The URL can be used to link to this page

05/14/1979 PUB HEAR - 5705THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MAY� 14> 1979 147 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council was�called to order,� after the Board of Review Meetin9> at 9:30 p.m. �� ROLL CALL: ( MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Counci}man Fitzpatrick,. Councitwoman Moses,. iCouncilman Schneider and Councilman 8arnette . MEMBERS ABSENT: None � �� ADOP7ION OF AGENDA: The agenda was adopted as submitted. PUBLIC fIEARINGS: � � � PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF WINE LICENSE TO�IRENE�Y.L ��SONG DBA: ORIENTAL._ HOUSE RESTAURANT AT 5865 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.: � MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive reading of the pu6lic hearing notice.and. open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. �Upon a voice vote,� all votin9 aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the pubiic' hearing opened at 9;30 p.m. � Mr. Brunsell, City Clerk, stated the report from the Polite Department indicates- there is no evidence of any police problems and the Police �epartment could see: no reason for denial�of this license�. No persons in the audience spoY.e for or against the issuance of�this l�cense.. � MOTION by Councilman Moses to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman�. � Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice�vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee.declared the motion ' carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 9:32 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MNCT LIQUOR LICENSE TO � PATRICK G. KOLB �EBA:� PAKOLLY'S PIZZA AT 7893 EAST RIVER ROAD: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the reading of the public hearing notice. and open the�public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon�a voice vote,. all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously, and the public: hearing opened�at 9:32 p.m. � � � Mr. Brunsell, City Clerk, stated the Police Department made an investigation of� the premises and finds no reason for denial of the license. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated, in all the years they were talking about this property and development of it.> he never heard any reference for a pizza parlor with a Seer license. He stated he had no objection to the applicant regarding the beer license> but if does dis�urb him to have that business at this particular location.- No person in the audience spoke for or against the issuance of this license.: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the pu6lic hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye> Mayor Nee declared the motion carried, unanimously and the public bearin9�closed at 9:34� p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLAT P.S. $79-01 JAY PARK ADDITION BY ALVIN A. NITSCHKE� 6667, 71, 81 MAIN STREET N.E. � � MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to waive the reading of the public hearing notice. and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried� unanimously.. Mr,Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this� hearing is to review the final plat for property at 6661, 6677, and 6687 Main Street. He s�tated the Planning 1_48 PU6LIL HEARING MEETING OF MAY 14, 7979 � PAGE 2 Cortmission held a public hearing and has recomnended approval of the plat. Mr. Sobiech stated, originally, the property developed into a muitiple�rental situation and Mr, Nitschke intends to plat the property into lots which would then be owner-occupied. . Mr. Sobiech stated, since this was an existing situation, and there was nothing in the code regulating existing structures> the staff likened this to a townhouse development and proceeded on that basis. He stated, in this case, the plan has been constructed and now exists and the City would have to concern themselves with the platting of the property. . Mr. $obiech stated the original�recommendaiion of the Planning Commission �ias for approva} base8 on the platting of the property. He stated what� is shown on the map is actually.three lots in one block.� Each lot would tonsist�of a partion of the structure, a gara9e and then the adjacent - properties. � Mr. Sobiech stated at the Planning Commission meeting on April 18, 1979, there was discussion on the townhouse proposal. In lieht of that discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the property under the existing dwellings become private ownership and the rest of the land become ground held in common. � Mr, Sobeich stated the staff and City Attorney feel this could be handled either way because once it is platted, the legal description would be for structures and certain properties. He stated, either way, there would have to be by-laws, filed as covenants, that would take into account certain items whether it be from maintaining the structures, down to the utilities. He stated an association would�-he formed consisting of owners of the property, but initially it would probably be set up by the present owner at this time, Mr. Nitschke. Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned once the by-laws were set up, what about control as far as the City was wncerned. � __, Mr. Herrick, City Attorney stated, generally speaking, by-laws can be .� altered by a certain percentage of the property owners. He stated where '�� you are dealing with only three property owners, you would probably want to make it unanimous for any changes. He felt, in this particular situation, the Council should make the approval contingent upon approval of the initial by-laws. . Mr. Herrick felt this may beanarea that the City could be dealing with that may happen frequently, where owners of rental properties decide to "condominiu�mize". He felt the City may be faced with similar requests in the future from people who own larger units and stated 6e discussed this with staff to some extents and they felt they had adequate ordinances to cover the situation. - - � Councilman Schneider asked if this was the same process they would be considering for condominiums. Mr. Herrick stated, at this stage, the City doesn't have any experience with such requests,.and unless some new legislation is adopted he would think it would 6e the same process as for condominiums. hir. Sobiech stated this entire area of revising existing rental properfy is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr..Sobiech felt, in his own mind, that if there was an apartment situation with stories of dwelling �� 1 units, he didn't believe it wauld�satisfy the requirements of the townhouse �� 1 or condominium development, as compared� with units in a townhouse design where � lots andblocks can be simply described, and cortonon property can be seen. �� He felt> with apartments you have a difficult time identifying what is comnan property. � Mr. Herrick stated he would concur with Mr. Sobiech's comnents and that with an apartment, you have a different style building. . �..�; PUBL[C HEARIN6 MEETING Of MAY 74,1979 PAGE 3 Councilman Fitzpatrick stated his concern is that whatever interest the City has in this, it seems would be aAdressed in the by-laws which would be far from stable because they could be changed. Mayor Nee stated he felt a little uneasy with it and perhaps a precedent would be set and was not sure it has been thought through enough. He feit part of the premise of setting up a townhouse development area was to have a fairly large development area to insure professional maintenance. Mr. Sobiech stated one reason staff felt confortable going this way is that there was some criteria in the code for guidance. He stated the only item in question was the area, and he felt this requirement was originally -set up to allow perhaps for recreatfonal uses. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, questioned if there were other situations � in the City where a simitar approach could be taken. Mr. So6iech indicated there were several and pointed out some of them. Mr. Sobiech stated another way to approach this woutd be to rezone to single family and then have "0" lot lines. � Mr. Sobiech felt with the present R-3 zoning, townhouses are allowed and the only criteria you have to satisfy is the square footage per unit, which is the case here. Mr. Qureshi stated there are certain restrictions the Council can impose which they feel are necessary to maintain the integrity of the development. Mr. Herrick stated they could possibly.obtain additional information through the League or the City of Minneapolis, as they have had a lot of conversions. He stated one point he would like to niake is that covenants, as such, are not enforceable by the City, but the property owner can enforce them. Mr. Qureshi stated, as far as the townhouse development, the Council could impose restrictions that could be part of the approval. Mr. Herrick stated this could 6e done, however, the question is if it would be binding on the property owners. . ... Mr. Sobiech stated in the Innsbruck North development, the City had an �agreement that was binding en the original developer and the City would have the right to enforce the developmental agreement. Councilman Schneider felt, however, with the Innsbruck IJorth development, each of these units were paying something into a central fund to maintain the land and exterior. � Mr. Nitschke stated he fails to understand why one situation would work and one wouldn't, just because this is a smaller number of units. He stated, as far as maintenance of the property, he felt the City would have as much control through the City codes and ordinances as they do with single family residences. He felt, however, if you had an absentee landlord possibly the pruperty wouldn't be maintained as well and thinks, in the majority�of the situations, that certainly would be the case. � Mr. Nitschke stated 'ne dfdn't feel uncomfortable with any of the by-laws he has seen. Is was his understanding that the covenents are binding to all the owners. Mr. Nitschke stated the units are all finished separat�ly now and felt they would remain�the same. He stated he didn't see arp� probiems with anything that has been discussed. � Councilman Fitzpatrick stated one of the points that has come up is comparison to the single fami7y residences and felt it was a matter of impact. He stated it is true if you buy a home in the middle of a block, you are impacted by your neighbors, but certainly not anything of this degree. He felt they should keep in mind that they also have to think in terms of other requests of simi7ar nature.and aren't talki�g particularly about Mr. Nitschke and his situation. Mayor Nee stated he would feel more comfortable if they had some guidetines. 150 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 14, 1979 PAGE 4 Mr. Sobiech felt, with the Planning Commission's review, they may be coming up with some recortmendations. �� Councilwoman Moses stated she would compare the two where this would be separate owners> each taking care of their property, as compared to a townhouse development, where the upkeep is taken care of. Councitman Schneider stated he was more concerned about a precedent being set, rather than just this particular piece of property. -� Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, suggested obtaining additional information and to _ develop some type of guidelines. . � . MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.and the pu6lic hearing closed at 10:12 p.m. Mayor Nee stated that staff will brinq this item back'when they have additional � information and will advise Mr. �ditschkewhen it comes back to the Council. ,.,�� .� urnn.err_ nni crorCT tM�Rl111FMFNT PRf1,7Ff.TS ST. 1978-1, $T. IS78-Oz P10TION by Councilman fitzpatrick to waive reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice. vote ., all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the meeting carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 10:13 p.m. Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated this is a hearing on the final assessment cost for the 1978 street improvement projects. Mr. Herrmann, City Assessor, explained how the assessment is figured for corner lots. � � Mr. Sohiech stated, in the F�Yde Park area, improvements were�made on 2nd Street, 2-, Street, 3rd Street, 57th Place, 58th Avenue,�59th Avenue, 60th Avenue, several alleys in Blocks 9 and 22 of the Hyde Park Addition and Main Street from 58th to 61st and 57th Avenue fr�n Main Street to 3rd Street. Mr. Sobiech stated the front foot assessment for the street and concrete curb and gutter was $17,04 a front foot and the side yard assessment was $5.37 per foot. The front foot rate for the alleys was 53.57. Nine sewer services were �ut in the Hyde Park Addition at a cost of 5Z�6.47 per service. Main Street from 58th to 61st was put in under ST. 1978-2 with commercial property paying the full cost per foot for bituminous street surfacing and concrete curb and gutter and residential and park property being assessed at normal residential rates, with the balance being paid from State Aid Funds. The front foot assessment for industrial and commercial property is $22.47 and for residential property, $17.04. Mr. 5obi�ech stated 57th Avenue from Main to 3rd Streets was assessed for cur6ing only on the North si-de of the street under improvement project ST. 1978-4. The front foot assessment rate for commercdat property �is $9.59 a front foot� and for reside�tial property with double frontage, $2.40 a front foot. In the Alice Wall Addition on c3rd Avenue and 7th Street, watzr and sewer services were put in under project ST. 1978=7 at a cost of $257.94 for the water and $242.00 for the sewer per service. Mr. Sobiech stated with the improvement on 53rd Avenue, East of Central between Menard's and Skywood Mall, the front foot assessment was $27.71. He stated this improveinent was needed to improve the traffic flow and signali- H usenof �Lordseproperty,ttheYfro�rt f ot assessmentaratehwas $45e7411y abuts the Mr. Sobiech stated water and sewer lines and water services were put in East Ranch Estates Third Addition on Main Street, as petitioned by the �property owners, at a cost of $4,019.98 for the water line of Lot 4 and a cost of $3,511.28 per lot for the sewer line. Cost of the two water services was $323.22 per service. �♦ 151 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF MAV 14, 1979 PAGE 5 Mr. Sobiech stated on 79th Way this is a State Aid Street designed to State aid standards. The front foot assessment'for commercial properties was $24.23 and $17.04 for residential properties. Only curbing was installed on a portion of 79th Way which invotved commercial property and the front foot rate was $9.57. � . � Mr. Sobiech stated, under project ST. 1978-2, sidewalk only was installed on ' the East side of 7th Stmet from G1st to 63rd Avenue. He stated this improve- ment was petitioned for by School District 1�14 and the City agreed to share ' j in the costs. The front foot assessment is $5.70. ��.. � Under project 1978-4, Centrai Avenue from 76th to Osborne Road had curb and '�� gutYer installed on the East side only at a front foot rate of Q7.19 and a �� side yard rate of �.81per foot. Main Street froar 57th Avenue to 1-694 had . curbiny installed only and the front foot rate was .�7.56. � No persons in the audience spoke regarding these assessments. MDTION by Councilman 6arnette to close the pu67ic hearing. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voCing aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimous7y and the public hearing closed at 10:22 p.m. MOTIOtJ by Councilo�oman Moses to waive reading of the public hearing notice � and open the hearing. Seconded 6y Councilman Fitzpatrick. llpqn a voice �' vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unaniriously and the publ.ic hearin9 closed at 10:24 p.m. _ i Mr. Sobiech stated the City received a petition from property owners requesting � improvement of this alley. Preliminary Flssessment Estimates indicate an '� �� improvement cost of $3J5 a foot. He stated the only problem staff has vaith .' this is that it is proposed that only a portion of the alley be improved or ,�_ that part i�+hich is actually being used. He stated residences to the �Jorth do have access off of adjacent streets. Mr. Sobiech stated, in thc past, it has been the policy to improve all of the alley and would find it difficult to maintain alleys if tney don't have � ingress and egress in both directions to accommodate the equipment the City � has to maintain them. � Mr. Sobiech stated, in this particular case, the equipment could only proceed in one direction and there would be no place to store snow. He stated this was mentioned to the petitioner and it seems there has been arrangments made, in the past, for plowing and in this particular case, the plowing could continue on that basis, however, the City would maintain it as far as any repairs. Mr. Robert Hartman stated he was the owner of three apartments between 59th and 60th and has talked to the adjacent property owners and everyone, with the exception of one person, is interested in having this atley 6lacktopped. � Mr. Hartman stated they noH� have someone come.in to do the plowing, and hoped : some of the property owners would work with him on that, but that he would be receptive to continuing to have the alley plowed. '��" A gentleman from the audience stated he owns a building in this area and the driveway is blacktopped now and questioned�how the iinprovement wouid affect this. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the City would work with him on �the design. No other persons in the audience spoke £or or against this improvement. '�. 1.5� PU6LIC HEARING MEETING OF MAY 14, 1979 . PAGE 6 MOTION 6y Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Ploses. Upon a voice vote, all�voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 10:35 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOWTIDN CONFIRP1(NG ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMEPlT PROJECTS ST. 1978-1 ST. 19J&-2 NSAS AND 5T. 1978-4 CSAhI : Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated he received a call 'from a .'.. property owner who owned a 40 fo�t lot and when they made this improvement, , water and sewer services were put in to make sure they wouldn't have to ��i tear up the street in the futw-e. He stated some services were put on the r;, 40 foot lots that could be combined viith other lots in order to make it � a buildable site. I Mr. Sobiech stated, he wendered, by doing so and,assessin9 this to the property if it may be a problem with the pending case regardin9 40 feot lots. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, felt the assessment could 6e collected at the time the lots were built on, and have the record sho��i they �reren't assessed at this time, but would be if a structure was 6ailt. RESOLUT]:ON I�O. 70-1979 CONFIRMI�IG ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ST. 1978-1, ST. 1978-2 f•iSA�AND ST. 197£3-4 CSlilij- MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution Plo. 70-1979. deletirg the charges referred to by the Public 4lorks �irector for extensions into thc 40 font lots. � Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, D1ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimousty. FIPJAL PLANS AP1� SPECIFICATIONS HDDEND'JM11 ;;3: �� . ' (�OTIOfI 6y Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 71-1979. Seconded ��'.. by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voi.ce vote, all votin9 aye, Mayor Nee '�. declared the motion carried unanimously. �I I POLICY STATFMENT CONCERNING THE �4AINTENANCE OF LESS THAN FULL BLOCK ALLEYS: , 140TIOfd by Councilman Fitzpatrick that the Council adopt a policy statement to the effect that theCity cannot be responsible for snow removal on the partial alley under ST. 1979-1, Addendum ;3. Seconded by Councilman Schneider Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, �4ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CLAIMS: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize payments of Claims No. 130A03 throught 132P03. Seconded by Counciloioman hloses. Upon a voice vote, all votinc aye, Mayor Nee declared the inoti�on carried unanimously. REQUEST BY ISLANDS OF PEAC[ FOR SUPPORT OF ANOKFl COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN: Councilman Barnette stated he has been approached by Mr. Ed Wilmes of the Islands of Peace regarding support of the Anoka County Regional Plan. It was generally felt by the Council that perhaps they should have more input and additional informati�on from the County before taking any action. ADJOURN�4ENT: � MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of May 14, 1979 adjourned at k0:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole Haddad William .1. Nee Secy. to the Ci�ty Council � Mayor Approved: ,�.� MEMO T0: FINANCE FI �VANC E FINANCE FRIDLEY CITY COUNC I L BOARD OF REVIE�! A�;D PUBLIC HEARIP�JG P9EETI�Vu - l�AY 14. 1979 DtPARTMENT HEADS FOLLOWING ARE THE `�ACTIOP�S NEEDED`�� PLEASE HAVE YOUR ANSWERS BACK IN THE CITY MANAG[R�S OFFICE BY THE �'IEDNCSDAY BEFORE THE NEXT REGULAR cOUNCiL MEETING, THANK YoU, {77�a-�� a3, i9�4) BOARD OF REVI EW � � , � � � � , , � � , , , � � � � � . , 1 Continued to May 21, 1979 ACTION NEEDED: Research and make further report at next meeting � PUBLIC FIEARI�IG h1EETIiJG ADOPTI�iJ OF AGE�VDA: PUBLIC NEA�IiJGS: PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF %�INE LICENSE TO IRENE Y�L� SONG DBA ORIENTAL HOUSE RESTAURAtJT AT S�oS UNIVERSITY AVENUE P��E� , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Hearing opened 9:30 p.m. Closed at 9:32 p.m. ACTION NEEDED: Put license on next agenda for consideration PUBLIC NEARING ON ISSUANCE OF ON—SALE i�ON—INTOXICATING P�IALT LIQUOR LICENSE TO PATRICK G, KOLB DBA PAKOLLY'S PIZZA AT J�93 EAST RIVER �OAD, , , , , , , , , , , , , , Hearing opened at 9:32 p.m. Closed at 9:34 p.m. ACTION NEEDED: Put license on next agenda for consideration 3 UBLIC WORKS :� PUBLIC HEARI�GS (CoNriNUEn) PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLAT, P.S, #79-01, �AY PARK ADDITION BY ALVIN A� P'�ITSCHKE (6661, �1, �1 MAIN $TREET �`�.E�)� � � � � � � � � � � Hearing opened at 9:35 p.m. Closed at 10:12 p.m. ACTION NEEDED: Put final plat on next agenda for consideration ,.4-4S PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ST, 1978-L ST. 1973-2 (i�SAS> AND ST, 1978-4 (CSA:I) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Hearing opened at 1D:13 p.m. Closed at 10:22 p.m: Resolution adopted see Item No. 7 PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1979-1, ADDENDUM i�� iALLEY IN NYDE PARK BETWEEN ��TH AND 6OTH AVENUES AND ZND AND Z� STREETS). Hearing opened at 10:24. Closed at 70:35 p.m. Resolution adopted. See Item No. 8 5-5D . 6 FINANCE FINANCE �'dE?•� 13USIPJESS: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ST, 1973-1, ST. 1978-2 (1�SAS), AND ST, 1973-4 (CSAf�{� , , „ , , , , , , 7 — 7 A 5�,..r � Resolution No. 70-1979 adopted with deletion of charges for„40 foot lots ACTION NEEDED: Make change in resolution as directed and proceed as authorized. COfdSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND FINF�L PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STRFET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1979-1, ADDENDUM #3, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 8 Resolution No. 71-1979 adopted. Council also adopted a policy statement that the City cannot be responsible for snow removal . of _this partial alley. Council also adopted a policy concerning maintenance of less than full block alleys. ACTION NEEDED: Proceed as authorized with improvement with stipulation that City is not responsible for removal of snow from this alley. Formulate written policy concerning maintenance of less than full block alleys. CLAIMS. . � Approved ACTION NEEDED: ADJOURfJ ,,,,..,,.,.�,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 Pay claims 10:50 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEASE SIGN NAME ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER IP�TERESTED IN DATE:'='� �� NAME ADDRESS ITEM NUMP�R ____ _______ _____________________________ �� /l/ � - __ � f--�----�---___________ ==_________� vc� /-'�� `.� . �i � 3 57 . �=� . � �3 � �, e �Q �, Pa.,_o ,i ir rc l ' �, �C" S .3'� ��t/� -�3�- s'7�,�2 �� v� �. � �rr��.�- 9s,r-�zs�.7i.�.�7 ' FRtDLEY CITY C4UNC I L BOARD OF REVIE��A! A�1D PUBLIC HEARIPVG P9EETI�VG -;�AY 14, 1379 BOARD OF REVIE�! f�EETIiVG - 7;30 P,M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA;JCE: BOARD OF REVTEW� � � � � , , , , , , , , � . 1 PUBLIC FIEARI;`!G h9EETIiJG ADOPTI0;1 OF AGE^JDA: PUBLIC HEA�IPdGS: . PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF L�INE LICEfJSE T0 IRENE Y�L� SON6 DBA ORIENTAL HOUSE RESTAURAtJT AT SSqS �NIVERSITY AVENUE l��, , , , , , , , � � 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF ON-SALE i'�ON-INTOXICATING 1�ALT LIQUOR LICENSE 70 PATRIGK G, ICOLB DBA PAKOLLY'S Pizza ar 7893 EasT RivER RoaD, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 e I� To:m 3--C1crk's Posted NoHce � , ee,��;c1 1��E��ME�T'1" �T�`I'I�E NOTICE IS II�R�EY GIV�N, That tlie P,oard of Review—*�qti�5�p of the��3� op_ Fridlev ;n Anoka County, 1linnesota, will meet at the office of the Clerk in said ('j ty at �� 30 o'clocic? M., on Mondav , the— 14th day of May 19.7.� , foi• tlie purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said._ C1 ty for the year 1479 All persons considering themselves aggrieved by sxid assessment, or who wish to complain that ttie property of another is assessed too locv, are hereby notified to appear at said meei� ing, and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon uniil the person so assessed, oi• his agent, sliall been notified of such complaint. Given uuder my hand this- 29th day of Mar�h , 19.7.� r� !iiii �/>. � , . �.� � . . �� Clerk of the ��ty op Fridley �'6Applics only in cities�whose chazFers provide for a Boazd of �qualization. . . . . . . � � ` . �. . _ , , . . . -: • i � . , � . �� . .. . . �. 1. . � . - � � � ' . . - i . ' _ _ . . . . .. i . ... . r. 1 CI7Y OF FRIDLEY PU6LIC HEARTN6 BEFORE THE CITY COUPJCIL � TO WHOP4 IT MAY COPJCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridtey will hold a public hearing at the Fricfley City Hall, 6431 University Avenue North- east on f4onday, May 14, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. on the ' question of issuing a Wine licinse to Irene L.Y. Song for the property located at 5865 University Avenue Northeast. (dba Oriental House Restaurant) Anyone having an interest in this matter should make their interest known at this public hearing. MARVIN C. BRUNSELL CITY CLERK Publish: May 2, 1979 May 9, 1979 � 2 CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HFARING BEFORE TfiE CITY COUfdCIL TO FJHOM IT MAY CONCERPl: Notice is hereby given that the Council of th? City of Fridley 4�i71 hold a pubiic hearing at the Fridley City Hall, 6431 University Avenue N�rth- east on Monday, h1ay 14, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. on the question of issuing an On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor license to Patrick G. Ko7b for the property located at 7893 E. River Road. (dba PaKolly's Pizza) Anyone having an interest in this make their interest known at this MARVIN C. BRUNSELL CITY CLERK Publish: h1ay 2, 1979 May 9> 1979 matter should public hearing. � 3 PUI3LIC I1EARING • QEFORE �ilfE CITY COUt1CIL TO WN0�1 IT MAY CONCERPI: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the City Council of' the City of fridley in the City liail at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Pionday, I�lay 14, 1979 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for th2 purpose of: Consideration of a Finai Plat, P.S. #79-01, Jay Park Addition, by Alvin A. Nitschke, being a replat of 0utlot 1, Rice Creek Plaza South Rddition; that part of Lot 3'L, Block 4, Lotvell Addition to fridley Park, lying IJorth of the South 2.7 feet thereof, including the West half of vacated alley ajoining and including tha� part of vacai.ed Si. Cr•oix Street adjoining, • lyin3 South of dutlo� 1; Rire Creek P�aza Addition, to allcr� an existing tri-plex to be sold as three �ir�dividual toti,mhouse units, lying in the Rorth fialf of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, Caur,t,y of Nno�a, MinnESOta. Generaliy locateci at Gb61, 6671, 6681 Ma�in Street N.E. Anyone desiring tc be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at �.his me2ting. WILLI�tM J. NEE PIAYOR Publish: l�pril 25, 1979 1•iay 2, 1979 :1 crrr or r��m� PLANNI1r'G CO2�hf1:;SI01Q 2�TTt�r, _ �CIi ?.1, 197� CAIS. TO OitDEIt: Chairmnn Herria called the Mareh 21� �979, meeting oY the Planniug Commissioa to ordor at 7:30 T'.2R. IiOLL CAIS.; Diembers 2'reeent: D'fr. Storla� Mr. Oquiat, Mr. Aurris� Mc. Suhrbier (for 29r. Peterson) N,s. Gmbel (for L4a. Schnabel)� Mr. Lengenield N�cmbera AUaent: Qthera Px'esent: i✓�s. Schrsabel� i�ir. Peterson Ray Leek� Associate Planner 1. APPROYF PLAR'I�TII�^v CCr"�LiSSZOIJ `r,It�tf]'ES: FL=BRUARY 28, 1979: b:OTION by 1�'s. I.tzn;er.ielciA secondeu by bir. Oquistj to epprave the I'ebruz�ry �28� 197�} r�iuuL�e oY the Pl�nnir.� Co�-ilieaion. UFON A VGTCE VOl'G� ALL VOTT_I;G AYE� Cifii173DfAPi IL4RRIS DsCLARN� TI',L+ I•`OTION CARk2T"UP UIiAP�Ii;UUSLY. 2. fePPP,Ot?F 1'LAhi�TJ:ieG COh��TSSI0I3 A+?:�^S: I�ARCIZ 7' i979: b;aTlOid'�f ifs. :,3uiatl seco:3ed by I;s. CabE1' tio �p�rove th� MarcL 7� 1.974; mixeuEsa o� tlae Pien:lirg Gcr�ission. UP6N! A[�OICE VQTF,, ALL VOTIT;� AY�, CFir1It2IhAId HAFtRIB D3CLF��Z:D TtR; Ai0TI0?d CkF2ItIGD UiIAidTi•;�USLY. _ 3. rc*�r.Tc imr��zrac: or s. �n� ��s�.� 111:U��:!.Vltl 2.�a :,i:v�.,+ H. L'1J.'.�L'vt�iG7 llC1II� a renta� oz �•�� '—' `-ee rec:lc. Plaza 5ou�h ��udit:�on; thet l.�z�t of' lot 32� B3ock �+� Lowe.11 Adni�ion. to F'ridlcy ParkJ .lyin; I4or-ch oi the Snuth 2.7 Peet thez°eo�' inciuuir,rr, thnt p�rt of St. Croix StreCt ad jnining� lyi� Scutla of Out? ot 1� Ric.e Cre�k Pl•aza Sou'tli Addition� to rall�w a threa unit tc�;nhouse dcrelopment to be eold seprxratelyD genernlly loca'ted on tke �ESt side of 2•i�in Street in the 66fl� b].ock. P'IOTI�N by� b�. Oquist� seconded by Mr. Storla� to oFen the publie hear3ng. UF'ON A POTC� VdP�� /ll,L VOTII@G AYE� CIL9IRAIAII I�ftRIS DECL4PuD Ti3E PUl3iIC ��ARSSTG OPEN AT 7:35 P•t�. Mr. Leck stated tl�at after Steff Reviesr' City StnPf h�d uo problen wit� the request for A plflt. The pur�ose of the requasi; is to change exietii� unit� into esse:�tinl7y ownership iinits. Staff deter�r,ined that if the pint is approvad? �hexe would iwve to be a reguer.t for varirance for tk�e to�,mhouse �ize requ:tre�entc �i2d �tbui; t2ie toauhouse ordiaance reguires A minimum az•ea .for development of ten (10) c�cres. The arca oi the laC in quectian ie rougtily 1�3 af an acre. But City StafP would huve no problem with tlwt. 4A �, L�itachke etai;ed it was a nice atructure and would muke a nice einglc Pamily dwelling• One hns 1120 oquare feet with two bedrooms up �d a fu11 basement. Another one hns abaut L� sfl�re Yeet� and the one he is living in is o littla larger than thc other two. Btructurea or p member oY the audience rseked iY they xere ta].king about exieting iY they were planning to add one. t,�,, ��is atated they wexe tnllcing about exicting structures. Tliere Were no further co�nts from the audience either for or against the request. tt�., pquist asked if he understoa3. it proparly that these were existing wiite� Pre- sently rental units� and the petitioner wanted to sell them. IQr. Nitschlce stated tha.t was correct and he lived in one of the units. He �ould like to sell the other two rental units sing7,Y• Mr, Oouist asked if they needed a replat for that. M�, I,angenfeld stated they would have to make them separate purcels in order to be seld separately. �, pquist asked iY tl�e lot would be aold with the housey and li Bara�ea were there. Mr, Harris stated that was correct. I�Ss. Gabel asiced 3f the petitioner would need variances ior zero lot lines. DS;, Harri.s stated that was corract� they krould need variances. �, yeek stated tY�t in li�ht of the fact that they va�r@ townll°use�� they night not xequirP variances for the setUacks Por zero lot li.nes� but wot:l.d for the s1ze. Mr, FiArris stated that it rzppeared there were two gsra�@s for the tltree units. �e asked if tliat waa correct. DSr, Nitschke stated there were four gAraBesr tc�ro doubles e� two singles. Mr, Harris stai:ed that the two singlc ({arages wou7.a 81eo be split. �. Nitschke stated that was correct. D40TION by bts. Gabel� seconded by Ms. Suhrbier' to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING Al`�� CHAII�7AN F�TtRIS DECL!`.R�D TF3� PUBLIC I�I� CIASID AT 7:40 P.M. lat. Mr, Hsrrie ssked Dir. Leek if they would need ax�y additionaxl eaaements for the rep �, yeek stated there were none hc �ras aware oi. -t�"»� r�r -----.--='��:� 3 4 C • I�rrls nsked I, droPe into °W the utilit7.es Ped ' the uttitrt. Mr. 17i.tschY, lnto the unita, iS' thera werc thre co c mce state�i tl�ere waa � seAart�te �'d �' tcred t�e aewcr. ��ar.a�el,y, and� Zine for watex qnd o Mr• Ifarria hc °UG�ested there be anlasaocia�ioner� The Por Wat�r Qgreed there �hol A�+.'eement po�. Mr. ?Jitpchke s tld be �tt A�reemeng �a $eked tated thc pocaer wes �bout thc separate Bower, - �• H�rris as&ed iP there were �and nlso tl�e gr�s wIIS separate. r'�'. Nitcchlce t�e� Eep�r£t� �ters. stated tl�ex� were t,�,. I�rr�9 two electri.� �eter build��, stete3 there slaould bo � on the middle en �;�re�o house. t�'. Nitec nt rE��ral� �h� �eters being on t2�a�t hl.e agreed, Mr. liarrls ciaicd t acrose the froat h"t be h�3 nogiced � was �1 the proPosed Lot �here tras en old easement. � draittABe and utiZit z�IId ��e proposed Lot 3, Y e�s�ent Mr. Leelc stated h� fie asked iY t1�t t'r$s not s•,:xe an3 w bave to check. 7��.'• Bs?^rie + � ou2.d ac+4�yf`. trere retaiaing �_ lt loo?:e� lilce Y of �;ha-� a�Ze Part of c uRCSt°3 e],'! . Mr'• Ari�;s ti Y ior d'r�itt<„e a� �'y� �ad wonder c. ke st$%.ed utility.a ed i1' they he P�rst purchas�d he h�d Purenaced ,. lat, Uc h� �'tl� lo�� i;hara Pe_� oi i, �'ux•tt:es Purcltased part �p �'�6 a Gaeate,� t p� °�erty fro�a ttse °� �n �dd�tional that t'rc''� the Cyt Strc�et on the City. When 4 drfli�age e�se�nt. 2�' feet couLd be Y end ;aoved hi� xiarth sid� of the Lfr. at �• 4,dded to �tha Pnz•k. He was notitile of �ia2°rfs st�tcd th aw�r� and utility ease;�ents lnce the s��o.r Y were 1;4TIOPT b• rePl�tin�e theY shou2d � on the rePlc�t. or•:�� 3 A�'. I�,zn�zanfe2d IDa.ce sure the drtti7:�se Being �pre�osed pre�iminary p�„�ed by hh-. Omais•t� to 731ock �Ea Low Z of Cutlot 1, Rie�' P.S. �!'79-01, J�, p� k°p��end io Council, e Cro1udit �ete S1,Add1�iAlfnof�.s�1dley ParLi ��„'in�uth Additicn; �tha�' b� A� �7VS1 � e r>t 3 A].yin itsc �" ed Ia, ated A11e � Aortli of ilie Aart of I,ot 32 �: to Allow � thr `�oini �, Jyi Y adjoini on the � ee to,��o South of ��u� ixiclud ��t.t2i �7 feet thereof� uvit Outlot look °St side of �.t uce develoP�:ent � Itice Creek Plaz Aart of St. __"„'-it'to Che u1;ilit,v�rnetoreet iu the �� ° be sold separate a South Flddition, Also to ��`"'--- ""----- �?ocerl;R1~1ei,e re�`' reg��:rd- s. 1,° r,�nrrntwith the �'`, 6enerall,Y located �n re�-t�z•da , stiva.Zat' u 11�t, ar,' e nii`� �"`�-llO pro�le�n`s ir. me„ex•s ypr lons th�t Stnff �----� �fiF; 11:]l n WA�^. --.�,� Y t'Nt>CLIE17i:6, A �lOWJIU."L"�— ��G��`"' Fi"^r� �� `•--�'Cj1�7Cjf:i UFl(1 Cc�.S`�'lll� E17�'.S`.P11S �t.:_��a £3Ia['i L:Zke "—`--._ � s---�c� � ou�� UPON A VOICE �'' �n ttze net,� p�at. certain i;lzat"yh�e"`-=---1��'. dr�zi��r{e �a:a urrarv.u�ot�LY. a�'', nr.L voxzn� ax�, ci�rru urv rrnRxrs n�cy�,�n T� �'ION C.'tRPIL'p �1 p` 3• N%r�N� APPPALS CO1�I,I �SI�id 14ItIU1TS: API2IL 10� ].979: , �0 � t60TI0II l?y 1!fo. Schnabel, seconded by Nir. Oquiot� tia, receive the April 10� 1979, m nutea of 1;he /lppcala Commiseion. � Ms. uchnabel s{;Ated that thc diacucnion startin6 on page 1+ oi i:he minutes centrred on the item that hnd bcen Uefore the Plunnin� Commir>eion previously. Tkte item vrr�a ` n request by Alvi.n Nitscheke, 6661 ��`�in Str.eet, to rezone his property. Zt came � to Appeala with 4 variance requeat. She stated that she was quite shocked wheu she rrent over and looked at i�"r. Hit�cheke's properi:y Uecause she did not realize , Prom the Planning Crnnmi.seion minutes that i;here was 4 multiple use on thiB piece oY pxoperty. 51�e did not know if tl�e Planning Commicsioners had looked at the ( property� but it didn't come out in the minutes, and it bothered her i;remendously. Mr. Oqui.st asked what she meant by a multiple use. 4D Ms: Scktnabel atated there was a comtt:ercial use in the garoge. Part oY �he garage was converted into a Stute FArm Insurance Office. So it is a co:nmercial use of. the property as well as being a tri-plex. The commercial use is an open violation of our zoning code, but that was not the question that the discussion centered around. !�s you can tell Prom the list of questions a't the end o£ the minutes� i:hey had a lot of questions concernin� this piece oF property And others that will corne up like it. They were not zeroing in on this piece of property per se, other than it has brought to their attention many questions concerning density, l�ow the City would lil:e to see property reclassified in i;he future� lot sizes with regards to these typ�s of reguests and a loti oS other questions they felt chould be di�cussed be.fore the Board of Appeals made a decisioa on 1;his p�zrticular request. Sha a�sumed tha't -the cerr�nissioners had. read the minutes sn3 either had questions of their own or some answers to the AppeAl's qucstions. She felt they had some problems with-the current zonin� ordivance and th2y �hould perl�aps address these problems in tr,e new zonin� ordinance as t3�ey rewrite it. One of the questions was the number oi units. Do we still ��+ant to require a minimu� of 60 units in a ne�a townhouse detrelopment? That is �rhat our code current�y requires. It also reqizires,5 acrec oi land, and so m&�Y &quare feet per unit eomes doiln to 60 uni�ts as a ninimam development for �to�.an- houses. Another question was in re�a�ds to e�istin�; units. If there is an er.istir� unit in un R-1 District i.t requires more cquare i'ooi;age than the same existing iuiit built in an R-3 District. There was a discrepancy there iu our configurations. 77iere wae q dicerepancy in our zoning ordinance concernin�r gartt�es. There iaas one set of rulec i'or townhouses and another set of rules Tor douUle bungalows. That was not necessarily consistent in terms of rental property, ,yet we see tl�at kiud o£ prop::rt5� alco comin� Uefore them for A reclassification such ac this. ^11�cre �aas A difference iu cubletting. If. you have a townhouse developmenl; in an R-]. Zone, you c�nuot eub- let that propex•t.y. It must be owner occupied. The same ic not true if it is in an R-3 Zone, ye{: it could be the same Uuildiug in both zone�. There were a lot of guestions they fe).t the Plt�nning Commir,sia7 should look at and sc�e of i;he sub- crnrunissions might �lso want to look at them also. She stated tl�at first of all they should 1;iy to zero in on ttiis particular type of situntion so that the Appeals Commiccion eould net upon it. hfoybe the thing to addrecc is exi�ting units und then get into nek� development uft�r thut. . rr.nirrarrr c��car:� �zor� irt�:�rzr�c, nrrlr, I8L �.97> PnGF, 3 I�r. Tiarrio ntni:ed that �n he ceen it� thc Uunic queation ir whether we chould a7.lm:r thene pnrticulnr i;ypeu of unito thnt are now exioting i;o Ue sold ua i:vwn� houaen. ' Ns. P.oaxdman ctai:ed that at the Appeal'a meeting t;e had brou�ht up the question oY dencity and fel{: the Plamiing Couunlsaion ehould diccuca it A�L'O. I�ir�t oY ell� the u{:aff cliecl:ed wSth other Cor.anuni.ties to find out how they were handlin6 thece types of requcats becnucc: i;hey nre gettinb marc and more of them. A m�jority of the coirenunitics contacl;ed felt tl�at if� in 1;lir er.ietin�5 propertie� the deneities don't chan�e, the type of ownerchip didn'i; really matter. 2'he thingc they shouJ.d Iook a't are the 1;hings i;hat would be cormnon or ��oizld require �n a�reement Uetween owner�� rather than looki.ng at uhcther they Are goin� i;o allow it or how they're �oin� to split it. P,e�ardl.ess of ehat they do, they would still be looking a1; the sttme density of living units. 4 Mr. Harris stated i;h�t zraa true, but control vraa a different thinp.- In this parti- culur case, fnstead of one awner to deal with, WG' 410U�.d CZEFIZ1I77� with n comccittee. b1r. IIoardmau stated they would :�ave to deAl v�ith tl�ree individual ormers. I✓�r. Harris stai�ed th�t �Lhe ordinaizce requires in '�,o�mhouses some sort oP n�ana�ement or�aniza�ion to take care of 'che �rounds and so forth. D7r. Boardman stated that l�e sees no differcnce legally in this sii:uation than in a one oFmerel�ip ei�ua�ion. . I��.Fi. SCY17131Jw1 ctated she did not agree entirel,y. If he was tall;ing aUou{; au apsrt- men� cc;r.plex converting io a condo�inivm� she coulcl see that arr�n�ement in a different li.ght i;han a sc�ll isol.ated unit like that b�cause an �partment ce:-:plex that �;oes cond.o;ninitmi genera7.1)� has an arerz of lAnfl tha�t has b�sen r�ore saeciiica7.ly developed to tt:at t,ype of multiple exisi;ence. It has co:nsnon �roiu�ds� par)cing spaces and n i:umber oi thin�;s that are iaore ��rea to��ras that t��e of density �nd the internal sspect oP whether it is une-person rnrned or multiZ�le-i:�n�ed in the condom- iniwn sense doesnst necessari]y alter thst as much as an iso].ated building does. She sees a difference between fl sinole i'ree-standing uni�t like tl�is and a lar�er complex develonment. . D1r. Aoardn�an ct�ted 1:l�at he agreed there was a dii'Pexence. Iie felt �;hey should zook ut definitions of the diffcreni; t5�es of units ��rhich tl�ey never had in tlie code. A ciefinition of n condominium refers to ownership of ou apartment. It means privtite owner;hip of an apart�re�it wi.th no land involved. A townhouce is privtlte ownership of {;he propert�� with just the prou�ri;y under �the building r�s ownership. A patio l;wr.e is general�y clas�iPied c�e fran one to Sour units �et extremely close to othcr units of its type which require land ownersl�ip more thun just imderneath tlie unit. bi�•Ue they� cliould loolc at thece def'initions aud see if i;hey ure goinu to ullow dei'i�iitious of tl�is type aiid under whst zonec they �rould be nlloNed in. rirci: 1:1:ey should deal tai'l,h tl�e e�isi;it� �itGation and densii:y has beeu brouglit up time nnd time again. If tlie densitics are the same and will remain tl�e came then Nhui� differc�ice docs it �rk�lce whether it� s a k�ome ownership type of eittiiation, or upartmeut ownership type of cituc�i,ion ar whether it's n rental ty�pe of r.ii.untion if t;he zoves nre correctly zone& for thoce types of uses. liome oF*ner- cliip� evcu in a condomi.nium o�rnei•ehip wliere tt�cy have u lot of people on a cor,m�ittee involved in ii;, they sti11 have liome o��n�er.^.hip which met�ns that they hnve coineUody tlic�t'o t¢Icing betLer cnre oi' �Lhe groyeri;y becsut;e they own 11; nnd have nn investment in it. PLANP�INC COThMIuSION M['GTII`!C, APRIL 1B, 1979 rAGE � Mr. Boarclman ctated thtat he questioned Nhether it made thnt much difference as ° J.ong As the denrii:ies remoined the asme becauae the purpose of zonir� in the first plACe ic density. Ma. Schnabel stated th¢t it str.uck her in readinq the minutea t}.�at the attempt was to recla�sify it i.nto what is so cAlled the easiect clessification to worY, with. I1: seeroe that somcone went throu�h i;he caie book cnd took a lcols At what required the leASt omount of variancec and came up with the reelization that A townhouse xould require the least amount of variances� so they recommended to the petitioner that he apply for a townhouse. Naybe this piece of property and others like it would be Uetter off with an R-1 classiflcetion even though it requires more variances tY�an a townhouse classification. � Mr. Bo¢rdnan stated he would htxve some rer�l problems with that bece.use thr�t ��ou7.d vary the densi.ty in an R-1' it would v�ry the lot size iu an R-11 and they t•rould end up with a 30 foot lot instead of a 40 foot lot wnich they were not allowing other people to build in en R-1. He felt there were ;om2 real probleris with re- zoning to an R-1 just because they �were tryint, 1;o control ownership on n piece of property. FIe did not see where there rras A problem in trying to control o;��nership. � 47hether they had cwnershin or rental in a situation like this tie did not see any problem because iYie dens.ity was set for R-3 an3 i.t wae bein� develeped ior R-3. 'Phe reasonin� bGhind the townhouse definition of it was becaii�e they hed no other definition that would allow this type of split ownerehip where �they had houses butting ri.ght up next to each other. b1s. Schnabel referred back to the question of oianer occunie3 d::ellirgs� becauce this was one of the key points in this issue.. The selling point was that if it became a toGmhouse it woulc� he owner occupied and as a result tliere��would be more pride in the p.roperty', the dwelling Frould be kept up Uetter, etc. Shz stated tl�a�b �aas not required under our code. If that i�as an R-1 zone it rnust be owner occupie:ci. In an R-3 zone� wiii.ch this ic, it- does not have to Ue oianer occupi.ed. So a person could come in an buy one of those unit� and turn around and sublet it. N1r. Boardm�n st�ted he would question that becau�e iP {;hey requixe o�,mer occupied in this in an R-1 zone yet ihey don't requir.e o�mer occupied in an S-1 zone in a. residential area for a single family iiouse. He questioned the reasoning behind that. Ms. Schnabel stated that she agreed with P�7r. Boardm3n Uut that's the way the current code book reads. She brou�ht it up UecAUSe she felt it wqs important for them to discuss it and understsnd it so tl:at when ttiey do xek�rite the code they uould have a Uetter idea of where they are going and what they want to say. D7r. Boar3man stated he tuiderstoo3 that Uut Selt tl�at goin6 to An R-1 zone And then bringi.ng variances to allow i;his wou]d Ue opening them up for other are�s such as 40 foot lots or 50 foot lots bein� cplit into two ownership units snd dividin�, tbe �+0 or 50 foot lot into two 20 or 25 foot lots as 10� As they had 3,000 square foot. They wotil.d run into real.proUlems �rith tl�t whereas if they look at existing pro- perties And allow exi�ting properLies by density and then set up come controls on new property such as a patio home development� as lenst they could handle the G PLANPaIPlG CO1.a4I5ST0�d t��IsPIPtr, APRIL lfi 19'/9 �A�� 5 exiatin[� pr.operties bar,ed on density und .look al• idea].s for density on t�he new units. He feli; the whole is3ue came down to the fact that the zoning is based on density. They were trying to protect A certain density ��ithi.n an area am1 there xere other things thut enl:ered into that such as s.etbncks and those tyPes of things which establish standards withln All area. Those standards nre set based on a den�ity. Nir. Iiarris asked if this was zoned R-3. Mr. Boardman si:ated that wac correct. t�1r. fTtirris asked iP in a to�mhouse association tbe lands were held in coccmon. Mr. Boar.dman stated that in some situations they were but in this case it would not be that wAy. In this case� tl�e way it's eet up, the lot lines were being divided a11 the way thrc�h 1;he lot so each unit has a separate yord�area. Mr. Harris �tated that bothered t�im. Ns. Boardman stated that each of the units would be responsible £or the maintainence and upkeep of their yard area. Mr. Oqui�t aslced why that bothered Mr. Harris. It's no diPferent from a aingle Samily private dwelling. Mr. Harris sta'I:ed tY,�y �hould look at e�hut could hapnen. If they split it up ivto tnree pa*_•cels� he assur.�ed there would then b� three diiferent tax statements, 1;hree different 1:*ater r�:ers nnd three diff'erent gas meter.s. Mr. T3oardmsn stated �tliat would depend on how the utilities �,�ere set up. In this cace there might have to be a com*non utility a�reement. He was not sure what the situation was on that. , . Nr. Iiarris asked t+ir. Nitscheke if he had one water meter or three. I✓,r. Nitscheke stated that he had one water meter. Nx. Harris stated tlxut if they in fact split it into three o;anerships� they should bave �Chree different water meters. Ntr. Boar.dman stated they would be lookinb at that or comparable agreemeutc for the use of 'f:he utility. I� . Fiarris stated the proUlem was tY,ni; if so��eone didn't p�y tl�eir bill� what would they do? Turn the water ofi' on the other two7 N3r. Nitscheke aslced what they did in trnanhouses? Mr. Iiarris stated tlu�t to�ai�houces were u separate deal because thtzt �ras held in common by the nssociation. bfr, Boardman stated that in a towi�house� the lands were held in common, but the utilities were separate for each unit. PLANNING COMMISaIQJ 1�TING� APRIL lB, 1979 PnC� 6 � f� � Mr. Ttarris atated that then if i;hey did divide it into three parcele thcy would have to have three tax otatemente. Mr. T3oardman a�reed and atated they would also huve to have preferebly i:hree water and sewer hooY,-ups. Bv.i: it m�y noi; work that way. They might have to ho.ve some kind of agreemerrt with even the potentiality of havin� a sewer and water �'und available for repaire and that type of thing in which those people wotil.d have to put money in eUcrow. Mr. Harris stated 1;hat essentially then they were talking about getting to an aesociAtion type setup for some of those things. If certain repairs were needed on the building� like the roof� how would they handle ii; if all three parties didntt agree on the need for repairs7 . P�s'. i3oardman stai:ed we wou7.dn�t handle that, it crould be up to the people. Mr. Harris stAted they were putting thcroselves into A very strange situation. Mr. Board:nan stated it was the same situation in a townhoixse wbere they had eighi, units side by side. He didn't understand N,r. Fiarris's point. bis. Schnabel stated -�hat she was not ioa htmg up on tbat and that's a problem those geople would have to worry about and hopefuily they would l�ire attorneys to handle that. N�r. I�arris stated they would be creating the situation. He v*ould be r�ere com- fort�ble �aith this proposal ii they l�andled thic particul�r piece of property just like they handled 'cheir other properties. Instead of splitting it up into i;hree separate lots, they should have the people form an association and Lhe association taould be responsiUle for the ea.terior of the property. Mr. Boardman stated that what he was sa,ying then' was they should sell the Iand only under •the building similar to a trnmhouse. bir. Fkarris stated that was correct and he would feel wore comfortable. Ae stated they coul3 be puttia� themselves in a box wit2i the 1+0 foot 1ot business by doin� something like this. IlecAUSe we would be creatinb snall lots that are substandard loi:s. Mr. Oquist stated that these units were joined togeL-her by common �✓alls� they were not iudividual lots and individual buildings. It�s like a zero lot line. Ma. Schnabel stated 1;hey could not know what would devzlop in the future if they did develop this into thx•ee individuctl substandard lots. One point brought up wA, thttt if you hc�d t�ao adjacent 40 foot lots and someone came and he and the other owner wanted to tear do�n the dwellii�s on the adjACent tF0 foot lots �nd put t�ao buildings together witki u zero lot 1ine. One on one 40 foot and one on the adj�xcent 40 Poot� would 'cue pennit that. - Mr. Oquist asked what wus wrong with that. 4 PLATIN7IVC L'Oh�MI`i9I0N 1+fETTING, APRIL 18, 19'(9 - _ PACE '( Ms. Schnabel ctated there mi�ht be nothing wrona with it� and it's very cimil.sr to rrhai:'s happenin�; here. Mr. Iiarri3 stated there was nothin� Wron� with that if they all.oa eonatruntion on 40 foot lots and it l�as been City policy to not do i;hat. ' i�. Oquist stated that i�hen the asawnption Ms. Sctu�aUel made wac not valid. Me. Schnabel stated there was another example that had Ueen Urou�ht up. What if aomeone owned t��o structures on two separate lots and they clecided that� since we were allowing tri-plexe, to be �rade into townhouses� Accumin� that's what we do� why d.on't they build a buildin�r in the center and Attach the two that are separated now by the building in the center. A.nd say those are each on �+0 foot lots �ahich would maLe an f30 foot width. Tdoa they �aould have a nerr structure that ctraddies the middle so then why not �o through and separate th�se �nd malce three separate lots out of them. It becomes very coruplicated. As land becomeU more valuable� these �re the options. Mr. Haxris stated he was not too concerned about whether .they allow this or n.ot but more the way in which it is done. If we split tnis up into three separate sectior.s➢ �ae would be dealing with {;hree di�ierent people as �'ar aa the exterior of the buildin�. Mr. Oquiet asY.ed.�ahat they �aere doing with a double bun;alow with two owners. Ms. Schnarel stAted •that by definition they cau't turn a double bungaloa in�o a townhouse. Nr. Aoardmsn stated they were gettin�; r.equests to allow two oo:��rs in a double burz�alorr and they should discuss that also. One of tkie problems we have is our definitions. Mr. Oquist stated that one def�nitioa tl�ey have not talked aUout is tri-plexes or roFr hou.es. Mr. Boardra�zn stated 1;hat the situat.ion they h4d �.as Uy definition of some of tl�e current projects is tan�iUle. It's a nome that has more of an ownership than just under the Luilding itself. It has a la�id ownership that ic bronner than just the building. A to�nII.ouse definition is the land under the buildin� is the ownership and the rest of the proper�:y is comu�on proi�erty. In a condominitun� just the unit is owned iaitki cor,m;on ownership in the facility. Sde t�ve problems in here l�ecause our to�n�house definition does not say that. Ii; does i:ot say otimership just under the building. h'a�. 13osrdn•�an read the towaLouse dePinition as follotas: "Structures housing �three or more d�aelling wiits� continous to each o'ther, onl.y by tl�e sharin� of one common wa11, such structures to Ue of the toi�m or ro�a house typs as contrusted to mtil.tiple d�iellii� apartment structures. ATo single structure shall contain in excess of ei�;ht (II) d�relling units nnd each dwelling unit sha11 have separccte and individusl front and rear ei�trnnces." , Mr. Harris stated they don't even allude to the amount o£ property. Ms. Sclm�bel stated that it did oddress tnut later on in the code. PLANNIPJG COMMISSION Ml?GTINC, APRIT, lfi, i979 PncE 8 Mr. Doctrdman rend from the Specicl Requirementa in the cale book na follaws: °Any and all eonucon open cpace shall Ue laUcled as sueh". It duesn�t cay that s�y property under the bui.lding hac to be common or apen space. He continued reqding "and an to its intent or designed function and provisione for maintenance ownership� and preseivetion »hall Ue mtade in accordance with the provisions of the "Apartment Ownership Act't .., e.nd it'ckiall include all proposed covenants� restrictions ond easements to run w:Lth the land to�etlier wti;h ni�}r provisions Por release i'rom sAme; provisions for dedication of easement Por public streets ... modiPied a3 deemed necessr�iy by the City Council. .. the development in R-1 sha11 consisi; of ownex occupied units .,, c�nd membership in the townhouse develop- ment shall be made a part of the agreement of the sr�le of the dwelling unit." Nowhere in the cJ.assification of townhouses do they talk abo�.�t whether that orruer- ship has to be just the o,rnership under the Uuilding and any an3 all cn�nership of the outside lan3s as a common ownership. So Lased on our dei'inition of orhat a townhouse is this would al.so f'all ur.der our definition of a to�.mhouse. `Phe only differcnce is that we've eot tl�e 3,000 squere feet which is a requirement for.an R-3� they�ve got the front and rear entrances which is a requiremenif but the only difference is tl�at it says that every townhouce plat has to l�ave Yive acres. That's wk�y they need a vAriance. Mr. Oquist asked if a townhouse required an association. t4r. Eoar.dman stated it does not require that. If there is ccermon ownership cf a�y of the utilities or property, then there has to be an nssociation to �overn those things as deemed.necessary Uy the City Council. He stated •bhe5� could have a town- house developMen� without cor�mon ccznership. That�s the way he reads it. Ms. SchnabeZ stated that under the P'inal Plan, a copy of the tylaws of the proposed as�ociation of oi,mers is required. Mr. Boardman stated he understoo3 that to mean only i£ there r�as an association. If there isn't common rnmer�hip then they don't need an association. The way the 711'@5°71j'i co3e for townhouses �is layed oat� it doesn't say they have to liave com�mon oomership oY property. . Ms. SchnaUel s�teted that we should put that in our new zoning co3e. I�Sr. 7'reuenfels stated that he understoo3 thnt some of the utilities in this case, especisl).y �he �,ater, was served through a co�non meter, so this would require an association and bylaws. Mr. Sosrdman stated that lae was not sa,yin� they would not need an a�reement in this particular ct�se. They would have to have agreements for usage of tiiet water and of how they rrould pay for that water and the a�reements would lxive to be filed with the deed when anybody purchased into that property. All the co3e says is th�t it muat Ue submi{�ted with tl�e plan for review with the C1ty Council and the Council can mo3ify it if they chose. But it does��t say they hnve to have common ownersliip of land and ii; doesn�t say that this is not a 1;ownhouse because it fits the town- house defiuition. It says a townhouse can be Uuilt in ttn R-3 zUne and the on�y requirement it doesn�t meet is the 5 acre pArcel. ' � PLAIdNIIIG C01�4dISS]'ON 1•TPTI:da, APRIL 18� 1979 PACF 9 Mr. Iiarrl.s stcated thr�t then tl�ey Have to gei: bnck to �ome bacic phil000phy. Are � we goinf, to a11ow this particular type of aci;ivity? /1nd aleo are we �;oing to allow the individual o;+nerahip of a double? If we agree to allow it xith e tri- plex 1,hen i�t follows th�t we should allow it with a double bun�alow. Ma. Schnabel stated that tt�i� io �ahere we get into the guestion of deneity. 47hat type of densil,y do we wfint on a multiple living 6uilding. Mr. Harris stated there �aould be no problem with a row house but if it's a multiple ctory li;ce a duplex thexe cauld be a problem. Mr. 33oardman stated that in order to qualify as a townhouse, there cannot be one unit on top of another. So in that situation, �re wouldn't be able to allow A split or we would have to spli.t it ur,der a condominiwu type si.tuation, or a co- operaiive type of cituation, which is siruilar to e condominium. The problem is that the existi.ng density is tl�ere and do we allow that density to continus? We may hr�ve to allow t1�at density to continue b�cause it'u existir.g. Whet kinds oi problems would we have iF we go to ormership on those density or if we don't �;o to oFmership on the dsnsity? He doesn�t see any proUlems other than 'le�al problems and those legal proUlems are the proUlems of the people who buy into it. Ns. Oquist asked.iP we as a Ci�L-y should be concerned about the welfare of otiners. Ns. Har.ris stated that as Par as general health and saYety goes, yes. Nir. Oquist stated that he meant should the City be concerned if the owaers cannot agree oii repai'rs or l:ii,d� of sidin.g� e'tc.? Mr. Harris s'tated that in a wa,y we should because right noc� o,*e require a license for this particular unit and ii;'s contx•o11ed by the u��aintenance ordinance. Y7e are suppoced to make inspections of the unit. So� UecauUe it's reni:al property� there are some basic things we can do to keep a handle on it._ IP we go to this particiilar type of operation, �ae don't have that control. Mr. Bo�rduun stated that are r;e saying then that we like rental property because of more control over rental property ar.d theref'ore skiouTd we rent out all our sii�le family homes because the ordinance states tk�at iu ordei to reiit q sin�le i't;riiJy unit a license is needed2 S�Iith the license �ae can control the upkeep of sir��le family units. Do we want i:hat control? D1r. Harris stated i;hat his point was if they were sold as individual units, then the City does noi� requi.re a license. If there w�s an raeocietion� he felt tl�e property stoocl a better chance of e;taying in goai condii;ion than if it was just three eeu¢rute parcels. Ae woiil.d feel bei;ter about an associ�tion as far as the groundc ]�eld in common. � DSr. IIoardman stntad that he i'elt there should be some common ngreement between the properi:y owner� i'or msintenauce of the structure, ei:c, if there was corr�non rnaner- ship of the property. However, tl�e way it's plai;ted there would be no common owner- ship. Mr. Oquist stated there was common ownership becsuse there wss A common �rall between the unita, PLANNING COMMTS3IOtJ MiLTItICr ppRIL 1f3, 1979 PAGF. 10 � L Mr. Noardman stAted that thez•e were no cormnon walls, there wera double wttlla whicli is a requirement of townhouseo. It is slco a requirement of owner occupied unitn. He explained thst there were two cerics of studs with a common spuce between tbo�e studs. The reason for that is le�ral. If one owner causeo damage to a wall, it is his responsibi.lity to repair that damage. The Building C ale requires troro sepArai�e stud walls between two owner pccupied units. Mr. Oquist �teted thtzt was a contradiction because tkiere wa� another place in here thctt required they share a coannon wall. Tt was in the townhouse definition. There- fore we do no{: hAVe townhouses in I�'ridley because tbey do not share a common wall. 1dr, Boardman stated that rental units „uch a� apsrtmenta do not require double wa11s. Owner occupied units do require douUle rrallc. Mr. Oquist.asked if in this case there were double wnll�. Mr. Boardman stated that was correct. Mr. Schnabel stated that if Mr. Nitscheke didn�t live there, then he wouldn't o£ had to put up double wal].s. This points up discrepancies in the zonin� ordinance that we shou]d review. She asked wkai; kind of walls a double bungalow wuuld have. Mr. Harris stated double bungalow� were rental units� therefore they did not require double walls. N�'..fiarris stated that vre cann�t go throu�h and plAt t:�is bectause it doesn�'c fall within the �uidelines of our platting ordinance for minimum lot size. Mr. Boardman stated that the on7,y thing it says is that a townhouse must have 3,000 square Yeet. Na�. Harris staied that no matter what they call them, they are making three separate parce].s out of a piece of ground whe�ther it's R-1, R-2 or R_3 that's IIO feet wide and 140 feet deep. �ssentially they are cuttin� 80 feet ini:o three pieces. Mr. Boardman asked if that wasn�t what they do in a toanhouse plan. Afr. fiarris stated those were co�mnon grounds. Whr�t we're doing is rlAttin�, sub- standard lots. If something happeus to the structure� we are left with a p3rcel of ground zoned R-3 with less than 30 Foot lots. Ns. Schnabel stated tl�at the Planning Commission had already r�pproved the prelimin�ry plat on this. Mr. Harris stated i;hey may have mrxde a mistake. If tliey go ahead and do this t1�ey would be jeopardizing the t+0 foot lot deal. PLANNINC COMM.T.SSION . ' y r� 1979 rncF zL' E4x'•.Boardman stai;ed they would have to deci.de on how to handle the issue. Mr. IfArria s{;Ated that if they do it accordin�{ to the townhouse ordinqnce� snd they are cAlling this a townhouse� they could say thnt All Ll�ey were biLying ia the land under the townhouse And the rest of the lrxnd would be held in common. Mr. Boardman stated that was not a requirement of townhouses. Mr. Itarric ctated they could make it a stipulation. ��x'. Boardman stated that our dePinii;ion states strictly what a townhouse buildin� is and in the toornhouse area of the Buildin� Caie there is no requirenent for ownership of the land just under the buildin�. Ms. Schnabel stated that maybe it was aomething �re could maY,e as a stipulation in npproval of •the plat no matter what plat it is. Mr. Harris stated he £elt very uncomfortable that they did it this way. If some- thing happened to it and i.t w�s totally or over 50� de�t.royed lahat they have creeted is three R-3 lots o£ about 26 x 135 feet. Mr. Boardman stated that the main thing they should do is change the deFinitions. The Co�missioners concuxred. Mr. Boardmsn $�ked what they were going to do witl� condominivars7 Wiiat is our direction going to be for the o4*nership for tl7e previous densities which aa•e rentaZp Mr. Ifrirris stated they �aere not chan�in� the density. They wou7.d not be doing ar�y- thin� difi'erent from wh�.t they �,ere doing no�„. . Nm. Doaxdman ssked if they f�ould have a problein Frith people coming in and ask to do this, Fl11 they want to do is chan�e the o�.-nership� not �the density. Mr. fk�rris stated that was the key poin�t. Ee wanted to m�ke sure that peopla �,ho buy into this Are protected. Also, he wanted to nelce sure that che City and the surroimdin� residence:, are protected ircm the st�,ndpoint tl�at bhe proyar'ty irill be maintained. His third concern kas with public services. That the City doesn't have rz probl.em when they are sold. Mr. Boardman stAted that then our prii,ary directi-on would be similar to some of the other camuunities. They don�t have a�y problem as long t�s the den�ity doesn't change and that there are association UylAUS that are drawn up and attached to the deed. Mr. Harris stated he would have no problem with that. A1r. IIoardman stated that i;he wain point would Ue to �et defin3tions of condominiwns� townhouses and patio homes. The Commissioners agreed. 4 .r�� PLANNING COMMISSIOTJ MPP;TINC� AVRIL lti� 19'(9 pAGE 12 �. Boardman ohowed the Corrm�isaioners q desi�n of a patio Ixome. Mr�. Schnnt�el etated �he wAe not eure che liked the concept oP a patio home in terms of Qensity. Mr. Boardms,n stated tl�ey mttiy have to look At that type of units base3 on the ehangibg pqtterna of home ownership. Mc. SchnAbel stated thr�t in the new propoced cale she didn't see where they had spelled out R-2 or R-3 for condoniniur,s. Mr. Boarde�.an stated they didn't und that �aas something they would have to get into. Ms. Sehnabel stated they should discusc tl�e 5 ncre minimum £or to�,mhouse�. That is the gue�tion before AppeAls in the variance reouest. Mr. Oquist asked why we had a restriction oi 5�cres. Ms. Schnabel stated it probsUly came about when land was cheaper and more available. Ns. Boardmsn stated that they �;ere lookin� at developments like the Darre7_1 Farr Developmeiit where tihey have co�rmmon recrea'tion area�� etc., and in order to provide eIl the amenities i;hat go along with totmhouse living, tl-�ey f'elt that 5 acres was necessary. He questions the need ior that at thia point in tirae. Mr. Harris asked to see a copy o£ tne plat the Planning Cou�ission l�ad approved. I�1x�. Boardr¢an showed the Corunissioner.s a copy of it. He s'tated that if they taented to do it lii:e s totanhouse, tY:ey crould l�ave to sctually plot out 6 parceZs and the re�t orith cor,ttt�on o�,anership. Nir. Harrie stai;ed he fclt very uncomfortable with the way tbat plat was. Mr. IIoardman stated t1�at it boiZed down to a policy decision. Nu.•. Harris stated he felt they should plot it into 6 pArcels with common o-�anership for the rest of it. Mr. Boardman asked D,r. Nitscheke if he had a problem with that. Mr. Nitscheke stated he would not. Mr. IiArris asked if i;he Attorney had seen this. Mr. i3oardman stated thttt he had loolced at it and �tated he didn't have any problem� with it as long �s it met the requirement� of 4 townhouse and as long As they got A variance. Air. Oquist stAted th$t the c�ttorney also wanted to revieW the association by laws. Mr. I{arris stated he would feel much better with it this way. uo PLhNPd7NG COihM75SSOPd I�P'PI19C� APRIL lb, 197g PAGE 13 % 1+irs. Schnnbel aaked if the Commiaaioners then felt •that the 5 acre requirement is ctill valid. Mr. Ifr�rris ctated that on �11 new construction, yes. P9r. Oquist ci;ated he wnsn't sure he would go alon,; with that. I�Ir. Boardman stuted there were tiaays to �et around that. N,r. Harrls ctsted that they should mayUe set t� the 1;awnhouse ordinance a little Uit different. Mr. Oquist stated Y:e would lil:e to elimi.nate the terr� 5 acres and set a certain percenta�e for green area. � N,r. Boardr:an stAted that was already said. In an R-1 they are allowed 1 unit for every 9�C00 square £eet, in an R-2 they are alloti�ed i unit for every 5�000 square feet and in an h-3 they are allo��ed 1 unit for every 3�000 square feet. Mr, Cquist si;s'ced they could then elir�inate the 5 acres� but in an R-1 area i'or sin�le fa�ily they have a 25� Zot covera�e for green axea. i�".sybe� they should do something lil:e that for townY,ouses. 1ds. Schnahel �siced why they said so r!any square feet in R-1, so many in R2, an3 so nany in R-3? D1r. 13oardr:,an stated that tYie philosophy was tI�at they want to maiutain a certain density in each zone. Nr. Leek stated that the philosophy derives basically fzo� the values o� 'l;h� co�unity . Ts. Harris stated thrzt he �•rould like them to re�ain the 5�cres S'or a townhouse development because it has wor?.ed fairly we].1 up to no�a. Iie aelced b3s. SclwaUel if she needed ctn answer irrcnedia'tely. He felt this should be talked about. b7s. Schnabel �ta'ted that if what i;hey h3ve di�cussed iy tne di_rection �they �,ent to take and if tliey rrsnt to ma?se n proposal and vote on it, she would �Ehen take thrit bacY, to tl�e F3oard of App2als Un1 t;hey t,ould act on the request. Thcy had te�Uled •the requesi:. If the Plaruzin� Co:nmission f'elt it ncede3 more discussion� tuaylie they shcald table the diecucsion. She also asked if the Comwunity Development Cotmnission wouZd be interested in looking czt z't. hir. Oquist stated th�t he i'elt they would. He felt the £irst eleveu questions wez•e things they should tallc about �,hen they diccuss the ordi.nance. hfs. SchnaUel stated i;hat her impi•e�sion from this discussion was that provided the proposal for replattin� would �e changed,at the Cowicil level� then phil.osophicnlly� the Planning Cormiission would iiave no problem with,any tri-plex Uein6 com�erted into a i;ownhouse claesification if it fallc into the townhouse �uidelines discussed here. In other words eo:nmon propes-ty and individual property ownersliip. PLANNING CON,MISSTON Nil;ET'INC� APRIL 1�� i979 rACE 14 N�. Oquist �i;ai:ed he would like to clarify one poS:nt. When we talk About co�on property, 11: is the lrand left over. The ecsociation woulci be responsib].e for � maintenance of the common property and the Uullding maintennnce.. `Phat would be part of the by laws. Ms. Schnabel stttted that then sh� understood thqt they had no problem with converting tri-plexes such as this to townhouses provided the lot size remains �enerally com�on property with the land vnder the building he�ving individual ownership ond es lon6 as the densi.ty doesn�t chan�e. She could take this Uack to the Appeals Com�ission and fe]_t th�t the res't of these questions should be discussed along with dupler.es and doubl.e bunQalows. They had also touched on the park and open space situai:ion. If the denslty isn't �oing to change� thAt would not malce any difference. She said they had al�o d3scussed takin�� tor exarrmle� the strip of ltand acrosc the street from Ns. Nitscheke's property, whicli is ciirrently zoned industrial, and re- zonin� it R-3 and a series o£ townhouses were put on the property. It tirould be less than a 5 acre si.te, but would be corapatible with the neighborhood. Would they like to see �omething like that cloneY Nir. fiarris stated he would like to think about that. Ms. ScYmabel stated •that enother thina they had discucsed was the number of gar�;�es. She understood that there was no requirement for number of garages in a tocmhouse develop�ent, bui: there ir, a garage requirement for duplexes� douUle bungaloxs� apart�iei�ts and single family. Tir. Roardnan stAted {:here were no requirements Sor apartraents. That was paricin� spaces. . irir. I3arris stated they shoul.d address tha't iu the townhouse ordinance. Ms. Schnabel stai;ed that there should be something in the minutes to indicate iP they have hAd a change of mind on the re-plat. Mr. Boardtt:an stated that since Plannin� had „lready responded to the initial plat, they could say i�t�s an indication oi the Planning Commis�ion that t.he po.licy for convertinF this ty�e of unit must be similar to a townhouse area F�hich taould requi_re commvn open space plans and that they reco�rceud.that these 'type of situations Ue considered in the re-�-rriting of the ordinance for policy dixection and in the mean time the �1ppe�ls Co:mnission could,act on the variance with those conditions. Ms. Schuarel stated that Appeals had no power o��er the re-plat. Mr. Boardman Abreed and stated that should Ue iucluded with the platting. He felt there should be an indication to the Ci.ty Council that thic should be looked at by separate ownership under the units with comnon ownership of propert,y and thay should m4ke a recoranendation to Council thot the plat should be modified to reflect that. A4s, SchnuUel sug�ee.ted that the Appeals approve the variance with the stipulation th8t Planning reconsider the replat. PLAI7IJSIdG COMI�ISSION f-1PL"PING� APRIL lti, i979 raar x5 4 Q MOTTON by }dr. Oquist, seconded by Fis. Schnabelr that in li�ht of receni: diecussion and t� review of the proposal� the Plnnnitzg Commission wishes to cl�ange it's recoiruncndation concerning P.S.7�-Ol a� lollosrs: Tiiat the proPerty undcr the existing dwelZings become private o-anership and the rest oY the land 'oecome �rouiid held in comnon whi.ch rrould be consisi;ent iail;h existin„ trnmhouse developments as curr.ently Y.ncnrn in I'ridley and tkie Flnnni.ng Commi.ssiozi tw-ther recommends there be association by laws to control the operation of tho;e common propertie�. UPOId A VOIC� VOTr^,� ALL VOTZNG AY�� Cf?AIRI•7AN HARRIS llECI.l�I�D TI� i50TI0fd CARRIID UVI4IdI1 iOUSLY . hfs. Schnabel stated that she �aould take that back to Appeals and they would act in li�rht of this discussion. Mr. Harris asked Sor more discussion aR the Appeals minutes. t4s. Schnabel s�ated that the resi: of the i'cems could be diccussed when �they review the zoning co3e. Mr. Harris stated they could then vote on receiving the APpea]_s minutes. UPOI�T 11 VOICL�' VOTl^'.9 AI.L AOTIIdC AYE, CfIAI-t21•L9P1 HARRTS DECIJIR,T'D TI�,' N:OTSOT7 CARt'tTED Ui�IA',�IAiOUSLY, 4. RECLIVE HUA;AN R�;OUkiCES CCIR•ffSSIOPI TrilIv'UPRS: ltPRIL 5, 1979; Di0TI0I� by I•5�, Oquist, seconned by D's. Sc1u�Ue1� to receive the kpril 5� i979, mir:utes o.i the Fiu:nan Resources Co�iscion. Mr, iIarris sta��ed -thist the diSCllSS10R with hir. Saimder's at the lact Plannin� Coa:.�i.s�ion rr:eeti.ng ind�.cr�i;ed that the Hiunan P.e&ourcer> Cc�rrnise,ion would like the 8hairman of the P7.amiing Co�nission to present the proclsmati_on fo: the Year ot the C1�i1d to LP.e City Covncil. Is tha't what i;he Htui:an Resources Cor.cnission decided? tfir, Treueniels stated t1�at they had decided to put it before the Planning Com„nission aud cee �ahat the Plannin� Ccm�ission wsnted to do. Mr. Harris asked when they wanted this to cor;:e bei'ore the P1Anning Commission7 Mr. Treuenfels stated he would lil;? it to Ue discussed tonight. He pointed out that a copy of the proclamqtion tJ35 on page 1 of �the minutes. Mr, F[arris stated tl�at after they receive the mimxtes� they could malce a motion regardin6 this. Afr..Lan6enfeld asked if they hud selected a person for the Handicupped Awareneas Gleek? Mr. Treuenfels atai:eci that he had contACted his friend and hie friend wAS interested and would spenk on �,l�ai; life wuc like for u handicapped person And ul�o tl�e 1e�;fl1 t�spec�l:3 of Ucing hnnd.lcnpped. ; v � . � �r.��.�-f, . - . .. _. . . � `\�.�. /e.�\�' �� . �r..�y�l. p . � � � � a I' . �^ �' i a. o'n ' 4 f\ � .. ., <. n b �i . � r� rj �r +; I , » 6 „ I � ,`� �� •:' �;�^ Z y ��t. ,.., i% \ ,'`� , �f.. �' c.� 4r ; � ` � � . � u `� ' ~ ' ` 4 , ` . �4'�� .. �`+ AQ �'f�Y: %��ifJ� ,♦ !. � �7 !� i . '.�� •y',� Z\ � '.w I . � .Q,�..d':' �. � � 25'4 r ; �.; aN ti , \ � c! / . � �' w''t 3 rY ` � � ; �� ly//y , S.%; f :;' • t '�' 1.�� '�• yll '+.....'"".'9�f.,� J� .1� ..� �� .�.°. � : l '"'^id . l� � . „ / II4' !;` � �r J0.„�a �\ 1 : �'�~ �%'1� i � ' ` \ ii' � `} °� �•;�. ;.i I � ' � �� '� •,• �` �.� ; ° �- � ,Z�...�,., , /; 2�.�. , / !� -�`�i `',' 1 -�� ! 1�� " i��,\•�4� ��'�. V��p \��i� �"1� i \ �• ^��i.w�'��. I . S��f '`E ,•� \� � ^� i�.. �.N ��. � ��JtJ' .+ 1 � ' ,, f �� :• �-' � �� a ".� _ ,. r �'L'I 1 ,f' �,�:3�'` �� Y:• r��j ' .�: , .,_y"". `,� ' 1 .`r� S° . �'r ��:�f 1 _�` I ' � � I Y�h �:�-r ! •\ � O ) 1 '� �Y /� . �� ... � . �� . ?. �- l�4 � . � .�.d .� ,\ � , '1 ;\ �� ` �`C��' q C' �� t ( ' q• , :� ' � , � G� ` ��' ��' • � . Z� . ..� '1� ; C1lC75� {` S � i1� �`�/'�' t��`0'��^ 3\ �� ' t�y��Y �� ' � _°'`. � -� , � �s� ``� � `.33 , ��''' C`�`.� ,�� 1(, G . � \C'- >.-C �q i 3'io `�`......� seiiivr � : ; �. ,i'�sC��r �\ ��' .. 'j�1,:\ v��+ a0 � � �'��njR� i� J(�70�' _� ' rn�'!,� `.� �� ..:1 1-reai a r �tQ � � � � ✓ d \ �s .��-' � ��t ~ • 0 ♦ w� -`�+ �� /3 �� !7 � // ��-1j . .� . .J tc; � �� }a� � i�i q�b , � a i ' �, J �' �: I .j \ � � � 7 .. i G� \ �u/�f p' u � ' � /�.�� o +..�' � '.. � C, �99 5 ( � s. I 1( i�t i t41 i� ., ,�,% `� .�/v-x j9 s$o �, ti;�',,/ � nrai � � t�7� . i .�r..e I � � f��'� ��r V �� I.�l �o��O �� y ', ��:! `�V �i J° L__l.£lL__-- � „ye . � r' / ` � � '" J.tnv✓ � i... N .� . e l A t �i ti;`a�� ib ��['J,A ^,'a\ ` _1'�_ �I� i� . L i � .0 r. UP+ 7 � u � �" _� • ; ';� ��-, '�, � �r� �a�C ,� : � � (J�4..�i �8�6F° �170 ,�M1I o I,�s "Ls i - - `\� ✓.��'�jy ".\ �' r,�i'A'4 'r �i��`� � - � '- ?.� �'�b . s i � \ � '�e'` - — �, � �I, Z � 7��t. � �y -� �. t, .0 5 �J�i' ��ij� �y' 12 —dl_— , � ___-"_.s1s-�.r � � �°ree a ��/n .l�JI � �1 �q.,p Yo� y � ° _ xa.r+'� �t-(3 y �� . + � � .. �� (�/� � o � �v � +'. f J� t J,[ Yl I /�ti �4G J �} /I` p . �� !:. � � ! "„ 'i F -i ��il ` 1 ^ i > % `3( t D 15"� {) _JrL_ ' (77.%O - `V 1�1°� > ` � ..tOi I: urNii ii�Z. , � ,l L, . I / .. K p . ,4�,r _ . -"1�� . �`� "-r `�� ; , I67�.o > , � y - �\ ��` R � . � � �cv . . ......_. sn � „ " .ca f+72,� ` " `O �' ��\ Z' / '� 4 r' / i' � 0�' : a 1 ' �a75 u '�+�Z� I°o� �J ` � ° ' I%�, , e\`: 3 6%a. o a.�CvQ ; " ' .. � �II z � � •ek', � i � c -�-- �, ti,� ��/ y f _ .� ; : ae�p}.�t \ � �..3 ef � '' Y c 6 1/ hl� ` " �� \�y �r ^.� h�'.. f � gp t/,,, � --°"--. ` �'3 6 l�Y' . f , i ..__ ` �::i �, 4� I.5'„/- b7�o �, < . ,;a� . i _ I .d o , � �''` ��, y J�`�� 6 k ��d .,:�s.. :e:,.� / '1�y�.. _]°�Ce S' �17�?/„�,il�� 10� �. '_ ` e, � ' �/ Y � -t O � �7C' c 5 `.f"�...br��, b ,.. G \ '�-' � ,° 'F � S� ; � �E ��_(°71J0 � j C' �� /z O ' o ! � : i" bp"; `� � � ,,,,, � �--- -- � � , ,. t�h F , ; � ;°'�'� � ` � ai . __.4L_. � b . �� 1'i�PM � : � 3 d ... . .' . . ,O o p :r �� (.c�y S "� 5 �� bo . ' ��. (� zz� I� ._. �Z �I�2` b �\e J �'�,� 3 Y� b �, �` t J ! e i: f� a ��' ' Q . 3 1 9 :o t ' e L. �.� . C J,/�/ �_ tr"A �:. �� -_ ,� i' / � '� . l� � _rcL_ ' E.'3 bd> � � 4�7 C..� � �� %00 � � �n : t� � G�� i � r i23OItzQOi` g� y .-L�-._J%J�!__- [� '.� , rs � as�=�✓ (�' � Q ' ln eN ` � 30 „� �6 �.L� t4�lYJr.�J� �a W- i��.a-2'...e.i^� � I � N _�' �: b �_ ° _., � �'.: 3 � :,::. . � , ,l e�a � ' 65� �,0 ' � � t; �r � � .,., r �<° ''� �' a � t `• ., s o.�t) 65...e � � � � � � , bc,3 �—_. _..--', r:J�i° --'----F}� f::•, O.r.o-z �. ° � ,.y a � k 4 � 175�� 4� k,-.. �iS3 �� .�,� M1 I�/�_��(��. � �L�J-OO� �� t,.� _w•�—_ 1 � ° p � a� U �` � � ' _-" ' . ^. �,yT � a ` . � �_.. .o �/� �(f u r, � i \ ___'�a�'t�d�a��i.a;__'�j\ � ;.�.5_ 7GZ.t' c � � / ,.=�+ .—r... «i___ A` � a�O �°\ ! ' � � ' �-.-. �°.�'� I.�. ��' �✓ n � ..,4 ! ` (05 A � • �`�,� 'i�'.',`3 tb�.i +� -uz�'� (V — ' ` • rc �+i 513 '�� /_. �'f__J�J! _ ��I �'��. � IIE p� '�'b w N . F .. . !d N� a- \�' �� - e . " _ . N ..r^._�..� WJfo -.. � i��' 1..., .�+ �' ;Ta T �, �rSO { . y �i. � � � �. , .. r �� I 21 r 17 ` - 16 15 !� . � 1 f ��+` /�%q^ � ^ �� Q!i i� ` lM/M��. !NS'. �.YI. i�Y�fp.� lui' bG � 1. l�i�.�r��..� RJrd� fa"n � .. � . . '� • .� • n ' `.. . ..._ .� �'. ,,� I� , :,•' �n . � : wo•�o' ..... �ir.r.. ,."-'r_•P'� CI .. ;.;. . _ .. --- 1 � _ �z.f _ . � J-. _ .. . _. �4R.. .. . _..._"'_11i'pv tSl��1.J��%Jl... M . _" COR NER .., _ �, � EI�C.l4 . ' ,, � ' } � ' —�_.e_af//....,,.W.•e/.w �nnv,ne+/ . ! . .. w .�ua:vCyU7CS I �� S Nolf: E,risfin¢ TUrnha�re /ne�7fi��> were falrea �'��n C�an, Fe/a��'No�ia� �rfi�cn�a o�%s;��.�, , -�iara�e l ��eP /oea�or�s /cr/�en;��om o�vners a�•chifccfs cr�rawir,¢, 66 , �--- � L6� f�n V " z � � � _ o � 6G I �`-�Sou/h line ol?�of 32, Blocri �, Laweli /,�o'�fioo!oFrc�l�f�or/� ' I . Norfh l,�aen�fire 5'.�ll� 2.7/�eJ �/'�0/32,1�/oc.;��, ��vcll/��ifini� fo�' d y�r.; �.CVuv��t� i �, n �- T-� nqi �T`� �-nini r'�. nn/l ii I L/ i/ l// � i l� I"�/�� r �'iyiC/i . e � DWNER o� � A��f �I N IT� C. � � ��i � f J� p�.�� Aa i��o� Cil� o�' Fridley qnol{a �ounEy I /G[:� � n�� i r�7�] S'.�i i-i i�' �1 i-� i� �5 rCeC/��Li,�-i� � �,ci,�7 /y�� Il� v � /� Alorfh Irp¢ o%�Ouilof 1, i�ice Cree�l�la3q �'ouf�i/�a`r/ifro�. � ----L — I i5. �(B — 0 � r �c`.� rrLii rr Wauo��encP °� �ARAGE Q� UH� ��] r nr- YirK � V!' Si' oC� a',� �1 h 4=6681— r �� i GRRAGE �ri ?2.0 ;(; Uri7ina�eF � � E,:,sT�u4 owNµouSE f-'� (' �"i . Ji KLL f a � I04VNN�USE i nn � , y� � i�\ V�y�VV\1\\\\\\� � RRRTRmQqRqT�qC �Y,iS j INC, ro�N��E I � Enremea{ � \\� � 1 �, �� i �� — � � ��\m �� e J � n—� I rn .� 3 �o —'-- ��.�� ----_ -----.__ I 0 0 � I Cr � �i �� i , f �: C� � � �J " �l l. `J � C � << �J �r ,: ,. 5 CITY OF FRIDL[Y ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HEARING OF ASSESSMENT FOR ST. 1978-1, 2, AND 4 STREET IMPROVEMEP�T PROJECT ' Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will meet at the City Hall fn said City on the 14th day of May, 1979 , at 7:30 o'clock P.M., to hear and pass upon all objections, if any, to the proposed assessments in respect to the following improvements, to-wit: ST. 1978-1, 2, AND 4 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The proposed assessment roll for each of said iroprovements is now on file and open to public inspection by all persons interested, in the office of the Clerk of said City. At said hearing the Council will consider written or oral objections to the porposed assessments for each of said improvements. The general nature of the improvements and each of them is the construction of street improvements including grading, stabilized base, hot-mix bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm se4aer system, water and sanitary seo-�er services, and other facilities located, as follows: ST. 1978-1 STRLET IPIPROVEMENT PROJECT 57th Place Main Street to TH No. 47 58th Avenue Main Street to TH No. 47 59th Avenue Main Street to TH No. 47 60th Avenue Main Street to 3rd Street 2nd Street 58th Flvenue to 61st Avenue 22 Street 58th /IVenue to 61st Avenue 3rd Street 58th Avenue to 61st Avenue 63rd A'venue 5th Street to 7th Street 7th Street 63rd Avenue to P1ississippi Street 5th Street 63rd Avenue to 130 Feet North 53rd Avenue TH No. 65 to 650 Feet East Al1ey, 5IIth to 59t1i Ave. Between 2Z and 3rd Streets Alley, 59th to 60th Ave. 6etween Main and 2nd Streets University ldest Service Ur. 83rd Avenue to South P1ain Street Osborne Road to 77th Avenue ST. 197II-2 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Main Street 5IIth Avenue to 61st Avenue 79th lJay East River Road to 6urlington-Northern Tracks 73rd Avenue Centrai Avenue to TH No. 65 Sidewalk on 7th St East Side, 61st Avenue to 63rd Avenue �n Page 2, NOTICE -0F HEARIIJG OF ASSESSMfNT FOR ST. 197II-1, 2, AND 4 ST. 197�-4 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CSAH) 57th Avenue Central Avenue Main Street Main Street to 3rd Street Osborne Road to 76th Avenue 57th Avenue to IN No. 694 The area pro�osed to be assessed for said improvements and each of them is all that land benefited by said improvements or each of them and lying within the general area above noted. Said improvements will be assessed against the properties within the above noted areas in whole or in part proportionately to each of the lands therein contained according to the benefits received. A property owner may appeal an assessment to the district court by serving notice of appeal upon the City Mayor or Clerk evithin twenty (20) days after adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk. DATED THIS DAY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. ATTEST: CITY CLERK Marvin C. Brunsell 1979, BY �P,D[R OF MAYOR WiTliam J. Nee Publish: Fridley Sun on April 25 and 1�1ay 2, 1979 5B MEMO T0: NASiM M. QURESHI,,CITY MANAGER, A(JD CITY COUNCTL FROM: MARVIN C. BRUNSELL, ASSISTANT CITY t4AP7AGER/FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE ST. 1978-1, ST. 1978-2 (MSAS), AND ST. 1978-4 (CSAH) STREET It4PROVEt4ENT PROJECTS DATE: MAY 4> 1979 On the attached pages you vrill find the final assessment rolls for the ST. 1978-1, ST. 1578-2, and ST. 1978-4 Street Improvement Projects. We have usually prepared a separate project book for state aid streets such as are in the ST: 1978-2 Street Irnprovement Project, for county state aid streets such as are in the ST. 1978-4 Street Improvement Project, and for standard streets such as are in the ST. 197II-1 Street Improvement Project. Because of the lvcation of some of the streets involved in this project, some properties receive assessments for both regular and state or county state aid streets. For this reason �ae have listed the assessments for all three projects in one booklet so that the total cost for an individual property owner is easily accessible. Separate final cost.sheets were prepared for each project. A summary of the costs follows: 2ND ST., 22 ST., 3RD ST., 57TH PLACE, 58Tf1 AVG., 59TH AVE., 60TH AVE., FlLLEYS IN BLOCKS.9 Ah;D 22, NYDE PARK A�DITIOfV, MAIN ST. FROM 58TH AVE. TO 61ST AVE., AND 57TH AVE., FROM MAJN ST. TO 3RD ST. (Paqes 18-25) 2nd St., 22 St., 3rd St., 57th Place, 58th Ave., 59th Ave., and 60th Ave. were put in under the ST. 1978-1 Street Improvement Project. The front foot assessment rate for bituminous street surfacing and concrete curb and gutter fs $17.04 per foot. The side-yard assessment rate is $5.37 per ft. � Nine se�oer services were put in the Hyde Park Addition at a cost of $276.47 per service. Bituminous alleys were put in 61�cks 9 and 22 in the Nyde Park Addition. The front foot rate is $3.57 per foot. Main St, from 58th to 61st /lve. �aas put in under the ST. 1978-2 Street Improv- ment Project. This portion of the pi-oject tvas assessed accordin9 to standard City assess.ing procesures, with commercial property paying the full cost per foot for biturninous street surfacing and concrete curb and gutter, and residential and park property being assessed at normal residential rates with the balance being paid from State /1id Funds. , The front foot assessment rate for industrial and commercial property is $22.47 per fooi;. . The front foot assessment rate for residential property is $17.04 per ft. . Page 2, Memo to Nasim M. Qureshi, City 14anager, and City Council ' , �4ay 4, 1979 Final Assessment Roll for ST. 197�-1, 1g7II-2, and 1478-4 There were additional special charges for parking lots and curbing on Lots 24-27, 61ock 8, Hyde Park Addition. 57th llve. from t4ain St. to 3rd St. Yras assessed for curbing only on the north side of the street under the ST. 19�II-4 Street Improvement Project. Some residential properties have a double fl•ontage and receive a lesser rate on the back street. The front foot assessment rate for commercial property is $9.59 per foot. The front foot assessment rate for residential property with double frontage is $2.40 per foot. ST. 1978-1--ALICC 4JALL ADDITION ON 63RD AV[. AND 7TH ST. (Page 27) 4tater and sewer services vaere put in under this project. Tlie cosi for sixteen evater services was $257.94 per service. The cost for seven sewer services was $242.00 per service. ST, 1978-1--53RD AVENUE (Page 29) The front foot assessment rate is �27.71 per foot ST. 1978-1--UNIVERSITY AVEPaUE tJEST SERVICE ROAD (Page 31) 7he front foot assessment rate is �45.74 per foot.� � There wei°e special charges for drivev�ay and parking lot for the House of Lords property. ST. 1978-1--EAST RFlNCH ESTATES THIR6 ADDITION ON MAIN STREET (Page 33 ) Water and sewer iines and water services �rere put in.at the request of tiie developer. The cost of the water line for Lot 4 is $4,019.98. � The cost of the sewer line is $3,511.28 per lot. The cost of two water services is $323.22 per service. ST. 1978-2--79TH IdAY (Page 35j Only curbing �aas installecl on a portion of 79th Way and street surfacing and curbing both tivere installed on the balance. This streei was also assessed according to standard City assessing procedures for State Aid streets. F�J.1 p'roperty only receiving cuY�bing assessment was commercial property and the front foot rate is �9.57 per foot. . 5C ■. - ��ge 3, �qemo to Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager, and City Council May 4, 1979 • Final Assessment Roll for ST. 1975-1, 197II-2, and 1978-4 7he front foot rate for cominercial properties for street surfacing and curbing is_$?4.23 per foot. The front foot rate for residential properties for street surfacing and curbing is �y)7.04 per foot. ST. 197�-2--SEVEIJTH STREET FROP4 61ST TO 63RD AVENUES (Sidev�alk only, East side) (Page There is one residential property involved and according to our State Aid policy, the sidewalk assessment for this property o-iill be paid from the State Aid Fund. According to an agreement between the City and School �istrict No. 14, the balance of the cost vaill be split equaily between them. The front foot rate is $5.70 per foot. ST. 1478-4--CENTRAL AVENUE FROM 76TH AVENUE TO OSQORNE ROAD (Curb and Gutter on East Side Only} {page 39? Lots 27-30, 67ock 2, Meadowmoor Terrace Addition, are double frontage residential lots. hTeadot�rnoor Drive was previously assessed as their front street. As the curb and gutter ��ras requested by the oivners of the pro�erty in this block, we did not follow our normal procedure of assessing only one-fourth of the cost on the back ttreet of double frontage residential lots. By doing this, we would have increased the cost to cominercial lots unreasonably. The fi•ont foot rate is $7.19 per foot. The side yard rate is $.8] per foot. 4-=r4AIN STREET � E 4 (Curb All property involved is commercial or industrial property. The front foot rate is $7.56 per foot. MCB ps � ) (Page 411 e 6 r� OFFICIAL PUBLICA'CION CITY aF FRIDLEY (EXHIBIT A) NOTTCE OF HEARI��G ON IMPROVGhIENTS STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1979-1, ADDN. #3 IVHERF.AS, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, biinnesota, has deemed it expedient to receive evidence pertaining to the improvements hereinafter described. NO(V, THF2EFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEP! THAT on the 14th day of Mav , 197g at 7:30 o'clock P.M. the City Council will meet at the City HaZl in said City, and tivill at said time and place hear all parties interested in said iriprovements in whole or in part. " The general nature of the improvements is the construction (in the lands and streets noted below) of the following improvements, to-t�rit: CONSTRUCTIO; I I TEM Street improvements, including grading, stabilized base, hot-mix bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer system, water and sanitary sewer services and other facilities located as follows: • Alley in Hyde Park Between 59th and 60th Avenues and 2nd and 22 Streets ESTIhi4TED WST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 2 , 700. 00 THAT Tl�e AREA PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED FOP. SAID IDIPROVEhIENTS IS AS FOLLO{9S: For Construction Item above ----_____ All of the land abutting upon said streets named aUove and all lands within, adjacent and abutting thereto. All of said land to be assessed proportionately according to the benefits received by such ir.iprovement, That should the Council proceed with said improvements they will considex each separate improvements, except as hereafter othen�ise provided by the Gouncil all under tlie following authority, to-wit: blinnesota Statutes 1961, Chapter 429 and laws amendatory thereof, and in conformity i,ith the City Chartcr. llATED Tt1IS 23rd DAY OF _ April , 1979 , BY ORDER OF THE CITY COU\CIL. Fuvlis]i: May p, 1979 r1A1'OR - May 9, 1979 � A RCSOLUTION N0. - 1979 RESOLUTtON CONFIR�4ING ASSESSI4ENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ST. 1978-1, S7. 197II-2 (WiSAS], AND ST. 197II-4 (CSAH) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Clerk has with the assistance of the engineers heretofore selected by this Council for such purpose, calculated the proper amounts to be spec- ially assessed for the STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJ[CTS ST. 1978-1, ST. 1978-2, AND ST. 1978-4 in said City against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land in accordance with the provisions of law, and has prepared and filed with the City Clerk tabulated statements in duplicate sho�aing the proper description of each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land to be specially assessed and the amount calculated against the same. 2. Notice has been duly published as required by law that this Council would meet in special session at this time and place to pass on the proposed assessment. 3. Said proposed assessment has at all times since its filing been open to inspection and copying by all persons interested, and an opportunity has been given to all interested persons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assessment, or to any item thereof, and no abjections have been filed, except 4. The amounts specified in ihe proposed assessment are changed and altered as follows: 5. 7his Council finds that each of the lots, pieces, or parcels of land enumerated in said proposed assessment as altered and modified was and is specially benefited by the S7REET INPROVEP1ENT PROJECTS ST. 197II-1, ST. 1978-2, AND ST. 1978-4 in the amount in said proposed assessment as altered and modified by the corrective roll in the amount set opposite the description of each such lot, piece, or parcel of land, and that said amount so set out is liereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein described. , 7 7A r hage 2--RESOLUTION N0. - 1979 6. Such proposed assessments as altered, modified, and corrected are affirmed, adopted, and confirmed, and the sums fixed and named in said proposed assess- ment as altered, modified, and corrected with the changes and alterations herein above made, are affirmed, adopted, and confirmed as the proper special assessmepts for each of said lots, pieces, or parcels of land respectively. 7.� Said assessment so affirmed, adopted, and confirmed shall be certified to by the City Clerk and filed in his office and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assessment for STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $T. 1978-1, ST. 1978-2, AND ST. 1978-n 8. The amounts assessed against each lot, piece, or parcel of land shall bear interest from the date hereof until the same have been paid at the rate of seven and one-half (7'z) per cent per annum. 9. Such assessment shall be payable in ten (10) annual installments payable on the first day of January in each year, beginning in the year 1980, and con- tinuing until all of said installments shall have been paid, each installment to be collected with taxes collectible during said year by the County Auditor. 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make up and file in the office of the County Auditor of Anoka County a certified statement of the amount of all such unpaid assessments and the amount which wi11 be due thereon on the first day of Jantiary in each year. PASSED AIdD ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF 1979. �YoR William J. Nee ATTEST: CITY CLERK Marvin C. Brunsell RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVChIENT AND FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFI- cnTroNS aNn esTrnf��res oF cosl�s THEacoF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1979-1, ADDENDUM #3 iV�iEREAS, Resolution No.60-1979 adopted on the 23rd �iay of April 1979 by the City Council, set the date for hearing on the proposed improvements, as specifically noted in the Notice of Hearing attached thereto for reference as Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, all of the property owners whose property is liable to be assessed with the making of these improvements (as noted in said No±ice) were given ten (10) days notice by mail and published notice of the Council flearing through. two (2) weekly publications of the required notice, and the hearing was held and the property owners heard thereon at the hearing as noted in tlie said notice. NOIV, THERHFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of The City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following improvements proposed hy Council Resolution No. 59-1979 are hereby ordered to be effected and completed as soon as reasonabiy possible,to wit: Street improvements, including grading, stabilized base, hot-mix bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm sewer system, water and sanitary sewer services and other facilities located as follows: Alley in Hyde Park Between 59th and 60th Avenues and 2nd and 2%z Streets 2. That work to be per£ormed under this project may be performed under . one or more contracts as may be deemed advisalile upon receipt of bids. 3. That the Public Works Director, Richard N. Sobiech is hereby designated as the Engineer £or this improvement. He shall prepare £inal plans and speci£ications for the making of such improvement. ADOPTED BY TFIE CITY COUNCIL OF T}iE CITY OF FRIDLEY T}!IS 14th DAY OF Mdy , 1979. MAYOR -�NILLItU�1 J. NEE A'fTF:ST CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSHLL :