PL 07/27/1977 - 6614��
�
�.
�
:
City of Fridley
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3ULY 27, 1977 7:30 P.M.
PAGES
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROYE PLANNING COMMISSION MTNUTES: JULY 13, 1977 �" 26
RECETVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 7, 1977 27 - 34
RECETVE APPEALS COMMISSION MTNUTES: JULY 19, 1977 35 - 47
Z. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN SIGN ORDINANCE
2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
3. RECEIVE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY:
LETTER FROM ZQLLIE BARATZ, Z& S MANAGEMENT CO.,
DATED JULY 15, 1977
4. OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Separate
Separate
48 - 49
�J
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COf1MISSION MEETZN6
JULY 13, 1977
CALL TO ORDER�
Chairperson Harris called the July 13, 1977, Planning Commission
Meeting to order at 7:35 p.M.
ROLI CALL:
11embers Present
Hembers Absent:
Others Present:
Storla, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Gabel,
Langenfeld
None
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APpROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES� JUNE 22, 1977
11r. Langenfeld corrected the ^Members Present^ listed on Page 1
to read •••--• Bruce Peterson. He indicated thaC the ^Members
Absent" should read Bob Peterson-
� 110TION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla,
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1977, be
amended. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
unanimously•
AMEND THE AGENDA
that the
approved as
motion carried
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel� to amend the
agenda to include item SA, REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L•S. �77-07,
K.B.M. INVESTMENT COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY WYMAN Sf1ITH�..-....
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1• CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING= REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,
SP �77-04, APACHE CAMPING CENTER: Per section 205.101,
3N, of the Fridley Gity Code, to allow sales and service
of recreational vehicles, on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's
Tecond Addition, the same being 7701 East River Road N.E•
Public Hearing open•
Mr• Boardman presented the site plan from Apache Camping Center
to the Planning Commission• He said that the landscaping plan
had been drawn up by an architect. He pointed out that there
had been a meeting at the site involving Apache Camping Center
personnel and the neighbors. He said that nine items had'been
drawn up at that time that were requested to be incorporated
into the Special Use Permit if it was granted-
The Planning Commission studied the plan they had before them.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 2
Chairperson Harris wanted to know how many custvmer parking places
were being provided.
Mr• Pawelski of Apache Camping Center explained that there would �
be enough parking space to accommodate 14 cars•
Chairperson Harris questioned the num6er of tent trailers and
regular trailers shown on the plan.
Mr• Pawelski indicated that they were showing the maximum number
of units that would be on the lot at one time•.
Chairperson Harris asked if Apache Camping Center had had a chance
to look over the nine stip�lations•
Mr- Pawelski indicated that they had reviewed the nine �
stipulations and were in agreement- He said that Ms. Martin
had requested most of the items to be included as stipulations
should a Special Use Permit be g�anted.
Mr. Pawelski felt that the number of kinds of shrubs being
required at the front of the building would obstruct the view
of the showroom from the street. He said that with some extra
care, the existing shrubs should be adequate•
�hairperson Harris questioned one of the stipulations dealing
with making sure the Special Use Permit would not be applicable
to any other business.
Mr• Fawelski clarified that Ms. Martin didn't want the Special �
Use Permit to be allowed for use by someone else, should the
Camping Center move away at a future date.
Ms. Martin of 133 Stonybrook NE explained that she understood
that a Special Use Permit was issued to the owner of the property
and since Apache Camping Center would only be leasing the building
she didn't want to have to contend with an undesirable business
{used car lot, etc-} should the Camping Center move at a
future date•
Chairperson karris explained that unless another Camping Center
moved into that building, the Special Use Permit would not
pertain. He said that each different business would need a
separate Special Use Permit• He indicated that the permit would
be issued for the outside storage of recreational vehicles.
�
. _'��,
!
,
i
��
PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEfTING — JIJLY 13, 1977 Paqe 3
Ns. Martin said that she a�d the Apache Camping Center are in
agreement on the thoughts, but she wanted to be assured that
they are in agreement an the words. She didn't want to have the
thoughts misinterpreted• One thi�g in particular she wanted
to have the wording exact regarding the displaying of vehicles
in front of the showroom. She wanted it to read, ^two cement
slabs adjacent to the showroom with one vehicle each on each
of the slabs. She felt that the way it had originally been worded,
it could have been interpreted as two vehicle on each of the
slabs, resulting in a total of four vehicles displayed in front
of the showroom• She said that she and the Apache Camping
Center had agreed on a total of two vehicles displayed in front
of the showroom.
At the request of Mr• Langenfeld, Chairperson Harris read the
nine stipulations to the audience. Mr• Pawelski clarified some
the the items as Chairperson Harris read them.
flr• Pawelski indicated that he would be meeting with the owner
of the Qroperty regaraing the nine stipulations• He said that
they were in agreement to fix the buiiding, but didn't feel they
should have to handle the total expe�se of upgrading someone
else's property•
� Ms. Martin explained that she had noticed two semi-truck trailers
were being stored at the rear of the property• She said that
there was no objections to the ones presently there. She asked
that since the 3pecial Use Permit would be issued to the property
owner, would he be able to use that permit to enable him to park
more of the semi-truck trailers on the property. She indicated
that if that could happen, then she felt that there would be
a 1ot of objections. She was sure that the neigh6o�hood did
not want any semi-truck traffic in the area. She also felt that
it would be aesthetically unpleasing to have semi-truck trailers
kept at the rear of that property.
Ms. Martin continued to say that she understood that the trailers
did belong to the ow�er of the property and not Apache Camping
Center• She only wanted to know if the owner would have the
right of outside storage•
P{r. lilormsbecker of 134d1 Southridge Road indicated that basically
the rear of the building in question was only being used as
cold storage and that it shouldn't be considered as a wa�ehouse•
Mr. Boardman explained that if semi-trucks were going into the
area and delivering merchandise to be stored, then the building
would be considered as a warehouse and warehouses were not allowed
� in the zoning presently on Che property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, Z977 Paae 4
Ms. Martin wanted assurance that the neighborhood would be �
protected from thab type of situation being allowed. She felt
that the Permit should be worded NOW to assure there would be
no misinterpretation of the intent of the Permit.
Ms. Martin indicated that there would be definite opposition to
a warehouse in the area.
� Mr. Langenfeld indicated that if the stipulations were incorporated
into the 3pecial-Use Permit, that, in itself, would put a great
deal of control on the property. He explained that if in the
event the neighbors felt that a warehouse operation was taking
place, all they would have to do is call City Hall a�d someone
would be sent out to the property to check-out the complaint.
Ms. Martin explained that that was why she felt the stipulations
should be incorporated into the actual Permit — to be sure
the neighbors had a valid complaint should different occasions
arise.
Ms. 6abe1 wanted ta know how long the trailers had been on the
property•
Ms. Martin indicated that she hadn't realized the trailers had
even been on the property until the night she met with the
personnel from Apache Camping Center at the site•
Mr• Pawelski didn't know the answer either- He was again in •
agreement with Ms. Martin. He said that Apache Camping Center
didn't want to have the trailers parked on the property either•
He felt that the more room the owner utilized, the less room
they would have for their Camper business-
Mr• Peterson questioned the stipulation stating, ^Drive way on
East River Road not to be used by customers^. He wanted to
know how Apache Camping tenter would be able to control what
driveway a customer would use•
Mr• Wormsbecker explained that there was a driveway onto the
property directly from East River Road. He said that Apache
Camping Center would keep the gate on that driveway locked so
as to discourage anyone from using the driveway. He indicated
that Apache Camping Center intended to use the driveways located
on 77th Street.
Mr• Pawelski explained that there could be occasions when Apache
Camping Center would want to use the gate/driveway on East River
Road but that it would only be an occasional circumstance and
that customers would never be encouraged to use that particular
gate/driveway-
�
�
LANNING COt1i1ISSI0N MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Pa e 5
Mr. Bergman pointed out that there was an error on the plat.
He said that the two ceme�t slabs in front of the showroom
had not been indicated.
Mr• Storla asked what type of security lighting Apache Camping
Center planned to use•
Mr• Amundsom of Apache Camping Center indicated that it would
only be security lighting and would only illuminate the
Camping Center• .
In answer to a question
that the business hours
Monday — Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Closed Sunday
by Mr• Langenfeld,
of Apache Camping
9:00 A.M. — 8:00
9:00 A.M. — 6�0�
9:00 A.M. — 5:00
Mr• Pawelski indicated
Center would be:
P.M.
P.M.
P.M•
lie said that he felt the latest they woUld ever be open would be
9:00 P.M• He again indicated that all ingress and egress to the
Apache Camping Center would be via 77th Street-
Mr• Pawelski said that they had studied the landscape plan. He
indicated that basically it was an agreeable proposal and that the
only problem was that Apache Camping Center planned to get with
. the landlord to discuss the plan and to find out if he would
handle some of the expenses involved with upgrading his property•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know the terms of Apache Camping Center's
lease agreement•
17r• Wormsbecker indicated that there wasn't an actual lease
agreement. He said that it was still a negotiable thing.
Mr. Pawelski said that when Apache Camping Center found out that
they needed a Special Use Permit, tfiey decided to first find
out if they could get the Permit before they decided on the terms
of the lease.
11s. Gabel asked what kind of lease Apache Camping Center
anticipated•
Mr• Amundsom indicated it would be approximately a three-year
lease {minimum}•
�
__ {
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JU�Y 13, 1977 pa e 6
Mr• Pawelski wanted to know why Apache Camping Center had to
replace all the shrubs presently on the property• �
Mr• Boardman said that the landscaping architect had agreed that
some of the existing shrubbery could remain as long as the
entire property was uP9raded•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know the purpose of the six foot redwood
fe�ce.
Mr• Boardman indicated that the six foot redwood fence was
basically for decorative purposes.
Mr• Peterson felt that the showroom should not be obstructed by
landscaping•
Mr• Boardman explained that the proposed landscaping would not
block the showroom visibility• He said that the City was only
suggesting the ideas. He indicated that Apache Camping
Center would have to submit a landscape plan for City approval
before they would receive the Permit. He said that the Permit
would be held up until the-Iandscape plan met with City Council
approval•
Mr• Bergman said that when a business had a glass-front showroom,
that the City should be careful not to require anything that
would conflict with the visibility of that showroom. �
Due to a misunderstanding, the Public Hearing had been closed
at the June 22, 1977 meeting; therefore, it came to tha Commission's
attention that the Public Hearing had not been opened.
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, to include
all the previous infprmal discussion into the Public Hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission receive the nine stipulations. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris requested a show of hands of people who were
in the audience regarding the item.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all votirtg aye, the motion
carried unanimously and the Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 P.M.
�.I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 7
Mr• Peterson indicated that the landscaping needs had to be
verified•
* After some discussion, Chairperson Harris and Mr• Boardman
came to the agreement that the City Council had final
arbitration regarding the approvai of the landscaping plans.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of
the Request for a Special Use Permit, SP �77-�4, Apache Camping
Center: Per Section 205.101, 3N, of the Fridley City Code, to
allow sales and service of recreational vehicles, on Lot 1,
Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition, the same being 7701 East
River Road N.E. subject to the following stipulations:
1} That the development of the property be generally
consistent with the plat plan {Exhibit A} submitted
by Apache Camping Ce�ter, corrected to show two
concrete slabs adjacent to the showroom-
2} That landscaping be improved subject to the approval
of City Staff, with showroom visibility acceptable
to the tenants and adjacent neighbors.
3} That there be no outside loudspeakers.
4} That outside lighting after 10:00 A.M. be limited
to security lighting of the property {the illumination
� being such a nature that it would not be annoying
to the adjacent neighborhood}•
5} That there be the maximum of two units {one on each
concrete slab located adjacent to the showroom} displayed
in front of the showroom-
6} That there be no test driving in the residential area.
7} Any unsightly storage be stored at the rear of the
property {behind the building}•
8} That the driveway on East River Road not be used by
customers. '
9} Sales of motorcytles and snowmobiles be excluded.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�
PLANNING �OMMISSiON MEETING — J�LY 13, 1977 Paqe 8
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL �SE PERMIT,
SP �77-07, ANDREW R. EVANS: Per Sec'tion 205.051, 2A, of �
the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a
second accessory Suilding, a 27' x 24' attached garage,
on the East 167 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's $ubdivision No• 92,
the same being 6040 Benjamin Sireet N•E.
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seco�ded by Mr• Bergman, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:51 P.M.
' Mr. Boardman indicated that there would be a second accessory
building. He said that they presently had an attached garage
and that they were building another attached garage at the rear
of the house. This would be considered a second accessory
garage•
�r. Langenfeld asked what the purpose would be for the second
accessory building.
Mr• Evans said it would be used for storage of a car/boat/
snowmobiles and other items that needed to be stored.
Mr• Langenfeld asked if the accessory building would be compatible
with the existing building•
M�. Evans said that the buildings would all be the same — stucco, �
color, etc.
Mr. Peterson wanted to know what the access would be to the
building.
Mr• Evans said that there would be an additional driveway. He
explained that they were located on a corner lot and that the
second driveway would enter from the street to the garage at a
different point than the already existing garage•
Ms. Gabel asked on what street the current driveway existed.
Mr• Evans explained it was presently on Benjamin Street and the
other driveway would be on Ferndale Avenue.
Mr. Boardman showed the Planning Commission the proposed plan for
the additional structure-
Mr- Bergman wanted to know the size of Mr• Evans' current garage
Mr. Evans was�'t sure of the dimensions, but indicated that it
was a single car garage.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 9
` Ms. Gabel showed concern for the elevation of the house in relation
to the proposed deck/patio. She wanted to know if it would
encroath on the neighbor's privacy.
P1rs. Evans explained that they weren't really close enough to
anyone to encroach on their privacy.
Ms• Gabel asked what the dimensions were of the lot.
Mr• Boardman indicated that the lot was 165 feet from the back
lot line to Benjamin Street•
Mr� Bergman wanted to know what Mr. Evans planned to do with
all the buildings — single car garage and oversized double
garage•
Mr• Evans indicated he had two cars, one boat,.two snowmobiles,
and other normal miscellaneous items that needed storage.
11QT20N by I1r• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel� to close the
Public Hearing- Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 P.t1
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr- Sto�la, that the Plan�ing
Commission recommend to City Council the approval
� of the request for a Special �se Permit, SP �77-07, Andrew R• Evans:
Per Section 205.051, 2A, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
construction of a second accessory building, a 27' x 24' attached
garage� on the East 167 feet of Lot 7, Auditors's Subdivision
No• 92, the same being 6040 Benjamin Street N•E• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously•
3. PllBLIC HEARING: REGlUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 3P }77-08,
ROGER STENE: For retaining the use of both existing
attached garages, and to permit an existing drive to his ,
original 12-1/2 ft x 22 ft garage to remain as is, per
Fridley City Code, Section 2U5•051, 2, A, *, located on
Lot 1, Block 5, Brookview Terrace Third Addition, the
same being 870 Pandora Drive N.E.
*Please note that when the permit for a second attached
garage was issued on May 26, 1972, it was stipulated that
the driveway to the original garage be removed, and the
original garage be used just for storage.
110TION by {1r. Bergman, seconded by S1s. Gabel, to open the
Public Hearing- Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 9:04 P.f1.
�
,
_� ��1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, Z97? Paqe 10
Mr• Boardman pointed out that the main thing that should be
brou9ht out was that in 1972, when a Permit was granted to build
an additional garage in the rear yard, it had been stipulated •
that the original driveway was to be removed and the area filled
in and landscaped. The permit also stipulated that the original
garage was to be used for storage only• He went on to explain
that the petitioner was now before the Planning Commission for a
Special Use Permit that would enable him to use both garages
and both driveways.
Mr• Stene expZained to the Planning Commission that he was aware
• of the fact that"he hadn't complied with the stipulations of the
Building Permit that had been granted in 1972. He told them that
his original intent, when he built the new garage was that he
planned to put a print shop in his home. He said that since that
time he had almost gone out of the Printing business and
he doesn't plan to finish the original garage into a workshop
as he had previously intended to do. He said that now he
preferred to use tha original garage as storage for material
he sells out of his home- He indicated that the material is
drop shipped at his home from the Manufacturer.
Mr• Stene went on to explain that the City had advised him
of the violation four days after he had parked his third new
car in the original garage. He talked to Ron Holden of
Fridley City Hall to find out what he had to do to resolve the
problem. He said he had been informed by City Hall that he would
have to apply for a Special Use Permit in order to legally �
Continue using the original garage/driveway. He quoted to the
Commission exactly what he had been told by Lity Hall:
^Request for 3pecial Use Permit for second accessory
building. This permit will not require any additional
construction. It would only allow the present hard
surface drive off of Pandora llrive to remain. This was
originally stipulated to be removed on the Building
Permit. The garage door would remain as is in either
case• The property owner can drive over the lawn and use
the garage for car stora9e in either case-^
Mr• Stene showed the Planning Commission a copy he had of ihe
original Building Permit• He also presented a petition that had
been signed by his adjacent neighbors approving of his current
intention• He indicated that only two of the neighbors wouldn't
sign the petition; one was an employee of the City and he was
not permitted to sign the petition and the other person lived
directly behind Mr• Stene and he had refused to sign.
Mr• 3tene showed the Planning Commission a pitture of his house
as it currently appeared. He informed the Commission of all
the articles he needed all the additional space for — three cars,
two boats, six bicycles, snowblower, lawn mower, and other
miscellaneous items. He said he really wanted to bs able to
park all his cars inside rather than having them parked outside• �
He cited many incidents of vandalism Chat had occurred in the
past years. He said ha had had at least �S,OOO worth of
vandalism done, primarily to his vehicles.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 11
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that Mr• Stene had been required to
� remove the driveway to the original garage in 1972 and that he had
not removed it. He.wanted to know if by this request Mr• Stene
was trying to make right his violation•
Chairperson Harris said that he felt the intent of Mr• Stene
was to rectify the violation-
nr• Stene said that he wanted to be at peace with the neighbors
and with the City and that he was willing to do whatever was
necessary to rectify the matter• He especial.ly wanted to have
some type of peace with the neighborhood.�n hopes that possibly
some of the vandalism would stop.
Mr. Bergman wanted to know if Mr- Stene planned to leave the
garages exactly as they were•
Mr• Stene said that there would be no construct�on involved.
nr• Langenfeid wanted to know why Mr• Stene had posts in
his front yard.
Mr• Stene indicated that after having ten ^yard jobs^ done last
year he decided to have the posts installed. He said that it
had cost him close to 51,500 to repair damages done by the
^yard jobs^- He said he felt better {and safer} having the
� posts present. He indicated that he took pride in keeping his
yard nice and he couldn't figure out why someone wanted to
keep ruining it. He said that he had even had his Home Owner's
Insurance dropped by one Company because of the unusual amount
of damages and vandalism claims they had ta cover•
Ms. Gabel wanted to know what type of business Mr• 3tene was
operating out of his house.
Mr• Stene indicated that he sold ink rolls. He said he had put
a print shop in his basement and operated it for 12 years. He
said when he had put the second garage on, the original garage
was primarily used as an access to the Printing Shop, plus
storage• With his decision to take a new course of employment,
Mr• 3tene decided on the particular course of employment of
selling i�k rolls- He said that he did have to keep some
inventory but that the total space utilized in his house was
an area 1-1/2 feet by six feet. He indicated that he would
primarily use the garages for storage. He said that he wouldn't
be using the garage as any business venture. He indicated that
there would be no workshop or office put into the garage.
He said he would basically use the garages as storage for his
personal belongings-
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 12
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr. Stene stored goods for resale in
his house.
Mr• Stene estimated that he stored approximately S75❑ —�1,��0
worth of inventory.for resale in his house.
Mr- Langenfeld wanted to know why �r• Stene had not done as the
stipulations had required.
Mr• Stene said that he had not been prepared to finish the
original garage at the time he built the additional garage.
He said that there seemed to be too many other things that
seemed more pertinent to him than removing the existing
driveway. He said that he wasn't sure of which direction he
planned to go with his future and since he had decided against
having the workshop, he just never got around to removing the
driveway.
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded 6y Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting�aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 9:22 P.M.
Mr• Langenfeld read the definition of a Hame Occupation that
came out of the Code Book 205.02 because he felt that the
Commission first had to determine if a home occupation did exist.
Chairperson Harris indicated that at present there was a
business in existence; however, he was not sure if there had
been a businass venture in the past.
MOTION by Mr. 8ergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of `
the Request for a Special Use Permit, SP #77-08, Roger St�n�":'
For retaining the use of both existing attached garages; and`to
permit an existing drive to his original 12-1/2 ft by 22 ft
garage to remain as is, per Fridley City Code, Section 2�5-051,
2, A, located on Lot 1, Block 5, Brookview Terrace Third Addition,
the same being 870 Pandora Drive N.E.
Mr• Bergman said that even though Mr• Stene had been in violation
of a previous Building Permit, he felt that Mr• Stene had a
reasonable request.
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if there was any ordinance to
curtail home operations.
Mr• Stene said that he had been confronted at the time that a
semi-truck had jack-knifed in that intersection• He had been
told at that time that a home operation/business would not
get involved in anything invplving color TV, nothing that
involved a lot of traffic {he pointed out that Beauty Shops
did not violate.the ordinance and that for sure his 6usiness
did not generate as much traffic as a beauty shop}, and that a
home business could not resuit in any offensive noise to the
neighborhood. He said that any construction equipment had to be
stored in an enclosed building and that an 18 x 24 sign was
allowed but could nob be directly lighted.
•
�
�
PLANNING COMMI3SION.MEETING — JULY 13, 1477 Paqe 13
Mr. Langenfeld asked if any insurance company had denied him
coverage because of his home operation.
Mr. Ste�e said that he had never been cancelled by an insurance
company because of his home business. He said that his business
was not even large enough to require a fire extinguisher• He
said that he indeed had fire extinguishers, but he did so mainly
for his own safety and peace of mind.
Mr• Stene apologized to the Commission for not compling with the
previous permit•
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
4. PUBLIC HEARIN6� REQUEST FOR A 3PECIAL U3E PERMIT, SP #77-09,
THERWOOD JORDAHL: Per Section 2�5.051, 3D� of the Fridley
City Code, to allow the construction of a double bungalow
in R-1 zoning {single family dwelling units}, on �ot 6,
Block 2, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 14y1-1443
Rice Creek Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a �oice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 9:33 P.M•
Mr• Boardman indicated that the petitioner was req�esting a
� Special Use Permit to enable him to buil� a double bungalow on
an oversized R-1 zoned lot. He said that the petitioner met
all the code requirements as far as lot size, etc. but that he
needed the Special Use Permit to allow a double bungalow on a
R-1 lot•
Mr• Jordahl showed the Planning Commission a plan of the double
bungalow indicating a few changes that had been decided since
the drawing up of the plan.
Mr. Peterson asked if Mr- Jordahl would be living in part of the
double bungalow•
Mr. Jordahl indicated that he would be living in part of the
proposed double bungalow•
Mr• Herbert Hart of 1450-64th Avenue NE voiced definite objection
to the constructing of a double bungalow on that lot• He said
he had brought his house five years prior after spending previous
years in a double bungalow- He didn't like the idea of the
constant turnover that went with rental property• He said that
too ma�y times people rent the property that are basically
undesirable• He felt that rental property completely surrounded
by singie family dwellings was a bad idea. '
�
PLANNING COMMISSIOM MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 page 14
Mr• Langenfeld asked if Mr• Hart was still in objection if the ;
double bungalow was owner occupied• '
� �;
Mr.Hart said that owner occupied would be better but that he
still opposed•
In answer to an inquiry from the audience, Mr• Jordahl said that
the double bungalow would be in the $4Q,000 range. He said that
there would be approximately 1,I100 square feet on each floor.
� Ms• Karla Larson of 7528-75 Ave NE pointed out that a$90,000 home
would have to indicate that a reasonably stable family would have
to live in the other part of tfie double bungalow since the rent
would have to 6e in an awfully high bracket.
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if all the property in the
area had been developed or built on.
Mr• Boardman explained what existed near the lot in question.
He went on to discuss where all the homes near the lot in
question were located. .
Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Jordahl owned the property•
Mr. Jordahl said that he did own the property•
Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr• Jordahl planned to make the double � i
bungalow his parmanent residence•
Mr• Jordahl said that he hoped to make the house his permanent
residence- He said that he and his family liked the area and
that they would like to be able to buil,d a home that would help
pay for itself.
Chairperson Harris asked if it would be feasible for Mr• Jordahl
to build a single-family dwelling•
Mr• Jordahl said that he wanted to build a double bungalow and
did not want to have to consider building a single-family ,
.
dwelling•
Mr• Langenfeld wanted to know if it would cause Mr• Jordahl an
economical hardship if the request was denied.
Mr• Jordahl indicated that it probably wouldn't cause an
economical hardship but he felt it would be easier and better
if the request was granted.
�
�
•
�
PLANNIN6 COMMIS3ION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 15
nr• Bergman wanted to know why the proposed house would have a
6D foot setback from the property line.
Mr• Jordahl
so that his
area•
said that it had been recommended to him by the City
house would be in line with the other houses in the
At that point there was a discussion amongst the Planning
Commission and Mr. Boardman regarding required setbacks.
Ms. Gabel asked Mr• Jordahl if he realized that there was some
incompatibility created by his building a double bungalow in an
area of single-family dwellings•
Mr• Jordahl said that he felt the mai� concern of the
neighborhoods regarding rental property would be the undesirability
of tenants• He felt that there would be no problems involved
since the rent would be in the upper bracket numbers.
A,person from the audience stated that he felt the double bungalow
would actually be a nice addition to the area. He didn't feel
it would depreciate the value of the other homes in the area
at all•
Ms. Gabel asked if Mr• Hart felt any differently about the
proposed double bungalow after hearing the different discussions•
fl r. Hart said that it was still a shock- He said that perhaps
it would really be fine and everything would work out, but he
still felt it would be nicer if a single-family dwelling was
constructed on that lot.
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms- Gabel. to close the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 P.M•
NOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of
the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #77-09, Sherwood Jordahl:
Per Section 205-051, 3D� of the Fridley City Code, to allow the
construction of a double bungalow in R-1 zoning {single family
dwelling units}, on Lot 6, Block 2, Spring Valley Addition, the
same beinq 1441-1443 Rice treek Road N.E.
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that City Council would have to have
a 4/5 vote to approve tfie Special Use Permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6 — JULY 13, 1977 Page 16
Chairperson Harris indicated that he was voting against the motion
because he felt there would be an incompatibility in the area.
Ne felt that a single-family dwelling would be better.
Ms. Gabel indicated that she would be voting against the motion
for reasons of incompatibility• She said that there were all
single-family dwellings in the area and she felt it would be a
spot rezoning.
Mr. Bergman pointed out that there wasn't any objections obvious
since only one person had showed up at the meeting to voice his
objection.
Mr. Langenfeld didn't feel that the general welfare of the public
was being jeopardized. .
UPON A VOICE VOTE� Mr- Langenfeld, Mr• Peterson, and Mr• Bergman
voting aye; and Ms. Gabel and Chairperson Harris voting nay,
the motion carried• "
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REAPPROVAL OF MEADOWMOOR
TERRACE SECOND ADDITION, P-S. #77-05, 8Y GARY D AIGLE=
{Formerly P.S. �64-04}, being a replat of the North 163.64
feet of the So�th 551 feet front and rear of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 12, T-30,
R-24, Anoka County, generally located East of Central
Avenue N.E. and West of Arthur Street N.E, on
the South side of 76th Avenue N.E•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel� to open the public
hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 10:00 P.M.
Ms. Karla Larson was representing Mr. Gary D Aigle.
Mr•
Mrs.
Mrs.
Mrs•
Mrs.
Mrs.
Mr•
Mrs.
Virgil Ishaug
Ray Czypta
John Nennes
Jan Thomas
Peggy Strasser
Susan Thomsen
Fred Limesand
3haron Limesand
1373 - 75 Ave NE
762� Bacon Drive NE
7600 Arthur Street NE
1463-75 Avenue NE
7508 Arthur Street NE
1483-75 Ave NE
1409-76 Ave NE
1409-?6 Ave NE
All the above people were present at the meeting regarding the
above item•
�
i
�
r��
�
�
p�ANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 17
Mr- Boardman explained that originally a plat went through in
1964. At that time he explained it fiad not been recorded to the
County and has not been recorded in the County since•
He said that according to Code, they have to have a plat recorded
in the County within 90 days otherwise they have to get '
reapproval from the City. He said that at tfiis time they are
requesting reapproval on the plat• He indicated that
there had been some recommendations that should be placed on the
plat that were not on the plat previously, namely the
easements needed — a ten foot walkway easement along the south
side of lots 1& 2, Block 1, for access to the City Park property4
also five foot drainage and utility easement along the street
side of all the lots.
Chairperson Harris wanted to know why the City needed additional
easements over and above the already requested 60 feet.
Mr- Boardman i�dicated that he wasn't sure of the reasonin9
but that it was standard procedure in the Engineering Department•
Ms• Gabel wanted to know if the easement could be used in the
frontage setback requirements.
Mr• Boardman
easement but
the setback.
said that the property owner couldn't build on the
that they could use the footage when determining
Chairperson Harris asked Ms. Karla Larson if she had had an
opportunity to see the proposed plan.
Ms• Larson discussed the proposed plat with the Planning Commission.
Mr• Limesand wanted to know what would be built on the lots
that were being discussed.
Ms• Larson indicated that there would be 13 single-family homes.
She asked if the audience was concerned that the plans would be
for low housing development.
The audience indicated that that was their main concern.
Ms- Larson indicated that the lowest price that would be
paid for any of the homes would be $49,900 and the cost would
only go up from that point. She explained that there would be
seven styles that would all be different.
The audience was very much against any type of home that would
resemble the 235 Program homes that had been build in the area.
Ms. Thomas wanted to know if there would be any guarantee that
all the homes wouldrt't be the same.
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 18
Ms- Larson indicated that they couldn't really know before the
lots were sold but again emphasized that it was not low income
housing and that it would be unlikely that all the homes would
be exactly the same•
Ms. Peggy Strasser wanted to know if the seven homes would be
built and then used as display models.
Ms. Larson said that there would be no model homes built- She
said that people would go into the Realty office and decide
what they wantad�and then the home would be built to their
specifications•
Mrs. John Hennes said that when the 235 Program was brought into
the area they had been told that there would be a variety of
homes but because of the water table, they ended up all being
built as split entry homes. She wanted to know if the City
could check the water table to insure that that wouldn't happen
again•
Mr• Bergman indicated that the Planning Commission was talking
about the approval of a preliminary plat and the approval of
that plat would not be any guarantee of the type of house that
would go an the lot nor would it involve any commitments as to
what would go on the lots. He said that the decision would
not'tie the lots to anything other than a single-family dwelling
and the size of tMe lot.
Mr• Boardman said that the City didn't have much control over
whether a developer would or would not develop low income
housing• He indicated that the original 235 Program is no
longer available• He said that the only types of Programs
available would be the type of individual subsidy programs
or mortgage loan programs• He said that the City didn't always
have the control and that most of the time it would be between
the developer and HUD•
Mr• Peterson indicated that the City has developed through the
various hearing processes within the City a housing goal as far
as housing is concerned and part of that goal was to encourage
all types of housing within the City of Fridley•
Mrs• Ray Czypta indicated that the point they wanted to make was
that the area already had low income housing and that they
didn't want any more.
Chairperson Harris suggested that the neighbors concerned about
this item get together with Ms. Larson and discuss with her the
things they were concerned about• He thought that they would
get more satisfaction letting the deve2oper know what they
would and wouldn't like• He was sure the developer wanted to
be in harmony with the neighborhood.
�
�
�
L i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 19
Ms. Larson again pointed out that she was almost sure that the
developer didn't want to construct housing for low income programs.
.� She invited the neighbors to stop by the office at any time and
they could discuss all the plans that the developer had.
�
�
Mr• Boardman pointed out that in 1953 there had been a lot split.
He explained that the 1ot split split off parcels 95D and 955
and the rest of the piat was parceled off as 960• He said that
bhe plat was first presented in 1964 which was 11 years after
the lot split. He said that the original plat was in error•
He gave the information to Ms• Larson and asked that she submit
it to 3uburban Engineering and then get in contact with City Hall-
Chairperson Harris explained, to the audience that there had been
a lot split on lots 7, 8 Block 2 which would be the west end
of the property• He indicated that the lot split took place in
1953 and if the people that split the lots had received a
mortgage, then a plat had to have been approved•
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld to close the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at
10:47 R.M.
Ms. Gabel indicated to the audience that they should definitely
get together with the developer of the land and voice their
oppositions- She said that the Planning Commission really
couldn't do a lot regarding the styles of the ho�ses. She said
that they, as the general public, could make themselves heard
by going directly to the developer and letting him know what
they did and did not want•
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council the reapproval of
Meadowmoor Terrace Second Addition, P.S. �77-05, by Gary D Aigle:
{Formerly P.S- t64-04}, being a replat of the North 163.64 feet
of the South 551 feet front and rear of the Northwest Quarter
of the Northeast Ruarter of Section 12, T-30, R'24, Anoka
County, generally located East of Central Avenue N.E. and West
of Arthur Street N.E., on the South side of 76th Avenue NE
with the following adjustments and/or corrections:
y}
2}
That Lot 7& 8, Block 2, be removed from the Plat.
That five foot easements as recommended by City
Engineering be included {76 Avenue, Garfield Street,
and Arthur Street}.
3} A five foot easement off Lot 1& 2 of Block 1 and a
five foot easement off lot 1, Block 1� Don's 5th,
to provide egress to the park property to the west.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
✓
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 20
5A. REQUEST FOR A lOT 3PLIT, L.S. 277-07, K.B.M. INVENSTMENT
COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY WYMAN 3MITH� Split the balance of
Lot 4, Auditor's 3ubdivision No• 108, into the following
three parcels: A: The West 96 feet of that part of the
South 2/3 of Lot 4, A.S. #108, Anoka County, which lies
North of the South line of the North Nalf of Lot 4, Subject
to easement for 73 1/2 Ave N.E. the same bein9 1601-73 1/2
Avenue N.E. 8= That part of the South 2/3 of Lot 4,
A.S. �1�8, Anoka County, which lies North of the South line
of the North Half of said !ot 4, except the West 9b feet
thereof, subject to road easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.'.
the same being 1611-73 1/2 Avenue N.E•� and Parcel C: The
South 1/2 of Lot 4, Auditor's 3ubdivision No• 108, Anoka
County, subject to road easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N•E•
Mr• Mark Haggerty and Mr• Zollie Barrett were present to discuss
the item•
Mr. Boardman explained that what they wanted to do is divide the
lot into three parcels of land. He pointed out that an area
had previously been vacated and split. He said that they wanted
to divide part of the lot into two parcels and the other half
of the lot into one parcel {south half of lot 4}.
Mr. Haggerty explained that all the parcels would be very deep
but not wide enough. He said that adjacent neighbors had been
contacted but that they didn't wish to sell any of their prooerty.
He pointed out that originally when it had appeared that Lakeside
would have been continuing down, the lot would have been
155 x 85 feet and that would have resulted in a large corner
lot• When the City vacated Lakeside he said that 25 feet was
added and the decision made the lot a non-corner lot• He
pointed out that even if only one house was put on the two
parcels, they would still need a depth variance because there
would only be 85 feet• He felt that splitting the parcel would .
be feasible. He said that they would be a61e to maintain a
quality building and, obviously, would be able to keep the costs
down.
Mr. Haggerty felt that this was a hardship situation•
Chairperson Harris asked about the setbacks in relations to the
proposed cul-de-sac in the area-
Mr. Boardman explained that the houses would have to be placed
as far to the left of the property as possible. He also pointed
out that because of the fact that the street never went in, it
had created a hardship mainly because the lot had already been
split and had been predestined what the lot depth could be. He
said that with the vacation of the street a depth problem was
created. He felt that it was indeed a hardship situation.•
.
i`
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 21
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning
� Gommission recommend to City Council the approval of the request
for a Lot Split, L..S. �77-07, K.B-M. Investment Company,
represented by Wyman Smith: Split the balance of Lot 4, Auditor's
Subdivision No- 108, into the following three parcels:
A} The West 96 Feet of that part of the Soutfi 2/3 of
Lot 4, A.S. �108, Anoka County, which lies North of the
South line of the North Half of Lot 4, Subject to
easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N.E., the same being
1601 -�73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
B} That part of the South 2/3 of Lot 4, A.S. �108,
Anoka County, which lies North of the South line of
the North half of said Lot 4, except the West 96 feet
thereof, subject to road easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.,
the same being 1611 - 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.;
C} The South 1/2 of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 108,
Anoka County, subject to road easement for 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried �nanimously•
Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 11:15 P.M.
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at
11:25 P•M•
� 6• RECEIVE LETTER FROM HERMAN BERGMAN, CHAIftMAN COMM�NITY
pEVELOPMENT CQMMISSION, DATE➢ JUNE 2, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the letter from Herman Bergman,
Chairman Community Development Commission, dated 06/02/77•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously-
Mr• Bergman requested that the name of Kraig Loftquist be
removed from the list of names that the memo was mailed to.
Chairperson Harris thanked the Sign Committee for their diligent a�ork.
Mr• Bergman indicated that Ms• Gabel had put in many hours on
the Sign Ordinance-
Mr. Langenfeld stated that it had been a job well done.
7- CONTINUED= PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE:
MOTION by Mr• Bergman, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the letter from Ms. Pat Gabel.,
Chairperson of �he Sign Project Committee, regarding the
� Maintenance and enforcement. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 22
nr. Boardman started to go through the Sign Ordinance explaining
the changes that previously had been made• He explained
that most of the definitations had bee� left as they were. He �
said that a few changes had been made and some cutting had been
'done if the item hadn't beert needed or appeared elsewhere in the
Ordinance.
Ms. Gabel ,indicated that the {ommittee understood that that
could happen since they did the definitions first and had decided
to put everything that they thought might apply•
Mr• Bergman wanted to know if all the changes that had been made
at the Community Development meeting had been incorporated
into the Ordinance•
Mr• Boardman said that the changes/corrections had all been
incorporated except for one that had been erroneously overlooked
but he said that it would be put into the Ordinance•
Mr• Boardman explained that the very first portion was SIGNS
PROHIBITED IN ALL DISTRICTS: {he went on to list the signs}
All permanent signs placed within the street right-of
way except for government signs.
Signs or wall graphics that contain words/pictures that
are obscene•
Signs painted directly on the building•
Portable signs except those under Uses Permitted in all
zonings.
Signs Chat resemble official traffic sig�s or signals that
bear words used for traffic control {Stop, Go, Slow, etc.}.
Signs by reason of size, location, movement, content, color
or manner of illumination may be confused with traffic
corttrol signs.
Projecting signs, motion signs, illuminated signs that
change in either color or intensity of light or is animated
or has flashin9 intermittent lights incLuding traveling or..
electronic message centers or electronic message centers that
change more than once every 15 minutes except one showing
time, temperature, or other public information.
Ms. Gabel was concerned with this wording because
she was aware of a person wha would be going before
�i�y Council requesting a variance and she would
be very much against the fact of having a traveling
electronic message center on 52nd & Central Ave NE'•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Page 23
� ns• Gabel wanted the words ^that change more than once
every 15 minutes^ removed.
Mr• Peterson wanted to know if Ms. Gabel was totally
against traveling electronic message centers or just
against the particular o�e on 52nd S Certtral�
Ms. Gabel said she was basically against the signs
in general• She didn't want to see the major highways
• to turn into highways of flashing message centers.
Advertising signs except those allowed only in C1, C2, CR1,
�15, C2S, CR2, etc.
Signs located within corner setback requirements-
Roof signs. �
Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices and
other sources of lights that changes intensity are prohibited•
Portapanels and readerboerds except those dispensing public
information.
Ms• Gabel asked about Drive-In Signs• She said that
� the readerboard outside the Drive-In Theater was
vital to the livelihood of that Theater• She said
that the original intent of the Projett Committee
was not to get rid of the readerboard at the Drive-
In Theater or City Hall or Bob's Produce but rather
aimed at disposing of tfie ^Blue Signs^ that some
fly-by-night outfit sold throughout Fridley that were
now falling apart and aesthetically unpleasing in general•
There was some discussion amongst the Commission
re9arding the actual definition of a reader 6oard
and what would be allowed to be displayed on a
Reader Board.
Chairperson Harris suggested saying that NO Readerboards
would be allowed except by Special Use Permit.
Ms. Nancy Jorgensen of Naegele, 170� W 7B St. Minneapolis, spoke
in favor of Signs/Billboards. She felt that billboard advertisinq
was very vital to the livelihood of many industries and businesses
in Fridiey {she had a list of several in Fridiey}• She also
mentioned that it was also a very vital livelihood for Naegele•
Chairperson Harris brought up a part of the Sign Ordinanc'e that
read ^a sign which is used to advertise products, goods, or
� services^ would be prohibited•
Discussion ensued regarding signs that could be either an
identifying sign or an advertising sign and who would determine
exactly what the sign was being used for•
Basically the question arose of where the line was drawn between
identification signs and advertising signs•
PLANNIN� COMMISSIOM MEETIN6 — JULY 13, 1477 Page 24
Ms. Gabel said that the item had to be readdressed and worked
on by the Project Committee•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know if the intent was to eliminate �
any more billboards in Fridley.
Ms. Gabel said that that was the Project Committee's intent.
Ms. Jorgensen felt that the Committee was shutting down an
ave�ue of advertising for many business people in the City
of Fridley• She,said that it was ane of the least expensive
• method of advertising. She felt that the Committee was
making a mistake•
MOTION by Mr- Bergman, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the '
Planning Commission discuss the Proposed $ign Ordinance at the
next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
8. CONTINUED� PROPOSED HOUSING �AINTENANCE CODE:
MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
Planning Commission continue the Proposed Housing Maintenance
Code at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
9• � RECEIVE FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES:
JUNE 21, 1977 !
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr- Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the Environmental Commission Minutes
of June 21, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Langenfeld urged the Planning Commission members to attend
the slide presentation of the Noise Pollution Seminar sponsored
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on July 19, 1977, at
7:30 P.M. He felt that the meeting would be most worthwhile.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE?ING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 25
10. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION fl INUTES: dUNE 28, 1977
MQTION by Mr- La�genfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, tfiat the
Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission Minutes of
June 28, 1977.
Ms. Gabel asked that the last paragraph on Page 73 be changed
to read ^Ms. Gabel felt that something could possibly be done
administratively to enable the Appeals Commission to approve
variances of the type that had been discussed regarding
Mr. Chies^-
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
11. RECEIVE PARKS 8 RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES=
JUNE 27, 1977
MOTION by Mr- Peterson, seconded by Mr• Bergman, that the
Planning Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission
�inutes of June 27, 1977. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously-
Mr• Peterson explained that there were several items/comments
. in the minutes that would have to be included in the Parks
and Open Space Plan•
Mr• langenfeld informed Mr- Peterson that the Environmental
Quality Commission had been deeply concerned that they had not
been invited to the meeting when Mr• Ton Petrangelo spoke on
� the subject of the Rice Creek Water Shed District.
Mr. Peterson explained that the idea of inviting Mr- Petrangelo
to speak came up when it was discovered that no one on the Parks
and Recreation Commission really knew for sure how the Rice
Creek Watershed District related to what the City was doing with
parks & Recreation.
Mr• Langenfeld indicated that he wasn't quite so upset since he
was now aware of the reasoning behind the decision.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
A} City Manager's Letter regarding Code of Ethics
Chairperson Harris indicated that the Planning
Commission membe�s were to take the letter to their
respective Commissions and discuss it.' He said that
the Pla�ning Commission would discuss the letter at
the July 27, 1977, meeting•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 1977 Paqe 26
��
B} Parks and Open 3pace Plan �
�
Mr- Boardman indicated that all the members of.the �
Planning Gommissiort had received a copy• He said that
discussions would begin next month so the Planning
Commission members were requested to review the Plan
before that time•
C} Revising the Planning Commission Meetings
Mr• Boardman indicated that the Planning Commission
Meetings would be revised so that all the Public
Nearings would be taken care of at the first meeting
of the month and the general business would be
handled at the second meeting of the month.
He felt that by so conducting the meetings, everything
would be handled.in a^cleaner^ and more efficient
manner-
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. Peterson, to adjourn
the July 13, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting� Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
�hairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 1:05 A.M•
Respectfully submitted,
�` �
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
� �'
,
,
, F
?..'7 .
�
HOMAN RESOURCES CONIDSISSION
MEETING
July 7, 1977
MEpSgEgS pgESENT: Barbara Shea, Ned Storla, William Scott, Harold Belgum,
Grace Lynch
MF,MSERS ABSENT:
... p'PfiERS PRESENT:
None
Marty Wi11, candidate £or police officer exam
Ann Will
Mary Haynus
Ray Leek, Staff, City of Fridley
�Jim Hill, Police Department, Public Safety Director
Tom Collins - Sun Newspaper
� �C,ALL K'O.ORDER
Chairperson Shea called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
�-APPROVAL �GP JU?3E -2 � 197� HUMAN RESOURCES CCNSSISSIOt3 MT_NUTES
Mr. Scott indicated a correction on page 3, third paragraph, first line
"Pir. Scott stated that at the Council meeting"should read "Mr. Scott stated
that at the tenantsjlandlords committee meeting.
��
MOTION by Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Belg�un, that minutes be accepted and
approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanittwusly.
MOTION by Ned Storla, seconded by William Scott, to suspend rules of order
to move to Stem 7� "Discussion of Discrimination Complaint." Motion
seconded by Nir- Scott and upon a voice vote, all voting aye, motion carried
unanimously.
L" DISCUSSION OF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT
Mr. Belgum asked that everyone visiting identify themselves for the recozd.
I�tiss Marty Will, candidate in police officer exam, stated she was present
because she felt there was discrianinatory action on the part of the police
department of Fridley in administeiing the agility test for this exam, in
Yhat the Civil Service Departsnent was not notified. She stated it was her
understanding that in any test in which Civil Service is involved they are
Supposed to be the one to set the standards, oversee,and score the test w;en
it is completed; but Fzidley Civi1 Service.Coimnission was not even'invited to
observe the agility test of the four police candidates who took the test;
gun newspaper was invited, as well as an observer from the Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension. She continued that when the fosr candidates were to tzke the
agility test they were given a sheet indicating what would be required and
that tfiey were timed, but i� did not say how much time could be taken, except
for one of the events, i.e.�tthe stretcher carrier, where the candidate had
to carry a stretcher x number of feet up a:ceztain degree hill carrying x
. . .. ___� ___ _r _._t_s,�... ...:L.t,-0�..- � ni�rnn }�imo hi7t it �was found 011t ditP.l' taking the,.
::
HUMAN RESOURCES COt�II+IISSION MEETING, JULY 7. 1977 Paae 2
test that two candidates did not pass because they did not go as"fast as
the fastest police officer." Miss t�ill stated basically this is where
she felt.there was discrimination. She stated she is a minority on two
counts and feels that statements were made when her name appeared on the list
to try to prevent her from even being on the list. The Department had said
they were going to hire two candidates and that she was fourth on the list
so that when one was hired she would automatically move into the top three.
Miss Will said she believed the list has been stalemated because her name
is on it and that meant not just discrimination against her, but al.so against
the three men who are also on the list, because then they cannot get hired
either.
Mr. Scott stated that some interesting points had been raised by Miss Will -
and that if there is a test being administered in a discriminatory manner,
then that is the k%nd of thing this Commission is supposed to be charged
with; one of the things the Commission can do is take this testimony and
conduct fact finding, but it does not have authority to fine, correct, etc.,
that it serves as an advisory commission to the City Council. Mr. Scott
stated he was happy that Miss Wi1Z had taken the initiative to come and
present her complaint to this Commission.
Mr. Belgum asked Mr. Scott to describe proceeding� t.his Commission would use
to obtain facts in this case and Mr. Scott indicated that Commiss.ion would
request technical assistance from the State Depastsnent of Human Sights and
would proceed from there with fact-finding investigation.
Mr. Belgum asked MissWill if she felt she was discriminated against because
she is a woman or also because she is a minority? Miss Will replied that
she found it difficult to accept that in a aity the size o£ Fridley there
would not be some minorities qualified for jobs but in looking at City employees
she indicated she had not seen much evidence of this.
Miss Will stated that top three candidates in this exam were certified, but
two candidates have not been hired. Her certification, she continued, was
based on: passing eye exam, and after passing that, she would be eligible
to go on;after first person out of top three had been hired she understood
she wnuld be certi£ied.
Mr. Aill requested of the Chairperson to be heard, and the request was granted.
He stated that tonight he was not prepared to debate any of the issues and
stated he bel3eved the appropriate action, if any, by the Commission would be
to table the item under discussion £or more than one reason: 1) he person-:
ally received the written allegations as of only yesterday, and stated he
doubted that the city attorney had as yet received them; 2) he felt candidate
making the allegations is not currently in a position to do so and,staCed
he believed them invalid on their £ace because she has not been certified
by the Civil Service Commission - whether she will, in fact; be certified
is presumptious at this time. Mr. Hill indicated tfie candidate is sincere in
what she is saying and what she believes, but stated he believes she is
speaking on the advice of one member oE the Civi2 Service Commission. At
such time as Civil Service Commission determines that this candidate is certified; ?
he continued, that is the only time she would have any type of cause for fi2ing
� �
' ^� �
;
HUMAN RESOURCE5 COMMI55ION MEETING 3[3LY 7 1977 Page 3 _ +
i
,
a discrimination complaint. Furthez, he said, the candidate is presumptious ;
that she would be certified if one or more of the three candidates are ap-
pointed; she is presumptious in stating that one or more of the three certified
candidates have not been appointed because we do not want to apoinE candidates
beloW the top three; these are not factual statements. The £acts are, he continued,
and the record wi11 sttow, that the appointing authority, who is not I, has the ,
authority to appoint or reject anybody -- the appointing authority in this City
, is the City Manager. According to the Attorney General's regulations, Mr. Hill
continued, the appoinCing authority cannot legally appoint any candidate at this
time because since August of 1976, they do not meet the standards of the Attorney
GeneraL "If the appointing authority appoints any candidate with that doubt in
mind, he is subject to malfaesence of office." There reaches a point in time when
the Chief of Police, in this case the Public Safety Director� would have to sign
a certification of the Minnesota Peace Office Training Board� prior to sending
any candidate to the recruit school, that the candidaGes have met the standards
of the Autorney General. Mr. Hill said that in a11 good conscience, ethically
or morally, he Gould't do that at this Eime, and it has absolutely nothing to do with
the candidate's being a woman, or Indian. The issue is one of a 1ega1 matter.
Until such time as the City receives an official Attorney General's opinion
as to whether or nvt Che candidates that have been certified, we are not
legally and morally unable to appoint them. The appointing authoriCy can ,
accept or reject his recommendations. He said the City Manager has apparently
chosen not to appoint on strictly ethical merit until such time as he receives
an opinion from the Attorney 8eneial. If, in fact, the Attorney General rules
that one or more of the candidates on the old list does not have to meet the
same standards, then there really i.sn'r any problen; we can proceed to fill
the vacancy, or at least this is Ghat Z;r. Hill would recommend.
Mr. Hill also explainted that regarding most of the allegations, he could not
speak to in the first person. He said he did not des3gn the test; he was out
of twon on vacation at the time, and his only instructions were that there
must be an agility test; the Civil Service Conmission desires to hire from
the old list, the Atoorney General say3 you have to have an agility test, and so
go ahead and give it, and make sure it is fair; to tn be on the safe side, make
sure it complies with the reco�endations of the Peace Officer Training Board,
The subordinate in charge, he said, used the Minnesota Peace Officer Guidelines
to the best of his ability, to administer the test.
•
Mr. Hill'went on to refute several other statesments by Ms. Will re�arding
the administering and scoring of the test, and how they arrive at passing •
score, and stated that they can document all of this. He said they probably
made am erior in not inviting tfie Civil Service Commission to be there on the
day of=the tests, but the reason for that was because of the past history of �
the Civi1 Service Co�ission expecting the administration to carry out the �
details -- he acknowledged that perhaps this Co�ission does not desire this; :
he stated that'the Civil Service Commission has full authoriCy to set the �
standards and he said he told them that they gave an agilitp test because it is
requied by State law. He stated the BCA was not inSites as alluded to - he said the
$CA member just happened Co be present that day on other business that had nothing
to do with adminisCration of the test. The person who can co�ent on the timing
and some other inferences made by Ms. Will, is on another legal process tonight,
he was committed in advance to this other meeting, Mr. Hill said, but because �
of some of these`considerations, he felt it would be wholly inappropriate for 4
the:Commission to consider any action ae this Cime. He said that if there �
�
_. `
' �� '
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 1977 Page 4.
is any question about discrimination or irregularities in the agility test,
or for that matter any other test, then he felt the simplest thing to do
orould be to have the candidate or candidates take the test again -- they
could do it before whomever they wish; he would have no problem with that,
but that he has serious problems with the discrimination charge, stating
if there had been discrimination, it had occurred against him, in the form
, of slanderous statements that are totally untrue and against his whole
philosophy. He stated he had been an advocate of women on the police force
, and a sympathizerr,of the Indian movement, and anyoneWho knows him conld
testify to that, but feels that for some reasons unknown to him that he is
being used by someone �o achieve some objective and, he stated, he resents
that. For this reason, he concluded, he did not care to rebut the state-
ments, nor take civil .action against one or more people or to take �riminal
action against them -- he said the citizens of this community are entitled
to the best candidate they can get, that it costs approximately $25,000 the first year -
for one candidate -- if it is this candidate or another candidate does not
matter, just so it is the best of the eligible candidates.
A discussion followed the above testimony -- of Ms. Will and Mr. Hill.
Mr. Belgum asked about the agility test, and asked if Mr. Hill could ex-
plain how that was established? Mr. Hill escplained that the Attorney
General has rules that certain standards must be met -- it is a fact that
he did not set these standards -- he simply stated candidates must pass a job-
related agility test. He has also stated they must pass a psychological
evaluation and a medical examina�ion -- it is np to the anthorities, who-
ever they mag be in each co�nunity, to set the standards; that has never,
he said, been in dispute, at least by the administration, in spite o£ some
rumozs to the contrary. He said the agility test referred to by Mr. Belgum
could be estal�l.ished by any means that the Civil Service Commission desires --
they were given the standards of the Attorney General but failed to act on
those standards, and he stated that he believed one or more memhers of the
Civil Service Co�nission would confirm that. The police department, through
no decei.tfulness whatsoever, simply did what they have always done, that
is proceeded to hire and replace new vacancies with the old list. He said ;-;
that is not in dispute - they have a leqal obligation to make sure candid-
ates on the old list or new Zist, in their interpretation, meet the new �
standards. As far a� the agility test is concerned, he said the Minnesota ''
Police Officers Training Board had formulated some guidelines and he outlined
these, stating that they are not biriding. He said there were four candidates
who took the agility test and two who failed it, according to the way it was
established. He said at the next Civil Service Commission meeting he per-
sonally went and advised them that an agility test was given according to
the criteria they had established because it was required by the Attorney �
General, and two of the candidates did not pass it, At the following meet- '�
ing, he continued, the Civil Service Commission decided that they would not +
accept the agility test, which is their prerogative, and they even amended !
the minutes later,to emphasize that point. The problem is that the Attorney j
Genexal, Mr. Hill continued, still says that they have to pass a job-related ,.��
agilfty test; the Civil Service then turned around and established some ,
excellent standards in his opinion for all candidates to pass on agility �
tests in the future, as well as specific physical standards, psychological �
standards, but still have to resolve the question regarding the Attorney �
Genexal's opinion and the current candidates. He stated he believed that �'
if the data from the agility tests that the candidates have taken were �
epplied to standards the Civil Service Commission has established for new �
I
' ��.. �
�� HUMAN RESODRCES COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7 1977 Page 5.
candidates, the same two candidates would still not pass that test. He said
at this point he felt everyone is waiting for the legal interpretation of
the Attorney General as to whethex or not the candidates in question on
the old list need to pass the standards or they don't have to pass them.
He stated that if they don't have to pass them then he would do everything in
his power to see that the process begins to hire the certified people and
the Civil Service Co�ission can go from thexe.
Mr. Scott afldressed,the Chair, stating he really appreciated the people
coming to their Commission to express their views on this issue, but he
didn't feel this to be the £orum to hold a dei�ate on what is right or wrong
in a discrimination complaint.
MOTION by William 5cott to receive the complaint of Miss Marty Will, seconded
by Grace Lynch. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the moticn passed unan-
i.mously.
MOTION by William Scott that chairperson appoint at least two members of the
Comniission or two ittterested citizens to conduct a preliminazy investigation
to determine the appropriate course of action in this discrimination complaint.
Motion seconded by Grace Lynch and upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairman stated that this Commission would move as rapidly as possible on this
matter.
A further meeting was called for two weeks from tonight, July 21, for further
discussion of this matter, and Miss Will and Mr. Hill or his representative
were asked to be present.
_ _ _ _
2, 'REVIEW OF PROPOSED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN - Continued
Mr. Leek was introduced by the Chairman and he stated he would give a brief
coamientary on plans being made by the Parks and Planning Department; he
stated that basically they are trying to develop an effective park facil-
ities and Xecreation system for the City of Fridley.What the proposed plan
hopes to accomplish, he said, is to build a balanced system connected with
open space linkages providing the following advantages: complete range of
recreation facilities, flexibility �o change in recreation needs, and easy
access to recreation facilities. Mr. Leek displayed a document they had
prepared and described certain procedures that had been set up to anive
at this material. Ae stated that an inventory analysis was done wherein
they looked at goals and objectives set for the City, and from a synthesis
of data they came up with their policy, Specifically, in this document he
said they have looked at what they felt the problem �oas, i.e. that recrea-
tion needs are not being serveii completely adequately , so they identified
areas of concern, gathered as much available information as possible about
facilities, nature`of population in city of Fridley , and in the neighbor-
" fioods'that were set up for studying the City of Fridley, and recreation
patterns that derived from the demographic mix of those neighborhoods.
��
HUMAN RESOURCES�COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1977 � Page 6,
Then he said thirteen sub-committees, neighborhood park project cotmnittees,
were set up but unfortunately, staff was not allowed to attend their meet-
ings so input was not direct and there was no interaction -- as a result,
he said, there were some project committees who did not report back. However,
he,stated that once this document is passed by both the Planninq Commission
and the City Council, they will be getting into a series of more intensive
public meetings i.n each of the neigh3�orhoods to find out exactly what the
citizens feel they need in the way of recreation and parks, Mr. Leek sub-
mitted a series of photos from various metropolitan parks to indicate the
types of materials and landscaping forms they are talking about.
Discussion followed above presentation with a question and answer session.
k]r. Scott asked about accessibility for handicapped and asked if this group
had �een considered in their plans. Grace Lynch suggested that input from
handicapped be solicited. She'further questioned consideration that had been
given to safety factors, and stated she felt parks were opening too late in
the Spring and closing too soon in the Fall. Mr. Leek stated there are
several policy statements specifically pertaining to safety, and when each
specific park is designed they will take into consideration safety precau-
tions xequirements for that area. ,
Harold Belgum asked if anyone had eve= thought oi negotiation for the
Girl Scout Fark, which is used very little ar.d ccntains wonderful ri�cr
fxontage. Mr. Leek statecl that they haven't addressed tnat because various
communities along Mississippi were given a mandate to develop critical areas
plan, including a river recreation potential study of al1 land fron�ing on
the river running through the City limits. After finishing the plan being
presented he said they would be heavily involved in that, and will be look-
ing at the option of acquiring that property and making it a part of river
recreation. Mr. Belgum stated he wished to go on record for benefit cf
Commission that they go over and walk along the river and realize what
kind of real estate exists there -- find out how little it is used, and how
desirable it would be for the whole purpose being discussed,
Ned Storla asked why they found it necessazy to put in the statement in
their document "Fridley does not represent a strong, positive image to
residents and non-residents as a good place to live, work or play..."
Mr. Leek replied that it is a derivation of what they found in interviewing
people regarding parks and also of some input.in past in doing planning
activities they have found that people outside the City don't have a strong
positive image oE the City of Fridley and in relation to planning have
found that a large proportion of residents don't identify themselves as
residents of Fridley. He said what they were attempting to do in making
that statement was that later on when making recommendations they would
like to use the park system to help build a stronger, more attractive
iioage of the City of Fridley, not necessarily to attract more residents but
give residents that are here a sense of identification with their commun-
ity, first of all, and secondly, to provide impetus for that same kind of
image-building in everything that the City does. He said that Ned Storla's
concern had been expressed earlier by some other Coumiissions and it will
be expressed the way he talked about to the Planning Commission,
. �
� ��
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7 1977 • Page 7.
Mr. Belgum indicated pleasure with direction Parks & Recreation is taking
and Chairperson Shea complimented and thanked Mr. Leek for his present-
ation. Mr. Leek said he will keep Commission posted on future plans
and activities related to parks and recreation planning.
3. �CONII+IENTS ON�CITY�OF FRIDLEY APPLICATION FOR COMMUNI`PY DEVELOPMENT BIACK
��GRANT FUNDS FOR.FRIDLEY HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
MOTION by William Scott that Chairperson send letter to Council expressing
Couunission approval of program as presented, seconded by Harold Belgum,
and by a voice vote, all voting aye, motion passed unanimously.
4. RECEIVE��:�:�INFORMATION ON NATIONAL ENDOWMENT AND LIVABLE CITIES PROGRRM
Mr. Belgum indicated that he is particularly interested in this program
and offered his services in gathering more information on it.
MOTION by William Scott to appoint Mr. Belgum to look into t7ational
Endowment and Livable Cities Program; motion seconded by Grace Lynch,
and on a voice vote, all voting aye, motion passed unanimously.
5. RECEIVS-ANNUAL DUES�STATEMENT FROM LEAGUE OF MINAESOTA fNMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION
Chairperson Slea indicated that this year's annual dues statement from
League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions far 5104,QQ was received.
She indicated-that the bill was paid last year, and questioned Commission
members on whether they felt services received warranted paying this
amount; upon a voice vote Commission members unanimously voted not to •
pay this year`s annual dues statement from League of Minnesota Human Right§
Commission.
� 6.��.'RECEIVE LETTER�FROM�STEPHEN KLEIN, ANOKA COUNTY COD4I[JNITY P.CTION
� �..�.PROGRAM�INC. . ��� . �
MOTION by Harold Belgum, seconded by Gxaoe Lynch, that Commiss�on
receive letter from Anoka County Co�unity Action Program Znc. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, motion passed unanimously.
_.�7:�'�-RECEIVE SROCHURE�FROM DANCECIRCUS, LTD.
Chairperson Shea stated that all of these items are forwarded to Fine
Ai�ts Committee, and with concurrence of Commission, stated she would
continue to do this. Commission concurred.
8, REPORT FROM�TENANT/LANDLORD PROJECT COMMI2TEE .
- William Scott stated that in last meetinq of Tenant/Landlord Project .
Connnittee he was asked by that Committee to bring to Commission's
attention the idea.that there may be a requirement to distribute pub-
lication to rental residents in the coimnunity, and would like a sum
of money, approximately $3,000, identified in proposal for budget
consideration so that money would be available for their use if and
when needed. Mr. Scott indicated that he wished to simply submit this
as a report to this Commission.
3�
_ _
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1977 Page 8.
9. OTHER BUSINESS�
A. Mr. Hill stated that when he had appeared before this Commission
at an earlier date he had said he would furnish them with an annual
report; he indicated they have done a previous burglary analysis in
1976, and this is an undated document.. He suggested that they read
it and if they have any questions that he or a representative will
be happy to discuss it with them and answer questions they might
have.
MOTION by Grace Lynch that Commission receive update report from
Police Department, seconded by William Scott, and upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Shea thanked Mr. Hill for his report
B. Chairperson Shea read a letter of resignation from Mr. Scott, who
stated therein that he is resigning from the Commission with
regret and for personal reasons. MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded
. by Harold Belgum, to accept resignation of William Scott. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, motion passed unanimously.
Chaixperson Shea stated that she felt it important that entire City know
that without Mr. Scott this Conanission would not be where it is today
and that his resignation was received vrith regret.
•� •e� r�
MOTION by Grace Lynch, seconded by Harold Belgum, to adjourn the meeting
at 10:40 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submi.tted,
Verna Gore
Recording Secretary
1
CJ
�
3�
CITY OF FRZDLEY
APPEALS COM�ISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Paqe 1
�ALL TO ORDER�
Vice-Chairperson Gabel called the meeting to order at
732P•M.
,�OLL �ALL�
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Plemel, Gabel, Barna
Kemper, Schnabel
Ron Holden, Building Inspector
APPRBVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES� JUNE 28, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr- Plemel, to
approve the Appeals Commission Minutes of June 28, 1977,
as written- Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
1- REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF THE ZNTERIM DEVELOPMENT RE6ULATIONS
FOft THE MISSISSIPPI RIV R ftR �
Lorretto� Minnesota SS�SI}•
MOTION by i1r• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to open the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at
?:36 P•fl-
ADMINISTRAI'iVE STAFF REPORT
A- PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENTS�
The purpose for the standards and guidelines as laid
out by the Interim Development Regulations for the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area are as follows:
,
`3�pPEALS COM�ISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Page 2
a. To profect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional �
resource for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of •
the citizens for the state, region and nation; '
b. To prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this state, regional,
and national resource;
c. To preserve and enhance its natural, aesthetic, cultural, and
historical va7ue for the public use;
d. To protect and preserve the river an an essential element in the
national, state, and regi�nal transportation, sewer and water and
recreational systems; and
e. To protect and preserve the biological and ecological functicns of
the corridor.
In keeping r+ith the above, the public purpose served by the critical .
areas desi9nation, SEction G, 4, (b,2), states that there must be 100'
setback from the normal high water mark of the river. •
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
Dite io a large amount of this lot being in the Flood Plain, and placement
of the proposed house, this variance is necessary.
C. ADPIINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: •
In keeping with Section J,3, of the Interim Development Regulations for
the Idississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the local urit of government
may grant a variance from the strict compliar:ce of th2 setback of the
interim regulations after an ad�inistrative hearing condu:ted accordfng to
the regulations of that local unit of yovernment, and may be granted only
then, after the foiiotiving findings are a�ade:
Z. The strict enforcement of the setback or height restrictions will
result in unnecessary hardship. "Hardship" as used in the consideration
of a dimension variance means that the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonabie use under the d#mension provision oftthese Interim
Development Regulations. •
..
2. There are exceptional circumstances unique to the property that were not
created by a landowner after April 25, 1975.
3. The dimension variance does not allow any use that is not a compatible use
in the land use district in �rhich the property is located.
4. The dimension variance will not. alter the essential character of
the locality as esta6lished by these Tnterim Developr:ent Re9ulations.
5: The dimensian variance will not be contrary to the Order.
Ptease note that soil tests and possibly footin9 design by Registered
Engineer or Architect may be required. , .�,
�
APPEAL3 COMMISSION MEETIN6 — JULY 19, 1977 Pa e 3
11r. Richard H•
showed his plans to
� his intentions were.
Stoneybrook Creek.
Netz was present at the meeting. He
the Appeals Commission and explained what
He said that the 1ot was near
Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked if Mr• Netz had definite
plans as to what he would do regarding the landscaping of
the siopes on that lot. She asked if he had talked to
anyone from the Engineering Department.
Mr• Netz explained that he was an Engineer• He said
that he wasn't exactly positive of what he would do regarding
the landscaping. He said he would probably terrace the slopes
with the use of railroad ties, etc. He said that he was
planning to leave some of the slope on one of the hills but
that he would again terrace the area lower on that particular
hiii to provide some type of retaining wall.
Mr• Barna wanted to know if Mr- Netz was aware that much
of that area had recently been land-filled.
Mr• Netz indicated that he would build on solid ground.
He said that the foundation of the basement would be at
the 824 foot level. He explained that the flood level was
at 822 feet, so that basically he would be above the flood
level that had been established.
• Mr• Netz explained that the reason he had his house
at an angle was to enable him to build the house on the side
of.the property that was basically undisturbed soil.
Mr• Barna didn't want to see any excessive disturbance
of the soil that had recently been put into the area. He
suggested that Mr• Netz keep a close watch on the bulldozer
operation. He said that that type of soil could be very
^funny^ once it was disturbed.
Mr• Holden indicated to Mr. Netz that City would need
four soil borings.
Mr• Barna asked if Mr. Netz planned to take out the
old, fallen trees•
Mr• Netz said he would be removing all the fallen trees
as well as all the dead trees.
The Realtor regarding Mr• Netz's property was present
at the meeting. She felt that Mr• Netz was really planning
to build a most beautiful home on that lot.
�
3'7
r
3�PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 paae 4
Mr. Holden referenced the Administration Staff Report, �
tihe Administrative 3taff Review, 1} The strict enforcement
of the setback or height restrictions will result in
unnecessary hardship• "Hardship" as used in the consideration
of a dimension variance means that the property in question
cannot be put to a reasonable use under the dimension
provision of these Interim Development Regulations.
�r• Holden indicated that Staff wanted some input as to
what was considered ^reasonable^ a�d what would be unreasonable•
He wondered if�it would be "reasonable^ not to allow a house
to be built on that particular lot•
Mr. Plemel indicated that sinca the lot was Zoned R-1
and there were all single-family dwellings in the area, it
would be a reasonable request for the owner to mant to
construct a house on the lot.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel pointed out that had Mr• Netz
purchased the lot and developed it before April 25, 1975;
he would not have had to appear before the Appeals Commission
for a variance• He would have been allowed to build his
proposed home without any problems from the City as long as
he met aIl the City Codes existing at tfiat time.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel told Mr. Netz that HE assumed
all the responsibilities on that lot. She said that the �
City would not be liable For anything regarding the building
of the house or the landscaping of the lot•
Mr. Barna suggested that the City clean up 3toneybrook.
Mr• Holden said that the City would probably be cutting ,
down the dead trees and removing the fallen trees.
Mr• Barna suggested that City didn't take that course of
action since all the trees, dead or fallen, still did their
part in holding the soil. He felt that a lot of soil would
be lost if the trees and roots were removed•
Mr• Barna asked if Mr. Netz planned to change the
natural conservation of the lot since he stated that some
of the slopes would be terraced and others would be partly
left as a slope and then terraced further down the hill to
provide somewhat of a retaining wall.
�r• Netz didn't feel he would reaZly be changing any of
the natural conservation. He felt he would be enhancing it.
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Page 5
Mr. Barna explained that a heavy rain
•the washing away of much of the lower slope
, lot• He said that Mr. Netz would be better
removing the slope via terracing, etc• than
do the terracing only halfway.
�
�
could result in
of Mr• Netz's
off completely
by trying to
Mr• Netz said he would take Mr• Barna's suggestion
into consideration.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel didn't feel that the land
, would be that effected by erosion as lon9 as it was properly
terraced.
Mr• Barna explained that during heavy rains and winter
thaws the water from all the way up the street washed over
the curbing of Mr• Netz's lot and completely overtook the
lot- He warned Mr. Netz that much water did flow over his
lot during any wet times-
Mr• Netz explained that he planned to landscape the
entire lot- He felt that he would be able to control any
of the problems mentioned with the proper landscaping-
MOTION by Mr� Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, to close
the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed
at 8:10 P.M•
�r• Plemel asked if
from Mr. Netz's lot, who
experienced any problems.
the person that had built across
had been granted a variance, had
Mr- Barna indicated that the person has had innumerable
problems. He said that tfie owner had lost about 40 yards
of soil from erosion since he had built.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked Mr. Holden if there would
be any stipulations on the 6uilding Permit.
Mr- Holden indicated that the excavation of the
land plus four soil borings would be required•
Mr• Barna felt that the terracing and retaining walis
would destroy the natural characteristics of the property•
He also felt that there had been too many problems experienced
on the adjacent lot to allow another house to be built that
would undoubtedly experience many of the same problems.
��
.
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Page 6
��
�;�., Vice-Chairperson Gabel felt that the retaining walls
and terracing would aid in the retention of the natural
characteristics of the property.
11r• Barna felt that what Mother Nature put in, seemed
to stay; while what was altered, Mother Nature seems to move.
Mr• Plemel couldn't see any other use for the property.
He said that it hadn't been made into a park or brought by the
City for any other purpose, or zoned for any other purpose•
Mr• Barna'pointed out that the area where Stoneybrook
entered the river was a favorite swimming place for most of
the yo�ng people in the neighborhood- He said if for no other
reason, that would be reason e�ough to keep the lot vacant.
Mr. Plemel felt that Mr• Netz was probably aware of
the popularity of the swimming at that point and that the
children constantly using his yard as a thoroughfare to that
swimming place would have to be something that Mr• Netz
would have to work out and it was not the Appeals Commission's
problem.
Mr• Barna asked how many lots remained open along the
river•
The Realtor wasn't aware of any-
Mr• Netz said that there was one other vacant lot along
the river that the person owning the property did not wish
to sell.
Mr• Plemel felt that Mr• Netz was not going into this
venture ^with his eyes closed" and that he was probably fully
aware of all the problems that he would be faced with.
Mr• Barna felt that the property in question was one
of the only two lots left along the bluffline of the River•
He didn't think that just because it was there, it had to be
built on. He said that people didn't have to use up every
piece of the bluffline just for homes.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that if Mr• Netz purchased
the lot, he should be able to develop it the way he wanted to.
She said that she was in agreement with the point that the
lot was a most difficult lot, but that Mr. Netz seemed to be
totally aware of the problems and he was willing to go to
whatever expense necessary to correct any of the situations.
Mr• Barna said that there has been serious ecological
variances to the bluffline because the City has allowed all
the construction on the lots along the bluffline• He said
that much soil had been needlessly washed into the River.
�
�
�
�J
APPEALS COMMI3SION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 ' Page 7 ��
MOTION by Mr• Plemel that the.Appea3s Commission approve
� the request for a variance of the Interim Development Regulations
for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, Section G,
4, {B,Z} to reduce to 60 feet, the requirement that in
Urban Developed Districts, no structure o� road shall be
placed no less than 100 feet from the normal highwater mark
of the River, and no less than 40 feet from blufflines, to
allow the construction of a dwelling and garage on Lot 13,
except the Southerly 25 feet thereof, Block 5, Pearson`s
� Craigway Estates Second Addition, the same being 7776 Alden Way NE.
�
The MOTION died due to a lack of a second.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked Mr• Netz when he planned to
start construction.
Mr• Netz indicated that he wanted to wait until he sold
his Qresent house• He said it could be either this summer/fall
or oossiblv not until n�ct Sorina.
MOTION by Mr• Barna,.seconded by Mr• Plemel, that the
Appeals Commission send onto City Council with no recommendations
the request for a variance of the Interim Development Regulations
for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, Section G,
4, {g,2} to reduce to 60 feet, the requirement that in
Urban Developed Districts, no structure or road shall be
placed no less than 1�0 feet from the normal highwater mark
of the River, and no less than 40 feet from bluffiines,
to allow the construction of a dwelling and garage on Lot 13,
except the Southerly 25 feet thereof, Block 5, Pearson's
Craigway Estates Second Addition, the same being .
7776 Alden Way N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel wanted it to be noted that she
was in concurrence with the motion to approve the request by
Mr• Richard H• Netz.
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SECTION 205•053, 4, A, FRIDLEY
, R E T RE � RED FRONT YARD SETBACK
D TB K OF THIS
, ,
, BEING
YbU('CnO Jlnktl �.t� rK1ULtTi PIlNNtJVIA. iK2qU2SL DY
erry cKnig t, 6- n Street N.E., Fridley,
Minnesota 55421}.
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr� Plemel, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 8:37P.M.
APPEA�S GOMMIS3ION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Pa e 8
4�
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
A• PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: �
Tection 205.053,4,A, requiring a front yard setback of
35 feet.
Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking
without encroaching on the pubiic right of way. Also
for aesathetic consideration to reduce the ^building
line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard•
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
New entry way will heip eliminate cold air from entering
the living room.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The verifying survey indicates that a 3` x 5' addition
of an entry way would reduce the front yard setback
to jusC over 30 feet. The house at 4623-2nd Street N.E.
seems to be setback approximately 31 feet.
The 3outhwest corner of the house is 32.58 feet from the
property line and the requested variance would redute
that setback by 2.4 feet.
Please note that Staff would like to remind the a
petitioner that his garage permit expires in November
of 1977 and a hard surfaced driveway must be installed
before it can be finalled out. Also, temporary wiring
must be converted to permanent wiring immediateZy.
Mr. Mcknight explained to the Appeals Commission that he
wanted to add an entry way to his house. He said that mainly
because of the high winter heating bills he didn't like to
have the front door open directly into the living room.
He also mentioned that they wanted/needed a closet for
coats, etc. and one would be included in the plans he had
for the entry way addition. He then indicated on the plans
and the pictures of his house exactly where the entry way
would be added.
Mr• McKnight also pointed out that the neighbors that
they had talked to did not object to his plans.
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Paqe 9
Vice-Chairperson Gabel brought to M�- McKnight'
* the notes on the Staff Report regarding his driveway-
pointed out that she had noticed that the wiring had
converted to permanent wiring•
�
s attention
She
been
Mr• McKnight explained that the people who built his
garage had not informed him that he had to put in a hard
surface driveway. He said that the matter would be taken
care of.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked who would be doing the
work on the entry way.
Mr. McKnight said that he would contract-out the work
to frame-up the entry way but that he planned to do most of
the work himself-
MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, 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.
Mr• Barna could see no problem• He didn't think it
would violate the ^line of sight^ since there didn't appear
to be a real definite "line^ in the block• He could
anticipate no problems-
Vice-Chairperson Gabel felt that Mr• McKnight's stated
hardship was valid and could see no problems.
Mr. Plemel had no objections.
MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, that the
Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance of
Section 205.053, 4, A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the
�equired fro�t yard setback from 35 feet to 30•18 feet
{front yard setback of this dwelling presently
32•58, constructed in 1952}, to allow the construction of
entry way, on Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Plymouth Addition,
the same being 46�7 - 2nd Street N.E. Upon a voice vote,
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
an
all
3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SE�TION 205.053, 4, 8,1, FRIDLE
T CODE, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE LOT REQUIREMENT
ECESSARY ON THE LIVING SIDE OF A DWELLING FROM 10 FEET
TO FEET, TO ALLOW A 10' x 24' ADDITION, ON LOT 4,
BLOCK 3,INNSBRUCK SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME_BEINCz
� � TROLtHAGEN DRIVE N•E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA.
{Request by Thomas S• Dietz, Z45❑ Trollhagen Drive,N.E•
Fridley Minnesota 55421}•
• MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, to open the
Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at
8:40 P.M.
�3
4,4 APPEALS COMMI3SION MEETING — JULY 19, 19?7 paqe 10
r ;,.
A.
�
C
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
PU9LIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4, {b1} requiring a Z❑ 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 2❑ feet between Iiving areas
in adjacent structures and 15 feet between garages and
living areas in adjacent structure's to reduce exposure
to conflagration of fire• Also to allow for aesthetically
please open areas around residential structures.
STATED HARDSHIP:
Because of the increase in the size of our family and
out-of-town family that are frequent guests, the present
kitchen is very inadequate.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
An on-site inspection shows approximately 5.4 feet of
room between the proposed addition and the lot line. The
petitioner has been informed that a verifying survey"of
the existing house will be required before a building
permit can be issued. If a verifying survey should
show less than 5 feet of available room, an additional
variance would be required•
The house to the East is 13 feet from the apparent lot
line• The east wall of the proposed additio� is to the
rear of the neighboring house wall.
Mr• Dietz showed the Commission his plans to add onto his
present house• He said that the new addition would add to
his present kitchen which was not large enough to accommodate
his family and their frequent guests. He also said that one
of the bedrooms would be expanded and made into a Master Bedroom.
Mr. Holden pointed out that the City did not have a
verifying survey and should zt be discovered that the distance
wes less than five feet, an additional variance would be
required and they would have to appear before the Appeals
Commission again. He did mention that the Appeals Commission
could motion to waive the second fee.
Mr. Barna felt that he would be inclined to motion for
such a waiver of fee.
�
�
�
�
�
'�
�
APPEALS COMMIS3ION MEETIN6 — JULY 19, Z977 Page 11
Mr• Plemel asked if Mr• Dietz had talked to any of
his neighbors.
Mr• Dietz said he had talked to both adjacent neighbors
and that they didn't have any objections•
Mr• Holden asked if Mr• Dietz would be matching the
, pitch of his present roof.
Mr• Dietz said that he would match the pitch of the
roof to the back of the house•
Mr• Holden asked what contractor Mr• Dietz would use
Mr- Dietz indicated that he wasn`t sure of which
contractor he would have. He said he had thought of using
the contractor a neighbor had recently sued. He said that
he was planning to have a reputable contractor• He said
he wanted to add to the value of his home not detract from it•
Mr• Holden thought it was nice thet Mr� Dietz was keeping
the pitch of tfie roof to the rear. He pointed out that the
addition to Mr• Dietz's house would not be extended into the
side yards- He said it was primarily to the rear of the
house- He said that the house was an already existing
non-conforming structure due to the fact that the •
house was constructed only 5.4 feet from the lot line.
MOTION by Mr� Plemel,
the Public Hearing• Upon a
motion carried unanimo�sly•
at 8:55 P-M.
seconded by Mr• Barna, to close
voice vote, all voting aye, the
The Public Hearing was closed
Mr• Plemel liad no objections since the distance between
the existing buildings would be �o different-
Mr- Holden said that it would be indicated on the
Building Permit that the present garage would have to be
closed at the same time construction on the addition was
finished.
m
�
APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 19, 1977 Page 12
46 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, that the
Appeals Commission approve the request for a variance of
Section 205.�53, 4, B, 1, of the Fridley City Code, to reduce •
. the minimum side lot requirement necessary on the living
side dwelling.{presently existing non-conforming structure}
from 10 feet to 5 feet to allow a 10' x 24' addition, on
Lot 4, Block 3, Innsbruck Second Addition, the same being
1450 Trollhagen Drive N•E., Fridley, Minnesota• Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
4. OTHER BUSZNESS
A. Letter from the City Manager regarding
^Conflict of I�terest^•
Vice-Chairperson Gabel indicated that she had been
asked at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss this
item at the next meeting. She referenced and read Page 3,
section 30.31 of the letter•
Mr• Barna explained that the intent of the section was
to be sure that each Commission member would list their
exact occupation and all the names of any corporations,
businesses, partnerships, etc. that the member was affiliated.
He said that the Public had a great lack of trust in
9avernment and if by doing the above the public trust could
be encouraged, then it had to be a good idea. �
Mr• Plemel felt that it was a fair and reasonable request.
Vice-Chairperson Gabel felt that the entire section was
very reasonable.
Mr• Barna indicated that a violation to the section would
be considered a misdemeanor and would resuit in the person's
removel from that Commission.
Mr- Holden thought it was a great idea.
Vice-�hairperson Gabel said that the public seemed to
have such little faith in government that anything we could
do to show them that we are trying to be fair and honest had
to be a good idea. She said she would gladly list anythi�g
they wanted if it would promote some trust from the Public•
Mr• Barna said that the City Attorney had helped
throughout the drawing up of the Plan.
•
k
_ ... . . . . .. . � . �� ....._,_.<i
APPEALS �OMMISSION MEETIN6 — JULY 19, 1977 Paqe 13
NOTION by Mr• Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, that the
Appeals Commission concurs with the Section 3�.31 as it
effects them. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by flr• Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, to adjourn
the July 19, 1977, Appeals Commission Meeting• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously-
Vice-Chairperson Gabel declared the meeting adjourned at
9:1� P.Ci.
Respectfully submitted,
�
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
�
MANAGEMENT COMPANY
; �' �
�
. �;
= : .•P
� �
3005 OTTAWA AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416
July 15, 1977
Mr, Richard Harris
Chairman,. Planning Co�ission
Fridley City Hall
Fridley, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Harris:
I am enclosing an article for your perusal that you might find of interest.
I appeared before you last Wednesday, July I3, 1977, petitioning my cutt3ng
� a large lot into two, which was done and deeply appreciated.
Since this article pertains to lots in the future having to be sma2ler I
thought perhaps you would be interested.
Very truly yours,
� �� �/ _
� �f �k' ��' jj
� Zollie Baratz f.
/ ZB/ fm
Encl.
�
Telephone 927-4251
�:3�J�� ��G�+tJ�� ��'3��� tL� 1�1���tt tl ii'�4.G'.5�7���, �� , �a'1��
�y Dar `v'aascas Jr. Grove Heighis eliminated their are abaut to issue new guidelines me�k" b� Tn!8y D4c� all,- �+'re•
,tsLF Writer minimum requirement of 1,I00 for s�ich zoning star.da:ds. They of _tha rnunrti:'s Ao2tsino divis
square feet for a new single•family hope the effort witf "enhance ihe °This may weii be the firs* Yim
�up�Burnsviite, Dayton, Edina house end us�d the statx standard opoortanities for the constnction the country that Iceai go=,�e*nm
:nd� St." Anthony no lor.ger re- of 624 to 706 square fce[ iasiead? of housing tha� is nffordable far a an3 a regional agency h
�uired twacas garages with evety greatei nnmber of families:' ceached agceement an such a
:ew home, ' Would the price of new houses s3tive ssbject," she safd.
� � come down If such steps we*e The assceiation represents 56 com-
3r" 'nrfeYon�s ermitted new takea across the seven-coun*y muniYies that cor.�prise about 80 A}oiat report by Ehe two organ
�aw4s on lets �f �i eRi � A 60Q area? perceht oi the T�c1n Cit'ses area's [iors recommends that:
guare fee� lns[sa�� its minimam, popiilaYion, said a spokesman. Ths "
�f I$,�square Peet. The Metropolitan Council and the agreement betwern those mnnict- � Locat ordinances shauld not
Association oi Metropoiitan Mu- paliti?s and the councll is de-
N6at if; Burnsviile and Inver nicipa:ities aren't sure, but they scrib¢d as "a remazkable achieve- Zonitig continued on page 12t}
. '�s .
��'aYd ti�9 B� Coniinued from Page IA
ouire garages, becapse they add
fr�m $"s,500 to 34,750 to 66e pur-
ctiase price of a new house. They
are not necessary to protect
he��th, safety or gensral weltare,
��1? aze ar:tis.iitias that can be aQd-
ed later. La:ai regulations thus
r.�ay reqWre placenent of houses
on leYS ta permit anch fu[ure con-
straction. A recent survey showed
t'?ae 14 commcnities of 81 exam-
inedj� this area require garages
wit�gte•fumily houses.
,��
4
e
m
tlies that are devaloping faste^st.
[i No minimum floor areas shauld
be required locully, Mcause the
state's buyldir.g COaE adequ2tely
provides f�r heatih, saiety ancl
geoeral welfare. The state's re-
quirement is estimated at 624
square feet for a two-bedroom
home and 7Q8 fe�r a three-S�droori
home.
The human resources committee of
the Phetropoiitan Counc4l approved
the report Mon3ay night. It will go
before the futl council Tlrursday.
The report qaalifies its recommen-
daYions for commLinities witn par-
ticular soii or tepugraphy cond?-
tions tha[ multe higher Aensity
housing undesirrable.
"Adoption of the advisory� stan-
dards (by mtmicipalities) would
not necessarily mean that bui!ders
woeld bu+Id homes to the min±-
mum siandards," says the report.
"Howeve;, it would eaab!e bcild-
ers to ba more responsive to t.*.e
pzesant and future hou,ing de-
mand, and to build sma72er, rn�d-
est-cost homes, tf a mzrket exi�ts
for such homes.°
The regort noYes that household
size has decliaed in tttis area, from !
3.3 peop!e in 1950 to 2.9 ia 1J76.
Th3f coizlrl lAad to a�e;rsr.d fia; !
fetiv�.-' Lad:ooras� less flcor z.c^a '
and smaller houses, tha repo: t
says. &�t communiti�s wirh reIa-
tively high rrlinimnm, honse sizr.s
may lack the fi2xibility to res�oad
to thosz potentiai �emands, the �
re�ort sa�as. �
a
ti
, _ . . __. _.
«�
;,"_ ,
t- .
� �
,
�
! ,
`�_
CALL TO ORDER:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6
Jl1LY 27, 1977
Chairperson Harris called the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission
Meeting to order at 7:41 P•M-
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Member Absent:
Others Present:
Storla, Harris, Peterson, Gabel, Langenfeld
Bergman {pquist}
Ruben Acosta — Planning Aide
APPROVE PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MINUTES� July 13, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• 6abe1, that the
minutes of the July 13, 1977, Planning Commission meeting
be approved as written• IJpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
mation carried unanimausly•
RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES= JULY 7, 1977
MOTION by Mr• Starla, seconded by Ms• Gabel, that the Planning
Commission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of
July 7, 1977•
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that, indeed, the discrimination
pro6lem would have to be watched at the Commissions•
Mr• Langenfeld expressed surprise at the resignation of
Mr� William Scott• He felt that Mr• Scott did a good job
for the Commission•
Mr• Storla commented that in Mr• Scott's letter he stated that
he had an increase in family obligations that he felt so
important that he would have to give up some of his time at
the Commissions and the Human Resources Commission was one of
the one he Was giving up•
Chairperson Harris wanted to know where the Human Resources
Commission was gaing on the discrimination complaint•
Mr• Storla said that they had a task force look into the
complaint and the Commission would take their recommendation•
He said that because of the complexity and importance of the
complaint there would be a motion to recommend that
Ms• Marty Will get legal advise in this case- He said that
the Commission didn't really have the staff to do this type
of investigation•
-!i-T
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 2
_
Ms• Gabel felt that the HUman Resources Commission was in no _�? A__
position to make any type of recommendation of that nature•
Mr• Storla said that the Commission had been asked to take a
position on the problem• He didn't feel that there was enough
known to make any recommendation•
Mr• Langenfeld thought that Ms• Will wanted this complaint to
be heard so that the facts would be available on record for a
future time•
Mr• Storla said that they would be deciding on what they planned
to do regarding the Commission's stand but that no more discussion
would be done on this at this level•
Mr• Langenfeld felt that the members of the Commission could
take some stand just fram their own background and knowledge•
He felt they could at least commit themselves to the fact
that discrimination sFina3�d--rrot7`wcai�-rtot exist•
(did/did no$)
Mr- Langenfeld felt that the State would 6e getting into this
complaint before long•
Mr• Storla commented that the complaint had to go before
the City Human Rights Department before it could go before
the State�
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission would make
no motion on the item because it was decided that the members
of the Commission would need more information•
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all vating aye, the motion carried unanimously•
The minutes of the July 7, 1977, Human Resources Commission
meeting were received at 7:50 P•M•
RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES� JULY 19, 1977
MOTION by Ms• Gabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of
July 19, 1977•
Ms• Gabel explained that the Commission had discussed the conflict
of interest memo• She said that the Appeals Commission
concurred with the memo as it effected them•
Mr• Langenfeld asked what had occurred regarding the request for
the variance of the Interim Development Regulations for the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area by Mr• Richard H� Netz•
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 3
Ms• Gabel responded that there had been some problem with that
item• She explained that there was a time that Mr• Netz could
have built a house on that property without making a variance
request• 3he went on to say that the person who had received a
variance in January to build a house across from the lot in
question had experienced several problems• {Ms- Gabel commented
that she didn't think that the lot had been banked properly•}
Ms• Gabel went on to say that she had talked to Dick Sobiech and
he expressed the feelings that because of the manner in which
Mr- Netz planned to landscape the lot that there should be no
real major problem•
Ms• Gabel felt that the land would errode more if left alone
than if it mould be landscaped/terraced as Mr• Netz proposed
to do•
Ms• Gabel explained that there were problems and the Appeals
Commissian could not agree on the item, so they decided to
forward it on to City Council with no recommendation•
Ms• Gabel reflected on the fact that when people do build along
the river bluffs, they were putting a lot of money into the
property and since, obviously, they would want to protect their
houses and property, they wouldn't build without knowing all the
problems that could be encountered•
43
Mr- Langenfeld believed that Mr� Netz was fully aware of the
problems he was going to encounters (and cry to the City for assistance later on
Ms• Gabel said it had been made very clear to Mr• Netz that
the City would not be liable in any way for any problems that
he would have•
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously• The minutes of the July 19, 1977, Appeals
Commission meeting were received at 7:56 P•M-
1•9 CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IN SIGN ORDINANCE
Bob Schroer – representing Chamber of Commerce and
Duane Prairie – member of the Sign Ordinance Project Committee
were present to discuss this item•
Chairperson Harris went through the sign ordinance starting with
Section 214•031 Signs Prohibited in all Districts• He explained
that the definitions were basically good as written and they
should be used as needed in discussing the items•
Mr• Prairie asked how much of the original Sign Ordinance had
been changed•
Ms• Gabel commented that much of it appeared to remain the same•
Mr� Peterson commented that some of the changes that had been made
definitely needed more mork regarding the wording•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 4
4C
214-03 General Provisions for all Districts
214•031 Signs Rrohibited in all Districts
1• Permanent signs other than Governmental signs
erected or temporarilyplaced within any street
right-of-way or upon any public easement•
Mr• Schroer asked if the word
to the City's highways also•
Chairperson Harris said yes,
^street^ applied
all pu6lic land•
Mr• Schraer asked how a permanent sign could be
temporarily placed•
Ms• Gabel indicated that there existed permanent
signs that were on wheels• 3he said that they
were basically ^portapanels^•
2• Signs or wall graphics that contain words or
pictures or obscene, pornographic or immoral
character, or that contain untruthful
advertising•
3
4
No Comments•
Signs painted directly on buildings•
Mr• Schroer said that someone should be able to
obtain a variance from this• He explained that
sometimes ^decor^ dictated a certain era that
didn't yet have sign letters• He felt that that
type of thing should be considered a reasonable
request far a variance•
Ms• Gabel explained that this item was currently
part of the Ordinance and the Tign Committee
had decided to keep the item•
Porta6le signs {except for those provided for
under ^Uses Permitted in all Zoning•^}
Chairperson Harris indicated that this item was
covered later in the Ordinance•
S• Signs which resembles 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•
No Comments•
PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 5
4D
6• Signs which 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 view any traffic, street
sign, signal or device•
No Comments•
7• Projecting Signs
Ms• Gabel said that the biggest change on this
item was the definition:
27• Projecting Sign: A sign, other than a
wall sign, which is attached to and
projects from a building structure•
Mr• Acosta explained that Staff had tried to make
the definitions as brief as possible• Their
intent was to make the Sign Ordinance consistent
with the existing Ordinance•
Mr• Schroer asked if this item was presently in
the Zoning Code•
Mr• Acosta said it was presently in the Sign Code•
Ms• Gabel explained that generally a projecting
sign projects from the building, can be seen from
both sides, and usually swings•
8• Motion Signs
22• MOTION SIGN: A sign which revolves,
rotates, has any moving parts, or
gives the illusion of motion•
No Comments•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN6 — JULY 27, 1977 Page 6
4E
9• Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in ----
intensity of light or is animated, or has flashing or
intermittent lights {including traveling electronic
message centers or Electronic message centers which
change more than once every 15 minutes except one giving
time, temperature, or other public information•
Discussion took place regarding the difference
in illuminated signs and flashing signs•
Mr• Acosta felt that the definition of illuminated
signs would cover flashing signs-
Ms• 6abe1 said that if the City was prohibiting
flashing signs, then she felt that it was
necessary to have a definition of flashing signs•
Chairperson Harris said that the definition for a
Flashing Sign would be inserted as �39 on Page 5•
Mr• Schroer disagreed 10Ui with this item• He
couldn't understand why there was an objection
to this item• He wanted to know why this sign was
being opposed•
Ms• Gabel explained that with a major freeway and
three other major highways running through the city
that Fridley could become a City of traveling signs•
She a9reed that many were attractively done but
she didn't like to think of what could happen if
this item was left open–door policy•
Mr• Schroer felt that the present City restrictions
would take care of the problems that Ms• Gabel
was anticipating•
Ms• Gabel felt that the present restrictions
would possibly take care of the Freeway but she
was mainly concerned about Central Avenue,
University Avenue, and East River Road•
Mr• Schroer indicated that basically the signs are
being allowed except they can only change every
15 minutes• He wanted to know what the difference
was if it changed constantly or every 15 minutes,
the sign was still present•
Ms• Gabel felt that the signs were traffic hazards•
Mr• Schroer asked why public information could be
allowed but commercial enterprises were not being
allowed to advertise this way•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 7
4F
Chairperson Harris said that all ^Illuminated
Signs^ should be allowed by Special Use Permit
only� He felt that even signs that gave public
information could be a safety hazard if placed in
the wrong place•
Mr• Peterson said that there were legimate
reasons for businesses to want to advertise by
using an electronic message center• He felt that
the City should encourage business enterprises
in Fridley rather than discourage it 6y forbidding
different avenues of advertising•
Mr. Harris suggested
q�f//q��k/1//$p��y that that type of sign would
indicate a special ne a�1 dba� Spe�},a�l Use Permit
would be allowed• $',H��a4$ �hatlC`I'Ey needed
some control on �ea�e y� �n s�t>14R� would be
as that control������7��r���f�f�f�yt�� /
comfortable �/qa�,fyq/�p�tryq'/ /.{k��l�f¢,5��/,t,cy/yt��//q�t�,G/
/111i1�,�/di/l�y�pf with it providing that criteria established for a
Special Use Permit took traffie patterns into consideration.
Mr- Schroer felt that the City had control already
on where a sign can be placed, etc• He felt that
that should be ample control• He did indicate
that he appreciated the position that the Commission
was taking•
Mr• Prairie indicated that the reason the Sign
Project �ommittee had gone that way was because
they didn`t think it would effect too many people
in Fridley•
Ms• Gabel pointed out that that mode of advertising
was extremely expensive; therefore, it wouldn't
effect too many people in Fridley• She said that
Ralph Carpenter from American Sign had showed some
slides to the Project Committee that pictured some
of the new techniques that could be done with the
electronic message centers• She said that, indeed,
it was most impressive•
Some discussion took place regarding how much could
be shown on a flashing message center to have the
message be effective�
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld,
that �9 be reworded to read °Illuminated sign which
changes in either color or in intensity of light
or is animated, or has flashing or intermittent
lights {including traveling electronic message
centers or electronic message centers which change
more than once every 15 minutes ��CFp�/pfyq/���u�rjg
�'11owe�on��in��iend /M��t�ri�ts¢{and�nott�in�nye
R Districts} by Special Use Permit ONLY^•
PLANNING COMMISSION �EETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 8 �� G
Mr• Langenfeld pointed out that by'using a Special
Use Permit the advantages are that the control would
be put into the hands of the City•
fMr. Langenfeld quoted January 11, 1977 Appeals Comnission Meeting minutes which
stated tBat.� Ms• Ga6e1 said that she had learned something
interesting• She said that different sign
companies say different things to different
people• When a petitioner went before the
Appeals Commission, they said that even though
the ordinance allowed only a certain size sign,
the sign company said that they didn't carry that
size, so the petitioner would have to get a
variance to have a different size sign, when in
reality Sign Companies can make—up any type
and size sign•
Mr• Peterson commented that he wasn't concerned
whether major companies would be able to have their
signs all over Fridley• He said his major concern
was that the businesses of the citizens of Fridley
won't be able to get their message across to their
customers and they would be the ones most hurt•
Mr• Schroer felt that that type of sign was the
up—and—coming sign in Fridley•
UPON A VOICE VOTE+ all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously• No• 9 would be amended to
read, ^Illuminated sign which changes in either
color or in intensity of light or is animated, or
has flashing or intermittent lights {including
traveling electronic message centers or
electronic message centers which change more than
once every 15 minutes except one giving time,
temperature, or other public information} be
allowed only in C and M Districts {not in any
R Districts} by Special Use permit ONLY^•
10• Advertising Signs {except window signs allowed only in
C1, C2, CR1, CR2, CS1, and CS2 Zoning Districts or
Franchised trademarks pertinent to the Business}.
{Mr• Acosta had read this item because of a
change that had occurred in the wording}
Mr• Peterson pointed out to Mr• Schroer that the
reason for this change was because of the discussion
that had occurred at the last meeting• He said
that the Planning tommission felt that many times
that Franchised trademarks were very pertinent
to the success of that person's business•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 9
� ��
Mr• Prairie felt that this would result in people -----
putting up cheaper and less attractive signs•
Mr• dcosta indicated that the intent is to get
more consistency in the signs in Fridley to give
a more aesthetically pleasing appearance•
Mr• Langenfeld said that the cost factor would
have to be considered when it came to th�9�5�
being conveyed• He felt that the bigggs percen age
of the sign should be the establishment and not
the product•
Mr• Peterson said he wouldn't be totally comfortable
telling Fridley businesses not to go into coop—
advertising with a vendor•
Chairperson Harris indicated that perhaps it
should be stated that a certain percentage of
the sign had to be the identifying name•
Ms• Gabel said that the intent of the sign(Comnittee)
should be to identify an establishment and not
to advertise a product•
Mr• Prairie said that the cost of the sign had to
be considered• He said that a local businessman
would probably have only X num6er of dollars far
advertising purposes• The big vendor companies
have many more dollars for advertising purposes•
He said that most times the big vendor companies
are willing to give a local businessman an
identification sign that had a certain product
advertised on the same sign• He felt, that by
having the opportunity to obtain a sign in that
manner, generally the local business would end up
with a nice, expensive type sign• He felt that
if these signs would be forbidden, then the local
businessman would have to settle for a cheaper,
less appealing idantificatinn sign because that
would be all they could afford•
Mr• Acosta felt that even though the expense was an
important part it should not overpower the intent
of the City• He said that the ^line^ had to be
drawn someplace•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Pa e 10 4 I
Mr• Langenfeld asked Mr• Schroer how effective/
necessary a sign was once a person's good will
had been established•
Mr� Schroer felt that it was probably more
necessary/effective since a person would have to
keep up Chat good will by reminding the
customers that certain products are available•
Mr• Storla left the Planning Commission meeting at 9:08 P.M-
due to a previous commitment•
Mr• Langenfeld stated that he felt advertising
was an essential part of a business�
Mr• Schroer didn't believe an Ordinance was
necessary• He felt that a good understanding
amongst City personnel would result in some
system that would enable compatibility in a
decision• He felt that as long as there would
exist a way to appeal a City's decision, that
would be all that would be necesasry•
Ms• Gabel wanted to know if there would be a
workable solution to the differences of opinions
regarding this sign•
Mr• Acosta pointed out that no matter which
directinn City went or what they did, someone would
get hurt• Most Ordinances/restrictions will not
let someone do something that some person wants
to do•
Mr• Peterson said he would strongly object to any
regulation that would have no appeal system built
into it• He did not believe any administration
existed to be served• He said that Staff was
there to serve the public• He was upset because
there was continual reference to ^Staff wanted
this, and Staff wanted that^• He said that Staff
should be providing information• He said Staff
should be carrying out directions, but that the
citizens that lived in Pridley and paid taxes in
Fridley should be making the decisions and if the
City would write any Ordinance that would allom no
appeal procedure, he would become very upset•
Mr• peterson went on to say that when Staff refuses
a request by a citizen, that Staff should also
explain to that citizen the appeals procedure and
layout the steps that could be taken • He pointed
out that many times the citizen can't afford the
fees involved with an Appeal, so they have to take
whatever City Hall says, even if that person felt
very strongly the opposite way•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 11 �� �
Mr• Langenfeld stated that he would feel very badly
as a member of the Planning Commission, if a major
business or industry from Fridley left the City
because of a difference of opinion regarding a certain
sign or avenue of advertising and then relocated
in another city that would allow the sign or mode
of advertising that they had wanted•
Ms• Gabel said that the Sign Committee had not
discussed that aspett of the item•
Chairperson Harris pointed out that a variance
procedure was part of the Ordinance and he felt
that each problem would be handled on an
individual basis•
Mr• Prairie pointed out that sametimes the cost
involved with getting a���j�p}/M'��/�j$'7��� would
be more than the sign itself• (variance)
Ms• Gabel said that economics was a big factor•
Mr• Peterson said that Item 10 should be continued
to enable Ms• 6abe1 to do some additional work to
better explain exactly what the considerations
would be to justify a/�g �j �`/��2,hjryt��t to allow
for this type of sign• �`�°�����C, ,
Ms- Gabel indicated that the existing signs wnuld
be ^grandfathered^ in and as long as the sign was
maintained and didn�t become over SDi delapitated,
a g�{��i/�fy/►�'/p�hhy�x/Y,�d"�il4�F�ot be required• She
said that it would mainly effect.a new business
and a new sign•
Chairperson Harris said that the advertising signs
in Item 10 would also include billboards•
Mr• Schroer said he didn't think billboard advertising
was as big an issue as the signs previously discussed•
Chairperson Harris asked how much of the local
businesses advertised with billboards•
Mr- Tchroer said that indirectly they benefited
from billboard advertisin9 if they carried the
product that was being advertised-
Mr• 3chroer said that the Chamber of Commerce was
not quite as concerned about billboard advertising
as they were about local advertisinq signs•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 12
11• Signs located within corner setback requirements
{Ordinance No• 205•154{3}
No comments•
12• Roof Signs
13
14•
15
� �
28• ROOF SIGN: A sign which is erected, constructed,
or attached wholly upon the roof of a building•
There was discussion regarding the definitian of
roof• Some buildings have two roofs and the
question arose as to which roofline was considered
the roof of the building•
Mr• Acosta was going to help explain the definition
of Roof Signs in cleaner, more concise wording•
Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices,
including any sources of light which changein intensity•
No comments•
Porta-panels
Mr• Prairie said that these signs are the most
unappealing signs that exist•
Mr• Schroer also
could be totally
least objections•
felt that this is one sign that
removed and there would be the
Ms• Gabel felt that forbiddin9 these signs would
effect/hurt the least number of people• She said
that these signs appeared to be the most offensive
sign in existence•
Readerboards {except those signs dispensing public
information} by Special Use Permit only•
Ms• Gabel explained that what the Sign Committee
was trying to eliminate was the ^junky^ blue signs
that were sold to businesses throughout Fridley
6y some ^fly-by-night^ sign business�
Chairperson Harris wanted the parenthesis scratched
on the description•
Mr- Acosta indicated that if the Commission wnuld
grant one business a Special Use Permit for a
readerboard, they would have to be consistent
and allow a like-business to also have a readerboard•
PLANNING �OMMISTION MEETING — JULY 27; 19?7 Page 13
' . , ►� L
Chairperson Harris said that City would have to
set up guidelines or standards or some type of
'' poli¢y and if a petitioner met those guidelines, .
then they could obtain the Special Use Permit•
!7r• Peterson asked what the fee for a Tpecial
Use Permit was•
• nr. Acosta said it was $120• •
' Mr• Tchroer said that if a business felt a need
for a readerboard, then he should be allowed to
have one• .
Ms• Gabel felt that the��c��ini�ion of a readerboard
should be that a readerboard could be a free-
standing sign, but a readerboard could not be
attached to a sign that was not a readerboard•
Ns• Ga6e1 indicated that if an advertising sign
eould be used for identifying purposes only� then
in reality, th.e traveling message centers would
not be allowed at allf
Chairperson Harris pointed out that that problem
was solved by rec;uiring a Special Use Permit for
all traveling/{lashing message centers•
MOTION BY Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld,
to change item 15 to read, ^Readerboards by Special
Use Permit only^• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
214•D32 Signs Permitted in all Districts
3• Address Signs: Each dwelling, business, or building
must have a minimum of one address sign, minimum of
3-1/3^ high, maximum of 18^ high, illuminated or
reflective, attached to the dwelling and visi6le from
pubiic right-of-way•
Mr• Prairie wanted to know if residents would be
forced to remove trees, etc• to enable the address
sign to be visible from public-right-of-way-
I�r• Acosta said that the address should be visible,
but the resident would probably not be forced to
remove trees, etc• He said that the person would
be encouraged to indicate the address on the house
in addition to another place that wouid be visible
from the public right-of-way•
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 14
4 r�
2• Bench Signs: To be permitted only at bus stops; cannot
be any larger than or extend beyond any portion of the
bench•
NO Comments•
3• US• FLAG following Title 36, section 173-178 of the
U• S• Code, State Flag, Corporate Flag•
Mr• Langenfeld corrected the abbreviation for
United States• He said it should be U•S•
4- Directional Signs: {public and private}
{a} Maximum four {4} square feet per facing;
{b} Minimum ten {1U} feet from street right–of–way;
{c} Except that a sign directing the public to a
hospital may be a maximum of twenty–four {24f
square feet in area•
No Comments
5• Institutional 3igns:
{a} Maximum twenty–four
{24} Square feet;
{b} Minimum ten {10} feet from street right–of–way,
except on corners•
{c} Except a hospital emergency sign which is located
on the premises may be fifty {50} square feet in
area•
(Mr. Ga6e1 said that the Sigh Project Committee had wanted a 100 sq. ft. sign.)
Ms• Gabel felt that the emergency sign in {c}
should be much larger to be sure that people can
see the sign• She felt that the sign should be
large enough to see without having to look/search
for it•
MOTION by Ms• Gabel, secanded by Mr• Peterson, to
change the wording of {�} to read, ^Except a
hospital emergency sign which is located on the
premises may be one hundred {1U0} square feet in
area^• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris read through the remaininq items• There were
no comments/discussion until Item 8, C� 2•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 15
8, C+2• Signs shall not be erected more than 45 days prior to
an election•
Ms• Gabel felt that the way this read, that if a
person erected a sign before the primary election
and that person was successful, then the person
would have to remove the signs after the primary
and then put them back up for the General
Election•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel,
that item 2 be changed to read, ^Signs shall
not be erected before the closing of filing for an
election^• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously�
Chairperson Harris, again, continued reading the Ordinance• There
was no comment/discussian until item 8, C� 5•
8,C�5• Any political sign larger than 3 sq• ft• must be placed
10 feet from public right-of-way•
MOTI4N by Mr• peterson, seconded by Mr- Langenfeld,
to change the wording to read, ^Any political sign
larger than 3 sq• ft• must be placed 3 feet from
public right-of-way^• Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Mr- Storla returned to the Planning Commission meeting at
10:45 P.M-
Chairperson Harris, continued reading the Ordinance�
There were no comments/discussion until item 214•045, {D}.
214•045, {D} �all Signs: Wall
times the square root
sign is to be placed•
Signs area shall not exceed 1•5
of the wall length on which the
Mr• Hamernik {�ity Council - Ward 1} questioned
the formula to determine the size of a wall sign•
Mr• Prairie said that the wording mas wrong•
He felt that the wording should be checked
because originally when the Sign Committee decided
upon the formula, that the signs to be allowed
would be very ample/adequate in size•
Discussion then continuad to item 214•048
� r�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 16
214•�48
{a} Within sixty days {60} of the adoption of this
code, all owners of shopping centers and multiple
use buildings must su6mit a comprehensive sign
plan for their center or building to the Zoning
administrator for approval•
Chairperson Harris felt that rather than the word
^multiple use building^, it should be more
specific and say a building with three or more
uses�
Ms• Gabel explained that this was aimed mostly
at new shopping centers/multiple use buildings
or for the situation that the signs would become
more than 5Ui delapitated — then that establishment
would have to submit a comprehensive sign plan-
Discussion took place regarding how to define
a multiple use building•
Discussion then continued to item 214•OS
214•OS
3•
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Fees
The annual permit fee and expiration date shall be
as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code•
Mr• Acosta quoted a statement that Mr• Boardman
had made regarding the fees� He said the feeling
was that �ity was penalizing the person who does
a gaod job with his signs, keeps them maintained
properly, and who adheres to the regulations•
Mr• Boardman felt that by charging an annual fee
makes that person come up with the fee every year
even when he is doing a proper job of maintaining
the sign• It was felt that a one-time fee would
be best and if a person does abuse the code by
not maintaining his siqns, then that person would
be penalized and charged a fee in addition to
having to fix/clean-up the sign in violation•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel,
to have the wording of item 3 changed to read
^There shall be a one-time permit fee^•
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously•
40
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 17
4P
214•05 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
7• Existing Signs
Mr• Peterson commented that ^in compliance^ was
referred to many times• He wanted to know what
that phrase meant•
�Mrs. Gabel responded that generally the idea was if the sign was 50% dilapitated, it must
meet the code; or, �r,,�������r,�� r,��if�r��i�i►r�r�viftr�i��a�ixrvm
if because the sign Y'�'��!"b/�17�/Xi9'/��/A�'4'1�/�1`9h��/�Pfillrl��f//�/�PN�'�'/�h/g►�
had been repaired and �up�y yl��yg�jt�q� ���/Fppq�� fpry���pM/���/�qt�j',n/p,t�j'r�/
then brough 50% into
compliance with the �hairperson Harris felt that this entire item
code, then the needed ^cleaning up^• He requested /M$f/�dfl��A�Ruben Acosta)
totdl sign have to to work some more on this item•
bring their total sign into compliancel,
Chairperson Harris requested�that the words ^his^ be removed
from the entire Ordinance•
Discussion then went on to item 214•O6
214•06 ENFORCEMENT
Mr• Prairie wanted to know who would remove the
abandoned Signs-
Ms• Gabel said that the City would remove the signs
and that the costs would be assessed against the
property• She explained that because the City would
send the notice of violation both to the permit
holder and the landowner, sometimes the owner would
put pressure on the permit holder to repair/replace
the sign•
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld to continue
the Proposed Sign Ordinance until the next meeting so that
Ms• Gabel would be able to do more work on different points
that had been questioned• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Schroer thanked the Planning Commission for letting him take
part in the meeting•
Chairperson Harris declared a short break at 11:24 P•M-
Chairperson Harris called the meeting back to order at 11:34 p.M•
MOTION BY Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Ms• Gabel, to suspend the
rules in order to handle the memo on the Code of Ethics• Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Mr• Ed Namernik, City Council – Ward 1, was present•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 18 4�
Mr• Hamernik explained that the memo had been discussed at the
City Council meeting and that he had several objections to what
was being proposed• He wanted to present a minority recommendation
on how this ordinance should be handled• He said that in principle
he . agreed to what was trying to be done. His primary objection
was that the proposed was more cumbersome than necessary• He felt
the subject could be handled ^cleaner^ and still provide the intent
of what is desired• He felt that exposure by an individual
at the time a specific item was being discussed would satisfactorily
handle the situation• He felt that a written disclosure was not
really providing any benefit• He didn't like the idea of having
the type of information that was being discussed put in a file
subject to public access• He also didn`t see any benefit City
would get from having that information in a file• He was
interested in seeing a much reduced form of this ordinance based
primarily on puhlic disclosure at the time of discussion and
do away with the filing and the need for rather strict enforcement•
He felt that if a written disclosure was desired he strongly
recommended it be limited only to elected officials or people
who have a binding vote in a discussion• He felt that the City
Charter did address this issue and he felt this only made it
somewhat redundant• He felt that as far as Commission members
other than the Appeals Commission this Ordinance would put an
added burden on them• He said that there were perhaps some
people that would resent having to do this type thing and since
they are volunteers, he was not in favor of subjecting them to
this type of thing• He felt that some of the requirements in the
Ordinance was bordering on invasion of privacy especially on the
volunteer group• He felt that the elected group of officiels,
when they decide to run for office, daes open themselves up
to a certain amount of public scrutiny• He really didn`t believe
that a volunteer shnuld have to be subjected to this Ordinance•
Chairperson Harris asked Mr• Hamernik what his thoughts were
on the section on the City Attorney and Senior Administrative Staff•
Mr• Hamernik felt that this was strictly an Administrative issue
and should be left up to the City Manager-
Mr• peterson said that he objected to City Council delegating
their authority through the City Manager• He felt that if the
City Attorney and the Department Head should disclose, that that
should be a Council decision, because they are the one that a
citizen can talk to and they have to answer to the cftizens
at the polls and the citizens had no way of talking to the City
Manager and he objected to the City Manager making that type of
decision in terms of ethics in the City�
.�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 19__
4R
Mr• Hamernik responded that the Charter had been recently changed
where the City Attorney is now hired by the City Manager• He felt
that since the City Manager is the Administrative Officer of the
City and anything the people below him are asked to do or rec{uired
to do, he felt that it should come as a directive from the City
Manager•
Mr• Langenfeld said that he definitely felt that it was borderlining
invasion of privacy• He abjected to the fact that the information
would be written and could be available to anyone and he felt that
it wasn't anyone's business outside of the City's files• He felt
that the penalty part was very severe• He indicated that if
this Ordinance should pass as written, then he felt that the City
Manager should also be a part of this disclosure•
Ms• Ga6e1 indicated that the Appeals Commission had discussed
this item• She said that the Commission had made a motion
that concurred with the Ordinance as it effected them• She said
that she had talked to Mrs• Schnabel on this and she didn't
express any problems with this item•
Mr• Peterson said that he had not discussed this item at his last
meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and indicated that
any comment he would make was entirely his own opinion and he was
not speaking for the Commission•
Mr• Storla commented that the Human Resources Commission had not
discussed this item yet•
Chairperson Harris felt that more than anyone else on the Planning
Commission, that he was effected the most• At that time, he made
his public disclosure to be included in the minutes:
^Property in the City of Fridley in which Richard Harris
has an interest•
{1} 620p NE Riverview Terrace {Home}
Lot 2, Block 3, Julianne Addition
{2} �ots 5& 6, Block 3, East Ranch Estates, Second Addition
{the same being 77Q1, 7703, 7765 flain Street NE}
{3} Lots 1 thru 11 and 26 thru 37, Block 8, Onaway Addition
{the same being 13, 15, and 17 — 77th Way NE
7710, 7720, 7780 and 7790 Main Street NE}
Principal in H 8 R Enterprises and also principal in the
Dick Harris Company^•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27+ 1977 Page 20
Mr• Hamernik felt that Chairperson Harris had handled this in an �E S
appropriate manner that could effectively handle the entire —
situation•
Mr• Peterson said that he had been approached by several citizens
from Fridley regarding the item in �€seussas�,;- He said that
these citizens felt that this Ordiance would tend to limit or
cause people not to volunteer to serve on a volunteer committee•
Chairperson Harris spoke in defense of the Ordinance• He said
that for too long Government has gotten a^black eye^• He
said that if this was a way of rebuilding confidence in the
City Government, then he was for it•
Ms• Gabel agreed and said that if City could do anything to
promote some faith in government, then it had to be good•
Chairperson Harris felt that if someone had something to ^hide^,
then perhaps they shouldn't be serving•
Mr• Hamernik felt that if people who had an interest in the city
and who were business people were wanted to serve on the various
Committees, he didn't mant to see an Ordinance that would prevent
these people from volunteering because they felt their privacy
was being invaded• He still felt that the same effect would be
gained by a verbal disclosure at the time of discussion•
Chairperson Harris explained that the letter indicated that ��
was directed by City Council that any comments regarding this
proposed Ordinance be directed to them•
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Peterson, that the
Planning Commission receive the Code of Ethics Ordinance• Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�
Mr• Peterson indicated that he believed in good government and he
believed in credibility and he believed in not having a conflict
of interest, but he found it difficult to see why you need to
disclose the financial facts of your Company just because it
happened to be located within the City of Fridley and you
happened to be on the Planning Commission or any other Commission•
He felt there would be chance for other people, who might be
competitors, to use that information because once it was filed
it would become public record•
Chairperson Harris indicated that generally for all the items
listed, they are already in public record someplace•
Discussion took place regarding exactly how much would have to be
disclosed upon request and the people that would have to be
disclosed•
So�e members felt that only the person on the Commission or the
actual person involved should have to make written disclosure•
They felt it shouldn't include any other relative or spouse•
PLANNIN6 COMMIS3ION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 21
Mr• Peterson said that he agreed in principle with what the
Council was attemptinq to accomplish•
Mr• Langenfeld said that the credibility of City Government
was essential• He felt that disclosure of some of the requested
information could lead to unpleasant situations for an individual
on the Commission•
Mr• Peterson felt that this item could be handled in one paragraph
by merely stating that the member had no interest in a company
that wauld benefit by doing business with the City or where they
could influence policy, etc•
Mr• Peterson indicated that he didn't agree with having to
disclose the interests of father/mother/sister/brother etc•
He felt that that was overstepping certain boundaries•
Chairperson Harris felt that there wasn't even the right to
look at the adult child's financial record• He wanted it
to be limited to {at the maximum} the member and the spouse•
Mr• Peterson said that according to all the things being tried
to get equality for each person, he felt that the City was taking
a step backwards• He said that just because he wanted to be on
the Planning Commission, his wife, just because she was married
to him, would have to disclose her interests• He felt that this
would be an invasion of her privacy•
�hairperson Harris pointed out that the way the laws are written
in the State of Minnesota, all the properties are held in common•
He said that if they are living together, they would have a
common interest•
Mr� Storla felt that it wouldn't include the spause if they
weren't living together or were divorced•
Mr• Wamernik indicated that he personally had nothing to hide
and his statements were not some personal vendetta to try to
prevent the ordinance from being implemented, but said that he
really didn't want something put into an ordinance that would be
difficult to maintain and that was not easily workable and he
didn't think that in its present form, the ordinance would be
followed•
Mr• Peterson said that he would like to comply with the City
Manager�s request• He said that he didn't like the time table•
He said that he would like the Parks and Recreation Commission
discuss this item also•
4T
PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 27, 1977 Page 22
>
t
�
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Mr• Storla, that the Planning ;�
Commission continue the discussion of the memo on the �
Code of Ethics• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion .
carried unanimously•
Mr• Peterson requested that Mr• Boardman insure that this item
appears on the next aqenda of the Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting• �
2• CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE
MOTION by Mr• Peterson, seconded by Ms• Gabel, that the Planning
Commission cor�tinue the Proposed Maintenance Code• Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
3• RECEIVE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSE3 ONLY: LETTER
FROM ZOLLIE BARATZ, Z 8 S MANAGEMENT CO-, DATED
JULY 15, 1977� '
MOTION by Ms- Gabel, seconded by Mr• Langenfeld, that the
Planning �ommission receive the letter from Zollie Baratz•
Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously•
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Mr• Langenfeld, seconded by Mr• Storla, to adjourn
the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission Meeting• Upon a voice
vote, ali voting aye, the motion carried unanimously•
Chairperson Harris declared the meeting adjourned at 12:33 P-M-
Respectfully submitted,
/ //Qi�� l/��GIU/K
MaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary