PL 02/25/1987 - 6909City of fYidley
A G E N D A
H�ANNII� Q�MMISSION MEETING WE�7FSIIi1Y, F�Fd.iARY 25, 1987 7:30 P.NL
Location: Coi.mcil Q�nber (upper 2eve1)
CAr•t• 'ip ORDER:
F3�LL CAIS.:
APP%JVE PIAHIVING �MMISSION MIN[)TFS: JANUARY 28, 1987
' • ia.
TABLED 2/11/87: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A
SPECIAL USE F£RMIT, SP #87-01, BY ELWP,RD AND ROSE WAI,DO�i: ... 1- 1G
Per Section 205.13.1, C, 9 of the Fridley City Code, to
allow exterior storage of materials and equipnent on the
east 125 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, Central View Manor, the
same being 7340 Central Avenue N.E.
HT9LIC HEARII�: OJNSIDERATIDN OF AN ORDINANCE REQ7DIFYING
CF3APTER 205 OF ZHE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS IT RII�ATES TO
it7MPSZER FIdQ,06[IRFS, HEAL�3 (41RE Q,INIC PARKING. (TIURCHFS
ADID GARPGE SE�'�ACKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . . . . . 2 - 2M
QJNSIDERATION OF AL'IERING �3E FLANNING �MMISSION AGENDA
SQiECtILE TO INQ�UDE BINDN7HLY LOI� i+ANGE PLANNII�G I+�ETINGS ••- 3- 3D
RECEIVZNG �IE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT
AU'IHORTTY OF JAN[JARY 8, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4II:ITE
RECEIVING �IE MINU�S OF �IE APPEAL�S Q�MMISSION MINUTES OF
FESId7ARY 17. 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YIIS,ow
0'II3ER BUSINESS:
AIITQ]RNNff�]T
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLA�Jt�ING COMMISSION 14EETItIG, FEBRUARY 1 T, 19II7
CAL t TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the February 11, 1987, Planning Comnission meeting
to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MeMbers Present: Steve Bi�7ings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Dale Thompson (for Rich Svanda), Donald Betzold
Menbers Absent: None -
Others Present: Jim Rob7nson, Planning Coordinator
Jock Robertson, Conmunity Development Director
Duane Waldoch, 1655 - 75th Ave. N.E.
Jim Determan, 1241 - 72nd Ave. N.E.
APPROVAL OF JAP�UAP,Y 28, 1987, PLAP���ItdG C(N7MISSIO�J �1INl1TE5;
Mr. Bi7lings stated that on page 5, paragraph 3, second to last line, the words
"stateJ that" should be inserted.
MOTION BY 19R. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. BETZOLD� TO APPROVE '_^NF �7AN. 28� 1987,
PL.3uVNING COMMISSION MIIJUTF,S AS AMENDED.
UPAN A-VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BILLZNGS DECLARED TNE MOTZON
CRRRIED UNRNIMOUSLY.
�.
fOt� OF A SPECIAL USE PERt4IT, SP #87-01, BY
Per Section 2�5.13.1, C, 9, of the Fridley City Code to allow exterior
storage of materials and equipnent on the east 125 feet of Lot 13,
Block 2, Central View �4anor, the same being 7340 Central Avenue f�.E,
MOPION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECON➢ED BY MS, SNF.REY., TO OPEN TNE PUBLIC NEARIPJG.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTZNG AYE� CXAZRPERSON BZLLINGS DECLRRED THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RS 7:35 P,M.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was locateJ west of Old Central between
73rd Ave. and 73'-; Ave. The zoning was C-T, or neiqhborhoad cor,ttnercial,
the City's lightest comrnercial zoning. The property was surrounded on the
north and on the west by auto recycling yards, . Staff has attempted several
times in the past to get this property cleaned up. There was a non-conforming
use in that there was a single family house, garage and an auto repair business
on one tax parcel. These uses are legal non-conforming uses at this time.
There were presently three income producing operattons on the property:
(1} the rentai property, the house; (2) rental of the commercial bui7ding
on the north of the site leased to Sam's Auto Parts; and (3) the petitioner
uses the property for a lawn maintenance business.
PLANP�ING COMMISSION 14EETING, FEBRUARY 11, 1987 PAGF 2
Mr. Robinson stated that at any given time, there was quite a bit of outside
storage of trucks and equipment on the site. There have been coMplaints
from neighbors about the condition of the site.
Mr. Robinson stated that on Sept. 30, 1986, the most recent tag was written
for outside storage without a special use permit and also for the storage
of junk vehicles. Judge Gibbs, who precided over the case gave the owners
30 days to apply for a special use permit and postponed the court hearing.
A court appearance was set for tdarch 1, 1987, if necessary. So, the petitioner
has made an application for a special use permit for outside storage.
Mr. Robinson stated that at this time he would like to show the Commissioners
a video tape of the condition af the property. The video tape was taken the
previous day.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recor.�me�ding the following stipulations:
1. Provide an 8 ft. high solid wood screening fence as per city plan dated
Feb. 11, 1987, by �1ay 15, 1987. l(5 `;�,�� ��;Y�
2. Al1 materials to be stored inside the fenced storage area below the top
of the fence by t4ay 15, 1987.
3. Install landscaping as per city plan dated Feb. 11, 1987, to include
edging, mu7ch, weed barrier and lawn sprinkling by June 15, 1987.
4. Sod boulevard areas along Central Ave., 73rd Ave., and 73; Ave. as per
city plan dated Feb. 11, 1987, by June 15, 1987.
5. Repaint building facade and trim by June 15, 1987.
6. Provide 6 ft. concrete �urbing as per city plan dated Feb. 11, 1987, by
June 15, 1987. ���� �w��(,� � �Q;�
7. ReM ve oncrete island from parkinq lot by June 15, 1987.
'.�y'��-. „,��� -I� Cr� �i�,��L��� :��}���� �
8. _R e and stripe parking lot and driveways� y S pt. 15, 1987.
9. Provide a performance bond or a letter of credit in the amo�n+_ of $5,000
to cover all of the a6ove stipulations prior to Council approval.
10. Parking or storage of street inoperable and/or unlicensed vehicles is
prohibited.
11, Parking of vehicles within street right-of-ways is prohibited - violaters
will be tagged and/or to�{ed�f�lrimtem �a9s� °$ate-o� pos=:'�,,. _..±•_ _
i�€e�: i ;���� i-ut���C�- 1"'��6t"!��'-E-c__
12. No sales or leasing of vehicles is or will be permitted on this site.
FEBRUARY 11. 1987
'lG' c��GlUv �t�t�th��� Cj'Y Il�ciL���' �"�^- J�1��'��Sc� o-i ����'c`a� bl�j
13. Special use permit, SP #87-01, for outside storage for lawn care operation
only and is intended for present owners only and is not transferrable to
future owners.
14. Special use permit to be reviewed n six months. �� � �li�{- ��4;
}, f��� �lC��,,Sic� �' tt�ci��� �2� -13 �i�z� (�.�� �' 1iC����, � ��� �V��. ��
�'�Nl�� Mr. Kondrick ask�if the�e had been any response(from the nei9hborhoDd
Y regarding the special use permit application.
Mr. Robinson stated there had not been; however, there was quite a bit of
rental property across the street.
�4r. Saba stated he was concerned about the unlicensed vehicles beinq stored
in violation of the agreement with Sam's Auto originally. lJhat would prevent
that violation from reoccurring in spite of the special use permit?
Mr, Robinson stated the special use permit would be just for the lawn
maintenance business, and no cars could be parked out there that were inoperable
or did not have a valid license. It vrould be a matter of policing it.
Ms. Sherek asked if any of the vehicles parked out in front of Sam's were
for sale.
Mr. Duane Waldoch stated those vehicles were custaners' cars that were waiting
to be repaired or have been repaired and are waiting to be picked up. However,
there were some exceptions.
Ms. Sherek asked how many vehicles were parked there for the lawn care service.
Mr. Waldoch stated right now he had four trucks and two trailers. He planned
to be cutting back on vehicles to 2-3 trucks.
Mr. Waldoch stated he had talked to his legal counsel that day, and they had
advised him not to make any agreements at this meeting. Speaking for himself
and his parents who own the property, he was in agreement to try to improve
the property, but they had to look at it from the standpoint that when they
bought the property, they were told they could use the property in the same
manner it had always been used.
Mr. Waldoch stated Sam has been using the property for about TO-12 years and
that was one of the conditions when buying the property that Sam would
continue to be a rent=r of the property.
Mr. Waldoch stated before he purchased the property, he had about li hour
conversation with Steve Olson, who was with Inspections in the Public Works
Departrnent. He asked f1r. Olson what had to be done to the pr�erty so they
knew what was required by the City before they urchased the property. At
that time, Mr. Olson told him three things: (1� In 1982, the southwest
corner of the property used to empty into 73rd and 01d Central. Mr. Olson
stated barrels or some type of barrier had to be put u so there would be no �
�� �� 7�a�Y�'�- t�-�dv C��C.�'lt��C��(V�4�`� (� ���t �lY�- �l�-l�J� �-I��G�I'lL3icl�
�
PLANNII�G COP11-0ISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 11, 1987 PAGE 4
access at that point. (2) t4r. Olson gave him a five year timetable on the
dirt area on the southerly side of the property where gas tanks had been
removed and it had not been tarred over the top. (3) painting the building.
Mr. Waldoch stated what the City was doing was taking 20 ft, away from the
parking area which has always been a parking area and giving them only six
stalls. Also, over the years the property has been made smalier from road
improvements--ir�provements to 73rd Ave., 73%Z Ave., and Old Central.
Mr. Waldoch stated this process was a new experience for him, and he was
willing to work out an agreement; but he could not agree to the stipulations
as presented at this meeti�g. The City was proposing to take 5�% of his
parking and make it a green area. If that was done, then Sam could not
utilize the property and they lose a renter and 2/3 of the rental that comes
from Sam.
Mr. Billings stated the parking proposed by the City was six stalls. How
many parking stalls did t4r. Waldoch feel he needed?
Mr. Waldoch stated he needed 15-20 parking spaces, depending on the number
of employees.
Ms. Sherek stated there seemed to be a misunderstanding on the part of the
petitioner in that city ordinances have always prohibited parking of vehicles
from a business on city right-of-way, That outer perimeter of the lot that
was being proposed as green area and landscaped was city right-of-way. The
right-of-way ran with the deed of the property and was a legal description.
This area might have been used for parking in the past, but it was not a legal
parking area now or ever had been.
Mr. Waldoch stated that if this should never have been a parking area, then
that should have been brought up by P4r. Olson or sor�eone from the City before
he purchased the property. He came in all honesty to the City of Fridley to
find out what needed to be done before they purchased the property, At that
time, Mr. Olson told him the conditions he had outlined earlier, and they
purchased the property with the understanding that their proposed use of the
property was feasible, because the property had been used that way in the past.
If they had known any of the things they were being told now, they would not
have purchased the property and would have located somewhere else. Qne of the
things they looked at with the Fridley site was that becaLSe of_the iunk vards,
possibly in ten years the junk yards would not be there, and this could be a
very nice looking property.
Mr. Waldoch stated something he would like to add was that when the work was
done on 73rd Ave., that was $8,000 worth of assessments put on their property
which did not help any business on 73rd Ave., plus the fact that it took
another 3 ft. of property away from them.
Mr. Waldoch stated that as far as the vnlicensed vehicles, when thev were
issued the tickets, those vehicles were moved by Sam. Most of the vehicles
are shifted or moved every day on a ten-day cycle. Sam has told him that a
lot of times a customer will drop a vehicle off to be repaired and sometimes
stay while waiting for a part, possibly a couple of weeks. As far as "junk"
-
��
I
PLANNI��G COMt1IS5I0N t1EETING, FEBRUARY 11 1987 PAGE 5
vehicles, as discussed with Staff that morning, some of the cars parked there
look like "junk" but are licensed and are operating and are customers' cars
that are being used. And, that is part of the problem, because the cars do
look like junk cars. Sam is getting blamed for junk cars being parked there,
but those vehicles are waiting to Ge fixed and go back on the road.
Ms. Sherek stated Sam's Repair Shop was really separate from the junk yard.
She thou9ht a distinction had to be made between Sam parking junk vehicles
(which on occasion he does do) and customers cars that really are being
Lurned over. He cannot run a repair garage if he is permitted to run the
repair garage on the site, but yet has no place to park the customers' cars.
Mr. Waldoch made the sugg�stion that on the west side (back side) of the
garage which runs against Sam's lot, that an extension of Sam's existing
fence be run.along the property line through the green area to the front of
the garage on Central Ave. If that was done, he did not think they would
need to use the driveway that was in the back now. And, if this was done,
San could continue to run his operation over into that area. Possibly
some stipulations would need to be made, but Sam could use that area to store
some of the cars and have access to the garage. It would screen all the
unwanted cars that are being seen out front.
Mr. Billings stated he saw a problem in that the City Council already speci-
fically said that with regard to Sam's license application for a junk yard,
he cannot use the Waldoch property to store junk cars.
Mr. Billings asked if 2-3 more stalls could be added to the six stalls
proposed on Central Ave.
Mr. Robinson stated he thought there was room for a little bit of growth,
possibly to 8 stalls.
t4s. Sherek asked if there was a possibility of instead of fencing the
back portion, it be turned into a parking area?
Mr. Robinson stated if they are thinking about changing the stipulations on
the storage, then they vaould have to recommend to City Council to chanqe the
stipulations on the license. He had no particular problem with that, except
to the point where they create another junk yard.
Mr. Robinson stated he would like to give a little history on what has heen
done regarding this property in the past:
In 1976, the City sent a letter to the owner of the property before
Mr. Waldoch, which outlined six items, five of which had been discussed
a� this meeting. This letter was written by Mr. Boardman, City Planner,
at that time. It talked about vehicles on the boulevards, inoperable
vehicles, etc. Also included was a plan for improvement much like the
one before the Commission at this meeting.
PLANNING COHPIISSIOId MEETING, FEBRUARY T1 1937 PAGE fi
In 1981, a letter was sent to Sam, the renter of t4ie property, that told
him about the parking on the boulevards.
In 1982, Mr. Boarcinwtr¢�ut a note into the file saying he had talked
� to Duarte Waldoch who was the potential purchaser of the property about
the improvements and cleaning up of the property, and t1r. Waldoch
seemed to be agreeable to the improvements.
In Feb. 1986, Ric Wiersma of City Staff, sent a letter to �4r. Waldoch
outlining eight improvements which basically included everything
discussed at this meeting.
Mr. Robinson stated that was what they had in writing. He could not comment
on what �4r. Waldoch was told by a former city staff person. What they have
in writin9 does bear out that the City has been earnestly pursuing improvements
on this property for at least ten years and very little, if anything, has been
done to improve the site.
Mr. Billings stated he would be inclined to look at the possibility of 2-4
additional parking spaces on the Central Ave. side. He did not think he would
be in favor of opening up the whole area on the north side of the comnercial
building for a fenced-in area because he thought it would be contrary to the
wishes and intent of the City Council, who specifically indicated they do not
want a junk yard over there. He thought a fence would do that, whether they
wanted it to or not.
Mr. Waldoch stated that on the north side corner, there was a driveway coming
into the property. There was actually an entryway prepared by the city on the
corner of 732 and Old Central. In the proposed site plan, the City was pro-
posing that be taken out, but that was put in by the City, If there wasn't
supposed to be an entryway there, why was one put in? Also, all up and down
Old Central, businesses do park right up to Old Central. In talking about
setbacks and city right-of-way, why are they allowed to do that?
Mr. Billings stated some of the stipulations listed were a1ready city code.
Mr. Waldoch was not being picked on. 4lhenever a petitioner comes in for a
special use permit, they try to get the property up to city code.
Mr. Waldoch stated the only thing he can say at this time was that he had
been advised by his attorney that he should not agree to anythinq at this
time.
Mr. Robinson stated the City's objective was simply to get the property cleaned
up. They want to be realistic and do not want to impose stipulations or
conditions that are so strenuous, the property owner won't do anything. He
would recommend some of the curbing be eliminated and just go with curbing to
define the two driveways and set the limits for the parking area adjacent to
Old Gentral. They coul�d add two more parking stalls. Regarding the storage
area, if the Commission felt it was in the City's best interest to expand it,
it would still be an improvement to the property.
PLANNING COMPIISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY ll, 1987 PAGE 7
Mr. Waldoch agreed that the reduction in curbing would be better, but he still
really had a problem with the reduction in parking area.
Mr. Determan stated he owned Determan Welding close to Mr. Waldoch's property.
He thought sane consideration shoitld be given to these businesses who cannot
afford to make extensive improvements and end up going out of business. Con-
sideration should be given when money is not available and give the businesses
more time to do the work.
MOTION BY MS. SNEREK, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO CIASE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOZCE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAZRPERSON BZLLINGS DECLARED THE PUBLIC
NEdRZITG CLOSED RT 8:50 P.A:.
The Commissioners concurred that this special use permit request should be
tabled as there seemed to be no concurrence with the petitioner on the
stipulations.
MOTION BY MR, KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO TABLE SPECIRL USE PERMIT�
SP #87-01, BY EDWARD AND ROSE WALA�CN, UNTZL THE NEXT MEETING.
UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CNAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTZON
CARRZED UNRNZMOUSLY.
Mr. Biilings encouraged !-0r. Wa]doch to take the site plan and stipulations,
get together with his legal counsel as soon as possible, and then get together
with Staff to come up with an alternative plan that was agreeable to both
the petitioner and city staff,
2. COtJSIDERATION OF A ZOPJING CODE CHANGE PERTAINING TO GARAGE SETBACKS:
P•tr. Betzold stated the Appeals Comnission seems to get a lot of requests
for variances from people who have single car garages and want double car
garages. They are primarily talking about houses constructed in the 1950's,
196Q's, and early 1970's. In most of the cases, the house was constructed
in the center of the lot with a singte car garage whfch looked nice back
then, but as times change, the double car garage is now the standard, In
fact, by today's code, all new construction has to have a double car garage.
So, people with single car garages are trying to expand to double car garages.
By having the house situated in the center of the lot and then expanding the
single car gara9e to the double car garage, they get a little too close to
the lot line.
Mr. Betzold stated there might be individuals who feel they cannot do this
simply because the code does not allow it. In order to allow it, a person
has to get a variance which means coming before the Appeals Commission, The
problem comes in that by strict definition the iaw says that before the
Appeals Canmission can grant a variance, there has to be a hardship--some-
thing unique about the property that says the code ouqht to be varied. And,
PLANNING COHI1ISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 11, 1987 PAGE 8
in these cases, there really isn't a hardship that says a person should have
a double car garage. So, the Appeals Commission really has to work to try
to find a hardship in order to grant the variance, and it was really a
disservice to the law in order to do it. So, if they cannot find the hard-
ship, the better way to do it was to change the code, which was what he was
suggesting. Maybe the code ought to he changed to allow people to build
a little closer to the lot line for the single purpose of having a two-car
garage. That would also allow people to bring their property up to code by
having the two-car garage.
Mr. Betzold stated the philosophy right nov� was there should be a certain
distance between adjacent_structures, particularly in case of fire. What the
code says now was structures should not be closer than ten feet, garage to
garage. The only way to build closer was by getting a var�ance. That was
where the trouble came in because in order to build a double car garage,
they could not do it within 5 ft. of the lot line. The standard garage width
for a two-car garage was 22 ft., and they usually come within 4 ft. or 3 ft.,
and sometimes a little bit closer.
Mr. Betzold stated his proposal was on page 2 of the agenr}a. Basically, he
was proposing the following:
On existing, single-car, attached garages, the side yard may be
reduced to three (3) feet provided the new garage is:
1. No wider than 22 feet.
2. The adjacent structure is a house and at least ten (10) feet
from the lot line.
*3. The adjacent structure is an attached two-car garage and is
at least four (4) feet from the lot line.
If the adjacent structure is a single-car 9arage, the setback for the
new garage cannot be less than four (4) feet.
Exterior walls of attached garages, less than five (5) feet from a
property line, must be constructed o�f materials approved for one-
hour fire resistence on the inside and no unprotected openings are
allowed. The maximum roof projection is limited to two (2) feet.
*At no time can two attached garages be closer than 8 feet, and the
distance between an attached garage and a house can be not less than
13 feet.
Mr. Betzold stated that on page 2A, 14r. Clark had put togather some samples
of just how the code wauld work.
PLANIJIIdG COM11I55IOP� MEETING, FEBRUARY 11, 1987 PAGE 9
Mr. Betzold stated this particular item was on the Appeals Commission agenda
last week, but the meeting was not held because of a lack of quorum. He
stated they will be discussing it at the Feb. 17th meeting. Preliminarily,
he has gotten no objections from the Appea7s Canmission on this proposal.
Ms. Sherek stated she liked this proposal because it addressed a specific
problem,
The Commissioners were in agreement with the ordinance change for existing
one stall garage side yard setbacks as proposed by Mr. Betzold.
3. RECEIVE JANUARY 20, 1987, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALFTY COMI4ISSION MINUTES:
MOSION BY MR. TXOMPSON� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRZCK� TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 20� 1987,
ENVZRONFSIJTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. OTHER [3USIWE
a. Feb. 17, 1957, Appeals Commission meeting minutes
Mr. Betzold stated that because of a lack of a quorum, there was no
Appeals Commission meetin9 on Feb. 3, This meetin9 has been rescheduled
for Feb. l7th, and because of some urgency on the part of the petitioners
to move ahead, he was asking the Planning Commission if they had any
objection to the Feb. 17th minutes going directly to the City Council
without going to the Planning Comnission first to be received which was
the usual procedure, He gave a brief description of the variance requests
that would be discussed at that meeting.
MOSION BY 14R. BETZOLD� SECONDED BY MR. KONDHICK� THAT THE FEB. 17, 1987,
APPEALS COMMZSSION MINUTES GO DIRECTLY TO 2HE CITY COUNCIL ON FEB. 23�
1987� WITHOUT BEING RDUTED FIRST THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTZNG AYE� CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE
MOTZON CRRRIED UNAl7ZMOUSLY.
b. CDBG Allocations
Mr. Robinson stated the City Council had made a motion to approve the
CDBG allocations at their Jan. 26th meeting. There were some chanqes
in the 1987 CDBG funding allocations and the 1989 funding allocations.
These were outlined in his Feb. 3rd memo to Mr.Robertson.
Mr. Robinson stated also attached to the memo was the Neighborhood
Commercial Rehab Loans Program Guidelines for the City of Fridley dated
Feb. 3, 1987.
PLANNING CO�M4ISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 11, 1987 PAGE 10
c. Planning Commission 6oa1 Setting
Mr. Robinson stated that at the Jan. 28th meeting, the Plannin9 Commission
members had discussed the possibility of establishing goals and objectives
related to long-term planning issues facing the City. In his feb, llth
memo to the Planning Commission members, he had outlined a five step
program whereby this could be accomplished. If this proposal was agreeable
to the Cortmissioners, he would send it on to the City Council for their
concurrence.
Mr. Kondrick stated he felt this Commission needed to be more involved
in the planning proce�s and he was fully in agreement with this proposal.
Nowever, he would like to take more time to review this a little more
carefully.
�4r. Robinson stated they could discuss the steps outlined in his memo
more at the next meeting,
ADJOUR�JME�JT:
MOTIOA� BY IdS. SHEREh, SECONDED BY MP., BE2ZOLD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETZNG. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED TXE FEB. 11, 2987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEET7NG RA70URNED AT 10:05 p,M.
Respectfully s bmitted,
�
. ��
L nr�e Saba
Recording 5ecretary
,�� � _ � . �
`-' �/:.-�:.-xtir� (j'7'Y:,-rx-�-:�a�-�"�,-'
�.���� / � � ��� %
`��� C-C%C'�k:�,�ea-�
� ; q a � � � � i T� .!.`� /� ; � -7� t �'��� �
,
/� "� „
�� � ✓rl :° �c �- ��� d /� ! � `'1 J ; � - - � .
/i! ,'�' . . _. ,
� ;
�
�, � i �,_
� GTY OF FRIDLEY I
643f UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E.
� FRIDLEY� MN ss4ss � _ SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �8�—(��
(612)b71-S450
SPEQAi� USE PF.'RMIT FEE ,o2GY5.GD REC£IPf # Z3Z8O
9QiFStII,ID PLANNIl+�r Q7P4�iISSI0T7 MEETII�G DATE: Z!( �� 8fi
��s� � .�. . , �
��':�.»�"�.; , .. . - ; :-. :-.. . , .. _ .. . -; �. .. �
. � � 9�IFSxJI.Ea CPPSi OJf1A1CII+ i+Eb'P1NC �IY�lTB7
PROPERTY INFORMATION
�tto�t'rsc �tt�ss '7 3 S�o Ge�v+�.e�G A
�z �� . .�
.ti y�
I,�AL I�S�tIPPIUN:
.FA�t y S� I'OT _L�_ Bi.OQC Z `�iAC!'/ADDITION LN n�rz .v G Lii e.J /1%n e ie.
, �� Z�� C-1 �E
SPECIAL USE PERI�II.T BEII�7G APH,IID EOR: Ou-r �:�� Srn,2.¢s-�
� >� - ��:v ' _°� �_� �-�
. ,�, . � �.
t
� _ - ; ,.p c,. �i ��
— � SD(�ION OF 7HE Q�I�: .-t , _, ,
* � t * * � : f • * * • * � * * • * r • � � �r * t� * * * * * * • � * � * � ,r � � ,r ,c
OWNER INFORMATION ' > - �Prn� 7Y5/- `/�,�f
NAP� �o�%7Aw.'�3 M- /`�p�,� (.�ALDOLf� A-]ONE # lp33-/L2.G
ADIRFSS ��' �o
SIGNAZURE � II4TE
..,.,.�,.,�, c.-- - -- -
• * • * • * • ,� * • • * • * * * * * * � : � : * � * ,r � * * * � � � * * � * * * * *
PETITIONER INFORMATION
�1�-u�
'��• �_
e
.S�a�)�. �i`�,
t #� * * * * * * * * * * ! t * # * * # * # i� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Yr 1� * • i�
x.�n�c aor�zoN: Ara�wm �aa�n �� -
�..��y �a ' $b f-. M'�/�� .- =� t?,f�c�'' ,.Hi, rvin r �,1"5s{, M � � : � � ..
.:.{ZT:��AAJ1wJL. ^�• ',�aCrna/v��.� s�s+�t'� ;'f'' 1Y1�.� ' -� � .. .
H7BLIC HFARING
BEFDRE 'IIIE
PLANNING QJMMISS7DN
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning
Crnmnission of the City of Fric�ey in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue
Northeast on Wednesday, F�bruary 11, 1987 in the Cotmcil Q��nber at 7:30 p.m.
for the putpose of: -
Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #87-01, by
Fdaard and Rose Walc3och, per Section 205.13.1, C, 9 of
the Fridley City Code, to allaa extecior storage of
materials and equipnent on the east 125 feet of Lot 18,
Block 2, Central View Manor, the same being 7340 Central
Avenue N.E.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the
above stated time and glace.
STE,VE BILLINGS
�iAIRNPIN
PLANNING O�MMISSION
Puhlish: January 26, 1987
February 2, 1987
lA
0
MAILING LIST
SP #87-01
Eclward and Rose Waldoch
Fdward and Rose Waldoch
1228 - 13th Street N.W.
New Brighton, MN 55112
Onan
1400 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, bII�1 55432
Harold Haluptzok
16971 Ward Lake Drive
Anoka, MN 55303
Sam's Auto Parts
1240 - 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Arline Saba
7345 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Steven Mindlin
4526 Pleasant Drive
St. Paul, NIN 55112
Resident
7335 Central AvenUe N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
7337 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
7325 Central Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Prithipal Singh
2 Spring Farm Iane
St. Paul, MN 55110
Resident
7327 Central Avenue h.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Ron Pearson
1309 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
1313 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
1B
Planning January 23, 1987
Council
Rajendra Dhir
13304 Fordham Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Resident
1323 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Gordon Johnson
6411 Squire Drive N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
1333 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Resident
1335 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Max Peterson
2801 - 16th Street N.W.
New Bright�, MN 55112
Resident
7320 Etrert Court N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Bzyant Franklin
1290 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, P'II�1 55432
John Babinski
1290 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
James Deternian
1241 - 73rd Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
.
°, —
�—
I
II
(�.� Gr/er i9 �$�Iioo�4
(sSfa) a
2�•t� �'�
rs.w, i�aiir ..a
SP ¥87-01 -
Fd and Rose Wal
/.z�i'e/
�4zo�
�
Md�onGOuimsffs �'NOLaod
(af �
l9B.1E.
� � -ilMts ,v./P,fi Il� '
V/EI�V� p A/ Nl�1R ,�w, i I
d �k �"' AOD/T/ON � , �
�- ls°oii -fr�s.•r.... . c f/ �'• �
.. .. .. AIL1 ° � O . �p � I
. , I '
(�i3 (,a) (,�) �+�) �) (i,) ��) �r) (v ('') , 8c�� _, � I
B y io // /2 /a ; s ;� 6 I� s /
60
, N.E.
L ,� �,. �t� � ��' �#�' �r� r ���, C4� �s�
9 � /a . // /Z /3 /4 /S /f /7
C�'�
/ (90oj
c
b
� (ol o
`1
, �,�� 1-=
�?°l , N
W�
C�,� Q'
a �` I
.�. =1
.: ,_.
�r
„ „
` e..,, ,_
V
e
P
/L�
_r�_
-t�
z►1�
_ 7F-
Q
_ i;�
�
i�,:-
_;
• I•
24 � � - �
. � LQCATION MAP
,
,
.
: ..
,
I �i'
.�T,.
s':�: JE
/I%g
■ . . �
������ �.........
�
�
0
z
ti� e' �✓
��:`/_�
1 ^: � �
�.,� � _� _ ,
�, � .� ,
. r,� ,
� "'� 9 '
�
9 . \ + � j_
• • • • /� �•
� • • •! • �
a • • •�•
• . • • •
.• .� RQo....�.,
.
. ......�..
' � • � R�►P� •'�� �
• .
� RTO
• • N I ��
• • ♦ • • � 't � • 1
� • •
_ TRea,.,_
�, ��
_- � ; a�, �:� _.
��.' =' - ,' ''., ,i, .�,. 1
�-...•u...w..•�rr..-i...- �� ��
n.::�������
�����`��0� m � 00
.._.
.,..
rn���
��• � . • � �7i�� � �
�� �0�0�0�0 �� ►: �� r; '
■ ��������� _. ' .
��OV �� �
�"yT'��,�i:t�f�14.��Ei�?�F.:�7.�� 0=
W
�
Z
�
a
�., .o p .; �'�' r �. Y i9 a l I II
J,;o S . z c;��j , :o �
,7 � � � wJ t � 2i 3 2 1
i. �r - �.j p x
-�'M,�l 6 i o i t I i Q / � //
7 7M LVENUE NE
,✓ � � , , � .. , ,,TM�"I`3
. � c £�' ' "., ' '�FLAN RY �':� r
'1' 3 � ` �, � � � . '
;•};� � '
ia 4 �+y��yy �J�
� � 7 6 yy�' . _ �' aui%OI�S
;f K iY X��V�p � r--,.J ( , � •
9,io C B♦'ZV S"� I.
i P �
i �y� z �
AoY I
1' ° 37 � �
oi 1 Is 2a 1I a- � a r
?: Jf � � (�U �16 ,
�� ,a� .�e
T2• .j: . N • • • • • • • • � � � •
+� : 3: W i .�.'. .'. I. . �STAT � zz ^
.'.�i"f� � -w1) } 11':^ �—t-� � .
' a . • • y . • . 1
': a' . 'i5t - _ • L . • 1 � I s I = • •
��
�y
�Ty
K
�
�
����
�
t � � �
X X X
T
Ncw ic,,,r_a, 4v.d Gat�.
� 3' 1-z l�v�rl�t�
��
K
��1
r SoC '�
�}.�O✓Y�YV`G��C �0��
I,N�,��N�i
�73�(0 C¢, �r.,1 Avt�
PA�V�� F�{( i� If�vY
EI
Nw.I Fuv.t n+.A Cwi'c —�
X
X
T
ET.��NP Y, N� �
sr�-�c! lU0 � FLNCL X
`
i`
ti
x x �
SITE MAP �3 � hy�ntat
N�
�
t
d
a-
�
��
I„I
I �
I �
� '
�
��I
�' �
I�
i
�J
S
n
K
�
JG
K
5
d
d
d
�
G+`h�— I'
��
��
4, ry �^�
� V
. 1
.�
;:t � �
, � �.
.� ;.
I
I 1
f
i,
_
� ��
/ ;
�
i �
Y�'- �
. �
��
C��
i�i�
� �.
. � �.
, �
._
a
,1
�
n
�
�
� f
�
_ . � �
n
�
I�
Sco� f '. I � � _ �'
DaFo.: Z�lii���a�.� 111�:ri,'�
���
i�
�
z
11'
V
�
�
V
rv;; +�^ ��~ �3 ay v ` 't.
- '�`R�'t l�. Y '� � r ..
0 �+
��,\ � .r' .... .. t y�,'^±.w./".�•r+•r � 5�°���� a Fi
�� �� .
e �ii�',�"�� � _ � � j , e F+� r ��» ��A' . Y � . �,.
�� i`p � I
✓ � � s �y � � ' �`�'� Fif� �r. �t
'�{*.. .. ��� ���� �rz�, y
. , � 'i�� . � � .k �� � .
� � Y� .�,_ '> ,3� .,,
n
.s, ' � � d'� .'•' / ..'"}�"'' . , ,'�e { .R""'
. " , � . , . ?� � �iti .
- Mp r 1!� .
. ^'lr�� �� � � Y ��
# � * �l� . �r .� �,� ,a �
� ` ~.
I , .�u � � � v r� � � :.r � � , � � s �'
' . � f �' ♦ ,.� _ ....°
� �
t
i
� � �'Y , vy � i` � y r l ;
.
i'�` � � � r; y -. ...��� i ' �
�
� ♦ � � � �
� � � . ° •��� ,� �
� t ..
� +'
yt' i
��'�.!ft { %� Y � 4!4` � . .
������ rro"' � � R��.��$. .. ./� �.
� � Y" '
.'�+ • ''�•�' �' ��j
.r' 't .,+ •� �
Y n�� /' y
�'� � ��"i.�n l� s� �� RI�'u�J� a } •1
4 �T 5 � �
�y � ��AWM.� � � i � � .
"Sa � r �: ' . � �K� . . � - .
. ♦
i � �• .? Y =� .
.� f �.\�' - �
� �"�t � .��+�,.x. �..�
�J• �Y��� ��' � . . ..�
� �ri
r .�+
�4fi� • "^'I[� i'- i�� �.
�r"
N'4� '�J. � � �.
R .�.
� ;,� �'� �„� +�
,�
���� �
'� �
�r� F � , . _
� ��
it o ' _ ♦!
� `•.
��
e,
i '+
y�
I �
!,
_..-�, `r4�Yi��.7Xa"'�".��.
�,
�d��"�,
�; �
��
� �E
K,
� � �S � . :: �.;N ..�,.
F
�� , M
�;' '�'
�, � �
w °
� �� ��:�
� * a« �f
6 4 +
A�s . >
4 w` � �
y �
��
� Q �
� � �['
�s �4+yv¢�(
�v � �t�F" . �
4� w
�� ^
� M�V.��' +�'":_� � i .
�
� � � t �
� �� �� �� �
R �J
v � � ��q�
$ � F
$ �.���
` ��
y ., t,�„��
.. � � S'`� � ���
. ',; '`�'' ..,.y,r{,�,'i
1
ct5e
� ' � ..
r • ,� � �
� �� .�
�
�� � i
� .y,.r�'"�
',t,.�`�� � . ���
,� �� ,� �
,,;*�141:� £�*w, ;-
� , ., ,..+�-.
• ,I�,� ► � � :
, �.
, � �
� '�t ��. `` �!
_ _.�,: r t�.'
..
3 �
y4
.y y-
� 5 �
� iC
.
�'� �s ��°'Ni
�� .�
���
� �, . x
, ,
" � � �,' � � � .': e «u
R ��- �
, �«,.� 'r�'"tl ,
� •'�' � �`'"""� �'
4
..�
sP #a�—oi 1G
Ed and Rase Waldoch
�•� � n• i ••• � ia
1. Provide a 6' hiqh solid wood screening fence as per City plan dated
by This azea will be used to store unlicensed and/or inoperable
vehicles.
2, install landscaping as per City plan dated to include edging,
mulch and weed barrier for each shzvb bed by
3. Repaint building facade and trim by
4. Provide 6" concrete curbing around all hard surface and driveway openings by
5. Repave and stripe parking lot by
6. Remove �ncrete island fran parking lot by
7. Sod boulevard areas along Central Avenue, 73n9 Avenue and 73 1/2 Avenue as per
City plan dated by Parking of vehicles within these
street right-of-�ways is prohibited.
8. Provide a letter of credit in the amoLmt of to cwer all of the
abave stipulations by
9. Special use perndt to be reviewed in six months.
10. All materials, including inoperable vehicles, shall be stored inside the
storage area belaa the top of the fence.
11. No irore than eight cars pexmitted in front lot at any time.
12. No sales or leasing of vehicles is or will be pexmitted on this site.
13. No vehicle parking other than the owner's or customer's is permitted.
14. Submit to an pay for an independent soil test to determine the extent of soil
contamination by
15. Provide raJnedial soil work as indicated by testing by
HJBLIC HEARING
BEEI�EiE ZfiE
A,ANNING OJMMISSIDN
Notice is hereb� given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning
Cotmnission of the City of Friclley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue
Northeast on Wecfiesday. F�bruary 25, 1987 i.n the Cow�cil Chambec at 7:30 p.m
for the pucpose of :
Consideration of an Ordinance reoodifying C�apter 205 of
the Fridley City Code as it relates to dumpstez
enclosures, health care clinic parking, churches and
garaa_e setL�acks.
Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall 6e given an opportimity at the
above stated time and place.
S�UE BILLINGS
Q�IAIR2+4�N
PLANNING OJMMLSSION
Publish: January 9. 1987
January 16, 1987
z
�
�
cinroF
FtZIDLEY
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
NEND Rp: Jim Rnbinson, Plaiuiing Coordir�ator
,NEM7 FROM: Myra Gibson, Planning Assistant
N�END IISTE: Januacy 30, 1987
R�ARDSNG: D�mpster E�closure Ordir�ance
7he goal of this ordinance revision is to require screening of outdoor trash
or carlx�ge receptacles fran view fran puhlic right-of-ways and residential
areas. Screening should be permanent, durable, attcactive and of low
maintenance while mntributing to sarutazy storage of cefuse.
In order to achieve this goal the attad�ed draft ordir�nce addresses siting
zequiranents, aichitectural oomFxitibility and the rned for oomglete enclosuce
for dunpstecs in estahlishments that gererate food wastes.
A oonanon mmplaint of haulers and busiress operators is that enclosure gates
are trouhlesome. Staff should enwurage that the entry side of the enclosure
6e faoed away fran ric�t-of-ways or residential views so as to eliminate the
rned foz screening. •
RY�:_ ordir►�nce amen$nent was presented to Planning Camnission and reoo�mnended
foz aFprwal on Nc�venber 19, 1986.
I�G/cYn
M-81-26
�'3
• •�� � �� r �
AN Cg2DIN�N(E RHCDDIFYII� �E FRIDLEY CITY CODE, �APTER
205 SNTITLED 'ZONINiG' BY Al�.'NDING SECTIONS 205.09.7,
205.13.7. 205.14.7, 205.15.7, 205.16.7, 205.17.7, AI�ID
205.1& 7
'It�e City Co�cil of the City of FYidley does hezeb� ordain as fallaas:
205.09 I. 3 GF2ikI211L MJLTIPLE LWfI,LING DIS�iICP
7. PERFC)RI�N(E S�NII�RIS
D. Screening.
wood with vosts treated for earthen contact.
(c) Steel posts will be revuired in front of the corners of all
enclosure sides exqosed to vehicular movement.
205.13 C-1 IrOQ�L BUSII�F5S DISZ42ICT R6G�AT70NS
�. , � �., �.•�.
D. Screening.
(8) All outdoor trash or garh3ge storage receptacles must be located
in the rear or side yards and be totally screened from view from any
public ric�t-of-way and residential area. Prwisions must be taken to
protect screening frac: cehicle &imac�.
{a) Enclosures shall be desicaned out of material that is
architecturallv compatible with tl�e princix�al structure such as
2C
i8ge 2 - Ordinance No. ,
� e+s io-.. :. � i�. � �• w�:ri
's� :.1� :�L'�. r0 Y• � • ' �.
D. Screening.
(8) All outdoor trash or gactt�ge storage receptacles must be located
in the rear or side yards and be totally screened f rom view from any
public ric�t-of-way and residential area. Prwisions must be taken to
protect screening fran vehicle damage.
wood with nosts treated for earthen contact.
�b) Steel oosts will be reuuired in front of the corners of all
enclosure sides exaosed to vehicular movemen�
� r.o- �o-• . .; � .. •s �r� � �� • o i � •'
•• • r. �.•�-
A Screening.
(8) All outdoor Yxash or carkxige storage zeceptacles must be locateo
in the rear or side yar� and be totally screened f rom view from any
putrlic ric�t-of-way and residential area. Prw isions must be taken to
protect screening fran vehicle damage.
wood with nosts treated for earthen contact.
�
EBge 3 - Ordir�nce No.
1, M' tl5 19' � • • 1 1' ' 0!' I � ti
�. � � �•. �. . �.
A Screening.
{8) All outdoor trash or gacla�ge storage receptacles must be located
in the rear or side yards and be totally screened f rom view f rom any
piahlic ric�t-of-way and residential area. Prcrvisions must be taken to
protect screening frcm vei�icle damage.
wood with oosts treated for earthen cantact.
(b) Steel nosts will be recauired in front of the cornets of all
enclosure sides exaosed to vehicular movement.
205.17 l�1-1 LIGHT Il�II7[7StR7AL DIS"IItICT RFX�(IIATICNS
7. PERFURt�NCE S77�NIIT�RI�
A Screening.
(8) All outdoor trash or gactr�ge storage receptacles must be located
in the rear or side yards and be totally screered from view from any
puW.ic right-of-way and residential area. Prv�isions must be taken to
protect scceening fran vehicle damage.
wood with oosts treated for earthen contac�
(b) Steel oosts will be reauired in front of the corners of all
enclosure sides exnosed to vehicular movementi
Page 4 - Ordir�nce No.
� .ir� � u� �• � �� • �ru �.
•� • �• s••�.
D. Screening.
(8) All outdoor trash or gar�ge storage reoeptacles must be located
in the rear or side yarcis and be totally screered £rom view from any
puhlic ric�t-of-way and residential area. Prwisions must be taken to
protect screening fran vehicle damage.
wood with c�osts treated for earthen oontact
(b) Steel nosts will be required in front of the corners of all
enclosure sides exposed to vehicular movement.
a slatted chain link fence.
(dl Establishments that caenerate commercial food wastes shall
have fullv enclosed dumnsters with latchinca aates
FiASSID AND ADOPPED BY g1E CITY QXJNC7I. OF 'g1E CITY OF FRIIY,EY �3IS _ I7�1Y OF
, 1987
WILLIAM J. NEE - NF�YOR
ATPEST:
3iIRLEY A. HAAFI�LA - CITY Q,ERK
Puhlic Hearing:
First Reading:
Seaond Reading:
2E
C
� PLANNING DIVISION 2
_ MEMORANDUM
ci�ro�
FfZ1DLEY
lLtD �: Jim Robit�on. Lylatuting Coo[dinakot
!E!D PIiOM: Dacyl !!lrey, Planning Assistank
!�.lU lY��: January 29, 1987
ReGARDING: Reoodifiwtion of the City (bde I�rtaining to Qinics.
Not long ago I completed a review of the �arkin9 requirsnents for clinics. As
a result of my review, i ceoanmended changes to the Wde pertaining to clinics
(see attachment). 7Yiis recodification was presented to the Planning
Commission at their January 7, 1987 meeting. The Planning Commission
recommended some further refinements to my proposed Code change. I
implenented these refine�nents and the clinic reoodification went back to the
Planning Conunission on Januaiy 28, 1987 wheze it was appzwed. 'ihis ozdinance
will row go to the City Council, along with the ocdinances pertaining to
churches and dun�ter enclosures. It would be appropriate to set a public
hearing for F�ebruacy 23. 1987.
Mr87-28
�
.,r i,��,�• ,!�
AN QiDINANCE REOODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE CBAPTER
205, F.�ITITLID 'SONING' BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205.13,
205.14. AI�ID 205.16 AI�ID BY RH�OlBStING `i9E r� QJl�6DQ177VE
I�iJlBIIt (%t LE17ffiLS
7he City Council of the City of fYidley does hereby ordain as fallaas:
205.13. C-1 I�O(AL BUSINFSS DIS�iI(R
M �..s. :�:�.i����
A Principal Uses.
�e follaaing are principal uses in C-1 Districts:
//(5) Pcofessior�l offices including services of inedical and dental
clinics, lawyers, real estate, optanetrists, eta//
(6) Health care sezvices includina medical dental chiropractic and
counselina clinics.
� e+o- �r• :, � ia.^ti � �• w
o-, •�� � �r�
A. Princi�a] Oses.
�e follv.rina are princi�l uses in C-2 Districts:
/1(8) Officea//
�14) Hospitals, //clinics,JJ nursing homes, corrvalescent homes and
hanes for the elderly.
205.16. Q2-1 GFS�RAL OFFI� DIS'II2ICT
� 7�. S�I: �14YY��.
A Principal oaes
Rhe follo+ring are pzinci�al uses in CR-1 Districts:
//Office facilities including real estate, lawyer, medical, dental,
optical, architectural, engineering, financial, insurance and other
similar office uses.//
office uses.
�
2G
0
F�ge 2 - Ordirence No. _
:ss �.. :� �)�: y„ o-.�ti
G Ihrking Ratia
(1) At least ore (1) off-street �arkinq sFace shall be provided for
each 250 square feet of building floor area except health care
F�.SSID AND ADOPPED BY �lE CITY QxJNQL OF �lE CSTY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY
OF _ , 1987
A4TFST:
SfI]RLLEY A. HAAB�LA - CITY Q,IItK
Public Hearing:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publ ication:
�
WILL7AM J. NEE - l�YOR
2H
� PLANNING DIVIS[ON 2
� MEMORANDUM
CITYOF
FRIDLEY
I�ENt� m: Jim iaobins�n, F�lanning Coordi�tor
l�F1U FIi(JM: I1aiy1 lSoteyr plan[iinq Assistarit87N�
lf1�D I1�TE: Januacy 29. 1987
RHGARt)ING: Reoodi.fication of the City (bde F�rtaining to �urches.
ilot long ago I wmpleted a review of the parking ceguirenents for churches.
As a result of my review, I recommended changes to the Code pertaining to
churches (see attachment). �is rewdification was presented to the Planning
Camnission at their January T. 1987 meeting. �is otdinance will now 90 to
the City Coimcil, along with the oidin3nces Fertaining to clinics arx3 d�xnpstet
enclosures, fos puhlic hearing on Februaiy 23, 1987.
1�87-27
�
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING TAE FRIDLEY CITY CODE CHAPTER
205, ENTITLED •ZONING" BY AMENDING SECTIONS 205,07.1,
205.08.1, AND 205.09.1 AND BY RENUMBERING THE NEXT
CONSEC[STIVE NUMBERS
The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows:
205.07. R-1 ONE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT REGUI.ATIONS
1. USES PERMITTED
C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
(2) Churches //and private schools//.
(a) BuildinR and site requirements and performance standards
shall be equal to or Rreater than those outlined in the following
(b) A parkinQ requirement of at least one (1) off-street parkinx
space shall be provided for every three (3) fixed seats or for
every five (5) feet of pew len�,th in the main assembly hall.
Additional parking may be required for additional church
activities, such as day care, classroom and recreational
activities.
(3) Private Schools.
205.08. R-2 TWO-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT REGUTATIONS
1. USES PERMITTEA
C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
(2) Churches /fand private schools//.
(a) Buildin� and site requirements and performance standards
sha11 be equal to or �reater than those outlined in the followin�
CR-1 sections of the Code; 205.16.3, 205.16.4, 205.16.6 and
205.16.7.
(b) A parking requirement of at least one (1) off-street parking
space shall be provided for every three (3) fixed seats or for
every five (5) feet of pew len�th in the main assembly hall.
Additional parkin� may be required for additional church
activities, such as day care, classroom and recreational
activities.
3) Private Schools.
2J
Page 2 - Ordinance No. _
205.09. R-3 GENIItAI. MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT REGUTATIONS
1. USES PERHITTED
C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit.
(1) Churches //and private schools//.
(a) SuildinR and site requirements and performance standar
shall be equal to or greater than those outlined in the followi
CR-1 sections o£ the Code: 205.16.3, 205.16.4, 205,16.6 a
(b) A parking requirement of at least one (1) oYY-street parKing
space shall be provided for every three (3) fixed seats or for
every five (5) feet of pew len�th in the main assembly hall.
Additional parking mav be required for additional church
activities such as day care classroom and recreational
activities.
(2) Private Schools.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLE7 THIS _ DAY OF
, 1987
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHIRLEI A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK
Public Hearing:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publication:
2K
2L
FIRST �tAFT of Existing One Stall Attad�ed Gazage Side Yard Setbacks
Proposed Changes to Zoning Code Sedions
2�5,07.3D.(2){b).((1)) AND 205.04.06.58.(2)(b}
On existing, single-car, attached gatages, the side yard may be reduced to
three (3) feet prwided the new garage is:
1. No wider than 22 feet
2. �e adjaoent structure is a house and at least ten (10) feet from the
lot luie.
*3. 9he adjacent stzucture is an attached two-car garage and is at least
four (4) feet fran the lot lire.
If the adjacent structure is a single-car garage, the setback for tl�e new
gaza9e can not be �ess than four (4) fee�
Exterior walls of attached c$rages, less Yhan five (5) feet fran a property
line, must be constructed of materials approved ior one-hour fire
cesistance on the inside and no unprotected openings are allowed. 7Y�e
maximun roof projection is limited to two (2) feet-
*At ro time can iwo attached garages be closer than 8 Yeet, and the distance
between an attached garage and a house can be rot less than 13 fee�
ATTAQ3: Examples of existing dwelling/garages, with setbacks allowed
according to proposed changes.
2M
•:� .:.r ,,�
AN ORDINANCE REdODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 205.04.S.a (2) and 205.07.3.D. (2). (b).
205. ZONING
205.04 GFNF�iAL Pft0�7LSI0NS
5. ACCSSSORY BUILDINGS AND S'II2UCNRFS
B. Accessory buil dings and structures are peimitted in the rear yard and
the side ya[d only, subject to the follaaing restrictions:
(2) Acoessory buildings and structure in tY�e side yards shall not
be anv closet than five (5) feet to any lot lir�e except in the case
(a) ZY�e expanded qaraqe will be no widec than 22 feet• and
(b) At no time can two attached qara4es be closer than 8 feet.
(c) �e adiacent side vard str�cture is one of the followina:
1) a house located at least ten (10) feet from the lot
line; or
2) an attached two-car qaraqe located at least four (41
feet from the lot line; or
3) a sin4lrcar qaraQe in which case tl�e setback for a new
garacae can not be less than four (4) feet.
�d) If the adiacent lot has no qaraqe then the qaraqe
addition must be located at least four (4) feet from the lot
line.
(3l All exterior walls of attached aaraqes. less than five (5)
205.07.
• ' 7• 1' ? 17� I. � � P• Y
D. Setbacks
(2) Side Yard:
(b) A side yard of five (5) feet is required between an attached
accessory building or use and a side property line exceot as
provided in Section 205.04.5.B.(2).
� PLANNING DIVIStON
� MEMORANDIIM
UTYOF
FRIDLEY
PEt�p 70: Planning Ca�miission Manbers
City Co�mcil Menbecs
MEhp fROM: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordirator
NEFD I1T�TE: Februacy 11, 1987
RF��ARDING: Planning Comnission Goal Setting
At the January 28, 1987 Planning Commission, ti�e Commission discussed the
possibility of establishing goals and objectives related to long-tecm
planning issues facing the City. In conjunction With this effort the
Planning Conmission would desicg�ate time periods where the group wuld focus
on the desic�ation and implanentation of specific planning objectives. �he
�ncept would pcwide fot a future oriented agerda discussion on every fourth
meeting of the Planning Commission. At this time there would be no
schedulina of any current zoning activities such as zoning amendments,
special use peimits, subdivisions, etc. �is effort would allaa the Plannina
Commission to fulfill more fully its pucFuse and s�pe as outlired in Qiapter
6 of the City Code dealing witi� Commissions. In addition, the Planning
Conmission would 6e ahle to take wer the role vacated with the elimination
of the Go�rnnimity Developnent Cartunission.
Stee 1 Developinca a Workplan
Fbssihly the best way to change direction on the Conmission's orientation is
to identify Planning issues of wnoecn and to develop a workplan outlining
solutions to those problens. In order to develop a consensus on the key
issues facing the ozganization staff proposes using the nominal group
technique which would include the follawing steps:
1. A silent generation of ideas: Commission members respond
independently to the question
2. A ro�md robin reoording of ideas: Each manber states but does not
discuss ore idea. �e process is oontinued until every state7nent
is cecorded. Similar ideas are combined where appropriate to
zeduce the nunber of statenents. '
3. A group discussion to clarify eadi statenent: Debate is not reeded
because the aroup will have an oppoztunity to vote on the
stateaents.
4. Voting: In a preliminacy vote, eadi oamnission menber si1 ently and
irciependently, reo�rds the 8-10 statenents fran the group list that
he/she oonsidered to be most imp�rtant. Fbr tYie final vote, each
particiFant will be given 3'x5' car�. Cb�mnission m�nbers record
0
3A
ore of �eir top 8 statements on each card. 4hey will then be
asked to place an 8 on the most important p rd and a 1 on tl�e lease
important, and to rank the renaining statenents in be rireen.
5. A tally of votes: The cards are mllected and tallied to generate
the aroup's top five objectives.
St2D i. G031 S2tClriQ
�e prohlens listed in Step 1 ra,a reed to be reviewed and re-stated in the
form of a gaal. fbr e�ample, the probl en of miscommunication between the
City (b�cil and the Planning Cmrnnission mic�t be r�stated as a goal in the
following manner: Imprwe o�unimication between the Planning Commission and
the City Coimcil. �e pro4len of the storage and parking of motor vehicles
in side and rear yards might be r�stated as "Develop a model ordirxnce which
mic�t effectively deal witY� the prohlen of suci� stocage."
Goal setting process will have to be coordinated carefully between staff,
City Council and Planning Commission. Ideally, this process will lend
definition to the Planning Commission's activity, but expectations must be
reslistic.
Steo 3. Identifvina Solutions.
Using the brainstorming technique, the Cgnmission will gererate solutions to
help satisfy goal.s identified in Step 2. For example, solutions aimed at
improving �mnimications between City Council and the Planning Commission
range fran having one menber of Council sit on the Commission to having
cegular joiirt. meetings of t2�e Council and Cammission.
Step 4. Feasibilitv of Solutions.
At this stage the Cmrnnission would assess the appropriateress of the arrived
at solutions. Some questions that would have to be answered would be: Are
the solutions realistic in terms of staff resources and the external
etiviroisnent? Would one solution cost too much mor�ey? Would another solution
be ts�exceptahle to the oommimity and a�litical liability for the Commission
and the City Council? Limits to authority and financial and political
concerns ace all implicit criteria that should be used to assess the
feasibility of solutions. It may be helpful to define and list the criteria
that will be used to evaluate solutions in this step. �e end result of this
assesanent step should be a list of solutions that are wnsidered feasi4le.
Steo,S. A Worknlan.
In this step the Commission will develop specific work tasks aimed at
read�ing solutions. It will be reoessacy to take each solution and list all
the steps or specific work task we believe are recessacy to bring about the
solution. Realistic time frames for each step and ad�ieving each goal must
be docimented, deteLmining the budget cequi.zanents, if any, foz each step.
Should Planning Commission appzwe of the concept as outlined it would be
appropriate to preFare a fin31 draf t of our proposal and suhmit it to the
City Co�ncil within the rext month, along with a proposed schedule of regular
Planning agendas and long range Planning agendas.
JLR/lmn
M--87-41
�
:
ore of their top 8 statements on each card. 72�ey will then be
asked to place an B on the most impoLtant cazd and a 1 on the lease
imFnztant, and to zank the renaining statenents in t�etween.
5. A tally of votes: �e cards are oollected and tallied to genecate
the group's top five ob�ectives.
Step 2. Goa1 Settina �
�e problens listed in Step 1 now reed to be reviewed and re-stated in the
fozm of a goal. Fbz e�mmple, the pcoblen of miscommunication between the
City Council and the Planning Co�mission mi�t be re-stated as a aoal in the
followina manner: Improve oortommication between the Plannina Commission and
the City Co�cil. 'fie prohlen of the stozage and patking of motoc vehicles
in side and re3r yards mic�t be ze-stated as "Develop a model ordir�nce whic3�
mic�t effectively c3ea1 with _the prohlen of such storage."
Gaal setting process will have to be coordinated carefully between staff,
City Council and Planning Commission. Ideally. tYiis process will lend
defini.tion to the Planning Cottmission's activity, but expectations must be
r�l istia
Step 3. Identifvino Solutions.
Using the bcainstormina technique, the Conunission will generate solutions to
help satisfy goals identified in Step 2. For example, solutions aimed at
imprwing oonm�mications betsaeen City Council and the Planning Commission
range fran having one roenbes of Council sit on the Commission to having
zegular joint meetings of the Coivicil and Camnission
Steo 4. Feasibilitv of Solutions.
At this stage the Co�nission would assess the appropriateness of the arrived
at solutions. Sane questions that would have to be ansaered would be: Are
the solutions realistic in tezms of staff resources and the external
envirorment? Would ore solution wst too much money? Would another solution
be �exceptahle to the ooaunimity and a political liability foc the Commission
and the City Council? Limits to authority and financial and political
concerns are all implicit criteria that should be used to assess the
feasibility of solutiona It may be hel�ul to defire and list the cciteria
that will be used to evaluate solutions in this steR 'R�e end result of this
assessnent step should be a list of solutions that are oonsidered feasihle.
Steo 5. A Workplan.
In this step the Commission will develop specific work tasks aimed at
reaching solutions. It will be necessary to take each solution and list all
the ste� or specific work task we believe are reoessary to bring about the
solution Realistic time fraanes for each step and aci�ieving each goal must
be docunented, determining t]�e budget re3uirenents, if any, for �di step.
Should Planning Cormnission apprwe of the concept ae outlined it would l�
appropriate to prepare a fir�l draft of our proposal and sutmit it to the
City Cb�ncil within the rext month, along with a proposed schedule af regular
Planning agendas and long range Planning ager�dis.
JLW l7nn
r;-87-41
John M. Bryson 3�
March 6, 1985
THE STRATEGY FORMULATION PROCESS
Effective strategies for dealing with a strateqic
issue may be formulated through development of answers
to the following questions:
1. What are the practical alternatives, "dreams,"
or "visions" we might pursue to address this
strategic issue?
2. What are the barriers to the realization of
these alternatives, dreams or visions?
3. What are the maior strateqies (i.e.; major
proposals) we might pursue to achieve the
practical alternatives, dreams or visions
directly or to overcome the barriers to their
realization?
4. What�major actions with existing staff and within
existinq job descriptions must be taken within
the next year to implement the strategies or
proposals?
5. What action steps must be taken in the next six
months to implement the proposals and who is
responsible for the action step?
Source: Based on a process developed by the
institute for Cultural Affairs.
3D
�I Confirmation of mission
�1 Scan of the �environment
�I identification of strategic issues
J Assessment of resources
�I Formulation of strategies
� Management of strategy implementation
C
C:TY OF fRIDLEY
fiOUSIN6 & REDEVELOPttEFJT AUTHORITY �1EETI�IG, Jl1�dUARY 8, 1987
CAt.L TO ORDER:
Chairperson Commers called the January 8, 1987, Housing F, Redevelopment Authority
meetin9 to order at 7:15 P.F1.
ROLL CALL:
Menbers Present: Larry Conmers, f)uane Prairie, .lohn !1eyer
'lenbers Absent: Vir�inia Schnabel, llalter �asr�ussen
Others Presen±: Jod: P�obertson, fIRA Executi�re �irector
t�asir� Qureshi, City tianaaer
flave 'lerman, NRA ,4ttorney
Rick Pribyl, Finance �irector
Sanantha Orduno, flanagP.r�ent Assistant
Ken Belgaarde, 7341 Ifayzata Clvd.
flarry Yaffee, 7341 �lavzata f.lvd.
Sherrill Y.uretich, 790f1 Xerxes Ave. S,
Louis u June Lunciqren, Lundqren Associates
APPROVAL OF DECE�1[iER 11 , 19II6, H�USI�7G Y. RFDEUFLOPttENT AUTHORITY HIIlUTFS:
MO'"ZO'! BY lIR. PP.FI7RIE� SECOI7DI,'D .R}' 19P.. "!PYEP.� ^_'O IiPPROVF. TIf7' PF.C, ZZ� I9RE>�
HOI157P1G 6 REDEVELOPP1F.lIT AUTHORITY MZP:UTE.S F�S WBIT?'EN,
UPON A VOICE VOTF. � ALL VOTZC7G AYE, CfiFiIRPERSOfl COI1t�fERS DF,CLl{P.ED TAE hfOT70C7
CARRZED UNA71IM0lISLY.
hir. Cnnr�ers stated he would like to have a schedule of the Rice Plaza Center
leases made availahle to the Go�r�ission.
1
MOmIOPI BY PiR. MEYER, SECOTlDED BY "�fP,. PRAZRIE, TO OPE?; SHF PURLIC HFAP.Il7G.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINC= AYE, Ct7AIEPF.RSON COA7"1F.PS PF.CLARFP '.^7?F. P"BLIr
HEARIIdG OPF.N AT 7:19�P.M.
Hr. Robertson stated the subiect property was located directly east of the
Springhrook Nature Center, north o` 83rd Avenue, south of 85th Avenue, an�!
west of University Avenue. This was a prelir�inary site plan for the develop-
ment of a 358-unit apartment conplex. They understood that the final regula-
tory decisions were scheduled by the City Council at the end of Janiaary.
HOUSIPJG & REDEVELOP�IFP7T AUTHORITY HFFTItJG, JAP�UARY 8, 1987 PA.GF 2
11r, Robertson stated the developer was waiting for the final permi*, from the
Corps of Engineers.
P1r. Robertson stated f�e would turn tl�e meeting over to the developers for
any statements they would like to make.
"is. Sherrill Y,uretich stated she was speaking on behalf of the developers. ShA
stated she would not make a formal presentation as the HR11 had proba6ly
already heard a great deal about the project. She just wanted to updatP the
HP,A on the status of the land acquisition. They did close on a contract fnr
deed with rhe landowner in December, so the preliminary renuirernents to th?
develo�ment contract have been fulfilled to the effect that they now oti�rn the
property. They will be deeding it over to the HRA. At such time as the
financing is in place for the project, they will 6e askinn the HR11 to then
deed i± hack to then in accordance a�i±h the provisions in the development
contract. She stated she was willinq to ansrier any questions the HRA memhers
might have.
�1r. Pleyer stated that as far as the fJature Center �ras concerned, had anyone
associated with the flature Center expressed any probler�s or concerns with ±his
developrient?
P15. Kuretir.h stated they had no±. If anythinq, the peop?e from the 5p��inghrool:
Nature Center were very pleased with the project and the things heing done in
the Nature Center itself.
h1r. Meyer asked if the HRA needed to be concerned about access from this site
to 85th Ave.
Ms. Kuretich stated she did not thin4; that o-ias an issuP tha` needed to he
resolved at this tine; hoviever, the City was getting an easement over the
northerly portion of the site that woul�i be available fer that connection tn
the north if it was needed.
Mr. Rohertson stated the City Council would make the final determination on
the access road.
P."OTIOP? BY n�R. PRAZP.IE, SF.CONDED BY F1P,. MF,YER, TO CI,OSF. THE PUALrC 1?F.1!P,.T,'.'�.^,
UppN R POICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIIG RYF., CNAIRPFP,SOP; CQ!15.*F.RS PECLARF.P TI?F Pi?I3LIC
NEARING CLOSED AT 7:30 P.M.
2. CO��SIDFRATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THF fXFCIITI�PJ OF A CONTRACT FOP,
PRIVATF DEVELOP�iFfJT BET4JEEN THE HRA AP�D UI�IVERSITY AVEfJUF ASSOCIATFS fOR THE
COI�STRUC7IOf! Of A 353-Ut�IT RENTAL APARTFiENT C(1MPLEY,:
Itr. Cormers stated the HRA memhers had a cony of a draft contract for pri��atP
developr�ent between the HRA and University P.venue Associates. He stated they
have discussed this at length before, but he viould like to revi��� i± again
briefly with legal counsel.
HOUSI"IG & REDEVEl�Ph1ENT AUTH(1RITY MEETING, JAtlUARY 8, 19II7 P�.GE 3
Mr. Cormers asked Mr. Newman to clarify for the record what was done with
respect to the interest in years in terns of deferrel through y?ars 4, 5,
and 6.
Mr. Net�man stated the interest ainuld begin to run at Aw in years 4 a�� 5.
There would be no payment for those two years. The interest for those tv�o
years would be rlivided on a pro-rated basis for the last 10 years, yPars
6-15. The interest �•�as approximately �136,000. Under Section 4.5, th?
developer has posted a 1Ptter of credit in that amo�mt, and that letter of
credit would expire upon completion of the construction.
tir. Coreiers stated that as he understood it, they ���ere no+. �oing to require
a letter of credit as they nnrmally require to ensure the develonr�ent, hut
instead they were getting personal quarantees.
'�1r. �devmian stated that in this case, they have hoth personal guarantees--for
the payment of the second mortqane and paynent of the taxes--Plus a letter of
credit for the two years.
t1r. Car�mers stated he did not see the section that included the personal
guarantees.
�ir. Ne4Rnan stated that apparently *_he personal guarantees had no± been attached
to the cnpy of the development agreement the N W1 memhers had at the meeting,
b�rt had been given to them previously. He stated he would get a cony of the
personal quarantees to the menbers.
P1r. Corimers stated that if they are goin9 to approve the develo�ment agreement
at this meetin9, they should have the complete document before ther�.
P1r. Newman a9reed in that resnec±, but as far as the develo�ment r�uality plan,
it has been practiced some times in the past that becaus? of nnnninn 1�P51�1?,
that portion of the document might not be completed prior to execution �f the
develo�ment agreement.
P1r. Corxners stated some memhers of the HRA have expresse�i a�iesire that prior
to adoption, they wnuld like to at least have sone review of the tynes of
materials bein9 used on the ou+.si�ie of the buildinq, etc. He was not surP
they wanted to get into too much detail.
Mr. Rohertson stated the developmen± quality plan was in the draft sta�e
subject to final verification fron the developers on the materials, etc.
They have discussed the draft and have gotten an agreer�en± on it, and they
are waiting for other portions such as the final site plan. The final si*.e
plan cannot be completed until the developers get the permit fron the Corps
of En9ineers. It was his understanding th�± the development quality plan
would he approved first before the development agreement was actually
consummated.
HOUSI�I� & REDEVELOPt?EPJT AUTHORITY 11FF.TIMG, JAIIUARY E 1987 PAGF 4
3.
�1r. Pleyer stated the Agreement stated that: "Tf�e Authority sfiall have no
obligations of tf�e developer to take any action pursuant to any provisionc
uf this Agreement until such tine as the developer has submitted construction
plans to the Authority."
Mr, hleyer stated he interpreted ±hat to r�ean that even thounh they appro��ed
the development agreement, they would have a 9race period beyond it.
Mr. PJevmian stated the question raised several months ago on the Lake Pointe
Development site was: How do they ensure quality? The fartf�er they qPt into
the specifics of the plans, the easier it is to define i±. In this case, th?
developers are quite far along in tfie design proposal for the project, so,
in essence, the City was taking their floor plans and specifications and
incorporating those into a development quality plan. Of course, even after
the development agreement a�as signed, the developers are going to he doincl
additional designing and planning. The final construction plans will also
have to Le submitted to the City to make sure the final desic�n conforms a�ith
the development agreement.
Mr. Rohertson stated he would get a copy of the draft develnoment qua�i*.y plan
for the NRA memhers.
MOTION BY AfP., MEYER� SF.CONDF,D BY MP,. PRAIRZE� TO RDOPT R550LUTIO.N NO. HPA— 1
19g7, "A RESOLUTION AUTNOR27,ING THE EXF.CUTION OF A COTITRRCT ppR PRIVATR
DF,VTLOP,�7F..JT 47ITN THT UNIVF.RSI_T}' AVF.NlIE ASSOCIA^F,S, A MZN,VF,SOTA PARTNP.RSHIP".
14r. Corimers stated he would like the record to show tha± the HRA had been
presented ��iitf� a copy of the Tax Increment Guarantee /Igreerient which would
be executed hy P1r. Belgaarde and P1r. Yaffee.
UPOIJ A VOICF. VOTE� RLL VOTING AYF,� CHAIP,PEP,SOII C2rfifFRS DECI,�P.P.P TFIT. P10mIOP]
CRF2RZED [7NANIMOUSLY.
110TION BY MR. PRAIRIE� SECONDED BY MP,. IdF.YER, TO AU2HORZZF. S.TAFF '_"O ISSUF A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION TO VANPAGE COMPANIES FOR TXF, COMPLF.TION OF °'HE
F7NOLESALE CLUB AND TO AUTHORIZF. TNE RF,LEASF. OF $30�000 IN SO77. CORRF.CTZON
ASSISTANCF. AS PER THE DEVELOPMENP AGRF,F.MF,NT.
UPON A VOICE VOTF, ALL VpTING RYE, CHAZRPEP,SON COMMTP.S DF,CLARF.D THE MOTIOTI
CARRIF.D UNA.NIMOUSLY.
4. TA[3LED: COf�SIDERATI�Fl OF DRAWIF�G OIJ LOU LUfJDGRF��'S LETTFR OF CRF.DIT:
Mr. Commers stated they fiave had this before the fIRFI several times in the
past. There have heen several extensions by the HRA relative to the dra�+inn
on 'ir. Lundgren's letter of cred9t. It was hfs understandinq tha* �ir. Lim�+arPn
vras supoosed to present sor�e information to the HRA at this meetinq.
HOUSI'I, R �[DFI�ELOPFIENT All?HORITY I•1EFTING, JANUAP,`/ 8, 19^7 PAGF 5
�tr. Rohertson stated no information had heen received fror� P4r. Lunclgren.
Ne had talked to !1r. Lundgren, and �1r. Lund9ren had apolo9ized and saici
tfiat because of extenuating circumstances, he was unable to get this naterial
to the HRA. Mr, Lundgren was at the meeting to give the HRA an uQdate and
ivhy he was not able to get this materiat to the HRA.
Ms. Kuretich stated that at the �ec. HR11 meeting, she had told the HRA she
exnected they would have tv�o thinps by this meeting: (1) a feasibility re�ort
on the project by Meritor Hortgage Corp.; the local mortgage lender Mr. Lundgren
was now workin9 wi±h on the financinc�, and (2) a schedule.
his. Ruretich stated she arould like to tell the HRA what they have done since
the last neetin9. They have met with Pleritor several times and t,hey have also
met with FHA, the local HUD office, about the project. 7hey did not. Y'PCP1���
an ansrier from HUD until Tuesday afternoon, so they were unahle to aPt any
written materials to�etl�er for the HRA's rzeeting.
Ms. t:uretich stated the FHA has gone out and lool:ed at th� site anci has looked
at the submissions made by �1eritor Mort9age and f1r. Lund�ren includin� cash
flow projections, the renderings, and the plans to the extent those are
availahle. The FHA penple do not believe that a hi�h-rise or mid-rise huildin9
is appropriate to this site. She stated Mr. L�mdgren does not aqree with ±he
FHA and does not believe the City agrees with the FHA in li9ht of the fact that
in order to produce the tax increment needed for the project, tliere would have
to he a higher density than a 3-story lov�-rise huilding. hieritor said that
soneone from the FNA office had talked to someone at the City who said th�
Citv did not �iant a nid-rise building. She stated this had caused Mr. Lun�!9ren
sorne concern, because it was contrary to what they had heen pr?sented an�i what
they had assumed the City wanted. She stated she normally did no* repear, t,hirri-
hand inforr�ation, but sf�e felt this was serious enou�h to get a verifica*.ion
from tlie HRA and Staff that they had, in fact,not changed thair view with
respect to the density of this development.
t1s. Kuretich stated the net result was that the FHA has indicated to Mr. Lundqren
that they are not willing to look at this pro,ject for FHA insurance as lon�
as it is a mid-rise project proposed for the site. The elderly portion of
this project would he a six-story mid-rise building.
Ms. Kuretich stated !1r. Lundgren was continuing to worl with "teritor Mortgaqe
to have access to a number of other guarantors, insurers, anrl cnnventional
sources of financing. Ne is also working with other sources in other parts of
the country.
Ms. Kuretich stated she could only reiterate what she had asked the NRP, in
the past, and that was that they are continuing to explore every alternative
available. They had a commitment to do this project froM the FHA, but it was
prior to the Tax Reform Act which has totally thrown everything into a tailsnin.
As long as the HRA was holding the letter of credit which was dravrable until
June 1987, they would like the opportunity to continue to explore all the
HOUSI�lG & RFDFVELOPHEIJT AUTHORITY FIEETING, JAflUAR� fi, 1987 PAG� fi
al�ernatives, always keeping in mind that the HP,A could draw on that letter
of credit in the event another developer comes alonc� with a project they
lil;e better or think might be more successful in performin9. She did not
think it could hurt the HRA to continue to hold tfiat letter of credit as lonn
as it can be drawn upon. On the other hand, as she had stated last month,
if that letter of credit was drawn upon at this time, Mr. Lundgren ��mu7�i he
called upon by the bank to immediately reimburse the bank for the amount of
the 7etter of credit. That would effectively kill any opportunity f1r. Lunr!nr?n
would have to proceed witf� the project.
I1s. Kuretich stated they do not f;P�IP.VP. any other developer v�ould h? in any
better pnsition than Mr. Lundgren to nut to9ether the financinq necessary
for the project as it has been proposed. The FHA r�ade its decision soley
based on what they V7PYJP,CI t0 he the feasihility of the pr000sed nroiect on thP
site. She did not think all prospective lenders were goinn to look at i± in
the sane way; otheri�rise, they vmuld quit right now vrithout spendin� any more
tine on it. �ut, they are askin�t the IIRA's continued indulqence in alloriing
them to explore every avenue availahle hefore the HRA determines they wan± tn
dra��r on the letter of credit.
t1r. Conmers ast:ed if there had been any recent discussions atith Staff ahout,
the letter of credit and tf�e recommendation Staff had made previously that the
HRA drai•� on the letter of credit a+, this *ir�e.
"is. I:uretich stated they have no*_ discussed this ���ith Staff because th�y had
hoped to have more positive proqress Ly this time.
'1r. Lundnren stated Y�e has �torkeci tiith �+lif7 for ten years, an�i v�hat they have
said is they will not ensure the project on this site over tLree stori?s
and that is over medium density according to the C,ity's qualifications. He
understood the tax bonding 4ras still availahle. They �till have to get a
9uarantee other than the IfUD guarantee. There are other I:incls of credit
enhancements and he �rill continue to seek .*.hose out. He state�i h? has nn`, ha�l
much time to do this. He stated he had a meetinn with t1eritor Mortgage the
folloa�ing day, and he will be r�af:in� other phone calls.
Mr.. Qureshi stated he would lil:e to comment in defense of �vhat "?s. Kuretich
had said reqarding the contention that a city employee had told the HJ� office
tha� the City did not want a mid-rise building. The two staff present were
the ones who generally would r�ake that kind of reconmendation, an�i they were
both aware that the HRA and the �ity Council approved the six-story apartmenr,
com�lex on this site. Snmebody was saying the Ci±y did not aonrove when tha,
City has already appro��ed i±. He NlOU�(I hP very SUPDI"15P_(I tI?dt a� staff
menber with any knowledge at all would r�al:e that l:ind of statement.
11r. Cormiers stated he aqreed, especially after they had gone through the
public hearing process and approved the six-story apartment cnr�plex. The
six-story building was actually the resul*. of a comnror�ise between the Ci±y,
the developer, and the neighborhood, compared to the oriqinal oroposal fnr a
12-s±ory building. There had been no change in attitia�le fron the HRA's point
of view.
HOUSI!�� R REDEVEL(1PI1FWT AUTH�I;ITY t1EETI'7G, JA�JIIAR� ti, 1937 PP,GF 7
Mr. Lundgren stated he will have to produce their own feasibility stu�ly
separate fron the one that has already been paid for. They will also have
to produce an appraisal. This �ras kin�l of ir�oortant because any conventional
undererriter was 9oing to re�uire an appraisal of the project as it would
be COf1��PtP.(I a+hich includes a study of the cash flow, expenses, evaluation
of the value of the property, etc.
"1r. Commers stated he was sympathetic to f1r. Lundqren's posi*ion; however,
P1r. Lundgren had to understand that they have had a lot of discussions along
these same lines for many rionths, and they have not seen any �r•o9ress.
P1r. Cor:imers asl:ed if tfiere had been any change in Staff's position or
recor�endation.
t•ir. Qureshi stated that, on the basis of not being repetitious, S*_aff's
rer.ommendation was the same as the last two meetings and that o�as the HRA should
draur on the letter of credit. There a�as an a9reemen±, and the HRA had heen
very concerned that tfiey no± deal rrith a developer �,�ho �!as no± serious ahn!it
the project because of the sensitivity of the neigh6orhood and the numher
of tenants in the existing buildin9. The letter of credit v�as requeste�i to
shoYi that the develooer was indeed serious about the development.
!ir. Cormers stated that was correct. This was an unusual si±ua±ion to the
extent that they have attempted development before that has not worked, and
they wanted to have some assurances at this +.ir�e and to satisfy the tenants
and the neighborhood that tfiis rias a serious proposal.
Mr. Qureshi stated that vias the hasis, an�! novr �1r. Lund�ren has gone �•�ay
beyond the timetable set forth. The a9reement was null and void back in
August 1986, and it �ras no4i January 19R7.
!1r. Cormiers �sf:ed if the drawing or not drawing on the letter of creAit
prejudiced or hurt anythinq at this point as far as innuiries or interest
on the part of other potential developers?
P1r. Qureshi stated there have been inquiries. 7here �ias a financial loss
because the 5200,000 could be drariing interest for the HRA. As long as this
is still lingering,it does have same influence on other projerts. Ho��� �uch
he did not kno��. He had a riade a statement previously that because of the
climate of real es*a±e and the near laws, it migF�t be more difficult Y.o ge*, e
project. The only issue has been that whoever comes in firs± a�ith a vaiid
proposal that is acceptahle--vihether it is "ir. Lundgren or another develoner--
the City will take it. On that hasis, they are not considerinq any obligation
to Pir. Lundgren. Psychnlogically, 6ut not leqally, they are still linke�t t�
Nr. Lundgren. If it vias the decision of the HRA no+. to �raw on ±he letter of
credit, that was a policy decision the NRA had to make.
(is. I<uretich stated she certainly understood hoti�r Ci±y Staff felt and the
N W1's impatience. tir. Lundgren has heen put into a posi±ion thrnuah no fault
of his own. Ne thought the financin� vias arranged for the �roject. She �li�i
HOUSII�G � RFDEVELOPPIENT AIiTNORITY PIEFTING, JAfIUAP.Y f3. 1987 PAGF 8
not want to keep bringing up the Tax Reform Act, hut clearly it has had a
sinnificant impac* on tryinq to finance any k.inri of project, particularly one
that was designed around the uses of tax increr�ent financin�. She stated
she thought it was safe to say tf�is ��as the lar�est overfiaul of the tax code
they have ever seen, and it will take time to adjust.
Ms. Kuretich stated that by 11r. Lundgren continuinq to attem�t to arrange
financing shoaied he was still interested in the pro,iect. She could un�ier-
stand that the City �-ias losin9 interest on the 52��,000; on the other hand,
she thou9ht there was an elenent of fairness involve�i as lonn as �ir. Lunc{gren
was continuing to try to put the package together. He was not responsible
for the Tax Reform Act. In terms of the psyr,hological ir�pact on de�re�nn�rs
who might want to work with the HPJ1, perhaps ir might give these develorers
sone r,omfort to I�no�r that the HRA v�as not anxious to draw on the letter of
credit until it actually becor.ies necessary.
Mr. Prairie stated just the fact that the HRA has not drawn on the letter of
credit for four months already indicated that. If the letter of credir exnires
in June, the HRA should make some kind of firm deadline before that time, as
they have just 9one from one delay to another. He thought 6-7 months was more
than fair.
"1r. Coruners stated he did not �iant "1r. Lundgren to ±hinl; that because they
haven't drawn on his letter of credit that he still had the project. He
might still lose the project. F,notf�er develorer eiinht come in or it might
h� that "Ir. Lund9ren will never he ahle to pu± the project together. At this
point, the HRA had no legal corir*iitr�ent to �1r. Lun�igren.
"Ir. Lundgren stated he �mders±ood that. HP understoo�l there was no le�al
coramitnent, no moral commitrient, and no ethical conmitr�ent. He did intend to
cone in ��i+h a proJect the City and the HRP,viould be excited about, hut he
dici need more time. He wanted to do this pro,iect, and he wanted it to he
successful. The only thing he was asl:ing.of the HRA was they not cash his
le�ter of credit.
P1r. ,"1ey?r stated whether it was now or Nay or June, as he had said before,
he was not sure whether he would vote to cash the letter of credit. f!e fel*
that until such time as they could demonstrate that the City �•�as bein9
financially hurt, then he would be more concerned and ��ould be mnre inclined
to vote to cash the letter of credit.
Mr. Prairie stated that obviously they hone Pir. Lundgren will he able to
make tlie project work.
Mr. Coreners stated he did no*. want to mislead 'ir. Lund9ren to think the
HRA would not do anything and have some artificial date like the P1ay meeting
and say they would no± do anythinn until that mee±�ng. It could happen next
month.
HOUSING � REDEUFI.OP�IENT AUTHORITY HFETIIJG, JAIJURRY 8, 1987 PAGE �
P1r. Cormers stated that a motion to table this item was made at a previous
meetinq. At the last meeting, there was no �oti�n to remove the item froci
the table, and it ��as the concensus of the memhers present that they not
exercise their opCion and not take any action on i.�r. Lundgren's letter o`
credit.
F1r. Cor�mers stated it seemed to be the concensus of the HRF memhers present
that they do not intend to remove the iten fror� the table, and no action
would he taken on �1r. Lundgren's let:er of cre�lit. He cautioned Mr. Lunr�qren
to not read too much into this statement.
'+Ir. Lundqren stated what he read into it was that he hetter meet 4rith Staff
before the next meeting and he prepared to present a formal plan and. schedule
at the HRA's Fehruary meeting.
F1r. Cormers stated that since there were no motions, this item would r?nain
on the table until the next meetin�.
Chairperson Comr.iers declared a ten minute recess at 8:nf1 p,n. The meetinq
vras reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
5. COf�SIDER�TIO�! OF A Pf'(1P(1SAL TO A�'EIlD THE �EDEVFLOPME�17 PIl�N F(1R REDEVFL(1PP1E��T
Mr. Qureshi stated that at the last meetinn durino the revi?ai of the study
on the develoneient of the University Avenue Corridor, it was indicated durinn
the discussion that other than just putting in sor�e cosmetic improvertents,
shrubbery, lighting, etc., the HRA should he looking to see what they r,an do
with some of the other empty land, underutilized land, and some of the suh-
standard structures along University Avenue.
"ir, Qureshi stated that norr�aily each year the State Legislature and the
Federal Government tinker with the authority of the HRA and there �aas some
discussion at the state level to review the whole tax increr�ent situation and
possibly nropose to make it more restrict.ive. Now miqht be the tine for ±he
HRA to looK at this and give some thought to addin9 some areas to Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and making some tools available to see hovi SOP1P underutilized
areas could be utilized.
Mr. Qureshi discussed the properties Staff �ias pron�sinq to he included in
Redevelopment Project No. l, to include the southern end of the !Iniversi±y
Avenue Corridor.
Mr. �ureshi stated the first step wnuld he to estahlish a redevelopmPnt araa.
Theit they could decide �ihich properties were defined under ecnnomic develop-
ment and vrhich ones were defined under redevelopment. After that, nothinn
would happen until the HP.A decided to develon an area and then they wrn�lrl
create an increment district.
HOUSI��G R REUEVELOPI9FPIT AUTNORITY NEFTING, JANUARY 8, 1987 P/!f,F 1�
Nr, Corr,iers stated as he understood it, the University Avenue Corridor
proposal the HRA has adopted did not in and of itself at this time provirie
for the taking of any underutilized or underdeveloped land.
Mr, Qureshi stated that was correct. The University Avenue Corridor pr000sal
was only for the general aesthetics and appearance for nublic right of way.
But, at the last month's meeting, there was sor�e discussion that the Ci±y
needed to do more tfian just the general aesthetics and anpearance.
Mr, Qureshi stated if it was the HRA's �iesire to proceed, the tiRA should
instruct Staff to start preparinq infornation and cone back to the HRA with
a formal presentation. He stated Staff has estimated that the amen�ir�ent to
the redevelopment plan to include the southern end of the liniversity AvenuP
Corridor could be accomplished in a ninir�um of twn months v�ith ten s±ens.
These ten steps were outlined in `1r.Robertson's memo to the HRA dated
Jan. 2, 19F37.
Mr. Meyer statetl he YJdS remembering about 20 years ago when the tornado hit
Fridley and the tasks of the HRA then. The perceptions of some of the peonle
at that time were they felt somethinn vaas beinq thrust down their throats, anrl
they turned against even the beneficial aspects of redevelopnent.
'1r, h1eyer stated it might be beneficial to informally approach sor�e "key" people
in these proposed areas, talk to them and get some informal feeback. P1aybe
the mayor or the appropriate councilperson could describe what the Citv was
proposing and get some feedback before going puhlic with this i�iith �iihlir.
hearings. This r�i9ht avoid any prohlems that mi9ht hacY.fire in the main events
that are going on,
P1r. Prairie stated he thougf�t most people would not he opposed to heing
included in a redevelopment district; however, it viouldn't hurt to make peor,le
aware of it,
^ir. Cor�ners stated that in the ten steps listed hy Staff, Step #4 was to "set
City Council public hearin9". He thought the NRA, has alviays had the puhlic
hearing in the past.
Ms. Orduno stated that by law, the HRA was not required tn h�ve the publir.
hearinq, but the City Council eras required to have a public hearing.
Mr. Corimers asked if the City Council had any feelings as to whether the HP,A
shou7d or should not have a first public hearinq hefore the City Council`s
public hearing and then be able to make recormendations to the Council.
Would that be a better procedure or should the City Council hold the only
public hearing? �
Mr. Qureshi stated he could ask this question of the City Council menbers.
If the City Council wants the HRA to also hold a puhlic hearing, he would advise
the HRA of that decision.
HOUSIWG & RFDEVELQPt1Et�T AUTH(JRITY t1EETINr, JAtdUARY 8 1987 P�G� }1
10
Flr. Prairie stated fie would have no obiection to the HRA also holdinn a nuhlir,
hearing, but if it was not necessary, it would save ther� a little tir�e.
Mr. Meyer stated he had no objection to the NRA having a puhlic hearinn.
before the City Council's public hearing. His main concern was what he had
raised earlier. He was concerned hecause they were tall:ing about one of the
sane areas the HRA dealt with 70 years aqo. It seemed to him that to soma
extent people were still going to see this as control of their property beinn
ta4:en away from them.
Mr.dewr�an stated there was at least a month unti7 the first quhlic hearinn,
so there would be ample time for the City �ounciloerson to tall: to sone of
the neiqhbors if he(she wanted to.
�1r. Qureshi stated the City Council could decide to put a notice in the paper
or sencl a letter to every owner affected or potentially affecter!, but he
thought Staff needed to do some preliminary viork before they proceed too much
farther. Hopefully, Staff can come back with more information at the NRA's
next meetina.
!tr. Commers stated he did no± think the fiRA had any problem with Staff goinc�
ahead and starting some prelir�inary work, r,omino back to the HRA with more
information, so the HRA can determine how they should proceed from there.
It was the concensus of the HPJl to authorize Staff to do sor�e preliminary
work on the proposal to amend the redevelopment �lan to include the southern
end of the University Avenue Corridor, Gefore any public hearing was held,
the HRA would like 5taff to discuss with the City Council s�r�e of the cnncerns
raised at this meetinq. The HRA would be making the decision on whether or not
to go forward;and at that time, the HRA could decide on the apnropri�te way
to publicly present this.
�1r. Prairie stated there were no dollar amoun±s listed in the resolution.
Mr. Commers stated that was a good point. The HP.A has only authorized a
certain dollar amoimt on that project. It would be good for a dollar amount
to be included in the resolution. He stated that also in the past, the I�P.D,
has ala�ays paid the design contracts directly if not associated with the
construction. The only time they have reimbursed the City was on construction
contracts.
�1r. Qureshi stated this resolution would have to be re�eorked and sh:,ild be
withdrawn at this tine.
P1r. Cormers stated he would like to have the dollar amounts included in whar.ever
neur resolution was brought bacl; to the liRA.
HOUSING & REDEVELOPh1E1JT AUTf'ORITY P1E[TI;�G, JAf�UARY 8 19£37 PAGE 12
11. 1985 FIfJAIlCIAL STATFPiFP;T:
Mr. Prihyl stated he would apologize to some degree for ±he delay in gettinq
the financial statement to the HRA. For some reason the auditors had tied
it up for 3-4 months in their office. The City did not actually see the
stater�ent im til October. Another problem �aas tha± 7ast year Pir, Sid Inr�an
and P1r.Pribvl�s assistant left the City, so there viere snm? nroblems I)P.CdUSP
of the lack of staff, He stated that situa'ion has noo� been correcte�i.
From this time on, the HRA v�ill have a verv timelv financial statement. The
1936 financial statemt�nt will he prasented�to the HRA in June or July.
tir. Pribyl reviewed the hi�h poin±s of the financial statrment.
"ir. Comners stated one schedule the HRA had in th� nast tha± he would requ?st
Staff prenare again for the HRA �vas a general schedule reflecting the total
anounts of money paid by the HRA to the City of Fridley for services r?n!�ered
and ��rhat those services are. Specific individuals did not have to be nar�ed.
Another request by the HRA vras to receii�e an analysis of tlle investr�ents
over the year to be done on an annual basis.
12. CLAI"1S (1557-1564):
'."OTIOl.' I3Y 7dR., PRAIP.IE � SECO:JDAD RI' 11R. "tEYFR � TO ZiPPRO��F. T9Ts CHEC?' P.T'GIS"'EP.
AS PRESENTED,
C1PON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTSNG AYF., CH�IIRPEP.5027 COMMP,RS DECIARP;D TF�F' MCITSOLr
CARRIED UNANIMOI7SLY.
13, HRA AIJ'J!!AL REPORT:
'ir. Robertson stated he would like the HRA to give th�ir genera7 approval o'
the annual report hefore it was printed and mailed out,
It was the concensus of the HRA r�emhers that t�ey would like to read the
report before giving their anproval and ��1a�ld contact P?r.Robertson befora
noon the fnllowin9 day if there o-rere any probler�s.
14, UIJIVERSITY AVENUF CORRIDOR LIGHTIN� DFSIGtl:
Mr. Robertson stated the HRA members had a copy of a memo from John Flora
to himself concerning the desiqn of the lighting system on the llniversity
Avenue Corridor. fie stated the City intended to hire Robert Eller, a r?tiree
from NSP, who now does consultin9 +vork. 11r. Eller was extremely familiar
with all NSP's requirements on servicing and was knowledgeahle about all
MnDOT requirements. Ptr. Eller would design the liahting syster� and would get
the necessary F1nDD7 permits and make sure NSP would service the lines. The
cost of Pir.Eller's �ervices was 51,�00.
HOUSI��G & RF�F.VELOP�1.f."JT AUTHORITY tiFETIPIG JANUARY 8 1987 PAGF 13
MOTION AY MR. PRAZRIE, SECONDED BI' MR. MF,YF,R, TO Ai1TXORIZF. S_TAFF :PO P,FTAIP
TXE COPISULTItJG SERVICFS OF ROBERT EHLER AT A COST NOP TO EXCEED 51�000
TO DESIGN THF. LIGNT7NG SYSiEAf O"� THE UNZS�FRSZTY AVF.NUF, CORRIDOP,.
Mr. Rohertson stated that in December, the HR4 approved a minimuro liqhtinn
plan vihich would include just the intersections. They would like '?r. Ehl?r
to desi9n the lighting for the entire corridor so that in the future if they
want to do more and light the whole corridor, the intersection desiqn will
be consistent with maki�g those additions.
UPG:: d*�O?CE ?/OTF., ALT. ?/OT.7:�G AYT:, CHAIRPF.RSOI,� C2^?.MF,RS DP,CLIdP.F;.� _TffF, 1'OTIO^
C.IRRIED UNANIM011SLY.
AO,I�UR�IMENT:
MOTZON BY F1R. PfF.YfiR, SF,CONDED B}' l!R, PRRIRIT, TO ADJDURN TFIF, "97'FTSl1G. UPOP7 A YoICE
VO�'E � ALL ?'OmIR'G RYF. , CHAIRPF.RSON COIi^7ERS DECLIiRED THE JANC7ARY 8� Z 987 , HDI'.SZNG 6
RF,PET.�F.LOp,"fF,f7T AUTHORIT7' MEETING ADJOURNF,D AT 10:40 P,Af.
Respectfully submatted,
�'i'Y��2L w�c—ti-N
Lyi n Saba
Rer.ording Secretary
p1� � � � � � .
�w-'�'CLL1ti%� 4- ..�ul.��C�f;�*�s�/h-�?�-� �L�1.�U/2{_�
/
,� } �.e�
^ '"�, � �
�� ��, a�, � � ,
��
, ,;
�, ,.,r� � ���..� ��.�
.�--- _ --
��,v� %�5���'�
� i , `�I(
f-`�`�l �4 �i- �
1 ''
�
�� , j%
w t ?,c.l'- �j _ �`t �(;1.�"<-c�
. �
�).':'r �., t ''�'r,-�>-'�- �_
{
.
�� �l r;�/�. a'�'tU ��
.7�� � �'� z�� , !'_L � - �z�;� _s
� `7 �; (,, %� -���� (�---LI.G _ J�. - �G`�'i K� ��4"'
!/ �f l� i�.�C,,.� ���o,G� d'f ��r . SS7E
!�
`- VILt'/-'.:rJ __ _ � (_ 1
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEFLS COt4I4ISSI0t1 1•1EETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1987
CALL TO OR�ER:
Chairperson Betzold called the February 17, 1987, Appeals Comnission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present
Menbers Absent
Donald Detzold, Alex Barna, Jerry Sherek, Kenneth Vos
Diane Savage
Otfiers Present: Darrel Clark, City of Fridley
Louis Rosburg, 2407 - 139th Ave. N.IJ.
Edward Y.owalski, 1990 - 181st Ave. N,IJ.
Harley Thureen, 7559 Lyric Lane
Richard & Carolyn Larson, 5316 �4atterhorn Dr.
Janet & Robert Oulicky, 5332 14atterhorn Dr.
Tom & Arlene Albers, 1390 5kywood Lane N.E.
C. M. Engebretson, 5376 �1atterhorn Dr.
APPROVAL OF JA!JUARY 13, 1987, APPEALS COP1HISSION �1INUTES:
MOTION BY l9R. BARNA� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREX� TO APPROVE THE JAN. 13� 2987,
APPEAZS COIfMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEIr'.
UPOti A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIl7G AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE 1dOTZON
CARRZED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. COPJSIDERATIOW QF A VARIAI4CE
EST, UAR #87-01. BY HARLEY THtfREEN, PURSU�NT
OF
3
MOTION BY DR. VOS� SECONDED BY l+II2. BARNR, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON R VOICE VOSF„ ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HERRZNG OPEN AT 7:34 P.M.
Chairperson 6etzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
AD�1INISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7365 CEtdTRAL AVE�JUE N.E.
A�IERICAN LEGIOt� POST #303
VAR #87-01
APPEALS C011MISSION �9EETING, FE6RUARY 17 1987 PA6E 2
A. PU[iLIC PURPOSE SERVED EiY REQUIREMENT:
Section 214.11.2, E, requires a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from
any property line or driveway.
Public purpoSe served by this requirement is to avoid congestion in
the public street and traffic hazards and other dangers.
B. STATED HARDSIIIP:
"If we were to erect the sign in compliance with the code, the sign
would take one needed parking stall. A variance is needed to place
sign in the green area and off of parking lot."
C. ADIIINISTATIVE S7AFF REV7EW:
The Mierican Legion had a sign in the northwest corner, green space,
just south of Onondaga and east of Old Central, The sign was in the
right-of-way of Onondaga and may have 6een in the Old Central right-of-
way.
City code states that signs are to be 10 feet from the right-of-way
and from a driveo-ray. The proposed sign would replace the previous sign
in this area. It has been proposed that the sign be located 15.5 feet
from the Onondaga right-of-way, this is 5.5 feet more than required by
City code.
The reason for a variance is that Old Central has a 28 foot right-of-way
on both sides of the road. There is only 18 feet of additional green
space from the right-of-way line to the edge of the driveway. The
American Legion is petitioning to have the sign built inside the 10 foot
riqht-of-way and drivewav setback requirements.
Mr. Clark stated there was a correction in the variance as published.. lJhen
the petitioner brought in the first location for the sign, it was thought it
would have to be within the County right-of-way. That was not true. After
measurements were taken, the sign will actually be 0 feet from the property
line at the right-of- line line. So, the variance should be changed to read
from 10 ft. to 0 ft.
Mr. Clark stated it was 100 ft. ,right-of-way from Central Ave. which was quite
a bit r�ider than normal, even for a County Road (r�ost are 66 ft.), leaving a
28 ft. green space within the- right-of-way itself. So, the face of the sign
will actually be 28 ft. from the curb on Central Ave. There were no known
plans to widen or iraprove Central Ave., at least in the near future. He stated
he did not have the exact sign design, but it did meet the height requirement
and size requirer�ents in the Sign Code.
Mr. Harley Thureen stated there was possibly some misunderstanding of what
they were asking for. They were proposing to be 8 inches off the County
right-of-way line where Mr. Clark had shown it as 0 ft. They were proposinq
APPEALS CO�it4ISSI0N MEETING. FEBRUARY 17. 19II7
PAGF
a 10 ft. wide sign so the edge of the sign, stead of being 10 ft. off the
driveway line, would be 6 ft. off the driveway line. The 5 ft: dimension
in the north/south direction was correct, and the edge of the sign would be
off the County right-of-way by 8 inches.
Mr. Thureen stated what
the second parkinq stall
to lose a parking stall.
they had originally proposed was to put the sign in
with bumper curbs around it, but they cannot afford
MOTION BY MR. BARNA� SECONDED BY DR. VOS� TO CLQSE THF. PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPF.RSON BETZOLD DECLARED TXE PUBLIC
HEARZNG CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M.
f4r. Barna stated he actually saw the need for two variances: a varaince fror�
the driveway line fror� 10 ft. to 6 ft., and the 10 ft. fror� the public right-
of-way requested to be 5 ft. inside the public rigi�i-of-way was nooi 6 inches
outside the public right-of-way. Technicallv both on the east side of tfie
sign and on the west side of the sign, variances were required. There was no
doubt that this was a better position for the sign, but he wondered if thev
would need to republish the notices for the public hearing again.
Mr. Clark stated the critical part of the sign to the driveway was for visual
traffic. It was proposed that the height �f the sign was 10 ft., so it
would not interfere with the line of sight. In reading the Sign Code, it does
say "10 ft. from any property line or driveway". He would suggest that the
Appeals Commission go ahead and make a recommendation as it has to do with the
right-of-way, and if that was not correct, then the variance request would have
to be ti�ithdrawn or republished. He agreed this was the best position for
the siqn.
Mr. Betzold stated he was not quite sure the hardship had been demonstrated,
otfier than they want a si9n. On the other hand, the sign did meet the require-
ments of the Sign Code.
Mr. Clark stated that no matter where the sign was put, it was either goin9
to be closer than 10 ft, to the right-of-way or it was goinq to be closer
than 10 ft. to the driveway.
MO�'ION BY I+1R. BARNA, SECONDED BY DR. VOS� TO RF.COMMEND TO CITY COUf7CIL
APPROVAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #B7-01, BY HARLEY THUREEN, PURSUANT TO
CXAPTER 214.11,2� E� OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE THE MINZIfUl9 ALLO[JABLE
DZSTANCE FROM 10 FT. FROM THE WESTERN PROPF.RTY LINE TO 6 INCHES FROM THF
WESTERIJ PROPERTY LINE AND FROM 10 FT. FROM THE EASTERN DRIVEWAY CURB TO
6 FEET FROM TXE EASTERlT DRIVEWAY CURB� TO ALLOW THE ERECTZON OF A SZGN ON
�,.,^'_' _', BZACY. 1� i7AL1✓UT ADDITIOP7� THE SA.ME BEING THE SHADDRICK AND LABEAU
an�_c�arrzre T.Rl:70N POST NO. 303, 7365 CENTRAL AVEiJUE N,E„ FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA.
55432.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BET20LD DECLRRED THE MOTIOIJ
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPEALS COlit�IISSION tiEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 4
2.
�dr. Betzold stated this would go to the Cfty Council on Feb. 23. The petitioner
should get in touch with Staff before then, though, to see if, for
any reason, this variance would have to be withdrawn or republished.
MOTION BY MR. SHEREX� SECONDED BY MR. BARNA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTZNG AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLAR£D TXE PUBLIC
HEaRING OPEN RT 7:52 P.M.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
5280 MAIN STREET
KURT 11ANUFACTURING C0.
VAR #87-02
A. PUQLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREt4ENT:
Section 205.18.3, C, la, requires that the maximum percentage of the
area of a lot allowed to be covered by the main buildinn and all
accessory buildings for a one-story building is forty percent maximum.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide for adequate
parking, open landscaped areas, and to limit congestion of industrial
areas.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"The nature of our busirress is precision machining. The materials
required are very expensive castings, weldments, impact extrusions,
etc. These materials require certification and documentation, meaning
that we have paperwork and serialization requirements.
7he area in question now has a complete roof constructed of stee] bar
joists, steel decking, and an asphalt and gravel roof. The ground is
now of a blacktop surface that is not level or smooth.
My request for a variance would allow enclosing this area, frost
proofing of footings, new concrete flooring, lighting, and heatin9.
Kurt Manufacturing Company has had proble�ra with pilferage, parts beinq
damaged by weather and moisure, and an unreasonable amount of time for
the parts to warm up or cool to ambient temperatures.
�
HPPEALS C0�1�1ISSI0:"1 PIEETING, FEBKUARY 17, 1987 PAGF 5
Government requirements also require security. Some of our other
customers also require confidential agreements on their parts."
C. ADIIINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
In 1975, Kurt �4anufacturing was granted a varance that allowed them to
increase the maximum lot coverage allowed under the Code from 40 percent
to 47,51 percent.
The petitioner is now proposing to enclose a 142 foot by 19 foot over-
hang located along the south side of the westerly half of their existing
building. This long overhang section is currently being used for out-
side storage, so enclosing it would not reduce the number of existing
parking stalls, However, enclosing this section would increase the lot
coverage percentage on the property owned by Kurt �4anufacturinc� to
approximately 49 percent. They do have a long-terr� lease with Burlinoton
Northern on a 6Q ft, by 360 ft. (21,600 square feet) strip of property
located adjacent to thar west property line which holds 100 cars and
which Kurt �lanufacturing has paved, curbed and striped. If this leased
parcel were to be added into Kurt's overall lot area, the lot coverage
percentage would fall to approximately 44 percent.
Mr. Clark stated the Commission members had a copy of the terms of the lease
with Burlington Northern for the parking. The lease was for an indefinite
period of time with some kind of cancellation clause in case Burlington Northern
ever wanted to use the property. Kurt tlanufacturina also has another lease,
a five year lease, for the property to the north for 35 parking spaces. So,
Kurt �1anufacturing has provided enough parking on their site or leased sites
to accommodate their needs,
Mr. Clark stated that as mentioned in the staff report, if tMe railroad leased
parcel was added into Kurt Ptanufacturing's overall lot area, the lot coverage
would fall to 44 percent which would be less than what they were allowed in 1475.
Mr. Clark stated the area hehind the building has a roof aver it. When they
carne in for a building permit, Kurt Manufaeturing was not aware they also
needed a variance. They have already poured the footings, but they understand
that if this variance was denied, the footings would be couered and they
would just continue to use the area as open storage.
Mr. Lou Rosberg stated�he believed the roof area has existed since 1967. That
was all supported with steel beans along the south side so it was restricted
from parking anyway. The idea at that time was to store the castings and
materials out of the way and to keep the rain off them. What they run into
►�ith the magnesium was that when it gets wet, they lose the castings.
Mr. Rosburg stated another problem was pilfering of expensive heavy aluminum
castings. They are secured to the railroad tracks with a fence but not so
secure that something can't be taken out if someone wants it bad enough.
They have had a lot of castings disappear.
APPEALS COMI4ISSION MEE7ING, FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 6
�4r. Rosberg stated with the roof open, it makes for a dirt trap. The wind
blows and they get dirt all over the castings, Also birds rest in the I
rafters and made a mess. �i
Mr. Rosburg stated also with the large castings, it takes ddys for them to I
warm up to a useable temperature in the wintertime and also in the summer '
they get too hot.
Mr. Rosburg stated he has talked to the Burlington Northern about the lease
attd what their plan was for the property in the future, They said there
was abso7ute7y no value to the property to them except for the rent fro� Kurt
Manufacturing. .
Mr. Rosburg stated they have also opened up a lot, 160 ft,: x 90 ft., for
additional parking. By adding this property, it gave them even a lower lot
coverage area than with just the Burlington Northern property.
MOTION BY �dR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK� TO CLQSE THE pUBLIC HEARING,
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL [�OTING AYE, CNAIRPERSON BETZOLD DfiCLARED THE PUBLSC
HEe7RING CIASED AT 8:08 P.M.
Mr. 8arna stated he could see no problem with this variance request, The
hardship was well stated. There was an additional purpose in favor of it
and that was they would be adding this area as an energy-conserving air lock
from the main bui]ding, �nd the safety aspects of not having to haul large castings
on the exterior exposed blacktop fioor area. Af far as the green space, they
were not changing that. As far as the actual roof coverage, they were not
changing that. All they would be adding was a wall around the outside of it.
Dr. Vos stated he had looked at the site that day. It was similar to
enclosing a three-season porch. The area was covered already, and it was
just a matter of putting up the walls.
Mr. Sherek and F1r. Betzold agreed with what had been said and were in favor
of the variance request.
MOTION BY DR. I�OS, SECONDED BY MR. BARNA� TO RECOMMEND TO CZTY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF VARZANCE REQUEST� VAR #87-02� BY KURT MANUFRCTURZNG COMPANY�
PURSUANS TO CXAPTER 205,18,3, C, la, OF THE FRZDLEY CITY CODE TO IL7CREASE �
THE MAXZMUM PERCENTAGE OF TXE ZAT AREA ALLON'ED TO BE COVERED BY MAIN AND
ACCESSORY BUILDZNGS fiROM 40 PERCENT MAXIMUM FOR A ONE-STORY BUILDING TO �
49 PERCENT FOR A ONE-STORY BilLDING (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR 47 PERCEI7T)� ON
PART OF IAT 4� AUDITOR'S SUBDZVISION #75, THE SAME BEING 52B0 MASN STREET N.E.,
FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA� 55421,
UPO.N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTFNG AYE, C.YAZRPEHS^P7 BE.TZOLD DECLARED THE MOTIO^i
CARRIED UNRNZMOUSLY.
APPEALS COtR1I5SI0N MEETING FEBRUARY 17 1987 PA6E 7
3.
MOTZON BY MR. BARNA� SECONIID BY DR. VOS� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC NEARING.
UPON R VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTTNG RYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HERRZNG OPEIJ AT B:10 P.M.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
5316 MATTERHORN DRIVE N,E.
UAR #87-03
A. PU6LIC PURP�SE SERVED SY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.07.3, D, 3a, requires a rear yard with a depth of not less
than 25 percent of thc lot depth and not less than 25 feet permitted
or more than 40 feet required for the main building.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide rear yard space
to be used for green areas which enhance the neighborhood.
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"The kitchen is too small and we wou7d like to put a dinette in the
addition.
The family room is in the basement and molds and mildew build up in
the furniture and carpeting. Carolyn has allergy problems and we would
like to have the addition become the family room where a mildew problem
could be eliminated."
C. ADIIIPJISTRATIVE STAFF REUIEW:
This property lies on the western side of Matterhorn Drive and the house
faces east.
Both of the houses on the two adjacent properties do not face t9atterhorn
Drive--the house on the north faces Skywood Lane, and the house to the
south faces 53rd Avenue. Both of these houses have attached garages
that are in excess of 23 feet from the comnon property line. Therefore,
if the proposed addition was constructed, it will be at least 43 feet
to tlie nearest adjacent structures.
If the Appeals Commission approves this request, staff has no stipulations
to recommend.
APPEALS COHMISSIGN MEETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PA6E 8
Mr, Clark stated there was one correction in the staff report. The house
that faces Skywood Lane did not have an attached garage. There was space to
build a garage, and a permit was issued a few years ago,'but the garage was
never built. The reason for the large space between the s�dP of the
petitioner's addition the proposed addition was because there used to be a
street there that was vacated. The street was 33 ft. wide and when it was
vacated, it all went to the property owners on the west. The City has retained
a 15 ft. easement for a waterline.
t4r. Larson stated at this time the kitchen was too small for four adults.
As stated in the staff report, his wife does have allergy problems. and they
would like to have the faroily room upstairs to get away fror� the mold and
mildew problem. {ie stated they do have a very quiet and private backyard with
a privacy fence all around it,
Mr. Larson submitted letters to the Commission from neighbors stating they
had no objection to the addition and a medical letter from a registered nurse
regarding 11rs. Larson's allergies.
MOTION BY MR. BARNA� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK� TO RECEIVE THE LETSERS FROM
R08ERT OULICKY, SANDY & RRY PRESTEMO.N, KEVIN 6 PAM O'ROURKE, AIdD A LETTER
FkOM R REGZSSERED NURSE� CAROL MAECKELROY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, CNAZRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTZON
CARRZED UNANZMOUSLY.
Mr. Larson stated they had drawings done to see if they could stay within
the 11 ft. setback, and they ended up with a stubby, compact area that really
did not fit their rteeds. If they have to stay within code, the addition would
be 11 ft, by 24 ft.
Pir. Tom Albers, 1390 Skywood Lane, stated he had no objection to the Larson's
bui�iding the addition. Mr. Larson would be using his property for access for
building this addition.
Mr. Robert Oulicky, 5332 Matterhorn Drive, stated he did not have any
objection.
MOTION BY MR. BARNA� SECONDED BY MR. SNEREK� TO CIASE THE PUBLIC HfiARZNG.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VO27NG AYE� CXAIRPERSON FETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Barna stated he felt the most important factor here, including the
hardship, was the fact that this house was set back about 57 ft. from the
curb instead of 35 ft.; therefore, limiting the backyard space before an
addition. So, another 10 ft. to the back was not going to make any
difference.
Mr. Betzold stated the Appeals Commission period9cally 9ets similar requests.
If this house was located sanewhere else, they might have to look at it more
APPEALS COt4MI5SI0N MEETING, FEQRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 9
4.
closely. The question of the allergies which was a very big concern to the
petitioner did not quite meet the statutory test. One of the thinqs
that did make this a hardship was the uniqueness of the property. Ne did
not think they would see very many neighborhoods or houses that were very
similar to this one where there was a road vacation, and the houses on both
side face in opposite directions. All these factors made it easier for
the petitioner to put on an addition that might not be feasible for another
house in another location.
Mr. Sherek stated hecause of the lack of problems with this and the purpose
of the code being for green area and visual space, he did not see any problem
with putting the addition on the back of the house. However, it was hard for
him to come up with a hardship for this request. Since there was not really
much of a hardship, but there was also not much of a problem with the
request, he would vote in favor of the variance.
MOTION BY MR. BARNA� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK� R'O APPROVE VARIRNCE REQUEST,
VAR 3i87-03, BY RICHARD AND CRROLYI7 LARSON, PURSUANT TO CXAP2'ER 205.07.3, D, 3a,
OF THE FRZDLEY CITY CQDE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACX FROM 30 FEET TO
20 FEET SO ALLOW TXE CONSTRUClION OF ADDITIONAL LZVTNG SPACE ON LOT 2,
BIACK 6, INNSBRUCK FIRST RDDITI077, THE SAME BEZNG 5316 MATTERHORV DRIVE N.E.,
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, 55422.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BBTZOLD DECLARED THE MOPION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Betzold stated he had discussed this proposed ordinance change with the
Planning Commission members at their meeting. They all seemed to be very
much in favor of it.
Mr. Clark stated this was handed out to several people who work at City Hall,
and they all seemed to be able to interpret it. He thought the wording was
clear enough that anyone who reads the ordinance should be able to understand
it. He stated legal counsel would also be reviewing it to make sure the
language was legally correct and the numbering.
tAr. Clark stated if the Appeals Lomnission was in agreement with the proposed
ordinance change, they should recommend approval of it to the City Council.
He stated that as staff person, he was very much in favor of it.
The Commissioners agreed they were in favor of the proposed ordinance change.
It should help alleviate some of the variance requests they get for garage
expansions where there was already a hardship because of the uniqueness of
the property or the way the house was situated on the lot, and there was
really no need for the Commission to spend time on these types of requests.
APPEALS COt�P1ISSI0N �4EETING, FEBRUARY 17, 1987 PAGE 10
MOTION BY MR. BARNA� SECONDED BY MR. SHEREK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCZL
APPROVAL OF TNE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE
EXISTING ONE-STALL ATTACHED GARAGE SZDE YARD SETBACKS. .
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� CHAXRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTZON
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AbJOURNMEP�T:
MOT70.N BY DR, VOS� SECONDED BY MR. BRRNA, SO RAIOURN THE MEETING, UPON A VOZCE
VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TNE FEBRUARY 17� 5987,
APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING AD.ZOURNED AT 8:48 P.M.
Respectful7y submitted,
.i[:�,!-y,ry,-i:_.,T� �i.,!�-f'�
Lynne,5aba
Recording Secretary
����
Jz �� f � air�j
�Q�',�f T J!/i,�i �liy
�� �/�rn s
/' .
( ,�_'-- ��....��.� u ..
I i� LEf'� �'EE�
� ,
f L✓ �r?� �<;,is4t��:evt
� {��� /',� L �(�� .,J
-
� �
,!i. .,;,. !-,s+�....�
. /-`✓..: %�✓!i.%A'✓
{ _ t� �,�,I�l, :j !�p�..'j= LS ,�'i
�cxxcz.� �5
S33a%✓71 �'.�> ���
�� 3� � �1�;,-���_�� OR
�.3yO d'��wpe�i�.. NL
/31d �It'Jwlr i.?�%lt
7sS9 Gy�C C,�u�
."_�,� �
�% J
S 3 i �?s>/?1�?r'r'o!'r� j%�
n
�yD7 /39�"%:� N:.,-�
I 990 !g� �' />',� ivw
;�� �
?
3
a
/
�
�
rr
�
�