PL 08/04/1982 - 6780PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City of Fridley
A6ENDA
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1982
CALL T� ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNIN6 COMt�1ISSI0N MINUTES: JULY 14, 1982
1
2,
OF SECOND
TO
3. RECEIVE APPEALS COMISSION MINUTES: JULY 20, 1982
4. RECEIVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES
5. RECEIV
6. 07HER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
RI
DIVIS
7:30 P.M.
PAGES
1-6
211-01 - 211-23
BRING YOUR COPY
YELLOW
WHITE
WHITE
CITY OF fRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ MEETING, JULY 14, 7982
CALL TO �R�ER:
Vice-Chairperson Oquist called the Ju7y 74, 1982, Planning Commission meeting
to order at 7:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Mr. Saba, Ms, 6abe1, Mr. Svanda, Mr, Kondrick,
Ms. van Dan
Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
�ames Cross, 6271 �ackson St, N,E,
Jim Benson
A. Oscar Carlson
S & R Investment Co.
APPROVAL OF JUNE 23, 7982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTSON BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY ME2. SABA� TO APPROVE THE JUNE 23, 1982,
PLANNING COMMISSZON MINUTES AS WRZSTEN.
UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VZCE-CHAZRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
SP -08 B'�JAFfE�S�I : CROSS: Per Section �1, ,,�of tlie�ri�dley
ity Co e, to a ow t e construction of a second accessory building, a
22' x 24' attached garage on Lot 4, Block 1, Irene Henry Addition, the
same being 6271 Jackson Street N.E. (Variance granted 6/15J82, subject to
approval of special use permit)
M�ION BY MR. SABR� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
SP N82-OB BY JRMES H. CR0.SS.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE PUBLZC
XEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Mr, Boardman stated this lot is the last lot on Jackson Street. It is a dead-end
street with a cul-de-sac. He stated the request is for the addition of a second
garage. The request to the Appeals C�mmission on June 75 was to construct the
new garage and turn the existing garage into a living area which would require a
variance from 10 feet to 5 feet from the north property line, because the existing
garage as it is now is 5 feet off the property line. At that time, the neighbors
were not opposed to the construction of the new garage, but were opposed to the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 14, 1982 PAGE 2
existing garage being converted into living space and requested that both
garages be used as garage space. The petitioner had stated he had no problem
with allowing the existing garage to remain a garage. This then required his
coming in for a special use permit, because the code doesn't allow second
accessory structures of 200 sq. ft, without a special use permit.
Mr. Boardman stated the petitioner is requesting a specia7 use permit for the
construction of a new garage and to allow the existing garage to remain a garage.
He stated Staff has no problems with this request, He felt it was appropriate
since this house is at the end of the street and the setback variance in front
was granted by the Appeals Commission.
The petitioner, Mr, James Cross, stated this was the only location they had on
the lot to build an additional garage, and they really need the storage space.
The only alternative would be to store their vehicles in the yard or on the street.
MOTION BY hII2. XONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO CIASE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON�
SP H82-08 BY JAMES N. CROSS.
UPON A VOSCfi VOTE� ALL VOTSNG AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARZNG CLOSED AT 7:42 P,b1,
MOTSON BY MR. SABR� SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY CDUNCIL
APPROVAL OF R REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �82-08� BY JAMES H, CROSS,
PER SECTION 205.051� 2, A, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO ALIAW THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SECOND RCCESSORY BUILDING� A 22� X 24� ATTACHED GARAGE ON IAS 4� BIACK I�
IRENE HENRY ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6271 JRCKSON STREET N.E. (VARIANCE GRANTED
6/25/82� SUBJECT TO RPPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PEI2MIT),
UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VIC&-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Boardman stated this request would go to City Council on July 26.
2. VACATION REQUEST: SAU �82- p2, BY S& R INVESTMEtdT COMPANY: Vacate that
portion of unuse rtg t-of-way a jacent to the west si e of Lots 13, 14,
and 15, B7ock 4, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, (highway turn-back),
to allow the construction of a 4-plex, the same being 5600 - 4th Street N.E,
(Appeals Commission recormnended approval of variance on June 29, 7982)
Mr. Boardman stated this property is located on 4th Street where the service
drive connects into 57th Ave. It is a c�rner property. He stated the State
originally had control of the right-of-way all along the service drive, but
the State recently turned all that property over to the City of Frid7ey. The
City of Fridley does not need the property so at the request of the petitioner,
Staff is recorimending this property be turned over to the property owner, but
that the City maintain a 10 ft. boulevard easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 14, 1982 PAGE 3
Mr. Boar.dman stated the proposal is for a 2-level, 4-plex with tuck-under
garages. This proposal went to the Appeals Comnission on June 29 for approval
of two variances--a front yard setback from 35 ft. -0 30 ft, and a sideyard
setback from 35 ft, to 25 ft. Both variances were approved by the Appeals
Comnission and are bing submitted to City Council.
Mr. Boardman stated it was Staff's recommendation to approve the vacation and
turn the property back to the property owner to make a more usab7e lot.
Ms. Gabel stated the Appeals Commission has approved variances before for the
development of this piece of property; but because of financing falling through
and other things happening, no development has taken place. She felt that if
there is now someone who can do something with that lot, it would be a good thing
for the City,
MOTION BY MR. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CZTY COUNCIL APPROVRL
OF VACATION REQUEST� SAV N82-02� BY S& R INVESTMENT COMPANY TO VACATE THAT
PORTION OF UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF ZATS I3� I4, AND
25� SLOCK 4� HAMILTON'S ADDITION TO M&CHRNICSVILLE, (HIGHWAY TURN-BACK), TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4-PLEX, THE SAME HEING 5600 - 4TH STREET N.E.
(APPEALS COMMISSION RECOMMENDIiD APPROVAL OF VARIANCE ON TUNE 29� 1982)iWSTN THE
STIPULATION THAT THE CITY RETAIN A 10 FOOT BOULSVARD EASEMENT.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTIDN
CRRRSED UNRNIMOUSLY.
Mr. Boardman stated this request wi17 go to City Council on August 16.
3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. �182-04, BY A. OSCAR CARLSON: Split off the
T�ester y 8 feet of the vacate alley a jacent to Lots 20, 21, and 22,
Block 7,Onaway, and add it to the Easterly 8 feet of vacated a71ey adjacent
to Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 7, Onaway, the same being 7753 Beech Street and
7752-56 Elm Street N.E.
Mr, boardman stated there was quite a history as to how these two buildings were
connected. He stated the proposal is to purchase the building that has been
spread out across an alley and covers two lot areas, one off Beech 5treet and
one off Elm Street, and then split the building, turning over a portion of the
building on Lots 21 and 22 to the building on Lots 6 and 7.
Mr. Boardman stated where the problem canes in is that because they are putting
a new lot line in and there was never a zero lot line variance for a buildinq
setback to a property line (which was not necessary at that time, because the
property in between was owned by the building owner), the petitioner is also
going to have to request a variance. Because of scheduling, there is somewhat
of a problem with the variance procedure and it would be mid-September by the time
it gets to City Council. The reason for this is the meetings of the Appea7s
Commission and Planning Cortmission do not jive in order to get it to the City
Council by the end of August. If the Planning Commission approves this lot split,
he would suggest they recommend the lot split request be conditioned upon the
variance approval by the Appeals Corim�ission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 74, 1982 PAGE 4
Mr. Oquist asked why the two walls couldn't be knocked out and t�e area turned
back into an alley.
Mr. Jim Benson stated he has been involved back to the time these buildings were
connected and is now representing Keith Boulais and A. Oscar Carlson, who are
the new owners. He 5tated that when the two buildings were connected together,
the walls were constructed of concrete masonry, the floors are poured concrete
floors, so it is fully improved real estate. Ne stated that when you are inside
the building and passing from one building to another, you hardly realize the
buildings were ever separated. He stated it would be too expensive to tear ur
the concrete floor, concrete walls, and roof, so the logic is just to detach the
bui]ding and bring it back and concrete the wall up, making virtually two separate
buildings again. This would create a zero lot 7ine situation, which is common in
the Onaway District. He stated the two buildings were originally built separately,
so everything is separate--parking lots, uti7ities, water mains, etc.
MOTION BY MR. SRBA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF IAT SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. NB2-09� BY A. OSCAR CARLSON� TO SPIST OFF THE WESTERLY
8 FEET OF THE VACATED ALLEY RDJACENT TO ZATS 20, 21, and 22, BLOCK 7, ONAWRY,
AND ADD IT TO THE EASTERLY 8 FEET OF VRCATED ALLEY ADJACENT TO IATS 5� 6� AND
7� BLOCK 7� ONAWRY, TNE SRME BEING 7753 BEECH STREET AND 7752-56 ELM STREET N,E.,
BASED UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ZERO LOT LINE VARIANCE BY THE APPEAIS COMMISSION.
UPON R VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, VSCE-CHRIRPERSON OQUISS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANZMOUSLY.
Mr. Boardman stated the zero ]ot line variance request wi71 go to the Appeals
Commission on Aug. 10, and then both the variance and the lot split request
will go to City Counci] on Aug. 76.
4. RECEIVE JUNE 15, 1982, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY hII2. SVANDA� SECONDED BY MR. SRBA� TD RECEIVE THE JUNE 15� 1982�
ENVIRONMENTAL QURLITY COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECI.ARED THE MOTION
CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE JUNE 17, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY AII2. SVANDA� TO 12EC&IVE THE JUNE 27� 1982�
HOUSING & REDEVEIAPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNAIJIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE JUNE 22, 1982, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY BIIZ, SRBA� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE JUNE 22� 2982�
ENERGY COMMZSSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLAItED TXE MOTION
CARRIED UNRNIMOUSLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 14, 1982 PAGE 5
7. RECEIVE JUNE 29, 1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTSON BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MS, VAN DAN� TO RECEZVE THE JUNE 29� .I982�
APPERLS COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VO2ING RYE� VICE-CXAIRPERSON OQUZST DECLARED THE MOSION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE JULY 1 1982 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION 8Y MS. VAN DAN� SECONDED HY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE THE JULY ,Z� Z982�
NUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES.
Ms. van Dan states she had gone to the July 12 City Council meeting, because
the City Council had received the Planning Comnission's June 23 minutes which
included a motion and discussion regarding the funding process. She stated there
were a number of very impassioned, good presentations from the public. She
stated Barbara Hughes spoke representing the citizens of Fridley as well as a
board member of one of the organizations. Dick Young, President of S.A.C.A.,
gave an exce7lent presentation, and there was a representative from The A7exandra
House. She siated a number of organizations gave presentations. She stated both
Peter Treuenfels and Brian 600c�speed fran the Human Resources Commission spoke,
and she also spoke.
Ms, van Dan stated tf�ey were a71 really emphasizing two areas: (1) The fact
tfiat t6e City Council's decision not to do any funding was done so suddenly after
all the applicants f�ad gone tfirough a very lengtFiy and expensive process of pre-
senting funding requests. If the City Council fe7t they were not going to do any
funding in 1983, they should have given prior notice; although the Mayor and the
Council members did indicate they felt it was an understood fact that city funding
was not going to be an ongoing permanent funding process and that it could be
stopped. She stated somewhere along the tine communication has not been the best,
because she felt it was understood there would be funding if funds were available,
but no one expected the funds to be cut shart so unexpectedly. (2) They questioned
priorities and respectfully requested the City Council to sincerely review some
of the things being considered in the 1983 budget and to remember that people
are the most valuable human resource in the community and anything the City can
do to maintain the dignity and the welfare of the citizens of the carttnunity
should be considered.
Ms. van Dan stated that in the July 6 Parks & Recreation Commission minutes,
Dick Young had questioned the validity of the City providing funding for the
city band and Northeast Chamber Ensemble. She stated she had not been aware
there was that kind of funding.
Ms. van Dan stated one of the important things in the funding process is that
the Cortmission encourages the organizations to go out to every possible source of
funding, and these organizations do, However, many funding grants are based on
community support, such as matching grants, so if the community does not give
anything, the organizations lose double.
PLANNING COMMISSI�N MEETING, JULY 14, 1982 PAGE 6
Ms. van Dan stated that at the City Council meeting, she had the fi eeling that
all the Council members understood the concerns being expressed and indicated
they may really give this serious consideration at the time of budget review.
Ms. van Dan stated the Human Resources Commission members have all expressed
the opinion that the funding review process is the most interesting meeting of
the whole year. She felt if the Canmission has been asked to take on the
responsibility of reviewing funding requests, they should be involved in the
whole process for any type of city funding and not just the service organizations.
Ms, van Dan stated the Human Resources Commission rea7ly felt very strongly that
S.A.C.A, is a very worthy project and should get as much support fran the City
as possible because 50% of those served by this organization come from Fridley.
UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO CONCUR WITH THE MOTION MADE BY
THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION RND TO RECOMMEND TO CITY CWNCIL THAT� DEPENDING
UPON THE AVRILABILITY OF RNY FUNDING MONIES, S.R.C.A., CENTRRL CENTER FOR FAMILY
RESDURCES� AND THE ALEXANDRA HOUSE RECEIVE THE AMOUNT OF MONIE5 REQUESTED:
S.A.C.R. - $2,500
CENTRAL CENTER FOR FAMILY RESOURCES - S5,000
TXE ALEXANDRA HOUSE - $3�000
UPON R VDICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHRIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTIDN
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RECEIVE JULY 6, 1982, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY lII2. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SABR� TO RECEIVE THE JULY 6� 1982� PARKS &
RECREATION COMMISSZON MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� RLL VOTIN6 AYE� VICE-CHASRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTZON BY MS, VRN DAN� SECONDED BY 1NR. KONDRICK, TO AA7WRN THE MEETING. UPON
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON OQUI5T DECLARED THE JULY 14� 5982,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M.
Respectfully subm'tted,
L ���, `�X,C ��
ynn� Sa�a
Recording Secretary
� •.� �,� «� :.
AN ORDINANCB 1�DOPTING !1 BEfi CHAPTBR 211 SNTITLBD
'SUBDIVISIOF', AL� RSPF•7�LING OI� CHAPTER 211 OF THB
FRID�BY CIRY �iB IN PES �'Y
211.01 i�P'OSE ,�
The regulations and provisions established by this chapter are for the
following purposes:
1. Rb establish standard procedures, requicements, and conditions for the
preparation, sutmission and apprwal p/1/a/t/s/ of land subdivisions within
F[idley.
2. Zb secure satis£actory conformity of such p/1/a/t/s/ subdivisions to the
land use plan, the major thoroughfare plan, the official map, zoning and
other plans and chapters of this code.
�� _/' • •' ' '.+ -1�� 1 =.� •' ' •SII:J � • "
�� � r,ll! ' .}: ti - 1 ' -1• •-1' ' ' • �' " •'1 •
• :-� •
5. 7b guide the Planning Camnission in the perfocmance of its functions and
duties.
211.02 Dd�FII�TPizQiS
Fl��
2, Oaarty Platting Autborities.
�he Platting F�gineer in the Anoka County Auditor's Office and other county
officers who examine oc check plats or subdivisions prior to acceptance by
the Register of Deeds foc filing in that county.
211-01
r��,�,�rrk�v,�
�,l//1�t�/�►
3,!//pJ4�
�,!//X�/�3.�
., �.
211-04
required for purp�ses of construction of a building on such �rcel undet
the zoning laws and building regulations of the City; and that the
subdivision to be made is not made for the purpose of avoiding such
conditions and restrictions with respect to the land as might be imposed
upon a plat. (Ref. 207)
;� •�>H 1:•.?� � '1�•.;,� •_�.. •.�r:.�
�. (�enerally
A subdivider shall prepare a preliminary plat of a subdivision before
pre�ring a final plat. The aubdivider shall submit the preliminary
plat together with all requiced accanpanying material to the Planning
Caimiission, and shall have secured the tentative approval of the Comm
ission. Before any conveyance of any lot or parcel of land in a
subdivision, �fore a� nerm�t to erect. alter or.reuai� anv buildina
all required accompanying materials, shall submit the
Council for approval and the plat shall be approved by
resolution and by any other agencies and officials whose
required by law, including the County Platting Authorities
duly recorded (Ref. 75) .
B. S6epe
�//�
iving all the infocmation needed, the Ci
�///////////////////////////////////////
� � �� .�✓�1�� �i$ k�7�/� � ��/,�
ivider, giving him whatever suggestions
�V////////////////////////////////////
E'4i1�/R��f�l�/�Ji/,�/151`l�l`�` !d)4/�/�/1S�
(1) Preliminacy Plat Iaequir�ts
1i�//19b�u4�k�`
ogether with
same to the
said Council
approval is
and shall be
%�
shall determine
and information may be
//////////////////////////////
�X.�4ils�,���13x�` ��,ci�x,r�.7�i
(x�. i2s)
'��/���x��k
A preliminary plat shall be clearly and legibly drawn on a high
quality reproduceable and all copies thereof shall be clear and
legibie. The size o£ the tracing should be the same as the size
used for the final plat. It shall be of such scale, preferably a
scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet, as to show clearly all details
thereof. A preliminary plat together with such accompanying
doc�nnents shall show the follaaing:
,izi//R'1�/{�1`��b`�/X�U�/��/.�/�16.�A1��J'�i/X�l`,�✓�l`l`�,�/b`1F�X1 �/�
211-06
��
(a) The boundary lines and dimensions of the land to be
subdivided and the locations of section oorners and of existing
subdivisions, streets (and street widths) and unsubdivided
parcels (and vwnerships) adjoining the ptoposed subdivision,
between it and nearest existing street or for such distance
beyond as may be required.
�(�Y//X1X�/��t����/,�f/1�/X,�t�/X�/Y�/���Ak�
(b) The proposed general layout, including all proposed
streets, alleys, crosswalks through blocks, street widths and
psoposed names, approximate dimensions of blocks and lots,
tentative lot and block rnmibering and approximate radii of all
curves.
(c) The existing and proposed easements and right of way for
drainage, sewerage, utility or railroad lines.
,(X�Y//��k/,��/k��;��/��#►�X�,�/�/X�/�SiV��,�fi�/��k/xs��
�X/�XX/14d�/�/�tf,�kX,�/�/�h�X%�kh�/��,�i�fik�/��fi�,����k////
S' �1�1�
(d) The correct location and designation of all wet lands and
water channels, water areas, drainage courses and ditches, and
indication of all areas which, before drainage im�rovement, are
subject to inundation oc stotm watec ovetflo�w, with ptoposed
drainage improvement of such aceas and of swamps, drainage
courses ar�d ditches.
(e) The designation of proposed public streets, easements and
other areas proposed to be cledicated for public purposes and of
any reservations and their purposes.
211-07
(f) A stataaent giving the intended excavating, grading and
filling of land within the proposed subdivision and the
intended removal or destruction of existing trees and other
natural ground cover, sufficient to meet the requirements of
the z��/t�/�7i���f�d�/S�.t,Y � �termining whether
such alterations would be permissible and whether a land
alteration pecmit could be issued in accordance with the
City Code.
data and materials as may not practically be shown on the
pceluninary plat shall be submitted on separate sheets, to
accomp�� the plat.
(2) apQlicatim
The subdivider shall f/i/�/e/ gU1?IDl� the tracing and three (3) dark
line prints of the preliminacy plat and the original and three (3)
copies of doctiments accan�nying the plat w/i/t/h/ to the City. The
City shall determine whether or not the submitted materials are
satisfactory as a preliminary plat. When land to be subdivided
abuts a state trunk highway, one (1) additional copy shall be
required and shall be submitted to the State Aighway Commissioner
with the request that such Canmissioner's recamiendati ons, if any,
should be received within fourteen days after the date submitted,
for consideration by the Planning Coaunission acting on the plat.
� � .. �r'.��(.tlf� ��
minim;an plat filing fee as
1�X�`//////////////////////,
D,�//ik,�,�,iil�/�
shall ascertain
������������
11
�//////
Y�11S �2. '1i10
////////////////////
/,��%.`k/,a�/�//////
�, ���ii�i���r s�/, �, r��/�xii
r,�xi�zxn�i,a��v��,��.�x�ii
I�I�,�X/�X� ixet. 1261
����X�/��/�k/��kX��/�X�/�///
ti�e requirements in these
!S/X�$/3�/J�/,�/� �R�/�i�l`�/�T�k/
211-08
�/���XX�f/�X,�kd/�,�//�k/�l�`tf%A�XX/�b�k/�f/��1;��//
/
(3) Actiat an Preliminaty Plat by Plarusing Co�issiaa
The Planning Ccmnission will meet to consider
improvements by the subdivider and the
installation of i�roveaents. (Ref. 75)
//
//
the plat and proposed
time and method of
Not less than ten (10) days before the date of a meeting of the
Planning Canmission, for consideration of a preliminary plat, the
City shall do the following:
(a) Notify by United States mail the subdivider and the
property owners of the property imnediately adjoining the land
within the plat of the tune and place of such heating.
(b) Publish notice of such hearing in the official City
newsp3per. - - • - . . � — - --
:�, �.,� .� ,�_ ,'3li'fr',r�
, (�Y//F��1 �/�kt�,�k�
��i� p[P�IIDI�N �IOV31
The Planning Caiunission shall �6���y`�,�(/�6��16�E/�6�`
g���`�616k/�f take action o� a subdivision application
wi.thin �Q days following delivery of an application completed in
compliance witi� the requirem�ts set forth in this ordinance, unless
an extention of the review period has been agreed to by the
applicant. Action by the Planning Commission shall be tentative
approval, disapproval or conditional approval of the preliminary
plat, the last being tentative approval conditioned upon certain
modifications as specified. The time within which improvements to
be installed by the subdivider shall be completed shall be
specifically stated as part of the action. Such action shall be
recorded on three (3) cbpies of the plat and accompanying documents
211-09
or attached to the�n. One snch copy shall be cetained by the
Planning Camnission, one shall be transmitted to the Council, and
one shall be held for the subdivider a/n/d/ h/e/ yh4 shall be mailed
a/ n/o/t/i/f/i/c/a/t/i/o/n/ notice to this effect, at h/i/s/ �
subdivider's last known address, within three (3) days after such
action. After the Planning Camnission's action on the preliminary
plat, it shall be recamnended to the Council for action.
If the Planning Commission fails to preliminacily approve or
disapprove an application within �Q days after it has been
suhmitted, unless an exten5ion of time is arranged with the consent
of the subdivider, the application shall be deemed preliminarily
appcoved and upon demand the City shall execute a certificate to
that effect. in this event, the M/a/n/a/g/e/c/ Citv shall advise
the subdivider of any and all recarmiendations as are reasonable and
are wnsistent with these regulations or with any applicable plan in
completing the survey of the subdivision and making the final plat
thereof. (Ref. 75)
(5) S�cvey R�uir�ent
After tentative approval o[ conditional apprwal of the preliminary
plat, the subdividec shall cause the subdivision to be surveyed,
staked and mornanented by a Registered Surveyor in accordance with
the requirements herein, with statutory requirements, with any
requirenents of county platting authorities and in conformity with
the approved prelvninary plat. In the event of disapproval of the
preliminary plat, a r�.w preliminary plat will be required and the
survey shall be in confo[mity with the new plat after approval.
Where permanent monuments are not already in place, monuments
consisting of iron rods at least one-half inch in diameter and 48
inches in length and encased in concrete at least 4 inches in
diameter shall be set at the intersection of all boundary angles of
the subdivision and at intersections of street, alley and boundary
lines, all flush with the finished grade except that those within a
roadraay may be set at sub-grade level.
,�r�ix�,�✓�
,czz�r�►+;e�
(6) Final Plat Applicatian
�iii
Follaaing preliminaty approval of the application by the Planning
Carnnissio n, the applicant may request final approval by the City.
a? Requirements
The final plat shall conform to the preliminary plat as tentively
211-�0
approved oc conditionally approved, including any required
modifications and to the requirements herein and any additional
requirements of law. The plat shall be drawn on a plastic mylar
using a sheet o� sheets, 20 x 32 inches in size and at a scale of
100 feet or less to 1 inch. When there is more than one sheet an
index sheet shall be attached showing the entire subdivision,
including boundary and streets, at an appropriate scale and
indicating the separate sheets of the final plat and the sheet
rnmiber of each.
(1) The name of the subdivision, scale, north arrow and
date.
(2) Names and addresses of owners, lien holders,
subdivider, surveyor and designer.
(3) Primary control points, approved b.y tfie Citvs
Q�(�il�@��. or descriptions and "ties" to such control
points to which all dimension, angles, bearings,
elevations and similar data shall be referred.
(4) Subdivision boundary lines, side and center lines of
streets, alleys and other rights of way, lines of
easements, lot lines, lines of all other sites and of all
reservations; with accurate dimensions, bearings or
deflection angles and radii, ares and central angles of
all curves.
,(�Y//X�1 ��ht�/�A/Ak���`��1 ��lr�/�f/�4/xs����/�k�/�
(5) Names and widths of streets and other rights of way.
(6) Widths and purposes of easeme�ts.
(7) Block rnanbecs, oonsecutive.
(8) Lot rnmibers, consecutive, starting with the figure
"1" in eaCh block.
(9) Lines indicating minim�an buildin9 setback distance on
all lots and other sites.
(121 Oane�s agreanent to the subdivision by the
b`1���1`,�////////////////////////////////////////////////
.�/�1��/,iA`/!'��-`/�/b`J�1�I�J��.�
(10) Abstract or certificate of title.
211- 11
(11) Surveyor's certificate as to making the survey and
its accuracy, as required by law and by these regulations.
(12) Other data, certificates, affidavits and endorsements
as required by law, required by the Planning Commission
arY3 Cauncil and bv Countv Plattinq authorities.
(13) Accompanying the final plat shall be pr-otective
covenants in fo�m for recording.
(b). SU�uittinq Final Plat
The subdivider shall ���€�`k/jf/��/i�[,T/�dX�X/14'�/�I�X�XI��/Y��X�
,�/1�A�1�J�1�/1�1`/f�1���1�zI�/1��`l�i�/�J�kz�l�l`J�/1�X�� �
within six months after the date of the Planning Ccmmission's
action thereon, t`T�r,r/�X� S1�IDl.t �e final plat together
with all required accompanying documents and the required
n�miber of copies of each with the C/o/u/n/c/i/1/ Citv. If not
filed within the designated six-month period, unless this
peciod is extended by Cooncil, the action of the Planning
Conunission on the preliminary plat shall become null and void.
If required improvanents are not installed prior to filing, a
cash deposit, certified check or surety bond insuring later
i.nstallation or a petition to have the City install same and
assess cost against the subdivider shall accompany the final
plat.
The required rnmibe
be as follows: One
20 x 32, sheets, 1
four (4) ptints of
�//�7��J�.�f�/��`
r of copies, prints and transparencies shall
(1) transparency and ten (10) prints of the
" equals 100', and one (1) transparency and
1" equals 200'.
�!//���`�R�
X�/�/��/�X�/.�h`/�fil �b`��1�/�P�R�I`A�1��/F�i�k`�+/,�/l�l`FX,�I�I`If/l�X�t
211-12
TiiiiiiiiiTiiluiii-- i�iiiiiiiii7iiiiiiiiiiiii
,a�isv��,�z�.
��ii�i��
iiii
iiiiiiii
�i�
c��. ��«���
The final plat will be acted upon by the Council after holding
a public hearing thereon, with published notice in the official
City Newspaper at least ten (10) days in advance indicating the
time and place theceof. At sLCh h�rina a�l�rsons interested
id) . Actirn m Fi[�al Plat
The Council shall approve or disapprove the final plat within
six y(601 days after filing of the final plat. If the Council
approves the final plat, a r/e%/e/i/p/t/ resolution shall be
i/s//s/u/e/d/ passed indicating approval of the plat and
satisfactory compliance with all conditions and requirements of
applicable tegulations and all conditions and cequirenents upon
which the preliminacy apprwal is expressly conditioned either
through performance or the execution of appropriate agreements
assuring perforniance. Each final plat of a subdivision that
conforms to ti�e requiremettts herein (the preliminary plat of
which was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission)
shall be duly apptoved by the Council by cesolution thereof and
each final plat of a subdivision that conforms to the
conditions of conditional approval of the preliminary plat by
the Plannin9 Camnission shall be similarly approved, unless in
either case the Council shall find any error in the subdivision
procedure or in the Planning Commission's action on the
preluninacy plat oc othe� oonciitions warranting disapproval.
211-13
(e). Failuce to Finally Apprave oc Disappcove
If the Council fails to certify final approval �ithin 6� davs
, and if
the applicant has canplied with all conditions and requirements
of this ocdinance, the application shall be deemed finally
approved, and upon derand the City shall execute a certificate
to that effect.
(� . Recordin9
After approval, the final plat shall be recorded among the
records of the County within one hundred eighty (180) days
after the date of the resolution, unless a longer period of
time is granted and provided for recording at the time of
approval. A longer peciod of time shall be gtanted only upon
good cause shown and by an additional resolution duly passed by
a majority of the Council at the time of the making of
approval. A plat not recorded within a period of one hundred
eighty (180) days or the�u�roved extension �ime, t/h/e/r/e/o/f/
d/u/lfy/ a�/ajd/e/, is deened to be one that is not approved and
such plat is not entitled to be recorded; and the same shall
not thereafter be recorded except and unless it shall have
again been presented to the Council and approved for recording.
(Ref. 229)
(9) Time �tensiat
T/h/e/ c/o/n/t/i/n/u/e/d/ a/p/p/c/o/v/a/1/ o/f/ a/ p/1/a/t/
a/n/d/ t/t�/e/ e/x/t/e/n/s/i/o/n/ o/f/ t/i/m/e/ A*++!!P extension
for tjh/e/ recording �,�lat t/hjeJ=Je/o/f/ shall n/o/t/ be
w/i/t/h/h/e/1/d/ aTranted upon a/n/ application
t/h/e/r/e/f/o/r/e/ duly made to the Council e/x/%/p/t/ a/n/d/
imless the Council s/h/a/1/1/ finc3�, after a hearing that the
delay and failure to record within the period of time allowed
h/eJrje/i/n/ was without justifiable cause and that the
conditions and circwostances attendant to the land within the
plat and in the immediate surrounding area as is affected
thereby are materially and substantially different from those
present at the time such plat was originally approved and that
the plat as made is no longer deemed an appropriate plat with
the conditions and circumstances present. In making such
determination, the Council can consider among other things any
changes in zoning, sizing of lots, location of streets and
utilities in the lands within or adjacent to said plat and as
well other factocs deened material, and is not limited thereto.
(Ref. 229)
ti� . Appeal to Camcil
No fi.nal plat of a subdivision shall be apprwed by the Council
if the preliminary plat thereof was disapproved by the Planning
Commission except that any subdivider may appeal the
c/o/�m/i/t/t/e/e/'/s/ G^—�rission's action on the preliminary
plat to the Council to overrule said action. The Council, as a
result appeal, may elect to consider the preliminary plat and
211-14
give it approval, conditional approval or disapproval. The
groimds for a� refusal to approve a final plat shall be set
forth in the proceedings of the Council and reported to the
person or persons applying for such approval.
_ a_a .:: � _ - _• . � =i�'i
No plat of a subdivision shall be filed with the Register of
Deeds or accepted for filing unless signed by the Mayor and
Manager or Clerk and unless approved as to survey and
engineering accuracy by the County Platting authorities.
C. ZERO LOT LINES.
y �� . � �- - - � -�
i►� � n � . � - - -
. �. .�. - ;: ��
�i�7� •r- ,< ��
,- �. .- .-�- • �- - .- •� • -�-�
h� 1,� • 1. - 1�� - • 1.
1 /'� :�M✓.
211-15
�yv such land.
In additi� to the above described general rule, the follaaing conditions and
requirecents shall also be oamplied with:
1. 7R�e City may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash frmn the
applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such
public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later
than at the time of final appcoval.
2. Any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the City
used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained.
3. 7tee City must reasonably determine that it will need to acquire that
portion of land, or the cash equivalent thereof, foc the purposes stated in
this aection as a result of approval of the subdivision.
The provisions of this section may be modified if the City Council determine
that individual circ�nastances call for adjustznent.
�L/ /!S� f.LSf� /�ifi�f.tl,t
����'•�'.�
y/I�. :
.i� �,�f%Tt;'7fr�l�,iti'�3� _►!.rff',
211-17
�
,• �� :�:� • �, ..�.
_ . .. . .' _'_'__ t�t�..._...... F:nel
211.09 vACATIdN CF PLA�
1 Any plat or any part of a plat may be vacated by the owner of the
__�__�.. ....�,..-e ��,e ��ie � a.,� inr_ therein. bv a wcitten instrument with a
3
same to ne vacaceu.
e manner as tor
instctinnent w ic
ts or a eys or
recor eTin
recor e , suc
an ives a
al e icatlons
been sold, the plat maY be vacated as stated in Subsection
yr:'- v {�.: 5<., �:: �i. . s.' i j il
the prov
,rs: �.�a::.�.
211-22
CITY OF FRIDIEY
1lppEAIS CO2�ASISSION I�TING, JULY 20, 1982
CALL 1U ORDER�
Cl�tirpsrson Gabel called the Ju�y 20, 1982, Appeals Commisainn meeting to order
at 7i3� P.m.
ROI1. CALLt
1�M�RS PRr,SENTi Patricis Gabel, Alsx Harna, Jean Gerou. Jim Plemel
1+�MSERS ABSENT� Ieslie Coleaian
OTHERS PRFSENT� Darrell Clark, CiLy of Fridley
Chria Zelevarov. 1b0 Missisaippi Place N.E., Fridley
Wi711em Berglund, 8270 Board Avenue, Fridley
Nia.hmood Abd ISarem. 3�7 Central Avenue NE
Donald A, i�yland, Jr., 1125 9�+� Iane NW, Coon Rapids
2Sarilyn Larson, 584D Stinson Blvd., Fridley
Gilbart l:enkveld, Hox 5t►7r Ano1n. MN
Mr, and Mra. Terrence Poss, 3u Hugo Street NE, FY�idley
Dale Dickson, 600 E�y Street N,E „ Fridley
John Y,`loqr �51 $wad Averiue NE, Fl�idley-
William E. SY�ickson, 6j0 E]y, Fridley
Mr, and Mra. Ralph Officer, 31j Hugo. Fridley
Jxnet 7xezkowsld� 314 Hugo, Fridley
Jchn Maloy, 80¢ Hoard Avenue NE, Fridley
Michael Scarcella, 8090 Board Avenue NE, Fridley
Steve Adelmann, 8080 Board Avenue NE, Fridley
Gai2 Wi1ka,8080 �oad Avenuo NE, FY�idley
Michael Nalone, 635 Ely Street, �idley
Gus Doty� 6379 Univerait�y Avenue NE, FY�idley
APPROVAL OF JUNE 29, 1982, APP8AL5 COMYISSION MINU1ESe
MOTION ty Mr. Barna. seconded by Ma. Gerou, to approve the June 29� 1982, Appeals
Commiasion minutes as xritten. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON
GAHEL DECLARID THE M�TIQN CARRIID UNANIMOUSI.Y.
1.
�
?IOTION by Mr. Pleoel� second�d 6y lSr. H�rna, to open the puhlio hearing. UPON A
YOICE BOTE, AI.L V02Il�1G AYE, CHAIRPr."'EtS�N GA�L DECIJIRID THE PUBI.IC HEARING OPEN AT
7r32 P.H.
APPEAIS COI+�iZSSIDN MEETING, JULY 20. 1982 PAGE 2
Ms. Gabsl read the Adminietrative Staff Rsport into the Rscord�
� ur��• _v - �:,•c•.
8270 Broad �lvenue N.E.
���: __ Y i;i��.ti �r• �� ; >�. / : a�ia�/
Bection 205.053, 4B, requires a minimmm side yard setback of
10 feet for livinq area.
Public purpose served by this require�aent is to maintain a
miniman of 20 feet between living areae in adjacent structures
and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjacent
structures to reduce exposure to conflagration of fire. It is
also to allow for aesthetically pleasirg open areas arau�d
residential structures.
B. STATID HARD6HIP:
'Building addition onto existing house which is cvrrently 5.8
feet frctn line is the only practical way to expand living
area."
C. ADMI23ISPRATIVE STAFF REiTIFW:
Zt►is vaciance w*as applfed
Camnission on Nwember 10
constructed arxi the varia�
for and approved by the Ap�peals
1960 but the addition was rat
�ce became void for non-use.
The dimensions of this praperty are 110 feet by 110 feet and
located � the corner of Sroad Avenue and Janesville Street.
The house faces Broad Avenue so that is considered the fr�t
yard. The existing house is located 5.6 feet fran the side
lot line tnorth� and 15.5 feet fram the front lot line (east).
The addition is proposed off the back of the dwellirg (to the
west) and in line with the north side of the dwelling. Tt�e
addition woald not create any prablans for the adjoinirg
property owners to the iarth as their dwelling faces Rinball
Street and there would be 52.6 feet between c]wellings. Sane
considerations should be given to limiting windvws along the
north side of the addition to maintain the privacy of the rear
yard of the r►eighbor to the north.
Mr. Berglund presented tha Commission mmbera vith hia buildSng plans rrhich
ahoved the present living room becoming a third bedroom and a living room being
added on. Mr. Plemel asked Mr, Berglund if he planned to put a basement undar
the proposed nev addition and he aaid tl�at he did, Mr, Berglund aleo noted that
the fireplace in the plans xould ba deleted and a Lrge xindo�► would be placed
there, Hs, Gabel asl�d if it rioald ba a problem to aittch the present aiding and
roofing s teriala and Mr. Berglurd indicated it wuld not. He added that the
loan for the addition hns been approved so it the var�,ance xas approved by Lhe
Comnission conatruction could begin. Ms. Gabel aslmd if he had spoken with his
neighbors and Mr, Barglund aaid he hsd and there seemed to be no problem. Ns.
Gabel aslaad if he sould have Lhia contxacted out and Mr, Berglund said he rroul.d
be doSng tae interior himself� but the rsst vou]d be contractad.
AppEAIS COMlflSSION MEETING JULY 2a. 1982 PAGE 3
MOTION bq ?�. Plsmel, aeconded tq Ma. Gerou� to clone the public hearing. UPON
� VOICE V02E. ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GA�L DECIAR� � PUBLIC FIF.AFtING CLOSED
AT ?t�2 P.M.
1�DTION by Mr. Barna� seconded by Mr. Plemelr ��PProve the variancs requeat
to rsduce t�e aide yard setback on tbe living side of a direlling irom the
r•quired 10 feet to S.$ fset to a11ov a 20 foot addition to the rear of
an sxietiag houae located on I,flta 1-4, Slock P, Rivervisw He3ghta. along
xith the south 2 feet of Lota 48-50. ffiock P. Riverviev Heights� the same
bsing 8270 Broad Avenue N.E, Fr1d1eY• vith the stipulation t1�at the addition
is built according to the plans s1wFm to the Ce�iaeion vhich ahoxs no xindoxs
on the north side of the addition. The hardship is a lack oP room for an
sxpanding family. DPDN A 1NICE VD1E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GA�L DECLARID
1i� ?DTIAN CARR� UNANIMOUSLY. „
MDTION �qr lls. Gerou, seconded Yy I�. Barna, to open the puhlic hearing. UPON A
VOZCE VOTE. AIS. W1�NG A1'E. CRA'+xPE-°.90HI GA°EL I1�CLILRID 1RE PUffiIC AEARING OPBIG AT
8�43 P.M.
Ma, Gabel read the Adminiatrative Staff Report into Lhe Record�
. �.nJ Y�. . Y\I" - �� ' ' r' �'�
625 Ely Street N.E.
•�: •�••�.' tir• >� •:,�1 •o- io-
Section 205.053, 18, requires a minimmi lot area of 7500
equare feet for a lot recorded before December 29, 1955.
Public purpose served t�y thie cequirement ie to avoid the
conditic�► of overcrawding of a residential neighborhood and to
avoid an excess burden on the existing water and sewer
services and to avoid reduction of surrauxiing property
values.
Section 205.053, 4A, requires a front yard setback of not less
than 35 feet.
Public purpose served by this requiremPS�t is to allow for off-
Btreet packing without encroaching on the public right of way
and also for aesthetic consideration to reduoe tl�e boilding
'line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard.
APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, JI7LY 20, 1982 PAG� k
: V ?1 .� 'd-C:1�'
lio other land available:-'8ite—�iidable unless variance is
granted. Frmt yard variance would posit3on structure m�re
unifocmly betWeen eaisting houses.'
C. 14DMIIiISIItATIVE STAFF REVIEFT:
�is buildirg eite is 50 feet by 110 feet and located between
tvo existing Btructures. Tt�ere is no land available to add to
this site to make it meet Oode foc larid area.
Mr, Clark prnvi,ded the Commiaaion membera xith an aerial photograph of the
pmperty, I�a, N.enkveld ezplained that he and Y.s. Laraon Wanted a pbrmit to
bui].d on their lot, Mr, Plemel aaked iY tiby had a�p house plana and Mr.
Henkveld irxlicatsd they did not.because they eere not aure the variance riould
be granted. tut that it would be a apec home. Mr. Barna aalaed if they intended
to put Sn a basemant and Mr. Menkveld aaid they had baen told they could not
because it was near a flood plain. Discussion fallowed concerning the pos-
sibility of putting in a basement as Mr. Barna indicated it would make the resale
more probable, Mr, Plemel indicated that Mr, Menkveld and Ma, I,araon had
acquirsd the property Ly being the aucceaaful bidder on Lhe lot, but that the
lot has not yet been paid for. which muat be done before arn• construction could
begin. Ma, Gerou aslaad if there xoul.d be off atseet parking and Mr, C1ark
responded that a drive rrould have to be put on the aide of the houae. Mr. Barna
asked xhat �roul.d be inwlved in paying off the lot ard Mr, Plemel said he was
not aure aino9 the County Attorney had become inwlved, Mr, lSenkveld aaid that
Lhe attorney had told him to come back aftsr the Appeals Corm�iasion had met and
reached a decision. Mr. Clark eaid the City of F�idley rrould have to be notifiad
via receipt or atstement from tiu County once the property had been paid for,
The Solloxing objections were made t�y. neighbora oY the proper�y xho s+ere present
at the meeting�
Milae ScarcelL , 8090 �road Avenue N.E.� Building on that property xill have a
nsgative efYect on that lot a»d othar property in t1�e area becauae that lot is
too small to build on. There ie also, in his eatimation, a problem now vith
off atreet parking xhich might juat ba inteneified,
Mitaa Malone� 635 E]y� One of the concerna, again, ia the crowding that building
a house the� would create. Also, there ia a vater problem now and building on
that lot would 3ust create more of a problem. He , irxiicatsd that he
ia concerned x3th the crovding problem which he feels will have an adverse effect
on property value. Mr, Plemel asked xho had been maintaining the property
ud Mr, Malone indicatsd Lhat he and l�s, Adelmann had,
Steve Ade�ann, 8080 Broad� Mr, Adelmann indicated that he had a deck that
ran !o the lot line Which would lsave about 15 feet to the propoaed structure
and he felt tLnt vas juat too cloae.
APPEAIS CON�fISSION Y.EETING. JOLY 20. 1982 PAGE 5
Dale Dickaon, 600 E�q� Mr, Dickaon ras eapecia]�y concerned about the additional
aongeat3on vh3ch vou2d be created. He 3ndicated that tLe petitionera interests
were pure�y Yinanci,al� hs cwld build� sell and leave the neighborhood, He aaid
hs would feel diYferent 7f it tirare to upgrade, lut to build a amall house on a
subatandard lot xaa not fair to ths rsat of the nsighborhood. He aaid a few of
ths nsighbora might be iatereated itt b�ing parte of the lot, but all neighbors
fslt it rasn't aultaN.e ae a buildah]e site.
William Erickson, 650 Elyi Mr, �ickaon felt the houae vou].d look aandwlched
bscause it ia on�y a j0 foot lot, vLereaa the rsst in the area are Lrger lots,
John Maloy, 80$1 Broad� Mr. Maloy aaa concerned wit,h the parking pmblem. He,
too� Pelt the lot xaa too amall to build on and would lil� to see it divided
among the neighbora iP they deaired, He felt the negatives of building there
far greater than the positives� sapecially since it ia in the flood plane.
He, Gabel indicated tLat Mr. 14enkvald d1d have the right to requeat a variance
and the reason for the publlc hearing r+ae so tbat ar�yone aoncerned xith the
variance requeat could voice their opinlon.
I�r. Plemel indicated that approximate�v $1.9 million� gross. xas raiaed st the
,Tune 6, 1981, land aale by Anolm County, Hs said a for eale aign ahould have
been on that property and any neighbora interested could haw au6mitted a bid.
Mr. Menkveld did eut�ait the highest b3d at that tima, Hr, B:rrsn aslaed i+hen the
next public avolion oP ]and tiaould be and Na. Gabel said Spring on 1983. Conversation
follo�ned concerning the bi,dding, pricing and rsturning Lhe property to the tax
roles to xhich }Ir. Barna responded that the Appeala Commission had no control
over auch items. The past practice of the Appeala Commiaaion ie to hear and grant
variances if there are no objectirns and to hssr objectinns if there xere ar�,
He added that all of the other aonroeraation wou]d not be a determining factor in
the Coffinission'a decision,
NOTDDfd by Mr. Herna, aeconded by lh�, P1eme1, to cloee the public hearing. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GAHEL Dr."CI.ARr.D THE PUBLIC HEARING CIASID
AT 8�18 P.M,
Ti0TI0N tp* Mr. Barna, aecor�ded by Ms, Gerou, that the Appeals Comm�iasion recommend
to the City Couneil� through the Planning Commission, denial of the variance
request to reduce the mini.mum lot a� from the required �500 aquare feet for lots
piatted before Dacember 29. 1955. to 55�0 equare feet, and to reduce the front
yard aethack from the required 3$ feet to 30 feet to allox the cunatruction of
a sSngle family dwelling on Lots 3+rd 4� Hlock U. Riverview Heighte Addition.
the same being 625 E�q Street NE, F�idley, because of the strong neighborhood
objection. UPON A VOICE V01Ti, WITfi TkIREE AYE MID ONE NAY VOTE, CHAIFtPERSON
GABEL DECLARr'9 THE MOTION CARR�.
3.
t
MOTION ip Mr, Harna� ae�o�d �y. �., Plesel, tc open the puh7,ic hearing, UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPfftSpN GAHEL DECIAREp T$E pOgyi� HEpRING OPEN
AT 8�22 P.M.
I4a. Gabe1 read the �dminiatrative Staff Report inta the Recordj
11L�tII'IIS'IItATl.�1E BPAFF REPOEiT
331 Hugo Street N.E.
' 1: ' I'1'• JI' i� • i�' • 7 i:r�
+ Sectiaa� 205.053, 1B, requires a minimnn lot area of 7500
equare feet for a lot recorded before Dec;e�ober 29, 1955.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to avoid the
ooa�dition of overcrowding of n residential neighborhaod and to
avoid an excess burden ar� the existing Water and sewer
services and to avoid reduction of surrau►ding property
values,
v o-. • . .,� ti-
'Hcisting development has two 25 foot lots left between two
existing houses."
C. A�fIIdIS'PRATIVE STAFF REVIiW:
The building site is 50 feet by 102.15 feet located between
tr►o existing structures.
I'�'•�Y�+�d Preaented the Coounission members rith hia tuilding plans and indicated
thit the p]a.na had been epecifical�y deai�ned for tl�at lot, He indicated he had
a buildsr and has a purchase agreemant on the Aroperty so construction dapends
on the variance baing granted, The house vi11 be a three leval, 2 Yinished
bedrooms, double a�iached garage, lOx].2 redvood deck and 94Q square feet,
The follor�ing neighbors s�ere present and voiced thei�, op��nr
Mr. and Mrs. 1larrence Poasr 321 Iiugo Streett Botdi atated t1�ai they �ere not objectinB.
but just uanted to imow xhat xas going on. After reviewing }.he p7,ans, Mr. Poss
said it xas a good plan Yor that locatioa.
2�h�, and Mrs, Ralph OPficert A.ftsr reviexing the p1an� t.hey too felt it vas "the
house" for that lot and questioaed xhetbar it could ba etipulated that if the
variance sras approved thst the particular house pIan ba used,
Janet Zaczkowaki. 314 Hugoe Mrs, 7aczkowski aaid ahe just rranted informntion
tlso and was most concerned for Mr, and F;rs, Officer feelir�ge about the house
being placed on the lot,
Mr. Clark said the lot does have xater and sesrer.
AYPiiAIS COMM7SSION MEETING dQLY 20. 1982 PAGE ?
NDTSDN lry Ms. Gerou. eecorded 1� Mr. Plemsl to close the puialic hearing. OPON A
VOICE V01E, ALL VOTING AYE, C$AIRPPsRBON GA�'I. DECIJIRID THE POBLIC HSARING
CLDSID AT 8t� P,l1.
M�TION 6� Hr. Barna� secorxied by Ma. Gernu, to approve the variance request to
pce tbe �inimum lot ares from the rsquired 75A0 square fset Lor lots
plattsd before Decsmber 29� 1955. � 51� �l�r'° feet to allox the oonatruction
of a neW dsielling on Lots 5? +nd 5g. �ak A. Riverviex Heights Addition, the
taws bsinq 331 t�ugo Street N.E., xith the atipu]ation that the p7+ns for buil+ding
aa prssented to the Appeala Comnission be +dhered to aa close�y as poasihle. The
rssaon for apprnval ras that there waa no neighborhood objection. UPON A VOICn
Y01E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPF�iSON GA�L DECLARF.D TEiE l�TIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4.
MOTION by Ms. Geron� eeconded b9 Mr. P]em°1, to opan the pabllc he►ring. UPON
A VOIC� V01E, Aii VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GAHEL DECLARID Tf� PUBI.IC HEARING OPr.'T1
AT St42 P.M.
Mr, Clark indicated that he had met several timea xith Mr. Zelevarov ooncerdng
the tawnhemas he intsnds to conatruct, Mr. Clark eaid these would be verY nlce
townhomas, xith tuck under garages and theq i+ould fit into tt» neighborhood.
He said some modifications had been made to the original plans xhich �rou]ti require
additional variance requests and reaoffieended to the Commission that this item
be tahled until proper notification could be aent, Mr. Zelevarov concurred xit2�
Mr, Clark'a reca�endation.
MOTIDN tp Mr. P1eme1, saconded by Ma. Gerou. to tahl.s item 4�+. variance request
for�i71 Rivarviex lbrrace N.E, unt11 the Auguat 10, 1982. Appeals Commission
meeEing ao tl�at correct notification could be ieaued. OPON A YOICE VOTE, AiI.
VOTING AYE. CHAIRPERSOfi GA�L DECLARED Tf� MDTION CARRIID UNANIMOUSLY.
S.
NOTION by llr. ��. �conded by Ms. Gerou. to ti+sive the reading of the
pdministrative Staff Report. UPON A VOICE VOT"'c, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON
GA�L DECLARID 14iE MOT7DN CARRIID UNA23IMOi7SLY.
APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING, ,TOLY 20. 1982 PAGE 8
Hs. Gabel aal�d Mr, Doty if he ras aeare of tha Sts�ff's request to postpone
hearing of thia varLnce requeat until the �iA had the opportunity to reviex
and approve it. 17r. Doty replied that he xas axare of that fact� but hoped
to change the minds of the Commiseion memt�era arxi hear tiie variance request
this evening, Mr. Doty stated that he had been adviaed that the property
bsing discuesed rould be anitsble for a office building and that he triahed
ta oonstruct one for his preaent tenanta tA :ove irrto upon demolition of the
prssent bui].ding. The present teriants have been told that they sy �ed to
�vacuate by Fetauary 1, xith the demolition to be completed by Ju�y 1, 1983, Na.
Doty estimnted evacvation at about M4y, He added that even Y' the variances
tisrs granted� HRA and Staff could still come in and buy the property at ar�y
time and that a delaq at thie point xau].d on'�y cauae harm. Mr. Doty said he
Las been vorking xith staff for months on this pro�ect and tbat they lmew
xhat h� wa p]anning, He alao aaid that aa of todsy'a dats� the new tuilding
xas 100� rsnted, He xiahed to atart construction nox so that tirork could be
done over the vinter xith occupancq when the old 4acility xas demolished, He
concluded by aaying that the on�y peraon that coul.d be hurt by the delay no�r
xaa himeelt in terna of financss inwlved.
Ma Gahle aefoad Mr. Doty if he vaderstood that if his request xas heard this
evening a� if one rsquest waa denisd that he vould have to w it six months
before au�itting a request for the aame itemY Mr, Doty responded that ha
understood there Nere multiple requesta. lut that they rere reasonable requests.
Ma. Gabal asked Mr. Clark if there �+ould he ar�y additional variance requests
and he aaid only iY the basement of the propoaed facility xas to be used as
ooa�eroial ap4ce and then the parking vould be belox code, Ms, Gabel requestsd
that it be stated in the minute� that the propoaed building wuld be tvo
floora of office space a.nd that no oYfices i+ould exist inthe basement area,
Mr. Plemel indicated ha underatood Mr. Doty'a position and added that he ►riahad
the �+ were preaent to voice their opinion. He aalaad if this xas in the tax
increment district and N,r. Doty eaid it �ras.
Mr, Doty said he xas intsrested in getting the feelings of tha Commisaioners
aa to if the plan itself xas sound ao that if 1t did get held over until the
iLRA had aeen it he could be reasonably sure the variance reqvests xould be
approved and Mr. Plemel said it rras a public hearing and 1S they xere not going
diacusa the matter thay aould not give him their opinions,
TIa. Gabel indicated that there seemed to be a communication gap with the Commission
stuck in the middle and she didn't feel ahe had aufficient "facta" to act on the
requeat until aftsr the HRA had revleWed it and some of the questions from the
rumors had been anss�ered, lfs. Gerou agreed rrith her. In the meantime, Ma. Gabal
said ahe vovld attend the iiRA meeting to try to facilitate a decision,
Mr. Plemal felt they ehonld hear the request and felt it unfair that Mr. Doty
wit -Yor a decisioa try the HRA. He felt a representative should be at this
�Beting to ansrier queations. Mr. Barna concurred.
Mr, Doty asked the Co�ission members to aie� the aituation from hia point, that
beirig that the entire process would be delayed one more month before the variance
requeat wuld ba heard r+ith no guarantee that it would be approved, In the
meantime, there sras aleo no guarantee that HRA wuld diacuas'or decide ar�ything
�ppEplS CAMMISSIOl3 MEETING JOLY 29. 1962 PAGE 9_
at their Auguat 12th mseting. Hs reitsrated the fact tLat tha on�y one vho
Apod tc looee a�}rthing Srom the delay we hianelY, He alao noted his Prustration
in Morking tbrwgh the ayrstsm for montha� yet no deciaiona had baen mde to this
poiat aad felt there wa ao reason for postponing discuasion or a deoision.
Ms. Cubel said she underetood his fruatrstion. but just didn 't feel she had
�ttough iniormttion to diacuas ths rsqueata or saloe an inte1118ent deaiaion,
Iis. Gabel aaked when he wul.d be readY to build and he replied ae soon as
ths variancea are �nnted. Ms. Gabal reitsnted that she peraon�l�q rrou]d
att��d ths &RA saetingl,�i Auguat and do sverything in hsr poi+er to aee thst
Lhs SLsm vaa acted on�
MOTION by l7r. Plemel, eeconded by Mr. Barn�. to 4Psn the Pub11c hearing. UPON A
WICE VOTE, WI1A 1�'SSRS. PIEMEI. AND BARNA VOTING AYE, ]1ND F.S. GABEL AAID MS. GEROU
YOTING SAY, CFiAIRPERSON GA�L DECLARED 18E IlOTION FAIIED DUE TO A T� YOTE.
Ke. Gabel notsd that if the ffiiA doea not tal� action at their August meeting, Lhe
Conmmiaaion `+ould hear Lhe varlance rsquest anyrray at theit next meeLing folloving
the HRA aeeting.
MOTION bg Ms. Gerou, e�oonded t�'14r. Barna� to sdjourn. UPON A YOIC� YO'IE� ALL
VOTING AYE. CHAIRPER.SON GABEL DECLARED THE JULY 20� 1982, MEaTING OF Tf� AP�AIS
COMMISSION ADJOURNr'9 AT 9t45 P.M.
Rsapect11i1]y eu�itted,
Pat Von Mosch
Rscording Secretary
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING
JULY 15, 1982
CAtL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Corrrners called the July 15, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Larry Commers, Elmars Prieditis, Walter Rassmuson,
Duane Prairie (arr. 9:30 p.m,)
Members Absent: Caro7yn Svendsen
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
Nasim qureshi, City Manager
John Flora, Public Works Director
Jim Robinson, Planning Staff
Ed Hamernik, City Council
Dennis Schneider, City Council
Bob Barnette, City Council
Jim Brown, 17600 Copperwood, Wayzata
Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect
Bi71 Short, Barton-Aschman Assoc., Inc.
Charlie Moser, Barton-Aschman Assoc., Inc.
Roger Martin, InterDesign, Inc.
Harold Skjelbostad, InterDesign, Inc.
William Sanders, Sanders & Assoc,
David Gjertson, Sanders & Assoc.
APPROVAL OF JUNE 17 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION 8Y MR. PRIEDITIS� SECONDED HY MR. RRSSMUSON� TO CONTINUE RPPROVAL OF
THE JUNE S7� I982� NOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MZNUTES UNTIL THE NEXT
MEETING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION
CRRRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PRESENTATION BY ARCHITECTS ON CENTER CITY COMPETITION:
Mr. Commers stated there were four groups making presentations, and they
will try to set the schedule so that each group will have approximately
20 minutes for the presentation and 10 minutes for questions and answers.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHQRITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 2
Mr. Boardman handed out a packet of written material that wastsubmitted
along with the presentations. He stated the material included costs and
breakdown of costs. He stated he was also handing out a point schedule
that Staff had put together. This was to assist the HRA in making their
final determination on the se]ection of the project.
Mr. Boardman stated this is a design competition. These four firms were
selected after a lengthy process of interview, All four firms are good
reputable firms in the area. He stated the City's overall purpose was to
at least set up some stage for an overall theme for the Center City area,
With the clinic as the initial project in the system, they fe7t it was good
to start looking at what they could do to tie things together and what
overall theme they could develop in the entire area.
A. Presentation by Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect
Mr. Baldwin stated he is a custan designer and he thought the unique-
ness of the scheme was important for them to concentrate on,
Mr. Baldwin stated the idea of being invited to participate in the
competition was kind of like an opportunity to be a part of Fridley
"becoming". He stated one of his thoughts was that there was a feeling
of good sun exposure on the site. Another thought was that in arriving
in the City of Fridley, one felt ]ike you were near the top of the world,
With the statements made by the buildings already in place and the
patterns, things seem to happen on that edge. He stated the buildings
tend to be low in profi7e and, except for some gestures of vertical line,
tend to be horizontal in their massing. Part of the whole notion was
to reverse that line.
Mr. Baldwin stated the concept is to provide a natural and efficient
circulation system and spaces, recognizing the existing building
arrangement and design, proposed office and restaurant, and required
parking and service. The idea was to develo� a conduit of varying
desire lines, points of entry, activities, and spacial openings and
closings.
Mr. Baldwin stated there was a good opportunity for solar access. He
felt that in Minnesota's climate, the opportunity to link buildinqs,
particularly in the area where they wanted to create and stimulate
circulation and interaction, is achieved through the buildings serving
as linkages.
Mr. Baldwin stated that, unfortunately, the northeast entrance of the
proposed office building is not going to fit into the area well. It
responds well to its parking, but it doesn't take advantage of the
most important ingredient--the sun. One of the most difficult areas to
attend to on a building is the northeast side as the sun never gets there.
He felt if there was any opportunity to open the office bui7ding up into
the plaza area, it would be a desireable objective.
ING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. JULY 15. 1982
PAGE 3
Mr. Baldwin stated that features such as sculptures, foun#ain, trees,
color and textured forms are used discreetly. Plant material, parti-
cularly trees, are used to soften the relationships of bui7ding, screen
vistas, and shade and create the sense of enclosure.
Mr. Baldwin stated he would propose eventually the relocation of the
Fire Department and the Police Department to a more appropriate site
providing for safe and immediate access to the City.
Mr. Baldwin stated he wou7d propose an irregular,informal planting of
trees along the edges. He vrould like to see the City consider a
pedestrian overpass which woutd provide the gateway to the community.
Because of the two commercia7 areas on the west side of University and
given the depressed area, they have the opportunity to use an underground
structure to tie the east and west commercial districts together.
Mr. Baldw�in stated one challenge the City qave in the competition was
the question of what to do with the screening of the highway. It was
important to be able to see into the plaza, but then you are going to
see all the cars. He stated this area again would be an irregular
plantina of trees, maybe some low canopy crabapple, where the portion
to the north would be higher. He would also propose to have trees in
the parking tot, so the parking lot is not open.
Mr. Baldwin stated the circulation is aro important thing to dea] with.
Pedestrian traffic is encouraged through the site. He felt if they
don't promote linkage within the site, they are going to lose the whole
notion of anything being successful.
Mr, Baldwin thanked the HRA for this opportunity to do this design and
stated he would look forward to being a part of further development.
Mr, Rassmuson stated it seemed that the type of plant materials used in
the design should be clarified a little more so they would have a better
idea of what it would look like.
Mr. Baldwin stated he is just generating an idea. The idea still has a
lot of work. The plant material is part of that idea, At this point,
he felt he would be doing the City a disservice if he were to say this
idea was complete and disallow the opportunity for input, which he felt
was very important.
Mr. Baldwin stated he has an irrigation system designed in the plaza
area itself, but that would be as much as the City could afford. The
plantings selected would be native to Minnesota which would be easy to
establish and would not create a burden on the maintenance staff.
Mr, qureshi stated one of the concerns of the people interested in the
office building was their iack of exposure to the highway. He asked
Mr. Baldwin how he would achieve that exposure.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 4
Mr, 8aldwin stated he could not answer that question dire�tly, It goes
back to relating themselves to "a place". There has to be a"Fridley"
He did not think signs are necessary if things are laid out well, A
very discreet symbol on the building might be all that is necessary.
Mr. Commers thanked Mr. Baldwin for his presentation.
B. Presentation by Bill Short and Char7ie Moser of Barton-Aschman Assoc., Inc.
Mr, Short stated he and Mr. Moser are both landscape architects. As
part of the design team working on this assignment, they have also been
working with a civil engineer, a canmunity planner, and another land-
scape architect. He stated their presentation will be broken into two
parts. He will describe the general plan and framework and Mr. Moser
will discuss the description of the plaza, to be followed with a brief
slide presentation.
Mr. Short stated when they first got involved in the project and based
on the introduction from Mr. Boardman and Mr, Robinson, the first issue
and first characteristic they wanted io address was a sense of entry--
a sense of introduction of the passerby going through Fridley, something
that would be important to announce the Center City area, Along with
that, they made a couple of observations: 30,000 vehicles per day
travel University Ave., and 11,000 vehicles per day travel Mississippi
St., which would result in around 8D,000 people per day passing through
this main intersection. Another observation was thai tfie intersection of
University Ave. & Mississippi St, was the highpoint of this part of
Fridley.
Mr. Short stated that based on those two important observations and
opportunities, they wanted to capitalize on this intersection as being
that opportunity to announce the introduction to Fridley. With that,
they developed a simple, but strong architectural statement that would
not conflict with the number of shopping center signs and other signs
up and down the commercial strip. They designed a"Super Pylon", a
monolithic concrete column with a natural aggregate finish, with its
only message being a logo of the City of Fridley on the top illuminated
from within and the name of"Fridley, Minnesota" (or something else) cast
in stone at the bottom. This structure would occur on a]1 four quadrants
of the Center City area.
Mr. Short stated that concentrating on the southeast quadrant of the
intersection, they developed a vocabulary of design elements which they
are recommending be used throughout the Center City area. The Super
Pylon would be the first introduction to the Center City concept, rein-
forcing the concept of the Super Py1on by using it again on a lesser
scale, an "Intermediate Pylon" entering the Center City site, possibly
reinforcing with another "Super Pylon" at the plaza site, and, importantly,
the rest of the "furniture", including pedestrian level lightinq pylons
and pylons to support the canopy systems, and bollards used to control
pedestrian circulation and illuminating low level lighting, benches, etc.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY MEETING, JUtY 15, 1982 PAGE 5
Mr. Short stated that once they have established the sense of entry
into the Center City area, they want to reinforce that with a sense
of place. They can do that subtly with medians on Mississippi St. &
5th St, and also how they integrate the landscaped treatmeht around
the parking lots and particularly through the private sector and pub7ic
improvements in the overall quadrant of the Center City area.
Mr. Short stated that in dealing with the property north of Citv Hall,
they felt they had to meet the following four design objectives:
(1} building objectives of the restaurant and office building
(2) 300 parking stalls
(3) the importance of a link between this active intersection and
focal point of the Center City area with the main Center City
plaza. They wo�ld do that through ihe design of a passive qarden
greenway which is a pedestrian-oriented system.
(4) to make sure they were, not only providing that pedestrian
movement, but also making sure that movement was consistent
in character with the rest of the pedestrian improvements.
Mr. Short stated that wherever greenways abut both streets and parking
lots, they can soften the look of the parking lots by somewhat depressinq
the parking lot below the street grade, using that depression to bui]d
a small berm over the greenway, and then screening with a hedge to
reinforce that grade separation. All that with the street trees will
provide a nice screen between the 7arge parking lots and the street.
They are a7so recommending, wherever possible, actual landscape improve-
ments within the parking lots.
Mr. Short stated they also dea]t with the median between University Ave.
and the service road. He stated the Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tinn has standards whereby certain obstructions cannot be placed within
a certain distance of the roadway. He stated because they wanted to
frame the view for the passerby, but not screen the view of the passerby,
they are suggesting a gentle mound of berming to soften the view and
direct the eye away from the roadway and parking areas.
Mr. Short stated that, in summary, they want to reinforce what they feel
is very important, and that is a strong pedestrian amenity greenway
system which moved through the site fran py7on to pylon in this quadrant
of the Center City area. They would recommend the same concept be
pursued in all four quadrants as those areas develop.
Mr. Comners asked about the different elevations on both sides of
Univers�ty Ave. and what their thoughts were to handle the different
levels.
Mr. Short stated they saw that ideally as a great opportunity to put
an underpass under the highway to lead to the southwest quadrant. But
because that is a long term application, they see that as occurring at
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 6
a grade just lower than the grade of Mississippi St, and �ot much lower
• than the grade of the plaza area, so there would not be-a great deal
of difference.
Mr. Moser stated that throughout the project, there were three evident
things that had to be dealt with in the plaza: (1) the whole matter of
events--flea markets, art shows, and other spontaneous events; (2) per-
formances, weekly band concerts, etc.; and (3) a sense of place. They
see the "sense of place" as a very basic part in defining the Center
City area.
Mr. Moser stated the performance area is sited toward the easterly end
of the building envelope. They opened the plaza up to City Ha71, and
that is where the events would take p7ace, They have chosen to relate
the space to the street, fe ling that noise is not a problem, and that
it was important to show passersby where Fridley is, He stated they
did consider water in the plaza area, but felt it was too expensive,
Mr. Commers asked about the number of people who could feasibly attend
an event at any given time.
Mr. Moser stated the plaza would comfortably seat 200 people, but they
have a capacity of up to 500 peop7e.
Mr. Conaners thanked Mr. Short and Mr. Moser for their presentation.
C. Presentation by Roger Martin and Harold Skje7bostad of InterDesign, Inc.
Mr. Martin stated that both he and Mr. Skjelbostad are landscape archi-
tects. As they do for many projects, they run little competitions in
the office for design so that the project the HRA is seeing is the result
of competitive work of a lot of people in the office as well as competing
with the other firms.
Mr. Martin stated he would give a brief presentation of the concept
behind their plan using slides, and Mr. Skyelbostad would describe the
firm and hand out a summary of the project for the HRA's reference.
Mr. Martin stated one of the key prob7ems they faced in this project
was the challenge of giving an identity to the tota7 area of the site,
In order to do that, they felt the key issue to the who7e community was
the Center City area and the design of that area in terms of identity
for the community. It was that focus that gave them the theme and the
source. They feel it is very important to maintain a visibility from
University to this space. They feel this plan accommodates a variety of
uses and they think it reinforces City Hall as a focus of the future.
Mr. Martin stated they felt the vital key element was to have a vertical
focus, and they came up with the concept of a sundial, approximately
30 feet wide, with which the participant essentially tells the time.
They called it the Great fridley 5undial Mosaic. They decided that,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JU�Y 15 1982 PAGE 7
rather than just putting it on a flat surface, they needed to get some
vertical emphasis, especially for viewing from University Ave „ so
they raised it up on a 15 foot berm. They felt it was important to use
this kind of element because it was linking the community to the
environment.
Mr. Martin stated another key element to the scheme is water flowing
down in a series of levels. He stated they call the major plaza space
the major event place and provide seating on the slope in the form of
steps for approximate7y 2D0-300 people, focusing on the entrance to
City Ha11.
Mr. Martin stated another key feature they felt was basic to the scheme
was that of linkage. They feit it was a great opportunity to link
together some of the very exciting natural features of Frid7ey--Moore
Lake and the Moore Lake nature area could be linked if they carried
space through public owned land and provided a linkage back to the
source of the community; and, likewise, back on to Rice Creek and the
new community park to the north through the use of bikeways and walkways.
Mr. Martin stated that within the scheme, rather than carry the greenways
around the periphery of the site, they have tried to bring the greenway
through the center of the site, focusing directly on the major plaza
and down to link into the other extensions to the south and Moore Lake.
The reason they have emphasized this so strongly is to create a natura7
contrast to the grade and rigidity within the City.
Mr. Martin stated that in regard to the proposed restaurant and office
structure to the north of City Ha71, they have recalled the same tree
pattern and paving pattern grid to the entrance of these buildings that
they have used in front of the other buildings, the clinic, and the
proposed office building to the south.
Mr. Martin stated that in regard to the automobile arrival to the City,
they tried to provide some special identity along University Ave. 7hey
felt from the Highway Department's point of view that it was vital to
maintain some degree of security, but they felt they also needed trans-
parency. Their proposal is to work with a black vinyl chain link fence
material. with a 3 foot high turf berm. They have shown the fence jogqing
to give the opportunity at various points for "relfectorized packages",
reflectors that reflect car lights so as the driver approaches the inter-
section, there is a greater amount of light and the driver gets the feel-
ing there is something special happening here. The segments of fence
become shorter and shorter as they get closer to the intersection.
Because they feel they could not do any intense plantings in the narrow
sections, they are proposing that wild flowers be seeded along the black
vinyl chain link fence throughout the whole corridor of Fridley to give
a special identity.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PA�E 8
Mr. Martin stated that maybe at 694 and other major entries to the
canmunity, some strong gateway element be devised to give a stronger
announcement of entry to fridley, which he felt was crucial to the
community.
Mr. Martin stated they tried to give some special identity to Missdssippi
St. in this area by making p�antings in the median. It reinforces the
fact that it is an important street and that the intersection of
Mississippi St. & University Ave, is a special place. He stated their
proposa] is to use a very highly textured concrete surface, different
from those used on roadway surfaces, to provide a contrast. The highly
contrasting surface in the intersection would let people know that
when they are going through that interse�tion, they are going through the
center of Fridley. Also, to give identity, they F�ave suggested very high
canopy trees that branch above 7 ft. so visibility would be maintained,
They have carried the textured surface wherever the pedestrians cross
the circulation ways throughout the center.
Mr. Martin stated that, in surtenary, they fee] there are three key things
a scheme needs to do:
(1) It needs to provide a strong identity for the City in terms
of an element that is unique and that people will come and
visit.
(2) It needs to have linkage to the great natural features of
Fridley and celebrate those.
(3) It needs to provide a focus for all the comnunity activities
and festival functions.
Mr. Martin stated they feel their scheme does a11 three things.
Mr. Skjelbostad handed out a brochure briefly summarizing their presenta-
tion, along with a cover letter, He stated the remainder of the brochure
talked about Inter�esign, Inc.
Mr. Cortmers thanked Mr. Martin and Mr. Skjelbostad for their presentation.
D. Presentation by William Sanders and Dave Gjertson from Sanders & Assoc,
Mr. Sanders handed out a proposal to the HRA members. He stated the
proposal includes a very detailed outline of their proposal, the scope
of their services, exp)ains their office and staff, gives a background
of their work and experience and a general overview of their qualifica-
tions. He stated the proposa] aiso includes their fee structure and
the detailed cost breakdown of the proposal.
Mr. Sanders showed some slides of some of the other projects Sanders &
Assoc, has been involved in.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 9
Mr. Sanders stated that for the Center City plan, they developed the
plan in a number of image sketches. They have addressed the program
of the area by creating a very strong visual image that starts with the
plaza and continues on,
Mr, Sanders stated the plaza is the heart of this area, and they have
expanded the plaza character up through the area to be expanded to the
north with the same materials, lighting, landscaping, etc, The greenway
occurs on 5th St, and Mississippi St, coming in.
Mr, Sanders stated the concept for the intersection of University Ave. &
Mississippi St. is a building up of materials and elements to where they
reach a high point at the intersection. They have increased the land-
scaping as the intersection is approached. They have a series of banners
that are proposed to build up as the intersection is approached, and
they are also proposing some texturing of the street surfacing as the
intersection is approached.
Mr, Sanders stated they have a variety of spaces planned for the plaza
area--large spaces and more intimate spaces for the types of uses that
are involved, They have an open area they think ties together City Hall,
the proposed office building, and the new clinic. A fountain is proposed
which is a small pool with a waterfall. They are proposing an amphitheater
and some canopy structures that are picked up from the design of the City
Hall building.
Mr, Sanders stated they have provided a very intense area of planting
along the south end of the plaza--a 7arge concentration of evergreen
material. The pedestrian walkway connection continues from the large
plaza area up to a small plaza by the office building north of City Hall
and on to the restaurant, repeating a number of the same plaza elements,
The same design and materials is used over to the medica7 clinic.
Mr. Sanders stated that, in summary, the primary concept is to make
the area as flexible as possible, and they have designed it for a wide
variety of activities that could take place there, as well as created
a very strong visual image for the City.
Mr. Boardman stated that there has been some talk about sun orientation,
yet in this proposal, the amphitheater is situated so the stage is in
the darkened area and the seating is in the sun. He asked Mr. Sanders
to comment on that.
Mr. Sanders stated that even though activities wi71 take p7ace any time
of day, the amphitgeater is in an area where when the sun is very low,
people in the seating area wi71 not be looking direct7y at the sun. So,
this becomes a comfortable place to view an activity. They wanted to
get some sun orientation for that seating space.
Mr. Qureshi asked about winter uses for the plaza area.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTNORITY MEETING JULY 15, 1982 PAGE 10
Mr. Sanders stated there are areas that can be used for a=small skating
area or an ice sculpture-type plaza. They are not anticipating a lot
of winter activity to occur, but it did offer those two opportunities.
He thought the forms used in the plaza are going to be very pleasant
when they are covered with snow, and they are using a lot of evergreen
material.
Mr. Comners thanked Mr. Sanders and Mr. Gjertson for their presentation.
2. SET DATE FOR SELECTION:
The HRA set a special meeting for Wednesday, July 21, 1982, at 7:00 p.m.,
to discuss and select an architect for the Center Ciiy area.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairperson Comners declared the July 15, 1982, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
meeting adjourned at 10:45 p,m,
Respectfully subm'tted,
�
✓. .
Lyn Saba
Recording Secretary
CITY OF FRIDLEY
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 21, 1982
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the Special Meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority to order at 7:40 p. m.
ROLL CALL:
I� mbers Present: Larry Coimners, Duane Prairie, Walter Rasmussen
Members Absent: Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis
Others Present; ,Terrold Boardman, City PLanner
John Flora, Public Works Director
Jim Robinson, Planning Staff
Ed Hamernik, City Council
Bi11 Nee, City Council
Dennis Schneider, City Council
Mr. Commers stated the Housing and Redevelopment Authority wanted to meet with
the City Council regarding an update on the Center City Project and input from
the Council regazding the proposals that were submitted.
Mr. Boardman stated a staff summary was submitted on the different architectural
firms which indicates their staffing capabilities, local projects they have
undertaken, and a breakdown of the costs and service fees. He stated the sum-
mary includes the four major items discussed, i. e. the plaza, linear system,
sense of place, and the vegetation.
Mr, Boardman stated what they are lookingfox,,at this point, are some suggestions
as to how they approach the selection of an architect relative to what things
in the project are important.
Mr. Boardman stated, ever since the setup of the Center City Project, they have
been looking at the develoomenb of a theme that would attract development
and provide a cohesive feeling in the City which says Fridley is a nice place
to be, live, and shop. He stated the direction they started was to see what
kind of develagment they could attract, however, it was known,-st some point
in time, they would have to hire a landscape architect to assist them in the
overall theme.
HOUSING � REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORZTY AEETING. JULY 21. 1982 PAGE 2
Mr. Rasmussen stated one of the things he has a concern is that, until they
get another building and [he design o£ it, he felt the whole thing could
change as a result of that building.
Mr. Coffiners asked if staff is recoimnending that since they have the clinic,
they go ahead with a plaza project. Mr. Boardman stated that the development
of the concept would be staged based on development and not just because the
design is completed or selected.
Mr. Boardman stated they are trying to tie in things that have been discussed,
whether or not they want a plaza, and, if so, what kind of linear system they
want in the project. He stated there is a possibility the area to the north
of City Hall would change, however, wha[ they are trying to do is to establish
an overall theme,they want to develop.
I�h. Prairie stated he thought the plans may be pre-mature if they are talking
about four or five buildings. Mr. Boardman stated the real question is how
[o promote development without showing the developers something on what is
envisioned for the area.
Mr. Rasmussen felt there should be a development plan laid out with some type
of design. Mr. Boardman stated the development plan wes laid out, in writing,
and gave six phases and [he type of development in these different phases.
2�. Flora stated there are three buildings in the Center City Project now,
[he City Hall, the bank, and the proposed clinic so any other construction
should be complimentary to these structures.
I�h. Rasmussen felt they had to have a development plan, in addition to the
landscape plan, in order for someone to tell them whether or not it is
economically feasible.
Ph. Boardman stated what they have is a development plan for the southeast
quadrant of the Center City Project. He further stated, in the initial phases,
there was a consultant wlio was not in favor of a fea8ibility study.because
most persons coming into the Center City would have their own £easibility
s[udy done.
Itr. Boardman stated for all six phases, the most feasible development in an
area was laid out and, from that point, they started working with developers
towards those projects that fit within those achemes.
Mr. Coimnezs asked Mr. Soardman i£ the Housing and Redevelopment Authority made
a selection af a certain theme, what he would envision and project would take
place. Mz. Boardman states the who thing would be set up on a phasing basis.
They would work with developers to promote the overall theme that is developed
and work with the Housing Authority on the staging of the public improvements.
Mr. Prairiestated, obviously, if everyone on the Housing and Redevelopment
Authorityfelt approval of a plan would genezate development, they would be
in favor of it. He felt, if ti�ey proceed with a plan and several yeazs
from now it doesn't generate any development, they may be open for criticism.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTFIORITY MEETING, JULY 21�-1982 PAGE 3
Mr. Boardman stated that it is not the intent of the selection to proceed with
the plaza, without other development, but is only that saying before they get
developsent, the Housing and Development Authority has to make some comnitment
on an overall theme so that we can promote the area for development. He stated
evezyone they had talked to wouldn't want to build an office building, unless
there is something there to attract people. He further stated the clinic
wouldn't have mme into this area unless they were convinced the Housing & Re-
development Authority was going to do something to make the Center City Project
a very attractive pl�eee to locate.
Mr. Boardman stated there has to be an overall approach to the development, and
right now they don't have an overall theme. He feli that if they don't have this
theme, it will be very diificult to attract any more good development. He stated
one of the problems is economics, but they do have to have something to attract
developers.
Mr. Courners stated if they have to commit to a half million project to get in
an office building they really don't like, he didn't think it really made
sense. He stated the only reason the office building is in the plan is be-
cause they gave the clinic so mich they have to have something else to make
[he tax feasible.
Mr. Boardman stated they are getting a clinic, but didn't feel they gave away
the store. He stated they are looking at other office building development
in this area and provide parcels of land that can be packaged for certain
types of development.
Mr. Flora stated if they have a plan, a developer can see where he has to
build because it is part of the pre-requisi[e.
Mayor Nee felt it should be explicit the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
wi11 assist in the development, if a developer builds in a certain place and
follows a certain architectural theme.
Mr. Boardman stated WinfieLd Development Corporation is very interested in
this site, but sumething is needed to attract [hem. Mr. Co�ners stated it
would be the desirability of the land and the write-down.
Mr. Boardman stated breaks on land in this kind of financial markei is not
the thing tha[ makes 8 project proceed, but whether they get financing. He
stated they look at how they can at[ract tenants and want to provide a cer-
tain identity so people will know exactly where they are located.
Mayor Nee stated he spent most of his adult life about a block off Nicollet
Avenue and, when they first began plans for the mall, everything was torn
down, the atreet narrowed, trolley tracks removed, and the end result was
space where rentals skyrocketed. He felt [his was an example of what can
happen when a little imagination and creativity was applied in a theme in
a business district. He atated the decision for this mall had a�eat
effect on Minneapolis, as well as other cities all over the United States.
He stated the problem here is the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has
to tie down something and say this is how it is going to look when it is
completed. He felt if the Housing and Redevelopment Authority makes a
kOUS]NG & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 21 1982 PAGE 4
commitment that says, at some point in time, the Center City wi11 be inte-
grated in a certain way and have some kind of amenities, it has a loC of
effect wi[h some peopLe.
Mr. Prairie stated possibly the Housing and Redevelopment Authority could
promise such things would happen as soon as they have coam�itment for a third
building. He felt when this happens, he would feel justified in approving
a plan.
Mr. Boardman stated he is not saying the plaza has to be done because the
architect is selected. He stated one of the primary things the architects
were told is that the project has to be able to be staged.
Mr. Flora stated any plan would work, however, staff is looking for direction
on how they wish to proceed.
Mr. Rasmussen felt they needed something to get the interest going and, in
that regard, he doesn't have any problem.
Mr. Prairie asked about 64th Avenue and if this was why they needed action
on a plan. Mr, FLora stated 64th Avenue is not an issue until Apri1, 1983
because they wouldn't be doing anything until this time. Ae stated it is
hoped the Housing and Redevelopment Authority would give them a blueprint
so, before the clinic is completed, there will be a stree[. He further
stated the commitment to the cLinic is the street wi11 be available when they
open their doors in June, 1983.
Mr. Rasmuss.en
asked if they have a commitment for the street. Nk. Boardman stated they do
have a commitment, however, the question is if they should do it now or next
spring.
Councilman Schneider asked who knows of all the co�nitments that have been
made. He stated the Council knows what they are committed to and the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority knows their commitments, but he keeps hearing of
these "fuzzy" areas where they are not sure what is happening and 64th Avenue
is an exampLe.
Mr, Boardman stated what was looked at and brought to the Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority � is an obligation,
but it is not a written com:nitment, to go back and construct 64th Avenue because
the preliminary design was accepted and the clinic needs that access. He stated
they are concerned about not having that access when they open and then.dis-
rupting the clinic to put it in at a later date. He stated, at that point in
time, a recommendation was made they had to do it now or in the spring.
Mr. Prairie stated when the clinic first came in with their plans, their design
was with the street as it now exists. He stated then the office building came
up and a change was needed on 64th Avenue because of the office building. He
stated these plans feil through which was the main reason for the change in the
street.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I� ETING, NLY 21. 1982 PAGE 5
Mr. Boardman stated the change in the street was because the clinic made
modifications_of their design and moved their building to the back to allow
development of an office building. He stated the whole thing boils down
to the fact that they don't have an overall development plan.
Mr. Commers stated what got them in trouble is tying the clinic and office
building together at the same time and then the office building plans did
not materialize. �.-
�
Mr. Boardman stated they are Looking at what kind of density is needed in
this area to make an overall plan and indicated the clinic itself is not
enough �evelopment for that block. He stated they looked at the relocation
of 64th Avenue to give them the space they needed for development o£ that
parcel.
Mr. Rasmussen stated he has a problem with a landscape architect developing
the development plan.
Councilman Schneider stated there have been various development plans which
showed phases of development. He stated what staff is looking for is approval
from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to lock in a development plan.
Mr. Boardman stated a theme has to be developed if they want to try and
accomplish a plaza and entry node into the area. He stated they have to be
somewhat flexible, but the overall design theme wi11 have to be the key.
Mr. Prairie stated if staff wants an agreement on a plan to present to pros-
pective developers which indicates that, some[ime along the line, this is
how the Center City will develop, this would be agreeable to him. If, however,
they want approval of the plan and it will be built as soon as it is approved,
this is another matter.
Mr. Coc�ers stated they are being asked this evening to make a commitment now,
but then they have a problem in making changes.
Mr. Comners stated there is a certain amount of theme or continuity that wi11
have to carry through the development as other developments wi11 have to be
compatible with the design of the clinic.
Mr. Boardman �tated stafi is looking at doing the development in a manner than
is be�i Por the City. I£ a plaza is included, most users of this facility would
come from tenants oi the office buildings. Mr. Boardman further stated he felt
a lot of recreational activities can take place in a plaza and there is need
in this area for this type of square footage. The plan will not be built as
soon as it is approved. It would be best to be stages with development.
Mr. Prairie asked if Mr. Boardman was reffering to senior citizen and 49er Day
activities. Mr. Boardman felt some of those activities could be in an area
that is set up as part of a civic plaza.
Mr. Flora asked what the Housing & Redevelopment Authority sees as a use for
the Center City Project. He stated the plans submitted by the architects provide
spaces for different types of activities and it was a question of what they wanted.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 21 1982 PAGE 6
Mayor Nee stated no member of the Council wants the Housing and Redevelop-
AuChority to rush into anything. He stated the Council doesn't want them
to move in any imprudent way hecause of the feeling of pressure, but it
seems they should adogt a plan for certain kinds of needs.
Mr. Commers stated he didn't necessarily feel any pressure, however, felt
staff »eeds some decisions made. He stated if it is simply for the Housing
and RedeveLopment Authority to adopt a plan and say that is the way they
are going to proceed and hope it will materialize, that is one question;
however, he feels it is something more than that if they adopt a pLan.
Mr. Cou�ers stated they wanted some input from the Council on how they would
Like to see this area develop.
Mr. Cormners stated if they are going to put in a half million dollar plaza
and if it wouLd 6e used for City functions, feeLs the City wouLd have to
contribute and it would be a joint decision.
Mayor Nee stated he wanted to make it known the City wasn't going to contri-
bute development money. Mr.-.Boardman stated the City would be contributing
in the sense they would be maintaining it.
Mr. Rasmussen felt they had to have a development plan that is sound economi-
cally. He stated that isn't going to happen by setting up a landscape plan.
Mr. F1ora stated they have identified the amount of space necessary to make
the tax increment district work and questioned what was wrong with the pro-
posed plans as they show the proposed buildings and plans for other areas.
Pfr. Rasmussen stated he didn't like the design of one of the buildings.
Mr. Flora stated they are flexible enough so that the configuration could
be changed.
Mayor Nee pointed out there have been several plans done by privaEe developers,
but Chey were not able to obtain financing.
Mr, Boardman stated four architects were asked to submit their proposals.
He stated they were all given the same criteria and some limitations were
set which all the architects looked at in coming up with an overall design.
Mr, Boardman stated the total cost from each firm is about $500,000 as this
was the limit set. He stated the question is who does the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority think is going to do the best possible job and under-
stands what they want in the Center City Project.
Mr. Coffiners stated the problem is they are going to get locked in to what
they select. Mr. Flora stated if everyone agrees they want a certain design
for a theme, he couldn't see what is wrong in getting locked into that design.
Mr. Rasmussen asked if they could select a design and put some restrictions
on it regarding possible changes,
Mr, prairie stated it isn't the idea which design is best, the question is when
do they proceed.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AVtHORITY MEETING JOLY 21 1982 PAGE 7
Mayor Nee stated the Council is looking to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for management of this project. He felt it would make sense to
have a decision on a design and then make it very clear to staff that this
is a direction statement, but not a"cast in concrete" concept.
Councilman Hamernik stated from a concept, their theory sounds very good,
but from past experience, he is not sure that is what would happen.
Mr. Boardman stated staff would sit down with prospective developers and
point out the things they have to offer and ask what they want from the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. He stated a11 the conditions have to
go to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for approval. If these
conditions are not accepted, T�. Boardm�n stated they will have to work on
a compromise.
Mr. Co�ners stated the Housing and Redevelopment Authority felt there was no
co�itments for the other project and the staff came back and indicated
they, in fact, had an understanding that certain things would be done when
they hadn't made a commitment. He stated he didn't want a situation to
arise where someone comes back and stated they put up an office building
with the understanding the Housing and RedeveLopment Authority would do
certain things.
Mr. Con¢ners asked Mr. Robinson for his appriasal or opinion of the plans
submitted. Mr. Robinson stated he didn't include opinions in the suimnary
because he didn't want to sway anyone.
Mr. Robinson stated the members of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
saw the presentations made by the firms and all the plans have very good
aspects.
Mr. Robinson stated Fridley has an image problem and if they weren't going
to adopt a strong theme, they probably should leave things the way they are
now.
t�fr . Cou¢ners asked if a two man firm is capable of handling this project
and also if the larger firm might feel this project is too small for them.
Ph. Robinson stated the two man firm is probably one of the most respected
Landscape architecture firms in the Midwest, however, he felt any one of
the firms would do the job we11.
Mr. Robinson stated they had some problems in the north area and had plans
that gave the firms the tool for development in this area. Ae stated this
doesn't mean these are firm plans or the way the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority wants it done.
The four design firms the Housing and Redevelopment Authority were consider-
i ng were:
InterDesign, Inc.
Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.
Herb Baldwin
Sanders and Associates
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING NLY 21 1982 PAGE 8
Mr. Robinson stated the plan by InterDesign, Inc. provides a lot of diversity
in the plaza and felt it would be a nice place when there isn't a lot of
people. He stated there is a lot of shade, seating areas, and year around
interest tied in with the natural features of EYidley. He stated this
architect spent most of the effort in the plaza area.
Mr. Robinson stated the plan by Sanders and Associates provides a lot of
different areas such as a small outdoor amphitheatre and fountain. He
stated the plan is like a"living room" and canopies are carried throughout
the space. Mr. Robinson stated this plan doesn't strike him as being
terribly dynamic. Councilman Schneider stated he didn't see a sense of
identity coming through in this plan.
Mr. Robinson stated Barton Aschman's plan handled the intersection well
by the use of pylons and liked the use of the green spaces.
Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Baldwin's plan was more sculptured and didn't think
it was we11-defined enough for people to get an idea what was going on
inside.
Mr. Robinson stated he liked the plaza best in the InterDesign plan and liked
the linear system in Burton Aschman's plan.
Mr. Boardman stated he was also impressed with the linear system in Burton
Aschman's plan. Councilman Schneider stated he felt this plan had the
strongest sense of identity. Mr. Boardman stated he had a problem with
the plaza because of the European siyle and Lhe pian is more auto oriented
in a sense and not pedestrian oriented.
Mr. Boardman stated InterDesign's pLan is oriented to 64th Avenue but
missed development on the four corners. He stated most of the development
is in the plaza.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority then reviewed the models submitted
and discussed the plans submitted by these architectural firms. A vote
was then taken en the plan each•member of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority felt was appropriate.
InterDesign, Inc. - Vote by Mr. Commers and Mr. Rasmussen
Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. - Vote by Mr. Prairie
Herb Baldwin - No votes
Sanders and Associates - No votes
I�. Commers stated tne InterDesign plan was selected by a 2 to 1 vote.
Mr. Commers felt there should be a flyer given to prospective developers on
what they are proposing for this area, but it is a concept only and subject
to changes.
Mr. Boardman felt the Housing and Redevelopment Authority should meet with
the architect selected, InterDesign, to make any modifications to the p1an.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING JULY 21 1982 PAGE 9
Mr. Boardman stated, once the Housing and Redevelopment Authority is com-
fortable with the changes, they will have a prospectus which includes this
concept and the disclaimers.
RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT - ST PHILIP'S CHiTRCH:
Mr. Co�ers stated it was the concensus that the amendment to the Right
of Development by St. Philip's Church is agreeable to the Housing and Re-
development Authority.
MEETINGS WITH CZTY COUNCIL:
Mr. Prairie suggested perhaps the Housing and Redevelopment Authority should
meet several times a year with the Council as he felt these meetings would
be beneficial.
Mayor Nee stated the Council is very much interested and to Let them know
when they wanted a meeting.
ADJOURNMENT :
Chairperson Commers declared the Ju1y 21, 1982 Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting adjourned at 9:45 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carole Haddad
Recording Secretary
.
, =...
.,
,
rirxoiiaiavvM
August 2, 1979
HFSfO T0: Fridley City Councll
MIIdO FROM: Virgil C, llerrick
CiCy Attorney
ISSUE: What are the procedural and substantive requirements that
LAW:
must be cemplied caith in granting a special use permit,
a variance, or a re-zoning change?
I. SPP.CIAL USE PERMIT
A. GEN�RAT,LY
A specia7. use permit is defined as "a permit for allowing specified
uses in a specific zoning district". Fridley Code �205.142.
°Special-u�e permits differ from vaxiances in that a special use
provision permits property, within broad discretion of governino body, to be
used in manner expressly authorized by ordinance, while variance provi.sion pexmits
particular property to be used in manner farbidden by ordinance, by varping r.he
terms of the ordinance." Barton Contractin�+ Inc. v Citv of Afton, 4tinn ,
268 N.[d. 2d 712 Q978).
Special use permit provisions cvere introduced into zoning
ordinances as flexibility devices to provide municipalities with broad latitude
to meet the changing problcros of land use controZ. Zylka v City of C�stal,
2II3 tfinn. 192, 257 2:.I��. 2d 45, (1969).
� They are designed to r.�eet the ptoUlem wliich arises where certain
uses, althourh gencrally compatiUle witli the bnsic use clacsificfition of a
-1-
r . ,
�•. pnrticular zone, ahould not be permitted to Ue located ne m m�tter of right in
every areu included within the zone because of hazurda inherent in the use
iCSelf or cpecial problems which its proposed location may present. Id. By
this device, certain uses wtiich may be conaidered essentially desirable Yo the
co�unity, but wl�ich should not be authorized generally in a particular zone
beeause of considerations such as current and anticipated traffic congestion,
population dens3ty, �oise, affect on adjoining land values, or other considerations
involving public health, safeYy or general welfare, may be permitted upon a
, proposed site depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular
case. Id.
B. PROCEDURAL REOUIRIIdENfS
Wnile Minn. Stat. �462.357 Subd 1 impliedly authorizes a
municipality the power to issue a special use permit, Zylka v Citv of Crystal,
supra, it sets forth no conditions for its issuance. As such, the procedure is
�enerally governed by a municipality�s zaning ordinance. Aowevez, it is to be
remembered that requirements of due process nust be measured according to the
nature of government functi.on involved, and whether or not privaCe interests are
directly affected by governmental action. Barton Contrectin� Inv. v City of
Afton, supra.
When a zoning authority considers applicution for special use pernit
it acts in quasi-judicial capacity and must accord the applicant ba.^,ic due
pzocess� which rights to be accorded include reasonable notice of proceedings and
reasonable opporCunity to be heard, but do not include the right to crocs-examine
tUose who give testimony opposed to tiie application. Id.
Section 205.19 et seq. of the I'ridley Cod � contains the procedure
for the issuance of a sge.ciul use permil'.
Evezy npplicant for a special use permit must first file an
applicution with the Zoning Administrntor which must be accompanied by such data
-z-
_. -r_
. _ -.�
�
ae required by the Plannin� Commianion. Section 205.193. The application
is then referred to the Planning Comaiission a�hich is required to hold a public
hepring on the application within sixty (60) days. Section 205.194. Publiahed
notice of the hearing must be �iven at least ten (10) days beiore the hearing
daCe as well as mailed notice to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet
of the property affected. Id.
The applicant or his representative must appear before the Planning
Commission at the publ3c hearing in order to answer questions concerning the
proposed special use, Section 205.194. The Planning Commission must draft
findings and report Che same to the Council indicating its recommendation as to
approval or denial and specifying what, if any� conditions are necessary re�arding
features o: the proposed use of the building. Id.
The City Council must take action within sixty (6�) days after
receiving the recon�r,endations of the Planning Commission and either affirm or deny
the apglication by a simple major3ty vote. Section 205.195. Special use
permits may be denied by motion of the Council. Section 205.147.
C. SUBSTAI�ITIVE i2EQUIFEMENTS
While the City Council has broad discretionary power to deny an
applicati.on for a special use permit, it cannot do so arbitrarily. Z l�l:a v
City oi- GrysCal, supta.
Where zoning ordinance expressly authorizes a proposed use by
special pe�it in the discretion of the governing body of a municipality, a,
denial of the permit must be for reasons xelated to public health, safetp, and
�eneral welfare. ]iolaGek v Vi.11ape of Tiedina, 303, TSinn 240, 226 N.W. 2d 900 (1975).
An arbitrary denlal of an application for special use permit nay be
found by a reviewing court when evidence presentcd ut tl�e hearing before
—3—
.R.:�
�
municipal governing body und reviewing court, establishes thtsC requested use
is compatible with basic use authorized within particulur zone and does not endanger
public health or saf:ety or gener.ul welfare of area affected or community as a whole.
Minnetonka Con�;regation of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc, v Svee, 303 Minn 79, 226 N.W.
2d 306 (1975). In short, a denial would be arhitrary, if it is established that
all of the standards 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 forth
in Section 2�5.191 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 designated uses
� npon the general welfare� pu611c health, and safety.
In malcing 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 tlie 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
total number of similar uses within the City, and all
such other or further factors as the City shall deem a
requisite of consideration in determining the effect of
such use on the general welfaze, public health, and
safety". '
Similarly� Section 205.196 provides tl�at the issuance of any
special use permit is dependent on the fact tliat the activities permitted will
not be dangerous or otherwise detrimenCal to persons residing or soorking in the
viciniCy thereof, or to the public welfare, and will not impair Lhe use,
eajoyment or value of any property.
kfiere n spec3al use permit is issued suUject to conditions, the
conditi.ons must conform to tlie following standards:
�'...to protect the public health, safety, convenience
and welfnre, ar to avoid traffic congecCion or hazard,
or otl�er dangcrs� or Co �,tomoLe conformity of n
-G-
,
proposed use wi.th the character of the udjoining ptoperty
and usea� and the district as e whole, or to protect such •
chnracter." Section 205.196. •
The applicant for a special use permit has the burden of proving
that the proposed use would meet the standards required by the ordinance for
issuance of a epecial use pexmit. Inland Construction Co, v City of Rloomington,
292 Minn 374, 195 N.W. 2d 558 (1972). In Barton Contractinp, Co. Inc v City of
Afton, Minn , 268 N.W. 2d 712. (1978) the Court citing Corwine v
"Crow WinR County, 309 Minn 345� 352� 244 N.Td. 2d 482� 486 (1476) regarding scope
of review said: �
"Since the court is reviecaing 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 making body does state
reasons, review will be limited to the 1ega1 sufficiency
and factual basis for those reasons. When reasons are
given, the party seeking review must bear to the burden
of persuading the reviewing court that those reasons
are legally sufficient".
However, the Court noted in Inland, supta, that the burden of
pzoof is much lighter than that imposed on an applicant for a use variance.
In determining whether the proposed use complies with the
standards set forth in the ordinance, the Pfinnesota Supreme Court has indicated
that the reports and reco�endations uf the planning, engineering, police, fire,
and healch departr�ents should 6e given weight by the council. C. F. 7nland
Construction Co, v Cit�• of Bloomington, supra, Ostrand v. Villa�e of N. St. Paul,
275 Minn 440, 147 N.W. 2d 571 (1966).
Property values are not, in and of themselves, the test of
validity oi zoning regulaEion, but are factors for city council to consider in
arriving at its conclusion on total merits in interect of conununity. Beck v Citv
oi St. Pnul, 304 lfinn 438, 231 N.Td. 2d 919 (1975). liowever� if tlie standards
regulnting the issunnce ot a special use permit have been complied with, the
fect that adjoinin� property owners are oi the opinion that their properey may be
—5—
. _ T-,-
_�,._.-a
devalucd if the permit were granted is of no legal significance. .Westlin� v.
City ot St. Loui.s Park, 2�4 Minn 35u, 170 N.LI, 2d 21Q {1469).
Any action of the council must be based on the evidence presented
at the hearing. Ostrand v Villape of N. SL-. Paul, supra. Failure of governing
body to Yecord contemporaneously the facts and legally sufficient reasons for
its denial of special use permits constitutes a prima facie showing of
urbitrariness in the denial, Holasek v Villa�e of Piedina, supra. Further,
the sustaining of a denial of a special use permit based on reasons not articulated
by the city council is in error, ifetro 500 Inc, v City of Brooklyn Park, 297
Minn 294, 211 N.ht, 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 condiCion�:
required for approval do not exist. Although the Fridley Code contains this
provision, in light of Yhe 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. VARIANCE
A. GENTP,ALLY
Again, unlike a special use provision which permits property, within
tl�e discretion of the City Council, to be used in a manner expressly authorized
by the oxdinance, a variance prov3s3on permits particular property to be used in a
mannes iorbidden by the ordinance by varying the terms of the ordinance.
S�ka v, Cit� of Crystal, supra, $olasek v. Villge of Medinaf supra. A variance
pravides the opportunity for amelioration of unnecessary hardships resulting,
f�-om the ti�id enforcement of a broad zoning ordinance. Tferriam Par.k Com�uni�
Cnuncil Inc„ v HcIlonoufh, 210 N.�d. 2d 416� (t11nn 1973).
B, PhOCID[iAAi. KGCIUIRP;SEPlTS
Under Section 205.181 et ,;eq. of the Pridley Code and Minn Stat.
�462,357 subd, 6 tlie Board of Appeal:, is given Che power and the duty of hcaring
and recommendin� to the City Council requests for varinnces from the literal
-6-
.�;;'--
� provinions of the zonin� ordinaacc. A person requccting a vnriance must file an
application for a variance with tlie zoning administrator whicl� must state the
excepl-ional conditione and the peculiar and pructical difficulties claimed ae a
basia for a variance. Section 2U5.186.
The Board of Appeals must make a recommendation of the action to be
tnken on the requesC for a variance to the City Council o�hich shall aecide on
the final action to be taren at its next regular meeting after receiving the
reco�endation. Section 205.187, In recommending a variance, the Board, and
the Council on approval, may impose conditions to insure coapliance 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 variance may iapse by non—use under Section 205.188 of the rridley �
Code which provides:
"Whenever within one 1 I
the recipient of tlie variance s}all rotnhave completede �
the c�orl; as permitted by the vari.ance, then such variance �
shall become nuil and void unless a petition for extension �
of time in which to coaplete the c;ork lias been grar.ten by j
ihe Board of Appeals. Suct� extension shall be requested in
writing and filed with the City Dranager, 1t least tcvent '
i
days before the expiration of the ori�inal variance. Tje�zO) f
request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith f
attempt Co complete the work permitted in the varisnce. Such
petition sliail be presented to tlie Board of Appeals for
hearing and decision in the same manner as the original request
for variance."
C. SURSTANTIVE RLOUIREMIIQTS
The City Council may grant a variance from the Iiteral provisions
of the zoning ordinance where "thelr strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship because of circumstances unique Lo the individual property under
consideration" and it is demonstrated that such actions wi7.1 be in ]ceeping c,ith
the spirit and intent of the ordinance", Minn. Stat, 5462.357 subd, 6(2),
Althougl� the Stntute requires "circumstances uniquc to the individual property
under question" the P:innesota Supreme Court has interpreted "property" broadly
—7—
to inclucle not only the building eite and buildings� but also the property
owner, surrounding neighborhood, economic feasibility and like elements.
Merriam Pnrk Community Inc., v. McDonou�h, supra. Therefore, in considering
whether there exists undue hardships because of unique circiunstances, the City
Council need not Ue confined to the topogr.aphical condiCions of the properCy
itaelf, but may take into consideration the above mentioned factors.
Tl�e City Council may not gra � as avariance any use that is not
perraitted under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located. Zd. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in
Merriam Parlc Communit�Counci_1, Inc, v. McDonoup,h, supra, that a City Council may
grant non—use varlances such as those of area, height, set back, density, and
parking requirements, if the �ranting thereof is 3n keeping with the spirit and
intent of the oxdinance and the zefusal to grant them would cause undue hardsh3p.
The City Council has broad discretion in gzanting or denying a
variance. Tdesting v, City of St. Louis Park, 284 Minn, 354, 17U r.W. 2d 21�
(1569)e Each case or a variance depends on its own facts and whetlier there
exists nndue hardship du� to unique circimmstances is a question of fact to be
determined by the City Council. 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, s25.160,
.167 (3rd Bd. 1965). The applicant has the burden of proving undue hardchip due
to unique circusstances and that the granting of a variance will be in lceeping with
the spi*it and intent of the zoning ordinance. �ie Court in �yllca v. Cirv of
Cry�tal, cupra, noted that an applicanC for a variance has a muclt heavier burden of
prooi than un applicant ior a special use permit.
Although the C3Cy Counci.l has broad discretion in �rar.ting or
denyins a variance, it cannot act arUitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably,
lferri�m Parl: Con;mvnity Council, Inc. v. TteBonou�, supxa. An arUitrury decision is
one which is not supported by evidence or lacks a rational basis. 2 Rathl:opt,
The Law oi Zoning and Plannin�, �65 — ly (1972).
_g_
• . ZII. RE7.ONING •
A. GTP?FRALLY
While a variance ie only a special exception to exieting zoning
rules and regulatione in a specific instance permitting a non-conforming use in
order to alleviate unnecessary hardship, a rezoning, in a legal sense, ord3narily
contemplates a change in existing zoning rules and regulations within a zoned
diatrict. 'l Anderson, American Law of Zoning, �14,04 (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 o£ individuals, interests, or
situations,so that governing body is then acting in le�islative capacity, and
any rights of procedural due process in such proceedings are minir3l. Barton
ContractinR Inc, v. City of Afton, Minn , 268 N.W. 2d 712 (1978).
In short, a rezoning is an amendment of the zoning ordinance, enacted
bY the legislative authority of a municipality, which re-classifies a particular
parcel of land, 2 Anderson, tl�erican Lata of Zoning, �14.04 (1968).
B. PROC�DUP.AL REQ;IIREhfENfS
I
In Minnesota, ttie authorit}• to adopt and amend comprehensive
nunicipal planning ordinances is found in Pfinn. Stat. S4G2.351, 462.364. Ho�aever, I
the exercise of the poc,er eo rezone must conform to the procedural requirements �
I
oi the enabling statute or zoning ordinance, Olsen v. Ci� af Eopkins, 276 Minn.
165, 149 r.td. 2d 394 (1967), i
The procedural requirements for a rezoning are set forth in '
Dfinn. Stat. 5462,357 subd. 3 and /+, and Sectionc 205.20 and '105.201 of the Fridlcy �
Code. The provisions of ttie Fridley Code merely reiterates the statutory re- �
quirements.
-9-
_�,,__.
� An nmendment to rezonc mny be lnitiated by the City Council,
the Planning Comnission or by a petition of any a£fected propetty owner.
Section 205.20, Pridley Code, An amendment not initiated by the Plannin�
Commis3ion must be referred to the Co�ission for public hearing and �
recommendations. Id. The City Council must not act upon the requested
amendment until it has rece3ved the recommendation of the Planning Commission
or until si�cty (60) days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amettdment
to the Planning Coccnisslon. Id.
The Plannin� Commission and Ciey Council must hold a public hearing
on any amendaent to the zoning ordinance or to the boundaries of any zontng
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) days prior to the date of the hearing Uefore the Planning
' Commission, and 2t least ten (10) days prior to the day of the hearing Uefore the
City Council. Id, ��ere the amendment involves a change 3n district boundaries
a£fecting an area oi five (5) acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at
least ten (10) days before the day of the hear3ngs to each owner of affected
property situated wholly or partially w�thin three hundred fifty (350) feet cf the
property to which the amendment relates. ld. The failure to give mailed notice
to individual property owners on defects in the notice shall not invalidate the
proceedings, providea a bona£ide attempt to comply �aith Chis subdivision has
beenmade. Id. '
The npplicant or other affected property owners or their
representatives may appear hefore the Planning Commission and Council and shall be
given an opportunicy to be heard, Sec[ion 205.202� Fridley Code, A two-tt�irds
(2/3) voCe of all memhers of the Council shall be required for passage oi an
tmiendment to tlie zoning ordinance or for the change of any district Uoundaries. Id.
-14-
s-.�
�
C. SUP,SThNTIVl RIiQUIRI34EtI'fS •
No rule of zoning is better settled than thaY a municipality may
from time to Yime nmend, revise, supplement or repeal the restr2ctions imposed
by it-a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Olsen v. City of ]lopkins, 276 Minn. 163, 149
N.W. 2d 394 (1967). However, the power to amend and revise, like the pocrer to
ettact the original plan, nust be exercised reasonably in furtherance of the public
health, safety, and welfare. Id. The validity of any revision or amendment to
the basic plan must be determined by the same rules as those applied in testing
the validity oY the original compxehensive plan. Id.
Where a change made Uy a revision of the basic plan is compatible
with and in furtherance of the basic comprehensive plan, the deternination of hota
areas or properties shall be classified or re-class3fien is a legislative
function, noC subject to interference by the courts unless shoi�n to be axbitrary,
discriminatory or conf3�catory. Id.
A rezoning 3s reasonable and not arbiCrary where it has a reasonable
relationship to the promotion of the public health, safetp, order, or weZfare.
8A PScQuillin, Municipal Corp., 525.2f30 (3rd Ed. 1965). Similzzly, a rezoning
classification is not discriminatory if it is reasonably based in the puUlic
policy to be served, 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning �7-3 (1974).
The main constitutional issue in determinin� the validity of a
rezoning amendment is whether the rezoning is confiscatory. A rezoning is
confiscatozy wher.e it Lesults in the taking of a private property right for a
public purpose withouC due process and without compensaCion. The general rule
is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if the regulatian
goes too far it will Ue xecognized as u takin� in �iolation o£ article 1, 513
of the Tiitmesota Constitut-ion and thc rourteentL t�mendment to the Constitutian '
of tlie United States. Sanderson v. Citv of i•]illmar, 287. Piinn. 1� 162 N.id. 2d
444 (19G&).
—11—
�.I
-� �'
.i�
• Rezoninga� therefore, have been chullenged on the ground thnC
property areae in the area afiected invested it4 their property in reliance upon
its then existing zonin� as well as upon the zoning classification in £orce in
neighboring properties or in neigl�boring areas, sud that a rezoning which
changes that zoning deprecial-es the value of the land and is unconstitutlonal
ae confiscatory. There is, however, no merit to this contention. 1 Rathkopf,
supra, �27-12. The universal rule is that:
"Propexty osaners have no vested rights by reason of the
enactment of an ordinance establishing use districts. No
Contractual relations are thereby created. Property is held
subject to a valid exercise of the police power. 47e think,
however that a home owner has the right to rely on the rule
of la�r that a classification made by ordinance will not be
changed on less the change is required for the public good".
Yhipps v. City of Chicaro, 339 I11. 315, 175 N.id. 289;
1 Rathkopf, supra, y27-12,
In Minnesota, the Court has cited with approval the followin� language
from a New York case:
"tdhile stability and regulaxity are undoubtedly essential
to the operation of zoning plans, zoning ic b} no means
static, Changed or changing conditions call for changed
plans, and persons who oc.m prope.rty in a particular zone ox
use district enjoy no eternally vested right to that
classification if the public interest denandc othenaise",
Olsen v, City of lioplcins, supra.
While u rezoning that merely depreciatec property values in the
affected area or in neighbor3ng areas is constitutional if eaacted for the public
good, i.e, reasonablq related to the public health, safety, or welfare; a reLOning
w111 be held confiscaCory and unconstitutional ii the rezonin� classification
results in a total destruction or substantial diminution in the ca7-ue of the
property aifected without juct compensation, regardless of whether enacted ior the
public good. Iit Sanderson ��, tdi_11mar, supra, the Pfinnesota Supreme Court held:
"This Court supports the pollcy tha[ an ai�endment Co a
comprehensive zonin� plan under ttie police powerc coliich
results in a total destruction or subst�ntial diminution
of value of the propert'y affected thercUy witUouC just
compensation therefore coiist'itutes a talcing of the
property without due procecs".
-12^
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSIOPJ MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1982
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the August 4, 1982, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:33 p,m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick,
Ms. van Dan
Members Absent: Mr. Saba
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner
APPROVAL OF JULY 14, 1982, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO APPROYE THE JULY 24� 1982�
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN� AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. REVIEW OF SECOND DRAFT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TQ REPLACE CHAPTER 217
Mr. Boardman stated the P7anning Comnission is not required to take any action
on anything other than Section 205 of the City Code; however, Staff did want to
bring this to the Planning Commission for their review and comments prior to its
going to the City Co�ncil on August 16.
Mr. Boardman stated the Platting Ordinance is controlled somewhat by Minnesota
5tate Statutes on platting. There were some changes that were recommended by
the State Statutes, and with those in mind, Staff went through the platting
ordinance. He stated Staff is in the process of going through all the codes,
the platting ordinace being one of those ordinances. While they were making
modifications according to the state law and modifications according to the zero
lot line, they went through the rest of the ordinance and tried to clean up the
7anguage so it was easier to read and easier to clarify what a subdivision is.
They are saying a subdivision is any platting of land, any registered land survey,
or any ]ot split. He stated that in the old ordinance, there was a lot of con-
fusion in the language, so they tried to set it up in an order where they first
have some related definitions, and, secondly, have a lay-out of what a subdivision
is and under what conditions are required to follow this ordinance as far as a
subdivision.
Mr. Boardman stated that before, any time anyone split a parcel of land that
was under 2; acres, that person was required to go through a platting process.
According to state law, that has been changed to 5 acres on any commercial/
industrial property and 20 acres or larger on any residential property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1982 PAGE 2
Ms. Schnabel stated that under "Lot Split" on page 211-05, she noticed the
elimination of the notification of adjacent neighbors, It seemed to her that
a lot split sometimes has a very great impact on adjacent neighbors,
Mr. Boardman stated that under state law, a public hearing is not required for
a lot sp7it.
Ms. Schnabel stated she thought there should be notification on a lot split for
the neighbors' protectian.
Mr. Boardman stated if a lot split doesn't meet City Code, it requires a variance,
and a variance requires notification. But if the lot sptit meets all the qualifi-
cations of the City Code, then the question is why should a lot split affect the
neighbors and why should there be a notification to the residents?
Ms. Schnabel stated she thought with a lot split they double the neighborhood
density on that particular parcel of land, and it happens unbeknownst to the
existing neighbors. She just felt that notification to the neig�bors would be
the proper thing to do.
Mr, Svanda stated that in looking at the timing of the platting process, they
are looking at a minimum of six months to go ihrough the process. He felt that
process was too long.
Mr. Boardman stated state law allows them 120 days to go through the process.
Mr. Svanda stated he would just like to see that process a little shorter, just
to speed it up for the project propoer who typically has a lot at stake. He felt
that the more time you allow, the more time you take,
Ms. Schnabel noted that under "Application" on page 211-08, no fee was mentioned,
Was there a plat filing fee?
Mr. Boardman stated there is a fee. He stated he would check into that and be
sure that it is stated somewhere in the ordinance.
Mr. Boardman stated there are some modifications being done right now to the
Platting Ordinance. He stated they have gone through and relooked at the pro-
visions that have all been crossed out in this draft. The reason they re7ooked
at the provisions was because none of these provisions are in the state code,
and these provisions are things the City of Fridley requires. He states some
of these provisions will be put back in; however, they did leave out "alleys" as
they are not trying to pranote alleys.
Mr. Boardman stated he would give the Commission members a final copy of the
ordinance after the City Council reviews it and gives their final approval.
MOTSON BY MS. VAN DAN, SECONDED 8Y MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT, IN THEIR DELIBERRTZON OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 2II ENSITLED
`SUBDIVTSION'� THEY REVIEW THE PL�INNING COMMISSION'S SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS
MADE IN THESE MINUTE5.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUS7 4, 1982 PAGE 3
UPON A VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWQMAN SCHNABEL DECIARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. DISCUSSION Of VIRGIL HERRICK'S MEMORANDUM ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VARIANC
Ms. Schnabel stated one of the key statements in Mr. Nerrick's memo of Aug. 2, 7979,
that the Planning Commission must remember when they are recommending approval
or denial of a special use permit was on page 3, bottom of page:
"Where zoning ordinance expressly authorizes a proposed use by special
use permit in the discretion of the governing mody of a municipality,
a denial of the permit must be for reasons related to public health,
safety, and general welfare."
Ms. Schnabel highlighted the following statements from Mr. Herrick's memo:
Page 4-"In short, a denial would be arbitrary, if it is established that
all of the standards specified by the ordinance as a condition to
granting the permit have been met."
"Where a special use permit is issued su6ject to conditions, the
conditions must conform to the following standards: '...to protect
the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, or to avoid
traffic congestion or hazard, or other dangers, or to promote
conformity of a proposed use with the character of the adjoining
property and uses, and the district as a whole, or to protect such
character.' Section 205.196."
Page 5-"The applicant for a special use permit has the burden of proving
that the proposed use would meet the standards required by the
ordinance for issuance of a special use permit."
Page 6-"Failure of governing body to record contemporaneously the facts
and legal7y sufficient reasons for its denia7 of special use per-
mits constitutes a prima facie showing of arbitrariness in the
denial."
Under fF. Variance:
Page 8-"The applicant has the burden of proving undue hardship due to
unique circumstances and that the granting of a variance wi71 be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.
The Court of Zylka v. City of Crysta7, supra, noted that an appli-
cant for a variance has a much heavier burden of proof than an
applicant for a special use permit,"
U�der III. Rezoning:
Page 11 -"A rezoning is reasonable and not arbitrary when it has a reason-
able relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety,
order, or welfare."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING; AUGUST 4; 1982 PAGE 4
"Similarly, a rezoning classification is not discriminatory if
is reasonab7y based in the public policy to be served,"
"A rezoning is confiscatory where it results in the taking of a
private property right for a public purpose without due process
and without compensation."
Page 72 -"Rezonings, therefore, have been challenged on the ground that
property areas in the area affected invested in their property in
reliance upon its then existing zoning as well as upon the zoning
classification in force in neighboring properties or in neighbor-
ing areas, and that a rezoning which changes that zoning depreciates
the value of the land and is unconstitutional as confiscatory.
There is, however, no merit ta this contention."
3. RECEIVE JULY 20, 1982, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE THE JULY 20��1982,
RPPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHRIRWQMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUS&Y.
4. RECEIVE �ULY 15, 1982, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. OQUSST� SECONPED BY MS. VAN DAN� TO RECEIVE THE JULY 25, 1982�
HOUSING & REDEVELOPKENT AUTHORITY MINUTE5,
UPON A VOSCE VOTE, RLL VDTING AYE, CHASRWQMAN SCXNABBL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. .
5. RECEIVE JULY 21,1982, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECE2VE THE JULY 2I� 1982�
SPECIAL HOUSING 6 REDEVEIAPMENS RUTHORITY MINUTE5.
UPON A VDICE VOTE� ALL V02ING AXE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNRBEL DECLARED TXE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. �
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR, KONDRICK� TO RDJDURN THE MEETING. UPON
A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE AUGUST 4, 2982,
PIIINNING COMMISSION MEETINC ADTOURNED RT 9:15 PM.
Respectfully submi ted,
t� GL�
Lyn Sa a
Recording Secretary