PL 06/22/1977 - 6612�
City of Fridley
AGER'DA
PLANNIN� COhT1ISSI0N P4EETING JUNE 22 , 1977
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALI:
APPaOVE PLANNING COMMISISON MINUTES: JUNE 8, 1977
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP# 77-04,
AP CHE CA�'+IPING CENTER: Per Section 2 5.1 I, 3N of the Fridley
�ty Cb e o al o�'w sales and ser.vices of recreationat vehicles
on Lot 1, Block i, Pearsons 2nd addition, the same being 7701 �/: �„!
East River Road NE. � j,/��ie.G� ,,�8� S'Z 7�" �� �
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
USE
B THE HOUSIN6 RP. D/�/A INSTANT HOMES: Ver rrtaiey ��c
Co e> Section 0, 10 ,,, to a ow a Mobiie Home sales
center on a 300' % 100" strip of property lying in Lot S:
A,S. # 153, located between the car wash and Sl�ywood Ma11
Shopping Center, same being 52012 Central Avenue NE.
3, °ltBIIC HEARIN6: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP # 77-06,
BY 0'�3 RMAN HALI: er Fridtey C1ty Co e, Section 205.051, 3.D,
� to al ow the construction of a deplex/double 6unga7ow in R-2
zoning (single family homes) on Lot 1, Block 4, Sylvan Hi11s
L...% Plat 3, the same being 6390-6392 Starlite Btvd.
�
4.
RE UEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. 77-06, BY CLINTON J. COPPiI:US:
Sp �t o t e norther y our eet o ot i, lock 3 Hyd
Park Addition. To allow for access to garage in back yard of
Lot 9.
5. PROPOSED 5I6N CODE, (to be sent separately)
6. CONTINUED: PROPOSED HOUSIN6 MAINTENANCE CODE
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURSES COhih1I5SI0N MINUTES:
8. RECEIVE APPEALS CdMhfISSIDN MINU7ES: June 14, 1977
9. 07HER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNt�IENT
City of Fridley
AGE.�DA
�PLANNIN6 CON9�IISSION MEETING JUNE 22 , 1977 ��3Q P'�•
F
CAIL T0 ORDER:
ROLL CALL•
APPROYE PLANNING COMMISISON MINUTES: JUNE 8, 1977
aACEs
i. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP� /i-ul+,
APACHE CAMPING CENTER: Per Section 205.1 1, 3N of the Fridley
1ty Cb e o ailow sales and ser.vices of recreational vehicles �,,�
on Lot i, Block 1, Pearsons 2nd addition, the same being 7701 �/:�,,,
East River Road NE. �'.�,.� ��,y�,.� �,�'8� S'Z y`� "r ��
2.
BY THE HOUSIN6�ORP. DEB A TNSTANT NOMES: Per Frlatey ��zy
o e, Section 205, , 3, , to a ow a Mobi7e Home sales
center on a 300' X 100" strip of property lying in Lot S.
A,S. # 153, iocated between the car wash and Sl�ywood Mall
Shopping Center, same being 5201� Central Avenue NE.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP # 77-06,
BY OR�M N NALL: er fri ley City o e, Section 205.051, 3.D,
� to a ow the construction of a deplex/double bungalow in R-1
zoning {single family homes) on lot 1, Block 4, Sylvan Hiiis
`.r Plat 3, the same being 6390-6342 Starlite Blvd.
4. RE UEST FQR A LOT SPLIT L.S. 77-Ofi, BY CLINTON J. COPPIGUS:
Sp it o� tfie nort er y our eet o ot 0, loc 13 yd
Park Addition. To allow for access to garage in back yard of
Lut 4.
5. F.R4POSED SIGN CODE, {to 6e sent separately)
6. CONTINU£D: PROPOSED H4USING MAINTENANCE CODE
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURSES COMMISSION MINUTES:
8. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSIQN MINtlTES: �une 14, 1977
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNidENT
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
� ,
�> PLANNING COf1MISSION MEETING
� .IIINF 8, 1977
�
S M6TION by (1rs- Schnabel, seconded by tis• Shea to appoint
Mr• Bergman as arting Chairperson• Llpon a voice vote, al`1
voting aye, the motion carried urnanimously•
CALL TO ORDER=
Acting Chairperson Bergman cailed the June 8,
Commission Me2ting to order at 7:35 P.M•
ROL� CALL:
Members Present:
Mem6ers Absent•
Others Present:
1977, Plannin9
,
�
�.._�.:. � ,
t
P
Shea, Bergman, Suhrbier, Schnabel, Langenfeld
Peterson, Harris
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPftOVE PtAPJ�IN6 COMMISSION MINUTES� MAY 18, 1977
Mrs• Schnabel add�d 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 actuall.y said by
Mr• Luckow of 161-64 1/2 WaY N•E•
q
�
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Shea, that the
Planning Commission minutes of May 1&, 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 $1,DD� FOR THE SENIOft 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• CHANDLEft=
To re2one Lot 1, Block 2, Johnson's River Lane Addition, from
R-L {Single family dwelling areas} to R-� {multiple family
dwelling areasi, 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 row house dev lopment
and/or townhouses, generally located between 64 1/2�and
Mississippi Place, on the West side of East River Road•
pubiic Hearing open•
a
� �� �
�
S
, ,
l E
� 1
� '
�
A
a
��
�
; "'>
s'
�:;
i.�a: .
PLANNING CO�MISSION MEETING — JUNE B, 1977 PA•GE 2
� � �
Mr• Chandler of 11320 Mississippi Drive, Champlin, and Mr• Ken Talbot �
of Calhoun Realty of Coon Rapids'were present•
Mr• Chandler presented a plat to the Planning Commission•
��
The Planninq 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 6e required•
Mrs- Schnabel wanted to know who had title to the easement•
Mr• Chandler responded that it belonged to the County-
Acting Chairperson gerqman 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 back to the property owner•
Mr• Chandler said it would•
Ms• Shea explained that if the setback was 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 what 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 plat 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 todes• °
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• �
�-Y
PLANNING COMMISSION h1EETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 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 additiorial
expense•
Mr• Talbot 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 wouid 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 tha't if the rezoning was granted,
that the Planning Commission could put stipulations on the
recommendation for approval•
f1r• Boardman stated that the maximum that could be placed on that
property was eight units• He said that the Flarininq Commission
had requested a plat and what they had to decide w�s that if
they f�lt the area was right for an R-3 zonirig, then the rezoning
should be approved; if they decicied that the area wes not right
for an R-3 zoning, then they should refuse the request• He
� dicln't see why the Coramission was ccrcerned about tyiny the
property to a specific design•
Mrs• Schnabel said that part of the reason for requesting a
site plan was because of the traffic patterns which were a
concern of the neighbors•
fir• 8oardman felt thai 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 situated
an either side of the building-
At that point, Mr• Chandler showed the site plan to
Mr� g Mrs• Frederic Foster of 644y 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 Mississippi Place side of the
building•
Mrs• Foster explained that there was a park located near the Iots
in question• She said that many children played in the p�-.rk and
that was the reasoning in requesting that the parking lot not be
,� located on the 64-1/2 Way side of the building•
�-�
PLANNING CQMMISSION MEETING — dUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 4
�r• Langenfeld wanted to know if the Foster's were representing
everyone in the neighborhaod or �ust themselves•
Mr• Foster
themselves•
didn't want
that other
Hearing•
said that they weren't representing anyone other than
He said that he knew that all the other neighbors
to see any more multiple dwellings in the area, but
commitments kept them from appearing at the Public
Mrs• Foster said that she had talked to many of the people on
Riverview Terrace and that they were against any more multiple
dwellings• She said that it had �een decided that if multipie
dwellings had to be constructed, then most of the people
preferred to see duplexes rather than apartment complexes•
Mr�s• Foster also indicated that she didn't feei that any variances
shuuld be allowed• i
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out to the Planning Commission that a very
hazardous situatian did exist in the area 6ecause of the abundance
of children arid the amount of existing traffic.
Mr• Chandler pointed out that the rezoninq would be an upgrading
of the present zoning�
MPTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr� Langenfeld, to close the
public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the Public
Hearina was closed at 8:05 P•M.
Mrs• Schnabel indicated that she felt there was a definite hardship
on the petitioner in retaining the piece of property with two
separate zonings• 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• ChandZer had a serious
hardship as to how to develop his property• Mrs• Schnabel also felt.
that a commercial enterprise wouldn't be beneficial to that
neighborhood• She said that she would rather see a multiple
dwelling of some type rather than commercial• She iridicated that
she was concerned about the traffic patterns, the size of ttie ur7its-,
and the setbacks• She said that the residents of the neighborhood
had a very legitimate concern as to the traffic and the children, etc�
However, after careful consideration, she felt that the following
motion was in order•
�
•
r1
Li
��
PLANNING COMMISSION 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
Re7oning Renuest, ZGA #77-�3, by C• D• Chandler: To rezone Lot 1,
� Block 2, Johnson's P.iver Lane Addition, from R-b {single f'amily
dwelling areas} to R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas}, and rezone
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Johnsori's River Lane Addition fram C-1S
{local shopping areas} to R-3 {multiple family dwelling areas},
so these three Iots can be used for tY�e 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
Mississippi Place 4NLY• 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 6e set•
Mrs• Schnabel initiated a brief discussion about the use of
traffic bumps in the neighborhood, espetially along
Riverview Terrace�
Mr• goardman
traffic bunps
street pZows-
indicated that the City tried to avoid putting
on streets because of the p,roblems with
2• LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L•S• �77-p5, �Y MORRIS J• LONGERBOidE�
Split Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision No• 92, into three
par•cels as follows: Parcel Z� 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•�
and parcel III: That part of Lot 28, lying North of the
South 144 feet as measured at right angles to the South line
thereof, together with that part of Gardena Avenue vacated,
also su6ject to the rights of the City of Fridley iri Arthur
Street N•E• and in Gardena Avenue, {1494 6ardena Avenue N•E•}•
Mr• Morris J• Longerbone of 1494 G�rdena Avenue was present•
Mr• Boardman explained that the general location was at the corners
of Gardena and Arthur Street N•E• Ne said that the petitioner wanted
to split the property into three parcels, Parcels 1 and 2 would be
over 9,�0� square feet; however, the lots widths would be ?2 feet
instead of the required 75 feet• Parcel 3 would be an extra 2arge
Iot size that would be well over the 10,O�D squ�re feet which
was required for a corner lot• All the parcels of land were
servicea6le with sewer and water already in• He said that from
the City's standpoint, there weren't any problems•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 19?7 PAGE 6
,` ,
Mrs- Schnabel wanted to know if the City had any easements on
Arthur or Gardena streets•
Mr• BQardman 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
hauses-
Ms• SuYirbier wanted to know what price range the pi�anned house
would be in•
Mr• Longerbone said it wuuld be approximately $60,000•
Mr• Longerbone indicated that he felt he didn't need all 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 which parcel of land Mr• Longerbone
intended ta build his home•
Mr• Longerbone said he would 6uild 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� ��7-45, by Morris J• Longerbone: Split tot 25,
Auditor's 3ubdivision No•92, into three parcels as foliows:
parcel I= The South 72 feet of Lot 2B {5&95 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 to the South
line thereof, subject to the 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 at 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
prthur Street N•E• and in Gardena Avenue {1494 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-
�
s-��r
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PArE 7
3• VACATION REQUEST, SAV }77-05, CITY OF FRIDLEY:
Vacate the 5 oot right o way or Lakesi e Ro�d for 276 feet
on Lot 4, Auditor's Su6division No- 1��, because of a
� change in street pattern• {The City now has a S❑ foot
right of way for 73 1/2 Avenue that cul-de-sac's on the
Replat of Marxen Terrace•}
Mr• Boardman exp2ained 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 westerly 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•
MOTIdN by 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 far 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 1/2
Avenue that cul-de-sac's un the Replat of Marxen Terrace•} with
the stipulation that the City maintain 1? 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 SENIO� CITIZEN WELL CLINIC {CAP}
MOTION by Ms Shea� seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, to remove this
item from the Tabie• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Ms• Shea said that the donation was being asked for the Senior
Citizen Well Clinic located in the North Suburban family
Services Clinic in Coon Rapids•
Mr• 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
CTinic was to provide preventative medicine for senior citizens
at a very minimal cost to them•
`J
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAC,E b
Mr• Kline indicated to the Planning Commission that all Federal
assistance ceased at the end of June 1977 and the �linic was 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,SOQ• He explained that the attempt was being made
to raise 516,6�0 through local foundations• He said that the
$enior Citizen Well Clinic 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 Golumbia Heights, but
that the call had not been returned as yet•
Mr• Kline indicated that Coon Rapids had given $5,�00 worth of
space and supplies•
Acting Chairperson Bergman wanted to know why anyone with Medicare/
Medicaid 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 Senior 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 Su6urban
Pamily Practice Clinic at 13z3 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Coon
Rapids• He explained that it was directly past Coon Rapids
City Ha11 on Coon Rapids Boulevard•
Mr• Langenfeld asked if there were doctors at the Clinic donating
their time•
Mr• 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- Langenfeld quoted the fact that United Way would give support
in 1979; he wanted to know if it was a^for sure^ thing•
Mr• Kline 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 suQport at all-
�
�
PLANNING COf1MISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAG[ 9
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr- Kline was dealing with Jerry Lewis•
Mr• Kline said that we was•
� Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if Mr• Kline was going to handle
alI 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•
Mr• 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 somethino, was discovered
that required medical attention, the person would be
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, for
1B months• She said that that would equal more than �3,��0
per month•
Mr• Kline explained that the physicians were paid $40/hour•
He sai� that two physicians were ioorking each of the d'ays•
He then went on to explain the other costs involved with
running the clinic, over and above the wages oi the physicians�
• Mr• Kline also pointed out that costs shou2d he considered on 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 1�� senior citizens per month are
seen by the doctors at the Clinic•
Acting Chairperson Be�gman wanted to know if there were any
provisions for free transportation•
Mr• Kline said that none of the money being requested would
go to provide free transportation•
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr• Kline was aware of the fact that the
Fridley's Lion Club had donated a bus to Ancka 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 Senior Citizeri Office
that would coordinate Senior Citizeri Programs• He said that once
that -0ffice is impiemented and staffed, many of the problems
presently being experienced by the Senior Citizens would be dealt
with•
�
rr��
PI_ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8� 1977 PAGE 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 tounty- He said that
when someone wanted the use of the bus, they were told they had to
pay �6•50 per hour• He said that it had cume to tPie point that if
Anoka County could not agree about the way of handling the use of
the bus, then the Lion C1u6 was going to ask for the return of the
bus•
Mrs• Schnabel had canflicts because she felt the services provided
for people unable ta 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 Clin=c was originally formed by a Coon Rapids
women's group that needed help in funding• He pointed out that
many times people become medically unable to take care of themselves
and require a Nursing Home oP 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 af
PJursing 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 being requested•
In response to a question asked by Acting Chairperson Bergman,
Mr• Kline indicated that if a physician at the Clinic discovered
an alarming medical problem, 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 appr•oximately 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 wouldn't turn anyone away, but that it
was mainly Anoka County• He said that the plans were to 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•
�
PLANNINC, COMMISSION MEETTNG — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 11
Mrs• $chnabel wanted to know why Mr• Kline had waited so long 6efore
asking for money from Frid2ey• 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 approached 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 o6viously the major portion
of funding source, but that United Way was not optimistic about
picking up an operation immediately foilowing Federal assistance•
Uhited Way wants the operati�n to be on its own for a short tine-
He said that the lead time needed to get United Way support was
u5ually two to three years-
Mrs• Helen Deeg of 106& South Circle NE said that she had been on
the Advisory Board of the Well Senior Citizens for three years•
She indicated that since the Commission had already heard how the
Clinic works, she thought it would be interesting for thern to
hear from a person who had been helped by the Clinic•
Ms• Hazel Hartman of 193 Hartman Circle said that �!`;en she went
to the Clinic that the doctor found a spot on her face Gnu' that
she was blind in her left eye• She was told to see her nwr,
` 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, hopefuily, 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 worse• 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 satisf;ed
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 $9D 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 �itizen 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 �rought people to
the Clinic, but that he did use his own car•
�• i
�
PLAPJNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 197? PAGE 12
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the Planning
Commission recomnends to City Council the approval of the $1,0�0 for
the Senior Citizen Well Clinic {�pp}.
Ms• Hartman cited another example to the Commission when a friend of •
hers had gone to the Clinic and the doctors told her to immediately
see her physician• This person ended up being in the operating
room 6-L/2 hours to try to take care of cancer that had taken over
much of her stomach• Ms• Hartman said that that person was 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•
pcting Chairperson Bergman called the meeting back to order at
9:25 P.M•
4• RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES_9
��
Mr• Langenfeld referenced Page 4]„ the eighth paragraph� He wanted
the sentence to read, ^Mr• Langenfeld stated that if a member of
the Commission could not come to the meeting and be a participating
member,then that personshould not be a member^•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel, that the
Pianning Commission receives the E�vironinental Quality Commission •
minutes of May 17, 1977• Upon 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, second paragraph}
Mr• Boardman pointed out that the guidelines in itself was not an
implementation of the guidelines under the Refereiidum He said that
it would come through the development of the policy and implementation•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know when the City Council would hold
the final disposition•
Mr• Boardman 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-
�
`• LL.Mr• Langenfeld discussed the fourth paragraph on page 38,
^All of the parks within that area were within the river
corridor area, 6ut not all of them would 6e considered as having
river recreat-ion potential• Islands of Peace, Mahnomen Park, and
� proba6ly Riverview Heights, would be•^ Mr- Langenfeld didn't
really think the City had thought of any type of �arina 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 Piver
and the protection of recreation spaces ��ithin 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 Wouid relate to the ftiver• 7his
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 middie of East River Road
and the Mississippi River•
11r•• L�ngenfeld said that the Ezst River �o�a' Project Cor�nittee
was losing its strength due to the lack of one of the mem�ers�
He wanted to stress to the Pl�nning Co��mission thaL- tne
Environmentai Quality Conrnission did noc i�ave e s;,ecific
report tu meet the planning Conmission request as to the stop
light problems on 79th and East River Road other the,n ��hat nad
6een indicated in the Minutes of hiay 17, 1977-
. Acting Cnairperson Berynan explained tiiat there had �een a��
assignment from the Plenning Commission to look at the uroble��
raised by the Board of pppeals� He said that Community
Development had declined to accept the assignment, therefore,
the Fnvironmental Quality Commission had taken it over and
what had been viritten in the minutes was all that k�as availabie
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 �10 should
be brought to the attention of the City Council• She felt that
zt was the ^heart^ of the matter• It pointed out that 79th
was going to be a very critical crossing and Lhe fact of the
matCer 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 t�ave the Council's attention
brought specifically to that paragraph so that they could see
what the Environmental Quality Commission had coine up with regarding
the East River ftoad situation•
Mr• Langenfeld said that since it was already in the minutes,
it should be adequate•
�
u
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIPJG — JUNE b, 1977 pAGE l�4
Mr• Boardman indicated thzt if the Planning Coni�ission felt that
signalization wa� needed at 79th and East River Ro�d, then they
sl�ould make a formal motion stating that after the �tudy of the
79th and E�,st River Road intersection they felt that it would 'ue �
important to have that signal•
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that based
on the study done by the East River Road Project Committee and
their report to the Environmental Quality Commission on OS/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� L�ngenfeld said that he had been requested to be the
Chairperson of the East River Road Project 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 was 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
inforrnative and he urged the members of the Rlanning Cominission
to plan to attend• Mr• Langenfeld w.ent on to say that the program •
would include all the present regulations on noise pollution• He
also indicated that from the presentation a person would become
familiar with the terminology used when noise �ollution iaas
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 came 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 than the
State or Federal controls�
There was much discussion amongst the ?lanni���y Com!�ussion.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• ftECEIVE PAftKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MIPJUTES�
. I IH i C>'1
Mrs� Schnabel wanted to know if anyone could go on the
June 23, 1977, tour of all the park facilities to see what was
being done and what the parks had {Page �18 paragraph F}•
Mr• Boardman commented that he was sure anyone from the
Planning Commission could go on the tour•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to commend Mr• Peterson on his statement
made on Page 47, paragraph 9, ^••tnat he appreciated having some
of the neighborhood project committee members attend the meeting-
This was a working plan and it w�s 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^•
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 Planniny
Commission would be invited-
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if the meeting would get invo?ved
with the problem regarding the dredging of Locke Lake•
• Ms• Suhrbier said that she thought it would since it was
planned to be a total report•
MOTION by Ms• Suhrbier, seconded by �1rs• Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive tlie 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 disc�ission 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 be reviewed by the Bikeway/Walkway Project Committee so they
can be discussed at the next meeting•
�
PLAWNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE bh
6• RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES=
MAY 25, 1977
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
c�rried unanimously•
Mr• Bergman indicated that most of the Comrounity Development
Commission meeting dealt with the repert by pat Gabel, the
Chairperson of th.e Sigr Ordinance Project Committee-
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, PROFOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
It was decided that the Planning Commission would hold a Workshop
after the formal adjournment of the �une 8, 1977, Planning
Commissian meeting•
8• OTHER BUSINESS
Mrs• Schnabei said that she had read Mr� Boardman`s report on the
Hyde Park nroblems and thought it was EXCELLENT• She highly
commended Mr• Boar�dman•
There was a duscussion regarding the Hyde park Report, the meeting
that had been held, and the outcome•
Mrs• Boardman indicated that there was a petition
rezone the Hyde Park area back to residential� He
thought the decision was going in that direction•
submitted to
s�id he
f10TI0N by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, to suspend the
rules and elect a Vice-Chairperson before Item 7• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the mntion carried unanimously�
Mr• Boardman said that a Vice-Chairperson had to be elected annually•
He indicated that 11r• Harris was the Chairperson•
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Ms- Suhrbier to nominate
Mr• Bergman as Vice-Chairperson of the planning Comr,iission• Upon
a voice vote, Ms• Shea, Ms• Suhrbier, Mrs• Schnabel, and
Mr• Langenfeld voting aye, Mr� Bergman sustaining, the motion
carried•
�
n
\J
i
';',� • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 8, 1977 PAGE 17
ADJOURNMENT=
� MOTION by Ms• Shea,
Planning Commission
Upon a voice vote,
unanimously•
�
LJ
/'-'1
1�J
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 meeting•
Respectfully submitted,
��`������-�
Mar ee Carhill
Recording Secretary
�
•
i
�
.�
�
PUSLIC HEARING
SEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMZSSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there wi12 be a public Hearing
of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City
Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, June 22,
1977 in the Council Chamber at 'I:30 P.M, for the purpose of:
Consideration of a request for a Special Use
Permit, SP �77-04, by Apache Camping Center,
per Section 205.101, 3, N, of the Fridley City
Code, to allow sales and service of recreational
vehicles, on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson`s Second
Addition, located in the South Half of Section
3, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka,
Minnesota.
Generaily located at 7701 East River Road N.E.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place.
RICHARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: June $, 1977
June 15, 1977
. �---.• ,._
� criy or• r•t�rn�cY Mrr�Nesu�rn
i
•
•
•
NUDI6GR�
APPLICA,�f7''S S]
Address,��'L
�_�9�PLANNING 11�iD ZGNING PORM
/ ]
TYPC OP RE(jUGST
� � ���,L��A�y� _ Rezoning
r —
ie c� �+' �— �_ SpeciaY Use Pcrmit
Tclephone Numher C' ✓ .3 - ����/
PROYGiiTY OtiYVER'S SIGNATURE
Address �,.��� iC./i�s�st%�i ��d.[1
Telephone Number
Street Location of Property 77C/ E. /r/(/C2 /fCih'J
Legal Description of Property
APproval of 1'remin-
inary $ Pinul Plat
Streets or f,lley
Vacations
Othcr
Fee�Reccipt No. �"�(`7(
�. � N�/°L%%1. I �iF��
Present Zoning Classification �'".Z" S Existing Use of Property (�/� ��
'
Acreage of Property �i-�f'�+,t� �/��4.pescribe biiefly the proposed zoning ciassificatio:
or type of ❑se and improvement proposed �,9-�G3 �QiMO c������C �%�
/�G�GiL�•aL�cnrvC (/-�/jrc/�S'
Has the �resent applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot s lit cr
variance or special use permit or� the subject site or part of it? yes�no. .
What was requested and wiien?
1'he undcrsigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and o�aners of �roperty
within 300 fcet (35D feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(bj This application must be signed by all owners of thc property, or an explanation
' given �.�hy this is not tlie case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list thc names and addresses of ali residcnts and
property owncrs of property in question, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structurc musY be dra�.�i and attached, showing the
folln�t�ind: 1. �'orth Direction, 2. Location of propose.l structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposcd stnuture, nncl fa•ont ❑nd side setbacks,
.' 4. Street Names, 5. Location and use of acijacent existing buildings (witliin 300 feet
Tlie undersignecl hcreby dcclares thnt all t fticts re resentati is stated in tliis
RPPlication arc iruc and corrcct.
UA'1'E �� v��`�% SIGNATUP.F '' ��
( 'PLIC� ' .rr; :.:�:�nd:;on
� 3v:es J. Yacaclski .
DzLc Pilcc'. _ Datc o ❑caring
� Flansiing Cometiiission Ap��roved
(ctatcsj Dcnicd_
City Council Approvcd
(datcs) Ucnicd
� .�.
1`��bL7ftG L�BT.
SP #77-04, Apache Camping Center
�
.. _ _ _... ._..
3im Pawelski Elaine Hartman
Agache Camping Ceriter 119 Craigway N,E,
2465 Fairview Ave. North Fridley, Mn 55432
St. Paul, Mn 55113
PIortheast Securities Corp. Edward S. Jonak
2Kortgage Assoc. i33 Craigway N.E.
i25 East We11s Fridley, Mn 55432
l�tilwaukee, Wisc. 53202
PIr. & Mrs. E. V. Afirens, Jr.
160 Criag Brook Way N.E.
Pridley, Mn 55432
Barry Blower Company
49 N.E. 77th Way
Pridley, Mn 55432
�
LKr. �rs. David Berg
7680 East River Road N.E.
E'ridlep, Mn 55432
Hr. & Mrs. William Jawor
I24 Craig Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
I4r. & Mrs. RicAard Smith
146 Stoneybrook Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
�4r. & Alrs. Lloyd 24eyers
I32 Stoneybrook Way N.E.
i�ridley, Mn 55432
i
i�les� D. Jensen'
16Q Stoneybrook �vay N.E.
FridleY. Mn 55432
Planning Commission 6/7/77
City Council
Mr. & Mrs. Kirylo Czichray
147 Craigway N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Soseph Ricter, Jr. and
Gladys M. Anderson
165 Stoneybrook Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Dumphy
155 Stoneybrook Way N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr.& Mrs. Charles Martin
133 Stoneybrook Way N.E:
Fr3dley, Mn 55432
Paul M. IIurkholder
6229 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
I
First American National Ban
of St, Cloud-Howard Donahue
Atty, for Mortgageee
601 1/2 S. Germain Street
&t. Clqud, Minnesota 56301
Mr. & Mrs. John Van Krevelen
7661 East Rivcr Road
Fridley, Mn 55432
�,, -,. .
�Sl��
i .,,;,`�:
�� � �,��r� (� �,.
�
�F
e�
S
,
;
i
�
�
�
, �.
! �
! 6f
!
�--.. - __
; ! �<� �-.;.;; �
'' / � _ -
�
/� T
j H
� � ;�..� y'.��. l %�'
l
�i \ ,` a
\ l y ' .
� � �. _
, � , °_
-��-.'
�. �..
,
� ....1..0 ._-_. _
4
. l -
,M1
- -;;
- 1 :.
-- -_-1 '� -
�:
;, .
� ,
�
;.
^ - __-"_. �.�-�-'_—_. �
�
�
�
�� �r
� ,._
:S o '
____
, -
'S �
�' j � �
t . { � `^ .
� ..,� ' -, -
'` � _
,
� ``
.____.. A ......._..,. _._.,_ ... . .,,
/\
1 ^�
�. �
�
� l
�
�
_� ' .
�
� \�
r �
, r , ,.`
1�
\.
. �.^rt.....
�c J � tt � . q � . . . �� � t.; � .
, �^ ' , ' � SP #77-04 Apache Campinq Center F_ ��1�j •
` i�, to allow the sales and service ��. \ �"°
y' : �. :
�� �' of recreational vehicles ��•.� .. •
.;. ti ,� � � �
. �.�0 ,,;� : ('
'� � ^
4ti `�� � �,. _�!__ --r � � �`�'�
,`
� �4 �� \ YF q •-• �
.Y
•��� � `\ � � � \ 'r —� ��./>i J�,. — i,I ,.;.`., '
('� �P /. �f � . it o_ , ,j6a � , �'�.
?, '�9 c if �+, �e" . ` �'1
� �. ' " T' ' .t' � , ..l e j Y °Y « , ,� �
.,'v ^ /`�Y- v p .=Y.,. � .� \ . b, \, "
�j� '��> •r � ��
� r ` � � �� . � .•' , = , ' - . �' � 11, •
'�7 V .i.�'��tf: \'Ji.'�:•fVI. \\ L ,.
l.�. * ., - •;., � � /' � ` � r.. � ! !� -+5� \ ~, �
t � ' s�' j � . \ � /�7 ,F�/? n r B.�'F. ..Por�fioii �
� •� I'L,. � �
� � � � � : • ',v' ` `' � \ � J V," : s�
' � ' .. ',�, . 10 �� v`. ' + �. +',
t, .�c:' ,-�y � � � � �s3 �� �� , _ --� �,
�/'!:� ���i ,, .�"1� 1 `�.�i( �,� . �^ . • ,: �.
=��J� �' p � � ^ � ' „r,t . � \,f�e �I�b�� a
� :�_ , y :
,/v � „�i ',. a� '„ • Jj. 33 � � 1 .
i ,rf � ,,. ( ; � . ;.
� y I -�
t , � •� / r.\v;/""�. '• � 7 • '' '``1 f'2��.
`.
.���2'� f � � �. I�,� Y I� � . </�''. � .I
� x 1 � a �\ �? � � .�y .. S° �' .>
�. Ig �. ,, , ,,,1 ��;.:, �.� � _ !. ,�
r� � -�i.. t ,a1 �q
� ,"•\ Q♦ �� p��'�t� /'�� `,-�1 /O \ i•• nrer_' "_'_ ".. . �' 1
J,�r�l' ' A��y� //�, r ��," ; � e � /� � �'i . �:� �si� I ' E 4. � ;� ,.
� • . • '. )� `\ �•/ , " /' . � � J ~ F �I� '! /, O''C � J �. `Q� ,� ,�" �'� ,+ ��� ~� J 1 4• �' N �,«''.
• '
�3 �� � � /� �. f t\. S% y 1 x �. q 1 4 U� 1
! , ��'. � . / . �. :.n ., r t4 a�.i � � .\ tr ' .e'.' �� o'•'.r�*�UOf oF �L ♦ .�. �.�w �
jj��✓ � f ^iy��- / � 1/.J• R� F'�.�'� � 3 ' . . � . :.,�. �g� Y�1�.'%���'1 Y::. V � - `n. �7 1,.
� , i� P IG �. !`..�'�J � ;� ^ �� �, /u � � ,
�� �•' / '��0 'J f � j. �r� .. ,��. .,,� ♦_`�i����I�'� I m, 9J1iY �` � e'� ��
.7 a ! � .a"•..� i �!� i`.� � � e�P 1/ o�n' Y' `S
+ �Q ^ ., . ' �'' O " } . . c � �iy .�`,. `� 4.� 7 _ .' � _ , �(ajd.�� ��/'Op% _ � �.
si � y .. � f,^y. �t
� �: ' � y_f ' � �'� � /!�'� .. � E � ° � q_ �•�' � ° �9� � ��� ,r� � . ��� .
{ � + V! � . /• � L ' `: 15 F ''J .
�f . �� ' . � � s �*• J � Q�.-f (� �.: �fdJ Q � .
t l .. . , �' !4 t �.� t r� " � ' � :\ . I � i. a �. r � � r �•r.. y,
1 �, � �,1� y ; p-. -�..?' i�s irs 4� �y. �` �. ��%1% � � "°'
y 5�� �1 �� �:i`ii;;v r° �' �v J.;�:•_ := ?�" {a' +
E __,,��! � i�°.;tl _ ,,. , N. �,., `: � �� �,�/
\ I � . � ��:� _'�,��J 7 /
f e�� .- � r� n r3� `� r�'��5� �a`� .:,o ��. : j / �, ..
, ,D�� ,�bo� '' • � ; � � .: .� � ,� o > > _ i ,
�••�,� , . ! {r•l , , ,' �\� ?6�9 ''Q^° t
_ �� .' . r'.... i�a... .1 +/ (J i',
� !. . -.. ^'� �•'+:r � =i:. .. ''._. }l . .
1 �5c J ; ' �SC,y ' r' j ' `.+ : � �� : r 4a � C' ^ /! �jOJ i E' c' •'.
t' I ' ' J f` e .. .
' p S' t '�"rn'r n f s f ti f� 1. �. �k. ��i .J/_( �. � j�:)'� .
! • 1. t 1 . )-: / �/
. , -f : ` .: `'%^� ", `� � ,�S �S� ' � °i.�9' f �i9 �'� `', �s� `
S o .�I�� , , ' /" �•``
\. '� � " a! .. ..• ��9, r,, '�� �i�
_, � � ' �`'__ 5. �' , _ �_ � o �;, q
r.l �_. � �a
. N e„ � -� (l� °- � O ' �� � As�!
�( `:,.�, � ' ' r� �/ ���1 � : � � ��� '/ /'�/ <.7
�• � �7,-'�'l` � �,�t,' .iyo ,• i3"' i• ',: , -t %� ! 1
'.., ' _ .` . -, ,� < , 6 �, J ';, ,
� `,l/ ; f,. /-�,�,�v �,'�— .. • �s° �{ �°J' �'.. '+ � . �_�=' . �r •q/S�3 (.,! �-� Ci
i � � �: 4� / E � � j � ; ' J � ' u � , � , , . \ � " ��, � v � .
; �5�{� 1 '%=' �` , > ` I � � S�0 i� fat��- � ,�
� t� � . �_, r$ . 4 � (slfo� � .i. .
� � jD ` . � =,. � `'� �'�5
: S . � „� � /
. � �,�r` �J1r ���•,��r_ n�I + ('(1 �O '� i'� +�J.
, �L�._!fC t p�� ��' �l�; �.T..�_ ���1SL� ,•''• �7: .%S�5 1
, il�� . ��sd�! ,. �'' f i � .. ` IY �� . � �� ' � .. . "
z Vs� Y . � :� SS �,,:. � ,1.�1 ,,,
� ! SU8JEC7j
� CiTY a� Fain�sv,�
MIiVNE90TA i COMMIS510N APPLICATlOIV
A�Vl�W
REVIEW CHECKLIST
RETURN TO PLANNING
� ..� . £ ''.�`. rl
� r ��B T ..
1Y �•� �..
���:
�� -_.,
, . .
F��
�%� I � - ° `'`/� � ��.r 77
7 %D / �i� /Cs.-. ��•� oue/ o.are
4i /' % %
/�'e Q"��-ecf«"^,° � "�^^ �N!-> ,,..-� Ci
� � �� j,� i,.,�„ " �-�-� �-�-�-t-�.,� -
����,���� «� �
`��7 / ���, � �.�..�.�
u� � C��:.Q/i� ,
�.-.�' .�.�..�.-�-� y.-�-�-t-�-e<. ���..-�-�-,.�
, f,�u�
— ' J � /
�._. � e���u.r� ��. �� �, � .�..� ,G,�.�
�' „ �, s /r�/�� -�-� n
� M�s� 'r�.�oa�+:.� �pe�'ar ,o.�c,�.�C ...�� �- • ' `1�""'....."� �!�"�s�-'�'"�
o�-�-� �-.,.�.k�n.����a..�� . ; � .
�� �T .Ci,y,l C�.�.l.`%_YJ� �� ic. 0 nt�S! f�tL �' .l.�G>. 1'- �. �� ""�' 1'.'_.��..--.T��,
i
� _� � .t
�-� � � .� �. � � � ; ��_.� �� _ �� � �
` N .v..t�� L., ti� �-.r�w•v�. �
`"J�—F'�—='„" .� }
� (`) „-�. ��.��� M�^�.(�t�,� �� ,� c_w� �� ���i f 1`. . �.-.....��a�� °--��i Q.c�..-�:l'c:.:.�.c�
�
' \x1 F^
� ���..��R:� .�,�--�-� �`� �:` c ?
S,
t-.� ,'�E..:���._.� ;��_. bcCi..�.�,-r�` �'+_.�ir-::_`:-eY,1-L.`�'.�... .
J
•
��
s
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby giv�n that there wi.17, Y,c a gub3.ic hearing
of the Planning Gommission of the City of J'ric��,ey in the City
Hakl at 6431 University Avenue Norktieast an Wednesday, June 22,
1977 in the Council Chambex at 7:34 P.M. for t:l�e purpose of�
Consideratian of a rer�uest for a Special Use
Permit, SP �77-05, by the Housi.na �prporation,
D/B/A/ Instant Hos�es, �ez Er?.31ey City Code,
Section 205.].01, 3, N, t� allovr moSil.� home
� sales center on a 300 £aat by 100 tnot strip
of property lying within Lot 5, Audi.tor's
Subdivision No. 153, located in the North
Half of Section 25, T-30, R-2A; City of Fridley,
County of Anoka, Minnesota.
� Generally located between the car wash and Skywood
Mall Shopping Center� the saaie being 5201� Central,
Avenue Noztheast.
Anyone�desiring to heard with refererence to the above matter
may be heard at this meeting.
Publish: 3une 8, 19.77
June 15, 1977
�
�xC1ikRA J{o Ii�1RRIS
c�AZxrsr3x
PLP.NNSNC COMMI5STON
.
�__ -
CI7'Y OP PRTULGY b1iNYESU'I'A
�{ •� PLANNING AND ZONING FOlihl
NU�1atR /..�r1 %%�� ��
� APPI.�CAt27''S'ISrfGNi'IU(;�ti TI�".D/B/E'. Ii::;.�:ifT :i0i•� S
Adclress 9550 I�t � h�:,�. 65� Rlain>� ?:•n_ SSL?/�
� Telephone Number %�6" 7 .� ��
Pl:OPER7'Y 0{t'NER'S SIG\ATURi:
7'YI'H OF REQUC•ST
Rezoning
�/Spccial Use Pcnnit
Approval of Prcmin-
inary $ Pina2 Plat
Streets or A21ey
Vacations
AdJress �
. • � Other
Tcicphone R'umLcr 6v �
S�C Gd00 iv��►L.L Fee %�� Receipt No. ��c��
Strcet Location of Property y �y �O /� L�,,.Z�i,.r' 1,,�,z„ �j£�
Legal Description of Property
Present Zoning Classification Existing Use of Property
Acreage of Property
Describe briefly the proposed zoning classificatios
or type of use and improvement proposed
__ ,�G'S,/O�
.' Has the present applicant previously
� �ariance or special use pexmit on tfie
iVltat was requested and when?
sought to re2one, plat, obtain a lot sp2it or
subject site or part of it? yes �/ no.
Thc undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and otianers of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This appiication must be signeJ by ail owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) ResponsiUility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting frori the failurc to list the namcs and uddresses of all residents and
property o�rners of property in question, belongs to tlic undersigned. .
A sketcli of proposed property and structurc must be dra�rn and attached, sltotiaino the
following: 1. North �irection. 2. Location of propased structure on the lot.
3, llimeitsions of }�roperty, proposed structtire, anci front.and side setbacks.
4. Street I�ames. 5. Location and use of adjaccnt e�isting Uuildings (within 300 fect.
7'lie urxlersigned hercby declares ihat all the facts attd repre� ntati�� statect iti tlzis
applic.:ation are true ancl correct. /_ � �
� li.� I���JT�v�i rle>n'�:���. ��.nJ�L�/��/:y I1 CiT�'�:� `� �
�/y / y,
DATE�,� � Y- /� SIG�A7'U . t� L GC.�Er:' i� �;'�?�1/�,• T �� /
• �-�A I P 1, I l.'.\� i) �.
Datc i'ilcd Date of llcaring
Plannin� Commission Appirovcd
(Jaccsj Acniat
City Council A�iprovcJ
(datcs) Denicd
,.-,. ,.
� r��
C, ""° L •
•
�3 I
r
���
- _ -�--------�.
�
� ��� �
I ''
e} ►
��� ._._. ` �• ;
�
_' � '
) � � ! �taP� 1,�.�r�S1t
�
� � :
<. -----�..-�._�_____--.._____�_ ;
— •— - • — _.__.
-' �� ��t'���' l � �i ��,� ._..S��Of?-%�u4 �' � � �
__ , . . � �: Etrl.;.7,�.
1HAILIN� LIST
S:' �OS Housing Corporation
D/B/A Instant Homes
Flanning Commission 6-7-77
CitY
Housing Corporation D/B/A Mr. F, Mrs. Douglas Johnson
Fnstant Housing I050 52nd Avenue N.E.
Ra2ph Henriksen Fridley, Mn 55421
9550 N.E. Highway N65
Blaine, Mn 55434 ---- . -____ .� .
IFRO Ger Co.
5207 Central Avenue N.E
Fridley, Mn 55421
Gi1-More, Inc.
2289 85th Avenue N.E.
Hinneapolis, Mn 55432
Speedy Car Wash
5202 ntra2 Avenue N.E
Frid�, Mn 55421
Twin City Federal Sav. $ Loan
5305 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Ms SS421
Attn: Bank Manager
1`win City Federal
801 Marquette Avenue
liinneapolis Mn 55402
Nici:eIs-T18665-b6269
4022 Vernon Avenue Soath
I�tianeapolis Din 55416
}[owarct ,7ohnson Company
5247 Ceu[ral Avenue N.F..
Fri� Fin SSn31
Bernard R. 3ulkowski
P.O.Kos 320S5
Fricitcy, Pin 55432
1�1r. $ Mrs. Howard Agie
5201 Taylor Street NE
Fridley, bin 55421
Mr, $ Mrs. Francis Jot
5209 Taylor Street N.E
Fridley, Mn 55411
Mr, F, h9Ys. Gerald Dion
5251 Taylor Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mx. � Mrs. Marnin Scfienk
5246 Fillmore Street N.E
Fridley, Mn 55421
Mr. �, hirs. Dale Hadtrath
5285 Taylor Street N.E.
Fridley, b1n 55421
Dfr. � hirs, Vernon Wi11
5299 'iaylor Street N.E.
Fridley, h1n 55421
Alr. $ Alrs. Donald Delich
52S4 'faylor Strcet N.F..
Fridlcy, Din 55421
Mr. Fr Mrs. William Kuether
5268 Taylor Street N.E.
Fridley, D1n 55421
Mr. $ Mrs. James $one
5250 Taylor Street N.E.
� Fridley, rin 55421
Mr. F, Mrs. George Hale
5234 Taylor Street N.E.
Fridley, bin 55421
Mr. �, b1rs. Aaron Engelbritson
5216 Taylor Street N.E.
Fridley, b1n 55421
Mr. $ Mrs. Steve Kantorowicz
5200 Taylor Street NE
Fridley, h1n 55421
bir. & hirs, James Vant
1060 52nd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn SS422
Alr. �r hirs. William Leavey
1240 52tzci Avenue N.E.
Fridley, bin SSh21
�
�� � CtTY OA FRIG�SY�' SUBJECT� . . . .
Y��o� � MllYNE9GTA � COMMISSION ApPLtCATlON
LLJ i REVI�W
COMPLETE RBVIEW CHEGKLIST
RETURN TQ PLANNINCi
� �. � i ti'�'.
�� � :s�� � .
� �� � �.
Dvle
NO/ AOQAH58 - FILH OATE
� � 77- O' �� � "�i �"- 7 �
} / � • u oue onre ,�J
..�1...7_-:i'�� �/LL�/ �' -�� • � �' ...:�i � 7 /
X< k��
> .CG'/ �y �iv.Zg..�-� G�,.�- �7fi
-. ,
..���, - �'�r.7Prae. �..�n7c . C7��C,�';p7/OlV C'f T/f'�c
�
rr %,'�r� � ���':%��'r �Y � s �;' J`'c:�' �,7 .
,
)�u �,��;,;�P �T r.n/.,f''c'r?Y ��,,c:.f �i.y.<-.�,-�
�07 J�� /'�aPt7c�r"=> ..t'��'� � �-� .a� � ��r �
; ro:-tin
,��,,, F
�L.. L' FJ %i-)OF'� C'-Y%�.;_ T .;_; .'";."�._ ::;�:�<>c.:i.-��- �:,J
y v'
7'i'�::.yi �F�C.°'iri > . - .
r, r--.
' r ^''R��°F� _ Sf�GJti-» a'Ur',�% , �.�
�'.. � i»' �' L '(_< .. C..
� C'�fr�;�', NMi:;�.; c%_ ci��2i.vp�4 �r�}u f ni� ��rl' �%f� .
_ .
..
. �� I�. ( ! ♦
1'. . !"�/l ,r .
, ��1..,.�,.x'.';.L... . J j'�`-� J� : , ): "F.'. . %/J - - � . ,
. � � ' . r., �. . _ ; : r . .
'�- �
C ��/S7i.tlG- .�'c� �%T/G� TY �✓?;�_ i� ;._''"�17' ,
��'`�. . !'??.�?�it;�° �ir.z:.,;,,c _r � �°.`e �°�Cis>�.�G >1,`' = .
� � _��,tti�:-�- d� ��� - ���:.��� � 1a<- -'
. � � ' � `-it'�.T�t'(3�;JN�.��t.; //J .
� �fl.� ( % `.' � . t7 . .
L���rc�' �,�� /%'j 5"' /, -' � , ' — '
`. y / C _ . :%,f�/!'L?;.0 i:i✓C � �.� ' ..",'.�, . _.
..j s^� � _
_ _. '. ,: ,_-;" ii✓ , C :��_ - � ;F_ .:r> J:< ,,. )
�%i� J � 1�� i: ,
. ••
r1
U
t._ -_ . C,` ;f�
4 cr'i?�.CJ� :� �'ti.• I �I �"i i� ���� r�_ �i w v C��'�C+� I i i-�� �.
� ' / �;
� /� `� �
�-1 a�! :. �(1 �r ,(i r. i n�, i i J! v 4 L. "fi rL Yi: "i.tii r. r� /�i_ n 1� "f 2(v L�' iiGC9 �Ci� _: �.-\
� �% �,,[�i'�n i
�,r11 nrCO� c�'l�6�'I<�� «<� �a \ �,.`C. �'�N. .Q..J.-w�q„'� ,),,,,, bl�-G��?�C6�, .o3i O(/���o,�[��GC
�1 ��.
(.�� Gx�f ��K [.�r�f -�%rnc /ir:�,�,aur�� �ixa�
%:� -a�,�� .G.� .��n ����" � .���.� .-�,.�; (,c.�z�a+ �
,��� ��� %Z*��CS .
_ ,
_;�:.. -
�
�
•
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PI,ANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is herby 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, June 22,
1977 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of:
Consideration of a request for a Special Use
Permit, SP #77-06, by Norman Ha1.2, Section
205.051, 3, C, of the Fridley City Code, to
allow the construction of a duplex/double
bungalo in an R-1 zoning district (single family
homes), on Lot 1, Block 4, Sylvan Hills Plat
3, located in the South Half of Section 15, T-30,
R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota.
Generally located at 6390-6392 Starlite
Boulevard,N.E.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an
opportunity at the above stated time and place.
Publish: June 8, 1977
June Z5, 1977
RICHARD H. HARRIS ,
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
�,�
NUP1t3CR SP #77-06
CI'1'Y OP PRIDLCY D1INNIiSOTA
PLANNING AND ZONING TORM
� APPLICANI''S SZGNATURC G�c��'<«J ¢✓C�-t—�
n�dress .j � 4= 6�2 �-� fl� . N, Is`,
Telephonc NumUer ..5 � � - � 5 � �
PROPER'i'Y 0{�'NER'S SIGhATURL' fi��-
Address
TYPE OF REQUGST
Rezoning
X Spccial llse Pennit
Approval of Prcmin-
inary F, Final Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
Other
Tc2ephone Number ' -
/ �%,� FeeS120 Receipt No. SYr7G`
Street Location of Property [:• ��J �1� � e � % Z ; �:ltLti�� ��, ��
Legal Description of Property ��f �". ///�'�Kyi _�C/�rll�N H/��S _ L�CIa��7
Present Zoning Classification R-1 Existing Use of Property ���-it-c� �
9 9 So ,�
Acreage of Property �D Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
• or type of use and improvement proposed Section 205.051, 3, D, to allow the
� construction of a duplex/double bungalow in an R-1 Zoning District
� 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 x no.
� What was requested and wlien?
17ie undersigned understands thaY: (a) a list of aIl residents and oianers of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all o�aners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proccedings
resulting from thc foilure to list the names and addresses of all residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. .
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be draicn and attached, stiowing tlie
follo�aing: l. Nortli Di�•ecLion. 2. Location of proposcd structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structurc, and front and sidc setbacks.
4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (tiaithin 300 feet}
The undcrsigned hercUy declares that all tlie facts and representations stated in this
a�plication are true and correct.
DATfi `J "- "L 7 - 7 7 SIGNATURG � %t %-';✓<f-�: �- • /y,� �*L�
. (APf'LIC�1N'I') . :
Datc riled Datc of ticaring
Planning Connnission Approved
(dates) Uenicd
City Council Approvcd
(datcs) Denicd
,�
.
SSiS� StPpi—�
JS.J .
.a ;
P Z
�j3
�s -
a6
� 8'_'
9
_ /o _..... . �
i_iz
1.H _
is '
1i s I
z;
i ,e
t �1 � / !
!.. ;
�
, 1 ' j , II� V
f i �S � �:�i
I c
AY w � �'.I °, �'�:u
I � � �
��
� .,. n '`i ( , �
D � l� �� ,� y�''�
2� / :I i � i
�Ic
y—�� i \y;l i
1 ,; � i �
}.rn;; �: +i �; i yyy,}��� i'o
Y/ i + � ^ _I�
4
A` �..�t. t�. .�—i _ `Y.���J
'� '� i'. `� ' F
� � .�i � ��j�
z,` � ;; i `i'j''
� � ._�y, � �
€ � , n � � �
�:
4 'tl ; �� i
r f.i.vi +_ ; c , , .T. ;
,
2
L, . ,.> . .,___ :.,. � . __ _,
/ �r
� r �' " ��i./��I� �',;'� � ��
.� �
.x ,u5:�: .r� r r" �{
�. M . • ]
. . f,:.�� �. f k � � .� .. �`
� � „ ., F. S~ 4.: �� ^ �
yw? 3t a'r �T 1! .. k. .
��� �. � �" YA :.
' -v 3.. �11� ' n w' . .
t _.. M s�+ C... K. _�--.�.
• ��rtry` �.� ` � . .�. .
_ �:"'"' ' '� f
._ t' �'a� ...' ' ... c i_.: , �{
. w ' ,x.-.'a Y.. _ � .� ,.. 4
. . . . ' ,> � -tTi''' .
�1-F _.. _ _.y .r .
� � �-�_ .. C t . - .
�.V�S COR?Y�R • " � '
� ���.I� �- � 1
� , -:-� ` �
��7RE--�---�_..-z- - _ .��. _-;� . - . .,
, ' ...�.� I �, , . :
% � �9rs'7!6 jt 1312 %8 � � - � -, r ..� � .
: i..:ni.� 2°y.! � � _ _ ` `
� . .���� ' �z�>r �� �itY _
_ ,�.�, , e �, ` �'
�z � ;
� � ��t7°��� `„�,R
,, ' \
�AC . `�' ' . .
S;y' ,� x � �J . -. �.. '
/6 .Z% � �� . � � .
. 3 . o ,s „n- . i . � � -.-
v .
, , ,� Z ; ��LV�1V ��:-'' � ;
S' `�
. 9 =: NIL� � . '
�
* z, k Z3 �,� AT s ' _: I
i;A �19
..I ' --$1���LLI�E fYAIVE• . , _,,�_� .
� �� �.. u f� ��;� "" ;
. t ►¢ ' � "� !# � - - •�_ -
� �„,: i i�'o i� � . �
.9: p ...,.� ` ` l a�f 1 t 1 '`'.,� � . � �
�Li __. O ' . . . , ��-�� .
a
��3
�_ :�_ ,.
� lot ; � . - ' ;
�� �,,,�I � .
i�.
��. ,s � - . _ _
� t �3► i �N5 �
� �-.�,.� „ �, � �
e' �� SYLVAN � LANE ; � -
,.. � , _ _ 1
ro �./, �[,�
•-�4'�'`��. �/I�q ��%� . . .. ; .
f z .! 3 � _ -'I
'�DD�
����j29'" �2�1 ��ILb2�i
, :s f : � _3
I- :
V Ni a ` �
/����
ID _—
,�
2�0
..<--� -:",'
� �.�� F; : ..
'a�` :I � "
� �•� (0250":. _� �
�,ivr ; jo2�o �
�r ;i .
';1_^ , i tst
�I ' 6Z3o� >
,�/ .� f t ii
. _ �_. .,,__ _� c,
il
_ i�
�� ' .
♦�
. �,
;
. ;�
}i
y ' 'i .
f�.� CITY OF FR1Dl.EY,� SUHJt
� MINiVE90TA �.
I
r�rF �•
COMPLETE REVlEW CHECKLIST /�-�'
/—�i
CiETUqN TO PLANNINC3 ' •
_ ��-
ii�r� �
�� ,.�.a � ��..
';ill� � �,� : "
• c ��
�
E� �
�i :=�
�.1�. ,�,t.�.*�'i�/0.
ti�,�',a� q �, V�, �
�����
.� � �1�. � U� � � .�
� �. %�� �.�•� � � -: .
Sfi7BV APPLICAT30h1
R�V1�W . _ --
%%—U b, ..
oo�e
o a�
i �?��"� v...t�
�C.t�i� (�r� �u-A'-�� /j,.��...��i✓ (�--�,��-� - --
4.•�IL'_ �i�j,5y . . � 0
�� ,.c.� �.�,,.,.;,, � �� . G� ,,��/r,
�
2�� ��� 6- �� a„�_ ��, o, r«�l�
/� IYYIQAt��` 'j. V .u""`"�,
�^� , „ �� � ,,YEI,,,i `�tr. SC+s� .�-v�tD-`-'- JF' 3 ° G ^
��,.,._!
� � �� �
/�� :
i
.�,. m .
MAILING LIST
• #77-6'Norman Hall
to construct a double bungalos
in R-1 zonrng
orman Hall
5 N.E. 66 1/2 Way _.
ridley, Mn 55432
arlson-Lavine, Inc.
831 Aldrich Avenue South
iinneapolis, Mn 554Q8
Charles G. Aspenson
�370 arlite Blvd. N.E.
'rid]�, Mn 55432
Ir. $ Airs. William Kidder
�360 Starlite Boulevard N.E.
ridley, Mn 55432
ls. Mary Auger.
�2A8 Starlite Blvd. N.E.
�rildey, hin 55432
ir. f, �drs. Roy Caples
l00 Satcllite Lane N.E.
rridley, DIn 55432
3r. $ birs. Ralph Afisser
t14•Satellite Lane N.r.
?rid�, bin 55432
�, �
PLANNING COMMIS5ION
Council
����
��1� �. �
b3��1 /�t,�
Mr. Fr Mrs. Raydon Hong
115 Sylvan Lane N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. F Mrs. Cfiarles Sander
101 Sylvan Lane N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
6-7-77
�..,-,.
.,5,�o LOT SPLIT APP( ICAI lUfd
' CITY OF FRIDLEY
���
�� i: o,
ci � O
� ;., o .
� � �
N� b
Sa Y ri
G> .rt �
aa�
aa,� o
s: m o •�+
�+� m �
W O U
Orl � �
i�m�ct''tl
N O U
.k W � co
N O (-� •rl
d� P1 CR +'��'
APPLI CAPIT: �% ! r �t r� � � � � v �' �.' I (, L` �i --
�`itic °i'� s7' �'� '� , �v .�:;w3F
avnriESS : � � rr � l
Street City Zip Code
m�.�piioi� �.� 7! -�: G`1 � Y.X�' -�'C 1�'
Home Business
1 r — n
PROPI1iTi OWNFR�.S��:,./_�4 �.-• r_ �-C--� �,.;i t
�� ,�
� ;i ' 6�� %�-'Z:-, �, !1.,.�i.. , .
, ��;.,,, _ �����r, ,-, : �-~ ,-��. �,�
ADT1tES5(ES) � �' � � --
a P7aaic
Lot Split �� � ' ��
Date �il-�,�• �
Fee:i�3`�.:��' � ceipt {/• � '7`,
Council tion:l�ate
RIIriGRY.S:
�
!� Ga ' •_'<�
Code
Street City Zip Code
TELEPHONE #( S �_ ' _ 7 / .., � 'J .' -
I
Home Buainess
Property I,ocation on Street // ��/ % - �-- '�� •f
or F�cact Street Ad3ress (IF ANY) " �%�f �`� �7 ` r ! l�� `� '�'"`-�'- /- "-=
C
Legal Description of Property:
n
Nr �r� , i � � � r ��i �. , _ � �} �, �c j- �o �,3�.<��.K ,3 jr r.�t.- ('��:K
Reason for Lot Split:
QI1... ��__.o ,1;,,.. !,•.,<ir F.� l.�viD;.i.;.�.i�, i���i,Clf� /�
k
Total
perty.
�.
. ft
U
ent Zonir.� Claesii�.catiozi
The undersigned hereby declases that all the facts and
representations stated in this application are true and
correct. '
DATE•�� SIGNATUfiE ���c�„ I - ` � � ����-G `,
RrI�OSd FOR CI`!'Y IIS�' QNI�" (See reverse eide fox 3ditional instsuctionF
CH�C�:Ell 1�Y STAFF llATE
Hemorks:
� PLANNING GOMMISSION: Dste of Con�ideration -
Remarks:
CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration -
Remork�:
Q.aietiiir�ital �rt !1'jlays Lu., �lur.
6tl-Wi'bN'AYN.Ii. tll'2.711-t•IY10
FHIll1.E5', NINy. fi6S1'1 � �
�jy6 .! 63!' �. ,...
e
S-��r �% �".•`��.�;.
rm►Y 31. 1977
T0 'rlHON, �T "�^.NY COhC��t7:
WE, THE UNDERS?G�ED, DO T,OT i{&7� AHY OBJECTION TO NORMAN F. HALL
BUII;J'?iG A(DUPLEX) 0� (DaUA�w. EtiNGFIAW} 4N T}iE FOLLOWING PROPERI'Y-
KNOt�lN AS, (I,OT 1, BLOCK $, SYLV�N HiI.LS, PLAT 3. OF FRIDLEY, MINN-
ESOTA. )
#�._ ✓/c��?�os'vy; 1:�Sr.1�=-- 5 � =---�'-2Z
- - t--- -,
�2,x� __�,;��._13c fi,�'�l�;Tc L�s,:.s__3=7[_/°` �--
. /
#3-.�- ��_� I,: ��.:�..il_i�!lsafz�ihz� Lv.__z�-7370
}? ,
��'•'- 4 J £ --��-==-/ �-�•�.... _ / �/Y _�a�t�.t,t.-fs-,� S%/ dy'G9
�
�5• .��� %lc�� _ ���1<_�=_c � ��'_ L,.. s �t� i PP/
(>. '� „��,�,�;_ _,tC�,•ia --- �i �_=—�/I=`=-�-1..#_�k •�• S% U -OL'3 %
� _
� � � ,
� 7' r .�4'%fd!.'�' ��� �;;..�•.n.�, /�(�i .%I (.�./L .•,�rL.(�C•u y SL'O 3 J `1�' .
� � � ' � � / I`` — �-� v �' }�E,,. �li/t!`v�"�i�ir� _ _.4 � � � U �'J � 4L`✓�' d"'lJt! , s ? y _
�` �' • ] i�i...�,� l ±,. .�;^�` �; �1 �j � 4 �_,-�. � , s 7 � �. C I � 9'� �� �
r � �
�#:1;;, i� � �,� . �.J:� _.��{ .r_:=� ;_, ..�f�� _ s�l- �� ��
� - s- ; ----
, • .
� ? i. � . � ;
� r j� , C; `, � �'I . _- � � ' : , ,,_ . ��
; ;, ::� • _ �( , �:-• Y �
:�-: : �t (�.> ,k''.< �1�;� -.�' �S"7/-/0 �z
--------- __ _ _ - � � � __ -- ------
�___
. . . . . .,.�„F. _.
��r�i �iJ � �� 1���
+!'e • �+G 6 %NG�hff/7rNG CG
.,,:P'•::_- i'J'Y.. i[iE ��SJLu CJi+iPnidt
i8t2� Se5.55M
10700 HWY. 55 WEST. MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55�4�
til•?::t:' �F'; ':h� Soutn fiai` o` i.:ot 8 anc all cf iot °, 3:1C *_i:e Eust iial::
:�� ttl° di3jdCE'^t "v,3Cdt?C a1.12j�'� dll l:i .9?OCiC i3, HiDE PARK
=1�UI��:�J'•.�. �3.^.���!'li?:= tC' 'tflE� recur'3�C: FI.dC. therec: r nIl(J]C3 �
;O:lIIT-`: . �i1R.^.23'7i_::. ..
�
6
�I
W
J -
J i� �
Q Q�
O i
O v�
�0 4; �
�,
a �,���
U
> � C�a...dyc
E
., ti'
__'J.S �7F—'
SK
�— �.. J
:
� �a
` QI
t:� � �.1
` r �
F
�24"G ,.�
b
vi
--:3s.�6--
10
.. Uen�tes �ro� Monumen!
3J 6
' _,35.�3"__
3G
: �
, �
i
�
��
'`
(h�
�J
.�
1 � �
I ,
' �;'j?�— r,���t,{�� c� lu�
, -�, -t� �-�_��t1, �
Scale t" = 3" '
� tiprpp�, �P,•'.�}v O.e' 7^;5 S:i�vBy, plar. ;peci ,caticn or repor� ,�as preoared bv mE O�
� �rt<;er 'n�. � f@G S��Ue'�:ISp� dr,d ±hd! ( dm a du�y fleg�stererJ .
:r�d S�r�eye� under ?r2 ia.+s o` the S;a�e of M�nnescta.
.
xf,�.m�'s��_ Datz��;::il !3. 1°% _Ra, No ��735
S�TIU�) � l). t 2lC'�:•..•-
!
�
,
�
::
;
t
s:
. .. . � . . . �,,.�' .'
z
f"'
�
a
r �
/? .
5'� ;;; -,
4?<~
��'7�
�q o
�qqN
,a �iD
�°� i b
973- � i � �
_ , � � tn
r �-- � � �
�}�'�:`� - � w
., � � �
s9_',�.> � � �
y�^�''� ' �
59... _ ��Zo `� �i ' , �:
_ ZO _ ,i z 5917 j °�,ve ,.
/9 - ��
_._. _ iZ��r , _ �
_ . . L __I _ �:
' � %� .. �
� '7 .� _ '��j ._ - _I o.:
� � i _r. � 'i �d
t Ra!
AVENUE
� AYEHUE
� �-� �r-
°s{ 6v �: r
0
�
�
~ � ir " z �
cn :- � ayoo �;
.. •�,,.�+�i-Ov^0'
. l�.E. � i` � "�
,. x (,Ya��..
i 7i' �e,Jl
� � �G i '.
8=�6 _
_ -�{ wB1��=
- __ - �-� �
%,
. �'�� -- �5 � :
� _ ;6 ; ,
5�'3� �7 �:�
--�� ��_�;.,
-� ;`^z `.
y 8a'� : == c� . o�
� ;.; _ .
�p�__ _.;`
' �.� F. �-'' µ°:
�� -N:E.o,:,_�;;�-.
�;- .� 2 ._e�< -:�s��
� 4I ' '' .
1� � l ../� ,• �,� �
, ,� G sJ
____ <
L� - �
0
� �� -3. _
0
, j
__„._ __'.4.._"_,.
.>; . v� !:
� � _ —,.sv.�f . �
1 � . . �F, `r. , ^--}.zs•E;::;-I:- �jso; .
✓ 2 .s .� 5 � ''�% �• ;z , : ' : ' .,
^�� '��� . '�4��`'.F�,:"��,' i
2 5� •� I : "• 2F�G �,
i�� �
;> n G.Z�
-�-- �__,r.. -- -
"� �.�ii..,_�,M: :;
' S7 TH W _, , :. r�
- �_1 16_<4r�il.J1<9,.
z . _7'r.� h\ �o ' �"
$ � �� % �
:59�;i 5Y;
597.? ,
,;5�/� �,. 5
`'` ; -r
'� �v��Jf���9.s
,w
Z 57H9 � i';
. �QN/ . .59y�
'• L u.
� . Sq; 3 s9s
cn _ ::. � ' ,. ,
; Sq?,S sqr�
.j,
' � ..:.�.TT�.
; 54, J '. ,, •-
_ � ���:
!— t.59Q4� .
v, _ ... . s}'';�
,
�
9: tn�. �, �
�°-. S.,
i,�BN '"'�-L°� 8ic
� ��
'`';�rj �.
� 58S' � s�
,_ .e e .l� .:
Sf"-/v
^, 5�oy' =• y'
0�
�; .. 6sf3�
• � ' �I
5�: � .'Ye D
i
'•"I/ . ,�,D .'-_ .'
b'.- i
_ :: -• . :,
�cl sdco
F�' � � � �, :_ �
. i "Q / �y J 4 0 d � � ' f '�� � �. 3 S � � � 1
� P a �� O: { 60 � 3.
.
� , ,
� �'a,p �' 'j-i, 5 e.'7 '
� �
6 ( - -,,,� i
� ���:`: � 5� , ,I_g ,z' �, ,9�> 3
�i �:�.> � ,.� � � ��� ybp ;��� ,
� „ ; �. :
_. , _._ .:�._. : - , .'t
� . --' �J% T�"� --�V���iE��-' li.�. ;:rv�iro� . ._
I � r� ' 1 (� (— --Z l--1 f —
i
,_ .. _ _ _ -�. _ , _ .
'�
-_ --,_ - - --- — � . ,
i. ----=--- ----------
---
_.____ _._ .
�'_ ?.l,—e --�1�c�evr��r,z�1 _� ��vee---i_�,--7� e_v_e��f-
-_ -_- -��� -.-/� t �P/�_f_;S ���„ � � � _�-,1�-- ?- �� � ��
------�'_C!^�t.Ull�.. .l ���J --T ��Ul^��(A_ �t, !`1 .Ic �C ____�i � !�/GL( f t,
� -
.
-- -----�� --��� Y� _..r�--�/.�-�� �llt� r� N_.�_� r� ��� � r
,, ,
---a-110 __w___
_/ _� �
-- -�-- ---=-------- --
0. J J�C G
l�— � ��
,-----------
_ ____
--- -- -_.
_ -----. - --- -- - --- - - - __
-- _�
�
_ � i- �� �C �C�Se- �� 6` G �'�1��� �
_ _ . _ _ _ . . --- _ _ __,
�_ ��i `� l t�i �: Lt,�'L�'C6�.i f il�G � c c;� �,L_._
_ __..� jl�E�. .--��1 ./ �/f1 �
• � ---
_.___ _�� �(:-E►�---- _C��J�_c,v� hc � _ ,(� ,
� �' -- -- -- ---------
-- -
�._ -- ------- -
_ - _ -_
------ --- -.. --
--- - �C _._ l`I C r' I l l c � h_ _ Fc; l,l b' C�Y
_ ) _ Fc�� : o f _ �07--�'Q
-- ___ ��o� �_ � 3 -- -_�y��_ ��ur K-�----- _---
--- --
.
-_
-- -- —
-- — _-----
__ _ �; I1 �. s� 1�l `. .
--
_ _ C�l G � t,'_ � _ -� ---
— — __��if fG___�i C
: -- - -- -
�,. — �' � �i -" f-�- -- �i./� �L �-/
__ l � fi S�l _�- ,6 , _-
_ - - �Cl%tG
----
T• �.-,-�._ f • - J - _.
____ _ �. -- -l-�`� - -- T�)� /!)� _._.._CI�1yec`_ �L.�_��..--�
- -- _ _ � � - � _ _..5�" I C�' , �-7-- - --
G
� I __ i��� _ ��« ���. � �;� � %��-�,T��
_�l���l��s �_ - .�
, __ -
_.. ,_._ G�,h. �-- `�`-f :_�1T'� __.. �'c.T ..._ ' c�� /,'JCti�--/-�l.l� �_.
- - ,. J�.!'C,d'c ��. t� _ ��:: _ C�� �
• � '
_ _- �7 ,
G . . _ . _ - . ".. . __._ . ___ . ._'."'_
.._ . . . . . �1�' � � ' i.��i...
__ ��y��-Q _ __ l
- ,.(_ _r_ . � __ ---- �_-G-2T-
-_ _ CIi.�_I0'� ___ J.>:. _�-' c'.%� J �_�'L..S
- 1 � _ _ ----
�5�. � � �.. lr °
�
.
_ . ___ _ _� .
-
— -
. __.
�
� ' ' c��
•�-� � —
; ; /' G / �J _ .
: , /
_ �'�C4j� L _ ���L 71 +/�' >' _ _ _ __.
/ T ��v
�
_. _
____
__.
_ _ -
- _ _. _ ._ _.. _ ..
/�r� cirv oF PFi�DLEY.� SUBJEG7�
�J MItVNESt]TA i C�NfT,/I)SSf�iV AiPPLlC6aTii31V
R�V[�W
�e utment�UrviswM
� . . .. . . .. _ . . _ ... �Numba � +kzv F'aqa ADPtwed by
L'J " %%'OCn �
CCMQLETE RBVIEW• CHECKLIST FILH NO/ ADDRE59 FIl.6 DATI! _
�� yy%G� ��7 �/e'E�� �� --(�- 77
�IETURN 70 PLANNIiVp ' ' �C�, /C � � our os�Te . - __ .
_ _�/cf/� %� ��`n.e"fir� �;. /�- 77
�;�1j���:-., !�
� f ;� r
'
� �� r�. ��
Uals
/.:�'i�/� ���1 �ir.-r�` .s ' - No /".'�,l/
'1 ���/ ci�' �d �E'� � r�t
ic', Jl� � � �t'� � j.�=! . � . � . .
�...
�
•
CITY OF FRIDLEY
pPPEALS COMf1ISSI0N MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 1
CALL T0 ORDER=
Chairwoman Schnabel called the meeting to order at
7:45 P=M°
RO�L CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent=
Others Present=
Plemel, Schnabel, Gabel. Barna
Kemper
Ron Holden, Building Inspection Officer
APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES� MAY 10, 1977
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that she felt in some cases
there was more discussion than what had appeared in the minutes.
She said that there may be times that the Commission would
proba6ly want some of that discussion in the minutes even if it
would seem purposeless at that time but the Commission would
want it for references later� She requested more detaile�
minutes be taken.
MOTION by Mr= Barna, seconded by Ms= Gabel� that the
minutes of the May 10, 1977, Appeals Commission meeti�g be
approved• Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously=
1• REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SECTION 205•053, 4, {64},
FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK
ADJOININ6 AN ATTACHED GARAGE FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET
TO 1 FOOT, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24' X 24'
ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A 6 FOOT BREEZEWAY, LOCATED ON
LOTS 11 AND Z2� BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH ADDITION, THE SAME
BEING 4620 2nd STREET NE•. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA,
{Request by William L• Buster, 4620 2nd Street N�E=+
Fridley, Minnesota 55421}•
MOTION by Mr= Barna, seconded by �s. Gabel+ to continue
this item until such time that M�• Buster appeared at the
meeting� Upon a voice vote, ail voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
This item was handled after the completion of Item 3 of
the agenda=
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to open the
Public Hearing= Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 2
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A� PUBLIC PUftPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT= �
Section 2�5•053, 4, B4, requiring a side yard setback ��
of five feet from an attached garage=
Public purpose served is to provide space between
individual structures to reduce conflagration of fire,
to provide access to the rear yard for emergencies
and to limit the condition of crowding in the residential
neighborhood•
g� 3TATED HARDSHIP�
They want to add on a 24 foot garage with a 6 foot
breezeway to the south side of the house and it is
impossible to enter from the rear of the property
because of a vacated alley�
C� ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW�
Field measurement shows that the petitioner has
approximately 32�5 feet in which to build instead of
the 31 feet he showed on his drawing• A verifying
survey would indicate the exact measurement• We do
have a verifying survey on file for the house to the
south, {4608 - 2nd Street N.E.}. The proposed garage �
wall will be approximately 17 1/2 feet from the house
{living area} to the south• Any construction closer
than 3 feet to the common line must be fitted with a
one hour firewall= Also, it may be difficult to
maintain the structure properly without the minim�m
3 foot setback.
Mr� Buster showed the Commission his plans for the
garage and breezeway•
�hairwoman Schnabel said that they did have a picutre of
the home as well as a survey.
Mr• Holden explained the verifying survey= Ne said that
the drawing showed the existing house and explained where the
garage and breezeway would be located• Mr• Holden indicated
that he had double-checked the measurements and that Mr• Buster
had a little more space to work with than originally thought•
He said that they would be ask=�ng for a variance from five
feet to 2•5 feet instead of one foot.
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNF 14, 1977 PAGE 3
Mr. Buster explained that he wanted the breezeway to
serve as a connection between the house and the garage�
Chairwoman Schnabel asked Mr• Buster if he had considered
attaching the garage directly to the house.
Mr. Buster explained that the mai� reason not to was that
they would lose a window in the living room.
Chairwoman Schnabel asked if Mr. Buster had considered
moving the garage back so as to save the window in the living
room and attaching it to the house at that point•
Mr. Buster indicated that there was a closed a11ey ru�ning
behind his property� He showed them on the picutre where his
yard began to slope and where a concrete retaining wall was
located•
Mr• Barna wanted to know if the stone wall was presently
on the propertya
Mr. Buster said that it was and showed the Commission
exactly where it was located-
Mr. Holden indicated that moving the garage back would
be a possibility, however, it would be more expensive because
of the need for much fill•
� Mr. Holden suggested that Mr• Buster could lengthen the
living raom and therehy allowing for the installation of
another windowa
Mr. Buster felt that that suggestion would probably
result irt the spending of more dollars than he had planned
to spend.
Mr. Holden said that possibly not as much as Mr- Buster
thought.
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that Mr• Buster would need
a verifying survey before he started construction•
Mr. Buster indiGated that he was told by Darrel Clark
that the survey that the Commission was looking at would be
adequate•
Chairwoman Schnabei said that IF Mr• Buster had needed
a verifying survey that perhaps the Appeals Commission could
have continued the request until such time that it was
surveyed and he would know exactly how far he would be from
the property line• Then he would know for sure if he would
� have to go with a solid fire wall or if he would be in far
enough, or if he would want to reduce the size of the garage
or the size of the breezeway so that he aouldn't need the
fire wall. Otherwise, she indicated that the Commission
could grant the request with the stipulation that if the
building was within 3 feet of the property line that he
would have to construct the fire wall.
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 4
Mr� Buster asked if Mr• Holden had measured the property
when he had been out to the property earlier� �
Mr• Holden indicated that he had measured the property
and that he had marked the north stakes and the south stakes•
He said that the survey Che Commission was looking at was
basically right.
Mr- Holden suggested that the variance be requested to
go from five feet down to tfiree feet. He said that, then, if
Mr• Buster, dropped a foot off of either the garage or
breezeway, he would be at 3•5 feet which would be within the
varianee code
Chairwoman Schnabel said that if he was within one foot
from the property line the Commission would have to have some
type of easement from Mr= Buster's neighbor to allow him to
trespass on his property.
Mr• Buster indicated that the neighbor had told him that
he didn't mind even if he went right up to the property line•
Chairwoman Schnabel said that it wouldn't have to be done
so much for Mr. Buster`s case, buC it would have to 6e done
for when Mr• Buster sold his house or the neighbor would se2Z
his hiouse•
Mr• Barna asked Mr• Buster why he wanted a 24' garage• �
17r. Buster stated that he had two automobiles, four
bicycles, one motocycle, lawnmowers {one push-mower and one
riding}, one barbecue grill, etc• He said that as long as
he had decided to put up a garage, he might as well build one
big enough to store all the other miscellaneous items that
are presently in his basement or in his screen porcha
Mr. Barna said that he had done some figuring and that
if Mr. Buster took two feet off of the garage and six inches
off the Breezeway, then he wouldn't need the variance•
Mr. Buster indicated that he really felt that he needed
the full 24` garage to be sure he had enaugh room for everything�
Mr. Plemel agreed that Mr= Buster probably did need
the 24' garage since his home was only approximately 800 sq ft.
Chairwoman Schnabel said that no matter how big a garage
was, it was never large enough:
Mr. Barna told Mr� Buster that it probably wouldn't be long
before his 24' garage wouldn't seem big enough to himt •
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 5
Mr• Plemel wanted to know what Mr• Buster had on the
� exterior of his home•
Mr• Buster indicated that he had shakes on the exterior
of the home•
Mr• Plemel wanted to know if he would have the s�ne
type shakes on the exterior of the addition and garage�
Mr• Buster said that he did plan to have the same•
Mr= Barna wanted to know if they were asbestos shakes•
Mr• Buster didn't know for sure•
Mr• Barna asked if they broke easily• If so, then
the shakes were asbestos•
Mr• Buster agreed that his shakes were asbestos. He
also indicated that he would run the same brick across the
front of ihe garage as there was on the house•
Chairwoman $chnabel asked if Mr. Buster had talked to
his neighbors•
M�, guster indicated that he did talk to the neighbors
� and there had been no objections•
Ms= Gabel wanted to know where the neighbor's garage
was located=
Mr• Buster said that his garage was on the alleyway•
Mr• Barna asked for verification of the fact that
Mr- Buster hadn't thought of an attached garage due to the
fact that he didn't want to lose the window and didn't want
the additio�al expense of adding onto his living room.
Mr� Buster indicated that that statement was correct.
�OTION by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Barna, to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Mr• Barna wanted to know if the breezeway was to be
5 1/2 feet•
Mr. Nolden said that it hadn`t been deGided whether a
hal€ a foot would be taken off the garage or off the breezeway•
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 6
Mr• Plemel indicated that he would have no objections to
granting a variance down to three feet• He said that
Mr• Buster definitely needed the room and it would be an
addition to the neighborhood•
Mr• Barna wanted it put into the records that the slope
in the back yard would make it impossible to put in a
detached setback garage or it would be economically unfeasible
to put in a detached rear garage�
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Ms� Gabel, that the
pppeals Commission approve the request for variance of
$ection 205•�53, 4, {g4}, Fridley City Code, to reduce the
side yard setback adjoining an attached garage from the
required 5 feet to 3 feet, to allow the construction of a
24T X 24` attached garage with a six foot breezeway, located
on Lots 11 and 12, Block 12, Plymouth Addition, the same
being 4620 2nd 3treet NoE.� Fridley, Minnesota• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye+ the motion carried unanimously•
Chairwoman 3chnabeZ i�dicated to Mr• Buster that his
request had been approved and that he was free to apply for
his building permit.
2. REDUCETTHERIO FOOTASETBACKSREQUIREMENTOON,THE BIVING
AREA SIDE df THE HOUSE TO 5 FEET, TO ALLOW THE ENCLOSURE
OF AN EXI3TING PORCH, ON LOT 22, BLOCK 3, MELODY
MANOR ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7381 LYRIC LANE N•E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. {Request by Maynard Frisk,
73&1 Lyric Lane N•E•, Fridley, Minnesota 55432•}
MOTION by Mr• Plemel� seconded by Mr. Barna, to open
the Public Hearing= Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the
motion carried unanimousiy•
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
q. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT=
Section 205=053, 4, {b,1} requirzng a 10 foot side
yard setback for living area in an R-1 zone•
Public purpose served by this section of the Code is to
maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in
adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and
living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure
to conflagration of fire• Also to allow for aesthetically
pleasing open areas around residential structures•
`�
L
�
�
APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 7
B. STATED HARDSHIP=
They would like to enlarge the existing screened and
� glassed perch, which is now only useable in the summer,
into.a family room for year round use-
C• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW�
The porch in question is located in the rear of an
existing attached garage• Converting it in�o a year
round living space would mea� that 15�4 feet would
separate it from the living area of the house to the
north• The rear yard appears to be accessible for fire
fighting purposeso The proposed addition design seems
to fit architecturally better than moving it an
additional five �eet and losing convertible porch space•
The Appeals Commission members had a picture of the
house• Mr. Frisk indicated where the proposed addition
would be located• He explained that the present porch was
not useable in the winter time. He wanted to make it into
a family room to use all year•
Mra Plemel asked if the addition would be flush with the
garage=
Mr= Friske indicated that it would be=
� Mr. Holden explained the location of the garage and
the present screen porch and how the family room would
be in relationship to the house an� the garage= He also
indicated where the fireplace would be in the proposed
family room.
Mr• Plemel wanted to know where and how the neighbor's
garage was located•
Mr= Holden said that the neighbor's garage sat at a
slight angle from Mr. Frisk's•
Mr= Barna said that he thought it looked as though
the neighbor's house was a little forward from Mro Frisk's=
Mr• Frisk indicated that the neighbor beir�g discussed
was with him at the Appeals Commission Meeting•
Chairwoman Schnabel said that they would talk to him.
Chairwoman Schnabel confirmed the fact that Mr• Frisk
would put a solid wall on the North side of the addition
without any openings•
•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 8
Mr. Holden indicated that it was not a requirement to have
the wall be a solid wall•
Mr• Plemel warted to know how far the neighbor's structure �
would be from Mr= Frisk's�
Mr• Holden said it would be 15.4 feet=
Chairwoman Schnabel wanted to know how soon Mr= Frisk
planned to start construction•
Mr. Frisk indicated that due to an illness in the family
it would probably be earZy spring before co�struction would
be started.
Mra Barna wanted to know if there would be a basement•
Mr= Frisk indicated that there would not be a basement,
but that there would be f.rost footings under the new addition•
Mr� Plemel indicated that if the variance was granted,
that it wo�ld be good for one year from the day it was granted�
Ms• 6abe1 asked Mr. Frisk how large his family was�
Mr• frisk said he had a wife and one daughter.
Chairwoman 3chnabel said that the tree near the
proposed addition would not have to be removed= �
Mr. Jack Weems of 7391 Lyric Lane said that he �oas the
neighbor North of Mr. Frisk� He said that for 15 years that
anything the Frisk's have done to the property ha� ir.creased
the value and enhanced the neighborhood and he fel� that this
proposed plan was no different than the rest of what he had
done to his property• He said that he was in favor of
Mr� Frisk's proposed additiono
Chairwoman Schnabel wanted to know if the current
garage level was lower than the current porch level=
Mre Frisk said that it was one step lower.
Chairwoman Schnabel said that the one step lower was
required• It was a safety factor to protect one from fumes=
Mr. Frisk indicated that the wall between the garage
and the proposed family room had sheet rock on both sides —
the family room side and the garage side•
�
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 19?7 PAGE 9
Mr• Barna asked Mr• Holden if a fire door and fire wall
would be required between the family room and garage and
if the room would be heated year round since it would be a
part of the living area-
Mr• Holden said that Mr• Frisk would have to remove the
present paneling and install 5/8^ sheetrock on both sides
of the wall that would be common between the garage and the
family roomo He also said that a solid core door or a rated
metal door would have to be installed between the family room
and the garage•
Mr= Frisk requested Mr• Holden to go out to his property
to be sure that he is meeting all the codes•
Mr� Holden said that he would have to have a layouC plan
when Mr• Frisk applied for his building permit.
MOTION by Mr= Barna, seconded by Ms� Gabel, to close
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously�
Mr• Barna agreed with I?r• Weems that the proposed plan
would enhance the home and the neighborhood and it would
give additional living space and he would have no objections.
Mr. Plemel said that with the assurance that Mr� Frisk
would work with Mr. Holden, he would have no objections•
� MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Ms• Gabel , that
the Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance of
Section 2�5�053, 4, B, to reduce the 10 foot setback
requirement on the living area side of the house to five
feet, to allow the enclos�re of an existing porCh, on
Lot 22, Block 3, Melody Manor Addition, the same being
7381 Lyric Lane N=Eo, Fridley, Minnesota� Upon a voice
vote� ali voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated to Mr• Frisk that the
request had been approved and that he was free to appiy
for his building permit {within one yzar from June 14, 1977}=
3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 2Q5.053, 4, C, TO
REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBA�K REQUIREMENT OF 25i QF
THE LOT FROM 34 FEET TO 27 PEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A➢WELLING AND GARA6E, ON LOT 15, BLOCK 3, INN3BRUCK
NORTH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 14�1 NORTH INNSBRUCK
DRIVE N.E. {Request by Barry J= Marchant, N366 Arden
View Court, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112�}
MOTION by Mr. Plemel� seconded by Mr• Barna, to open
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motzon carried unanimously•
�--
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 10
p•
�
C.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT�
Section 205•053, 4, C� requiring a rear yard setback
equal to one fourth {1/4} of the lot depth with a
25 foot minimum•
Public purpose served is to provide desired rear yard
space to be used for green areas which add to the
attractability of the neighborhood•
STATED HARDSHIP�
By facing house due west, mature White Oaks and Poplar
would be destroyed or the elevation to the garage
would be too great from North Innsbruck Drive• By
facing the house southwest, on the angle, mature trees
would be destroyed to make garage actessible•
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
Facing the house to the south means the actual rear yard
is on the north side. T�e City Code defines the front
yard on a corner lot as the shortest side, therefore,
the west side is the front and the length of the house
protrudes into the ^technical^ rear yard to the
east• The house to the east faces West Danube Road
and not North Innsbruck Drive• The layout appears to
fit in with the existing neighborhood=
Mr• Marchant showed the Appeals Commission the plans
he had for the construction of a home� He explained to
the Commission his understanding of the City Code regarding
how to define what is the rear yard of a lot•
Mr• Marchant said that they had examined the possibility
of facing the house due west and explained that the problems
would be the loss of a tree that would end up in front of a
proposed garage door• He felt the way that they propose to
situate the house on the lot would result in the loss of the
fewest number of treeso He went on to explain that to
situate the house facing north the problem would.k;e an
approximate three foot incline in a 35 foot area• He said
that even though that would face South he felt there would
be a problem with snowpacking and ice forming on the inclineo
He explained that the way the planis proposed there would be
only an approximate 6 inch incline
�
�
�
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 11
Chairwoman Sthnab2l asked Mr• Marchant where the
garage entrance would be located•
Mr. Marchant responded that it would be on Matterhorn•
Mr. Marchant explained that basically the request
was based on aesthetics and the wish to save the trees
and also he felt that the house he planned would fit the
lot best as shown on the plans-
Chairwoman Schnabel asked Mr• Marchant if he would
want the house to face Matterhorn•
Mro Marchant said that he would not basically because
if the garage would face North, he would lose the White Oak
tree and if the garage faced South he would have the
incline problema
There was some discussion on several other options
as to how to situate the house on the property, none of
which were satisfactory with Mr. Marchant.
Mr• Marchant favored the situation of the garage with
the entrance to th.e side of the home rather than having
the garage entrance on the front side of the home.
MOTION by Mr= Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, that the
� Appeals Commission receive the letter from
Mr• Kenneth Bureau of 563C West DanuL:e Road in which
he states that he would not object to Mr• Marchant's
proposed house being as close as 25 feet of his West
property line• Upon a voice vote, all voting, aye the
motion carried and the letter was received•
Mr= Plemel asked if the home was being built for
Mr• Marchant's private use or would it be sold�
Mr� Marchant responded that it would be his own
residence•
The Appeals Commission reviewed Mr= Marchant's
house plans•
Mr- Barna expressed that he could see Mr. Marchant's
reasoning for not wanting the ga�age door on the front
side of the house.
�
APPEALS COMMISSI4N MEETING — J�NE 14, 1977 PAGE 12
MOTION by Mr, plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close
the Public Hearinge Upon a voice vote,all votin, aye,the
motion carried unanimously•
Ms. Gabel said that she felt Mr. Marchant had looked
into several alternatives and she also felt that the plan
he had would probably be the best for the lot=
Mr. Plemel thought it was a nice structure and the
situation on the lot would be the m�st logical.
Mr• Barna liked the way Mr• Marchant planned to
situate the garage in relationship with the front
of the house•
MOTION by Msa Gabel, seconded by Mr• Barna,
that the Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance
of Section 205.D53, 4, C, to reduce the rear yard setback
requirement of 25i of the Lot from 34 feet to 27 feet, to
allow the construction ot a dwelling and garage, on Lot y5,
Block 3, Innsbruck North pddition, the same being
1401 North Innsbruck Drive N.E• Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that Mr. Marchant was
now free to apply for a Building Permit�
Chairwoman Schnabel requested that the Staff include
an extra copy of the Administrative Report in the folder
so that the Commission can give one to the petitioner=
4• REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205•053, 5, A,
FftIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE STDE YARD WIDTH ON A
STREET SIDE OF A CORNER LOT FRO� THE REQUIRED 17 1/2
FEET TO 10.13 FEET, TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE
GARAGE FOR PARTIAL GARAGE AND LIVING AREA, ON LOT 10,
BLOCK 5, EDGEWATER 6ARDENS, THE SAME BEING 90 N•E= 66th
WAY. {Request by Roger A• Nawrocki, 90 NE 66th Way,
Fridley, Minnesota 55432}•
MOTION by Mr� Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open
the Public Hearingo Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
�
�
�J
r
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 13
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ftEPORT
A� PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
� 3ection 2�5.�53, 4, B{5a} corner 1ot side yard setback
of 17.5 feet for living area of structureo
Public purpose served by this section of the Code is
to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility ar.d
reduce the line of sight encroachment into the
neighbors front yard�
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
They need to add on additional eating and family area
and the existing house is 1�•13 feet from side lot line•
Ca ADf12NISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW�
The proposed addition to the rear of the garage is to
line up with the existing garage wall on the side
street� At the time of the original construction,
the side yard setbacks were Zess restrictive than
the 17•5 feet required by present Code• The addition
wall will be 24.63 feet from the back of the curbing•
Mr• & Mrs• Nawrocki presented a blueprint of their
plans to the Appeals Commission-
� Chairworr�an Schnabel asked what direction the
Nawrocki's house faced=
Mr• Nawrocki said it faced north-nor�hwest.
The Commission spent some time examining Mr. Nawrocki's
blueprint.
be=
Mr= Plemel wanted to know hew big the addition would
Mr• Nawrocki said that the addition would be 12' x 24'a
Cfiairwoman Schnabel wanted to know if there would be a
basement under the new addition.
Mr• Nawrocki said that there wouldn't be a basement•
Chairwoman Schnabel wanted to know if the only door
to the storage area would be to the outsideo
Mr= Nawrocki explained that the door to the storage
area would be from the outside� He continued to show
the Commission where the door would be located going from
� the present house into the proposed addition•
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14� 1977 PAGE 14
The Commission reviewed the pictures of the property and
Mr• & Mrs• Nawrocki showed where the addition would be•
Chairwoman Schnabel wanted to know why there was a copy
of the Zoning Ordinance — Side Yard Exceptions — included
in the material in Mr• Nawrocki's file•
Mr� Holden explained that the reason for the inclusion
of the Side Yard Exceptions of the Zoning Ordinance was
because the City had reviewed the reason why the building
had gotten built so close to the road in the first place•
Chairwoman Schnabel asked if the home had been built
prior to the rewriting of the Zoning Codes•
Mr• Holden said that it had•
Mr• Plemel pointed out that the home would come no
closer to the street than it was presently•
Mr• Holden explained to the Commission the wording of
the previous codes regarding side yards� He said that
the present Code definitely stated the exact number of
feet required for a side yard• These Codes were rewritten
in 1969•
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that probably most of the
homes in that area were built under the former codes•
Chairwoman Schnabel established the fact that the
Nawrocki's would put a fire wall around the storage area
of the addition• She said that there would be no direct
opening from the storage area into the living area• She also
asked if the Nawrocki's would be matching their present
exterior•
The Nawrocki's said that the exteriors would all 6e the
same•
Chairwoman Schnabel asked if the roof lines wouid be
the same•
The Nawrocki's said they would be the same•
Ms• Gabel said that by adding the boulevard into the
setback, it wouldn't violate the intent of the Code�
Mr• Barna said that it wouldn't interfere with traffic
visibility since the addition was to the rear of the present
structure•
��
�
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — J�NE 14, 1977 PAGE 15
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel to close
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
� Chairwoman Schnabel asked if the description of the
addition was current, since the description indicated a
24' by 20' addition_ She asked if the 2�' included the
storage area•
Mr• Holden said that the description did include the
storage area•
Mr• Piemel said it appeared to be a nicely planned
addition• He felt the petitioner would get more storage
area as well as more living space•
Mr• Barna felt that the proposed addition wouldn't
encroach into the street line-of-sighC at all• He said that
since the plans show that the roof lines would be matched up
as well as the exterior of the addition would be matched
to the present structure, he felt that it would look fine•
MOTION by Mr• Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, that the
Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance of
Section 2Q5•053,5, A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the side
yard width on a street side of a�orner lot from the required
17 112 feet to 1�•13 feet, to allow an addition to the garage
for partial garage and living area, on lot 10, Block 5,
� Edgewater Gardens, the same being 90 N•E• 66th Way• Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that the Nawrocki's were
free to apply for a Building Permit•
5• REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205•053, 4A, FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE REQUYRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM
35 FEET TO 28 FEET, TQ ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
PORCH ADDITION, ON LOT 3, BLOCK 4, EVA ERICKSON RIVER
MANOR, THE SAME BEiNG 6320 RIVERVIEW TERRACE N•E•,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA• {Request by Allen Baumgartner,
6320 Riverview Terrace N•E•� Fridley, Minnesota 55432}•
MOTION by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to open
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
�
APPEALS COMMTSSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 16
ADMINISTftATIVE STAFF REPORT
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205•�53, y, A, re.;uiring a front yard setback �
of 35 feet•
Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking
without encroGching on the pu6lic right of way• Also
for aesthetic consideration to reduce the ^building line
of sight^ encroachment into the neighbors front yard•
8- STATED HARDSHIP:
The appearance of the house will be greatly improved
6y this decorative brick front•
C• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The proposed addition of the front porch is enclosed
sufficiently to consider it part of the house structure•
The new addition is to match the existing house and,
enclose the electrical meter for aesthetic purposes•
The front lot lines to the north and south are relatively
camouflaged by existing trees and shrubs•
Mr• Baumgartner showed the Commission his plans along
with a picture of his present structure• He indicated that
what he wanted to do was cosmetic surgery on the front of �
his house- He had been wanting to do something for a long time
but couldn't figure out exactly what• He indicated that now
he knew• He said he wanted to put arches and wrought iron
railings along the front of his house, enclosing the present
sidewalk that went from the driveway to his front door•
Chairwoman Schnabel asked if it would encompass the entire
cement walk•
Mr� Baumgartner said that basically it would enclose the
entire cement walk•
There was some discussion regarding the electrical box
that was in the center of the front of Mr• Baumgartner's
house•
Ms• Gabel asked if the proposed arches would be screened
in�
Mr• Baumgartner indicated that they would be left open —
resulting in a Spanish-type look• He said it would be
Chicago brick with chocolat mortor•
�
�
i
pPPEALS COMMISSION MEETIN6 — JUNE 14, 1977 PpGE 17
Mr• Plemel asked if the part of the house that would
have the arches was presently setback further than the
rest of the house•
Mr• Baumgartner explained the way the house and garage
were situated in relationship ta the planned project-
Chairwoman Schnabel said that it appeared to be a
cosmetic project and she indicated that it wouldn't be used
as living space-
Mr• Baumgartner said that it was designed basically to
improve the value of the property-
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Ms• Gabel, to close
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Ms• Gabel felt that Mr• Baumgartrer's plan was extremely
attractive and would be very pleasing to the eye• She indicated
that she was very much in favor•
Mr• Barna agreed with what Ms• Gabel said•
Chairwoman Schna6el asked Mr• BaumgarCner if he planned
to move the electrical meter•
Mr• Baumgartner said he planned to leave it where it was•
�He indicated that if it was hidden well enough, he would leave
it; otherwise, he would probably put a decorative box around it•
MOTION by �s• Ga6e1, seconded by Mr• Barna, that the
Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance of
Section 205•053, 4A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the required
front yard setback from 35 feet to 28 feet, to allow the
construction of a porch addition, on Lot 3, Block 4, Eva
Erickson River Manor, the same being 6320 Riverview Terrace N•E-�
Fridley, Minnesota• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously�
Chairwoman Schnabel told Mr• Baumgartner that he was frea
to apply for a Building Permit•
6• REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SECTION 205•153, 3, FRIDLEY GiTY
CODE, TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD AVERAGE SETBACK OF 66 PEET
TO 4� FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ANA
GARA6E ON LOT 1� BLOCK 1, SILVER OAK ESTATES, THE SAME
BEING 1b30 RICE CREEK ROAD N•E•, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA•
{Request by Rodney D='mm, 7647 Knollwood Drive N•E•,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432}.
�
APPEALS COMMI3SION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 18
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Pleme2, to open
the public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
A.
�
C
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205-153, 2, requiring that in neigh6orhoods
with setbacks greater than the minimum, the average of
the setbacks for houses Z00 feet on either side shall
prevail, with a deviation of six {6} feet allowed•
Public purpose served is to ensure Chat any new structures
do not greatly impede the front yard line of sight for
the existing house sites•
STATED HARD3HIP�
There are older houses on either side with deep setbacks
and deeper 2ots• To be required to set this house back
with the rec;uired setback would diminish the back yard
entirely•
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The average of the three houses within 100 feet, in this
case, is rather skewed by the corner lot house which
sits 73 feet back from Rica Creek Foad• This corner
house sits on a large�lot that could be split into
three buildable lots- If this were the case, it is
possible that an additional house could be placed within
17 1/2 feet of the lot line on Rice Creek Road• The
configuration of the owners lot is such that without a
setback variance to either the front or the rear, it is
unbuildable for the 50 foot deep house which is proposed•
Mr• Damm explained the picture that the Commission had
of the lot upon which he planned to construct a new home•
Chairwoman Schnabel said that the average setback was
66 feet and that he wa�itEd �o have it be 40 feet•
Mr• Damm said that that was correct•
Mr• Holden
area sat back so
re.,uirement•
explained that one of the older homes in the
far that it throws off the average setback
The Appeals Commission discussed several different homes
and lots that were in the area•
L.J
�
�
APPEAiS COMMISSI4N MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 19
Mr• Holden explained that the particular home design took
up depth on the lot but that the home would fit in with the
other new homes in the area•
� Mr• Darom said that he would also be able to save most
of the trees on the lot by going with the proposed design•
Mr• Barna wanted to know how the average setback was
decided upon•
Mr• Holden explained that it was the average of the setbacks
of the homes within 1D0 feet of the home or lot in question•
Mr• Barna pointed out Chat if they took the average based
on all the homes on the block, that the average setback would
have been 35 feet•
Chairwoman Schnabel indicated that the house would have
a depth of 26 feet and the garage would have a depth of 24 feet•
Mr• Holden read the section of the Zoning Code regarding
front yard exceptions which stated that the average setback
would be based on houses 100 feet from the truilding to be
erected•
Chairwoman Schnabel asked if the mean depth in this case
would be 66 feet and if the code wnuld allow six feet on
either side cf that without a variance�
� Mr• Holden explained that there would be no way to
construct that home on that lot without some type of
variance•
Mr• Damm indicated that a copy of the house plans was
included in the file•
The Appeals Commission examined the house pian�
Mr- Plemel asked if the house would be Mr� Damm's residence-
Mr• Damm said that he was building the house for resale
purposes•
Chairwoman Schnabel pointed out to the Commission that
there had been no objections made by any of the neighbors•
She also stated that if the minimum setbacks were adhered to,
that this particular house plan would be unbuildable on that lot.
Mr• Damm said that he would have tried to have the house
more centered except he was planning to have a walkout in
one of the corners and he wanted to save most of the existing
� trees• ,
APPEALS COMMISSION �EETING — JUNE 14, 1977 pAGE 2d
Ms• Gabel said that the proposed design of the house was
compatible with the area•
MOTION by Mr• Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, to close
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the �
motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Plemel indicated he would have no objections•
Mr• Barna said he thought the house design would look
nice in the area•
Ms• Gabel asked what the selling price would be•
Mr• Damm responded it would be approximately 965,00�•
Chairwoman Schnabel asked if there was a boulevard on
this property-
Mr• Holden said that there was a nine foot boulevard —
enough for curbing and sidewalk•
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, that the
Appeals Commission approve the request for variance of
Section 205•153,3, Fridley City Code, to reduce the front
yard average setback of 66 Feet to 40 Feet, to allow the
construction of a dwelling and garage on Lot 1ry Block 1,
Silver Oak Estates, the same being 1630 Rice Creek Road N-E•�
Fridley, Minnesota• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously• �
Chairwoman Schnabel indic�'ced that Mr• Damm was free to
apply for a Building Permit•
7• OTHER BUSINESS
A neighbor from across the street from 1630 Rice Creek
Road N•E• asked how the Commission figured the setbacks• He
wanted to know where they measured from•
Mr• Holden indicated that they measured from behind
the curb to the front property line•
The n2ighbor also wanted to know if there was an easement
on the property of 1630 Rice Creek Road N•E• for the roadway•
He wanted to know that if the City took land for the roadway,
cpuld they take it from his property rather that from the
other side•
Mr• Holden said that that could be a possibility�
�
APPEALS C4MMISSION MEETING — JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 21
The neighbor indicated that he had no objections to the
construction of a home at 1630 Rice Creek Road N•E• He said
he would rather see an attractive home than a pile of dirt and
some tr�es• He also said that someone should move the old house
;� on the corner•
�r• Holden said that that particular person could have
the opportunity of splitting his property if he so desired•
The neighbor wanted to know how wide the property at
163� Rice Creek Road N•E• was•
Chairwoman Schna6el indicated that the lot was 95 feet
across the front•
�hairwoman Schnabel also referenced the corner lot and
explained that there was enough land to enable the owner of
that lot to split the existing lot� She cited an example
that recently the Planning Commission had handled a similar
case where a person had a large lot that he wanted to split•
The neighbor couldn't figure out why anyone would want
their house that close Co Rice Creek ftoad•
Mr• Plemel wanted to know what had happened regarding
the Wall Property•
Mr• Barna said that they got their financing•
:,� Mr• Holden commented that regarding the recuest for
a variance to allow for the construction of a porch addition,
he had understood that Mr� Bzumgartner would definitely have
enclosed the electrical meter box•
Mr• Holden also commented that something should 6e written
into the Codes to exclude corner lots when figuring the average
setbacks•
�hairwoman Schnabel said that building ramblers had become
rare• To get the most living space, for the money, she
indicated that people were going to split level homes•
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr• Plemel, seconded by Mr� Barna, to adjourn
the June 14, 1977, Appeals Commission Meeting• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�hairwoman Schnabel declared the meeting adjourned at
9:45 P.M-
� Respectfully submitted,
�����
MaryLee tarhill
�i
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMnISSION MEETING
- JUNE 22, 1977
CALL TO ORDER�
Chairperson Harris called the June 22, 1977, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL�
Members Present:
Members Absent:
4thers Present:
Shea, Bergman, Harris, Schnabel+ Peterson
Peterson
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE3: JUNE 8, 1977
Mrs. Schnabel
June 8, 1977,
Mr• Peterson,
Absent Member•
indicated that since Ms. Suhrbier was at the
Planning Commission Meeting, representing
he should not have been listed on Page 1 as an
Mrs. Schnabel corrected a typographical error on Page 16,
eighth paragraph• Mrs. Boardman should have been
Mr. Boardman.
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mrs• Schnabel� that the Plan�ing
Commission minutes of June 8, 1977, be approved as amended.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
1• PUBLIC HEARING� REQUE3T FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �77-04,
Per sectlon , o t e
Fri ey City Co e to allow sales and services of recreational
vehicles on Lot 1, Biock 1, Pearsons 2nd addition, the same
being 7701 East River Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, to open the Public
Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P•M.
Mr. James Pawelski and Mr• Ray Amundson of Apache Camping Center�
2465 Fairview Avenue North, St• Paul, were present at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Mr• Pawelski explained that they were requesting a special use
permit for the building located at 77p1 East River Road N.E. for
the sales and servicing of recreational vehicles — Fold-Down
Trailers, Mini-Motor Homes, Pick-Up Campers, and Travel Trailers.
He said that they serviced the units themselves and are not
involved in any engine repair work. He indicated that they planned
to use the present building. He said that they didn't plan to
change the kiuilding at all except to change the outside sign and
add one small sign that would indicate Apache Camping Center and
an he� that would indicate the brand of camper tqat they so�d �the two
s��� signs would be 4x8).
-e--�.
�'ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 2
Ms. Shea wanted to know if the City was asking for a better
landscapping plan•
Mr• Pawelski said that they had told him of no such request.
He indicated that all he had been told was that the City
wanted some type of plan as to how he would display the vehicles.
Chairperson Harris referenced Page 22 of the agenda,
Commission Application Review+ ^Must submit better layout for
Planning Commission showing landscaping and visitor parking^.
Mr• Pawelski said that he had never received the form or had he
been told of that request.
Mr• Pawelski commented to the statement that read, ^No objections
from Engineering with the exception that if existing hard
surfaced area is changed and/or increased, a drawing and
grading pla� must be approved to control the runoff into
Springbrook Creek^- He said that they wouldn't be changing
anything except they will clean the property and have better
maintenance on the shrubbery that was presently on the property.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if they planned to keep the driveways as
they were presently located•
Mr• Pawelski said that the gates and driveways would remain
exactly where they presently were•
Mr• Paul Burkholder of 7860 Alden Way said that the property
shouldn't be turned into a sales lot or a^car^ lot for
recreational vehicles. He said that these types of sales
should be kept on University and Central Avenues- He said
that East River Road was not a Commercial Strip• He said
that the proposed establishment would encroach on the
aesthetics and values on the surrounding properties. He
referenced many of the recreational vehicle sale establishments
located on Hwy 65• He felt that since it was a business
venture it would involve bright lights, noise, and added traffic.
He didn't feel that the area needed that type of activity•
Mr• Lloyd M�yeps�= 132 Stonybrook Way N.E. said that bhe-ter-m�
Recreatioaal Ve6icles mas really tteey�broad• He wa�ted-to.know
if�this Sales-Bailding would_6e limited only to the �our kinds
t1e--Lawelski�talked-about- - .-- -
- -�- r = �-=�
Mr• Pawelski again indicated the only four items that would be
handled by the proposed business.
Mr• Meyers asked if there would be any snowmobiles or all-terrain
vehicles.
f7r• Pawelski indicated that they would not be selling that type
of vehicle•
��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 3
Ms. Mary Martin of 133 Stoneybrook Wey N•E• strongly protested.
She said she was in total agreement with Mr• Burkholder and
said that the reasons not to grant the Special Use Permit would
be the same objections that were stated at the Datsun discussion•
Mr. Ray Wormsbecker of 2809 Hampshire Avenue North was the
Real Estate Broker for this property• He indicated that the
building had been vacant for some time and that he had been
working on trying to lease it out. He said that there wasn't
a lot of companies interested in that type of layout. He said
that the building was layed-out perfectly for the type of
business that Apache Camping Center would have. He felt that
the Planning Commission should recommend the granting of the
3pecial Use Permit.
Mrs. Schnabel asked Mr. Meyers what he thought of the business
occupying that building.
Mr• Meyers said that he didn't seriously object. He just didn`t
want to get involved with all the noise that went with snow-
mobiles and motorcycles and the like• He was mostly against the
idea of a lot of lights and noise.
Mrs• Schnabel wanted to know the hours and days that business
would be conducted.
19r• Pawelski indicated that they would be open Mondays thru �fhursdays
from 9:00 A.M• until 8:00 P.M- Fridays they would be open from
9:00 A.M. until 6:00 P.M. and on Saturdays they would be open
from 9:00 A.M- until 5:00 P.M. He said that they would not be
open on Sundays•
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know if there were any plans to extend
the hours once they were in the new buildi�g•
Mr• Pawelski said that they didn't anticipate any different hours.
He indicated that they were business people and that their
livlihood depended on customers. He said that if someone came
into the showroom close to closing time, that they would probably
remain open until that customer had been taken care of•
Mrs. Schnabel asked how many vehicles would be stored outside the
showroom.
Mr. Amundson indicated that it would depend on the season. He
said that in the Spring the inventory �as heavier than the other
seasons. He estimated that, including the units on the showroom
floor, there would be about 30 units. He said that they didn't
keep a lot of inventory� He said that the business operated mostly
from orders.
PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 4
Chairperson Harris said that the units would have to be small or
else the building and property would be crowded• He felt that
the petitioners had a lot of outside storage of units.
Mr• Pawelski said that the inventoryu+a�sc�eeru�d by their banker-
He said tfiat at present they had seven travel trailers, five mini-
motor homes, nine pick-up campers, and 20 cabs {the cabs are on
racks, 4 to a rack}. He said that basically they aau���have�the
�nits-o� display. The-c�s�omer would order wh�t he_wanted� --_
based on what he would see from the display.
Chairperson Harris questioned that only five parking stalls for
customers was provided on the drawing. He wanted to know if
they felt that was really all they would need.
Mr• Amundson indicated that their operation was basically small.
He didn't really feel that much more than five spaces would be
�eeded.
Chairperson Harris said that there was basically no room for
on-the-street parking. How would they arrange for over-load
parking.
Mr• Pawelski said that it was hard to put on paper exactly
how many cars would be at the business at o�e time•
Chairperson Harris explained how he interrupted the drawing
he had before him• He said that he didn't feel there would
be adequate space for off-street parking•
Mr• Wormsbecker indicated that there was enough blacktop to
provide 43 parking spaces.
Mr• Pawelski said that the drawing was not to scale and that
there would be ample space for the outside display units as
well as off-street parking for customers•
Chairperson Harris said that he wanted the map revised.
Mr• Pawelski agreed that the map should be revised; basically,
drawn to scale•
In answer to a question by Mr•,Bergman, Mr•W�rmsbec�er indicated
that even though the property �as zoned for commercial+ they
need a special use permit to display outs$de the building.
Mr. Bergman wanted to know what the petitioner planned in way
of construction.
Mr• Amundson said that they only planned to change one of the
garage doors by making it hiqher• They also planned to change
the sign outside the buildinq•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 5
Mr• Burkholder indicated that the owner of the property was�oo�y
planning to lease thg_front part of the building to the petitioners.
He felt that as 1�s'ees the petitioners would, indeed, only do
as little as possi�3e�_ to the property. He also didn't believe
that the building was large enough to take care of the displaying
of their products during #��e�nt weather• He said that he
didn't fault the petitioners for being ambitious and energetic
and hard-working businessmen who wanted to expand their business•
He felt that it wouldn't be long before the units would be stored
all over the property and on the adjacent grass. He said that
East River Road already had enough traffic problems without adding
to it by allowing the petitioners a special use permit. He felt
that the problems that would result would be the same as those
cited when Datsun was before the Commission.
Mrs. Schnabel discussed with Mr. Boardman the interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance governing the property in question.
Mr. Boardman indicated that anything having outside display
of products needed a Special Use Permit.
Ms. Mary Martin asked the Planning Commission members to go back
and read all that was done when Datsun wanted to go - into that
building. She felt everything pertaining to that decision•,�uas
pertinent to the present request for a Special Use Permit•
Chairperson Harris asked what the Staff felt about this request.
Mr• Boardman said that Staff wanted an upgrading of the
property and not just a maintenance of the present property•
Staff would require an extensive landscaping plan similar to
what they needed from Datsun. He said that the blacktop in the
parking area would have to meet code standards. Since the
building was zoned commercial, he felt it was up to the
Commission to decide whether or not the type of business would
put an inordinate burden on the area.
Mr• Bergman asked Mr• Boardman to read the uses permitted in a
C2S zoning.
Mr. Boardman read to the Commission and the audience the uses
permitted in a C2S zoning.
Mr• Bergman indicated that then the only conflict involved was
the fact that the petitioner �lanaed�to hav��oatsade s�eaage/display.
Mr• Boardman said that that statement was true.'
Chairperson Harris asked if a Special Use Permit had ever been
granted on that property•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 6
Mr• Boardman responded that if the estabiishments were in the
building before 1969, they probably didn't need to have a
Tpecial Use Permit.
Chairperson Harris declared a short recess a� 8i15-R.�.�whi�e Mr• Boardman
looked up the information reqarding whether a Special Use
Permit had ever been granted on that property-
The meeting was called back to order at 8:30 P•M.
Mr• Boardman indicated that there was no record of any Special
Use Permit ever being granted for that property.
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, to close the Public
Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel indiCated that the request for a Special Use
Permit could be falling into the cataqory of causing an undue
hardship on the adjacent land owners because of the amount
of outside vehicle storage• Because of that hardship she �a�
reservations on granting the Special Use Permit for that
type of operation on that property•
Ms. Shea wanted to k�ow where the petitioners would park the
vehicles that were in for servicing•
Mr. Pawelski indicated that the service area would hold three
or four vehicles and any more than that would have to be parked
outside by the service door•
Mr• Burkholder indicated that the petitioners would only be leasing
the front half of the building and all the land. He said that
the owner would be keeping the back of the building to use as
a warehouse•
Mr• Amundson said that he was a specialty dealer and that his
products were basically seasonal• He indicated that they weren't
going to be a car lot, constantly expanding• He said that it
wasn't right to keep comparing the business to a car lot — almost
everyone ow�s cars, not everyone buys campers or mini-mobile homes.
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how much traffic would be
generated by the owner of the buildinq in regard to his half
of the building•
��-.- I�ormslaee�r said that he didn't know• He only knew that the
owner was in the carnival business and was out of town a lot• He
said that there was no way of his knowing what was being stored
in the owner's part of the building•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 7
Ms. Shea said that she knew for a fact that most of the units
didn't sit o� the lots for very long• She said that most of
the inventory moved very rapidly. She said that basically
most of the units are special ordered.
Mr. Bergman didn't feel a sense of conviction either way. He
said it seemed that the general neighborhood preferred to
see the building vacant; but he could also see that the
property owner would want to put the building to some use� �
said that both parties did have justifiable arguments.
He indicated that he waq��d�te��ake a_eioeere�oek�at the
request. He also felt that more time would be beneficial to
the requestor so that they could spend some time with the
City Staff so that he would know exactly what would be
required of him regarding the property
MOTION by Mr• Berqman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the
request for a special use permit, SP �77-04, Apache Camping
Center� Per Section 205•101, 3N of the Fridley City Code
to allow sales and services of recreational vehicles on Lot 1,
Block 1, Pearsons 2nd addition, the same being
7701 East River Road N.E.
Mrs. Schnabel didn't feel there would be any advantage in
continuing the item. She said that she had driven past the
property and had been previously on the property. She felt
the basic concern was with the amo�nt of vehicles that would
be sbbred outside the building•
Ms. Shea said that she waated to see the map drawn roore to
scale• She felt that there would be no problems with over-
cr.owding on the outside lot.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Ms. Shea, Mr• Bergman, and Mr• Peterson
voting aye, Mrs. Schnabel and Chairperson Harris s�s�a3ning,
the motion passed-
Chairperson Harris indicated that the item would be continued
at the next Planning Commission Meeting on July 13, 1977. He
asked the petitioners to meet with Mr. Boardman with a better
layout of their plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 8
2.
A SPECIAL �SE PERMIT, SP �77-05,
City Code, Section , 1 �,• to a ow a Mobile HOme
Sales Center on a 300' x 100' strip of property lying in
Lot 53A.S. �153, lotated between the car wash and Skywood
Mall Shopping Center� same being 5201 1/2 Central Avenue N•E.
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Peterson, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M.
Mr• Ralph Henriksen of Housing Corporation D/B/A, Instant
Housing, 9550 N•E- Highway t65 was present at the meeting.
Mr• Boardman said that the plan had been revised since the
Public Hearing notices had been sent out• He indicated that
the petitioners had a new site plan of the operation• He said
that he had talked with the petitioners a�d had indicated what
the City wanted them to put in the area.
Mr• Henriksen showed the Commission and the audience the site
plan he had for the mobile home sales center•
Mr• Henriksen said what their intentions were to be if they
were granted the Special Use Permit. He said that they would
operate a sales display area of eight to te� units• He said
that the units would be displayed and then orders would be
taken based on the displayed models- He said that their
intentions were to do much landscaping to the area to make the
area attractive to the eye. He indicated that they hoped
to make a nice, clean-looking display area that would be
attractive to the customers as well as to the surrounding
areas-
Mrs. Schnabel asked that si�ce a lot of the area will have
crushed rock and gravel, would there be some type of control to
keep this rock and gravel confined to their area.
Mr• Henriksen said that it would be planned for•
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know where the customers would park.
Mr• Henriksen said that they had worked with the owner of
Skywood Mall� and that the parking lot presently located at the
site would be expanded and improved. The mobile home customers
would use that parking area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 9
Mrs. Tchnabel poi�ted out that she had noticed that currently
cars are usually parked against the south wall of Skywood Mall
building• She wanted to know if this would continue to happen-
Mr• Henriksen said that there would be landscaping against the
mall building and that there would be no parking allowed against
the south wall of the building•
-,
Mr• Peterson asked how large the units wes+� that would be
displayed.
Mr• Henriksen said that there would be some 14' x 70' mobile
homes and a few 24' x 60' mobile homes. He said that there
would be a nice mixture of both sizes.
Mr. Peterson wanted to know if the illustration that
Mr• Henriksen was displaying to the Commission actually showed
the number of units that he planned to have on the lot.
Mr. Henriksen said that the number of units would vary• He
indicated that there would usually be eight, but sometimes
ten units and once in a while there would be 12 units.
Mr. Boardman pointed out that the Special Use Permit would.be
issued to the owner of the property and not Mr• Henriksen.
Mr. Bergman wanted to know what the petitioners plans were as
far as a water/sewer system•
Mr. Henriksen said that the office unit would be connected to the
already existing water/sewer system in Skywood Mall•
Mr. Bergman asked, that since the petitioner would be leasing
this piece of property from Skywood Mall� would the lease
include the parking and other uses of the adjoining properties.
Mr. Henriksen ageveded yes to the question.
Chairperson Harris asked if one of the display models would serve
as office area.
Mr. Henriksen answered that the office area would be located in
one of the display mobile homes- He said that the mobile home
closest to the parking area would serve as the office.
Chairperson Harris asked if the office mobile home would be a
permanent structure-
Mr• Henriksen said that it would be the one hooked up to the
water and sewer systems.
P�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 Paae 10
Chairperson Harris asked if there would only be the eight units
located on the property in question•
Mr• Henriksen said that they didn't want to be tied to just
eight units. He said that possibly there would be ten or 12
units displayed at different times.
Chairperson Harris questioned if 12 mobile homes would fit on
the proposed property•
Mr• Henriksen said that 12 mobile homes would fit but that
there would have to be a different arrangement of the display
homes• He poi�ted out that there may be times that three or
four units would be stored on the property — not necessarily
on display.
Mrs. Schnabel asked about the business hours•
Mr• Henriksen said that the display would be open from
8:3U A.M. until 9:0� P.M. Monday thru Friday; 9:�� A.M. until
5:�0 P•M. Saturday; and Noon until 5:00 P.M. Sunday.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if they planned to have outside liqhtinq.
Mr• Henriksen said that they would have a need for security
lighting•
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the petitioners anticipated any late-
night operations, such as moving of the homes, etc•
Mr• Henriksen indicated that the only possible activity at
night would be possibly showing the mobile homes to someone
who couldn't come during business hours. Not a usual occurance.
Mr. Peterson wa�ted to know if any equipment would be stored
on the property.
Mr• Henriksen said that all the equipment used in moving the homes,
etc. would be stored at the operation that was located in Blaine•
Ms. Shea asked if the display homes would be skirted.
Mr. Henriksen said that they had < very attractive plans for the
skirting of the mobile homes. He said that all the display models
would be skirted and attractively displayed.
Mr• Bergman asked where else in the area the petitioners had
businesses already set up.
Mr. Henriksen indicated that the headquarters was located in
Blaine on Hwy 65; there was a sales operation in Ega� on Hwy 55
three miles east of the Mendota Bridge; and one in Farmington
that would be opened in 30 days•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 11
Mr. Boardman i�dicated that when he had talked to the surveyors,
that they had mentioned additional screening that was being
planned along the 6order of the property. He asked if
Mr• Henriksen was still planning that venture•
Mr. Henriksen said that he did plan for some screening around
the property borders• He said that the screening would be
located on the owner's property. He showed the Commission a
picture of the Blaine location as an example of what he
planned to do•
Mrs• Judith Engelbritson of 5216 Taylor Street N•E. presented
Petition �12-1977 to the Planning Commission• The petition was
in opposition to the granting of Special Use Permit �77-OS•
She indicated that the people who signed the petition felt that
the size of the area was insufficient to have that type of
business located in Skywood Mall• They also felt that the
existence of such a business along with the other structures
located in Skywood Mall were and would be a depreciating factor
to their property.
MOTION by Ms. 3hea, seconded by Mrs. Schnabel� that the Planning
Commission receive the Petition �12-1977. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Mr. Aaron Engelbritson of 5216 Taylor Street N•E. felt that
Fridley had enough Mobile Home Courts and Sales Centers and
that another one would be entirely unnecessary• He indicated
that the adjacent neighbors had enough problems regarding
Skywood Mall and they didn`t need a Mobile Home Sales Center
added to the problems. He hoped the Commission would recommend
NO special use permit-
Mr. Gordon Bloom of Twin City Federal, 5305 Central Avenue N.E•
indicated that Twin City Federal also wanted the Special Use
Permit rejected• He said that a lease for that type of use for
that property would not be beneficial to the area. He said that
they were opposed to anything that would require a Special Use
Permit- He proceeded to add his name to the petition #12-1977•
He also mentioned that the Public Hearing Notice had not specified
exactly where the Mobile Home Sales Center would be located•
Mr• Bloom also asked if the plan that Mr. Henriksen had displayed
was still in the 1�0' x 3�0' description that had been indicated
on the Public Hearing Notice• He didn't believe that the number
of units that Mr. Henrikse� planned to display would fit on a
lot that was 100' x 300'.
Mr. Boardman said that the description sent out was based on
a previous sketch and there had been �o exact location indicated
on the application except between the car wash and Skywood Mall
Shopping Center. He wasn't sure what the requirements were =s to
increasing the size of the Mobile Home Sales Center are� since the
Special Use Permit would be granted to the entire shopping center•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22,1977 PAGE 12
Chairperson Harris asked how large the parcel in question was•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the parcel would be increased by
approximately 1/3 of the proposed size of 10�' x 300'• He again
pointed out that the 3pecial Use Permit would be granted to the
entire property and not a separate portion of the property•
Chairperson Harris said that the Public Hearing Notice had not
read that way.
Mr• George Hale of 5234 Taylor Street N.E. said that his viewpoint
in looking at the structures existiog� in Skywood Mall and then
considering the construction of a temporary establishment did
not seem in the best interest of improving that property- He
felt that the Mobile Home Sales Center would create an additional
traffic hazard in the area. He didn't feel it would either
enhance the property or result in lower taxes, so he hoped the
Commission would not grant the Speciai Use Permit #77-05.
Mr• Sheldon Mortenson of 1289 Skywood Lane N•E.� one of the owners
of the Skywood Mall Shopping Center, indicated that the area in
question was expansion space to make it possible to increase the
size of the Shopping Center• According to the City Ordinance it
would be possible to increase to a� additional size of 44,4��
square feet of retail sales or for use as an office building, etc.
He said that they didn't have any present immediate plans for a
development and so the land would remain vacant and in its present
condition. He felt that the Mobile Home Sales Center would be an
improvement to the Center. He said that the proceeds from the
Mobile �om� Sales Center lease would be used to improve the
parking lot and try to do some landscaping around the property-
He indicated that if the Special Use Permit didn't go through, that
the property would probably remain in its present condition•
Mr• Engelbritson said that the adjacent property owners have
tried to get some landscaping done for the past 12 years with no
success.
Mr� Bloom agreed that nothing is ever done to the property to help
its appearance. He felt there was no excuse for the poor condition
of the property. He felt the owners could make some effort to
show the Community that they were willing to upgrade the
property and then possibly the adjacent neighbors would show
some interest in a Special Use Permit enterprise• He said
that he didn't have anything against the Housing Corporation
except that usually in a Mobile Home Sales Center the mobile homes
are stacked in side-by-side. H= sai� that if they would operate
their business exactly as they were indicating, the sales center
would indeed be nice• However, he said that the owners of the
property had never proven to the adjacent neighbors and businesses
any good intentions of upgrading the property arrd they couldn't
depend on what was being said•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 13
Mr. 6eorge Hale pointed out that Mr. Mortenson had threatened
that if the Special Use Permit wasn't granted, then he didn't
plan to do anything with the property• He felt that the Council
should keep that statement in mind.
Mrs� Schnabel asked if Mr• Henriksen would do all the internal
landscaping.
Mr. Henriksen said that he would do all the internal landscaping.
Chairperson Harris asked how long the terms of the lease would be•
Mr• Henriksen said it was a two-year lease with the option to
renew.
Mr• Mortenson said that he eventually wanted to see an office
building on that parcel of land. He also said he didn't mean
to sound like he was threatening• He said that presently there
just were�'t monies available to do tfie proper landscaping of
the Shopping Center• He said that the taxes go up so fast that
any extra money had to be used ta pay taxes• He felt that the
type of Special Use Permit irt question would allow enough extra
mpney to enable the Shopping Center to do some of the much
needed landscapinq.
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know who would be responsible for the
South side of the Shopping Center•
Mr• Mortenson said that he would work with Mr• Henriksen and
together they would take care of the landscaping, including the
extending of the parking lot.
Mrs- Schnabel asked about the plans for some type of screenirtg
at the rear of the lot•
Mr• Mortenson indicated that it really was awkward to plan
screening for that Shopping Cente� that would be totally effective.
Mrs. Schnabel agreed that it would be hard to find trees that
would grow high enough to ailow screening of the Shopping Center
also without ruini99 the view of the homeowners that very possibly
built on those lots for the beautiful view of the City-
Mrs. Engelbritson said that she thought there had to be some type
of buffer zone between commercial and residential• She also
indicated that they had been under the impression that there
would be a better layout of the 3hopping Center that would
include some type of screening• All they ever saw of that whole
deal had been a few seedlings•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 14
Mr• Mortenson said that he had invoices to prove that he had
planted 10,000 seedlings on that hill• He said that every year
he planted them, we had extremes in the weather that tended to
kill them off.
Mr• Bloom wanted to know why, since they already had an operation
on Central Avenue+ they would want to move closer in•
Mr• Henriksen said that for the same reason Twin City Federal
had branch offices. More exposure to the Public.
Chairperson Harris said that �3 on the petition concerned an
additional amount of traffic stress that would be placed on the
already congested traffic conditions. He asked for an
explanation of what was meant by that statement�
Mrs. Engelbritson said that on Fridays, when the bank was open
and the other busi�esses were doinq their usual week-end
business, that there was a real traffic problem. She said that
the residents of the area had to use the area as it was their
only access. She didn't feel it was right to bring more
businesses into the Shopping Center•
Chairperson Harris said that the City had signed contracts with
the State to upgrade that area•
Mrs. Engelbritson said that that contract was only involved with
53rd Avenue• She said that 52nd Avenue was not included.
Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Henriksen approximately how much
traffic his business would generate in a 24 hour period•
Mr• Henriksen said that there would be no ^big sales^ that
would be attracting multitudes of people• He indicated that
perhaps four to six customers per day as an average. He
didn't feel that there would be a great increase in the traffic
congestion or infringement on the available parking•
Chairperson Harris asked how much of an increase in traffic had
been noted at the Holiday Village operation•
Mr• Boardman said that there had been no appreciable trends,
Chairperson Harris questioned �4 of the Petition as to an
increase in noise volume•
Mrs. Engelbritson said that a problem already was apparent
regarding truck traffic through the Shopping Center at 4:0❑ A.M.
{garbage/trash trucks, etc.}. She made a reference to the
Hilltop Mobile Home operation and was afraid that the venture in
question would result in the same type of over-crowding and
unpleasant appearance• She then said that as far as noise itself
that there would be people cominq into the area, it would result
in noise from children that would be drawn to the area. She said
that it would be a seve�-day operation and the area wouldn't have
any relief from the constant noise of business in progress•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 15
Chairperson Harris also questioned the reference on the petition
regarding a potential fire hazard to the adjacent property owners.
Mrs- Engelbritson felt that whenever there was more people, the
risk of fire was always greater• She said that one carelessly
tossed cigarette could result in major damage due to the amount
of dry brush located on the property that borders directly to
the residential homes.
Mr• Bloom said that he was the security officer at Twin City
Federal and he proceeded to tell about many dangerous incidents
that had occurred at the Twin City Federal Bank. He said that
before another business was accepted into the Shopping Center
area that somethi�g should be done to try to alleviate the
type of problems that Twin City Federal had experienced•
Chairperson Harris asked if Mr• Bloom had been in contact with
Mr• Hill, the City of Fridley's Safety Director.
Mr• Bloom indicated that Twin City Federal had been in contact
with him at the times that the incidents happened. He said
that basically the FBI took over such incidents since Twin City
Federal is a Federal establishment- He indicated that if the
area was upgraded, it wouldn't attract the type of trouble-makers
they had previously encountered.
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Peterson, to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 9:40 P.M.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if there fiad been a Special Use Permit in
existence for the Photo Store.
Mr• Boardman indicated that there was.
Mrs. Schnabel wanted to know how many Special Use Permits a
property owner needed to apply for• She asked if each type of
business would require a new Special Use Permit.
Mr• Boardman expleined that a Special Use Permit would be granted
for a special use• He said that each special use on that property
would require separate Special Use Permits.
Mrs. Schnabel asked if the Special Use Permit would go to the
owner of the property or to the business itself•
Mr• Boardman indicated that a Special Use Permit always went
to the property owner.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6 — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 16
Mrs. Schnabel questioned how many Special Usepermits• a property
owner could have. The also asked that if a Special Use Permit
was granted to a specific parcel of land and the property changed
in�na�are���� and a dissimilar business moved in, could the �ew
owners use the Special Use Permit that had previously been granted
since the owner still had the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Boardman said that if the new business was a different type
of business than what had been allowed by the previous Special
Use Permit, then a new Special Use Permit would have to be applied
for•
Chairperson Harris wanted to be sure that City Council read
his statement —^I TOLD YOU SO^• The precedence set with the
use of the parking lot at Holiday Village North that came before
the Planning Commission had been voted against exactly for this
particular reason- Now we are flooded with requests from
everyone wanting to use their parking lots or extra land around
their Shopping Centers for somethinq else. He felt that a very
poor precedence had been set by allowing the Holiday Village
North operation•
Mr. Bergman said that the property owners were only trying to
get the best use possible from their property• He felt that
there had already been incompatibility between the Skywood Mall
Shopping Center and the adjacent residents. He felt that the
approval of a Special Use Permit to add the outdoor sales of
mobile home units, even though an excellent plan was being
proposed, would only add to the degree of incompatibility that
already existed.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the dens�l of the request
for a Special Use Permit, SP #77-OS by the Housing Corp, D/B/A
�rsstars�. N,orrc��s Per Fridley City Code, section 2U5, 101, 3, N• to
allow a Mobile Home Sales Center on a 300` x 100' strip of
property lying in Lot r�.A.S. �153, located between the car wash
and Skywood Mall Shopping Center, same being 5201 1/2 Central
Avenue N.E•
Mrs. Schnabel said that since the property owners had said they
eventually wanted to have an office building or an addition to
the Skywood Mall Shopping Center constructed on that lot, she
had a difficult time trying to understand why the petitioner
would want to go through the expense of upgrading the property
just for a two-year lease.
PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PA6E 17
Mr. Mortenson said that actually they were thinking of more
like five years maximum• He s�ated that as far as existing
incompatibility between the Shopping Center a�d the adjacent
home owners, he said that construction of the Shopping Center
began in 1962, at which time very few of the surrounding homes
were in existence• He felt that when the people built on their
lots, they knew that the Shopping Center was in existence• He
said that when a person lived on a hill he would be exposed to
everything below the hill. He said that the distance between
their properties and the Thopping Center buildings was over
100 feet•
Mr. Engelbritson claimed that they had built their home in
1964 and their had been no buildings existent in the Shopping
Center•
Mr• Mortenson again said that construction of Skywood Mall
had been started in 1962.
Mr• Engelbritson said that as the layout showed the �obile
Home 3ales Center, it would look nice. He said that
the layout only showed eight units. He said that
Mr. Henriksen was talking about possibly 12 units and he felt
that the layout would not be very nice with that many units
displayed.
Mr. Henriksen said that what he was indicating was that if
a delivery was made before another unit got out, it could
result in more units than indicated on the layout. He
indicated that thei� intentions were not to display any more
than the layout showed.
Chairperson Harris had a problem agreeing with the Public Hearing
Notice. He said that before it went to City Council, the wording
had to be changed.
Mr• Boardman didn't know how else the area in question: could be
described- He explained that the Special Use Permit would be
for the entire shopping center- He said that it was a completely
legal description and couldn't see any problem.
Mr- Boardman said that the only co�trol as to the exact area
would be controlled by the Planning Commission/City Council
as stipulations put on the approval of the request.
Chairperson Harris felt that a Public Hearing Notice left with
such broad terms could be very misleading to the general public.
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 18
Mr. 8oardman indicated that originally the request had been for
a 100' x 30�' strip of land• However, due to requests made by
the City, the area had to be laid out differently, therefore,
the requestor needed more area to comply.
Chairperson Harris said that the precedent set by Holiday
Village North would make it difficult to deny the request
since the City allowed Holiday Village to have the Mobile Home
sales center on their lot.
Mr• Bergman felt that it really was a different issue. He said
that the Holiday Village North operation didn't infringe on
any residents. He said there was no conflict of interest,
no incompatibility, or adjac�nc,y. of occupancy, no effect on
other properties, and no zoning problems• He said that in the
case of Skywood Mall there was much public opposition. He was
also upset that no buffer zoning had been established•
Mrs. Schnabel said that if the plan was to be exactly as it had
been drawn up and explained to the Commission, it would actually
be an upgrading of the area since all that was located presently
was a v�a�t lot overrun by weeds.
Ms. Shea said that she could appreciate the neighbors concern-
She said that the weeds would still be there, the mobile home
sales center would just be in the middle of the vacant lot,
surrounded by the weeds and grass.
Mr-.Boardman suggested three things that the Planning Commission
could consider in granting the Special Use Permit:
1} Restrict the Special Use Permit to a specific area•
2} Limit the number of Special Use Permits allowed a
property owner•
3} planning Commission should get a commitment in writing
from the Shopping Center owners for an upgrading of the
entire property which would include overall improvements.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, Ms. Shea, Mr• Bergman, Mr. Peterson, and
Mr• Harris voting aye, Mrs• Schnabel voting nay, the motion
carried.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 19
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST fOR A SPEC
BY NORMAN HALL: Per Fri ey City C
•D, to a ow the construction of a
in R-1 zoning {single family homes}
Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Mr.
public Heari�g• Upon a voice vote, all
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing
ae, aeccion �u�•uaL,
duplex/double bungalow
on Lot 1, Block 4,
6390-6392 Starlite Blvd
Peterson, to open the
voting aye, the motion
was opened at 10:04 P.M.
Mr• Boardman said that the request was to construct a duplex/
double bungalow on a presently existing singie family dwelling
lot. He said that a duplex or double bungalow could be allowed
in a single family area with the Special Use Permit. He indicated
that he had a copy of the house plans. Also he indicated
that a petition #11-1977 that had sig�atures of the people that
were in agreement with the plan was included in the agenda packet-
Mr. Boardman said that the lot backed up to lots zoned industrial-
He then proceeded to indicate all the zonings of the lots
located in the area in question.
Mr. Norman Hall of 56-66 1/2 Way presented his pla�s to the
Commission and the audience• He said that he planned to build
a double bungalow or duplex style house on the property• He
felt that what he proposed would be an asset to that corner
as well as the neiqhborhood• He said the cost of the proposed
dwelling would be approximately �65-75,000•
Mr. Boardman informed the Commission that Mr. Hall would also
have to go through a variance request since the lot measured
9,942 square feet and code required 10,000 square feet.
Mr• Hall indicated that he realiy had the intention of dressing-
up the proposed structure so that it would resemble a single
family dwelling. He said that once he had the completed, final
plans he would be willing to get with the neighborhood and discuss
the plans with them before startinq construction.
Mr• Bergman asked why Mr• Hall wanted to develop this property
with a double bu�galow rather than a single family dwelling•
Mr• Hall said that since he was a construction worker/brick
layer he felt he had the knowledge and ability to attempt to
build that type of dwelling• He also indicated that since his
family was grown, perhaps in time, he would want to move into a
smaller dwelling and he thought that a part of the double
bu�galow would suit him and his wife perfectly•
Mr• Bergman asked what Mr• Hall's plans were regarding rental
versus sales•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PA6E 20
Mr• Hall explained that he didn't plan to sell the double bungalow.
He said that he might keep it for rental only; or� like he had
mentioned previously, possibly to live in. He did indicate that
he definitely did not plan to build the duplex for sales purposes•
Mr•I�o�strt Lee of 130 3atellite Lane asked if Mr• Hall owned any
other double bungalows or duplexes.
Mr• Hall said that he owned one duplex located on 53rd and Sth Street
which he had recently purchased. He commented that anyone that
wanted to drive by the duplex would agree that it was one of the
nicest kept houses in the area.
Mr• Hall stated that it was not his intention to build a piece
of junk on that property. He said he planned to as cafeful
as possible with any rental of the property.
Mr• Robert Lee i�formed the Commission that he was at the meeting
representing Mr• Hall {he was a Realtor}• He explained the
entire area around the lot in question. He said he had talked
to each of the neighbors that were on the mailing list. He said
thab all the people he talked to were in agreement with
�r• Hall's plans. He said that the entire area was well kept
and that Mr• Hall planned to be sure that the double bungalow
would be well kept and nice at all times.
Mrs. Judy Kidder of 6360 Starlite Blvd said that she was at the
meeting mainly because of a misunderstanding. She said that she
doubted the credibility of the Petition �11-1977 since she had
signed because she had been led to believe that the only thing
that could be built on that property was either an office building
or a multiple dwelling. She said that it had been a misunderstanding
because if she had been told that a single family dwelling could
also have been built on that property, then she would not have
signed the petition that was in favor of the construction of a
double bungalow- She felt that people who lived in rental units
did not have the pride that people had when they owned their homes.
3he said that the entire area would suffer if someone moved
into that duplex and didn't take care of it.
Mrs. Kidder
const�ucted
petition.
said that she preferred to see a single-family dwelling
on that lot and wanted her name removed from the
Mr• Lee pointed out that rental property could be just as well kept
as privately owned property•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PA6E 21
Chairperson Harris asked if Mrs. Kiddar wanted her name removed
from the petition %11-1977.
Mrs. Kidder said that her name and MarY Auger of 6348 Starlite Blvd•
also wanted her name removed• Mrs� Kidder explained that Ms- Auger
had to leave because of sitter problems due to the late hour•
Mr• Lee apologized for any misunderstanding and said that he had
not intentionally misled anyone regarding the property. He said
that he had explained to the people the possibility of using
the lot as a type of buffer zone between the industrial zone and
the single-family dwelling zone• He indicated that he felt the
particular lot may have been a little harder to sell since it
bordered on the industrial lots.
Mr• Hall said that he agreed that sometimes an absent landlord
didn't have the tendency to take care of the property as much
as a person that lived on the property• He wanted to make
the point that he really couldn't make the statement that he
would definitely move into the duplex or for that matter when
exactly he might move in; but he felt that he did have intentions
of keeping the property up as well as his own was kept up and he
invited anyone to drive past his home and see for themselves
that he definitely kept a nice yard.
Mr• Hall also poi�ted out that sometimes people who own tfieir
own homes don't always keep their yards nice•
Mr. Charles Sander of 101 Sylvan Lane submitted a petition to
the Commission that had signatures of people in opposition to
the granting of Special Use Permit t77-06• He said that the lot
was zoned R-1 and that it should remain as R-1. He said that
all the promises were probably well meant but that things didn't
always work out the way someone plans.
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Commission receive Petition �10-1977, opposing the Special Use
Permit t77-06• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the revised petition �11-1977, in favor of
the Special Use Permit t77-06• Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris indicated that the same names could not be
on both petitions and that if a name was on both petitions, that
the name would be removed from Petition �11-1977 and left on
Petition #10-1977.
PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 22
Ms. Caroline Johnson of 6336 Starlite Blvd. felt that since
there were still empty lots on the South end of Starlite Blvd,
she felt that someone else would follow Mr• Hall`s example and
decide to construct a double bungalow• She said that re�tal
property had too much turnover of people. She wanted the lot in
question to remain R-1-
Mr• E• L• Rice of 100 Sylvan Lane gave his description of
Starlite Blvd. He said that the entire area was single-family
dwellings and he said that since the lot was zoned as R-1� it
should be left as such.
Ms. Johnson wanted to know why only certain people were sent
Public Hearing notices and why Mr• Lee had only talked to
certain people•
Mrs. Schnabel said that only properties within 30❑ feet of the
lot in question had to be notified of the Public Hearing.
Mr• Lee indicated that he had used the list he had received
from City Hall when he went and talked to the individual
neighbors• He pointed out that of all the people he talked to,
only one was against it and he said he wanted the lot to remain
vacant• He said that basically it didn't make any differ�nce��t
all to him whether the Special Use Permit was granted or not•
He said that he had not sold the property and had nothing
invested in the property• He said that he really believed
Mr• Hall had a good plan and he believed Mr• Hall had qood
intentions of keeping the property as nice as the adjacent yards.
Mrs. Kidder said that she too thought the lot was nice just as
it was and she didn't care if it was left vacant either, at
least until someone decided to buy the lot and constr�ct a
single-family dwellinq•
Mr• Lee pointed out that the reason the lot looked so nice was
not an accident. He said that Mr• Hall, the City of Fridley,
and himself had the land leveled and cleaned up and developed
so that it would be pleasa�t to the eye•
Mr• Lee felt that everyone was assuming that all double bungalows
are bad, unkept places.
Mrs• Kidder explained that from what everyone knew of rengal
property, that was the trend.
Mr• Johnson said that it would only be a matter of time before
someone would buy that lot and build as an R-1. He wondered
if it was a matter of wanting something just to fill the lot
why would they want to spoil such a nice area with a double
bungalow•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 23
Mr• Lee agreed with Mr• Johnson that the lot would definitely
sell sooner or later• He was only at the meeting because he
felt that Mr• Hall had a good plan and that he thought_it..wou�d
be an asset to the community. He said that the people adjacent
to the property weren't objecting-
Mr• Walter Shupie� of 6299 Trinity Drive said that he moved out
of multiple dwellings to live in an area of single-family
homes• He asked that the lot remain an R-1 lot. He said that
it was only a matter of time before rental property would go
down hill and it a�most always happened faster than privately
owned, owner-occupied, property did.
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr• Peterson, to close the
Public Hearinq. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimo�sly. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:45 P.M.
Mrs• Schnabel said that to grant a Special Use Permit on that
lot was somewhat similar to a spot zoning — a direct change to
a neighborhood•
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Commission recommends to City Council the denial of the request
for a Special Use Permit SP 877-06 by Norman Hall: Per Fridley
City Code, Section 205.051, 3.D, to allow the construction of a
duplex/double bungalow in R-1 zoning {single family homes} on
Lot 1, Block 4, Sylvan Hills Plat 3, the same being
639U-6392 Starlite Blvd-
Mr• Bergman said that he didn't consider it at all unusual
request to buffer other single-family homes with a double
bungalow that bordered on industrial.
Mrs. Schnabel said that the entire area was single-family homes.
She said that the zoning hadn't been set up to buffer the
industrial and the single-family dwellings.
Mr• Bergman
as changing
dwellings.
thought that that had been a very drastic move as far
a zoning directly from Industrial to single-family
UPQN A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Lee indicated that he had never been to a Planning Commission
meeting in Fridley City Hall and he thought that the Planning
Commission had handled themselves very well• He felt they had
given everyone a fair hearing. He said that he had enjoyed
being at the meeting and he thought that the Planning Commission
had made a very wise decision in denying the request. He said
that if anyone contested something going into a residential
area, they should have the right to keep it residential• He
thanked the Commission for the opportunity of taking part in
their meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 24
4. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. 77-06, BY CLINTON J• COPPICUS:
p i o e nor er y o r �
Hyde Park Addition. To allow for access to garage in back
yard of Lot 9.
Mrs. Sharon Jensen of 5946-4th Street N.E. was present at the
meeting•
Mr• Boardman explained that the lot to the south of 5950-4th Street N.E.
was an 80 foot lot. He said that Mr• Coppicus wanted to put in
a driveway. He said that in order to do that and maintain the
steps out of the back-door of his home, he would have to obtain
four feet from the property located at 5946-4th Street N.E-
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how close to the property
line the house at 5946-4th Street N.E. would be after losing
four feet to 5940-4th Street N.E.
Mrs. Jensen said that she wasn't positive as to the number of
feet but that she was sure there would be plenty of space on
that side of the house• She indiceted that her garage was located
to the South in the rear of the house and that there was only
grass on the area that Mr• Coppicus wanted to buy•
Mr• Bergman indicated that Staff had gone out to the home and
measured and hadn't indicated any problems.
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, to recommend to
City Council the approval of the request for a Lot 3plit
L.S. 77-06, by Clinto J• Coppicus: Split off the northerly
four {4} feet of Lot 1�, Block 13 Hyde Park Addition. To allow
for access to garage in back yard of Lot 9 subject to a
confirmation of no sideyard setback problems. IJpon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 11:00 P.M.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 11:10 P-M.
5. PROPOSED SIGN CODE
Mr• Boardman explained that he thought the Planning Commission
should go over the propsoed Sign Code and discuss the changes
that had been made and to better understand what was being
attempted by the Ordinance.
Mr• Bergman commended Staff for the work they had put into the
Sign Code Ordinance. He said that they took the ideas from
Community Development and converted them into ordinance form and
language• He said a lot of timely effort had been spent putting
together the Sign Code Ordinance on very short notice. He said
that there had been a big and pleasant change from what
Community Development Commission had submitted and what they got
back.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETZNG — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 25
Chairperson Harris, Mrs- Schnabel, and Ms. Shea wanted more time
to be able to read the proposed Sign Code Ordinance-
Chairperson Harris suggested that the Planning Commission read
through the Sign Code Ordinance with Mr• Boardman and then
take it home and read it in its entirety-
Mr. Boardman went through the entire Sign Code Ordinance and
explained all the changes that the Community Development
Commission had made at their June 14, 1977, meetinq.
The Planninq Commission made several comments/questions regarding
different points in the Ordinance• Most of which Mr• Boardman
answered or explained to their satisfaction•
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seconded by Mr• Bergman, to continue
the Proposed Siqn Code Ordinance discussion until the next
Planning Commission meeting and extend an invitation to
Ms. Pat Gabel {Chairperson of the Project Committee} to be
present at the meeting to provide the Commission with a�y
additional information they may �eed. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
6• CONTINUED: PROPOSED HOUSING MAINTENANCE tODE
MOTION by Mrs. Schnabel, seco�ded by Ms- Shea, that the Planning
Commission continue the Proposed Housing Maintenance Code• Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
7• RECEIVE HUMAN RE30URCES COMMISSION MINUTES
Ms. Shea indicated that Carol Ristae had been named the Citizen
of the Year•
MOTION by Ms• Shea, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the Human Resources Commission Minutes of
June 2, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
8• RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JUNE 14, 1977
Mrs. Schnabel explained that the Appeals Commission felt that City
should take a look at the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission felt
that corner lots should be excluded when determining the average
setback for the other lots i� the area.
MOTION by Mrs• Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of June 14, 1977.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 26
:�
Mr• Bergman said that Mr- Boardman had discussed any comments
that had been made at the Community Development Commission meeting•
MOTION by Mr. Bergman,
Commission receive the
of June 14, 1977. Upon
carried unanimously.
10. OTHER BUSINESS
seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Community Development Commission Minutes
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
�hairperson Harris explained that when the Planning Commission
went through the Special Use Permits, that section on non-use
was not very clear. He suggested that that section be re-written.
Mr• Boardman indicated that hopefully in August, Staff would be
rewriting the Zo�ing Code Ordinance.
Chairperson Harris stressed the fact of attendance or representation
at the Planning Commission meetings. He indicated that everyone
that was present always did do their jobs well• He said that
Parks and Recreation Commission was not represented on a usual
basis. He wanted to know if there was something that could be
done to try to make sure that all the Commissions were
represented at each Plan�ing Commission meeting.
Mr• Boardman said that presently Dorothy Evenson called all
the members of the Pla��ing Commission to be sure tfiey were
represented. He said that it was usually left up to the
chairperson to notify the vice-chairperson if he can't make the
meeting. He went on to explain the reasons for the absence
of the members from the June 22, 1977, meeting.
There was some discussion as to the actual importance of the
Parks and Recreation Commission having to be represented at
the Planning Commission Meetings.
Mrs• Schnabel felt that either the Chairperson or Vice-Chair-
Person ef�the �arks and Recreation Commission should be
present- She felt that they had valuable things to offer•
Mr• Bergman questioned her statement.
Mrs• Schnabel said that she respected the opinions of the Parks
and Recreation Commission• She said that it was also one more
voice and at times bring up pertinent information that might not
have otherwise been brought up.
PLANNING COMMI3SION nEETING — JUNE 22, 1977 PAGE 27
There was a discussio� on items that have to go through the
Planning Commission before City Council and items that can go
directly to City Council bypassing the Planning Commission.
Also discussed the different Commissions that handle requests
that go neither to the Planning Commission nor City Council•
Chairperson Harris asked what would happen if the Planning
Commission didn't formally receive the minutes of the other
Commissions.
Mr• Boardman said that the minutes would not go to City Council.
ADJOURNMENT -
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Ms. Shea, to adjourn the
June 22, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously-
Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 12:35 A.M-
Respectfully submitted,
!���_��iR�t,�e�uX./'
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
i
S I G N- I N
NAME ADDRESS
�
�.
.�
6 3 �� S-� :@�o ���� ,
//�7 � .�.z���-,� D1tc
56—�G'/� w��!
��O'�G !�� �� '
z G
�?//, T YLD2 S��t/�
i �HJ ��'`� �,�./� /%�
. . '
_ • _ "...a..
, � •:_�!� ��i�.�.�
. . � fa.!� �v r / /�� �
�� • i i �l
_ /�. . �
% �
�. ,
I '� r
S I G N- I N
► .
ADDRESS
� � ., � � i
_'
_�
/ " �
/ ��<..-
>�
��
�
�:
�
�
��
4�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEYf COt�PtISSION
MEETING
JUNE 14, 1977
MEMSERS PRESENT: Hetvian $ergman, LeRoy Oquist, A1 Gabel, Hubert Lindblad
2+IEt�SBERS ABSENT:
OTHE&S PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Charles Gooder
Jerry Boardman, City Planner
Chaixperson Bergman called the meeting to order at 7;40 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MAY 25, 1977, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CQ�fISSION MINUTES:
MOT��N by LeRoy Oquist, secnnded by Hubert Lindblad, to approve the May 25, 1977,
6au�cutity Development Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting
, aye, ihe motion carried unanimously.
PARKS & REGREATION C�IYREHENSIVE PLAN (TABLED):
Mr. Boardman stated that this item should be tabled again until the next meeting as
additional data was not yet ready.
MpTIDN by A1 Gabel, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to again table the Parks & Recreation
Compreh@nsive Plan until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motxozi carried unanimously.
RE�iEW?1'R�POSED SIGN ORDINANCE:
Mr. Hoaldman stated the Co�ission should review the proposed Sign Ordinance that
evening so it could be passed on to Planning Commission and on to City Council for
actiqsi by July 17th.
Mr. Boardman stated that some of the main changes in the proposed ordinance
by the Sign prdinance Project Committee were the elimination of bilLboards, the
elim�nation of outside signs for advertising purposes (€or business identification only),
and a separate section foc controls in the shopping centers.
a
� ��
COMMi]NITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 2
212.02 llEFINITZONS
Mr. Lindblad feit that the word "major" should be eliminated in the definition of
"_Alteration", No. 5 to read; "Refers to any change to a sign, excluding routine
maintenance, painting or change of copy of an existing sign." The Commission members
agreed.
Mr, goardman pointed out that "Billboard", No. 9, was termed an "qdvertising Sign"
"Construction Sign" (No. 13) was changed to read: "p, sign placed at a construction
site, identifying the project and/or the name of the architect, engineer, contractor,
financeer or other involved parties."
Mr.Oquist stated he felt the size should be eliminated from a"Porta-Panel" {No. 26)
to read; "A back-to-back, mobile advertising device, mounted on wheels and used for
conmercial as well as civic promotions." The Co�ission members agreed.
The words, "within the marginal lines" were eliminated from "Sign Area" (No. 31) to
read: "The total area of the surface which bears the advertisement, or in the case
of inessages, figures, or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, thak
area which is included in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe
the message, figure, or symbol displayed thereon. The stipulated maximum sign area for
a free standing sign refers to a single facing."
M:. Bergman stated that he felt the werd "contravenes" in "Unlawful Sign" (Iyo. 33)
should be changed to "is in conflict with" to read; "A sign which is in conflict with
this Code or which the administrator may declare as unlawful if it becomes dangerous
to the public safety by reason of dilapidation or abandonment or a sign for which a
permit required under a previous code was not obtained." The Commission members agreed.
213.031 SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS:
No. 9(a) and (b) were eliminated and combined with No. 9 to read as follows; "Illuminated
signs which change in either color or in intensity or light or are animated, or have
flashing or intermittent lights; or Traveling electronic message centers, except :hose
giving time, temperature, or other public information; or Electronic message centers
that do not change more than once every 15 minutes (only permitted in specific zonings)."
Mr. Bergman made the co�ent that the words "no", "any", "all", ete, should be
eliminated fran the descriptions of these signs.
213.032 SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS:
Mr. Bergman stated tUat "minimum" and "maximum" should be added where needed to the
sizes of signs.
Referring to No. 5(b); "Ten (10) feet from street right-of-way, except on corner",
the Commission members felt that an ordinance number should be referenced to explain
corner setbacks.
��
MEETINC. JUNE 14
PAGE 3
Mr• Boardman suggested that the Cocrnnission reduce the sqoare footage of a"Hospital
Fjaergency $ign", No. 5(c), frtim 100 square feet to 50 square feet. The Co�ission
members_agreed to the change.
Under "Construction Signs", No. 1(d), the words, "outside the development" were added
to read; "gign shall not be located closer than one hundred feet to a pre-existing
building structure outside the development." The same change was made under "Real
Estate Signs".
Under!"Gar2ge or Rummage Sale Signs", (No. 3), the following change was made; "If not
removEd;`3 removal cost wi11 be levied against the occupant at the address of the
advertised sale."
Under "Sanners or Pennants", the words, "except for those" were eliminated to read:
"Banners or pennants commemorating a special event not connected with a business (such
as gridley 49'er Days). ganner or pennants for businesses will be allowed for grand
openin,gs of businass only for a ten day maximum period."
212:94 DISTRICT �QUIRII�II:NTS:
I�&'. Oquist again stated that there should be a reference that corner setbacks are in a
differenE policy.
Mr. Boardman stated that what could be done was to add "�igns within a corner setback"
under:212.031 SIGNS PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS.
Ut�er "Area Identification Sign", the word "major" was eiiminated throughout to read;
"One (1) per developmenc,°
Bmiex "Free Standing Signs", the following changes were made throughout; 1. One (1)
per street frontage; 2. Maximum eighty (80) square feet (total signage) per development;
3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet above lot grade; 6."Corner Setback" was eliminated
throughout; and, 7. "A free standing sign can only be an identification sign�' was
eliminaCed throughout.
"Wa11;Signs" was amended to readc "Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the
square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed.'�
Under "Wall Signs° (No. 1)"Reader boards may not be used as wall signs" was eliminated.
2�&. Bergman stated that "Reader Boards" was not listed in the Definitions and should be
includea.
Mr. Oquiet stated that '�Gas Station Signs" was confusing and would have to be reworded.
After same discussion, Mr. Boardman stated he would reword "�as Station Signs° somewhat
as follows; "Gas Station Signs. The following signs will be allowed in conjunction
with serv�ce station eperatiun in addition to *_he above, (1) Pump signs tha[ are an
iategXai'part of the pump design; (2) Regulations under present ordinance; (3) One set
�,�, of'�iated grice signs per streat tront.�ge not to exceed 20 square feet."
�.-�
�
y..�
COMMiP,VITY DEVELOPMENT CO2�IISSION MEETING. JUNE 14, 1977 PAGE 4
Mr. Bergman declared a fivc minute recess at 10:20 p.m.
Under "Wall Signs" (Sizes, Setbacks, and Other Requirements for CS1 and CSZ), No. 1
was eliminated: "A wall sign or other building facing (which is an integral part of
the structure) may project only two (2) feet above the roof line of a structure. Thi:;
additional height, however, shall not be considered as part of the wall area and shall
not F:arrant additional sign area."
Under "Free Standing Sign" (Sizes, Setbacks, and Other Requirements for Ml, MZ), No. 1
was reworded as follows; "One (1)free standing sign per buiLding or multigle use
building." No. 2• "Signs wi11 he 750 feet apart" was eliminated. No. 6 was changed
to "Ten (10} feet from a property line and ten {10) feet from a driveway." No. 7;
"Sethack" was eliminated. No. 8: "A free standing sign can only be used for an identi-
fication sign" was eliminated.
Under "Shopping Cznters and Multiple lise Buildings", (b) was changed to read: "A11
future sign permits within the shopping center and multiple use building areas sha12
conform to the conditions of the sign plan and may be subject to conditions of the sign
plan and may be subject to conditions other than those in the district regulations in
order to promote a uniform combinaCion of signs."
214.05 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
Under "Permits", (a) was changed to read: "Before a sign may be displayed in the City
of Fridley, the owner or leasee of the premises on which the sign is located shall file
application with the City 2oning Administrator for permission to display such sign.
Permits are required for all existing, new, relocated, modified or redesigned signs
(except those specifically exempt under Section 214.07-214.071, inclusive)."
(b) "The issuance of a permit may also be subject Co additional conditions in order
to promote a more reasonable combination of signs and to promote conformity with the
character and uses of adjoining property. The conditions caill be subject to Che
discretion of the zoning administratar."
Mr• 8oardman indicated that "Temporary Signs" should he added as Item 5 under "Yermits".
Mr. Boardman stated that Item 2, "Application", would have to be reworded as most of
it was not needed in the ordinance.
There was much discussion on inspection of si�ns and fees under Item 3, "Fees": "The
annual permit fee and expiration date shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code."
Atr. Ber�man stated that the Sign Ordinance Project Committee was set up to geC citizenry
input and one of their major coneerns was maintenance and enforcement. He did not
Eee1 the Cormnission should ignore that.
P1r. Boardmc�n stated that he wondered if the maintenance of signs was 6ad enough to
add another cost to the businesses. He questioned the need for a type of annual permit
fe� and levying that cost against the businesses.
.T-
.�,�: _
�
C�1.^1ISSION
14. 19�7
Mr. Bergman,staCC:d he would like this Comnission to pass this on [o Planning Commission
as written, possibly supporting the input from the Proj'ect Committee, and then letting
Planning Commission or City Councii strike it, if necessary.
Mr. I,indblad and Mr. Oquist indicated Chey were'against puttipg another burden on the
b us i�ses smen .
MO�TON by A1 Gabe1 to Leave item 3, "Fecs",
on tp'planqing C�ission and City Council.
The motion died for lack of a second.
as written in the ordinance and pass it
MOTI6N,by Hubert lindblad to remove Item 3, "Fees", from the ordinance.
The motion died fox lack of a secaad.
Item 3, "p'ees", was left in the ordinance as written to be passed on to Planning
Co�iss3on .
Under Item 5, "Exemptions", Section 214.05 was inserted for clarity.
Mr. gergman stated he felt rewording was needed on numbers 1-6 under "yoss of Legal
Non-Con£ormi:tg SCatus" under "Existing Signs". Mr. Boardman staeed he would reword
that asid also indicated that No. 4 should go into "Enforcement" and should be eliminated
from '$xisting Signs".
Mr. Oquist again stated his concern about "tlbandoned Signs" which he had expressed in
the May 25> 1977, Commission's minutes. He stated that the wnrding was critical. The
f3rst sentence of "Abandoned Signs�� was reworded as follows: "Except as otherwise
provided in this Code, any sign which identifies a business that no longer exists and
has stopped operation for a period of three months or more, or any sign which pertalns
to a time� event, or purpose which no 1 aiger applies, shall be deemed to have been
aband�ned.C"
214.06 ENFORCEMENT•
The followi�g chaqges were made under '�Violations of Code"; 1. A sign that is a hazard
to the `safety and welfare of the public, such as exposed wires, broken glass, weak
support�-structure, broken pieces of inetal, etc.; and, 2. pny sign that does not comply
with the provisions of this Code un2ess deemed legal by the City Council.
1�TION by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by Aubert Lindblad, to approve the Proposed Sign
prdinance as amended in the above. 1Jpon a voice voCe, a 1T votittg aye, the motion
ca�riad-unanimously.
RRC71.T\3F.�.�Cl1RRFCPl1TTIlFNCF �FRRi.f- TFRRV RllADilM6TT T!1 VADU W1RN R7YCf./AV/F.iATYf.TIV D4l1TF!`T �.
�,,_ � MQTiQH by L�;oy O<luist, secanded by A1 Gabel, to receive
£�t� ,��1cj+ $uardxxan tu (rern Muen. UPon a wice vote, all
cBNC�C�ed'unl�k�mous.ly. � . .
letter dated June 7, 1977,
voting aye, the motion
.s.<... — -^� .�r
.. V� tF�j�.
�COF1�filNITY DE�F.LOYMCNT CONiMISSION MEF.TING JlJNE�14,�1977 � � PAGE 5�
Mr. Bolydman stated that thc Project Corrrcnitte� had meC that day with only three membexs,
He sai� the main problem was the timer;�Ule of trying to have a meeting before June 30th
as request�d by the Commission. Mr. $oardman stated the mem6ers had discussed what
items would be needed to be discussed when they met again with all members, and they
would attempt to get a meeting in July with fu11 membership, coming back with reconunenda-
tions by the Commission's next meeting.
ADJOURNMF,NT:
MOTION by A1 Gabel, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to adjourn the meeting at 12;25 p.m.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Itespectfully submxtted,
c.,! `� ! i� ;��- '��� _�✓. u
Lynne Saba
Recording Secretary
. _ .�,�.
214. SIGNS
214.01. Purpose
7'he purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the general welfare,
health, safety and order within the City of Fridley through the establishment
of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations and
pmcedures governing the erection. use and /or display of devices, signs or
symbols serving as a visual communicative media to persons situated within
or upon public right of ways or properties. The provisions of this chapter
are intended to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of
choice, an opportunity for effect conanunication, and a sense of concern for
the visual amenities on the part of those designing, displaying or otherwise
utilizing needed communicative media of the types regulated by this chapter;
t
while at the same ti.me, aSsuring that the public health and welfare is not
endangered. (Ref. 438)
214.02. Definitions
The follaaing definitions shall apply in the interpretation and application
of this chapter and the following words and terms wherever they occur in this
chapter are flefined as follows:
1. ABANDONED SIGN: A sign which no longer correctly directs or exhorts
any person, advertises a bona fide business, lessor, owner, product or
activity conducted or product available on the premises whese such sign is
displayed.
r.
2. ACCESSORY USE: A use which is subo�dinate to the principle use being
made o£ a parcel of land. ESCamples: Identification sign, off-street loading,
telephone booth, etc.
3. ADVERTISING SIGN: A sign which is used to advertise products, goods, or
services.
4. ADDRESS SIGN: A sign with identification numbers only,whether written
or in numerical form.
G
f�� S. ALTERATION: Refers to any major change to a sign, excluding routine
maintenance, painting or change of copy of an existing sign.
6. AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign which identifies the name of a
neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple residential complex, or
a business area.
7. �BANNERS AND PENNAtdTS: Attention getting devices of papPS, cloth, pr
plastic like consistency and which are of a t�porary nature (including
small plastic flaqs, grand opening signs, or special announcements).
8. BENCH SIGN: A sign which is affixed to a bench, such as at a bus sbop.
9. BILLHOARD: An advertising sign which directs attention to a business,
co�odity, service, or entertainment not related to the premises at which the
sign is located, or to a business, commodity, service or entertainment which
is conducted, sold, or'�offered elsewhere than on the premises of which the
sign is located. -
10. CANOPY: A roof-like structure projecting over any entrance of a store,
building or place of assembly.
11.. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN (MANUAL): A siqn on which copy is changed
manually in the field, i.e., reader boards with changeable letters or
changeable pictorial panels.
12. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN (AUTOMATIC): A sign such as an ele�:tronically or
electrically controlled public service time, t�nperature and date sign
message center or readerboard, where different copy changes are shown on
the same lamp bank. �
13. CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign placed at�a construction site, identifying
the project or the name of the architect, engineer, contractor, financeer
�
/or other involved parties.
14. DIRECTIONAL SIGN: A sign erected on public or private property which
bears the address and,/or name of a business, institution, church or
other use or activity plus directional arrows or information on location.
15. DISTRICT: Refers to a specific zoni� districY as defined in the
. • -Fridley Zoning Ordinance.
16. �FREE STANDING SIGid: A sign which is securely attached to the ground
and not affixed to any part of any other structure.
17.. GOVERNt�NTAL SIGN: A sign which is erected by-a governmental unit for
the purpose of directing or guiding traffic ar other public information.
18. IDENTZFICATION SIGN: A sign which states the name or address or hoth of
the occupant or occupants of the lot or building where the sign is placed.
19. ILLUMINATED SIGN: A sign which is ill�i.nated by an artificial light
source.
20. INFORMATION SIGN: A sign giving infoxmation to esployees, visitors,
or delivery vehicles, but containing no advertising or identification.
21. INSTITIPfIONAL SIGN: A sign or bulletin board which identiFies the
name and other chaxacteristics of a public or private institution on the
t-
site where the sign is located.
22. MOTION SIGN: A sign which revolves, rotates, has any moving parts, or
gives the illusion of motion.
23. t30t3-CONFORMING SIGN: A sign which lawfully existed prior to the
adopti.on of this ordinance but does not confoYm to the newly enacted
requir�ents of this ozdinance.
24. PERMANENT SIGN: A sign which is intended to be used for an indefinite
period of time,
25. PORTABLE SIGN: A sign so designed as to be movable fraa one location
to another and which is not permanently attached to the ground, sales
�
display device, or structure. f
26. PORTA-PANEL: A 10 foot by 20 foot, back to back, mobile advertising
device, mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic
promotions.
27. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign, other than a wall sign, which is attached to
and projects from a building structure.
�
28. ROOF SIGN: A sign whieh is erected, constructed, or attached wholly
or in part upon the roof of a building.
�29. RUMMAGE/GARAGE SALE SIGN: A temporary sign which advertises or
directs the public to an infrequent sale of qenerally used merchandise
sold fr� a private residence.
30. SIGN: A lettered board, or other display, and its support strueture
used to advertise, direct, identify, inform, or convey a message to one
who views it.
31. SIGN AREA: That area within the marginal Zines of the surface which
bears the advertisement, or in the case of inessages, figures, or symbols
attached directly to any part of a building, that area which is included
in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe the message,
fiqure, or symbol dis}52ayed thereon. The stipulated maxim� sign area
for a free standing siqn refers to a single facing.
32. SIGN STRUCTURE:
supporting any sign
the sign is attached.
Any structure which supports or'is capable of
Said definition shall not include a building to which
33. SHOPPING CENTER/MULTIPLE USE BUILDIl7G: A buildinq planned and
developed for multiple occupancy use as a co�ercial or industrial enterprise.
34_ TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign, banner, pennant, valance, oz' advertising
display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, or cardboard wallboard,
or other light materials with or without frames; intended to be displayed
for a limited period of time only�
35. WALL SIGN: A sign which is affixed to a wall of any building.
36. WALL GRAPHICS: A graphic desi,gn or decorative mural not intended for
or
indentification advertising purposes, which is painted directly on an
exteriar wall surface.
37. WINDp[9 SIGN: A sign installed inside a window for purposes of viewing
from outside the premises. This term does not include merchandise located
in a window.
3$. UNLAWFUL SIGN: A sign which contravenes this Code or which the
administrator may declare as unlawful if it becomes dangerous to the public
safety by reason of dilapidation or abandox�ment or a sign for which a permit
required undes a previous Code was not obtained.
i-
r.
�
,. . 21G.03 General Provisions For All Districts
214.031 Signs Prohibited In A1l Districts
**notes items ��rith exception
1. Permanent signs other than Governeiental signs erected or temporarily placed
tvithin any street right-of-vlay or upon any public easement.
2 Signs or wall graphics that contain words or pictures of obscene, pornographic
or irmnoral character, or that contain untruthful advertising.
3. Signs painted directly on buildings.
**4. Protable signs ( except for those provided for under "Uses Permitted in
all Zoning.")
5. Signs which resenbles an official traffic sign or signal or bears the words
"stop, go, slow" or similar words used for traffic control (except for directional
signs on private property.
6. Signs wnich by reason of size, location, movement, content, coloring, or
manner of illumination may be confused with a traffic control sign, signal
or device, or the light of an emergency or road equipment vehicle, or which
hide from vie�v any traffic, street sign, signal or device.
7. Projecting Sigrrs
8. Plation Signs
**9. Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in intensity of light or
is animated, or has flashing or interr�ittent lights (including traveling electronic
nessage centers or Electronic message centers o-rhich change more than once every
15 minutes except one giving time, temperature, or other public information.
10. Advertising signs, (except window isgns allo�aed only in C1, C2, CR1, CS1, and
CS2 Zoning district.)
11. Signs located t•rithin corner setback requirements (ordinance #) 205.154 3)
12. Roof Signs
13. Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices, including any sources
of light which change in intensity, are prohibited.
a
14. Porta-panels
15. Readerboards (except those signs dispensing public informati�n.)
214.032 Signs Permitted Tn Fl11 Districts
i. Address Signs: Each dv�ellin9, business, or building must have a�inimum
of one address sign, miminum of 3'z" high, �aximum of 18" high, illuminated or
reflective, attached to the dvrelling and visable from public right-of-way.
2. Bench Signs: To be permitted only at bus stops; cannot be any larger than
or extend beyond any portion of the bench.
3. US. FLAG follo!��ing Title 36, Section 173-178 of the U.S. Code, State flag,
Corporate Flag.
4. Directional Signs: (public and private}
(a) P1aximum four (4) square feet per facing;
(b) Minimum ten (10) feet from street right-of-way;
(c) Except that a sign directing the public to a hospital may be a maximum
. of twenty-four (24) square feet in area.
5. Institutional Signs:
(a) P1aximum tvrenty-four (24) souare feet;
(b) Minim�m ten (10} feet from street right-of-way;
(c) Except a hospital emergency sign which is ]ocated on the premises may
by fifty (50) square feet in area.}
6. Area Identii�ication Signs: (see individual district regulations).
7. Standard Safety Identification Signage as used by oublic utilities, high��iay
departments, etc.
8. Temporary Sians:
(a) Construction
1. Developrients: Ter,iporary construction signs may be e�'ected for the
purpose of pronmting a prcject of ten (10) or more residential dwelling
units ten (10) or more mobile hor�es, three (3) or r�ore nwltiple dwe]lings,
or a business.
(a} Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area;
(h) One (1) sign per street frontage;
(c) Sign shall be removed �vhen project is completed;
(d} Sign shall not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet
to an existing building structure outside of the development.
2. Individua7 Lots or Buildings:
(a) Sign shall not exceed six (6) sq,uare feet in area;
(b) One (1) sign per street frontage;
(c) Sign taiil be removed upon completion.
(B) Real Estate Signs
1. Developments: 7emporary real estate signs may be erected for the purpose
of sel]ing or promoting a project of Ten (10) or more residential dwe7ling
units, ten (10) or more mobile homes, three (3) or more multiple dwellings,
or a business.
(a)
{b)
(c)
Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area:
One (1) sign per street frontage;
Sign shall be removed ��rhen project is ninety-five (95) percent
completed, sold or leased;
(d) Sign shall not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet to an
existing building structure outside of the development.
2. Individual Lots or Buildings
(a)
(b)
(c)
Sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area;
One (1) sign per street frontage;
Extra "open house" signs to be allowed only during day of open house;
(d) Sign will be removed within five (5) days following sale or lease.
(C) Political Signs
1. Maximum size shall not exceed 32 square feet;
2. Siyns shal] not be erected more than 45 days prior to an election;
3. Signs shal7 be removed o�ithin five (5) days foltowing the election;
4. A fifteen dollar (515.00) deposit will be deposited with the citv prior to
the erection of signs and retained until the signs are removed. If signs are
not removed, the deposit wiTl be used to defray the cost of removal. Any additional
cost will be billed to the party posting the original deposit.
5. Any political sign larger than 3 sq. feet must be placed 10 ft. from public
ri�ht-of-way.
(G) Garage or Rummage Sale Signs.
1. Maximum size three (3) square feet;
2. Must be removed within three (3) days following end of sale;
3. If not removed, removal costs will be levied against the occupant at the
address of the advertised s�le.
(E) Banners or peneants commemora#ing a special event not connected with a business
(such as Fridley 49'er Days}. Banner or pennants for businessess will be allowed
' for grand openings of business only for a ten day maximum period.
214.04 District Requirements
214.041 Sizes, Setbacks and other Requirements for Ri, R2, and R2A
(a) Area Identification Sign
1. One (1) per major development;
2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet;
3. P1inimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-way.
214.042 Sizes, Setback and other Requirements for R3 and R3A
{a) Area Identification signs
1. One (1) per development;
2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet;
3. Minimum ten (20) feet from public right-of-�aay.
(b) Yacancy Signs
1. P1aximwn three (3) square feet in area
. f
2. (�tininwm ten (10) feeti from public right-of-�.ray.
214.043 Sizes, setbacks and other Requirements for R4
(a) Area Identification Sign `
1. One (1) per develQpment
2. tlaximum size twenty-four (24) square feet;
3. i�linimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-�•iay.
214.044 Sizes, setbacks and other requirements for C1, C2, CR1, CR2 j
(a) allow area Ideniification Si9n
1. One per develapment
(b) Free Standing Signs
1. One (1) per street frontage
2. {�laxitt�um eighty (80) square feet per deve9opment
3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet above 1ot grade
4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished yround
level ;
b. Minimum ten (10) feet from any property line or drive�lay;
(C) Windotv Signage: Forty (40) percent of window area, excluding merchandise.
(D) Wall Signs: Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root of
the wall length on which the sign is to be placed
(E) Gas Stations: gas price signs are allowed only as an inte9ral part of the
identification sfgn or pump island.
214.045 Sizes, Setbacks and other requirerr�nts for CS1 and CS2
(a) Area Identification Si9n: One (1) area identification sign allowed
per development
(b) Free Standing 5igns
1. One per street frontage
2. Eighty (80) square feet per development
3. Naximwn hci9ht t�:�enty-five (25) feet above grade
4, Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished ground�
1eve1.
5. Minimum ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway
(C) Window Signage: Forty (40) percent of window area, excluding merchandise.
(D) Wall Signs: Wall Signs area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root of
the wal} length on which the sign is to be placed.
214.046 Sizes, Setbacks, and other Requirements for Mi, M2
(a) Free-standing Sign.
1. Orte (1) free-standing sign per building or multiple use building.
2. Maximum eighty (80) square feet per development
3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet from grade;
4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished ground
level;
5. Minimum te� (10) feet from a property line or driveway;
(b) Wall Signs. '
1. Maximum two (2) wall signs per business allowed on different walls;
2. Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root of the wall
length on which the sign is to be placed;
214.047 P and PD Districts
Sign requirements in P and PD areas would be controlled by the city
cauncil when the deveTopment is planned.
214.048
(a) Within sixty days (6�) of the adoption of this code, all owners of
r
shopping centers and multiple use buildings must submit a comprehensive
sign plan for their center or building to the Zoning Administrator for
approval.
(b} All future permits within the shopping center and multip7e use building
0
214.05 GEP�ERAL REQUIREM[NTS
1. Permits
(a) 6efore a sign may be displayed in the City of Fridley, the
owner or leasee of the premises on which the sign is located
shall file application with the City Zoning Administrator for
permission to display such sign. Permits are required for all
existing, nev�, relocated, modified or redesigned signs except
those specifically exempt under Section 214.07-214.071, inclusive.
(b) The issuance of a permit may also be subject to additional
conditions in order to,promote a irare reasonable combination of
signs and to pranote conformity with the character and uses of
adjoining property. The conditions will be subject to the
discretion of the zoning administrator of the zoning administrator.
(c) Temporary signs erected by a non-profil organization are not
exempt from obtaining a permit for signs, but the City does waive
the fee requirement.
(d) No permit is required under this Section for the following signs;
1. A window sign.
2, Signs erected by a governmental unit or public school district.
3. Memorial signs or tablets containing the name of the 6uilding,
its use and date of erection when cut or built into the walls
of the building and constructed of bronze, brass, stone or marble.
4. Signs which are completely within a building and are not visible
from the outside of said building.
5. Temporary signs (as required in Section 213.032 (8) of this Code).
� � 2. Application
(a) l�ppiicai;icn for permits shall be made to the Zoning Administrator.
(b) If a siyn authorized by perrnit has not been installed within
ninety (90) days after the date of issuance of said permit, the
permit shall become null and void untess an extension is granted
by the Building Inspection Department.
(c) The Zoning Administrator may require other information concerning
safety,
3. Fees
The annual permit fee and expiration date shall be as provided in
Chapter 11 of this Code.
4. License, Fees, Bond
No person, firm or corporation shall engage in the business of erecting
signs under this chaper unless licensed to do so by the City Council.
Such license may be granted by the City Council after written application
to the City Clerk. The annual license fee and expiration date shall be
as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. No license shall take effect
until the licensees shall file with the City Clerk a corporate surety
bond in the sum of $1,000.00, conditioned that the licensees shall
conform to all of the provisions of this chapter and indemnify and hold
the City, its officers and gents, harmless from and damage or claim
resulting from or related to the erection or maintenance of any si9n in
the City by the licensee. A license and bond shall not be required
of an applicant, who is not engaged in the business of erecting signs,
and who chooses to construct and erect his own sign on his property.
5. Exemptions
The exe��ptions permitted by Section 214.05 shall apply only to the
requirenient of a permit and/or fee, and shall not be construded as
relieving the installer of the sign, or the owner of the property upon
' which the sign is located, from conforming with the other
prrovi;ions of this chapter.
6. Maintenarce
(a) Every sign shall be maintained in a safe, presentable, good
structural material condition at all times.
(b) It shall be deemed a violation of this chapter when a sign
becomes twenty-five (25) percent in need or minor repair such as
painting, cleanin9 or other minor maintenance.
(c) The Zoning ADministrator or his agent shall be responsible for
the enforcement of this chapter.
7. Existing Signs
(a) Signs Eli9ible for "Legal Non-conforming" Status:
Any sign located within the City limits on the date of adoption
of this ordinance, which does not conform with the provisions of
this ordinance, is eligible as a"legal non-conforming" sign and
is permitted provided it also meets the following requirements:
l. The sign was covered by a sign permit or variance on the date
of the adoption of this ordinance, if one was required under
applicable law; or
2. If no sign permit was required under applicable Taw for the
sign in question, the sign was in all respects in compliance
with applicable law on the date of adoption of this ordinance.
(b) Loss or Legal Non-conforming 5tatus
A legal non-conforming si9n shall immediately lose its legal non-
conforming designation if:
l. The sign is altered in any way in structure or copy (except for
changeable copy and normal maintenance) which tends to or makes
the sign less in compliance with the require�nents of this
ordir�ance than it was before the alternations; or
0
2. The sign is relocated to a position making it less in compli<�nce
with the requirments of this ordinance; or
3. the sign is replaced; or
4. When there is a change in o�,�ner, tenant or lessee, the legal non-
conforming sign will become illegal and said sign must be brouoht
into compliance orith the ordinance.
5. When signage becomes fifty (50) percent dilapidated or fifty (50)
percent in compliance, the remainder of the signage is not brought
into compliance also.
C. Abandoned Signs:
Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, any sign which
identifies a business that has stopped operation for a period of
three months or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event,
or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been
abandoned. Permanent signs applicable to a business temporarily
suspended because of a change of ownership, or management of such
business, shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains
vacant for a period of three months or more. An abandoned sign is
prohibited and shali be removed by the owner of the sign or the owner
�
of the premises.
214.06 ENFORCEMENT
1. Violations of Code
(a) Any sign that does not comply with the provisions of this ordinance.
(b) A sign that is a hazard to the safety and welfare of the public
(such as exposed wires, broken glass, weak support structure, broken
pieces of inetal, etc.)
2. Notification of Violation of Code
(a} If the Zoning Administrator or his agent shall find that any sign
rcgulated by this chapter is unsafe, insecure, or is a menace to
the public; or has been constructed or erected without a permit first
being granted to ±he owner of the property upon which said sign has
been erected, or is in violation of any other provisions of this
chapter, he shall 9ive rrritten notice of such violation to the ov�rer
or permitee thereof. If the owner fails to remove or alter the sign so
as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter, within
ten (10) calendar days following receipt of said notice, such signs
may be removed by the City. The cost of this removal, including
City expenses, shall be as a special assessment against the property
upon which the sign is located.
(b) The Zoning Administrator or his agent may cause any sign or other
advertising structure which is an irtmediate peril to be removed
summarily and without notice.
, (c) When the City sends the notice of violation, they will send a copy
to both the permit holder and the landowner, if they are different.
3. Penalty for Violation of Code
Any violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject to all
penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter
901 of the Fridley City Code. Each day the violation continues in
existence shall be deemed a separate violation. All signs are subject
to such penalty for violation of the requirements of the district within
which they are located even though they may not be required by this
chaper to pay a fee or acquire a permit.
4. Appeals
7o provide for a reasonsble interpretation of the provisions of this
chapter, a permit applicant who wishes to appeal an interpretation by
the City Duilding Inspector or his agent, may file a notice of appeals
I�MBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PFESENT:
CALL TO`4RDER:
HUMAN R1:SOURCES COMMISSION
ME�TING
JUHE 2, 1977
garbara Shea, Ned Sterla, William Scott, Grace Lynch
Harold Belgum
Larry Dobson, 1636 - 68th Ave. N.E.
Chairperson Shea called the meeting to order at 7:41 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MAY 5, 1977 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIOI� MINUTES:
Ms. Lynch stated that on page 5 of the Niay 5, 1977, Human Resources Commission �?dnutes
tne following change should be made in tl7e motion:
- �hris Aaugen, 11010 Mississippi Blvd., ��312, }31a:i.ne - represen*ative from r,R.G,Ce
(instead o,`. C.A.P.)
MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by Wil2iam Scott, to approve the minutes as corrected.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carrizd unanimously.
ftEVIEW PROPQSED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN:
MOTION by William Scott, seconded by Grace Ly�lch, to tahle this item until Che next
meeting and ask Staff to come and give a presentation. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN OF THE YSAR AWARD:
MOTION by William Scott, seconded by Grace Lynch, that the C�s1nission members ge inte
an executive session �t 8;00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the personalities of
the people involved in tt�e Citizen of the Year Award so it did not receive premature
disclosure. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The Commissiod members discussed the candidates for the Citizen of the Year. award at
length,and the executive session was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The Con¢rission members
'.set another executive session meeting for June 10, 1977, at 7;00 p.m., when the final
decision would be made.
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIOtd NfEETING, JUNC 2, 1977 PAGE 2
INFORMATION: GRANTECHS - MAY 2, 1977, ISSUE (ARTS & HUMANITI�S);
MOTION by William ScoCt, seconded by Grace Lynch, that Chairperson Shea pass this
information on to the Pridley Fine Arts Committee. .Upon a voice vote, all voting�aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
REPORT ON TENANT/LANDLORD PROJECT COMMITTEE:
Mr. Scott stated that the Tenant/Landlord Project Committee had one previous meeting.
They had a member appear before the City Council and Mr. Do6son would be making,a
report about what was discussed there. The Gommittee had elected its leadership that
evening. Mr. Scott stated he would like to offer additional names for the Commission
to appoint to the Project Committee.
MOTION by William Scott, seconded by Ned Storla, to appoint the following two people
to the Tenant/Landlord Project Committee:
John SWanson, 5835 Central Ave. N.E. - landlord representative for small complex
Roma Eastwood, 7995 Broad Ave. N.E. - landlord representative for small complex
Also, the designation of the representative from C.A.P. be changed to the represeatative
from E.R.O.C. (Equal Rights prganizing Coa�ittee).
T4r. Scott stated that it had come to the attention cf the Project Coum�ittee that ti�e
tenant representation may consist of persons of loca income and the Equa1 Rights OrgLni�i�ng
Connn_ttee was an organization which; in fact, was concerr.ed specifically with prohlem
of 1ow inccme peop"Le, especially dealing caith low income housi.ng. E.R.O•C. cnay be '
more representative of the class of people rhe Co�nittee was trying tu reach rather
than an agency which did noL- specifically deal with the difficulties of the low income �
people faced with rental problems.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYG, THE MOTION CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
��i
Mr. Scott informed the Commission that John Swanson and I�arry Dobson had been elected
as Co-chairpersons of the TenantJLandlord Project Come�ittee. `��
Mr. Dobson stated that he had explained and answered questions when he met with the
City Council. He had introduced the Chareer and had indicated six basic objectives
that had come up in the Project CommiL-tee's discussions.
Objective 1: To survey availaUle residential rental stocic within gridley
" 2. To assess residenti.al rental stock needs within the commiunity
�� 3
" 4
" 5
�� 6
To assess problems of rental stock residents
To attempt- to find solutions and estaUlish guideLines for
resolving differences between tenants and Landlords
To improve community relations Uy drawing rental stocic
residents into the processes of the community
Predictions are Chat residential rental stocic will increasingly
be tlie most commnn housing in communiCies like Fridley.
i
"I
i
�
�+�_ ,�
t i
�
�
I
I
;,
HUMAN RF,SOURCF.S COMMISSIOi� MEF.TING JUNE 2, 1977 PAGE 3
pverall
Objective; To assure the successfvl. assimilation of rental stock residents
into the community and to avoid problems that commonly arise
as rental stock density increases and ages.
Mr. Dobson stated that the question was asked at the City Council meeting if Che
Committee intended Co be an advocate of tenant and landlord rights. Mr. DoUson answered
that was not their objective. Their mai.n objective was to avoid an advocate role but
s`to provide some form of having pro5lems handled in advance. He said the question c�ras
raised about the Committee's need for funds. Mr. Dobso�2 stated that at their next
meeting, they would nrobably be discussing the possibility of developiag something and
having something available in the community to explain the rights of tenants and land-
lords and provide the guidelines and resources currently available for resolving disputes.
Mr. Scott,stated that at the Council meeting, the suggestion had Seen made that a
booklet could perhaps be developed whicli would spell out in broad terms the general
responsibilities of landlords and tenants and where their resou:ces would lie; and
perhaps'making this baoklet available to all tenants. The cost of sosething like this
would have to be done through a budgeting process and Mr. Scott stated this might be
a goal the Commission might want to intxoduce at budget time.
Mr. Dobson stated that the C�ittee was filling up primarily on the ?zndlord s�de and
the problem was geiting tenant participation. 't$ey caould be making r,�ore of an effort
`to get more tenant participation. 'Phe Proieet Commictee's next ree::no was �.r_heduled
''for June 29, 1977, at 7;00 p.m. at City Hall.
CTHER �3USI*iESS: -
Ms. Shea stated that the annual meeting of the League of Minneso*_a H�an Rights
Co�issions was being held Saturday, June 11, 1977, at the Holiday Inn. She stated
she would be attending and if any of the Commissioner� wishe3 to attend to contact her.
ADJOURNtiENT:
MOTION by William Scott, seconded by Ned Storla, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Upon a voice vote, all voting ape, the motion car.ried unanimousl}>.
Respectfully submitted,
,i
ri. ' ,� ,.
! � � /7' 1: L' !JL {.�-(�_ '
LynitN Saba
Recording Secretary