PL 08/22/1979 - 6660PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ROLL CALL:
CALL TO OROER:
APPROVE PLANNI
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, AU6UST 22, 1979
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 8> 1979
1.
'ARING:
J
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
iTl, 1.-12
r-zi
FOR A 22 - 30
Section 205.157, 5, D, to a11ow the construction of two dwellin9s
on Lots 27-30, Block S, Riverview Neights, in CPR-2 zoning,
(flood plain), the same being 8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace
N.E. -
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE 31
ER IT; SP #79-08, BY EXEP1PLAR, INC.: Per Section 205.053, 3, D,
to allov� the construction of a double bungalow in R-1 zoning
(single family dwelling units), on Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Shaffer's
Subdivision No. 1, lying East of the 4Jest 90 feet thereof, the
same being 7582-84 Able Street N.E.
3.
_. ..._..
. ZOA
��n�� l
- 3 5 � ��
S��
36 - 40
Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 1, Central View Manor, from C-2S (general �°��J �
shopping areas) to M-1 (light industrial areas) to a11ow the���,,'� �� �
construction of a new industrial building, the same being
1175 73 1/2 Avenue N.E. l�r"�
4. RECEIVE MEMORANDUM FR�M VIRGIL C. HERRICK, CITY ATTORNEY, DATED
UST 2, 979. ISSUE: What are the prodecural and subsCantive AT MEETING
requirements that must 6e complied with in granting a special
use permit, a variance, or a re-zoning cfiange? .
5. CONTINUED: COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
6. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHAN6ES IN CHAPTER 205. ZONING
7. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 1979
A. Request for funding by Anoka County Senior Citizen
Outreach Program.
8. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 14, 1979
9. OTHER 6USINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
SEPARATE
SEPARATE
SALMON
YELLOW
SPFCIAL 1d�ETING - PLANNING CO[.9i�tISSiON - AUGUST 1. 1979
CALL TO ORDERi
:
Chairman Harris called the August 1, 197g� meeting oY the Planning
Commission to order at '%�20 P.M.
ROLL CALLi
Ntembers Present� Ms. Hughes, Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel
Members Absente
Others Present�
Mr. Oquist, Mr. Langenfeld
Jerry Boardman, City Planner
Bill Deblon, Assoe3ate Planner
I. CONTIIdUED� COI7PREHENSIVE DEVELOPDIENT PLANi
I,AND U5E�
Ob:iective 2. Policv 1-D:•
�
i
0
Mr. Treuenfels asked to what extend public tax money should be used
support private business?
Pdr. Boardman stated that in some cases it would be very valid to use
public money to spur development because the return from the public
money used wauld benei'it the community.
Mr. Harris stated that the Center City Project was a good example.
Ms. Hughes suggested they add one more item to this. "E" would read
as iollows: "Plan and encourage the development of under utilized
residential land."
The Cammissioners concurred.
Ob:iective 2, PolicY 2 �
The Commissioners agreed this should be change@ to read as follows�
"The City should assist business to upgrade commercial and industrial
areas."
Obiective 7_, Policv 2-B�
DZc. }iughes questioned the word"revitalization" and asked if redevelopment
wouldn't tivork better?
Mr. Boardman statefl that "revitalization" is a broader term and urould
include redevelopment and such things as a face lift, etc.
5P�CIAL MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 1. 1979 � YAUL'' �
�bjective 2, Polic.y 2-Bs ' ; •
The Commissioners agreed to change thia policy to read as follows� -
:!The City should continue to promote revitalization of its commercial
and industrial areas through efforts Iike the Center City Projeqt."
(Delete "key" and insert "industrial".}
�biective 31
Ms. Hughes recommended the vrord "encourage" be changed to "permit
only"
Mr. Harris questioned whether we had the power to say that.
Nlr. Boardman suggested they change the word "encourage" to"assure"
or "ensure".
The Comriissioners eoncurred.
T4r. Treuenfels questioned the word "control" in the statement under
Objective 3• "
Ms. Hughes suggested they delete the sentence "Piecemeal urbanizationa:."
Mr. Treuenfels recommended they keep the sentence but delete the
word "totally".
The Commissioneru concurred.
Ob�ective 3� Policv li
Ms. Hughes recomrnended the ivord "promote" be changed to "permit only."
N�r. Treuenfels stated that Policy 1-B had the words "permii only" and
it vaas in referetzce to the critical areas.
I�is. Hughes agreed that would take care of it.
bZs. Schnabel stated that Objective 3 was not consistent with the
Introduction.
D'Ir. Eoardman stated they were ,rewriting the Introduction.
Objective 3 PolicY 2-As
Ms. 5chnabel asked if the perfo:mance standards and design criteria
would be set up in a zoning regulation?
Mr. Boardman stated they would be.
�
SPECIAL 6T�1'sTTNG - PLANNING COT�IMISSION"- AUGUST 1 1979 - PAGE 9
Objective 3, PolicY 3i •
Ms, Hughes recommended they change the word "modify" to "adopt".
Mr. Boardman stated that referred to the Center City for example.
They would have to modify design controls in those areas.
Ms. Hughes stated she understood now.
Mr. Harris suggested they delete the word "key" in Policy 3-B and 3-C.
The Commissioners concurre@. •
tds. Hughes suggested the words "The City should protect and reinforce"
preface Policies 3-B and 3-C.
b4r. Deblon stated that Policy 3 should have the following statement at
the endr "These instances includea°
Mr. Boardman suggested they put a colon after the word "interest".
The Commissioners concurred.
Obiective 3, Polic 4�-B�
Mr. Harris recoromended they delete the word "key" in Policies 4-B & 4-C.
The Commissioners concurred. .
Mr. Deblon suggested they put a colon after the word "areas" in
Policy 4. �
The Commissioners concurred.
Ob:iective 4i
Mr. Boardman stated this was a typing error and should read� "Ehcourage
appropriate land use combinations."
Objective 4 Policy 1-A�
Ms. Hughes suggested they�change "encourage"'to "set" Dr "designate".
Mr. Boardman stated he woul@ rather use the word "sstablish".
The Commissioners concurred.
Objective 1+ Policy 2-Ai
Ms. Schnabel stated that it didn't sound like they had a definite
time period in mind and asked if they couldn't tighten that up?
Mr. Boardman stated that it rvould be difficult to put a t�.me limit
on it. For example, the Center City Project could take 15 years.
SPECIAL 1di3ETING - PLANNIPdG COMPAISSION - AUGUST 1, 1979 - PAGE 4
Mr. Baardman stated that the Community Development Commission had
recommended adding a sub-policy, but he would like ta make it ' -
Policy 4. It would read as follows� "The City should take necessary
action to make land available for hou�ing units by re-evaluating its
present land zoned industrial."
Ms. Schnabel suggested they say "all currently non-residential land"
in order to include commercial land also. She suggested they say�
"The City should examine present lands not zoned residential to
determine feasibility of making sorae of those lands available for
housing."
The Commissioners concurred.
Ms. Hughes stated they should look at R-1 zones to go to higher density.
Mr. Boardman suggested they could make a Policy 5 which would read as
followsi "The City should examine the feasibility of reclassifying
residential to increased density in certain areas."
Ms. Schnabel asked if there were any large parcels of vacant residential
property other than the Sears Property? ,
Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners the map entitled� "Housing
Potential". . .
The Commissioners concurred with Mr. Boardman's recommendation.
Land Use Inventorvs .
Dir. Boardman stated there would be some rewrites in the inventory.
Fie stated there were a: f@'a .: deficiencies here primarily in regard:,
to structure �oundness, conditions of buildings, condition o� housing
in the City, etc. This is weak and will be redone.
Mr. Harris asked ii the 95� Was a valid figure? '
Mr. Boardman stated it was probably a little higher now and suggested
the Commissioners look at the Land Use AZap Plan 1990. This map gives
the layout of what the proposed land use will look like. Tt also shows
existing land uses and what the land uses are in the surrounding
communities. iie stated that the "M"s indicated medium to high density
residential. 5ome are existing and some are proposed. He asked that
the Commissioners study them when they have time. He stated that the
School District had not yet made a determination but had indicated in
their Conprehensive Plan that they were looking at closing two more
schools. Therefore, P+ir. Boardman put a star near Rice Creek and Stevensot
Schools. They anticipated these schools would close by 1983• He stated
that he had put a"S" near Parkview because it is being used by the
School Distrzct.
Mr. Hoardman stated that he had also put Gardena and Riverwood
' Schools into residential land use. D1r. Boardman went on to explain
the other maps he had distributed to the Commissioners.
NATURAi RlSOURC�S - CRITICAL ARrA - PARKSt
Mr. Boardman stated that the Environmental Quality Commission and
the Parks and Recreation Commission had done extensiCommission adopt
of these areas and he recommended that the Planning
the amendments of the two Commissions. He felt it would be negating
their work for the Planning Commission to go through it as extensively
as the other two Commissions had. A summary of their recommendations
was distributed at the last Planning P.Ieeting.
Mr. Harris suggested they go through it briefly to see if the Planning
Commissioners had any comments.
Natural Resources - Introduction�
Ms.Hughes recommended.the word "civilized" in the last paragraph be
changed to "ecological". Also, she suggested they charige the word
"conquer" in the second to last line to "alter".
Mr. Treuenfels objected to the word "alter". He preferred the word
"aonquer".
44r. Deblon suggested tRe word "exploit".
The Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Deblon stated this introduction would be rewritten.
Plan Direction:
Mr. Deblon recommended the word "control" be changed to "management"
in the first senience. .
The Commissioners concurred. :
Ms. Hughes stated they had discussed the various categories and
definitions listed under Plan Direction and they recommended they
remain as they are. The reason for this recommendation was because
oi the way b'Ietro Council deals with this subject.
The Commissioners concurred.
bZs. Schnabel stated that she had noted that the Environmental Quality
Commission had shortened up the first statement under Plan Direction.
After the word "environment" it should read as followse "that will
enhance and protect natural resources from developments that may poten-
tially �enerate adverse effects." ,
Mr. Deblon stated that statement would be followed with the follo�ving
statementi "These natural resources includei" .
The Commi�sioners concurred.
SP�CIAL MEETING - PLANNING CODIP�ISSION - AUGUST 1, 1979 - PAG� F,
Mr. Harris stated that it sounded good, but how would they handle i't
unless they rewrite their zoning code? -
Mr. Boardman stated that was what they were doing. They would be
required to provide a site preparation plan, prepare a survey w�th
vegetation stands, etc.
Ms. Schnabel stated they should ask for a reforestation plan with
each proposal.
Mr. Boardman agreed.
Mr. Harris stated that the.DNR had come up with some new ideas regarding
oak wilt and stated they should discuss that the next time they go
through this.
Nir. Boardman suggested the Commissioners review the recommendations
from the Environmental quality Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Cotnmission and make further comments at the next meeting.
The Commissioners conburred.
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 8:40 P.Pd. and reconvened the
meeting at 8s50 P.nY.
HOUSING�
Introduction: #3a
Rir. Boardman stated that the word "on" should be added after the
word "iniluences".
The Commissioners concurred.
Plan Directions ;�li
Mr. Harris questioned the term "private investment".
Mr. Boardman stated they were talking about seed money to eneourage
improvements in neighborhoods and they cvould encourage the improvements
be done through private investment.
P1an Direction - �{2�
Mr. Harris asked what they meant by '�broader range of housing ehoices"?
R4r. Boardman stated they were talking about different types of housing
such as condominiums, o�mership units, ete. They would like to maintain
a housin� cycle irom the first family house to the three or four bedroom
house�to a smaller house after the family moves out.
srLC1nL r�LL7'ING - PLANNIi1G COLI�AISSION.- Ai3GUST 1 19�9 PAC� 7
Mr. Boardman stated that the Plan pirection in �eneral incorporated
thrce main direetion�� Rehabilitation and preservation of neighborhood3,
a variety of hou�ing in the housing supply, and also providing resourceu
for people who cannot afford housing to get housing.
Pnr. Treuenfels stated that one of the reasons people were having
troub],e staying in their homes was taxes.
Goala
Mr. Treuenfels noted that the word "discriminatory" was spelled wrong.
Objective 1. Policy 1-Bi �
Ms. Schnabel asked how much of that was currently available at the
Public Library?
Mr. Boardman stated they had just established a Housing Resource Center
at the Library. They had given �$,000 towards books and raaterials.
On Septenber 15th there will be an Lhergy Day with three consecutive
programs. In October; they plan to have 5 programs, one each week,
on rehabilitation and home maintenance. In the Spring they plan to
have one on landscaping and exterior development, This is a11 part
of an expanding program on energy and energy conservation and home
maintenanc e .
Objective 1. Policv 1-Az
Mr. Treuenfels asked what kind of housing improvement programs they
were talking about?
Pdr. Boardman stated that re�erred to such things as tax increment
financing, etc.
I�ir. Harris stated that was a high-minded policy but there was a pro-
blem. Thsy were saying they were going to promote neighborhood rehab
and preservation through private investment and seed mone��. The problem
is we tax them £or that and then we replace the streets and gutters
and then impose a Special assessnent, Tt might be better to do it in
phases. First promo-�e the neighUorhood preservation and then a year or
two later, come in with the street improvement programs, etc.
RSr. Boardman stated they should consider the cost effectiveness.
1�1r. Harris stated that people might not be able to afford it all in one
shot.
b4r. Boardman suggested they change it to read: "The City should make
public improvements �vhere feasible to coincide ...".
Mr. Harris stated that would help. He suggested they look at using
some of the block grant money for public improvements.
R7r. Boardman stated they could use 25a o� the block grant money for
public improvement and it t�rouldn't have anything to do with 1ow or
moderate income. But then they could turn around and if it has sometliin�
to do with lotiv and moderate income, pay for the improvements through
utilities, •
SPECIAL P+iEETING - PLANPIIP7C COIt1PATSSION - AUGUST 1, 1979 - PAG� 8
Mr. Harris sug�ested they look into that. ' ,' ;
The Commicsioners agreed to having the words "where feasible to
coincide with" included.
Ubjective 1, PolicY 2�
Ms. 5chnabel stated that energy was mentioned frequently throughout
this but she was not sure how it related back to the Coal.
Mr. Boardman stated that energy was part of suitable housing and
living environment.
f�s. Schnabel stated that she wasn't sure that energy should be the
only focus.
HIr. Boardman stated it was the focus of the policy. He didn't see
any other area to include it in. It was a large part of housing.
P�Ir. Harris referred to the statement under Policy 2-B. The first
sentence of that statement would require a major shift of City policy
to implement.
HIr. Boardman stated that it was the a.ntention all along to go into
sin�le family housing with this policy on a mandatory basis at the
time of sale. This is stated in Policy 3-A. N1r. Boardman stated that
this statement should be placed under the objective. It is really out
of place here.
ab:iective 2:
t�r, Treuenfels questioned the last sentence in the second paragraph
in the statement under Objective 2. He asked why condominiums were
not included in that statement. He suggested that they change quad-
raminiums to condominiums because people were more iamiliar with the
term condoniniums.
The Commissioners concurred.
Obiective 2, PolicY 1-D�
Ms. Schnabel asked about land write do�+ms.
t�tr. Boardman stated the vrords "lvhere a�ailable" should be added after
, the tsord "programs".
The Commissioners concurred.
Ob.lective 2, PolicY 2i
D4s. Schnabel s�ate@ that this posed a dilemma. She asked if there was
a concern about the number of existing units being converted to condo-
miniumN.
. _ . _ _. _ ..�i_
SP�CIA7. t,1�ETITiC - PLANNITaG COP.IP.IISSION � AUGUST 1, 1979 - PAGE 9
. Mr. Boardman 3tated that this referred to new construction. ;
Tds. Schnabel asked how they would handle people who want to convert
existing structure5 to these same types of units.
Nir. Boardman stated there would be some conditions and controls they
would have to look at.
Ms. Schnabel stated that her point was that some of these statements
may not be valid or might need some redirection.
Mr. BoardMan stated they were valid with respect to new construction.
Mr. Harris stated that they had asked the Community Development
Commission to look at the question of conversion.
Ms. Hughes stated that Policy 1 ta7.ked about multiple units which
tend to be rental units and Policy 2 talked about townhouses and
quadraminiums which tend to be ownership units. She asked if that
inference was correct..
P+Ir. Boar@man stated that was correct. Policy 1 referred to rental
units and Policy 2 referred to owner occupied units.
PSs. Schnabel stated that if they were going to encourage this then
maybe they should encourage the conversions of existing housing too.
bfr. Boardman stated that was not necessarily true. They cau ld achieve
a balance with new construction.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she still felt there was a conflict there.
h4r. Boardman suggested they add "D" to Policy 1 which would read as
follotivsi "The City should develop guidelines for conversion of existing
housing stock." This would be added to Objective 1, Policy 1.
The Commissioners concurred.
Ob:jective 2, Polic.y 2:
T�is. Hughes siated that the vrords "the supply of" should be added after
the word "supplement". �
Objective 2, Po1icY 2-Bs �
Mr. Harris stated that this statement brought them right back to the
question oY 40 foot lots.
Mr. BQardman stated that this statement was meant to refer to garage
requirements and those types o� things.
bTr. Harris stated that then they should say that. ..
SPFCIAL I1�ETIPIG - PLANNIP�G COMLtISSION - AUGU5T 1, 1979 - PAG� 10
The Commis�ioners agreed this statement should be changed to read'�
°The City should period'zcally review its re�idential zoning ordinances�
in order to consider new approaches to the housing problems." �
Obiective 2�EolicY 3�
T4r, Harris asked what they meant by the word "innovative".
b2r.Boardman stated that referred to housing different than current
housing. .
Obiective 3:
b1r. Treuenfels asked what was meant by "composition".
Fdr. Deblon stated that referred to single-parent households, non-
Telated people,hous.eholds with children, etc, '
J�s, Schnabel questioned the statement regarding rental housing being
denied to households with children. She stated that some people pre-
fer to live in buildings without chiZdren and she felt they�were
justified.
�ir. Boardman sta�ed that was discrimination.
Mr. Harris stated that it might be segregation but he wasn't sure
it was discrimination. �
3ds. �chnabel sta.ted there shouZc3 be some flaxibility.
�dr. Boardman stated that he felt the City should support open occupancy
3egislation. .
Tds. Hughes noted -that it stated "improved access" not �arantee".
ai��ective 3. Policv 2t
T�Is. Schnabel recommended they delete the words "owners and renters"
and insert the words "landlords and tenants",
The Commissioners concurred.
�bjective_3,__PolicY 3i
Mr.Iiarris stated that they had talked about doing that at one time.
Tdr. Deblon stated that this referred to battered women, etc.
Ms. Schnabel recommended they alter this statement to read� "emergency
shelter and �;roup housing". ..
The Commissioners concurred. � •
SP�CIAL M�ETING - PLA[JP7ING COP4P,tISSION � AUGUST 1, 1979 - PAGE 11
. - , .
, Mr. Treuenfels noted that Polic 9 and_Policy �+ seemed to be related
and asked if 1�9 should follow ;��.
The Commissioners agreed that Policies 5 and 7 should be combined
and Policies 6 and 8 should be combined.
Housin�; inventorY+
Mr. Harris stated that paragraph 3 indicated the rate of growth. Para-
graph 4 states that by 1980 they would have a total population of 32,500.
By 1990, we would have a total population of 34,500. Household size is
dropping as indicated further dovm in the paragraph. Nlr. Harris stated
£t was not the same ratio. They would be going £rom 3.1g to 2.85. He
asked where they got 23�0 more units from that. He s'tated that if you
take the population of 1980 which is 32,500 and divifle it by 3.1g it
would come out to 10,188 housing units. In 1990 there would be 34,500
divided by 2.85 and that would equal 12,105 housing units. The differenc�
would be 1q17 instead of 2300. Pdr. Harris stated that was about 400
units less than projeated and it could make a big difference on our
thinking about the zoning.
Mr. Boardman stated that P�Ietro Council had said that we need an
additional 1840 units. We looked at it and we are looking at an
increase of 2000 people. If we have land available that we can
use for the additional �+00 and if we can support that many with
employment, why not?
Mr. Harris stated that he was concerned about whether we actually
have the land to do that. If we don't need the additional 4p0,
we could make it less dense and do more with open spac�s, et¢.
D4r. Boardman stated that they shouldn't take the figures'literally
beCause they are aoals based on proje�tion, a�d may not be reached.
P�4r. Harris stated that without accurate figures, they could not make
accurate projections.
Mr. Boardman stated that they would have to look at these figures
because of lot of the fi�re� were taken from the Housing Plan. He
stated that the problem with the projections was that most of them
were from bletro Council and they use federal projection levels.
bls. Schnabel stated that when the census figures for 1980 come in it
will help considerably.
Mr. Boardman agreed and stated that was anot:tier reason wheX they cou].dn�t
take the fiaures litErally. The prbjectianN �ere b�sed on,1,470. so thex
were somewhat inacburate.
The Commissioners continued to discuss the projections and agreed that
When the final draft for this plan is ready, the figures would be
updated. 47r. Boardman stated that the iigures.change all the time,
but i;hey would update t}iem at that time. .
_ , . _� .
SPrCIAL t4NETIP�G - PI,ANNING COr4P7ISSI0N - AlIGUST ]., 19`l9 rRUis 12
MOTION by I�ls. Schnabel, seconded by Tnr. Treuenfels, to adjourn the '
Augusi; 1, 1979 rrieeting of the Planning Commission. , �
IIPOK A VOIC� VOTE, ALZ VOTING AXE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MEETIN�
ADJOURNED AT 1Or30 P.M. ,
Respectfully Submittedt
� :7`�� . ���,u
Kathy S lton, Recording Secretary
m
_ . _,.�__
. _.'�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMI�QISSIOt4 M�ETING - AUGUST 8, 1979
CALL TO ORDERi
Yice Chairwoman 5chnabel called the August 8, 1979, meeting of the
Planning Gommission to order at 7�30 P.M.
ROLL CALLi
Members Present� P�Is. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Hora
(Mr. Hora left at 9�30 P.M.)
Members absenti Mr. Oquist, Mr. Harris (arrived at 7�35 P.M.)
_ Mr. Langenfeld (arrived at 9a30 P.M.)
Others Present� Jerry Boardman, City Planner
Bill Deblon, Associate Planner
Dean Saba, Energy Project Committee
Giles t,9cConville, Energy Project Committee
1. APPROVE PLANNING COP�fiTISSION MINUTE5� NLY 25, 1979e
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by P�1r. Hora to approve the July 25, 1979�
minutes of the Planning Cor.unission.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that with the exception of page 1 of the minutes,
his name was misspelled throughout the minutes.
Ms. Hughes referred to page 6 of the minutes and stated that in her
motion, the word "recommend" should be "refer". P:Ys. Hughes also stated
that the 6th paragraph on page 10 which begins with "P+Ir. Oquist stated
that ...", the last two lines should read as follows "through the
County or State agencies".
Ms. Hughes also stated that on page 13, the second paragraph, the word
"vacationed" should be "vacated". Also on that page, in the 5th
paragraph, the word "dupster" should be "dumpster".
UPON A VOIGE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE GHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DSCLARED
THE P�ZINUTES APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
2.
D10TION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to open the Public
Hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOT�, AI.L VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECI,ARED
THE PUBLIC HEARIPIG OPEN AT 7 � 35 P•r�7 •
PLANNING COPdtdZSSION MEETING, AUGUST 8, 1979 PAGE 2
b7r. Boardman stated that the church was located at the corner of
Mississippi Street and Monroe Street. The church would like to '
operate a day care center in their building. Staff would have no
problem with this request. 5ince the operation would include over
10 children, they wauld require State and County approval and licensing.
Mr. Alfred Rejman, 633 Bennett Drive, came forward and stated that
• his house was right next door to the church. He was not in favor of
the day care center because his wife works nights and has to sleep
during the day and he felt the noise and car lights frora the parents
dropping off the children in the early morning would disturb his wife.
Presently, they have a problem with cars in the parking lot at night.
The cars race through and make a lot of noise. He did not want to have
to listen to it during the day too.
Ms. Joan Finney came forward and stated that she had been hired as tiie
teacher-director of the school. The school would be called the "Rainbow
School and Child Care Center". The hours of operation would be from
6�3o A.P�1, to 6�00 P.B1. She stated ihat they would be putting in a
fence i'rom the corner af the church building back to the storage shed.
This will keep the children behind the churoh building when they are
playing autside, She did not think that the children would be outside
playing before 9i00 A.M. She felt they would be outside approximately
one hour in the morning and for a couple hours in the evening before
the children are picked up. She stated that as far as the lights of
the cars in the morning, she had nothing to respond to that, Sn the
wintsr, there would be cars with lights on coming into the parking lot.
Mr. Harris asked what the ages oi the children would be?
Ms. Finney state@ the children would be frora 22 to 5 years of age.
Mr. Harris asked if this waid be five days a week?
Ms. Finney stated it would. She also stated they would be 2icensed for
40 children and 30 af them wou2d b� day care children. The other 10
children would be nursey school children and would not be there all day.
5o at times there would be a total of 40 children at one time.
Ms. Hughes asked what the status of their application was? .
Ms. Finney stated that they were licensed through the Welfare Department
and they had already been out and had looked through the facility and
had given approval. The fire marshall has also given approval.
P4r. Harris asked where the children would be picked up and dropped off?
Ms. Finney stated they would be picked up and dropped off behind the
building in the parking lot with access off &ennett Drive.
Ms. Hughes asked i'or a clearer explanation of where the fence would be.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AUGUST 8 19%9 PAGE 3
Ms. Finney indicated to the Commissioners on the map where the fence
would be.
Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners an aerial view of the area.
Me. Finney indicated on the aerial photograph where the fence would be.
` Mr. Harris suggested a fence around the play ground equipment for
their ovm good.
L1r, Rejman stated there �vas a driveway into the parking lot which
runs right by his window.
Mr. Harris asked if they couldn't stipulate that the driveway be
closed during the week?
Mr. Boardman stated that they could require the church to put a chain
across it.
Mr. Rejman stated that he did not see why a business should be allowed
in a residential area.
Ms. Finney stated it was a non-profit organization.
Mr. Harris stated that we do allow churches and tkieir accessory uses
in a residential area. That has been our policy and he was sure they
would continue with it. He further stated that if they close that
driveway, it would help with the lights and cars and as far as the
noise of cars at night, T�ir. Rejman could.call the police if necessary.
Mr. Rejman stated that it was his understanding that the church was
supposed to put sone plantings in along his property line as a barrier
between his yard and the parking lot.
Mr. Harris asked ii a landscaping plan was submitted for the property
when the building plans were submitted?
Mr. Boardman stated that the only provisions he recalled in the land-
scaping plan were for plantings along Bennett Drive. That would have
been with the recent addition. He was not sure about when the building
was first built ten years ago. The parlcing lot was part of the original
'plan but he was not sure if it was to that extent. It may have been
added on to at a later time when the new addition was added. It was
paved when the new addition was built.
Ms. Schnabel asked if Staff riad received comments from any other neighbors?
Mr. Boar@man stated that he was not aware of any.
Mr, Rejman stated that if they would plant something along there it
would help with the noise, lights and dust.
PLANNING COt�4I5SI0N tAEETING, AUGUST 8, "1979 - PAGE 4
Ms. Hughes noted that Mr. Rejman had a fence there and asked what kind
of fence it was7 -
Mr. Rejman stated it was a 32 foot cyclone fence.
Ms. Schnabel noted that any shrub that would be planted would not have
any leaves on in the winter anyway, and that's when he would have the.
problem of lights.
Mr. Boardman also pointed out that it would take quite some time for
the shrubs to provide any effective noise screening.
Ms. Schnabel asked if the day care center was apansored by the church
or by a private organization?
Ms. Finny stated that it was sponsored by the church and run by members
of the church. The children would not have to be the children of
members but from the whole community. It would not be restricted to
children of inembers.
Ms. Hughes asked who J. H. Roos was? He signed the petition.
Ms. Finney stated that J. H. Roos was a member of their child care
board and also a member of their trustee commission. He was not able
to attend this meeting.
Mr. Treuenfels asked if the age restriction of 22 to 5 years was the
only restriction7
Ms. Finney stated that was correct. They would not be teaching religion
so there would be no restrictions as to religion, race, sex, etc.
Pdr. Rejman asked i£ Fridley had any other day care facilities?
Mr. Aarris stated they had the iearning Tree and other than that only
sma31 day care centers in homes.
MOTION by b7s. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to cZose the Public
Heaxing.
UPON A VOIGE,VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRIt4AN HARRZS DECLARED THE PUIILIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8a10 P.M. �,
Ms. Hughes stated that she felt this was a valuable public service and
with more and more women going to work, it will be more and more needed.
She liked the idea of a non-profit day care center and one that is wi.th-
in the community and run by people living in the community. Hopefully,
they would have the interests of the City at heart in ierms of their
aperations. They would not be likely to do things to antagonize the
neighbors.
PLANNING COPZMI5SION MEETING, AUGUST 8 1979 - PAGE 5
Mst liughes also stated that they should have some stipulations, one of
which would be to close the aceess near the neighbors property. Also,
they should be asked to keep the parking lot in good order. Chances
are they don't sweep it often enough since the plantings in front are
not taken care of very well. They may need to be asked io do that.
Also, ihe� should be asked to make sure they don't have the children's
activities close to the neighbor's yard. They have a big enough area
to avoid that.
Ms. Schnabel agreed and stated that some consciousness-raising on the
part of the church could be in order especially in regards to the
problems oi the neighbors. She felt the two of them could come to a
satisfactory solution. She stated she cauld understand the concerns
of the neighbor in terms of working nights and sleeping days and the
church should be willing to close off that access.
Mr. Hora agreed.
�r. Treuenfels also agreed especially in light of the fact that Fridley
does not have another day care center centrally located.
Mr. Karris stated that he felt it was a.good proposal with modifications.
He suggested a security fence around the playground equipment ior their
own benefit. That kind of equipment would be an attractive nusiance
and the church would be liable. Also, soroething could be done with
signage ior the egress off of I�,Zonroe Street indicating that pickup and
drop off traffic should use the access ofi P�onroe Street only.
Mr. Boardman stated that would be required anyway.
Mr. Harris stated that it should be stipulated. He also recommended
that the church put some plantings and vegQtative screening along the
neighbor's property line. He stated that they could possibl� do this
in a phase program with the fencing and driveway blockage be�ng done
this year and the vegetative screening being done in the Spring.
k40TI0N by n4s. 3chnabel, seconded by Pdr. Treuenfels, to recommend to
Council approval of the request for Special Use Permit SP #79-�9�
Fridley United ZJiethodist Churchs Per Section 20j.051, 3, F, ta allow
the church to have a day care center, located on Lots 1-3 and Lots 22-
25, Block 2, Christie's Addition, the same being 666 Mississippi Street
N.E., with the following stipulationsi 1) the driveway access to Bennett
Street be chained off during the week beginning with the first day of
business; 2) proper fence of playground facilities by the first day of
business; 3) the church plants a vegetative barrier between their
property and the properties located west of the church to be comgleted
in the Spring of 1980. The plantings will be approved by Staif.
D'is. Finney stated that in regards to the second stipulation, the church
Board�had discussed that and felt that the fence would be more attractive
to children.
D1r. Harris stated tliat by fencing it they were a� leasi iaking action
to pre�ent someone from using it. If no action were taken, they could
be liable. �
Ms. Finney asked how high the fence would have to be7
bSr. Boardman stated that a 4 foot fence would be adequate.
PLANNING COPIMTSSION B4EETZNG AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 6
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, YOTING AYE, CHAZRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UTdANZT.90USLY.
Mr. Harris informed the petitioner �hat the request had been recommmended
to Council for approval with stipulations and would go to Council on
August 20, 1919� and suggested that all i�terested parties attend.
3•
Mr: Harris stated that this item was to be continued for two weeks at
the request of the petitioner.
MOTION by IPis. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to continue the
request for Special Use Permit SP #79-Z0, for two weeks.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRI�IAN HARRIS DECLARID THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIR�IOUSLY.
4.
Mr. Boardman stated that page 23 of the agenda was a plot plan layout.
The plot plan indicates a building to the west which is 23x32 and that
building is not there. What they are planning on doing is splitting
off 20 feet of this lot and adding it on to the house to the west.
Mr. Boardman showed the Commissioners an aerial photograph of the area
and exp2ained the situation more clearly. He stated that he understood
that any garage to be located on the property would be located to the
rear of the house with access of£ Riverview Terrace. Dir. Boardman
explained to the Commissioners where the lot line would be.
John & Gail Estling came forward and showe@ the Commissioners a copy of
their survey which showed the lot line more clearly.
Ms. Schnabel stated
of this split was to
was correct?
that it was her understanding that the main purpose
increase the size of the lot. She asked if that
Mr. Harris stated that was correct and it would also give them more
parki.ng which they need. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if 642 Way was
a dedicated street?
Mr. Boardman stated that he was not sure and that it didn't look like it.
He stated 'that they couldn't get a snowplow in there if they wanted to.
Mr. Harris suggested they look into that and if it is not vacated, we
should do it.
Mr. Boardman agreed and stated he would look into it.
PLANNING COMMISSION b1�ETING AUGUST 8 1979 PAGE 7
There were no comments from the audience regarding this item.
ItilOTIOtd by T.1s. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to recommend to
Council approval of the request ior a Lot Split, L.S. ��79-03, by John
and Gail Estling� to split off the Nlesterly 20 feet of Lot 1, Block l,
Veit's Addition (6440 Riverview Terrace N.E.) and add it to Lot 2,
Bloek 2, Veit's Addition (6438 Riverview Terrace N.E.), with the
following stipulatione the 6 foot utility easement to the north of
the property line will be retained by the City.
Mr. Harris stated that it appeared that the lot would be in excess of
9,000 square feet after the split.
Mr. Boardman stated that was correct and there was no problem there.
Both lots would be in excess of 9,000 square feet.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING Al'E, CFiAIRiti7AN HARRIS DECLARED THE T�IOTION
CARRI�D UNANIP�TOUSLY.
Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that they had recommended approval
to Council and this would appear before Council on August 20, 1979. He
suggested all interested parties attend.
5•
�t
Mr. Boardman recommended they ask the Community Development Commission
to handle the consideration of the status of unused alleys and also
that they hold SAV /�79-o3•
P•Zr. Harris agreed.
T+40TION by f�4s. Schnabel, seconded by P1ir. Treuenfels, to send the consider-
ation of the status of unused alleys in �idley to the Community Develop-
meni Commission for their study and request that the Commission report
their findings back to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the Community Development Commissirn should
have the direction and guidance of Staff in studying this.
PQr. Boardman agreed,
UPON A VOICE VOT�, AT,I, VOTING AYE, CHAIRI4�AN HARRSS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRI�D UNANIP.tOUSLY.
MOTION by P�is. Schnabel, seconded by b;r. Treuenfels, to continue SAV
request #79-03 for future consideration.
UPOTd A VOIGE VOTE, ALL V4TING AY�, CHAIRAIAN iiARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANI840USLY.
PLANNING COP��ZSSION T�EETING, AUGUST 8, Z979 - PAGE 8
6, CONTINUF.D� PUBLIC HEARING ON COP�PREHENSIVE PLANt
PARKS�
1dOTI0N by MIs. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to approve the goals,
o�j'ectives and policies as amended by the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Ms. Hughes stated that one of the things they added was an objective on
water and there was more emphasis than originally on na�Cural areas and
environmental education within the realm of parks and recreation. She
stated those were the major differences. A1so, there were a lot of
word changes.
Mr. Harris stated that he didn't get the feeling if they felt the
amount of park acreage was adequate.
Ms. Hughes stated that they would like to examine that in light of
whether or not the Plan is going ta be a.dopted with the additional
2300 units. She stated they were going to look at aIl the parks to
see i#' they should be d.esignated as parks. The Shore is in the pro-
cess of being acquired between the County and the City. On an acreage
basis, the chances are pretty good, even at our fullest potential for
popu2ation, that we will have enough acreage on that rule of thumb,
Whether they are all located correctly is another question and whether
or not they fit the classifications and the neighborhoods usage is
another question. In the impZementation of the parks and open sgace
plan, they expect to be going through and reclassifying where necessary
to change uses, having new parks and trying to make it a more usable
system.
rns. HuUhes went on to say that the only place she could remember where
they addressed the question af adequate acreage was in the Goal. She
had recommended they say in the Goal that they want an adequate park
system. She stated that she had originally asked the Park Commission
to add a statement on need of a ceritain number of acreas per population
or something along that line. Because of the reclassification program,
they did not come up with that statement. She stated that they decided
not to add in a sta.tement sayfng that they want to meet the national
standards mainly because we have a iair amount of County space in here
that we don't count in our park system.
Mr. Harris asked if they had considered the additional 2300 units in
their deliberations? He didn't get a feeling for that.
Ms. Hughes stated that in some of the discus�ions in the Planning
Commission that had come out and she did take that back to the Parks
and Recreation Commission and told them the things the Planning Commission
was doing that she felt would iMpact on the actions of the Parks Commissior
There were several things she i'elt should be considered and the increase
in housing was one of them. The things she suggeste8 they look at were
'the housing and population increase�, the ehanges in age classification
of people living here and the redevelopment area in the Center City.
That redevelopment area has had significant impacts on us. NIs, liughes
stated that the thing she found difficult in the Plan was that they
really haven't gone a step iurther and said what our implementation
plan would be.
PLAIJIdING CONQIISSION �EETING AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 9
Mr. Boardman stated that when we look at this and set up the classifi- i
cation system we are setting it up �n acreage. In other words, we are
saying what regional parks should be, what community parks should be, ;
etc. This is an attempt to try to maintain a park system that will �i
fall within that goal. In other words, if we want to adopt a park system
that will meet these standards then we wi11 probably have to look at j
increasing areas when and where possible. The main thing we do is I
allocate by neighborhood in our Park t.4ap. In the T1ap we show those i
parks that should be classified as neighborhood parks, although they ;
may be small in some areas based on national standards for park facilities,;
But they are all we have and £it the function of a neighborhood park. ',
50 our park system shows them as neighborhood parks, and rvhen and where �
possible if land becomes available, they should be expanded to service i
neighborhood park facilities or service neighborhood park funetions. i
However they would still have to function as neighborhood park facilities. ';
This is the reason we classify some parks as neighborhood parks and i
some as mini parks or service parks. �
Mr. Harris stated that he was looking ior a statement in the Park
Plan to the effect that i� the City went into any major rezoning project
for housing that adequate park space would be acquired in that rezoning
to service that neighborhood.
EJir. Boardman stated that would be covered under Objective 1, Policy 3.
Ms. Schnabel stated that Policy 3-C states they should release excess
property, but it doesn't address the reverse.
Mr. Boardman referred to Policy 3-B and stated that should cover it.
The words "and to tkie City as a vrhole" v+ould be added to that Policy.
Mr. Harris stated that he vaanted emphasis that the City will acquire
park land if we develop 2300 more units.
Y+Is. Hughes s'tated that Objective 1 and the Goal address that and take
it into consideration. She stated there was commitment in the Park
Commission to follow through on the Goal and Objective. She sta,ted
that the Center City is a good example. It is designated as a redevelop-
ment area and now is when v�e should be looking at the things we will
have to put in there.
b4s. Schnabel asked T�Zs. Hughes if she felt the Park Commission and Park
Department had enough clout io get the park land they feel is needed.
Pds. Hughes stated that she couldn't answer that question.
PJtr. Boardman stated that the clout was with Council.
Ms. Hughes stated that the Parks Department works hard and wants an
A-1 park sysiem.
PLANNING COi,'�;TISSION MEETTtIG, AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 10
Ms. Hughes suggested they add a"D" to PoZicy 3 which would read as
followsi "The City should acquire adequate park acreage in redeveloped
and new residential areas."
The Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Boardman stated that then we should look at our platting policy.
Mr. Harris agreed.
bir. Boardman stated that it could alsa be a condition of zoning.
Mr. Harris agreed.
Mr. Boardman referred to Policy 3-C and stated that the excess property
they have looked at eliminating was the Cherry Lane Park behind Target
and the Jubilee Park in that same area. They feel that Gak ffill Yark
will adequately service that area. Another one that they were looking
at was the Riversedge Way. The access is between two houses and doesn't
make much sense.
Ms. liugnes stated that she did not want Planning to look at that until
the Parks Commission had a chance to look at it.
T�Tx�. Treuenfels referred to Cbjective 3, Policy 6 and asked what the
'Parks and Recreation Commission had in mind with respect to cultural
development?
Pds. Hughes stated that was amended to incZude "cultural development,
arts, historical preservation and special activities where possible".
This would include such things as painting classes, etc., which would
provide a wide range of activities and not just for children.
b4r. Treuenfels asked ii there had been any cross-talks with the Fine
Arts? �
T+�s. Hughes stated they had not done that yet. She was hoping they
would get into that because they were intereste@ in solitude and quietude
with the parks, She stated that was included in Objective 3 which they
had amended to includes "physical, social, emotional and edueational
needs".
_____. Mr. Deblon stated_that they had recommended that be added as Policy 8,
Ms. Hughes concurred.
UYON A VOIGE VOT�, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRP�iAN HARRIS DECLARED TH� t+40TI0N
TO APPROVE THE GOALS, OBJ�CTIVES AP�D POLICIES AS AP+ZEND�D CARRIED UIdANIP�90USI
ENVIRONt.4�NTAL RESOURCES�
MOTIDI�T by P�Ir. Langenfeld, seconded by tds. Hughes, to approve the
Envi nmental Resources section as amended by the Environmental Quality
Commission in the minutes of their Special t�7eeting and also according
to the recommendations in the draft amendment,
PLANTIING COf,if�4ISSI0N PdEETING, AUGUST 8, 1979 PAGE �1
Mr. Harris stated that he had a question on the Introduction.
Mr. Deblon stated that the Introduction would be rewritten.
Mr. Harris asked if they had changed the Plan Direction?
Mr. Boardman stated they had changed the wording only toi "Intentions
are such to develop a plan for conscientious management of the
environment, that will enhance and protect natural resources from
development that may potentially generate adverse effects."
Mr. Boardman also stated that the Introduction would be rewritten with
the exception of the last paragraph. In that paragraph, the words
"civilized" will be changed to "ecological" and "conquer" will be
cfianged to "exploit". The listing following the Plan Direction will
remain as is.
Mr. Harris asked if Objective 1, Policy 2 had been changed?
Ir4s. Hughes stated that her notes indicated that Objective.l, Policy 2
would be changed to readi "The City should adopt regulations to control
the amount and quality of urban runoff." Policy 2-A would remain the
same but a Policy 2-B would be added as follows; "The City should limit
development in areas which create urban runoff."
Mr. I,angenfeld stated that her saggested for Policy 2-B eras something to
be concerned about.
Mr. Harris agreed but asked for a definition of urban runo£f.
Mr. Boardman stated that was a term used by P+letro Council. Urban runoff
is in a developed or developing suburb as opposed to rural runoff.
Urban runofi is after deve].opment.
T�Is. Hughes stated that Policy 2-A dealt only with Rice Creek Watershed
and she ielt that they should say something for the rest oi the City.
I�Zr. Boardman stated that Policy 2 would take care of that. Policy 2-A
was stating that they should work with Rice Creek Watershed and
neighboring communities to control runoff. Rice Creek was mentioned
because it is the only Ulatershed District they have to work with.
Ms. Schnabel referred to Policy 5-A and asked what they meant by
"sensitive areas".
Mr. Boardman stated that re£erred to environmentally sensitive areas
such as those listed after the Pla n Direction.
Mr. Harris referred to Policy 3 under Objective 1 and asked if they
were referring to the recharge areas for the Ciiy wells?
A4r. Boardman stated that was not necessarily what they were talking about.
They were talking about wetland areas that provide potential not only
to our area but to other areas that utilize wells.
�_
PLANNING CDP+IPQISSION P�[EETING, AUGUST 8, � 1979 PAGE 12
Mr. Harris questioned that because our recharge areas are outside the
City and it didn't sound like this covered that.
Ms. Hughes suggested they make the word "supply" plural and change it
to "supplies".
The Commissioners concurred.
Mr. Deblon noted
which would read
the Public �9aters
be Policy 3-A.
that there would be a sub-policy unfler Policy 3
as follows� "The City should comply completely with
Act, t�linnesota Statute 105.41 and 105.42. That would
The Commissioners concurred.
P4r. Deblon stated that in Policy 4, the word "promote" should be
changed to "enforce", Also there would be a sub-policy 4-A� "The
City should implement these atandards through adequate planning,
monytoring, and enforcement."
Mr, kIarris aslsed who would enforce it?
Mr. Boardman stated that the �hvironmental Quality Commission was told
that enforcement would require additional man-power. The Commission
felt that it would have to be an executive decision to add man-power.
Mr, Boardman stated that he agreed with the term "enforce".
P�Zs. Hughes noted that the word "should" was in there and also that
the burden of decision would be on the Council. She felt it should
be enforced.
P�Rr. Boardman stated that he felt it wouZd be a matter of priorities.
The whole Plan will be based on spending priorities.
R�s. 5chnabel referred to PoZi.cy 9-A. She understood they were going
to add Spring Brook and asked if they wanted to specifically designate
those two bodies of water?
Mr. Boardman stated that those were the only �wo bodies of water that
the City was monitoring at �his time. It does say "continue".
Mr. Harris asked about the other bodies such as Locke I,ake, Rice Creek,
etc. Why was l�ioore Lake and Spring Brook receiving special attention?
Mr, Boardman stated that the sub-policies only bring out special emphasis
and were not the only areas they would be loolting at. The main thing
is the Policy which would cover any body of water that required monitoring,
The reason P:Ioore Lake is being monitored right now is because of the
swimming allowed there. Spring Brook is being monitored because of the
sensitive nature of North Park.
it'Is. Schnabel stated that it looked like those bodies were receiving
special attention.
,.�
PLANNING COMMISSION ?�EETI1dG, AUGUST 8, 1979 PAGE 19
Mr. Boardman stated that the River was being monitored by the State
and Rice Creek was being monitored by Rice Creek Watershed. The pro-
blem with Locke Lake is that it is being filled in with sand. It is
not a probleM o:f monitoring.
Mr. Langenfeld asked how they would know if Locke Lake was being
polluted without monitoring? '
rnr. Boardman stated a lot of times the pollution was visual. Also, it
is a matter of priorities.
Mr. Harris stated that he would concur with the Commission if they
wanted to go along with it, but he was not very happy with it.
b7s. Schnabel stated that somebody has to live with this.
Mr. Langenfeld stated that the statement was not restrictive.
Mr. Harris referred to Objective 4, Policy 2. He felt they should have
a stronger statement there.
bir. Deblon stated that it was changed to "oppose". .
The Commissioners concurred. '
Mr. Treuenfels referred to Objective 4, Policy 3-B and recommended the
v�ord "should" be changed to "will".
T�Ir. Boardmar. stated that all the statements should be consistent with
the use of the word "should" or "will".
Ms. Hughes stated that Policy 3 had been changed to "promote and support".
Mr. Harris referred to Policy 3-A and asked why it should be limited
to residents. He suggested the words "and business" be added after the
word "residents".
The Commissioners concurred. The Commissioners also agreed to delete
the word "assist" and insert the words "resource recycling, composting,
and source reduction".
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECI,ARED THE PdOTI0P1
CARRTED UNANIi�TOUSLY. •
Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10i05 P.PJI. and reconvened the
meeting at 10 � 20 P. D�I.
CRITICAI, AREASi
Tdr. Boardman statefl that the Environmental Quality Commission and the
Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this section and had recommended
limited changes. 3ie would like to see those changes approved.
PI,ANNING COTlII�1ISSION P�IEETING, AUGUST 8, � 1979 PAGE 14
I+tr. Treuenfels referred to Objective 1, Policy 1-D and asked how that
related to the River area?
I�Ir. Deblon stated that they would develop river appreciation programs,
etc.
Mr. Haxris referred to Policy 1-F and asked why that was included?
1�Ir. Boardman stated that it was allowed south of 694.
bir. Haxris stated that it should be a clearer statement to that effect.
Mr. Boardman suggested they insert the words "where allowed" after the
word "Iocation" in Policy 1.
The Commissioners agreed.
D4r. Harris referred to Policy 1-G and asked if that referred to a
barge terminal?
P�tr. Boardman stated that they meant something like a marina, or something
commercial that relates to the river. He stated that there was a state-
ment later on regarding bar�e terminals. He stated that he would have
no problem with elirainating Policy 1-F and Policy 1-G.
The Commissioners agreed. Policy I-F and 1-G would be de2eted.
P�Yr. Harris referred to Objective 2 and stated that he had a problem
viith what it didn't say. He would be opposed to the City acquiring
any land that is now developed for residential use along the river.
Tt doesn't say they are going to do that but doesn't say they aren't
either. Policy 1-A bothered him.
Mr. Boardman stated that it stated "where possible".
Ms. Hughes stated that she flidn't see any problem vaith acguiring R-1
property if it vras available and if it can be brought.
P�9r.Harris statsd he was concerned about the other alternatives. He
was concerned about condemnation.
Pnr. Boardman stated that was possible but not always feasible.
tdr. Harris stated that he wanted to officially register his opposition
to the City acquiring any R-1 developed property along the river.
P.7s. Hughes stated that it should also be on the record that Mr. Harris
lives there.
b7r. Harris stated that it shou7.d also be on the record that the tlayor,
the City Dlanager, and the City Clerk also live there.
Mr. Boardman noted that they were not protesting this,
Mr. Deblon suggested they delete the word "possible" in Policy 1-A and
insert the word "available".
Mr. Harris a�reed. �
PLANT�IIPdG COt^:P.TISSION MEETING AUGUST 8 1999 PAG� 15
TQs. Hughes stated that she did not think they were looking at condem-
nation in the foreseeable future but did not want to close the door
either,
Mr. Harris stated that all the land along the river was zoned for
residential and multiple and there was nv vacant land for access.
The access is limited.
P.Zr. Lan;enfeld stated that he sees a trend where government steps in
and the common people have to step aside.
Mr. Harris agreed.
P,7s. Hughes stated that it was a question of how �ou define "public good".
In some cases "public good" outweighs property rights. She did not feel
anybody was going overboard in this community.
D4r. Harris agreed to leave the statement as it stands but did want his
opposition to condemnation recorded.
PRs. Schnabel referred to the Fi54C property mentioned in Policy 1-B,
td[r. Boardman stated that ti*as undeveloped property and when it was
developed, they were looking at access along the river. Iie also stated
that the Riverview Heights Park is in the flood plain and they were
looking at acquiring that ior access into the river.
bSs. Schnabel stated that the difference was that the Park was already
City property but FI,ZC was not. It is not consistenz with the statement
in Policy 1 which refers to publicly owned lands.
114r. Boardman agreed that Has a good point. He recommended they delete
the reference to FP�ZC property.
The Commissioners concurred.
P�Ir. Treuenfels stated that he would like the bi�tC prcperty incorporated
in a policy someplace in here.
T�Is. Hughes recommended they add it as another policy or make it Policy 2,
Mr. Boardman suggested they word it as follows� "The City should identify
and acquire and develop other available lands for river access."
A4r. Harris stated that was r.ot consistent with the Housing Policy.
Mr, Boardman stated that it didn't mean they had to acquire the whole
property, just a portion for access.
ri?r. Harris stated that he had no objection to the FP+TC property,
T�7r. Treuenfels asked what constitutes "available" land?
P4r. Boardman stated that meant land for �ale or land with a willing
seller.
PLANI9IS�G COR1I%IISSION t�]FETIPIG, AUGU5T 8, 1979 PAGE 16
t,1r, Harris referred to Policy 1-G.
bir, Boardman stated that they changed "encourage" to"allow".
P�ir, Harris stated that he had reservations about tree cutting on the
river banks. I�e was concerned about erosion.
Prir. Boardman stated that this was restricted to pruning, not clear
cutting. .
P�4s. Schnabel noted that Objective 2, Policy 2-B prohibited barge
fleeting areas.
NOTIOtd by b4s. Hughes, seconded by P�Ir. Treuenfels, to approve as amended,
the section on Critical Areas in the Comprehensive Plan.
UPOI1 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CiiAIRb4AN HARRIS DECLARED THE t�IOTTON
CARRILD UNANIi:TOUSLY,
P�10TION by tSs. Schnabel, seconded by P�Ir. Langenfeld, to continue the
discussion on the Comprehensive Plan,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPr1AN HfIRRIS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIIti70USZY.
7. COP1TINtiEDs PROPOSED CHAPdGES TO CHAPT�B 20 ZQNINGe
IDi0TI0N by P:Ts. Schnabel, seconded by Pir, Langenield, to continue the
discussion on Chapter 205 Zoning.
UPON A VO3Cr VpTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, CN� IRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE T�lOTION
CARRI�D UIdANIT:TOUSLY.
8. RECfiIV� �I�TVIROivtQEP1TAL QUALITY COP:�t,TISSION D'IINUTED � JULY 1? 1979 i
B70TI0:1 by r�Ir. Langenfel@, seconded by Pdr. Treuenfels, to receive the
Enviroi�mental Quality Commission minutesg
T=2s. IIughes referred to page 3, second to the last paragraph, regarding
the statement by Dtr. Deblon about the Spring Brook crossing. She asked
if that was what he meant?
Mr. Deblon stated th� referred to a crossing in Blaine.
P1tr, Zangenield stated that at the end of the minutes, it was noted that
they had an audience not only £rom Pridley but also from other communities
regardin� the impact sta�ement regarding Trunk Highway 10. We indi�ated
to them that we were r_ot fuZly aFVare as to what was taking place. They
invited them to come again v�hen more information has been acquired.
PLANNING COfdPnIS5I0N P�EETItJG, AUGUST 8, 1979 PAGE 17
P�4r. Deblon stated that he had written a letter to the District 5
Project Manager and requested a copy of the �IS for the Cor,imission,
a copy of the final EIS, which will be available at the end of the
year, and also, a copy of statements made at public hearings, He
understood that a decision will be made within six weeks.
D4r. Langenfeld referred to page 7 of the minutes regarding their motion
to become a member of the North blanagement Committee.
btr. Harris asked for what reason we would want to become a member?
Highway 10 does not run through the City o£ Fridley.
Mr. Deblon stated that the I�4anagement Committee was not for High�vay 1Q.
They consider them two sepa.rate projects. One can be developed without
�he other. They could have the crosstown without the relocated Highway
10, and vice versa.
Plir. Langenfeld
to stay on top
He felt that a
meetings.
stated that the reason they wanted to be a member was
of the situation and to be in#'ormed of all meetings.
proper representative of Fridley should be at the
n4r. Deblon stated that the crosstown river crossing will effect us
directly tb so�e extent.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIPIG AYE, CHAIRr+1AN HARRIS D�CLARED THE PflOTION
TO RECEIVE THE P,ZIPNTE5 CARRIED UNAtIIT;IGiISLY.
R! TION by t;ir. Langenfeld, seconded by i:7s. Hughes, that the Planning
Commissimi adhere to the i:nviron:nental @uality Commission motion to
recommend to Council that the City of F'rTdley become a member of the
North P:;anagement Committee.
Nir. Boardman stated that all we could do was to request that the City
become a member. He v+as not sure that we could be a member just be-
cause we want to be. The Committee is made up of city personal from
the various communities involved. 1Ve could attend the management
meetings and the public meetings are open, but we would not have the
voice of a member.
UPON A VOIGE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPIAN HARRIS DECI,ARED TH�.MOTION
CARRIED UNAS4IMOUSLY.
N4s. Hughe� noted that there was another motion on page 7 regarding a
public hearing on the Northtovm Corridor.
P�Zr. Harris stated that he felt this was premature.
TvI0TI0N by P"ir. Langenfeld, secor.ded by T:Zr. Treuenfels, that the Planning
Commission recommend that a hearing be called on the Northtown Corridor.
PLANNING C01'�Ii3ISSI0N b1EETIPJG, AUGUST 8, 1979 PAGE 18'
IdOTIOTJ by Ivi�. Hughes, seconded by R4r. Treuenfels, to table the motion
by Mr. Langenfeld to call a public hearing on the Northtovm Corridor.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRIi4AN HARRIS DECLARED THE L10TION
CARRTED UNANIP�IOUSLY.
i2
b90TI0Td by PJlr. Langenfeld, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the
July 23, 1979 Special Ehvironmental Quality minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTTi�'G AYE, CHAIRt�1AN HARRIS DECLARED THE P�IOTZON
CARRIED UNANIPrL0U5LY.
10 . RECi IVE ENERGY PROJECT COP�II'.'IITT�E P.1II3UTES : JULY 24�„i 1979 t
MOTIOPI by h'ir. Langenfeld, seconded by Tr:s. Schnabel, to receive the
.Ttzly <^..L%, 1979 mir_utes of the Energy Project Committee.
P�1r. Zangenfeld int�oduced 2vIr. Dean Saba and Prs. GiZes r�icConville
and stated that he felt that they had done an excellent job on the
�nergy'Project Committe.
D4s. Schnabel referred to page 4 of the minutes regarding the Committee
continuing. It rvas indicatPd that the members were willing to continue
to serve and she felt it was worthwhile for the Council to consider
that.
R2r, Langenfeld stated that the Committee had indicated that they would
like the title of a full fledged ComMission rather than a Committee.
Mr. Harris stated that he would like 'to think about that.
IIIr. Boardman stated that making it a commission would involve a staff
person and offered alternatives as to how it could be handled. They
could transfer that flznction from one area to another. For example,
the Community Development is an active commission and they co�id look
at this as a role of that commission.
T+4r. Harris suggested they think about it and put it back on the agenda
for futher discussion.
btr. Langenfeld stated that the members would like to remain in tact.
UPON A VOICy VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRP+iAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PQOTION
CARRIED.
P�ZOTIoN by Lir. Langenfeld, seconded by fl1r. Treuenfels, to receive the
Energy Project Committee Report.
PLANNII�G COP�1��fIS5ZON P�1}'sETING, AUGUST 8, � 1979 PAGE 19
tQr. Langenfeld stated that at the esi:ablishment of the Committee,
certain goals and objectives were set for them to address. One of
the end re�ults was the Chart. The scope indicates that everything
has been addressed.
Mr. iiarris stated that the Committee had done an excellent job.
t�ir. Langenfeld referred to the last sentence in the Scope which states
it is NOT the intent of this Policy to formulate precise procedures or
to caiegorize specific actions based upon the availability of iue3s
used. In other words, they weren't going to come up with a cure for
all energy problems.
Mr. Harris stated that he thought they had done what they were asked
to do and he was pleased with the results.
Ms. Schnabel referred to the term "district heating" under Residential
Conservation, and asked what that meant?
D4r. Langenfeld stated that a simple explanation would be using one
boiler to heat more than one huilding.
t�4r. Saba stated that a 1oca1 pov+er plant could also be used in residen-
tial areas. He stated that 66J of the energy that the Riverside
Power Plant burns to make electricty goes up in air. That is energy
in the form of heat. 2�' they could capture that heat and use it, it
would be quite a savinas. It would be a more efficient use of water
heat.
Mr. P,icConville stated that the Gity of St. Paul was already using that
system in some buildings downtown.
P+4s. Hughes stated that density was usually a prerequisite to doing that
effectively.
Ms. Schnabel also stated that she had noted that under res�dential, there
was no specific reference to solar heat. 5he asked if that rvas deliberate.
bir. tdcConville stated that was because solar heat, at this poini, is
not practical.
t!Is. Schnabel stated that she had noted that under Transportation they
had listed electric cars first. She asked if this list was according to
priorities?
IDfr. Saba stated thai this was a list of things they might want to look
at and they might add to the list. It was not tlieir intention to list
them in order of prz.ority or importance.
b45. Schnabel stated that she would be more comfortable if they moved it
to the bottom of the li5t.
4,4r. Treuenfels stated that he would like to take issue with that and he
felt it should remain at the top. ,
Y�2r. Saba reiterated that the list was not according to priorities.
PLANNII3G COP�u'1ISSIOPd Fil:ETIPiG AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 20 �
Mr. Boardman referred to the Transportation section and asked if
they didn't mean local level rather than state level. '
Pnr. 5aba stated that was correot. •
Tds. Hughes referred to D-Information Resources, and suggested they
look at other things such as the Housing Resource Center or the new
Nature Center.
Mr. Saba a�reed.
Ms. Hughes also stated that under Tranaportation they should also
be looking at alternatives to new road construction.
Mr. Saba stated that they had included bikeway and walking path
improvement to make it more practical to use the bicycle or to walk.
Mr. McConville stated that they should start looking at bikes as
transportation rather than just recreation.
T�dr. Saba stated that they should look at road construction at some
point in time.
UPOPd A YOICE VOT�, ALL VOTING AY�, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE P�10TION
CARRILD UNANII'�70USI,Y.
P�10TION by P,4r. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to continue the
discussion on the energy report.
UPOTd A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PilOTIOAT
CARRIED Ul`IANIETOUSLY.
11. RECiIVE APPEALS COP.'�:ISSION iytINUTES s JULY 24, 1979 �
b10T70N by P:Zs. Schnabel, seconded by 2�1r. Treuenfels, to receive the
July 24, 1q79, minutes of the Appaals Commission.
Mr. Harris asked about the request in the flood plain.
Ms. Schnabel stated that it had been continued at the request of
the petitioner.
iJPON A VOICE V03'�, A%L VOTING AYE, CHAIRt,1ATd HARRIS DECLARED THE P�ZOTIOYI
CARRIED UNAPdIDiOUSLY.
12. CONTIPdUT'.D: DISCUSSION ON CONVERSION OF RENTAI, PROPERTY TO
INUZVIDUAL OWi�;ERSHIY PROPLRTYi
Ms. Schnabel stated that no action was required here because it had
been sent to the Conmunity Development Commission for study.
PLAATPIING COP•'�RISSION TiFETITdG, AUGUST 8, 1979 - PAGE 21
OTHER�
Mr.Harris requested ihat the minutes from the Special 1�leeting oP
the Planning Commission on August 1, 1979, be placed on the agenda
for the approval at the next meeting.
Mr. Deblon stated that he had talked with the Alderman and their
Housing Authority had approved the revised ordinance and their attorney
felt it was constitutional with the exception of some of the stipulations.
PROTIOPd by P�Is. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to adjourn the
Au�ust 8, 1979, meeting of the Planning Commission.
UPOn' A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTItQG AYE, CHAIRI�GAN iiARRIS DECLARED THE
Tc1B�TING ADJOURN�D AT 1� t 00 P. UI.
Respectfully submitteds
� `�i ���.� �.
Kathy S elton, Recording Secretary
. - , ;
�
, i
PUBLIC HEARING � -21
BEPORE THE I
PIANNINr, COh1MISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the
Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, August 8, 1979
in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: -
Consideration of a request for a Special Use
Permit, SP #79-10, by Excalibur Homes, Inc.,
Per Section 205.157, 5, D, of the Fridley
City Code, to allow the construction of two
new dwellings in CPR-2 Zoning (flood Plain)
on Lots 27, 28, 29 and 30> Block 5> Riverview `
Heights, the same being 8125 and 8137 Riverview
Terrace N.E.
Any and a» persons desiring to be heard shall be given an.opportunity
at the above stated time and p]ace.
RICHARD H. HARR?S
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COP1MISSION
Publish: July 25, 1979
August 1, 1979
CI7Y Of FRIDLGY MINNESOTA ' �
PLANNING AND ZONING FORM
NUMBER SP-79-10
APPLICANT'S SIGNA7URE F.x a �h+�yr Hom_�a�• Tn�
,
Addtess _7625 Hwv 65 NE M�ls Ma 55432
Telephor� Number 78fi-6914
PROPERTY 0{4NER'S SIGNATURE
Address
)
�
TYPE OF REQUEST
Rezoning
��
X Special Use Permit
Approval of Premin-
. inary � Final Plat
Streets or Alley
' Vacations
Other
Telephone Number '--
(/3.�� Fee�QReceipt No, P� ��
Street Location of Progerty $125 S Riverview Terrace
Legal Description of Property �t$ 2� thrn 30, Block S, Riverview Hieghts
Present Zoning C2assification R 1 Existing Use of Property_ Vacant
Acreage of Property 100 X 110 Describe briefly the proposed zoning classificatios.
. '
or type of use and improvement proposed Two Single Family Residence 3m�ES 6� SO
-- 1 � � . i . i � n d . y �
Has the present app14'cant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it?__yes X no.
What was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this app]ication.
(b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility £or any defect in the proceedings
xesulting from the failure to list the names and addresses ot alI residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the
follotaing: 1. North Airection. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
' 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet)
The undersigned hereby deciares that all the facts and representations stated in this
application are true and correct.
DATE �uly 12,�1479 ;
Date Filed Date of Hearing
P1lnning Commission Approved
(dates) Denied
HOMES,
City Council Approved
(dates) Denied
MA1L1N6 LIST
Request for a special Use Permit �
SP �79-10, and variance by Excalibur
Homes, Inc. on Lots 27 through 30
Block S.
Excalibur Hames, Inc.
7625 Hwy. 65 N.E.
Mpls, MN. 55432
Roger Olson & Connie M
696 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
John & Karleen Rice
683 Glencae Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Planning Commission 7-20-79
Appeals Commission 7-20-79
�I
� ' 23
,'
Casper Y. Dosch
677 Nugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Howe George F. & Connie E11iot
•695 Hugo Street N.E.
• Fridley, MN 55432
Chester & Margaret Schack
685 Glencoe �ireet N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Viola M. Teig
Rout l
Isanti, MN 55�40
Thomas J. Dalton
1420 Silver lake Rd.
Nevt Brighton, MN 55112
Allan C. Mattson
7950 E. River Rd.
Mpls., MN 55432
Daniel L. & Pamela J. St. Clair
81A1 Riverview Serrace
Fridley, MN 55432
Gerald A& Jeanine E. Blille
680 Hugo Street N.E.
• Fridley, MN 55432
Richard A. & Magdaline E. Burgess
6%0 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Douglas & Patricia Cloutier
666 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
t�ary 5. Masonick
669 Hugo Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
a
Donald & Porothea Schneppmueller
8151 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
N V - . .
` . �1�\ ` •. •
Robert M. Lindbloom
8181 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
Kim D& Vicki J. Wall
8065 Riverview Terrace
Fridley, MN 55432
Robert 6. & Vaughncille G. Johnson
680 Glencoe Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Joel & Kathleen Dumphy
670 Glencoe Street N.E.
Fridley, MN __ 55432
....__ _.. ..__.... _ .-- _._....._ ..._ ... ...... ......___ _.. ..,�
,�u
`iGe.rftr `lluifJiu�.'. °d'nok,�. °Alraurnor:�. SSJ03
yo,nograPhr'C Survev �nA Pro���sed �radin� P/a�
, SP #79-10, Excalibur Homes, Inc. �
iar '
CERrIFlED HO�YIES, /NC,
. 7/��i p�vPaseJ �i!`tn f fo�w�� �:c so.rry �x� A.mi upon nixJ ,rAyiJ bt us�d
le�/�ir/' �w7b L}�/iiim/r nf Sw'.ryr dm�tri B�+^%/ I/ /97Y rr //: �'/F�d. d/a<k $�
o.d /a!i ?9�30, d'vnG S a// in !�r �/o/ e/' N/vENr�rv N. /Gi/Ti•, .sa„�(o Cw�+/y, �I.:m../a.
e„r,� � �.�° �� ,�a�°c
�' S,fR�� }�` `��,r
0�
r' O � � �`� -�1�
�V� �, �/ S �� . .�
�
V I{
1
24
i
i
N.C.VQ Ytrf:eo/ Oofun
.(EttA! • ptnoles fi+il:.y fkvofi:au �
f i[•YI.� �Q.�nlu fiyaud Ek.oF+a,x
�
�R,� ��;^'/ �� ��'.d � �'� �v �a . . Benchmork:
/ � � fi/r Hyd�on/ f lop af odi.v/.n9 n�iJ
1 C 1� n'7' �` ��11 ��'J . ,g b� . al fAe ra/<rsec/i>rt of .4:'vervlew
1 �, `� � j `! � f i l`` p\ Yt�/xt o�' Fo �mon/ Sfierl
�(4 ,,,l' \ �'.
O �(f � � }i�"5e • fl ��CYOt%O!1 ' B�.J.O.$� ifGf
x �����' Sfor4 i tazzs) ;
. � \ •Q� � / � .,/ � �E.�J1I o __ ~F•A[S /
iS ��
y b 1
�� �
� ow 4.
�rO�° _ ,
� t�YtM � p�`
� o
� < °_°. c
R1 � °
ua � �. \
� °
tda �
� ��
S _�
{ � ��
O \
i
n 4
� i
°� �
� •
�
. �
�
0
�`�
N �
N�
.b
' A
'nI.IP• Ji-l7
..�.�I. "v pAR� �Z'�i
1:�2 e,�rp
� iJ � ..
�
' w6 .� � r� � h' �..
eno y" #
/^G, �� '�
r .�
� � �
// ��JF�� >
� � -i i
�� :�5- �g'C�
� C�& /
o� J' ��
n � �>
�'tl o�� 0�
'v i ed
� „' ° ` p�'�v"
��.. , \/��/•
O . /�
� g P" �
� N�s.' �`
cR _. ��
6/ �` .,.�:'----ry�;
���g.i }� � 'Lt.
� � � LB �
\ ��J
, .`02` I ,
' Qa .�3
pf�Pa � Ga��b��,a,7
F,n��M° s..c i2�%
0
\�
�
- � �
ZOb� '•` ;16
�101 �e �L e
`0 6+ t� i, i
y+, 1 ,.
, e,. � \ �
,�si ti�°� '•.1 �,t�
_ \4} , �., L�"
��gy4oT '/ M.-�� 5�°�
, d g: p �11
PrO�Se�°`JSe , � `e2
o k �0 1� 4
N Y
i j� ° r ��'
, .��] g'- �: �
i).Y�. `E �y� .
,,�>, t�.
f�'�''�9 �.�_'il��U�, �I/} ".$,n..
����"� .in6�1':.. `�i
��
� s;z� d�o 55B� .
B�
`Bg3
f
� " .�:or.. l0� Ye 5f eur7—
"�.o
U
` nl
ee.aaa� By2'
rrw:3c...7f_ t
�/ \ ,
� �
� f�.. a �
.- p, • �� �P.
�.�rys. �`�TI
efCu�d ' f�
�.,� Z St�rNouze
F�a'"e `U�
/2 � -r�� ���,
L L� :..� w 1.�� �' �. C) .
\ ,w � �
� � c�� e `� �E�
°��i� �,a�' S�R .
> J
���` ���N��e .
I.� uNs a, A �
u,6„¢�. �tQuATau
T�}AN i7aaof k1T �iw„mr..y
, :.�..,,: ,.<<,,, ,,,, ,,,,. .. �,..
r;;,,,r . . �:rt�•9 h�: cc r,t.�t nir elrrct
iu�.��vi.l,�.... u.n� I .. �'�,�:� R.�;I�tr�..l
9. . .ut•'.rq ,..i.lu� tl...•'�.n.... t1� .�e1. .n
1i �.,�.
.7
'll�Lwi�_...P"^f.,�i:�-�.___ .. _ ..
� � A
� ,....^..'...: 7 �'� �.. .. . �. .
N E; .
CITY COUPICIL
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
FRIDLEY� MIMlESOTA 55432
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS:
JULY 23, 1979
. 25
RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF MINIMUvi
PROPER7Y REQUIREMENT —
LOTS 27 S 28� BLOCK 5, AND
LO1'S 29 & 30, BLOCK 5,
RIVERVItIJ NEIGHTS
AS IS OBVIOUS BY THE ATTACHED DTAGRPMS, THE LOTS FOR WHICH WE SEEK THE ABOVE
VARIANCE FALL SHORT OF FRIDLEY'S MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIREMQJT. WE HAVE RESEN2CHED
ALL REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES PRIOR 70 SEEKING SUCH VARIANCE AND FfAVE CONCLUDED THAT
OBTAtNING THE VARIANCE POR EACH LOT TS THE aNLY FEASIBLE CAURSE OF ACTION.
THE FIRST AND FOREI�tOST CONSIDERATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE A80VE LOTS IS
THE SUITABILITY OF THE L1WD FOR C�PiSTRUCTION. WE FOIddD THAT SOTH LOTS ARE BELOW
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND THUS WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF FILL TO BRING THEM
TO BUILDIN� CONDITION. 7HE ES7IM4TED CQST OF REQUIRED FILL PER LOT IS $4,000. IF
THE LOTS WERE COMBINED, A TOTAL COST OF' $8,000 WOULD BE ADDED TO A SII�LE PEICE
OF PROPERTY.
THE PRESETIT PRICE OF EACH LOT IS $6,500. IF THE LOTS WERE COMBINEp, THIS
PRICE WOULD DOUBLE TO $13,000. ADDED TO THE CQST OF THE REQUIRED F�LL FOR THE
COMBJNED LOT, THE PRICE � THE LOT WOULD THEN BE $21,U0�. OBVIOUSLY THIS SUM
WWLD BE FAR OUT OF THE CURRENT PRICE RANGE FOR THE AREA.
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION ALONG THESE LINES IS THE COST OF SODDING� A REQUIREMtTl7
OF THE CITY. THE AGGREGATE COST OF SODDING THE TWO LO7S IS $2,400. IF THE LOTS
PIERE COMBINED, THIS ENTIRE COST WOULD BE PASSED ONTO �IE PEICE OF PROPERTY,
INCREASING THE PRICE OF A SINGLE LOT WHICH IS ALREADY OUT OF ITS MARKET RANGE.
SHOIR.D A VARIANCE BE GRANTED THE ABOVE LISTED COSTS CPN BE DIVIDED PUTTING
7FiE PRICE IN THE ARFA OF $12,000 WHICH IS CERTAINLY IN LINE WTTH CURRENT PRICES
OF THE AREA.
CONTINGENT UPON RECEIVING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY 0� FRIDLEY, WE HAVE PUT
7625 HIGHWAY 65 N. E. • FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 � 786-6911
2s �
;�
TO�ETHER A PROPOSED HDME PACKP&E FOR EACH OF THE LOTS. THE TOTAL PACKPGE WAS
PRICED AT $67,000. BOTH PACKAGES WERE SUBMITTED FOR PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TO THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION FOR FINANCE APPROVAL AND APPRAISAL. THE PROSPECTIVE
BUYERS ARE APPROVED FOR V.A. MORTGAGES. THE V.A. APPROVED BOTH HOMES AS THEY
ARE PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON THE TWO LOTS. HOWEVER� THE APPRAISAL GIVEN TO
THE PACKAGE WAS ONLY $63�000. THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL WAS
�OPISIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORING AREA. THIS DFJ�IONSTRATES FdGAIN, THE IMPRACi'IBILITY
OF COMBINING THE TWO LOTS TO BE MARKETED AS A SINGLE LOT FOR A PRICE OF $23,400,
DCCLUSIVE OF ANY AC7UAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE. _. ,
ATTACHED ARE THREE DIAGRlSMS 11�BLED A, B, AND C. DIAGRMI A DEPICTS THE SAME
HOUSE PROPOSED FOR EACH OF THE TWO EXISTING LOTS ON A SINGLE COMBINED LOT. WITH
THE ADDED EXPENSE OF THE SECOND LOT, THTS HOME WOULD IdOW COST $72,250. EVEN TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL 11>ND ENCOMPASSED IN THE PACKAGE, THE APPRAISAL
WOULD NO7 EVETI COME CLOSE TO THE WRCHASE PRICE, ESPECIALLY AS IT WAS NOTED THAT
ADJOINING AREA COMPARABLES WAS THE RFASON FOR'THE LOWER APPRAISAL GIVEN TO WR
PROPOSED PACKAGES. AS INDICATED IN THIS DIAGWSM, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE PROPERTY
PlOULD CERTAINLY BE INCREASED, HOWEVER THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD NOT WARRANT SUCH
AN EXTREME PRICE FOR THIS TYPE HOME.
DIAGRAM B SHOWS A T—SHAPED I-�ME, 28� BY 46' WITH A FORhV�L FOYER AND A 24' BY
30� ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS IS THE SIZE HOME THA'f 4t0U�D FIT THE COMBINED SINGLE
LO7. THE COST OF THIS HOME WOIRD BE $87,900. AGAIN, OUT PRICED FOR THE ARFJ1.
FURTHER, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD NOT CHANGE AND THE
DRP.INIkGE AREA TO THE SOUTH QF THE HOME WOULD INCREASE ONLY BY 2.5'•
DIPfRAM C SFiOWS A 24' BY 40' HOME WITH A 20' BY 24' ATTACHED GARP&E SITUATF�
IN I.INE WITH EXISTIt�G HOMES. 'Ifl THIS INSTANCE, THE DRAINAGE AREAS �1 BOTH THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE HOME REMAIN THE S/aME. THE PRICE OF THIS FIOME WOUID
BE $74,900 ALSO OUT OF THE AREA PRICE RANGE.
IT SHOULD BE
BETWEEN 7HE H�1E5
CONTROL THE MEANS
PROBLtT1S.
NOTED THAT THE SHORT SInE LOTS OF OUR TWO PROPOSED HOMES ARE
THAT CERTIFIED WOULD CONSTRUCT. WE WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO
OF DRAINAGE IN THIS MTNIMAL AREA TO INSURE P&AINST ANY DRAINAGE
WE WWLD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION WERE PLATTED PRIOR TO
THE ESTABLISFN1ENT � THE MINIMI.M PROPERTY DIMENSION REQUIRF1�lENT. WE BELEIVE THAT
THIS IS A POINT OF CONSIDERATION. HAD THESE PLATS BEEN RECOP,DED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
hJZiJIMI�I STANDARD, WE WOULD NOT BE ENCOUNTERING OUR CURRENT PROBLEM.
WE FEEL THAT THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS EVIDENCE THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE HOMES PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING LOTS WOULD ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC ASPECT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADD TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS
4AULD CERTAINLY BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THEIR PRESENT STATES AND WE DO NOT FORSEE THAT
THE ADJOINING HOMES WOULD INCUR ANY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
hIOMES.
WE TFIANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
VERY T ULY YOURS�
� i
RNi-L'—P"R BORG
yICE'PRESZDENT
.� �if�l��ll'\ 11��11 11NN111111�'Ilf
�.•.urnq. .Imm� n�r n�.nnuvl
w.ih� 1 �•
dAeJWM A.
.x'x aJ rla�+e
ruuc covo�a e�a.
d%�,4d0
6G9lEt /��.1p'
' 43! • dl011 �
`ICeirrr �lYl. Gr�.�1r.�mi
R.nnd °e5arveyur •Z7
ihcarcr `IlailJi���. :Anuka. °Alinnrsut�. 55303
yopQgraphic Surrey vnd Pr�op�sed G'rad�9 P/o�
ivr : �
CER7/FlEO HONiES, /NC. � I
ihu propaieJ o%n F/q�ropf.e n'vey rxr A�m/ i� anJ ,d.w/✓ br n+id � ' .
laydbe/' w./b Cerl/i'iavle' ef Swv�r do/t�i Nµ�:l 1I /Y➢Y /'w� /oJt Z7i?8. b/e�k. S. -
pnd /a/i ?9i� [�lvcF 9 a// in !At �/u/ eF 9/YfRY/fW //f/GH7S� 9�o Cwn�y �I/iwk�e%,
A!6Y.Q ✓Nf:ao/ Oaf�m
� ���� . � . . � . . �(ttfq •Q`ro✓et Fi.i/�.y Fbrof.w+.
NU�� S i� � �
� iRL•X7/.Oe.eo/r�Prcpo+edEk.el.on
/ _ Benchmo�k � .
� � f!i'e Nyd�on/ (/op oPodw/.iiy n../J
/ � \ � o/ /� d+/vmd:un ef Rrve�v:ew
I n'7' `^ �� 1 4 i e\ 7e�{are wlo' Fni}mn� S��<ef.
� �. �' / �/ ..ii r � Se . � \ �,�
Ndt �;�, � Elevnfian • e25.o5 rrri
�\ ' Sf�Y Fra� r,�=.s�g�'Sa�'
� ecieir a � . .
\ O 3 15.fi8/ j. �ti ..� .ti\ � � . � . � . .
t
��g �p:e;;i�� �1�°g� �o �° `9tit �`,.A �
� , � \
/ �a �+�'� � .,` a; .,�t�Sw�� i � �
� p6 1 y' • 8. . .
. / � /1� � .�.'1� Bt� Y� � t0� . .
V "' - M,.,�+ ' l d � f
I -a 'e °� \ �
��d o ��, P(°�S!{ptlSe `0�t,'�\� . _
70 0 �- �, \ , 95 �- � ` � �. . . ..- � - . . �
L ro s..° \�\.�; � A a6 f�� � 0ti�o1 �..\ �,��
mM �
� o ��°�"�'��.� �e ti i1j5'?.:• � � Zot��d� i„ .
� m O � �r� � � ..�p.l s + Q .
�' m � � % y��'� V� ' P�b�. . p �. � . . .
�.d� � � \ �-'����� �Y• e�1a� � leti� a � 11 �` �
en 1 �' pptYE�A �. ' o�,/,�A*Se�{nus� Zaa �eti� ,� ` ,�
- � � f 1 d M.Nl6 ti1'
c`.�ia o'� `---- � .�� Pt � P vN°' `k�� N 1 r' �1 . `g � .
2. � � ro g � �� d �ns � F�r� ,q„ w `��:• �•� \
`°a- —O ° � � Yn �' � , � �, � i
; � ���P° � ..; � -, k,,r �� -1 = \
J - `
b � , \ �i �l �95�,M.'=.- " 6 1 ���� �, 4•4R,. 7 . .
� (� Y
i . ' Q i \` t� �� b ss a_
.. \_.L-.' t/�� se
� �' $ � % eC,`"-- `�' �AR'
. � � �=
ct� `b . �x�i� .. T�
4., ' 7J r, �•' ,
�. 70 , °���e°rr �e.,e Z Sfo��o�Se
� m�sr � M�
� �� h N�.. � � %�a � . �
n � " ta\ 8
� s. �z '
.�. � a. � � ,�.�.. .� ^ - •j.^
- � 7'J \ �. ?> .. L/ : '. :. J y :, r� �/
0 3\ N
. � Wry r'R q\ � / ,
o� , P\��/� S,�REE1
.�� c�� ,
• G��IJ
'`-� �
_.. .. _ �._..._.__._.�._.x�..._.._.. �....... ___, .,�.�.R,.. _..,..,,_._.....�.
�1 — - . .
�.�._h�.::. ,..
.,,,n.. u+,n unumm.•ni � ��lilTlf �.. I.IRAJfrthJ
„�a. .�w,,,n .���• .�.,��u„•d `I.a�uf `�urxer•or .
4,. �' �'
�TliCatnr �13uilding. `rtnoka. "hliiuirsuta. 53303
0lREPAM 8.
at' e aG' Nawe
WQYL}L fbYER
pt�� ?4' 6A.PAOE
��i '�87,4W.
� bC'AfE� /pc.'t0� I
421 • 411)0 �
2g
T'opographic Survey ond Pr�c�posed G'radi�� P/an
far �
�r.n�r�,rrrn �l.'►A4,r.^ !A/r'
rh.:, prop.uJ ol�n e' l'?wY��/✓+•'e furvry .ar'� lv.r✓ ��n uw1 �u.1✓ fw vsed
/,y�Mrr s,/b !'Ml�Ti v/ nP gur. ��. Jm�e✓ .4jw•:l /I 1979 iw fa/� ?71Y8, Nuk S,
.x.k/ /o/s P9i.i0 A£c.! S o// in !tit pLl oF N/YCNY/fH' //f/CNTS /ln.�i�o C u+ly N:.�m-rela. � .
S�REE�
r0 �
I� �
�r .
KC.Y.Q ✓vi•<o7 Daknn
alBlrl! • �exlet Er•i/.�+9 Ekroleint
, ec•erz� �aeno<<, �,ed Fk.+�%.a",
NU' .
/ . penchmo�-/r �
� /
� / n'Y r� ') / :' % '
i i: / J ✓i � ' SG
• ,, No�
\ f�a,�e
`�� , . f St��Y , 11l
aa
. � 7, N°, ro t V\�35
� �
.� ° \
� ^� �
. _ (Tl M .°�'
'�` 6
Z (-� m � V
3 \ `�
� � �. , <"�
�
� ��
�
'L —�
� 7 _� §l,
S. `� \
0
�
�
4' • �
�
�
n
�
�
�
� 'l—�.
�
� -�,
O
�
�
\
s) 0��q�� \
�
v�s.6g� i`�r' ! y�
�I' iibg-.' � +` `etti
`'\ :°,• '
� _..1 �;1
�✓��Nt ��py. 9�"
ProFoSe�QU� �a
�� 'r�'���'. ,
f,n ('+
e �
�, + r � X- .-
g ,- �• -::- 1 �Fs,�
, oW `� � 1 _
`X, d ��
Q �}.Y�"'', !. �,,f
1 \ ��:�� N'���� 6
(T �i5�,`�� �
° � �... .`_. `L-.
g �
� \ � �.
m k -%' '¢,,y,,�
TJ i � .YDP �fC+�O
. `A � .� Cd21.3)
� p1s•%
�''fl N
"� J \ �6 /
: ��J��
t. ✓ : ..�
��
"v
�
�
Fire NyJ�vnJ (/op af odwl�ng nu/1
ol !Ae .AJerleo/ion oJ' Rlverr�ew •
Yav'rx< and Fai�mon% Sfieel
fle.nfion • 825.a5 1'eef
�
\o
g
��
�.
fot �
y1�, \t �+Y w
�B ��a^ \� .•.
e` . \ ..�
�
0� .�� �.
\
1 �`�� i\ t�
_e11.d
ia.
O
�
y •-' �
J a `Bti111 � f
'•' 4�
et,sn0 b�''
,^ y `e
` � � . �,
N � , �
O •�
d� . '�
;"
'`-�.°. �, i � \ ..
i�" �� ° -�� � -
I�.i�a (°p,��J �aR
jJ
Z Sto�f�,,$e
0
C
f�a"' , �J%t.
��:1 � V i Y� .
... • � /
/� STRE�T
�O�
�� N
• iA�mnn nun unnnum�W
���d�wxa .liuxn sir .n.umrJ
�.,,n� r ro'
wesaw a.
k4 K �f0� MCME
�'V Ik` AfT.
�a��E
�'��� '�.
�i�l /�M��
�: �
...►
ry
�l' .
[.!'s
� .
cia
c.r�
x. ..,_
'�.r `4
�� ,
t�
� �
� !
�
� .
���
��
�
�7irrrrr �1 Gx,ir�nni
`I.and `�urvryor
`�7rrnlrr `)luilJioq. �Inuk�: "riliuursot�. 53303
ali aruu
� 29
�
iapographic Suryey and Proposed G'rodi�9 P/arr
iar :
CER77F/ED HOMES, 1N�
7bil prd/wltr/ µ4ln !/gwy�nµl,< 1u..ry ,'r. b.ic.! ufx�n n.x/ tAai/✓ be �rtd
/�rr/hs/' wrM fir/i%ieu/r OI' Sw'•qr dole✓ N�i/ // /979 i.r /e!� 77lP9. b/ork 8,
av✓ h✓i P�lPO, b.Wr�l J eN in !hr �+/✓/ e/' Nq'fN✓if+N //FICHiS, Niia4o Cavn/y ud�t+o%.
ST R��1 .
N��� ��
/ in
KGVQ ✓[/<uo/ Oofinn
dNtJ� • AvpRt fiidn9 fkrof:ev
�r[!•f.Y./ �Oe..n/es Rgw�ed lk.cl.:v.
8enchmo�k �
Fire Nyd�on! (!op o/' odw/:ny im/J
p/ !be �in/aett/iw+ o! Rivtrr.e.v
Te��ore ond Fo.i noni S��te/
E/erotian • 825 05 /'eet �
•�.l.- Y ���'
...�� . �..r.� I/
/
G��N�pE
.
v �q ; f\ l9 10 �. Z/
tL w +. �
�
� , us io
,
�i _ . __ _. . i A 7'�4• � ' 12
to� I 5 REv
:�
W � ^
� ����
O V� �.�
r y
r �.
� y ''�
.
a
� 1
'0 i�
� �
+
. W. !'!4 C •
SEG. 3 .
�
�, �m
,` �
Z�
�
-.-�..:.1
,+�= - �
K.t.T.�"t ( .
�'� � �
�it-� .t �
JC`�
. L
µ,' ,` �:'i
�, �!
A
j° � $.
0'y N 7
�
i1z� �Q
u
a
I
0
S j`?�b� 56SA . ��E �� (� 30 -T� :.�
� i °�-�M1i. ' �
�Ag � � �, , . �, i
,6.. 'SA� � . . � 1�
SP #79-10, Excalibur Homes, Inc.
/
l,'". . .. .• ' ' �, . - ;^i � �
al 5� � '� �
• '� � y ,� ��s :
.,.. � ' t , > ,
�Il,� .. � x 's3�_ _ ' -��-7 _ .
� °� :
,r5 d`'. "�`�� , js 3 s � ,, ,`,.9 t �
� '�. eV� 2 rs
y�a•9R���.1 I� 5�i y3 'rE'` f' N 5�(S: :
__
�F'= `ti39 S , �.���.'. .A �a`a -`e
1�� _1
N^
l `
Lil t
�
L�.1
'\_ \ �i
v�
t��;
=1- '
,,,
�,�',
// �
,
..+r-�—'��"" .
._,.,..�....,.....w` - .« �.
PU6LIC IiEARING
(3EFORE TNE
PLANHINr, C01•1MISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Publ�ic Hearing of the
Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
Universiiy Avenue Northeast on 4lednesday, August 22, 1979
in the Council Chamber at 7:3D P.M. for the purpose of;
Consideration of a request for a Special
� � Use Permit, SP #79-08, by Exemplar, Inc., .
. per Section 205.053, 3, D, to allow the
construction of a double bungalow in.R-1
zoning (single fami9y dwelling uniis),
on Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Shaffer's Sub-
' division No. 1, 7ying East of the West
- 90 feet thereof, the same being 7582-
� 7584 Able Street N.E. .
Any and all pQrsons desiring to be heard shal] be given an opportunity
at the above stated time and place.
� � RICHARD H, HARRIS
� CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: August 8, 1979
August 15, 1979
�
'31
n
,��
.-�.
CITY Of FRIDLHY MINNGSOTA
NUNf6ER #�%7�OS PLANNING AND ZONING fORM
�)c2r�piar, I�c.
APPLICANT�S SIGNATURE�p.�'J:�„/Rr�c .
! 3113 T ow.,v� eK. Ave. NE.�/'rplr. ssyi�
Address ^��-z�,—�j�-�/�-7i-7v�—��" ca.�r.—j
Telephone Number 7 8'1-/ Y Z 9
PROP�RTY OWNER�S SIGNATURE S a� Q
Address
Telephone Number
StreeC Location of Property 7Giti t Able 5� A(��Sw co.���
32
TYPE OF REQUEST
Rezoning
��� 3��(
�_ Special Use Permit
Approval af Premin-
inary $ Final Plat
Streets or Alley
Vacations
" ' Other
. /
Fee�Receipt No. ,3y
i
�SSalSS� G�
Legal Description of Property �ari oF �ofs I�� �/o�k 3 S1aFFert S�abd�v;s�o� /�0, �
ly�`.q Sart .F t1.c 4'est 90 Feet �tie�eoF� A..oka Cou iy, �"�n, �
Present Zoning Classi£ication � Existing Use of Property r/ �can � lo f
/5�V o �o—
Acreage of Property ly�,g � a sq, �{ Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification
--�---
, or type of use and improvement proposed �"o - bu i% r� d o c� b l bu n aa�ow
Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it?_�es X no.
IQhat was requested and when?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application.
(b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the
following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks.
4. Street Names, 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet)•
The undersigned hereby declares that all the £acts and representations stated in this
agplication are true and correct.
DATE � k � � /d. l979 SIGNATUR�G�i�e,av�'l,! �, S�r��Q^-�- _—
Date Filed Date of Hearing �� °�OY 79 �
tPlanning Commission Approved City Council Approved
` (dates) Denicd (dates) Uenicd^
MAILING LIST
SP #79-08, Exempiar, Inc.
Build Double bungalow in
R-1 zoning
Ed-Ray Builders
7651 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Exemplar, Inc.
Theodore Hosten Pres.
3213 Townview Avanwe N.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55418
Mr. & Mrs. William Jordan
895 76th Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. &"Mrs. Dale Schmidt
7696 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Breslin
7686 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. John Stanford
7676 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Dorothy M. Smuder
7666 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, 14n 55432
Ms. Oarlene Jones
7656 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Mr. John C. Bernardson
876 -76th Avenue N.E.
Fridley> Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Lein
7550 Able Street N.E.
Fridtey, Mn 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Irvin Luebeck
7528 Able Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
P�annin9 Commission 8-7-79
_ ._. . _
City CaunciT '
� i � 33 -
Russel Beck
7527 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, P4n 55432
Mr. Anton Nesse
7541 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, P1n 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Myron Holum
7555 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridiey, F�n 55432
Mr. & Mrs. Howard Condiff
7561 Van Buren Street N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
a
.�;�:
' Iar+dPlorvuny
/ lad Su-rey%ny
' .��rs k,��
Ctwl G �tf�rrKipo!
' frt�mrtrvi�
�
�
� . ...��
.�. ...a, ._.., ..�-�..
F� �•-sm; f
"=a, - . , . .. L.
.. ...,._..__. .. ��...-�.s �,5..:;;:_,�...
' SP#79-08, Exemplar, Inc. ' " ��'"
. 3q �: .;;
;
, ,:
^ J ti875.H�fi,�w, �cg ,ve.
875
L.J MnrrivfnbsJt,
ErJGINEER[NG, lNC. ��°'°
su,K��cor� . .
� � . . �. � . . . . - . . _.
-- Fn9ineers £ SurverJo�s
. � . � . . . � .. : � ' � . - ' , .Y. '. .
ceata�acate o� saasweJ Fo: �, o-���o�,� SG�;v
_ 7 6 � , . . Ar�
s'w .+
` ��
r.
;r
�
�
�
;
' �,
�- V
c
O
�.
�
�
l
�
t't � :,.
�/Y•L.�_ . .. 7��i i j
- :: .. � ..
, ; : : _
.. "?+�., x.
I .. - �� . `-Z .-•r�+ .. . �'4�.. r
4: z o — ,. ..�
, �'
I1� � ,
' V R
5 , i :, ,... ;, --�- -
3 ` _ . -.;.
' �,�Front ��tvanct • '
�2, 35 , Llj
� � �
i�i o 4 S P
._�
�� �
3j..
� — � __._ .�_
�Tl, e Ea .t f /, .t .+ a /
f{L r yt/et f %0 � o,�
L o !.; ! �7. 2 �
'" I '
_ �c `
�. G i''� '' �
`� _ �_� .•.Y- ___�..____.�_�
i ^ r.ar. .
� � � �` ..� o.,�tway
.�,f i � �, f; (;
.� �'f,. _
. ,�--- �
` %i.vTrr.: .a �.:..`Ywnpnj�
. 1+ � 4. 1 T � i !r � � __ _�.
�.. .. .a- .. �
.._ _ . �_S_.'���,� � 1 � _._..
.. - 1 •�•� J' ii f . i�
'. 1/cr� �^ fr.r.
�
ti-� ;`ti a:�- va ; f o f L a t� � I�
�`` d Z �!� _ �' � j_.� h a{fer's
� � '.� !I
� L Svbd.r�s.'�;�- /�/a 1 lyiny ,
'�• Eas t cf fl�e .1N�sr-94.
; � ��Ff �hc re��7`,: Subf�c;
t� L'`�ili �� .� Or�ii,ule::::
� E�jsemtr r' : oyer .t�iE.".
.Q v Ol.� f�) .:�o Y@t'f' fiirrccl:,���:
� ♦
/bereby �e�li�'y fhoflhis rs o hve a�c+rrtcf r�Prrsenfation o�'a sirvey q�'Hx'.+�+nda�,es �'� a6oK cEu�+l�d la�A,or.d
eFl/r /cv!ron ✓/'oll tr�.r/Vm�s, NxJCai, m,�d/ risiS/� axroarhmml5 , i: a�, � ar mw�d /mad. As su�reyed itf mt lhs�._ cbrf
°� ��n �' j A�'�"' SUBURBr1N ENGINEERlNG, INC.
Fn�inerls/ E',�7Sw'rt �.--_ . .
.3 C � ! e i t� _ ..�':? � � (�i LI ,'�C. .��..: �' � L.. .
�
r .
,
� .__.__,a.�..,_�
J �j � �ORN£R i
U ��c, iz
...
- 77 TH "'-"' AV�. m.i�E � � �'a'7—�'�'_�
�..09
r
� �.
�.. . ..
A }
�. _.t � - r.l..
SP�79-O8, Exemplar, Inct
�
� p�
'I ! i. , O'JO � n � > 19q 0 . � � � I �.17,> wN�r
roa � w000cRESr > ., 3 :; z � , �'�
ti ��
ab ' �� �i0� � � �i/ /�� 980 :
NI_._ _ , .. ; �
o /: J /� I..
'6 : EL EMEN TA R Y o a° -„' ���
i a ' \p i { %.o�
LNd � :�✓�l•v,•�� ..°.'rro� L%J�rl� N� K q C ^ ``' �� •/
� ia . - - nf' _" . � e .
. . -- `4
1 � • y�
a
56-- �'°SCHDOL �.
e
30 \
6 � a: =^ a : "�� ' p ��
c
' 6 ` �.: 1_
�7 � ' � �`. i S �, a � +f T7� ! i + ,
' -$�5;865�8�5 �85�895
76�� : ^Y -• � . ,
o. . 76 TM AVE. NE�
90 �` " r
.� , �J � R� .
� eb
-�` ? "T5415 y i yZ
s7 0 = . �se� 8�
� ,, n t
�sis�_ l�3 �
5S6 �: �..,,• Yi----s --
N � y'•+ �� 1 •
� [
a' t 7 �7550"
ai°`-��M1, � . �5,a._ ( A;n.�_--
rq, :V
�_.:trz_ � �'�541 �� � c
�g28 _� ..�se _.us, �
.�
� a � $ 752 � � : .. ;;T»'.; �>`
_Jldfl� r � �..
�5 (4 � �
'151
20
.'� � ....1 �-�5pt �'�5��' }�
�i.] n f •
� 75 `f �i AVE. NE � u
,rr �1 r: , - �� i iT
� 2 �, 'ra-ro . r-
7A7o � �74'tI ^ {�� `V
___.:r<�.__ . d ,•r.:. �� f � �t:.�
:} i 1 i� � ��'°y � ld
� j ,
'�96�1a.._..r ,r, � �, ��.,.�� �al•nur ._
4b0 ► 6 �,�,�, � 7��0 ,a
�� �{ ,��� ts e
'd�,p C,� '� -. (LN C:.Y
� '�.14s � 'l4�0 '
. : ��
7+1dO .y,'H ' n
1.+.':i_. _ .
j.:\O �..I,.�y .1,:.,.,
_�, y � a '`
i.
,
�
�
7
a
.�_`
:
`1 _:'.
�zG 5 c76 45
6 T631
.71L�
� 7 76 � 5
$ 760(
a s)
NH
9 759�
3aasd
(4os•)
j0 7575
33474
(t'OS)
/' 75 61
32789
(-ras)
/Z 75 4 5
ezzal _
���s)
� 7535
(+os) , ¢ 75 I 5
�.. y���oa� . � (-t�s�
� V � o � � � \ .'S 750!
�nJ�� � 2��T
,� e o � �"' 7 � 91 ,� � �-l-OJ]
'� �•i45 � °, �
M � � Wi _ 3i7�
e��� � 7423; ���)
� �
�1550� :1± �
i.r,�� � � �TxiBL._.
'bs__ `i !?-��1
� 7i?/nu) � � :�(� 7455
i °7Yl�� i _—_�_._7.z7F?_..__
1%/�U t )
I �� ii�;1t� � % "7437
�, i �. .r,. ,. <,. :
: :,:
35 . :�
�
.�--- ...
9io,io�o,', � ..
� , � � LAr��PER
� y
� ; i �" � �ozo�
`;:
. a�. � ; -3 ? .' :
;`K: ;; : 'ioco-�<' "rt.
��{ �� � .aADDlT10�
�
•'OTa) i� ' _ � ,J Y.v.In Y •
� �4
; �3fO�
� :.oa�e�%lvn,bi�<ompi
; �.
g 76C�0
` , �
. ,
:oo
: 7;�.
(363�) (Slo4� ,
I' HOGoadr i�t.��"+e.��✓�/ �
�ifl.1/M60iia<He �,��Jrir/ .
�
.B
�
'� �
i�
y" h
I�
i
PU[iLIC HEARING
[iEFORE THE
PIANNING C01�114ISS10N
- Notice is hereby given that thera will be a Public Nearing of the
Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on 4lednesday, Auuust 22, 1979
in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of;
• . C�nsideration of a rezoning request, ZOA N79-O6,
by James E. London and Michael D Gannucci, to
� � rezone 1_ot 7> 8 and 9, Block 1, Central View
t4anor from C-2S (general shopping areas) to
M-1 (light industrial areas) to allovr the constructi�n
. . of a nevr industrial building, lying in the North
�, Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley,
36
:•
ICounty of Anoka, Minnesota.
Generally Jocated at 1175 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
.
_
� . . _
�My and a11 persons desiring to be heard sha11 be given an.opQortunity
at the above staied time and Qlace, ;
' RICHARD H. .HARRIS •
, CHAIRMAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Publish: August 8, 1979
� August 15, 1979 ,
.
-
..,...�, .
r^^
CITY Or PRIDLCY MINNCSUTA
PLANNING AND ZONINC FORM
NUMl3GR D� 7 -a
,��,,,�s �'. ,co�ao.�
APPLICAN'C'S SIGNAIURE �t�iuef �. G[[n.vucc.i
Address (04-�¢( �kilitrSi��• H�<. lJ,E.
TYPE OP RGQUEST
7� Rexoning
—'t�
37
Special Use Permit
Telephone Number .5 7/ 3 9 r� Approval of Premin-
^ inary $ Final Plat
PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNAT E r,.�G�... ,.�-�°' Streets or Alley
VacaCions
Address
Telephone Numbex � ' .
Street Location of Property ?.3 %s f7v�nu e�/•�. _
Other �
Fe����Receipt No.9� 53Y__
Legal Description of Property,(p�{s 7, 8'*9 .Q/�� /�e��r4� �« /%�aHOr
Present Zoning Classification C-r2 5 Existing Use o£ Property VtZCa w'�"
Acreage of Property (J. $b Descrihe bxiefly the proposed zoning classification
or type of use and improvement proposed i% /
Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or
variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? yes ✓ no.
What vras requested and wlien?
The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners o£ property
within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoningJ must he attached to this application.
(bj This application must be signed by all owners of tlie property, or an explanation
given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings
resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and
property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned.
A sketch of proposed property and structure must Ue drawn and attached, showing the
following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot.
3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and fronY and side setbacks.
A, Street Names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet).
The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this
application are true and correct.
DATE LNIN �S /4 79 SIGNATURE �, i��� � �T� � .
PPLICAN'C}
Date Piled Date of Hearing
Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved '
(dates) Denied (dntes) Denicd
�n!
Planning Commission 8/7/79 '
City Council
3g
MAILING LIST � •
ZOA �79-06, by Jim London
and Michael Gunnucci
James E. London &
Michael D: Gannucci
6441 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Peter R. Brook
1130 Fireside Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Glenn & Sandra Wong
1150 Fireside Drive N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Superamerica Station
P.O. Box 391
Ashland KY. 41101
Supera��v,emera.ea Stations, Inc.
1131 72nd Nvenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
James R. Determan
7210 Central Avenue N.E.
�ridley, Mn 55432
Central Auto Parts
TZO1 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Alvan L. Schrader
5501 Lakeland_Avenue North
Crystal, Mn 55429
Carl & Catherine Sorensen -
4615 University Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, Mn 55421
Harold Haluptzok
8261 N.E. 5th Street
Minneapolis, Mn 55434
Koch Marketing Comparty
P.O. Box 2315
Witchita, Ks 67201
Walter Chies
4030 Tyler Street N.E.
�inneapol5.s, Mn 55421
Donald & Lester Chies
1150 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Mn 55432
Cooper Construction Company
8437 University Avenue N.E.
Mipneapolis, Mn 55432
ZOR #79-06, LONDON & GANNUCCI
.. ;' ' .
. . � � _. �,� . _ . � . �. . �
. � '
{ •
' 4t 1
E' �
;•�. � ' .� ` ' . '
� / S. �
. ; Equ
,��� ;
r
, p
` . ! • I
i, � ; � �'
� O
1
1 S
S
�� �� ti
{F 4"�
{ N
! 8
a
i �
t °A
� « o
.
� � -
� . :s �a.
y �
: � {� . f8'..:•�
N�il t�stom Ham�s � %9 '
'
180' . .
• • . • . . � _ -r .. .r r_"" . • --+---^r .
� �
. ' � ' . . • ,.. •� ' .
. �
. � . • . . . . � .
. . - ! . . �. . . #
�
Starage Yard �
4 �
� �
� . o
8 . 9 °
Y
N
SY�f •
�.
- - ---- - % .. �_ .. <---- _- __ � i�
- - -=-,�
- ,
�oxeax ° °
--_--;---
�:... so as � s� .
,T,.;:... �.,,r..n.fs �--ja _'__'_'___'x_' __."'__.
U::'.:�..._.z':n:...-::: _... ___._" -...
I — 16G' , .
�
.>., 73 1/2 AVE . N. E. � .
�� � ;
� . i . ,_ _ _ --- __ _ .. . _ ._ _ __ _ ----� .._._._:.-----. .�.___
. -- -.__ _ .. _ _. .
_ _ �:__ _:.__ .--- .. _ _.
� __
,
,� _. .. _. _
. . � . . _ _----. . . .
,� i RQYAL ELECTR(C & LONDUN CONSTRUCTiON
� �� Site Pl�n Far�
;
� • . twle 1"+20' !eq 1919
C i.: !
' � �
,
. . ... .. .. . .. . . . . ._ . . . . . ... . . . .. . . ..._... _.. .-.��_..
avi�
.,�,,,.
`7450
(araoJ
JJY.Ia
...;,. ZOA N79-Ofi, LONDON & GANNUCCI
_. ��
7440 I
Pefei R ,�ioo,f
/fuoJ +�
7flAL "h
n.. ! ��
fu i
C�"pdi6�AL t/1�6J�'2
7355 3 2nd �_ �!e
b� 2 3� "' Jr ri %. B• 'l
{ltl �•
o�e_ �,, 73 i/2 AVE. N. E.
��� :
v
1� 3 �f 5� E�
3i5 � 1f3b uso
� 7 1 1 1
(1O • -�.�_ 1 • �J;, ..
`!�i
I,.. � •
Ca�
�
I
i P.[a3s.s�t
d o' ��' Rr. .
i D O'/J'
'� I T /�O.O� .
t 180.0'
S.Prr AasNOS Sfil.i�,'/.K
aiea.
7zoo
� $� � !�n)
� � N(:rrJJ�a /.�CJY
��� � Co. � Int. 7 4 9 �
�c w�.y�,_ auoiTORs
� z� ; � �,
� � I r�'�
.� � �
Y. � ; '715 { _
/a��iJ
Jss.fr.
ao � �� . -
. 1
i"
�. !
i�
�li .
.�X
�i
I�OR � �
74i0 �
.
uae K
[0 2 .3
- T304 "r�
� � � �
12 l3 :9 /.5 , e /i '�s /Q : •
1 Q I \ '`; �
/Z I /3
�
�� l�. ;
. � y � � � `r�� �
21/. f /2 �'a �
+ a�� 1240 7250
� ay, "': �
/l� ff { �7 V �6oj �� �30v) � ' `:�..�
I � CENTER - a
. � SE i?J--..
t ^ ''���'��Eii�— w__�` .
r ry h
;_ _ _�... _ _
„ ..
: � R n Z t 1 ;
1
� ^ /3.�YJ i I 9;� � � .� � � .
([�1° �,t
I . 1�� � 9 p t ; � .
�♦ t � `
°w A 1'z_c�- : �
!6 /7 78 19 ZO�CL_ 6 .� � �� i
, ° � � � 7 P � . ��.
, ,
..17 Io 4o fn 9r In �'4 •�� � ' T '
��....0 !J t .
_ io ar�✓+c P o�.Ra_ � i ' �
..__—t ..._... . '_' i I
Tzzo f
�e� ,
• C,��Q� . . hliyneroa/ndrtf�i>/ �
� Pinls/a:./'/�rHrlf/�/si� �
. o�
0
Iz 4 f . . tsos ��.
----�9� .. ...,�o.. �
' .. _ ��:a • ,r.. a ti _ ..
,� _'�
(200 ' W
/ c�+rr� /3 tRarA .�'
2 j � � U�'00� ✓ /I'e�iLn
ri � �,.i.s�. �goo�
_ S�JRD. �S�Of�! 1..�,LNQ. go
��r.,.� ` - , � , z�,
.n.«•A��..�1. �� sot�} . � (soo :..I
LNM � r /N...
.-. . 4 lc,el 1
4
�
•,l�
HUMAN RESOURCES COMI�ffSSION
MEETING
AUGUST 2, 1979
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Treuenfels called the August 2, 1979, Human Resources Commission
meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Memhers Present: Peter Treuenfels, Mary van Dan, Mary K. Martin
Membere Absent: Wayne Saunders, Marlyis Carpenter
Others Present: Peter Fleming, Administrative Assistant
Marion D. Dolinage - Senior Outreach Worker
Steve Klein - Senior Outreach
APPRO(�AL OF JULY 12 1979, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MSNUTES:
MOTION by Ms. van Dan, seconded by Ms. Piartin, to approve the July 12, 1979,
$uman Resources Commission minutes as aritten. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, Chairperson Treuenfels declared the motion carried unanimously.
1. PRESENtATION BY MS. LINDA GILBERTSON (State Department of Human Rights):
Mr. Treuenfels stated that since Ms. Gilbertson was not present, he would
contact her again and try to reschedule her at a later meeting.
2. REQUEST FOR CITY FUNDING BY ANOKA COUNTY SENIOR CITIZEN OUIREACH PROGRAM:
Mr. Klein stated he was helping with the funding for the Senior Citizen
Outreach Program and Pis. Dolinage uas the Outreach Worker for this portibn
of Anoka County.
Mr. Klein handed out a green brochure which listed all the services available
to senior citizens including housing, transportation, nutrition, home
insulation, medical, and energy. lie stated that a problem the senior citizen
providers had run into was they were seeing basically the same people at
all Chese services. These were the retired, mobile, informed, articulate,
semi-middle class senior citizens. This was not bad, but basically this
program was set up to serve a real critical need, rather than a convenient need.
He stated that approximately two years ago, these various agencies got
together and requested that tlie Community Action Program apply for a Title 3
Federal grant to put Cogether the strategy to have an intensive o�Cxeach
HUMAN RESOURCES CONa2ISSI0N MEETING AUGUST 2 1979 '- PAG� 2
program to this isolated unreached element of senior citizens.
Mr. Klein stated this program has been a very successful and active program.
One reason for this is that they employ senior citizens as the labor element.
The program consists of four half-time senior citizens who know a certain
segment of the County well and have the people contact so they can identify
seniors who are hamebound or not in the mainstream.
Mr. Klein sLated that the program was 9CP/, �ederally funded the first year.
The second year, which ended June 30, 1979, was 75% federally funded. The
third year will be a 50'/, federal grant/5�/ ].ocal share; and after that, the
federal support will be phased out and, basically, the County or some other
funding must be made available to continue the program.
Mr. Klein stated that'the County, through its Human Service programs, has
evaluted the programs very closely upon completing�the second year and has
continued the greatest share of the senior program through its other means
of support. The critical year becames that third funding year when the local
share is 5�/. Mr. Klein stated that lz years ago, he had approached the City
of Fridley for a conCribution.for the Senior Citizens' Well Clinic, which was
another Tit1e 3 program. The City of Fridley made a fine contribution and,
after the third year of [hat program, the County greatly extended its contri-
bution so that program is on vexy firm financial ground today.
Mr. Rlein stated tha[ the budget for �iscal Year 80 ir_dicated a total cash
need for $33,153 with a 50% federal grant of $18,114, leaving actuai. commuaity
f-unds needed 'co sustain th� program of $15,038. T�ey were basically trying
to give the larger communiCies, particularl.y Urhere tliere are significant
numbers of seniors, a brief synopsis of t,e �YO�t3ffi� �lswer any questiors,
and ask for a contribution in the vicinity of $1,000. They were trying to
get a broad base of suppor.t without putting an extreme burden on any one
source. They had secured $7.,000 from Anoka and Blaine, and would be approaching
Columbia Heighis in the near future. They w wld like to cover one-fourth to
one-third of that $15,038 figure through the larger communities and the County
and also through foundations and local industry.
Mr. Kiein staYed that the program creates employe�ent for senior citizens
and utilizes the experience and capabilities of various seniors within their
own community.
Ms. Martin asked if they had a goal or target number of new senior citizens�
they would like to reach in the c w�ing year?
Pis. Dolinage stated they try to keep a goal, because they have to report
to the Senior Governing Board of the C.A.P. Agency. A report is given to
the Board every three months of all the new senior citizens centacted. (In
the last three months, she had visited 127 seniors.) In the report they
have to list the ones they revisit, a report of the ones they help, and a
report of, not oniy all they visit, but the services the seniors have used.
HUMAN RESOURCES COrIl�ISSION M��TING AUGUST 2, 1979 -_ PAGE 3
Ms. Dolinage stated she tries to reach new seniors all the time. She contacts
them in various ways. She calls on the seniors in their homes without a
prior phone call, introducing hersel£ at the door, and explaining the Outreach
program. She £inds that the seniors really appreciate this personal approach.
She stated that transportation is a very big problem. The seniors just don't
realize all of the services that are available to them. She especially tries
to keep track of the low income seniors so that when there are programs Chey
are available for, she can make sure they know about these programs.
Ms. van Dan asked what the relationship was between the Senior Citizen Out-
reach Program and the Anoka County Social Services.
Mr. Klein stated that the Anoka County Community Action Program was a private,
non-profit corporation and was not a county office. IC is closely affiliated
in Chat the County provides office space, phones,. and equipment. The agency
is governed by a 15-person Governing Board,and one of Chese members is Fridley's
Mayor Bi11 Nee, who has been very active in the agency for 4-5 years. One-
third of the Board is represented by lower income residents, one-third by
the public sector, and one-third by the private sector. Because this Eoard
is not a paxt of Anoka County, it has access to a great deal more sources for
funds than a division of the County would have. They coordinate very closely
with County Aealth, CounCy Welfare, and the County infra-structure as a whole.
Ms. van Dan stated she was very impressed with the personal approach, as
seniors did not like being approached by a phone ca11 or a letter.
Ms. Dolinage stated that the seniors also like the idea thaC the Outreach
__ Program is not associated with Welfare, and that there is no red tape with
this program.
Ms. van Dan asked for a budget breakdown of the personnel.
Mr. Klein stated that Che four half-time Outreach Workers represented $15,264
ot the budget; a half-time, 25 hr./wk. Project Supervisor Director was $5,863;
and the other major expense, of course, was travel aC $5,400.
Mr. Klein stated that a question that is usually raised is what happens next
year when there is no more federal support? He stated there are places that
Anoka County can contract in £or services or divert other county funds to
this program. For example, the Food Stamp Program has a requitement that the
County have an outreach function, so the County potentially could contract
for services of that type to the Outreach Program. So, there were means,
and they were making plans toward July 1, 1980.
Ms. Martin stated she thought the presentation by Mr. Klein and Ms, Dolinage
was terri£ic, and it sounded like Chey were doiug wonderful things in a much
needed area.
A VOICL VOTE. ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI1tP�RSON TItEUENFfiLS DECLARED THE
Kas7tii�1]
HUMAN RESOURCPS COMPffSSION MEETING AUGUST 2 1979 - __PAGE 4
Mr. Klein requested that he be notified when thts i.tem would be before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Treuenfets declared a ten-minute recess at 8:25 p.m., reconvening the
meeting at 8:35 p.m.
3. REPORT BY MARY VAN DAN ON VILLAGE GREEN:
Ms, van Dan stated that the Selection Comm3ttee met five.times--Jan. 22,
Mar. 7& Mar. 31, April 28, and May 24, 1979. They used the criteria from
HUD and they used the "Ru1es and Regulations" from the Section 8 Rental
Subsidy Program (attached), which spells out the in€ome requirements and
eligibility requirements. They then reviewed the personal needs of each
applicaxtt. The Committee had a cut-off date of Feb, lst. As of July 31, 1979,
total applications received were:
One bedroom - 61
Two bedroom - 104
Three bedroom - 9?
Seniors - 201
Handicapped - 20
Ms. va� Dan stated that very few were rajected for any reason other than
poor rental histcry or did not meet the eligibility requirements. The total
number of rejecL'ed applications was 18. The Cc�mittee reviewe.d 121 applica-
tions for the SeniorS build3.ng. Of the present residents ]iving ir, tl.a main
coa�plex, 6].ived in Fridley formerly, 43 presentt.y lived in Fridley (apart-
ments, homes, trailers}, 24 had tami.ly in Fridley, a:�d 18 had no connection
with Frialey.
Ms. van Dan stated that one of the things the Committee wanted to see was
seniors out of trailers, because trailers were dangerous places to live,
She also stated that she was sure there was a Section 8 requirement that at
least a small percentage of people had to be from outside the iumiediate area.
HUD requires that about 3CP/ oE the couples accepted have to be in a very low
income bracket. The incane Ureakdown for the seniors: 37 in low income
bracket and SZ in very 1ow fncome bracket. There are presently 23 couples,
8 men, and 60 women. TotaZ number of handicapped in both seniors building
snd apartments is 12. The handicapped category was one of the hardest to
fi11, because one of the major problems is transportaeion. .
Ms. van Dan stated there were 39 minority applications, 8 were rejected.
Total minority residentc: One bedroom - 5
Two bedroom - 3
Three bedroom - 4
The minoriCies represented were Spanish, Black, ��ietnamese, American Indian,
and Chinese-American. The minority category was another category very hard
to fill.
Ms. van Dan stated that the Seniors building would be having an open house
either the end of August or early September. She would notify the Human
Resouroes Commission of this open houce.
IiUMAN RESOURC�S COA'AITSSSON MEETING AUGUST 2 1979 - PAGE 5
4. REPORT BY WAYNE SAUNDERS ON TI�E COMMUNITY SCHOQLS ADVISORY COUNCIL:
Mr, Treuenfels stated that in the absence of Mr. Saunders, this item would
be continued at the nexe meeting.
5. REPORT BY MARY MARTIN ON THE FINE ARTS COMMITTEE:
Ms. Martin stated that the Fine Arts Committee had gone inactive for the
summer so she had not been able to atCend a meeting. The Fine Arts Coamiittee
did sponsor the very successful Celebrations of Nations in March, and she
understood they may sponsor another one next year. There have been art
exhibiCS in May and June for elementary and high school children at the
Library. There may also be a photography exhibit in 4ctober.
Mr. Treuen£els stated that the Human Resources Commission would like to be
kept informed of any special events or exhibits put on by Che Fine Arts
Committee. To his knowledge, the Fine Arts Comsittee has not looked into
promoting creative writing, Perhaps that could be discussed at a Cou¢nittee
meeting. e8nother suggestion would be chamber music groups.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
A, �enda ICems
Mr. Treuenfels stiated he would try contacting Jaime Becker and
Kathy Robson to see if they could attend the Septea�her meeting. ,
Mr, Treuenfels stated he would try to have a sgeaker on women's
rights at the October meeting, and would reinvite Linda Gilbertson,
State Department of Humar, Rights, to the Nooember meeting.
B. Revised Comprehensive Development Plan
Mr. Treuenfels and the Couimission members uriefly reviewed the
"Housing" section of the Plan. Mr. Trevenfels stated that i£ the
Commission members had any changes or recommendations, they should
contacC either him or the City before the next Planning Coromission
meeting on Wed., August 8, 1979.
Ms. van Dan sCated that under Objective 2, 3-A, with Village Green
as an example, there was not a big demand for handicapped housing
because of the lack of transportation.
AD70URNMENT:
MOTION by Ms, van Dan, seconded by Ms. Martin, to adjourn the meeting.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Treuenfels declared the
August 2, 1979, Human Resources Commission meeting adjourned aC 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
. �!!'?t!>.•'.�C. �Z -��
Lynne Saba,�ee�ording Secretary
e
VILY�AGE GREEN
A60 Mi:sissippi Street N.E.
Fridtey, Minnesota 55432
(612) 574-0674
Tota1 Applications Received:
1-bedroom 61
2-bedroom 104
3-bedroom 97
Seniors 201
Handicapped 20
Total Applications Rejected (due Co
poor rental histories, or not meet-
ing eligibility requirements):
1-bedroom 2
2-bedroom 10
3-bedroom 3
Seniors 2
Handicapped 1
7/31/79
Total Applications Reviewed with
Selection Committee:
1-bedroom 44
2-bedroom 58
3-bedroom 18
Seniors 121
Aandicapped 12
Total Applications Received £rom
Fridley Residents:
1-bedroom 11
2-bedroom 38
3-bedroom 10
Seni.ors 59
Handicapped 4
Total Minority Applications Received: 39
Total Rejected: 8
Total Minority Residents: 1-bedroom-5 2-bedroom--3 3-bedroom--4
Total Fridley Residents (Residents who previously lived in Fridleyj:
1-bedroom--10 2-bedroom--19 3-bedroom--4 Senior--48 - 4f
We will have an Open House in the Seniors building, but not until the end
of August or early September. We are waiting for the arrival of the rest of
our furniture.
RULES AND REGULA710NS
SECTION B
Section 8 is a rental subsidy program designed to assist low and moderate i�come families in need of .
housing. Anyeligible applicant qualifying for housing assistance payments pays between 15 and 25� of their
income for rent, and HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Oevelo,pment► pays the remaining portion,
which is determined by the amount of the "Fair MarkeY' rent normally received for the unit. To qualify for
Section 8 housing assistance payment, two (2y basic requirements must be met:
THE INCOME REQUiREMENT:
The applicant's income must not exceed 80% of the median income for the area in which they
reside as established by HUD.
A. The maximum annual income is:
$10,850 for 1 person
$12,400 for a famity of two (2}
$13,950 for a family of three (3)
$15,500 for a family of four (4)
$16,500 for a family of five (5)
$17,450 for a family of six (6)
B. The income from all assets (i.e. savings accounts, savings certificates, stock dividends, etc.)
must be included as part of annual income.
C. tf the appiicanYs assets exceed $5,000 in value, subtract the income from these assets and
add 10%of their total value to all other sources of income to determine the eligibility
income amount
IL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT
In addition to income requirements, the applicant must qualify under at least one of the
fof{owing c{assifications:
A. Disabled: Meaning head or spouse cannot engage in any substantial activity by
reason of any medically determinabfe physicai or'mentai impairment which has
lasted or can be expected to last a continuous period of not less then 12 months.
B. Displaced: As the result of a governmental action or federally declared disaster.
C. Elderly: Either the head of the household or spouse at least 62 years of age or
older.
D. Handicapped: Meaning anyone with a permanent physical or mental disorder
which impedes his or her ability to live independently.
E. A Family: Of two (2) or more persons sharing the same residence, and utilizing
the income and resources avaitable to meet family needs, and who are related by
blood, marriage or law and maintain a stable relationship.
Sing{e tndividuafs: Under special circumstances
The exact amount of housing assistance payments a qualified family may receive is usually contingent
on more than just income. Other considerations include possible medicai or unusuaf expenses and famify
size, however, in no case wili the eligib�e family pay more than 25% of their monthly income for adequate
housing.
Any person seeking an apartme�t must be capable of living independently or with minor outside
�eide of support services.
:`
., ,
. . � � � �M:.n.::.N.��..
!
i '� i
� 4
�� s
1
�
1
�
i
� I
.' �
i
;
i
1
�_ 1
�
0
r
\
\
i
CITY IN WHICH APPLICANTS PRESENTLY RF.SIDE
CitY Number of Applications
Fridley 104
Minneapolis 47
St. Paul 7
Crvstal 3
New Hope 5
Princeton 1
Lindstrom � 1
Hopkins 2
Pe4uot Lakes � 1 �
Columbia Heiq ts 3
Coon Raoids 3
Shoreview 1
RoseVille 1
Blaine 1
New Brighton 2
Edina 1
Red Wing 1
Brooklyn Center 4
St. Louis Park 3
Golden Va21ey 1
Bloomin ton 3
Tower 1
Granite Falls 1
Brainerd 1
South Haven 1
Moose Lake 1
North Branch 1 �
Minnetonka 1 � �
Mounds View � 1
Out o£ State Applications
Wisconsin 1
North Dakuta � 1
Arizona 1
.� Handicanped ' -
- � Minneapolis - -� ��� ��----�'-� 7 � �-�-�
..Eaqan . . . . ........ .. ... ...... 1..........
Robbinsdale � -- �- � �" 3 '��'�-���'
� Columhia Hei9hts � � �1����-� �--�
Golden Valley '�� - � �-7 � � � �
i�.
(2/10179).
` . �
IN5ERT FROM HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETiNG, SEPTEMBER 7, 1978
Ms. van Dan asked what happened when the family size increased beyond
the guidelines?
Mr. Walstead stated that if the family size increased to the point
where the unit was not the appropriate size, then that family would�
be the first people on the waiting list for the next two-or three-
bedroom unit that was available. If the family size went to seven in
a three-bedroom, that was a situation that had never come up, but it
could conceivably happen. They were bound by Federal regulations, and
if the situation was such that the unit was still appropriate by some
arrangement, what they would probably do would be to ask the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for a ruling, the MHFA would ask HUD for
a ruling, and HUD would make the final ruling.
Ms. van Dan stated she would hate to see a family not be able to remain
in the complex if their family size increased. Her concern was that they
get preference when going to a two-bedroom or a three-bedroom unit.
CITY OF FRIDLEY •
APPiALS COP�IP1[ISSION hIEETING - AUGUST 14, 1979
CALL TO ORD�Ri .
Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 14, 1979, meeting oP the Appeals
Commission to order at 7i30 P.P+I.
ROLL CALL�
Members Presenti tnr. Plemel, tdr. Kemper, tns. Schnabel, Ms. Gable,
Mr. Barna
Members Absent� None '
Others Presente Clyde I•?oravetz, Ehgine.er Aide/ �• �
l. APPRCVE APPEAI,S COP.Zi:1IS5I0id PdINUTES e JITLY 31, 1979 �
P40TION by P�Ir. Barna, seconded by D4s.•Gabel, to approve the July 31, 1979�
minutes of the Appeals Commission.
UPON A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR690D'[AN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNAIJTMOUST+Y.
2�
MOTION by E'fr. Kemper, seconded by,BZs. Gabel, to open the Public Hearing.
UPORT A YOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIPIG AYE, CHAIRLdOPlIAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7�33 P.r�7�
I�is. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Ernie Pasborg, to come forward and
read the Administrative Staff Report as followse
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED SY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 16) On a plat recorded before December 29,, 1955, the mini-
mum lot area is 7,500 square feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the condition of over-
crowding of a residential neighborhood and to avoid an excess burden on the
existing water and sewer services, and to avoid reduction of surrounding .
property values.
,
APPEAI,S COLIP�IISSION PdEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 2
Section 205.053, 2, (6,3) On parcels of land less than 60 feet in width,•
but not less than 50 feet in width, and are comprised of one or more full
sized lots or parts thereof, on a subdivision or plat recorded before De-;.•� �
cember 29, 1955, the minimum required lot width can be lowered to allow
a building on this parcel with the side yard requirements reduced to five
' (5) feet minimum on each side subject to the distance between the living •
areas in any two adjacent buildings is at least 20 feet. •.
Section 205.053, 4, b, Two side yards are required, each with a width of not
]ess than )0 feet. '
� . � �
Public purpose served by these sections of the code is�to maintain a minimum
of 20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between
garages and tiving areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to con-
flagration of fire and also to allow for aesthetically pleasin9 open spaces
around residential structures.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
See Attached Letter dated July 23, 1979
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
7hese lots are located vrithin the flood plain, therefore a substantial amount
of fill wili have to be brought in. This wiil resuit in raising these prop-
erties above the neighboring structures. The proposal consists of four 25
foot lots on which the petitioner has proposed to build two homes l0 feet
apart. They are two full stories above grade (approximately 16 feet). �
7he staff recommends that the Appeals Commission consider denying all vari-
ances for tfie fol}owing reasons and that the petitioner consider building one
house on four lots.
1. The houses would only be 10 feet apart and that will appear to be very
close since the vertical height of the wall is 16 feet.
2. With one house, the degree of slope between the lot line and the eievated
area could be lessened with more distance to make up the difference in
elevation.
A lot area should be left on the lot and a catch basin installed and be con-
nected to the existing basin on Glencoe. This would allow for a better drain-
age p7an as the one proposed does not a71nw adequate fall away from the exist-
ing home.
The followii�g two pages consi�t of the letter referred to in the
Hardship section of the Administrative Staff Report. Ms. 5chnabel
read this letter into the record also.
HCi'f.t1L�l vvl�ll�tlu.11vi� i•iuuaii��� vvv�+ ir� 1�// �
n
L
� I fa.�.�:,: _, � ���&.� ' ' . . " , i
`: � A
� �� y �� 4i.v h � � . .
. �5�� . .. . .
R a � i
. . � . . . , � '}
. ' , . . . . . . � .. ' � . . � _. . _ . . . . . .�
. . . . . . .._... - .. .. . . .
. . . ..�-_-:.. , . _ �.. , .. ,.�- . . . . � . . .
JULY 23. 1979 '
_ . CITY CAUNCIL _ _ , :' '
CITY OF FRIDLEY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVQJUE • .
FRIDLEY� MINVESOTA 55432 •
ItE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF MINIMlA�1
PROPERTY REQUIREMENT — �
LO7S 27 � 28, BLOCK S, AND
LOTS 29 � 30, BLOCK S,
RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS '
DEAR COIAVCIL MEMBERS•
AS IS OBVIOUS BY THE A7TACHFD DIAGRAMS, THE LOTS FOR WFiICH WE SEEK THE ABOVE
VARIANCE FALL SHQRT OF FRIDLEY'S MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIRF,MENT. WE HAVE RESEARCHED
qLl. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES PRIOR TO SEEKING SUCH VARIANCE AND HAVE CANCLUDED THAT
OBTAINING THE VARIANCE FOR EACH LOT IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE COURSE OF ACTION.
THE FIRST AND FORFS'IOST CONSIDERATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABOVE LOTS'IS
THE SUITABI4ITY OF THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION. WE FOUND THAT BOTH LOTS ARE BELOW
'ikiE �t.DOD PIAIN AND THUS WOULD REQUIRE 1W EXTENSIVE AMOl�1T OF FILL 70 BRING THEM
TO BUILDING CONDITION. THE ESTIMA7ED COST OF REQUIRED FILL PER LOT IS $4,000. IF
THE LOTS WERE COMBINED� A TOTAL COST OF $8,OD0 WOULD BE ADDED TO A SINGLE PEICE
OF PROPERTY. • _
� THE PRESENT PRICE OF EACH LOT IS $6�500. IF THE LOTS WERE COMBINED, THIS i
PRICE WOULD DOUBLE TO $13,D00. ADDED TO THE COST OF THE REQUIRED FILI. FOR THE ;
COMBINED LO7, THE PRICE OF THE LOT WOtA.D THEN BE $21,000. OBVIOUSLY THfS SlM a
plOULD BE FAR OUT OF THE CURRENT PRICE RM1GE FOR'THE AREA. {
_ ,
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION ALONG THESE LINES IS THE COST OF SODDING, A REQUIRFJ�1ENT
OF THE CITY. THE P,G�REGATE COST OF SODDIhG THE TW� [ATS TS $2,400. IF TH� LOTS
NtERE COMBINED� THTS ENTIRE COST WOUlD BE PASSE� ONT9 Oi�E PEICE OF PROPERTY, i
INCREASING THE PRTCE OF A SINGLE LOT WHICH IS ALREADY OUf OF ITS MARKET RlaNGE.
SHOULD A VARTANCE BE GRANTED THE ABOVE LISTED COSTS CAN BE DIYIDED PU7TING �
THE PRICE IN THE AREA OF $12,000 WHICH IS CERTAINLY IN LINE WITH CURRENT PRICES
OF THE Ad2EA.
• �
�� CONTINGENT UPON RECEIVING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF FRIDI.EY, WE HAVE PUT
�
,. 7625 HIGHWAY 65 N. E.• FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 � 786-6911
APPEALS COP�'dISSZOT7 IJI�:ETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 — PAGE 4 �
.--� ' -
�^ . a .
TOGETHER A PROPOSED HOME PACKAGE FOR FACH OF THE LOTS. 7HE 70TAL PACKF�E WAS
PRICED AT $67,000. BOTH PACKAGES WERE SUBMITTED FOR PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TO THE
YETERANS ADMINISTRATION FOR FINANCE APPROVAL AND APPRAISAL. THE PROSPECTIVE
BUYERS ARE APPROVED FOR V.A. MORTGAGES. THE V.A. APPROVED BOTH HOMES AS THEY
PS2E PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON THE TWO LOTS. HOWEVER, THE APPRAISAL GIVEN TO
THE PACKAGE WAS AVLY $63,000. THE REASON GIVEIV FOR TNE LOWER APPRAISAL WAS
CONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORING AREA, THIS DEMONSTRATES AGATN, THE IM('RACTIBILITY
.OF COMBININ6 THE TWO LOTS TO BE MARKETED AS A SIPdGLE LO7 FOR A PRICE OF $23,400,
IXCLUSIVE OF MIY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTIdN EXPENSE.
�. '.; , :-,
ATTACHED ARE THREE DIAGRAMS LABLED A, B� AI� C. DIP�RPM A DEPICTS TNE SAME
HOUSE PROPOSED FOR FACH QF THE TWO EXTSTING LOTS ON A SINGLE COMBINED LOT. WITH
THE ADDED EXPENSE OF THE SECOND LOT� 7HTS fiOME WOLILD NOW COST $72,250. EVEN TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL LAND ENCOMPASSED IN 7HE PACKAGE, THE APPRAISAL �
F10ULD NOT EVFN CQ`1E CLOSE ;f0 THE PURCHASE PRICE, ESPECTALLY AS IT WAS NOTED THAT '_
ADJOINING ARFA COMPAI2ABLES WAS THE REASON FOR THE LOWER APPRAISAL GIVFJJ TO OUR •
PROPOSED PACKA6ES. AS INDICATED IN THIS DIAGRAM, THE DRAINAGE AREA ON ?HE PROPERTY
WOULD CERTAINLY BE INCREASED, HOWEVER THE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD NOT WARRAN7 SUCH
AN E)CfREME PRICE FOR THIS TYPE HOME. .
DIAGRAM B SHOWS A T-SHAPED HOME, 28` BY 46' WITH A FORMAI_ FOYER AND A 24' BY
30' ATTACHED GARAGE. THIS IS THE SIZE HOME TNAT WOULD FI7 THE COMBINED SINGLE
LOT. TfiE COST OF THIS h'OME NlOULD BE $87,4Q0. AGAIN,'OUT PRICED FOR THE AREA.
FURTHER, THE bRAINAGE AREA ON THE NOR7H SIDE OF 7HE HOME WOULD NOT CHI�NGE AND THE
DRAINAGE AR�4 TO THE SOUTN OF THE HOME WOULD INCREASE ONLY BY 2.5'.
DIAGRPM C SHOWS A 24' BY 40' HOME WI7H A 20' BY 24' ATTACHED GARF�E SITUATED
IN LINE WITH EXISTING HOMES. �IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DRAINAGE AREAS ON BOTH THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES � THE HOME REMAIN THE SAME. THE PRICE OF THIS HOME WOULD
BE $74,900 ALSO OUT � THE ARFA PRICE WWGE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SfiORT SIDE LOTS OF WR TWO PROPOSED HOMES ARE
BE7WEEN 7HE HOMES THAT CERTIFIED WOULD CONSTRUCT. WE WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO
CONTROL THE MEANS OF DRAINAGE IN THIS MINIMAL. AREA TO INSURE A�AINST ANY DRAINAGE
PROBLFI�IS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE TWO LOTS IN QUESTION WERE PLATTED PRIOR TO
THE ESTABLISHMFNT OF THE MINIMUM PROPERTY DIMF�ISTON REQUIREMENT. WE BELEIVE THAT
?HIS IS A POINT OF CONSIDEP.A7ION. HAD THESE f'LA75 BEEN RECOP.DED 5UBSEQUENT TO THE
1�ZiVIMUM STFlNDARD, t+fE WOULD NOT BE ENCOUNTERING OUR CURREN7 PROBLEM. •
WE FEEL THAT TH� ABOVE EXPLANATIONS EVIDENCE THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE HOMES PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING LOTS WOULD ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC ASPECT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADD TO THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS
WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN IMPROVEMENT OV�R THEIR PRESENT STATES AND WE DO NOT FORSEE THAT
'IHE ADJOINING HOMES WOULD INCUR ANY HARDSHIP DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
HOMES.
WE '(1-V1NK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. .
VERY T ULY YOURS,
� / _ . 1
RRii�'f'A�BORG .
��CE'PRESZDENT �
APPEAL3 COMP3ISSION P9EETIPIG AUGIIST 141 1979 - PA�E 5
Ms. Schnabel stated that at the last meeting, no action was taken, so
they would have to start at the be�inning. She indicated that the
Commissioners had received additional information regarding this
request in the mail during the week.
R4r. Moravetz stated that the Staf� position had not changed and they
would recommend denial. Stafi would be receptive to one.. � .
Mr. Pasborg stated that the homes would be built under Excalibur
Homes not Gertified Homes. An error was made.with the letterhead for
the letter stating the hardship. He gave the Commissioners a copy of
a survey indieating the proposed drainage p2an. Pdr. Keith Graham will
certify the draina�e after the project is done. b4r. Graham, the surveyor,
has been to the site three times and they have gone to great lengihs
and expense to do the topos and check the outside areas of the surr�unding
homes and they feel the drainage from these two houses will not cause
a problem with the two adjoining houses. The two adjoinin� houses are
on small lots and he did not see how the Commissioners could discriminate
against the people who want to buy these two homes and the people who
want to sell these two lots. He has two buyers who want to buy these
two homes. The way they are set up they will be aesthetically nice
homes. They would be 2-stoxy homes and DIr. Pasborg showed the Commission-
ers pictures of the proposed houses. The pictures indicated how the
houses would be layed out.
P�r. Pasborg stated that there would be IO feet between the two houses
and the prospective buyers did not object to that. He went on to
explain the floor plan which includes suspended decks. a flying eve
on the front which would be 6 feet. 'The decks would be 8 feet protruding
past the flying eve. There would be a patio door in front with a bay
window on each side. He did not feel it would decrease anything in the
neighborhood.
Pds. Schnabel requested that Tdr. Pasborg show his drawings to.the peopl.e
in the audience.
I�lr. Pasborg did so and went on to explain that the exterior of the
houses wouTd be hand-split shakes on the face and a brick front. The
siding would be cedar with a timberline shake roof. The houses would
be energy homes and there would be shutters on all the windows. He
stated that these are the only homes they feel th�y can build and that
he had already brought one lot. They have not yet paid for the second
lot because of the negative reaction he received from the Staff. 'It
was indicated to him that he would not get the variance and he had
already invested $1,000.00. �
Ms. Schnabel stated that in the past, based on Staff's experience with
the code, these things have not been generally favored. lt1s. Schnabel
stated that she was concerned about the elevation and the drainage.
APPEALS COP,IMISSION ME�TING, AUGUST 1�,- 1979` PAGE 6
D4s. Schnabel asked if the highest elevation point was 824.9?
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct and that would be the floor of
the garage and the first £loor of the house.
t4s. Schnabel stated that around the lot, 824.9 was the highest elevation
she could find.
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct.
Ms. Schnabel asked if they were dipping towards the house in some way?
Mr. Pasborg stated that they were dipping away from.the house. He
stated that on the survey, PE was the proposed elevations and the
others indicated were the existing elevations. Il4r. Pasborg stated
that they were coming up 15 feet and would then drop it down an@ bring
it around. They had also indicated that they would put in a retaining
wall if necessary, but he did not feel that would be necessary. PAr.
Pasborg went on to explain the drainage and also stated that he would
be willing to sod the neighbors lot which was presently weeds. He
stated it would drop 2� in front from the roof to the street,
Ms. Schnabel stated that she was not convinced because the first floor
elevation was 825.3 and they had a proposed exterior of 824.9. 2hat is
.4 feet of diiference and she did not think he could contain it all in
the lot and get it out in that space.
LZr. Pasborg stated it would drop to 823.
Tds. Schnabel stated that it would then run into the neighbors lot
which is at 822.
tdr. Pasborg stated that he would be willing to put in a wall or else
fill it and sod it for him.
h4s. ScYulabe2 stated that he would have the same problem in another
area. She did not think that the neighbors £ence would stop the heavy
water,
Mr. Pasborg stated that then he would put up two walls.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she thought the Engineering Department would
want more than that and asked P.ir. h:oravetz what his opinion was?
P+Ir. P4oravetz stated that he didn't believe such a:dESi� had been
requestPd and was not sure how it would be received. It would have to
be reviewed.
Mr. Kemper asked if he would be proposing a cement block wall?
h�r. Pasborg stated that would be the least expensive and 2east attractive.
APPEALS COT�dISSION MEETING, AUGUST 14, 1979 - PAGE 7
Ms. Schnabel stated that it appeared to her that as it looks, she
felt it would be unacceptable in terms_oi drainage and the people
in the F�gineering Department would have to take a closer look at
it.
AZr. Pasborg stated that he had asked them about the walls and they
didn't think it would make any difference, He was told that the
percentages of drop were within the regu].ations and that the only
footage problem was the difference between the two homes.
P4r. Kemper stated that in looking at it there were definitely some
problems. But that didn't mean he could do some adjustments..
Mr. Pasborg stated that Keith Graham would verif`y that there would be
proper drainage. He thinks it will work. ..
I�ls. Schnabel stated that from experience, they have found that if
they aren't diligent and get it on paper to begin v�ith, the work is
not done properly and once it is in, it is tough to go back and change
it. This is not the first problem they have had in that area �nd she
ielt that if this is approved, at some point further along, either at
the Planning Commission or the City Council, he would have to have some
new proposals for drainage.
Y�ir. Pasborg asked what would be acceptable?
Pds. Schnabel stated that he would have to talk to the Ehgineering
Aepartment.
Mr. Pasborg stated that this was what Ehgineering told him to do.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she didn't believe that because �igineering
would not tell him to drain it onto the neighbor's property and that
is what this would do.
Mr. Kemper stated that if this was passed they would have to take a
look at some of the figures and come up with a different proposal
because the way it is, water would be running onto the adjacent pro-
perties.
b'Ir. Pasborg asked if they had the other survey because it was done
twice. He gave them another survey and stated that was the correct
one.
Mr. Plemel asked iF a mound of earth sodded about 6 to 10 inches along
the edge accomplish the same as a high concrete wall?
Mr. Barna stated that ii would have to come to a sharp edge at the _
lot line and wouldn't �ccon lish much. The retainin� wall would be a
maximilm of 2 courses out of �he ground and they could put flagstone
on it or paint it to make it look nice. It would be secured with 1
course below the ground and with 2 courses above it would move with
the fr�st. 1�fater pressure would not move it.
APPEALS CCt�t4ISSI0N T�tEETING,L AUGUST 14. -1q79 - PAGE 8
Mr. Moravetz stated that they should consider the relationship of
the top of the curbing on Riverview Terrace in the northwest corner
of the lots. The top o£ ihe curb elevation is 822.4 and it is not
a full curb. It is just a blacktop berm so the actual gutter line
is probably only one tenth of an inch or so lawer than the top of
the curb or berm. It was only two to three inches at the most. At
the southwest'� corner it is 822.3. The proposed elevation immediateljr
north of the house is lower than the street elevation.
Ms. 5chnabel stated that there were remarks on her copy written by
someone on Staff. One'of the remarks is that it is too flat and if
the curb is removed the vrater will back into the yard.
Ms. Schnabel stated that there were other things they should look at
but it would sufYice it to say that there is probably drainage problems
and they vrouZd have to be worked out, Tats. Schnabel asked ii it was
correct that he had two buyers?
Mr. Pasborg stated that was correct.
R4s. Schnabel stated that she understood they had been approved for
mortgages and that they were aware oi the distance between the buildings?
1rlr. Pasborg stated that the VA was very striet and the buyers had
signed docunents regarding that.
E�Is. Schnabel stated that another problem was because the dwellings
were so close, they had to be sure that there was no possibiZity of
the spread of fire. In some cases they require fire walls to prevent
that� and she thought 'that might include the elimination oi windows.
She explained to the petitioner that this was the whole basis o� the
requirements to keep the dwelling far enough apart, Also, there was
the consideration of enough room for the fire trucks to get through.
Mr. Pasborg asked what the required distance was?
Mr. Barna stated they should be 20 feet apart.
Mr. Plemel asked if these were factory built houses and if they came
in two sections. Also, he asked who the manufacturer was?
Tdr. Pasborg stated
and that top would
He stated that the
site.
that top part of the houses were built in a factory
come in two sectians. The manufacturer was Terrace.
lower half of the houses would be.constructed on the
P,gs. Gabel stated that she was sure a fire wall would be required but
was nqt sure about the windows.
Pds. Schnabel stated they would have to research that question.
RPPEALS COP.RAISSION P+I�ETItdG, AUGUST 14; 1979 PAGE 9
Nlr. Pa�sborg stated that in his original proposal, the houses were to
be put in the center of the lot and T:Ir. Sobiech stated that he should
push thec� closer together for more drainage. That was why they were
16'ieet apart. The original proposal called for a distance of 16 feet.
That would have left less drainage on each side but then they wauld
have put the cement wall up. The garages would be closest together
on the downstairs floor. They could move the window in the garage or
eZiminate it. He would rather have the houses farther a}�art and so
would the buyers.
Mr. Sarna asked what the height was from the peak oY the house to
ground level in the front? --, ,
Mr. Pasborg stated it would be 20 feet.
Ms. Schnabel referred to the last paragraph in the Administrative
Staff Report and stated that it was a typing error. It should be
a"low" area, not a"lot" area.
Ntr. Barna stated that would make it about 22.9 feet above the street
level at the center of the lot. That would ma;ce it about 4 feet
higher than the house to the south and about 9 feet higher than the
house to the north. t�1r. Barna stated that he felt the tv�o houses would
stiak up and look iun�y in that narrow space.
PAr. Pasborg stated that they would not be able to see one of the houses
because of the pine trees which he planned to leave. He pointed out
that it would be about the same height as the house going in across the
street. and the one further down the street.
b1r. Barna stated that the one two blocks dowr� as caused some problems
because it doesn't really fit in.
I�Zs. Gabel asked what the price would be. She was concerned about
getting some reasonably priced homes in Fridley.
h4r, Pasborg stated that they would be priced betwen $63,000 and �67,000.
He stated that there would be 2 bedrooms finished and the dovmstairs
would be iramed in.
Ms. Schnabel asked if these were pre-constructed homes.
Mr. Pasborg stated that the top half was. If they were built on site,
it would cost a lot nore and they would not be able to put in all the
options they were. He stated this was different from other modular
homes. He also stated that the City of I�qinneapolis had accepted them
as a builder.
APP�ALS COPAt•4ISSION P.4EETING, AUGUST 1�+; 1979 PAGE 10
Pdr. Barna asked what the 1969 flood level was at this point or what
the high water elevation was?
tds. Gabel stated that it was 8?_2.9.
T1r. Kemper asked if i+1r. Pasborg had considered single story houses
with unattached garages?
Mr. Pasbor� stated that he didn't know how he would get the garages
in there.
P7s. Schnabel stated that would create more of a lot coverage problem,
E4r. Kemper stated that he asked that because o£ the fire walls. •
E'tr. Barna stated that he coul@n't put in a full basement. He could
put in a basement below the flood plain but would have to protect the
sewer and vrater and the #'urnace wouZd have to be hung from the ceiling.
Also, he could not build the basement in such a way that it could be
improved into living area in case of a sudden �'lood someone �vould be
�. trapped in there. The houses with full basements were built before the
1969 ilood.
Ms. Schnabel noted that the lots an each side were 60 feet not 50 feet.
Pnr. Barna stated that the outside lots were not 25 foot but 30 foot.
tRs. Karleen Rice, 6gb Hugo Street, came forward and stated that she
had a petition against the construction of two houses.
it�ts. Schnabe3 read the petition as followst To the City of Fridley,
dated 3uly 28, 1979� This is a petition against the building of a
new dwelling at SI25 and fi133 Riverview Terrace NE and the reques-t
for variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code to
reduce tY;e miniinum lot area from the required ��do square feet for
lots platted before December 29, 1955� to 5�84 square feet, and to
reduce the requirement that there be 20 feet between living areas of
adjacent dwellings on any parcel of land 60 feet in width or less
to 10 feet. The petition was signed by 52 peop]�e mainly from Hugo
Street, Glenco Street and Riverview Terraca.
MOTION by �4s. Gabel, secondsd by TYSr. Kemper, to receive the petit].on
agai st the request.
UPON A VO�E VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C2iAIRWOb4AN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIh�D UPJANIt�IOUSLY.
Ms: Rice stated that they could nnt understand how they could put two
houses in that little area. They would not have any air moving back
and forth. P+is. Rice stated that she lived at 696 Hugo Street and that
she also owned the house at 683 Glencoe Street. They were planning on
renting the house on Glencoe Street as soon as �ihey fixed it up.
APPEALS COT�n�,tI5SI0N I�,4EETIPIG, AUGUST 14, 19?� - PAGE 11
tQr. Dan St. Clair, 8141 Riverview Terrace, came forward and stated
that his house was located to the north of the lots in question..
He stated that he objected to the construction of these two structures
because he moved to Fridley because he thought it was aesthetically
beautiful. He stated that he had a privacy fence that was put up by
the people who owned the house before him. It was there because oY
the unsightly lot next door. If there was one nice house he would
remove the privacy fence. He was concerned that the two proposed
houses would block the sun. He also would not object to two small
houses. He did not feel that those two houses would add to the
neighborhood. A single structure would be his preference.
Ms. Rice stated that she would not object to one house either.
P+Is. Schneppmueller, 8151 Riverview Terrace, stated that she was
concerned about the drainage. She felt that with two houses in there,
they could not handle the water. She stated that when it rains hard,
the water goes all the way up to her front. door. She did not want
another-1ot draining on her lot.
R4r. St. Clair stated that he agreed with Nqs. Schneppmueller and also
that he did not want to see a wall go in there. He stated that the
petitioner had mentioned his fence. He stated that his fence would
not and does not hold back the water.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she had the same concerris and it did not
seem that they had adequate land to handle the drainage.
D4s. Julie Birkholz, Route #4, Isanti, came forward and stated that
she represented the o�mer of the roperty at 8125 Riverview Terrace.
She stated that the owner was a 7� year old lady who lived on a farn
in the country and it would be a hardship on her if she could not sell
the property. She owns the southerly t�vo lots.
bir. Kempsr asked P�4r. Pasborg if those were the two lots that he had
started to buy and held back on.
PQr. Pasborg stated that was correct.
Ms. Birkholz stated that her grandmother needed the money and would
like to sell.
t�7s. Schneppmuller stated that she took a picture of the other house
that tvas recently built in the area where the builder was supposed to
take care of the drainage. She stated that the lot he built on drains
into the neighbors.
Mr. Scott Anderson, an associate of tlr. Pasborg, came forward and
asked about the builder who wanted to build a house on pilings in
this area just recently. He asked if they could build a house on
pilings because then there would be no drainage problem.
APPEALS COMPIISSI�N MEETIPTG, AUGUST 14,"1979 PAGE 12
Ms. Schnabel stated that was his'intention in terms of the pilings.
He wanted to raise the house up and then skirt it so it would look
1S.ke a regular house. He had planned to use the space underneath as
a catch basin. But there v�ere problems with the swale lines and
with the elevations. She stated that there was no problem with the
pilings other than one neighbor was concerned about the pi2e driving :
disturbing his foundation. Apparently there is a method to avoid that.
Ms. Schnabel stated
people did not want
drainage problems.
that she Pelt the problem here was that the
two houses there because of the crowding and the
Mr. Pasborg state@ that if he built a sin�le house tkiere it would
take up as much room as the two houses. It wnuld be a T-shaped hpuse
and it would be big.
Pdr. hemper stated
difficult for P:4r.
for everyone.
that the ComMission was not trying to make it
Pasborg but was trying to find an amenable solution
Ms. Schnabel stated that there were alternatives. If he wanted to
rethink it or �vithdraw his request and go with a single dwelling, he
could. 5he informed Mr. Pasborg that if Gouncil reviewed it and it
was denied, he could do nothing with the property for six months.
bSr. Plemel stated that the final decision rested with the City Council.
The Appeals Commission only advises when there is neighborhood objection.
Mr. Kemper noted that neighborhood objection carried weight with them
and with Council.
P7s. Schnabel stated that he could request that the item be continued
for twa weeks which would give him time to review the situation.
R4r. C. Schack, 68� Glencoe Street, came forward and stated that
he would object to the retaining wall and did not believe that would
hold the water.
D4s. Schnabel stated that they had the same concerns and they were trying
to protect his property. She informed r�Ir. Schack that the petitioner
had requested this be tabled for two weeks to give him time to rethink
his.request. •
Pdr. Pasborg stated that he would like it to be continued for two weeks.
He felt that would be fair.
MOTION by Il^r. Kemper, seconded by P�is. Gabel to table the request for
variancss pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Firdley City Code, to reduce
the minimum lot area from the required '%500 square feet for lots
platted before December 29, 1955� '�o 558�k square feet, and to reduce the
requirement that there be twenty feet between Iiving.areas of adjacent
dv�ellings on any parcel of land 60 feet or less in width, to 10 feet, to
a].los the construction of two dwellings in CPR-2 Zoning (flood plain),
the same being 8125 and 8133 Riverview Terrace N.E. �
Ms. Gabel requested that in the next two weeks, 5taff research the
guhestions that were raised such a� the fire vralls,and th window ,
the wat�era�roD�em�"em and that T�1r. PasUorg check with Sta�f regar�ing
APPEALS CCr�4ISSI�id i4EETING AUGUST 14 -1Q?9 - PAGE 13
UPON A VOIGE VOTE, ALL YOTING AYE, CHAIRWOPrlAN SCHNABEL DECI,ARED THE
MOTION CAP,RIED UNANIDTOUSLY.
Ms. Schnabel informed the petitioner and the audience that the public
hearing was stil.l open and invited all interested parties to return in
two weeks.
Ms. Schnabel declared a recess at 9�25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting
at 9►35 P.Twt.
MOTIOTd by P�1r. Barna, seconded by P,1s. Gabel, 'to open the public hearing.
UP�N A YQICE VQTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRV10PdAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE
PUBZIC HEARING OPEN A T 9� 35 P���� •
TrYs, Schnabel aslced the petitioner to come forward and read the
Administrative Staff Report as follows:
ADMZI3TSTRATINE STAFF REPORT
575 Glenooe Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REOUIREMENT:
Section 205.053, 4a, requires a minim�n side yard setback o£ 10 £eet for
living area. .
Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a minimum of
20 feet between living areas in adjacent structures and 15 feet between
qarages and living areas in adjacent structures to reduce exposure to
oonflaqration of fire. It is also to allow for aesthetically pleasSng
open areas around residential structures. �
B. $TATGD�HARDSHIP:
"MOre living space is required. The best way to add living space to the
existing house is to add on the top of the garage which is existing
approxitaately 7 feet from the west property line."
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The house to the west is on the corner lots and faces Bmad Avenue. It
has 10 feet (verified) between the structure and the common lot line. If
the variance was approved Yhere would be appmximately 17 feet between
living areas.
r
APPyALS COiJ[t�tISSION P+1E�TING, AUGUST 14, 19?9 PAGE 14
bYs. Schnabel �tated that she understood that th3s was existing garage
on the west side of the house and it appeared that the top was removed
and the petitioner wished to build on top o£ the garage. She asked
what the addition would be?
Pdr. Skilling stated that part of it would be to add room on the
kitchen and part of it would be a family room. He showed the
Commissioners a drawing of what he proposed to do and explained
how he planned to do it.
Ms. Gabel asked if the garage could support the structure?
P.4r. Skilling stated that it could and that he had�checked it out.
If necessary, they would run an extra header.
F�s. Schnabel asked if he would do the work himself or hire someone?
Mr. Skilling stated that he would have the work done.
Idr: Kemper asked what the addition would cost?
Mr. Skilling stated it would cost around w14,000.
P+Is. Schnabel asked if the exterior would tie in with the existing
exterior and if the roof line rvould tie in with the existing roof?
Mr. Skilling stated that it would.
t�4s. Gabel asked about the windows?
Mr. Skilling stated that he would re2ocate them on that side.
n4s. Schnabel asked if he had talked to his neighbors about the addition?
P,4r. Skilling stated that he had and they were in favor of it.
Tdr. P.Zoravetz showed the Cor.ir,iissioners an aerial photograph of the
area.
I�ir. Kemper stated thai they were Iooking at a 3 foot variance.
tds. Gabel asked when he would start?
bTr, Skilling stated they would start as soon as possible and the actual
construction would take about five weeks.
P,10TION by Ms. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, GHAIRWdMAN 5CHNABEL DECT,ARED THE
PUBLIC HFiARING CLOSED AT 9r50 P.Df.
APPEALS COb�PAISSION P3EETITIG, AUGUST 14� 1979 - PAGE i5
Ms. Gabel stated that she had no problem with this. It was a small
rambler and he had a growing family and it looked. like it would be
a nice addition to the neighborhood.
MOTION by t.4s. Gabel, seconded by A1r. Kemper, to approve the request
for the variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code
to reduce the side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 7 feet
to allow the construction of additional living area on top of an
existing garage at 575 Glencoe Street NE.
UPON A VOTCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY�, CHAIRiQOTrIAPi SCHNAB�L DECI�ARED THE
MOTION CARRI�'D UNANII,IOUSI,Y.
Ms. Schnabel iniormed the petitioner that he was free to get a building
permit. �
4.
�
�nuuv aix�nr iv.s. �xequesti oy �onn Loyle, a. �. �onstiruczion,
Inc., 305 East River Road Id.E., Fridley, rr,n. 55�32)•
PHOTION by I�ir. P].emel, seconded by T+lr. Barna, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTS, AI,L VOTITdG AYE, CHAIRWOP:3AN SHCNABEI, DECLARED THE
PUBLTC iiEARING OPEN AT 9� 53 P� r�I •
Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner to come forward and read the
Administrative Staif Report as followse
ADMINISTRATNE STAFF REPORT
355 Hugo Street N.E.
A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVSD BY REQUIREMFTIT:
Section 205.053, 4A, requires a minimum front yard setback pf 35 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to pmvide open space for
off-street parking without encroaching onto public rig�ht of way. Also for
the aesthetic consideration not to reduce the "building line of sight"
encroachment into a neighbor's front yard.
8. STATED HARASIiIP: '
"R4�e normal 35 foot setback would place the house beriind both adjoining
houses and would place it in the creek bed, It is requested that the setback
be'the average setback (26�5 feet) be �reen the tca� adjoining houses."
APPEALS COt,�•RISSION MEF.TING, AUGUST 1�, 1979 PAG� 16 "
C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF R�VIEW: � . � " �
With the approval of the variance, the off street parking would be 28� feet
including the 2 foot boulevard azea. Parking could all be maintained on the
pmperty without encroaching onto public right of way. The building line of
sight would not be encroached upon as the house to the west was granted a
front yard variance to 30.8 feet (verified at 29.5� in May of 1976 to construct
an attached garage and the house to the east was buil�t in 1948 with a setback
of 23.3 feet. Ott±er houses along this block also have less thaA the 35 foot
setback due to the natural terrnin of the land and the location of the creek.
The Department of Natural Resources was contacted and has approved construction
• on this Iot with certain conditions in relation to keeping the creek banks in
tYseir natural state. Granting approval of this variance would not be setting
a precedent for front yaYd variances in this area and would allow development
of these lots.
r3s. 5chnabel commented that it was a nice wooded lot and hoped he
v�ould save as many trees as possibler
NIs. Gabel agreed that the trees should be saved and noted that he
had done a nice job at the other houses he had built.
Mr. Doyle, the petitioner, stated that his map would show the problem
better than the aerial photograph. He stated that he had his surveyor
go out and show them the water line on the map. The creek was the
culpret. What he would like to do is put a home in here that will not
be as big as the normal 960. It would be about 9�0 on the main floor
and he was trying to �rorlt it in with a garage which was tough on this
lot. He showed the Co;nraissioners his proposal. The widest garage he
could get on the lot was a single car garage. The house would have a
walkout from the lower level looking out to the creek. He could put
in a house without a garage and meet aZl the requireMents but wanted
to put in the garage.
Mr. Plemel agreed that he should have the garage.
Mr. Doyle stated that previous owner of the lot got letters from the
DNR and had soil borings taken and surveys done and did an extensive
amount of work. They took three soil borin�s. He stated it would
require extra work but would work out.
Mr. Kemper asked if he had a buyer and what the price would be.
Mr. Doyle stated that he did not have a buyer. The price would depend
on whether or not he finished the lower level. If the lower level
were not finished, it would run in the mid to upper �y50's. I�Ir. Doyle
stated that he would like to finish the lower level himself and that
would push the price up to the $80's.
APPEALS COb�'�I25SION PdE�TING, AUGUST 14, 1979 PAGE �17
Ms, Gabel asked if there would be two finished bedrooms on the upper
level?
Mr. Doyle stated that he could make it two, but he would like to put
in one large bedroom up and two bedrooms dovm.
Ms. Gabel stated that then he would almo;t have to finish the lower
level especially if he sold�to a family with ehildren.
l�r. Doyle stated that for a small house, it offered a lot of room. The
dimensions were 2� x 96 and with the entryway it would be a little over
940 square feet. Altog�ther, up and down, about ].7$0 square feet,
P�4s. Gabel asked if he would put rooms over the garage? •
Mr. Doyle stated he wouldn`t with this plan. That would be a 2-story
aituation.
Ms. Schnabel stated that they were concerned about his staying aF�ay
from the water line.
bir. Doyle stated that he was we11 aware of that, and he would take
extra precaution about that.
A4s. Gabel asked if they would have to do any banking or terracing?
P3r. Doyle stated that they.would have to.do a little and he would
like to create a creek-garden-side effect.
Ms. Gabel stated that then the cement block on the back of the garage
would be exposed.
HIr. Doyle stated that was correct.
Ms. Schnabel stated that there wa:> a telephone pole in the middle of
the lot and asked if they would move it?
I�Ir. Doyle stated that NSP would have to move it.
PJis. Schnabel read a letter from Ronald Harnack of the DNR dated
October 27, 1978. The letter was addressed to Steve Geis. A copy
of the letter is attached to the minutes.
t�i0TI0N by i+4r. Kemper, seconded by PSr. Barna, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICy VOT;, ALL VOTIA'G AYii, CHAIR4v'OP,'IAN SCHNABEL AnCLARED T:iE
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10�10 P.1�I.
APP�ALS COP�MI5SION t4E�TING, AUGUST 14, 1979 PAGE 18
Mr. Kemper stated that the petitioner had taken the DNR considerations
into account and that the setback was -in line with other setbacks in
the area. He stated that he would have no objection to the request.
MOTIOf1 by T�4r. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the request
for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Co@e to
reduce the front yard setback from the required 35 feet to 262 feet,
to allow the construction of a new dwelling at 355 Hugo Street IQ.E.
b1s. Schnabel emphasized that the pstitioner,.adhere to the stipulations
o£ the DTdR in terms oY the water channel.
UPON A YOICE VOT�, AI,I, VOTING AYE, CHAIRt�OI'lIAIQ SCHNABEL Dr.CLARED THE
bTOTION CARRIED UTIANII:IOUSLY.
P�4s. Schnabel in£ormed the petitioner that he was free to get,a building
permit.
ADJOUR&fi1ENT �
MOTIOId by PRr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to adjourn the August 14,
1979, meeting of the Appeals Commission.
UPON A VOIGy VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEi, DECLARED THE
I�T�ETING ADJOU:2N�D AT 10i15 P.NL
Respectfully submitted�
.��..,:�.-l��
Kathy helton, Recording Secretary
� � U V U V LS r� ��Lr-.� � -•
��PARTlvl�iVi' OF NA7U32A4. it�SOURC�S
Metro Region Waters� 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul� Minnesota 55106
Steve Geis October 27� 1978
Real Estate 10, Inc.
. 1635 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Mpls.� Minnesota 55433
RE: 7,OTS.63� 64� 65� Blnck A� Riverview Heights ��S„�0 �
Dear Mr. Geis: :
We have reviewed the survey plan for the above referenced lats in Fridley. .
Based on the scaled drawing showing the location of the proposed house�
we hate determined no DYR pezxnit is required. „
There aze certain conditions, however, which must be adhered to in order
for the construction to proceed. :
First� no alteration of the watercourse may occur as part of the develop-
ment of the property. .
Second� the watercourse shall be considered to be that part of the channel
which lies within the banks of the channel. Tn otherwords, the top of
the banks of the channel, define the limits of D:tR jurisdiction.
Third, the contractor shall ensure that no grading� filling or erosion
occurs below the top of the banks of the channel. This includes anp
sediments that may wash into the channel by overland flow. We suggest
any excess material be re,raoved from the site or stockpiled away from the
channel and stabilized with mulch and hay bales.
If you have any other questions regarding this natter� please contact
Mike Mueller.
� Y� truly, �� •
RDH:MITi:sb
� vr
c � -:�
R nald � �a r.�ac •r
Regional Rydrologist
cc:� City of Fzidley� R. Sobiech .�
Rice GYeek Watershed District
1
AD MINISTRATIVE SFRVILES • �VAiERS, SOILS, AND MINERAIS • lANDS AN� FORES�tRY
� GAME ANO FISN • PARNS AND RECREATI6N • ENF08C£MENT AND P�EID SERVICE
� �C� :.;...Sw
�
�
, CITY OF FRIDLEY
Vice Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 22, 1979, meeting of the
Planning Comraission to order at 7s32 P.P�I.
ROLL CALLs
t+Iembers Present�
Members Absents
Others Presents
t�s. Schnabel, F�Ir. Oquist, P�s. Hughes, Mr
t1lr. Hora
Mr. Harris, T��Ir. La�genfeld
Jerry Boardman, City Planner
Bill Deblon, Associate Planner
Treuenfels,
APPROVE PLANNING COM[vIISSION SPECIAL MEETING 1�4INUTESs AUGUST l, 1979+
b70TI0N by PRr. Treuen�els, seconded by Mr. Hora, to approve the
ugust 1, 1979� minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOP�IArd SCHNABEI, DECLARED
�HE MQTION CARRIED UNANIIv10USLY.
APPROVE PLANNING COMPdI5SI0N b1INUTES� AUGUST 8, 1979i
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by PRr. Oquist, to approve the
� 8, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Schnabel referred`to Page 8 of the minutes and stated that in
the fourth paragraph, "Shore" should be changed to "Schroer" and the
word "property" should be inserted.
Ms. Schnabel also noted that on Page 18 of the minutes, they had
discussed the concept of the Energy Commission continuing and how
that question should be handled. T�r. Harris had stated that they
should think about it some more and ➢Ts. Schnabel wanted to be sure
the item would not be lost. She suggested it be placed on the next
agenda for discussion.
UPOT1 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRPJOMAN SCHNABEL DECI,ARED
THE NIOTION CARRZED UNANIMOUSiY.
1:
Mr. Boardman stated that the getitioner had requested this item be
continued until September 12, 1979• •
/
PLANNING COMMISSION F�fEETING. AUGUST 22. 1979 PA1E 2
There was no one in the audience regarding this request.
Mr. Oquist asked if Excalibur was a part of Certified Homes?
Ms. Schnabel stated that the ownership was the same and it came out
at the Appeals Commission meeting that they would like it all to be
under the name of Excalibur. The letter which was included with the
minutes was on the wrong letterhead.
MOTION by PHs. Hughes, seconded by �:4r. Treuenfels, to continue the
request for 5P #?9-10 until September 12, 1979•
Ms. Schnabel stated that when this item was before the Appeals
Commission several questions had come up and she felt the same
questions would arise at the Planning Commission level and stated
that when they received the Appeals Commission minutes, she would
point them out.
UPON 9 VOICE VOTE,ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�>
PQOTION by ri7r. Oquist, seconded by MMr. Treuenfels, to open the Public
Hearing:
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, YICE GHATRWOPeIATd SCHNABEL DECLARED
T;{E PUBi,IC HEARING OPEN AT 7e4$ P.1�1.
Mr. Boardman stated that Page 3$ of the agenda indicated the location
of the lot. The lot is located on the corner of 76th Avenue and Able
Street. The present zoning in the area is R-1 with ihe exception of
the lots facing Able and Baker Street which are zoned R-2. The rest
of the zoning across the street on Able is R-1 and the majority of the
houses in there are single family houses.
1�5r. Oquist asked for a clearer explanation of the zoning.
Mr. Boardman stated that the lots west of Able are R-1 and the lots
across the street are R-2 and are directly east. They are developed
as double bungalows. `Phe lots to the north of 76th Avenue are R-1 lots,
and are developed as single family homes. Mr. Boardman stated although
the lots generally run east and west, there is a lot split there that
has been granted that makes those lots, Lots 1 and 2, go north and south.
So, there is a portion of I,ots 1 and 2 in one of the lots on the corner
and a portion in another lot. So, actually, the structure would be
PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGE 3
facing 76th Avenue N.E. with the side yard facing Able Street.
P�r. Boardman showed the Commissioners the plans for the proposed
structure. The plan included the elevations. It would be split right
down the middle. There are services to the lot so that would not be
a problem. He stated that Staff would prefer to see single family
development in that area rather than duplexes to maintain consistency
within the neighborhood. If Staff were to make a recommendation, they
w�uld recommend denial.
�Ts. Hughes asked if they would be 2-bedroom units?
Mr. Boardman stated they would. He also stated that the way the lot
is set up it would meet the code requirements if a Special Use Permit
were granted, There are 10,000 square feet on the lot and that would
meet the requirement Yor R-2.
Ms. Hughes asked why they were requesting a Special Use Permit?
P�Sr. Boardman stated that a Special Use Permit would allow a double
bungalow in an R-1 in certain cases so they wouldn't have to go to
a rezoning. If conditions were right, and if, for example, there
were other double bungalows in the area, a Special Use Permit could
be granted to allow this type o£ thing. They have done this in certain
areas where they wanted to keep the zoning R-1 but gave special con-
siderations for a duplex because of the surrounding properties. The
surrounding properties were either industrial or commercial and it was
consistent zoning. So, instead of spot rezoning, they request a 5pecial
Use Permit.
tuTs. Schnabel asked if the survey on Page 3� '�s reflective of the
proposed dwelling?
Mr. Boardman stated it was.
Ms. Schnabel stated that on the Able Street side they show a 35 foot
setback, but actually they could go to 17.5.
b4r. Boardman stated that was correct and there was adequate room on the
lot for the structure.
Ms. 5chnabel noted that the garage was to the rear of the property and
asked how many parking stalls would be required for a double bungalow
if this were approved?
PrIr, Boardman stated that they would need 1z stalls per unit on a double
bungalow. A 3 stall garage would not be required, all they would need
is 12 stalls off-street per unit, wfiich could be driveway. So they
could have a 2 car garage and have 4 parking spaces.
M�. Schnabel asked if they could have a single car garage with a drive-
way wide enough for 2 cars?
Mr. Boardman stated they could do it anyway they wanted as long as they
have 3 off-street stalls.
PLANNING COPifMISSION Pr2EETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGE 4
Ivir. Oquist asked why Mr. Boardman had recommended denial?
Mr. Boardman stated that in his opinion the duplexes along Baker and
Able streets z3o provide some buffer between the industrial that is
across the street from Baker, and didn't see anv reason for extending
the duplexes into the single dwellina area. All the units on that block
are single iamily. He did not see any special conditions that would
make a duplex necessary.
Mr. Treuenfels asked how his recommendation tied in with the overall
goal of the City to provide an additional 2300 housing units?
P�r. Boardman stated that he felt there were other areas where it would
be more suitable to go for higher density. He did not think they
should jeopardize single family areas which are lower density areas`just
to achieve 2300 units. He felt the �300 units �vould stand regardless
of going into single family areas and increasing the density. He did
not see any reason for it.
b2s. Schnabel stated that one thing that might be deceptive was that on
76th Avenue which would be across the street to the front of this
particular structure, there is only one house there and that would be
89� 76th Avenue. The other properties, 855 through 885 are actually
school property now and are vacant. So there would be only one home
facing this structure-on 76th. The property to the west is school
property.
b4r, Boardman showed the Commissioners an aerial photograph of the
area.
Mr. Ted Holsten, the petitioner, came forward and stated that the reason
he made the request was that it was a large lot, over 15,000 square feet,
and he did not think that it would be out of character to have a double
bungalow here when there were doubles across the street £rom it, on the
side of the lot. In addition to being large, the difficulty with the
lot is that the grade is about 2 to 4 feet below street grade and in
addition there is about 3 to 4 feet of peat-like material on the surface.
In order to build there they would have to remove that material in order _
to get down to a firn material and more than likely some compaction or
extra courses of block. The cost of doing this would make building a
single family home prohibitively expensive. The homes in the area, are
nice but they aren't high bracket homes such as a lot with these expenses
would dictate building. It would have to be a relatively expensive
home which he did not think would be salable. Building a double bungalow
would increase the land value and they could afford to put more money
into the land if necessary. He thought that the reason it went tax-
forfeit was that it �ras not economically feasible to build a single
family house on it. He talked to the neighbors and they didn't express
any particular objections to a double bungal.ow if he built a nice one.
He showed them the plans and pictures and they discussed that if he
would sell it, it would increase the probability of it being owner
occupied. He would agree to this.
PZANNING COMIaIISSION n4EETING AUGUST 22 1979 - PAGE 5
Ms. Schnabel stated that then he was not making a guarantee that he
would sell it as an owner occupied unit but was building it £or re-
sale purposes.
Mr. Holsten stated that was correct.
Ms. Hughes stated that she had noted a conflict as to the size of
the lot and asked ior the correct square footage.
Mr. Boardman stated that the lot was 15,040 square feet.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that he noted on the plans that the main traffic
pattern passes through the kitchen on the first floor and asked if
that was standard?
Mr. Holsten stated that for a double bungalow of this type, that was
standard. He stated that a large number of this type had been built
and were salable. Having a long common wall does dictate some con-
straints.
b1s. 5chnabel asked what size of garage he was planning to build?
Mr. Holsten stated that he had proposed a 20x22 which would be a 2
car garage but had forgotten about the 12 stall requirement per unit
and would be flexible with regards to that.
Mr. Boardman stated that the driveway would qualify.
P�r. Holsten statgd that the driveway was about 50 feet long. He felt
that a 3 car garage would look big on the lot.
�Ir. Oquist stated that 20x22 was a small 2 car garage.
N1r. Holsten stated that there would be a full basement far storage.
Mr. Boardman asked I�r. Holsten why he chose the design he did and why
he didn't go with a design with an attached garage? This design seemed
old-fashioned and similar to the ones built in the 1950's and 1960's.
It seems quite small. Some of the more rece�t double bungalows or
duplexes have attached garages on the lower floor and it gives a
separation of living units.
Mr. Holsten stated that the problem of putting a garage in the middle
of this one is that it adds to the elevation of the building and also
adds to the expense of putting in the foundation. The proposed design
would have a full baseme,nt and he would have to go several courses be-
low that in order to get down to firm footings. If he went to the split-
entry-type or the slab-type with the second story on it, it would take
a dozen wasted courses of block and would be economically unfeasible to
build. He felt this was more attractive than having the garages right
in front.
PLANNING COMMZSSION I:IEETING, AUGU5T 22. 1979 - PAGE 6
Ms.Schnabel stated that she agreed with T.2r. Boardman only because
she felt that with this size of a lot, it could take a larger
structure with perhaps 3 bedrooms or something more spacious rather
than the minimal size of this p1an. That was why she had brought
up the setbacks. He could put a larger structure on this lot.
Mr. Holsten stated that he did not think that 3 bedroom double bungalows
returned as �vell as 2 bedroom ones. He could have made it larger, but
the ones across the street are considerably smaller than this and if
you build a large building among small ones, the return is not too
good.
PJfs. Schnabel stated that those doubles looked fairly big from the
front because they are long.
Mr. Boardman stated that he was disappointed with the design of the
structure. He felt that if the Special Use Permit were to be approved,
they should get something that would add a little bit more to the
neighborhood rather than just building another structure that is similar
to the one across on Able 5treet.
Ms. Hughes asked why he didn't face it towards the other double bungalows
on Able rather than towards 76th?
Mr. Holsten stated that he had thought of that but this pZan didn't
lend itself to that and with the lot being 95 feet deep, it wouldn't
leave much of a back yard, with the 35 ioot setback and the building
being 32 £eet deep, it would only leave a 28 foot baclt yard. He stated
that he was not locked in on this particular double bungalow and if it
would please the Commission, he could come in with another plan. If
the request for a Special Use Permit were granted, he wouldn't be opposed
to that.
Ms. Hughes stated that the one house next door faces 76th and asked
what was on the other two lots?
DTs. Schnabel stated that the other houses £aced Van Buren Street. There
are really only two houses that iace 76th and they are 876 and 895•
Mr. Bill Jordan, 895 76th Avenue NE, came iorward and stated that he
had a petition signed by 20 people. Out of 22 homes that he went to,
20 were definitely against it. He stated that they were sick and tired
of double bungalows. The person who owms the double bungalow on Able
Street does not take care of it. If this is built, he would sell his
house. He has lived there seven years and knows that the other neighbors
feel the same way.
Ms. Schnabel asked if he had any knowledge of the history of this lot
from the standpoint of previous owners who did not build on it?
D4r. Jordan stated that he was told that a creek runs through there and
that is why the grass and trees stay green. His father has lived in
Fridley his whole life and he told him there was a creek there once.
He reiterated that the neighbors were very against it.
PLANNING COMMISSION P4EETING AUGUST 22 1979 - PAGE 7
1�ZOTION by BFis. Hughes, seconded by D1r. Treuenfels, to receive the
p�— tit on against the request.
I�is. Schnabel read the petition as followsa The following list
represents those people who are against the erection of a double
bungalow at 7582-7�84 Able Street r1E. It is signed by 20 people.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIR640NIAN SCHNABEL DECLARED
THE MaTION CARRIID UNANII�fOUSLY.
1�4r. John C. Bernardson, 876 - �6th Ave. I3E, came forward and stated
that he lives right next door to the lot in question. He stated that
when Mr. Holsten first came to his house and told him about the douhle
bungalow, he told him at that time that he didn't care either way. But,
after thinking about it, he decided he didn't want it, because all the
double bungalows on Able look terrible. He stated that he also would
move if it is built. He has lived there 3 years.
Mr. Richard Lein, 7�50 Able Street, came forward and stated that he was
not home when Mr. Holsten came around with the pictures of the structure
so he had no idea of what type of structure he had planned. He did
talk to him on the phone and he agreed with the financial problems of
the lot, but could not agree because it was on his side of the street
opposite a dnuble bungalow and they have had a lot of problams with the
double bungalows. They are not kept up.
Nir. Bernardson stated that people renting a double bungalow don't
care what it looks like and the owners don't care. They might be nice
when they are first built, but after a few years they become run down.
He thought the lot should be cleaned up but didn't think a double
bungalow was the answer.
DZs. Hughes asked if the lots that the school owns were platted and if
they could be sold for residences.
trZr. Boardman stated there wexe platted and if the school decided to
sell they could be developed as R-1. It is zoned R-l.
Ms. Hughes asked if t+loodcrest had any plans to close that sChool and if
the 1ot met the minimum requirements of the state as far as area without
these lots?
P�Zr, Boardman stated that as far as he knew the Schoo]. District planned
to keep Woodcrest open at this time. In their Comprehensive Plan it
looked like they would continue the operation of the school and there-
fore wou2d not sell these lots.
P�Ir. Holsten stated that he was disappointed at the response of the
neighbors and was not aware of the objections they had expressed here.
He wished they had expressed them when he had talked to them because
he has put more money into the project since then. It seemed that the
PT.ANNING COP�4ZSSION PHEETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGE 8
major problem was that the neighbors were relating him to the owners
of the property across the street. He doesn't know those people and
didn't 3ee1 he should be judged because of what they did. He stated
he had built several double bungalows and none of them look like the
ones across the street. They are well maintained. He noted that a
single family home could deteriorate also. That is a function of the
owner. He would be willing to guarantee that he would se11 the double
bungalow after it is built and therefore, there would be a high pro-
bability that it would be owner occupied.
Ms. Hughes asked 2�4r. Holsten if he had other property in F'ridley?
Mr. Holsten stated he did not. He has had property in Columbia Heights
at 39th and Ulysis. He built four double bungalows there and would be
willing to show them to any interested parties.
PdOTION by P�is. Hughes, seconded by LTr. Treuenfels, to close the Public
iiearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE C:iATR��IOTiAId SCHNABEL DECLARED
THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOS� AT 8 i 15 P.I�I .
l�is. Hughes asked about the advisability of using Special Use Permits
rather than rezoning. Philosophically it seems to be a cop-out to her
and yet it also provides some protection to the area because if that
use ever changes it reverts to the zoning. She would like some dis-
cussion regarding the question of Special Use Permits rather than re-
zoning.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she was surprised that it came as a 5pecial
Use Permit also. The feeling in the past has been, in dealing with
Special Use Permits (SUP), the Planning Commission has generally been
a little leary of them because the burden of proof is more on the City
than on the petitioner in terms of approval or denial. Part of the
agenda is to receive a new memorandum on this question of SUP from the
City Attornery. She did know that philosophically in thepast, the
Planning Commission has preferred to see them handled straight out,
Mr. Boardman stated that at one time the Council had asked the Planning
Commission to look at the question of whether it would be better to have
a SUP or rezoning and not allow a duplex in an R-1. He believed that at
that time the Planning Commission did send a recommendation to keep the
double bungalow with a SUP, because there were certain conditions they
might want to look at as far as a SUP for a double bungalow if there were
special conditions. He was not sure what the Council's attitude was at
that time, but it was his understanding that they wanted to eliminate
that because it does create a problem in certain aspects. St is an
easier way for somebady to get a_double bungalo•_ Although either one
requires a public��ing.
PLANNING COMMISSION Pi1EE2ING AUGUST 22 1 - PAGE
I�s. Schnabel stated that in this situation it is almost like rezoning
because they are taking an isolated lot and giving it a new twist.
They would be permitting something to be built on other than what it
was zoned for� and she thought that whether they ca12 it rezoning or
call it a Special Use Permit, the ultimate result would be same. So
they have to look at whether that was the intent of the original zoning
plan. In terms oi rezoning, several people on the Board have been con-
sistent in opposing spot rezoning.
Mr. Oquist stated that rezoning was permanent where a SUP is temporary.
Mr. Boardman stated that was not really the case because a Special Use
Permit is granted to the land not the structure or owner. Once a SUP
is granted that automatically allows another use that would be similar
to that. If the building was destroyed the building could be replaced
without another public hearing. He noted that a SUP gives the City a
certain amount of control because they can place certain conditions on
it such as allowing it for one year with annual review and also the
Council can revoke a SUF. �owever, with a rezoning, a special process
would be required. In some cases they allowed a SUP for the construction
of double bungalows in an R-1 where there was industrial across from
it which made the property undesirable for R-1 if they were good looking
units.
Ms. Schnabel stated that she disagreed that the SUP were usually granted
to the land. It seemed to her that they were granied io the owner.
Mr. Boardman stated that was the case in some instances, but in most
cases, it was granted to the land.
P.1s. Schnabel stated that in this case it would have to go to the lot
because Dir. Holsten planned to se1L
fl7s. Hughes asked how the decision was made to ask for a SUP or rezoning?
Mr. Boardman stated that when a petitioner comes in, Staff looks at it
and advises them as to what route they would have the best chances with.
In this case, he felt the rezoning would never be approved. He stated
that he could never approve a rezoning here. The only way he would
approve a SUP was with a lot of special conditions for the protection
of the neighbors. Even then, he was very cautious becuase he didn't
feel either rezoning or a Special Use Permit was in the best interest
of the neighborhood or the City. They try to give the petitioner the
best direction they can as to which way to go and which way would be
his best chance, if they feel there is any hope at all. In some cases,
they try to discourage the developer from going at all.
Mr. Treuenfels asked Mr. Boardman to elaborate on the case oY Holasek v
the Village of P=Yedina which was mentioned in the memo from riTr. Herrick
regarding Special Use Permits.
PZANNING COMIu1I5SI0N M�ETING, AUGUST 22. 1979 - PA�� 10
Mr. Treuenfels read the following statement from the memos "a denial
of the permit must be for reasons related to public health, safety, and
general welfare." This statement was on Page 3 of the memo.
t�r. Boardman stated that when they talk about general welfare they
were referring to the general welfare of the neighborhood. If the
City feels that a structure would not be in the best interestes of
the City or the development of a neighborhood, those would be grounds
for denial. The difference between a rezoning and a Special Use Permit
is that the reasons for denial for a 5UP falls upon the City and the
City must give the reasons for the denial. Under zoning, the petitioner
has to give grounds as to why it should be rezoned. He stated that you
can lay out pretty strong grounds against a SUP if you want to deny it.
General welfare is a very broad category.
i'r1r. Oquist stated that Page 4 discussed the standards.
Ms. Schnabel stated there was also a statement where in terms of
gen�ral public weliare, it should not impair the use, enjoyment and
value of any property.
D4r. Boardman stated that when they talk about a SUP in a residential
area, they generally have a lot of grounds.
117s. Schnabel stated that another thing that makes it difficult is that
in working with SUP, they have to be very careful in a denial that they
cite legal reasons to substantiate the denial. I£ the petitioner has
presented the case in such a manner that it meets all the code require-
ments, and it does not infringe upon the health, safety, and welfare,
including all Nervices such as the 44ater Department, the Police Depart-
ment, and the Fire Department, of the general public, it would arbitrary
to deny the Special Use Fermit. In order to deny it, we must present
the legal reasons why they recomnend denial. That's where the burden
of a SUP becoMes very difficult. She stated that they nake a recommendatior.
to Council and Council has the final decision.
i�s. Hughes stated that she sensed a change of attitude on some of these
things. For a long time Cities were running scared and the case laws
supported it. She believes that has changed over the past few years.
The test of it is obviously when a denial getstaken to court by the
petitioner. She felt the cities have been much to scared about denying
Special Use Permits and rezonings. In a situation like this she
would be tempted to make the decision on Mr. Treuenfels basis of needing
more housing which is in the public interest and would overbalance
disrupting a neighborhood. She did not want them to run scared on SUP
because generally she thought they were an "easy rezoning". She asked
if they could delay a decision on this until they had received the memo?
Ms. Schnabel stated that if they wanted to do that, they would have to
table the request either until they had received the memo or for two
weeks.
PLANNING COMMISSION AIEETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGE 11
P+1r. Hora asked why they should table it. They have worked with
Special Use Permits before and he was sure they had never not denied
one.
T�s. Hughes stated that she would like to know if there was something
new in there. But she agreed and stated she was ready to vote.
�4r. Treuenfels quoted the statement on the bottom of pa�e � of the memo
regarding the case of Bec� v City of St, Paul.
&lOTION by P:1r. Hora, seconded by P:Is. Hughes, to recornmend to Council
deniaZ of the request:'for SP #79-08, by Exemplar, Inc, Per Section
2o5•�53. 3� D, to allaw the construction of a double bungalow in R-1
zonin� (single family dwelling units), on Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Shaifer's
Subdivision No. 1, lying East o£ the West 90 feet thereof, the sa�ne
being 7582-8�+ Able Street N.E., based on 5taff's recommendations.
P�4r. Holsten re�uested it be tabled so he could talk to the neighbors
again and see if they could arrive at a solution.
Mr. Boardman stated that he felt the Commissioners should consider
whether they want to allow any duplex or whether it would be a matter
of continuing.
b7r. Hora stated that he felt it was placing a burden on the property
owners because they had presented a petition and they have decided
they don't want a double bungalow in there. If we table it again, he
would have to get another petition.
Ms. Schnabel stated there were several alternatives. The petitioner
could withdraw the request at any time and the second alternative
was that if the Board wanted to act upon it now, at the time it goes
before the City Council, the petitioner could bring in either the same
plan or a new one after he talks with the neighbors. She noted that
Council was the final authority.
Mr. Boardman stated that the meeting at the Gouncil would not have to
be a public hearing.
Mr. Hora stated that the petitioner could present new evidence.
Mr. Jordan stated that the building had nothing to do with it. I1ew
plans would not change the situation. They don't want any double
bungalows in there.
Y�7s. Schnabel stated that if the neighbors were not interested in
discussing it again with t+1r. Holsten, then there was no reason to
continue it.
P�ir. Oquist asked if it would make a difference if it were owned by the
people living in it? If both sides were owner occupied?
NTr. Jordan stated that still wouldn't make any difierence because they
could still sell it and it would become rental property.
Mr. Boardman noted that there was nothing to stop a sing2e family house
from becoming rental property.
PLAiVNING COMMISSION P+i�ETIIdG AUGUSi 22, 1979 - FAG� 12
N'.s. Hughes stated that with the cost of housing, the man had a point
in trying to provide this type of housing and we also have an obligation
to provide housing for £uture generations. It isn't all a case oi
people who rent being no good. Her personal philosophy was:to oppose
this kind of special use, but we also have to provide housing.
Ms. Hughes stated that we have some severe probleMS in this State
with housing. Iiowever, she did not like R-1 neighborhoods spot re-
zoned. 5he felt there were some serious welfare problems connected
with that and she did not feel it served the City well. The orienta-
tion of this particular unit is the wrong way to give much justice to
R-2. It faces into areas that could be R-1 across the street, and
the neighboring houses are oriented in such a way that they ought to
be able to expect some protection. Those are generally the reasons
why she would oppose the Special Use Permit. The primary one being,
however, is that the Special Use Permit in this case is really in lieu
of rezoning which she felt was the proper way to handle this request.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, I,IR. OaUIST, TIS HUGtii5, T�4S. SCHNABEL, P�;R. HORA VOTING
AY�, AND P?R. TR�UENFSLS ABSTAIIIING, VICE CHAIRWOB7AN SCIiP1ABEL D�CLARED
THE MOTION CARRIFD.
Ty1�. Schnabel informed the petitioner that they had recommended denial
and it would go to Council on September 1Q, 1979.
:+Tr. Boardman stated it would not be a public hearing but the Council
would entertain questions from the petitioner and also from the
neighbors and they would encourage-all interested parties to attend.
3:_
MOTION by I�Zr. mreuenfels, seconded by bir. Oquist, to open tne Public
Hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICr� CHAIRWOIdIAN SCdNABEL DECLARED
THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8�52 P.P�i.
T�Tr. Boardman stated that this property was located just west of Central
Auto Parts on 73z Ave, and is kind o£ surrounded by the mobile home
lots, or rather their selling yard, i�7r. Boardrnan shovaed the Commissioners
an aerial photograph of the area. He stated that a Special Use Permit
was gran�ed to the mobile home to set up,a display area here. The
request is from a commercial zone to an industrial zone. I�ir. Boardman
indicated on the aerial view which of ihe property in the area was
commercial and which was industrial. They would like to put in a
storage yard, a construction office with Royal Electric operating on
one side and a construction operation on the other side.
PLANNING CONIMISSIOI3 It'fEETING AUGUST 22. 1979 - FAGE 13
Ms. Hughes asked who owned it?
Mr. Boardman stated tnat the lots in question were Lots 7, 8 and 9.
Lots 4, $ and 6 are owned by the trailer operation. Lot 1 is owned
by the City of Fridley because of the pump house. I,ots 2 and 3 are
not owned by either operation. The lots in question are owned by
Gus Doty. If it is rezoned it wi11 be sold to the petitioners. They
may not want to buy it if it is not rezoned.
Mr. Oquist noted that it was surrounded by light industrial all around
with the exception of that one area.
P�Ir. Boardman stated that his recommendation that eventually where the
trailor sales is, it would all be industrial. He felt �that the ilzrther
back you go from the main thoroughfare, the less desirable the property
is for commercial.
P•Zs. Schnabel stated that she agreed and that she could not see a
shopping center of some kind going in here. There would be no way to
see it, While she generally opposes spot rezoning, she felt this
was similar to the situation on Old Central where it is a more com-
patible use for what is already existing there.
Mr. Oquist stated that he did not think this was really spot rezoning
because the property to the east and the property to the south is
already r�i-1 so what they were really doing was extending it.
PRr. Boardman stated that it was really a planned rezoning, and eventually
all of this area would be industrial. He would recomm�nd it go that
directi m. He would like to see them eliminate as Much strip commercial
as possible and he felt this was the intent of the City.
Ms. Schnabel also noted that this was not a spot that they would ever
want to change to residential zoning.
Ivir. Boardman stated that when they were discussing the zoning code,
they had discussed eliminating uses in this area such as the junk yards,
etc.
t;r. James L•ondon and T-qr. i�lichael D. Gannucci, the petitioners, came
forward and AIr. London stated that he was in the home construction
business and his partner, P�Ir. Gannucci, was an electrical contractor.
He stated that they plan to build the building for their own use
and would maintain their o£fices in the building.
P+1s. 5chnabel referred to the site plan they were shovm and noted that
they had off-street parking and a storage yard which would be all
screened.
PLANNING COPRMISSION MESTING AUGUST 22 1979n - PAGE l�
�1r. Boardman stated that screening fences were required between all
adjacent zones other than industrial zones so they would have to
have a fence along the north and west and it would have to be a solid
wood screening fence. On the west it wouZd deFinitely have to be a
solid wood screening fence, and on the north a chain link with wood
slats or something like that would be alright. That would ha've to be
worked out.
t�r. London stated that for their own protection they would want a
fence.
Ms. Schnabel asked if they had an option on the property at this time
based on the rezoning?
P�ir. London stated that was correct.
T�s. Schnabel asked when they would proceed if the request were granted?
Mr. London stated they would like to start this fall.
Ms. Hughes stated that she had noted that the signature on the application
was the signature of the petitioner rather than the ownership. She
felt that the owner of the property should sign that.
Mr. Boardman agreed and stated that P.7r. Doty should have signed it
and that he was aware of this.
P�Zs. Hughes stated that in the future that should be handled correctly.
P1[s. Schnabel asked if the size of the property met the requirements for
M-1 zoning?
Pdr. Boardman stated that it did and it was over 3/4 of an acre.
MOTION by I�Is. Hughes, seconded by P.Tr. Oquist, to close the Public Hearing.
UPONAA VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE, VICE CHAIRWOP�'IAN SHCPdASEL DECLARED
THE PUBI,IC HEARING CI,OSED AT 9:08 P.tr'i.
T,Ir. Oquist stated that he £eZt this was a satisfactory use of the land
and there was industrial around it.
MOTION by P:�r, Oquist, seconded by Pdr. Hora, to recommend to Council
approval of Rezoning Request, ZOA #79-06, by James E. London and Michael
D. Gannuccit Rezone I,ots 7, 8 and 9, Block 1, Central View P�Zannor, from
C-2S (general shopping areas) to T+;-1 (light industrial areas) to allow
the construction of a new industrial building, the same being 1175 73�
Avenue TI.E.
UPON A VOICn VOTE, AI,I, VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIBi�10Is9AI'd SCHNAII�I, DECLARED
THE t�SOTION CARRIED UTIANIL40USLY.
PI,ANNING COMI�IISSION IvTEETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGi� 15
D3s. Schnabel informed the petitioner that this would go to Counc'_..
on September 10, 1979 and a public hearing would be set for Octo"ber
8, 1979•
4.
Pdr. Oquist stated that he would like to have time to read it.
TvIs. Schnabel agreed and requested it be placed on the next agenda
for discussion purposes. 5he also requested a copy be sent to
Nir. Harris and t�ir. Langenfeld and also to each member of the Appeals
Commission because it also deals with variances.
P:i0TI0N by i,Yr. Oquist, seconded by i�is. Hughes, to receive the memorandum
from Virgil Herrick, the City Attorney, dated August 2, 1979•
UPON A Y�ICE VOTE, ALL VOTIPtG AYE, VICr� CHAIRWONIAN SCHNABEL D�CLARED
THE D50TION CARRIED UNANIP�'tOUSLY.
Vice Chairwoman Schnabel declared a recess at 9:10 P.1�7. and reconvened
the meeting at 9�25 P•I;�•
°`� � CONTINUED c COP4PRnHEPdSIVE DLVELOPTdLNT PLATd s
TRANSPORTATION:
T�Is. Schnabel stated that the Community Development Commission concurred
with the Transportation Plan and theParks and Recreation did not dis-
cuss it.
I+Tr. Treuenfels stated that he found the philosophical comments in the
Introduction helpful even though he did not agree with all of them.
P7,AN DIRECTIO,v'�
t,:r. Treuenfels stated that he felt �4 should be �1. ile felt that
�4 should be the top priority.
P.Yr. Boardman stated that they were not listed in priority.
T3r. Treuenfels asked that if it were retyped, the order be changed as
he suggested. He felt #4 should be their primary goal.
T�1s. Hughes agreed and felt that �4 should be #1 and �5 should be #2.
Also, she felt that maintenance of the existing system could be im-
provement of.
PLANNING COTtiMISSION b4EETING. AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAuL 16
Mr. Deblon stated that �2 took care of improvements. He stated that
in the real world they had to maintain what they have and when they
get the chance, and the money, make changes and improvements. He felt
that the oY'der they were listed in had a certain flow to it.
T�Ir. Oquist noted that when �omething is numbered, it is always read in
order.
Mr. Boardman suggested they replace the numbers with dots.
Mr. Oquist agreed.
t�Is. Hughes stated that maintenance did not have to be a priority.
l�ir, Boardman stated that it was a priority because that's what the
people in the City want. 5afety is primary and maintenance is for
safety.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that he felt that maintenance was a small part
of serving transit needs.
GOAI,S e
P.4s. Hughes recommended the insert "conservation of energy" after the
word "efficiency".
The Commissioners concurred.
Ms. Hughes stated that it appeared to deal primarily with roads and
she felt this was the v�rrong emphasis.
Obiective 1, PolicY 1-B:
t�ir. Treuenfels asked ho�v the City would do that?
I:?r. Boardman stated they would make safety improvements such as
signalization, speed limit controls, etc.
Obiective 2. Policv 1-A:
Pds. Schnabel questioned the word "promote". She feli they really had
to develop park and ride sites.
T�ir. Boardman stated they would try to promote cooperative efforts with
businessmen to allow joint uses of parking lots and that type of thing.
He stated that they had one site now at the Arena. A plan was developed
and sent to the t�YTC but they don't have the money for it now and it was
put on ice. He felt it should be encouraged, however. He went on to
mention several possible locations such as Menards and Northtawn.
abiective 2 Policv 2-A Pc 2-Be
P�Tr. Treuenfels asked what the difference was between these tv�o policies?
t+Tr. Deblon stated that it appeared to be a typing error and he would
look into it.
PLAPINIDIG C0�'R�"IISSION MEETING. AUGUST 22, 1979 - _ PAGE 17
Objective 2, Polic.y 6�
Mr, Treuenfels asked if we really had that many options as to where
they would develop housing?
TwTr. Boardman stated that if they were going to be looking at housing
for the disadvantaged, they should be looking at locating that housing
in areas where they can provide that transit.
Nlr, Oquist asked if it wouldn't be easier to bring the transit to the
area, especially if there was a high volume of need ir. the area?
P�ir. Soardman stated that the problem was they needed a turn-around
area and also there are problems with taking the buses through
residential areas to turn them around.
Ms. Hughes stated they would have to start looking at jitneys and multiple
use cabs and things like that.
Tv1r. Treuenfels stated they had to think of alternatives and make their
desires kno�vn.
I:Ts. Hughes explained that a jitney was a vehicle that ran on a scheduled
route continuously but not on a time scnedule. It is a shuttle service.
It could be anything from vans to stationwagons, or taxicabs that can
accept more than one fare at a time.
Obiective 2, PolicY 5:
Ms. Hu�hes asked why this wasn't a separate objective. She felt this
was critical and very important.
Mr. Boardman stated that they felt it was a part of Objective 2.
b'ir. Treuenfels asked if it wouldn't be better to delete the word
"necessity"?
The Commissioners concurred.
Obiective 3:
P,ir. Treuenfels noted that "con�estion" was spelled wrong in the
statement under the objeetive.
Ob:iective 3� Policv 1-A�
Ms. Hughes asked if this would be rewritten?
P:'Ir. Deblon stated it was and would read as iollows� "The City should
analyze these improvements to determine if they� 1) improve localized
movements within the community. 2) adversely e£fect the natural and
social environment. 3) adversely effect the overall economic well-being
of the city." The words "do not" were deleted.
PLANNING COMMISSIOTV1�iEETING AUGUST 22. 1979 - PAGE 18
Ob'ective 3� Policv 1�
D�r. Treuenfels asked for an example of regional transportation
faeilities.
Pr4r. Deblon cited the interstate and the railroad as examples.
Mr. Boardman explained
analyze improvements on
items listed.
Obiective 3,
that they were saying they should continue to
it to see if those improvements improve the
Ms. Schnabel referred to the statement under Objective 3 with regards
to the fourth sentence which states "Th$s north-south movement has Made
local east-west movement increasingly difficult. .. the City should
work with the appropriate agencies to reduce the negative effects."
She asked what the thinking 6ehind that was and what they could do?
Pir. Boardman stated that one of the main questions was how they would
get pedestrian movement across there. One of the things they may have
to do is work with those agencies to get over-passes or under-passes and/
or a chan�e in the signalization system which will allow that pedestrian
movement to cross. Another way would be to work with the Rice Creek
bike/way system.
-"—�.- ScFinabTas� about the pedestrian movement from the Village Green.
P�Ir. Boardman stated they really haven't done any monitoring of that and
thought they should.
Ms. Schnabel stated that in reference to traffic in neighborhoods,and
commercial strips in neighborhoods, she felt that as �ve are being en-
couraged more and more to conserve gas and walk or bike, those neighbor-
hood centers become more important. In fact, many people are talking
about the neighborhood grocery store returning. She felt that should go
part and parcel with some of these thoughts.
Mr. I3oardman stated that this was discussed in Policy 3,A, B, �c C.
Those policies discussed traffic control and noise in residential
areas.
P!Is. Schnabel stated that in regards to this, they should be careful
not to cut off all the access so the fire trucks cann't get in.
T�Ir. Boardman stated that there were conflicts because when they try
to provide the most e£ficient system for police or emergency vehicles,
they are also providing the most efficient type of system for automobile
use also. So you run into the same type of system because they are one
and the saMe.
PLANNING CCNIMISSION P�iEETIIdG, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PE1�'*� �-9
Objective 4:
Ms. Hughes asked if this wouldn't be a good spot for I:Is, Schnabel's
comments about looking at zoning codes for appropriate neighborhood
5ervices?
Mr. Deblon stated that he thought that the Land Use Section dealt with
that.
Mr. Boardman stated that he didn't think the City was big ennugh that
they would develop neighborhood grocery stores. The locations are close
enough to the Center City areas and the Shorewood area, etc. You might
have to walk 5 or 6 blocks which is not excessive.
t�Ir. Treuenfels stated that with the oil shortage he felt they should
rethink the mandatory requirement of having so many parking stalls
for a home. He felt it should be left up to the homeowner.
T�r. Oquist stated that the parking requirement was just to make sure
they had a place to park off the street.
l�r. Boardman asked what kind of statement they would want?
Ms. Hughes stated that Policy 3-B under Objective 4 in the Land Use
5ection came close to what she had in mind. She would like something
like that said here.
Ms. Schnabel stated that Objective 4 in the Transportation seemed to
deal more with physical movement rather than the loc«tion of service
centers.
P.ir. Deblon stated that he felt it was covered in the I,and Use Section.
Sds. Hughes stated that wouTd suffice.
INVENTORY:
N:r. Deblon stated that they were reworking this section. They had
new data based on the new projections on the gas shortage.
Mr. Boardman stated that the Cor.unissioners had all the maps on the
Transportation section with the exception of the ADT IsIap. They had
problems with the figures given to them. He stated they might not
be able to show a 1990 ADT traffic projection based on those calculations.
Pds. Schnabel referred to the projected figure of 75,000 on 694. She
stated that would change if there was a new bridge by 1990.
Mr. Boardman stated that that figure was not necessarily correct.
There were discrepancies in some of these fi�xres. Also, he noted
that 694 would be increased to a six lane highway.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION P+iEETIPdG. AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGE 20
Waterwavss
Ms. Schnabel asked where the public landing and access would be?
t+'Ir. Boardman stated thsy were looking at the highway salt storage
location south of the bridge. That would be the best access and
location £or a boat landing and it would be developed as part of the
Great River Road Park Plan System. The County would take over the
salt storage area right on the river and utilize the lower area for
boat launchings.
Pds. Schnabel asked if it was feasible to put motorized and non-motorized
vehicles on the river?
Mr. Boardman stated that south of 694 was not too bad, but beyond the
Islands of Peace it could be a problem, It would depend on the boat.
Mr. Oquist stated that this statement read like a policy.
DZs. Hughes stated that she felt it should be in the Parks Section.
Nir. Boardman agreed that it should be deleted and stated he would check
for other statements like that in the inventories.
Public Transitc
P.Is. Schnabel referred to the third paragraph in this section and stated
that there were people who might take exception to that statement.
D1r. Deblon stated they would be rewriting tnat.
SEWERSs
I�Tr. Boardman stated that the Sewer Plan Goal was out of place and
should be after the Introduction.
Introductioni
Mr. Oquist referred to the third paragraph in the Introduction and
stated he was not so sure Fridley had a quality sewer and storm sewer
system. It seemed to him that every Spring, one or two broke near his
house.
Mr. Deblon stated that comparing it to Minneapolis and St. Paul, it was
very good.
Objective 1:
P,Ts. Hughes asked if they were �oing to include a statement to the effect
that they would monitor the quality of water in the City including
business and industrial affecting public water, etc.?
P�'r. IIoardman stated that this section re�erred to drinking water. It
was water treatment and supp].y. They were referring strictly to the
pipe system and underground system for drinking water.
PLANNING COI�:TISSION r:IyETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 -n ��� 21
Mr. Deblon suggested they insert the word "domestic".
N1r. Boardman agreed.
Oblective 2�
Ms. Hughes referred to the third line in the statement under Objective 2.
She felt this was a policy and wouid ki e to see it as either an
objective or a policy.
Mr. Boardman stated
Resources section.
supply.
it was an objective or policy under the Environmental
?fe didn't think it fit under the domestic water
S�ir. Deblon stated this section deals with piping the water. The water
source is @ealt with in the Enviroruaental Resources section.
t+is. Hughes stated that would suffice.
Ob:iective 2, Polic.y 2-B�
I�is. Hughes suggested they change tiie word "encourage" to "regulate"
and do it by perr.iit which would bring money into the City. She would
like to regulate it. There are certain size users that have to have
permits to do this and they are controlled by the Pollution Control
Agency. The reason it is done by permit is they don't do it if they
aren't required to do it. She was not so sure that shouldn't apply
to smaller industrial users as well. 39hile you can enaourage it, she
doesn't have much faith in that kind of process.
T.Tr. Boardman stated it only becomes a process when it becomes economically
feasible for them to do it. If it is not economically feasible, they
are not going to do it and the same applies to the homeowner.
Ms. Hughes stated that it wouldn't be economically feasible until a
penalty is enforced. That was the process with air pollution.
P�1r. Boardman stated that he could see encouraging it but wasn't sure
about re�;ulating it.
NIr. Hora stated that it had to be reasonable.
P.1s. Hughes stated that she would go along with "encourage".
Obiective 3s
TvIs. 5chnabel asked �vhy they were going into this since this is the
way it is done anyway. She asked why they were highlighting that?
Pdr. Boardman stated that all they were saying was that it should be
continued. It is a policy of the City.
NIs. Schnabel stated they should be consistent and have it t_hroughout
PLANNING COT�PQISSIOTd P?IEETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGS 22
SECTION II. SEWERS�
Objective 3:e
is,r. Hora asked ii the idea for the Fridley t^Iaste Water Treatment Plant
was still on the books with the P•:t�1CC to put in a Northern Tier Treatment
Plant?
Mr. Boardman stated it was sti11 layed out in it as a secondary cycle.
P�Ts. Schnabel stated that in both the sanitary system and the storm
sewer system, nothing was stated about evaluating the amount of service
given to specific areas as areas increase in density. �he present
service may be inadequate. She was referring in particular to the River-
view Heights area. They often hear comr.ients about the size of the lines
there.
I,Ir. Boardnan stated that accordin� to the Engineering Department, the
systems �vere adequate for a population of 44,000. He stated that there
were no storm sewers in that particular area. There were catch basins
at the end of the streets and the water was then directed into the
river.
P�Yr. Deblon stated that was covered under Objective 3, Policy 1.
P�;s. Schnabel stated that would cover it.
P!Ts. Schnabel asked if they had some safeguard to ensure that there is
no pollution by either existing or future businesses? She was referring
to sanitary sewers in particular.
P4r. Hora stated that the L4etropolitan 49aste Control Commission had the
authority to control the sanitary sewers. The pipes are maintained
by the City but the Commission controls what goes into it.
TzZr. Boardman stated that Objective 3, Policy 3 covered_ the storm system.
He referred to Objective 1, Policy 4 and stated that the policy c✓as
that if there was a sewer available, all units must be connected. On
site sanitary sewer disposal is not allowed. iie felt they should make
a policy stateMent on that. ile felt they should delete Policy 4 under
Objective l.
PrIr. Hora suggested they include a statement regardin� new and i:uzovative
systems being evaluated.
P1r. Boardman stated they could do that. They could make the statement
that they would cooperate with other agencies in evaluating new and
innovative waste treatment systems.
The Commissioners concurred.
PLATdNIPTG COIVII�4ISSIOTvT i;'fEETITdG, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAC_F' 23
Ob:iective 3:
I�ls. Hughes suggested they add a Policy 5 which would say that the
City should prohibit the filling and development of N�ater storage
areas and water recharge areas.
T.:r. Boardman stated that rvould come under Environmental Resources.
Iv7s. Hughes stated that it should be in here for control of storm run-
off. She feTt it should be cross-referenced.
T�ir. Boardman stated they could cross-reference i`t under Gbjective 3,
Policy 2.
Bis. iiughes stated that would be fine.
S�CTIOPd III. SCLID WASTF�
TQs. Hu�hes referred to the last two lines in the second paragraph
regarding finding alternative landfill sites in the northQrn part of
the metro areas. She felt they shouldn't be landfilling or encouraging
that any more. She felt they should look for alternatives.
t�[r. Boardman stated that the problem was that the current landfill site
would be filled within two years and an alternative would not be developed
in time. So, they would have to find another landfill site.
r�Is. Hughes stated that I�TPCA was looking at no more landfills.
Mr. Hora stated that he understood they were and their EIS on the Wood
Lake landfill would be coMing out soon on expansions. He was not sure
if they were looking on expansions of that in particular or in general,
but he stated they had to put it somewhere.
Pdr. Boardman stated that the present site was only two years to capacity
and the Comprehensive Plan for Anoka County included finding a new site
because a whole new system to eliminate garbage: would not be developed
within two years.
S+Tr. Oquist noted that Objective 2 deals with alternative ways of reducing
waste.
Ms. Hughes stated that would suffice.
INVENTORY:
Mr. Deblon stated this section would be rewritten and what is basically
says is that the system is adequate for the projected 44,000 People.
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by P.7r. Treuenfels, to close the Public
eFi aring.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, YICE CHAIRVfOR'fAPd SCHT3AB5L DECI,ARED
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COri1PREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CLOSED AT
10:55 P.��.
PLANNZNG COMMISSIOA' N'EETING AUGUST 22 1979 - PAG� 24
MOTION by Bir. Treuenfels, seconded b� i:ir. Oquist, to send the Comprehensive
Development Plan as amended to Council.
UPON A VGICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWO�qAN SCHNABEL D�CLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�'A CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES IP1 CHAPTER 205 ZONING:
MOTION by Tt�r. Oquist, seconded by I�(x�. Treuenfels, to continue the
discussion on the �roposed changes to Chapter 205 Zoning.
UPON A YOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOhTAN SCHIQABEL DECLARED
TI-� N:OTIQ�iCARRIED UNANII�fOUSLY.
7• REGEIVE HUNIAN RESUURCES COPdMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 2, 1979:
�IO� TION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by PQr. Oquist, to receive the
Human Resources Commission minutes of August 2, 1979•
Ms. Schnabel noted that there was a motion in the minutes that the
City of Fridley fund a$1,000 contribution to the Senior Citizen Qut-
Reach Program.
I�Zr. Boardman recommended that the Planning Commission return this to
the Human Resources Commission and at the end of the year the Human
Resources would organize their priorities. I�Zr. Boardman stated that
the City P,Ianger had issued a memo regarding contributions and requesting
that all requests for contributions be held until the end of the year
when they should be ranked for priority. He requested that they table
the item until he gave them a copy of the memo.
Ms. Hughes stated that with that system, they would establish the budget
without any knowledge of the requests.
Mr. Boardman stated that in order to judge how much they want to
give these people, they have to judge how many requests they get and
how much money is available. They set the budget and then prioritize
the requests.
P+Zs. Hughes stated that she thought it was a dumb system. They should
collect the requests and have the criteria and priorites and then budget
for it. Not the other way around.
Mr. Boardman stated that was one way to do it but before you approve
expenditures, you have to see if it is in the budget. All they are
saying is that before you approve a recommendation on a$5,000 expen-
diture, they want some priorities set.
T�r. Oqust stated that a certain amount should be set aside each year for
these requests,
.�
PLAPJIZING COI�iIaiISSIOPi T�EETING, AUGUST 22, 1979 - PAGE 25
Ms. 5chnabel referred to page 4 of the minutes and asked that the
Planning Commission be notified of the open house at the seniors
building.
Ms. Schnabel referred to page 5 of the minutes regarding the Village
Green and a lack of transportation for the handicapped, She suggested
that perhaps one of the Commissions would like to study the situation.
Mr. Treuenfels stated that P+Is. Van Dan stated that many of the handi-
capped expressed a preference for the P;linneapolis area especially the
downtown area or near that area, so they would be close to everything
and buslines.
UEOTd A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIATG AYE, VICE CHAIRWON�AN SCHNABEI, DECLARED
THE Y�10TION CARRIED UNANITr70USLY.
PdOTION by [�4r. Oquist, seconded by PHr. Hora, to table the request for
a contribution to the Anoka County Senior Citi2en Outreach Program
untiZ the next meeting.
1�Ts. Hughes stated that she wanted to know what the dollar amount in
the City Budget is for contributions. She would like that stated
in the memo.
T�ir. Boardman stated that there was no dollar amount alloted and that
fact is stated in the memo.
UPON A VOIC� VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRWOtdIAN SCHPdABEI, DECLARED
THE N10TION CARRIED UNANIPdOUSZY.
8< RECEIVE APPEALS COP•iPdIISSION IVIIPdUTES: AUGUST 14, 1979:
MOTION by D4r. Treuenfels, seconded by Idr. Oquist, to receive the
Appeals Commission minutes of August 14, 1979•
iJlr. Oquist asked if the proposed homes on Riverview Terrace were mobile
homes.
Ms. Schnabel stated they were not. The lower section of the houses
would be built on the site and the top half constructed in a factory.
5he stated that the Appeals Commission had several questions regarding
this request that should be highlighted. She was unhappy with their
drainage plan. A1so, there was a question about the need of fire walls
and if windows would be allowed on that side of the houses. The houses
are only 10 feei apart and the Appeals Commission �vas concerned about the
spread of fire. She stated that the paxtner of I�+Ir. Passborg got excited
about the possibility of building a house on pilings and he seemed
interested in building a single house. The item was tabled to give them
time to review their situation.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIRtiti'OP.9AN SCHNABEL DECZARr,D
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIT�OUSLY.
PI,ANNING COMMISSION P�3EETING AUGUST 22 1979 - PAGE 26 `
9. ADJOURTdP,TENT:
F�OTION by i�1r. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the
ugus 22, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE CHAIR1dOMAN SCHNABEL DECI,ARED
THE t�ETING ADJ�URNED AT 11:15 P.T�i.
Respectfully submitted:
��d7� i .a!/�f% z e!c..
I'iathy S ton, ecording Secretary