad study as recommended to the Project Committee.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he had made the statement that the Environmental Co�ission should
never be called a special interest group.again, and he caould never refer to the East
River Road Project Committee as a special interest group again. Mr. Langenfeld stated
he felt another commission, such as Community Development Goaunission, should beccae
involved because their viewpoints might be a bit different and their information would
be important for the Project Committee.
The Commission members agreed that they were pleased that the Community Development
Commission had concurred with the Environmental Commission's position regarding the
East River Road Project Committee.
Mr. Paripovich stated that at the last Project Coumiittee meeting, their primary purpose
was to get someone else to perform the function of chairpexson that he had per£ormed
for the past year. At this point, it had not been decided. The Project Committee was
concerned that it might somehow break away from the Fridley Environmental Commission,
and Mr. Patipovich stated he thought it was very important to maintain this relationship.
He had suggested ae that Project Committee meeting that Mr. Langenfeld take over that
position, and Mr. Langenfeld had stated he did not know if that would be permissible as
it might be a conflict of interests. Mr. Paripovich stated he felt it was very importanC
that someone familiar with the Project Co�ittee take it.up so it did not lose steam. He
said if people had any sense of civic responsibility, any feeling for the people who
lived in that area, or any sense of saving something that was potentially valuable from
destruction, they had to get interested in this thing. He said he did not understand
the "special interest group" reference and referred to Goal 4fl.a. of the Fridley
Enviroiunental Commission`s goals and objectives;
_`:i
���
PRIDL�Y �NVIRONM6NTAL COMMISSION MEETING MAY 17, 1977 PAGE 6
"Assure for all people in the City of Fridley a saie, healthful, productive,
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrounding."
Mr. Paripovich stated traffic could move through Fridley at 30-35 m.p.h: without
placing a great inconvenience on any segmene of the County, and at the same time they
could improve the aesthetics of this part of Fridley. He had talked to Mike Robinson,
the State's Trafiic Engineer ior the GoZden Va11ey District, and �. Robinson was going
to be meeting with the Project Committee. The purpose of this meeCing would be to get
him into a confrontation with Mike 0'Bann�n, A1 Kordiak, Ed Fitzpatrick, and some others.
1'he reason for getting this group together was that Mr. Robinson was the engineer in
charge of conducting the speed limit study on East River Road right now, and he was
interested in finding out what the people had to say. If people spoke up now,
rtr. Paripovich thought they could do some good.
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would hate to see the East River Road project Committee
fold. Iie stated he did feel it was a conflict of interest for him to chair the Project
Committee, but he asked Mr. Leek to check into that possibility.
Ms. Sporre stated she would be willing to meet with the project Committee about getting
a member of that group to chair the Committee. Since it was more important to work
within the system than without the system, it would be an opportunity for the Project
Committee to minimize the amount of effort and m�imize the amount of work accomplished
by having that chairperson aLso be a member of the Commission.
MODEL ORDINe�NCES:
Mr. Leek stated tha* the Coumiission had asked him at the April meeting to obtain a copy
of the March 1977 Metro Council Piodel Ordinances for use by the Commission. He had
obtained a copy and gave it to the Commission [o receive and do with it as they wanted.
MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to receive the "Environmental
Protection: Mode1 Ordinances for Use by Local Governments, March I977". Upon a voice
vote, a11 voting aye, the mation carried unanimously.
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to receive the letter from
jerry Boardman dated May 5, 1477, regarding "Election o£ Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson."
Upon a voice vote, all voting aqe, the motion carried unanimousiy.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that if a member of the Commission coald not come to the meetings
and be a participating member, then he should xiot be a member.
MOTION by Mike Paripovich, seconded by'Lee Alln SPorre, to renominate James Langenfeld
for Chairperson. After calling for more nominations, Mr. Langenfeld declared the
nominations closed. Upon a voice vote, a11 yoting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
��
PRIDLEY ENVIRONMGNTAL COMMTSSION MEETING MAY 17, 1977 PAGE 7
Mr. Langenfeld stated Lhat Ms. Metcalf had talked to him and voiced her concurrence
for hi.m.as chairperson. She would, if appointecl, serve as vice-chairperson; but,
because of her newness to the Commission, did not make any nominaCions.
MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to renominate Bruce Peterson as
Vice-Chairperson.
MOTION by Bruce Peterson to nominate Connie pfetcalf as Vice-Chairperson. The motion
died for lack ot a second.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, SPORRE, PARIPOVICH, LANGENFELD, VOTING AYE, PETERSON, ABSTAINING,
THE MOTION TO NO:iII�ATE BRUCE P�TERSON FOR ViCE-CHAIRPERSON CARRIEDe
Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like Mr. Peterson to sit in on more Planning Commission
meetings to become more involved and to gain more experience.
OTHER BUSINE5S:
A• Goals & Objectives and Program gudget 1976
MOTION by gruce Peterson, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to receive the Fridley Environ-
mental Commission's Goals & Objectives and the Program Budget for 1976. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
pfr. Langenfeld stated that discussion on the budget would be tabled until ar.other time
as the "parks and Open Space Plan" was more important.
B. Noise Pollution Mode1 Ordinance
Mr. Langenfeld stated that Ms. Sporre had given him a folder of information on noise
pollution, a lot of which he coould like copied for the members. Some important ones
were entitled, "Sound and Noise", "U.S• Federal Noise Control Act" (Oct. 27, 1972),
"Model Community Noise Control", in which the Commission would basically be involved,
and the "Minnesota State Regulations for Noise Pollution and Controi 1974".
Mr, �,angenfeld stated ehis material definitely had potential. He would like to see
the Commission get going on a model ordinance regarding noise pollution in the City
of Fridley.
Ms. Sporre stated that Che Minnesota Pollution Control Noise Abatement Division had a
slide show and presentation which were excellent.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that the Commission should try to have this presentation and slide
show at the Commission's July meeting and then go into the ordinance at that meeting.
Ms. Sporre agreed to make the arrangements for the slide show and presentation and
Mr. Leek agreed to publicize this in ti�e Sun Newspaper as the public and other commissions
were caelcome.
AATOURRTtENT:
MOTION by Lee qnn Sporre, seconded by gruce Peterson, Co adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
�' l'tE, F-
Lynne� Saba '
Recording Secretary
\ J
� � 43
YARKS & RECREATIQN COiR+iIS5I0N
MEETING
MAY 23, 1977
N�SBBRS PRESENT: Bob Peterson, Robin Suhrbier, Jan Seeger, Leonard Moore,
getty Ann Mech
I9�]BERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Boudreau, parks � Recreation Director
Jack Kirk, Program Director
Jerr7c Boardman, City Planner
Lee Ann Sporre, Fridley Environmental Co�ission member
$ay Leek, Planning qide
Marilyn Illitschko, 580 Ironton St. N.E. - Neighborhood 1
Karen gudnick, 601 Ironton S[. N.E. - Ne3ghborhood 1 Chairperson
Ronald E. Steckman, 78 Rice Creek Way - Neighborhood 3
Larry Hamer, 41 Rice Creek Way - Neighborhood 3
Rathy Divine - Neighborhood 13 C1�airperson
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Peterson called the meeting �to order at 7:32 p.m.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 25, 1977, PARKS S� RECBEATION COMMI$SION MINVtES:
MOTION by Leonard Moore, seconded by Robin Suhrbier, to approve the minutes of the
ppril 25, 1977, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting as written. Up� a voice vote,
all voting aye, Che motion carried unanimously.
SLECTTON OF OFFICERS:
MOTION by Jan Seeger, seconded by Leonard.Moore, to receive Mr. Boardman's leCter dated
ptay 5, 1977, regarding the "Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson". Upan a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
_ MOTION by Leonard Moore to nominate Tan Seeger for Chairperson. Ms. Seeger declined
the nomfnation and Che motion died for lack of a second.
p1pTIpN by Jan Seeger, seconded by Leonard Tloore, to renominate Bob Peterson for Chair-
person. After a call for more nominations, Chairperson Peterson declared the
nominations closed,
��
1
0
�
Ms, illitschko asked if there would be any area for the children to play ba11Y �''
arcels of land for those activities in that neighborhood. They could only �
Mr, Leek stated that there was no recoirmendation in that genexal direction. There
were no p arks. In at least three of the Neighborhood
try to improve the access to the existing p
Project C�ittee reports, the access problems were addressed.
Mr. Boudreau stated that the City had a lot of little parcels of l8nd.that should be
disposed of and the Question was: Did they want to put more money and things into
these little parcels of land that really didn't belong therel
plr. Moore stated that they might have to consider condemnation to get park area, but
that got to be expensive.
MS, geeger stated she felt they were overlooking the parksbandtthey weretbiki gson
of bikeway. Her children wanted to go to the larger p
gast River Road. She felt getting rid of the little parks and condemnation was not
a positive action. There should be a safer way for children and adults to go to the
other larger park areas and that kind of thing would be a much more desireable invest-
ment of money.
Mr. Bourdeau stated tfiat anothei question should fioin ntod�ke out�of the total
prime objective and what kind of sense were they g S
development as opposed to a plan that matched one area versus another area? They �
needed to addresa the park plan so that constructive improvements could be started.
Nis. Suhrbier stated she would like to see a bikeway system link up the neighborhoods--
hike trails oft the roadways separated by a curb.
�, goardman stated that had not been recommended by lhe Bikeway/Walkway Project
�ommittee mainly because of the cost of the system and also that acquisition of the
reason theabike trail was pulledwoff East1River Roadsand puttinethelneighborhoodse Hy�or
stated that the City was attempting at this time to get some kind of designation of
a regional trail system within Fridley--a North-South route and an East-West route.
This might make it possible for additionat funding where they might be able to accomplish
more with the bikeway system, but it was impractical at this time.
Going on with the format of tt�e "Parks and Open Space Plan", Mr. B�rdman stated that
what they were attempting to do with the "Summary of Fenednbetween thec� �ej$a&ions"
was try to point out their conclusions as to what happ
Objectives" and the "Inventory & Analysis". They had found quite a few things that
,� ectives". One overall finding that did
needed to be corrected and done and what they were lacking as far as facilities. eY
tried to base their findings on the Goals & Obj
not have anything to do with the "Goals & Objectives" was that the City of Fridley was
currently tackiagk�g stem developmenta for the strategic distri6ution of the funds
available for p Y
•
��
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSiON MEETING,MAY 23, 1977 PAGE 3
tir. Soardman stated that, in.reviewing the needs of the community, it was very important
to get an inventory of what was existing in the com�unity. The Co�ission had set up
the 13 Neighborhood project Co�nittees to see what the needs were in their areas and
make recarm�endations back to the Ylanning Department. He said Staff had analyzed these
tecou�endations and had done an analyzation of each neighborhood from the Staff's stand-
point and the neighborhood's standpoint. In the neighborhood analysis, they were missing
a major portfon of mapping and several items. �►ny comprehensive plan should be based
on the goals and objectives with an analysis of where the City was.at the present time
and in looking at the goals and objectives in concurrence with looking at [he analysis.
This was where they came up with the "Summary of Findings" and ttie basis for the
"Recommendations". With the "Inventory & Analysis", they would also have existing maps
per an existing Parks & Recreation Map, a gacilities Chart, a National Barriers Map,
a Neighborhood Breakdown Map, and a Natural Features Map. There would be some writings
placed before the Natnral Barriers Map and the Natural Features Map that would discuss
the e£fect of natuxal barriers and natuYal features on the recteational potential.
Mt. Steckman wanted to know the staYus of the property in Edgewater Gardens.
�, goardman stated that City gall still had the property red tagged and would continue
to do so. To clarify for the new Cw�mission members, Mr. Boardman explained that this
was property in Neighborhood 3 on both sides of East River Road south of Rice Creek
between the railroad tracks and the river. Neighborhood 3 felt that additional property
was needed and that was shown in the recommendations. Mr. Boardman stated that what
the City may recommend, if they did get that property, was have that area be more of a
�passive recreation area and have open space area for play and have Stevenson School for
more high activity use. They felt they might have trouble justifying two sets of high
activity recreation areas so close together. Mr. Boardman stated Chey would red tag
this propexty indefinitely.
Mr. goudreau stated this was a working document looking at the sysYem of parks for the
whole city. Before anything was done or before anything was concrete, they would go
hack to the neighborhoods, especially Neighborhood 3. This was a"thought piece", to
get wheels turning and he encouraged the neighborhood project people to read through
the "Findings"and'Recommendations".
Mr. Hamer congratulated the Conemission members, Mr. Boudreau, and Mr. Boardman for the
fine job they were doing.
Ms. illitschko wanted to lmow what was happening in Neighborhood 1, especially Spring-
brook Park.
rir. Leek referred to the map in the plan which showed a tot lot apparatus area, a free
play area, and a landscape buffer.
Ms. Illitschko stated that she took exception to the free play area for softball as
the houses were too close for any kind of ball playing.
Ifir. Leek stated that the park could be so designed that the landscape buffer, etc.,
would make it difficult for ball playing. It uould primarily be a play area for very
� young children.
��
23
ris. Illitschko asked if there would be.any area for the children to play ball? `
Mr, Leek stated that there was no recomnendation in that general direction. There
were no parcels of land for those activitiearks.thln atlleasththree ofethe Neighborhood �
try to improve the access to the existing p
pr�ject Coumiittee reports, the access problems were addressed.
Mr. Boudreau stated that the City had a lot of little parcels of land that should be
theseslittleap rcelsqofsland that reailyhdidnattbelongtthere�moneq and things into
�, Moore stated that they might have to consider condemnation to get park area, but
that got to be expensiVe.
of bikeway.stHerdchildrentwantedWtoegoVtolthellarger parksbandtthey weretbikingson
y o to the
East River Road. She felt getting rid of the little patks and condemnation was not
a positive action. There should be a safer wa for children and adults to g
other larger park areas and that kind of thing would be a much more desireable invest-
ment of money.
Mr. Bourdeau stated tfiat anotfiei''question should Tie consislered. What as their
pxime objective anosedato anplan thatematchedhonega ea versuseanother area?otThey
development ae oPP �
needed to address the park plan so that constructive improvements could be starte .
rys. Suhrbier stated she would like to see.a bikeway system link up the neighborhoods--
bike trails off the roadways separated by a curb.
�, goardman stated that had not been recommended by the Bikeway/Walkway Project
�cmmittee mainly because of the cost of the system and also that acquisition of the
reasonotheabike trail was pulled off East1River Roadsand puttinethelneighborhoodse He�or '
stated that the City was attempting at this time to get some kind of designation of
a regional trail system within Fridley--a North-South route and ahtEbetabletto�accomplish
This might make it possistemfobutdd�tWasaimpracticalhatethisytime.
more with the bikeway sy
whatgtheyWwetetattempting to do with then'�'S��arypofeFPndingsMrand�'a'Recommenda[ionsat
was try to point out their conclusions as1to what hadpfound quitenatfewtt[iings&that
pbjectives" and the "Inventory & AnalYsis They
�� ectives". One overatl finding that did
needed to be corrected and done and what they weze lacking as far as facilities. T eY
tried to base their findings on the Goals & ObJ
currentlyalacking in standardtcriteriasforOthecstrategicsdistributinntof therfunds Was
available for park system development.
�
ai �rri
. � �i
PARRS � REC1tEATION COI�AIISSION MEETING, MAY 23, 1977 PAGE 5
� Mr. Boardman stated that all "Recovmendations" were based on [he "S�ary of Findings".
At the end of the "Policy 6 Recoumiendations�' were further recommendations as far as
the system went, This was a proposed classification. They also had a Proposed System
Map. in that they would be showing the total overall system.
Mr. Peterson sCated that Ms. Seeger's point was well taken regarding a safe bikeway
system to the larger parks, rather than spending money on the smaller parks; but, he
felt at Chis point in time, speaking ot the Riverview Heights area specifically, either
they had to (1) condemn and acquire propertp; or, (2) develop an alternative to provide
some access activity sanewhere else with the absence of land.
Ms. Seeger stated that C�+issioner Dave Harris had reccmmended that the City purchase
the land above Fridley in Coon Rapids owned by the Burlington Northern.
Mr. Peterson stated that a letter should be sent to Burlington Northern to see what
they had available. He suggested that Mr. Boudreau check with Coon Rapids to see what
their feelings would be as far as a recreational use for that area, as this was an
alternative suggested at a previous C�ission meeting.
Mr. Boudreau stated there were at least four or five major barrfers that divided the
City of Fridley. It would be wise to centrally locate land as much as possible. Then,
they could try to open up the avenues to utilize the facilities, whether it be bikeways,
com�ercial transporation, etc.
Ms. Sporre stated that the answer was the bus rwte. They could simply lay out the bus
schedules to see which areas of open space would maximize use by transporation facilities.
That should be a key consideration in siting public facilities.
Mr. BoaYdman stated that after the concept of classification, they went into each of
the neighborhood areas, then into each individual park. On the working document only,
they would have a cos[ bxeakdown on each of the individual parks.
The Coumission members set a special meeting at City Hall on gridley, June 3, 1977,
fran 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. to further discuss the "Parks and Open Space Plan".
Mr. Boudreau stated he would reserve a room and send out notices,
Mr. Peterson stated that he appreciated having some of the neighborhood project
committee members attend the meeting. This was a working plan and it was the key thing
in trying to put together a system that would give everyone in the City an opportunity
to enjoy recreation, no matter what it might be.
g, park Ranger Program
Mr, Boudreau stated that the City did not have a park xanger. The Police Department
was trying to patrol the parks and was doing a good job to its capabilities.
Mr. Boudreau said they were still working on a program to free up some of the Police
Department's technicians to be out on the street in the form of a park ranger program
There was much vandalism going on in the parks. .
� ?�
�$
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MAY 23, 197� PAGB 8
g, guum�er Program Registration
Mr. Kirk�gave a brief rundown of the summer program registration. He said the programs
were quickly filling up with a week of registration left. There was a total of 800
people registered for the different programs.
C. Meeting with Community Education
Mr, goudresu stated he had a request to have the Community Education Executive $oard
meet with their Board to discuss possible cooperative facility use efforts. He stated
he would be contactiag Tom Myhra to schedule this meeting.
D. Spring Lake Park Facility Use Request
With zegard to the Spring Lake park's facility use request for Madsen and Flanery Parks,.
Mr. Boudreau stated he had contacted the Parks & Recreation Director in SPring Lake Park
and found that they were serving over 100 Fridley residents. Mr. Boudreau said he had
told the Spring Lake Park Director that they would grant the facility use request this
year, but he felt the Coa�ission should take a strong look at it for the next year as
to, (1) why the City was not servicing Fridley's people in that area; and, (2) would
there be a legitimate Eee to outside organizations for the use of pridley Eacilities?
Mr. Peterson stated Mr. Boudreau had handled it right as there was no alternative for
this year,
E. I8lands of Peace Foundation
Mr. Boudreaa stated that a bill had been passed in the Senate and the House and had
gone to the Governor to sign for the Islands of Peace Foundation to receive a$150,OQ0
grant through State Planning on a$50,000 match. He felt it was a great tribute to
the contributions of the Islands of Peace Foimdation and to Mr. Ed Wilmes. He felt it
was also a great tribute in terms of a handicapped facility regional-wise to supplement
what was in the City of Fridley itself.
F. Tour of Facilities & Programs - June 23, 1977
Mr. $oudreau wanted to invite and encourage each member of the Cnmmission on June 23rd
from approximately 5:30-9:30 p.m. to join himself, City Council, and Staff on a tour
of all the park facilities to see what was being done and what they had. He was also
going to invite the Communication Education people to view these facilities.
G. School District �14 Advisory Committee
Mr. Boudreau stated that with the Commissian's interest in park recreation and
development, they might want to touch base with some of the Coumittee's members as
to the City's needs for parks and recreation indoor recreational facilities. He
stated he did plan on calling some of the Committee members to discuss this need for
indoor recreational facility usage, �
•
C_�
�iwi
4�
PARKS & RECREATI�I C�SISSION MEETING MAY 23, 1477 PAGE 7
� . .
to be made with reimbursement for only the two Satellite facilities. He said he
thought it was a good tournament and the Commission should try and camply with it.
He felt tlte Jaycees had helped in the past by donation of facilities and equipment,
not only for Commons, but also for other areas. He.said he would like to negotiate
with the ,7aycees to have them at least pay the salary (around $50-60) of the Parks &
Recreation Department man who would be working overtime on the weekend.
MOTION by Jan Seeger, seconded by Robin Suhrbier, that the Co�ission grant the Fridley
Jaycees' facility use request.for C�ons, Locke, and Madsen Parks for Cheir annual
men's softball tournaments on Aug. 13-14, 197J, but that the laycees consider paying
$50 for supplementary weekend help. The Jaycees were a fine asset to the c w�munity
and the community had benefitted fram them. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Peterson stated that it was only fair that the Jaycees be recognized for their
valuable contributions, but also that they should be asked to help. •
C. Facility Use Request - glue Line Club
Mr. gaidreau stated he had received a letter from Don Howard dated April 29, 1977,
in which Mr. Howard was requesting the use of Conmons' softball fields for a tournament
on Aug. 25, 26, 27, 1977. The tournament was needed to raise money for ice time. Their
organization, the Blue Line Club, was buying ice to support the added needs for the JV
program at the High School. Mr. Boudreau said he did know that Fridley policy in the
past was a limit of three tournaments per year foY facility usage at Co�ons. He
stated it would benefit the Parks � Recreation hockey program as it would free up
their ice rinks. He would recommend that the Blue Line Club be allowed to use the
facility and the Gity would assist Chem in any manner possible. They would be required
to pay the $l00 fee for clean-up.
MOTION by San Seeger, seconded by getty Ann Mech, that the C�+ission grant the Blue
Line Club`s facility use request for Commons Park on Aug. 25, 26, 27, 1977, with $100
fee for clean-up. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
DII2ECTOR'S REPORT:
A. Rice Creek Watezshed District
Mr. Boudreau stated he had contacted Mz. Tony Petrangelo about the possibility of him
appearing before the June 27, 1977, Parks 6� Recreation Co�ission meeting to talk
abwt the Rice Creek Watershed District and Mr. Petrangelo had agreed to do so.
Ms. Sporre staCed that there would also be a meeting of the Rice Creek Watershed District
at Fridley City Hall on June 13, 1977.
�
'��.a
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING,MAY Z3, 1977 • PAGE 8
B. S�++er Program Registration " �
Mr. ICirk gave a brief rundown of the summer program registration. He said the programs
were quickly filling up with a week of registration left. There was a total of 800
people registered for the different prngrams,
C. Meeting with Community Education
Mr. Boudreau stated he had a request to have the Community Education Executive Board
meet with their Board to discusa possible cooperative facility use efforts. He stated
he would be contacting Tom Myhra to schedule this meeting.
D. Spring Lake Park Facility Use Request
With regard to the Spring Lake Park's facility use request for Madsen and Flanery Parks,
Tir. $oudreau stated he had contacted [he Parks & Recreation Director in Spring Lake Park
and found that they were serving over 100 Fridley residents, Mr. Boudreau said he had e
told the Spring Lake Park Director that they would granC the facility use request this
year, but he felt the �ou¢nission should take a strong look at it for the next year as
to, (1) why the City was not servicing Fridley's peop2e in that area; and, (2) would
there be a legitimate fee to outside organizations for the use of Ftidley facilities?
Mr. Peterson stated Mr. Boudreau had handled it right as there was no alternative for
this year.
E. Islands of Peace Foundation
Mr. Boudreau stated that a bill had been passed in the Senate and the House and had
gone to the Goveruor to sign for the islands of Peace Foundation to receive a$150,000
grant through State planning on a$50,000 match. He felt it was a great tribute to
the contributions of the Islands of Peace Foimdation and to Mr. Ed Wilmes. He feLt it
was also a great tribute in terms of a handicapped faci2ity regianal-wise to supplement
what was in the City of Fridley itself.
F. Tour of Facilities & Programs - June 23, 1977
Mr..Boudreau wanted to invite and encourage each member.of the Commission on June 23rd
from approximately 5:30-9:30 p.m. to join himself, City Council, and Staff on a toUr
of a21 the park facilities to see what was being done and what they had. He was also
going to invite the Co�unication Education people to view these facilities.
G• School Distrfct #14 Advisory Committee
I•fr, goudreau stated that with the Commission's interesC in park recreation and
development, they might want to touch base wikh some of the Co�ittee's members as
to the City's needs for parks and recreation indoor recreational facilities. He
stated he did plan on calling s�e of the Committee members to discuss this need for
indoor recreational facility usage.
•
�
'!�„'�'�
Ji
pARRS & RECREATION COMNQSSION MEETZNG MAY 23, 1977 � PAGE 9
� H• F•Y.S.A. Soccer Meeting
Mr. Boudreau sCated that this meeting was supposed to have been heid the previous week
but had been cancelled. He was still trying to work with Mr. Salas and the F.Y.S.A.
Yo find out what was going to happen with the soccer program at some later date.
I. U.S. News & Warld Report Article
Mr. Boudreau stated he had given the C�ission members each a copy of a 17-page article
out of the May 23, 1977, U.S. News & World Report on "How Americans Pursue their Leisure
Time". He thought they mighr find it interesting and might give them some insight into
the dollars that are spent, the amount of people participating, and some of the renewal
3n hobbies, scme of which he and the Covmission had talked abouC.
pTfiER BUSINESS:
Ms. Sporre stated she wanted to inform the Co�ission that the Fridley ,Taycees had
•
received the highest award in the state for their project at the SPringbrook Nature
�enter. She felt it was good publicity for the nature center and was a tribute to
the Jaycees to be recognized by the state for this project.
The Commissian members concurred.
� Mr, goudreau stated he had a petition request for recreaCional facilities in Ed Wi:mes
park. He said it should be part of the overall park plan so it could be considered
as part of that doc�ent.
MOTION by Leonaxd Moore, seconded by Jan Seeger, to receive the "Petition Request-
for Recreational Facilities in Ed Wilmes Park", Petition No. 6-1977, dated May 5, 1977.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOITRNMENP:
MOTION by Leonard Moore, seconded by Jan Seeger, Co adjourn the meeting at 10;53 p.m.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
g8spectEully submitted,
-,� C�
Lyn gi Saba
gecording Seczetary
��ar�
J�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENC COMMISSION
MEETTNG
MAY 25, 1977
MEMBERS PRESENT: Herman Bergman, LeRoy Oquist, A1 Gabel
t�MBERS ABSENT; Charles Gooder, Hubert Lindblad
QTHERS PRESENT; Jerry Boazdman, City Planner
pat Gabel, Sign Ordinance project Conmittee Chairperson
CALL TO ORAER:
Chairperson Bergman called tbe meeting to order at 7;45 p.m.
APPROVE APRIL 12, 1977, C�4IUNITY DEVELOPMENT COP4�ffSSION MiNUTES:
�MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by A1 Gabel, to approve the Community Development
Commission minutes as writCen. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Mx. Bergman stated that the Canadian Financial Corporation proposal was well received,
not only by this Co�ission, but by Planning Coantission and City Council. Of particular
interest was that when the presentatian was made to City Council, the Co�ission's
concerns which were in the form o£ a motion were taken into consideration.
With regard to the Appeals Co�ission minutes of March 15, 1977, in which there was
some confusion as to whaC information the Community Development Co�ission was to
provide, Agr, gergman staCed that this assignment had been rescinded.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by A1 Gabel, to receive Mr. Boardman's May 5, 1977,
letter on "Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson". Upon a voice vote, all'voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by AL Gabel, to renominate Herman Bergman for Chair-
person. After calling for more naminations, Mr. Bergman declared the nominations closed.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by A1 G8be1, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to naminate LeRoy Oquist, for Vice-Chairperson,
After calliug for more naninations, Mr. Bergman declared the nominations closed. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�'
��i:� • � `
C�IITY DEVBL,OPMENL COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1977 PAGE 2
•
RHPORT FROM PAT GABEL CNAIRPERSON OF SIGN ORDINANCE PR0.TECT COMMTTTEE:
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by A1 Gabel, to zeceive the April 11, 1977, and
May 2, 1977, Sign Ordinance Project Committee minutes. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by A1 Gabel, to receive a letter from Pat Gabel dated
May 25, 1977, regarding "Maintenance and Enforcement". Upon a voice vote, all votittg
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Gabel stated that the Project Committee had requested that she write this letter
as the subject of "Maintenance and ynforcement" had come up at every meeting. She
stated that copies had not yet been made of the "Definitions" and these woutd be mailed
to the members later.
Ms. Gabel suggested that the C�ission send a letter to the members of the Sign Ordinance
Project Cov�ittee thanking them for their time and effort on this project. Mr. Bergman
agreed and said he would do so.
On Page 10, Item K> No. 7*, Ms. Gabel pointed out that the Iast sentence, "Could be
used for wall signage, too" should be deleted.
The C�ission members were in agreement that Mr. Boardman put together a sign ordinance
to be reviewed at the next Co�ission meeting. �
Mr. Oquist asked Ms. Gabel if she would point out any highlights of which the Commission
ahouid be aware.
Ms. Gabe1 stated that one drastic change the Com�ittee had made was with billboards.
IInder "Billboards", No. 12�: "Limit number of billboards to those presently standing
at the time of adoption of new ordinance." and No. 13�: "Any time a hillhoard comes
down #or any reason, it will not be replaced on the s3te or anywhere else in the City
of Fridley.°
Mr. Boardman asked Ms. Gabel if there was any statement on existing billboards that,
if the property on which an existing billboard was located was developed, that billboard
must be remnved?
t4s. Gabel stated there was not and that definitely should be added,
Mr. Boardman stated that there should also be added that an existing billbaard wouZd
have to come down when the lease ran out wi.th a property owner.
Under "Billboards��*, �he first sentence was deleted; "Free standing advertising signs
shaZl be permitted in only the C-2S, M-1, and M-2 Aistricts, but only after securing a
Special Use Permit,"
* Attachment (1) to Sign Ordinance Project Committee Meeting May 2, 1977 �
P��
COMMONITY D3VELOPI�SLNT COE+AfISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1977 PAGE 3
� Ms. Gabel stated another key highlight point was under, "Maintenance & Enforcement",
��Reader Boards"*: "A11 reader boards that are not free standing signs are non-conforming
illegal boards. Said signs sha21 be removed within eighteen months following adoption
of this ordinance."
Mr. $oardman wanted to know how the Coumittee would feel about a statement which read;
"Free standing signs should be limited only to 3esignation of a building or business
and eliminate aiI advertising on a free standing sign." He said this would eliminate
a lot of clutter on signs. There were so many cases where a business got a free standing
sign to identify its business and, before long, it was advertising its products, etc.
This would be a way to also limit the size of the sign.
Ms. Gabel stated that the project C�i-ttee had talked about signs being for idenCifi-
cation purposes and felt the Project Committee would have no problem wi.th that. She
said she would be willing to check with the members.
Mr. Boardman stated it would also be appropriate to state that "reader boards are allowed
only for the disbursement of public infoxmation".
With regard to "Roof Signs" in shopping centers, Mr. Boardman wondered if s�ething
should be worded stating that "existing shopp�ng center owners must present a sign
development scheme to the planning Department for approval and all new signs would have
to confol7n to that approved scheme or no sign permits would be issued."
� pys. Gabel stated that ff it could be done legally, she was sure the Project C�ittee
would be in favor of it.
Mr. OquisC stated that under "Maintenance and Enforcement", Item 3, "Abandoned Signs"�,
the wording was critical. The wording was; "Except as otherwise provided in this Code,
any sign which is located on property which becomes vacant and unoccupied for a period
of three months or more, or any sign which pertains tu a time, evenC, or purpose which
no longer applied, sha11 be deemed to have been abandoned." He cited the example of a
sign of a vacated business but Che sign was located in a shopping center; therefore, the
business was not vacant, and the sign would not have to come down.
Mr, goardman agreed that would have to be reworded.
Ms, Gabel pointed out Page 2, Item N, of "Signs Pro�ibited in All Zoning"*: "No porta-
panels except by special use permit obtained through the planning co�ission and City
Council limited to once a year only in c�ercial and industrial zonings."
The Co�ission members were in agreement that porta-panels should be eliminated except
for grand openings for a 10 day period with written approeal fram the City.
Under "Signs prohibited in All Zonings'�, (page 2), Item J(a), "No traveling electronic
message centers" and J(b) "Electronic message cen[ers not to change more than once every
15 minuYes (only permitted in specific aonings)", Ms. Gabel-stated the Project C�ittee
had been very concerned aboUt this and had discussed it several tin�es.
�> * Attachment (1) to Sign.Ordinance Project Cou�ittee Meeting May 2, 1977
J� ,'
COMMlJNITY DEVELOPMENT C(R4�fISSION MEETI33G MAY 25, 19Z7 PAGE 4
_ �' °
Mx. Boardman stated that J(a) and (b) should probabZy be eliminated. Ms. Gabel stated
she wduld be in favor of [hat. '
Ms. Gabel stated another concern of the Project Couanittee's was that the City look at
apgrading the inspection of signs and that there should be some way to fund these
inspections. They would like to see inspection take place every two years and that
pezhaps this could be accomplished by putting permit and all other related fees into
a tund for this p�rpose only.
Ms. Gabe! and the Commission members expressed concsrn about the flashing sign on the
t+�unicipal Liquor Store which was in conflict with the ordinance and was seCting a bad
example for the rest of the bus$.ness cammunity. The Commission members asked Mr. Boardman
to try to handle this internally before they took acty official action.
Mr. Bergman thanked Ms. Gabel for all the time and effbrt she had put into thia sign
ordinance project. �
REVIEW YROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN:
Mr. Boardman stated that the City was presently under a PSandatory Plaaning Act sent
down by the State Legislature that all counties in the seven-county area must complete
a11 comprehensive planning by'I979. That comgrehensive planning must be submitted to
Metro-Council for review. To accomplish this planning, the State Legislature would be
making money available on a need basis for communities for campletion of this compre- �
hensive planning. Fridley's achedule was somewhat ahead because they had been working
on the Parks' & Recreation Plan before the Act went lnto effect.
ifr, goardman stated that the plan was not complete as there were still maps and some
printed material missing. The "Introduction" gave a basic rundown of why a Comprehensive
Plan and.what the purposes were for things that were happening crith the recreational
actfvities throughout the year and the increased demand on the parks and open space
sysCems. The "Goals and Objectives'* were those established by the Planning Coumission
which were presently being seat to Gity Coimcil for approval. With these "Goals and
Objectives" they took a look at what was existing in the park facilities. 'fhe parks
& Recreation Coamission had set up 13 Neighborhood Project Co�itteea to review
recreation needs within their neighborhoods. Staff had analyzed those neighborhoods
and the neighborhood comnnittees' reports. Mr. Boardman said the Commiasion would be
receiving the analysis of these neighborhoods. The "Analysis" brought out the weak
points and laid out what kind of input they had gotten from the Neighborhood Project
Coumitteea in the report. Also, in analyzing the facilities, there Would be an
Bxfseing Map and Facilities Chart; a Natural garriexs Map, Neighborhood Map, Natural
geatures Map; also a dialogue to go along with the Natural Features Map and the
patural Barriers Map as to what the effects are on the natural features and natural
barriere. Mr. Boardman stated whaC they were looking at was proportfonate amounts of
£acilitfes based on the different neighborhood population sizes. They were lacking
neighborhood park facilities in key and high population areas.
�
.
_ �6
2s
s
!�x'. Boardman stated that the "S�ry o£ Fix[dings�� was the"meat"of the whole plan
asuk,,was based on the "Goals and Objectives". Befora Objective 1, they were adding an
.Qvexall F�stding whi.ch stated; "The City of Fridley is currently lacking in standard
cYiteria for the strategic distribution of the funds available for park system develop-
ment.° Mr: Boardman stated that vhea the parks and ppen Space System was developed,
it was kitid"'o£ a"hit and miss" operation. They got the leftovexs on park property
and ended up with a scattering of undersized park facilities tk�at really could not be
used in some areas. They put a lot of money in developing (sometimes overdeveloping)
these small areas ending up with scattered high activity axea recreation facilities
that should not have that high activity use.
Mr. Bergmau stated that he found the "Summary ot Flndii►gs" misleading as they were all
�gative fivdings. Ae felt the "Su�arY of Findings" should list both pros and cons.
Mx. Boardman stated that a£ter the "S�ary of Findings" they got into the "Recoo�enda-
tioos" which were based on the "S�ary of Findings". He stated the purpose of the
��gu�ary of Findings" was to bring out the negaCive poiats. Recommendations were made
on aegative poinCS and would not be needed for good points. Here again, he stated, because
there was an Overall F3nd3ng, an Overall Rec�endat3on must be added; "The City should
adopt criteria for the strategic disbursement of maney for park development." To follow
that, they had set up a tentative criteria to disperse money based on priorities--
acquisitions, developments, etc. Again, the "Reco�endations" were based on the
�objeckiv�s,and policies from the "Goals and Objectives". This was the working portion
�of the plan document in which they were making Cheir recommendations. Mr. Boardman
stated a proposed System Map would be added showing the total overall system. Pages
showing the park coacepts would be added�with a brief description of each park. AfCer
the park concepts, they would break down into the individual neighborhoods and there
would be an insert for each neighborhood listing its parks.
. Mr, Oquist'stated he feLt the landscaping costs listed for the parks were much too
: hAgh and questioned the need for so �ch landscaping.
I�'. Bergman stated he agreed that landscaping for the neighborhood parks was not as
impottant as landscaping for, for example, Locke Park. He was afsaid they would use
up the neighborhood parks in landscaping.
Mr, goardman stated that these costs were to give an idea of what the redevelopment of
a typical neighborhood would cost.
t�. Oquist stated he felt a little mote consideration should be made to the neighborhood
parks and, as the Ci[y wen[ through the plan, they should have a more realistic picture
of each park.
I�, goardman stated these were etrictly co�ncepts that could be done and, even in the
��geco�uendations", they had suggested that the actual design of the parks should be
dme in conjunctlon with the neighborhood desires. Mr. Boardman suggested that the
�ommission members take a careful look at the "Suw�arY of Findings" and the "Recammenda-
�tions". He said they would be receiving new copies of the Yarks and Open Space Plaa
` with the additions .
MOTION �y Ai Gabe1, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to tabie further discussion on the Parks
and Open &pACe Plan untillthe docu�ent was more ccmplete. Upon a voiee vote, all voting
�ye, tbe matirt� sarried unanimously.
Ji
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1977 PAGE 6
REVIEW OF BIKEWAY/WALKWAY PLAN:
�
At the previous Commission meeting, Mr. Boardman had been iastructed to see where Staff
was wirh regard to any complaints rega�ding the Bikeway/Walkway Plan.
Mr. Boardman stated that the only complaints Staff had been receiving were from peop2e
in the Riverview Heights area as to why the bikeway system was off East River Road.
They felt the bikeway system should be more of a direct route from any point in that
area to other areas by utilizing $ast River Road as a bikeway system--an o£f-trail system
along East River Road, and eliminate the bikeway system as proposed that would go
through the different communities. The main feedbacic was that they were not being
adequately served by the bikeway system.
Mr. gergman stated that the safety concern was a good reason £or not using East River
Road.
Mr. Oquist stated that the bikeway system was designed to be a safe system, rather than
a direct route.
Mr. Boardman stated that he thought-the prime considerations of the Bikeway/Walkway
Project Committee, when they made their recoauneadat3ons, were that (1) they would in
no way aiZow striping or bicycling along East River Road unless it was a separated trail
because of the high volume, high speed traffic and (2) because a separated trail
would be very expensive. Tf there was any other means of handling bike traffic in the �
area, the Project Cou¢nittee would pzefer to do it that way.
Mr. Boardman stated that maybe the Commission should direct the gikeway/hTalkway project
Committee to set two meeting dates a year and all items would be handled at those two
meetings wfth recommendations back to this Commission, pny other meeCing dates could
be determined by the Committee. Every tfine Staff received complaints, they would
forward them to the Chair�erson to incorporate in Che next meeting.
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by e,l Gabel, that the Community Development Co�ission
instruct the Bikeway/Walkway project Committee to meet a minimum of two times a year,
one meeting in the spring before the biking season and one meeting in the fall after
the biking season was over, on dates selected by the Canmittee. These meetings would
be for the purpose of reviewing problems and concerns and making recommendations back
to this Commission. At the last meeting of the year, the Project Committee shouid plan
the following year`s two meetings in advance. The Chairperson of the Bikeway/Walkway
Project Coimnittee was requested to call the Co�ittee's first meeting by or before
June 30, 1977. All items of concern received to date would be forwarded to the Committee
for their first meeting date. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
ADJQURh1MENT:
MOTION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by A1 Gabel, to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motian carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
�
. ' . L �
y e Saba
Recording Secretary
.�
�
�r
_ _ -- _ _. _ _ _ �z��� _ �— - _ _
___ _ -- _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ �?4�� _ ��
_ __ _ ����,� ,� ��� _ ��/ �����-,� .
- p��j-c.a./ ���-2-¢�' G�``�r /���Z7�'« /,�it�e�-L,
�- e� / H4 f/ ��.N.r✓ �c,✓�-e�
_ /�� � /d � �` S, G��� �? �' � ,
`z`�1�`l
_ _-__ �'�.� � � _ �aGB �. �� �i�' J�_�'��
-
_ _ a�e�. ��=P �-�-� � � �3 �_ s� ���.��,�.����
e�; � ..
_ __ �r�,�,�-aM /Q ����`yr�� t�a.iN,�i. 2u�:�
�w it-.i a /�'
_ y K ��,�.;,, ef o 3 a T-�i���� /S /-� �.t. -c c��'
- �w _ t •c..(�-� �'�u�-Q.,-...�.-.., IC �--- _12,-�...-1�,
�
--
_ _ �.�. 1/3ao ��-a-� �
- -�-� —�_
��
-__-.
- _ __ _ _ -
�-.
_�..-�-
r,� _ �
MOTION by nrs•
Mr• Bergman as
voting aye, the
CALI TO ORDER:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION nEETING
JUNE 8, 1977
Schnabel, seconded by Ms• Shea to appoint
acting Chairperson• Upon a voice vote, all
motion carried unanimously•
Acting Chairperson Bergman called the June 8, 1977, Planning
Commission Meeting to order at 7:35 P•M-
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Shea, Bergman, Suhrbier, Schnabel, Langenfeld
Peterson, Harris
Jerrold Boardman, City Rlanner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES= MAY 18, 1977
Mrs• Schnabel added to the end of the second paragraph on Page 16,
^in the new Senior Citizen Building^•
Mr• Frederic Foster of 6441 RivervieW Terrace indicated that
the second paragraph on Page 6 was actually said by
Mr• Luckow of 161-64 1/2 tlay N•E•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Shea, that the
Planning Commission minutes of May 18, 1977, be approved as
amended• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously-
MOTION by Ms- Shea to add an agenda item 3A to be RECOMMENDATION
FOR 91,000 FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN WELL CLINIC {�pp}. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
1• CONTINUED= REZONING REQUEST, ZOA ;77-03, BY C• D- CHANDLER=
To rezone Lot 1� Block 2, Johnson's River Lane Addition, from
R-1 {Single family dwelling areas} to R-3 {multiple family
dWelling areas}, and rezone Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnson's
River Lane Addition from C-1T {local shopping areas} to
R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas}, so these three lots
can be used for the construction of a row house development
and/or toWnhouses, generally located between 64 1/2 and
Mississippi Place, on the West side of East River Road•
Public Hearing open•
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING — J�NE 8+ 1977 PA6E 2
Mr• Chandler of 11320 Mississippi Drive, CMamplin, and Mr• Ken Talbot
of Calhoun Realty of Coon Rapids were present•
Mr• Chandler presented a plat to the Planning Commission•
The Planning Commission reviewed the plat• Mr• Boardman explained
the plat and what had been decided upon• He said that the plat
showed seven units with fourteen parking spaces• He said that
a rear�ard setback variance would be required•
Mrs- Schnabel wanted to knom who had title ta the easement•
Mr• Chandler responded that it belonged to the County•
kcting�6hairperson Bergman wanted to know if the easement was in
the setback requirement or was there to be 35 feet of setback
plus seven feet of easement•
Mr• Chandler indicated on the plat the locations of the setbacks
and the easements•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know if the seven foot easement Would
revert hack to the property owner•
Mr• Chandler said it would•
Ms• Shea explained that if the setback mas moved to include the
easement, then a variance wouldn`t be needed•
There was some discussion at this point regarding the setbacks
and easement requirements•
Mr• Talbot pointed out to the Planning Commission that mhat had
been requested was a plat describing the location of the building/s
on the lot• He said that the plat they were looking at was
indicating the maximum of what could be put on that property•
Mrs• Schnabel said that Mr• Chandler had previously indicated that
he would meet all city codes• She said that if the plat was not the
final p2at and if the property was rezoned, she wanted to know if
there was any way to bind the property to a structure that wouldn't
contain any variances to the City Codes•
Mr• Chandler said that he hadn't been aware that the plat hadn't
met all the City Codes•
Mr• Talbot explained that the plat was only off by six inches and
that the plat was only a preliminary and once an architect drew
up the final plat, the dimensions would be more exact•
Mrs� Schnabel wanted to know if the contractor would be bound to
the plat• She felt that there would be no guarantee that the new
purchaser would construct that number of units•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PpGE 3
Mr• Chandler felt that the buyer wouldn`t go more than seven units
because of the fact that he would have to provide facilities
for the handicapped if he built more than seven units and
Mr• Chandler didn't think that the person would go that additional
expense•
Mr• Ta�bot wanted confirmation as to exactly how much of a
variance was needed•
Mr• Boardman explained that if the easement was part of the
property, then a very minor amount would be needed {approximately
six inches}; however, he said that if the easement was not part
of the property, it would be approximately seven feet six inches•
Mr- Langenfeld indicated that if a rezoning was given, then the
Planning Commission itself would lose control of the type of
building that would be constructed on the property•
Acting Chairperson Bergman said that if the rezoning was granted,
that the Planning Commission could put stipulations on the
recommendation for approval•
Mr• Boardman stated that the maximum that could be placed on that
property was eight units• He said that the Planning Commission
had requested a plat and what they had to.decide Was that if
they felt the area was right for an R-3 zoning, then the rezoning
should be approved; if they decided that the area was not right
for an R-3 zoning, then they should refuse the request• He
didn't see why the Commission was concerned about tying the
property to a specific design•
Mrs• Schnabel said that part of the reason for requesting a
site plan mas because of the traffic patterns which were a
concern of the neighbors•
Mr� Boardman felt that the plan was good in that it would be
situated on the lot with plenty of green area and ample parking
areas•
Mr• Talbot explained that the parking areas could be sit�ated
on eitMer side of the building•
At that point, Mr• Chandler shoWed the site plan to
Mr• 8 Mrs• Frederic Foster of 6441 Riverview Terrace•
Mr• Foster said that he didn't want to see any apartments at all,
however, if the rezoning was to be approved, then he wanted
to see the parking lot on the qigaissip�i �lace side of the
buiiding:� . �� " _,-� s :;�
Mrs• Foster explained that there Was a park located near the iots
iheqweStiofl• S6e<said tha�amany`ehifi�ren piaqed in �he;patrk-and F
�Mat was the reasoning ge�reqpesting t6at_the-parking �o�anot�b�a,
�odeted on�the_6q-3,f2 Way side of the building•
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 4
Mr� Langenfeld wanted to know if the Foster's were representing
everyone in the ne-i.�hborhoo�lor just themselves•
Mr• Foster said that they weren't representing anyone other than
themselves• He said that he knew that all the other neighbors
didn't want to see any more multiple dwellings in the area, but
that other commitments kept them from appearing at the Public
Hearing•
Mrs• Foster said that she had talked to many of the people on
Riverviem Terrace and that they were against any more multiple
dwellings• She said that it had been decided that if multiple
dwellings had to be constructed, then most of the people
preferred to see duplexes rather than apartment complexes•
Mrs• Foster also indicated that she didn't feel that � variances
should be allowed•
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out to the Planning Commission that a very
baa�edous situation did exist in the area because of the abundance
of children and the amount of existing traffic•
Mr• Chandler pointed out that the rezoning would be an upgrading
of the present zoning•
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, to clase the
public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public
Hearing was closed at 8:05 P.M-
Mrs• Tchnabel indicated that she felt there was a definite hardship
on the petitioner in retaining the piece of property with two
separate zoni�gs• She said that the fact that two of the lots were
zoned Commerical {C-1S} and were not large enough,.in themselves,
to construct as Commercial, she felt that Mr• Chandler had a serious
hardship as to how to develop his property• Mrs• Schnabel a�so felt
that a commercial enterprise wouldn't be beneficial to that
neigh6orhood• She said that she would rather see a multiple
dwelling of some type rather than commercial• She indicated that
she was concerned about the traffic patterns, the size of the units,
and the setbacks• She said that the residents of the neighborhood
had a very legitimate concern as to the traffic and the childre�, etc•
However, after careful consideration, she felt that the following
motion was in order•
PLANNING COMMISSSON MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 5
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Ms• Shea, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the approval of the
Rezoning Request, ZOA �77-03, by C• D- Chandler: To rezone Lot 1,
Block 2, Johnson's River Lane Addition, from R-1 {single family
dwelling areas} to R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas}, and rezone
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnson's Rive�r Lane Addition from C-1S
{local shopping areas} to R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas},
so these three lots can be used for the construction of a row
house development and/or townhouses, generally located between
64 1/2 and Mississippi Place, on the West side of East River Road,
with the stipulation that traffic ingress and egress be onto i/
Mississippi Place ONLY� Upon a voice vote, Ms• Shea, Mr• Bergman,
Ms• Suhrbier, and Mrs• Schnabel voting aye and Mr• Langenfeld
voting nay, the motion carried•
Acting Chairperson Bergman indicated that this would go to
City Council on June 20, 1977, and at that time a Public Hearing
would be set•
Mrs• Schnabel initiated a brief discussion about the use of
traffic bumps in the neighborhood, especially along
Riverview Terrace•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the City tried to avoid putting
traffic bumps on streets because of the problems with
street plows•
2• LOT SPLIT REQUETT: L•S• ;77-05, BY MORRIS J- LONGERBONE�
Split Lot 28, Auditor's Su6division No� 92, into three
parce2s as falloms: Parcel I: The South 72 feet of Lot 28
{5895 Arthur Street N•E•}� Parcel II: The North 72 feet of
the South 144 feet {5875 Arthur Street N•E•} both as measured
at right angles of the City of Fridley in Arthur Street N•E•4
and Parcel III= That part of Lot 2B, lying North of the
South 144 feet as measured at right angles to the South line
thereof, together with that part of Gardena pvenue vacated,
also subject to the rights of the City of Fridley in Arthur
Street N•E• and in Gardena pvenue, {1494 Gardena Avenue N-E•}•
Mr• Morris J• Longerbone of 1494 Gardena Avenue was present•
Mr• Boardman explained that the general location was at the corners
of Gardena and Arthur Street N-E• He said that the petitioner manted
to split the property into three parcels, Parcels 1 and 2 would be
over 9,�OU square feet; however, the lots widths would be 72 feet
instead of the required 75 feet• parcel 3 would be an extra large
lot size that would be well over the 10,000 square feet which
was required for a corner lot• All the parcels of land were
serviceable with sewer and water already in• He said that from
the City's standpoint, there weren't any problems•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 6
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know if the City had any easements on
Arthur or Gardena streets•
Mr• Boardman indicated that all the sewer, water, utilities,
telephone, etc• were already in the streets, so that no easements
would be required-
Mr• Longerbone said that he would be tearing down the existing
houses-
Ms• Suhrbier wanted to know what price range the planned house
would be in•
Mr• Longerbone said it would 6e approximately 460,000•
Mr• Longerbone indicated that be �elt he didn't need a11 the
property since his family was grown• He said that he wanted to
split the lots to sell so that he could make his life a little
easier•
Mrs- Schnabel wanted to know mhich parcel of land Mr• Longerbone
intended to build his home•
Mr• Longerbone said he would build on Parcel 1• He said that the
existing houses would be torn down before the sale of the
remaining parcels•
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the approval of Lot Split
Request: L•S• �77-05, by Morris J• �ongerbane: Split Lot 28,
Auditor's Subdivision No•92, into three parcels as follows:
Parcel I� The South 72 feet of Lot 28 {5895 Arthur Street N•E•}�
Parcel II: the North 72 feet of the Sauth 144 feet {5875
Arthur Street N•E•} hoth as measured at right angles to the South
line thereof, subject to Lhe rights of the City of Fridley in
Arthur Street N•E•; and Parcel III: That part of Lot 28, lying
North of the South 144 feet as measured et right angles to the
South line thereof, together with that part of Gardena Avenue
vacated, also subject to the rights of the City of Fridley in
Arthur Street N-E• and in Gardena Avenue {y494 Gardena Avenue N-E-}
with the stipulation that the existing structures be removed
from the property prior to the sale of that property• Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 7
3� VACATION REQUEST, SAV �77-05, CITY OF FRIDLEY:
Vacate t e not rig t o way or Lakesi e Road for 276 feet
on �ot 4, Auditor's Subdivision Na• 108, because of a
change in street pattern• {The City now has a 50 foot
right of way for 73 1/2 Avenue that cul-de-sac`s on the
Replat of Marxen Terrace.}
Mr• Boardman explained that because of the changes in the street
patterns that the City no longer needed the Lakeside Road
right-of-way• He said that the City would vacate Lakeside
Road right of way; however that the City must retain a drainage
and utility easement over the mesterly 17 feet•
Acting Chairperson Bergman wanted to know why the City was
asking for the Vacation•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the City no longer needed the
Lakeside Road right of way•
MOTION 6y Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Shea, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of
Vacation Request, SAV �77-05, City of Fridley: Vacate the 25
foot right of way for Lakeside Road for 276 feet on �ot 4,
puditor's Subdivision No• 108, because of a change in street
pattern• {The City naw has a 50 foot right of way for 73 1/2
Avenue that cul-de-sac's on the Replat of Marxen Terrace•} with
the stipulation that the City maintain 17 feet for drainage and
utility easements over the westerly 17 feet• Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
3A• RECOMMENDATION FOR $1,000 FOR SENIOR CITIZEN WELL CLINIC {CAP}
M4TI4N by Ms Shea, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, to remove this
item from the Table. Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimnusly•
Ms• Thea said that the donation was being asked for the Senior
Citizen Well Clinic located in the North Suburban Family
Services Clinic in Caon Rapids•
nr• Kline of 9030 Jefferson, CAP, gave the background information
on the Senior Citizen Well Clinic• He said that the clinic had
been in operation for three years• He said the intention of the
Clinic was to provide preventative medicine for senior citizens
at a very minimal cost to them•
PLANNING �OMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8+ 1977 PAGE &
�r• Kline indicated to the Planning Commission that all Federal
assistance ceased at the end of June 1977 and the Clinic mas on its
own for at least 18 months, at which time, possibly, United Way
would give its support• He said that the total cash needs for
that 18-month period would be �56,000• He said that Anoka County
had pledged #22,500• He explained that the attempt was 6eing made
to raise 516,600 through local foundations• He said that the
Senior Citizen Well �linic was a County-Wide Program•
Ms• Shea wanted to know if CAP had approached Columbia Heights•
Mr• Kline said that they had a call in to Columbia Heights, but
that the call had not been returned as yet•
Mr• Kline indicated that Coon Rapids had given �5,000 worth of
space and supplies�
Acting Chairperson Bergman wanted to know Why anyone with Medicare/
Medicad� benefits would go to the Clinic•
Mr- Kline explained that Medicare would not provide preventative
medicine• He said that the main purpose of the Clinic was to keep
all the Tenior Citizens in good health•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Shea, to receive the
Annual Evaluation for the Well Senior Citizen Clinic� Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The booklet
was received-
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know where the Clinic was located•
Mr- Kline responded that it was located in the North Suburban
Family Practice Clinic at 1323 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Coon
Rapids• He explained that it mas directly past Coon Rapids
City Hall on Coon Rapids Boulevard•
Mr• Langenfeld asked if there were doctors at the Clinic donating
their time•
lfr��Kline said that they hired the doctors because of the cost of
Malpractice Insurance• He indicated that when the physician is
hired, he brings his own insurance with him•
Mr• Langehfeld quoted the fact that United Way would give support
in 1979; he wanted to know if it was a^for sure^ thing•
Mr• K2ine said that there was no way of being positive• He said
that United Way had been to the Clinic and they had been impressed
with what they saw• He went on to explain that United Way would
have more of a supporting role IF it gives its support at all•
PLANNING CdMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 9
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr- Kline was dealing with Jerry Lewis•
pr- Kline said that we was•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if Mr• Kline was going to handle
all the paperwork and forms himself•
Mr• Kline said that he would be handling all the paperwork
involved•
Ms• Suhrbier wanted to know if the senior citizens went to the
Clinic only for a physical examination and not for an illness-
.qr• Kline said that the Clinic Was basically preventative
medicine but that the Senior Citizens could go to the Clinic
and have a diagnostic work-up and if something was discovered
that required medical attention, the person would 6e
recommended to their own physician for treatment•
Mrs• Schnabel expressed surprise that �56,000 was needed to
run a Clinic, four hours a day, for two days a week, far
18 months• She said that that would equal more than $3,000
per month•
Mr• Kline explained that the Physicians were paid �40/hour•
He said that two physicians aere -; working each of the days•
He then went on to explain the other costs involved with
running the clinic, over and above the wages_of_the physicians•
nr• Kline also pointed aut that costs shou2� be tonsideredeon the
number of physical examinations that are conducted at the clinic
compared to the cost to do them at a regular doctor's office•
He said that approximately 100 senior citizens per month are
seen by the doctors at the Clinic•
Acting Chairperson Bergman wanted to know if there were any
provisions for free transportation.
Mr- Kline said that none of the money beirog requested would
go to provide free transpartation-
Mr• Langenfeld asked if �r• Kline was aware of the fact that the
Fridley's Lion Club had donated a bus to Anoka County•
Mr• Kline indicated that he was aware of the bus but there was
a problem in getting a driver for the bus• He said that the
County was in the process of establishing a Seniar Citizen Office
that would coordinate Senior Citizen Programs• He said that once
that Office is implemented and staffed, many of the problems
presently 6eing experienced by the Senior Citizens would be dealt
with•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8� 1977 RA6E 10
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that the Fridley's Lion Club had donated
a bus to Anoka County for the primary purpose of assisting the
Senior Citizens and Handicapped people in Anoka County• He said that
when someone wanted the use of the bus, they mere told they had to
pay $6•5D per hour• He said that it had come to the point that if
Anoka County could not agree about the way of handling the use of
the bus, then the Lion Club was going to ask for the return of the
bus•
Mrs• Schnabel had conflicts because she felt the services provided
for people unable to financially have health services and other
services was good, but she was disturbed at the cost of some of
those services• She felt that the costs were way out of line as
to the original intent of the different.programs• She said that
as a tax payer one gets more and more upset when they hear of the
high cost of those services
Mr• Kline said that the Clinic was originally formed by a Coon Rapids
women'.s group that needed help in funding• He pointed out that
many times pevple become medically unable to take care of themselves
and require a Nursing Home of which, much of the monies needed to
run the Nursing Homes are picked up by the tax payers• He felt
that the Program wouldn't have to keep too many people out of
Nursmogg Homes in order for the Program to break even•
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that the Planning Commission should keep
in mind that at one point in time the present Senior Citizens were
tax payers and he felt that the Commission was almost obligated
to grant the money 6eing requested•
��n r�spopserbo�at�destion asked by Acting Chairperson Bergman,
Mr• Kline indicated that if a physician at the Clinic discovered
an alarming medical pro6lem, the person would be encouraged to
see their own physician immediately• He said that at that point,
Medicare would pick up any costs for treatment of the medical problem•
Mr• Kline went on to say that approximately one of every five people
seen at the Clinic are referred to their physicians for treatment•
He said that the Clinic was identifying many problems at an early
stage•
Ms• Suhrbier asked if the Program was only for Anoka County�
Mr- Kline said that they �od�dn't �arn anyone away, but that it
was mainly Anoka County• He said that the plans were ta expand
if, and when, United Way took over•
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that even though there was much concern
about the costs, it should be kept in mind that the Commission
members would all be Senior Citizens some day• He hoped that at
that time that a Program such as this would be in effect•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 11
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know why Mr• Kline had waited so long before
asking for money from Fridley- If he knew that the money would be
running out, why hadn't they started sooner•
Mr• Kline said that the strategy had been ;going on since
August 1976• He said that they presently had Anoka County
committed and had appraached five different foundations•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know why United Way hadn't been approached
sooner so that they could have taken over immediately rather
than waiting for 18 months•
Mr• Kline said that United Way was obviously the major portion
of funding saurce, but that United Way was not optimistic about
picking up an operation immediately following Federal assistance•
United Way wants the operation to be on its own for a short time•
He said that the lead time needed to get United Way support was
usually two to three years•
Mrs- Helen Deeg of 1068 South �ircle NE :sai� that she had been on
the Ad�isory Board of the Well Senior Citizens for three years•
She indicated that since the Commission had already heard how the
Clinic works, she thoaght it would be interesting for them to
hear from a person who had been helped by the Clinic•
Ms• Hazel Hartman of 193 Hartman Circle sai� that when she went
to the Clinic that the doctor found a spot on her face and that
she was blind in her left eye• She was told to see her own
physician regarding the spot on her face• She said that her
doctor found the spot to be skin cancer• He operated on the
spot and, hopefully, got all the disease• She said that if
the spot had not been taken care of at that early stage the
outcome could have been much morse• She said that she had
been one of the first patients to use the Clinic and that she had
been back two or three times since• She was really satisfied
with the care given her at the Clinic• She said that a person
gets a thorough physical examination {the kind a person would
probably pay $9U for at a regular poctor's Office}.
Mr• Earl Deeg of 1068 South Circle NE indicated that he took
people to the Clinic and other places• He said that he was
also a Senior Citizen and many of the people he drives around
could not get any place without help•
Acting Chairperson Bergman wanted to know if Mr• Deeg used his
own automobile along with volunteering his time•
Mr• Deeg said that he did get mileage when he 4rowght peop�e to
the Clinic, but that he did use his own car•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 12
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the approval of the 91,0�0 for
the Senior �itizen Well Clinic {CAP}•
Ms• Hartman cited another example to the Commission when a friend of
hers had gone to the C2inic and the doctors told her to immediately
see her physician• This person ended up being in the operating
room 6-1/2 hours to try to take care of cancer that had taken over
much of her stomach• �s• Hartman said that that person w,as still
around today-
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Acting Chairperson Bergman declared a short break at 9:15 P-M-
Acting Chairperson Bergman calied the meeting back to order at
9:25 P•M-
�
Mr• Langenfeld referenced Page 41, the eighth paragraph• He manted
the sentence to read, ^Mr• Langenfeld stated that if a member of
the Commission could not come ta the meeting and 6e a participating
member,t+tr� that persan��1� not be a member^•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs- Schnabel, that the
Plan�ing Cammission receives the Environmental Quality Commission
minutes of May 17, 1977� Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know how one could implement the policy
guidelines of the Open Space and Park Plan {Page 37, secnnd paragraph}.
Mr, Boardman pointed out that the guidelines in itself mas not an
implementation of the guidelines under the Refersndum He said that
ib�w�ald<_qomesC[o�ougt�itlhe devt3opment*-o� the policy and implementation-
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know when the City Council would hold
the final disposition•
Mr• 8oardman indicated that there had been some delays on the
proposed Parks and Open Space Plan but that the maps and revised
copies should be sent out by the end of that week•
Acting Chairperson Bergman felt that they had had a meaningful
discussion at the Community Development Commission Meeting.
Mr• Boardman thought that the basics of the plan were very sound
and the basics were what was needed to start a discussion•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN� — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 13
Mr• Langenfeld discussed the fourth paragraph on page 38,
^All of the parks within that area were within the river
corridor area, but not all of them would be considered as having
river recreation potential• Islands of Peace, Mahnomen Park, and
probably Riverview Heights, wou2d 6e•^ Mr- Langenfeld didn't
really think the City had thought of any type of Marina Plan•
Mr• Boardman responded that the entire Mississippi Area was a critical
area• He said that certain regulations would have to be set up as
far as restrictions, setbacks, etc• for the protection of the River
and the protection of recreation spaces within that area•
For recreation purposes, the City required a plan to cover the
critical areas• This plan was to include any proposals for
City road use or access to the River, development of any
recreation activities, that would relate to the River• This
was the primary goal of the Critical Areas Plan•
Mr• Boardman also indicated that the corridor designation
in the City of Fridley was between the middle of East River Road
and the Mississippi River•
Mr� Langenfeld said that the East River Road Project Committee
was losing its strength due to the Iack of one of the members•
He wanted to stress ta the Pianning Commission that the
Environmental Quality Commission did not have a specific
report to meet the Planning Commission request as to the stop
light problems on 79th and East River Road other than what had
been indicated in the Minutes of May 17, 1977•
Acting Chairperson Bergman explained that there had been an
assignment from the Planning Commission to look at the problem
raised by the Board of Appeals• He said that Community
Development had declined to accept the assignment, therefore,
the Environmental Quality Commission had taken it over and
what had been written in the minutes was all that was available
at that time• Mr• Bergman asked if the Commission planned to
drop the assignment•
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that the report would only be delayed•
Mrs• Schnabel felt that the second paragraph on page 4❑ should
be brought to the attention of the City Council• She felt that
it was the ^heart^ of the matter• It pointed out that 79th
was going to be a very critical crossing and the fact of the
matter was that the County didn't want to put a stop light at
that corner• She said that short of writing a formal report,
that the best thing would be to have the Council's attention
brought specifically to that paragraph so that they could see
what the Environmental Quality Commission had come up with regarding
the East River Road situation•
Mr• Langenfeld said that since it was already in the minutes,
it should be adequate•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 14
Mr• Boardman indicated that if the Planning Cammission felt that
siqnalization was needed at 79th and East River Raad, then they
should make a formal motion stating that after the study of the
79th and East River Road intersection they felt that it would he
important to have that signal•
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that based
on the study done by the East River Road Froject Committee and
their report to the Environmeqtal]Quality Commission on 05/17/77
that the Planning Commission recommends to City Council that a
traffic light be placed at the intersection of 79th and
East River Road as quickly as possible• Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Langenfeld said that he had been requested to be the
Chairperson of the East River Road Froject Committee but he
felt it would be a conflict of interest for him to chair a
Project Committee in addition to the Commission• He wanted
confirmation of that statement•
Mr• Boardman said that there mas nothing in the Ordinance that
said a Chairperson couldn't chair a Project Committee•
Mr• Langenfeld discussed the Noise Pollution Model Ordinance•
He said that the Environmental Quality Commission hoped to have
a special program regarding noise pollution at the July 19, 1977
meeting• He felt that the planned program would be very
informative and he urged the members of the Planning Commission
to plan to attend• Mr• Langenfeld went on to say that the Program
would include all the present regulations on noise pallution• He
also indicated that from the presentation a person would become
familiar with the terminology used when noise pollution was
discussed•
At that point there was a disucssion on what a decibel was in
regards to noise pollution•
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know if the plan was to come up with a
Noise Pollution Model Ordinance for the City of Fridley and why
the State and Federal Controls weren't adequate•
Acting Chairperson Bergman said that if Fridley _had a noise
pollution ordinance, it would probably be more strict °bF�m the
State or Federal controls•
There was much discussion amongst the Planning CQmmission on
noise pollution as well as the manners of enforcement• That
discussion also involved the present Noise Barriers located
on Interstate 694•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 15
5•
Mrs� Schnabe2 wanted to know if anyone could go on the
dune 23, 1977, tour of all the park facilities to see what was
being done and what the parks had {page 48 paragraph F}•
Mr• Boardman commented that he was sure anyone from the
Planning Commission could 90 on the tour•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to commend Mr� Peterson on his statement
made on Page 47, paragraph 9, ^••that he appreciated having some
oi the neighborhood project committee members attend the meeting-
This was a warking plan and it was the key thing in trying to
put together a system that would give e�eryone in the City
an opportunity to enjoy recreation, no matter what it might be^•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if the Parks & Recreation Commission
was planning to meet with the Rice Creek Water Shed District•
Ms• Suhrbier said that there would be a meeting and the Planning
Commission would be invited•
Mr- Langenfeld wanted to know if the meeting would get involved
with the problem regarding the dredging of Locbe Lake•
Ms• Suhrbier said that she thought it would since it was
planned to be a total report•
MOTION by Ms� Suhrbier, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission
Minutes of May 23, 1977• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
Ms• Suhrbier discussed the Land Plan and stated that she felt
the City of Fridley needed to connect the present parks with a
bikeway system rather than acquiring more land•
There was much discussion at that point regarding the bikeways
and the City�s present plans•
Acting Chairperson Bergman suggested that if the Planning
Commission had any definite suggestions/recommendations that they
be documented in the minutes so that he would be able to take
them back to the Community Development Commission so that they
can tre reviewed by the Bikeway/Walkway Project Committee so they
can be discussed at the next meeting•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 16
6•
,
ON MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Shea, that the Planning
Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes
of May 25, 1977• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
Mr• Bergman indicated that most of the Community Development
Commission meeting dealt with the report by Pat Gabel, the
Chairperson of the Sign Ordinance Project Cammittee•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to commend Ms• Gabel on her work•
Mrs- Schnabel said that she knew Ms• Gabel had put a lot of
personal time into the report•
7• CONTINUED, PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
It was decided that the Planning Commission would hold a Workshop
after the formal adjournment of the June 8, 1977, Planning
Commission meeting-
8• OTHER BUSINESS
Mrs• Schnabel said that she had read Mr• 8oardman's report on the
Hyde Park problems and thought it mas EXCELLENT- She highly
commended Mr• eoardman•
There was a duscussion regarding the Hyde Rark Report, the meeting
that had been held, and the outcome•
Mrs• goardman indicated that there Was a petition submitted to
rezone the Hyde Park area back to residential• He said he
thought the decision was going in that direction�
MOTION by Ms- Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, to suspend the
rules and elect a Vice-Chairperson before Item 7• Upon a voice
vote, all vating aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Mr- Boardman said that a Vice-Chairperson had to be elected annually•
He indicated that Mr• Harris was the Chairperson•
MOTION by Ms• Thea, seconded by Ms• Suhrbier to naminate
Mr• Bergman as Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission• Upon
a voice vote, Ms• Shea, Ms• Suhrbier, Mrs• Schnabel, and
Mr• Langenfeld voting aye, Mr• Bergman sustaining, the motion
carried•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 17
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Ms• Shea,
Planning Commission
Upon a voice vote,
unanimously•
seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
meeting of June 8, 1977, be adjourned•
all voting aye, the motion carried
Acting Chairperson Bergman declared the Planning Commission
meeting of June 8, 1977, adjourned at 10:25 P.M•
The Planning Commission held a workshop on the PROPOSED
MAINTENANCE CODE after the formal adjournment of the
June 8, 1977, Planning Commission meetang•
Respectfully submitted,
� C��
Mar ee Car i
Recording Secretary