PL 10/07/1987 - 6923City of Fridle�
A G E N D A
PLANNING �NP�IISSION NEETING WFDfIFSI�AY, OQ�DBAt 7r 1987 7:30 P.M.
Location: Co�ci1 Chamber (upper level)
ar, , Qu�r.u.•
rmr.r. rar.r.•
APp�t�' pj�Tv�T'I�r �hu"TCSTON rTj`nTl'F,S• 4F71'P.MgFR 16 1987
•� �il�: •\ � �D.�}� •\ • r �i � + �
� �1 \. N�� �� . f � . V Y?'1 N uIV �ICt � :: �WI 11
• �.: .l. .Y � ��.`/Y: .�U.
.,, �.
RF.CEIVE 'gIE FNII�GY OOtM'IISSION MLNU`iFS OF AUGUST 25, 1987 LILAC
RECEIVE THE Ei[JMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES OF SALMON
SEFPENBIIt 17, 1987
RECEIVE �iE APFEALS ODi�II4CSSI0N MII�JTES OF SEPTEI�IIt 22, YELLOW
1987
OTHFR BUSINFSS:
•� • •� �
r
i
�
�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLAIJfJIWf COMPIISSION MEETItIG, SEPTE�IBER 16, 1987
CALL TD ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the September 16, 1987, Planninq Commission meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
P1er�bers Present:
Meribers Absent
Steve Billings, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Ricliard 5vanda, Donald Betzold
Wone
Otfiers Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
?ony Spigarelli, 3315 td. 2nd St., Mpls.
Jim Benson, 620 Mendelsson Ave., Mols.
William Henley, 6300 Qaker St. N.E.
lielen & Gerald Plachowicz, 6314 Baker St. IJ.
R. C. 8ard, 6347 Bal:er St. N.E.
Mary & Francis van Dan, 6342 Baker St. Ia.E.
Sarah fiarder, 2822 Leyland Trat 1, 4Joodbury
Karol & David Andreasen, 5510 - 164 Lane P�,W
Ken Belgarde, 7841 Wayzata Blvd.
E.
, Anoka
Linda fisher, 1500 IJorthwestern Financial Center, 7900 �erxes Ave. S.
Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace
Dave Harris, 470 Rice Creek Boulevard
Ken Bureau, 5630 W. Danube Road
fdancy Jorgenson, City Councilperson-at-Larqe
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 5, 1987, PLANNIIJ6 C0�4MISSION 14IIJUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA� TO RPPROVE THE AUGUST 5� 19B7,
PLANNING COMMZSSZON MINUTES AS WRI2TEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED SHE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIM.OUSLY.
l. PUf3LIC HEARING: COfJSIDERATIO�� OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #87-17, BY CEtJ
Kuvrirua 6U!'7YHIlY:
er Section .18.1,C,9,of the Fridley City Code to allow exterior storage
of materials and equipment on part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivis9on t�o. 79,
the same being 4500 Main Street �J.E.
MOSION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR, SVANDA� TO WAIVE THE READ'NG OF THE
FORMAL PUBLIC HERRING NOTICE RND TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOZCE VOTE� RLL VOTING AYE, CXAZRPERSON BILLZNGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HERRING OPEN RT 7:32 P,M.
Y
PLAtU�ING COMMISSIO�� t4EETING, SEPTEHBER 16, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. Robinson stated the oetition was for outside storage on the northerly
5 acres of the formerly CECQ Corporation at 4500 t4ain St. At the last meeting,
a special use permit was processed for outside storage for Rubber Research
located on the southerly 5 acres of the same site, Central Roofing Company
applied for a special use permit for outside storage around March of this
year. The reason for the delays was because of concerns by Staff and the
City Council related to a potential odor problem.
Mr. Robinson stated the property was zoned P1-2, heavy industrial; however, it
was across the street from residential, both R-1 and R-2. The site plan sub-
mitted by Central Roofing included that a majority of the site would be uti-
lized for outside storage. One of the key issues of this petition would be
the parking of tanker trucks which carry asphaltic material. Odor was one of
Staff's concerns based on the fact that odors are associated ��ith the heating
of tar.
P1r. Robinson stated Mr. Spigarelli, President of Central Roofing, hired Twin
City Testing, and on April 27-29, 1987, they conducted a test on the site
utilizing two heated tankers parked in the rear of the northwest portion of
the site and oneheated truck which was instructed to drive up and down
Main St. Twin City Testir,q conducted the qualitative analysis at one
minute intervals,�esting �for odor. The report fror� Twin City Testing
was in Che Planning Commission agenda. What Twin City Testing noticed was
moderate but only transient odors associated ��ith "peak impact" of actual usage
of the site, and those odors were only noticed for 2-3 seconds while the trucks
passed. In addition, trucks were parked on the northwest corner of the site,
and no odors were noticed until they got within 50 meters of the hot trucks.
They also parked the trucks the third day in the cold state in the same loca-
tion, and little or no odors were noticed at that time.
Mr. Robinson stated that after that experiment, the Company was asked by the
City to perform the tests again in order to allow some members of Clty Staff,
City Council, and Planning Commission to take part in that testing. That
was done on Aug. 19, 1987. There was a memo in the Planning Commission agenda
from Jock Robertson to t�asim Qureshi which indicated the resuits of the testing
was the same as that indicated by Twin City Testing.
Mr. Robinson stated an environmental assessment worksheet was also completed
by the petitioner, and the Comnission would note that little or no environmental
impacts were anticipated from the plant being located on this site.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. All tar tanker trucks and kettles w411 be parked (for both long
and short term durations) on the northwest corner of the site as
indicated on the site plan dated Sept. 16, 1987.
2. Emissions of tar odors from Central Roofing site and abutting right-
of-way to be managed in such a way as not to exceed the levels stated
in odor emission test report by Twin City Testing dated May 4, 1987.
�
PLANNIIJ6 COMt1ISSI0fd MEETIt�G, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 3
3. There will be no heating of tar in tankers or kettles on the
Central Roof9tt9 site or abutting right-of-way.
4. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW?, preoared by Central
Roofing dated Sept. 76, 1987, will be considered findings of fact
related to the granting of special use oermit, SP #87-17, environ-
mental impacts due to Central Roofing operations, beyond those
described in said EAIJ, may be cause for review and revocation of
the special use permit.
5. Storage of materials and equipment shall be managed so as not to
be visible from the public right-of-way or residential view.
6. Provide hard surface parking and connective driveway both with curb
and gutter, prior to occupancy of proposed office building or by
October 1, 7988, wMichever comes first.
7. Resod and provide landscaping along vrith automatic springkling in
area between Main Street and screening feRCe to be installed b.y
Octuber 1, 1988. The City reserves the right to modify the plan in
order to make it consistent with proposed landscapina by Ruboer
Researcii to south.
8. A performance bond or letter of credit for 315,000 to be provided
to tf�e City to cover outside improvements, prior to occupancy of the
site.
9. Special use permit compliance to be reviewed by public hearing in
October 1988 or sooner with format specified by the City Council if
violation of any tondition(s) is reported.
Mr. Spigarelli stated he had no problems with any of the stipulations.
MOTIOIJ by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billinqs dec7ared the publ9c
hearing closed at 7;42 p.m.
Mr. Billings stated Staff and the petitianer have spent a lot of time on this
and have done a good job in working things out.
MOTIOIV by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend io City Council
app— rovai of special use permit, SP #87-17, by Central Roofing Company, per
Section 205.18.1, C, 9, of the Fridley City Code to allow exterior storage
of materials and equipment on part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 79,
the same being 4500 �4ain Street �J.E., with the following stipulations:
1. All tar tanker trucks and kettles will be parked (for both long
and short term durations) on the northwest corner of the site as
indicated on the site plan dated Sept. 16, 1987.
PLA��NIfJG COMMISSION MEETIIJG, SEP7EMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 4
Z. Emissions of tar odors from Central Roofing site and abutting right-
of-way to be managed in such a way as not to exceed the levels
stated in odor emission test report by Twin City Testing dated
May 4, 1987.
3. There will be no heating of tar in tankers or kettles on the Central
Roofing site or abutting right-of-way.
4. The Environmental Assessment lJorksheet (EAS) prepared bv Central
Roofing dated Sept. 16, 1987, will be considered findings of fact
related to the granting of special use permit, SP H87-17, environ-
mental impacts due to Central Roofing operations, beyond those
described in said EAW, may be cause for review and revocation of
the special use permit.
5. Storage of materials and equipment shall be managed so as not to be
visible from the public right-of-way or residential view.
6. Provide hard surface parking and connective driveway both with curb
and gutter prior to occupancy of proposed office building on or by
Oct. 1, 1988, whichever comes first.
7. Resod and provide landscaping along with automatic sprinkling in
area between 11ain Street and screening fence to be installed b�y
October 1, 1988. The City reserves the right to modify the pTan in
order to make it consistent with proposed landscaping by Rubber
Research to south.
8. A performance bond or letter of credit for $15,000 to be provided
to the City to cover outside improvements prior to occupancy of the
site.
9. Special use permit compliance to be reviewed by public hearing in
October 1988 or sooner with format specified by the City Council if
violation of any condition(s} is reported.
UPOW A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERS�N BILLIWf,S DECLARED THE MOTIOfJ
CARRIEU UtJAP�Ii'IOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on
2. CONSIDERATIOf� OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #87-08 BY WILLIM1 HENLEY:
o sp it parts of ot , , 8 an 9, B oc , oore a e Highlands, all
generally located at 6300 Baker Street N.E. The legal descriptions are as
follows:
PARCEL A: Lot 11, Block 2, except the South 90 feet and Lot 19, Block 2,
except the South 90 feet of the West 140 feet; all in Moore Lake High7ands.
PARCEL B: Lot 11, Block 2, except the FJorth 60 feet; the North 40 feet of
Lot 12, Block 2; the i•lorth 115 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, except the South
80 feet of the North 115 feet and except the tiJest 130 feet of the North 35
feet; Lot 19, Block 2, except the North 90 feet of the [Jest 140 feet, lyinq
South of the North 60 feet and except the IJest 13D feet of that part of
Lot 19 lying South of the North 90 feet thereof as measured alona South and
West lines thereof; all in Moore Lake Highlands.
PL,9NWIt�G COMt1ISSI0N MEETING, SEPTEFIBER 16, 1987 PAGE 5
P1r. Robinson stated the lot split in question was located on the 6300 block
of Baker Street. The lot was zoned single family. The proposal was to split
off the northerly 60 feet of the property (Parcel A). The City requires
lots to be 75 ft. in width and 9,000 sq. ft. in area. Although this lot
(Parcel A} was 9,600 sG. ft. in area as proposed, it would be 15 ft. short as
far as lot width.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff has discussed this lot split with Mr. Henley, and.
Mr. Henley feels this is the best lot split he can propose at this time.
Staff felt there was the potential to make that parcel 68 ft. instead of
60 feet. Due to concerns of access to the rear yard, this suggestion was not
heeded by Mr. Henley, and he has decided to go ahead with the 60 ft. lot width.
t+lr. Robinson stated there was a large depression in the area of the proposed
neY� lot which was a natural water collection area and also a percolation area.
This area was really quite low, and the house to the north was a walk-out on
the south and west--approximate elevation change was 7-8 feet. The Public
IJorks Department had expressed the concern fihat if a house was placed in this
area some of the natural percolation would be impeded and the �aater would have
no place to go and could cause some flooding to adjacent oroperties.
Mr. Robinson stated the Commission has received two letters, one from
Janet Stanek, 6301 Able St., and Rose Jasper, 6270 Baker St., stating they
objected to the lot split.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive into the record the
el tters from Ms. Stanek and t1s. Jasper.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIPIG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIfJGS DECLARED THE MOTIOtd
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Robinson stated all the other lots in the area are at least 90 feet in
width, so Staff did not feel a 60 ft. wide lot would be consistent with the
neighborhood, even though the City has granted lot width variances in the past
in other areas when the lot width reduction was consistent with the lot widths
in the area. He stated Staff would recommend denial of a 60 ft, wide lot at
this time. Stipulations that would be recommended if the lot solit was
approved were as follows:
l. Petitioner to provide a realigned driveway and curb cut for
existing house at least three feet from proposed parcel prior
to recording split.
2. New house to be set back sixty feet (to meet averaging require-
ment) or variance approved.
3. New house location and drainage provisions to be authorized by
Public Works prior to recording lot split.
4. Park fee of $750 to be paid prior to recordinq lot split.
PLANNING COt4HIS5I0�J MEETIN6, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 6
5. Variance for lot width to be approved by City Council with lot
split approval.
Mr. Henley stated he felt there was plenty of room to the north for a buffer
zone between a new house and his house. As far as percolation, all the yards
at one time sloped down in 6ack and one by one they have all been filled in.
If the lot split was approved and a new house built on the lot, he would be
more than willing for the Commission to put on a stipulation that a sewer be
placed in the yard in case of an overflow of water. He stated they have had
two big rain gushers within the last few years in this neighborhood, and there
has not been any water standing in his yard.
P1r. Henley stated the problem he had with a 68 ft. wide lot was that it would
not give him enough space or his new neighbor enough space, and he would have
the hardship of having to move his driveway over and put a ne�� gate into the
hack yard. At this time, he did not �vant to have to do that.
�4r. Billings asked the petitioner if he was aware that if the lot solit was
approved for 60 ft., that he would have a remaining lot Width for his lot of
130 feet.
Mr. Henley stated, yes, he was aware of that. It was a very big lot with a
very big yard, and it was really too big for his family. He bought the lot
a little over two years ago. Since then, things have tighted up for him
financially, and since he had been approached about the availability of the
lot, he decided to look into the possibility of splitting the lot. The maney
generated off the lot would go directly against the principle payments on his
house; he could remortgage liis property at a lower interest rate and reduce
the payments by half.
Mr. Betzold stated that by selling off 68 ft., t4r. Henley would not only get
more money for the lot but would probably be paying less taxes on the smaller
lot he would be keeping.
Mr. Henley stated he had thought about that, but he would then have to rebuild
his driveway. When he rebuilds his driveway in about 5-6 years, he would want
to rebuild it in concrete rather than asphalt. If he rebuilds the driveway,
then he would have to go a little bit south and put a gate on the south side
of the house and proably have to put in some kind of curbing so he could get
vehicle, boat, and other things into the back yard. If he has to give uo
68 ft., he would do that; but that would limit his ability to get into his
back yard and it would be a financial hardship. He felt there was plenty of
room for a house on a GO ft. wide lot so he had decided to apply for the Tot
split for 60 ft.
Mr. Gerald Machovri cz, 6314 Baker St., stated he owned the lot north of
Mr. Henley. He stated he bought his property in 1954, and he thought 90 ft.
widths were supposed to be the standard size lot in Fridley. He stated he
had had water problems before, but never in the basement, just up to the walk-
out door. Mr. Henley has put a lot of fill in his back yard and changed the
basin, so Mr. Machowicz stated he did not know what was going to happen when
there is a lot of rain or snow. He stated he would object to both a 60 ft.
lot and a 68 ft, lot width.
PLANNIIIG COt1MIS5I0N MEETII�G, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 7
Ms. Mary van Dan, 6342 Baker St., stated she lived just north of Mr. P1achowicz.
In a sense, this lot split did not have any direct impact on her lot, but
she would certainly like to endorse P1r. Machowicz' feelings about not approving
a lot split on this particular lot. As many of the Cocrtission members knew,
she had served on the Planning Commission, and she could remember discussing
many issues of lot splits and turning them down because they did not meet tfie
standard size. She stated that during heavy rains, water has gone up to
Mr. Machowicz' basement door. The environmental impact of a new house on the
proposed new lot would have a detrimental impact on P4r. Machowicz' house.
Mr. Francis van Dan, 6342 Baker St., stated although he emphasized with
Mr. Henley who, by selling off the northerly portion of his property, could
reduce his house payments, he would have to support the view of P4r. tlachowidz
that the lot split not be approved.
t+ir. R. C. Bard, 6347 Baker St., stated this lot split also did not affect him
directly, but he felt a smaller house on the 60 ft. lot would be very hazard-
ous to the percolation of water, The house would shed more water, plus the
excess water from �4r. Henley's lot, would really cause a problem for
Mr. Machovricz. He stated another storm sewer might have to be added in the
area and this would be an added expense to the property owners in the whole
area. He was opposed to the lot split.
Mr. Robinson stated he did not believe there was a storm sewer in Baker St.
at this time. The street crests and drains both to the north and south. In
this lot the depression was a natural drainage area for the residential
property and was a critical area for percolation.
Mr. Betzold stated a 60 ft. wide lot was definitely out of the question. It
was a substandard lot and the whole purpose of changing the code years ago
to 75 ft. was well founded so there were not the prob]ems that 60 ft. lots
create. He found it unfortunate that Mr. Henley was not willing to discuss
with tlie City a larger lot, but even at 68 ft., he thought 7t would be so out
of character for this neighborhood that it could cause some other problems.
He could not go along with a lot split for either a 60 ft. or 68 ft. wide lot.
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Betzold. He thought there could be a
big water problem for both Mr. F9achowicz and any owner of a new house. He
couid not be satisfied with a lot width of either 60 ft. or 68 ft., and there
did not seem to be any feasible way to extend the lot width any more than
68 ft.
I+Ir. Saba stated he a9reed with Mr. Betzold and Mr. Kondrick.
Mr. Billings stated that in looking at the property, he noticed that all of the
lots in this neighborhood were of extensive size. Even a code size lot of
75 ft., althought it would be legal, rea]7y wou]d not be in character with
this particular neighborhood. He could not suppert a 6� ft. lot width, and
he doubted that he could support a lot split for a 68 ft. lot width.
PL�aNNIWG C0�IMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 8
MOTIOPJ by Mr, Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to recommend to City
ounci denial of lot split, L.S. #87-08, by William Henley.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINr,S DECLARED THE
t40TI0fJ CARRIEO UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Sherek stated she did not feel a 68 ft. lot width would be in keeping
with the neighborhood, and she thought that was something they should
emphasize to the City Council,
NOTIO�d by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to direct Staff to brinq
it to the City Council's attention that a 68 ft. lot width in this neighbor-
hood would not be in keeping with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission
would be opposed to a lot split for a 68 ft. wide lot also.
UPON A VOIC E 1(OTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIN6S DECLARED THE P40TI0��
CARRIED UNANIh90USLY.
Mr. Robinson stated this item would go to City Council on
3. COf�SIDER�TIOPJ OF A VACATION, SAV #87-09, BY GREGORY MORTENSOtJ:
o vacate t e oot rainage easement on t e nort si e o ot 3, Block 2,
Heather Hills Second Addition, the same being 6191 Kerry Lane N.E.
Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on the east side of Kerry Lane
in the 6100 block. The petition was to vacate a 6 ft. drainage/utility
easement located on the north side of the property. The petitioner also
requested a variance. Originally, the variance was not only to allow the
existing encroachment of an existing garage from 5 ft. to 4.6 ft., but also
for a proposed expansion of living area in the rear of the home for a side
yard setback from 10 ft. to 4.4 ft. On Sept. 1, the Appeals Commission
recommended denial of the side yard setback but did suppart the variance for
the existing garage. On Sept. 14, the City Council approved both variances.
At this time, the petitioner was seeking to vacate this easement in order
to clean up the tftle with the existing garage being in that easement.
Mr. Robinson stated the Commission had received a memo from the Public Works
Department supporting the vacation of the drainage/utility easement and that
the vacation should nat create any problems in terms of storm water, and there
were no utilities in the easement.
Mr. Robinson stated the Cor.mission had also received a letter dated Sept. 14
from Larry and Kathleen F1orford at 6235 Kerry Lane stating they were fully
aware of Mr. Mortenson's building plans and had no objections.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to receive the letter from
aL-rry & Kathl een t+lorford.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIN6S DECLARED THE MOTIO�J
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLAtJNI�IG COP1t4ISSI0iJ PIEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 9
4.
P40TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr, Saba, to recommend to City Council
approval of vacation, SAV #87-09, by Gregory Mortenson, to vacate the 6 foot
drainage easement on the north side of Lot 3, Biock 2, Heather Hii1s
Second Addition, the same being 6191 Kerry Lane N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIIJ6S DECLARED TNF P10TION
CARRIED UtU1NIM0USLY.
MOTIOP� by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOfJ BILLI�IGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIEU U��ANIMOUSLY.
Mr. P,obinson stated that approximately two months agos 5taff brought to the
Planning Commission the idea of altering the tt-1 and M-2 sections of the
Zoning Code to allow for some limited commercial type uses in office/ware-
house mixed use type buildings. After several meetinqs and discussions, they
arr9ved at the present draft ordinance which was the subject of this pub]ic
hearing.
Mr, Robinson stated the reasons for the changes were that the economy has
changed to a more service economy and the lion's share of the development in
Fridley over the past five years has been in the office/warehouse market.
He listed a few of the developers, both existing and proposed: River Road
8usiness Center; Winfield Developr,ient at 73rd & Universitv; Harris' office/
warehouse directly behind Winfield �evelopment; proposed Rosewood construction
at Osborne and h1ain; F1-D Properties at 83rd and Main.
Mr. Robinson stated also under construction or presently built, the City
had approximateiy 3/4 miilion sq. ft. of office/vrarehouse development. These
developments have been of high quality, both in terms of architectural treat-
ment and in site development. They have been good additions to the tax base
plus the urban fabric.
Mr. Robinson stated the City has had numerous concerns
these developers regarding the limitations imposed upo
tenants which would benefit the development and the ar
on the surface, would not be detrimental to the area.
Fridley more marketable and more in tune with today's
present ordinance was be9ng proposed.
and requests from
n them in acquiring
ea at large and which,
In order to make
development, the
Mr. Robinson stated that at the request of the Planning Commission, notices
were sent to ali developers, both existing and proposed. The City also made
a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce on September 10, 1987.
PLANNIIJG COMI4ISSION MEETING, SEPTENIE3ER 16, 1987 PAGE 10
Mr. Robinson stated there already is an allowance for offices associated with the
principle use in an industrial area and also for retail sales or services of
products either manufactured or a�arehouses in an industrial district without
any kind of special use permit. l�lith a special use permit, they allow offices
not associated with a special use permit, and that will continue.
F1r. Robinson reviewed the proposed ordinance with the Commission and those
in the audience.
Mr. Dave Harris, 470 Rice Creek Blvd., stated he was in favor of this type
of ordinance, but he did have some concerns. As a developer, he took a look
back to see how this ordinance would pertain to him if this ordinance had been
in effect at the time he did some construction. He has been involved in
about 800,OOO:sq ft. of M-1 structures in the City, 154,000 sq. ft. of that
would fall into the 35,000 sq. ft. or more area, so initially by usinq the
35,000 sq. ft. requirement, it would eliminate about 80% of the buildings he
has been involved in. That was just based on the size requirements in this
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he felt something better than the size requirements
for an overall building could be addressed in a non-discriminatory manner by
utilizing a percentage which the City alluded to in the o*dinance of 3,000
sq, ft. or 20% of the total gross area. His suggestion would be that they
reduce the overall floor area and go to some kind of percentage of the
building for use of the site.
Mr. Billings esked Mr. Harris what the average square footage was of the
buildings he has been involved with.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he thought the average square footage of office/
warehouse bui7dings in M-1 was in the neighborhood of 15,000-22,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he was also concerned about the hours of operation.
If the City was going to involve itself in recreation for pay; for example,
a billiard center, computerized golf, etc., it would be discriminatory to
ask these kinds of businesses to close at 9:00 p.m. He felt the latitude
should be on the same basis as other uses allowed in other locations. In
other words, if a restaurant was open from 6:00 a.m, to 12:00 p.m. in
another location, the same hours should be allowed in this particular provision.
Mr. Robinson stated perhaps a clarification needed to be made here, Under
Section 205.17.c,2, it stated: "Commercial retail and service uses and
Class I restaurants within office/industrial mixed use buildings which are
supplemental to and for the convenience of the operation of the zoning
district and which provide goods and services which are primarily for the use
of people employed in that district..." These were uses permitted with a
special use permit in an M-1 district. They would allow this type of special
use permit in a structure as a benefit to offices but not in a typical ware-
house structure which might have some offices associated with the warehouse,
but which might not be directly related to some of the 6uiidings Mr. Harris
was referring to.
PLAtJNING COMt1ISSI0N MEETING, SEPTEF16ER 16, 1987 PAGE 11
Mr. Robinson stated Staff oias talking about the newer kind of building
which �ias mainly a office and service type of ape�ation and not in
the manufacturing/warehouse type of building. So, maybe a clarification
needed to be put in here that the special use permit for comnercial retail
would only be in conjunction with buildings which have a special use oermit
for offices not associated with the principle use. This pertained to all
the developments he had mentioned earlier.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he thought that would be a mistake. He felt Tt was
unfair and restrictive to say a butlding doesn't qualify because of its size
and its use, The use today might not be the use for that�building in the
future. The single purpose buildinq today might be a multi-tenant buildina
with bays in the future. He thought the privileges should be the same for
both kinds of buildings.
Mr. Dick Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, stated he had some problems with
the whole issue of special use permits. As he remembered, a long time ago,
the City Attorney wrote a memo stating the special use permit had to be
attached to the property and not to the tenant. So, even though there was a
change of ter�ant, there was still the special use permit for the property.
blhen a ter�ant moves, such as a Class II restaurant, it might not be advanta-
geous to have another Class II restaurant in the same location.
�4r. Dick Harris stated that in thinking about this type of situation, he
wondered if perha��s the City should be looking at a different zoning for
those particular parcels that have hi h visibilitY and �hi� �h traffic �areas
such as the proposed Rosewood development. �s was propos—ed a�out 1�5--2�6
years ago when Piywood Minnesota and Wickes were going to build on the
Burlington Northern property at G94/East River Road--a high visibility zoning
where it takes into account these different types of possibilities for
business centers and different types of ooerations than what they normally
look at as industrial. He could not imagine having a restaurant or retail
or office in his buildings on P1ain St., because they were not in high
visibility, high traffic areas, He would probably cater more to the machine
shop/welding type of businesses, and the industrial zones that ��ere enacted
by the City were really for those kinds of businesses. It has been his
feeling for quite some time that there was a lot of property in high visi-
bility, high traffic areas that probably should have some other kind of
zoning than M-1 and P1-2. He realized this was kind of late in the day to
talk about a zoning change; it was something that pro6ably should have been
done about 20 years ago.
Mr. Dick Harris stated the City might be opening itself up for some legal
problems down the line, and he would like to have an opinion from the City
Attorney on what the situation would be on the revoking and termination of
these special use permits and then reinstituting special use permits every
time a tenant moved in.
PLANfJIiJG C0�1tiI55I0�J MEETING, SEPTEPIBER 16, 19II7 PAGE 12
�4r. Ken 6ureau, 5630 lJest Danube, stated he was representing Rosewood Corp.
He stated that in many of the communities he has dealt with, they start out
with an N-1 and 14-2 zoning. If you are in an M-1 zone, you are not goinn to
do �ahat is in an 14-2 zone, but you are allowed to go down and use the �roperty
for less than the zoning allo��s. However, in M-2, heavy industrial, you are
allowed less than the M-2 zoning requirements. It really did not ma{:e any
difference whetlier an office/�aarehouse.buildinn becomes all office as lonq as
the developer can meet all the requirer�ents. 'fhe thinas that do r�atter are
whether or not there is enough parking and if the development meets the zoning
code for office use. The City need not be overly concerned about �ahether an
office/��arehouse building was used for light retail or retail, because the
marketr,lace was going to decide whether or the building could su�nort retail.
The market place will also determine whether it is office or office/warehouse
space.
Mr.Bureau stated that if the City sets up a code, they should set it up in
such a way so that everyone is not running back to the Planning CoMmission and
City Council every time there is a slight change. Set up the rules so every-
one knows the rules, so it would have to 6e a very unusual situation for people
to have to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for a chanqe.
Ms. Linda fisher stated she was representing the owner and develooer of the
River Road Business Center. She stated they have worked with the Citv on the
proposed ordinance change for the last several months and taere at the last
Planning Commission meeting where they basically gave their comments at that
time. Again, she would like to state that the P,iver Road Business Center was
basically in favor of the concept. They would like to commend the City and
Staff for a fine job.
Ms. Fisher stated that regarding the buildinq size, the restriction in the
or�linance seemed to work with Mr. Belgarde's projects. Thev had to leave it
up to the discretion of the Planning Comnission and the City Council as to
whether it was too restrictive for other developers. Regardinq the cor�ment
from f4r. Uick Harris about possible legal problems with special use oermits,
her only comment was that there probably were some leqal controls the City
could attach to special use permits that would deal with P1r. Harris' concerns.
Ms. Fisher stated the only other comment she would like to make again was
regarding the hours of operation. In her review of the existina ordinances,
there were no hours of operation restrictions anywhere in the City. She
did not see the need for any hours of operation restriction at all in this
particular case. If, hov�ever, the Planninq Commission deemed it appronriate
to have some hours, she would like to see the evening hours extended to at
least 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.
�4r. Dick Harris stated P9r. Bureau had brought up a point. Back before tlie
present zoning ordinance, they had what was called pyramidal zonina and that
was essentially how it worked. If you had an �4-2 zone, vou could do anvthinn
in an t9-2 zone that you could do in any of the other zones exceot build
�
PLANWING CONMISSION MEETING, SEPTEPI6ER 16, 1987 PAGE 13
residential. That code served the City pretty well for a lot of years. Then,
the Zoning Code got more conplicated, but the old code was probably a lot
simpler way of handling things.
Ns. Sarah Harder stated she was representinv Winfield Development. As a leasing
agent for the project, she ��as glad to see this proposed ordinance. She did
think there were just a very few buildings that would qualify as far as havinq
retail. She did not thinl: it was meant for a lot of office/warehouse that are
not in high visibility areas. With the new designs of the buildinqs today,
the buildings lend more to office and warehouse and also maybe to some retail.
i1s. Harder stated that regarding the hours of operation, especially with a
Class II restaurant, it would be almost too restrictive for them to have to
close at 9:00 p.m. They r�ould serve lunches, but they would also want to
pick up some night business. She would like to have the percentage go up as
far as the percenta9e of the building--at least 40°6 of the bui?din� to be able
to have some kind of quasi-retail or whatever. The City Council would have
the final say anyway, and she did not know how a higher percentage could hurt.
Being located on University Avenue, they are very concerned that the desinn of
the buildings be maintained and be very professional looking.
Ms. Harder sta�ed that as far as the individual tenant size, she would like to
see at least 6,000 sq. ft. Her basis for that was their bays run about 3,000
sq. ft., and if a tenant takes more than one bay, which they generally do,
they would like to be able to have that tenant go in also.
Ms. Svanda asked �1s. Narder what her feelinqs were on the 35,000 sq. ft. issue.
Ms. Harder stated slie did not think 35,000 sq. ft. was a bad number. laot nany
of the smaller buildings have the good access and good visibility that lend
themselves to be retail centers. That was not to say there were�'t any, but
it was not a concern to her as their building was 58,000 sq. ft.
Ms. Karol Andreasen, 5510 - 164 Lane N.W., stated she was with D& K, which
was a catering and concession firr�. She had probably contacted all the
developers at this neeting regarding putting in a caterinq establishment and
delicatessan. She was at the meeting because she was interested in locating
in one of these office/warehouse developments. As far as visibility, her
whole concept was not to supply basically to the general public, but to
supply to the tenants on location. She was looking for limited hours, because
of her catering business; hwrever, the hours did not make any difference to her.
Ms. Sherek asked if the 3,000 sq. ft. restriction was overly restrictive for
t4s. Andreasen's type of use.
Ms. M dreasen stated if you are in the food business and are having a lot of
people coming in and are :strictly being a restaurant per se catering to the
general public, then 3,000 sq, ft. was adequate. For her, she felt 1,000-
1,500 sq. ft. was adequate. It all depended on the type of restaurant.
,
PLAfINING COhiNIS5I0N MEETIIJG, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 14
Mr. Billings stated 14s. Harder had stated that the bays in the l�linfield
Development were 3,000 sq. ft. Was 3,000 sq. ft. a fairly standard size?
Mr. Bureau stated they �aere seeing more buildings cor�ing onto the market
that have more flexibility built into them. Some bays are GO-90 ft. deep,
but most bays are wider than 30 ft. A 30' x 60' bay would be 1,800 s�. ft.,
but a bay 30' x 90' would be 2,700 sq. ft. They do not get any larger than
that. Tlie great big bays have pretty much gone by the wayside.
t4r. Dave Harris stated they have to remember, though, that bays can be com-
bined so if a tenant has two 2,500 sq. ft. bays, the tenant is utilizing
a 5,000 sq. ft. area.
Mr. Dick Harris stated what they were really talking a6out was a cor�r�ercial
enterprise in an industrial zone. He was wondering iiow much inpu± the City
had gotten from the developers and owners of commercial properties. They
migfit be looking at this in a different light.
Mr. Billings stated the City had done all the usual means of advertisina this
public hearing,plus direct mailings had been sent to all those oeonle doing
development in the City, In order to cone up with a base of comnercial
people, they made a presentation at the Chamber of Commerce also, and they
have not had any conments from them.
Idr. Robinson stated also some of the office/o-iarehouse developers are also
commercial strip developers and he has not received any comments from those
developers.
11s. Harder stated she did not think any of ther� ware trying ;.o turn their
business centers into retail r�all,. They are lookinn nore at the nuasi-
retail for the people who just pick up sonething and leave, not for the tyoe
of clientele wlio will shop all day and go from one shop to another. She
personally would not want a sit-doti+n restaurant in her center because the
parking was so limited, but she might like a take-out restaurant.
14r. Betzold stated he thought the original rationale presented for this
ordinance change was they wanted to provide some services for the immediate
area--for the people working in these offices and warehouse districts, who
would othen�+ise have to drive great distances to get errands done. That was
a key point to keep in mind. As far as hours, he would think the businesses
would probably go out of business if they tried to stay oper too long after
their normal customers have gone home.
Mr. Billings stated if-the Commission decided to go with no hours of opera-
tion in the ordinance, when an application for a special use permit came
through where they saw there was a specific need for hours of operation for
a specific location, would they be able to tie operational hours to that
special use permit?
�
PLi1NIJIf�G COMI1ISSION MEETI�Jf, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAGE 15
14r. Robinson stated, yes, they could do that. Also, under the blanket
special use permit for commercial retail, he did not believe the hours of
operation would be an issue. The businesses would be there primarily to
service the district and it would be natural for them to close when the
district closed. For other things which require a separate special use
permit, such as Class II restaurants, they could review those on an individual
basis and if there taas a need for specific hours, they could establish hours
at that time.
P1r. Billings stated �ick Narris brought up the issue that the special use
permit generally goes with the property. In Section 205.17.c,3,h, it
stated: "All such uses shall only be considered on an individual, tenant
specific basis." Was that saying the special use permit would die when that
particular tenant left or what was the intention of that statement?
Mr. Robinson stated all special use permits have to be issued to the fee owner
but they liave issued special use permits to a specific tenant with the
authorization of the fee oarner which would be the case in that statement.
Haaever, iie would be willing to do some checking on this with the City Attorney.
MUTIOIJ by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearino.
UPOId A UOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIJG AYE, CHAIRPERSOP� BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTIOfJ
CARRIED U�JA�lIP10USLY.
Mr. Robinson stated one thing that has been raised at this meeting that has
also caused him some concern was the gross square footage of the buildinqs.
He believed it would be advisable to have a survey done to accompany this
ordinance to the Planning Commission and then on to City Council that would
give a good indication of the square footage of locations and square footages
of buildings. He would propose the survey be limited to office/warehouse
type buildings,which was the inte�t of the ordinance.
44r. Robinson stated that under 205.11.c,3a. reqarding a minimum gross floor
area of at least 75,000 sq. ft. for small retail, he thought that might be
a little excessive, but some research should tell them that.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Svanda, to table further discussion
on tTiis item until more information is received from Staff.
Mr. Dave Harris asked why there should be any square footage requirement if
there is a percentage of the building allowed for this type of thinq.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff would like some direction as to whether the Planninq
Commission intended this ordinance to be for other officeJindustrial mixed
use buildings with a special use permit or for all other mixed use buildings
that do not have special use permits. There needed to be a key distinction
between the two, because there are a lot officeiwarehouse buildings which are
really warehouse buildinqs with little office. Some of the buildinos are
older buildings, and he did not think it was the Commission's intent to pro-
vide commercial in those areas.
1
PLA�JWII�G COf1t4ISSI0N MEETIfJf, SEPTEPIBER 16, 19£37 PAG[ 16
UPOt� A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIf�G AYE, CHAIRPERSOW BILLIDIGS DECLARED THE �10TION
CARRIED UtJANIIIOUSLY.
Ms. Fisher stated she did not want to cut short the Commission's deliberations
and would like the Commission to take as lonq as they need. However, they
have been gettina periodic calls from their clients as to the schedule. She
stated it would be helpful if they had some dates when this toould come back
to the Planning Commission and when it would go to City Council.
t4r. Billings stated Staff and the Planning Cor�mission have been working hard
on this for a couple of months. He stated the Commission did appreciate the
fact that revenues might be bein9 lost. He did not think he could qive
P4s. Fisher any specific dates, 6ut it would be moved along as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Robinson stated the next Planning Commission meeting was October 7, and
he felt Staff could provide the Commission with more information by that
meeting. If any of the people in the audience had any further comments or
clarification of this meeting, he would appreciate their submitting those
conments to him within the next week.
�4r. Dick Harris stated he would like some clarification as to whether the
ordinance would just handle the office/warehouse mixed use type buildings
versus the warehouse buildings with offices and manufacturing. He felt if
they were going to allow commercial uses for one, they should allot it for
th�em all, because they are all in the same zoning. If the market was changing
for the new buildings, it was also changing for the older, existing buildinqs.
It would really be tough to delineate between which buildings are covered by
the ordinance and which ones are not; and if the market would supoort a
restaurant, for example, in a heavy industrial area, why was it so wronq?
Mr. Dick Harris stated P4r. Bureau's development was going to be across the
street from some of his property. Mr. Bureau's building would be under this
ordinance. Mr. Harris stated that even though his buildings were right
across the street, they would not be under this new ordinance. What was the
difference between Mr. Bureau's market and his market?
Mr. Billings asked if the easy solution for that was for F4r. Harris to come
in and apply for a special use permit for unrelated office type things.
Mr. Robinson stated that was possi6le in either the M-1 or M-2 zone. The
key here was if there was really going to be office i.n the buildina. Was it
really going to he a business service center, or was it going to be a manu-
facturing warehouse with limited office and then commercial coming in?
P1r. Kondrick stated he thought the amount of office space in a building was
the key.
Mr. Robinson stated that needed to be addressed. He felt that when they look
at the types of tenants that are in the office/warehouse buildings with a
PLAIJNING COMI4ISSIO�J MEETING, SEPTE�I6ER 16, 1987 PAGE 17
special use permit, versus some of the other buildinqs, they should be able
to begin to draw some pretty good lines between what is a business center
and what is a manufacturing/warehouse operation.
Mr. Dick Harris stated that brought him back to the pro6lem he had in the
beginning of this whole thing. All these things they are talking about are
under the same zoning. If they were going to do what Staff was recoMmending,
then the City better have a special zoning.
t4r. Robinson stated Mr. Harris had a good point about the fact that they are
allowing one thing for a business in one zoning and not alloarinq for another
business in the same zoning. I+laybe the problem could be handled through
criteria. Playbe the criteria needed to be a little bit tougher and they
should say that a building needed a certain percentage of office in order to
qualify for additional commercial on one scale. On the other scale of
development such as Mr. Harris' buildings that have some manufacturing and
warehousing, if Mr. Harris wanted to apply for these special use permits,he
could, but he could only have a minimum amount of manufacturing in order to
balance things out. Another way, as suggested by t4r. Harris, was to create
a new z�ne and rezone these properties. If the property was rezoned, then
some tenants would have to leave tecause they would not be allowed in that
zoning.
Mr. Dave Harris stated he did not think they should create a zoning district
within another zoning district. He thought that was one of the philosoohies
the City has had in the past--that there be no spot zoning. He thounht that
would be a real mistake and not beneficial to anyone. This ordinance was
being proposed because of the requests of developers today, but he thouqht
they should also be looking at some of the things that will be happening in
the future. Many great big industrial buildings of yesterday nooa have other
uses. Example: The Spaghetti House and the Prime Rib House in IJinnipeq,
two of the choicest restaurants in Win�ipeg, which used to be industrial
buildings in an industrial district. These kinds of things could happen in
Fridley, too, and they should not prejudge that they would not want a
restaurant in an industrial district.
�4r. Saba stated an important point that was brought up was that the market
will decide whether or not someone wants to move into an industrial/manufac-
turing district and open up a restaurant or a print shop to service that
facility.
Mr. 6illings thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and for the valuable
input. At this time, the Planning Commission has asked Staff to gather more
information for the Commission's consideration at the next meetina. If those
in the audience wished to come back to the next meeting, they were welcome
to; but the City Council would also have a public hearing on this and they
would have the opportunity to provide input to the City Council at that time
also.
{
B
PL/1NPdIFJG COMf1ISSI0fJ ��EETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 PAfE 18
5. RECEIVE AUGUST 13, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOP�1ENT AUTHORITY MIIJUTES:
�40TION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by P1r. Saba, to receive the Aug. 13, 1987,
Housing E� Redevelopment Authority minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI�dG AYE, CHAIRPERSOIJ BILLI�JGS DECLARED THE 140TION
CARRIED UNAt�IMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE AUGUST 18 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIOfJ PIINUTES:
MOTIOIJ by �1r. Svanda, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the Aug. 18, 1987,
En rlv onmental Quality Commission minutes.
UPO�J A UOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLAP,ED THE t90TI0N
CARRIED Ut�ANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE SEFTEMBER 1, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSIOP! MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by P9r: Svanda, to receive the Sept. 1, 1987,
ppea s Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIJG AYE, CHAIRPERSO�J BILLIP�GS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UtdANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTIOPJ by 14r. Betzold, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meetina. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Billings declared the Sept. 16, 1987,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned.at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
`,''
'� "'�� � z-C .-i ��� ,
ynne Sa a
Recording Secretary
o �
� .16,
1���
�c� G��
� asaa �t.a�x�` °yi�� , Lvc�a°�.�
��a-� uC�.�cc.Q.�✓ ss�o �� � �°z . Y��-�J ��vl�,
-
- v`. 6 ''
G
�piz�u�l
-�'� ��
��.,... f���a�e.
��°� .�%�-�
i ,
i / �
� ♦
.,� ,
� , , �,
/
� sio
�� s� �� - �CtJ �rc�
f ��17 Za�u� �J� � �a�C�.� �c�3k�5
G' ZoG -���,��- %�.-p�i-r ,
33rs Y1. d"d �G.��- � il� �
l �d �����Q.�,`, �
� 3��/7 l3� .
��i�2--
.Lf��-�.
� a�{ L t.t�w�t L� i�+ /f, �
/S� o �/�fi��.-� .:7i:w..�.;.� �-'� ?�°a X�:
_ - �.�
C� J �� �� �• �lf�
� 3 i y �O a�w G1�c. ir -�.
�� � �� �.
� 3 0 � �n� a,�
�
/� �
�
s PLANNING DIVISION 1
_ MEMORANDUM
GTYOF
FRI DLEY
MEND 7D: Planning Conanissim
NEND FROM: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator,)�.
NEhD DATE: October 2, 1987
RF�ARDING: M-1 & M-2 Zoning Amen3nenY
On October 7, 1987 I will be presenting a pzoposed final dzaft of an
ordir�nce to allow some limited amounts and types of commercial uses in
industrially zoned k�uildings. Zhe most recent changes were stimulated by
developer input at the Septanber 16, 1987 public hearing and su6sequent staff
research.
The changes are simply the ra�noval of the minim�nn gross square footage
thresholds in all Sections and the r�nwal of limitations on hours of
opezation. Zhe attad�ed draft includes these modificatiais.
7Yie research which is illustzated in the attached graphs, shows that the
majority of the City's iru3istrial buildings are less than 35,000 squaie feet
in total gross floor area. Several of the existing and proposed
office/war�ouse business centers would not meet this criteria. In addition,
we feel that tl�e market al�e will effectively limit any commercial uses to
locating in mixed use business centers on or near major corridors.
Applicatim b� manufacturing facilities should be renote.
A more oomplete discussion of these issues will be presented on Weci�esday. I
look forwazd to seeing you there.
f : .�n
t+�87-197
f 3� �i4��.� 1 f i I^fi� r �i_ ' i t"._
__` �.'.7
"� I_-i
�
� �__._:. ___..
_.,. � � -- - --
. -� _ _ ____ _ __.
�
ti - --
;
,.��. ,
_. �. ._ _
i---._,.. _,—,_ _
i; �: ;
:; I _
_ �.
�-- _� -,�
i, �___',,
_ , �=-
, , i �1 s,_
- � _-- '
, -
; --
, _j
;
, f,
- ;:::;
,:'
� iJ�
i; :i
—`
�;:i
[_:
I `.)
t;
� Y ,,
iti
._ » _... � ;
Cz
�
I ���
�
/� r
` \ .
! ,��
I_l.� l:;. _.
,_. ��
_i""'_-__.�,� . i_..__..`_._.__._._.__.....i
�
r�,
;y``? ' _
__: ,_.: ._. __: �___
� ,�, _ � � -
f
� , .�; ; ` ,
� 4
�
;
r�
r,����s,� �
� \
, __ _;
�
�-
'
' .: '
lA
�
i,: i
i'..I
::.,,�
I 7.
!l
_ f:
i '�
-1 l.'�'f
' :i
i`
d ' I_.
— •_ i
7 �' /
1r -
j''�
�=,
I� I
f' .
I..i�
(.__
,- � �; ; ��,;-.�
P E7=<s:: "r:� f� . s_; �-_ ��.,; �_.. �:. .:� _�:.
_, ,.,., r,,
!��i t_i �J i�_;i
tJr f;�, i-r
�j . � j _. -_, � .-J�
�� �f ��, r. �'' i.:
�
�
� _
�
> I
jy I ''....._..
- � _.....
i __
1 .
7 . , ....._...
�
%� � ) �� � �
�� �
i .
ii
�
� __._.
i _.__.
i
i _._.
l I'-.
i l
� .. _.. ..
i
, .', .,...;
I
:
lE
Ordir�nce No. _.
Page 3
�A 11 • 1 4� �11 • �tl • 1 ' 11 � � • • �
�� • 1: �.�' • • � 1 - 1 _ 1 . �: �: �11 =A
!11�11' .�• ' / 1 • 1• • • �•
� • 1! 1• ' 1 • ' 1 _�,U��1'1 � . !.1� .1' •1• •
1.� !� . 1 • 1 • 11 ' • • •,�� � .
�1' 11. . 11 III R • �.� �.. • ' • • 1 - � �F����„-�,
44� 1 S 1 1 1 �� .
• ! 1� •• 1. �- ! •11• .� 1 1" '� -11"� •
��M1lMi�l�n
� � 11 � � 4� •11 • :y�l • 1 II • � • • �
:�� • 1 �.� ` • • • 1 . 1 . 1 . �: �' �11 4�
• � � • • � • � � - 1 - • I • � ♦ ' ❑ ' • , 1 " I - I • �
- 4�- . •.•.�• - • �- .. r •� . r- • � .• t:jT
•;ni... • � .�- � .� � . ..• o,• • •: •,. :.. .�•
� 1. •� �: y�1 •' "• •1 .� 1• • '�.1
�' �.
��;II11" •1 • zy • 1: r��• •1 • 1'• �
2�5•Q3•
.mi- :� .�
. . .�- - - � �-- � • . .
Ordinance No. .+.
Page 4
., .� .. .�- •: .� �• •�
•l • . 1 ' �.�D " \ i� • . K Y �:11' - 1 • �� � q1.4� • 11. • 1 • " 11
. � . � ' - 1 . 1 � 1 . ' . • 1� • " • 1 "
' � . .C- �JI .Ii • " II ' • ►� 1 �IU9 • 1
1 • I I • - I •.4J� -� -.i�+�/V�r.w1' 91 d
. 11 L . �Y� :+ 1 5.\ 1 �' M I�1 I•
L .�:. .a..lYM4;r�
A. PtinaiFsl Oses. /
7he fallaaing are �inciFa]. �es in C-1 Distri�s:
.,
�
C. Uses I��itted With a S�ecial Ose i�ffiit.
The fcillaring are uses permitted with a Special Use �rmit in �
C-1 D1St.L1Cks: � .
(17) id S T ac ai n a,
205.14 C-2 GH�L BUSII�IESS DIS`II2IQ R�ULATIINS �•''
l. DSFS P�tl�1T�
A. Principal Oses.
(5) � SS i. Cl C4 TT nd C1_acs III restaurants, rot ��'�
including-"r3rivrins". _
PASSID AND ADOPPID BY TfiE QTY QJUNQI, OF �IE QTY OF FRIDLEY THIS �. I]AY
OF , 1987
WILLIAM J. I�E - I+��,7cUR
ATPFST:
gi1RI,EY A. HAAPALA - CITY (I,FRR
Public Hearing:
First Reading:
Seoond Reading:
PuUlicatirn:
1F
�
_. . _ �
CITY OF FRIDLEY
ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 25, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Saba called the August 25, 1987, Energy Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Dean Saba, Bradley Sielaff, Gerald Welf
Bruce Bondow, Glen Douglas
Larry Ehlers, attending for Glen Douqlas
Myra Wicklacz, Planning Assistant
APPROVAL OF MAY 26, 1987, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Welf, to approve the May 26,
1987, Energy Commission minutes as wr�tten.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SABA DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UIVANIMOUSLY.
1. Update on Radon Contamination
Mr. Saba has obtained the name and address of the person to
contact at KSTP to receive a copy of their broadcast on radon.
KSTP requires a letter from the City of Fridley stating that
the tape will not be used to rebroadcast information and the
City must furnish a blank tape. Mr. Saba stated he would
contact this individual to see if showing the tape on cable
would be considered a rebroadcast. It appears as if there will
be no problem in getting a copy of the tape. The pertinent
information will be forwarded to Ms. Wicklacz.
Mr. Sielaff asked the length of the broadcast.
Mr. Saba was not sure. The broadcasts were aired in segments
during the week and had follow-up reports.
Mr. Ehlers stated that Mr. Robert (Bob) Lee, a former contractor,
is quite interested in radon and is familiar with some of the
problems of radon contamination. He thought Mr. Lee would be
interested in working with the commission on radon testing and
in viewing the videotape.
0
ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 25, 1987 PAG� 2
Mr. Saba indicated that studies in the area show radon is a
serious problem and that the government is doing little about
it.
Mr. Saba stated the government is not providing funding, but
tests of radon show the problem is worse than anticipated.
In order to do a scientific study, samples must be larger in
number than now. Measurements vary from week to week in the
same location. Some of the energy improvements that are
recommended are also recommended for getting rid of radon.
On the other hand, some of the improvements such as weather-
ization can increase radon levels because they reduce the
number of air exchanges. Fresh air vents on furnaces can
reduce radon levels. The code now states that furnaces are
required to have a fresh air vent.
Mr. Welf indicated that about five years ago the code stated
that the vent had to be about 5 inches above the floor. In
many cases the homeowners would feel the cold on the floor and
plug the vent. Now the intakes are installed in a different
area which solved that problem.
Mr. Welf had the opportunity to talk with a company from
England and they have been selling a product on the east
coast called a window ventilator which they leave slightly
cracked during the heating season and supposedly does not
appreciably lose heat.
Mr. Saba stated that for radon it is recommended that a power
vent be used to bring in outside air. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Welf
to bring information on this system to the next meeting.
Mr. Sielaff asked if furnaces with outside air vents that are
connected to the cold air vents have a duct to the outside.
Mr. Saba indicated that the newer ones are put into the cold
air ducts. Others have a separate intake and are hooked up
above the floor.
Ms. Wicklacz stated that Pat Wolfe, Section 8 coordinator,
is also interested in the subject of radon. Ms. Wicklacz
distributed copies of an article from the August 15 Minneapolis
Star and Tribune given to her by Ms. Wolfe. She would like to
have a test done on her residence. Ms. Wolfe has called around
and gotten information on detectors ' for radon. The long term
detectors were recommended. She did not know how the information
was analyzed, but having it analyzed is costly.
Mr. Saba indicated that the charcoal type of devic� is widely
used, Re showed the commission the results of radon readings
and indicated that radon levels are higher when there are
smokers in the home.
Ms. Wicklacz distributed copies of the Minnesota Homeowner's
Guide to Radon, May 1987. She will also make copies of other
materials on radon.
�
ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 25, 1987
2. Update on Grant Developments
PAGE 3
Ms. Wicklacz stated they have been workinq with the �ire
Department which does rental ins�ecticns. City Sta`_£ have been
debating who should have responsibility for doing inspections.
The Fire Department needs someone who does fire inspections
and Section g inspections. The Fire Chief al.�n does energy
inspections on rental property on a complaint basis but he
is not certified. The City D7anager will decide whether the
Fire Cepartment or the Planning Department will be responsible.
fox these inspections. ��'ecision is ex�ectefl tb be ma�e when the
City N.ana^er returns from ��acation. ?_` the planning Cepart:nent
is as�?.�ned the res�onsi`_i)�.*��, they will �o.all inspections.
Mr. Saba asked if the City is obligated to have these people
on staff.
Ms. Wicklacz stated they are. This is being done, but there
is an overlap in the inspections. Inspections are not being
done every year although licenses are renewed annually.
Inspections are done if there is a complaint, but Ms. Wicklacz
felt these should be done annually.
Mr. Welf asked if someone other than the IYre Pepartment staff
could do the inspections.
Ms. Wicklacz stated that others could, but they would need to
be trained to do all types of inspections.
Mr. Welf asked how personnel are trained.
Ms. Wicklacz stated that training is available. The person
doing the inspections would be a liaison between the two
departments regardless of which department is responsible.
Mr. Sielaff asked the basis for decidinq which department will
handle.
Ms. Wicklacz stated that both departments will make their
presentation. One advantage to being assigned under the Fire
Lepartment would be that the inspector would wear a uniform,
which does command respect. Part of the money received from
the Department of Public Service will be going toward doing
inspections. Whoever is hired will do inspections with an
auditor or will be trained in fire training and code training,
except for rental assistance, at this time. This would mean
hiring an additional person. Ms. Wicklacz has indicated a
deadline to have an employee by November 1.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a problem with the grant if the
person doing the inspections did not have direct accountability
to the department receiving the grant.
ENERGY COMAfISSION MEETING, AUGUST 25, 1987 PAGE 4
Ms. Wicklacz stated that this is not a problem at this time.
The State does not care who does the inspections as long as
the inspections are done and this is reported to the State.
Mr. Saba asked if the commission could insist that the inspector
look at certain things.
Ms. Wicklacz stated that the inspector looks for everything that
the State requires. So far there have been no problems. People
seem to cooperate with the current inspector, and that may be '
partly due to the uniform worn.
Regarding energy education, Ms. Wicklacz stated she has not
done anything as yet. She plans to use some of the funds for
radon. An article on weatherization is planned for the fall
or winter newsletter. Ms. Wicklacz stated that she had
submitted an article in summer on air conditioning but it was
not inclUded in the newsletter.
Mr. Saba stated that $ was ir.�ortant to refa*niliarize residents
as to how to weatherize their hous=s f�r winte^.
Ms. Wicklacz stated she would like to do something on cable and
asked for suggestions.
Mr. Saba suggested information on adding a fresh air intake to
the furnace. Retrofits are available and this could be
inexpensive if the homeowners could do the work themselves.
Mr. Sielaff felt this would be of interest to those who have
older homes and suggested interviewing a contractor who does
that type of work.
Mr. Welf thought there should be a package available from a
lumberyard.
Mr. Saba questioned the energy savings from the addition of a
fresh air intake. He felt this would be more of a safety factor.
3. Review of Comprehensive Plan
Ms. Wicklacz stated that some time ago the commission had agreed
to review the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Saba stated that the plan had been updated about 10 years
ago. The Planning Commission would like to see this done every
S years. Portions of the plan could be updated more often than
10 years. Mr. Saba asked members to bring their copy of the
Comprehensive Plan to future meetings and work on a section
at each meeting. The commission will look at the first section,
Land Use, at the next meeting.
1 ��
ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 25, 1987 PAGE 5'
�'
4. Other Business
a. Mr. Sielaff asked Ms. Wicklacz to stay informed on the
Exxon monies to see who is getting funds, what the funds
are being used for and if there will be a second chance
to get some monies that the City could apply for.
Mr. Saba asked Ms. Wicklacz to get further information.
Ms. Wicklacz stated that West
has started flouse Doctors in
zra being contracte�?. Cities
also applying for .funds.
Hennepin Hui!�an Services
a numSer of communities which
from out-state have been
Mr. Saba asked Ms. Wicklacz to get a list of contraCtors
the State or City of Minneapolis refer to.
Ms. Wicklac2 stated that the State and City will not
recommend contractors.
b. Mr. Saba asked if the commission was to condnct an election
of officers.
Ms. Wicklacz thought officers had been elected for the
currentyear aut statea she wou�d check.
c. Ms. Wicklacz stated that Glen Douglas has not indicated
if he would continue to be a member of the commission. If
Mr. Ehlers is to take his place, a letter is needed from
both Mr. Douglas and Mr. Ehlers. This change must go
through the City Council. Mr. Ehlers was asked to contact
his councilmember and let him/her know of his interest.
Mr. Ehlers stated that Mr. Lee may also be interested in
joining the commission. Mr. Lee would probably appreciate
a call from the commission extending an invitation.
Ms. Wicklacz stated she would call Mr
to the next meeting,
ADJOURNMENT
Lee and invite him
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Welf, to adjourn the meeting.
UPON A VOZCE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N SABA DECLARED THE
AUGUST 25, 1987, ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
� C7,C Z �xJ ��-L' ,(�t/
avonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
�
a
��y
f
HU19AN RESOURCES COMMI5SI0�� MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 PAGE 2
2. NEI! BUSINESS:
a. Update Workplan and Schedule
Ms. Sherek stated that at it►e .last meeting {June 8), the Co�nission
discussed a little bit about the fact that they have covered most of
the items in the existtng workplan and that they needed to continue
on with some more specific work itEms for tfie next few months. One thing
in the work plan that was kind of "generic" was to review some of the
human service needs in Fridley. Adult literacy was one of the things
brought up at one point, and they have not taken any further action on
that. The other thing was to review the data utilization policy.
Ms. Sherek stated they needed to talk about what additional items they
would like to add to the workplan at this point. One of the things
the Commission needed to do was to finalize the No-Fault Grievance
forms for the No-Fault Grievance Committee.
Mr. tlunt stated at the last Nn-Fault Grievance training, they received
a packet of new forms from the State Department of Human Rights, and
he needed to review the current forms with the State Department of
Human Rights' forms. He would try to get those revised forms to the
Commission at thetr Nove�er meeting.
Ms. Sherek stated that regarding getting input on what the human service
needs were in Fridley, she felt very strongly about the possible lack of good
dental care for children whose families are not poar, 6ut whose families
might not have dental insurance, or other reasons. She felt this was an
issue that needed to be addressed, and with a little creative effort,
they should be able to locate some resources in Fridley.
Ms. {lodge stated that regarding the adult literacy issue, there are
adult literacy programs in Fridley, but she did not know how many people
those programs were serving.
Mr. Hunt stated the City could do publicity in order to somehow bring
these types of programs to the attention and awareness of those who need
the programs.
Ms. Sherek stated sometimes it was very difficult to disseminate that
type of information.
Ms. Dodge stated she would try to get someone from Pletro North to speak
to the Commission on adult literacy at the Commission`s November meeting.
Ms. Dodge stated a couple of other issues they could address were child
care and transportation.
��
�:
HUt1AN RESOURCES COMMISSIOt� MEETING, SEPTE�iBER 17 1987 PAr,E 3
Ms. Sherek stated there has been a real loss of individual care givers
in Fridley for child care. She stated Fridley, Columbia Neights, and
Spring Lake Park have latch key programs, and she knew there was a
waiting list for the Spring Lake Park latch key program. One of the issues
of latch key was it only serves chiidren until they are entering 5th
grade, so there are a lot of 9-12 year olds there are no resources for
in the community. That was something they could address, and something
that could possibly be addressed through Parks & Recreation in the City.
She did not think there was any way the City could play aro active role
in helping provide care for the younger children, because they need
special facilities; but maybe they could be involved in providing some-
thing for the school age children.
Ms. Sherek stated she was curious about what the care needs are for
younger children and if those needs are being met. She stated Council-
person-at-Large Nancy Jorgenson was a daycare provider for years and
maybe she cou7d he]p give the Commission some direction on this issue.
Ms. Sherek stated she would contact someone from School District 16 to
see if she could get someone to come to the December meeting to talk
about child care.
In sumnary, the wbrfepTan was revised and updated to inciude the foliowing
items (workplan to extend unti] June 1988):
Adult literacy
Dental care for children
Child care
Data Utilization Policy
CDBG (ongoing)
b. Review of City of Fridley's Data Utilization Policy
Ms. Sherek asked if a written data utilization policy had been developed
after the Commission's last discussions and recommendation in December
1985.
Mr. Hunt stated the MIS (Management Information Committee) has not really
addressed itself to the area of policy issues. As far as a specific
policy, he did not know what happened to it. i'he Commission made a
specific recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on
December 5, 1985, was approved by the Planning Commission, but apparently
that recommendation never got on the City Council agenda.
Ms. Sherek stated this issue arose because there was some concern that
there were multiple departments in the City that gather specific data
about individuals and households in Fridley--Fire bepartment, Po7ice
Department, Water Department, Assessing Department, etc. In addition,
Y
•1�
T
HUt1AN RESOURCES C0�1t4ISSI0N MEETING, SEPTE�46ER 17, 1987 PAGE 4
the City gets census data from the County. All of that data gets
stored in separate data bases but either all in one computer or
computers that are capabie of corr�nunicating with one another. There
was a big concern that, taken by itself, each individual piece of
information or data was not necessarily dangerous, but put together
with other inforn�ation, a person could develop some pretty innovative
profiles of people in Fridley.
Ms. Sherek stated under the State Data Practices Act (which differs
from the Federal Privacy Act), basically anything the Gity has accumu-
lated is public information. Unless the information is specifically
protected under-the Data Practices Act, the City has to give information
to anyone who comes in and asks for it.
Ms. Sherek stated there was a very real cause for concern that data
could be disseminated to people that could be used for purposes that
might be harmful to people in Fridley. For example, the Fire Depart-
ment maintains a data base about people with mobility problems, people
who are elderly, etc., for fire safety purposes. If that information
is combined with information regarding the value of homes in Fridley,
someone for very illegitimate purpases could determine where there are
elderly people living alone in valuable houses in Fridley.
Ms. Sherek stated the City does not have a standard written policy
as to when and under what circumstances information will be allowed to
interface or be collected. At the time when this was originally
addressed, they also did not have a standard policy of who someone
requesting information would be referred to.
Ms. Sherek stated the Comnission had had staff people address the
Commission regarding this issue, including the Fire Department, Police
Department, and Mr. Sid Inman, former Director of Central Services.
After that, the Gomnission came up with a recommendation that the City
review the data bases in existence, review anything in the Data
Practices Act that exists _in the City departments, and review any
requests for additional data to be accumulated and ask "why".
Ms. Sherek quoted the policy recommendation submitted to the P1anning
Commission on December 5, 1985 (page 7 of the Dec. 5 Human Resources
Comnission minutes):
"As the City Staff is reviewing its Management Information System
policy, the Human Resources Commission makes the following recommenda-
tions regarding the municipal unified data base, the Department of
Public Safety data base, and any other data bases that may be under
the control of Fridley:
A. That the City's Management Information Committee give high
priority to its function as an internal policy review board.
�
HUNAIJ RESOURCES COMt4IS5I0N MEETING, SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 PAGE 5
B. That the functions of the policy review board include:
(1) Developing written criteria for additions to, or retention
of, data elements in the data bases. The criteria should
consider not only the potential effect of new data accumu-
lated, but its potential impact when combined with other
data elements already in the data base, On a scheduled
periodic basis, all the elements in the data bases should
be reviewed in light of the established criteria.
(2) Requiring a clear written statement of purpose from those
requesting the addition of elements bo the data bases.
(3) Developing a clear and consistent policy for releasing
information requested. Consideration should be given to
vesting the responsibility of addressing requests for
information in a central location within the City.
(4) Segregating potentially sensitive data on single purpose
data bases, micro-computers, or other records."
Ms, Sherek stated one thing that astonished the Commission was when
Tim Turnbull fran the Public Safety Department informed the Commission
that while they were laboring under the impression that everything
under "public safety" was subject to the Privacy Act or to exclusions
under the Data Practices Act, only those things that are related to
an ongoing investigation or juveniles are private. Everything else on
the public service base was public.
Ms. Sherek stated putting lots of information into a unified data base
without any regard to whether the information was really needed or not
was a real concern to her. It was so important to have a policy, not
only to protect the data once it was already collected, but to have a
policy regarding what data needed to be collected in the first place.
Mr. Hunt stated the City was now involved in a major computer update.
They have engaged a computer consultant in conjunction with the renova-
tion of City Hall to do a total study of all the computer needs in the
City and to come up with a complete new system. This will be spread
over a number of years as far as cost savings. The MIS Committee was
involved with this.
Mr. Hunt stated they will have a total review of all the computer needs
and probably be purchasing quite a bit of new hardware. They are also
doing a total study of records retention and have received a final report
from a consuitant. They wi11 probably be going to a central filing
system and probably be hiring some staff to deal with that. They have
to apply to the State for a disposal schedule, and they are also looking
seriously at a laser disc retention system for permanent retention. That
�
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSIOW MEETItJG, SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 PA�E 6 �
will probably mean they will need a staff person with an ongoing working
knowledge of the Data Practices Act who will be acting in a central
capacity in regard to all the record retention in the City.
Mr. Hunt stated they were also looking at a computer called "Ultra Map"
which would be at the County. It was a map that could be broken down
into sections, square blocks to indiviudal parcels, which will show all
the easements, etc. Eventually, all the data will be on one gigantic
data base.
t4r. Hunt stated it might be a good idea for the Commission to address
some of its concerns to the people involved in the computer update and
records retention staff. The first step might be to take the resolution
passed by the Comrn.ssion on Dec. 5, 1985, and pass it on to
Shirley Haapala, City Clerk, and Rick Pribyl, Finance Office, and ask
both of them to come to the October meeting.
The Commissioners agreed with Mr. Hunt's suggestion.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MS. DODGE, SECONDED BY MR. WESTBY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, RLL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SNEREK DECLARED THE SEPTEMBER I7, 1987,
XU7fAN RESDURCES COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ynne� a a
Recording Secretary
;
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APPEALS COPIMISSIO�J MEETI�lG, SEPTEMBER 22, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the September 22, 1987, Appeals Commission meeting
io order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mer�bers Presenf: Donald 6etzold, Alex Barna, Diane Savage, Kenneth Vos
f4enbers Absent: Jerry Sherek
Otliers Present: Lisa Campbell, Code Enforcement
David Fox, 7231 East River Road N.E.
APPROVAL Of SEPTEMBER 1, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSIOPJ h1IWUTES:
MOTIDN BY 19R. BARNA� SECONDED BY DR. VOS� TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 1� 1987�
APPEALS COt3MISSION MZNUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T71E MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�.
MOTZON BY MR. BARNR� SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VO2E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHRIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Chairperson Betzold read the Administrative Staff Report:
ADMIP�ISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT
7231 EAST RIVER ROAD �d.E.
VAR #87-31
A. PU6LIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT:
Section 205.07.03, D, 1, requires a minimum front yard depth of 35 feet.
Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow for off-street
parking without encroaching on the public right-of-way and also for
aesthetic consideration to reduce the building line of sight and encroach-
ment into the neighbor's front yard.
�
APPEALS COIQ��IISSIOIJ I�IEETIfJG, SEPTEII6ER 22, 1987 PA�E 2
B. STATED HARDSHIP:
"I would like to add an entry-way to serve as a weather barrier.
Entry would then be made into a separate room and not directly into
our split entry which causes energy loss. I would also like to add
office space for in-home business. My finances will not allow for
two additions, so I therefore would like to combine both into a two-
level addition, one level being basement."
C. ADt4ItdISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW:
The present code does allow for a five foot encroachment into the
required front yard setback of 35 feet if the total area of the
addition does not exceed 50 square feet. Because the petitioner
wants more than just a 50 square foot vestibule, he has petitioned for a
variance to build a 10 foot by 15 foot room. The present setback from
East River Road right-of-way is 135 feet; however, on the 35 feet from
his existing home is a 50 foot right-of-way for the future extension
of Asiiton Avenue. This would serve as a service road and would eliminate
the private driveway access onto East River Road from the east side.
There are no immediate plans for this to take place; however, our
Engineering Dept. states that this could happen at some later date.
If tfie Board approves this request, the Staff has no stipulations to
suggest.
Ms. Campbell stated the extension of Ashton Avenue was projected to go all
the way to the A& W site on Osborne Road.
The petitioner, Mr. David Fox, stated he had sat in a public hearinq regarding
Arioka County's plans to widen East River Road 40 feet. If the County widens
East River Road 40 ft., there would not be room for Ashton Avenue.
�1s. Campbell stated a hardship was allo��ed for solar energy, b�aY. there
have not been any precedences set for weather barriers. This addition was
for 150 sq. ft., far in excess of 50 sq. ft.
Mr. Fox stated his wife has a silk flower business. He recently had to change
professions and was now in graphic arts with a commercial art business on the
side as well as working in the commercial art field. He stated they need room
for his wife's silk flower business, his computers, and drawing tables.
Right now ,all these things are in the family room, and it was very cluttered.
They wouid like to make a separate area so it would look nice and would fit
their needs.
Mr. Betzold asked if there was any way Mr. Fox could add on to the back of
the house.
Mr. fox stated that ttvo years ago, without thinking of his changing professions
or the success of his wife's business, he put on a very extensive deck which
covers almost the full length of the house in the back. If they 4•rere to add
on to the back of the house, they would have to tear down almost the entire
deck.
�
,
APPEALS COP1"1ISSIOp MEETIF�G, SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 PA�E 3
f4r. Fox stated that the way the house was built, when the front door was
opened, all the cold air rushes into the house. He would like to c�et away
from that by building an air lock so it takes two doors to get into the
house.
Mr. Barna asked if there would be any business people cominq to the house,
or would this just be an air lock for the house and then additional work
space for the petitioner and his wife.
I�r. Fox stated there vrould not be people coming to the house per se. Tf
there ever was, it a+ould o�ly be one person at a time.
Mr. Betzold stated the argument about an air lock makes sense, but that
could probably be acconplished without a variance by adding an addition that
would not exceed 50 sq. ft, which was permitted by code, lJas it fair to say
that the petitioner was now coming to the City asking for a variance for a
larger addition because he did not pla� ahead when he built the deck on the
back?
Mr. Fox stated, yes, that was a correct statement.
Mr, Barna stated that the deck was a walk-out to the rear. lJould there be
space under the deck for a room addition?
Mr. Fox stated the deck was a three-level deck. There �•ras an upper level,
middle level, and then the screened in porch under the upper level, with a
walk-out to the side of the deck on both ends. He would have a hard time
seeing an addition coming off the back because he a�ould have to attach
it to the family room and eliminate a ivalk-out, and he would end up extending
the upstairs bedroom that doesn't need to be extended. The design of the house
was such that across the back was the kitchen, bathroan, and bedroom on the
upper level, and laundry room, bathroom and family room on the basement level.
Mr. Fox stated he has talked to his neighbors, and on the back of the
petition, he had his neighbors sign a statement that they agreed to this
addition. He planned on changing the brick that lines the front of the house
with granite from St. Cloud, leaving the gray cedar above the brick and then
the gray/green granite rock on the front. He felt he would 6e improving the
face of the house and, in turn, the whole area.
Mr. Barna stated that as far as a precedent being set for a o-teather barrier,
a precedence has been set for air lock entry ways. Some of the variance
requests the Commission has had are for combination solar/air lock, but
variances fiave been granted for an air lock entry way.
Mr. Fox stated the design of the front was all glass to the south entry way,
and he was planning on using dark qreen marble on the floor to attract and
hold the heat from the sun. He was changing the entry way from the west to
the 5outh. The house was built without any southern windows.
APPEALS C0�41ISSIOfJ MEETING, SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 PAfE 4
Mr. Barna stated this could be considered a cor�bination solar/air lock.
MOTIDN BY MR. BARNA� SECONDF.D BY MS. SAVRGE� TO CIASE THE PUBLZC HEARING.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING RYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLRRED THF. PUBLIC
NERRZNG CIASED AT 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Barna staied he had a 10 ft. x 12 ft. air lock entry way in his house
and even with only two children still at home, it was not enouah room for
boots, coats, hats, etc. There needs to be room to get everyone into the
entry way room before having to open the second door; otherwise, both Aoors
are open, and they lose the air lock. He could see the additional size
from 50 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. As far as being worried about the East River
Road expansion or Ashton Avenue extension, he was ter�pted to not even take
those into consideration at this time, because that was in the future.
There have been variances granted up and down East River Road, especially
on Hugo St., for structures much closer to-�Che prroposed East River Road
expansion than this request. He stated he would have no objection to the
variance.
Ms. Savage stated her initial impression was that this was a close case,
because she was not really clear that there was a hardship. As they have
been discussing this, she had become in favor of granting the variance because
it did seem that the hardship was shown by the need for the weather barrier.
She did have concerns about the future widening of East River Road; neverthe-
less, she would still be in favor of the variance.
Dr. Vos stated he looked at the site and no matter what was done with
Ashton Avenue or East River Road, this house, even with the addition, would
still be set back more than a lot of other houses on the west side of East
River Road. He did not see the hardship, but he did see the inconvenience
of living on East River Road, and he would be in favor of grantinn the variance.
Mr. Betzold stated he did not know whether or not the size of the air lock
entry way as proposed by the petitioner was an adequate size, and he did not
know wliether it could be accomplished by something smaller without the
variance. He was concerned about the fact that the petitioner was askinq
for a variance primarily because he did not plan ahead and put the deck on
the back a couple of years ago. He stated he was not really happy when the
Appeals Corrmission gets these kinds of requests.
Mr. Betzold stated the Ashton Avenue/East River Road matters are the policy-
type of decisions that he was not comfortable making, and he felt the final
decision should be made by the City Council. It was his intention to vote
against the variance, primarily so this variance request would go on to the
City Council for their final decision. He would also like to knov� how the
City Council feels about these kinds of requests.
APPEALS CONU�IISSIOPJ �1EETING, SEPTE�1BER 22, 1987 PAGE 5
i;OTION BY MR. BARNA, SECONDED BY MS. SAVAGE, TO RECOMMEND TO CZTY CWNCIL
APPRQVAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR 5187-31� BY DAVID FOX� PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 205.07,03� D� I� OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO REDUCE TNE FRON^_'
YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 25 FEET TO RLIA47 THE CON5TRUCTION OF A
IO %'ODS ADDISSON ON 7ATS 7 AND 8, BIACK 1� HILLCREST ADDITION� THE 5A14F,
HEZNG 7231 ERST RZVER ROAD N.E.� FRIDLEY� MINNESOTA� 55432.
UPON A VOZCE VOTE� BARNA� SAVAGE� RND VOS VOTZNG AYE, BETZOLD VOTING NAY,
CHAZRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 3-1.
r,o��ouR��r�E�ir:
MOPIO.N BY MS_ SAVAGE� SECONDEO BY MK. BARNA�TO ADJIXTRN THE MEETING. IIPON A VOICE
VOTE� ALL VOTSNG RYE� CHAZRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TNE SEPTEMBER 22� Z987� RPP�RLS
COISIdISSION MEETZNG ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submit d,
�
yne aa
Recording 5ecretary