Loading...
PL 04/05/1978 - 6630City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COfiMISSION MEETING WEDNESOAY, ARRIL 5, 1978 CALI 70 ORDER: RpLI CALL: APPROVE PLANNING CONMISSTON MIWUT6S: MAREH 22 1978 l. PUBLIC HEARING: REQU�ST FOR SPE6IAL USE PERMIT, SP #78-04 BY J HN R. LE: er ridley City Co e, Section 205:051, 3, , to permit R-1 zoned property (single family dwellings) to be used for an off-street parking lot for a proposed apartment building on adjacent land, to 6e located on Lots 78 and 79, Block A, Riverview Heights, the same being part of 441 Nugo Street N.E. 2. PUBLIC HEARIN6: RfQUEST fOR SPEGIAL USE PERMIT, SP #78-05, SY BENNIE � d5ey�ity Code, �ect o 205.'f31 , 3, ,3, to allow the construction of a recreational use 6uilding, on the NoriA 300 feet of the South 1105 feet of the East Half of the NortAeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, the same being 8031 Beech Street N.E. 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 23 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIO�� OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, 24 - 29 P.S. #78-01, TRI-£0 DDITION; 8Y TRT-CO BUILDERS, INC.; Being a rep at o Lots and 3, uditor s Su division No. 89, except the Easterly 82 feet of the Westerly 810 feet of the North 65 feet of the South 157 feet of Lot 3, and except the West 90 feet of the East 290 feet of Lot 3, said Easterly 290 feet being measured from the North to South Quarter line of Section 12, subject to an easement for road purposes over the North 30 feet of Lot 2, and over the East 50 feet of lots 2 and 3, generally located South of 72nd Avenue N.E. and East of Central Avenue iV.E. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN 5. CONTINUED: UISCUSSION ON ENERGY COMMISSION SEPARATE 6. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MNRCH 74, 1978 PINK 7. RECEIYE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI7Y COMHISSIOM MIPJUFES: MARCN 21, 1978• BlUE 8. RECIEVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINU7ES: MARCH 28. 1978 YELLUW ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING MARCFi 22, 1978 CALL TO ORD�R• Chairperson Harris called the March z2, 19'%8, planning Commission raeeting to order at 7:3'7 P.M, ROLL CALL Members Present; Members Absent: Others Present: Shea, Bergman, Harris} Gabel, Langenfeld Peterson/Suhrbier Schnabel, Gabel representing Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROV� PL9NNING COP�IMISSION MINtITES: MARCH 8. 1978 MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to approve the March 8, 1978, Planning Commission minutes, Mr, Langenfeld asked that the words ��and City Council" added to the last sentence of the third Paragraph on Page 9: so that the sentence would read, +'Ae felt that the v�hole situation was very interestin� because he �vas getting the feeling that any time a ciiizen wanted to request something that could be hard to get, that person could apply for a Specail Use Permit and beca.use of the legal aspects they vrould be abZe to be granted the Permit and they would have the Commission and Gity Council ��licked�� !�� UPON A VDICE VOT�, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, The minutes were approved at 7:39 P,M, t, CONTINUED: VACATION RrOUEST. SAV #�7£�-01, BY JOSII'H SINIGA�IO: VACATE 4f3th AVENUE NE ADJACENT T0, AND SOUTH OF LOT 1Z� B�GCK 1� PLYP30UTA ADDITION; AND ADJACENT TO AND NORTH OF LOT 30, BLOCK 8� RLYMOUTA ADDITION; EAST OF 3rd STREET NE AND 4"JE6T OI' UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE. Mr. Boardman indicated that the storm and sanitary seiver lines in the street were presently being used by the City of Columbia Heights, He said that utility easements would have to be maintained at the t�me of the vacation. He said the easements tivould involve the north 25 feet of the lot to be vacated. Mr. Sinigalio said that he Y�ad been told previous to the meeting the storm and sanitary sewer lines were in use, Ae said that he still wanted to request the vacation of 48th Avenue N� as stated the request. that in PLANNING COMMISSZON MFETING - MARCH 22, 19�8 Page 2 Chairperson Harris indicated that Mr. Sinigalio could put a driveway over the easement, but that he couldn't build a permanent structure over it. Ms. Gabel tivanted to know vrho Mould be responsible if Mr. Sinigalio put a drivetvay over the easement and then the City wanted access to the utilities. Chairperson Harris said that it would be the homeowners responsibility, Mr. Sinigalio said that he had talke@ to Mr. Nathan Geurts who mas the adjacent land owner. Mr. Geurts had said that he ti�ras in agreement tivith the vacation as long as he could maintain aecess to his rear yard. • MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, seconded by Ms, Shea, that the Planning Com�ission recommend approval of Vacation Request, SAV #78-01, by Jbseph Sinigalio: Vacate �8th Avenue NE (Adjacent to, and South of Lot 16, Block i, Plymouth Addition; and adjacent to and North of Lot 30, Block 8, Plymouth Afldition; East of 3rd Street NE and �lest of IIniversity Avenue NE) with the stipulation that utility easements for storm and sattitary sewer lines be xefained. UPON A UOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERviI' SP #78-03, SY HARVEY D. ROLSTAD: PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTIQ. 2 5.051,2,A, TO AI,L06Y A SECOND ACCESSORY BIIILDING, A TUCK-UND�R GARAGE� TO BE CQNSTRUCTED AI,ONG �NITH A NEVJ HOUSE� LOCATED ON LOT 15, AND THE SOUTHERLY 15 FEET OF LOT lt�, BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH ADDITION, THE SAME B�ING 4600 2nd STREET NE, MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:5i P,M, Mr. Boardman explained that this request for a Special Use Permit one part of a two-part request. He said that the next request �ras for a Lot Split that would result in tvao single family lots. He said that there was presently a garage on the property that wouZd incorporated with the construction of the new house and tuck-under garage. was M_:7a Mr. Rolstad indicated that his family had two cars, t�vo pick-up trucks, two boats, four motorcycles, and t�vo la�vnmowers, He said that he definitely needed the additinnal garage space so he could store everythin� inside a buzlding instead of in the yard, � P_LANNING COMMTSSION MF,ETING - MARCH 22, 1978 PaPe Chairperson Harris asked what the lot size was. Mr. Boardman said that the entire lot �vas equivalent to three 40 foot lots. He said they wanted it split into two lots, one 55.feet tivide and the other 65 feet wide. Chairperson Harris asked why the corner lot was being propose@ for 55 feet wide and the interior lot far 65 feet wide. He fe2t that, the larger lot should be the corner lot. He also wanted to know why the lot tivouldn�t be split into tivo 60 foot lots. Mr. Rolstad said that if the interior lot was made any smaller� the dividing line would be in the middle of the driveway of the present house, Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Rolstad lived in the existing house. Mr, Rolstad said that he did live in the existing house. He said that he planned to build a new house on the adjoining lot incorporatin� the existing garage v�ith the proposed house. Mr, Boardman asked if the present driveway was right up to the proposed 65 foot lot line. Mr. Rolstad said that it 1vas. Mr. Boardman asked if it v�as possible for Mr. Rolstad to have the one lot 56 feet wide and make the lot vJith the existing house 64 feet tvide. Mr. Rolstad said that it probably �vouldn�t look that good to the person buying the existing house, but that it would be possible, He said that he wanted to line his new house up with the South side of his garage. Mr. .Boardman said that the house was 26 feet and if he had a 55 foot lot and with a ten foot aide yard setback, that it vrould result �vith his being 19 feet from the lot line. He said that he had been granted a variance reducing the setback to 20 feet. He said that Mr. Rolstad would have to make a 56 foot lot to accommodate his plans. Mr. Rolstad said that he would shift the lot line to the North 12 inches, thereby creating a 56 foot wide lot on the corner of �6th Avenue and 2nd Street NE. MOTION by Ms. Shea, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, The Public Aearing was closed at 8:06 P.ri, .�., m PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 22, 1978 Page 4 MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Consideration of Request for Special Use Permit, SP �7$-03, by Harvey D. Rolstad: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051,2,A, to allow a second accessory building, a tuck-under garage� to be constructed along with a new house, located on Lot 15, and the Southerly 16 feet of Lot 14, Block 12, Plymouth Addition, the same being �600 2nd Street NE. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. LOT SPLIT R��UEST, L.S. �78-01, BY HARVEY D_ RnLSTADc srLrr ur•r• �rtt� s�u�z�HLItLY � 5 FEET OF LOT 1�., BLOCK 12, PLYMOUTH ADDITION� AND ADD IT TO LOT 15� BLOCK 12� PLYMOUTH�ADDITION� TO MAKE A BUILDABL� STNGLE FAMILY LOT} THE SAME BE�ING l�600 2ND STRE�T NE Mr. Bergman asked if there ivas any easement problems with this request. Mr. Boardman said that there were no easements necessary. Mr. Bergman pointed out that Mr. Rolstad was in agreement that the Lot Split resu2t in a Iot 56 feet wide and a lot 64 feet wide. MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. I,angenfeld� that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Lot Split Request, L.S, �#']8-01, by Harvey D. Rolstad: Split off the Southerly 16 Feet of Lot 14, Block 12, Plymouth Addition, and add it to Lot 15, Block 12, Plymouth Addition� to make a buildable single family lot, the same being 1�600 2nd Street NE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris indicated that by Mr. Harvey D. Rolstad would go �F. 5. both requests that had teen made to City Council on April 3, 1978. iwuvi�a'i Lvi..� ��� Lf . L4� �DLV1it1 O� r1T1LLL.I YHK11� rKUP'1 ti�� �lit'�1VL't{IiLLY MULTIPL� DL1tELLINGS� TO CR-1 (GENERALLY OFFICES AND LIMITED BUSINESSES) TO ALLOLV THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL BUILDING� THE S1tME BEING 65�3 EAST RIVER ROAD NE VACATION RE9UEST SAV �� 8-02 BY DAVID KRAMBER: VACATE TFIE t2 FOOT U IMPROUEll nLL�Y IN BLOCK � FRIDLEY PARK� 500 BLOCK ON THE EAST SIDE OF EAST RIVER ROAD). Chairperson FIarris said that Mr. David Kramber had vrithdravrn his requests. He read the letter to the Commission and the audience that stated that T9r. Kramber fe].fi that the costs involved in developing the property were too prohibitive, MOTION by Pis. Shea� seconded by Mr. Bergman� that the letter from Mr. David Kramber be received by the Planning Commission, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, PLANNING COMMISSIUN MPF.TING - MARC?i 22, �7� Pa�e � Mr. Boudreau said that he thought to.accomplish what was in the amended Parks and Open Space Plan ti+�ith needed programs and facilities to service all the people in Fridley that the cost would be in the ten million dollar area. He said he wasn't sure how much of that amount could come from Grants, State, Federal, Local Governments, etc. He said that Fridley could get by spending a lot less or a lot more. Tt would depend on what the people of P'ridley wanted. Mr. Schneider wanted to know approximately tvhat percentage of that dollar figure tivould come from grants or government funding. Mr. Boardman said that if a Fridley Recreation Building was to be included that there was no recreational grants available to construct buildings, He said that Fridley ��ould have to consider ways to raise money for that Building. He said that the building alone tivould probab7.y cost between 1& t� million doYlars. Mr, Boardman said that the rest of the construction probably vrouldn't get a lot of grants either, He said that possibly to complete the park system, Fridley could get some acquisition grants. He said tliat the normal day-to-day activities in the park facilities to make them more useful will most likely have to come from the local "pockets��, Mr. Boardman said that some of the changes could be made more on a budget-tyge operation. He said the changes could be made gradually over a perioc� of years. He said that what vtas to be looked at v�as a document that will give the direction to go over that period of years, Nfr. Boudreau said that the estimated dollar figure was based on the fact that there tivould be a Fridley Recreation Complex that wouZd service all age groups and allow for the various activities that are usually conducted at a Recreation Center. He said that the land, the building, and the full development of the building ivould probably make up half of the ten million dollar figure, Mr. Boudreau indicated that such things as the watering systems, rest room facilities, and the needed shelter buildings of the community parks would require approximately 50-60 thousand dollars each. Mr. Boudreau said that the Plan lvas also considering Land Acquisition and he felt that at the cost of land today, it �JOUldn't take long to add up to many thousands dollars, Mr. Boardman felt that approximately three million dollars of that total amount could be obtained through Grants over the five year period, NIr, Boudreau said that he felt about 60'� of the mone,y would be from State fundings, Ae said that it �aould be for land acquisitions, bikeway/ trallcrray trails, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MFETING - MARCH 22, 1978 Pa�e B Mr. Bergman asked what the dollar impact would be of completing this Document in detaiZ. He said including land acquisition, buildings� equipment, 8ut exclusive of the maintenance that would be involved. Mr. Boudreau said that if Fridley wanted the ��ultimate'� that the Plan could allow� it could be up to ten million dollars. xe said that the flexibility of the Plan also would allow as little as they desired. He said that the Paxks and Open Space Plan had the flexibility and the guidelines. He said that the cost would be entirely dependent on what the citizens of FridZey wanted. Mr, Bergman said that ihe Document was an ambitious plan as so defined, Mr. Langenfeld said that the Planning Commission �ras not approving a funding praposition, He said that they were only approving a document. Mr. Bergman said that he had heard that this Plan to be implemented couid cost ten milZion dollars. He said that 60% could come from different Grants. He wanted to know where the 4Q'� v✓ould come from. Mr. Boardman said that the document vras not a money document. He said that it really didn�t have a dollar and cents sign. He said that Mr, Boudreau had mentioned the dollar figure and that may be the type of system needed to develop the Plan evhich would satisfy the needs of the residents of the City of Fridley, Mr. Boardman also pointed out that Mr. Boudreau mentioned that this document could be pZaced in the Standard Budgets and the compZetion of the document could be limited. Mr. Boardman said that the Plan leaves it open as to the direction that Fridley can go with the Plan. Mr. .Bergman- still wanted to kno�a where the other 1�0% would come from. Mr. Boudreau said it couid be a Bond Issue, if the citizens so desired, Mr. Langenfeld said that the Parks and Open Space Plan �vas a�uide� a source of direction. He said that it �vould not be a fixed document, Chairperson Harris asked if Mr. Boudreau felt that from tivorking in the Community if he felt the average age of the City of Fridley �vas getting older. Mr. Bondreau said that the average age in Frid2ey was geiting older. He said thai the recreation program in the City was being atuned to take care of that older average age, Chairperson Harris asked if there was enough flexibility allot�Jed in the Plan to take that into consideraiion, He asked if the City of Fridley �ras overloaded with �'tot lot" type parks. PLANNING COMMISSION MrPTING - 44ARCH 22 7$ Pa e Mr, Boudreau said that in actuality the City was overloaded with °tot lots'�. He said that the City had many parks that N�on�t accommodate anything more tkian �'tot lot�� type parks� Mr. Boudreau said that the Plan did not tie the City into anything permanent. Ae said that there was a flexibility built into the proposed facilities so that it could be adapted to the changing needs of the Community. He said that the Plan says to put character into the parks such as landscaping because the trees tivill grow as the children grow. Mr. Bergman referenced page 5 of the Inventory and.Analysis Section of the amendedParks & Open Space'Plan, He tivanted to know if 'there rvould be a map of the Neighborhood Boundaries and a comparison of area and population per neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said that the maps vaould be included, Mr. Bergman ��anted to knotiv if the neighborhood sizing would be the same as the last time the Planning Commission saw the maps, Mr. Boardman said that they would be the same for now. Ae said that a survey i�ras to be conducted this summer and if the survery reflects a change, then a change ti�rould be placed in the documents shorring the neighborhood's as decided from the ne�v survey, Mr. Bergman said that Communit,y Developmant indicated that �vb.ile the guidelines for the neighborhood identifications are equal population by type and amount, equal areas and natural boundaries; that the delineation of the neighborhoods as they exist in the Parks and Open Space Plan are in drastic conflict with those guidelines to the extent that one nei�hborhood (T3) is equal to,in size, five other neighborhoods - far ftom equality. Is equal in population to four or five other neighborhood total - far from equality. He said the identification of neighborhoods should be made more equal by the guidelines that vrere the criteria, Mr. Boardman sai.d that �opulation vras not a eriteria of the guidelines. Mr. Bergman felt that population should be a criteria. Ms. Gabel said that population tivas not necessarily a realistic criteria for establishing neighborhood groups. Mr. Langenfeld said thai if it meets the needs of the area� then population was insignificant. Mr. Boudreau said that to look at the Total Plan and keep tivithin a System he took the input from the neighborhoods as r�hat that arsa tivanted to see in the total park System. Mr. IIergman said that there tivas unequal representation. PI.ANNING COMMISSION MF�TING - MARCH z2, 197$ Pa�e 10 Mr. Boudreau said that the neighborhoods �ere merely input areas. He said that population did play a part of it because they want to knora the characteristics of that population, but onZy for the purposes of. where v�ill they get the majority using an activity or a facility. He said it vrould not indicate vahat that particular neighborhood wants for their neighborhood� but what was needed for the tota2 park system. Mr. Bergman wanted to know why neighborhoods were needed, Chairperson Harris said they vrere needed to gather and dicseminate . information. Chairperson Harris asked how the proposed facilities were going to be adaptable to tivinter activities. Mr� Boudreau said th�t it was up to the citizens of Fridley as to v�hat types of programs they wanted. He said that one of the main reasons a Fridley Recreation Building was needed was to accommodate more of the people, more of the time. Chairperson Aarris asked if the planned layout of the general facilities would be adaptable for use in the vrinter as well as in the summer. Mr. Boardman said that berming would be used as a division of areas, He,said that the berming that would take place crould not interfere vrith the open field activities. He said they wou3d be put in as buffering devices betvaeen active and passive areas, Mr. Boudreau said that each park would have a site �lan that would enable them to visually see how each planned area vrould work and ho� they could d.evelop the area for maximum usage, Mr. Boudreau said that Objective 1 was probably the��'secret" of the r•rhole document, ��be sensitive to the site amenities. and provide the f7.exibility into the planning so the facility can be utilized year around'�, He said that the Plan did allova for that objective by 1) recommending site plans; 2) recommending citizen input; and 3) tvhat activities that will be at that facility. Chairperson Harris asked vthat would happen to the undeveloped park proper�ies Zocated in the City. Mr. Boudreau said that some park properties would be sold. He said that, in the System, there was no useful purpose for some properties designated as Park property. ,�.,_ PLANNING CONR�IISSION MPPTING - MARCIi 22, 1978 pa�e )} Mr, Bergman said that generally speaking the Parks and Open Space Plan was a fine planning document. He said that there klad been a lot of effort expended on the Plan and as a plan much innovative thoughts have gone into it. He said that in some cases the Policies do not define the means that v�ill or will not be used to achieve the objectives. Ms. Gabel said that it was not always known what those means would be. Mr. Bergman said that by definition it said that policy defines the means that wiZl or v�ill not be used to achieve the objectives, He sa3.d that if that v�as the r�ay the Plan �vas being developed then we should be able to establish the objectives and the policies needed to enforce the method of achievin� the objec'tive. He said that some did not tie in that vaay. Mr. Boardman explained how the statements made in the Plan tivere arrived at. Mr. Ber�;man suggested that someone re-read the policies to check that they are policy statements and that they relate to the objectives. Ms. Gabel asked ti�rhat the Planning Commission�s goal tivas on March 22, 1978. Mr, Boardman said that they should discuss the amended Parks and Open Space Plan. He said that he r�anted the Planning Commzssion to recommend that the Plan have a Public Aearing so that tiie document can be presented to the people. Mr. Langenfeld aslied when the Public Hearing lvas bein� planned for. Mr. Boardman said that it evould be at the April 5, 1978, meeting. He indicated the people that r�ould be notifi.ed of the Public Hearing. Mr. Boudreau said that they not only were coordinating �vith the other facilities in the City such as private parks and school systems, but they also coordinate �vith the commercial activities available in the City of Pridley. tiPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Amended Parks and Open Space Plan v�as received at 10;06 P.M. Ms. (3abe1 said that the Parks and Open 5pace Plan ivas a"Super" plan and she hoped that a11 the monies could be obtained for it, Mr. Bourdreau said that it first had to be decided by the citizens of I'ridley exactly t�ahat level of the Plan they 1rant. He felt that the City of Fridley deserved, �vanted, and needed the ultimate plan. . PLANNING COMMISSION MrPTING - MARCIi 22, 19�8 Pa�e 12 MOTION by Mr. Bergman� seconded by Ms. Gabel, that Staff finalize the Parks and Open Space Plan as presented and discussed and establish a Public Iiearing. UPON A VOIC� VOTE, a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 7. RECFIVE PARKS & R�CREATION COMMISSION MINUTF',S� MOTION by Ms. Shea� reCeive the minutes Commission meeting. carried unanimously, � sec•onded by Ms. Gabel, that the Planning Commission of the February 27, 1978, Parks and Recreation Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion MOTION by Ms, Shea, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the March 2, 1978, minutes of the Human Ftesources Commission meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 9. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MARCH 14� 1978 MOTION by Ms. Gabels seconded by Mr. Langenfeld� that the Planning Cammi�sion receive the Appeals Commission minutes of March 14, i978. Chairperson Harris questioned the s�ated hardship in some of the items handled at thzt meeting. Ms. Gabel yaid that the actual hardship was tkat the people living in the buildings had no other feasible place to park other than the �ront yards, She said that since the City ti^�as resurfacing the streets, the o�rners of the buildings tvere being ixiformed that they had to get a vaxiance to park in the front yards. Mr. Boardman said that Staff had to indicate exactly vrhat the people say tivhen asked v�hat their hardship evas. TTPON A VOICE VOTE, alI voting aye, �he motion carried unanimously. l0, OTHER BUSIN�SS A. Mr. Langenfeld reminded the other Commission members that the Hyde Park general meeting tvould be held on March 29� 1978. Mr. Boardman said that a general raeeting with the residents of the Hyde Park area tvould be held on March 29, 1978. He said that from there, the issue would �o to the Planna.ng Commission with recomraendatians for zoning and recommendations for approval of an overall plan for development. PLAP1DiItdG COMMIuSI0P1 MP?',CiNG - 4RflRCiI 7_2, 19�8 Pap;e 13 B. _, �Ti�RGY COMMISSION Mr. Ber�man said that at the previous meetzng the members had been asked to come up vrith names of citizenJ to serve on an�nergy Commission. He said that a citizen he lianted'to suggest cJas Ben ��•rers. He said that Mr. �tivers was an employee of NSP and he vras interested in serving on an Energy Commission. . Mr, Langenfeld said that a Statement of I'act vras necessary. He also felt that the �nergy issue should be broken dovm into catagories such as conservation! education, etc. Chairperson Harris asked that the Energy issue be put on the Agenda for April 5, 1978. He felt tha.t the other members of the Commission should have had time to give this item some consideration. Mr, Bergman said that it evould be interesting to establish vrhat v�ould be expected from the Energy Commission as �rell as establishing the guidelines, C, Ms. Shea said that the March 22, 1978� meeting v�as her last meeting. She said that she had been on the Commission for two years and had learned much. One thing Ms. Shea commented on was the fact that the Agendas �ere received by the memUers of the Corr,mission on Friday previous to the Planning Commission meetings and she fel�t it was very important for the �nember s of the CommisUior. to either look at the property being discussed or at least find out about the property. She felt that very often questions were asked of the petitioner that shouldn�t have to be asked if the members iiad done proper preparing for the meeting. Ms. Shea said that the Planning Commission al�vays go through the minutes of the meetings page-by-page, vohen all the members have already read the minutes. She many iirnes had gotten the feeling that the �embers of the Commission don�t even read the documents until they arrive at the meeting, Ms. Shea said that the members spend a lot of iime on the Commission ��rith very little thanks from the City. She said she had been thinking at Christmas time hotv nice i.t �JOUl� have been if the City �vould have taken the Planning Co�nmission members and spouses out to dinner. She felt that City really did not appreciate ti�rhat t11e members of the Planning Conmission crere doing. Ms. Shea said that generally serving on the Commission had besn a good experience for her. PLANNING COMMISSION MrPTING - MARCH 22, 1978 P�;,e 14 Ms. Shea also didn�t like the fact that many iimes all the Comraiseions tisere not xepresented. She felt that the Commission members shau7.d take a more responsible attitude towards their commitment. Chairperson FIarris commented on the statement by Ms, Shea regarding the "unnecessary" questions. He said that there was _ttivo possible answers to the comment: a)"Maybe i£ you ask a stupid question� you may avoid a stupid mistake"; b) Asking questions �ras a vehicle used by certain Attorneys for getting certain points they want to make put into the record. Chairperson Harris said tkat the Commission enjoyed having Ms, Shea as a member and he wished that she would continue. Mr. LangenPeld said that he also enjoyed working with her on the Planning Commission. D. Mr. Boardman said that there would be an upcoming discussion at the Planning Commission level as to �vhat the functions of the Commissians dvere. E. Mr. Langenfeld agreed that very few people appreciated how hard the Commissions vrorked, Mr. Bergman felt that a recognition dinner �vould definitely be in order. ADJQURNP4ENT MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld� seconded by Ms, Shea� to adjourn the March 22, 19�8, Planning Comraission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at to:33 p,M. Respectfully submitted� �I ��2ti� MaryLee Carhill Recording Secretary ,.P-a, PUBLIC HEARING BErORE THE PLANNING COt7t+lI5SI0N TO ldHOt4 IT MAY CONGERN: �.r � �� Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Cormrssion of the City of Fridtey in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, April 5, 1978 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M, to consider the following matter: R request for a Special Use Permit, SP #7S-p4, by John R. Dayle, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3, E, ta permit R-1 zoned property, (single family doiellings) to be used for an off-street parking lot for a proposed apartment building on adjacent land, the parking lot to be on Lots 78 and 79, Block A, Riverview Heights, loCated in the North Haif of Section 3, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at 447 Hugo Street N.E. r Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall tie given an opportunity at the above stated tine and place. RICNARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: March 22, 1978 Ptarcfi 29, 1978 - -''� � CI7'Y OF rRTDLGY M1NNL•SU'PA • • PLANNING AND ZONINC POI2M • NUM13G f �7� � f APPLICAN7''S SIGNA'fUR� ' )--�-r t.� , Ll- Address_l 3C� 5 .p�' '�' J� �� Telcphonc Number �(�- 2- 9 7 0 � _., PROPERTY OIti'NHR'S SIGNATURE � � cct _�-E'� Address J AM � -- Telephone Number J Fl n`i r Street Location of Property Legal Description of Property <_o C . . �s, �6 TYPC OF 2GQU�ST Rezoning �pecial Usc Pcrmit Approval of Premin- inary $ Final Plat Strcets or Alley Vacations Other u''/ Fee �� Reccipt ,C� v, c �../ No. 9o�i��_ Present Zoning Classification�_�isting Use of Property �/{}G A al T Acrcage of Property Describe briefly the proposed 2oning classification • or ,type of use and improvement proposed ��� E �J G � 0 7' Tok' ��.�cE-'°`�T" �A�'R ��-NV E.✓T -1��1�� �i..l�i' � �DS O�'l 3i G Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, oUtain a lot split ox variance or special use permit on the subject site or �part of it?�_yes no. What was requested and when? /J c�,y �,,J�' �.2 Y�� ANC f ox/ , ' �� �✓// �"�' " ' �DJOlnJrnJG �?Ay�TM�.tJT `��'r� — 17ie undersigned understands that: (a) a list of aii residents and oianers of praperty within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning} must be atthched to tliis application. (b} This application must be signed by all owncrs of the property, or an c�planation given a�hy Chis is not the case. (c) P.esponsiUili�y for any defect in the proccedin;s resulting from the fa.ilure to list thc r,smes and addresses of all residcnts and property owners of property in question, belongs to thc undcrsigned. . A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drai��� and attached, showing the followin�: 1. North Direction. 2. Loc�ztion of proposed structure on the lot. 3. llimensions oi property, proposed structure, .anJ fronC and side setbncks. .' 4. Strcet Names. 5. Location and use of adjaccnt caisting buildings (tiaithin 300 fcet). i � a � 'f'he undcrsigned hcreUy dccl�res that application �re truc and co UATi 3- � - 7�''"- S all thc £acts and representations stated in this Date Filed' � __ Dato of Ncaring ���'� _� 1 7 ,� Plamii�ig Commission Approvcd City Counci2 Approved (datcs) pcnicd (Jates) Denicci . "'�* -: MAILING LIST SP N78-OR John Doyle parking in R-1 zone for different use on adjacent land Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Rudy 8251 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Stanley Kania A30 Ironton Street N.E, Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Keulke 8161 East River Road NE. Fridley, Mn 55432 �Ar. & Mrs. David Jacobson 8151 Faittnont Circle N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fir. & P7rs. Raymond Arnold 8141 Fairmont Circle N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Diamond Construction Company 2501 B1aisdell Avenue South Minneapolis, Pin 55402 Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Erke 382 Ironton Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & P1rs. Clyde Meyer 420 Ironton Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Heights Builders, In�. 1381 Skywood Lane Pl.E. Fri di ey, P4n 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Mitchell Gook 420 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, t1n 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Anthony Emmerich 2579 S. Cook Creek Drive Andover, Mn 55303 Ptr. & Mrs. Steven Thompson 360 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, M❑ 55432 PLANNING COMMISSION 3/21�78 �% Mr. & Mrs. David Schultz 471 Nugo Street NE Fridley, Mn 55432 Donald Meyerson 3232 1�1.102nd Street Minneapolis, Mn 55431 Angeline M. Schoepke 381 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Deborah Nofkes 390 liugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Amanda Anderson 2654 Pleasant Avenue South Tlinneapolis, Mn 55408 John Doyle 6305 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & P1rs. Gene Harstad 500 Ironton Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Gail Brooks 8184 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Alfed Kellner 8185 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Malcolm Frehn 8180 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Ernest Draheim 8164 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Fereydoun Beh�am 499 Glencoe Street NE Fridley, hin 55432 � -� ,�, . . ,:: } g ' � � , } •� ' , . . r. 2 � _, � . - * . SP �78-04 John Doyle ' __ � � - • cr Parking lot on R-1 Property for an a rtment p � _ , building on adjacen land ,-, - 3 • : . . � . . -• � � � . . � ' i' �'" ' . t - . � .. . � , , .F•tr , ~ ` i ` � ,e ... � . . . . . ., . _ .. -` 7 + I `"� ` . . . g; . ... .. . , __._._ . ...- . . �g — _ . _.,. I � . .._ ..i._- ... : . .: ._. '. t � . : ," � . . �_ ,. . ... .. � . ' ° � CITY OF _ r'" �;, � COON . RAPIDS . . � • ,�. �, ,-- _ �----iir�z�-�--- - -- �- � 7� �' � 3 � i _ . . . .. .. . .i:ii er°•^.�i•�. ° - � -- . - � � � •sa�n.t�ti.rs'--- ' � - ' --{ • i " .' _ , o .�-, � ;� . 8zsso�. CITY OF � � ; .�. � �e . �:: �� � „ - t.,s�r• _� � - �,oIX� ^ R�LEY,� J �EV � A . ,,� � �C ; �j(� � s. cw�.r� t.� �� `i`r- � _ ` , oia. ii v V � �...� R. <z v _3&1 39! ` i � �, z � � s,,;;cEa.� Q ("�: � AfNu il i ..- 2 � i/9� � (suo) , ��) 2� + 2?� 3b� � 39S f � �'_ _3'��,,, e�./ � �3aa � j2 6.. 5 ��n�. r �� - 9 I / � I 3 6 35'S, I 32 „i .i .., �s _ �� Y '� �y��p� � 8141i fi<i ai�, .,, ! rp ��l'' 8\� r � l.._.��.f l�l�8�$� �,' �Q/ �� � � -.�`` 871r� � � ��. � . . r Y , `� • °. . ' �' �8�� z ` � �,� FAt�MQN`is'"� - `...�.:�.. z � 6t2t` a . . t'K s I$11� Z S/j1 ` i 81 ' �.��� P .. � , � 81t4� ` � � re"�.r « `ar : � 8106 .81019 i � � go87 � r� o _ `f"'" . r, es 1_t � :� �tiS 295 ��, co T .�^.�s.. �y JOA � F'�� ��' 1.:! 3 � .� i* , �..I. . 15 3�:1 Z ;6n� ii— / . ;.r. a�`s� a -Ct� 1 �. . :8�A5 8\�66 � elS `,. 8S3L g�qo , .� t . g1h5y ...; h � �g1is s�7.o ' . � � 8U: n B' _ , � . c � � . .. . .rw�...t.. d aw�.4 - *-1 ry---�'—t s. � . �... ' 'Y C�\ S. ? e � , � �"2 �3 0 � _ . :� •`,� � -`_ ` M, aiot -,. rN �o p .�:So�� ,� �; s � „ '' `�� - .�. � �� r� 8os� �t p go2b • &�I � - 1 � un� w t� a • • S 5 � . _ . . '' . . .� _: ,�,,,�' � � � - 3 � , .. CEt.' � � ` ,.'.� ... �EG . a , ': t t � } � , ., + ....r.%. �' : ,�...'s�v. , ;,, ._. . _ ��.� : � .L,.... _ _ . . ! � � ; f n �� M � � w �, .. " � � � I a � f r ��,�. t g ' : �°y� s'rr i .V CSf LOQ ' .. •. � i. j � ' _ �S✓iIV%r.o�' m � � - 9. i � , � ez :� ;, r ., - a°' � � fr, ; , � O 3°G � �� ' ' � �� b O � h o ----- �,�-�------ y � � , :; � z a� j �, _ - ' �' p�A� � �A . . , y a N __. � a � o � $ � , _ / $ •. i � w � n '� o �__ . °'� . . .; ; � ? --�s�—�_0 �..' .� � I ; I � t � 4 d I � � . �I i � � k I. I ( � v i � I . � � I � y M� �3.* � _„ �sl � f q t '$„i ^� K ab '' � i� I 8 A� 4�. Vs ' i � `v,`.; �� � ��.. ' :' � � . �p h -�. , r� � . .�i1 � `� ^ � a, I � ' � � I � �2. � � � < �� � � ' � � f a� •Y� I 4 . :.�. � �� , � �o, ,. � i o � .;; , h �. �s =, i I .,, � "s I � ^ f ��QC�` � -" ' � �`- � a ` � ' +� � �' y � � .j o � I� � � j,. _ i '� �AD �� ` F 1 R � l ° � $ d `°` Rp✓Ea ^1 - ' . o �. . uN/�P :� . I 1 �� ,� ' ' ,' '` f'� II }. � . h o ' =�, � � i r._— P 1.. : - - I '' ' � E RR. ,�*',I f�„Y� �Y � p � R,.�N6 w, "� � t� . i . 1 ` curuNA �,f / , NoKq _ i '�,� m �Y1�NN£AP�pls, '4 � ' e'r .. � ` h � �' 1 � /o�t' 7.J ,` ' jrru �edl � —Y�f�;'_" ��os� � � ^ . �. _�— n l " o � . . . _ . ._��. . . . __, ._. _ � .. _ ' �... �� 1 . r �r PUf3LIC }1EARING QEFORE TNE � PLANNING COtM1ISSI0N TO VIHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT there will be a Public Nearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on tdednesday, April 5, 1978 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.P1. to consider the following matter: A request for a Special Use Permit, SP �78-05, by Bennie Rozman, Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, 3, A,3, to allow the construction of a recreational use building on the North 300 feet of the South 1105 feet of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarier of Section 3, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at 8031 Beech Street N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. . Publish: March 22, 1978 � March 29, 1978 RICHARD H. HARRIS CNAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION / NUMBGR .. � �� 7��• fO APPLICAN9"S SIGNAIURC Address y Q C� �i � Telephonc Number PROPERTY Oi5'NCR'S SI ��Address CI7'Y OT PRIDLL•Y h1INNL•SU'PA , � ��� �"'� � . , �� pLA NG AND Z NG FOItM TyPC OF REQUEST " ' l�o-2MtdI✓ � -- Rezoning Yn7� .i � �5 (�,j1�,�- S.n/1-6 i�' Spccial Use Pcrmit � ���� Telephone Number L� 3�" 1/� � -- Street Location of Property � C% �^ '�- %�F'pL(., �l. � Approval of Premin- inary $ Finai Plat Strccts or Alley Vacations Other Fee �a� U RCCCipt No. %DS��' Legal Description of Property Present Zoning Classification�_Existing Use of Property V%�L ��T Acreage of Property 3�� • Describe bri.efly the proposed zoning classification p p i� Rt. tJS�n Fo�t Tir A� . or ,type of use and improvement ro osed , " ��' C �1L�A1Z G h ,��� �! �, . Has the present applicant prev variance or special use permit What �aas requested and wlien?_ ously sou�ltt to rezone, plat, oUtain a lot split.ox on the subject site or parC of it?� Y�5 ✓'�O° The'undersigned understands that: (a) 1 list of all residents and o�aners of proocrty within 300 feet (350 feet foi rezonir.g) must be attached to this application. (bJ This application must be signed by all o�aners of the property, or an eaplmiatio;l given �ahy this is not the case, (c) RcsponsiUility for sny defect in the proccedinos xesulting from thc failure to list thc namcs and addresscs of all residents and prcpor*yo urmers of groperty �n questioal, belnngs to thc undcrsi�ned. A sketcli of proposed property and structi�re must be drnti.�2 and attached, showinfi f1i� follotiaing: L Nortli Direction. 2. Location of pmpased structure on the lot. 3. Uimcnsions of property, proposcd scructurc, and £ront and sidc setb�cks. ,' 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent eristing buildings (within 3QQ feet). The undcrsigrcd hcrc6y declares tha�?'t th facts application are true and correct. ( DATE 3 I g i r' SIGNATURE {r PLICAN7') Date Filcd � Data of Planning Commission Approvcd (aata�) ocnxod tions stated in this City Couiicil Approvcd (datcs) Dciiicd^ ' . --�". MAILING LIST SP #78-06 Bennie Rozman Bennie Rozman 400 Dakota South Plinneapolis, Mn 55416 Park Construction Co. 7400 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Bryant-Franklin Corporation 900 West County Road D Nevr Brighton, Mn 55112 Planning Commission 3-21-78 �� J � :. rncr nrrcnK rN TNF ANplCA COUNTY '' . r•3�" _ , -, QfF1CfS AFffCTlNG THE• ARFA SNOWN. - � - - TH/5 pRAWING IS TO aE t1SfD U'1'Y FOR RFfERfNCE Pl1Rpp5FSAND:THE CO!/MY . ' ,,; . IS'_NOT RESPQNlStBtE fOR ANY_ �f::.C. ,::._ :. ..::..:.,_._k:..;.;a<.;+::.;�:���.:...,...�5 ±�= ' ' ,._CURAClfS. HFAENV� COMA.'t _,... .:. ., _.� .,. ��i. � . . ; � t : # , � - 5.�'90� � . . . . . _.... :� � ., : .. /- � Y . ,::'� �r e r ' h \ � _S- i ^ S I ' 1 f t r;�.r f - , ` � ' E. //4 " CORNER : : .' - ' .'. s'_. � t -' y : ✓ �. ., ::_ Y S£G 3 _. . ::. _ T.: . _�� �.: � - - — - F , .,. -• �.vx'r.� �' _ �_ _' �-= - .. _ , , '}. .triirrw .a <>✓ f i �� odY .�-.�» —°s-i� ._�� �,..r`•r+rlforvw+�s.r+c�.t o.�.+vss+ -�. . �� — — — — — — —� ^ �� �.. ------- — — k�. R �. ip Ir � w�'r I�- . I� � . I 2 � I �L Ii �_ _ i��`: . t - '; � :: - i��,. . �, ._ �.._ I ` . _ � ,t : i� .f :. i � i- ���.� �,�,� . I� $'d �!/ � �EC�I 1 Ib�. ii ` I � �4 . ' , � r' �v I: I i� — —.— — - — — — — — — --� � _..� � :�:-.` =�u..._---.-^�i (— -- -- b : ' � .. ; _, : ��• �"' � � J' o � ��p. � �i r �� �A� en�.w.vilrn6.�! r,rr�r.rrii.'sY � � t` � ' �- ' I � � ^ - �� 1 I i \ 1 L . E � �' :.... � , . i��� J � - :I I``ai , � � . _ . l�li I . � ,.:; _ . 4 � , Er r --� . � ►� ;: x' _,�i1 .t s:v:�sw.!r�'wF,✓G.f �t.r_� i . i . �r �� c • 'J� ' ..._ _ ' _ _ _ � _. .� � � J y �� � Pi � � � / � /6 v / Z �. ' iy ° �• z_ �� i t . . ��ssi1 ' . . f' �_ -. r r t 1 1_ `' '`� � _— .:. f� ...f/r� .' .' !i✓ T��'�Y � r�r � y i�.r�� �__/�•?� � ! ! t � I � - i : � fi�s� f � - �. � �... � E � ( `�. � � ' � �.. � ; I� � i i; � i � : �� :� � . _ _��� j� F W 0 � PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO I�IHOt9 IT MAY CONCERN: r �w� Notice is hereby given that there U�ill be a Puclic Hearing of the Planning Corrnnission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, Apri1 5, 1978, in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.P•1, for the purpose of: Consideration of a Proposed Preliminary Plat, P.S. #78-01, Tri-Co Addition, by Tri-Co Builders, Inc., being a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Auditor's SubdiVision No. II9, except the Easterly 82 feet of the bJesterly 810 feet of the North 65 feet of the South 157 feet of Lot 3, and except the E�lest 9� feet of the East 290 feet of Lot 3, said Easterly 290 feet being measured from North to South Quarter line of Section 12, T-30, R-24, subject to an easement for road purposes over the North 30 feet of Lot 2, and over the East 50 feet of Lots > and 3, all located in the South Half of Se -_ion, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, Count�✓ rinoka, P1innesota. 6enerally locat :outh of 72nd Avenue N.E. and East of Cen. : avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRtdAN PLANNIN6 COMMISSEON Publish: March 22, 1978 P1arch 29, 1978 � CI7'Y OP PRIDLIiY MINNL•SUTA � • PLANNING AND ZONING FORbt NUMdGR � • ��iA-0 / � ,F, , �, n,,, : //�P.3 /,�c. APPLICANI''S SIGNATURC ry �c-..-�.l � �.ur"�.. � � / �+/j^ p � Address��c �- � .a /� �% -�- • Telephonc Number ��.7 -� � r'a �� y�7 /S'7� PROPERTY 014N[R'5 SIC�ATUR� q�.-.�� ���"'" 'u ' Address �� G i �.d/ YO� I� �6,.� �tio�.3. Teleghone Number y�%� S`7.� � Street Location of Property �� v`i � J-��% rJ-�-��-�" Legal Description of Property .-;� ��t%'���__c-� Present Zoning Classification r� 3 / �a�.y TYPC Or RCQUEST Rezoning Special Use Permit j� Approva2 of Premin- ����+ inary f, Finnl Plat Streets or Allcy Yacations OYher � �i Fee �/0 Reccipt Existing Use of Property No. C yYz �ti� Aereage of Property 3 z '� Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement proposed ���'�' �c �•�.�'-���J �, Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot =pli.t or variance or special use per;nit on the suoject site or part.of it? yes " no. Wliat was requested and �ahen? ' ___ The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and o�aners of property within 300 feet (�SO feet for rezoning) mi:st be attached to this application. (b) This app2ication must be sisned by all owners of the property, or an e�planation given �.hy this is not the case, (c) I:esponsibility for �ny defect in. Llie proccedings resulting from the f,�.ilure to list thc namcs and addresscs of all resi:i:;;ts and property owners oE property in question, belongs to thc undcrsigned. . A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drat�li and attached, showing thc following: 1. North Direction. 2. Locntion of proposeci structure on the lot. 3. llimcnsions of property, proposcd structtire,.and fronL and sidc setbacks. ' 4. Street Names. 5. Location,and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 3'v0 fect). The unJcrsigncd hcrcby dcclares that a21 thc facts and representations stated in this application are truc and correct. �� ;�� /.�i�� r��-z-✓"� � DATG SIGNATURE� �d' �,._,_^ <� ��.c � API'LICAN7') . Datc Filcd DAto of ticaring Planning Conunissiou Approved_ City Council Approvcd (J�tcs) bcnicd (datcs) Acnicd i �; � � . ..yRwx .. 4'°'... Parcel 415 400 450 300 500 Planning Corrmission 3-22-78 City Council PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROPOSED TRI-CO IiDDIT20N Super America Station, Inc. P.O. Box 391, Ashland, KY. 41101 3ames R. Determan 2297 Stinson Boulevard, New Brighton, MN. Determan Welding & Tank 5ervice, Inc. 1241 - 72nd Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN. Joseph R. Miller, Jr. 1200 Prospect, Lajolla, CA. 92037 Everett H. Thompson o� �Oli s �/�?2;�.Y'/z.a�� ���" r �e-�-� CENTRAL A�7ENUE. ADDITION Lots 1- 20 Bryant Franklin Corp. Midwest Federal 391199589 801 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN. Parts of Lots 1,9,10,11,12, 13 and 14 Parcel 600 City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN. N. H. Geroux 69b S. lst Street, Ely, NV. 89301 530 Rustic Oaks Corp. Richard K. Check 1821 Sunter Avenue N., Minneapolis, MN. 55427 690 Ruth J. Norton _ Twin City Federal 110-54664 801 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN. 7210 710 730 720 Onan 1400 - 73rd Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN. 55432 Donald w. Harstad 2106 -,.29th Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN. D.S4, Harstad Co., Inc. 7101 Highway 65 NE, Fridley, MN, 55432 Wade L. and Teresa Norton 835 Columbia Boulevard, MinneapoZis, MN. 1 �� �40 Robert C. and Jean A. Rosecrans IDS 6443011408 Investors Building, Minneapolis, MN. "70 Jerry Orville Sympson NorthZand 00264966 630 Hamm Building, St. Paul, MN �00 Charles Brent Twin Gity Federal 15017344 801 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN. �20 Harry and Irma Dettmann 2064 Hastings Avenue, Newport, MN. 40 Kurt L, and Carol R. Nordenstrom Spring Company 13011268012 4285 Sheridan Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN. 65 Ruth J. Norton Farmers & Mechanics 87b61 90 South 6th Street, MinneapoZis, MN. 885 Tri-Co Builders, Inc, 7555 Van Buren Street NE, Minneapolis, MN. 900 Debra Renee Masingill FBS Homes, Inc. 2847 P.O. Box 1199, Minneapolis, MN. 920 State of Minnesota in Trust 1020 D. W, Harstad Co., Inc. 7101 Highway 65 NE, Fridley, MN. 55432 980 Kenneth Louis Kowalke Schumacher Mortgage 710179 5100 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, TN. 1000 Jack Iaboe Home Federal 10-16664M 730 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, MN. 1060 Ellsworth H. and Fern N. Burkstrand Midwest Federal 371063609 801 Nicollet Ma21, Minneapolis, MN. 1070 Cynthia J. Mabel Midwest Federal 532600330 801 Nicollet Ma11, Minneapolis, MN. 2 � �'7 � , � Parcel 1140 Peter F. Sakamoto NQRTON AVENUE AOMESITES Kuma Development Corp. Lots 1- 6 6415 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN. Parcel 1160 Leroy Smith 949 - 44th Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN. 940Q Minnesota Transfer Railway Company 6600 Medtronics Inc. 3Q55 Old Highway 8, Minneapolis, MN. � �, : � � _ �: : � _ , ,... ... :, � � - � �' ' "CIi'Y a� �,� � . � :j � i J t ' '. °L .. t -. � x'. i . �.� � , _ A w� �µ , �t �I� ) .. . .Y • / ` �� �%.. /I .. / �. . � �� � t �� Q V 7 � � ` � IP 1� �'a � p'� ^�� t -� - r, =� . ._ . ; , , . .. . ._- ; .. :�, _- .. : ,: . . ,. . , , � , � .. . .. ::;. ,.;: : � . :.. > -.: . _ - .: . . � . .. ..:>. ... . . .:. ,_ _ � . . � .. � _ . , , _ �.- ..��� _ � � : . ` �x r xan: w.rr i, ":.s C.7'.wd..l -0_ t....� k9 f.. ;r .�. . , _.. .. . .: ' r� w. ar. .. ... . � . �..� r . . ..� .q ... , .. �,....'_ �. � � . ' , � - .; .. . . � .. . _ . . .. _. �. .. ...... .t� ...::. .,: . . -. .. . ., .....,... .... ' . . .,._.,,.,a � � ._.� .. � . ' � � � Y�' o. - . . . �. �.;-�.-. � . y. .."_ _ o � ...�: ,...� s.�. .-::.:.. ' . . , � .;._ .. .�: .,- . ��'. m...:l,i�.. .t..'»"' _. ._...: _ _.�,.� ..... ,: . 4 •' ':: r .2' F � . ✓ - . ,- _ '. ';. .', .. .. . _: _�...._.___.: _ ..__...;�....,.�,,. .. .. '_, . __.. . �.._.;;...�.. :� ,_.CENTER � � �-.� t r 's: " " _ : :- i SE 12i'-�--_ _. ".. r za.o� /.3rr / 1- "�-- = __r�-----' <��f�.ry. . � PAR �.,W ��" ___ .� � } � � .. �.� . :. -< . . . :..:, .. � � =-� , 3 - FT. 23t.�f.0 � . P./.235•JI.L ' I p O'9Y'?� 1 1 D o��1' - . . . . . (�' . .. � � L 280.0' . . . _ . NvsJ S.oei Amiiics S1sl.w�r /x :,,.� �c. . � . �.�.SO1 0 f 72�0 - .. .. . ' . . � - -- izq� i� 1 r i � 1 � �ttetv Ocdr co. , r�� 7 i 9 F AUDlTQR: �./,,,... I�M� ll5l s,� a....a w,v...ro� 4 7(Ol � ��g� � ' (� –_-- - -� . ,_"_t.-�..:1`' - - _ � �� .� ... � _.., ,...... _.. __ �_ n8' 1200 2 _ SUBI ,,,;� o�.ak.r<i ,.... G9�M � . n Srt Nvt�' 4 � ��,,, �,o�e� si�o izoo�2 ' _ _._ 1 s �o�o� tzl9 !3I �I I 9�� 3 � 1 ;. I{ � � � y 4 S j �. ♦ � � 6 � ' f6 � 1T 8/9 A:��— 2 \� 7 P t q � I `O �o �o Io J/<.�'�I �'13'�: sN� _ .rc Pe o.� :."•_ _ _ . " � ' 7zzb _, . pe� , .�Ninne,rola/e✓rsln>I �� � Pa,,fs f.�c. �/�m�fN�'+M � 1305 : �, � . ^ �E l. � � ! ` � 6ar+yc B l! aN � > � f�' C,00) }'�°'i.�°�a°°) i-:-� iS�t�N i �NQ.B� -��. � .� �� —3 � � - �. i . b �f � '1 �"�`-� �,-oQ) � lswl � (soa) • 1 .% �i r � : !� �� � 7���88� ias9 �z�s �zs� -- ..........�na. .. .. � C P��/��' (sto) � � i � 9E K�� 10 �R�! ���,' � 130f 7(It :„�- � .�o _��i_:�'�:rv,...... ��}, , i3 r�� ys��► - -:ve �.. � CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMIS3TON MEETING � MAR�H 28, 1978 CALL TO ORDER: V3ce-thairperson Gabe3 called the March 28, 1978, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 P•M• R4LL CAL.L : Members Present: Plemel, Kemper, Gabel� Barna Members I16sent: Schnabel Others Present: Ron Holden, 8uilding Inspector APPROVE APPEAl.S COi1h12SSI0N MINUTET: MARCN 14� 1978 MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna, to approve Che Appeals Commission minutes of March 14, 1978• Mr• Holden indicated that on page 7, the seventh sentence of the ^Administrative 3�aff Review^ should read, ^Eight {B} stalls at nine feet wide would equal 72 feet of parking width on this 8❑ faot lot•^ UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried tunanimously- The minutes were approved at 7:37 P.M. :den explained that there was an amended Administrative Report- 10TION by Iqr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to open the c Hearing• llpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion ��, �ed unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 7:39 P.M• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY RE4UIREMENT: Section 205•075,1,E+3, prohibiting parking any closer to a lot line than five feet• Public purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the area adjacent to lot lines and separate parking with landscaped areas� Section 205•075,2,A, requiring a minimum of 7•5 parking stalls for this particular 4-plex- Public purpose served is to provide for adequate off-street parking areas for multiple dwelling units• �Y, APPEALS tOMMIS3I0N MEETING - MARCH 2B, 1978 Pa e 2 B• 3TATED HARDSHIP: io campiy with the fity tode as requested by the City Engineering Department and the cost of changing the parking. Also the lost use of the existing rear yard• C� ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: . The existing parking at 580❑ 2 1/2 Street is in the side yard to the rear of the four-plex off SBth Avenue• There are four parking stalls with parking close to boih the a]ley artd the south property line• The area is hard surfaced, with fencinq and curb stops for the four stalls• Apparently the overflow parking must be done in the street• The City Attorney has determined that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission to discuss parking in the public right of way. However, the City Councii may, if it desires, change the Code to allow the pppeals Commission to hear such requssts• For these reasons, it appears that the best alternative for Mr• Johnson is to move his ^parking fence^ 15 feet north of its present location, and add 15 feet of additional black- topping• This wili provide for a total of 8 stalls and en� the parking in the boulevard, without much loss of rear ya� space• {See Map}• Mr• Holden indicated that he had talked to the City Attorney had asked him several questions for the Appeals tammissian• He asked the City Attorney if the City permitted parki� the Boulevard; and the answer had been N0� Mr• Hoiden asked if a variance was required to reduce d�� number of parking stalls from 7•5 to 4 if the tity tlid not parking in the Boulevard property; and the answer had been Y Mr- Holden asked the City Attorney if the Appeals Commissio act on the variance for parking on the boulevard properties; and the answer had been NO• Mr• Holden reiterated that the Appeals Commission could not act on the question of parking on the boulevards� He explained that the requests that were to be handled were parking closer to the lot line than five feet; and the other was to reduce the number of parkiag stalls from 7•5 to 4- Mr- Johnson asked if he had to move the parking fence the entire 15 feet• Mr• Holden said that it would be one way of alleviating the parking in the boulevard and also provide for eight parking stalls, which was actually needed for Mr• dohnson's building• - MARCH 28 Mr� Johnson said that his tenants were already parking eight cars in that parking lot• Mr� Holden explained that when the street improvement was completed, Mr• Johnson's 6oulevard would be reduced from 14 feet ta ten feet. He explained that the tenants were present2y parking directly behind tars and after the'improvements were in, there wou2dn't be room to park two-cars deep in the existent parking stails- Vice-Chairperson Gabel indicated to the Commission tha.t they �ere addressing the variance of reducing the 7•5 parking stails Lo four parking stails and parking closer to a 2ot 2ine than five feet- She said that they were not addressing the question of whether or not Mr• Johnson could or could not park in the boulevard- Mr• Holden showed Mr� Johnson and t�e Commission a street p2an far the area• Mr• Johnson said that, since there was presently ample room for his tenants to park their cars, he could mnve the fencs four or five feet ta make up the footage that the City would take for the street improvement, and he would again have enouqh space for his tenants to park their cars, two-deep• Mr. Kemper said that if Mr. �ohnson did not move his f.ence at a21, and left parking as is, after the street improvement reduced his 6oulevard by four feet, there would be room in his parking lot for four cars� He said that those four cars would not be parking in the boulevard- He explained that that was Mr. Johnson's request - to reduce the required parking stails from 7•5 to four• Mr• Kemper said that if the variance request to reduce the number of parking stalls was approved, it would be impassib2e for the tenants of �r• dohnson�s building to park their cars two deep• Mr• Kemper said that an alternative to reducing the number of parking sta2ls wou2d be to establish eight parking stails� He said that it could be dnne if Mr. �ohnson moved his parking lot fence 15 feet to the back of the property and paving that additiona2 15 feet• Mr� Johnson didn't feel that he wouid have to move the fence back 15 feet• He felt he would only have to move tha fence a 2ittie to be sure that the cars wouid not protrude inta the line of traffic� 0 APPEALS C4MMISSION MEETIN6 -�ARCH 28� 1978 Nay_ _; _ � � �a�� , _ < ,_r ,i . , , : ., _, , . _. _ _, f_._ . ' /3a :.� �Q � ;- ' � r_r,.=:3;. -._ �' : f J ' ' ' � �Xtr✓''T/P7rJ fgrt1G� ; ; �V �IAJrG. F �OL'V _ . ; . . � 3�' - a . � � � � —.,� _ _ .: -,-_,. � -�-- � : . . .�7 �a , � �.� .. � i�l _ �l.w. �j: � �r`./ t� $a . _ ;� -- - - - - _ ; - • _Y_. - - ' - ' �'''•'r* y0 � : - . ��-x--.[-+�-+t- � � � ':� y �� .. : " �� � � + - ' ,� � ' - _ _ _ _ (_ _ � _,� _ . ;; _ . �;. � r 'r'n �.c.� E , �; / v�, � � � . a'/ � �i% % �j • N�. -"✓ ��'�� ��L j �,^ ': � "rllT ;,2-c2L� / I f� l; t,' �� ;rr„J � ��%I ,�; �1 APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 page 4 Mr• Kemper said that Mr• Holden is talking about moving the parking back 15 feet and Mr• Johnson was talking of moving the parking back three feet• Mr• Kemper explained to Mr• Johnson that even though moving the parking back three feet would take eare of the cars protruding out into the street, the cars would still need to park in the boulevard property and that was against the codes• Mr- Johnson said that he was only concerned that the cars not protrude into the traffic• Vice-Chairpersun Gabel said �hat the Appeals Commission had to also address the fact that what he wants to do would still result in cars parking on public property and the Commissian could not grant approval of parking in the boulevards• Mr• Barna said that if Mr• Johnson wanted to reduce the parking stalls from 7•5 to four• He said that if any tenant had more than one car, it would be that person's responsibility where he parked that other car� He said that the Commission was concerned that Mr• Johnson handled everything regarding his property legally• Mr• Barna said that if Mr• Johnson did not want to reduce his parking capabilities to four cars, then he would have to enlarge the parking lot• Mr• Kemper said that it had been determined by Staff that for Mr• Johnson to provide parking for eight cars, he had to move the parking lot back 15 feet• Mr• Johnson said that it was a great advantage to have space to park eight cars so that the cars would be off the street and in a designated parking lot• He still didn•t feel that he would have to move the parking lot back 15 feet- He said there would be plenty of room if he just moved it back five feet• He said that there was ample room presently to park 8 cars, and if the City reduced the boulevard by four feet and he moved the fence back five feet, there would be one foot more parking area than he presently had• Vice-Chairperson 6abe1 explained that what Mr• Johnson was saying was valid, but she said that what Staff had indicated wou2d meet the codes• She said that moving the parking fence back 15 feet would remove all the parking out of the boulevard, where it was not ^legal^ to park a car• Mr• Johnson asked when the best time would be to do the upgrading of his parking lot• Mr• Holden told Mr• Johnson that he should contact the street contractors• He said that since they would already be in the area working on •the street, he would probably get the best ^deal^ by negotiating with the contractor that wowld do th2 street improvement- APPEALS tOMMIS3I0N ME.ETING - MARCH 28, 1978 pa e 5 Mr• Holden suggested that Mr• Johnson talk to the.�ity Contractor� Mr. Johnson said that he wanted to provide parking for all the tenants' cars- He still couldn't see the reason of moving the parking back 15 feet• Vice-Chairperson Gabei explaihed to him that in order to comply with City Codes and to provide eight parking stalls for his building, the parking lot would have to be moved back 15 feet• She indicated that he shnuld get with Staff to try to work out a solution• MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to close the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The pu6lic Hearing was closed at 8:13 P-M• Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that the person owning the dou6le bungalow across the street from the Johnson's property had called her and indicated that she had no objections to the request• Mr• Kemper addressed the request to reduce the setback for off-street parking from the required five feet to zero feet• Ne said that the variance was requested to keep the fence along the West property line which was presently within one foot of the lot line• Mr• Kemper said that he had no objection to the reduction of the west lot line from five feet to zero feet• He said that he did object to the reduction of the parking stalls from the required 7-5 stalls to four- He said that to do so would create a potential parking/traffic problem because there wnuld be four extra cars that would have to find another place to park• ` Mr• Barna said that he was reluctant ta te11 Mr• Johnson to move his fence back and blacktop more are thus reducing the green area of the property; however, in the particular insta�ce he did see the need to make such a request, MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna to recommend approval of the request for variance of the Fridley City {ode Section 205•053,1,E3, to reduce the setback for off-street parking from the required five feet to zero feet• Recommended denial of the request fpr variance of the Eridley City Code Section 2�5-075,2,A to reduce the number of required off-street parking stalls from 7-5 stalls to four stalls, with the suggestion that the petitioner work with Staff to find an appropriate solution to legally park eight cars on his property; To allow the continuation of existing parking as is, on Lots 14 and y5, Block 23, Hyde Park, the same being 580❑ 2 1/2 Street NE� Fridley, MN• UPON A VOItE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 197� Pa e 6 2 MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Kemper, to open the Public Hearing• Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the motian carried unanimously- The public Hearing was opened at &:29 P•M• ADMINISTft ATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURP6SE SERVED QY REQUIRE"4EP�T: Section 205.053, 7, E> 1, prohibit��ng parking in required front yard. The purpse served is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. Section 205.053, l, E, 3, prohibiting parking any closer than 5 feet froM the property line. _ � . Fhe purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in areas adjacent to lot lines, and to separate parking with landscaped areas. 5ection 205.075, 2, A, requiring 1.5 parking stalls for each one bedroom unit in a multiple dwelling. Public purpose served is to provide for adequate off-street parking areas in multiple dwelling areas. Section 205.138, 5, designating the rear and side yards as the only approved locations for garbage receptacles. The purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: In order to compty with City Code parking requirements as requested by the City Engineering Department. C. ADDIIP�ISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE4t: It was determined by the City Zoning Administrator that thi5 seven unit apartment is to be ireated as a R-3 (multiple d�,•relling) use in a C-2 (general business areas) zoning district. Therefore, all City Code sections quoted are for the property's actural "use" in a C-2 zoning district. Tiie present code, 4thich caine after the building vras constructed, calls for a total of 10.5 parking stalls. Tne . parking suggested ;y�ould be 10' by 20' s*alis on the east side of ihe buildirry and not in the houlevard. tfine (4) stalls at 10 feet ti;ide wouid equal &0 fieet of parkinc� v�idth, plus one stall for the dumpster. , RRPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 pa�e 7 Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that a letter had been received from Ms- Lucille Caliquire- She said that Ms- Caliquire was opposed to the requests• She read the letter to the audience and Cammission- MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna, to receive letter from Ms• Caliquire apposing the variance requests hy Clyde and Betty Hansen• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, motion carried unanimously� the the Mr• Ed Janek and Ms• Caliquire were at the meeLing regarding this item• Mr• Hansen said that the building had seven one-bedroom units that had seven single peopie living in them• He said that there was usual2y on2y seven cars needed by his tenants• He exp2ained th�t the apartments were very small and generally only single people rent them- He said that it wasn�t really logical to have to provide parking for more than seven cars• Mr� Hansen said that the area was basically commercial• He said that to move the parking lot to the rear of the building would result in losing a lot of green area• He said that Che people living on the lower level of the building would not appreciate looking out at parked cars� He said that presently there was a rticely kept green area and the people on the East side of the building have a better view than looking at a parking lot• Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that it was City Code to require that the dumpster be screerred• Mr- Hansen said that he would properly screen the dumpster• He said that he hadn't been aware of that code• Ne said that he purchased the building in July 1977 and had never been notified that the dumpster was in violation of a City Code• Mr. Janek said that since parking in the front had not any prablems as yet and he felt that even after the streets were improved, there would be ample room• He felt that the area should remain as is also• He said that to require the of the parking lot would resuit in more black top and would the purpose of the people in the area trying to make a more aesthetically pleasing neighborhood• caused and curbs green I moving defeat Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that Mr- Hansen would have the option to negotiate with the street contractor for the hard surfacing of the parking area• Mr• Holden explained to the Commission the alternative that had been suggested by Staff• Ms• Hansen did not think the alternative suggestion would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood• She said that it would be nicer to keep the present green area, blacktop the existing parking lot, and screen the dumpster- APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, Z978 pa�e 8 Mr• Barna said that, if the dumpstar was to be in the front yard, it shauld be placed to the far west end of the parking lot, screened properly, access for the buildinq from the back side and swinginq doors on the front so the truck can reach the dumpster easily- Ms• Caliquire said that she didn't like the dumpster in front because of the trash being scattered all over• Vice-Chairperson 6abe1 said that Mr• Hansen had agreed to properly screen the dumpster• She suggasted that Mr• Hansen check into the problem and try to reach a solution with his tenants to alleviate the problem of the trash being a11 over the 9rovnd• Ms• Caliquire suggested that the City do something with the lot adjacent to Mr• Hansen's property• Mr- Holden said that there would be a pu6lic hearing on March 29, 1978, at City Hall regarding the entire area- He said that would be the best place for Ms- Caliquice to address that item• He also said that she could contact the tity planner regarding the upgrading of that adjacent property• MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Kemper, to close the public Hearing• Upon a voite vote, a11 vnting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 8:59 p.�. Mr• Plemel commented that the request for eight stalls would allow one parking stall for each apartment and one stall for the dumpster. He said that he was in favor of the variances• Mr• Kemper felt to grant the variances would be the lesser of the two ^evils"• He said that it would require more black top area if it was insisted that Mr- Hansen move his parking Iot• He would rather see the green area maintained and the parking to remain on the South side of the lot- Mr• Barna said that he would hate to see another blacktopped side yard- He said he wouid rather see the parking lot closer to the street and thereFore would be in favor of the variances- Vice-Chairperson 6abe1 said that when the streets were imprnved there would be defined curb lines, the cars won't be parked in the lot in a hodge-podge manner, the dumpster would be screened, and the area would be more aesthetically pleasing in all aspects• MOTION by Mr- Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend the approvai of the requests for variances of the Fridley City Code as follows: Section 205•075,1,E,1, to allow parking in the front yard; Section 205•�75,1,E,3, to allow parking closer than the required five feet from the South Property Line; v APPEA�S COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Page 9 Section 205-Z3B,5, to allow a garbage receptacle {dumpster} in the front rather than the rear or side yards; and Section 205�075,2,A, to reduce the required number of parkirtg stalls from 10•5 stalls to 8 stalls; to allow continued parking and dumpster location in front yard on Lots 1+ 2& 3, Block 2, City View Addition, the same being 251 57th Place NE, Fridley, MN, with the stipulation that curbing be installed, the parking lot be hard surfaced, and Che proper screening of the dumpster area• UPON A VOICE VOTE, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously- 3. M4TION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Kemper� to open the Public Hearing• Upon a voice'vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 P•M� ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A• PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY RERUIREMENT: Section 205•�73,4,A� requiring a minimum Front yard setback of 35 feet in a multiple dwelling zoning district. Public purpose served by requirement is to allow for off- street parking without encroaching on the public right of way• Also for the aesthetic consideration to reduce the ^building line of sight^ encroachment into the neighbor's front yard• B• STATED HARDSHIP: This setback wi21 conform to the setback of adjoining dwellings on same side of street� If building were moved three feet to the rear, it would make access to garages more difficult, and would put the building out of alignment with adjoining 6uildings• APPEAL3 COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Paqe 1� C• ADMINISTRATIUE STAFF REVIEW= The verifying survey for 389 Hugo shows a 32•5 foot frant yard setback• The verifying survey for 369 Hugo shows 3Q-8 foot front yard setback- Other houses in the area appear to have similar setbacks• The petitioner's building will be a multiple dwelling with tuck under parking in the rear of the unit- Vision at the intersection is not obstructed by the building or parking• Total lot Coverage equals 18•87.• The petitioner has applied for a Special Use Permit to allow oif-street parking on the two adjacent R�1 lots to the east of the praposed multiple dwelling� Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked why they wou7.d need a Special Use Permit to park vn the adjacent lots- Mr- Doyle said that it was required because the adjacent lots were zoned R-1• Mr• Holden said that the request aas before the Appeals Commission to obtain a variance of the front yard setback from 35 feet to 32•S feet• Mr• Sarna asked where the front yard was to be located• Mr• Doyle said that Hugo was beinq used as the frant so that access could be onto Hugo rather than directly onto East River Road• Mr• Holden said that a multiple dwelling was being proposed for a single-family area, the plan was involving two R-1 lots, and. technically East River Road was the front of the lot• He said that the setback from Hugo street actually would only have to be 17 feet; however, he said that the plans involved a very large building and for that reason they used the most restrictive section of the Code and interpreted for the best of everyone inva3ved• Mr• Doyle had plans of what he was proposing• He explained to the Commission exactly what he planned to do- He said that he wpuld prnvide for as many parking stalls as possible in the tuCk-under garage that was included in the proposed building• C1r. Doyle said that if he was required to maintain the 35 foot setback it would be somewhat restrictive for access to the rear of the buildin.g and to the garage area• He expkained in detail what he planned to do with his proposed ten-unit building- He also indicated the type of clientele that would most likely live in the building- Mr• Doyle said that another reason he wanted the reduction in the set6ack was to conform to the other homes in the area• Mr- Doyle said that the units would range from the efficiency apartments to the three bedroom pent-house• He said that there would be no pools in the building• APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 pagQ y� MOTION by Mr• Plemel, seconded by Mr• Barna, to clase the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The public Hearing-was closed at 9:27 P.M• Mr• Barna asked when Mr• Doyle would start eonstruction. Mr• Doyle said that he would•begin construction as soon as he had all the necessary permits• MOTION by �r• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the request for variance of tha Firdley City Code; Section 205•�73,4,A, to reduce the frortt yard setback fram the required 35 feet to 32 feet, to allow the constructior of a multiple dwelling on Lots 8�, 81 8 83, all in Block A, Riverview Heights, and all that part of the unnamed street abutting Lots 9D, 81, 82 �.83, lying between the southenly line of �ot 80 extended westerly to the MAC Railroad right of w_ay, and also �hat portion of tMe right of way of the Minneapolis, Anoka and Cuyuna Rartge Railroad Company in the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter line of Lot 83, Block A, extended �est through said right of way and said South line of Lot 80, extended west through said right of way, the same 6eing 441 Hugo Street NE, Fridley, MN• UPON A VOICE VOTe� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• Vice-Chairperson Gabel declared a ten minute recess at 9:29 P.M• 4. 214-�4 +��,�r���� �ur• i.i�GULULJ� O1 f7VL1LliT V1Ll.HGt IVVKIhI'1 KtF'KtStN BY BRADLEY STEINMANo 4567 WEST 80th STREET, BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437}. lMOT20N lay Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr. plemel, to open the Public Hearing� Upan a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 9:39 P.M. Mr• Jerry Jensen was at the meeting representing Holiday Vi3lage North• APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Page 12 ADMINISTRATIVE ST�FF REPORT A� PUBLIt PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 214•D44,C�1, limiting maximum square footage of a wall sign to 15 times the square root of the involved wall length, Public purpose served is to control visual pollution and excessive use of signs in commercial areas• 8• STATED HARDSHIPe This is Che minimum signage needed to be visa6le from public right of way; and we are reducing Che present signage from 456 square feet to 407 square feet• C• ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW= The east wall of Holiday Village North will be adding a garden center and changing their sig�nage• The formula of 15 times the square root of the wali length allows for a maximum sign coverage of 247 square feet• The petitianer proposed a new Holiday logo sign, plus the new "Garden and Boat tenter^ sign, totaling 407 square feet• This wi11 be a reduction from the present non-conforming coverage of 45b square feet• Mr- Jensen said that at the time Holiday Village decided on ar extensive remodeling, they aiso decided to change their logo• He said that since they were doing so much on the interior in tryinq to portray a new image, they decided they wanted to have the same 6e obvious from the outside of the building• He said that it would be a reduction from the present signage• Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked if the ar.ch would be taken dawn• Mr• Jensen said that he wasn't sure- He said that he had only been inform�d of what would be planned on the East end of the Building• Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that she was aware that Holiday Village was doing an entire renovation, but she felt it was important to know what the plans were for the total outside of the building and not just what was planned for the East side- Mr• Holden said that if variances should be required on any of the other planned signage, then Holiday Viliaqe would have to make another request to vary from Codes• APPEALS COMMISSION �EETIM6 - MARCH 28: 1978 page 13 Mr• Plemel said that it would be better to make an intelligent detzsion if the Appeals Commission knew what the entire outside of the store wauld look like• Mr• Jensen said that Haliday Village p2anned to have a re- Grand Opening of the remodeled store some time this Spring and they did want to have all the signage completed at that time- He said tha� the entire outside of the building would fit in with the decor• MOTION 6y Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna, to close the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was closed at 9s55 p.M• Mr• P2eme1 said that it would most likely be an improvement• He had no objections• Vice-Chairperson Gabel said that she had no objections, but she said she was looking at tne future when they may do some front building designing and she wou2dn't want them to come up against some unsurpassable problems� Mr• Barna said that the request would decrease the present violation of the Sign Coda and, so, he had no problems with the requesi• , MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr- Plemel, that the Appeals Commission recommend approval of the request for variance o{ the Firdley City Code, 3ection 214•044,�,1, to increase the maximum wall sign area from 247 square feet to 407 square feet, to allow an overall reduction in present signage from 456 square feet to 407 square feet, on Lot 13, Auditor's Su6division No� 155, the same being 25� 57th Avenue NE, Fridley, MN• UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously� 5• MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to open the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 9:58 p.M• APPEALS COMMISSION MEETIN6 - MARCH 28, 1978 Paqe y4 ADMINTSTRRTiVE STAfF REPORT 1425 Trollhagen 6rive N.E. A. PUSLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREt1ENT.: Section 205.Q53, 4, A, requiring a front yard seiback of 35 feet. Pubiic purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on tfie publ,ic rig�it of way. Also for aesthetic consideration to reduce tfie "building line of sight" encroachment in to the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSMIP: Adding on i» arty oiher direction would 6e difficult. This also helps remove our steep driveway. C. AOt4INISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEFt: This house is 24 feet from the Easi (front) property line. The variance is for enlarging the wall of a non-conforming use in the area of whaC is nat technica]ly tfie front yard. 7he present garage is to be converted to living area, and a pew "tuck under" garage will be:added under'the existing garage, TF�e ne�•� driveway v�ill have a more conventionaY siope than the existing "steep" driveway. Mr• Rpgesheske directed the tommission members to look at the Qicture of his property• He felt that wouid help them �o understand what and why he wanted to do as he was requesting- Mr• Holden explained that the garage level was approximately eight feet above the street level• Mr• Kemper asked what the grade of the new driveway would be- Mr• Rogesheske said that it would be about 12 inches and 30 feet- Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked why he wanted to add on to`his house• Mr• Rogesheske said that he wanted to improve his property and to do away with the steep driveway• Mr• Bar.na said that it was more economically feasible to increase the present dwelling than to seli it and buy another house that was bigger• APPEAlT COMMIS3I4N MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Faqe 15 Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked if he had talked to his adjacent neighbors• Mr• Rogesheske said that he had taZked to several neighbors and they had no objections to his plans� Mr•'Kemper said that when the hou§e was originally built it had been in vio2ation of the existing codes- Mr- Holden agreed that it was in violation by approximately 11 inches hut that there had 6een no variances granted at that time• Mr• Halden asked if Mrv• Rogesheske had talked to a contractor• He wanted to make sure his plans would work• Mr- Rogesheske said that he had talked to a contractor and it was possible to do as he fiad indicated• Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked if the contractor would do ali the work- Mr- Rogesheske said that the cantractor would do most of the work except for possible some insi8e finishing work• MOTION by Mr• plemel, seconded by Mr• Kemper, to ciose the public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously- The Public Hearing was closed at 1Q:�6 P�M• Mr• Barna said thai as long as Mr• Rogesheske would have a contractor do all the work, ha could see no problems• He said it would improve the value of the property and the looks of the neighborhood and he felt it was a good plan• Mr• Kemper asked what would be done with the cut walls• Mr• Rogesheske said that they pianned to landscape the sZope rather than build a retaining wall• MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna, io approve the request for varian�e of the FridZey City Code, Section 2�5•053,4,A, to reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to z4 feet, to allow the addition of a tuck-under garage, and conversion of the existing attached garage to living area, located on Lot 5, Block 1, Innsbruck Second Additian, the same being 1425 Trollhagen Drive NE, Fridley, Minnesota� UPON Q VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously� APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, y978 pa e 16 6• MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna,,to open the PuB1ic Hearing� Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion cerried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at 1a:09 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW A• PUBLIC PURPOSE 3ERVED BY REQUIREMENT= Section 2�5•�53,4,8, {S,b} requiring a corner lot side yard setback of at least 25 feet for any attached ar una�tached accessory building which opens on a side street. " Public purpose served is to allow for off-street parking without encroaching on the public right of way• Also the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to reduca the building line of site encroachmenti into the neighbor's front yard• Section 2D5-053,4, {g,y} requiring a ten foot side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 zone• Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a minimum of 2❑ feet betwen living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet 6etween garage and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures• B• 3TATED HARDSHIP: Converting part and adding a 36 Abie Street• {or all} of existing garage.into living area ft x 35 ft garage in the rear yard off C• ADMINISTRATIVE 3TAFF REVTEW� The proposed living area will be ten feet from the neighboring attached garage. The new detached garage will open to the side street {Able Street}, with an 18 foot setback from the garage door to the property line• There is a seven foat boulevard area involved• Staff suggests that a stipulation of a garage door opener on the deiached garage, and no openings in the wa11 adjacent to the property line, would be in order• The proposed lot.coverage will be under 227.• APPEALS �OMMISSTON MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 Paue Z7 Mr• Van Hulzen said that the pu6lic notice had not been exact2y correct.• He said he would not be converting the entire existing garage into li�ing area• Ne said they planned to use a portion of the existing garage for storage• He said that he did not need the variance,Section 205•053,4,{g,y} requiring a ten. foot side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 zone because that portion of the garage would still be storage and would not be living area• He said that the proposed garage would be attached at the rear of the house• He said it would have access off Able Street• Mr• Van Hulzen asked if he needed a variance for two - driveways• Vice-Chairperson Gabel said he would most likely have to close up the one driveway• Mr• Van Hulzen said that the front driveway would mainly be an access drive• He said that there would 6e no vehicie traffic on it- He said that he would need it when he wanted to put his boat or camper into the storage section of the existing garage• He also said that it would make it more convenient for people coming to his house to be able to walk up to the hause on a driveway rather than having to walk across tMe lawn• He said that he planned tu remove the existinq driveway and replace it with a concrete driveway that would 6e about 12 feet wide• Mr• Holden said that the request for the extra driveway wou2d have to be published• Mr. Plemel asked what size garage door would be on the storage part of the existing garage- Mr� Van Hulzen said that it would be an eight foot garage door• He said he wouldn't put the garage door up if he didn't get the approval for the Z2 foot driveway• Mr• Barna said that when he planned to use the existing garage partly for storage, then he was creating a second actessory building• He said that he would have to obtain a Special Use Permit for a second accessory building. Mr• Van Hulzen said that he had been told by Darrel Clark that if he stayed under 240 square feet for the storage area, then it wouldn*t be classified as an accessory building and would not require a Special Use permit• He said that the storage area would be y92 square feet• APPEALS COMMTSSION MEETING - MARCH 2S, 1978 page 18 - �T Vice-Chairperson Gabel asked where in the Codes it stated the square footage required to classify an area as an accessory building- Mr� Holden said that he wouid find the Section of the Code that specifically addressed that requirement before the request for the second driveway would be pu6lished� Mr- Kemper asked why the variance was needed for the side yard• Mr• Van Nulzen said that he wanted to line the proposed attached�garage up with the present house• He said that to do so he needed a variance to go from the required 25 feet to 17 feet- MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by the Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, motian carried unanimously• The Public at 1�:29 P•M• Mr• Barna, to close all uoting aye, the Hearing was closed Mr• Piemel asked if he had ta2k.ed to the adjacent neighbors• Mr• Van Hulzen said that he had talked to several of the- neighbors and they had indiczted no objections• M�TION hy Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to approve the request for variance of the Fridley City Code Section 205•D53,4,6, {5,b} to reduce the side yard setback for an accessory building {garage} from 25 feet to 17 feet; and to deny the request for variance of the Fridley City Code Section 205•053,4,8�1� to reduce the side yard setback for living areas in an R-1 zone from ten feet to five feet, to allow the construction o£ an attached garage, and the conversion of an existing attached garage to living area, on Lot ya, Block 4, Brookview Terrace 2nd Addition, the same being 901 Overton Drive NE+ Fridley, Minnesota• Mr- Barna directed Staff to publish the request for additional driveway usage• Mr• Barna also indicated that it was Mr� Van Hulzen's request to convert the existinq garage to living area with a portion retained for storage, thereby alleviating the necessity to o6tain the variance of Fridley City Code Section 2Q5•053,4,8,1- UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• 7• 55432}. APPEALS COMMTSSION MEETING — MARCH 28, 1978 pa e 19 8• OTHER BUSINESS� Vice—Chairperson Gabel said that she did not like the situation with Holiday Village• $he said there '�adn't been erough information• She suggested that Mr• Nolden inform Holiday Village that City Council would be asking the same questions and that they had best have the answers for the Council• She said that if it hadn't 6een for the fact that Holiday Village was making a huge effort to upgrade their property and their image, she would have denied the request• Mr� Plemel said that Holiday Village most likely planned that remode2ing total2y and they had to know what they wanted in way of signage• He said that Mr• Jensen should have been informed of the total plans Mr• Holden said that he would talk to the people involved• ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr• Barna, second2d by Mr• Kemper, to March 28, 1978, Appeals Commission meeting• Upon a all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The adjourned at Z0:38 P.M- Respectfully submitted, Marytee �arhill Recording Secretary adjourn the voice vote, meeting was COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COtRffSSION MEETING MARCA 14, 1978 MLMBERS PRESENT: Herman Bergman, LeRoy Oquist, A1 Gabel, Connie Modig MEMBERS ABSENT: None • OTHERS PRESENT; Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Jeff Christensen, Planning Department CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bergman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STAFF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMIISSION: Mr. Boardman introduced Mr. Jeff Christensen to the Commission. He stated that Mr. Christensen was one of the Planning sCaff and would now be the staff representative for the Com�unity Development Co�nission. Mr. Boardman stated he was present at the meeting to help Mr. Christensen get started in his duties and also to help answer some questions the Cou�issios had regarding the Bikeway/Walkway Plan. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 14 1978, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO1�QIISSION MINUTES: MCITIOH by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by Connie Modig, to approve the February 14, 1978, Co�nunity Development Commission minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. UPDATE ON BIKEWAY%WALKWAY PLAN: Mr. Boardman stated that the sheet given to the Commission at the last meeting by Mr. Acosta entitled, "Implementation of the Bikeway/Walkway System" exgtained what they had done to date. He stated he thought there had been some confusion by the Comnissioners at tha last meeting on the numbering system. For example, he explained that going down the line on Class II Striping, it was a running total of miles and not additional miles in each year. With the lane striping and the signing, they were then talking about a continual cost of the projecC put on to the budget each year. The only Cime signs had to be replaced was when they were stolen, which happened quite often. Mr. Boardman stated that not a lot had been done on Class I Pathways. That came primarily in Phase 3, 4, and 5 of the Comprehensive Bikeway Plan. The purpose for this was to make an attempt to get state, local and federal funding. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COPfiIIS5I0N ME�TING MARCH 14 1978 - PAGE 2 Mr. Boardman stated that under C1ass II Lane Striping, ahout 9.5 of the 12.5 total milea was already striped. Under tha county program, they had 13.5 miles striped that was designated in the program. Under Class III, they had designated it by miles and they had actually about I5.4 miles of bike route signs. Where they were lacking was in the regional Lrail system. Mr. Boardman showed the Co�missioners a map indicating what was now classified as the regional system. It had changed somewhat from when the Bikeway/Walkway Plan was initiated. Then, East River Road had been looked at as nnfeasible for a bike path; however, under the Anoka County and Metropolitan Regional Trail System, the main bikeway corridor had been located along East River Road and along the Rice Creek area. Because of this, the city had submitted applications for funding this bike trail system. In the first phase of the pro}ecC, they had gotten $5,000 from the Department o£ Natural Resources on matchixig systems to complete a trail ecross Locke Park. The next thing they knew they had a grant of $45>000 with a match of $60,000 to complete a trail across the Rice Creek area. Then, they had an app2ication into Minnesota Department of Transportation (I�'DOT) for a trail system along East River Road. They had just received notice that they had ranked �l out of 60 for this trail system and #9 for the Rice Creek system. They had to complete discussions by May 1 in order to get all the applications submitted. For East River Road south of Mississippi Street, they had a grant of $82,000 with a match of $28,000. They were attempting to get trail systems developed with state and regional monies so they would not have to utilize local funda for the regioaal trail system. Metropolitan Council was really pushing the trail system within the Fridley area, because Fridley was farther ahead than other co¢�unities. Mr. $oardman stated he would be working with Metropolitan Council and with the county people, because somewhere the city had to come up with $113,000 in matching £unds. Mr. Boardman stated they had made modifications on the bikeway/walkway system 'as they went along. He felt those modifications kept within the intent of the system. They had not done any of the sys[em within the Moore Zake area. There may be some problem with that crossing and the area along 53rd Avenue. Those areas would have to be discussed further. But, they had definitely felt they should eliminate the trail system along the railroad and put it along East Rfver Road. Mr. Bergman stated that a motioa had been made by Mr. Oquist at the tast meeting to discuss the Bikeway/Walkway Plan with a list ot items to be discussed, Mr. Bergman atated he would like to suggest that they follow that list of items. 1. ReView ob_jectives of the Bikew�/Walkway Plan Mr. Bergman stated he had looked at the goals and objectives. Goal 1 had to do entirely with safety. Goal Z was to "provide and maintain a system to achieve a high recreation potential." COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO1�'R�RSSION MEETZN� MARCH 14 1978 PAGE 3 Objective A under Goal 2 was the linking of the'parks. He stated Qbjective E under Goal 2 was interesting: "Utilize man-made or natural linear resources in order to take advantage of the scenic qualities of the City. Care must be taken so as not to destroy the quality that makes it attractive." He thought there were some problems with that objectiva. One of his thoughts was the East River Road paCh Mr. Boardman had talked about. There was a lot of scenery not too fat from that path. Mr. Boardman seated the problem with that was if they were to take advantage of the funding, the funding had to be for a path within the street right-of-way. AnoCher problem they had was that there was no way they would be able to get that trail system close enough to the river to be utilized without a great deal of expense. With the bike route system, there were connecting points throughout the area that allowed getting down along the river. Mr. Bergman stated that Objective A under Goal 3 was providing a link to high activity areas such as shopping centers, schools, etc. Mr. Boardman stated that was pretty much done by the Bikeway System. Mr. Bergman referred to Goal 5, "Provide flexibility in the hikeway/ walkway system," and Ohjective A under that goal, "Establish a review process that will allow the use of alternative or additional routes as demand increases ox decreases in cerCain areas of the community." He felt there was a conflict there, although iC talked about flexi- bility based on changing new developments, etc, He thought some flexibility as to improvement or change of thought should be included there, too. He felt there was a conflict with the fact that pub];ic hearings had been held on the Plan for commenCs, after , which the City Council had adopted the Plan. Yet, they now talked about flexibility and were concerned with making changes or improve- ments. Was there any reqniremeat that changes required a public hearing4 Mr. Boardman stated there was not. After adoption of the Plan, they were attempting to carry out the Plan in an orderly manner. Any changes occurring within the Plan like funding changes and the major changes where they were asking for monies were approved by the City Council. City Council had approved the applications for all the funding, and was the body that actually was empowered to make those changes from the Plan. He thought the flexibility of a system, once the system was developed, was jusC the nature of the ciCy system, such as on-street striping-or routing at a minimal cost. These things could be changed for some reason. The ciCy system was about as flexihle as it could get, other than all bike route sigas. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CON�IZSSION MEETING MARCH 14 1978 - PAGE 4 2, Update on the status of the lanes and routes Mr. Bergman stated that apparently there was about three miles of lane or route identification not yet completed. He would like to --see a motion by the Covanission that this be completed this summer. Mr. Boardman stated he felt there was no �eed for a motion since they were following along with ttxe phase program. Tt was their intent to camplete the striping and routing system t�is surt�er. 3. Discuss the Iegal affect of the Plan Ms. Modig sCated that what the Commission was asking was: How binding was the Plan? At the last Co�ission meeting, they had talked abwt changes such as the moving of the path along the railroad tracks, and she had wondered how binding were the paths in the Ylan, and who decided on these changes? Mr. Boardman stated that the P1an was only as binding as the City Council wanted it to be.. City Council had the authority to change it. He did not think any major changes had been made except on the regional trail system, and the application for funding far that system had gone to City Council. Mr. Bergman stated that this Commission had now taken on the responsibility to recommend and pass on changes. Ms. Modig stated she thought the Commission should be made aware of changes before they were done. Mr. Boardman stated that in some cases, there was not enoagh time to get back to the Coa�issinn before deadlines, etc. And, with this type of system, it just went directly to the City Council. Ms. Modig asked if, when thare was a time element, it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to be notified when it went to City Council so they could attend the City Council meeting and give their inp�it? They were here for citizen input and they should have the right to give their input. Mr. Boardman stated that could be done. Mr. Bergman stated that, in addition to merely being made knowledgeable of what changes were proposed, the Coo�ission should take action on them. 4. What changes had been made to date and why - already explained by Mr. Boardman COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MARCH lk 1978 PAGE 5 5. Any known or reported conflicts wirh the ori Mr. Boardman stated the one conflict with the origina2 plan was the path along the Burlington Northern Railroad. It was off- street, it went behind industrial areas and behind a junk yard. Aftex a lot of thought, it was decided it would not be a desireable bike system. If it was going to be a parC of a useable xegional system, Chen it had to be put out where iC.would be used, 6. A report on present or planned future financing for proposed paths - 7. ects with ad Mr. Boardman stated he thought how the connection points came about with the Columbia Heights�and Coon Rapids' systems was shown in the BikewayJWalkway P1an. He thought the major connection point they were looking at was the regional system itself. Once they did connect inCo the regional system, the opportuniCies for the residents would he expanded quite a bit. it had to be remembered that sti11 by far the most usage was 1oca1 and shorC recreational distances. For that reason, they had kept pretty much to the goals and objectives with connecting the bike system with the park systems, the school systems, and the shopping systems. Ms. Modig again stated she felt the Commission members should be advised and notified of any proposed changes; and if there was a time element, the Co�ission should either have a special meeting or $ive input to the City Council. MOTION by Connie Modig, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, that the Commissi,on concurred and reco�ended approval of the changes, including the changes to the East River Road system and the Rice Creek system, that had been made to the Bikeway/Walkway System ta date. Mr. Oquist stated he really could see no reason for thia motion as these changes had already been made. • Mr. Boardman stated Chat the City Council had not yet approved the final contracts for funds tor deveYopment of the sysCem, There was still the possibility that the City Council would dany the fundYng responsibilities. UPON A VOICE VOTS, ALLWTIftG AYE, THE MOTION CARRIED IiNAIJIMOUSLY. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COi-R4ISSION MEETING MARCH 14 t478 PAGE 6 DISCUSSION ON TAX ABATEMENT PROCEDURE: Mr. Bergman stated this was an item presented to the Plannfng Co�ission by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Boardman stated that the Planning Commission wanted the Co¢�unity Development Coumiission to look into what the possibilities were and what stand the city should take as Par as tax abatement. For example, on a Rehab project where monies were involved with a resident to improve property, the resident's taxes would go up. One question was: What were the possi- bilities of spreading those tax changes over a period of years as a tax abatement? They would Iike this coumiission to actually study the tax situation and come back with a recommendation to Planning Commission and to City Council on the tax problems and what this co�nission felt were some answers to those problems and also recommending that an action take place. Mr. Bergman stated this specific question was presented by the Board of Appeals' chairperson. Right now the city was ge[ting into rehabilitation of private property and a couple o4 specific areas had been selected for Sehab finances so a propertq owner could improve his private groperty with federal or sCate monies. Then the property owner was faced with escalated taxes. The question was: Should the City of Fridley take the position to try to reduce that impact by stagittg the tax increase over a number ot years, rather than a one-shot assessor increase in taxes? Mr. Oqaist stated that the tax assessor was really governed by the state. His question was: Why not just ignore that the property was improvedl Mr. Boardman stated the city tax assessor tried to keep the taxes at 95% of the market value. There were other areas in which the assessors were •assessing the propertiea at b5% of market value. Because of this situation, thexe were some unfair things happening with taxes. The City Council had written a letter to the county commissioners regarding this aspect, because what was happening was the city was paying higher taxes on a value that was asseased at 95% while in other areas, the tax asaessors were assessing the value at 65% of the market value. Mr. Boardman stated that over the next three or four meetings, the Commission might like to have different people at these meetings to discuss the tax aspects in Fridley as far as assess- ment values and what the di£ferent programs were. Mr. Oquist stated he would like to have someone explain the tax structure, how a person went about taxing, what the assessor looked at, and what laws � governed it. Mr. Bergman stated that (1) he Eelt the subject was broader,than just whether the Commission should take a position on tax increment staging for federal subsidized improvements; and (2) the Coamission got on this subject a couple of years ago and had talked aboat an@ spent some time on the concern tizat there should be some incentive for people to improve their property and they got penalized when they did. They shbuld:really get a bonus. ,r COMM(JNITY AEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 14, 197& - PAGE 7 Mr. Oquiat stated he really questioned why Chere should be an increase in taxea. The assumption was being made that a person had improved the market value of his house, and that assumption was vnfair. When he had been in this discussion before, one of the points he had made,and that he seill felt, wae that a person should not be taxed on the house but on the lot. Then, everyone paid Che same amount of taxes according to the equsre £ootage of the loC. Mr, Bergman stated he thought the idea of sending Chis down to Communitp Development Commission for study was for this Coaenission to come up with some recommendations regarding the tax system. MOTION by LeRoy OquisC, seconded by A1 Gabel, that Staff arrange to have someone at the next meet3ng to talk about the present tax system and how it worked, Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ACTION QN ADVISORY STANDARDS FOR LhND USE REGULATIONS; Mr, Bergman sCated he was prampted to put this on the agenda again by Ms. Modig's coumients at the last meeting and the discussion at Planning Commission on what the purpose was of sending this down for review. He was told that the purpose was informational, but they also expected comments or recommendations to come back from this Commission. Mr. Boardman stated it was not necessary for the Commission to make motions unless they wanted to make motions. He thought the primary reason this document was senC down was for review purposes. Mr. Sergman stated he £elt if this Cw�mission wanted to be a part of the action, it behooved them to do so by review of the document and a motion with recammendations.- Mr. Boardman stated that staff would be putting together a Zoning Code modification and submitting it Co Planning Co�ission for review and recommendation on to City Council. He Chought staff was looking at the Advisory Standards as possible for inclusion into the Zoning Code for the following primary reasons: They felt that the nature of the standards of housing was geYting more and more restrictive as £ar as the cost, and it was getting to the point where a new house could not be purchased hy the average individual. What Chey were trying to look at was what the potential was of reducing the cost to make homes more affordable to the moderate income Levels, even upper middle income levels. There were some real problems in the metropolitan area and he felt they should be cognizant of those problems as a coamunity of the metropolitan area. There was such a demand for housing units that the only way they could supply a lot of housing units was Chrough subsidy frcm the federal government. When they had to subsidize modern income level families in order for those families to even afford mortgages on a house, there was something wrong with the housing. What they had to do was atart looking for reasons and maybe the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING MARCB 14 1978 - PAGE 8 main reason was the mortgage rates. Also, he thought they had to look at the garage requirement. Why was the city requiring 9,000 sq. ft. lots? Wouldn't a 7-7,500 aq. ft. Zot be as available and adequatel What wa� the best use of land2 Mr. Bergman stated he thought there was some judgment that had to be invoZved here, too. If someone were to identify the necessities for housing as the non-essentials and the luxuries, and could somehow relate the essential cost back to the initial listing of requiremettts, he did not know where Che garage would fa11. They might be encouraging someone to build a fireplace rather than a garage, He would certainly place a fire- place on the luxury list and the garage more essential, and yet they were trying to say a garage should not be required. Ms. Modig stated that if staff was going to �se these Advisory Standards as a guidetine to incorporate ideas, she felt this Co�ission ought to have their feelings made known. MQTION by Connie Modig, seconded by A1 Gabel, that at the next Commission meeCing or soon thereafter, the Coum�ission study the Advisory Standards for Land Use Aegulations and make recommendations to Planning Commission. Mr. Boardman stated the Commission might want to make a recommendation as to the reasona these wete requested and might also want to make a recoummenda- tion to Planning Commission or City Council that a letter be sent to the Advisory Council about these things and suggest that the interest rates or something like that be looked into. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARRTED UNAAtIMOUSLY, OTHER BUSINESS: COI�ffSSION PROCESS: Mr. Boardman stated he had been thinking for some time about the Commission process and had discussed it with Mr. Dick Harris, Chairperson of the Planning Commission. Over the last 1�-2 years, the commission process had been modified to operate in the way it was now operating. There had been a lot of questfon as to what was the responsibility of a commission member, what was the responsibility of a staff inember to the commission, etc. He stated that,as the Conmission might know, staff had been quite busy in this period of time in which the member comnissions had been set up as action commissions, recoum�ending action to the Planning Commission, and, hopefully, the couanissions would have more of a self-generating [ype of effect, rather than waiting around for staff to give them something to do. He envisioned the co�iss3on as a working commission in which the members would do a great deal o£ the work involved ia some of the projects. GOl�II9UNZTY DEVELOPMENT COMIII3SION MEETZNG MARCH 1G 1978 PAGE 4 � Mr. Boardman cited the example of the Environmental Commission in which one of their members was involved in pulling together information for a recycling center. He would like to see this hapgen without a greaC �eal of couenission reliance on staff as the information source to that commission. He would like to see the staff inember be an input on information that was gathered, rather than a workhorse for the commission, primarily because staff did not have time to do the leg work as was required sometimes. He thought ehe problem was that staff and the crnimission members really had not realized what Cheir full responsibilities were. Mr. Boardman stated he had been de6ating for some time as to what the staff responsibilities were to Che co�ission and what the commission responsibilities were to the Planning Coumiission. They had tried to set it up where there were some very definite separations between Planning Conmiission and the commissions as far as Planning Commission's workload and the commissions' workloads. Aopefully, Planning Coumission was involved primarily in the area of policy, while the commissions were involved in the actual implementation of that policy. Mr. Oquist stated that, along with what Mr. Boardman was saying, he had some real complaints about the Parks & Open Space Plan. Planning Co�ission had spent three months or more reviewing that plan after the commissions had already reviewed it. Why should the commission bother reviewing these things when Planning Commission was going to do it a11 over again anyway? PLanning Commission was just going to redo everything that was already done by the co�issions. Planning Co�ission was not setting policy; they were doing detail work, and that was wrong. Mr. Boardman stated that was another aspect he was looking at, too. He stated that CommuniCy Development Commission should be generating ideas that would fall in implementation and sCa£f should be generating for implementation. That was Che direction it should be going through Planning Gommission for recoumiendation to City Council with a review process. Yt was not working thae way, and that was one of the main reasons why staff was bogging down. The staff was getCing too much woxk from the commissions. Mr. 8ergman stated that when items came to Planning Commission, the question was asked: Which commissions wish to study this? He thought the volume of this was more than prudent. He felt that in a lot of cases, maybe an item should be limited to one co�ission. There had to be some control over the generation of all this review and commiss3on involvement. Mr. Boardman stated he also questioned the viability of sending everyCh3ng down to member co�issions for study. Planning Commission met twice a montk and the commissions met once a month, so it ofCen went from a one- moath period xo a five-month period before any action was taken. These were policy actions that were being recoumended by the Planning Commission and were not necessarily the action items, The implementat3on of that came from city staff and from arember commissions. COMMONITY DEVELOPMENT COPAffSSION MEETING MARCA 14 1978 - PAGE 10 Mr. Boardman stated that rather than staff setting up the agendas, he would like to see the commissions take sane initiative and lay out their own patterns of what they were planning to do for the year. Ms. Modig stated that at the last meet3ng, it was brought up that there was not much on the agenda. They had wondered where all the items were that they had requested be brought to this co�nission for review. She had under- stood from khe meeting that, as these items came up to stafF and Plannittg Commission, they would passed on to this commission, and the co�ission did not have a 1ot of choiee aa to when they would look at them. Mr. Boardman stated he did not see it that way. He saw those as work items for the Commission that the Commission felt were important and needed to be brought out. The commissions were actually set up as project coumiittees to the City Counci2 and the Planning Coumission was there for review to see if the commissions' recommendations were going to fall within city policy. Mr. Bergman stated that the commission could give it a go along the lines that Mr. Boardman had described, but he felt that the Coa�unity Development Coumiission was a lot different than the other coum�issions. Environmental Commission had one ba11 and that was environmenta�; they could pick up environmental problems and concerns by themselves; Parks & Recreatian Commission was the same; Human Resources was a little bit broader, but not as bxoad as Community Development; Board of Appeals operated on the appeal process, so this Conmission was different fram the others in terms of breadth and scope. Mr. Boardman stated he agreed, but he thought the commission was within the realm of establishing pretty much their own system of what they wanted to took at. The problem had been that staff had been expected to provide the workload for the commissions. Thfs co�ission should look at the priorities for implementation of different items. The Zoning Ordinance and things like that were po2icy and should be handled by the Planning Comnission. The whole aspect of the co�ission system, as he saw it, was set up to get an interaction of the commisaion levels on specific implementation programs, Mr. Bergman stated that he expected that staff was still going to input into the commission's agenda, He stated that at this meeting, for example, they could set up an agenda for the next month. In addition, any member of the commission could call and put an item on the agenda, He thoughY that when xhis ca�ission requested things from statf, they should do so with the intent that they weYe going to take same action on them. Mr. Boardman ata[ed that what he would like to see happening on such items as the Hyde Park Plan; since there was Che importance of speed, was an interaction of the commission and maybe see some of the members in attendance at some nf the public meetings that were going to be held within the neighborhood itself. The Neighborhood Council was meeting £or the last time the following evening, The Neighborhood Council had made recommendations r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COhfhLCSSION MEETING, MARCH L4 1978 - PAGE 11 on apecial zoning for their district and recommendaCions on the fnture development of the Hyde Park area, These recommendations weze now going to the averall neighborhood in a public hearing on March 29. That would be a good time for Che Commission members to siC in on a meeting. Mr. Oquist asked that Mr, Boardman send the Coarm�issioners a memo on the time, date, and place of this meeting, and what some of the Neighborhood Council's recommendations were. Mr. Boardman stated this was the first attempt at the establishment of a neighborhood council and, so far, it seemed that it could be a successful venture. Maybe this Cov¢nission would even like to look into the development of neighborhood councils in othex neighborhoods at a future time, Mr. Bergman stated that three items that could be put on the next month's agenda were: 1. Tax AbaCement Procedure 2. Advisory SCandards for Land Use Regulation 3. Hyde Park Plan Mr. dquist stated that at the November 15, 1977, meeting, the Co�ission had requested that 14 items be brought to the coum�ission for review. He asked that a list of these 14 items be sent Co each of the commission members. They could then use this list to sCar[ making their agendas. Mr, Boardman requested that the Commission try Co stay away, as much as possible, from those items that were policy development items, such as the Transportation Plan or the Sewer Plan, because those were Planning Commission responsibilities. Mr. Bergman staeed that when he sat on Planning Commiss3on, he wanted to lie able Co refer things down to Co�uniCy Development Coumiission, rather than sitting on the Planning Co�ission as the representative of the Co�unity Development Commission. The Coamunity Development Co�ission did not always agree on everything. Saying that it was the Planning Coa�mission's responsibility for making a policy decision did not necessarily preclude them frc� getting advice from their commiseions. He was all for Planning Coam�ission establishing policy, but he also felt that if Planning Canmission was going to establish policies wisely, they should have some advice from member co�issions as to what that policy ought to be. Mr. Bergman stated that, if he was going to bring an item from Planning Commission to Community DevelopmenC Commission, he was going to bring it down for one purpose and that was for Community bevelopment Cammission to take a position on iC, He stated that taking a position to him meant making a motion. Iiis position had been that anything that this commission felt effectively was a community development concern was a proper item to take a position on, whether it was policy or implementation.of policy, Se did not see anything wrong with that. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COP44LSSION MEETING MARCH 14 1478 - PAGE 22 Mr. Boardman stated he would try to organize these thoughts and send oat a memo. He would also discuss it again at Planniug Commission. They were gettfng bogged down ia various areas, because too`many people were reviewing the same policy and making recommendations. "Discussion of Agenda Items" was added as another agenda item for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by A1 �abel, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, � �� Ly e Saba Recordittg Secretary FRIDLBY EINIRONMENTAL GOD�IISSION I�ETING MARCH 21, 1978 rII�T�ERS PRESENT: James Langenfeld, Lee Ann Sporre, Connie 2+fetcalf, David SabisCina , MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Peterson OTHERS PRESENT; Ray Leek, Planning Aide CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson tangenfeld called the meeting to order at 7;35 p.m. APPROVAL OF FEBRJARY 2I, 1978, FRIDLEY ENVIRONASENTAL CON�IISSION MINUTES: Ms. Sporre indicated that on page 2, fifth paragraph, the woxd "depen3able" should be changed to "defendahle." MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by David Sabistina, to approve, the February 21, 1978, Fridley Environmental Coamiission minutes as amended. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Ms. Metcalf stated that at the last month's meeting, the Commission had Calked a 1ittle about whether reports should be written by commission members when they attended conferences. She stated she would like r.o discuss this further. Mx. Langenfeld stated that "Written Reports" would be included in the agenda as Item lA. MOTION by Connie Metcalf, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, Co approve the agenda wieh the above addition. IJpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously: 1. CENCOAD (CENTER FOR GOMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND AiZEA DEVELOPMENT): Mr. Langenfeld stated that if the Coum�ission was interested in getting involved with this, he would suggest that they get into the area of water management. He thousht the "Water Management Computer Simulation Game" would be the simulation most related to this conm�ission. r FAIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 21, 1978 _- PAGE 2 Ms. Metcalf stated she wondered if it would be possible for someone on city staff to take on the job of organizing and publicizing something like this. The Coamiission's management of water was concerned mainly with monitoring the lakes in Fridley and Rice Creek. Mr. Langenfeld stated he was interested in the conceptual focus on water. Mr. Leek asked who exactly in the city would the commission Want to parti- cipate in this program; i£ the Coc�ission decided to go ahead caith it? Would they want it to be city staff, appointed or elected city officials, or would they want to get the public involved as we11Y Ms. Metcalf stated that,first, she thought the Commission would have to be sure thae such a thing would be practical and real to the people. She would want the Commisslon to be sure that the simulation would present itself as meaningful to the community. She would be willing to consider it if it would be worthwhile in terms of turn-out. Mr. Langenfeld stated that, personally, he would not exclude anyone from participating as anyone who came would benefit from iC. Ms. Sporre suggested that the other commissions and the League of Women Voters should be crnitacted by Iettar notityir.g them xhat the Environmental Commission was considering a presentation Like this and asking them what their interest �aould be in participation of such a presentation. She suggest�d that Mr. Leek cou7d find ovt if staff was interested. She did not think the Commission should go ahead with it unless the League of Women Voters or staff was inl'erested. Ms. Metcalf stated she wondered if Community Education would be interested in this si.mulation game. She asked if the Commission would be willing to offer it as a one evening session through Community Education, cooperating with them and drawing from the readers of their catalog. She thought it could be fairly successful. Mr. Sabistina stated he would be willing to talk to Mr. Tom Myhra, Director of Community Education about offering the Water Management Computer Simulation Game as part of the Community Education program. He stated he would report back to the cownission at the next meeting. MOTION by David Sabistina, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to continue discussion on CENCOAD at the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all votittg aye, the motion carried un�nimously. Ms. Metcalf stated she thought it would be a valuable thing Eor the Commission, even if there was not a large interest, to have sessions like this once in awhile sponsored by the Commission to keep these problems in the public's mind. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSI�N MEETING MARCH 21 1978 - PAGE 3 Mr. Sabistina stated that, as he had agreed at the Last meeting, he had brought up the subject of the Energy-Environmental Simulator at Che lasC Jaycees` meeting. They had indicated an interest, but were going to discuss it more at their next meeY.ing. Their only concern was thaC they doubted if they would have 25-30 to participaCe in the workshop. Mr. Sabistina stated he would report back on this at the next Commission meeting. A. WRITTEN REPORTS MOTION by Connie Metcalf, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, that,wheneveY possible, written reports be submitted by those people under the sponsorship of the city when they attended workshops, seminars, or outside meetings, Ms. Sporre stated she had a complete report o£ the seminar she had attended which was sponsored and done by the Science Museum if any- one was interested, UPQN A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTiNG AYE, THE MOTION CARRiED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr, Leek asked if the Commission wanted a cenCral location within the city where these written reports could be kept on file, rather than each individual commissioner having the report. Ms. Sporre stated that when these reports were brought before the Co¢mtission, they became a matter of record. If staff or anyone was interested, they could pu11 the reports out of the Environmental Co�ission's file. � 2. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION BUDGET: Mr. Leek stated that at the last Covm�ission meeting, Mr. Langenfeld had requested that at some time the Co�ission should receive a copy of the final budget for 1477 so the Commission could actually see how much was overspent for the fiscal period, Mr. Leek stated he now had those tigures. He stated that the Cou�ission had been budgeted $1,729 for fiscal 1977 aud had spent only $1,679.31,indicating that Che Commission had not gone over their budget after all. 3. RECYCLING PROJECT COhA1ITTEE REPORT: Ms. Metcalf stated that the Recycling Project Co�ittee would be meeting again on March 29. At that meeting they would be zeroing in on a site for the recycling center. She stated that she thought the project committee would decide not to.geC private land for the recycling center. Ms. Metcalf stated that the project connnittee had done considerable research. At the last Commission meeting, there had been some discussion about Mr. Bergman's suggestion that the project co�ittee investigate the St. Anthony recycling center. She stated she had that information. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL C�lII+CiSSION MEETING MARCH 21 1978 - PAGE 4 ' She stated that the St. Anthony recycling center was started by the St. Anthony League of Women Voters, but the project committee had not been able to tind out anything about their income. They recycled papers and Metro Recycle picked up their cans and bottles. The center was open from 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. almost every day,including Saturday, There were two trailers, one for newspaper and one for corrugated paper and about 20 bins. The center was completely unattended and the gate was usualty open so it was very accessible. The center was locaeed in the garage area oi the city and the area was about a football £ield size and was fenced in with a closeable gate. The appearance of the center was very good. , Ms. Metcalf stated that she thought the project committee should try to find out about the income from the St. Anthony recycling center if they could. Mr. Langenfeld stated it was important for the Gommission members to know that the 46 District D.F.L. Convention supported by resolution the establishment of a recycling center in Fridley. Ms. Metcalf stated that the Edina Recycling Center was completely unfences and, as she had said before, was very successful. They recycled motor oil, cans, bottles, newspaper, and corrugated papers. Ms. Metcalf stated that one of the memb�rs of the project committee had iecently taken part in a Campfire Girls' newspaper co2lection drive. Some of the people working with this member had indicated tl�ey. were Caking their things to the Golden Valley recycling centex. Mc. Metcalf stated that amazed her as Golden Valley was quite far away. She stated she had not checked out what the Golden Va21ey center was collecting, but would do so. Ms. Sporre commended Ms. Metcalf on all the work she had done with the recycling project committee. The Co�ission members really appreciated it. MOTZON by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by David Sabistina, to continue discussion on the Recycling Project Committee antil the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all votfng aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. REVIEW COMMISSION GOALS: Mr. Langenfeld stated he had asked Mr. Leek to send these out to the Co�ission members because sane of the newer members might not have copies of the Coamiission goals. He statec! he would appreciate the Commissioners reading them again and bearing the goals in mind when they got going on environmental issues. He thought it was a good time for reviewing the goals as the Commission was runnfng into a litCle slack time, and the Commission should really apply these goals to the best of their ability. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEL�TING MARCH 21 1978 - PAGE S Ms. MeCCalf stated she felt it would be good at a future meeting or meetings to use a block of time to discuss these goals and Chink of ways they could implement them in the community. She felt certain there were a lot of aspects of their environment they might want to be concerned about: MOTION by Connie Metcal£, seconded by Lee Ann Sporre, to continue consider- ation of the Environmental Commission goals at the next meeting and subse- quenC meetings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT : MOTION by Lee Ann Sporre, seconded by Connie Metcalf, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, > ��(� Lynn' Saba Recording Secretary F �°'1c! � CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANN IN G COMMISS ION MEETIN G APRIL 5, 1978 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harria called Yhe Apri1 5, 1978 Planning Co�i.saion Meeting to order at 7:37 P. M. ROLL CALL: Membexs Present: Storla, Ber�an, Harris, Peterson, Gabel and Langenfeld Members Absent: HEhers Present Schnabel, Gabel repreaenting Jerrold Eoardman, City Planner ApPROVE pI,ANNING COt�II�tISSI(7PI MINUTES: MARCH 22. 1978: MQTION by Mr. Langenfeld� seconded by Mr. Bergman, to approve the March 22, 1978 Planning Co�iasion minutes. On Page 11, second paragraph from the bottom of the page, Ms. Gabel requested the word "plan" be changed to "concept". UP(N A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously and the minutes were approved with the above amendment. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST POR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP 4k78-04 BY .TOtN R, DOYLE: PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 205.051, 3, E, TO PERMIT R-1 ZQ�IED PROPERTY (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO BE USED FOR AN OFF-STREET PARKING LOT FOR A PROPOSED APARThffi�T BUILDING aN ADJACII3T LAND, TO BB LOCATED CN LOTS 78 AND 79, BLOCK A, RIVERVIEW HBESS�$�, THE SAME BEIN G PART OF 441 HUGO STREST N, E.: MOTICN by Ms. Gable, aeconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to open the Pub11c Heazing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P. M. Mr. Boardman stated the property on which the building will be Located is zoned R-3, however, this request is to use two adjacent single family lots for parking. He indicated the statf did not see any problems with this request for a apecial use permit, however, one of the stipulations for the parking lot would be solid screening along the Eaet and North sides of the property. Mr. Boardman stated all other requirements have been met, with the exception of a variance on the front yard setback. He atated the Appeals Coffinisaion has reco�ended approval of the variance. Mr. Doyle stated, at the requeat of City ataff, they have revised the plana to include the apartment building on the R-3 property, move the huilding back from East R1ver Road and incorporate Lots 78 and 79 for parking. PLAN[3ING COMAIISSI�I P�ET7NG - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 2 Mr. Doyle explained the apartment buildi.ng itself will be in the semi-deluxe category with each unit having their individual underground parking stall. He atated Lots 78 and 79 will be used for auxiliary parking. Mr. Harrie asked how many units would be included in the apartment building. Mr. Doy1e stated there would 6e a total of LO units for thia parcel, each having a tuck-under garage. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doyle if he had any objections to the screening fence recommended by staff. Mr. Doyle questioned what type of fence the staff had in mind. Mr. Boardman aCated it has to be a solid separation of either iregetation or solid board fence. He stated, from past experiences, a solid wood fence would probably be the beat. Mr. Doyle indicated there would be no problems with the fencing. Mr. Peterson questioned why it was suggested the residential Lots be used for parking. Mr. Boar�atgsltff�etlper�tanlgd�ilaD�rlduliENeaie�e3�c�t6& dx�etl►��81PF�FF�ved lot area, however, if East River Road ia ever widened, they might losp some of the parking area. Mr. Doyle stated if the parking were on the unimproved area, you would almost have to have access onto East River Road which is less desirable. No peraons in the audience spoke for or against this request for a special use permit. I�TIQi by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Ms. Gabel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, ail voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 P, M. MOTICl�7 by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, that the Planning Co�i.ssion recoffiend approval of the Request for Special Use Permit, SP �678-04 by John R. Doyle: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3, E, to permit R-1 zoned pro- perty (single family dwellinga) to be used for an off-atreet parking loC for a proposed apartment building on adjacent land, to be Located on �ots 78 and 79, Block A, Riverview Heighta, the same being part of 441 Hugo Street N. E. Mr. Harrie questioned Mr. Peterson if he wished Co include the recoffinendation for solid screen fencing in hia motion. Mr. Peteraon felt this was covered in Che code and, therefore, wouldn't be necessary to include it in the mation. UPCR3 A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PI�e1NNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 3 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP fk78-O5, BY BENNIE ROZMAN: PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 205.131, 3, A,3, TO ALLOW THE CO�ISTRUCTION OF A RECREATIONAL USE BUILDING, ON T[iE NORTH 300 FEET OE THE SOUTH 1105 FEET OF THE EAST HALE OF TfiE NORTi�AST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTI�I 3� THL� SAME SEING 8031 BEECH STREET N. E. MOTIoN by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr, Bergman, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P. M. Mr. Boardman stated a cov�erical recreational use is allowed in an M-2 zone with a�pecial use permit. This request is for the operation of a discotheque in an M-2 zone between Main and Beech Streets. Mr. Rozman stated this would be di�¢o�bEt�eguEofoteEaegegar6r�mo#ihphegigeefof 13 to 19. He stated it would be a disco atmosphere, without the liquor. He indicated they pian to have a concession stand which would serve pop, popcorn, etc. Mr. Rozman stated they now have a similar operation in the Cedarville Shopping Center in Eagan at Highway 13 and Cedar Avenue. He explained their hours of operation would he on Friday and Saturday nights from 8 to midnight and on Sunday night from 8 to 10 P. M., during the school year. However, they may he open Wednesdays through Sunday during the sutmner months. Mr. Rozman explained they have had no problems with their operation in Eagan and parents have noYhing but praise for the recreation center. He felt there was a need for this type of entertainment thmng�b�httit���elAraaPis�. Ms. Gabel questioned the costa for admittance to the discotheque. Mr, Rozman stated it would $2.50 and once a person entered, they could not leave the premiaes. He explained there would be coat checking available which the persons muat use. Mr. Peteraon questioned if Eagan was contacted regarding their co�ents on the discotheque. Mr. Boardman atated they had not been contacted. Ms. Gabel questioned how many persons the buiLding would accommodate. Mr.' Rozman felt anywhere from 1,200 to 1,400. Mr. Boardman stated what is allowed in this type of situation is one person per `�5 ' square feet of floor area, Although the building ia 15,000 aquare feet, all is not open area, He felt the useable dance area is about 12,000 square feet. Mr. Rozman stated the reason he picked this area is that the induatries would be cloaed at night and there wouldn't be any objections from peraons in residences that it was too loud or too many cars. PLANNIPIG COMMISSICN MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 4 Mr. Dick Brama explained the building would be de�tgged as a mulff-purpoae building that could be converted to a warehouse at a Later date. He stated the conetruction would probably be pre-cast material. Mr. Storla questioned how soon the building would be completed. Mr. Brama indicated it would probably take a minimum of six months to have the plans finalized, obtain financing, etc. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Rozman if he was planning to lease the building. Mr. Rozman stated he would own the building and he and his nephews would run the discntheque. He lndicated he planned to hite pereona from the area to se�l concesaions, tickets, etc. Mr. Langenfeld queationed if Yhere would be pinball machines and pool. Mr. Rozman stated they plan to have pinball machines, but no pool tables. Mr. Otto Tauer, 5866 2nd Street, indicated he had no special intereat in this request, but felt the Coffiission should keep the curfew laws in mind as this may conflict. Ms. Ga6�� questioned how many persons would be supervising this operation. Mr. Rozman stated there would probably be 8 to 10 people involved. Mr. Boardman atated some of the staff's concerna would be with the Layout and drainage. He felt there ahould be some additional screening and Land- �aped areas and veuceone�MbdutbOhE drainage with such a Large area black- topped. Mr. Boardman atated the drainage was discussed with the Publ�a Works Director and in order not to increase the run-off, some ponding would be required. Mr. Boardman also pointed b�treh�g �osysb�ea�meb��rhla+itlwY� teatsa�ers is an industrial area that is not well traveled. Mr. Rozman atated moat of the }�isoasteaiing to their center in Eagan are dropped off and picked up by their parents. Mr. Soardman questioned about how many cars they have when they are open. Mr. Rozman felt there were about 200 cars. Mr. Peterson queationed if there wa$ enough property for a holding pond. Mr. Boardman atated this has been discuased with Mr. Brama, who owns property both to the North and South oF 81st, and he wishes to create a large pond at the southeast corner of 81at and Main Street to serve as a holding pond for the entire 40 acre develotxnent. At this time, however, only six acrea are under construction. Mr. Harris felt he had too many questions in his mind to take action on this request this evaiing. He indicated he would like to talk with the property owners in the area, Mr. Brama stated the tenanta in his building were very open to E6e idea. PLANNING COt�AfiSSION MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 5 MOTIQd by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting on April 19, 1978 in order to check with the VilLage of Eagan xegarding this operation; to check with property owners � in the area regarding their feelings on the proposed use; and a report from the Public SBfety Department as to the traffic. Upon a voice vote, a11 vot- ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC H&9RIN G: CCNSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY FLAT_ P_ S. db78-Oi. AUDITOR`S SUBDIVISION N0, 89, ERCEPT THE EASTERLY 82 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 800 F�ET OF THE NORTH 65 FEET OF THE SOUTH 157 FEET OF LOT 3, AND EXCEPT THE WEST 90 FEET OF TIiE EAST 290 FEET OF LOT 3, SAID EASTERLY 290 FEET BE7NG MEASURED FROM THS NORTH TO SOUTH QUARTER L]NE OF SECTION 12, SUBJECT TO PN EASEME[dT FOR ROAD PURPOSES OVER THE NORTH 30 FEET OF IAT 2, AND OVER THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 2 AND 3, GINERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 72ND AVII�IUE N, E. AND EAST �F CENTRAL AVENUE N, E. MOTIIN by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all wting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Yublic Hearing was opened at 8:25 P. M. Mr. Boardman stated this is a plat involving six lots generally located South of 72nd Avenue and East of Central Avenue. He indicated there would be four- plex units on five of the lots with a multi-unit complex on the other lot. Mr. Boardman stated access would be through an easement shown through Lot 5. He explained it is intended to have that area for parking and garagea pro- vided on either side of that acceas. Mr. Boardman stated on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 they would like to minimize access to Old Central as much as possible and have maximum access through one access onto 72nd Avenue. He felt, in order to accompliah this, bhe�dwbe$� hsve to look at the design of the structures. Mr. Boardman felt thia could be done on Lots 2, 3 and 4, but would possibly have to heve access from Lot 1 on to Old Central. Mr. James George, representing Tri-Co Buildera, stated there is, at the present time, a driveway entering onto Old Central and they are changing this to go into the multiple site. Mr. George stated the fact of not having access onto Old Central comes as a s�rprise. He stated it was their intention to have a co�on driveway between Lots 1 and 2 and Lot 3 would access to 72nd Avenue. Mr. Boaxdman asked if any at8empts were made to purchase the existing house. Mr. George etated the property owner was cantacted, but did not wiah to se11 her propeity, Mr. Harris asked if the City could live with one access onto Old Central. Mr. Boardman indicated he couldn't see a prohlem with one acceas, but would question any other access when talking about four-plexes. Mr. Peterson quesCioned if the petitioner obtained a permit from the County to access onto Old Central which is a County road. PLANAIING COI�II4LSSIQd MEETING - AFRIL 5 1978 PAGE 6 Mr. Boardman stated this would be necessary, however, the County generally accepts the recommendations of the City. Mr. Harris questioned why so much of Lot 5 is cut off. Mr. George explained there ia a 30 foot sewex easement that cannot be built on. He stated they moved the accesa over where the paved surface would be inatalied so that garages could be put in the wider area which would also serve as a screening area for the four-plexes. Mr. Jim Determan, 1241 72nd Avenue, atated he ownedt4�ewlilding ahop acroas the street from where these apartments would be constructed and was opposed to them. He etated he has dogs on his premises to protect his property and felt, with the apartments, complainta would be received on the dogs barking. Mr. Determan also stated the parking problem is ao bad on the street that he cannot get into h�eibul�tie�ss.He felt, if the apartments are coastructed, kefroaide�kfdtbesgetaod�e8�g 6e�Veadv8r3nd11adiahe pattdbgg�ytbhkeep<<pe�glef �amapari�3ie6teq the streeta. Mr. Harria explained that the parcel is zoned R-3 which allows for apartments to be constructed� and the Zoning Code provides for off-street parking. Mr. Determan indicated he wanted to make the Cou�i.asion aware of the problema they have had with the parking. Mr. Boardman felt if they had many problems with the street parking, the area would have to be si g�ed. No other persons in the audience spoke for or against this proposed preliminary plat, MOTICN by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms, Gabel to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was closed at 8;47 P, M. Mr. Langenfeld requested clarification on how the road would be constructed. Mr. Boardman stated it is his underatanding that when the ingress/egress is put in, garages would be constructed along this as this would be part of the accesa in the parking 1ot. He stated the parking should be arranged to eliminate as many accesses as poasible on to Old Central. MOTION by Mr. Peteraon, seconded by Mr. Bergman, that the Planning Co�iasion reco�end approval of the Propoaed Preliminary PLat, P. 5. �678-01, Txi-Co Addition, by Tri-Co Bublders, Inc. with no more than one access onto Old Central and that staff work with the existing property owners to alleviate the parking problems on Central by proper signing, fencing, etc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: PARKS At3D OPFN SPACE P'LAN Mr. Harris explained the public hearing this evening is for the Parka and Open Space Plan. He stated, however, peraona are present from the Hyde Park area and didn't lmow if they wished to discuss the Hyde Park Plan regarding the zoning and street issue which is scheduled for a public hearing 6efore the Commission on Apri1 19, 1978. PLANNING COt^AfiSSIQd MEETING - APRIL 5, 1978 PAGE 7 Mr. Harris felt, therefore, if the Commisaion wiehed to hear general discussion from the residents regarding the Hyde Park area, the rules of order could be s3spended and they could proceed with �e informal hearing. Ms. Gabe1 felt it would be appropriate to address the Parks and Open Space Plan aince the public hearing 3s scheduled for thia evening. MOTICN by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr, Langenfeld, to auspend the rules of order. Spoon�edoice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman gave a short presentaCion of the background of the Hyde Park area. He explained the zoning was the primary issue and several meetings were held by staff with the reaidents of the area regarding the future potential of Hyde Park. FYom these meetings, it was brought out the Qa#t!1- �otdogangnii;lyavaededhroarsatn a�msing�� fi�ls family with no expansion of multiple and commeiical uses. Mr. Boardman explained the plan for the Hyde Park area ia a tentative plan and the reason the public hearings are held is to find out what the people want. Mr. Otto Tauer, 5866 2nd Street, indicated his concern about Skyline Park. He stated he was told by Be�erT,�jartbiEbthEh�th�apapi►twis �ataimebecause 54 people had si�ted a petition. He atated he was never contacted to sign the petition. He stated he has been invol�[Ad� ��jghborhood meetings and was not aware of any plana to expand the park. He stated he doea not want to see anyone in the neighborhood hurt or property taken away from them and noted the park plan involves sevesal homes. Mr. Clyde DeBolt, 5861 Main Street, indicated his home is one they are throwing out. He aCated he looked for a long time to find an area he wanted when he bought the home and was not in favor of being thrown off his land. Mr. DeBolt stated on the West side of Main Street there is a large open field that the present owner wants to sell. He felt if the City wished a �.arge playground, they should contact the owner and put iII in and let the people keep their homes, He stated if there ia the question about children croasing the street and getting to that area, �� Would personally buy and erect a stop aign. Mr. Ed Pries, 5905 A1ain Street, stated he has canvassed the neighborhood and has seen no interest in the park. He, for one, doesn't want the park and doesn't want to sell his Land or have it condemned. Mrs. Theresa Ahitz, 216 57th Place, stated a home just a block away from hers sold for $29,000 and when she offered to sell for $22,500 she was told she was asking too much. She said Mr. Boardman told her the reason the other home sold for $29,000 was that it was residential and worhh vwre. She stated she didn't want the coo�erical zoning so make her property residenCial so she can get more for it. PI,ANNING COMMISSI�T MEETING - APRIL 5, 1978 PAGE 8 Mr, Boardman atated Mrs, Abitz's property is next to the Holiday Village Garage and this whole strip of propezty was not included in the Hyde Park special zoning because of the potential for commeric8l development. He explained she owns two 40 foot lots and even combining these properties, it would not meet requirements for a commercial zone. He stated the residential dwelling is valuable to the person Living there, but to a co�erical buyer, it is probably a detriment because the structure would have to be taken down to build a building, He felt one of the reasons the Hyde park area didn't develop co�er!#ally wa$ because of the cost. Mr. Harris told Mrs. Abitz that no one is going to put her out of her home and explained they are tatking about two different things. One is the re- zoning, which is a special zoning district and the other matter of ��kyaokich is a completely different item. Ms. Gabel stated the idea of the co�ittee was to solve the zoning problema so that people could live in their homes and if something happened to the home, they could rebuild. She stated, during this proceas, the staff brought up the park plan. She atated, at Chat time, there was no one who objected to it, however, if it upsets anyone she feit the thing to do was to scrap the whole thing. Mr. Frank Schoenberger, 5857 Main Street, stated he agreed with Mr. DeBo1C's cosanents. He asked Chat their homes be left alone and stated he was atrictly against the park. Mr. Langenfeld stated from listening to the conversations, he was deeply up- set with the idea that the reaidents feel they are going to be "kicked-out" of their homes. Mrs. Katherine Crooks, 5910 2nd Street, stated they are in the process of selling their home and if they don't inform the proapective buyer of this proposed park, they could be liable. She felt if they are going to put in a park it should be adequate to serve the people. She stated, by acquiring the additional properties, it sti11 wouldn't be a large enough area to make it a sensible size. She felt a park would be better used if it was large enough for children to play ball and do other things they wanted to do. Mra. Debra Seledec, 5835 Main Street, stated because of the park, they have had Aamage to their property. She stated older children aren't interested in Skyline Park and if any type of a park were to be considered, it should be with the idea of papkr}laedp}�i}SBoouddfacilities. Mrs. Dorothy Gargaro, 6615 EYidley Street, stated she wanted a park and would take the one they don't want. Mr. Boardman pointed out to Mrs. Gargaro that the comprehensive plan indicates her area is inadequately served with park facilities. He atated it has been suggested to posaibly utilize the area of Rice Creek School for these facili- ties. PLANN7NG COT�IISSICH�I MEETING - AFRIL S, 1978 PAGE 9 Mr, ' Mr. Ben Rankin, 5923 Main StreeC, staCed he has lived at this address since 1947 and raised seven children without any parka and doesn't see the reason for the park. Mr. Rueben Paulson, 5875 2nd Street, stated last year he received a permit to build on his house. Si.nce then, he received a aotice on the street improvement, a notice he could borrow money to fixe up his house and now they say they are going to tear it down. His question was why ahould he fix the house or pay £or the road. Mr. Harris stated he could aee the point Mr. Paulson was making. Mr. Boardman asked the reaidents if facility than Skyline and if so, do property would be the place for such they felt they needed a 6etter park they feel the Burlington/Northern a facility. The residents responded they didn't need a park, no one wants it. Mr. Bergnan stated, pereonally, he was not in favor of the plan that would expand the presenY park, as shown in the preliminary plan. He felt it wasn'Y righC to discuss the need with the question of expanding the present park hanging over their heads, Mr. Peterson stated he 3s upset because as Chairman of the Parks and Recrea- tion Commiasion, he comes to the Planning Crn7mission and finds this plan has never come before the Parks and Recreation Commisaion. He stated he is upset that Co�issions are set up and something like this happena. He felt thie hadn't gone through the proper channels. MOTION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr, SCOrla to open the Public Hearing on the Parks and Open Space Plan. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 P. M. A�TIQi hy Mr. Peterson, aeconded by Mr. Bergman� that the firat item to be conaidered of the Parks and Open Space Plan ia Yage 11 dealing specifically with Skyline and Sylvan Hills and Page 41 regarding Land acquisition. Upon a wice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson stated on Page 11 regarding the ratio of parks to population, it shows the parks are adequate based on the standard of 1 acre for each 800 people. Ntr. Boardman stated this ia both for the Hyde Park and Syl�snaaea8saaddth��ee were looked at as one neighborhood component. It atated it may be more realistic to look ae Hyde Park a8 a neighborhood and Sylvan HiLls as a nElgh- borhood and separate the two. He stated, if this is done, the Hyde Park area may then fall short, hlr. Harris noted that Skyline and Sylvan were not on the inventory on Page 6. Mr. Leek of the Planning Staff stated the chart on Page 6 was ba$ed on inform- ation received from the varioue co�i.ttees and some of these did not report. PLANNING CObII�1ISSI0N MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PA(� 10 Mr. Harris also noted, from the chart on Page 6, aeveral others were in the same situation. Mr. Boardman reviewed Page 41 covering Acquiaitions. Mr. Harris questioned which parcels now had existing stuuctures. Mr. Boardman stated there are 10 in Riverview H���{�ta, 1 in the Flannery area and 7 in the Hyde Park area. MOTION by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Bergman to re-wiite Page 11 of the Parks and Open Space Plan so that in the Hyde Park area, Skyline Park would not he expanded by any acquisition of surrounding properties to increase its present size. Ma. Gabel indicated she would not vote an the motion because she felt she has a direct conflict of intereat, living in the area and serving on the coffinittee. She stated she peraonally feels,ifftlti�$si9.ahhvwtihereQiddehts feel, this is how it should be. Mr. Langenfeld atated he gets the impresaion that aome of this is being shoved dbwthpeqpi�Le �ade�oead'dc��c�tikibpeibiR4e hit. Mr. Harris stated he would concur. Mr. Storla atated some people talk about housea so often they forget they are homes. Mayor Nee stated he didn't aee where there is a proposal to acquire Land. Ms. Gabel stated on Page 41 there is a map showing Acquisitions. Mayor Nee stated� speaking for the Council membera, he reaents the impide8t6on that this was in some way, a Council deciaion. He atated the yuestion of Skyline Park came from the neEghborhood council to do this. He stated the first time he received this was Saturday and when it is suggeated the Council engineerldg this project, this is not true. He stated the reason he is sitting here this evening is to hear what the people have to say, Mayor Nee stated the Council will not vote to spend money on parks where people don't want it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� e�l Peteraon, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Storla, pa1 gtltg�d rar:,,- i�slt�n€elQavotedfiIIhEarvtio£.thlismoGibel a1lataCsidl:fa�at�86#dgproadotrm6dngarrSeo l�t�oa-2avofed by a vote of 5-1. Mrs. A6itz again brought up the question of the zoning of her property. Mr. Harrie advised here that the matter of the rezoning would be before the Co�ission at their next meeting. RECESS: Recess called by Mr. Harris at 10:07 P. M. RECQIVENED: Mr. Harris reconvened the meeting at 10;30 P. M. ';eferriu to ?a� " �.-F -- o;>.�. - - n„ - , g e , � -t�e . . _ . ..__ c�ce :�%lar '�tr. ..rerso�; sta�ed Wii:.�C II . . . PI.ANPIING COI�QLISSI�I MEETIlVG - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 11 Referring to the chaxt on Page 6, Mr. Peterson atated no inventoriea were taken in some areas. He sCated this information was compiled from the neighborhood project co�ittee reports, and if no report was submitted, there was no way to get them to do this. Mr. Boardman stated in Che "Inventory and Analysis" section, Pages� through 19, will be placed at the end, right before the "Swrmary of Findinga". He stated Chis whole area was the total package of neighborhood impact from the 13 neigh- borhoods when they did the work through the Parks and Recreation Commi.saion. Mr. Boardman atated the heading would be changed from "Recommendations" to "Conaiderations". Mr. Boardman atated the actual inventory of the park facilitiea begins on page 20, showing classifications and types �f existing facilities. Mr. Boardman stated there wi11 be aome changes made on the maps. He stated in N�Eighborhood 3, b4-1/2 Way is not a park facility and other areas where they should have Listed parka,ath�o�irgho�xt..shown. He stated there has been discussion at the Park and RecreaCion and Council level on Hillcrest in Neighborhood 2 and the need for that facility. Councilman Schneider stated on Page 6 residents have trouble identifyi�g with Idorth Innsbruck, Innsbruck and Farr Lake. Mr. Langenfeld feit the ovarall docummt aaa very �ood, but questioned the Commisaion's input. Mr. Boardman stated the Commisaion went through this page by page and Mr. Langenfeld brought up a11 recommendations from his Co�¢isaion and it was then aubmitted to the Planning Co�iesion, Mr. Boardman stated the Planni.ng Co�isaion then reviewed the material and fxom their reco�endations, the plan was compiled. Mr. Peterson felt on Page 27, 3rd line, "girl watching" could be eliminated as he didn't think it was a viable part of the plan. Councilman Schneider indicated he had a concern on the neighborhood breakdowns� in terms of park land in ratio to the population. For example, Councilman Schneider ci[ed Neighborhood 13 where Moore Lake is bada$dEnLdni�toa$ldos�n of the acreage to the neighborhood. He atated the striking thing is when you Look on Page 42, you find, basically, they have no park facilities. Mr. Boardman stated he would agree with Councilman Schneider's co�nent. He felt when they Look at neighborhoods they should take into conaideration 8§eign- #1sY parks and mini-parks. As far as the natural history areas, they are co�unity-wide garks and should be considered on the basis of the whole City, Mr. Peterson stated Neighborhood 13 does have the land which has to be taken into consideration and doesn't lmow of a better system to uae. � PLANPIING COMMISSI(�IV MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 12 Mr. Boardman stated in looking at the neighborhoods, this ia information that was gathered in the neighborhood.groups. Mr. Peterson thought perhaps they could take all community parks out and list them separately. hfr. Boardman felt there could be another section that shows City-wide facili- ties. Mx. Bergman stated he agrees with what is being discussed, however, he felt it would be hard to accomplish this. He stated, for example, Moore Lake contains Yabh,facibE�iet andhcsunentb$=-ietiiddieaaanun;ty Mr. Peterson stated he felt the tot-lot was used primarily by people ustdg the beach facilities. Mr. Hartis questioned the progress as far as turning over the maintenance of regional park facilities to the Gounty. Mr. Boardman stated he would recommend that thoae facilities that are regional in use ahould be turned over to the County and the City direct their primary efforts in providing neighborhood and City-wide facilitiea. Mr. Peteraon questioned if 8iiy information was received from the City Attorney regarding this matter. Mayor Nee atated the Attorney indicated he would research this item as he believed there were conditiona o[� it, but an opinion hasn't been received as yet. Mr. Boardman stated Locke�,North Park and Islands of Peace are the three main areas that are actually clasaif3ed as regional park areas. Mr. H$rria wondered if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a policy for land acquisition. Ae felt this would take care of some of the anxieties of the neighborhoods. Mayor I3ee felt the Conmission ahouldn'C be too concerned about the details of eacecution since implementation of the plan would take a great deal of money and a lot of time, probably over a 20 year period. Mr. Peterson stated, after hearing the residents this evening, one thing dis- turbs him and felt that Land acquiaition for parka shouldn't be through con- demnation. Mr. Bergman felt, just as a policy, it would be wise not to ahow on any plans, for pu6lic or governmental use, any acquiaition of anyone's property without previou slyi idr�sis $1 g htibi aici�t�C i��x p�eft;rt pw�er . Mr. Harris fe1C any reference to land acquisition in the plan should probably be eliminated. PLANNING COPQfiSSION MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 13 Mr. Boardman stated they could eliminate Page 41 end make a general statement to the effect that the City may acquire additional property as needed. Mr. Bergman staCed it was interesting uaing the data to determine how much park land is needed for a neighborhood., Yhe Hyde Park area showed a need for additional park facilities, however, the people say 8hey don't need any moxe park land. Mr. Peteraon stated while today's population and age is such that there is no need for a park, this could recycle in the years to come and the residents may want a park. Mr. Soardman stated he felt there is always a need for neighborhood park space. He thought perhaps Che people were reacting to the acquisition,asetk�ep�ttk facilitiea they have are not adequate to aerve thatnaeighborhood. Councilman Schneider atated one of the discusaiona vf the Benjamin-Briardale group was concern if they (the adults) were going to be able to Laaet4ampark �i�IDdifl�ipgeeriecpaiR baoi�ibfies em3�e-pbe pa�cuvMdlBybehd]iQ�nierave�irts ?�u���t o�ieefG?�.ts p�zk �sp9aicei�rdeveiopQ$LinbYh�yeat8},tiltdvilQobec$t�eatly uaed. $chneider stated he relt if the park was d�veloped to f�t tne needs of ffi�e SeBgt�eQheOgXedtmoeitlflhhena�gNborhood facilities are not the proper size to provide the activities people lilre, but that some of the larger parks were just as sterile and unuseable as the smaller parks. Mr. Langenfeld felt it should be stressed that this �Lan is not a fixed docu- ment or law. Ms. Gabel stated there�v�le several references to using school facilit3ea and asked if this has been checked into. Mr. Peteraon stated they have made unbelievable strides, not only with School District �14 but the other school districts. Councilman Sctmeider stated in some casea, where use of school facilities are mentioned, this will not be the case 6ecause of the school closings. Mayor Nee stated he wae impressed with the Parks and Open Space Plan. He felt it wouldn't be realized for a number of years, but that you have to have a plan. He atated he didn't think the parks were ever developed in terms of need, Mayor Nee stated� regarding the land acquisition, he didn't think the Council could commit itaelf to not using a11 its powers. He stated an individual can vote not to conde�, but that ia very definitely a part of the Council's powers. Mayor Nee stated he really didn't disagree with the judgment on Skyline, alth- ough at a previoua meeting there were quite a few people that were enthusiastic. Mayor Nee stated, as far as Riverview Heights, he feels the City should acquire that property. Mr. Peteraon felt it should be noted in the plan that, after adoption, it should be reviewed every few years. hx. 3oardma� staced �t��fi,�•o...�T've �etrYW..g�o;+<�t� ep b�sed on Che p1ar, and felt ic s+-,nuld ���e reviewed evere five Sears. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN G- APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 14 Mr. Boardman stated implementation would be set up based on the plan and felt it should be reviewed every five years. Counciiman Hamernik stated he agrees a Lot of effort went into this �lan. He thought, however, there would be more emphasis on the diacussions by the neighborhood groups from the different areas, He fe1t, if he took this �lan to the groups and indicated this was the reaults of their work, he didn't th think they would be too happy. Councilman Hamernik stated the "Suu�ary of Findings" are very negative. He felt they had some work to do, but that there has been some good work done in the past. Mr. Boardman felt the "Su�ary of Findings" is a step m�i getting into the reconmmendaCions. He felt it is negative because these are the things needed. He didn't think there �AC a need to go into the positive aspects. He atated, i£ you put 3n the positive things, it would increase the size of the document and "muddle" it up. He felt the "Su�ary of Findinga" was to get to the base of the isaues. Mr. Bergman stated the "Summary of Findings" isn't an objective one as iC doesn't show the positive aspects. He stated if all they are going to do is define "inadequacies" maybe Chey should ca11 it as such. Mr. �,angenfeld stated the preliminary plan was full of negatives, but didn't think it was bad now. Councilman Hamernik stated thelPlan addreseea where you are and where the City has to go, but felt the approach could have been different as he felt all the statementa in the "Su�ary of Findings" L�}�:n� aspect. Councilman Schneider atated hhi�llStv i�elta$��Y�� �� gUSile - changes could be made, Mr. Boardman stated they could include an introductory statement to the effect that although the summary of findings seem negative, pken8yaof pist[t#vefap�tta tive agpects; however, for putposes of the plan, the following are considered to be the needa. Cqo�ilman Sctuieider stated he wa8 not sure all of the citizen input found 3tse�r9y into the plan, but felt this was to be expected as it goes through the process. Mr. Harris felt possibly too mich emphasis is being placed on the neighbothood groups. He felt they would play a part in implementation of the plan. Mr. Boardman stated, when they envisioned neigh6�srhood park groups, f81da1thfglt di��dw86tt� gUee themart�ev4nChdy�sw2ed. However� the response didn't work that wap and was coming in at the wrong time.vhH� fbli}�inldmj�ew�ftid�e�herplan, bhtc.�bikisadoi�atheiQaoktlfaeeldgiggborhood areas,-aud possibly there should be a general statement to this effect. PLATINTNG COP'AtISSIQd MEETTNG - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 15 Mr. Peterson stated all information from the neighborhood groups was good • information and although they didn't acc;omplfsh everything they hoped, he felt it was a success and helpfu L Mr. Bergman stated people can become upset.if they feel the tlme they spent on it was in vain and they don't see their input in the results. Mr. Harris asked if the Co�ission wished to bxing the plan back foz addit;gns and corrections. Mr. Peterson stated he would prefer to see iC rewritten and sent to the Gouncil. MOTILN by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Public Bearing was closed at 11:55 P. M. MOTI(AV by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that the Parks and Open Space Plan, as reviewed during this public hearing, be submitted to Che Coun- cil, with changes as discussed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. COPITINUED: DISCUSSI�I CN ENERGY COMMISSI�V MOTIOt3 by Mr. peterson, seconded by Ms. Gabel to continue to Apri1 19, 1978 in view of the hour. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 14, 1978 MOTIQV by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Mr. Peterson to receive the Community Deve1- opment Commission Minutes of March 14, 1978. Ms. Gabel referred to Page 9� the first paragraph, regarding the coimnent that the staff inember be an input on information that was gatheTed, rather than a workhorse for the commission. She staCed this statement confuses her as she felt the staff was hired personnel and the commission the input people. She stated the members of the conanission are volunteers and in no way have access to the information. Mr. Boardman stated the commissions were set up as implementation bodies and those recommendations to the Council were to be reviewed by the Planning Com- mission for their input on policy issues. He stated they start having problems when the Planning Co�mnission is looking at a policy issue and all of a sudden it is sent to conanissions and the same input goes through another process and there is a lot of repetition in comunission activities. Mr. Boardman felt they are not utilizing their mem6er commissions in the way they.should, He indicated, because member comnissions are getCing tied up with policy matters, he felt they are wasting a lot of their time. Ms, Gabel cited all the time and research that was necessary when she chaired the Sign Comnittee. She stated you cannot expect volunteers to do this. Mr. Boardman felt the staff should be providing the input and information to the member commissions so they can make appropriate recommendations. He didn't feel it was the staff's responsibility to Qut together the programs. PLANNING COPAfISSIQd MEETING - APRIL 5 1978 PAGE 16 Ms. Gabel felt it was necessary for staff to gather certain information which the commission doean't have easy access to. She atated,when you come to the point where the information is not available, yo� have to fa11 back on the professionals. She stated� according to the minutes, everything is backwards. Mx. Bergman atated there was quite a discussion at the Co�unity Development meeting on these kinds of thinga as noted in the minutes of March 14, 1978. Mr. Boardman felt there is confusion on what the co:mnission's responaibilities are and up to this time, it has been the staff's responaibility to come up with an agenda, He stated, actually the agenda ahould be the crnomission's responsibility. Mr. Harris tsqaetiii�ltDl�et this matter be put on the Planning Commission's agenda. UP(R1 A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION, ail voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. RECEIVE �IVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COi�AffSSION MIIdUTES: MARCH 21, 1978 MOTIQI by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mx, Bergman to receive the Environmental Quality Coffinission Minutea of March 21, 1978. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani�usly. 8. RECEIVE APPEALS G04ATSSSION MINUTES: MP.RCH 28. 1978 MOTICN by Ms. Gabel,teecengidebghll��pj�ss�en�eiodiSei�ec!livatp�eaLp}fsath 28qmis- �1i6 Minutea of March 28, 1978. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. HILLCREST PARK Mayor Nee stated he would 13ke to get a reco�endation on Hillcrest Park on whether or not the City should keep the park. Mr. Boardman at�tad he was a little akeptical about giving it up because of the closing of Riverwood School which leaves only Lo�; Park. Mr. Harria asked Mr. Boardman to check on the atatus of Hillcrest Park and felt it ahould go to the Parka and Recreation Commission before coming to the Planning Commission. REZINING - HYDE PARK Ms. Gabel stated, in all fairnesa to Jerry Boardman, the staff has had Aeg�eg6od repport with the residents of Hyde Park oegarding the rezoning issue and they are doing a good job. ADSOUiINMENT MOTI�i by Mr. Peterson, aeconded by Mr. Storla to adjourn the April 5, 1978 Planning Commisaion meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Cou�iasion meeting adjourned at 12:22 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Caro�da'd, A�Rec� Secretary PLANNING C6MMISSION M�PTINU - MARCH 22 1978 Pa�e Mr. Charles Langer of 653o Hickory Street NE said that when he purchased his house� he had been assured that the area was zoned residential. He v�anted to know if the City of Fridley would actually consider makin� the lot in question commercial. Chairperson Harris said that a petitioner cauld make the request. He said that the. Planning Commission would take the input from the Staff, surrounding neighbors, and their otim input and use the data in their cons�deration of the request. He pointed but that it vras very difficult to rezone property in the City of Fridley, Mr. Langer asked if the Commission would consider the request. He asked if they would abandon the plan for the City. �r. �ang�n�eld sald that ihe property ti�1as presently zoned R-3 and that 1t CpUldn't be rezoned Until a hearing took place before the '�� C����SS10�� He said that at that point in time all the people pZa��in� d a��j,n be notified. d tiY0U1 acent neighbors could control ��' iriVb�Ve ow how the adJ Mr. Langer wanted to kn roperty t �vas the perrogative of anY � as the rezoning. that i He sa1a that whetner it Chairperson Harris said rezoning• etit1on for a the alley vacation owner t°or not �vas another m�.tter. rezoned wanted i° know if hbor in the audience the lots. made the Another nelguested without reyOning someone could be req be v�cated if request the said that it could tiD formally t�ytzg• erson Harris �;ould have do anY Chairp xe Saia that someone Co�nission could request. }Jefore the Plannijlg alley vacation _ _ ... ENDED P�LRK AN� OPEN �ra°y - — 6� i2ECFIVE I�M and Mr. Charles �ouarding S�hneider� Councilmeresent at the mee�ing reg Mr. Dennis L. ace Plan. ning parks & Recreation air�Pen°Spviere P that the pla� the amended P�'k an r2s, Gabel� Langenfeld, seconded bYd Open Space Plan. MOTION by r2r• �he amended Park � , caas reviewed� Staff re- Commission receive the Plan �ade, 16oked at said that after that had been and theHe Mr. Boardman � Commission� der. evaluated some of the statEments more workable �ecommendations , the Plann_ng so that it �ras in a sone r was changed comments �h�he plan en mu�e Y �,ed to reflect eCtives amended �fas chan� and Obj said that the IntroduHelsaid that the Goals five,that theat`'Jo that had been made. ectives instead He Said management for so that there were seven obJ Commisslon. ark and the Planning ro er consereTtmariage�ent �f p recomr�endatadded were 4)Pro�ae5� Ynsure prop � objectives ��e areas; natural, open-sP recreation programs• YLtfNNllVli GUMM1ss1VN ML''L'"1'liVU - MAHCH ZZ, lyYt$ Pa�B� 6 Mr. Boardman said that the Inventory and Analysis section v�ould still be amended somevrhat� He said that instead of putting the Citizen Input first� they t�fould put Exi�ting Park System first� Facility Inventory, Recreation Program Inventory, Regional Park Facilities, Needs and nesires of the Community, the Citizen Input, the Breakdotivn of the Neighborhoods, The Neighborhood Survey Information, Neighborhood maps �vould then be included, Neighborhood Input, and then Recommendations on Park Facilities. Mr. Boardman said that some rewriting was done on the Regional Parks Facilities section to make the contexit more appropriate with the Plan. Mr. Boardman said that the Neighborhood Maps had tha breakdown of the population for the different neighborhoods� Mr. Boardman said that a retvrite tivas done on the � Section of the Park and Open Space pj,�n� Sur�arY of F1rid1 � done �n order to t�e into �e said n S Planning Commission� id thatration all cona� the reVrr� , the proper su xe sa the �� V�a� °unarY of Findin lt '"ras amended cern� o f the Ob�eBoardman that gs under the � somew said pr°per obJectiv hat with He�saidVthat POlicies 71& 2he P�licies �a �• Recommendatiothere vras ' st�ll didn� Recommendatio hs and policiesplete reu�rite have a completes Sectinn on• BOardm ld °h all the othe rey'rite, the „� an sa� that under the r Objectives, Policies arY of Findi,ngS� abd�theVes Findings��d a�l t�e recommeha$ts � the Policies ions �vere relatgn°UPed undarrtheased Mr. Boardman S Recommendationslt �ha� at the end g tO the Summary of here tivill be a�a°f the Section M�'• Boudreau sayd ;p of the pro on Policies �d would be a ver that he T Posed park document y�+orkable felt He saended and System� FridleY overg�h�e the ld it Warks Open S neXt five� pment of a Park as a very ivorkabace pZan do mo�t liltel uce constantlyeurs' He said th in the Cit cument l�a& Ystem Ie h that Adated and at the Plan woula °f Mr� Boudrea flexibllity v�ould bet the verba park develou Said that it wou2d re all°v�ed. �e �h the offered ln tment that �you�d sult ln a the Plan arris a ked r�dley,�ude al2 thenopPortunities thatmare person ' hatv much �oneY would be Mr. Boudreau est' needed to i fiveiflleY Recreatxoned tha�tntp 1m the �'Pler�ent Years Bui1d' Plement Total �, woul e ten lion an incl g d b �i? pl udin dollars over w CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEEi'ING - MARtH 28, y978 CALL TO 4RDER: Vice-Chairperson 6abe! called the March 28, Commission meeting to order at 7:35 P.M• ROLL CA-�L.;, Members Present: Plemel, Kemper, Ga6e1, Barna Members Absent: Schnabel O�hers Present: Ron Holden, Building Inspector 1978, Appeals APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION S1INUTES: MAR�H 14�: 1978 MOTION by Mr• Kemper, seconded by Mr• Barna, to approve the Appeals Commission minutes of March 14, 1978• Mr• Holden indicated that on Page 7, the seventh sentence `� of the ^Administrative S�aff Review^ should read, ^Eight {8} stalls � at nine feet wide would equal 72 feet of parking width on this � 80 faot lot•^ � 1 UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried ��.unanimously• The minutes were appraved at 7:37 P•M• `'1• JABLED: REQUEST FOR VAft2ANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CORE AS - u.��, i, FEET, IRED , TO ALLOW 4 AND 1�, NE,��LEY, MINNESOTA• {REQUEST BY Mft� ALBIN JOHNSON, RR 1� BOX , /: CUSHING, WISCONSIN 54006}• Mr• Holden explained that there was an amended Administrative Staff Report• MOTION by Mr• Barna, seconded by Mr• Plemel, to open Che Public Hearing• Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously• The Public Hearing was opened at ?:39 P.M� ADMINISTRATIVE 3TAFF REPORT A• PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205•075,1,E,3, prohibiting parking any closer to a lot line than five feet• Public purpose served is to reduce visual pollution in the area adjacent to lot lines and separate parking with landscaped areas• Section 205•�75,2,A, requiring a minimum of 7•5 parking stalls for this particular 4-plex• Public purpose served is to provide for adequate off-street parking areas for multiple dwelling units• APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 pa e 2 B• 3TATED HARDSHIP: To comply with the City Code as requested by the City Engineering Department and the cost of changing the parking• Also the lost use of the existing rear yard• C• ADMINI3TRATIVE 3TAFF REVIEW: . The existing parkinq at 5800 2 1/2 Street is in the side yard to the rear of the faur-plex off 58th Avenue• There are four parking stails with parking close to both the alley and the south property line• The area is hard surfaced, with fencing and curb stops for the four stalls• Apparently the overflow parking must be done in the street• The City Attorney has determined that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Appeals Commission to discuss parking in the public right of way- However, the City Councii may, if it desires, change the Code to allow the pppeals Commissian _. to hear such request s f� i i� For these reasons, it appears that the best alternative for (�r• Johnson is to move his ^parking fence^ 15 feet north of its present location, and add 15 feet of additional black- :' topping. This will provide for a total of 8 stalls and enc�' the parking in the boulevard, without much loss of rear yard space• {See Map}. Mr• Holden indicated that he had talked to the City Attorney had asked him several questions for the Appeals Commission• He asked the City Attorney if the City permitted parking the Boulevard; and the answer had been NO• and in Mr• Holden asked if a variance was required to reduce the number of parking stalls from 7•5 to 4 if the City did not permit parking in the Boulevard property; and the answer had been YES• Mr• Holden asked the City Attorney if the Appeals Commission could act on the variance for parking on the boulevard properties; and the answer had been NO• Mr• Holden reiterated that the Appeals Commission could not act on the question of parking on the boulevards• He explained that the requests that were to be handled were parking closer to the lot line than five feet; and the other was to reduce the number of parking stalls from 7•5 to 4• Mr• Johnson asked if he had to move the parking fence the entire 15 feet• Mr• Holden said that it would be one way of alleviating the parking in the boulevard and also provide for eight parking stalls, which was actually needed for Mr• Johnson's building. APPEALS.COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 28, 1978 pa e 3 Mr• Johnson said that his tenants were already parking eight cars in that parking lot• Mr• Holden explained that when the street improvement was completed, Mr• Johnson*s boulevard would be reduced from 14 feet to ten feet- He explained that the tenants were presently parking directly behind tars and after the'improvements were in, there wouldn't be room to park two-cars deep in the existent parking stalls� Vice-Chairperson Gabel indicated to the Commission tha.t they were addressing the variance of reducing the 7•5 parking stalls to four parking stalls and parking closer tu a lot line than five feet• She said that they were not addressing the question of whether or not Mr• Johnson could or could not park in the boulevard- Mr• Holden showed Mr- Johnson and the Commission a street plan for the area• Mr• Johnson said that, since there was presently ample room for his tenants to park their cars, he could move the fence four or five feet to make up the footage that the City would take for the street improvement, and he would again have enough space for his tenants to park their cars, two-deep• Mr- Kemper said that if Mr• Johnson did nat move his f.ence at all, and left parking as is, after the street improvement reduced his boulevard by four feet, there would be room in his parking lot for four cars• He said that those four cars would not be parking in the boulevard• He explained that that was Mr• Johnson's request - to reduce the required parking stalls from 7•5 to four• Mr• Kemper said that if the variance request to reduce the number of parking stalls was approved, it would be impossible for the tenants of Mr• Johnson's building to park their cars two deep• Mr• Kemper said that an alternative to reducing the number of parking stalls would be to establish eight parking stalls• He said that it could be done if Mr. �ohnson moved his parking lot fence 15 feet to the back of Che property and paving that additional 15 feet• Mr• Johnson didn't feel that he would have to move the fence back 15 feet• He felt he would only have to move the fence a little to be sure that the cars would not protrude into the line of traffic•