PL 10/24/1979 - 30521n
a
�
ae.•
� CITY OF FRIDLEY �
;�' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOS�R 24 1979
CALL TO ORDER• �
Co-chairperson Schnabel called the meeting of the October 24, 1979, Planning Commission �
meeting to order at 8:32 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Modig, Ms. Hughes, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Hora,
Mr. Harris (arrived at 8:35 P.M.)
Members Absent: None -� � , , :
0
Others Present: Jerry Boardman, City Planner, Bill Deblon, Associate City Planner
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTII�ER 26 1979:
MOTION by Mse Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to approve the September 26, 1979,
minutes of the Planning Commission as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, ClJmCHAIRPERSON SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY,
�
._ �PPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MCNUTES: OCTOBER 3 1979:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to approve the Octaber 3, 1979
minutes of the Planning Commission as corrected:
Pag� 2, the second to last paragraph shoud read; '�'!s. Gabel asked if the neighbor ..."
Ms. Schnabel was not present at the September 26th and October 3rd meetings, and questioned
the use of Special Use Permits taking care of variances in the Centex City Project as noted
on page 3 of the October 3rd meeting. She felt this statement contradicted what the
Board was discussing at the previous meeting on pages 6 and 7, where they were concerned
about Special Use Permits being used instead of variances.
Mr. Boardman said Special Use Pennits are set up now not to handle variances because one
requires a public hearing and one does not. He was looking at the Center City Project
to Ue an overlay district a,nd there would be special conditions fox building in that
district. One of the special conditions would be that all building permits would require
a Special Use Permit. The permits would cover any variances from the code, ioeo, setbacks.
The project would be handled by development rather than the regular code requiring a 35
foot setback. The Special Use Permit process would have to follow the variance process.
Mr. Herrick has a copy of the overlay district and Planning Commission has not reviewed
it yete They will be reviewing the overlay district and zoning code modification after
Mr. Herrick has looked at ite
Mso Schnabel said she would like to have time to look over this a,nd see if she thought
�'� it �vas a good ideao � .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAGE 2
Mr. B�ardman said ��ef initely the Planning Commission would be going over the u�e of �_•.,
Special Use Permits in the Center City Project.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM�iN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
1. CONTINUED• IAT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. ��79-04. EDWARD__T� BAULER: Split off the West-
erly 60 feet of Lot 14, A.S. ��22, except the Southerly 390 feet, also Lot 30,
Block 2, Irvington Addition, and adjoining vacated streets and alleys in Irvington
Addition, to be sold as open space for an adjoining property, the same being
1420 Rice Creek Road N.E.
Mr. Boardman reminded the commission that at the last me�ting they had continued this
request so Mr. Bauler could look into another lot split and possible lease agreement
with his neighbor.
Mr. Bauler came foxward and said he would like to stick t� his original request for a
lot split. fle said he l:ad been told when he brougat it in, it would not be approved.
Mr. Boardman said he told Mr. Bauler when he brought in hia re4uest he would recommend
denial of the lot split.
Mr. Iiarris said the coffinission would ma.ke a recommendation to the City Council and he
could ask the City Council for approval.
Mr. BauZer could see no point in that and felt his only altemative was to sell all his �,
land and move out of Fridley.
�
Mr. Bauler left the meeting at that p�int.
Mr. Harris said the commission had studied the entire area carefully and had come up
with an�alternative suggestion for Mr. Bauler. He chose to stick with his original
lot split request and that request does not meeting zoning requirements.
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to recommend to City Council denial of
L.S. �79-04, for the following reasons:
1. Lot split does not meet zoning code requirements for minimum lot width.
(lot size would be 60 x 293.2 feet) .
2. Any futuxe.lot split of this new lot would create 2 substa.nd��d,2o�s
(60 x 146.6 feet). This would only add to future problems in Chis �rea.
� 3. By allowing such a lot, the commission would be saying the lots are build-
able, which was not true.
Ms. Schnabel said she felt bad she wes not at the last 2 meetings when this request was
discussed. She had studied the minutes and felt the motion was proper. Approval of
the request would be creating a substandard lot and this would not be in the best interest
of the city. � ' -
�
Mr. Harris pointed out the commission had come up with a better plan by splitting off t:
front section of his land on Rice Creek Road. That would still leave all the land arounu
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24. 1979 � PAGE 3
/� the house and to the rear. An access easement would have been provided for Mr. Bauler.
This land would be mvre valuable to Mr. Bauler for resale and that was his main re�son
for the lot split request. •� �• -
Ms. Hughes also felt Mr. Bauler was not receptive to an� new proposal as this was his
third time here and he had the same co�ents each time. She felt the co�ission had
really tried to work with him. She stated she felt sorry they were not able to con-
vince him of the alternative solution. She understood why he might not want to use
their solution, because a house could be built close to his. She wished they had been
able to explore the possibility of splitting the rear lot and leasing that land to his
neighbor. She stated that Mr. Boardman said the City would not have done that because
a rear lot split would have created a diagonal li.ne and they do not do lot splits with
a lot of description.
Mr. Boardman s�id they do not necessarily not do them but a split like that would have
to go through the plat process.
Ms. Modig asked if he could use an alternative lot split proposal at a later date if
he desired.
Mr. Harris said yes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, AZL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Harris asked to have Mr. Bauler notified of the co�ission's recommendation.
�'"�, He also asked that City Council get all the information and discussions on this request
' �� one package.
a
2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. ��79-07 WALLACE L. LARSON• Split off the Northerly 115.78
feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Spring Valley Addition, the same being 1482 Mississippi
Street N.E., to create a new buildi.ng site 80' X125' (10,000 square feet).
Mr. Boardman said this lot split was in an area in the Comprehensive Plan called under-
utilized land. The lot had previously been split off on the southerly end to create a
130 x 125 foot lot. On the south end of that 1ot the city has a 25 foot rode right-
vf-way. The lots in this area are all quite deep and the city was looking at placing
a roacl along the southerly end and developing the area. He felt this lot split would
fit in with the area.
Mr. Harris questioned easements.
Mr. Boardman replied the necessary easements to service the back lots would be required.
There would be approximately a 5 foot easement around the lot.
Mr. Harris asked the petitioner for comments and if he understood the easement requirement.
Mr. Wally Larson, 1482 Mississippi Street, stated he had no additional comments and that
he undarstood about the easements.
Mr. Boardman _ noted the curb that runs down Mississippi Street along Mr. Larson's
� property�caas 1.3 feet on his land. Some type of agreement regarding that should be
� worked out. �
�
RLANNING COMMISSION MEET?NG. OCTOBER 24. 1979 � PAGE 4 '
Mr. Larson replied he was sure some type of agreement could be worked out between him
and the city. ^
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Modig to recoffinend to the City Council approval .
of L.S. �79-07, with the following stipulation: .
1. Work out the required easements needed for the lot.
Mr. Treuenfels questioned if the curb problem should be stipulated also.
Mr. Harris said the City Council could handle that after staff has gotten all the
information together.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. g.arris informed Mr. Larson this goes before the City Council on November 5, 1979.
3. PUBLIC HF.ARING: REVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREAS PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Hora to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYF; CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLE�,ItED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:02 P.M.
Mr. Boardman explained that the Critical Area Plzn was part of the Comprehensive Plan
and had been pulled out to allow review by the various local and state boards. He saic?��,
the first 20 pages of the Critical Area Plan Were the same as in the Comprehensive Pla.
The policys and reco�endations have already been approved with the approval of the
Comprehensive Pla.n by the Planning Co�ission. From page 21 on there was a breakdown of
proj�cts and implementations of the Critical Area Plan. The Critical Area regulations
are found in this segment also. Mr. Boardman stated the plan was an overlaq district,
in �vhich changes�will be included in the modif.ications_of the City_ Code, Chapter 205. The
N�eG�Q Council has reyiewed tfie t�1an ver� i�nfnrmally�. A eo�y� of ���ei� comments were made
�a,va�lal�J�e to each Commissipn member. Mx: �o�rdman sa�d he did nnt ae�ree �3.fi?� a1.7, t�e
comments made.
Mr. Deblon said he had talked to the person who made the review, Carl Schenk. Mr. Shenk
said the comments may seem harsh, but were not intended. Lack of time made for hurried
comments.
Ms. Hughes questioned if these co�ents change the policy, do we approve them and then
send them back to Metro Council or whai happens to them.
Mr. B�ardman replied we will review the plan and co�►ents, make changes where needed,
approve them and send them to the Metro Council for further reviewal. These coamients,
changes, and regulations are not necessarily the ones the Minnesota EQC would ma.ke.
There was still some necessary negotiation needed on the document. The comments will
be looked at to see if we are covering them or not.
PAGE 21• �
M bel said t1-e chart referred to as Figure 3-10 should be labeled as such. This�
was the Capital Improvements Pxogram chart on page 23. _
FLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING�OCTOBER 24, 1979 PAGE 5
^ She also queationed the Statement in the 3rd paxagraph. "In addition to proposing
,, seven capital improvements of their own ...". She wanted to know what those seven
were and where they are listed. She felt this should be clarified� better.
Mr. Deblon said those se� en improvements were also referring to Figure 3-10.
PAG�
Mr. Hai-ris asked for clarification of paragraph 1.
Mr. Boardman said if our water area was to be used as some sort of commercial activity,
by Coon 8apids for example, we should have regulations to cover that activity and know
what conflicting activity it may involve.
Mx. Deblon added if there was to be a use of the river for perhaps xecreational use,then
what are the conflicting uses? i.e, canoe vs. motorized use.
Ms. Hughes said the Park CouIIUittee would like to see the river used for some sort of
recreational purpose and would like to have this regulation for conflicting uses in
the plan.
Ms. Schnabel asked about water quality in connection with surrounding communities, uses,
, agencies, etc.
Mr. Boardman said our Comprehensive Plan does covex water quality and use very sirongly.
,
� There was also co�aents on this in the Critical Areas Plan regulations.
vMs. Sclinabel�asked if a city upstream was polluting the water, what course of action
d oes Fxidley have to correct it.
Mr. Boardman said our only real option was the Metro Council. When they are reviewing
other communities plan the water quality area should be carefully reviewed. Also our
watershed districts allow us closer, but limited control.
PAGE 233
Ms. Hughes questioned the chart regarding stated imprwements, i.e. Riverview Heights
Park. How do residents fin.d out about such i.mprovements. That informat ion should be
included.
Mr. Boardman said that informa.tion will have to be put in. The chart now was to give an
idea of improvements. He pointed out that the costs and time table portions of the chart
were blank because the park area of the Comprehensive Plan was not completed yet.
Ms, Hughes also questioned the funding sources. Are these funds definite from those
agencies or are we going to apply to them.
Mr. Boardman said this was were we would apply for funding. If funding was not avail-
able through LAWCON or LCMR and the city would have to fund, more time would be needed
to complete each project. . .
^ Ms. Hughes said the plan does not state clearl what t e of
Y yp park plan there was.
Mr, Boardman said that should be included also.
PLANNINGG CONIMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAGE 6
Irene Maertena, 144 River Edge Way, asked if the city really knew where the park �
improvements would be needed.
Mr. Boardman said the chart shows where improvements would most likely be needed.
Ms. Iiughes pointed out to the Planning CoAmnission that the Park Commission had not
reviewed or developed anything ori the FMC River Front property acquisition. She
wanted to know where this plan was coming from and where the funding was coming from.
Mr. Boardman said the FMC property was to be a regional park in conjunction with Islands
of Peace. This package was put together by Anoka County. The funds will come from the
Metro Council and the Great River Road project. The County has submitted to Fridley
a PDR (Project Development Report) on this facility.
Ms. Iiughes wanted to know when the Park Committee got to see this report.
Mr. Deblon said the proposal goes to the federal government first, then comes back for
a public hearing.
Mr. Boardman said Anoka County gave presentation of this plan directly to the City Council.
The Council did approve the master plan.
Ms. Maertens questioned if Anoka. Countyt��ught just the FMC property or FMC plus the
Islands of Peace project to Council, and how they got involved in it.
Mr. Boardman said the County can designate an area for park property without the �
consent of the city. He said they (Metro C�uncil) were looking at Islands of Peace .
to be a regibnal park and in order to do that you need at least 100 acres of land.
This would also include Durnam Island.
Ms. Maertens asked what type of development w�uld be planned for this area.
Mr. Boardman said it would be a passive, picnic area with walkways.
Ms. Maertens said she had tried to get informa.tion on this developmant from the Park
Director, and he said he was unaware of any.
Mr. Boardman was not sure if the Park Director had a copy of the PDR.� He had gotten
his copy only two days ago. �
Ms. Hughes said the public hearing time was too late. The deveYopment has already
been decided.
Mr. Deblon stated the City Council still w ould have to approve purchasing of the land
and what would be developed on it. There still was time for public input.
Ms. Schnabel said it seems the Metro Council has already decided this area fits into
their park plan �nd if it was not consistent with a city's plan, that was too bad.
Ms. Maertens questioned if the City �JOU�d sell Islands of Peace. .
Mr. Deblon said he did not know for sure. �
� - „��„� -
�
, PLANNING COMMISSTON MEE�ING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 7
Mr. Boardman explained the PDR was only an application for FMC property acquisition.
r,,� The I3lands of Peace as a regional park application was separate to the Metro Council.
The Metro Council was very interested in the FMC property because it was the longest
stretcli of open space in the �ain Cities. The FMC property also zncludes funding by
the Federal HigYaa.ay Administration and the Great River Road Project. FMC and Islands
of Peace are tied together in this application because previously Islands of Peace
had tried to get regional park status. However, additional acreage was needed and so
FMC was inaluded. If the Islands of Peace was not included as a regional facility,
it would not necessarily stop the �cquisition of the FMC property. The Federal High-
way"was looking at FMC as a recreational park facility along the Grear River Road and
an access to the river.
Irene Ma.ertens asked if the figure, 1.8 million,.was a correct..iigure for the FMC
acquisition.
Mr. Boardman said that was for the acquisition only. The federal government has •
guaranteed that much money. The city has no control what-so-ever on the acquisition of
the FMC River Front property. We get control when the Council approves the plan.
P1s. Schnabel asked how come it came beiore the Council for approval then.
The County brought the PDR before Council to see what, if any, problems they had on it.
Mro Hora questioned who would own the land.
Mr. Boardman stated the County would. The park would be a regional facility and the
n County would develope, ma.nage, and ma.intain it.
Mr. Iiora thought the Park Committee should have been allowed some input on this plan.
Ms. Schnabel said she had heard talk that the FMC property might be used as a residen-
tial area. -
Mr. Boaxdman stated they had talked with both. FMC and the highway department on that
proposal. The highway depa�ctment would not purchase any land if it had any development
on it. The Cizy could not purchase the 52 acres and neither could the Housing Authority.
FMC wants to sell, but are vexy picky as to what they will sell it for. The City tried
taking out 2 parcels of land to be developed, with the federal government picking up the
rest. FMC w�uld not go along with that idea. The City tried only developing 1 parcel
with a motel and again FMC would not agree. They said if the highway department was to
get involved, it was all or nothing. Both the County and Metro Council agreed it should
be a park development.
Ms. Hughes said the Park Committee would agree with that.
Ms. Maextens asked if FMC was willing to sell with the park idea in mind.
Mr. Boardman said that was what came before the City Council. If they do not sell,
the City could condemn the land and designate it parlc pxoperty.
Ms. Maertens asked if the city could do that to all the land along the river.
� Mr. Boardman said yes; but it would be politically unwise to do soo All cities have
that power:
PLANNING CON@'IISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 � PAGE �
Ms. Hughes.said ahe thought Mr. Boardman had said before FMC wanted to sell, and now �
he states they don't.
Mr. Boardma.n replied they were willing to sell at their price. They want $50-60,000
an acre. Right now they are paying taxes on this vaca.�t.land as undeveloped R-1. He
explained the land would be assessed at a certain price (l.eo $20,000/acre), FMC would
claim it was worth $60,000/acre and would try to claim so by taking the city to court.
A judge would then determine the cost per acre. That was the reasoning behind condemning
the land.
Ms. Hughes stated she was going to try to get the Park Committee to review this proposal
before it was fully developed, but felt it might not be possible because of time.
Ms. Modig said so ma.ny times when something was to be reviewed by a committee, they are
fighting a time element. This proposed park plan was a good example. They are suppose�
to have citizen input on these questions and so often, staff says because of time, it
must be done immediatelq. She felt staff has already; many times, made a recommenda-
tion or decision on a request before the committees get to review them.
Mr. Boardman agreed that the time element was a problem, but sometimes things have to
be done within a certain period.
Ms. Maertens said she also felt there was lack of co�u.nication between the different
departments and local governments. When she came into City Hall and asked the Park
Director for informa.tion, he told her to go to the County. The informa.ti�n was available
through the Planning Department, only no one knew it. She also felt there should have n
been time for citizen input on the FMC park question because it was known since last
April that I�lands of Peace would be a regional park.
Mre B�ardman said he had talked t� the Pla�ning Commission about the FMC property, but
did not have all the different concepts available until recently. He said this re-
quest moved very fast. After Anoka County presented their plan, he and the City Ma.nager
went to the County to push for one of the development plans. They were told no, if
the City didn't go along, funding would be withdxawn. The funds had to be allocated
�� by November to keep the funding available. If the funding was not allocated by then
the federal government would withdraw those funds for the State of Minnesota and give
them to another state. The City had 4 days to make a decision.
Mr. Treuenfels said it was important to note that a citizen was interested enough to
come tonight and the informa.tion or where to get the information should have been
available for her to look at, but it wasn't.
PAGE 24•
Mr. Harris questioned the item regarding Entrance Development to the City.
Mr. Boardman explained this would be some sort of landscaping �r perhags a sculpture to
let motorists know they axe entering Fridley. It would be something to represent the
City.
Ms. Schnsbel asked for review of that plan by the Planning Commission.
�r •F � 5 • � No Change
. PLANNING COMMISSION_ MEETING,_ OCTOBER_ ?_4, 1979 p�E 9
PAG� 26 •
n Ms. Schnabel stated the portion of item �1 referring to "fleeting" does not apply to
this portion of the Mississippi River and should be omitted. ••,• �
Item �1 to read:
The Mississippi River Corridor shall be managed as a multi-purpose public
resource by conserving the scenic, environmental, recreational, mineral, economic,
cultuxal, and historic rasources and functions of the river corridor, and providing
for the continuation of development of a variety of urban uses within the river
corridor.
PAGE 27:
Correct ��1, the word or to of.
Change �5, last line, tla��e to two.
Correct ��6, ESSENTIAL SERVICES :
PAGE 28•
Omit in at end of �8.
Correct spelling, meador� on �11.
Remove �'�2 under 'bses E�cc �uded"
Reword ��3 under "Uses Excluded" to read.:
^ Any waste material, storage, use or waste treatment facilities.
Mr. Harris guestioned ��4..
Mr. Boardma.n said this refers t� gravel or sa.nd mining.
PAGE 2 9 •
Ms. Schnabel felt C shou.ld be reworded, because many of the factoxs of this regulation
would be known or on records by the City or the proper government agency. It did not
seem right to ask a developer to spend money to find out these factors, when they are
already kriown. The extra costs involved could possibly discourage a developer. C to read:
E�cisting topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no .
greater than 2 feet per contour; the topography map sha11 also clearly delineate
any bluffline, all stxeams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers,
waterbodies, and wetlands located on the site. The topography ma.p shall indicate
the floodway and/or flood fringe lines and shall indicate the normal highwater
� maric of the river.
Correc� D, last word from lake to river.
F should be E.
Ms. Schnabel felt for bettex clarity, paragraph J should follo�a D. She also felt E, H, K
and P should be grouped.
� Nir. Harris aske3 abc;ut item G.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24, 1979 PAGE 10
Mr. Boardman said in order to have any federal monies released, we have to have a
statement from the Minnesota Historical Agency stating there are no Indian arrowheads,
pottery, bones, etc. that will be disturbed by this development. �
PAGE 30:
Change and to for, last line of J.
PAGE 3�•
Correct spelling of the word services, 4th line of C.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if there were any variances for some of the requirements.
Se was referring to the possibility of a present structure being 50% or more destroyed.
What requirements are allowed for reconstruction.
Mr. Boardma.n replied variances would be allowed. They would be handled under the
present zoning code.
Ms. Hu�hes questioned the need for variances in the Critical Area Plan.
Mr. Boardman said, if for example, a row of homes burned down and the street was 100
feet or less from the river, variances would be needed for setbacks. Otherwise a whole
row of homes could not be rebuilt. �
Ms. Hughes pointed out that she thought that was the intent of the Critical Area Plan.
Mr. Boardma.n stated that was not necessarily t�u.e. Se felt the intent of the plan was ^
to ma.intain a natural setting along the river. Houses are not objectionable to look at.
Ms. Schnabel pointed out one of the objectives, as listed by the Metro Council, was for
planned unit development. An�ther objective was dedication of road frontage for public
use. These two objectives could or could not be compatible. .
Mr. Boardman did not thin�. it was the intent, and should not be the intent of the plan,
to remove all housing from the area. We already have streets along the river and if
houses were not allowed, what was the purpose of havi.ng the streets.
PAGE 32•
Mxo Treuenfels felt item D should be clarifi�d.regarding what type of view could not
be walled off.
Mra Boardman said this paragraph was xeferring to scenic or recreational views.
Item D,_ l�.st sPni:ence, should read:
The walling off o£ scenic views of the river corridor from other properties
and public right-af-ways shall be prohibited.
PAGE 33:
Mr. Harris felt item 3, section B, could cause some problems. It states only natural �
material could be used for bank preservation. Some of those materials would be un-
suitable for stopping erosion. Section C states nothing should be allowed, that was
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1979 PAGE 11
not natural, to keep the erosion control material in place. '
,� Mr. Boardman said it was stated that way in order to help preserve the view of the bank
' from the river. .. _. .
Ms. Schnabel pointed out you cannot see through rocks or wood, so why not allow some
type of stabilization of that material by tiebacks or similar material.
Mr. Boardma.n said the erosion control was for run-off and not flooding from the river.
Therefore a terraced, retaining wa11 out of natural material would keep a more na�ural
look to the river banks.
Mr. Harris felt some erosion control systems were definetly eye sores, but if what was
allowed doesn't work, what good was the control.
Ms. Schnabel said this was basically a pexsonal opinion. Beauty was in the eye of the
beholder. One person may consider a railroad tie retaining wall attractive and another
person would consider it ugly. '
Mr. Boardma,n said one of the intents of the plan was to keep the natural character of
the river. Retaining walls should therefore be out of natural material.
Mr. Harris questioned the safety of these retaini.ng walls. A proper tieback could help
eliminate that possibility.
Ms. Yughes said she would prefer to see the plan keep these requirements.
n_Ms. Modig asked if present retaining walls of cement, chickenwire, etc. had to be
xeplaced with the natural ma,terials.
Mr. Boardma.n said no.
Mr. Harris asked to have section A included as written, section B to read:
Construction shall be of material approved by the zoning administrator.
Sections C and D deleted,
Mr. Boardman said they would rewrite item 3 to include the changes.
Mr. Treuenfels questioned the woxding of section Do It should read:
The minimum space between retaining wa,lls shall be twenty feet.
Mr. Schnabel pointed out under item 4, "Vegetation Management',', only cutting of trees
was referred to. Whafi about some type of regulation on small plants and shrubs,
Mr. Harris asked if the selective cutting of trees greater than 4" in diameier was just
for the area along the river.
Mr. Boardman said it was for the whole Critical Area Plan. The plan has been set up
by the federal government to include all the land from the river to the highway system
� and ttierefore the re�ulations apply to the entire area.
�
ELANN'tNG CO1�Il�IISSION MEETING OCTOBER 24 1979 PAGE 12
� Mr. Harris said he could go along with selective cutting up to 350 feet from the river,
but not 2-Y/2 blocks away.
Mr. Boardman said sections A and B of Item 4 should be combined with the word hawever.
�`1
This would then keep the requirement where new development was being done along the
river .
' Ms. Schnabel asked how the �ity could enforce section C which sLates a tree 4" in
diameter if removed must be replaced. For example; an addition to a home meeting all
requirements and needing no variances was built, how does the city ma.ke sure a tree
was replanted.
Mr. Boardman said the building permit would give the city the needed control.
Mr. Harris said he had some problems expecting all homeowners in the Critical Area
to replant. Especially if they are 2,000 feet from the river.
Ms. Modig said perhaps there would not be room for a new tree on a lot that was already
deqeloped. �
p�s. Schnabel said this could also infringe on the solar rights of a neighbor. Too much
tree coverage would not allow for enough sun light in certain areas.
Mr. Harris questioned the right of the city to place such retrictions on some homeowners
and not others.
Ms. Schnabel said perhpas this should be a requirement for all of the city and not just
a certain area. �'
Mr. Boaxdman pointed out this area was a special area and had spacial conditions for it
to exist. Any development in this area affects the Critical Area Plan and any affect
on �he Critical Area, affects the entire river.
Ms. Schnabel asked about the removal of the sentenc� reading "e�cpansion of existing
structures". This would then just pertain to new developments.
Mr. Boardman said he felt that it was just as important to regulate on existing lands
as well as on new developments. Why only regulate a certain a.mount of the land use and
not all.
Mso Schnabel said for 3 reasons:
1. The regulation was picking on only a portion of the city.
2. There may not be enough� room for a new tree on a lote
3. Possible infringement on a neighboz's solar rights.
She said if only new developments were included in the xegulation this would allow
the city control for replanting in those areas. Ms. Schnabel was thinking of the
p�ssibility of some land opening up in the Critical Areas for housing developmente
Mx. Boaxdman sa�.d tt�is regulation already does that, plus also regulates existing ^
structures. He said that would be picicing Qn only new developments and the same 3
�'
. PLANNING COMMISSTON MEF.TING, OCTOBER 24, 1979 PAGE 13
reas�ns could apply to them also. He could not really see why a developer or existing
structure would have a hardship replacing one or two trees.
/�
Mr. Harris felt the regulation was ridiculous and they would get �aughed out of town.
He could see the regulation for along the river, but not 2 blocks away. He also felt
it was rather two-sided to expect homeowners to improve and keep the natural B.00k of
the area when on the other side c,f �heir.homes, the city was widening East River Road
to almost the extent of a freeway.
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Modig to delete the words "or the expansion of
e�cisting structures" from the first sentence in C under Vegetation Management.
Mr. Deblon pointed out that on the comment sheet from Metro Council a standard for
tree replacement was needed. This was what this regulation was doing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MODIG, ��RRIS, SCHNABEL VOTING AYE, AND HUGHES, TREUENFELS, HORA
VOTING NAY, CHALRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION FALIED BECAUSE OF A TIE VOTE,
PAGE 34•
Item 1, section C, add the word permit after special use.
Item 2, section Al, correct spelling of word construction.
PAGE 35:
Mr. Harris questioned the last paragraph referring to chemical control. He felt
thexe should be no chemicals used, because of the closeness of the river.
��
' Nir. Hora said if the chemicals are used properly, there should be no problem. Arbitrarily
banning chemicals would be unF�ise. Such control for tree disease, poisin ivy, etc.
wou2d be required.
PAGE 35• No Change
Ms. Schnabel asked about sign control in the Critical Area P1an, particularly along
the River Road.
Mre Board said that will be handled in the sign ordinance. The signs along the River
Road are on the south side of I-694 and in a different district. There was also con-
trol on federal lands.
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms, Schnabel to close the Public Hearingo
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED �HE MOTZON CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:33 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Mr. Hora to reco�end to City Council approval
of the I•:ississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan for the City of Fridley as aurtnended.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, SCHNABEL, TREUENFELS, HORA, HARRIS AND MODIG VOTING AYE, AND HUGHES
VOT�NG ATAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE, MOTION CAI2I�IED.
�"� Ms. Hughes said she •,;oted no because she would like more time to study the plan and some
of the changes made tonight.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24. 1979 PAG� 14
Mr. Boardman said the Planning Casmnission would be able to discuss the•plan again
after the comments are received back from the Minnesota EQC.
Chairma.n Harxis called a recess at 10:35 P.M. and reconvened at 10:45 P.M.
4. RECEIVE PE1ItKS AND RECREATION COMMISSZON MINUTES ; SEPTII�'1BER 19, 1979 :
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Modig to receive the Park e.nd Recreation Com-
mission minutes of September 19, 1979.
^
Mr. Harris asked what was the purpose of the "Director's Philos�phy" under New Business.
Ms. Hughes replied because there were 3 new commission members on her commission, the
views, feeli.n� or goals of the City's park staff were not knowu. The commission was
devoting an hour of each of the next few meetings to hear certain members philosophy.
These philosophys do not necessarily represent the commission's ideas.
iJPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLAItED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE COMMUIVITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 9, 1979:
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Hughes to receive the Community Development
Couunission minutes of October 9, 1979.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHATtttvrAtJ �IS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY,
/"�
Ms. Modig pointed out the motion on page regarding the consideration of the status
of unused alleys in Fridley. She asked to have the Planning Commission conc.ur with
this motion so it could be i.mplemented as soon as possible.
After reviewing the conditions of the motion it was decided condition 1 was the same as
2 and�should be dropped. Also on condition 2, property owner was not defined correctly.
The worctis "adjacent to" should be added after the word owner.
Ms. Hughes said she got the impression from the minutes that the alleys would be vacated
if not used and the city would probably initiate that action. However, there was a re-
luctance to leave alleys unimproved, although used. She could not see how the city could
ask homeowners to improve a used alley if they were satisfied usi.ng it unimproved.
Mr. Harris pointed out they do not plow unimproved alleys.
Mso Hughes said it was basically a philosophical question of hers. Why shvuld the city
be initiating such imprwements if the homeowners are satisfied now. ,
Mr. Deblon said these alleys are eyesores and the improvements would helplreserve the
neighborhood. It also would eliminate rut problems in the alleys and garbage pick-up
problems.
Mr. Boardman stated if the a11ey was there, it would be used like a road and therefore
should be improved like a road, �
� �
Ms. Modig.said the idea behind the motion was to get the unimproved alleys improved.
, ,_,._,,...�,
.
� PLANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 24, 1979 PAGE 15
The alleys w ould then be an asset tio the City. •
f"`�, Mr. Hora questioned whati happes if only one homeowner was using the alley for access
to his garage and the other homeowners wanted to vacate the alley..,, Could access ease-
ments be required so the homeowner would not be cut �ff from his garage.
Ms. Modig said that was why they wanted all adjacent property awners contacted.
Mr. Boardman pointed out if 1 or 2 homeowners were using an unimproved a11ey, would
t hey be the only ones charged for the improvement or would all the adjacent property
owners be charged.
Mr. Hora said he ran into thai problem on his a11ey.
Ms. Hughes asked how the city could get any agreement between homeowners who use the
alley and those who don't. She questioned the city initiating such action. She agreed
with improvement for petitioned alleys or vacati�n requests.
Mr. Boardman said 1ne felt the city would not initiate improvements on alleys used by
some and not all. That would be a dynomi.te situation.
Mr. Modig said the purpose of the motion was to find out what should be done with each
alley.
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to concur with the Community Development
Cotmnission motion regarding unused alley in Fridley, as corrected:
^_ To recouunend that Staff come up with a plan for the alleys "being used but
unimprov,ed". Each alley should be reviewed individually as follows:
10 Contact property owner adjacent to the alley for feasibility of
improvement of alley or vacation of alleyo
2. Make a detailed analysis af each alley with specific reco�nendations
for each alley.
3. Implement some process for some feedback from the Public Works Department
and the Public Service departments on each specific alley.
"Designated but not being used alleys" should be vacated by the Citg. "Paved
alleys" should continued to be maintained.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRM..AN HAI2RIS DECLE�IiED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNAIVIMOUSLY. �
6. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES; OCTOBER 9 1979•
MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels to receive the Appeals Commission
minutes of October 9, 1979.
Mr. Harris asked if �here had been any discussion regarding the clarification of "Stated
• Hardship" on the variance application.
Ms. Sclinabel said they did discuss it and staff said they are reluctant to make a
decision as to what the hardship was. If the applicant does not state it directly,
they did not want to put words in their mouths. However, the Appeals Commission did
�"'� suggest the staff ret•ie�a the applicatiun when aceepting their money. Ms, Schnabel said
' if there was or was not a valid hardship it will come out at the Appeals meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. OCTOBER 24. 1979 _PAGE 16 .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HAItRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UDiiANIMOUSLY. ^
7. RECENE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORbTY MINUTES: OCTOBER 11, 1979:
MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Modig to receive the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority minutes of October 11, 1979.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman if the package for tihe Center City Project was together
yet.
Mr. Boardman said it was completed and he will be meeting with 7 or 8 developers this
week. They hope for proposals by January 15, 1980, that would give them 90 days to
review them and make a selection. He also pointed out the resolution on page 5 re-
garding the purchasing of property for the Large Family Housing Program.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAI1tMAN �iARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. CONTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTIIt 205. ZONING:
MOTIOPI by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Modig to continue this item until November
15, 1979, when a special meeting will be h�ld to discuss this item only.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHATRwrAN �IS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. �
�
9. OTI�R BUSINESS •
�
MOTION by Mr. Hora, seconded by Ms. Schnabel to receive the article on Special Use
Permits.
. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUS�LY . .
This article had been presented by Mx. Langenfeld at an earlier meeting.
Mr. Harris said he was approached by the owner of Central Auto Parts with a proposal�
to purchase the Chies property by the junk yard. He intends to enclose it wiCh a
fence and use it to park trucks there. "
Mr. Boardman said he had�talked earlier with Central Auto and said they are presently
using the Chies building to take repairable cars, drop motors in them from other junk
cars and then sell them. Mx. Boardman said thexe are a lot of junk cars setting up
there now and he hates to see an expansion of this type. They would also need a
Special Use PeYmit for this type of expansion. The city has 2 new construction sites
being developed in the area that will greatly improve it and the expansion of the junk
yard would only create a larger, messy operation. He would try any legal controls he -
h as to stop the expansion. . • -
. �
Mr. Harris said he was not told of the �*ehicle repair business, but only of the storage�
facilities.
�
!
•
P_LANNING COMMISSION MEETING,_OCTOBER 24, 1979 � PAGE 17
Mr. Harris asked if there was any way to keep this expansion out.
/"\
Mr. Boardman stated yes. CenCral Auto was using the vehicle re�air and storage area
as an expansion of the junk yard. In order to do so, that requires a Special Use
Permit. The city would deny tihe permit. There are other developers willing to buy
the same Chies property that would be more visually compatible.
Ms. Hughes questioned if we can stop the junk yard.
Mr. Boardman said not the junk yard, but we can stop the expansion request.
Mr. Harris pointed out there was no definite proposal, but he had been contacted by
this person.
ADJOURI�R�NT : •
MOTION by Mr. Treuenfels, seconded by Ms. Modig to adjourn the Planning Couunission
meeting�of October 24, 1979.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL V.OTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLA�.ED THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT
11:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
�Gf� `
Paula Long, Recoxd g Secretary
d
�