The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 05/19/1982 - 6776PLANNING C�i�1ISSI0N MEETING CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL• - City of Fridley AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1982 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 5, 1982 1 X - - 7t30 P.M. PAGES 1-6 SED PRE- 7 - 10 HND GARY WELLNER: Being a replat of that part of Blocks 8 and 9, Lowell Addition, lying South of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direction to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Easterly one-half of vacated Eim Street, and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lowell Additio� to Fridley Park, lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of the p;at of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, to be developed as three R-1 Lots (sing]e family dwelling areas) and 5 R-2 Lots (two family dwelling areas), generally located South of Mississippi St. N.E., East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMiT, SP #82-05, 11 - 16 SITJOY ANDERSON: Per Section 05.1574, 2, to allow the construction of-a24 ft. by 24 ft. detached garage in CRP-2 Zoning (flood plain}, on Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block X, Riverview Heights, the same being 7921 Riverview Terrace N.f. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REOIIEST FOR A SPFCIAL 11SF PFRMTT_ SP #R7-(15. �� - 24 4 5 IVUKIFiWtJItKN NKIlUNHL tiHNK 8Y KtNYUN �LUN7: t'er 5ect�on ZUb. 101, 3, I, to allow an automatic teller machine in an enclosed building, on Lot 1, Block 1, Target Addition, the same being 755 53rd Avenue N.E. (Target Parking Lot). RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 4. 1982 A. Curimiunication from Pat & Tom 6ordner, 66� Hugo St. N.E. (Going ta City Council June 7th). (Page 6) RECEIVE APPEk�S COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 11, 1982 6. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: GREEN YELLOW i � 1 ,J .-�_ � GlTY C� FRIOLEY, 643'1 LJNIVE4751TY AVE• NE. FRIDLFY� MN. 654�� [G121_57'1-34.F30 �, / / SUBJECT ZONINu ACTION VACATION P�A7 ORDINANCE NO __ � ZOA �i SAV # PS #_�-�-, PU6LISHED ADDRESS DATE PLANNING CONMISSIQN: APPROVED, DISAPPROVED� DATE NO CITY COUNCIL:._PUBLIC HEARiP;G DATE 1ST READ- 2ND READ__ CITY COUWCIL• APPROVED_ DISAPPROVED DATE N� PARK FEE REQUIRED: AMOUNT PATD STIPllLATI0N5: NAME�-v 1/ I�i�l/tica � FEE �Db �� RECEIPT NO o7� �o STREET LOCATI�N OF PROPERT�' P"� LE6AL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERT -- i. 1. '�'�� PRESENT ZOfVING CLASSIFICATION m-) EXISTIN6 USE OF PROPERTY 7J _� ACREAGE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFTCATION OR TYPE OF USE AND IMPROVEM11EhT PROPOSED_ ��'� �,� S�-� !Q �" __ Has the present applicant previously sou9ht to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use perinit o the subject site or part of it? �es _ no. What rras requested and when? �� .r ��. �� / The undersigned understands that: (a) A list of all residents and owner�s of prooer- ty within 350 feet 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 prcceedings resulting `rom the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and pi-operty owners of pro- p2rty ir question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure aiust be drawn and attached, showing the following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed str:acture on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front ard side setbackso 4. 5treet names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 350 feet). The under•signed hereby declares that all this application are true and correct. DATEf� SIGNATURE' , r the facts and representations stated in TELEPHONE NO '^ — .�' ..� 9 P.S. #82-01 DOTY-WELLNER ADDITION .a. ..s �n. / ` N �nta f;on STREET MA.P-CITY OF FRIDLEY� �r=�.: � �� i , ,o .�, ' _ Z£'S£2-'3 ,81,£1 .00 "N -_� � I ' i o � Z£'09 '- �` � 00'£91 0_'—' � i1 i 1 I o .S. F N 1� L�F S m � .°�°s � � N o Z I m n •rd ,. � �-�- � ' q Q � b �\ `� a. � m � J i '� d .�= I ` �� ___1 m i r �, g ? /\ I � � &'.66�M o ��`---� � W . n � f\ ..00 � •6Q �9f S .- 00'S£ -� I i z � �r � q �� -- - ! z �� M,BI,EI AO'S�' W -� � � •� V ss ��`—'_ J. � �Y� �.�,w - °� .—_i O {1J I c �`�$��,\ z�o n� � S� -�O� 1 p N :� $ , Y • °o��.tl m °uF ueoai � m ti y r �. aR� .�� m I o' m�� - �V o� � 0� Y i' �Is �� h 2 I O� 42J- � f� � O N � _� QSJ? I �Q , OO � m ` \ .f� I N � O N../� O�� r �nm� . � � � _ �'.F.F I � C a °, W � . � � h, " ►£'SG '� � � ___ t0 � o ' _'3,g1£I.00�W '� ti � � IA � . b� N�M �'J � f0 � ! I_ O'f ' dl � � nnnA e ; Y�-�� a�� 3,�a�� o: o oadn3�no V ° ainavls R ° Z �� O - . � .M�6y,R.40'N I 1 64'001- _ ' � I �� \ c- - �� v` m r�y� __ zcs¢ � �-sooc--r � — � � •�rD `3 „BI S11J0 �N' �� W � i � ' i� ro n �?1' i n o � .� h = a. 4 pp - 'n v ° ` � s \ . �i�q _ n�MYJY J Y,� hp0 m ✓/ �4 n9in�'i _'^ � o__ w r� do e oe � 3 4¢� � � S ^a 'o �o♦ 4� � 1 n r n _ C¢� . N 11 � � W �0 �'? f. ry 1 � 1� -^ Q �. o ,� � 1Q 3 N W � y� N i- i � .. � /� �n •�J w Ya •� �./ � e �0 � n y m p � O , � d ° " 5 Z . r � y� N �i s � o � _ � . . o N i ry ' O �` �1C I . , . = ` -- BL201 _,y __ 1 I " SZ'SOI -] .- W'2f - � ; � £029Z—'M ,92 ,80 .�0 g _ Mia avoa��va Na3H1aoN Nol�Nnbne � PUBLIC HEARIN6 BEFORE THE PLANNINr, COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Publi� Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, May 19, 1982 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M, for the purpose of: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #82-05, by Joy Anderson,-Per Section 205.1575, 2, to allow the construction of a 24 ft. x 24 ft. detached garage in CRP-2 Zoning (flood plain) at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevations, on Lots 11-14, Block X, Rivewview Heights, the same being 7921 Riverview Heights N.E. Any and �11 persons desiring to be heard shali be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. YIR6INIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: May 5, 1982 May 12, 1982 11 ��?w^?°s�_�,s.-�.aa-;.z::m.�-•Mn.c�a"m,:'-y''+"�°"'��:s�°i:�?,�^?'�'�,#'.,°!.'""�`,�^T?'R,.-+` -*�m+s�rts++:--- . -. - - . . . .. . . � .,. .. a . ' .. . . . . . - �.. r� - . . - � • „ , , � . . '� ,..�. ' . ; .. ..._ " . f � . : ,. . � . . ..��, ., _ .. . �L , �• CITY OF �Fi1DLEY� -. SUBJECT .. ' . :. . . �_�. .. . �. . . � - saa, unnvewsirv nve. we. _' SPECIAL U$E PERMIT , FRIOLGY MN, g5Q30. (672! 577-3450 5P � �� ` noo�ss '7�02 � ��IU+�r�l�l� ��rrQL'� - oaTE ri �f PLANNING COI+VIISSION: P.N. DATE APPROYED DISAPPROVED ` DATE ` N0 . ..- CITY COUNCII: ' P.H. REQ'D OATE - NO CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED DISAPPROYED DATE NQ STIPULATIONS: � 1 v NAME� �O �I : YY`, 1'� �G�'X� � O �'1 FEE_ �DO '� RECEIPT NO � � -T. : , r STREET LOCATION OF PROPERTY �Iq a I �\ V� 1I 1 Q W T'2 r C�� C C __ LEGAL DESCRIpTION OF . �� t3 PRESENT ZOWING CLASSIFICATION�� EXISTING USE OF ACREAGE OF PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT� �-I Y � DESCRIBE BRIEFLY . n� 1 TYPE OF USE AND 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 no, What was requested and when? � The undersigned understands that: (aj A list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet 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 atl 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 foll_owing: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensio�s of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. d. Street names. 6. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within�300 feet). The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and represen�ations stated in this application are true and correct. - � DATE ��t � ,% SIGNATURE APPLICANT _ ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO � -� ��ll Mailing List Joy Anderson SP #82-05 Detached garage in Flood Plain Ms. Maryls A11en 621 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55932 Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Zych 631 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Leo Scroggins 641 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. John Katilinek 60.9 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Russell Borgendale 657 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Peterson 663 Hugo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Jarfaes Parker & P1ary Masonick 669 Hugo Street N.E. fridley, Mn 55432 M5. Carol Holm 581 Buffalo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Scharpen 611 Buffalo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. Stephen Bren 641 Buffalo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Ms. Joy Anderson 7921 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey Lundgren 7941 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Planning Commission May 4, 1982 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Kohls 640 Cheryl Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Nivala 630 Gheryl Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Clark Nason 614 Cheryl Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Gordon Hedlund 1255 Pike Lake Drive New Srighton, Mn 55112 Mr. Frank Shimek 7901 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Bruce Thompson 6212 Hitlside Road Edina, Mn 55426 Allen Bixby 600 Buffalo Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 13 n N � ...o. � � : Yi rp i � � � o.,... � """` SP #82-Q5 Joy Andersan -...� � 7921 Riverview Terrace �, r .r..^ 1 _ LoGAT-1oN � � _ ��.�,�ri�� i 1� p •, :�� Ij °. i - i "'�� F R � � __ � � � � � MM.� C6 1 11CM�1 �IM 06 • 1� - WEYOIY Gc ,.� ,.� w. �� ' �'. .� �> � � 'F, �� '�w,lP'•�� =�:'s. C C � .4�.. �.. a+ �rir��6��.' �---� � cau�u� ' i «nwn STREET M AP-CITY OF FRIDLEY 0 �333 6,666 v� 14 � 4�i� � � � ' � a � :.: c�s-.. 1 i� 5 E F; � • � � ' �� , , r ; �t s� . _ � •"' �.�, �� -� • o� sy" �� 82�05 Joy Anderson 75 r.; , �.. ' . I� 9 1 Riveview Terrac /� ,,� ,� I� r, 'Yr'• , : p p y " � - • �':� 1 \' 7 ! • 'J�O �• N r}8 i : KF _� e. .� e.�.o, e � •. � Mt � �•�� f�nNi'''`S{�� 7+ N�er3. � ' � • � ' - f'3� �j �� ,�e. �p t,s�jz� � EE - � 4: ' ' � ' "N° rt 1 � � ' p � �� . - '� � �� t��L�' `' �I�by . �4 , >�'' ,. ' a ,�e °; 4�5,,f �i `��'23217iIhIrM,�K�v il •:�� T i. � 9� L�� ' . Y Y if " S 27 2�y C�Q .. ' R 1 � i.. I . D y. � b4r i�� 6�t "�"_ =�'[T / '� \ t E i7 s� `� � � �- ._�;, �'' 6C *+ u � „ a 9 _�{.k�� , , f . ,,' ��" f � �, 6��a,�� +u �� y0 �Z� �,i� '��( µ�3� �R� '( �+.. ss � i � (; j °� ! •`'GB rst "' e}-� :aql S �� z a �'s e(sl�. � ^ ,- � t ' � �p��,'a'� rtl if• .,'` .-'� �,f>�5 , 3' �, 3. - ) � � �. 1 L , -- �\Q ii �� 9 F1' �;� z'�'• • � q� .� t�1 1 jb i, "'u; r � i `tfl '�'�" 1 p µ � �4•� .� - . � ��.� •r�V 3Z . � '--� _.,' � st.l. . � .. . .. '� �'� � d1 vt , �' � • 0 4�p 9 ry\.{ ,: ' ` s � jC �w � LIBERTY �� s�v�it - 648 410 .fi?f �3� ? �p N ��71 /0 9 F � � i , :T _J c ,,` e3p�• ` .'; , �'�Q..Y� �?jS%� t ',j7 �{M� � � ' �S j py. b1 G.. .+ 8 Q�� •SR J rn �� ,H �' i �� g, �.1 � 1 � -., • . af � �� i 7�� ' N � b �`1 �.G �, • �..�;� ?�'°„ �°", . G9 D � SS � � ' � ci�t��k �• �, _ � . i_ � tC Iy • '. � 10 � 2! 3 ' 9 z . ( . .. . I .. � . S1 l lry �r3 4� .'� �/� .' ��-�.2`. . , �. h `, , t�3�PU4�_ �'J', ., i+ _ K r1 �� I .. � .�D � . „�> >' .( x 7 1� � 1 . . 1 L ' 1 3 I S L I 7 f �! i a K I \ �^,N�tI �j.. .. . `V`^ �4l�'__� " j - 4 A i° � ��Fi'(1- .o `,�Q n1 � ?' Z` . � " E :...,=1f l t fr� �f � f � EZ q � , ` ,a • � , =r n +� '11°- a�ii .3`�11 .i i�ll• �, �� —�'� �'@..f � �� _%=''�n'ysot" �_ ••• . S „ �S L$NGFELLOW � = r - • ,x ,��`s � '� P,7 s, �� CfM ' •� C�� -=r'�_a'., .. ,lGIBj �• ,r .. �a 1•.t ¢ � 1 43� � �' � :.=y. 'I:� -1 � .. iLf - _ ••�. ! l�1 �1 � f '; = ; %i • '� f� 4.Z � z\ ,,,'1 y'l,, �t�4,'�N_ � �- /i� V •�% 1l � Vs � N - l. . . a ` 1 \ .',`'' ': . "rt�' " �. - � -' � � : ;:s'� ,f�� a� s.'�. 4s� g� . / � � � r�p :r'9 . ,Z I /` t 9 7i . . i p p ♦ � t t � ' . ��i i: �� l . �7' � �'�bw�� s�Cl - s �_ , .�.. = � �-� i _ w 0 �' l�� f ' � °[e : ` '� ` SG � .__ � : -. _,,. so � , �1 A�, �� _t •� ri v � � rn ��"r � '8 7v2'! ,, ,9 . • . ¢��..: . A �•` se�J - ` ' •r• `. �6. v . � -� (f 13 70�� .." t = `Y' � F ,:3 ; iff�.* ; ,, r< ; +• � �:a ' � � _t, ,� : � f" � � / , 13 ' , ! �s .., - Ta . �- jo . M � • _ 't - t3�. �"" �. i79 e' -- s �89Z � L V _ ��' --''.- i�--� ,s . a 3< ii _ i d c �i �[� Y �.\ � . y :. �iu �. . � 7 �\ J . SO -�..f! 9 '�H ' 70d` r \ � \ 1 �� \z _3S 1 . � _ �/'_• A . \/ 4 . !c � 7 � it— �_ �Y" J7 f� M •li�t ge0 � j / . \ �� .r 1 �.. J lr f�; .� �� ,� Ce � s, s . ��, .\ � :_ �.�; � G ,� � a � � P� nr �a `' . �O ` \ t� a- -� 3�f: �� ,��, /O '- � � \� . ' � . , ; �\ , . �� T— SP #82-05 Joy Anderson ��-,� .-z_ . � _ �.---z.._ �----- E�3AN, FIELD & NOW�� 2 RIET AVE. �� MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA CERTIFiCATE OF St�RVEY Fm WAL-Od� BUll�s ., - . . ��/� _.�v� �',, i �,.�: ! f �`P! \� / , � � Lt<`6f �`� � � '�L . s a �. �� . �� op ��o N . ,� � s 9�'�1 �s 3 DESCRIPTioN� tota 13 end 1�. Bt � ' �nq � ��`�. , River Scale� 1�•- 30' ,' � 16 � J / . � �� Q� � o �30� i p o 2 ppeSED _s P� 1' � � � ° _ -' '� ,`� � a - s �„ r► � - \4 v �;• -1ie ghts, Anoka County Minnesota, . O �'� � �� P / _ i/ ,i ? � .� ( �\ 1/�Ov V1.fG[i�JJ'J I/CC' We hereby tertify thal thi.s is a frue and correct representation of a survey o fhe bou�deries of the land abo�e described end of the loCation of all building. if any, thereon, end ali.visible encroachments, if any, from or on sa.id lend. Deted this 7th -day of_ Auqust ,19� . EGAN, FIELD b NOw�K . Sur(ye�yors , 1 � 7 L � .. .� _ � i�n 1� b Y[ lG -'[i3"�.-t,r:• :..ai '..�i-s-.-T IC nV Yv I � - - . Y. _. �� i� PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNINf COMMISSIDN Notice is hereby given that there will be a Publir Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, May 19, 1982 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #82-06, Northwestern National Bank, by Kenyon Blunt, per Section 205.101, 3, I, to allow an automatic teller machine in an enclosed building on Lot 1, Block 1, Target Addition, the same being 755 53rd Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportuni.ty at the above stated time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: May 5, 1982 May 12, 1982 .. ,� , .- - ,�,�: r�CiTY OF FRIDLEY� � � . .. �643'1 UNNERSiTV. AVE. NE �� FG3tOLGY� MN.65a3� [6'�21,57�-34-`�O _ ; �....��.,,�..:. .. SUHJECT SPECIAL USE PERMI7 18 � sP�Ba-o� ADDRESS 7��' � �D �`'� . � ` �• DATE PLANNING COt�1�9ISSI0N: P.H. DATE APPROL'ED DISAPPROYED 9AiE NO CITY COUNCIL: . P.H. REQ'D DA7E_ N0� CITY COUNCIL: APPROVED_ DISAPPP.OVED� DATE NO .- STIPULATIONS: NAME /I��T �//�/��, ��G• � FEE_ 4O � RECEIPT NO�Q� STREET LOCATION OF PROPERTY_�� ✓�� ' N•� • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PRESENT ZOWTNG CLASSIFICATION C' Z EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY�HH��RL 1�TR/L ACREAGE OF PROPERTYtJ7e� �L• DESCRIBE BR�I//EFLY THE PROPOSEp TYPE OF tl�'.sFAND IMPROVEMENT %Stl}TOMA'liG TELLE�.' �R�-f'ilN�i f� /O�JI� ��'' TD - r�rT'T � �T �KD 3�GT ��l P-f'/anl Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot spli�x variance or speciai use permit on the subject site or part of it? ��Yes i< no, What was requested and when? The under-signed understands that: (� A list of all residents and owners of pr.s�sr.ty: within 300 feet must be attached to iTis application. (� This application mus:�se sianed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not � case. (c) Responsibitity for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the:aidure to list the names and addresses of alt residents and property owners of proper�iin question, belongs to the undersigned. _ A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showis��he following: 1. North direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the l�t: 3. Dimansions of property, proposed structure, and front a�id side setbacks. 4. Street names. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (witficr3Q0 feet). � The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representatioas state�� this application are 1:ruz and correct. - DATE ¢- I6'-�/ Z SIGNATURE �C � APPLI ANT lJol2TffV�l��2hL l�f�Tlc�lA�l. �5'{d�1f< ' ADDRESS �� JE�.�Jl�II„% AV• %• M�. •��9 TFLEPHONE NO_ 7� 2-9�57 MAILING LIST SP#82-06 Northwestern National Bank Automatic Teller in Target Parking Lot Kenyon Blunt Northwestern National 255 2nd Avenue South Minneapolis, Mn 55479 Target c/o D. Houck 777 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Chet M. Herringer 4121 Stinson Blvd. Minneapolis, Mn 55421 Richard Fudali 500 Brookdale Towers Minneapolis, Mn 55430 Planning Commission May 4, 1982 19 Bank Mr. James Gretoch & Sherrie Krumrie 5341 Madison Street a.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Q Petroleum Corp 5300 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Q Petroleum Corp. 6500 Barrie Road Minneapolis, Mn 55435 Solar Wash,.•Inc. 775 53rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Pop Shoppes of America, Inc. 785 53rd Avenue N.E'. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Hassman 5381 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Thomas N. Naughtin & Jane Elder 5371 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Gary Billington 5361 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. Douglas Thoms 5351 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Stacy 596 53 1/2 Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Ms. Patricia Abrams 691 Cheri Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & MrS. Robert Leitner 671 Cherie Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Wesley Grandstrand 5431 Madison Street N.E. Fridley> Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Alexander Novitsky 5421 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Mihalow 5411 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & 17rs. Elmer Hagen 5401 Madison Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Cherry Company 5310 Monroe Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 / \ N �.otAT1oN ,..E..�. ..� SP #82-06 Northwestern Nationa7 Bank ..�s wk h.. STREET MA.P^CITr OF FRIDLEY zo ..._�_-�...:��• -�af�3�s�s�et�—� . _ . . ,� . :�, � _!! � `_ , � .� .�,. ; __ g , � , . � � 3, . .y � . � ' . ��q �(« �. � •' N` :_ s ; •'t �� `' �y . . �. a '1� . t ., � . �� i � � � ' � �� -�i � i 1 � i � � . � � �.. : �.Tjr,� - � Q �' i p ; _ : ; ��c � aC � � i � � , , ,' � �� -, , + ---�.. � . . ; � � �� ,� ,�'�a ;�, ti ��°t`�'� , •� ;, -- ----� Y` : � i� � ' `� ' �4�`� � , ., � ' ? ; / . , . . � I .;� � ( �s � .� tin �A PJ' f �,. ♦ . .. ^ ' ��f�R'f" �l O _ P.L�.T>ars.�ts �r � ' � , :� b: , a "'+ °+.r _i'i , � � i � .� . ±� ' i � �-� Z � _ i 7 � : � . • � : .v � : � � ' � i � � �-; -J �. , � Q '� ' � _ �YriY sj i . . ' rUi � � � ` , : .3 -� _; 12 ° �- . �, , .•�. > . a•,? � `� �\ w ti �� ° �� ._ �° ' t�, .�O H �� ` _I _ � ` ->o J � t' . N `y � a ��1 �.. � ' � y � � �• Y av M \! h `• w �\!q �L�'"_.'!' � � ^ �� if� � , � w . s i� �� ,�, . �. O — ..� ' i� i�V � �� ; _ _ . { s _ i N I i. : � ! r4 4 : , ��. . ^o a . �. . NW Nat"1 �ank 21� � }� "'� � $ e ,$:�; o � !l � � ,:D � k �. 1;C:4� � y ; a^�:; ; � s —� ,,.- � �'1S� u Xf I+�'J �•y� ;v ..�o�. (�l _....�..._ . fr1„ 1f1 T � v ti ia R �G N riS w N �;� I'�, ..: .,., ,r � � ti ': '' t �� y�� , aro 'a, :z � �� eP� �� . �:r � . yi wr t � 2 �CS�,� �,�� n � m tt z s�. 8��,�1 1 N•:' iirri � ,� ^' `s �� `� �9 �� - .� _. r �� __ � r � 11 � i 1 V _ � n - — ---° �x...��°ffi. . ��----�r � n��. � • �� A � IJ��, \ ��/ ' - - 3S �� . _. .. ,.<. t��3 r. -^.L,� ._ . . _- — � w._ _.1 �'�-r�'� A4- �. 22 _- � ,{. . ^ .' t � i.-�:h'1 � f-".' .�IY�✓r� �. � 'i ,. .. �l.l:_ty\ `� -�L ��. 'L�h=—� �1�\� 17 �i'7 � ,ti.G � :li /�'� � UF• :•C -l.,' �Po� \ j �1� � /�i A: _ . .. iLy t�� i✓'rj!� . "iAV�-'_ .`.� �.+ -.. . A � � \ • � L. ' .�� £ J ��.'-�f.� . � _ < �� ----- �� . .._��\��a � �7 J / / / �?J PARKING \ '� - � q-� � ��\\ A�I i �� \�,\ � � � ¢TRCKING SPACE �i� � ,� 4 AUTOMOB , . �� . _••.. � • T� � \ \AREA TO BE REYtSED W{TH � � . ATM INSTALLATION � �`\8 GAFKING SPACES TAKEN—_ :__ t S C STACKING SPACE FOR 2 AUTOM061LES EXISTING-- pTM INSTALLATION-. • NEw CUR8INO � LANDSCAGIN6 - TREES - SHRU85 - - SODDING � ASPHALT DHIVEB • CONCHETE wA�K6 � �_" — — • "�iV.�� -� E}.� A"-� :l./.b ��T ♦�r � � .1/4A �\�\\\\ -..�; / \�" �� , � . ....�'., � ' / . � 1 i��w��i i [� y _ U � t h �a i � ,� \\C�_ � • • � � � . x- � � � • � ' r'._' � v .` F ' � 1 \ 3� Q�� . 3 SP#82-06, NORTHWE�fNATIONAL BANK v�� 5 _ . ��.. - � �r 2 � i � v� d�,, �o �,� ��b 23 I� Y N J Q ' W I F- W � V Z O V ATTACHMENT A Application tor Special Use Permit Northwestern National Bank Automatic Teller Machine Kiosk Target Store Parking Lot 755 - 53rd Avenue NE 24 Northwestern National Ba�k proposes to co�struct, operate, and maintain a kiosk containing an automatic teller machine in the parking lot of the Target Store located at 755 - 53rd Avanue NE. The automatic teller would provide banking service 24 hours per day, including withdrawals, deposits, and transters of funds from approved bank accounts. The building would be a prefabricated metal structure containing only machinery (no huma� occupancy). The building would be set on a raised concrete island with abundant landscaping. Northwestern National Bank woufd have a fong-term lease agreement with Target Stores, Inc., for the use of this site for the kiosk and adjacent concrete islands. The proposed automatic teller machine kiosk has 6een sited in the Target parking lot in such a way as to cause no disruption to traffic flow and safety either on nearby public streets nor within the Target parking lot. Automatic teller patrons can approach the kiosk from the 53rd Avenue parking lot entrance and proceed to the kiosk using normal traffic flow patterns. The portion of the Target parking lot proposed for use by the automatic teller kiosk is rarely ever used by store customers for parking. Space is available tor the stacking of cars waiting to use the automatic teller, and cars can pull away from the kiosk causing no traffic flow disruption nor danger. Automatic telier patrons can easily proceed to a parking space elsewhere in the lot or to the lot exit. No site Iandscaping will be removed for the installation of the kiosk. In fact, the raised islands alongside of the kiosk will contain additional, new landscaping. The kiosk installation will necessitate the removal of eight parking spaces. Target has no objection to this loss, and the store still exceeds Fridley Zoning Code requirements for offi-street parking. CITY OF fRIDLEY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MAY 4, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Kondrick called the May 4, 7982, Parks & Recreation Comnission meeting to order at 7:35 p,m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Jan Seeger, Dick Young, Dan Allen, Mary Schreiner Members Absent: None Others Present: Charles Boudreau, Parks & Recreation Director Terry Merriman, 711 Rice Creek Terrace APPROVAL OF APRIL 6 �982 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MI�UTES: MOTZON BY MS. SCHREINER� SECONDED BY MS. SBEGER� TO APPROVfi TAE APRIL 6� I982� PARKS 6 RECREATION COMMISSTON MINUTES, Mr. Young stated that on page 7, under "Policy Recomnendation", the name, "Mrs. Jaycees" should be changed to "Jaycee Women". UPQN A VQICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYfi� CHAIRPfiRSON XONDRICK DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROYED AS RMENDED, APPROUAL OF A6fNDA: The following items were added to the agenda: Co�renunication from Pat & Tan Bordner - Item B under "Director's Report" Cortnnunication from Marcy Sparks - Item C under "Director's Report" Weeds at Locke Park - Terry Merriman - Item A under "Other Business" Jaycee Gift to the City - Dick Young - Item B under "Other Business" Eisenhower Square - Dick Young - Item C under "Other Business" MOTION BY NR. ALLEN� SECONDED BY XS. 5EEGfiR� TO APPROVfi THS AGENDA AS AMENDED. UPON A VOZCB VOTB� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON KONDRICX DECLARED THE MOTION CARRISD UNANZMOUSLY, � Mr. Kondrick suggested that Mr. Terry Merriman's discussion on the weeds at Locke Park be placed first on the agena. e PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4, 1982 PA6E 2 1. WEEDS AT LDCKE PARK - TERRY MERRIMAN: Mr. Merriman stated he had addressed the Commission on October 19, 1987, over the issue of the mowing in Locke Park. which has been discontinued on the south side of Rice Creek since Anoka County took over the maintenance of the park. Previous to his addressing the C�nunission, he �ad talked to Dr. Boudreau a couple of times about the mowing. At the Commission meeting, Dr. Boudreau had said there was really not a lot of support amongst the population on the south side of the Creek for the continued mowing of that area, and that the amount of use on that side of the Creek was open to question, Mr. Merriman stated that prior to that Comnission meeting, Dr. Boudreau had said he twould research the issue a little bit and give some indication of how much time it takes to mow the area and the number of times it gets mowed each year, At the Commission meeting, there was also some discussion about the noxious weed ordinance, and the fact that he thought there was no master ptan for Locke Park. He stated it was his understanding that the message was going to be transmitted to Dave Torkildson, Director of the Anoka County Park Department, that there should be some kind of master plan for the park. To this date, Mr. Merriman stated he did not know if there was any plan. Mr. Merriman stated he had been unable to attend the Commission's December meeting, which Mr. Torkildson attended. At that meeting, Mr. Torkildson gave the indication that the residents have iost interest in this issue. Mr. Merriman stated the residents have not lost interest in this issue. Mr. Merriman stated he met with Mr. Torkildson in late Jan./Feb, and explained their position in that all of the residents he has talked to, without exception, want to see this area mowed. At that time, Mr. Torkildson indicated some willingness to negotiate on the amount of mowing that would be done. and they discussed the possibility of establishing a new tree line. Mr. Torkildson would like to estabtish a new tree line, but Mr. Merriman did not know where. Mr. Merriman stated Mr. Torkildson has obviousiy taken the position that he does not want to do any mowing. Mr. Merriman stated he has taTked to Mr. Torkitdson and has set up a meeting with Mr. Torkildson for 4:15 p.m. in Locke Park at Monroe St, and Rice Creek Terrace. He and Mr. Torkildson will walk the area and try to come to some kind of agreement. He stated that Dr. Boudreau and any of the Comnission members who wished to attend this meeting were wetcome. He stated he was go9ng to invite some of his neighbors, because he felt there should be representation from people who live in the middle section and on each end of the park. Mr. Merriman stated Mr. Torkildson a7so continues to bring up the issue that the area is never used. Mr. Merriman stated he has started to pay attention this year, and that area is used a lot. Mr. Merrimart stated an issue he did not La1k about at the last Commission meeting, but one that is very important, is the aesthetics. If that area is allowed to go wild, it is no different living next to that end of the park PARKS & RECREATION COMMI55ION MEETING MAY 4)982 PAGE 3 than living next to a vacant lot. He felt they should find out what Mr: Torkildson intends to do in that area. Mr. Torkildson had said he would like to establish a new tree tine which wou7d be p7aced about 30 ft, south of the trail that is going through the park and then mow the rest. Dr. Boudreau stated that is in the master plan for that area for the walkway syst�n that is going all the way through Locke Park. Mr. Torkildson is trying to put a buffer of trees between the residents and the trai] system. Dr. Boudreau stated the City did cane in last fall and mow that area up to the power line. He stated the area Mr. Merriman is talking about mowing is a 1/4 mile stretch that woutd take a day to a day and a half to mow. He stated that, contrary to what Mr. Merriman has said. that area is not used. He stated his maintenance men are around that area day in and day out through- out the year, he has been out there several times, the County people have been out there several times, and that area is not being used except for some night parties. Ms. Seeger asked Mr. Merriman if he thought berming with trees or shrubs would be desirable or not desirable to the neighborhood. Mr. Merriman stated he thought that would be too expensive. Ms. Seeger stated maybe they are talking about long term expense. If it is a long term expense to mow it every year, maybe the expense should be incurred in reforestation of some merit. Mr. Merriman stated he was in agre�nent with that 700%. He was not against moving the tree line farther south and mowinq up to that. He stated the City has always mowed it, and he is looking for some compromise. He is not asking for the whole area to be mowed. Mr. Kondrick stated he did not see any reason why a reasonable compromise couldn't be worked out at the meeting on Monday, May 12th. with Mr. Torkildson. He stated he would attend that meeting. Dr. Boudreau stated he would also attend that meeting. Mr. Merriman thanked the Canmission for their time and asked that as many Commission m�nbers as possible attend the Monday meeting. 2. ELECTION Of CHAIRPER50N AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON - 1982-83: Chairperson Kondrick declared the nominations open for chairperson. MOTION BY 1�. ALLEN� SECONDfiD BY 1�42. YOUNG, TO RBNOMINATE DRVE KONDRICX FOR CFIAIRPERSON. Mr. Allen stated Mr. Kondrick has done a very good job in representing the Comnission, and he would like to see him continue as chairperson. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEEiING, MAY 4, T982 PAGE 4 Mr. Young stated Mr. Kondrick has represented the Comnission on the Planning Comnission this past year. and he felt that, to do justice to the Planning Canmission, a person should serve on the Planning Commission for more than one year. Hearing no other naninations, Chairperson Kondrick declared the nominatians closed, MOTION BY MS, SESGER� SECONDED BY 1�. ALLEN, TO CAST R UNANIMOUS BAZS.UT FOR DAVE KONDRICK AS CXAIRPERSON OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 2982-83, UPON A VOICE VOTfi� RLL VOTiNG RYE� CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMbUSLY, Chairperson Kondrick declared the nominations open for yice-chairperson. MOTSON BY MS. SEEGER� SECONDED BY l�IIt, YOUNG, TO NOMINATE MARY SCNREINER FOR VICE-CHAIRPfiRSON. Hearing no other nominations, Chairperson Kondrick declared the naninations closed, MOTION BY MR. YOUNG� SECONDED BY �4t, ALLEN, TO CAST R�UNANIMOUS"SALLOT FOR MARY SCXREINSR AS VICE-CHRIRPERSON OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION FOR TXE YEAR I9B2-83. � UPON A VOICS VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON KONDRICX DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: a. Direction of the Department for the Comin Year Dr, Boudreau stated Nasim Qureshi� City Manager, had sent a memo dated April 26, 1982� to the Mayor and City Council with carbon copies to the department heads. In the memo, Mr. Qureshi stated the City had a "state aid cutback to the tune of $342,927 and an anticipated cutback of $1is473 from revenue sharing which translates into approximate7y a 6% cut in our total City revenue budgeted for the year 1982. It also seems that in the foreseeable future, we wil7 continue to have a reduc- tion in revenue from tAese two sources, so in tf�e recent past we have been instituting certain steps to meet such anticipated reductions. We have advised the Council about some of the steps, and it seems that we might have to add to the list of actions necessary to meet these shortfalls and cutbacks". Dr. Boudreau stated Mr. Qureshi had listed the following "Actions to minimize expenditures": PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETIN6, MAY 4, 7982 PAGE 5 1. Delayed filling of vacancies 2. Reduction of city staff by attrition 3. Higher use of part-time emp]oyees 4. Higher use of co7lege and school internship programs 5. Higher use of community volunteers 6. Combination of certain staff positions 7. Recruitrnent at the lowest possible tevel 8. Contracting out for specialized services 9. Higher level of justification for any vacant positions to be filled 10. Review of elimination or reduction of certain programs 11. Other steps we might be forced to take to meet the revenue shortfali: a. Voluntary leaves of absence by employees b. Mandated leaves of absence c. Emplayee layoff . Mr. Qureshi had stated the last two items would be considered only as a last resort action if a11 other actions still have not met the revenue shortfall. Mr. Qureshi also listed the following "Actions to increase revenue"--steps they have been taking and hope to be taking more aggressively in the future: 1. Increased user fees 2. Higher license and permit fees 3. Better scrutiny to see that staff is charging accurately to enterprise funds like ]iquor. water. sewer, and HRA activities Dr. Boudreau stated that Mr. Qureshi had also stated that he was giving this memo to the City Council for their information and any further input because by City Charter, the City is required to have expenditures meet the revenues each year. and such decrease in anticipated revenues is requiring the City to take expenditure reduction action. Dr. Boudreau stated the City is about $400,000 short dn revenue in the 1982 budget, and the City has to ]ook at ways of cutting expenses where they can. As the Cottmission was already aware, the Parks & Recreation Department is already doing a lot of the first 8-9 criteria Mr. Qureshi had listed. The Parks & Recreation Department operates almost entirely on part-time employees. The Parks & Recreation Department does not fill their full-time vacancies if they occur. They use the college and intern programs, and are probably the largest department in using communtty volunteers, wherever possible. The Parks & Recreation Department prides itself on getting support fran various groups, agencies, companies, and anyone who wants to contribute to the Department of Park, Recreation, and Natural Resources. Dr. Bou�reau stated he brought this before the Comnission, because the Commission still continues to get requests for specia7ized services, such as Mr: Merriman had presented earlier in the meeting. It is very difficult PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 4, 7982 PAGE 6 to say "no" to those things that have been done in the past and that are taken for granted that they are going to continue to do forever. He stated they wil] bave to start looking at those kinds of things. Dr, Boudreau stated the Canmission discussed fees and charges at the last - meeting and raised tbose fees. He stated the City Counci7 approved those fees at their meeting the previous evenina. He stated the Cormnission has been very helpful in assisting the Parks & Recreation Department in keeping the fees and charges for programs itt line where they can pride themselves in giving the fridley residents a quality program at the least amount of cost. He stated they may have to raise the user fee next year, and they may have to cut down on some of the capital oatlay items next year. Dr, Boudreau stated the Park, Recreation, and Natural Resource Department's prime objective is to provide services to the citiz8ns of Fridley. That comes through programning. Programs are its revenue source, so if they cut programs, they aiso reduce revenue. He stated they feel they have to continue to update their facilities and keep up with the capital outlay items. Dr. Boudreau stated that when the Commission members help with the budget this year and come up with capital outlay needs and items and ideas for new programs, he wouid like them to keep in mind that these are some of the constraints they are going to try to live by for at least a year. He stated he is looking for suggestions fran the Commission on how to reduce expenditures on the City's part and still maintain the services that are proyided. b. Communication from Pat & Tom Bordner, 660 Hu�o St N E Dr, Boudreau stated that Pat & Tom Bordner were submitting a request for a higher fence at Giencoe Park. They stated that in the past, they split the cost of a 4 ft. high fence with the City. That 4 ft, fence is still standing. They stated the 4 ft, fence is inadequate because basket- balis and baseballs come over the fence into their yard, and children are constantly crawling over the fence into their yard. Also, refuse from the park is thrown into their yard. They cannot plant bushes or plants in their yard, because they get destroyed. They stated that, in general, their civil rights are being violated, and they would like the City to cfiange the policy of only sharing the cost Of a 4 ft, high fence. Dr. Boudreau stated that to give a little background, in the past Pat & Tom Bordner had requested and were given, in keeping with City policy, a 4 ft. high chain 7ink fence between their property and the park property, and the cost was split between the City and the homeowner. Their reasoning for needing the 4 ft, fence was the traffic that entered and left the park through their property, Now, 2-3 years later, it seems the 4 ft. fence is not high enough, and they are requesting t6e City split the cost of a higher fence. PARICS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETIN6, MAY 4, 1982 PAGE 7 Dr. Boudreau stated he would re-enforce the City's policy that the City - has already sp7it the cost of a 4 ft. fence, and that if the Bordner's want any other kind of fence, it will have to be at their own expense. Mr. Young stated he would agree with that. If they approved this request, they vrould be setting a precedent for other requests. MOTION BY 1�. YOUNG, SBCONDED BY 1�. ALLEN, TO CONCUR WITX EXISTING CITY POLSCY T9AT� UPON RfiQIIEST� THE CZTY WII,L SPLIT THE C0.ST OF A 4 FT. NIGH CAAIN LINK CYCLONfi FENC6 TO SEPARATE PARK PROP&RTX FROM R XOMEOWNSR'S PROPERTY� RND TO DfiNY TXE REQUEST BY PAT & TOM BORDNER TflAT TXE CITY SHARE IN THE COST OF A HIGXSR FSNCfi. UPON R VOICE VOTfi, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED TXS MOTI�T CARRZED UNANIMDUSLY. c. Comnunication from Marcie Sparks Dr. Boudreau stated he had received a letter dated April 23, 1982, from Marcie Sparks� who stated a group of 30 people from Anoka County met on March 31 to discuss the potential for the construction of an auditorium for the performing arts. Ms. Sparks had stated one of the concerns expressed at that meeting was the need for a detailed feasibility study on the need, design, financing, and management of such a facility. Ms. Sparks had requested that Dr. Boudreau attend the next meeting on April 28. Dr. Boudreau stated he did not attend that meeting. He did not think it was his position to get involved as a City of Frid7ey representative. Ne stated he has chosen to not be involved directly. The Commission members agreed that it was not Dr. Boudreau's position to get involved. Ms. Schreiner suggested that Dr. Boudreau provide Ms. Sparks with the information and minutes that were put together by the project committee, for the recreation building. Ms. Seeger stated there are.people in fridley who are very interested in the performing arts. Dr. Boudreau could give Ms. Sparks the names of those people interested and she could contact th�n directly. 4, OTHER SUSINESS: a. Jaycee Gift to the City - Dick Younp Mr, Young stated that one year ago, the Jaycees of Fridley made a$6,000 comnitment to the Comnunity Park to be used for the purchase of electronic scoreboards. That commitment was to be Qaid in a 2-year installment. He stated that commitment fias been fu]fiiled, and the City now has that $6,000 in hand. It was given to the Mayor at the Jaycees' annual banquet three weeks ago. r PARKS & RECREATION CO_t�H�1I5SI0N MEETING, MAY 4, 1982 PAGE 8 Dr. Boudreau stated a letter has been sent to the Jaycees thanking them " for this gift. b. Eisenhower Square - Dick Young Mr. Young stated he was shocked when he read in the Fridley Sun and the City Council minutes that Eisenhower Squape was go'rng to be turned into a parking lot. He thought it was a shame that the piece of property was going to be destroyed to make another piece of blacktnp in the vicihity of Mississippi St, and University Ave. He stated that if addiiional parking is needed for the "so-called" project that is going in on the southeast corner of Mississippi & University, he thought there were two alternatives--either scale down the project. or build a parking ramp like Coiumbia Heigfits is doing. Mr. Young stated Eisenhower Square is a definite asset to the City Hall complex, It is also set aside as a memorial, and he felt it was in a fitting place and should not be in a place like Commons Park where it wou7d possibly be abused or vandalized. Ms. Seeger stated she had a7so expressed concern at the iast Gommission meeting about the displacement of trees, They, as a Cormnission, have a right to question the City's judgement on these kinds of things. Mr. Young stated if he was a member of an organization that had spent a lot of d�llars plus many manhours to put in a memorial, he would be a litt7e upset several years later to find out it is going to be taken out and reiocated. Dr. Boudreau stated he has talked to the VFW, and they seem to concur with the monument being relocated to the south end of Moore Lake where the flagpale now exists. Ms. Seeger stated she would like to see a plan for the Center City area. She thought there were other ways of solving parking. Dr. Boudreau stated he thought it would be very helpful to have Mr. Boardman attend the next Comnission meeting to explain the plan for this area. The Commission members concurred. Ms. Schreiner stated she thought the Commission members shou7d receive copies of the HRA minutes, because the ramifications of these redevelopment areas might enfringe on some of the parks. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, W1AY 4, 7982 " PAGE 9 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION 8Y MS. SCFIREINER� SECONDED BY MR, ALLEN, TD ADJOURN TH6 MEETING. UPON A VOSCB VOTE� ALL VOTSNG AYB, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED TXE XAY Q� 1982� PARKS 6 Rfi'CREATION COMMISSION NEETING AA7�¢IRNED AT 9:45 P.M. Resp ctfully submi ted. �� yn Sa a Recording Secretary C11y oY Pridley APPEAIS C�MMISSION MEETit1G - MAY 11 1982 PAGE 1 CALL 1U ORDERi Ch+irwoman Gabe2 ealled the ISey 11. 1982� Appeala Commission meeting to order at 7�3o P.m. ROLL CALL� - liembera Preaentti Patricia Gabel� Alez Barna� Jim Plsmel, Lealie Coleman Membera Abaente �van Gerou Others Preaent: Tim 2legler� $'j41F W, I�toore Lalce Drive, Fridleq, I�Ai Oliver Tam� 1160 Fireside Drive, Fridley� MN Ronald Michaelaon. 1219i N'rrquette Avenue� Minne►polia, }ai KentaHil�,��iy2of1Fzid�ql�e Avenue� North St. Paul. HIJ APPitOVE kPPEALS CO]AtiSSION MINU2TLS OF APRII. 27 1982� MOTION by Mr, Coleman, seeonded by Mr, plemel, to approve the April 27, 1982� Appe�a Commisaion minutea aa written. UPON A YOICPs VOTE, AI.L yOTING AYE� CHAIHGTOMAN GABEL DSCLARED Tf� MOTION CARRIED Qt3AN7190USLY, INTRODUCTION OF NE%1 MEMBERi Chatrwoman Gabel introduced Nr, Leali� Col�man to fellox Commission membere and welcomed him !a the Appeals Commiaaion. 1. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY C er, 5i44 west Moore Lake Drive, Fridley. Minnesota 55432). l30TION by Nr. Plemel. seaondsd by Mr, Harna, to opsh the pnbllc hearing. UPON � VOICE VO'!E, ALL VOTI2iG AYE, CIiAIRWOMAN GAHEL DECI.AHID THE PUBLIC HEAR7NG OPEN AT 7�35 P.M. ADMIt]ISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5744 West Moore Lake Drive N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIRFS7ENT• Section 205.053, 4B, #Sa, zequires the side yyrd widYh on a street side of a corner lot to be not less than 17.5 feet, Public purpose served by this zequizanent is to maintain a higher degree of traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's fz9nt yard. APPEAIS CON�fISSION MEBTING - MAY I1. I982 PAGE 2 8. STATED FIP.RD6HIP: 'The ro� ve would like to add is a canbination dining and sitting rocmi, as well as an extPnsion of the kitchen. Without a variance, any kitchen expansion is no longer._ieasible. To move the roan further from the streeL is not possible as a bedmom window is immediately adjacent to the proposed addition and we wwld lose legal means of egress in case of fire." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVI�S1: The lot is on the southwest corner of West Moore Lake Drive and SBth Avenue with the frontage on West l�ore Lake Drive. The side of the existing house (alonq SBth Avenue) is 14 feet from the side property line. The proposed addition will extend the side of the house 18 feet toward the rear lot line but will not come any closer to the side lot line than the exist£ng dwelling. The dwelling on the adjacent lot to the rear of this lot faces Jackson Street so there would be no encroachment into the neighbor's front yard if the varianoe for the addition was approved. Tim Zl�gl�r of 5744 Neat Moore Iake Drive. Fridley, lA1� �raa pr�a�nt. Mr, Hill pxva�nted Commieeion membera rrith an aerial photograph and current anepahots of the propsrty. !s, 2ieglsr ezp2ained that the additional room ras necessary for dining and a fami�y area, adding that the present bnsement ia aot a suitable place for a family room. The roof line would be atraight gable xith a vaulted ceiling inside, The houae present�y is sided iaith shakes, but he la seriously considering reaiding, The house xill be reshingled, aa will the garage, so everything xill be consistent. Mr. Ziegler is a contractor so rrill be doing the srork Limself. Ma. Gabel asked if a�q of the neighbors had been consulted xith Mr, Ziegler indicating he had spoken with a few and there did not seem ta be a problem. Ma. Gabal asked how sooa construction xould begin and Mr. Zieg2er responded as eoon as possibL, MOTION by Mr. Harna, aeconded b,y Mr. Coleman, to cloae the public hearing. UPON A VOICE V01E, ki.L VOTING AYE. CHAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEll AT 7�45 P.M. MOTION by Mr, Plsmal, aeconded by Hr, Barna, to approve the variance requsat to reduce the aide yard setback on:a corner lot from the required 17,5 feet ta 14 feet, to allow the conatructi.on of a 16'x18' addition to the rear of the dwalling locatsd on Lot 1, Bloek 5, Donnay'a Lalaaviesr Pfanor, the same being 5744 West Moore Iake Drive. Fridlep, IIPON A YOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIfd�IOMAN GABEL DECLARED THE MOTI�N CARRIFD IINAt3IMOD3LY. APPEAIS COI�IISSIDN l�6TING -?!AY 11. 1982 ___ PAGE � 2. Fridley, Minnesota 55432) — ZpTIpN by Mr. Harna� aeconded l� Nr. Plemel. to open the public hearing. IIPON A 80ICE V01E, ALL VOTZNG AT, CAAIRWOMAN GABEL DECLARED Tf� PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7�50 P.M. ' ADMINISTRATNE STAFF REPORT _ __ 1160 Fireside Drive N.E. A. PtJBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 214.046, C2, stipulates the use of rooi signs will substitute for the permitted free standirg sign along the frontage it faces. Section 214.046, G, prohibits billboards in I�4 Zoning. Section 214.046, Gl, requizes the mini.mian distance between the bott� of a sign and the ground tc not less than 10 feet. Section 214.046, G4, requires a minimum setback of 30 feet fr� a street ri9ht of way. Sedtion 214.04b, G5, requires a minimwa seYback of 500 feet fsum the intersection of any streets or highways (Truck Highway #65) Section 214.046, G6, requires a billboard to be not closer than 500 feet from any residential district. Public purpose served by these requirm�ents is to contsol visual pollution end excessive use of signs in commercial azeas. - B. STATED HARD6HIP: ^ Restaurant is set baCk so far from Fireside Drive that sign at entrance to parking lot is needed to help custoaners identify restaurant. The Rice Bowl bvilding is situated b�ind and surrounded by storm fences. It is flanked to left and right by two huge trailer courts. T�ees and houses shield the building fmm isaffic: vn Ceiitral Avenue. Al1 these create a very bad visibility problem ioz the kind of business we are in. .The sign on Central Avenue helps remedy this problem.° 4PPEAIS COMMISSION lSEETIAtG - MAY 11. 1962 PAGE 4 C. ADMINZSTRATIVE�STAE'F REVIEW: The two siqns.in question are existing. The billboard on the southwest corner of the intersectian o£ Fireside Drive and Central Avenue and the free-standing pylon sign in the Rice Bowl parking lot were installed without benefit oi a City sign pe�mit. Undez Section 214.05, paragraph G, of the City Code, that would make botl� signs illegal non-conPorming signs. Mr. Tam's original request was to replace the existing pylon sign with a new sign on the same pole. Since there already e�cists a roof sign of 190 squaze £eet; since the Rice Bowl only fronts on Fireside I3�ive; and since the Siqn Code permits only one free-standing pylon sign or one mof sign per property, then Mr. Tam needs a variance to install a second sign on his property. The billboard on Ceatral Avenue needs a Sign Permit to officially make it a legal non-conforming sign. In order for the City staff ta issue this Sign Permit, the requested variances must be granted. Oliver Tam oY 1160 Fireside Drive� Fridley, MN xae present, as xere hie aitorney. Mr. Michaelson, and l�s. Mc%e vho doea sign vork for Tan's Rice Boxl, Mr. Hill presented Commission members vith aerial and current photographs of the property and explained that the illegal non-conforming signs xere diecovered xhen Mr. Tam applied for a permit to repair a damaged sign, Sign permits had beea issued For the roof sign on March 2, 1966, and for the ai� on Fireside and Hxy, 65 on June 1� 1961, making existing si�a for the Rice Bowl betaeea lj and 20 years old, All aigna did existtaa� the reslairsnt xhen Mr. Tam purchased the propertg, Mr. Hill further indicated that no complaints on the aigns had been received. Pir, 2,ichaelson e�cplained the unique aituation of the restaurant in terms o4 location and the necessity oS a nunber oP aigna for exposure, $e added Lhat Mr, Tam has a good establishment but needs patronage to be successful xhich xould be encouraged through the use of the four aigns. He noted that a reputable sign company Would be doing the repairs and constructing the new aig�. Ms. Gabel said that the roof sign is still visible from Highcray 6$ but because of the gro,rth of the trees it rrould not reawin visible much longar. N,r. MeKee said the a� on the pylon Would be almo� identical to present one in terms of color, deaign� shape and Iighting except that an arrow xould be added, a alight size differencs (6x6 versus ,"yx5), and it would protrude about 3 feet from the pole, Ms. Gabel a2so noted tLaiL the poles were 3n need oP repair and Mr, MeKee said they votild ba rustoleumed and tasn painted, Mr, $iii indicatsd that he haa also been xorking srtth Hr, T�nm on 2andscaping whfch xtll bs implemsnted whan the drainnge problem in the area is worked out, Mr. Hill also notsd the requirement that a legal non- conPorming 6ign damnged more tha» j0� af its value needs to be removed or can be repaired or replaced with a variance and sign permit. MOTION by Mr. Co2eman. aeconded by Mr, Plemel. ta close the publie hearing, UPON A VOICE V02E, ALL YOTING AYE, CHAIRW02lAli GABEL DECLARffi7 THE pUPyIC HEARING CIASED AT 8�17 P.M, . APPEALS COKMISSIDN I+tEETIl�G - MAY 11. 1982 PAGE 5 If the varianoe ia approved� 226 aquare footage oP aign will be ia uee. The alloxable aignage xithout the variance ie 80 square feet, a 146 square foot ovenge, Coaission nembers agreed, ho�+ever, tLat bscauae of 'Ghe uniqusness of the location of the eatabliah�nt the signc �+�ero neaeaaary, Alternative aolutiona �ere sxplorsd xith nor� baing a v3able solution, StafY had not been able to diacover an slternatiw aither. It rna detersiasd that a hardahip did ezist, I�TION bS Mr.;84rna, aeconded by Mr. Plemel, td�at the Appeals Commaieaion reoommend to the CiEy Council, tiu�ough the Planning Commission. aPProval oP the varianoe ta allox the inatalLtion of a 36 equare foot 4ee atanding eign in - the parMag-lot that trill be in addition to a roof eign that ia 190 aquare Pest, and to allow an exieting billboard that ia on the aouth+rest corner bf Central Avenu• and Fireaide Drive in R-4 eoning ti+hiah is on3y permitted in G2S� or M-1 or �p ycning� the vertioal distance between tha bottom of the algn and the ground from the required minimum of 10 feet to 9 feat� to reduce the aetback Prom atreet right-of-vay from the required 30 feet to � feet� to reduce the distance from street Sntersection a Yrom the required j00 feet to 30 feet and to allox thia billboard to be in a rssidential district instead of the required 500 feet fxrom a residential diatrict. located oa,parcels 45$0 and 4b�W in ihe north hal.f of Section 12. the same being 1160 Fireside Drive NE because of the uniqueneas of ita location, no complainta from neighbors hava been received, neither StaYY or the Commission haa an alternative aigning reco�nendation which xould satisfy the Code and Mr, Tnm purchased the establis6ment xithout Imowledge that the aigns were illegal non-conforming aigna. IIPON A YOICE VOTE, ALL YOTING AYE, CHAIRWaMAN GABEL DECLARED 1HE MOT7AN CARR�D IINANIMOUSLY. OTHEEt BiJSINESS� In view of the preparedneea of some people applying for a variance, aad a]sek by othera. Chairwoman Gabel requeated that each Commiasion member bring to the nezt meeting ideas for a guideline srhich could be diatributed to those requesting a variance uhiah would eatabliah the information which �rill be necessary xhen appearing before the Commission (i.e, examples of hardship, alternatives considered, discuasion vith the neighbors Snvoloed. etc,), ADJOURNMENTi MOTION by Mr, Barna, seconded by Mr, YOTING AYE� CHAIItWOHAN GABEL DEC ADJOURNID AT 8�45 P,M. Respectfully enbmitted� Pat Von Moaoh Recording Secretary Coleman. to adJourn, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL IARED THE APPEAIS CO?lMISSI�N 29EETING OF MAY 11. 1982, . CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING �OMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel cal7ed the May 19, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:32 p,m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Ms. van Dan, Mr. Saba Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Gary Wellner, 6221 Sunrise Drive Michae7 Larson, 6390 Starlite Blvd. Joy & Scott Anderson, 7921 Riverview Terrace Kenyon Blunt, 7th & Marquette, Mpls. William We6er, BRIJ, Inc., 2829 Univ. Ave. S.E. Curt Saunders, 320 - 7th St. S.E. Mr. & Mrs. Rod Brannon, Solar Wash, Inc. • APPROVAL OF �1AY 5, 1982, PLANNItdG COPMIISSIf1N MINUTES: MOTION 3Y NIR. SABA� SECONDED BY �fS. GABF,L� TO APPROVE THE MPY 5� 1982� PLANN2NG COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRI�IOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTZON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, l. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION -0F A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P:S., #82-01; D TYJW t NER A DITION, BV W: G: D V AND GARY 4JE NER: eing a rep a o at par o oc s an , owe i ion, ying ou of the North line of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, extended in a Westerly direciion to the West boundary of said Block 8, and lying Westerly of the Plat of Sylvan Hi11s,Plat 8, together with the Easter7y one-ha7f of vacated Elm Street, and that part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lowell Addition to Fridiey Park, lying Southerly of the Westerly extension of the North line of the plat of Sylvan Hills Plat 8, together with the Westerly half of vacated Elm Street, to be developed as three R-1 lots (single fami7y dwelling areas) and 5 R-2 lots (two family dwelling areas), generally located South of Mississippi St. N.E., East of the Burlington Northern right-of-way. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. Mr. Boardman stated the Planning Commission has now received the preliminary plat. As was discussed at the last Plannin9 Commission meeting, Lots 1, 7, • and 8 will be zoned R-1 (single family 7ots), and Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY I9, 1982 PAGE 2 � will be zoned R-2 (dupYex or double lots). He stated Mr. Wellner was in the audience to answer any questions on the proposed plat, Ms. Schnabel stated she had more questions with the zoning part of it. She asked if Staff had developed a new ordinance for twin homes yet. Mr. Boardman stated Staff was still working on it. He stated Staff had actually decided against going with a new zone. They are going to try to allow zero lot line with a special use permit or through the platting or- dinance, to stay within the same zones. What they could do was amend a portion of R-2 and R-3 with a provision that would allow zero lot line with special use permit approval. He stated he thought they would have a lot of problems in setting up a new zone specifically for zero lot line. In this situation, it would still be zoned R-2 and R-3, and at some point in time, if the owner wanted to go through a lot split, they would have to obtain a special use permit for zero lot line. Ms. Schnabel stated where she saw some problems in this whole concept was in the area of maintenance--the exterior maintenance of a dwelling as well as yard �aintenznce. She felt a litt7e uncomfortable with this whole thing unless it was really defined as to what they are going to do. Mr. Boardman stated they could all be required with a special use permit. • They could put covenants or restrictions on the lot splits that would be placed on the deed. Ms. van Dan stated she just could not visualize how, at some point in the future, these lots could be split and owned by two separate individuals. Mr. Boardman stated duplexes are allowed by certain densities. By split- ting the ow�ership of a duplex, they do not change the density, and that is why Staff felt the best way to go was with zero lot line. Developers can to to zero lot lines right now with duplexes, but they have to go through about 5-6 variances. Ms. Gabel stated Mr, Boardman had just given another argument in favor of having a separate "twin home" zone, Mr. Boardman had stated they could go with zero lot line now, but they have to go through all kinds of variance procedures. She felt that in the future, there are going to be a lot of requests for this kind of concept in order for people to afford housing, and it seemed to her that the City should just write a zoning ordinance to apply to it. Otherwise, every time there is a request for zero lot line, they are going to have to go through both a lot split and special use permit process. It was a lot of red tape for everyone. Mr. Boardman stated zoning codes should c�ntrol densities, not situations within those densities. If they are going to allow zero lot line, then it should be a]lowed �n that kind of density, and it should be allowed for existing units in that type of density as well as for new developments. Then, • every time an existing unit is split, the owner has to go through a rezoning, and the question comes back: Is this spot rezoning? • PLANNING GOMMISSION MEETING> MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 3 Mr. Oquist asked what difference it made whether they had to come in for a request for rezoning or a request for a special use permit? Ms. 6abe1 stated some kind of provision could be written into the code to eliminate some of the red tape procedures. . Mr. Boardman stated the only other thing is to eliminate the special use permit and allow zero lot lines with lot splits wiihin the platting ordinance. Mr. Schnabel stated there may be cases where they will not want to permit the zero lot line concept or the split, except on new development, because they may be creating some other problems they haven't looked at yet. Mr. Boardman stated if a petitioner meets all the conditions that are laid out in whatever process is set up, he felt they would have a hard time restricting a person from splitting a lot just because it was an existing unit. Ms. Schnabel .said some of these zoning questions may be a little premature, but she would like these concerns in the record so the City Council can see sane of the Planning Comnission's concerns and also for future discussion when the ordinance is rewritten and brought back to the Planning Commission. • Ms. Schnabel stated that she wondered if the City Council had understood and if Mr. Larson and the neighbors had understood that these units would be owner-occupied from the start or did they see it as something down the line? Mr. Larson stated the original proposal that was presented called for the entire area to be zoned R-2. The neighborhood opposed that and reached a compromise that called for the front three lots to be R-1 and the five rear lots to be R-2 with zero 7ot lines. He stated that was a provision of their compromise. The reason for that was they felt it increased the likelihood that, as the properties change hands over the years, there will be more owner-occupied units than if the lots did not have zero lot lines. Mr. Wellner stated he would like to speak against any stipulaticn forcina zerc lct iine becasue that was not the intent of the compromise. In order to construct, it necessitates them getting two difference mortgages on the building which puts them in a different situation in terms of financing. He felt that when they want to sell a unit off, that is the time to consider zero lot line. Their compromise and understanding with the Mayor and City Council was that a provision would be provided for zero lot line, but they would not be compelled to do it. The reason for the zero lot line was that with the financing and with the housing situation and economy, it makes it a more affordable unit. . • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 4 Mr. Boardman asked why Mr. Wellner would have to get two different mortgages, Mr. Wellner stated that at the time of construction, the minute they go with zero lot line, they have two separate units and, therefore, they would have two different deeds. He stated it was still his inient to hold some of these units for rental. He may choose, and it may be to his advantage, to get two different mortgages, and at that time he would apply for zero lot line. But, he did not want to be compelled to do so at the time of construction. Again, he stated that was not the intent of the agreement. Mr, Oquist stated that was also his understanding from the discussions at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Larson stated Mr. Qureshi had assured the neighborhood there would be some provisions or the pro'eci would not praceed. Those provisions were: (1) tuck-under garages; (2� minimum square footage; and (3) zero lot lines. As he recollected, it was not that the builder would have the option to apply for zero lot ]ine at some future date, but that from the conception of the plat and upon its approval, there would be zero 7ot lines. Mr. Oquist stated it did not make sense to say there had to be zero lot lines, because then they might as wel] get the land resurveyed and have the lines • put in on the original plat. Ms. Schnabel stated since the City Council members were the ones that worked with and created the agreement between Mr. Wellner and Mr. Doty and the neighborhood, the Planning Commission was probably better off in not getting into this so deep that new problems surface. She stated it was probab7y better for the Planning Commission to just act on the pre7iminary plat, as they have been irstructed to do, knowing that this discussion will go on to City Counci7. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON P.S. �82-01 BY W, G. DOTY RND GARY WELLNER. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARSNG CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY CDUNCIL APPROVRL OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S, #82-01� DOTY/WELLNER ADDISSON� BY W. G. DOTY RND GARY WELLNER: BEING A REPLAT OF THAT PART OF BLOCKS 8 RND 9� LOWELL RDDITION, LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SYLVAN HILIS PLAT 8� EXTENDED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE 6TEST BDUNDARY OF SAID BLOCK 8� AND LYING WE5TERLY OF THE PLAT OF SYLVRN HILLS PLAT-8� SOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY ONE-HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET� AND THAT PART OF LOTS Z AND 2� BLOCK 7� LOWELL ADDITION TO FRIDLEY PARK� LYSNG SOUTHERLY OF THS WESTERLY EXTENSION OF TXE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF SYLVAN HILLS PLAT 8, TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY HALF OF VACATED ELM STREET� TO BE DEVELOPED AS THREE R-1 LOTS (SINGLE FAMILY . DWELLING AREAS) AND FIVE R-2 LOTS (TWO FAMILY DWELLING AREAS) GENERALLY LOCATED 50UTH OF MISSISSIPPI ST.� N.E.� EAST OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN � RIGHT-OF-WAY, • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 5 UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED TNE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated P.S. #82-01 would go to City Council on June 7. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A SPECIAC USE PERMTT, SP #82-05, BY 30Y ANDERSON: Rer Section 205. 574, 2, to a ow t e construction of a 24 ft, by 2 ft. detached garage in CRP-2 zoning (flood plain) on Lots ]1, 12, 13, and 14, Block X, Riverview Heights, the same being 7921 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP N82-OS BY JOY RNDERSON. UPON A 40ICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHASRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED SHE PUBLIC HEAItING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated this is in the flood ptain and under flood plain regula- tions, any structure built in the flood plain requires a specia7 use permit. The existing dwelling is located on Buffalo and Riverview Terrace. The petitioner wants to pui in a 24 ft, by 24 ft. garage locaied so the driveway comes off Buffa7o St. This 9arage is allowed in a flood plain with the . specia7 use permit requirement as an accessory structure. Accessory structures do not have to meet the requirements for livable structures. The only things required for accessory structures are that the structure is not for human habitation, has both flood damage potential and is permanently anchored to prevent flotation, and is flood proofed. He stated this garage meets all requirements as far as setback requirements, and Staff has no opposition to the proposal. The petitioner, Joy Anderson, was in the audience. Ms. Schnabel asked Ms. Anderson if the garage was intended for any use other tharr a garage. Ms. Anderson stated it was to be used only as a garage. MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #82-05 BY JOY ANDERSON. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAZRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AS 8:.20 P.M. MOTION BY MR, SABR� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIRL USE PERMIT, SP H82-O5� BY JOY ANDERSON: PER SECTION 205.1574� 2� TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. DETACHED GARAGE SN CRP-2 20NING (FLOOD PLAIN), ON IATS II� 12, .Z3, ANP 14� BLOCK X, RIVER- VIEW HEIGHTS� THE SAME BEING 792.Z RIVERVIEW TERRACE N.E. � • � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 7982 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AY&� CHAIRWOMAN SCHN.ABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated SP #82-05 would go to City Counil on June 7. 3. PUBLIC HEARIPJG: NATIONAL BANK BY KE�YON BCONT: Per Section 205.101, 3, I, to allow an au matic teller machine in an enclosed building, on Lot 7, Block 1, Target Addition, the same being 755 - 53rd Avenue N.E. (Target Parking Lot). MOTION BY MR, SABA� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP �82-06, NORTHWESTERN BANK BY KENYON BLUNT. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTSNG AYE� CHRIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLAI2ED SHE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT S:S2 P.M. Mr. Boardman stated this proposal was for a bank teller machine to be located in the Target parking lot. Because it is a lease operation, it requires a special use permit. He asked Mr. Weber to further explain this proposa7 request, Mr, William Weber stated he is a planner f�r BRW, Inc., a local planning and architectura7 firm in Minneapolis. He stated that also at the meeting was Mr. Kenyon Blunt, who is with Northwestern National Bank. Mr. Weber stated this is an instant cash machine. It is a drive-up facility and not a walk-up facility. He stated this is a lease agreement between Target and Northwestern National Bank. Northwestern National Bank will install, operate, and maintain the facility, and Target will lease the site on a long- term basis. He stated it is a predesigned, prefabricated metal building, very secure and very maintenance free, with a teller machine mounted inside the building. It is partially heated, but there is no human habitation. The building is about 10 x 12 with a canopy over the drive. The driveway is about ]2 ft, wide. Mr. Weber stated that in Fridley, there are about 6,000 Northwestern National Bank customers, so it is a fairly high conce�tration. They anticipate about 5,000 transactions per month or about 160 per day. Most of the transactions will be between the hours of 10:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. Mr. Weber showed the location of the machine which is near the Target gas station off 53rd Ave. He stated they have been very careful in siting the automatic teller machine within the parking lot in order to minimize the number of possible traffic problems. He stated that in this part of the Target parking lot, there is not much parking. Target has 1,389 parking spaces now, Northwestern National Bank will be removing only 8 of those spaces, leaving 1,381, The city code requires only 738 parking spaces, so Target has a surplus of 657 parking spaces. He stated there is also very little auto movement in this part of the parking lot. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; MAY 19; 1982 PAGE 7 Mr. Weber stated the site will be very well landscaped. All the landscaping will be maintained by a nursery contracted by Northwestern National Bank. All the trees wi]1 be 3" in diameter, the ornamental trees will be 2" in diameter, and the foundation plantings will be the 3 gal, size, Mr. Weber stated the bui7ding will have two different signs, and they have app]ied for permits. Both signs will be approximately 2 ft, by 12 ft.--one will be located across the face of the building and the other one will be 7ocated between the posts of the canopy. They will have a total of 48 sq. ft. of signage. Ms. Schnabel asked if there would be any pedestrian use. Mr. Weber stated the bank does not encourage pedestrian use, but it would be possible. Mr. Blunt stated the only walk-up use they have is for those who have big trucks that are too high for the clearance, He stated the c7earance will be posted on the canopy. Mr. Saba asked how many teller machines like this Northwestern Bank had in the metropolitan area. . Mr. Blunt stated they on7y have two of this fashion in the Twin Cities. In the total five-state area, they have seven. They have a total of 83 automated tel7er machines, and most of them are located in banks or grocery stores. Mr. Saba stated he would be concerned about vandalism and also asked about the maintenance. Mr. Blunt stated the building itself is very secure and not easily vandalized. If there is any vandalism to the building, they have a provision in the lease with 7arget that says any type of vandalism must be cleaned up with 24 hrs. He a]so stated that the building and area would be maintained daily. Ms. 5chnabel asked about security. Mr, Blunt stated their buildings are wired to policy or a private security. One of the reasons they went to a drive-up facility here was for security purposes. Eighty-three percent of the banking transactions are done by women, so the security of a drive-up is the reason they chose this particular configuratfon. Ms. Schnabel asked about the lighting at night. Mr. Blunt stated there would be floodlights on each side of the bui7ding and down over the canopy, � • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 79, 7982 PAGE 8 Ms, Gabel asked how long the lease was with Target. Mr. Blunt stated it was a five-year lease with renewable options each year after that. Ms. Gabel asked if they could accommodate any other bank, other than North- western Bank customers, at this facility. Mr. Blunt stated in their instant cash network, they have a]1 the affiliates of Northwestern National Bank in the five-state area that can use this machine, They also have credit unions and some savings and loans signed up, so it is not entirely a bank product. Ms. Schnabe7 stated she was concerned about the direction of traffic flow and how they were going to designate which way the traffic approached the teller machine. Mr. Blunt stated it would be no problem for them to put in entrance and exit signs. Mr. Svanda stated he was concerned about the actual location of the building, A lot of times during the year, those two entrances and exits to Target are • pretty congested, and they would really be forcing more traffic to try to qet into and out of the parking lot right at the worst part of congestion. He fe7t it would be better if the building was moved back closer to the gas station to allow ntore mobility for the traffic using the facility. Ms. Gabel stated she shared that same concern, as the traffic does stack up at that entrance and exit. Mr. Weber stated they would have no problem with moving the teller machine closer to the Target gas station if the Planning Commission asked'them to do so. Ms. Schnabel also agreed the location of the facility needed to be changed a little bit. Mr. Rod Brannon, owner of the Solar Car Wash, stated he would also agree with the moving of the facility to help prevent further traffic congestion at that entrance and exit point. He stated that because of the huge sea of blacktop, any ]andscaping done by Northwestern National Bank was going to be an improve- ment in that parking lot. MOTIDN BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY M8. GABEL� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #52-06� NORTHWESTERN NATIDNAL BRNK BY KENYON BLUNT. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC Hb'ARING CIASED AT 8:45 P.M, • � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19 1982 PAGE 9 MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. 5ABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF 5PECIAL USE PERMIT, 5P M82-06, NORTHWESTERN NATIONRL BANX BY KENYON BLUNT: PER SECTION 205.101� 3� I� TO ALIAW AN AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHSNE ZN AN ENCLOSED HUILDING, ON LOT 1� BIACK 1� TARGET ADDITION� 2NE SAME BEING 755 - 53RD AVENUE N.E. (TARGET PARKING LOTJ� WITH THE STIPULATION TXAT THE LOCATION OF THE AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE BE MOVED TWO PARKING STALLS NORTH OF THE PROPOSED LOCATZON. UPON A VOSCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOFiAN SCHNABEL DECLAREP THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated SP #82-06 would go to City Council on �une 7. 4. RECEIVE MAY 4, 1982, PARKS & RECREATION CQMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECEIVE THE MAY 4� 1982� PARKS & XECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr, Kondrick stated that, regarding the request by Mr. Terry Merriman that the City or County mow an area at Locke Park, a meeting was he7d on May 13 with Mr. Merriman, Mr. Torkildson, Dr. Boudreau, sane of the neighbors, and Parks & Recreation Commission mem6ers. The matter was resolaed at that • meeting. Mr. Kondrick stated the County will mow on a regular basis an area where it was stated by the neighbors the children play most of the time. The rest of the area will be 7eft as is to provide a buffer between the neighbors and the walkway. Ms. 5chnabel stated the Caamission was to be commended for getting this prablem reso7ved. Ms. Gabel stated that a couple of ineetings ago, she had asked Mr. Kondrick to find out how the Parks & Recreation Department handles the process when people cannot afford to participate in city programming. Mr. Kondrick stated there is a form ihat has to be filled out. A few basic questions are asked, but these questions are not mandatory. He stated the Parks & Recreation Department only has on record four people who have signed up saying they are unable to pay for city programming, but they do volunteer to pay something. He s�ated the City also advertises that if people cannot afford the programming, it can be worked out. Ms. Gabel stated the recent summer Parks & Recreation program brochure did not have any statement ]ike that, and it bothered her. It should say in there that recreation is provided for everyone and that inability to pay does not preclude anyone from participati�n. She was very concerned about the number of people and children who are not participating in city programming because of inability to pay. She would like to see the City take steps to ensure that a statement is put, not only in the recreational brochures, but � also in the City newsletters. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 19, 1982 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED SHE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY. 5. RECEIVE MAY 11, 1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS, GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECEIVE 2HE MAY lS� 1982, APPEAbS COMMIS5ION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTTNG AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6, OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Schnabel stated that at one time, the Comnission members had received a memo from Virgil Herrick regarding specia7 use permits. She stated that since some of the Planning Comnission mem6ers were fairly new, it would be a good idea to put this on the next agenda for the Commission members to review and discuss. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIDN BY MR, OQUI5T� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON R VOICE � YOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED SHE MAY 19, I982, PLANNING COMMISSIDN MEESING ADJOURNED AT 9:29 P.M. Res ectfu7ly su mitted, y e Saba Recording Secretary � i`�1C�-�� i Cl � 1 �l �5�--- �� c�n n�r�� COrnm �r�� - �.P� 1 � r lc�-Y��, —�c�,-,,�-� �o � SF�-�f �f�o��sar� - �902� 1��V� ��.lJ l�rraeC ��y�n 3f��t— 7-�� s rn��"�� '�/s-, �,� �,l/�� .2 � l%�:� �� . t z�z� �cu�.�� 1..� �� 3�0 7'� s� .sr , �Pi,s. .�-rl�r �Z7; t�e �.�Sa,� a�, . �- Yl�„� , �o � ,�,�a�n,,.�,-,� _ ,��,Qli.�. C°c� Lv� � . : ,, . . ,=.-- � . y . K� i r. MEMORAIdllUM August 2� 1979 MII�lO T0: Pridley City Council MII�fO FROM: Virgil C. ]Ierrick City Attorney ISSUE: What are the procedural and substantive requirements that LAW: must be cemplied with in granting a special use permit, a variance, or a re-zoning change? I. SPFCIAL UST3 PERMIT A. C,ENERALLY A specZal use permit is defined as "a permit for allo�aing specified uses in a specific zoning district". Fridley Code �205.192. "Special-use permits differ irom variances in that a special use provision permits prop�rty, within broad discretion of governing body, to be used in manner expressly auYhorized by ordinance, while variance provision permits particular property to be used in manner forbidden by ordinance, by varying T.he terms of the ordinance." Barton ContractinF Inc. v City of Afton� r;inn , 268 N.[1. 2d 712 (1978). Special use permit provisions were introduced into zoning ordinances as flexibility devices to provide municipalities with broad latitude to meet the changing problems of land use controZ. Zylka v City of �stal, 2II3 Pfinn. 192, 167 t:.j+'. 2d 45, (1969). They are designed to r�eet the problem wliich arises where certain uses, although generally compatible with the bnsic use clacs3fication of a -1- -�.,-; i . � � � . �'•. pnrticular zone� should not be permitted to be located ne n matter of right in ' every area i.ncluded wlthin the zone Uecause of hazards inherent in the use itself or cpecial problems which its proposed location may present. Id. By this device, certa:n uses which may Ue conaidered essentially desirable to the co�unity, but which should not be autliorized generally in a particular zone because of considerations such as current and anticipated traffic congestion, population density, noise, affect on adjoining land values, or other considerations involving public health, safety or general welfare, may be permitted upon a proposed site depending upon the facts and cizcumstances of the particular case. Id. B, PROCEDURAL REOUIRFMENTS While Minn. Stat. �462.357 Subd 1 impliedly authorizes a municipality the power to issue a special use permit, Zylka v City of Crystal, supra, it sets forth no conditions for its issuance. As such, the procedure is �enerally governed by a municipality's zoning ordinance. Aowever, it is to be remembered that requirements of due process aust be measured according to the nature of government functi.on involved, and whether or not private interests are directly affected by governmental action. Barton ContractinQ Inv, v City of Afton, supra. When a zoning authority considers application for special use pexnit- it acts 3n quasi-judicial capacity and must accord the applicant ba,ic due process, which rights to be accorded include reasonable notice of proceedings and reasonable opportunity to be heard, but do not include the right to cross-examine those c,�ho give testimony opposed to the application. Id. Section 205.19 et seq. of the I'ridley Cod � contains the procedure for the issuance of a special use permit. �ery applicant for a special use permit must first file an application with the Zoning Administrator which must be accompanied by sudi data -2- _ :�.::- . .' . 0 , as required by the Plannin� Commiseion. Section 205.193. The ppplication is then referred to the Planning.Commission which is required to hold a public henring on the application witliin sixty (60) days. Section 205.194. Publiahed notice of the hearing must be given at least Cen (10) days before the hearing date as well as mailed notice to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the property affected. Zd. The applicant or his representative must appear before the Planning Commission at the public hearing in order to answer questions concerning the proposed special use. Section 205.19k. The Plannin� Commission must draft findings and report the same to the Council indicating its recovwendation as to approval or denial and specifying what, if any, conditions are necessary regarding features of the proposed use of the building. Id. The City Council must take action within sixty (60) days after receiving the recocur,endations of the Planning Commission and either affirm or deny the application by a simple majority vote. Section 205.195. Special use permits may be denied by motion of the Council. Section 205.147. C. SUBSTA1dTIVE 12EQUIRI:hfEIdTS While the City Council has broad discretionary power to denp an application for a special use permit, it cannot do so arbitrarily. Zyll:a v City of Crystal, supra. Where zoning ordinance expressly authorizes a proposed use by special permit in the discretion of the governing body of a municipality, a. denial of the pem�it must be £or zeasons Yelated to public health, safety, and general welfare, ]iolasek v Villa�;e of Medina, 303, Tfinn 240, 226 N.W. 2d 900 (1975). An urbitrary denial of an application for cpecial use permit v�ay be found by a reviewing court when evidence presented at the hearing before —3— municipal governing body and reviewin� court. establisliea thaC requested use ia compatible with baeic use authorized within particular zone and does not endanger public health or Bafety or general welfare of area afiected or community as a whole. Minnetonlca Congre�ation of Jehovah�s Witnesses Inc, v Svee� 303 Minn 79, 226 N.W. 2d 306 (1975). In short, a denial would be arbitrary, if it is established that all of the atandards specified by the ordinance as a condition to granting the permit have been met. Consequently, where the standards specified by the ordinance have been met, the City Council has the power and the obligation to issue a special use permit. The standards for issuance of a special use permit are set f:orth in Section 205.191 of the Fridley Code which provides: " "The purpose of this section is to provide the City of Fridley with a reasonable degree of discretion in detemining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the �eneral wel£are� public health, and safety. - In maldng this determination, whether or not the special use is to be allo�aed, the City may consider the nature of the land upon which the use is to be located, and the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, the proximity of a similar use, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, the total number of sinilar uses within the City, and all such other or further iactors as the City shall deem a reqnisite of consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety". � Similarly� Section 205.196 provides that the issuance of any special use permit is dependent on the fact tliat the activities p�rmitted will not be dangerous or otherwise detsimental to persons residing or �oorking in the viciniCy thereof, or to the public welfare, and will not impair the use, enjoyment or value of any property. Where u special use permit is issued suUject to conditions, the conditions must conform to tlie following standards: °..[o protect the public liealth safet , y, convenience and welfurc, or to avold traific congest'ion or hazard, or other dangcrs, or to promoCe conformity of a -4- _,�-.... , ' •.� proposed uae wixh the charncter of the adjoinin� property and usert, and the dietrict as a whole, or to protect such churacter." Section 205.196. The applicnnt for n speciul use pexmit has the burden of proving that the proposed use would meet the standards required by the ordinance for issuance of a special use permit. Inland Construction Co. v Citv of Rloomin�;ton, 292 Minn 374, 195 N.W. 2d S58 (1972). In Barton Contracti� Co. Inc v City of Afton, Minn , 268 N.W. 2d 712, (1978) the Court citing Conaine v �Crow Wing County, 309 Minn 345, 352, 244 N.W. 2d 482, 486 (1976) regarding scope of review said: � "Since the court is reviewing the decision of another body, it should, of course confine itself at all times to the facts and circumstances developed before that body. ...If the decision nakin� body does state reasons, review will be limited to the legal sufficiency and factual basis for those reasons. ldhen reasons are given, the party seeking review must bear to the burden of persuading the reviewing court that those reasons are legally sufficient". flowever, the Court noted in Inland, supra, that the burden of proof is such lighter than that imposed on an applicant for a use variance. In determining whether the proposed use compl3es with the standards set forth in the ordinance, the Piinnesota Supreme Court has indicated that the reports and reco�endations uf the plannins, engineering, police, fire, r and heallh departr�ents should be given weight by the council. C. F. Snland Construction Co, v City of Bloom3ngton, supra, Ostrand v. Village of N, St. Paul, 275 Minn 440, 147 N.Sd. 2d 571 (1966). Property values are not, in and of themselves, the test of validity of zoning regulation, but are factors for city council to consider in arrivin� at its conclusion on total merits in interest of community, Eeck v City oi St. Paul, 304 21inn 438, 231 N.�d. 2d 919 (1975}, liowever� if the standazds regulating the issuance ot a special use permit have been complied with, the fact tliat adjoinin� property owners are of the opinion that their property may be -5- , _��. _�-., 9 devalucd if the permit were granted ie of no legal eignificance City of St. Loui.� Park, 284 Minn 354, 170 N.W. 2d 21II (1969). West]ing v. Any action of the council must be based on tl�e evidence presented at the hearing. Ostrand v Villape of N. SL Paul, supra. Failure of governing body to record contemporaneously the facts and legally sufficient reasons for its denial of special use permits constitutes a prima facie showing of arbitrariness in the denial. Holasek v Village of Medina supra. Further, the sustaining of a denial of a special use permit based on reasons not articulated by the city council is in error, bletro 500 Inc, v City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn 294, 211 N.td. 2d 358 (1973. Section 205.197 of the Fridley Code provides that a denial oi a special use permit by Council motion shall constitute that the condition�: required for approval do not exist. Although the Fridley Code contains this provision, in light of the above holdings, it would be advisable for the Council to specify the basis upon which it is denying a special use permit in its notion. II. VARIANC� A. GENEP,ALLY Again, unlike a special use provision which permits property, within the discreCion of the City Council� to be used in a manner expressly authorized by the ozdinance, a variance provision permits particular property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance by varying the terms of the ordinance. Sylka v. Cit�� of Cr�tal, supra, Holssek v. Villge of Medina, supra. A variance provides the opportunity for amelioration of unnecessary hardships resulting, from the rigid enforcement of a broad zoning ordinance. Council Inc., v rfcDonou�h, 210 N.W. 2d 416� (Ptinn 1973). B. P1tOCEDURAT, KEt1UIFI:I�P7TS Pferriam Park Co�uni� Under Section 205.181 et seq. of tlie rridley Code and Minn Stat. �462,357 subd. 6 the Board of Appenl^, is gi�en the power and the duty of hearing and recommending to the City Council requests for variances from the literal -6- _�,�. ' provinions of Che zonin� ordinnnce. A person requecting a vnriance must file an ePPlication for a variance with the zoning administrator which must state the exceptional conditiona ana the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as a basia for a variance. Section 2U5,186. - The Board of Appeals must make a recommendation of the action to be taken on the request for a variance to the City Council cmich shall aecide on � the final action to be taken at its next regular meeting after receiving the recommendation. Section 205.187, In recommending a variance� the Board, and the Council on approval, may impose conditions to incure compliance and to protect adjacenl- properties. There is no provision tor a public hearing on a variance request. Section 205.182; Minn. Stat. �462,357 subd, 6. A vartance may 3apse by non—use under Section 205.188 of the Fridley Code which provides: °Whenever within one (1) year after granting a variaace the recipient of the variance shall r.ot h�ve completed the ��ork as permihted by the variance, then such variance • shall become nuil and void unless a petition for extension of time in tvhich to conplete the �;ork has been granted by Yhe Board of ApPeals. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the City Pfanager, at least tcaenty (20} days before the expiration of the original variance, The request for extension shall state facts sho�aing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the vari�nce. Such petition shall be presented to the board of Appeals for hearing and decision in the same manner as the original request for variance.° C, SUI3ST�1NTIl�fi REOUIREMIIITS The City Councll may grant a variance £rom the 1lteral provisions of the zoning ordinance where "their strict en£orcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under considcration" and it is demonstrated that such actions eoi7.1 be in Iceepin� c,ith Che spirit and intent of the ordinance", Minn. Stat. 5462,357 subd, 6(2), Although the Stntute requires "circumstances uniquc to the individual property under queetion" the 4:innesota Supreme Court has 3nterpreted "property" broadly ']_ to include not only the building eite und buildin�s, 6ut also the properey owner� surroundinE neighborhood, economic feasibility and like elements. Merriam Park Community Inc., v. McDonou�h, supra. Therefore, in considering whether there exists undue hardships because of unique circumstances, the City Council need not Ue confined to the topographical conditions of the property itaelf, but may take into consideraCion the above mentioned factors. The City Councii may not grart asavariance any use that is not perpitted under the zoning ordlnance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Id. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in Merriam Parlc Community Counci_1, Inc. v. McDonounh, supra, that a City Council may grant non-use variances such as those oY area, height, set back, density, and parking requirements, if the granting thereof is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the refusal to grant them would cause undue hardship. The City Council has broad discretion in granting or denying a variance. Tlesting v. City of St. Lovis Park, 284 Minn. 354, 17U N.W. 2d 21S (1969)e Each case or a vaziance depends on its own facts and whether there exists undue hardship du� to unique circ�stances is a question of fact to be determined by the City Council. 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, �25.16D, .167 (3rd Bd. 1965). The applicant has the burden of praving undue hardchip dve to unique circumstances and that the granting of a variance will be in lceeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. The Court in �yllca v. Citv of Ci�, �upra, noted that an applicant for a variance has a much heavier burden of proot than an applicant for a special use permit. Although the Cit-y Counci.l has broad discretion in grar.ting or denying a variance, it caruiot act arUitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. Merrinm Parl: CommUnity Council�Inc. v. PtcDonou�� supra, pn arbitrary decision is one �aliich is not sup�orted by evidence or lacks a rationul basis. 2 Rathl:opt, The Law of Zoning and Planning, �GS - ly (1972). � • . III, RE7.ONING A. GEPIrRALLY While a variance is only a special exception to existing zoning rules and regulatione in a specific instance pereritting a non-confoxv�ing use in order to alleviate unnecessary hardship� a rezoning� in a legal sense, ordinarily contemplates a change in existing zoning rules and regulations within a zoned diatrict. 'L Anderson, American Law of Zon3ng, g14.04 (1968). In zoning proceedings, basic determination with respect to due process requirements is whether proceedings are legislative or judicial in nature. When municipal governing body adopts or amends zoning ordinance, its action will usually affect an open class of individuals, interests, or situations,so that governing body is then acting in legislati�*e capacity, and any rights of procedural due process in such proceedings are minir:31. Barton Contracting Inc, v. City of Afton, Minn , 268 Iv,W. 2d 712 (1978). In short, a rezoning is an an;endment of the zoning ordinance, enacted bY the legislative authority of a municipality, which re-classifies a particular parcel oE land. 2 Anderson, tl�erican Law of Zoning, �14.D4 (1968), B, PROGIDi7P,AI, REQUIREM�NTS In Minnesota, the authorit;• to adopt and amend comprehensive aunicipal planning ordinances 3s found in Minn, Stat. 5462,351, 462,364. Ho�aever, the exercise of the poc,er to rezone must conform to the procedural requirements of the enabling statute or zoning ordinance. Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 276 Pfinn. I65, 149 N.1d. 2d 344 (1967), The procedural requirements for a rezoning are set forth in Aiinn, Stat. 546Y.357 subd. 3 and �i, and Sectionc 205.2D and '105.201 of the Fridlcy Code, The provisions af the Fridley Code merely reiterates the statutory re- quirement�. -9- . _+�°-• An nmendment to rezone may be initiated by the City Council� the Planning Comtaission or by a pet3tion of any affected property owner. Section 205.20, Fridley Code. An amendment not initiated by the Plannin� Commis3ion must be referred to the Commission for public hearing and recpmmendations, Id. The City Council must not act upon the requested amendment until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until s�ty (60) days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment to the Planning Coccnission, Id. The Plannin� Commission and City Council must hold a public hearing on any amendnent to the zoning ordinance or to the boundaries of any zoning district. Section 205.201, Fridley Code. A notice of tke time, place,- and purpose of the public hearings must be published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prio,r to the date of the hearing before the Planning Commission, and at least ten (10) days prior to the d,ay of the hearing Uefore the City Council. Id, k�here the amendment involves a change in district boundaries affecting an area ot five (5) acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at leasY ten (10) days before the day of the hearings to each owner of affected propertp situated wholly or partially wj�thin three hundred fifty (350) feet ef the property to �ahich the amendment relates, ld. The failure to �ive mailed notice to individual property owner� on defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, providea a bonafide attempt to comply �oith this subdivision has beenmade, Id. ' The applicant or other affected property oc,mers or their representatives may appear before the Planning Commission and Council and shall be given an opportunit-y to be heard. Section 205.202� Fridley Code. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members oF L-he Council shall be required for passage of nn emendment to tite zoning ordinance or for the chnnge of any district Uoundnries. Id. -10- �,�-F c, sur.sTi,rrrivr xi:quiR�a�rrrs No rule of zoning is better settled than that a municipality may from time to Cime Eunend, revise, supplement or repeal the restrictions imposed by ita comprehensive zoning ordinance. Olsen v. City of itopkins_, 276 Minn. 163, 149 N.W. 2d 394 (1967). However, the power to amend and revise, like the poc�er to enact the original plan, must be exercised reasonably in furtherance of the public health, safety, and caelfare. Zd. The validity of any revision or amendment to the basic plan must be determined hy the same rules as those applied in testing the validity oY the original comprehensive plan. Id. Where a cnange made by a revision of the basic plan is compatible with and in furtherance o£ the basic comprehensive plan, the deteimination of ho�a areas or properties shall be classified or re-classified is a legislative funcfion, not subject to interference by the courts unless shot�rn to be arbitrary, discriminatory or confi�catory. Id. A rezoning is reasonable and not arbitrary �ahere iC has a reasonable zelationship to the psomotion of the public health, safety, oxder, or welfare. 8A PicQuillin, Pfunicipal Corp „�25.2Ei0 (3rd Ed. 1965). Simil�rly, a rezoning classification is not discriminatory if it 1s reasonably based in the public policy to be served. 1 Rathkopf, The La�. of 7,oning and Planning �7-3 (1974). The nain constitutional issue �n determining the validity of a rezoning ac�endment is whether the rezoning is confiscatory. A rezoning is confiscatory wher.e it results in the taking of a private properYy right for a public purnose coithout- due process and without compensation. The general rule is that �ehile property may Ue regulated to a certain extent, if the regulation goes too far it will Ue recofinized as a takin� in violation of article 1, �13 of the Pfinnesota Conslitution and the rourteentli Amendment to the Coustitution of the United States. Snnderson v, City of i7illmar, 282 Tiinn, 1, 162 N.�d. 2d 494 (19GS). -11- _�::=r ;' .. '. � Rezonings, thezefore, hnve beon chnllenge3 on the ground that . property areae in the area affected inveated in their property in reliance upon its then existing zoning as well ae upon the zoning classification in force in neighboring properties or in neighboring areas, arid that a rezoning which changes that zoning depreciaCes the value of tlze land and is unconstitutional as confiscatory, There is, however, no merit to this contention. 1 Rathkopf, supra, �27-12, The universal rule is that: "Property o�mers have no vested rights Uy reason of the enactment of an ordinance establishing use districts. No Contractual relations are thereby created, Property is he2d subject to a valid exercise of the police power. 41e think, however that a home owner has the right to rely on the rule of lar� that a classification made by ordinance will not be changed on less the change is required for the public good", Phipps v. City of Chicaro, 339 I11, 315� 1J5 N,[J, 289; 1 Rathl:opf, supra, s27-12. In Minnesota, the Court has cited with approval the following language from a New York case: "i,lhtle stability and re�ularity are undoubtedly essential to the operation of zoning plans, zoning i, by uo means static. Changed or changing conditions call for changed plans, and persons who own property in a particular zone or use district enjoy no eternally vested right to that classification if the public interest dewands othenaise", Olsen v. City oi Hoplcins, supra. While a rezoning that merely depreciates property values in the affected area or 1n neighboring areas is constitutional if enacted for the public good, i.e, reasonably related to the public health, safety, or welfare; a rezoning will be held confiscatory and unconstitutional if the rezoning classification results in a total destruction or substantial diminution in the va7-ue of the property affected �aithout just compensation, regardless of whether enacted for the publlc good. In Sandersen v, idillmar, supray the tllnnesoCa Supreme Court held: "This Court supports the policy thut an amendment [o a . comprehensive zonin� plan under the police powers which results in a to[al destruction or substantial diminution of value of the properCy affected thereby without just compensation therefore constiSUtes a tal.ing of the property soithouC due procecs". -12- _ �, .,, � , t..-�--• ., ..� y+ MI�10 T0: u rtrMOizni�vuM Fridley City Council Mi1d0 rROM: Virgil C. IIetricic City Attorney ISSUE: LAS4: August 2, 1979 What are the pr.ocedural aad substantive requixements that must be cemplied with in granting a speclal use pernit, a variance, or a re-zoning change? I. SPFCIAL USP PEl'�fIT A. G�NE:tALLY A spec9.a7. use permit is defined as "a permit for alloz•�ing specified uses in a specii-ic zoning district". Fridley Code �2�5.192. "Special-use pernits differ from variances in that a special use provision permits property, within bxoad discretion of gorerning body, to be used i_a manner expressly authorized by ordinance, while variance provision permits particular pr.opezty to be used in manner forbidden 6y ordinancey hy varying i:he te�.�s of the oidinance." Barton CantractinF Inc, v Citv of Afton, T:inn , 268 N.[d. 2d 712 (1978). Special use permiC pxovisions �aere introduced into zoning ordinances as flexibility devices to provide s+unicipalities with Uzoad latitude to meet the changing problcros of land use control.. 7.yl.ka v City of 6ystal, 2F13 Tiinn. 192, 167 Iv.W. 2d 45, (1969). 'liiey are designed to mect tlie proUlem c�hich arises �ahcre certain uscs, although Sencrall�� compatiUle �aith the Unsir_ use cla�sifi.cntion of a' -1- $r�� r . , �.�purCicular zone, ohould not bc permitted to Ue located as u matter of right in every area �.ncluded within the zone Uecause of hazarda inherent in the use iL'self or epecial problems wl�ich its proposed location may present. Id. By this device, certain uses which may Ue considered essentially desirable to the community, but which should not be authorized generally in a particular zone because o£ considerations such as current and anticipated traffic congestion, population density, noise, affect on adjoining land values, or other considerations involving public health, safety or general welfare, may be permitted upon a proposed site depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Id. B, PROC�DURAL REOUIRFS1�n'TS While Minn. Stat. �462.357 Subd 1 impliedly authorizes a municipality the power to issue a special nse permit, Zylka v City of Crystal, supra, it sets forth no conditions for its i�suance. As such, the procedure 3s �enerally governed by a municipality's zonin� ordinance. However, it is to be remembered that requ3rements of due process nust be measured according to the nature of government function involved, and whether or not private interests are directly affected by governmental action. Barton Contractin� Inv. v City of Afton, supra, S�lien a zoning authoritq considers application for special use pernit it acts in quasi-judicial capacity and must accord the applicant ba,ic due process, which rights to be accorded include reasonable notice of proceedings and reasonable opportunity to be heard, but do not include the right to cross-examine those calio give testimony opposed to the application. Id. Section 205.19 et seq. of the rridley Cod ` contains the procedure for the issuance oL- a special use permit. Every upplicant foi a special usc permit must first iile an applicntion taith the 7.oning Adminictrator. which must be accompanied by such data -2- _ _,.,.. `�� < , � . , as requlred by the Plannin� Commireion. Section 205.193. The application is then refcrred to the Plannin� Com�-nission c�hich is required to hold a public hearing on the application within sixty (60) days. Sectlon 205.194. Publiahed notice of the hearing must be given at least ten (10) days before the hearing daLe as well as mailed notice to all property owners caittiin two hundred (200) feet of the property affected. Id. The applicant or his representative must appear before the Planning Commission at the public hearing in order to answer questions concerning the proposed special use, Section 205.194. The Planning Commission must draft findings and report the same to the Council indicating its recommendation as to approval or denial and specifying �ahat, if any, conditions are necessary regarding features of the proposed use of the building. Id. The City Council must take action within sixty (60) days after. receiving the reco�urendations of the Planning Co�nission and either affirm or deny the application by a simple majority vote. Section 205.195. Special use permits may be denied by motion of the Council. Section 205.197, C. SUBSTAl]TI�rE 1tEQUZRL'MEIvTTS While the City Council has broad discretionar.y power to deny an applicati.on for a special use permit, it cannot do so arbitrarily. �ll:a v City of CrysCal, supra. Where zoning ordinance expressly authorizes a proposed use by special permit in the discretion of the governing body of a municipality, a. denial of the pexmit must be for reasons related to puUlic health, safety, and gencral �oelfare. )iolasek v ��i1laflLC of rledi.na, 303, 4finn 240, 226 N.Td. 2d 900 (1975). An arbitrary dental of an application for cpecial use permit nay be found by a reviewing cour.t when evidence presenT.ed at the hearing before —3— . .,a,;:� , municipal governing body and reviewing court. establiches thaC requested use ia compatible with basic use authorized within particular zone and does not endanger public health or eafety or gener.al welfare of area affected or community as a whole. Minnetonlca Con�re�ation of Jehovah's 4)iMesses Inc, v Svee, 303 Minn 79� 226 N.W. 2d 306 (1975). In short, a denfal would Ue arbitrary, if it is estaUlished that all of the standards specif4ed Uy tt�e ordinance as a condition to granting the permit have been met. Consequently, where the standards specified by the ordinance have been met, the City Council has the power and the ohligation to iscue a special use permit. The standards for issuance of a special use permit are set for.th in Section 205.191 of the Fridley Code which provides: °The purpose of this section is to provide the City of Fridley with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain desi�nat-ed uses upon the �eneral welfare� pub2ic health, and safety. In �,atcing this determination, whether or not the special use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the land upon which the use is to be located, and the nature of the adjoining lan3 or buildings, the proximity of a similar use, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, the Gotal number of similar uses within the City, and all such otiier or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite of consider.ation in determining the effect of such use on tlie general welfare, public health, and safety". Similarly, Section 205.196 provides that the issuance of any special use permit is dependent on the fact that the activities permitted will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or worlcing in the vicinity tliereof, or to the public welfare, and coi11 not impair the use, enjoyment or value of any property, S�l�ere a apecial use permiL' is issued subject to conditions, the conditions must confonn to the follo�aing standards: "..CO protect the puhlic health, safety, convenience and �aelfarc, or to avoi_d t'rafiic congesLion or hazard, ot otLer dangcr�� or to promote conformity of u -4- , . ' •.' proposed uae wi.th the char�cter of the adjoining property ' und use�, and Che di�trict as a whole, or Co protect such chnracter." Section 205.196. The applicant for u special use permit has the burden of proving that the proposed use would meet the standards tequired by the ordinance for issuance of a special use permit. Inland Construction Co, v Citv of Bloomington, 292 Minn 374� 195 N.W. 2d 558 (1972). In Barton ContractinQ Co. Inc v City of Afton, Minn , 268 N.W. 2d 712, (1978) the Court citing Corwine v 'Crow Win� County, 309 Minn 345, 352, 244 N.id. 2d 482, 486 (1976) regarding scope of review said: � "Since the court is revie�aing the decision of another body, it should, of course confine itself at all times to the facts and circumstances developed before that body. ...If the decision nakin� body does state reasons, review will be limited to the legal sufficiency and factual basis for tl�ose reasons. When reasons are given, the party seeking review musC 6ear to the burden of persuading the reviewing court that those reasons are legally sufficient". However, the Court noted in Inland, supra, that the burden of proof is much lighter than that imposed on an applicant £or a use var.iance. In determining whether the proposed use complies with the standards set forth in the ordinance, the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that the reports and recommendations of the planning, engineering, police, fire, and health departnents should be given weight by the council. C, r. Tnland Construction Co. v C3t}� of Bloomington, supra, Ostrand v. Village of N. St. Paul, 275 Minn 440, 147 N.Sd. 2d S71 (1966). Propetty values aze not, in and of themselves, the test of validity of zoning regulation, but are factors for city council to consider in arriving at its conclusion on total merits in interest of community. P,eck v City oi St. Yaul, 304 Pfinn 438, 231 N.Td. 2d 919 (1975). liowever, if tlie standards re�ulating the issuance oY a special use permit have been complied with� tlie EacY thnt ndjoinin� property owners ar.e of tlie opinion thaL- L'heir propert'y may Ue -5- . . � . _ T:n-.. . . . . .F.�.�.. � 9 devalucd if the permit were grunted ie of no legul aignificunce. Ci.ty of St. Loui.s Park, 2II4 Minn 354, 170 N.41, 2d 21E3 (1969). West].Ing v. Any nction of the council must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing. Ostrand v Villape of N. Se. Paul, supra. Failure of governing body to record contemporaneously the facts and legally sufficient reasons for its denial of special use permits constitutes a prima facie showing of orbitrariness in the deninl. Holasek v V311aQe of Ptedina supra. Further, the sustaining of a denial of a special use permit based on reasons not articulated by the ciCy council is in error, ifetro 500 Inc, v Citv of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn 294, 211 N,�d, 2d 358 (1973. Section 205.147 of the Fridley Code provides that a denial oi a special use permit by Council motion shall constitute that the conditions required for approval do not exist. Although the Fridley Code contains this provision� in light of the above holdings� it would be advisable for the Council to specify the basis upon �ahich it is denying a special nse permit in its notion. II. VARIANCE A. GENEP.ALLY Again, un7.ike a special use provision which permits property, within the discretion of the City Council, to be used in a manner e�cpressly authorized by the oxdinance, a variance provision permits particular property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance by varying tkie terms of the ordinance. Sylka v. Cit}� of Crvstal supra, Holasek v. Villge of Medina, supra, A variance provides the opportunity for amelioration of unnecessary hardships resuiting, from the rigid enforcement of a broad zoning ordinance, Council Inc., v Ttcnonouf'ha 2?0 N.W. 2d 416, (24inn 1973). B. PROCEDIIliAL KF,(IUIFLMI3CJTS Merriam Park Co�r�nuni� Under Section 205.181 et seq. of the 1?ridley Code and Minn Stat. �462.357 subd. 6 the Board of Appenls is given Lhe powe•r and the duty of hcaring and reconunendin� Lu thc C1ty Counci.l requestc for variances from the literal -6- , �'�v,h • ;' proviaiona of the zoning ordinancc. A person requc3Ling a vuriance must file an npplication for a variance with tlie zoning administrator whict� must state the excepl-ional conditiona and the peculiar and pr.actical difficulties claimed as a basia for a variance. Seceion 2U5.186. The 7loard of Appeals must make a recommendation oE the action to be taken on the request for a variance to the City Council cahich shall aecide on the final action to Ue taken at its next regular meeting after receiving the recommendation. Seceion 205.187, In recouunendin� a variance, the Board, and the Council on appxoval, may impose conditions to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. There is no provision tor a puhlic hearing on a var3ance request. Section 205.182; Minn, Stat. �462,357 subd. 6. A variance may 3apse b}� non-use under Section 205.188 of the Fridley Code which provides: "Whenever within one (1) year after �ranting a variance the recipient of the variance shall r,ot hzve completed the worl; as permitted by the vari.ance, then such variance shall become null and void unZess a petition for extensian oi time in tahich to co�plete the taorl: lias been grar,ted by ihe Board of Appeals. Such extension chall be requected in writing and filed with the City Pianager, at least t�aenty (20) days before the expiration of the ori�inal variance, Tha request for extension shall state faces sho�,ing a good faith attempt to complete the work permitted in the variance. Such petition shall be presented to the Board of Appeals for hearing and decision in the same manner as the original request for variance." C. SURSTnNTIVF. REQUIREMIIITS The Ctty Council may grant a variance from the lYteral provisions of the zoning ordinance where "their strict eniorcement kould cause undue hardship hecause of circumstances unique to the individual property under conslderation" and it is demonstrated T.l�at cuch actions co311 be in lceeping k�ith L-he s�lrit and intenC of tl�e ordinaizce", Mimz. Stat. 54G2.357 suUd, G(2), Although the StaCute requires "circumstancec unique to the individual property under quec�tion" the DlinnesoL-a Supreme Court has interpreted "property" broadly -7- e � , to include not only the buildtng eite and buildings, but also the property owizer, surroundinE nei�hborhood, economic feasibility 1nd like elements. Merr.iam Park Community Inc., v. Mc➢onough, supra. Therefore, in con�idering whether there exi�ts undue hardships because of unique circumstances, the City Council need not Ue coniined to the topo�r.aphical conditions of the property 3tse].f, but may tzlce into consideration the aUove mentioned factors. The City Councit may not grart asavariance any use that is not perr�itted under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located, Id. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court- held in Merriam Parlc Community Counci.l, Ine. v. McDonouyh, supra, that a City Council may grant non-use varlances such as those of area, height, set Uack, density, and park3n� requirements, if the granting thereof is in keeping �oith the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the refusal to grant them would cause undue hardship. The City CouiZCil has hroad disctetion in granting or denying a variance, ilesting v. City of St. Loiais Park, 284 Minn. 354, 17U N,YI. 2d "L18 (l;'69)e Each case ot a variance depends on its own facts and �ahether there exists undue hardship due to unique circumstances is a question of £act to Ue determined by the City Council. 8 PfcQuillin, Municipal Corporati�ns, 525.160, ,167 (3rd Sd, 1965). The applicant has the burden of praving undue hardship due to unique circumstances and that the granting of a vaziance will be in lceeping w3th the spirit and intent- of the zoning ordinance. The Court in 7,yllca v. City of C. �tal, �upra, noted that an applicant for a variance has a much heavier burden of proot than an applicant f:or a special use pet*.nit, Although the Citq Council has Uroad discret'ion in grar.ting or denying u variance� it C111riOL act arUitraril}+, capriciously, or unreasonably. Aierri�m Parl, Con,muuity Council, Inc. v, DicDonough, supra. An arUitrnry decision is one which is not supported Uy evidence or lacks n rationul basis. 2 Rathl:opt, The La�a oi Zonin� and Plannin&, �65 - 19 (1972), _g_ _ _. _ ,_ ,rX,.. ! s . • • . TII. RE7.ONING ' A, GEP1IiRALI,Y While a vari.nnce ie only n special exception to existing zoning rules and regulationa in a specific instancc penaitl-ing a non-conforming use in order to alleviate unnecessary hardship, a rezoning, in a lega.l sense, ordinarily contemplates a change in existing zoning rules and regulations within a zoned district. 2 Anderson, American Law of Zonin�� 14,O�i (1968). In zoning proceedings, basic determination with respect to due process requirements is whether proceedings are legislative or judicial in nature. kfien municipal governing body adopts or amends zoning ordinance, its action will usually affect an open class of individuals, interests, or situations,so that governing body is then acting in legislative capacity, and any rights of procedural due process in such proceedings are minir-sl. Sarton Contracting Inc, v, Citv of Afton, Minn , 268 N,iJ, 2d 712 (1978), In short, a rezoning is an an:endment of Che zoning ordinance, enacted by the legislative authority of a municipality, crhich re-classifies a particular parcel o£ land. 2 Anderson, A�erican Law of Zoning, �14.04 (1968), B. PROCEDUP.AL FEQIIIRI�fENTS In Minnesota, the authorit;• to adopt and amend comprehensive municipal plannin� ordinances is found in Pfinn. Stat. 5462,351, 462,364. Ho�oever� the exercise of the power to rezone must conform to the procedural requirements oi the enabling statute or zoning ordinance. Olsen v. City of I:opkins, 276 Minn. 165, 149 N,Sd. 2d 394 (19G7). The procedural requirements for a rezoning are set forth in Aiinn. Stat, S46Z.357 subd. 3 and 4, and Secti.ons 205.2D and '105.201 of tlte Fridley Coda• The provisions af Che Fridley Code merely reiterates the statutory re- quirements. C�'L An amendment to rezone may be initiated by the C1ty Council, the Planning Conuaission or by fl petition of any affected property owner. Section 205.20, Pridley Code, An amendment not initiated by the Plannin� Commis�ion must be referred to the Coromission for public hearing and recommendations. Zd. The City Council must not act upon the requested amendment until it has received the recoffiaendation of the Planning Coromission or until sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment to the Planning Cocmiission, Id. The Plannin� Coimaission and Ci.ty Council must hold a public hearing on any amendment to the zoning ordinance or to the boundaries of any zoning district. Section 205.201, Fridley Code. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearings must be published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) d«ys prior to the date of the hearing before the Planning Commission, and at least ten (10) days prior to the day of the hearing Uefore the City Council. Id, timere the amendment involves a change in district boundarie� affecting an area oi iive {S) acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearings to each oomer of affected propertp situated wholly or partially w�thin three hundred fifty (350) feet ef the property to cahich the amendment relates, td. T1ie failure to �ive mailed notice to individual property owncrs on defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, providea a bonaiide attempt to comply caith this subdivision has bemmade. Id. The applicant or other aifected property oc�niers or their representatives may appear before the Plannin� Commission and Council and shal.l be glven an opportuniCy to be heard. Section 205.202� Fridley Code. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members oE the Council shall be reqt�ired for passage of un emendment to tlie zoning ordinance or for the change of any district Uoundaries. Id. -10- ._ _ ..,� .,� � c. svr.sTnrrTZVr xF:c�uzR�yTrcrrs No rule of zoning is beL-ter settled than that a municipality may £rom time Yo time amend, revise, supplement or. repeal the restrictions imposed by iL's comprehensive zoning ordinance. Olsen v. City of IIopkins, 276 Minn. 163, 149 N.W. 2d 394 (1967). However� the power to amend and revise, like the power to enact the original plan, nust be exercised reasonabl.y in furtherance of the public health, safeey, and welfare. Id. The validity of any revision or amendment to the basic plan must be determined t�y the same rules as those applied in testing the validity ot the oxiginal comprehensive plan. Id. Where a cnange made Uy a revision of the basic plan is compatible with and in furtherance of the basic comprehensive plan, the deteru�ination of how areas or properties shall Ue classified or re-class3fied is a legislative function9 not subject to interference by the courts unless shoc�m to be arhitrary, discriminatory or confi�catory. Id. A rezoning is reasonable and not arbitrary where it has a reasonable relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, order, or welfare. 8A PicQuillin, Municipal Corp „ 525.2i�0 (3rd Ed. 1965). Similarly, a rezoni.ng classification is not discriminatorp if iC is reasonably hased in the puUlic policy to be served, 1 Rathlcopf, The La�a of 'Loning and Planning �7-3 (1974). The main constitutional issue in determinin� the validity of a rezoning amendment is whether ttie rezoning i.s confiscatory, A rezoning is confiscatory c.her.e it results in the talcing of a private pXOperty right for a public purnose caithout' due process and wil'hout campensaCion. The geneial rule is that �ehile propetty niay Ue regulated to a certain estent, ii the regulation goes too f.ar 3.t will Ue recognized as a takln� in violation of article 1� �13 of the PilimesoCa Consti.tution �ind the rourteenth l�nendmcnt Co thc Constitution of the United States. Sandecson v, Citv of Will.mar, 287. Pfinn. 1� .162 N.W, 2d 494 (19GS). -17.- _�� ,., ,• � , Rezonin�s, therefore, have Ueen ciiallenge3 on the ground thnt property areas in the area �ffected invested in their property in reliance upon its then exiating zoning as well as upon tlie zont.n� classification in force in neighboring properties or in neighboring areas, aiid that a rezoning which changes that zoning depreciates tt�e value of the land and is unconstitutional as confisca:ory. There is, however, no merit to this contention. 1 Rathkopf, supra, b27-12. The universal rule is that: "Property owners have no vested rights Uy reason of the enactment of an ordinance establishin� use districts. No Contractual relations are thereby created. ProperCy is held subject to a valid exercise of the police power. 4Te think, however that a home owner has the right to rely on the rule of laFt that a classification made Uy ordinance cai11 not be changed on less the chan�e is requlred for the public good". Phipps v. City of Chicar,o, 334 I11. 315, 175 N,Id. 289; 1 Rathtcopf, supra, y27-12. In Minnesota, the Court has cited with approval the following language from a New York case: "jdhile stability and regularity are undoubtedly essential to the operation of zoning plans, zoning is by uo me2ns static. Changed or changing conditions call for changed plans, and persons who own property in a particular zone or use district enjo�* no eternally vested right to that c:Lassification if the public interest denands othenaise", Olsen v. Citv of lioplcins, supra. While a rezoning that merely depreciates property values in the aEfected urea or in neighboring areas is constitutional if eaacted for the public good, i.e, reasonably related to the public health, safety, or welfare; a rezoning will be held confiscatory and unconstitutional if the rezoning classification re�ults in a total destruction or suUstant'ial diminution in Y.he val.ue of the property affected eaithout just compensation, resardless of whether enacted for the puUlic good. In Sanders�n v. TvTillmar, supra, the Plinnesota Supreme Court held: "This Court suyports the policy thr�t au amendment L-o a . comprehensive zoning plan under tlie pol:i.ce powerc cahich results in a total dest�:uct'ion or substantial dimi.nution of value of the properCy affected thereby witliout just compensation Cherefore constiCUtes fl taicing of Uie property wichout due process", -12-