PL 02/08/1978 - 6627City of Fridley
A G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION t�ETING FEBRUARY 8, 1978
GALL TO ORDER;
ROLL CALL:
AFPRQVE PLANNING COMMISSIQN MINUTES: JAtdUARY 2S, 1978
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE_FERMIT
7:3Q P.M.
ITE61 IAiDEX
WHITE, Pgs. 1-27
K'HITE, Pgs. I-1C
SP. N78-02, BY HART GUSTObi HOMES INC.: Per Fridley City
Code Section 205.102, 3, N to allow the expansion of
the sale af mobile homes to include Lpts 4,5, $ 6, Block
1, Central View Manor; the s�me being 7355 Highway #b5 NE
2. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CQMMZSSION MINUTES: BLUE
3. RECEIVE APPEALS CQMMISSION MINUTES: 3ANUARY 24, 1978
4. CONTINUED: PARKS $ OPEN SPACE PLAiV
5. OTtIER BUSINESS:
AD30URND�NT:
YELLOW, + Att. 1-23
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 25. �978
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the January 25, 19�8, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:37 P,M,
ROLL CALL•
Members Present;
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Shea, Bergman, Aarris, Suhrbier, Schnabel,
Langenfeld
Peterson (represented by Suhrbier)
Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 11, 1978
MOTION by Ms, Shea, seconded by Mr. I,angenfeld, that the
Planning Commission approve the January i1, 1978, minutes
as written. Upon a noice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: RE�UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT. SP #?7-1,�, BY SUPERAMERICA:. PER FRIDLEY CITY
COAE, SECTIaN 205.131, 3, E, TO ALL04V THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SUPERAMERICA STATION CONVENIENCE STORE, ON LOTS 2'7, 28,
29 an3 30, BLOCK 4, HAMTLTON'S ADDITION TO iRECHA�'�'ICSVILLE,
THE SAME BEING 5667 IINIVERSITY AVENUE NE
PIIBLIC HEARTNG OPEN
Mr. Boardman said that much discussion had taken place at
the previous meeting, He said that Superamerica had some
revised plans for the Superamerica Station Convenience Store,
Ms. 5chnabel asked why it was necessary for Superamerica to
request a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Boardman said that the station previously located on the
lot had been at that location before Special Use Permits were
required for Gas Station operations.
Mr. Michael Aolt and Mr, Timothy Kortrem were present at the
meeting representing Superamerica.
Mr. Holt showed the Commission a revised plan for the
Superamerica Station Convenience Store. He indicated the changes
that had been made to the driveways servicing the station and
that by moving the proposed building approximately 15 feet they
rrere able to p:ovide for the required 15 parking spaces as well
as set up a feasible route the gasoline trucks could use so that
the trucks would not have to go through the residential area,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25, 1977 Page 2
Mr. Bergman said it was an improved plan and that it was much
better than the previousl plan.
Mr. Holt said that he had talked to Superamerica management
about providing a sign for Ms. Mathisen (348-57 Ave NE)
and they indicated they would provide her witk a sign that
would indicate that her driveway was a PRIVATE DRIVEV7AY and
that it should not be used.
Ms. Schnabel asked i£ there would be signs at the entrances
and egresses that would indicate entrance only or exit only
and if so how would the signs be posted,
Mr. Holt said that the driveway to the rear of the lot would
have a sign that Mould indicate +�exit only, do not enter+�.
He also said that there would be directional arrows on the
blacktop.
Ms. Schnabel askefl if there would be additional signage in
the ground that �ould indicate exit only.
Mr. Holt said that they would have signs in the ground,
Ms. Schnabel asked if any signs would indicate such things as
"no left turns�� or ��no right turns" or ��right turns only��.
Mr. Holt said that they would provide such signs if the Commission
felt it �vould be necessary. He didn�t think they would be
necessary in that the patterns would already be established
because of the island that was located in 57th Avenue.
Mr. Boardman said that it had been suggested at the previous
me�ting that at the exit closest to the service lane and
57th Avenue there would be a sign indicating "Exit to
IIniversity Avenue�� with an arrow that would direct the traffic
around the station or around the area.
Mr. $olt said that Superamerica would comply with that request.
Chairperson Harris asked if the station would be open 24 hours
per day, every day of the week.
Mr. Tim Kortrem sa3d that it ivas being discussed that the proposed
Superamerica Station Cnnvenience Store would be open 24 houxs a
day. fie said that the particular location had not beexi fully
established as yet, He said that actual business would dictate
the hours it would be opened.
Chairperson Harris asked what type of products would be dispensed
at the Superamerican Station Gonvenience Store.
Mr. Aolt said that the Store would handle convenience items such
as packaged food, rolls, milk, bread. He said it would handle
no fresh produce. Iie said they would have bulk oi1 and some
automobile related products.
RiANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25� 1978 Page 3
Mr. Carl Paulson of 43�-NE 57th Place wanted to submit a
sapplement to the original petition that had been signed
by the residents in the neighborhood, He said t�at the
petition itself dealt with mostly the human aspects and
that the supplement petition dealt vrith property owners.
Mr. Paulson said that it was an Impact Statement which was a
supple�ent to the petition, re; Superamerica Request.
��The follovring criterion .re�resents a mutual
correlative to the contents of the aforesaid
petition.
The petition deals vrith matters serving jointly
both property o��m ers and residents on a lease
bas�s or othercrise enjoined,
The fodloWing are parts or elements, maybe not
all of them, you vrill be considering conjuctively:
I. First of all: Is there a need?
II. Reduction of real estate values.
III. Deviation from previous use.
IV. The matter of saturation (used in the
broadest senae)
V. And an overall adverse affect."
Mr, PauZson said that the people in the area were adj�erse to
the night-time operation.
Chairperson Aarris said that a petition had been submitted
to the Commission. Ae said that it was a petition to the
Planning Commission, City of Fridley.
"'rYe, the signatories to this Petition do hereby request
that an a11-night operation applied for by the applicant
in the name oi Superamerica Station Convenience Store, be
rejected.
14e submit our request, in part, on the basis of six pages
of criteria calling attention to pollution hazards an� now
to curtail them. Peace and composure are closely related
to restful sleep.
Y1e summarily reject any notion that vre be held responsible
by word or other�vise for the ridicu�ous overbuilding of
gasoline stations in years past,
lYe further reject anq suggestion that fenced ivall� tivith
ballasts can serve as adequate protection, against polluted
particles moving taith the wind in varied directions, and
noise pollution.
1Ye reserve the right to seek redress through the courts,
should this become our only recourse.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 2 1978 Pa�e 4
We reject installatiohs of added lighting such as might
adversely affect nearby residents at times uihen they look
forward to a time of restful sleep. Night time was made
for sleep!
Also, we are aware that hold-ups and shoot-outs cannot be
ruled out around an a11 night operation.
�Ve are opposed to added traffic after-hours, such as would
be of convenience to inconsiderate drivers who are prone
to rev-up motors, added to quick starts, sometimes coupled
with loud voices.
We want nothing added to overall late night problems,
such as are experienced along well traveled roads, such
as University and 57th Avenue going eastti�rard.
Finally, ti�re reject the proposed operation as we know it�t+
Chairperson Harris said that there were 39 names on the petitioxi.
MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the petition and the Impact Statement,
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously,
Mr. Paulson said that it had been clearly stated and that the
people who signed the petition had done so with the enthusiasm
that went with the acceptance of the idea of rejecting the proposed,
Mr. Gordon Jorgenson of 2225 Chalet Drine said that he ovaned
the property located at $644 Fourth Street NE, He said that his
property contained a seven-unit apartment building. He said that
the people in his bui�ding w�ere very much a�ainst the proposed
Superamerica Station Convenience Store. He said that they mainly
oppased the 2t� hour operation. He said that the points they
had indicated they were opposed to �vere the added noise from the
traffic; the increase of cars using the parking lot as turn-around
area; and the"people who lived on the lUest side of the building
were concerned about the lighting, especially during late night.
He said that he personally was aoainst the proposed operation
and that people in his building had also indicated their opposition
by signing the petition.
Chairperson Aarris asked if there had been traffic problems
previously when Phillips 66 had owned the building,
Mr. Jorgenson said that it had,added to the traffic in the
area; but he said the people were mostly against the 24-hour
operation.
Ms. Schnabel said that if the petitioner was allowed to proceed
vrith his plans, the Commission could establish hours that the
operation could be open; she vranted to know if the people in
Mr. Jorgenson�s building had a preference to the hours it could
be opexied.
6=,�i�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANIIARY 25. 1978 Page 5
Mr. Jorgenson said that he had delivered the petition to the
people in his building as it was written. He said they seemed
to be bas3cally concerned about the late night noise and the
additional lighting a11 through the night.
Ms. Schnabel said that Superamerica had stated they intended
to have the lighting directed downwards and away from the
adjacent properties.
Mr. Jorgenson said that the lighting could be improved using
that manner but that the problem �vouldn't be eliminated.
Ms. Grace Mathisen of 348-57th Place NE said that she didn't
have much to add to vrhat she had stated at the previous
meeting. She said that it wouldn't make any difference
whether the store tivas a night or day operation, the traffic
would be much greater in the area than before. She said that
the lights of the operation iaeren�t just the lights located on
the groperty but would involve the lights of the traffic.
Mr. �angenfeld read from the Code all the businesses that
could be established on the lots in question. He said that
the location tvas zoned C-2, He felt that a much less desirable
situation could be established at that location than a
Superamerica Station Convenience Store.
Mr. Paulson said thai Mr. Langenfeld had made a good point
but that he felt the people in the vicinity did have a
right to say v�hat could be established at that location.
Mr. Jorgenson said that the location v:as probably too small
for many of the other uses that had been indicated by
Mr. Langenfeld. He said that it seemed that the people in
the vicinity wanted an opportunity to listen to"a proposal
for some other type of operation.
Mr. Holt said that in regards to the all-night operation
Superamerica did operate some of the stations on established
hours rather than 2� hours. He said that they vrould agree
to keep the same business hours as the other businesses in the
area. He pointed out that the property was zoned commercial
and they had presented plans for a commercial operation.
Mr, Bergman asked if Superameric tivould be interested in the
location if the Commission would indicate a stipulation that
c?.o�ing ti�es would have to corresp�nd to the closing times
of the oiher businesses in the area.
ASr; Holt said that they would be interasted.
PL�NNING COMMISSION MEF'TING - JANUARY 25y 1978 Pa�e 6
Mr. Boardman asked if Superamerica planned to have a lighted
canopy.
Mr. Holt said that they v�ould have a lighted canopy but that
no Iighting tirould spill from the operation, He said all the
Zighting wou2d be directed downwards,
Mr. Boardman asked hot�r high the proposed fencing would be.
Mr. Holt said they tvould have a six foot fence plus a hedge.
Mr. Boardman asked how high the lights of the operation wou2d
be.
Mr. Holt said that they would be 13 feet.
Mr. Jorgenson aian�t believe that a six foot fence vrould protect
the area irom 13 foot lights, He also doubted the statement that
no lighting ivould spill £rom the operation. He also questioned
the traffic-flow diagram.
Mr. Boardman said that at the previous meeting there had been
concern regarding gasoline trucks as far as hotiv they would ingress
and egress from the property. He said that in order for the trucks
to service the station and not have the trucks go into the
residentia2 area that the diagram indicated the route the trucks
would be directed to take. He said that the gasoline trucks were
owned by Superamerica anfl that the drivers could be told that
it tvas the route they had to use.
Mr. Boardman said that Superamerica would do some signing to
indicate to the automobile traffic the desired directions,
Ms. Schnabel asked if the Commission could stipulate the route
the trucks servicing Superamerica vrould have to utilize.
Mr. Boardman said it v�as the Commission's Option.
Mr, Paulson explained to the Commission that Ms. Mathisen's
house had been built tivhile Fridley was a Township; therefore,
he said that it did not have the normal setback from the street,
He said that her garage dvas situated almost right next to the
curbing and her house right next to the garage, He said that
she was really located very close to the proposed business.
He wondered if the minority had as much rights as the majority.
He said that the distance from her house to the proposed
establishment had to be considered in the issue.
Mr, Paulson felt that the air pollution in the area was already
existent without adding to the problem.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 2�, 1478 Pa�e 8
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission recommer.ds deniaZ of the request for a
Special Use Permit, SP f�77-17, by Superamerica: Per Fridley
City Cade, Section 205.131, 3, E, to allow the construction of
a Superaraerica Station Convenience Store, on Lots 27,28,29 and
3�, Block 4� Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville� the same being
5667 University Avenue Northeast.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the reasons for his motion to deny were:
1. There had been 3g people that had petitioned against
the request,
2. In regards to the substantive requirements of a
Special Use Permit must be subject to certain
conditions and the conditions must conform to the
following standards;
. To protect the Public Health, Safety, and
�Velfare
. To avoid.tra£fic conjestion or hazard or other dangers
. To promote conformity of a proposed use with
the character adjoining property and uses.
Ms. Schnabel said that she believed the Superamerica Station
Convenience Store could very likely generate additional traffic
in the area even though they had stated they didn't feel they
would measureably increase the traffic in the area, She said
that this point was a point that �as contrary to the petitioners
of the neighborhood.
Mr. Bergman said that while the ordinance provides for gasoline
stations OR retail stores in the zoning of the property, what
was being requesied vras a combination of gasoline and retail.
He said that even though it v�as a fine point it was pertinent
because of the amount and t3*pe of traffic and the operating
hours that would he involved,
Ms. Shea said that she was against the motion because she felt
that Mr, Holt had done ever.ythin� he could to try to satisf.y
the neighbors and agreeing to any stipulations that the Commission
had felt tvould be necessary.
IIPON A VOIGE VOTE, Mr, Bergman, Ms. Suhrbier, Ms, Schnabel,
and Mr. Langenfeld voting aye; Ms. Shea and Mr. Harris voting
nay, the motion carried,
Chairperson Harris said that the recommendation to deny would
go to City Council on February 6, 1978.
2. PUBLIC HF.ARING: PF�UEST FOR A SPECIAL USP PERMIT SP
-Q 1 BY NI!:I3 ;RD CI�SH':IAY LUMBER: PER FRIDLEY CZTY
COAL� SECTION 205. 101 , 3, N, TO AI.LOIY TH� D�VELOPMFI�IT
Or A 5�000 SQUARE FOOT GARDEN CENTER IN THEIR PARKIt1G
LOT� OI3 LOT 9� AUDITUR'S 5UBDIVISIflN N0. 94� THE SAMn
BEING 535� CIIVTP,AL AVENIIE YE
MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier,. to oven the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman
Harris declared the Public Aearing open at 8:4�4 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Bergman, to receive
the correspondence from Hagerty, Candell and Linc3berg
attorneys at law, regarding P�endard� Inc, and the dravrings
regarding Mendard, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman said that the Special Use Permit was being
requested for an outdoor garden center to be Zocated in
the Menard�s parking lot. He said that Menard�s �vas attempting
to decide if they rranted to operate a garden center or not,
Ae said that the garden center rrould initially be an e�eriment
to see if it rrould or urould not be to their advantage.
Mr. Boardman explained the different drawings that had been
received by the Commission, He said that his suggestion to
I�fenard, Inc. was to place the proposed garden center next toJ
along side the main Menard Cashway Lumber building.
Mr. Charles Seeger representing Menard Cashia�ay Lumber said
that the Special Use Permit lvould be to enable them to sell
trees, shrubs and like items since they did carry lawn and
garden supplies in their raain store. He said that initially
it ivould be an experiment to determine if the garden center
tivould be a profitable venture for Menard� Inc. He said that
the garden center �vould be constructed neatly, He said they
��fould have bark chips on the ground rrith a split rail fence
completely around the center, He said they erould sell trees
and shrubs� etc. and he didn�t feel anything in the center
would detract from the looks of the property.
Chairperson Harris asked if the garden center would be next
to the building.
Mr. Seeger explained on the drativings tivhere the garden center
tivould be located, He said it r�ould be located in front of
the north side of the main building. He said that the garden
center vaould be approximately 5,000 square feet,
Chairperson Harris asked if the garden center e�oizld abut the
ad�acent property.
Mr, Seeger said that that the garden center tvould not touch or
join or border on any adjacent property,
,
PLANP7ING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 10
Ms, Schnabel asked if the area would have additional lighting,
Mr. Seeger said that there would be no additional lighting used
in the Garden Center.
Ms, Schnabel asked if the garden center �vould have some type of
greenhouse.
Mr, Seeger said that they would decide on the greenhouse only
if the decided to keep the garden center operating. He indicated
that for the present time� Menard� Inc. was only Zooking at the
Garden Center from an experimental standpoint.
Mr. Bergman aslied if the Garden Center tivould be strictly a
seasonal operation.
Mr. Seeger said it crould be a seasonal operation. It would
operate from Approximately Apri1. 1 through approximately
the middle of July.�
Mr. Bergman asked if the ordinance specifically addressed this
type of situation in the Special Use Permit,
Mr. Boardman said
materials must be
materials vras not
Permit.
that it stated that all outside sale of
completely screened. If tke outsifle sale of
screened it would have to have a Special Use
Mr. Bergman asked that the Ordinance regardin� screening be read.
Mr. Boardman read the ordinance that pertained to screening.
It read that a specia2 use permit vras required if the
enterprise had merchandise in the open and not under the cover
of the display station.
Mr. Seeger said that the initial objec�ive was to test market
the program.
Mr. Boardman indicated that <<�ith the addition of the 5,000
square foot garden center, the Menard, Inc. tivould have adequate
parking facilities,
Ms. Mary L. Mathews of 1259 Skywood Lane N.E., explained that
Menards had origittally proposed that the product lines they
proposed crould have been consumer oriented such as furniture,
carpet, domestic paneling, cabinets, millEVOrk, appliances and
re�aodeling material, They had intended to be strictly cash and
carry and they did not intend to service large contractors.
She then went on and explained all the changes in policy that had
since occurred on the property as v✓ell as revierred correspondence
that had been ivritten regardir_g the property. She �aanted to knorv
why the public e�as now being requested to appear at a public
hearin� when they had never been asked for their input on all
the otiier actions that had been taken. At this point, Ms. Matheivs
presented pictures to the Commission shoe�ing exactly what the
bienard operation looked Iike from her property. The pictures
depicted also the screen that �vas presently being used on the
property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MPLTING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 11
Ms. Mathe��s vranted to knovr r�hy the neighborhood�s input eras being
asked regarding the installation of a garden center ti�then they
weren't asked when the ��huge" lumber expansion took place.
Mr. Soardman said that it vras mainly because of ihe nature of
the request for the garder� center where merchandise �vould be
in the open and not under cover of the dispZay shotivroom. He
explained that Menards vaas required to apply for a Special Use
Permit to have such an outside display.
Mr. Boardman said that Menards �vas allowed to have storage
of inerchandise solely intended to be retailefl, The code read,
"a].1 rar�r materials, supplies, finished goods, semi-finished
products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be
in an encZosed building or screened on all sides from public
vietiv by fence or other approved screening which ti�ras two feet
higher than the highest item to be stored��, Mr. Boardman
explained that the above r�as an allowed usage. He said that as
the garden center r�ould not be totally screened� it-required_
a special use permit, He said that one of the requirements of
the Special Use Permit tivas the notification of property owners
tivithin 200 feet of the property,
Ms. Mathe��s felt that she needed legal consultation and asked
that the City Council not take action until she had the time
to do so. She explained that the problems vrith the Menards
operation had gone on for over 2� years and even though Menards
�sa they vrant to be '�friends�� the,y have not done one thing that
they said they uould do at all the meetings they have had.
_�--._ Ms. Aiatherrs
the meetings
use study be
be done.
indicated that Mayor Nee had suggested at one of
that had been held i��ith t4enards, that a density of
conducted. She v�anted to request triat that study
Chairperson Harris explained that the action at this time was
to recommend to City Council and that the final action v�ould
be taken by the City Council. He said that there �s�ould most
likely be time betu�een the action taken by the Planning Commissi�n
and the time it went to City Council for P1s. Mathevrs to get
legal consultation.
Mr. Boardman said that if the Planning Commissi.on sent their
recommendation onto City Counci.l, it would be handled by City
Council at the February 6, l97$ meeting, He said that If
Ms. Mathe��as felt that irouldn't be enough time to adequately
prepare for legal counsultation� he suggested she bring it up
to the City Council at that time for their consideration,
He said that final action ti�rould not necessarily have t.o be
taken on February 6, i97s.
�,<__
PLANNING CONU4ISSION ME�TING - JANU�RY ?5� 1978 PaKe t2
Mr. Bergman said that teJO things ti�rere really being discussed.
One r�as ihe Special tJse Permit request which the Ordinance
does provide for under certain conditions. He said it vras
the matter of tvhether or not the zoning code or the city
ordinance provide for the type of thin� that the petitioner
v�as requesting to do. He said that the other thing being
discussed e�as the auestion of neighborliness on the part
of Menards s�here there tvas alvaays background of citizenry
complaints and an impression of lack of attention by Menards.
He said that eight separate letters had been included in the
package that the Planning Commission had before them
regarding nuisance type subjects, He said that he had the
impression that the neighbors are basically upse�with
Menards in general,
Chairperson Harris said that it �aJas his assumption that
it tivas much ��deeperr' tkan the fact of Menard's neighbor2iness.
Mr. Boardnan said that Menards i��as locate@ in a C2S zone.
He explained that the inside operation tivas definitely a
retail operation. He said that v�hat made this particular
operation.que�tionable for this particular zoning was the
outside lumber operation that they e�ere presently involved in,
Holvever, he said that the outside lumber operation was the
accessory use of the storage of inerchandise solely intended
to be retailed by a related and established principle use.
Ms, Mary E. Cooney of '759-113th Avenue NE said that she
owned Lot 8 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 94. She said that
she �ras definitely against MenardU having a garden center.
She said that she had had so much trouble �vith Menards, She
said she had a21 their trash on her property. She said she
had hired someone to cut the grass on her property because
Menards kad complained her grass needed cutting. She said that
the person she hired erouldn't cut the �rass because he ti�ras
afraid of �>>recking his movrer on a1I the trash that vaas on the
property, She said that instead of P4enards having their snow
hauled ai�ray, they dump all the snovr on her property. She said
that Menards refused to pay her rent for the property. She said
she sent them bi11s but that they totally ignored them. She
said she didn't e�ant any more garbage and the garden center v�ould
only increase the garbage already present at that location,
Chairperson Harris pointed out that the Garden Center would not
abut her property.
Ms. Cooney said it didn't matter. She vaas still against any
garden center going in at that location. 5he didn't like the
idea that she had to pay taxes on her property and then Menards
is able to use it free of charge, She said that the Menards
operation was already a dirty operation and they didn't need
a garden center that v�ould only add to tke trash problem.
�,,.. . �
PLANNING CQN[MIS�ION t4rrTTNG - JANUARY 25. 1978 Page 13
Ms. Suhrbier indicated that in a letter dated April 20, 19�7,
Mr, Lawrence F. Menard had said he had offered Ms, Cooney the
proposition that he would keep her strip of land picked up, mowed
and maintained short of waiering and landscaping,
Ms, Cooney said that Menard's couldn't keep their otivn property
clean and she vranted them to leave her land alone. She said
that she vrould gladly take care of her property once they
removed their trash from it. She asked if there vreren't any
codes to take care of the trashy conditions of Menard's.
Chairperson Harris said that something would be attempted to
take care of the problems,
Ms. Cooney said she would give Fridley a chance to do something.
She said that if they didn't want to have Menard�s clean up
their property she lvas going to contact the State Health Department,
She said that she did not vaant any garden center going in on
their property. She suggested they put the garden center inside
their building if they feel they have to have one, She said that
she had enough rubbish ta clean up from them nov�, and she didn't
want a garden center in the parking lot that would only add to
the trash problem.
Mr, Ron Lang of 1278 Skywood Lane brought up the point that there
was already so much traffic problems in the area at present, He
said that yhortly work was to be started at the intersection of
53rd and Central. He said that the highv�ay work itself wi11 ad�
to the confusion, without also trying to experiment with a
garden center, He said that if P•fenard's really tivanted to attempt
to experiment with the possibility of a Garden Center, they should
wait until that intersection improvement was completed. He said
that they really tivouldn�t get an accurate study while that
construction was taking place.
Mr. Lang suggested that a Special Use Permit not be granted
at .thas time, He felt they should wait until that intersection
update was completed.
Ms. Schnabel ivas
the Fire Lane in
they did not have
building.
concerned that I�4enard's did not properly maintaitt
front of their building. She also said that
delineated pedestrian path in front of the
Mr. Seeger said that during the winter they did have trouble
keeping the cars parked far enough away from the building. He
pointed out that the garden center arould not be in operation
in the winter, so it r:ould not add to thai particular problem,
fi.e said that in the summer people �vould be able to se� the
lines, and usually abided by parliing where it was indicated.
�
�,_. d
PI,ANNING CQMMISSIOPd MEETING - JANUARY 25, 1978 Pa�e 14
Mr. Seeger said that they did offer to clean up Ms, Cooney's
property of not only the debris that vaas from iheir operation
but alco any debris that tivould come off the freevray. He said
they had been told to stay off her property.
Mr. Seeger said that the PA Systems have been repaired to the
best of their ubility. He said that the systems.have been
turned a��aay from the neighborhoods. He said that they have
decreased their use of the paging system to about six times
a day compared to much more at this time last year.
Mr� Seeger said that Menard's had completely repaved the entire
rear section of the parking Zot, He said they had put up
fences when they were requested to. He felt they had done
about all they could possibly do. He indicated that he could
appreciate the surrounding home oemer�s feelings and he said
Menard�s had tried to be reasonable people and get along with
the community.
Chairperson Harris asked if Mx. Seeger was prepared to discuss
some of the items that were mentioned in a letter from
Hagerty, Candell and Lindberg, Attorneys at Law. He said it
was his feeling that a Special Use Permit woul.d probably compound
some of the problems.
Mx. Seeger said he could discuss most of the situations.
Chairperson Aarris asked vahat the Garden Center's kours would be.
Mr. Seeger said they tivould be the same as the store hours. He -
said it ��rould not be a late night operation,
Chairperson Harris said that it tvas stated that Menard's seemed
to be rather unbending in their position regarding some Iate
night operations involving drop-shipment of lumber.
Atr. See�er said that they presenily did not encourage shipments
arriving after S:OO P.M, He said on occasion trucks did unload
their shipments after that time, however, he said that since
they had been requested to cease their late night drop-shipments
they had not done so, He said that Menard's �aould continue to
hold such evening trucking to a minimum so �ong as it was able
to do so and carry on its business
Chairperson Harris said that the PA System situation seemed
to be the �reatest problem area.
Mr. Seeger said that the use of the PA System was decreased
considerably. He said everything has been done to the best
of their ability, He said it was not Menard�s intention of
aggravate anyone. IIe mentioned that they did have a business
to run.
PLANNIN6 CO�QISSZQN MEETING - JANUARY ?_5, 1978 Pa�,e 15
Mr. Langenfeld indicated that Mr. Seeger had ali�rays, in the past,
rrorked �vith the City to the best of his ability.
Mr, S�e�er indicated that t�4enard�s had not been •drop shippin� late
at night since the issue <<ias made last spring. fte said they
had rare, occasional probler�s rrhen they had a great deal of
merchandise being received from the distribution centers. Iie
said on such a oiven day, they have had up to five tractors
break dorrn r�hich rrould leave the reraaining tractors to do all
the hauling. He'said, that since people erere usually iraiting
for the merchandise, the unloading vrould have to continue until
it was completed.
Mr. Seeger said he wasn�t sure of v�hai actually started the
problems ar rrhen, but he said r4enard�s did not lvish to have
these problems on a continual basis. He said he vras v�illin�
to r�ork with the people and the city to preserve the in�egrity
of the business.
Mr. Bergman referenced a letter dated April 1g, ig77 to
Mr. Larry Menard regarding refuse storage and collection,
He said that in the letter the Menard�s-Cash�vay Lumber
company was informed they vrere required to clean and maintain
the areas free of all the refuse found cieposited there. He
said the letter vlas directed tovrards the drainage ditch north of
the parking loi. Ae asked if it vras Ms, Cooney's property that
the letter ��ras referring to.
Ms. CooneyTS brother said thai it tivas comraon for Menard's
-�- to dump trash on thai property all the time.
Mr. Bergman said that Mr, Steven J. Olson, the Environmental
Officer, had directed tdenardts to clean up that property, but
he unders�ood the fact that Ms, Cooney did not ti�rant Menard�s
on her property,
Ms, Cooney commented that that �vas exactly �vhat she wanted
Menard�s to do, She said she lvould cut her otvn grass and
maintain the property herself. She said all she wanted rras
for Menard's to clean up all their irash from her property.
Mr. Seeger said that had been their original intent. He said
they had agreed to clean up the property and to maintain it
for Ms. Cooney also.
Ms, Cooney said she ivould take care of her oivn property; she
just wanted them to keep their trash off of the property.
Mr. Seeger said thwt those terms r�ould be most agreeable to
Menard's.
PLlLNNING CQt4MISSION M�ETING - JANUABY 25. 1978 Pa�e 16
Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that in the past, Menard's had not
alerays been cooperative crith the City.. He also said that �'if"
they ti�rent ivith Mr. Lang's su�gestion he definitely agreed with
a complete study of fire Zanes, traffic flow, generaZ safety,
proper remava2 of rubbish, and proper clean-up of premises daily.
In other v�ords, he said, give b4enard's a means of shotiving City
a genuine display of good faith.
Mr. Dennis L. Schneider, Second ;'dard Councilmember, indicated
that the problems �vith the Menard's operation had been going on
for a long time. He said tkat one point in time there had been
a meeting bet��reen the residents and Mr. Menar@ at City Ha11,
He said that everyone came out of that meeting thinking that
an agreement had been reached; hotivever, nothing really changed.
He said that it vras his general feeling that Menard�s had
not been cooperative. He said they had noi responded to the
correspondence that the City Attorney had sent them. He
believed that something did have to be done.
Chairperson Harris suggested that Mr. Schneider, Mayor Nee,
himself, and the neighbors have another meeting to attempt
to solve the problems involved lvith the�situation at hand.
Mr. Seeger said that he Svas sure that some type of agreement
could be reached at such a meeting. He said that there �vas
really no vray they �vould be able to make 100/ of the people
satisfied 10�5 of the time.
Chairperson Harris said that it had come to the point that
something definitely had to be done. He said that he understood
thai Mr. ,Seeger only tivorked for a Company and that there E�as
an expense point ta consider us far as Menard's taould go on
remeding the problems but he felt there 4vas some comman ground
that could be found to help solve the situations. He said he
didn't think Menard's vranted the bad public relations, and the
City did not t�rant any more of the ��mess�� to continue, and the
xesidents vranted some solution to their problems.
Chairperson Harris asked if that t*rould be agreeab2e to the
residents ihat ��rere present at the meeting.
Ms. Mathevrs said that it rJas most agreeable with her. She hoped
that the planned meeting rrould finally take care of the problems,
She said she urould rrait until after the meeting to decide if she
tivould sti11 need legal consultation.
Mr, I,ang pointed out that most of the nuisance complaints
�vere not all costly items to correct. He said that they
basically needed coopera�ion.
BLANPiING CO:�dISSI�N t4EETI^IG - JANUARY 25� 1978 Pa�e 17
MOTTON by t�ir. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Suhrbier, that the
Public IIearing: Request :or a Special Use Permit, SP {�78-01, by
htenard Cash•�vay Lumber: Per Pridley City Code, Section 205,101, 3,
N� to al].ovr the deveZopment of a 5�000 square foot garden center
in the parking lot, on Lot 9, Auditor�s Subdivision No. 94,
the same being 5351 Central Avenue i1,�. be continued until such
time that there has been a meeting of Menard's management, of
concerned citizenry� and City administration to resolve existing
conflicts/grievances. Upon a voice vote, all voiing aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a break at 10;20 P�M.
3. PR�SENTATIOPd BY ETIVIRONMFNT�IL COyQ4UNITY S�RVIC�S INC,
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Beroman, that the
Planning Commission receive the correspondence from the
Envirnomental Community Services Inc, dated January 23, 1978,
regarding litter receptacles and litter pickup for both Cities
and Shopping Centers in the local area, Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, ihe motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Boardman indicated that the gentlemen from the Environmental
Community Services, Inc, vaere present at the meeting to give
a presentation of a trash receptacle/advertisement scheme that
they had. He explained that the reason the item c✓as brought
before the Planning Cor.ucission �ras because of the advertising
value of the trash receptacles that they had, He s�id that
it may have been in violation of the Si�n Orc3inance because
it could be classified as a"billboard use". He said that
the billboard type use rrould only be allowed in specific cases.
Mr. Richard C. Gillespie, President of Environmental Community
Services, Inc., located at 2810 - 57th Avenue North, Suite 435�
Brooklyn Center 55430. He introduced to the Commission the
other members of the Company.
Mr. Jack Lindskog� a retired Chief of the Navy� who
had Much experience in �uality Control, hir. Gillespie
commented that it ��ras his belief that to make the
business successful the key rrould have to be quality,
He said that Mr. Lindskog rras the regional planning
director of the Metropolitan Area.
Dr, Vernon L. Stintzi, ivho had extensive years in
executive manage:nent, iras a profe�sor in a graduate
business school, hir. Stintzi vras the Re�ional rianager
for the Metropolitan Area, He would be viorkin� i•rith
tl:e City �a?ting sure the Co�pany adhere� to the contracts
as rrell as perform all the promised services.
.,,_.:
PL_ANNING COMMISSION MLT;TING - JANUARY 25 1978 PaPe 1$ -
Mr. Gillespie said that, at the su�gestion of Mr. Boardman,
he had contacted Mr, P4ark Ha��erty, the President af the
Chamber of Commerce, i•ir, Gillespie said he had•spent close
to an hour i•rith the gentleman and that Mr. Haggerty had
been very favorable to the idea. IIe said that many of
the ideas of the �nvironmental Community Services, Inc, vrere
in close relationship to some of the ideas that the Chamber
of Commerce tivere thinking of in terms of possib7e garba�e.pick-up
ideas,
Mr. Gillespie said that some of the services that v�ould be
provided by �nvironmental Community Services, Tnc. would
be:
Trash receptacles at no cost to the City.
Trash pick-up at no cost to the City,
The units rrould be kept clean and maintained at no cost to
the City,
They vaould provide liability insurance at no cost to the
City.
A tamper-proof unit vrould be provided
Low cost advertisement v�ould be offered to businesses
P�ould adhere to community standards on advertising.
He said they r�ould not discriminate but they would
not try to seek pornographic advertising or liquor
advertising.
Mr. Gillespie said that there were three ways to lo5e a
business;
1) poorly managed;
2) "Lousy�' idea;
3) Poorly funded,
Mr. Gillespie said that they intended to make sure they moved
at a pace that they �vere properly funded. He said that after
they had 60% of the advertising for 100 units; then they vrould
have another 100 units and so on.
Mr, Gillespie said they had a service that was timely in keeping
with the philosophy of the area business people�
Mr. Gillespie said that they intended to be a permanent business
which tivould take a leadership role in environmental services,
Mr. Gillespie pointed out ivhat would be needed by the City of
Fridley:
1} Approval to place the units;
2) Place to put the trash at no cost to them;
3) Cooperation of placing the units.
Mr. Gillespie said that it wasn't the intent to place units
where trash receptacles wouldn't be needed.
PLANNING COMMISSIlN MEETING - Jt�NUARY 25� 1978 Pa�,e 19
Mr. Bergman v�anted to knocr exactZy who would be burdened v�ith
the cost of the litter receptacles,
Mr. Gillespie explained that the Gity of Fridley vrould basically
not be a customer and they wou2d not pay ihe cost. He said that
the businessgerson of Fridley cvould be the custom�-. He said
that the City of Fridley could buy ndvertisement and they urould
have to pay the same price which would be bet�reen $i8 and $z5
per month.
Mr. Bergman said that there sesmed to
in the proposal:
The City of Fridley for apnrova
The Customer for advertis].ng to
and the Environmenta2 Cammunity
waste receptacles.
be three parties involved
1 of the v�aste receptacle;
go on the �vaste receptacles;
Services, Inc. that ovened the
Mr. $ergman asked for confirmation of the fact that there wauld
be no cost to the City of Fridley.
Mr. Gi2lespie said that the customer would pay the cost for
advertising on the tvaste receptacles; he said there would
' be no cost to the City, other than someplace for the
Company to put ihe trash.
Mr. Bergman asked if the City would have the opportunity to do
some "free�� advertising on the waste receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said that when the Company had sides not being
used on the �vaste receptacles, they ��rould make those sides available
free to the City. He said that they would have to pay for
their own szgns.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the Company had a contract with any other
city at the present time.
Mr. Gil2espie said that they did not have any contracts at the
present time. Ae said they had talked to people in Brooklyn Park,
Brooklyn Cenier, Crystal, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, St. Paul,
and Fridley. Ae said that they haven't talked to anyone that
didn't think it v+as a good idea. He said that they rvere getting
good receptivity from all the communities, He said that the
only thing that had to be looke@ at were the Ordinances of the
communities.
Mr. Boardman asked how the Environmental Community Services, Inc.
wou2d maintain the litter receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said that they would have milar 2inings in the
receptac2es that they would take out the old one and replace
with a new one each time. He said that they also owned a
power washer unit that f4t in the back of a pick up. He said
that the units would be spray cZeaned and �viped dotivn each time
the trash'�vas picked up. He said they would clean them in a12
seasons. He said that they vrould wash the insides of the
unit� as it ��rould be nece�sary.
P�,AI3NING COMM7SSZON NSPETING - JANUARY 25� 19?8 Pa�e 21
Mr. Bergman asked if people would reall,y pay to put advertisement
on trash receptacles.
Mr. Gillespie said that it vrould be pedestria�i advertising,
He said that the advertising i•rould be easier to see than the
advertising that vras put on top of buildings and high in the
air. He said that the advertising would be eye level �vith the
people tivalking and people driving on the Gtreets.. He also
pointed out that some of the smaller �businesspe�ple could not
afford to advertise on the big bil.lboaras.
Ms. Suhrbier asked hotiv often the trash would be picked up from
the receptacles,
Mr. Gillespie said they rJOUld be emptied as often as tivould be
necessary.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if
indicating tiahat type of
type of advertising got.
any type of study had been conducted
return the individual v��ho used that
Mr. Gillespie said that that type of study had never been
conducted. He did indicate that a survey had been conducted
in some communities that had similar Services and that g7%
of the people surveyed had been "for'� the units and had
liked the rJay the advertising vras presented and they liked
the style of the units. He said that the units would be
tamper-proof containers that erould be for pedestrian use only.
Mr. Boardman said that one of the things that tvas being requested
by the City of I'ridley was a"place to pu� the trash at no cost
to Environmental Community Services Inc," He wanted to know
tivhat they meant by that request. He said that the City of Fridley
eras not in the rubbish hauling business. He said that they did
not have a City Dump,
Mr. Gillespie said that there tirere some cities that did have
areas wheretrash haulers could dump at no
He said ihat the Company did not r�ant to ha
otim dump someplace to haul the trash out of
Ae said that if the City of Fridley had an
place vahere they �vere presently having the
his Cornpany would want to buy into that
cost to them.
ve to build their
the City of Fridley,
agreement raith so�ae
rubbish hauled to,
agreement.
Chairperson Harris explained that I�'ridley did not have a City
Disposal area. He szid that presently each resident of Fridley
contracted on their otivn to have their trash hauled a��ay by private
haulers.
PZANNIPIG COMMISSION M�ETING - JANUARY 25� 19'z8 Pa�e 22
Mr. Boardman said that Environmental Community Services� Inc. had
mentioned that the City i•rould hace some type oF control over the
type of design of advertisement that �vould be used. He wanted to
know what they meant by that statement.
Mr. Gillespie said that they vrould meet 1�rith the City to get
their assistance in developing the quality control of the signs.
Chairperson Harris said that to do the above, it �vould take some
special a�reements betrveen the City and Environmental Community
Services. He said that the City Ordinances did not provide
for any regulation of advertising copy.
Mr. Gillespie said it could be written into the contract/
agreement.
Mr. Boardman asked what type of arrangement could be made
with the Company ta have trash receptacles in the Park Facilities.
He said that if they decided to use that type of receptacles in
the Parks, they probably wouldn�t want the advertisement on them;
horrever� they may v�ant to utilize them for notification of
park/playground activities that were available. He wanted to
know what type of costs they would be talking about.
Mr. GilZespie said that there may be a point that the City of
Fridley would want to purchase some of the receptacles themselves.
He said he tiarould be vrilling to indicate tivhat the Company paid for
the units, and with a reasonable profit� they t�tould sell the
units to the City. He said there would also be a possibility of
a lease agreement bettveen the City and the Company vJhere the Company
vrould ovrn the units and the City of Fridley v.�ould rent them, He
said that in that case� they �vould pick up the trash and maintain
the units the same as they tivould do for the other units that
v✓ould be used for advertising purposes.
Mr. Boardman asked i�rhat the tops of the trash receptacles were
made of.
Mr. Gillespie said they were made of fiberglass.
Mr. Lindskog explained that there lvas a new plastic in existence
called lexan erhich tivas a very durable plastic that had eight times
the resiliency -chan there vaas in fiberglass, He said
that if the Company vrould discover that due to �veather conditions
or vandalism the fiberglass wasn't holding up, the Company rrould
have to provide the more expensive lexan cover,
Mr. Langenfeld asked if there vrould be a�'blanket" liability
insurance coverage for all the units in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Lindskog said that the issue would be discussed �vith the
Iicensed insurance carrier for the State of Minnesota.
P�NNING COMMISSION MEETING - J11I�iUARY 25. 1978 Pa�e 23
Chairperson Harris asked how the propo�ed signage fit into the
present Sign Qrdinance in the City of r^ridley.
Mr. Boardman said that the ��Billboard" definition was
"advertisement on a property that doesn't pertain to that
property". He said that the proposed signage would fit into
that definition if the advertisement on one of the sides of
the container tivas not located at the same locaiion as the
trash receptacle.
Nfr. Bergman said that a billboard was clarified as a permanent
structure also, and the proposed signage did not fit that
classification. He didn't believe that the current sign or@inance
related to vrhat the Environmental Community Services inc. ti�ras
proposing.
Chairperson Harris asked what size of advertisement would be
put on the littier receptacle.
Mr. Lindskog said that the signs �vould be 21 inches by 22 inches.
He said that he realized that ti��hat they s��ere proposing was a
unique thing and that the item would most likely have to be
carefully reviewed. •
Mr. Lindskog showed the Commission an example of the types of
bolts that would be used to secure the top of the container to
the cement unit. He also explained to the Commission hor� the
signs would be inserted into the units. He said that a good-
type of plastic �vould be covaring the face of the advertisement.
Mr. Stint2i indicated that the Company rotated the panels during
the first vreek of each month. He also pointed out that the
entire unit �vould be rotated a+ least once every 75 days so that
no one side/panel tivould constantly be located at the same angle.
Mr, Langenfeld said that from the Environmenta:L standpoint the
litter receptacles vJere aesthetica].ly pleasin� and feasible.
Chairperson Harris asked what the Environmental Community Services
was looking for from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gillespie said they had submitted an agreement that they
wanted to get approved.' He said that they were basically looking
for the City Council approval to be able to l�cate their trash
containers on the streets of Fridley. Ae said that the sooner
they could get approval, the sooner they could get contracts for
the advertisements, and the sooner they would start to receive
the income.
Mr. Lindskog said that they tivere not requesting a short-sited
venture. He said they vranted a long (ten year) contract to let
the City of Fridley knora that they truly intended to be around
for a long time,
Chairperson Iiarris explained that the contract would probably
only be agreed upon for one year to enable the City to be sure
that vrhat was being proposed was really tivhat they wanted. He
said that there vrould most likely be options on that contract
for renevral.
Mr. Boardman said that what had to be considered from the City�s
standpoint ��ras tivhether they rrould allow that type of advertising
operation. He said it �vould have to be decided if permits �vould
be needed for those signs; and if they were needed, do those
signs fall vrithin the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. He
said that if they did not fa1� i��ithin the regulations of the Sign
Ordiaance, a�hat types of variances wou2d be needed or vahat kinds
of amendments to the Sign Ordinances wouZd be needed to allow that
type of advertisement or that type of signage,
Mr. Boardnan said that it tvas certain that the City of Fridley
vrould erant control of the signs that went on those trash
receptacles. He said that the City would want limited eontrol
over the copy of the signs.
Mr. Gillespie said they were open to any and all competition.
Iie said that the operation vras not patented nor was the trash
receptacle.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea� that the
Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the
concept of the refuse disposal units as proposed 'by Environmental
Community Services Inc. �vithin the legal limits of the sign
ordinance �vhich may require so�¢e amendment and with tke understanding
that the City, by contract, with Environmental Community Services
would have limited control over the copy of advertisement placed
in the units.
Chairperson Harris said that there should be a contract bet�veen
Environmental Community Services Inc and the City and it v�ould
have to be stated exactly how they intended to handle the business
as �aell as the dumping arrangeraents.
tTPON A VOICE VOTE, all votirig aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�. REC�IVE HUI�fAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES• JANUARY 5 1978
MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning
Commission receive the January 5, i978 minutes of the Human
Resources Commission.
Ms. Shea said that some recommendations v�ere made on the Maintenance
Code that the Commission wanted to go onto City Council.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion earried unanimously.
The minutes were received at 11;t�0 P,M,
��
P�ANNING COMt4ISSI0P1 M�3'TING -'JANUARY 25� 1978 Pat�e 25
5. RECBIV� PARKS & RrCRrATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION 6y Ms. Suhrbier, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the
Planning Commission receive the Parks and Recreation Commission
minutes of January 9, �978.
Ms. Suhrbier said that on Page 61 she hadn't felt that the
actual item vJas made clear. She said they tivanted to work for
the younger kids to get earlier ice time at the arena.
Chairperson Harris said that he had discussed that item with
Mr. Kordiak and Mr. 0'Bannon and they ��rould be looking into
the obtaining of earlier ice time as well as more ice time.
UPON 1� VOICE V�TE, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously. The minutes arere received at 11:�.1 P.M.
6.
MOTION by Mr. Bergman� seconded by Ms. Shea� that the Planning
Commission receive the January 10, 1978, Community Development
Commission minutes.
Mr. Langenfeld referenced page 68, the third paragraph.
He felt that the statement could be interrupted as
��nit-picking�'.
Mr. Bergman said that Community Development vras unanimous
in agreeing that i�rhen they vrould go through the Ordinances
they vrould revievJ it, approve it� and make any recommer.dations
or stipulations that they fel:t ��ould be necessary. He said
that the Commission felt that they should not nit-pik tivords
They felt that they should revievr the ordinances in terms of its
content, general direction; ehallenge it as to �vhether it �vould
be good for the Ciiy. He said it �vas felt it should be decided
if the ordinances tivere meaningful and if they arould be reasonably
enforceable. It should also be deczded if the particular
ordinance being revie�ved made sense for the City of Fridley.
Chairperson Harris �anted to knolv tivhat �vas meant by the statement
made by Mr. Acosta on Page 69, third paragraph.
Mr. Boardman said that what vras usually being looked for vahen
a proposal goes before the Commisszons was a feel as to the
direciion that the proposal should go. He said they wanted to
know if the content of the Plan tivas adequate to da the things
that the Commission felt the Plan should do, He said that if
rvas decided that it evasn't adequate, then they lvanted to kno�v
why it wasn�t-adequate. He said they didn't need to know all
the little c�ord changes unless the change of �vords wouZd change
the entire meaning of the statement.
PLANTdING COtdMISSIOPi MEETING - JANUARY 25. i 978 Pa*e 26 R
Mr. Boardman said that hopefully vrhen the proposal was typed
in £inal form, all the vrords would be put in the proper
perspective, He said thai as long as Staff gets the general
direction, they can work from that point. He felt that many
times the Planning Commission ��vaasted" a lot of time nit-
picking vrords.
Chairperson Harris felt that anything to
was the responsibility of the Commission.
sometimes a lot more time had to be spent
because of the content of the proposal.
do with the Community
He felt that
going over proposals
Mr. Boardman stated that he believaithe Parks and Open Space
Plan rras probably the single, most important document the City
of Fridley i^�ou1d put out this year, because it v�ould have the
most meaningful effect on the citizens. He felt that a lot
of ineaningful discussion had been occurrin� at the Planning
Commission level. He indicated that he still vaas concerned
about some of the nit-picking that had gone on.
UPON I� VOICE VOTE, aIl voting aye, the motion carried unaniraously.
The minutes rJere received at t1:59 P,M,-
MOTION by Mr. Bergman� seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission concur rrith the Community Development
Commission to recommend to City Council the discontinuance
of the Bike�aay/t"Jalkiaray Project Committee� and that any further
involvement be referred to the Community Development Commission.
In addition, that City Council send to current members of
the Bikecray/ti'Jalkvaay Project Committee a notice to this effect
and . a thanks for their efforts,
UPON A VQICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
7. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN:
MOTTON by Mr. Bergman� seconded by Ms. Shea� that the Planning
Commission continue the Parks and Open Space Plan. Upon a voice
vote, aZl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously at
12:03 P,M.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
"BEST HOUSING BARGAINS AR� IN THE INTIER CITiPS'!
Ms, Schnabel had a copy of this article from the Sunday,
January 22, 1978� newspaper made for each of the members of the
Plannin� Com�ission. She pointed out that tvro of the items
she had bracketed in the article that she felt the Gity of
Fridley could take into consideration.
Ms. Schnabel explained that at the January 24, 1978, Appeals
Commission meeting they heard the renuests to construct houses
on 4Q £oot lots, She said that thc recult of the meeting rrns
that there v�as a motion to deny the requests.
, i'LANNING COMMISSION Mi�ETING - JP.PJUARY 2,�, t978 Pa�e 27
She said that vrith a7.1 the revietiving of. the situation of 40 foot
Iots, she has had a lot of problems of what tivas to be done ti��ith
the rehabilitaiion of a lot of the existing structures in Fridley
that needed 1�rark done to bring �hem up to habital dtivellings as
well as substantial homes to have on the tax roles.
Ms. Schnabel said that she brought the article to the Planning
Commission so that they might discuss at some time the ttivo points
she had bracketed.
Ms, Schnabel said that the one point ti=�as that perhaps there
should be a separate housing code for the rehabilitation,
somevahat less stringent than those housing codes for new
housing. She said that the facti �vas that in rehabilitating
drrellings, a lot of the work sometimes was done by the
individual that ormed the dti��elling.
Ms. Schnabel said that the second point tivas that the city of
St. Louis offers a 10-year abaiement on property tax for those
people that improved their homes, She felt that tivas another
thing that the City of rridley could consider especially in
the Iiyde Park area. She said that perhaps ii the peaple in
the area had some type of tas abatement .they may be more
v+illing to put their moneq into their av�n homes,
Ms. Schnabel requested that the item be put pn the Planning
Commission agenda in the near future.
"ENPRGY COMMISSION"
Chairperson Harris indicated thai at the January30, 1978, City
Council tiVorlishop meeting �vould be discussing the ��Energy
Commission". He said that if any of ihe members of ihe Planning
Commission had any thoughts on the item, they should plan to
attend that meeting.
AD30URI�TMENT -
MdTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to adjourn the
January 25, 1978, Planning Gommission meeting. Upon a voice
vote� all voting aye� Chairman Aarris�declared the.P�anning
Cormnission meeting of January 25, 1978 acljourned at 12:09
41.M. '
Respectfully submitted,
%7% ,e2, `
rfaryLee Carhill
Recording Secretary
FRIDL�Y ENVIRONMENTAL COMI�fISSION.
MEETING
JANUARY 17, 1978
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Langenfeld, Bruce Peterson, Connie Metcalf,
David Sabistina
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Lee Ann Sporre
gay Leek, Planning Aide
Chairperson Langenfeld called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
APPROVAL OF DECEhIDER 20, 1977, FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MZNUTES:
Ms. Metcalf.stated that on Page 5, "Continued; Recycling Projecc Covunittee
Report," Mr. Lgngenfeld must have misur.derstood her. She stated she aanted
it in the record that the Recyclir.g Project Committee had not dissolved;
it was in tact and sti11 functio:�ing with only two members resioning. She
stated she had wanted to advertise for more members to get a greater
representation from different parts of the city,
MOTION Uy Bruce Peterson, seconded by David Sabistina, to approve the
December 20, 1977, Fxidley Environmental Coum�ission minutes as amended.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voCing aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Referring to page 6, second to last paragraph, Mr. Langenfeld asked
Mr. Leek if he had written the letter to the chairperson of the
Metropolitan Council indicating the need for water resource data.
Mx'. Leek stated there had been no direction from the Commission for him
ta do so. Ae felt it would be more appropriate for someone on the
Commission to do it, especially since he was not in attendance at this
particular seminar.
Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Leek if he would check on this wiCh Ms. Sporre.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Connie Metcalf, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to approve the
agenda with the following two additions:
CENCOAD - Ite.m A under "Other Business"
purthex Development of Energy Commission - Item B
under "Other gusiness"
Upon a voice vote, all voCing aye, the motion carried unanimously.
FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING JANIIARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 2
CONTINUGD: NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE:
Mr. Leek staCed he would try to bring the Commission up to date and give
the Commission an idea of why it was on the agenda again,. He stated the
Community Development Ccmmission had been loaking at the Noise Control
Ordinance. He had read the minutes from both of the meetings at which
the C�unity Development Commission had discussed the ordinance. In
response to some of thz concerns they had regarding enforcement,
definitions of the Noise Control Ordinance, and certain other items,
he had written the Community Development Commission a memo indicating
what the situation was wi,th regard to the consideration of the Noise
Control Ordinance, what changes would be made, irrespective of what
kind of draft would eventually be passed by Planning Coamiission and
City Council.
Mr. Leek stated that Mr. Steve Olson, Environmental pfficer, had looked
at the Noise Ordinance draft and, in a conversation with Mr. A1 Perez,
gtate E.P.A, had come to the conclusion that there seemed not to be a
great noise problem in Fridley and it might be best for the Citq to
design an ordinance in which it simply adopted State Standards for noise
pollution control and detailed enforcement. Obviously, that could be
done at Planning Coc'.mission level, but in a discussion wi.th Mr. Boardman
and I�. Olson, L'hey had come to the conclusion that perhaps the Environ=
mental. Cocmiission would like to have the oppor.unity to cons9_der that
matuer and decide if they wanted tu issue an amended ordinance. If not,
it would be up to Planning Commission to do whatever they chose. �o, it
was a question of adopting State Standards and �oriting ii:Co the books an
enforcement procedure or adopCing a new ordinar,ce Uased on St. L�uis Fark's
and Bloomington`s ordinances. The problem Mr. Otson saw with that was
perhaps the city might have trouble enforcing an ordinance more stringent
than state regulations.
Mr. Le.ek stated that he would go through the ordinance and indicate
the recocnmended Staff changes. The Co�ission could then give their
recommendations.
gection 124.02 Federal OccupationaZ Safety and Health Act
Mr. Leek stated that it was Mr. Olson's feeling that this section was
not necessary in a Noise Control Ordinance--that it was simply picked up
out of the Bloomington ordinance. Mr. Leek stated he agreed with
Mr. Olson as it didn't really get to the point of noise control.
NOTION by Connie Metcalf to delete Section 124,02 from the Noise Control
prdinance.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Peterson stated he felt it should be adopted as it was adopting a
gederal regulation.
FRIDLLi' ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 3
Ms. Metcalf stated she could not see why it should be adopted again if
the City already had adopted it.
Mr. Leek suggested that if, in fact, it was already adopted in the City
prdinance, that reference be made to that section of the City Code.
MOTION by gruce Peterson, seconded by pavid Sabistina, that if O.S.H.A.
was already adopted in the Gity Code, that it simply be referred Co in
; Section 124.02. If it was not already adopted in the City Code,
gection 124..02 should be Left in tact in the Noise Control Ordinance.
Upon a voice vote, Langenfeld, Peterson, Sabistina, voting aye, Metcalf
voting nay, the motion carried.
124.03 Minnesota State Regulations (NPC4) "Motor ��ehicle Noise
Mr. Leek stated that another consideration was that this ordinance
defined that noise sources would be measured on the property'line of the
source. There seemed to be an overwhelming feeling that it would be best
to measure noise sources on the property line of the receiver. To that
extent, the ordinance as drafted was more stringent than state standards.
Mr. Lee.k stated the recommendation oras to adopt the State Noise Regulations
or Standards which were measured on the line of the receiver of the noise
rather than on the property line of the soutce.
MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Conaie Metcalf, to adopt tne State
Noise Regulations with regard to the noise being measured on the property
line of the receiver rather than on the property line of the s�urce.
llpon a voice vote, all voting aye, che motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Metcalf stated that she wanted to point out that she felt co�missions
had a tendency to pass things too easily. Legislatures did the same thing
and there was a redundancy in so many laws that lawyers were g oing crazy
because of so many overlapping laws. She hated to be a part of that. If
the Commission could limit their output oE ordinances, they were r�ally
doing a sexvice because there could be too much of the "6ig 6rother"
thing and too many laws.
gection 124.05 Noise Impact Statements
Mr. Leek stated there was some concern that the procedure that was detailed
in this draft ordinance would be too expensive a cost to impose on con-
struction firms, developers, or individuais who were building homes.
Mr. Olson had suggested that the provisions of the Bloomington ordinance
be adopted or something similar, particularly as it related to single
family construction.
Mr. Peterson stated he could see it not being needed for residential,
but industrial-type structures would be a little different.
FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COtR4ISSI0N MEETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 4
Mr. Leek read the following excerpt from the gloomington ordinance that
Mr. 01son had suggested in relation to Noise impact Statements; "The
City Official may require noise impact statements in association with,
hut not limited to, changes in zoning classifications; the planning of
a structure; or any operation, process, installation, or alteration which
may be considered as a potential noise source." This gave the City the
option to require a Noise impact Statement. T�e City aiready had a system
set up for handling building pians when they came in. T1�e affected people
in the affected departments checke3 over these plans for any given struc-
ture; and if the structure complied with their area, Mr. Olson as Environ-
mental Officer, and more than likely, the designated City Offi cial, would
also review the plans to determine whether or not there was a potential
noise source for that structure. If there cvas, a building permit would only be
granted with the stipalation that a noise impact statement be submitted
before construction.
MOTION by gruce Peterson, seconded by David Sabistina, to add a General
Provision allowing the City Official to determine whether an impact state-
ment would be required after reviewing building plans, and to deLete the
other paragraphs in this section. '
Nir. Peterson stated he thought they should still leave in information
on the Noisa Impact Statement Requirements. Evea though the major tlirust
was that the City Official caould determir:e wnether an ie!pact statement
was required, they should still have the requirements.
Mr. Leek stated that was Mr. Olson's concern, that he specifically felt
these requirements would be too costly, but that did not preclude the
possibilitq that it was something the C�ission mighC want to keep in.
Mr. Peterson suggested that maybe Mr. Olson could look over these require-
ments again and delete those he felt were too stringent, leaving some of
them in.
Mr. Leek stated that Mr. Olson had a memo which addressed more what his
concems were in the Noise Impact Statement Requirements, Mr. Leek
stated he could get a copy of that memo for the Commission.
MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by David Sabistina, to amend the
ahove motioa to read that the City Dfficial would still determine whether
or not an impact statement was required after reviewing building plans,
but that some requirements should be included and that the rewording of
some of these requirements should be considered so as not to he too
stringent.
pis, Metcalf suggested that may6e it could be stated that, "if such an
impact statement was deemed necessary, it should include--" and then list
the requirements to give some direction.
TRIDLEY ENVIRONMEIv'TAL COMMLSSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 5 �
Mr. Peterson stated that was what he wanted to do, but they needed more
input from Mr. OLson. Maybe he and the Gommission could exchange ideas
and set up some guidelines that were not too stringent,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Section 124 07 Snowmobile Requirements (Re£er to Chapter 703.04)
Mr. Leek stated that in this section, he had referred to Chapter 703 of
, the existing City Code. Mr..Olson's feeling was that this was not
stxingent enough and that regulations similar to those of St. Louis Park's
ordinance should be adopted. Mr. Leek paraphrased Che St. Louis Park
snowmobile regulations as follows; "No person shall operate a snowmobile
unless it is equipged with a muffler as required by provisions of this
section. All sno*a�nobiles shall ba equipped at all times with a mufflar
1n good working order which blends the exhaust noise into the overall
snowmobile noise and is in constant operation to prevent noise pollution.
The exhaustsystem sha11 not emit or produce a sharp popFing or cracking
' sound. No snowmobile manufactured on or after January 30, 1970, except
those designed for competition purposes only, shall be sold or offered
for sale unless it is equipped with a muffler that limits engine noise
' to not more than 86 dSR at 50 £eet. SnoFano4iles manu�actured on or after
' FeUruary 1, 1972, shall not be sold or offered for sale unless they are
equipped with mufflers that limit engine noise to not more than 82 dBA
at 50 feet, No snowmobiles manufacture3 after April 1, 1975, sha11 be
offered for sale if ttiey exceed 78 dgL� at �0 feet. No person sha11 modify,
alter, os repair a snown�obile or its exhaust system in any manner. that
amplifies or otherwise increases Cotal engine noise above that emitted
by the snowmobile as equipped according to Che manufacturer's specifica-
tions, regardless of the date o£ manufacture."
Mr. Leek stated that Chapter 703.04 of the City Code said basically the
same as the second paragraph of the St, Louis Park ordinance, that "no
snowmobile shall be operated unless iC has a muffler in good working
order."
Mr. Peterson stated it was his understanding thaC there was no longer
any snowmobiling in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Leek stated that, technically, there was no designated snowmoLiling
area in the city; however, Sears had offered to allow the use o£ their
property as a designated snowmobiling area, City Council was now
considering it and, as he understood it, would appzove it.
Mr. �.angenfeld stated he did not think they had to be that tough on
snowmobiling as it was almost "ex tinct" in rridley.
Mr. Peterson stated that the wording of the St. Louis Park ordinance
on snowmobiling seemed funny. The ordinante should refer Co the operation
of snowmobiles in Fridley, rather than be concerned about the sale of
snowmu6iles in the city.
FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION t�ETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 6
Mr. �eek stated that, as he understood it, what the Commission was coucerned
about was that no snowmobile not complying wi.th the City's sCandards should
be operated in the city.
Mr. Peterson stated that "operation" was the key; therefore, the buyer
was the one responsible and not the seller.
iKr. Leek stated that the important question was that City Council was
going to designate a snowmobiliag area and that area would be close in
proximity to residential.
Mr, Peterson stated if that was the case, then it would be more appra-
priate to have that all incorporated in a Snowmobile Ordinance and ref2r
to it in the Noise Ordinance. If there was going to be snowmobiling, there
had to be some kind of ordinance to control it.
MOTZON by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Connie Metcalf, that the snowmobile
standards refer to the operation of non-compliant snowmobiles in the City
of Fridley, rather than the sale of snowmobiles in the City. I£ there
was going to be snowmobiling in Fridley, the City should have a Snowmobile
prdinance. These standards could be covered in that ordinance and reference
to the Snowmobile Ordinance coutd be made in Section 124.07 of the Noise
prdinance. UF�n a voice vote, aIl �rotiug aye, Che motion carried unanimously.
Section 124.08 Operati.onal Lzmi.ts, item {d) Re£use Hauling
A�. Leek stated that P1r. 01son had stated that this essentialiy was
covered in the Refuse Ordinance, Chapter 113.I0 0€ the City Code, so
either item (d) should supersede the Refuse Ordinance or it should be
deleted from the Noise Ordinance.
Mr. Peterson suggested that if the Refuse Ordinance in the City Code was
simi2ar to item (d), item (d) could 6e deleted with reference made to
the Refuse Ordinance in the City Code.
MOTION by gruce peterson, seconded by ¢onnie Metcalf, to refer to
Chapter 113,10 0£ the City Code in item (d) Refuse Hauling, rather
than restating that information. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye,
the motion carried unanimously.
Section 124.09 Public Nuisance Noises Prohibited, item �1) Horns,
etc.
Mr. Leek stated that there was some concern that some of the noises
designated would be very difficult to enforce. It was suggested that
they delete-item (1) and go simply with the statement in the first
paragraph; "It sha11 be unlawful for any person to make, continue,
or cause to be made or continaed any loud, unnecessary, or unusual
noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers
the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others withiR the limits
of the City."
FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COr4dISSIOAI MEETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 8 .
CQNTINUED: RECYCLING PROJECT COMMITTEE REPORT - CONNIE METCALF:
Ms. MeCcalf stated that the Recycling Project Committee was alive and
well with approximately six�members. They were meeting once a month
and had not yet formally written any goals and objectives. She and
another memher had gone to Edina to see Edina's recycling center, which
made a recycling center in Fridley seem more feasible. Edina's recycling
center was very successful and did not take up much space. They had one
trailer and two boxes. One of the trailers was used for magazines and
the two boxes were used for newspapers. They filled two hoxes per week.
Ms. Metcalf staCed she had just learned from a woman involved with
recycling who also worked with the Girl Scouts on independent paper
drives, that recycling did not reduce the amount of papers that could
be collected for independent drives. This woman was doing both, and
it had not affected their independenC paper drives. Ms. Metcalf stated
she had talked to Mr. Steve 01son, Environmental Officer: about the
possibility of sites in the city for the recycling center. They were .
now investigaCing these areas.
Mr. Peterson stated that something to consider with the recycling center
was making it a center also for glass and aluminum if they could find
a location; �aybe working something out with Reynolds Aluminum, for .
example. He felt they needed to loolc into more things than just paper.
Ms. Metcalf agreed that they should try to have the recycling of bottles
2nd cans and aluminum, thaC they were more important than paper.s,
Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the Project Committee contact some companies
that would be willing to furnish the trailer, take care o# the glass
and cans with separate compartments, etc., and have the proceeds.
Ms. Metcalf stated they had considered this and had talked to some
companies. There were some real proUlems with letting these companies
have the proceeds, because the success of the recycling center, based
on volunteer heLp from the community in order to get people involved,
was to ask for help from organizations and these organizations could then
make money for their group, It was a problem of what to do with the
bottles and cans, because they got liCtle money for them, �luminum
would bring money, but very little was used now, and iC was so Iight
that they did not get much money for it. What got the money was the
papers,and they would have to use the paper money in order to cart
away the bottles and cans. That was the only way they could do it.
.�,�
Mr. Leek stated he had discussed the matter with Dick Sobiech, Public
Works llirector, Co find out what exactly had happened. He stated that
a building permit was issued ior the 7-11 3tore wiCh certain stipula-
tions. These stipulations did not include the signalization because
FRIDlEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 7
Mr. Leek stated that, personally, he would suggest deleting item (4)
YelLing, shouting, etc.
MOTION by Connie Metcalf that items (1) through (11) of Section 124.08
be deteted leaving public nuisance noises up to the discretion of the
City Official.
Mr. Peterson stated that he disagreed, that it was easier to en£orce
an ordinance it things were specifically spelled out. There was a lot
more argument with a general statement and more room for arbitration from
the offending party.
Mr. Langenfeld and Mr. Sabistina agreed. '
Mr. Leek stated that maybe it would be appropriate to get a further •
clarification from Mr. Olson as to which items he felt were appropriate
in the crdinance.
Ms. Metcalf stated she was on the Commission to give citizen ingut, and
that was what she was doing.
THE P10TZON DIED FOR LACI: OF A SECO�'D.
MOTION by D�vid Sabistit2a, seconded by Hruce Peterscn, r.o delete ite�r.s
(1) and {4} fro� $ection 124.�?S. IJpcn a vcice vote, LangenEeld, Peterson,
gabistina, voting aye, Metcalf alstaining, the motiun carried.
�, peterson stated that if Mr, Olson had any further comments regarding
gectioe 12�+.09, he could also refer those to the Commission.
gection 124.12
pqr. Leek sCated that, as the Commission was aware, there was a problem
with enforcement of the ordinance. The final recommendation was that
gection 124.12 be added which would r.efer to Chapter 9Ql of the existing
�ity Code which detailed "Penalties of Violation".
MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Connie Metcalf, to include
Section 124.12 as enforcement, whereby adopting Chapter 901 of the City
Code. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Leek stated he had writCen a memo to the Counnunity Development
Canmission responding to some of that Commission's concerns. He stated
he would send a'cogy oE that memo to the Coucnission members.
MOTION by Connie Metcalf, seconded by David Sabistina, that all member
commissions who were studying the Noise Control Ordinance should receive
a copy of the Environmental Comnission's changes. Upon a voice vote, alt
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
FRTDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 10
to highlight three critical questions;
(1) Who owns the water?
(a) Who has righCS .to it?
(b) Who will manage it? ,
(2) Which system or method.will adequately meet each water need?
(3) How will this system or method be financed?
Mr. Langenfeld stated there was a minimum charge of $100 to play this
game and this did not include computer time, staff consultatiun, etc.
It was done by computer and the people were supplied with books, materials,
etc., and it went up to 25 participants. He did not know if they could
get 20 people interested, but it would be interesting to do for Commission
use. The Commission would handle problems with what they knew, and the
report or findings of the Commission would be submitted to the computer
and whatever basis they had for analyzing it. The Commission would then
get a report tack. WaCer was an on-coming thing, the Commission certainly
was interested in it, and he thought it was an interestir_g thing to bring
up to the.Commission.
Mr. Leek staCed he would make copies of the brochure for the Commissioners.
B. FUP.TfiER DEVFLOFN`,E*?'F GF ?NFRCY GO"AS�SSION
Ms. Metcali stated that at the last meecing, the Commission had voted to
support the establishment of an Eilergy Commission. She wante.d to know if
this had been discussed yet aC Planning Gommission.
Mr. Langenfeld stated it had not gone to Planning Commission yet, and it
had not been on the City �ouncil agenda again either. OCher than what
was discussed at the previous meeting, he knew of nothin� further on the
formation of an Energy Commission.
AL�JOURAfi1ENT :
MOTION by David Sabistina, seconded by gruce peterson, ta adjaurn the
meeting at 10:25 p.m. Upon a vcice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion
carried unanimous].y.
Respectfully submitted,
� ->rir(,C C `�.�
Lynnc gaba
Recor3ing Secretary
�, ,
-, FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETINC, JANUARY 17, 1978 - PAGE 9
a separate motion had been made to send a request to the'County far
signalizaCion at the intersection of 79th and East giver Road.
Apparently, what had happened to date was that they were taking.
traffic counts once again to see i£ they could meet warrants for road
improvements which included signali�ation at that intersection. Yt
looked like they could, primarily because the City had the agreement
wiLh Meadow Run qpartments that they would feed their traffic down to
79th.
Mr. Leek stated that the other question that had come up at the last
meeting was the feeling on the part of the Meadow Run Apartments with
regard to the 7-11 Store being built there. Ms. Sporre had referred to
a letter from Mr. Frank Fudali, Attorney for Meadow Run. Mr. Leek had
• aslced Mr. Sobiech about this letter and Mz. Sobiech had indicated to
Mr. Leek that the letter was written approximately two yeaxs ago when
Lhe issue first came up, but there was a recent letter from the manager
of the apartment complex saying that they had no problem with the 7-11
Store and were in favor of it. Mr. Leek stated he had not seen either
of these letters to check this out.
RECEiVE COPIES OF 1978 ENVIRONMENT�'iL COMMISSION BUDGET:
After reviewing the 1973 buuget, the Co�issicners requested that
N�r. Leek check on the columns, "Y-�-D, O8-OS-77" and "1977 EsC, �ctual"
for furtner clarif.ication.
Ms. Metcalf stated that, as ris. Sporre tzad indicated befure, there
was not enough money budgeted for "'�ravels, Conferences, and Schools"
as that was the Commission's most visible thing to spend money on.
MOTION by Bruce P2terson, seconded by Connie MetcalE, to rece3ve the
1978 Environmental Commission gudget. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Langenfeld stated the Co�issioners could review this budget;and
if they had any further questions, they coald be brought up at another
time.
OTHER EUSINESS:
A. CENCOAD (CENTER FOR COMPNNITY ORGANIZATION AND ABEA D�VELOPMENT)
Mr. Langenfeld stated this center was in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and
put out a Water rianagement Computer Simulation Game. This simulation
involved participants in problem situations, planning, and decision
making activities comparable to those which public officials and other
leaders actually encountered. One of the things that really attracted
him was what they called "Conceptual Focus." The simulation was designed
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY COPiCERN:
, 1
NOTICE is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Cortmission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, February 8, 1978 in the Council
Chamber at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following matter:
A request for a Special Use Permit, SP #78-02,
by Hart Custom Homes, Inc., to expand the
sale of mobile homes to include Lots 4, 5 and
6. Block 1, Central View Manor, per Fridley
City Code, Section 205.102, 3, N, all lying
in the North Half of Section 12, City of
Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota.
6enerally located at 7355 Highway #65 N.E.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may
be heard at this meeting.
Publish: lanuary 25, 1978
Februar•y 1, 1978
RICNARD H. HARRIS
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
0
z
r.
�
'_^
V
Z
Y
�
�
F—
W
Q
�:
I'
��
`7� (<NSnJ � . . �,���1
� . f S O' �. �... .
�. ,,,�% ,� tIART CUSTOM }lOh1ES, INC. SP #78-02 _
.,�,., 7355 Highway N65 NE '
: ,} : �o..�.� � ree�- .
� �6e� �sn � . - � .
��y,•
� �
� �
� L�
� ..
1
�'
��j
�
�
�
' �!./
I �e
/SO �Sti
�
1_......_. ._. . _ .
n
�1
�' 1 A
s uTO:
—"—'. ._— . . �:Y..'�o.•Sir.mN�r(n✓Gcoo
/4JJO � �
... � . ..f.e• • . ' .
1 1 ; _. . --
�
s
4"
�p'
�
� M=
cr;;
Y"
� -`
��
�.'
;l`"N:
S EC.
� . �
�E_ � e
,
�� .
r
-- �. —
,� ;
� �
�
/ .
�
�
t... _.. . . ..._ .. .... .. . . .... ... .
CITY Of fRIDLHY MFNNf:SUTA
� PL1lNNING AND ZONING I'OItM
NUMBE +� %� � � � i�� �'
APPLICMI'f'S SIGNA'tUR� + ' vt� .
Address �3,� /,l. %�a-r� ��.c���_, %%%
Telephone Num6er �-?� = �,i�'�a
' PROPGRTY Olv'NCR' S SICNATUREI� i �f.1��
1B
TYPC OF RLQUCST
Rezoning
� Special Use Pcrmit
Approval of Premin-
inary F, Final Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
� Address�� .� �tit� „� . �a-�. 2�d��i.,,; �ii1��r--� '. Other . j
Telephone Numbers�,y-R7/�— k�.-r� • . �
P/ r �
• : Fee "l% Receipt No, -r3OG�O
Street Location of Property 7.3,�$' Ji/�_ 1�u<, 6J %%� . . �
I.egal Description of Property `�.� � 5-�- �i�1 T,�i�a��%�r>1.`. �%O�sO� ' ;
PreSent,Zoning Classification�`�/°-� Existing Use of Property ��,��� :
Acreage of Property,3 Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
or �type of use and improvement proposed�,�a�� do„� t�� �- � '
.; .
i
" /J • .... n � ' / /l. _ /1- n /1 I � i
Nas the present applicant previously souglit to rezone, plat, ohtain a lot split or
variance or special use pennit on the subject site or part of it? yes�no.
What was requested and wlien? �
The undersigned understands that: (a} a list of all residents and o�aners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attaclied to this application.
(b) This application must Ue signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given �,hy this is not the case, (c) P.esponsibility for any Jefect in the proceediiips
resulting from thc fa.ilurc Lo list thc nau�cs and addresses of all residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undcrsigned. ,
A skeYCh of proposed property and suucture must be dra�en and attached, shoiuing thc
following: l. North Direction. 2. Location of proposcd structure on the lot.
3. llimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
.' 4. Strect Names. S. Location anJ use of adjaccnt existing buildings (iaithin 300 feet).
'ihc unJcrsigncd hcrcby dcclares thnt all thc facts and represcntations.stated in this
application arc truc and correct, i� �'r-G _
DATG i., 3 I SICNATURE � � ,G�?
(Al'1'LICAN'i) .
. . . .
Datc Filed Datc of llcaring
COmmission ApprovcJ City CounciY Approvcd
Planning Commission January 24, 1978
MAILING LIST
SP #78-02 Hart Custom Homes, Inc.
Hart Custom Nomes, Inc
c�o A1van Schrader
7355 Highway #65
Rridley, Mn 55432
Central Auto Parts
1201 73 1/2 Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Glen Wong
1160 Fireside Drive N.E.
Fridley „i�n 55432
Gustavson Grinding
741-0 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Peter Brook
745� Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Saba
682} N.E. Oakley
fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Carl Sorenson
4615 University Avenue N.E.
Minneapol`is, Mn 55421
Koch Marketing Company
7315 Highway #65 N.E.
Fri dl ey, T�In 55432
Walter Chies
4Q30 Iyler Street N.E. -
Plinneapolis, Mn 55421
Cooper Construction Company
8437 University Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55432
1C
__._._._._ �. __�.�.._ _...._.__ ___._ __. .. . _. _ .._,_.. __ ,.�
APPFALS COMMISSION METMPING - dANUARY'24. 1978 Pa�;e lA
ADt4INISTRIITIVE STAFF REPORT
• 480� 3rd Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUTP.ETIEFlT:
1. Section 205.053, 16, Lot area requirer�ent of 7500 square feet
2. Section 205.053, 2B, Lot width of not less than 50 feet
Public purpose served by these two sections is to avoid the condition of
overcrovrding of the residential neighborhoad, to avoid excess burden
on the existing water and sewer services, and avoid reduction of surrounding
property values.
3. Section 205.053, 4B, 5a, Corner lot side yard set6ack of 17.5 feet for
living area of structure
Public purpose served is to maintain f�igtler degree of traffic visibility and
reduce the line of sight encroachment into the nei9hCor's front y.ard.
4. Section 205.053, 4B, 5ide yard setback adjoining living area of 10 feet
Public purQose served is to provide space between individual structures so
as to guard against radiant heat which would spread a fire from one structure
to anothe�, to provide sufficient access into the rear yard for emergency
purpo�es, and to reduce the condi.tion of overcrowding of the residential
neigh6orhood.
5. Section 205.054, 4, Minimum of 768 square feet of gross floor area
in each of the upper two levels provided for a house of the split entry
design
Public purpose served is to provide for adequate house size and living area
in residential 6uildings.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
!ot is unbuilda6le without listed variances.
C. AUMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE4L•
The petitioner, Nr. Hedlund, recently purchased the lot:in questiono He was
told by the County officials at the public auction in Anoka, as well as the
Fridley Gity staff, that this lot was considered unbuilable. Mr. Hedlund
was also informed that to the best of our knowledge, the City Council hasn't
permitted anyone to develop 40 foot lots in Fridley since the adoption of the
present Zoning Code (June, 1973). Due to the extent of material involved,
rre refer the Comnission to the exliibits found in the variance application.
vila va �.. . .
APP;'RT S f'OMMT ;>TOPI M�'P`C7N� - JANtTARY Z�F, 1978
CALI, Tb OR?>�;R:
Cl:airperson Schnabel called the January 2t�, 1978, Appeals
Com�icsion meeting to crder at 7:3II P,M.
ROLL C„LL:
14embers Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Plemel, Kemper, Schnabel, �abel, Barna
None '
Ron Holden, Building Inspector
APpPOVr APPFAI,S COMY•tISSION t4INUTES OF DECET4BTR 27, 1977
MOTION by t�9r, Kemper, seconded by rir, Barna, to approve the
Appeals Commission minutes of December 2'7, i977.
I�Ir. Plemel indicated on Page 7, paragraph 7, should be
ehan�ed to read, "t4r. Plemel asked zf a variance would be
required on the Lat 19 side of the buildin�,"
UPON A VOICE VOTy, all votin� aye, the motion carried
unanimously, The minutes were approved at 7:41 P.hi,
1.
FRIDL�Y C
SECTIO�T 205.053, 2B, TO REDUCE THE T4INIMU24 LOT 4"lIDTH .FRON
SFCTIOPI 205.053� 4�� TO REDUCE THE SID� YARD ADJOII�TIATG
TH�
AN� ATTACHLD
(RERULST BY GORDON HEDLUND, 1255, PIKE LAii� DRIVE, N�'�V
BRIGIiTON, MN 551 l2) .
TION
„p,...
� ,.
APPEALS COMMISSION M�PTING - JANUARY 21�L 19?8 Pa�e 3
Mr. Hedlund had dia�rams of three honse plan�. He indicated
that the lot at t�800 Third Street N� rJas 40 feet �vide and 13C
feet deep. He explained on the diagram exactly ho�r the original
house had been proposed to be placed on the lot. He explained
tivhere the driveway tivould have been located and how entry and exit
of the property ��ould have been attained,(Pl.an A)
Mr. Hedlund said that Mr. Marshall (y780 Third Street NE)
had felt that a house tvith a different entrance ���ould be more
appeating. Mr. Hedlund sho�•red P1an B to the Commission members,
He said that the house would be 20 x 1�2 and the entrance vaould
be on Third Street rather than on y8th Avenue, He said that
the plan would be for a split-entry type house. He showed a
diagram that depicted the floor plan of the proposed house.
He also shotved diagrams of how the house would be at all views.
Mr. Hedlund also shor�ed a diagram of a third house plan
(Plan C). He said that the house would need no supporting
columns and that he tivould use joist beams and that the house
on the main level ti�rould be more open, �He said that Plan C
would also be a split-entry type house and vrould be 20 x 1�0 feet.
Mr. Remper asked where the second entrance/exit rvould be
located, •
Mr, iiedlund said that there would be only one door,
Mr, Hedlund asked if he r�ould have to provide for off-street
parking.
Mr. Holden said that he would have to provide for
at least one off-street parking space.
Mr. Hedlund then explained on the diagrams eahere he �aould
provide for that off-street parking. He said that it 4eould most
likely be to the rear of the house, off the a11ey.
Ms. Gabel said that if in the future, the oumer of the
house Mould v�ant to construct a garage on the property, that
person would need variances.
Mr. Holden indicated that for sure they vrould need a
side-yard setback variance.
Chairperson Schnabel asked that if a garage ivas put in the
rear yard, if ?t . v�ould be figured in tivith the 25/ lo+. coverage
reqnirement.
Mr, Holden said that it would have to be figured into the
lot coverage requireraent. Ae szid that the house would be
20 x 1�0 feet, and if the garage ��ould be 22 x 22 feet (double-
car garage) that the person crould actually need to reouest two
variances, One to deviate from the lot coverage code and the
other for the side yard setback deviation,
APPT'ALS COM1=4I �SIOPT MEPTZNG - JAidUARY 24 1978 Pa�e 2
Chairperson Schnabel explained that Mr, Plemel had �tepped
down from the Appeals Commission for the duration of the evening
because he had been asked to give some information regarding
4800-3rd Street N�. She said that Mr, Plemel vt�s emplayed by
the Anoka County Courthouse.
Chairpexson Schnabel indicated that even though Mr, Kemper
had not been present at the becember 13, 19']7, Appeals Commission
meeting, he would be permitted to have an active part in the
Commission because the Public Hearing tivas still open and he
vloalfl have the opportunities needed to ask any ouestions regarding
the item, She indicated that Mr, Kemper had read all the minutes
pertaining to the issue and had listened to the tapes. Therefore,
she felt that he was knovrledgeable enough to take part in the
continued item,
Mr, Kemper stated that he had appraised himself to the best
of his ability of the situation, He indicated that he had read
all the previous minutes and had listened to the tapes that had
been made at the December 13, �977, meeting, He said that he
felt capable of picking up at that time,
Chairperson Schnabel said that the City Attorney had
bQen asked if it �ould be proper for Mr. Kemper to take an
active part in the meeting and had been informed that since the
Public Hearing had remained open vahen it �aas continued, that
Mr, Kemper rrould have the opportunity to ask a.ny questions that
he had on any item, and yt would be possible for Mr. Kemper to
talie part in the January 24, �978, Appeals Commission meeting,
Chairperson Schnabel indicated that all the members of the
Commission had taken the opportunity to revietiv all the minutes
and all the items that haa been discussed at the previous meeting.
She said that they had all had the chance to review all the
material that had been distributed at the previous meeting, She
felt that all the members of the Commission were prepared to
handle the requests.
Mr, Holden explained that the January 2J�, 1978, meeting ��rould
be a continuation of the items that had been previously discussed
at the llecember 13, 1977: Appeals Commission meeting. He said
that when the request had originally been heard, the type of
house planned for the !�0 foot lots tiva� a split-entry, tuck-under
garage type dwalling, He said that at the request of the
neiglibors, Mr, Hedlund had two new sets of plans for the lot.
He said that the nevr designs wuere a split-entry type house with
no garage provided,
Mr, Holden said that he had done some quick (very rough)
field measurements that gave the location of the house on the lot
in relationship to the adjacent houses and street curbings.
He said that he made the rough field measurements to better
indicate exactly how the proposed houses would fit into the
neighborhood,
Chairperson Schnabel asked if Mr. Hedlund had a di£ferent
house plan for the lot at t�800 Third Street NE as had been
reque�ted at the December 13� 1977, Appeals CommisUion meeting
by the nei�hbors, •
�-.�..,
APPrALS COt4P4IuSI0N I�[PL•."PING - J�NUARY 24t 19?8 Pa�e 5
Chairperson Schnabel asked if the house vrould be built on
speculation,
Mr. Hedlund said that it rras speculative; that he had no
buyer as yet.
Chairperson Schnabel pointed out that a petition had been
received at the December 13, 1977 Appeals Commission meeting.
She said that the petition read, ��l"de the undersigned do not agzee
v�ith the changes requested for 4800-3rd Street N�". She said
that there t�ere several names on the petition, She asked if there
were any additional names to add to the petition,
Mr. Thorson of 4775 Third Street NE said that it vaas the
only petition they had. He said he had only taken the petition
to ihe block that he lived in. He said that a11 the people 4�tho
had signed the petition still felt the same way,
Mr. Henry Marshall of 4780 Third Street NE; Mr. Stanley Thorson
Mrs. Stanley Thorson, and Lorette Thorson of 4775 Third Street NE;
and Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Sini�aglib of 4715 Third Street NE were
all present at the meeting.
Chairperson Schnabel asked if the neighbors present at the
meeting felt any better about the new plans.
Mr. Thorson said that he thought the necr plans were definitely
better. He said he didn't like the fact the house would have no
garage, He felt that there ���ould still be a lot of confusion
and problems 1�i�h parking. He said that as far as the plans for
the house, ihe nei+r plans (Plans B& C) were definitely nicer.
Ms. Thorson said that cars parked on the street at that
corner vrould only be inviting problens. She said that at the
present time "gangs�� gathered at that corner. She said that
the buyers of that house t�ould have many vandalism problems
if they park a car on that street at that location all the time,
Chairper�on Schnabel pointed out that the safety of cars
and property ivould be the burden of the people that purchased
the house. She said that there ivould be problems that the nerr
orJners ti�rould hane to deal Mith themselves. She again stated
that the codes only required that off-street parking for one car
had to be provided.
Chairperson Schnabel indicated that it ..Was , assumed that
before too lon� the buyers of the house i��ould construct
a garage. She said that it rias becoming more common :- for a
person to request permission not to build a garage on a ne�v house
until a later date. She said the requesis ivere made because
of the rising costs of building houses. She said that building
the garage at a later date helped io defer the initial cost of
the construction. �
I�PPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - JANUnRY Z4, 1978 Pa�e 4
Ms. Gabel asY,ed what the price of the ne�a-planned house
would be (Plan� B & C).
Mr. Hedlund said that
the same, He said that tlie
some of the basement level
ne�r plans, the house.would
said that the price of any
approximately $45,000.
the constructi_on costs would be about
tuck-under garage ti•rould have uti2ized
of the house. He said that in the
just have more basement s�ace. He
of the Plans that he had svould be
Mr. Hedlund indicated thai he still felt that the original
plan (Plan k) that he had for a tuck-under gara�e style split-
entry house 1•ras the best plan. Fie said that the �arage tvould
already be available and the people vrould have the same amouni
of livin� spa.ce on the main level. He said that the people
v�ould just have less space in the basement level.
Chair erson Schnabel pointed out that by building one the the
nevi plans �Plan B or C), Mr. Hedlund �vould eliminate one of the
variance requests. the reduction in minimum square footage on the
lower leveL
Mr, Hedlund said that he vras ativare of that. He said that
he lvould gladly build any of the proposed plans.
Chairperson Schnabel reiterated the plans that had been
presented;
. Plan A�vas the original plan shovm on December 13, j977.
Tuck-Under garage, split-entry style house tnat vroul.d
be 20 x 48 feet or 960 square feet. �
. PIan B�ras a plan for a split-entry style house tivith �o
garage. The house would be 20 x i�2 feet or 840 square £eet,
, Plan C vras a plan for a split-entry style house rrith no
garage. The house vaould be 20 x!�0 feet or 8QO square feet,
She pointed out that both PLAN B& PLAN C tvould provide for
off-street parking for one car.
Mr. Holden felt that the $45,000 price for the house seemed hi�h,
He said that the house could possibly be built for a much lowen
price bracket, Fie said that the price should proUably be betvaeen
$35,000 and �40,000 ma5cimum. •
Mr,'Hedlund said that he only used the best naterials. He
said he tvould use triple-glazed glass on all the e�indo�rs. He
said he erould install good ca.rpeting and light iixtures and
some convenienceitems, He �aid that it coui.d depend on what the
buyer �roula actually ��rant, but that if he built the house to his
o�m standards, that the �1�5,000 price lras a fair price.
�
APPFALS CC�MMISSION MFL"PING - JANUARY 7_tEa 1978 Pa�e 6
Chairperson Schnabel said that she had talked to the neighbor
at 480II Third Street N�. She said that she explained the situation
to the neighbor and asked if that neighbor had attempted to bid
on the lot ai 4800 Third Street N�. Ms, Schnabel said that
the person indicated they had lived in the house for a number of
years and that since their family vras almost groti•m, they had no
need for additional land, The neighbor did not vrant any more
land �o take care of and that �vas the main reason they did not
bid on the lot. The person at 4808 Third 5treet P� indicated
that they had not Uigned the petition because they wanted a
house to be built on the lot.
Chairperson Schnabel said that she also talked to a Realtor
regarding a house that rias being sold in the area to inquire about
the avera�e orice range for the neighborhood. The address of
the house tivas y.644 Second Street TdE. She said that the house did
not have a garage. She said that the realtor indicated that
i� i��ould depend upon the maintenance of the dr�elling and the
amenities, but that basically the selling price vrould be betiveen
$38e000 and �y.5,000. She said ihat the house iras 784 square feet
on each level. She said that the house tivas locaied on an 80 foot
lat.
Chairperson Schnabel said that at the December 13, 19']7,
Appeals Commission meeting three questions had been brought up
regarding building on 40 foot lots.
Mr. Holden said that he had talked to the City Atto^ney
regarding those questions, He said that since the questions �Jere
hypothetical, the Attorney could only answer to the best of his
ability.
�?uestion 1; In the event there crould be a major disaster
on an existing structure on a 40-foot lot, c�ould the
property ol��ner be a1loLVed to re-build on the lot?
Ghairperson Schnabel said that the person who otivned the
structure ti�rould definitely have a hardship, She said
that the Commission would carefully revievr the item and
would probably grant the variance to enable the property
o��mer to reconstruct a similar home on the lot.
Auestion 2: If a developer otivned an 80 foot lot, would
that developer be able to request a lot split and build
tr�o houses, one on each y.0 foot parcel of land, rather
than constructing one house on the 80 foot 1ot?
Mr. Holden indicated that the Cit,y Attorney basically said
that the ansrJer ��rould be NO the 1ot could not be sp].it.
Ae said that it rrould have to go before the Appeals
Commission and �vould have tv be heard on its own merits,
The Attorney had said that very likely the lot vtould not
be split if it r�as an interior lot. He said that
if the requeti� t•ras identical to a situation thnt already
3i�,:: been „r:�nted a variance to split an F;0 fcot let, a
precedent r�ould have been �et, and the request vrould likely
be gr.�nied.
�..m
APPPALS COMMISSIOPI Mri:TIPIC - JANUARY 24, 1978 Pat��e 7
Mr. Kemner pointed out that the Commission erouldn't
look at the request any differently than the present
request bein� considered. Fie said that any person cau2d
appear before the P.ppea2s Commission and make the request
ta split an 80 foot lot into tiJO 4.0 fooi lots.
=?uestion 3: In the event there ti�rould be a major disaster and
a house on an 80 foot lot i+ras destroyed, could the o�Jner of
the 80 foot lot request a lot split and reconstruct turo
houses, one on each of the 40 foot parcel of land rather
than reconstructing the one house on the 80 foot lot?
t�ir. Aolden said that the City Attorney had said the
ansver r�ould most likely be N0, the reasons being
because of the �r�}* the area had been developed in the
past; because the v�ay the se�ver and tivater v�as structurally
set up in the area. He had said that the area was
primarily set up for 80-foot lot development.
Ms. Thorson said that the Appeals Commission ��fas double talking
the codes, The Commission had said that an 8� foot lot
couldn't be split into trao L�0 foot lots because of hor.• the
vrater and seti�rer systems ti��ere set up; she wanted to knorr ivhy the
petitioner could request to have wa�er and sevaer connected to
the y.0 foot lot ir_ question.
Mr. Kemper again pointed out to the audience that the
situation rrould be no differeni for them as it ti��as for Mr. Hedlund,
He said that the people ti�JOUld have the opportunity to appeal
any ruling made. He said anyone had the right to go before the
Appeals Commission raith any request to split their property.
He said that rrhether or not it v�ould be granted raould be based
on the situation.
Mr. Holden said that a person had the right to appeal anyzoning
codes and ask for a variance.
Chairperson Schnabel said that there �vas an Appeals Commission
in the City of Fridley in order to handle any requests from people
vrho tirish to deviate from the existing ordinances, She said that
the City could not deny the person the right to make a request;
hocrever, she said that it ivas onZy the right to MAKE the request
and that the request r�ould not have to be honored, She said
that f3rst the variance request l��ould have to be made, then it
had to be revierred; and if the request rras denied
it v�ould be because the request rras not in the best interest of
the Public health, safety and welfare. She said that
if the request did not infrin�e on the Public health, safety and
crelfare� then very IiIcely the rec�uest tivou2d be approved, She
irtdicated that either tvay, the citizens did have a right to make
a variance request,
. �� i
APP�ALS COMI�IISSION M1�,PTING - JANUARY 24, 1,s78 Pap�e 8
Mr. Thorson said that there was already a house on y7th
Avenue that had been built on a small lot. FIe �aanted to
knovr rrhat rtould happen to the erater and sevrer systems in the area
if after a couple of years people started building on all the
lots in the area. He didn't feel that the present system �vould
be able to handle many more ne�v houses, He also r�anted to
knov� r�ho would have to pay the ta�ces if the City had to go into
the area and redo the whole se�ver/tivater system,
Chairperson Schnabel said that that tivas some of the things
the Appeals Commission had to seriously consider.
i4r. Thorson asked if all the crater and seirer connections
had been.checked out and if they �vere adequate for the area,
D1r. Fiolden said that the
checked and that it ��rould not
all the er.isting 80 foot lots
constructed on each o£ the L�0
r�ould happen, then de£initely
be over-burdened.
e:ater and ses�er systems had been
be an excessive burden unless
erere split and houses t��ere
foot lots. He said if that
the ti�rater and se�rer systems would
Mr. Marshall said that the City Attorney had given one of
the reasons for not allo�ring 80 foot lot's to be.split was because
the area �ras primarily set up for $0 foot lot development. He
wanted to knor� rrhy a nerr house could be constructed on a 40 foot
lot and connected to the crater and se4ver �ystem.
Plrs, Thorson said that if the present request �vas approved�
that there v�ould probably be three additional houses constructed
on their block alone. She felt at that point it �ould put a
burden on the existing �vater and se4�aer systems.
Ms. Thorson said that there would actually be five houses
constructed in the neighborhood in general, She said that
if time ivas taken to really look around, there would probably
be even more 1�0 foot lots available for development.
Mr, riarshall referenced a lot that vaas located next to
4775 Third Street NL. He said that there had been talk of
po�sibly vacating 48th Avenue. He said that the person living
at 4803 Third Street NE already had the garage accessing off
of 1�8th Avenue. He said that if L�8th Avenue rrere vacated,
that person r�ouZd have to arrange to shovel his 1�ay all the
distance to Third Street, He wanted to know hovr that v�ould
be handled.
tir. FIolden said that �•rhen a vacation eaas requested for a
street thnt generally the person making the repuest c�ould i�ork
out an agreeable arrangement rrith the neighbors as to the
problem of getting access to garages or ��ihatever. He said it
i�ould have to be a personal thing, worked out betl•reen the
parties concerned�
APPPIILS CnMP$I."�SION ?d?�::TING -�7ATdUARY 2!-�, t978 P�Qe 9
Mr. Sini�;aglio of 1�'715 Third Street NE said that it c�as
possible there ti�as service under y8th Avenue, IIe v�anted to
knov✓ if that r�ould effect the va.caticn of the street,
Mr, Holden said that if someone requested a vacation of
48th Avenue and there rras service under the street, that
very possibly it could not be vacated�
P1r. Thorson v�anted to knovr hov� much was paid for the
lot that tivas located next to his lot.
Chairperson Schnabel indicated that the lot next to
?�Ir, Thorson ti�Jas not being discussed at that time.
�r. Sinibaglio c�.cl that his 1�3 year old son purchased
the lot for �3�500,
Mr. Thorson said that he had received a letter from the
l�noka County Assessor indicating that the land 1�rould be auctioned
off and that the lo�s crere unbuildable. He evanted to know tivhy
Mr. Hedlund felt he could build on lots that had been described
as Unbuildable. Fie also ��ranted to know hotv much Mr. Hedlund
paid for the 1ot,
Chairperson Schnabel said that the lot at 1{.800 Third Street NE
sold for $800,
Mr. Thorson doubted that price.
Mr, Hedlund said that he only paid �$800 for 'the 1ot.
Chairperson Schnabel said that it v�as in the records that
Mr. Plemel indicated that the lot vaas sold for $800. �
Mr, Holden said that he checked and the $800 sellin$
pi•ice corresponded rrith the official records from Anoka County.
A4r. Barna said that the Attorney had given one reason that
the established 80 foot lots could not be split into t�vo 40 foct
lots because it rras not the established usage of the nei�hborhood
aald of the 1ots. He said that the established usage of the lots
in that neighborhood �Jas for multiples of 40 foot lots,
Mr. Holden said that the Attorney had been asked a
hypothetical question and it had been difficult for him to
anstiver because of the variables involved.
Mr. Thorson �,anted to be on public record as saying that
he vi�s not �oin� to be liable for an,y more taxes that took place
because of over-burdened tvater and se�•rer systems. He was afraid
that it rrould happen very soon once they start building on every
piece of land in existence and he �vould not pay any taxes that
t�rould be levied to pay for updating the <<rater and seiver systems.
APPEALS COMMISSIOPI Mi;E7'IP1G - JAP7UARY 24 1978 Pat*e 20
Ms. Gabe1 said her reason for the motion to deny the
requests ciere:
1. Fridley t�as 9�o developed ana there vras a need to
maintain a continuity and that tivas rrhat the codes
trere for - to see that the Community developed in a
consistent manner. The consistency served the
previous property oti�ners as �aell as the Community
as a erhole,
2. �Je need to provide some open spaces.
3. Reduce croti�rding in terms of fire,
4. Dependent on the house plan used, there may
be a lack of coMpatibility l��ith the existing homes
in the neighborhood,
5. She felt it e•rould set a BAD precedent, City had talked
in great lengths regarding not building on �0 foot
lots and it tras apparent that it rras n�t a desire of
the City of Fridley,
6. She said a hardship had not been established. She
said that if there rras a hards�ip, it taas a self-
imposed hardship because the petitioner had been
at�are he �vould have poiential problems,
7. On this particular lot there i;rould be potential
traffic problems because of the drive��ay possibly
being accessed from P4ain Street.
Mr, Barna said that he did not agree rrith the motion
because:
1, There wzs a park located one block nortn of the
property, so there rfas open space in the
neighborhood.
2. The houses would be 23 feet apart, therefore there
would be no problems regarding safety factors.
3. He did not feel that a 20 foot �vide house v�ould be
croE�rdino a 39.25 foot lot.
y., He said that even though the design ���ou1d be
different than the houses in the neighborhood, many
areas had many varied designs of houses. He didn't
thinl. that ti�ras a negative asnect.
5. Ne agreed that the precedent for the :rea �ras for
lar�,er iots but:he said that, visua7.ly, there vras net
that mucn difference betrreen a G.0 foot Iot and a 50
foot lot, He pointed out that in-many instances, even
50 foot lots did become over-cro:vded,
1�PPE1ILS C6N(MIS�SOPI P2EETIPIG - JANUARY 2�E, 19'78 Pa�e 19
Chairperson Schnabel poinied out that most of the discussions
that had taken place regarding the first itsm were applicable
to the present request,
Mr. Kemper asked if there had been any neighbor objections
for the particular lot,
Chairperson Schnabel said that there had been no conversations
or correspondence from any of the neighbors.
Mr, Holden said that he had never received any input regarding
the lot at 46II7 t4ain Street N�.
MOTIOld by T+Ir, Barna., seconded by h4r. Kemper, to close the
Public Iie�.ring. Upon a. voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously, The Publie Hearin� rna:s closed at 10:18 P,M,
Ms; Gabel indicated that the particular lot was different
than the other request and that the situation did seem more
palatable, Hor�ever, she said that the house ovould be constructed
on a�-d .foot Iot and that was the main problem she had �vith the
req�aest.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the comments made about the
first request �rere still applicable to the present request,
Mr. Kemper painted out that the one natable exceptior. to
the request ivas that there appeared to be no neighborhood
objections, He said that there were still code problems to be
considered.
Mr. Holden said that the estimated value of the land t�ras
�5,30o i� the Iot �vere a buildable lot.
Mr. Barna s�.id that it �vas a slightly smaller lot on a
busy street (P�iain Street),
MOTION by i•is, Gabel, seconded by D'Ir, Kemper, to deny the
request Sor variances of the Pridley City Code as folloa�s;
Section 205.053, 1, B, to reduce the lot area required for z Zot
recorded before December 29, tg55, from 7500 square feet to
5064 square feet; and Section 205.�54� 4e �� 5a, to reduce the
required side yard viidth on a street side of a corner lot from
17.5 feet �0 11,25 feet; and Section 205,0$3, 2b, to reduce the
minimum lot �rridth frora 50 feet to 39.25 feet; and Section
205.054, I�., to reduce the m�_nimum square footage on the upper tvro
iloors of a split entry desi�n house from 768 sc�uare feei to
320 square feet on the lovrer level; and Section 205,053, ifB, to
reduce the side yard adjoining Iiving area from the required
10 feet to 8 feet, aZl to a1Zo1�� the construction of a hourse
and attached garage to be Iocated on Lot 30, Block 12, PZymouth
Addition, the same bein� 4687 Main Street N;, Fridley, MN
APP�ALS COMMISSION MF?YPING - J�NUARY 24, i978 Page 18
Chairperson Schnabel said that she hafl atte�pted to contact
the owners of the house adjacent to the Lot, but was not able
to do so, She said that she didn't knoe� if that person had
tried to purchase the lot or not, •
Mr. Hedlund showed the diagrams of the house he proposed
to build on the lot, He said that 'ne tiranted to build Plan A,
He said that he e�anted to have the front of the house to
face the open area located across the street, Ae said that the
attitude of the area vaas different than it was for the
the first item, He pointed out there rrere some double bungalovrs
located on Main Street as well as other multiple dv�ellings,
Mr, Hedlund explained that the house would appear a little
different than on the first lot, He said that he ti+rould have
two garage doors instead of the one and that the house v�ould
have a"dutch" roof. He pointed that that even though the
house ti•+as considered a tcro-story, split-entry house, the roof
line N�ouZd probably be lower than most of the houses in the
area.
Mr, Holden asked if Mr, Hedlund would consider building a
rambler-type house v�ith a detached garage,
Mr, Hedlund said that he would consider a house with a
detached garage. He explained how the floor nlan could be
changed in order to allo��r for a detached garage. He pointed
out that the house he planned for the lot ti�ould meet the
25� lot coverage code.
Mr, Holden said that if a detached garage would be built
that it should be off the alley. .He felt that because of the
traffic on Main Street it ti�ould be more appealing to most
people.
Air. Hedlund said that the County had put up "For Sa1e'�
signs on all the lots that were to be auctioned off, He said
that if someone wanted to bid on the lot, they would have
inquired about them.
Mr, Kemper asked what Mr. Hedlund paid for the lot.
�;,
Mr. Hedlund said that he paid $700 for the lot. ��
Mr. Barna felt that it evas not a good idea to plan any
driveway off of Main Street.
Chairperson Schnabel said that r4ain Street r�as a much
traveled street and that it tiJas not r�ise to have drive�:�ays
accessing off of P4ain Street.
� + � , .��
-
4687 �1ain Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVE� QY REQUIRET1ENT:
t. Section 205.053, 1B, Lot area requirer�ent of 7500 square feet
2. Section 205.053, 26, Lot �ridth of not less ttian 50 feet
Public piirpose served 6y tfiese tvro sections is to avoid the condition of
overc•rowding of the residential neighborhood, to avoid excess burden
on the existing water and sewer services, and avoid reduction of surrounding
property values.
3. Section 205.053, 4B, 5a, Corner lot side yard setback of 17.5 feet for
living area of structure
Public puroose served is to maintain F�igiier degree of traffic visibility and
reduce the line of sight encroachment into the neigh6or's front ;/ard.
4. Section 205.053, 46, Side yard setback adjoining living area of 10 feet
Public purpose served is to provide space bet�•ieen individual structures so
as to guard against radiant heat whir.h would spread a fire from one structure
. to anothe�, to provide sufficient access �ttto the rear yard for emergency
purposes, and to reduce the condition of overcrowding of the residential
neighG�rhood. , �
5. Section 205°054, 4, Minimum of 768 squxre feet of gross flcor area
in each of the upper two levels provided for a house oT the split entry
design
Public purpose served is to provide for adequate house size and living area
in residential 6uildings.
B, STATLD liARDSHIP:
Lot is unbuildable without listed varSances.
C. A[N7IIJIS7RATIVF STAFF REVIEt�I:
The petitioner, i�r. Hedlund, recently purchased the lot;in question. H° 4ias
.� told by the County officials at the public auction in Anoka, as ivell as the.
Fridley City staff, that this lot was considered unbuilable. Mr. Hedlund
^�'�, 4�as also informed that to the 6est of our know7edge, the City Council hasn't
permitted anyone to develop 40 foot lots in Fridley since the adopiion of the
present Zoning Code (June, 1973). Due to the extent of material involved,
we refer the Commission to the exhibits found in the variance application.
-�,--�
APPPALS COMMISSION MrrTING - JANUARY 24, 1g�8 Pa�e 17
Chairperson Schnabel declared a ten minute break at
9:47 P.M.
2. CONTIPiUrn: REOiJ
Dr AU POLLO:'fS:
S�CTIOI7 205.053.
CITY
1B, TO R�DUGE THF I�OT AR�A REQUiR�D
SECTIOTi
2�, TO R�DUCE
LOT l'JIDTH P'ROM
S�CTTO't1 205.053, 4B, ^'tCi ??'�:�UCF, TFIL SID� YAI2D !'�TJJOINING
THL COIISTP,UCTIQPt GF 4
(Rr, ;Us.ST BY GORDOId HEDLU2ID� 1255 PII�r LAKN DRIVL�
NEG`l BRIGHTOi3� rtrt 55i�2).
Chairperson Schnabel said that the previous statt�nts
' regarding t4r, Plemel and t4r. Kemper applied t��ith the above
variance requests also.
Mr. Holden explained that the reauest ��as similar to the
previous request in that it �vas a corner lot that rras
approxinately 1�0 feet wide and 130 feet deep, He said that he
had been surprised to find that the distance to adjacent house
iras 23 feet. He said that the proposed house Lvould be in line
with the other houses in the neighborhood. He said that the
lot in question eras esentially flat, He said it rras similar
to the previous lot.because it had an alley to the rear of the
lot that could serve the garage or the off-street parking.
He said that the same three plans could be considered for the
lot� but that Fir, Hedlund preferred to construct Plan A.
Air. Aolden pointed out to t�ir, Aedlund that Main Street
vtas a very traveled street and that he should consider any
ingress and egress from the property to be from 47th Avenue,
J �
r�a
��
kPP�AL.S CO,ittIS�ION PdFPTT�IG - JAAiUARY 24� 1978 Pa�e 16
5. She felt it eJOUld set a BI�D precedent. City had
talked in great length regarding not building on
40 foot ].ots and it 1°raU apparent that it rras not
a desire of tke City.
6. It had been discusseci at other meetings that there
vras a desirability of �arages for houses� She said
that �•rhen, and if, a garaoe vrould be desirabZe for
the lot� it �rould again probably need t�ao variances.
7, She said a hardship had not been established� She
said ihat if there oras a harclship that it cras a
aelf-imposed hardship because the petitioner had
been arrare he vtauld have potential problems.
�. The houUe laould be built too close to a corner.
It erould be a potential visual nroblem because of
the side yard variance on a corner lot,
9. The neighbors have stated their objections to the
buildin� of the house, She felt that City should
be concerned iJith the people that built/bought in
that area, believing there ti�aould be some open spaces
around them.
UPON A VOICE VOTEt Mr, Kemper� Ms. Schnabel and r4s. Gabe1
voting aye; P•ir. Barna voting nay, the motion carried,
tvere:
Mr. Barna explainecl ihat tF.e reason for his voting nay
1, He rras arrare of an almos� identical house as the
proposed one that ��ras located on a 50 foot lot.
He said that the c2ri�er�ay on that lot �aas to the
side of the house and tkat the area dzd not give
the appearance of being over-cro��rded.
2. He said that.at Glencoe and East River Road there tvas
a house siivated approximately the same distance from
the corner as the proposed hou.�e �•aould be and thai house
posed no potential traffice problems,
3. He a�reed ��ith Mr, Hedlund that the costs of lots and
houses ti�rere very high all over,
Mr, Barna said that he agreed yrith the motion that a
hardship had not been justified.
Chairperson SchnaUel �aid that the recommendation �.vould go to
the Plannin;; C�:amission on February 8, 1973 and be for��rarded
onto City Council an F'ebruary 27, 1973. She said that the City
Counci2 may �pen the meetin� on that night, or set a future date
for a public hearing. She said that all the minutes, recommendations,
and all inforraation ��JOU1d be fori�fareded on to the City Council in
a file for their revie�v. �
�...,.
P.PPEt1LS CO?�t+fI��IOP� td��'�;TITTG - JANUARY 21,, 1978 Pa�;e i5
��Rr^.; GUZD?:LIPt::S. rOR TFIE DISPOSITION OF TIlX-F'URF�ITED
PROP;s'RTI :S
The City Council had discussed the feasibility and
desirability of acquiring certain tax-forfeited lots
from dnoka County and sel7.ing the same to
individuals ���k�o can demonstrate that they can use
said taa-forfeited lots in conjunction �rith other
adjacent property, and, as such, form a suitable
building site. The council had been reluctant to
allow the county to sell tax-forfeited lots that do
not meet the minimum lot size. The purpose behinci
the plan of the city to acquire substanclard lots is to
permit these Iots to be joined evith adjacant
praperties in order to forr� a reasonaole building site.
If this plan is successful, the effect of it tvould be
to remove substandard lots from the tax-forfeited
list anct to place the.property in private oc�nership
vrherein the various governmental units rrould derive
tax payments.��
Mr. Plemel explained c�hai happened rrith the money that
ti°�as received fror� the sale of the lots.
ASOTION by Nis. Gabel, seconded by Mr, Kemper to deny the
request for variancas of the Friciley City Code as Follovrs;
Section 2d5,o53, iB, to reduce the lot area requi.red for a lot
recorded before December 29> >955, from ?500 sauare feet to
521& square feet; and Section 205,05y.,l�B,Sa, to reduce the
required side yard rridth an a street side of a corner lot from
17.5 feet to 12 £eet; and Section 205.053: 2E,
to reduce the minimum lot rridth £rom 50 feet to t�d feet; and
Section 2Q5.05t�, 1�, to reduce the mininum square footage on the
upper t:�ro floars of a split entry design house from 768 feet to
320 square feet on the lotirer level; and Section 205.Q53, 4B, to
reduce the side yard adjoining living area from the required
14 feet to 8 feet, all to allow the construction of a house
and attached garage, to be lacated an Lot 15, Block 2, Plymouth
Addition� the same being 1�8d0 Third Street NE, Fridley, MN.
ris. Gabel said that the reasons for her motion ivere: r,=
1. Fridley rras 95°,o developed and there rras a need to
�aintain a conUistency and that �ras rrhat the codes
crere for - to see that the Co�nmunity developed in
a consistent manner. The consistency served the preuious
property ormers as ��a11 as the comMUnity,
2. �;;e need to provide sone open spaces,
3. Reduce crowding in terms of fire.
4. The house r�as not comAatible i�lith the existing homes
in the neighbarhood.
APP�:/1L5 CO1�t4I„i01t t�Ir'�'TIPIG - JFNUPRY 24� 127g Pame 14
Mr. Hedlund said that he i^�as never specifically told by
Anolsa County that the Iots t��ere "unbuildable lots��,
t�r, fiedlund said that he had been tolfl that the lots had
some limitations. Iie �aid that mosi of his information had
been heresay; but he sranted it made clear that he had not been
told by Anoka County that the lots arere not buildable.
Mr. Hedlund said that to develop property that cost
9�6,000 and then put in all the assessments, the price eaas
too hi�h even before a house �xras constructed. He said that
Pridley still had useable land and he proposed to build a
good house that vould he compatible ��ith the area. He said
that the 7erson neYt to the property dicin't mind if he put
a house on that lot an� he couldn't under�tand Lth;� the
Commission should care, He felt that the City vaas legally
��arong in prohibiting people from buiidin� on 40 foot lots,
Iie said that the City had the codes, but he felt the codes
� vaere not Iega1. He said that the City cias being too tough
on contractors and builders. He said that people need a
place to live.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the rea2 question rras not
the argument that the next door neighbor tivould like a house
constructed on that lot; she said that the real question tiras
"DOES TH� CITY OF FRIDLLY l9TSIi TO OPni�t UP ALL 1�0 FGOT LOTS?"
She said that once a person �•�as al.lorrad toTui.ld on a 40 foot lot
all 1�0 fo�t lots taould probably have to he ++opened up". She
said that the auest7.on really involved a11 the existino lots in
the City of Fridley and not just Mr. Hedlund�s lots.
Mr. Hedlund said that people want places to live and
that the City rrould have to start alloa�ing buildin� on sub-
standard lots.
Mr. Siniga�lio asked tvhy the City mad.e the lots avaiZabe
to the Gounty for the liquidation of the tax forfeited property.
Chairperson Schnabel said that the City �vas trying to retrieve
some of the monies that had been put towards the lots.
�` Mr. Plemel explained that the City of Pridle3* had to follow
a procedure that had been estahlished by the State ef Minneuota.
Mr. Holden. read Exhibit M-N from the December 13, 1977
Appeal� Commissi�n meeting. It iras a letter to the City Council
irom tha City :',ttorney datecl July 8, 1977.
APP�ALS COMM25520N MF�TI^ N____,G_i,JANUABY 24, 19%8 Pap;e 13
P[r. Hedlund said that the County never caid those vrords
io him. Ae said that he cras aerare that the lots ti•aere not buildable
unlecs certain �'things�' crere done, FIe kne,�r he eaould have some
problems because he had been told on the day of the Auction that
there vrould possibly be problems involved.
Mr. Hedlund said that the County N�VER said that the lots
ti=rere not buildable.
Mr. Hedlund said that the lots he purchased �rere plotted
lots that �vere serviced by rrater and sevrer.
Mr. Marsha7.l. didn't think that people had to build on every
piece of existing property. He said it tivasn't right building
on thase small lots.
Chairperson Schnabe2 said that in tg69 the City of Fridley had
determined that the reauired lot size c�rould be g,000 souare feet
minimun. She sa.id that that eras adopted in the Zoning Ordinance
by the City of Fridley. Sha said that in �976 the City had taken
another look at sub-standard lots and had determined that there
eaere a number of lots that crere 50 feet i�ide that could be built
on �vith special requests, She said it vaas decided that building
would not be permitted on anything 1ess�than a 50 foot lot,
The Public health, safety an� rtelfare �^�as considered in that
criteria and it vras determined that the City of Fridley lvanted
g,000 square feet miniwum for a lot.
Chairperson Schnabel said that at one iime 1�0 foot lots
vrere considered as possible lots to construct loi�r income housin�,
But ti�rith the rising costs of construction f�r nera houses, lorr
income housing l•ras alnast impossible. She stated again that
the City of Fridlay felt that any lots r�ith less thzn 50 foot
frontages lvere not buildable lots. She said it has been a
consistent pattern ever since that Zoning Ordinance �*ras adopted.
Mr. Holden asked if anyone else at the meeting had attended
the auction of the lots,
Mra, Thorsen said that
eittixig behind a long table
lot she �ranted to bid on ivas
she had been informed by a per��^
located in the Corridor that �
��an unbuildable lot".
Mr. Sini�z�lio said that he had never been told that
lots rrere unbuildable 1ots.
P•4r. Thorson said that ��hen he gat the letter regardi�
the lot auction� he called and inquired about the lot tha�
adjacent to his property. FIe said that he ti�ras told at th�
that the lot e:as unbuildable,
�
�
nPP�;AZ,s corrt�zsszarr Mr.�rzrr� - Jnr��rn�Y 24, 197$ Pa�e i z
Mr. Hec3lund felt that the original p1an (Plan 1�) vras really
the best plan and tha+; he tivanted it to be considered,
Chairperson Schnabel said she had problems ��fith the faci
that a21 the variances i•�ere lumped to�ether in one variance
request. She felt that the request to reduce the lot size shoul@
have been separate from the other variance requeste.
Mr. Kemper agreed because there �rere different public
purposes served by each of the variances being requested�
Mr. Holden sazd that it v�as up to the llppeals Commission
if they �vanted to handle each of the variances separately,
t4r, Kemner said he ��ras disturbed by the fact that the
petitioner hadn't shoim a. real hardship in this particular
insta.nce other than the one that iaas self-zn�licted. He fe2t
that there eras no hardship involved and riithout a hardship,
there could be no variance request.
t�s. Gabel said that granting a variance had been alvrays.
based on proven hardship.
M�, Barna agreed that sinae rir. Hedlund kneti�� the lots
csere unbuilda�le, he really didn't have a hardship other than a
self-imposed hardship,
Chairperson SchnabeZ said tnat the burden of proaf of hardship
t�ias on the petitioner. She said tha.t . applied for any variances
that crent before the Appeals Commission. She said
r4r. Aedlund bid on and purchased the lots tha.t he had been
informecl cjere unbuildable 2ots because they dian't meet the
zoning ordinances and NYr, Hedlund stated that he under5tood that
at the tirae of purchase, She didn't feel he had established
any undue hardship. She said the f.act that there 4vas no existing
structure and the fact that the City, Uecause of zoning ordinances,
considerec? the lots as unbuilc�ab2e made it difficult to understand
�vhy P4r. Hedlund purchased the lots in the first place an8 �rhy
he was requesting to build on the lots notv.
r. Aedlund fe2t that the �'unbuildable11 i�sue
d. He said he had information irom the City
f Iats considered builda.ble. He jaid that he
Ly been to�d that the lots 4�rere not buildable
was getting
as to the
had never
zots,
nairperson Schnabel said that the Public Notices that i�rere
pupers stated that the person should checic vrith the
paZities. She said ih�t rrhen the City turned the lots
� the County, the 2isting that accompanied them clearly
that the lots should be sold at Public lluction by the
and ��rith the stipulation �'NOT A BUILDABLE SITE",
� . �.,�
11PPEALS CONa4I:,SI0P1 M?:�TING - JI�NUARY 24, 197F3 Pa�e 11
Mr. Hedlund quoted an item from Page 10 of the Advisory
Standards for Land Use Regulation report.
"COPlCLUSI02d: The high cost of land is one of the
reasons for the high cost of homes and, consequently,
fe�rer and ferrer people are able to purchase market
rate housing. In�general, larger lot size adds not
only to the initial cost of the land but also
increases utility and support service costs."
Mr. Hedlund said that in some areas 40 foot lots should
not be developed on. Hovrever, he felt that the area under
consideration r�as a good area to develop 1�0 foot lots.
Tdr, Barna said that Mr, Hedlund had stated on December 13� 1g77,
that unless he could build on the lots, being he L�ould have to
pay the ta�ces� he e�ould not receive any return from the property.
IIe asked if t•ir. Iiedlund had been informed that the lots v�ere
unbuildable lots.
Mr. Hedlund said that he kne�r the lots rrere considered
unbuildable lots rrhen he purchased them. �
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the
Public �Iearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously, The Public Hearing v�as closed at 8:58 P,M.
Mr. Holden said that the City Assessor had estimated the
value of the lot at ,°`p6,000, IF it tivas a buildable lot,
Mr. Hedlund asked about the $6,000 estimate.
P4r, Kemper said that there were so feEV buildable lots left
in the City of Pridley and he was sure that �vas one of the
reasons for the inflated estimated price given for that lot,
Chairperson Schnabel said that in reviey�ing the minutes of
the December 13, 1977, meeting, tvio of the neighbors had
indicated that they ��a.nted to see an alternative house plan. ��
She said that Mr, Hedlund had sho�vn tti•�o alternative plans. She ��'�,
said that the plans irere palatable to the neighbors and preferred
over the original plan, She said that the alternative plans tivoul3
be built ��ith no garage and that in the event a garage wouZd be
built at a later date, at least ttivo additional variances �vould
have to be requested� She said that at the present time the
request for a variance to reduce the minimum square footage of
the lo`_ still had to be considered. She asked if rir, Hedlund
siill eranted the ori�inal plan (Plan A) to be con�idered by
the !�ppeals Commission.
a. _ _� _, i
�a�
�
11PPrALS COI4t4; �SIOAI Mi'.?TIP1G - JANUnP,Y 2�, 1978 Pa�e 10
Mr, Siniga�lio said that the storm sewer syUtem had just been
updated in tq64. He felt tnat the system rras adequate to take
care of the existin� popu7ation in the area.
Mr. Holden said that adding additional homes rrould not
affect the storm secrer system.
Chairperson Schnabel said that she had gone back thr.ou�h
the report published by the Nietropolitan Council and the
Association of Pietropolitan Municipa7.it�es that deaZt crith
residential zoning ordinances dated P4ay 1977. She said she
had rfanted to �et a feel as to �rhat t�ras happening in the metro
area. in terms of lot sizes. She summarized {;he findings as they
dealt �•rith lot sizes for single family homes, The Commission
that made the studies surveyed 81 metropolitan communities.
Of the 81 communities that erere surveyed, five cornmunities had
a minimum Zot size of 4,�00 to 5,999 square feet. Those five
communities e;ere I�Iinneapolis, St. Paul, North St. Paul,
Columbia Hei�hts, and Robbinsdale. She said that those five
communities represented 6.2% of the total 81 communities. The
balance of the communities required mini�num lot sizes of 6,000
square feet or more, up to 22,000 square feet.
Chairperson Schnabel said that of the 81 communities, the
median lot size raas t0,000 square feet minimum, She said that
the eyisting Fridley code was 9,000 square £eet minimum. She
pointed out that Fridley's code ���as slightly less than the median
lot size in the 81 communities surveyed,
Chairperson Schnabel had £elt it was necessary to bring out
these items because a previous reference had been made as
to Iot sizes in the area,
Mr, I3edlund felt that Ms. Schnabel�s information ti=ras
confused. He said that most communities ha� existing plats and
nelv plats. He i�tanted to kno�^r vrhich plats the survey had usede
Chairperson Schnabel assumed the findings had been based on
the existing codes/plats.
Mr, Holden said that it would depend on hoe✓ the person
conducting the survey stated the question. Ae jaid that
� Fridley ��rould have t�ro different answers depending on hotia the
question v�as stated, FZe said that the lot sizes based on nevr
plats in the City of Fridley would be 9,000 square feet. Ho�^rever,
he eaid that on piats 'exis£ing tiefore T955, the minimus, square
footage was 7,500.
� APP�ALS COr�I.^, �IOI3 tiE?:`PIPTG - J/1NUfiRY 2� , 1978 Pa�e 21
UPOIJ 1� VOIC� VOT�, 14r. Kemper, rts. Schnabel, and 4�Is, Gabel
voting aye; t4r, Barna voting nay, the motion carried.
Chairper�on Schnabel said that the recommendation to deny
the reques'cs l�aould to to the Planning Commission on February 8, 197�
and be for��arded onto City Council on L'ebruary 27, 197�3,
She said that the City Council uould either open the meeting
that ni�ht to public discussion or set a future date for
a Public Hearing, She said that a11 the minutes, recommendations,
and inforMation r�ould be forti•�arded to the City Council for their
revierr.
i�r. Plemel said that the County had advised the people
at the auction to check rrith the Municipalities, He said that
there had. been 27 �unicipalities involved rrith the land auction,
He said that the lotst��ere sold rrith the only common factor that
there e.ere no delinquent taxes and no unpaid specials.
Pir. Sini�aglio had auestions regarding a vacation reque�t
for 48th �venue.
��Chairperson Schnabel told P1r, Sinigaglio to go to City Hall
�uid talk to Mr. Jerry Boardman regarding the vacation request.
Mr. Barna felt that the City Council themselves brought
these requests about by 7.osing control of the handling of the
auctioning of the 1�0 foot lots. He said that the origiilal
intent had been that the Gcunty crculd handle the sale to the City,
fTe said that at all the Council meetings he had been a�vare of
it had not been intended that all the parcels t�ould be up to
Public Auction, He said that the Council recards tivould sho�v
that he had brought up at one of the meetir.gs that the action
could lead to troubles, and it has�
rtr, Plemel said that the City had first chance to purchase
the lots before the Public Auction,
PSs. Gabel said that it had been discussed, but that the
City didn�t �;rant to be in the real estate business,
Mr. Kemper caanted to knorr if Mr, Sinigaglio ���as clear as to
hoiv to proceed to make a vacation request.
Mr. Sini�a�lio asl�ed that if he made the request, and it
�vas turned domn, would he be able to appeal the decision,
Mr. Holden said that he rrould have to orait six months to
reopen the discussion.
t�tr. Kemper said that Mr. Boardman could ansti�rer any
question that he had.
rr-�
11PPT�'11IS f OMMISSIOTI MT'^TItdG - 3ANUARY 2f�, 1978 PaF';� 22
Chairperson Schnabel suid that in 1971 there had been a
request to build a. house at 1�800 Third 5treet, and that the
request had been denied.
3, OTH�R BUSINESS:
Mr. Holden said that 4�Ir, 0'Bannon rroulcl be� requesting the
same variance for three separate Iots. Mr, 0'Bannon ���anted to
knoi�� if one fee could be made to cover all three of the variance
requests, .
Ms. Gabe1 said that it ivas an administra.tion issue.
IiYDE Pf�RK
Mr. Holden said that there rrould be many reauests in future
meetings reoarding parking in the Boulevard, He said that
Hyde Park r:ould. be oetting neiv streets and most of the
requests would be from the areas a2ready zoned residential.
Ghairperson Schnabel i^�anted to kno�r �•rhat the requests
e�ould be far.
Mr, Hold.en said that the requests i+tere for permission to
park off the street but that the only available place
v�ould then be in the boulevard areas.
Mr. Holden said tilat the City had sent letters to the
people in the area indicating that nerr streets �vould be
put in and unless the peonle received variances, the
City ��ould install six inch curbs, He said that if
the people lvere granted variances, the City raould install
tcro inch curbs.
COST CP� HOU"aIidG
Chairperson Schnabel indicated that there had been an
article in the nedrspaper regarding the cost of housin�,
She said that some studies had been done and it had been
determined that the greatest value in housing t7as in the
older cities/communities housin� erhere people could buy
the older homes for relatively less amounis of money. She
said that the houses usually needed a lot of repair vrork
done to them.
Chairperson Schnabel said that a couple of the points that
h�d 'oeen made in the article as to some of the directions
that could be t�ken •�+ere:
1, "Cities must cut cio��m on the tmderbrush of re�ilations,
perr�its, and special taxes imposec'. on "rehab° activity.
They should enact separa�;e housing codes for rehabilitation,
somerrhat less stringent than those for neva housing,�'
'
APPEAI,u_ C04�4ISSION MPE'1'ING - JAr1U/�RY 2t� 1�8 Pa�e 2�
2. �'Localities should revise their tax codes so that
families who irnprove their homes needn�t fear
immediate� high property-tax hikes. St. Louis
offers a 10-year abatement, for instance. And on
Boston's model, cities should set up one-stop
offices to help people tvith rehabilitation problems,��
Chairperson Schnabel said that it had to be realized that
a great deal of th.e i•rork that tvas being done on
rehabilitation cras being done by the o��rner. She said
that maybe soMe of the codes are too stringent and
possibly codes could be adopted that tivere a little more
lenient so that the home orrner could bring the house
into "safety" but not be burdened by great costs.
Ghairperson Schnabel said that something could be considered
similar to the above suggestions for the fIyde Park area
and other areas as r�eZl.
ADJOURi9P1r^NT
h10TI0PJ by Mr, Barna� seconded by Ms, Gabel� to adjourn
the January 24, 1g78, 1�ppeals Commission meeting, Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting c�as adjourned at 10:1+9 P�M,
Respectfully submiited,
�/%a,u�� �C_�t��
MaryLee Garhill
Recording Secretary
\
�
;
,
.�.,v
,
,
�zBZT a
December 12, 1997
A check o£ the City files show that evexy building site within four
hundred (400) feet of the two 40 foot lots in question is at least
70 feet wide with the exception of 3 lots. 4705 Main Street is a
43 foot wide interior lot that was developed in 1947, prior to the
Gity 7JOning Ordinance. 4795 - 3rd Street is a 38 foot lot on a
cozner, but adjacent to a short dead-end street that could possibly
be vacated. 4800 - 2�r Street is a corner 40 foot lot for which a
variance was granted, but with the stipulation that a lot split be
obtained to make the lot 45 feet in width. Note that variance was
never used for 4800 - 2�i Street, and therefore no building permit
issued. The total ninnber of "building sites" involved is 66.
The attached map shows the lots in question in red; the 43 foot wide
interior developed lot in orange, vacant 90 foot lots in the area in
blue and the 400 radius circles in green.
= _____-_.�%'�`"'�-�
RON HOLDBN
Building Inspector
RH/mh
� ,�
�
� ✓`� 1, _...'_""
N ��
. " �aaa ; 488 ; ��
:4 �;y� 4�¢8
48,57 � q�
..
.�aqs . �844'
c� g 83 3 a3z
� iA �•N
� \ -- - a
:a . ��t
,i. .'!n
, �,1r. . • �nr .
��:v��� i s v �� �
�
w
49TH: --- -- ---�►VE----.;� :� .
,r -
� �, .. , u . ,,..b , • i p �q . ._.'�f i,, a , �
�48�i-'� ;488u ; z r, + .Q$�o � p ; __l�__ r '---•; t i r�
` , -qa� 3 Qty:V� '_.'..... _I►
99� �r --��--- - _
d�a_ t� �8¢g _� � � _.; �.
4 1�63 --�-• ,.
gab f a¢3__ s - .._< <} _ �
:, 856 ,� 48s�� ,r �•�- - �.
�4851` , 985t�- � --4ar��--' -•-� —�: ..
4a44 4844 a�
v r t� 9 � , �� ;, �
qg�q 9 .d�u9 s 49�9 ��,� e
�:
.Qa�� �a�z _ ----o; �
,4azT " ;, �4sz-r-. . N a�iT ---m�:, X
48i's 46ZZO .4 „ 48�a d �� --"-.: ! ,
a�� ,� a,� ,� �.., ,
±.;
; �4��a � „ � :q'�ae. : „ ---;; .. � ,
;qao3 ... � 4�03 . 4@0 --- -�--�-?
'ri.�i� ..i:.w+c 3oE�uls • � A!�e.r F �ir.K �♦ ��N.}=. � .� �
48TH. " ygc� AVE. „'.__.. y v -
" � � , •- v,s�, .
�T' �z -478 �o-= ; Q �' � - o "� :. ;
s ; z : 7a� F47=8 = + 7'�'rs�'' �"— t- -� ` ��
-4-��f�t 76 �9 , :. _ , .J � :.
47�a-
r • n s t•
76 -
v .4?�� �4Ts4o 'd�4! T�6 47�7 �47s ` _�_ _ � '.
. < � .47 3 47�3- ' 4T§d --J..1 .
?a ��32' � -Qt4 4��4 - •- ---•�
u ' • z� 9 a� c :, r .�
N �r Q7�4 • ��S . , � r: ¢:??�, , � --_�-} :�
z< ,o .. ,� ��2 N ?G . N�i�' _ .
so 4Ti�-. T)7 �7`2i1 ' 4T)°T ir u H�S' f.. :
' � `4T,� 9 � .� , a �2 0 } _„2,�.:! •
4 . 765 • .Q7D6, t-c ,�7,D7 47t2 -4)09-� ' 47�5 .,C'J;'I, •
i tA . .4�l0 --T- �,;" .
� • � . , � . �- . N � ` ��13 � � ?63 ``•*'-
, �p y j /�--
�:f9i 1`i N.'t � 1iL�f� \ v' 1;0y 2 i.�+4s ♦ i�� �v $ ."'�isN, le � t
• 3� : .
' � �
z s �47TH: r AVE. „ ' .�
, � � �,,... ,,, ,..,,; ;,,., „<._ ��b'�7 - ,.,, � � c..
� ° �' �' x ' 6s5 ;�bK' �46�5: 46�0 -•-• -
. i.� H i �1 � � ' '�i � 0 3' Y � Zi f Z s ��f� � � _' �"..�' .
tl �5 s
tFG� �6� � Z_ db�2 z� •� ---- i r. ;.
, 4 �6� . �6 63 ---- ---
. s �-46S6 � �¢39 4b�� ��b�-r 63 If —..� • -
'' `:_ ` ' �5 � ' ---- ---
. � : " �<' 46g44 =d6�1- � 46�2 _ •+Sb�i3 ; qbf 4b��t -�---- i' •.
. : �q(� 634 - -� -
� � 1 . l! 1 � Il ! Il . �"" ; . �
-dt�� 6Z3 46Z4 � 6.25 424 � ,,
;` �4�Zy= a�iT --"Yry- : -
j a J/ te 9 1: ��l, .
i �4�AZ ��5 A�_b --46� n � ��'�
i �� � � (.fa- qG;t:fi _�.
., � 4 L�a9-' . � . � �,,,_, �
* ._9603 `�4�Q6 �� .db�b d- � r _ .46�0 ` 4643 _._"...� -
Q � l. 'fl�r :.y � ♦ ��> > `�4R"+� � ♦ !! r i •nw•. -/Jtfr�
� N� � N � /,%i�.=
;�N�Ni 46TH. - -AVE.. :. �- - � --- --- {. .-Ni�� %- i � . � �.
' .. . � ( �. ,... .� . r ,,,.�
,�. 45�f ` ;4�60� � k �, k;4590k `4��t ' 4 ,�8 ji �Q5r95,�'_- � ;s ;:r
' _�,,,,
iv�
_ , ,C3.
REGULAR P:EEFIt� OF AUGliST 15, 1977 PA6E 10
CUUncflman Hamernik fett ihey shoutd be lookirg at a percentage of the gross saTes �
for donaticns to charity and redistribution into the community. He felt possibly
a percenta;e of 12% to 15..
Councilman Fitrpatrick indicaEed he agreed with Councilman Hamernik, but would still'
like to continue to get a report on the bingo proceeds. � �
Mr. Brunselt indicated staff could draft an ardinance for the Council's consideration
d�M also use a different reporiing form, .
Mayor Nee indicated he would like to establish a percentage for contributions within
the City, znd wondered if this is legal.
Councilwor:an KukoNSki suggested perNaps at least 58 of Lhe contributions cou16 be
kept within the City.
Nr. Nerrick fe)t staff coutd come back with some recomnendations that would be
reasonable in terms of percentages.
No other action was taken, therefore, at this time.
CONSIDERATi.N OF PROGRAM FCR OISPOSAL OF TAX FO°.FEIT PROPER7IES: ��
The Louncil considered a Qro9ram for dispo;a7 of su�s*_andard tax forfeit properties
by the Cour.cy r:bere it will be stipuiated Yhat certain properties are "tfot a
Buildable S:te," "Flood Plain" or tqust be Cembin=d for 6uilding Site" in.an attempt
to provide as much informntion as possible to potential buyers.
Hr. Sobiech sttted the fear was that someone might buy these properties and not know
they were r.�t a buildable site, in the fie:A plein, or nust be combined with cther
properties to have a buildable site. Hoperuily, this program would rectify that prob7em.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, Suggested oreRerty awners adjacent to these substandard �
prCperties he notified they are goir.g uD fcr saie, Councilman Fitzpatrick stated �
he ayrees Lhe adjacent property owners sho�id receive this iniormation.
Wuncilmzn Schneider felt it would be des9rable for the parties, as we}1 as the City,
to have the lots purchased by ad„acent properLy owners. .
M4TI�N by C_ancitnan FiYZpatrick to concur with the staff recomnendation for disposal ���
of tax forreit properties and authorize this plan. Seconded by Councilvwman Kukowski.
Upon a voic_ vote, a71 voting aye, Mayor Aee declared the motion carried unanirt,ously.
CONSIDEGATI.'� QE Flh'AL GRANT APPRO�JAL FOR TriE ST:P PP,OGRAM:
Hr. Qureshi, City Ma�ager, explained the arani Hou1d provide for two additional police
officers for the SiE� prog�a:�. He explzine� this does not add any adAitional personnel
from City f;:nding; hm�ever, it does provide additional equipmenY the City would purchase
for the prosram.
7fie City P�r.ager exp7ained the City has tfie discretion to participate in the program
for onTy ore year or continue on a year-to-yezr basis. He explairted there is some
taonitment cn the Lity's part and it is an experiaental program; however, he felt it
tat� potentia;ly provide a good service to the coRmunity.
Y4TION by Co�acilrroman Kukowski to approve the gra�t. Secondsd by Councilman
Haciernik.
Councilman Schneider felt this was a fine progren and hoged it worked out well. He
elarified that the tao police officers will not be hired to fill the vacant positicns,
but are two addiLiona) men over and above the existing vacaacies.
Nr. Qureski stxted the funding irem the grant would be used to hire trro additional
officer5; h,::ever, the only cor.�riYnent on�the City's part is for the equipn;ent requested
ip the Dudget, which is a fu11y equipped patrol car and other miscellaneous equipment. �
a
; UPUV A VOICE 1'Q7E TAY,EN ON THE HOSIDY, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the mation
� earried unanir.:ously, � �
�.�..,
. ��' ' �
1hfi;.:J '; iJ:
AiJ:iiu i�i:�')"•i:
ll;i3'li :
SUi;JJ?C'1 :
L'�1it11YSiT ll
:�:i1:1771 �1. �tll'C:i:li � (.1 i:V i•Iittlil);(`.I' .
I?ichard ir. Sobi.cch, Yub).ic itioci.:; uirccLOr
Au�.;t:st 11, 1977
ProPra,n lar 1?ispos;:Z �: SubsS,n�u:,r1 T;:s Pcri:cii
Pro�,erti.es
Pl easc be aaVl SCCI the Y��1�7 i c i•;orLs Prpnr i��nen? l�as bc�+;
WO:'�:]11� k'iL�t ��]nC Q�ii8I:i1(ii:� i.Q111;Y-Y (�Oii!451155:tCU]E1'� 17l %1�? u�'tC:�:r�:
10 cICVCaCp :i ])1'Q�T2A1 LO Li1S�1ti,:�;t O;� tiU�)�tEL1t1:SPC. t.7X j:C:i'��C2'C
properties.
Zt. 1$ 'i.}lc; Oi)1i71031 Of ii].�B ���BiLlv^4 1:i1Ji �iilQ�<8 (�.^LLTit�' C�=R
(IlSj/OSC Of ti.CSE' 1iT01)CI'i.1(`S 1:1 A!38]11LCT $3t1.Sf8C'COT)' i.0 i.f2C
Ci,ty of :'ridley, tiiere�cire, it is sug;ested an appropri.ste
7.isting of tLe tax forfeit. lots l:e sui,i;iittcd 1:p tl�e Ceunty
t�ith c�;nrients a� to ceit-:in circi±mst�nces aifec�ing Lhe
indiviuuai p;oper�ies.
l�tiaehed ior eonsidr�ration t�y tiie Cou��cil is tl�e l�r�?osed
program t;hich :,�uJ4 aiio}; the .vunty to dis��ose of the pru-
perties at a nubl�r ��uction. 1�s y�u �.i.71 netr... cert.a.ir i%ro=
,.,..«� � - . _ �, ,,.. , , ,..� �� ��-- , r, ��
Lw�.iG.. �T@ StljiulAi.::d �S :�v. 1>:iliUoJl.i's $1-C.C' p l•ZUU(i r1311t
�'dRd ���:�1$?' jjfy (�.p::1��2ia^C�• �O" iU11C�lA�-t S1'l'6�� 111 i1Il 1�tE1d]�S: i�0 �
pz•o:�i3e as rucii ii�for�^,a*_ic;n as po�sible to poi.entiia2 Uu��e.s.
It is sug�ested ihe Co�ncil cansider this item at the regulur
Council r:..etir_g o; l:ugust 15, 1977.
RNSJjm
aitachMent: 1
v
U A
.f
❑
�
..... �..�� .,.
� �'
O H
.d (q
u
rt t.�
� �
m
G �
-.a n
u ,�
NN � .. ' ' � .. ' ' ' �
a
.0 G'S
-n H
3 0
.
>. ..
u
�' ' •• ' ' � L I � C � .0 �
O
U
�
�
�
- �' � ^ C ' ' � ' ^ ' ' '
u
U
7
r,
uc c n c' ^ `- s'
� '
�
7
4
�' ' ' � � � ' � � � � � _
:.9
7 -
O
4
N
L � � � � � � � ` � � �
'�
�
0
N •
�
NA ' ` _ ' � � _ _ : ' ' = _
:� � . ' � � . .. .
4 e-1
E� . � _ . � ' ' ' _ _ _ ' _
o .c
� U � ��
� a
� � h t�� . . W W
R: ti P4 P: d.7 l+ . u
U �PiPG R: HH, � ��'clv�i °w
� c:iwcC w ww d NNCi� ww
s:. wwra w o0 0
� o o� o � o 0 0 0 3
� �i:7W � w W3 . ,-OjW
� W W W W A7 .-i >,
z o" o" � a, �i oi . °1 "
G1 OJ . �y � 7 -� .0 F.� .G OD N
N 7�'U '3 �6' C L u u u u G.O
..at o z`M' u •o rnmco�_
„ ,a a c� m c u� •o .a � v v a a
}� . i.� 'D 'y T N O�O� W � w W W W � w W
F1 �tl '.1 '�+ rJ �o �D �1 � O O O O J O O
u m �� w
u a° z�ia v; zz y yZ.fqtq ;L.`d
a
u
..{
� s
w . a�
O M � _
is. $
�n �l +n O O O� O O O O� O � O� O
X� O N N N �7 �Y' �Y �T J rT �T �7 [�1 c�1 �
�+ a .°�� o u
'o u x ,+ m
w .
`y uC6 a� ,v° v m T �.Lecvcvco.�+ °'w.N-�'
C C x . . . 7�+ ..�a � � . b . . 'x .
� T r/ � �t'i .-f .-1 .-{ .-1 O .�/ .-i
4 +4 � NW N a.� .vmw N C1c9 filKlqon i+W q
N N N 61 H >..-f .C' � pq
•C �+ H • T N O 'O ��
� > 'r co rn�D N P. •-a .r )+ vi O a�n Q G` O oD ••� .�+
� M N �/1 N ul ri a(1 .-� N V f+ M O�+. Ol Cl M =: N ti
� a
A 7 u u U M a� 'O u a+ •' w u � a� �a a� u �
4 Y L
M O O O Sa U ;+� O O N O O .� O O(� O d O O
�-1 vl d`�;� w.' �y-1';1 Ou.l a�kl�'�t>, p��
� � '� ?
n
n
`
N
\
�
�� $ ll
_ �
�
�
�.....
, . ,
.t ',�
t
N�u
f:1�
d
�
CI
a
u
��
u
a
.0
L
b
�el
3
L
O
�.3
C
O
tt
N
M
v
�
h
.�
4,
�
a
H
O
W
w
N
.�C
U
H
CL
T
�
�d
U
>
�
�
�
�
�
r
3
&
�•
tll
r
6
M
i�
.-i
a
a
r-1 �
11 N
N �
j.i
�.�t ot
' c�
T�
4 � .-/
a r.
�
G aJ
V N
Y
r
�i
r.=
G C
r1 M
!J N
U rl
:� w
�
'�
U O
-.d O
ri �-1
A i�+
�+
a
.a
r '
ae;
a �
o a�
H <�
r v�
L�
w
o�
�-+ a
O �!
dl T
e �
r 7
v �
r i3
�, o
,4 7
y, =
.
H
H
G)
H
W
ni
H
u
>
M
�
N
u
r
�
.+
rti
..
N
Q
H
!l
f�
��
:f
r
.,�
N
N
N •.i
's .-hi
>. w
u
L' 'O
� U
O O
V �
D+C
.G
�d
�
a -e�
� �
U •�
� N
ti
DO
U C
.� .�
ri 'CJ
.O .-I
7 •.t
� �
=
ea s+
_t P
�w
S 'c7
L U'
Y.
v •�
��
0 6
4) O
U
� e�
.� �
� �
�-i �,
� K
U �,
io =
'a
M
O
Sa
�"i
N N
4� [1
u N
f1 H
�H
ii 3
� �
o >
fA �
_ Q H
w
�i '�i
�i
G
M
Y
�J
�
�
r
�.i
u
W
x
L
.y
r
u
�
�
V
U
T
.O
L'
0
L [
U +�
7 :3
r, ,-i
a
')
•'1 y
.-1 O
:� O
7 -i
0. !•a
� :2!
a�
O N
sa u
F �
u �n
v e�
a�
oa
7i •S
'O
ti
m�
7
� �
ri �
7
o �
� �
Cn -
v
m
O
H
�
C�1 N
3 N
� H
� N
� H
F� 3
C� U
F1 N
u. y
o a
V7 �8
N
r.
U
�
N
n
.-�
:]
a
M
u
U
�
3
>,
a�
F
7
O
U
T
L
c
o-
+! C
:.� v2
v r.
� .�
m c.
U •O
�r{ p
-a O
P -1
;f W
ry�
x �
�
O C1
s. u
.0 •.�1
� w
v m
.i �
°w N
.-�-I
m ,�
p y
b �
� i.J
� �
O 7
.0 _
fn -
'l!
�
O
H
Pq
�
QI
� O
G H
A �
� F
T 3
l+ `U
.0 ?
U 7+
W >
o �
in .il
r
0
M
N
M
�
�
ry
H
u
W
x
�J
3
T
J
C
�
O
V
T
.[�
a
� C
u •.{
U rJ
7 .-1
:0 k�
U 'O
•r1 O
�-i O
� .�
� W
a�
� ✓J
w
� ..
o �
t+ u
.0 M
u v�
v w
.i .1
o .a
N N
'O
� -i
p •�
�
'O p
e-1 u
� O
O �.� _
Vi `�
N
U
N
Q 3+
Q� H
3 Y
af 3
A �J
.�
O H
�� u
�J ?
wa
q W
W 'O
0 0
.N
N Gi
Y
.el
O�
4 1 �S h 4
� ul 0 � V1 Y1 ul If� V1 Vl 1/1 V� Vl ul
M N ��. � N N C � N N N N N N N
� ..
� �. ri
.t W �
Q� �
�e� A
'J w O
N p� .-v
H
7 u y
++ O U
���
5�
� rl
Ge. W
w y
�n •n
fy N,
u u
�> O
��
> » >
ni .�f �-1 ri
W a�Mn�
M v � �
.-t ..r +-t ..a
U J l� a�
O O U O
...t .� .a ,�i
. �; � ,
;� {
•-1 .-1
fA W
� n
N N
Y 11
6 O
) ��
xx
.-i .-1
W M
T CT
N N
N L
��a
EXtiIBIT D2
?:
u
A
a
H
O
w
�
n!
�
U
it
h
ry
T
N
�
V.
�
A
O
H
K�
O
'ri
�
3
�
s�
C�
ti
w
0
�
rN ���
.-1 N . .-1 H
iY1 :O r�-! M PR
�
W 1� . t�1 O�
.� .-1 .-i f'1 �'�l
u u ai u u
O O O O O
� � "� a .�
>>
r%z �i �
h
n
�
\
�
V
�
�
l.rtuY.
� ,-'A�a�i'..
. ..
�`�•� ' F.
� ,! ..
���'�' `'"'£a
�
6�s� N Y �T N��f�L��
N—
�8437 UNIVERSI7Y AVENUE N.E., FNIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432
S{ TEIEPHONE (8t2)571-3450�
December 9, 1977
Dfr. 3im Plemel
County Auditox's Office
325 East D1ain Street
Anoka, A8�1 553D3
Dear Mr. Pleu�el:
I would like to request some information from your o£fice, h�hich is
pertinent to an item before the Fridley Board of Appeals Cormnission
on December 13, 1977. In order to determine wheYher the two lots in
question, ichich were sold at the recent public auction by Anoka County,
were sold as buildable or unbuildable lou, we need the following in-
formation:
1. How was the appraised value for these two lats determined?
Also, we would like to ]mow by whom and when the values
were deteYmined.
2. k'hat were the appraised values and £ina.l sale prices of
the two lots?
The lots in cluestion are Block 2, Lot 15, and Block I2, Lat 30, Plymouth
Addition.
Also, can you p2ease te11 us what the buyer was told at the auction in
regards to the lots being buildable or not?
Thanlc you.
.RH/grs
Sincerely,
CITY OF FRIDLEY
�
n o en
Bui.lding Inspector
-•%
�
/
�
�
�Q�'V �� trf�o�L,� �
�/ 8�91 UNIVERSITY AVEMUE N.E., FHIOLEY, MINNESOTA 65432 8
f TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3q50
DATE: JULY 15, 1976 �,''
T0: MEMBERS, APPEALS C011t4ISS10N
FROM: Bltl NEE
RE: UTILI2ATION, 40 FOOT LOTS
I just received my copy of the Appeals Commission hfinutes of the meeting
at which a City Council discussion on 40 foot lots was reviewed.
'There seemed to be some concern, or perhaps a misunderstanding of my
position regarding the utilization of these parcels.
I know you will bear in mind that I have no special standing in this
matter, being only one of five members of the Council. On the other hand,
I have had considerable more experience than any other member with the
proble:n of c�ealing with the birds as they actually co:ne home to roost.
(Being the person on �•rhom the "Summons and Complaints" are served.) So
let me comment on the recent deTi6erations on the 40 foot lot ouestion.
I~d m't have the varicus "Minutes" readily available as I write this,
so I hope you will forgive me for a certain inevitable lack of precision.
I think there are four points I should make:
l. There was a co�nnent in the Appeals Commission deliberations that it
was "City Policy" to try to facilitate the utilization ofi these 40 foot
parcels.
I know of no such City Policy.
It`s true that.former Playor Frank Liebl took that viQw. That does not
make it "City Policy" any more than the statement of my views makes �
position "City Policy". 06viously, "City Policy" in such matters is set
by the entire City Council, and I know of no such policy bei�g established.
For what it's worth, it has been and is my view that in the present
circumstances the 40 foot parcel cannot be considered a building site.
I want to underscore that there ma be reasonable ways of developing
the 40 foot parcel as a building site, but I have not seen such a proposal
yet. It woutd certainly have to have some very fundamental planninq work
done on it before I�vould see the results as being consistent with broad
community goals in "Quality of tife" terms. Such a solution might involve
some kind of zero lot-line development concept, or poientially a sFecial
building and design control code which taould accomodate a smaller building
scale but would maintain Quality of Life values by the use of innovative
forroats.
�-.
� ,
+,ro,�,o
�
�
��
_
July 15, 19J6
Members, Appeals Commission • • 9
hage 2 -
But, presently we do not have anything liY,e Lhis for the 40 foot parcel.
Instead, v+hat �re're really doing is trying to apply design and building �'+
concepts intended for 75 foot parcels to 40 foot lots -- and still expecting
to maintain the "Quality of Life" standards the comnunity fias today.
I want to raise the question -- W6ere has this been accomplished?
Gonsider what's happening in Minneapolis, where many homes were built on
40 foot frontages, and had the added important advantage of excellent back
aliey servir_e. These are the neighborhoods tfiat have had the worst history
of urban decay and population fligh*_. People don't want to live in those
crortded settings if Lhey have other options, and as soon as they can afford
. to get out, they do. •
In those areas tiahere htinneapolis is investing redevelopment resources in
residential neighborhoods, they are making efforts to solve the very
problem we're considering creating! (And in our situation, we're not
even talking about opening back alley service, which would make 40 foot
site development even marginaily tolerable.]
2. There was some discussion by Mayor liebl, which was recapitulated in the
Appeals Commission discussion, concerning tfie desirability of "getting
this property on the tax ro]es". (Presumably to make an economic contribution
to the cormnunity's tax base.) •,
To accept this as a general proposition is a false economy.
We are not legally justified in entertaining tfiis as a factor in our
deliberations concerning whether or not to permit 40 foot building
sites; but I think that since the natter was raised in the Minutes, I
might be permitted a brief comnent.
If you are talking about puiting a S30,000 house on the 40 foot lot, chances
are that the taxes it generates wi11 not pay the cost of public services.
6iven the history of such developments, this wil] be increasingly true
as the housing ages.
As far as "getting it on the tax roles" is concerned, there are several
srays to do that without creating 40 foot building sites. Two 40 foot parcels
make a good 80 foot buildin9 site -- just 5 feet n;ore lavish than the
City's minimum. Three 40 foot parcels make 2 less acceptable, but still
Yiable 60 foot sites. Or, one 40 foot parcel makes a tlandy garden -- a
perfectly reasonable use of land. .
A]1 of these options are consistent iaith the "Quality of Life" values
held by the people who have buitt this coimiunity and have invested their
savings on certain development assumptions, such as those expressed in
;ot size and setback criteria.
�
�
July 15, 1976
Members, Appeals Cortmission
Page 3
��
3. It's unfortunate that the Appeals Comnission did not h0ve the same �
in�ormation pacY.age on this question that the City Council had. It might
bave made sane difference in how the Commission v9ewed Lhe entire question.
As it turned out, the City Council did have more extensive information on
the question. This included a detailed survey of all of the vacant
40 foot lots, or end-of-the-block lots. This report showed the true
dimensions of the issue. It showed long strips of 40 foot lots. On
several blocks, these sequences of vacant 40 foot parcels were the dominant
characteristic.
4. This indicated to me that if we accepted the proposition that 40 foot
' frontages satisfied the City's criteria on "health, safety and o-�elfare,"
all of these lots would be eligible for development as seoarate building
sites; and that we would have, in fact, the development of several blocks
characterized by th�s building pattern.
As a simple, practical legal matter, the City cannot defend the kind of
discriminatory criteria recommended by the Appeals Cor�nission.
The constitutional basis for our land use regulatory power has to be our
fin�ings that certain minimums are necessary to the protection of the
pub}ic health, safety and welfare. If the City finds that a 40 foot
frontage satisfies those criteria, we simply cannot deny building permits
to those long strips of other 40 foot lots. {And the next issue may weli
be rrhat to do with the vast number of 25 foot lots ��e have on record! Are
they also building sites? The same case can be made for them.)
I think the situation is not yet legally irretrievable, since the building
permit �vhich was issued was for a corner lot, which could 6e the basis for
a distinction between this act and a future claim for a building permit
on an interior 40 foot site.
But I am convinced that once the City issues a building permit for an
interior 40 foot lot, we are going to have to yield on all interior 40 foot
lots. This will be the re�v minimum lot size and "minimums" soon become
the "maximums". I have personally witnessed this phenomena. with reference
to 50 foot lots in Riverview Heights.
In the early 1960's �ae had tried to hold out for the 75 foot frontage
(i.e., three 25 foot lots per building site) but; at s�me point the Council
decided to issue a permit on a 50 foot frontage, and then another, and
another -- and now it would be legally imnossible to deny a permit. The
50 foot site has become the defacto "maximum" lot size in Riverview Heights.
Yet you all.are weli a�rare of the very substantial development difficulties
we are experiencing �oith 50 foot lots; such as providing adequate sideyards,
• garages and off-street parking,
I recognizc that the Commission expressed their concern with the potential �•
for a strin9 of ten or twelve housin9 units, all side by side on 40 foot lots,
This concern was indicated by the stipulation that a building permit would
�� i
_ • 'JuTy 15, 1976
Members, Appeals Commission
Page 4
"R �i
not be given in cases where adjacent land is available "uniess the owner had
made an.attempt to buy the adjacent land and had been unsuccessful". �
There are two problems with this. First, it's simply unenforceable, and -
any experienced developer/builder v+i71 know it. Second, the economic dynamics
work against any possibility of two adjacent landowners getting together.
If you ass�me Jack oYms 40 foot lot N18, and John owns 90 foot lot �19,
you 4ri11 have the follo4ring situation. We say to .)ack that you can't have
a building permit for �18 unless John refuses to seli #19 at a reasonable
price. 41e have already.said to John that he can't have a perniit to build
on �19 unless Jack refuses to sell N18 at a reasonable price. All it takes
is for Jack and John to agree not to sell to each other and then they both
have building permits for 40 foot lots!
Assume I'm a speculator and am aware of the discussion now taking place.
I buy a strip of 40 foot lots, say lots 5 through 16 in a block. This
could be worked up as six 80 foot sites, or eight 60 foot sites or tweive
40 foot sites. All I have to do is sel] e�ery other lot to my wife. Then
I ask her if she viill sell me her lots (being adjacent lots) at a reasonable
price. She says "No", so I go to the Appeals Commission and say I own lots
5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15.
T have asked the owner of lots b, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 to sell at a
reasonable price so I can make 80 foot lots. But, the owner of those lots
won't sell at a reasonable price; so I should get a Building Permit for
40 foot lots.
You give me the building permits.
Then cs�y wife comes in and says she owns lots 6, 8, 10, 12, 74, and 16 and
they are impacted by buildings on lots 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15. No adjacent
land is available. You must give me building permits. And under the logic
of the rules proposed by the Appeals Commission, she would be right.
I have, of course, oversimplified tivhat is likely to happen. But the fact
� is, the economics of land development �^�ill mitigate against adjacent owners
selling to each other. And in any event, the condition is legaily unenforce-
able because it cannot be related to "health, safeiy and welfare" criteria.
So the direction the Corrmission is recommertding wili result in strips of
homes on 44 foot sites.
that is why I voted against the Variances which you recomnended granting.
The Ethics of the Question
On the one hand we have just adopted a Housing Plan which acknowled9es an
obligation to provide opportunities for a wide spectrum of housin9. (Including
"loxr cost" housing.)
I fiave agreed with that general goa} statement. �`
.y�,, �
uuty r�i�"�sr� _
Members, Appeals Commission
Page 5
92
7he problem with implementing that goal is the rapidly escalating cost oF
the free-standing single family residence. As the situatio� is developing, �
it raises the very real question of whether or. not there can be such a
housing unit in the near future as a low cost single family residence.
One thing the City could do (it is arguedj is reduce lot size requirements,
and this step, recommended by the Appeals Commission, wauld accomplish that.
I don't really agree that such a step v�ould materially change the price of
the finished product, although it r�ould probably provide some incentive to
certain speculative builders. And on the other hand, at the time we
recognize an obligation to provide low cost housing for new residents, we
also surely must recognize another obligation we have to the people who
' have already invested here.
They have invested their savings in Fridley housing based in part on
assurances we have given them concerning the standards we v�ill enforce. We
have said there will be "elbor+ room" and all that goes with it in the oray
of amenities and quality of life. That has been a factor in all of the
investment that has been made in Fridley in the past 25 years.
• 4lhile we admit an obligation to provide for peopie who would like to build
here, don't we also have an obligation to those who have already helped
build the City? ,
I think so.
� �L
I don't want to completely close the door on the possibility of some
innovative utilization of 40 foot residential building sites.
Perhaps the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and Community
Development can come up with a new approach. But I don't think a policy
change of this magnitude should evolve through the process of variances
by the Appeals Conmission.
If, somehow, I have misunderstood the actual proceedings of the Co�missian
as I read the Minutes, I would be happy to meet at any time to discuss it.
WJN:ejt
cc: City Council
� Planning Connnission
Comiwnity Development
�,
�
—� --
r � Ltuatuii u � i7
MEMO T0: Qick Sobiech, Public Works Director '`
MiEMO fROM: 3errold Boardman, City Planner
' 1 MEMQ DATE: November 22, 1976
RE: Development ef 4�' lots '
At the August 4, 197b meeting of the Planning Cortmission> Chairman Harris
requested that the City Administration review our present code restrictions for
40' tots, and prepare a recommendatiorr to the City Council and Planning Commission
for the study meeting of November 22, 1976.
I've reviewed the present codes and the existing conditions, and from a planning
�standpoint, tfie number of lots under 50' that have no adjacent vacant property is
very minute (23), and should not constitute a major policy change that wouid allow
them to be build on. The present zoning code is sufficient enough to contro't��this
0� situation. Also, by allowing those lots under 50' to be built o�.may cause irreversibt
conditionswhich may be unfavora6le to the City. If, for example, we had some major
storm damage as in 1965, this storm damage may allow entire areas presently platted
with lots under 50' to redevelop as such, instead of larger lots that are now
existing.
With this in mind,we should make the following recommendations to the City
Council and Planning Commission.
• 1.• 7hat those lots that are under 50' and are not adjacent to other vacant
- property should not be built on as restricted by our present zoning code.
. 2. 7he zoning code should not be varied to allow construction on these lots.
. 3. Those lots under 50' which are adjacent to vacant property, must combine
with that property to allow a combination of loi sizes compatible with
our present codes. �
� 4. Require that the deed would include a statement that would state that the
lot does not meet the present zoning codes. This would make those lots
under 50' not adjacent to vacant property virtually unbuildable and would
� in most cases go tax forfeit. Five lots are below 30' and could not
�. physicaliy be built on (even with variances). This would leave only 8 lots
• which are 40 to 50 ft. that are not tax farfeit.
The following may be some possibilities for use of this property:
' 1, Allow the use of the vacant lots, when they go tax forfeit, by the adjacent
property owners with the proper maintenance agreements.
'. 2. Suggest that these lots be used for City garden plots,
• 3. Turn the property over to a garden club-for their use.
. 4. Turn the property over to the adjacent neighborhood for a neighbarhood
landscape or creativity area. �
. • Pa9e 9
!`AT(Oil by Councilman Hamernik to concur with tfie retamm?ndation of the ApFea)s
torm: and grant the variance of the rear yard setback. Seconded 6y.Council-
►ruman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, ait voting aye, Mayor Nee deciared the moiion
earried unanimnusiy. ,
,,��° ,
RECESS: �"
� A recess was ca)led 6y Mayar Nee at 10:10 P.N.
i1 . RECONVENED:
t
1 !lryror Hee reconvened tbe meeting at 10:30 P.M. A71 Council members were present.
i
i�2SWSSlOfl REGARDING PROPQSED GUI�ELINES FOR SALE OF TAR FORPEI7ED PROPERT[ES•
� 3` �e Council reviraed a maro from the City Attorney dated Ju` 8 '—�/
� y l�e9arding
� ` �deTines for Disposition of Tax-FOrfeited Properties.
—#r.-Herrick fe7t, if the [ouncil wished, ihe guidelines could be adopted by
�' ssaolutian and provision made to set up an aaount for handling monies frrom these
� plOplrtie5. � . .
Mr. Nerrick also suggested the Housirg and Redevelapment Autho'rity couid possibly
htndte this program.
Mr. Mike 0'Bannon, Anoka Caunty Comnissioner, indicated it was his undcrstaadi�g
that the Gity �iants the County_to withhold any lots in the flood plain. He feit,
if this is the case, the Lity should purchase these loYs, aad wautd cooperate in
� aqy way he could in this situation.
Nr. Quresfii pointed out the City has luts in the fiood p7ain area which meet the
minimum area requirements and buildin9 permits can be issued, proviCing certain,
�_ requireaients are met. He questioned if these requirements could 6e listed at
the public auctinn sale by the County.
� Nr. He�rick feit perhaps whoever is conducting the acution could indicate what
lots are bnitdable, nroviding they meet certain reuqircments because of their
location in the flood p]ain.
F1r. Alex Barna, 56� Nugo Street, felt sane lot�s in his area, regardiess if they
neet the minimun size, would still be constanL!troubie {or the Lity because
of their location.
Nr, 0'IIannon indicated the Cou�ty has Lhe authority to combine lotr, adjacent to
each other, even though they are different orenership.
Kr. Herrick suggested if the Council is in agreement on Che principies set
fotth in the mmo, perhaps�administration could c;eet Hith the appropriate
County personrtel to discuss the mechanics on how this can be done. Mayor Ne�
stated his torKern is thaY the City is clear and wi11 not be accused of aay
favoritism.
�.
Mr. Herrick stated if there are situations where it wou2d appear that more than
nne person rnoid qualify to have a b!+ildinq site, then the City could advertise
ior bids and seil the property to the highest bidder.
KOTIDN by Councilman Fitzpatrick to direct the administration to prepare a
i program based on the principles contained in the Ciiy Attorney's meim and bring
tt Dack to the Councii. Seconded by CounciTman Schneider. Upan a voice vote. �
f atl vutin9 aye, Ftayor Nee declared Lbe �tion carried unanimously.
Hr. Nercick questioned what the CounciT's position would be on the request they
reCeived from Nr. Sta�hl6erg at their June 20, I?)7 neeting, At this meeting,
Mr. Stahlberq had iadicated an in:erest in buying two tax farfeit lots in River-
view Neights, and asked i4 the City would pur�hase these from the County, and sell i
thcm to him,
�� 4�
...,l,�:`.-" -
i
+
RECULAR MEETING OF JULY ti, 1917 Vage 30
Nr. Qureshi, tity Manager, questioned, if the Ctiy purchased the lots from the
County, hoa ihe se11i� price would be determined,
Councilrwn Fitzpartick felt the purpose of seiling the.lots to Mr.Stahlberg
is to put the lots on the tax rolis and develop them, rwt to make any money �
beyond what expenses the City incurred.
It was questioned what the County approised the iots for and Mr. Stah)berg
stated it was 5600 each.
Hr. 0'Bannon felt the Counr.v would probahty have another auction of tax forfeit
property either this fa71 or next sprina.
Nr. SWhlberg qvestioned if the lots go on sale at the public auction and he
teceives the bid, he couldn't start building until next January. He felt if
he obtains the property now, he will start construction and the City will have
their taxes that much sooner. ,
� Councilman Fitipatrick felt the private property owner was- making the tax for-
feit lois vatuabte, since if he did not have art option to purchase the other
iwo lots from a private owner, the tax forfeit lots orould be unbuildable.
Ne felt in this situation the City is not giving the lots the value because
the City does rwt have the other lots to make it a buildable site.
Nr. Stahlberg stated, withoui Lhe adjoining lots, the tax forfeif lnis have no':
value.
�
f
�
I .
1
(
�-•-_
Mr. Qureshi suggested the lots ga on sale at the public auction by the County,
indicating they are unbuildahte. F1r. Stahl6erg would.then fiave the option to
bid on them at the auction.
Hr. 0'Bannon felt all tax forfeit properties should be purchased in' this manner.
l6r. Nerrick stated the County appraisat of the lots was done on the basis to
eover any outstanding assessments and noi to determine market value.
Mr. Stah7berg rrould not make a comniUnent on wheYher he wou7d purchase the lots
for their market value, based On an independent appraisal.
i �
Mr. Nerrick felt, if �4r. Stahlberg would not agree to purchase the lots on this
basis, he reould recoinnend they be put up for public auction. Nr. Stah)berg
�uould then have the opportunity to bid on the lots at that time. He felt the
alternative of waiCing for the pub7ic auttion may be best fnr both parties.
Mayor Nee felt the City could not selt aAYthing to arrybody for less than what it �
is xorth.
Mr. Stahiberg asked if it would be xrong to take the Caunty's value:
Hr. Herrick stated fie Felt it would be wrorg if the City feels Lhe County's
appraisal is not market value. �
Councilman Schneider felt no action should be taken at this time until the
administration has a chance to work out a palicy, a�d the Lity should have an
appraisal of the property.
Councilman Hamernik stated he was concerned about what value the City wauld use
!o dctermine a price for the lots. Ne fett he i+ould go along with an appraised
market value of the property, but felt it should be uithin six months in which
they arc negotiatirg any purchase.
Nr, Qureshi, Lity Manaqer, questioned if the appraisal xpu7d 6e done by the
County.
Nr. 0'Bannon stated he would reQUest tao private appraisers to detennine the
market value and the County Assessor wauld not do tAe appraisal.
�
�
I.
!
:
-r
^�-9
� . . . it3 I .�Ei
i '
� .
REGUI,AR MEETI�7G Oi JtlLY Il, 1477
Pa9e 11
HOTI�t! by COUn�ilwoman Kukowski tu request the f.ounty to appratse Lots 25
OnQ 2b, Block U, Rivervicw l�ei9hts to establish market 4alue. Seconded by
touncilman xhneider. Upon a voice vote, at� vating aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
rwi7UN by Louncilwanan KukowskS to adopt Resolution No. 67-1977.
Secanded by Councilman Schneider. •
Mr. FreO BeDenee, Representative of the Police Assaciation, stated hn is re)ieved
th15 prob)em has been resolved, but noL enLirely elated on the outcome.
UPQM A YOICE VOTE 7AKEN ON THE A6pVE MdTIOti, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the arotion carried unanirtwusly. ,
RESOLUTI04 fl0. 68-19)7 AUTUORIZ[kG THE CITY MhNAGER 70 APPGY fUR ANY AVAILASLE
GETA NptlIES A7;0 GRi.NiS:
IOOTION by Louncilman Schneider to adopt Resotution No. 68-19J7.
Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski.
Councilman Namernik fett the statement was rether broad in authoriziag the Lity
Manager to appty for any ava9lable CETA nwnies and granis, He felt the CETA
fundz could be cut off at any date and with the CETA employees performing a
funttion with the City, the City miqht be asked to keep them on. He felt
discretion should be exercised in this area.
�
veryQclear�t Ctheafthat YhespositionewillTbe d�scontinued whendfunding hase
( _ ceased. ;
UPON A YOILE VOiE TAKEPI 6P! TtfE ABOVE MOTION, all voting aye, Mayor Hee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
CORRESPO4DEt;CE FBOrq HILLIAM StDTT REGARDltt� HIS RESIGRATSON fROM THE HllMAN
RESDURCES C0;71ISSIOfL•
HOTtON by Councilman Fitzpatrick to accept the letter of resig�ation fran
IJilliam Scott from the Human Resources Con�nission. Seconded by Council��roman
Kukowski. Upon a wice vote, a11 voting aye, Nayor Nee dectared the motian
carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIO�� 170. 69-1977 CONFIRPIIPJG APPOINTMENTS 70 THE CITY OF FRIDLEY COhL+tISSIO'!5
TN----- YE`1R 19 :
�
M�TION 4y Councilman Fitzpartick to adopL Resolution No. 69-197�. �
Setonded by Caunciiman Schneider. . �
Councilman Fitzpatrick pointed out that every Commission re-etected its former
Cbaimwn.
UPON A YOICE VOTE TAKEN DN iHE ACOYE MpTiON, atl wting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the aation tarried unanimously.
RECEIVING BI�S AND AM'ARDING CONTP.ACT-- UNiFOFM A?:p IAUNDRY SERVICE 6I0:
NOT10H by Councilman Hamernik to acceDt the bids as listed on page 12A nf�the agenda,
add award the bid ta Gross lndustrial Towel and Gameni Services in the am.punt of
-37,401.16, SeconCed by Councilwanan Kukowski, Upon a voi�e vote, al1 voiing aye,
1layor kee declared tAe crotion carried unanimously,
. � �L : � . ii
M ���
MEMORANDUii
City Council
It0;1: City Attorney
Guidelines for the Disposition of Tax-Forfeited PropeYties
ATG: July 8, 1977
The city council has discussed the feasibility and desirability
f acquiring certain Cax-forfeited lots from Anoka County and selling the
ame to individuals who can demonstrate that they can use said tax-forfeited
ots in conjunc[ion with other adjacent property and, as such, form a suitable
uilding site. The council has been reluctant to allow the county to sell
ax-forfe3Ced lots that do not meet the minimum lot size. The purpose hehind
he plan of the city to acquire substandard lots is to per.mit these lots to
e joined with adjacent properties in order to form a reasonable building
ite. If this plan is successful, ehe effect of iC would be to remove sub-
tandard lots from the tax-forfeited lis.t and to place the property in
rivate ownership wherein the vacious goverr.nental units iaould derive tax
�ay,ments .
It would be suggested Chat the following guidelines be follocaed if
:he city chooses to effectuate the above plan:
1. That the city would not ptirchase tax-forfeited propecties from
:he county if said parcels meet the minimum standards required by ttie city
.n order to ob[ain a building permit. •
2. That in those sittweions where there are two or moze su6standard
lots which are adjacent to each other, the city would puxchase said l,ots
rrom the counCy and combine diem into one or more building sites. The city
Jould then have [he building site appraised and �dvertise the site for sale.
Ct would be sold to Ci�e person making tlie higliest bid, provided sai.d bid
aas at least equal [o the appraised price.
3. In those situations cahere there is a tax-forfeited parcel that
[s suhstandard and there are no additional tax-forfeited parcels adjacent
[here[o, tlie city would Furchase said parccl and negotiate a sale with an
3djcining landowner. If the adjoining landowner had sufficien[ vacnnt
property, which if added to [he tax-forfeited parccl would create a Uuild-
tng site, tiien th� city would agree, prior to the sal.e, to issue a huilding
permit. If the adjacent property owirer did noe have sufficicnt property,
wl�ich if added to the tax-forfcited lo� would create a building site, ttien'
tlie proper[y could be sold Co said landownec, bu[ an agrcemenC would be
signed with said landowner nnd liis succcs::ors, hcirs, and assigns [o thc
effect [hat no bui.ldiizZ; >>axmit wnuld be issucd fnr said subseandard lot.
In either of th. latter inst�nces, die city sliould have an �greement with
ttic adjlccnt landowiscr before purcliasing the ta�-forfcited lot Irom tl�e
county.
Page 2
4. If a tax-forfeited lot has private property on either side of
it nr�d if the private oWners on either side wish to enlarge their lots,
then the city shoulcl agrcc� to divide tLe tax-forfeited ioC and sell one-half
to eaeh of the adjacent privaCe owners.
The above program could be handled hy the city administration or,
as an alternative, it wouid seem feasible that the Nousing and Redevelc�pment
Aut6ority could handle this type of program under their existing authority.
\
11 A
;c i
s 1 �y �
1�'
i; ;
,
,;
i` ;
�,
�
� '
t�
;:
i'�
i�
;
�;
il
i;
�.
i
�
ii
I�
, ,
. �
7ENTATIYE GUIQELINES FROM 7NE PIANNING COtdMISSION
4/7/76
1. The Planning Comrr�ission feels that it was consistent with the
Comprehensive Housing Plan that sub-standard lots,should be
. developed in Fridley, but each sub--standard lot should bc con-
sidered separately.
2. That there 6e no variance ailowed from the present ordinance
allowing a mar,�mum of 25' lat cnveraye. (Fax examp}e, on a
5200 square foot lot, which v,�oui�1 require a variance foi^ lot
size, only 1>300 squarc f�et of the lot cauld be covered by
the house and garage.)
3. If.th2re is iand ava•tt�File on either side Q� a sub••st:a.ndard lot,
every effort stiou"td be made ta pui°chose tha.t lo� at a iair
market price by tF�e pet•itioner, sa the lot size would be con-
Sistent with existiny b�ilding sites in the area. If the pet;ii:icm er
:refuses to try and E�egatiate 7`or a6ditionai vacant iand, cansideration
�should begivehto dena��n+3 �:he vzriance. A71 denia7s have to be
dased on good, sound cor�siderat�ons. ' �.
4: That #he otianer/builder make as mi�ch of an effort as possible to
meet .the existing eodes,
5. 7hat�the hause teing built on a sub-standard lot blend ii1 as
ates�hOtiC�i�lY as poss�ble with the existing houces in the neighborhoad�
�rea]izing that a new t�ame cannot alvrays blend into an olci neighbarh�ad.
f91
_�;; ,,
�u
P1annSng Couanission Mee[in� - December 8, 1971 Paste 10 .
i90TION by Schmedeke, seconded by iitzpatrick, that the Planning Co�+ssion
table the Lot Sp1it Request, L.S. k71-S5, by John M. ketcalfe to split Lot 2b,
except the Easterly 165 feet thereof, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 13
onti2 Janaary 12, 197?• Upon a voice vote; a11 voti»g aye, the motion carried
unanimouslg.
8. S�.1T PUBLIC HEAAiNG DATE OP JANUARY 12, 1972: REQUEST FOR A SPECZAL USE
PERMIT, SP 1171-17, DON'S GI7LF SERVIC? STATION. Request for D-Hau1 rentals
on Exsterly 351 feeC of Lo[ 12 and Easterly 351 feet of the Southerly
20 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision :70. 155, except that part takea
for highway and street purpases, per Code Section 45.1�1, Subaectioa 6,
Paragraph 3E.
MOTION hy Zeglen, seconded by Fitzx trick, that the PIanning Co�mrtiss'oa set
the Public Hearing date of January 12, I971 for the Specia2 Use Perm�t, SP
�71-Z7, by Dion's Gu1f Service Statior. 'or U-Haul rentals. Upon a voice vote,
a12 voting age, the motlon carried nna:i:nously.
9. GO:�REHENSZVE PLAN FOIt TfiE CZTY OP FRIDLEY:
The Co�ission aet the date of January 26, 1972 as a study meeting for the
Comprehensive Ylan for the City qf Fridley.
10. SECO`r'D MEETING IN DECEMBER (DECFF�ffi°$ 2^_, 1971):
The Conmission decided to forego *_ae Planning Comaission meeting of
Decesbe� 22, 1972. The next regular �etiag of the Planning Commission vill
be January 12, 1971.
11. GUIDE LINES FOR LOTS SUBSTANDe1RD I:: SIZE:
Chairman Erickson said the questioa is if a petitioner, when he purcnased
a 40 foot lot, could legally build on '_t. Zn 1956 he could not build on 40
foot lota, nor can he today. The question now is what should the Planniag
F Co�ai.ssion do about these lots.
T".ie City Engineer referred to the Y_cClina lots: They were tax forfe:t
before 1953, since then no taxes were paid xnd the lots went tax foxfeit
again. On two of the lots Ea�t of 3rd Stteet in the Plymouth Addition, �here
would be a c�ay to build by vacating the stzeet and adding the additional land
to the lots. This would give Mr. McCl:sse 70 foet lots.
The Chairman said that wherever possible, the Commissioa should try to
work out sone guide lines or s[ateme:t of policy. The study this evania3
�� , would be confina3 to Ply-mouth Additie.-..
After s lengthy discussioa among the mecbera of the Planning Cou�ission,
�. Hr. Qureshi eu�arized the Coc¢nission's cc�enta as follows:
�, �l.
PlnnainK Cosmission"Meet±nz - December 8, 19�1 Pa�e 1?
4ith Avenue: Lot 30, E1ock 9(LoC East of 3rd St.)
48th Avenue: Lot 30, Block 8(Lot East of 3rd St.)
To be allcued to build by vacating the Soctherly half of the
street makS.r.g the lots 70 feet wide. Tot�l structure ta be
built on the 40 foot part of the lot.
� 48th Avenue: Lot 15, Block 2(Lot on West side of 3rd St.) .
Conaider a?loving to build a small house 1� stories high with
5 foot size yard to Lhe North. Hoase Co f.t in wSth the
neighbori�3 structures.
48th Avenue: Lot 15, Block 3(Lot Weat of 2� Street)
Consider allowing to build a single story, small house with
5 foot sice yard to the North. Souse to :it in with the uaigh-
boring structu:es.
k6th pvenue: tot 16� S1xk 11 (Lot East of 2nd Street)
Single stc*y snall house wit� 5 foot side qard to the North
to be consid�red. House to fit in with t:.e r.eighboring
etructures.
3rd Street: Lot 21� B:oc� 10
The Comnissioa wanted to check further about the ownership
ar.d backgro�zd.
47th Avenue: Lot 30, B:ock 12 (Lot East of Main Street}.
t�
Should aot be considered for constructior. becauae of the trafiic
and cross'_�g street traffic visual proble=s.
49th Avenue: Lot 30, Block 2(Lot oa corner of 2'� Streat)
49th Avenue: Lot 30, Block 1(Lot on corner of Univers'_ty Avenue)
Should not be cor.sidered for coastruction because of the traffic
and cross:ng street u�ffic visual probl�s.
Mr. Quzes`�i said t=at t`ae Planair� Comnissioa indi:a=ed that these recom-
mendations should be for:ar?�d to the Gouncil with the =o7.lowing addi*_ional
cocrmenta. The request for wnstruction these lots s�c•_ld still go through
the Board of Appeals fo_ variances so that there will be a chance of ad3itional
discussion with the neignborhood before the City makes c;z final decision nn
el.l.owing the cens�ructioa. iney also wanted these recc—er�ations made aVaiiabl�
to the n�ard c: Appeals.
? 7':"; R�AfENT •
There baing no fur-i:er businese, Chairman Erickson adjourned the meetiag
at 11:40 P.M,
Respec[fully su�sitted
G'�1'.�.rc� ���(.i7n.c.ei.....
HazeY 0'8rian - �ecordir.3 Secretary
REGULAR COU::C-:. !�:ETII:G OF RPFSL 17, 2972
OF
SWIHMI::G l.i�L:
1
u, PAGE 6 �r�+
rt
\i°J
The 8ngineerir.q ;,ssistant said that this request is for the same area as last year
by Sob's Prodsce Ranch. They were granted a special use pexmi.t for one yea.r.
Last year the o�ration was not under the jurisdiction of Green Giant, bLtt xkii8
year they vill iz responsible for the maintenan�e, display and sales of thg
pools. He showed the Flans on the easel and said that the plans include the
8� X 12� cabana used last year. The cabana will be used mainly ioz handout
Flateziai and di�lay of pool supplies and the actual sales will take place in
the main Garde� Center.
Qpt�tF'3IA�a Utter asked if the pool area would be £enced and �e Enqinea;inq
Assistant repiied yes, it wae last year. Councilman Utter asked if it �Llld
k6 locked so these �r;:�l@ be no possibility oi a youngster getting into this
�ea, Mr. Bob schrcer said that it vauld be locked at night and it wQ�d
dlso be locked ii the salesman steps out Por a cup of coffee. Thele W111 ke
dr� attendant tnere all the time. ,
MpTIQ19 by Counciln•an Mittelstadt to concur with the Planning �iss�,o� and
g�dnt the special use permit SP #71-07 to Green Giant Aome & Garden �eriCeTS, �no,
for the pyrpose oi above ground sw+���g pool disp2ay and to allow the Cdbana
stFUCture to be ;ised again for a one year pericd as of the date of approVal,
$�conded by Coun=ilraan Utter. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Nayqz
I,iebl declared t�e notion carried unani.mously.
PIJIN'PIhG 3G'JLEVARD: 40 FEET, MOORE LA10E HiGfiIA*1DS 4TH Ri7DITION�
The Engineering :,ssistant said •there is a program aponaored hy the SeaiOX
K}gh �or glantir.q trees and the thought was that the school might paztiCiQ�tE.
COUnCilman Uttez talked to the schoo2 and found that there is more land for
gl#�tin4 now tuaa trees available. Councilman L•tter added that the sch0ol
has a numtrer of ;.nings acheduled Eoz this yeaz already and there is neither
tt�es nor ti.ne a�ailable.
1daYq� Liebl said he aould like to eacourage the younq people to participate
�� �hg beautif�r,ation of their City, and that it would be a worthwhile prpject
fOF Ch� t�o P1an= trees, nurtuze the� and see them grow. He said, as }ye
;eCalled, abou� 5 yeazs ago Former Councilman Samuelson metttioned this, rSayoF
L�e�i3 Sdid he ielt that the schools should be more involved in plantings pithlA
�e Cj,tx o£ Friciey. He asked that the Planning Co�ission pursue this and
p�Fhaps somethiag could be worked out for next year. The Engi.neerinq Assistant
sµqyes4ed that tzis strip of land could lend itselP to a walking tsail Co I��ke
Pd7Ck �d that tn� Parks and Recreation Co�ission could rnnsider it.
FOR77 FOOi :ATS ZN FRIDLEY:
�ayor Liebl said that Fridley still has some 40 foot loGs lef�. undeveloped, �d•;
if anyone shoulc show an interest in purchasing the�, he would like to hdye a
pplicy already Eoraulated that xould be Sair and impaztial to a21. The
Ft�gineering Ass`.stant pointed out that laet Dece�uber the Planning Ca�isSl.on
mdd0 d ie4e�encation on the use of some af the 40' lots in Plymouth Addi�Son.
�'t��ze cannot be a blanket policy for use on all a0' lots� because some o€ the�
are 1n the interior of a bloclt and some are on a corner where if they were �uilt
ppoT� they �oouTd create a traffic hazard. itayor Liei�l sdid that over t,he past
fiv� years, he has received calls from people havinq AO'-lots'and thex wondered
what they shoulc do with the�n. He said he would like to see evez�r J,ot µtliizeSj
:��;�.
�
\I
:�EGUiJ1R COUNCIL MEETING OF ApIUL 17, 1972 ��
� . � ���PAGE 7 '
� �d on the tax rolls. He urged the Planning Comnisaion to continue workinq
on some sort of a po2icy.
MOTIDN by Counci]man greider to receive the Miautes of the Planninq Ca�ission
Meetinq of Rpril 5, 1972, Seconded by �o��i�an DSyttelstadt. Upon a wice
vote, all ayes, Maycr Lisbl declared the motion carried unaaimously.
RECEIVING THE �h*(7TES OF THE nrirrr�rn,.. �..._.�___ ' �
T i"J USE A
� PART ;Fp
- DESIGN CCtiT1�L
FIIDTH TRAZLER F01
600, SECTI^t: 12
� .`:.E. � F2�G
BZGHWAY po5 N.E.
The En9ineering Assistant showed the locata,on of .the screen and said this
business is 3ust south of the Frostop Dri�e-Zn. He asked t}:e Ac�ini,s}�ativa
Assistant to present the plaris,
The Admi.nistrative �8ys�t said that the stipulations on the tpecial use
Pe�it are listed in the Agenda along wit}� the stipulations i.mposed by tha
Building gtar�d�3�. The c:�anqeg the &uilding Staadards maae a�e �at �eY
�.ranted the front setback changea ;rQm 15 feet to 20 feet and they did nok
recoffinend approval of blacktop �bing and wanted pourag concrete curbirrq�
They also did not have a c�plete landscaning plan and .-uked tiiat it be
nresented to the Council at their meeting. Castle Mobile Homes pians pn ���yg
oiled aznshed rock £or the trailer parking and blacktop for thaiz parkinq lok�
Yhe plot plan as submitted tonight eovers all the stipulations.
"3ayor Liebl asked if Castle agrees with t,ke ohattqes in setback an$ N�, gqt��.
of Castle Mobile Homes, Sayd yes. He said, as to the poured concrete �by�y�
that they would like to suggest that pre-stressed concrete curblrq ��e� =t
could be anchored down with spikes. They feel.that the blacJctop curbing would
det�iQrate in 3- 5 years, so they offer the auoggstion for the gre-etreased
�n�e�e oarbing. The peured mncrete curbing would be very expensive for a
buainess with a special use pe�ait for a dyration of only £ive yeazs, Mayor
�.ebl asked iP thep Would agree to 031 the crushed rock and M�. g,ot�er saj,d yes,
�e �en brought the landscaping Plans to the Counci2 table and said �hat ]�e
questioned the rem+:,-�ent for sod in the tyro fsontaqe strigs along the sexy�ce
road� arid t}�at theY urouid prefer to use aqgregate. .SOd ie haxg to mainfi�xn
ai�d in their Eozmer location they foand that the_gay�d blo�+iag across the hig1�,
KaY would Jd.11 the sod, xe agreed qrass wouid lvok nicei aad wou],d acid colos
to the two 20' X 75' strips in the front, but he did not ieel it Was practical,
YayoF I.iebl said that the sod would do much te beautify their business �zd he
realized they were only asking foz five year approval, but he did not feel
egQxegate is the answer. He pointed out Hoiiday used aggregate and had a lok
of maintenance pr�le�. it is difPicult to keep it in place, pir. Rottez
said that sod is alsv �ffi�ylt ��ntazn,but they would be �nilling to �y
it.
Councilman ereider asged if he would be usinq plastic shzubs. Mr, gotter sayd
�r �eY aould be live and said his plan �ras drawn up by 8ob's Produce Ranct�,
YayoX Liebl asked if he wop�a be u�ing anY evergreens and Mr, �tter showad �a
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION M�.'ETING
FEBRUARY 8, 1978
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Harris called the February 8, 19']$, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:43 P.M.
ROLL CAI,L •
Members Present: Shea, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Schnabel
Langenfeld
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPAOVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 25� 1978
M�TION by M�. I,angenfeld, seconded by Ms, Shea, to approve
the January 25, 19?8, planning Commission minutes,
Ms. Schnabel commented that the Request for a Special Use Permit
SP#']8-01, by Menard Cashmay Lumber had been continued. She
asked when that item would be hattdled.
Chairperson Harris said that on February 15, 1978, there would be
a meeting at City Hall regarding this item. He said that all the
people on the original mailing list as well as all the people that
aeed the sign-in sheet would be notified.
Mr. Boardman indicated that it would be included on the agenda
after the special meeting was held.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously,
1. PUBLIC HEARING: RE9UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PEA�fIT
SP #7$-02, BY HAR`P CUSTOM HOMES INC.: PER FRIDI,EY CITY
CODE SECTION 205,102, 3, N TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE
SALE OF MOBILE HOMES TO INCLIIDE LOTS 4r5� & 6� BLaCK 1�
CENTRAL VIE4Y MANOR; THE SAME BEING 7355 HIGHWAY #65 NE
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Lan$enfeld, to open the
Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman
Har�is declared the Public Hearinq open at 7:47 P.M.
Mr. Boardman explained that the purpose of the Special Use Permit
request was to enable the e�cpanding of the existing trailor
facility� He said what was proposed was a display area for
double-wides,
Mr, Alvan Schrader of 7355 Highway #65, Fridley was present
at the meeting, He was representing Hart Custom Aomes, Inc.
He owns the Company,
PLANNING COi�QiISSION MEETING - FEBRIIARY 8. 1978 Pa�e Z
Mr. Schrader showed the commission the proposed plan for the
Display area of the park. He also had an overlay of the existing
operations to better indicate how it would all fit together.
Mr, Schrader explained that the existin� facility was 1t�0 feet wide
by 510 feet long. He said the facility had been in operation
since �976. He shomed how the property was situated in relation
to 73�- Avenue.
Mr. Schrader said that the Company was getting into the area of
selling double-wides and modular homes. He said that it was
almost impossible to be able to display the double-wides and
modular homes on the existing lot, He felt it was necessary to
display the new models in an environmental type display. He
said the proposed area would be set up in a residential-type
situation.
Mr. Schrader said that what was being proposed was putting six
units in on a semi-permanent display (probably turn-over once
every six monthsa. He said that the six units would be
24 x 65 feet at the largest and 2y x k0 feet at the smallest,
He said they planned to put a court-yard type display with a
sidewa].k� shrubs� and grass into the proposed area. He said
that by doing so� it would make it easier to move the units
and also not disturb the court-yard, so that the court-yard
would actually be a permanent item. He said they were trying
to accomplieh an environmental display of how a model would
look in a residential situation and felt that could be done
by usin� berming on the �3rd Avenue side and utilizing treesa
shrubs, stc.
Mr. Schrader said that some o£ the new models would conform
to the Uniform Building Code, He said these models would be
ordered from the factory and would be elevated onto basements
and would result in a regular stationary house, He said
that these models would meet all the necessary codes,
Mr. Schrader said that also by expanding their facility, they
would be able to better meet the City Code of ten feet spacing
between the display models. He said that the single wide
inventory would be maintained basically in the existing area
and the double-wides and modular models would be displayed itt
the proposed area. He said that the court-yard paved street
would be named ��Boulevard of Dreams".
Mr. Schrader said that Lots 4, 5& 6 were each 60 feet wide
and 200 feet in depth. He also explained the anticipated traffic
flow into his Operations.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8, 1978 Pa�e �,
Ms. Schnabel questioned the ownership of several adjacent lots.
Mr. Schrader explained that one of the adjacettt lots was owned
by t12e City and one was o�vned by the County,
Mr. $oardman expZained that the only lot the City had was the
lot that a pump house was located on.
Ms, Schnabel asked if any screening would be required,
Mr. Boardman said that the only screening that would be required
would be around the base of the trailors by means of decorative
blocks and such. FIe said that berming would also be required
that Mr. Schrader had agreed to.
Mr. Schrader commented that the displays would only be changed
at a minimum of every six manths and the maximum of once per year.
Mr. Peterson indicated that there didn't appear to be any
neighborhood objections.
Mr. Boardman indicated that a variance would be requested
regarding the curbing. He said that due to the moving of the
units, that curbing would pose many problems. It was
explained on the pians exactly where curbing would be desired
and where it would not be desired.
Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Schrader agreed to all the stipulations.
Mr. Schrader said that he had agreed on all the necessary
stipulations that had been indicated.
htr. Bergman asked if Mr. Schrader was in agreement with the
proposed landscaping plan.
Mr. Schrader said that he was in agrsement with the landscaping
plan as was indicated on the plans the Commission had before them,
Mr. Bergman indicated that he was not aware of any complaints
resulting from any activity that had been in operation since
Hart Custom Homes, Inc. went into that location,
Mr. Schrader egplained further about his operation. He said
it would be an environmental display. He said that the double-
wide HUD built home was selling for between $20�000 and $30,00�
and the modular home componeats were also selling for between
$20,000 and $30,000. He said that Hart Custom Homes, Inc.
would do �he coffiplete construction that would include the basement,
sewer, water, etc. and the cost would be approximaterly $45e000,
He also pointed out that there would be long-term financing
available. He said all the models would be HUD built under
the new Federal standards or built to the Uniform Building Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8. i978 Pa�e �.
Ms. 5chnabel asked if Mr. Schrader would be putting up an
advertising si�n on 73§ Avenuec
Mr. Schrader said that the only new signage would be signs
located in front of each model that would indicate the type of
model, the square foota�e, and possibly the price. He said
that the signs would be under three square feet. He said that
they ucould also install a street sign indicating �'Boulevard
of Dreams��, but that there would not be any additional
advertising signs needed at that time,
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Peterson� to cZose
the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman
Aarris dec�ar2d the'Public Hearing closed at 8:11 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that the
Planning Commissiott recommend approval of the request for a
Special Use Permit SP #78-02� by Hart Custom Homes, Inc.:
Per Fridley City Code Section 205.102, 3, N to allow the
expansion of the sale of mobile homes to include Lots 4,5 & 6,
Block 1, Central View Manor; the same being
7355 Highway #65 NE• with the stipulations that the base of
the mobile homes on display be properly screened, that
curbing be provided as indicated on the proposed plans, and
that berming be done along 73} Avenue.: Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
2, RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL 9UALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTIDN by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, that the
Planning Commission receive the January 17, 19']8, Environmental
Quality Commission minutes,
Mr. Langenfeld said that the second sentence of the second
paragraph on Page 10 of the minutes should read, "It was done
by computer and the people were supplied with books, materials,
etc., and it went up to 25 ep onle.�+
Mr. Langenfeld said that the Noise Ordinance was discussed.
He indicated that the Commission had mellowed somewhat regarding
tkee Noise Ordinance due to a statement made by Mr. Steve Olson,
�nvironmental Officer. "Mr. Olson had looked at the Noise
Ordinance draft and� in a conversation with Mr. A1 Perez,
State E.P.A„ had come to the conclusion that there seemed not
to be a great noise problem in Fridley and it might be best for
the City to design an ordinance in which it simply adopted State
Standards for noise poZZation control and detailed enforcemen�,"
PLANNING COMMISSZQN MEETING - FEBRUARY 8, 1978 Page 5
Mr. Bergman referred to the item discussed on Page 8 of the
minutes, Recycling Project Committee Report. He explained
the workings of a Recycling Collection Center in St, Anthony.
He said that it would be worthwhile for someone from the Environmental
Quality Commission to do an observation on that Center.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the suggestion would be passed along to
the Commission.
Chairperson Harris quoted the statement that necessity was the
mother of inaention, and he felt that eventually the people
would discover ways of turning trash/garbage into energy producers.
He pointed out that there was presently a city in Iowa that was
using trash for energy by recycling the trash. He said that at
that point in time the dollar costs were breaking even. He said
that they were burning ihe trash/garbage for energy, recovering
the aluminum and steel from the cans, recovering the bottles� etc.,
and the operation of the plant was breaking even, or not costing
anything. He felt that that way made more sense than dumping
the trash/garbage into the ground from_where it v�ould eventually
pollute- the ground water systems and such.
Mr. Bergman gave his concurrence and support to whatever the
Environmental Quality Commission was doing in the area of
recycling.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, the motion carried unanimously.
The minutes were received at 8:32 P,M,
3. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 24, 1978
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Shea, that the Planning
Gommission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of
January 24� 1g78.
Ms. Shea commended Ms. Schnabel on the diplomacy she demonstrated
at a most difficult meeting,
Chairperson Harris asked if the City Council had acted upon the
issue of !�0 foot lots.
Ms. Schnabel said that it would appear before City Council
February 27, 7978.
Ms. Schnabel said that one of her major concerns regarding the
request by Mr. Gordon Hedlund was that as soon as it was approved
to build on the 40 foot lots� the value of the lots would go
immediately from $$00 to approximately $5,600 or $6,000, She
said that the buyer would get no ��break�� because of the Iot size
and Mr. Hedlund would receive the entire profit, She said that
the estimated, buildable value of the land was what made the
price of the house so high�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEE2ING - FEBRUARY 8. 1978 Pa�e 6
Chairperson Aarris asked what Mr. Hedlund's next step might be.
Ms, Schnabel said that Mr. Hedlund had indicated that he would
take the matter to Court if the requests weren�t approved.
Mr. Boardman said that the exhibits that accompanied the requests
were very complete for the main purpose that it could ettd up
as a Court case.
Ms. Schnabel said that the Appeals Commission had excellent
Staff input regarding the requests. She said that Ron Holden,
the Staff person� had been most supportive on the matter.
40 FOOT LOTS
Ms. Schnabel said that mhen City Council decided to
turn-over the many lots to the County, their intention
had been that the tax-forfeited lots would make nice
additions to the existing land owners on either side
of the �0 foot lot or the adjacent land owner in the
case of a corner lot, City Council had indicated that
the lots were unbuildable lots. She said that when the
County advertised the lots in the paper the Caunty put
a notice at the top that said, ��Check with your local
City for buildin� restrictions on the lots.�f
Ms. Schnabel said that Mr. Hedlund claimed that he called
the City of Fridley and had been tald that there would be
some problems with the lots. He claimed that he was never
told specifically that the lots were unbuildable. She
said that he also claimed that the County did not announce
that the lots were unbuildable at the time of the auction.
Ms. Schnabel said that there were some discrepancies in
Air. HedZund's statements. She felt that Mr. Hedlund was
trying to build a case through the minutes that he had
not been told in advance that the lots were unbuildable.
Ms. Schnabel said that the minutes of the previous meeting
that was held on December 13, 1977, he had been specifically
asked if he was aware that the lots were unbuildable and
he had stated in those minutes that he was aware of that
fact at the time he bid on the lois, Ms. Schnabel said that
Mr. Hedlund was again specifically asked at the
January 2�., i978, Appeals Commission minutes if he was
aware that the lots were unbuildable lots, and Mr. Hedlund
again stated that he was aware that the lots were unbuildable.
Chairperson Harris asked how the City of Fridley could
justify not allowing construction on 40 foot lots when
Minneapolis, St. Paul, North St. Paul, Columbia Heights,
and Robbinsdale did allow building on 40 foot lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8. 1978 Pa�e 7
Ms, Schnabel said that Communities set their own standards,
She said that the City of Fridley chose the standard lot
size as '%5 foot. She referenced Page 10, third paragraph.
Chairperson Harris said that another problem ihat the City
of Fridley would be faced with was the fact that plats
had been accepted vaith t�0 foot lots,
Ms. Schnabel said at the time Fridley became a City
and started to be developed that the people in Government
at that time determined that they did not want 25 foot
or 40 foot Iots, they wanted a minimum of 75 foot lots.
She said that it was a suburban area and that was how
they wanted it develaped.
Mr. Bergman wanted to know if that decision could have
been arbitrary and capricious. He felt fairly certain
it wasn't capricious. He felt it was only arbitrary
in the same context as every city's ordinances are
arbitrary. He said that even though it may have been
an arbitrary decision, it was written into the law.
He said it would be that reason that a person would not
be able to build on a 40 foot lot.
Ms. Schnabel said that in 1911, when the plat was accepted
by Anoka Coun�y, a different set of facts were being deatt
with. 5he said that the facts were dealing with a community
that was only a sma].1 percent developed versus the
fact that now the City of Fridley was 9035+ developed,
Mr. Peterson said that it was a dynamic fact of law, that
law changes. He said that even though the County accepted
the plat in 1911, the law has changed and the person that
purchased the lots had been informed of the changes in the
1 aws.
Chairperson Harris said that perhaps those y0 foot 1ots,
if they were not a viable piece of property for development,
should not have been sold. He said they should have been
held for open space, public land, or whatever,
Ms. Schnabel felt the City made a mistake ever putting
those 40 foot lots up for sale.
Mr. Bergman felt that whether the loi was buildable ox
unbuildable or whether Mr, Hedlund hacl been informed that
it cvas unbuildable were actually iinmaterial to the actual
issne. He said that there were City Ordinances that stated
the required setbacks on lots and the minimum square footage
required on lots, He said that a citizen of Fridley could
try to obtain variances from the City Codes and if those
variances were granted, then the person cauld build on any
lot regardless of the size. He said that the fact was that
the person did not always get the variances that �rere
requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8� �978 Page 8
Ms. Schnabel said that she felt that the Commzssion had
actually been dealing with two separate requests; the
first was whether building should be permitted on a sub-
standard 1ot, and the other was whether any variances
would be granted.
Chairperson Harris said that there was a general policy
that the City of Fridley did not issue building permits
on 40 foot lots.
Mr. Boardman said that the City Code indicated �hat the
building site had to contain 7,500 square feet and be
50 feet wide on lots platted before �955. He said that
anything platted after 1955 had to contain 7,500 squre
feet and be 60 feet mide,
HYDE PARK
Ms. Schnabel said that there were many 40 foot lots
in the Hyde Park area that had single family homes an
the lots. If some disaster occurs and the owner of
the dwelling loses over 50% of the house, she wanted
to know if they could rebuild on that particular lot.
She said it was a hypothetical question based on the
faci that the area was rezoned back to R-1�
Chairperson Harris said that the Hyde Park area would
have to be a Special Zoning district that would allow
commercial and R-1 mixed that existed there. He said
that when the Guidelines were written up� the lot
sizes could be handled at that time.
Mr. Boardman said that three meetings had been held
with the Hyde Park neighborhood committee. He said
that the types of xegulations wanted for ihe area
had been decided upon. He said they wanted single
family zoned district, but would allow the rebuilding
of any existing structures, such as multiple-dwellings,
etc. should those bniZdings be over 5U'� destroyed.
He said that they desired the minimum lot size of 60 feet.
The neighborhood committee felt it would be to the benefit
to the neighborhood to get rid of the 40 foot lots and
require 60 foot lots.
Mr. Boardman said that the general feeling of the people
in the Hyde Park area was that they didn't want to put
a burden on anyone that already lived in the area� they
didn't want the spread of multiple-dwellings into the area,
they didn't want the spread of commercial into the area,
they want to keep the single-family character and they
feel that a required 60 foot lot was a good size lot for
the character of the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8� 19'78 Pa�e 9
UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously. The January 24, 1978 Appeals Commission minutes
were received at 9:06 P.M,
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that
City Council review the list of any existing, tax-forfeited,
40 foot lots that have not been sold through public auction
and that City place a hold on the sale of those propexties.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried
unanimously.
Chairperson Harris declared a break at 9:11� p,M,
1+. CONTINUED: PARKS & OPEN SPACE PI,AN
Mr. Boardman indicated that once the Planning Commission
completed discussing the Parks & Open Space Plan, Staff
would do a re-write of the Plan, clarifying items that
needed it and solving any problems that came up regarding
the Plan. He said that at that point in time the Parks
and Open Space Plan would be brought back to the Commissions
to get their approval, and then a Public Hearittg would be
held on the Plan.
Chairperson Harris felt that at the time the Plan came before
the Planning Commission would be the point in time that
Mr. Charles Boudreau should be asked for his opinion of the Plan.
Mr. Boardman said that he would arrange for Mr, Boudreau
to appear before the Planning Commission at the same time as
the Parks & Open Space Plan would be handled by the Commission.
Mr, Boardman said that the process of the Parks & 0 en Space
Plan after the re-write would be to send a copy to �he Chamber
of Commerce� other Civic organizations�and all the Commissions
for their second review on the Plan so that any additional
comments/correctio ns could be made before the Public Hearing.
Mr. Bergman couldn�t understand why the Plan would have to be
sent to all the Commissions for their second review. He felt
that the process �vould be a bit buZky,
Mr. Boardman said that the re-write would be sent to the other
Commissions mainly for informational purposes. He said that they
would not have to act on the Plan,
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendation 1
at the bottom of Page 27 of the Parks and Open Space Plan was
acceptable as written.
Mr. Peterson said that Recommendation #2 at the top of Page 2�
was not acceptable. He said that he completely agreed with
getting neighborhood feedback and to make the parks as closely
akin to what the neighborhoods want; but he said there was also
the overall City Program and sometimes the only people aware of
that Program are the Commission and the Director.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRIIAAY 8 l 8 Pa e 10
Mr, Boardman suggested that Recommendation #2 at the top of Page 27
be rewritten, ��2. Design neighborhood park facilities in
cooperation with residents so as to more closely meet neighborhood
recreation needs." The members of the Planning Commission were
in agreement.
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendation 2
at the bottom of Page 27 of the Parks and Open Space Plan was
acceptable as written.
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Staff should
rewrite Recommendations 3&� at the bottom of Page 2�. It
was suggested that the two recommendations be combined into
one recommendation. Mr. Bergman suggested the wording to
be� "Establish a program evaluation process, by which staff and
program personnel define program strengths and weaknesses on a
continuing basis consider�ng the natural and man-made resources
available.�� Mr. Boardman said that he would do some work
on the recommendation.
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendation 5
at the top of Page 28 of the Parks and Open Space Plan was
acceptable as written.
8ecommendation 6 on Page 28 was discussed by the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Schnabel wanted to know why the City should
provide a Program for the School System, She wanted
to know if the schools had an instructor on their
staff that was a Natural History person that could
develop a program,
Mr. Peterson said that the precedent was such that
that was what was happening in the cities. Tke
City was developing programs describing the ecology
of natural history areas in the City. He explained
that actually the school systems would have no
jurisdiction to go onto the City property to develop
the nature trails, etc„ which the City does and
allows everybody to use them.
Ms. Schnabel agreed that someone should develop the
Programs, but felt that it was more in the field of
Education than it was in the field of City Administration.
Mr. Boardman said that the Program that would be developed
by the City would be used by the schools as well as the
residents of Fridley. He said there was no sense setting
up a program that could just be used by the residents and
exclude the schools from the program or vice-versa. He
said that if the City of Fridley was to have a Naturalist
and would develop a Naturalist Program, then it might as
well be opened up to the schools too.
PLANNING COMMISSION ME�TING - FEBRUARY 8, 1978 Page 11
It was decided by the Planning Commission thai Recommendations
6& 7 on Page 28 of the Parks and Open Space Plan were
acceptable as written.
Mr. Boardman suggested a rewriting of Recommendation 8 on
Pa�e 28. He said that the main intensive use recreational
area being looked at was Commons Park and he said they were
running out of room at Commons Park. He said that Commons Park
was initially set aside as a neighborhood facility to serve the
neighborhood around the park. He said tliat Fridley didn't have
the City-wide recreation spaces so Commons Park was taken over
because it was centxally located, He said that a serious look
had to be taken at the city-wide recreation activities as to
where they can be placed. He said that much more room was
needed for that type of recreation. He said that other
neighborhood parks were being utilized for city-wide
recreational activities. He said what should really be looked
at was the feasibility of obtaining more land or redeveloping
the land available for high intensive recreation activity areas,
The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Boardman's suggestion.
It uaas decided by the Planning Commission that Policies under
Objective 5 on Page 28 of the Parks and Open Space Plan shouid
be rewritten toi
i. Promote regional� county, city areas of park and
open space interest,
2. Promote preservation of remaining significant
ttatural habitats.
3. Acceptable as written.
4. Mr. Peterson said that the statement did not belong
in the particular area. He suggested handling the
item in a separate area.
Ms. Schnabel suggested an entire new section
entitled "Critical Areas��.
Mr. Boardman said that he would set-up a new
section to be included in the Parks and Open Space
Plan and include all the items relating to a
Critical Area in the City of Fridley.
The Planning Commission discussed Recommendation 1 at the
bottom of Page 28.
Mr. Peterson saic3 he interpreted the statement to read
that it was important that conservation of natural resources
be one of the primary thrusts of the Parks and Open Space
System and conservation within urban areas requires
management and interpretation.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8. 19']8 Pa�e 12
Mr, Peterson suggested that Recommendation 1 at the bottom of
Page 28 be rewritten to;
t. Conservation of natural resources should be one of
the primary thrusts of the Parks and Recreation
�pen Space System,
The other members of the Planning Commission were in agreement
with Mr. Feterson's suggestion.
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendation 2
at the bottom of Page 28 be completely eliminated.
It was decided by the Planning
at the top of Page 29 would be
entitled ��Critical Areas��.
Commission that Recommendation 3
inserted in the new section
The members of the Planning Commission asked that Mr. Boardman
have Recommendation 4 rewritten. They felt that the statement
was necessary, but didn't like the way it was worded,
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendations
5, 7�d 8 be eliminated.
Mr. Langenfeld suggested that Recommendation 6 on Page 29
of the Parks and Open Space Plan be rewritten to:
6. Natural history areas should be maintained for passive
activities including nature hikes and tours administered
by the City Naturalist.
The other members of the Planning Commission were in agreement
with Mr. Langenfeld's suggestion.
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendation 9
on Page 29 be inserted in the new section entitled '�Critical
Areas".
It was decided by the Planning Commission that Recommendation 10
was redundant to Recommendation 6 and should be eliminated.
Ms. Schnabel indicated that Objective 6 was to be added. She
said it was entitled� 10Maintain and/or Establish Professional
Staff'�. She said that it had been decided previously that items
that dealt mainly with Staff would be put in a separate section.
Ms. Schnabel said that two items that appeared on Page 18 of
the Parks and Open Space Plan were to be included in the separate
section.
. Permanent parks and recreation staff requirements need
to be evaluated.
. There is a need for parks and recreation department
policy guidelines.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8 1978 Pa�e 1
Mr. Boardman said that 5taff would rewrite the goals and
objectives to include an Objective 6 that would deal mainly
with Staff.
Mr. Langenfeld said that the Environmental Quality Commission
had suggested a Recommendation 11 under Objective 5:
11, Fertilizers and other related material levels
would be limited in the City waterways.
Mr. Boardman suggested that the item be reworded to,
"Encourage the reduction of pollutants in the streams and rivers
which are utilized for recreational activities". He then said
that the item would be included in the "Critical Areas�' section
of the Parks and Open Space Plan.
Mr. Boardman explained the rest of the sections of the Parks
and Open Space P1an. He said they would be a color coded map
of the proposed park system.
Mr. Boardman explained that the Parks and Open Space Plan would
be re-written and then returned to the Commission for approval.
He said that they had much direction from the Commission as to
what exactly was wanted. He felt that the Plan would be ready
for approval after the re-writing.
OTHER BUSINE5S
Chairperson Harris said that at the City Council Workshop meeting
held on January 30, t978� the Housing Maintenance Code was
reviewed, He said that for the most part, City Council agreed
with the Code. Mayor Nee had indicated that the Housing
Maintenance Code was clear enough that even he could understand
it this time.
Ener�v Commission
Chairperson Harris said that the Planning Commission would
discuss the Energy Commission such as setting up the policy.
Mr. Harris wanted to know what the Planning Commission wanted
to do with the item.
Mr. Boardman said that the main thing that was brought out at
the City Council meeting was that they wanted to develop an
Energy Commission with the scope of Energy. He said that
it was decided that the term '�energy+t was so broad that guide-
lines lvere needed. City Council said that the Planning
Commission was to set up the guidelines and the policy and
either set up a Commission to handle the subject or else
set up a project committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8. 197$ Pa�e 1!�
Mr. Langenfeld suggested that each chairperson of the Planning
Commission elect one person from their respective commissions to
be a member of the Project Committee.
Mr. Peterson said that he liked the idea of the separate
Project Committee under the Planning Commission. He said the
only problem would be that the Project Committee would have to
have adequate staff to support the Committee,
Chairperson Harris said that if a Project Committee was to be
established under the Planning Commission that they would go
to the City Council to get their approval for the expenditures
of having a Staff person to support the efforts of the Project
Committee.
Mr. Bergman said that the first thing the City should do before
setting up a Committee would be to establish Energy Conservation
Guidelines and Programs for the City itself and to follow throu�h
with the guidelines and recommendations. He felt that the City
should do more than just set up a Committee, He said the City
should ��set an example�' actively and with some publication.
Mr, Bergman said that governments are too quick to advise everybody
else on how to sane energy when they themselves are doing a lot
less than what they are requesting of private residents and
businesses,
Chairperson Harris said that it was to be up to the Planning
Commission to produce a Policy, stating the goals and exactly
what the City wanted to accomplish,
Chairperson Harris said that there were many areas of the City
Codes that the Energy situation should be addressed to, Also,
said that it should be recommended to City Council that the
legislators be told what direction the City of Fridley wanted
go on the Energy issue.
�
to
Mr. Boardman said that if a Project Committee was to be set up,
that the direction of that Committee would be more of looking into
the problems that are presently being faced, rather than necessarily
developing a policy on it. He felt that once the problems were
recognized the Committee could then establish the policy to
handle the problems,
Mr. Peterson said that the Energy Commission discussion should
be put on the agenda of a future meeting and in the meantime the
members of the Planning Commission could give much thought to the
item.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8, 1978 Pa�e 1
ZONING CODE
Chairperson Harris said that he had attended a meeting that
evening at 5:30 P,M, (02/08/78) with the President of the
Chamber of Commerce, Dick Sobiech, and himself in attendance.
He said that they discussed the Zoning Code in relationship
to Commercial & Industrial. He said that on February 9, 1978
the Chamber of Commerce would be discussing the progress on the
Zoning Code, He said the Chamber of Commerce wanted to be
able to review the final results of the Zoning Code before it
went for final approval.
Revitalization of "Downtown" Fridlev
Mr. Boardman said that at the January 30� 1978, City Council
Workshop meeting Staff was given the go ahead to work with
the businesses in the area and look into the potential for
revitalizing the center city of Fridley.
Chairperson Harris said that the City would act as a catalyst
in promoting an orderly revitalization. He said that when a
business decided to restore its facilities, City would coordinate
the effort so that it would be done according to a�'master plan",
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Ms. 5hea, seconded by Mr. Peterson,
February 8, 19']8, Planning Commission meeting,
vote� all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared
Commission meeting adjourned at 11;05 P,M,
Respectfully submitted,
Mary ee Carhill
Recording Secretary
to adjourn the
Upon a voice
the Planning