Loading...
VAR .8.80St�9��6ECT' CrrY OF 1MES®TA ��' APPLICATION TO APPEALS COMMISSION (612) 571-3450 parlmeniDivision um er ev aqe A pproved by ®ate PUBLIC WORKS/CODE ENFORCEMENT 910-F23 2 1 of 2 800 7-17-79 Name Address Phone LegalLot N Block No. T Descri dm o Variance Requests attach plat or, sur gape rty showi g bui din var ances, etc., where applicable) U— LL speci° is hardship(s) which requires the varia ce(s) Meeting .Date FeetReceipt No. Signature Comments & Recommendations by the Appeals C mmission of a lh� �rcW City Council Action and Date for Inrernat use SUBJECT APPLICATION TO APPEALS COMMISSION MINNESOTA (Staff Report) R Number Rev I 110ge Approved by •PUBLIC WORKS/CODE ENFORCEMENT 910-F23 2 2 of 2 800 Dote 7-17-79i Staff Comments: io Board members notified of meeting by_�2%�- 'J List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Plan Name Date To Attend .Person m ing appeal.and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom - A"9:A� Date Phone or Mail Notified n- f Anoka County Park Department '� r Anoka County Court Nouse 2 Anoka, Minnesota 55303 .. M/M Robert Anderson-1360 69th Ave. N.E. M/M Christopher Aasland-1330 69th Avenue N.E. M/M Raymond Logid, 1340 69th Avenue N.E. M/M Darrel Bacon-1350 69th Avenue N.E. Mr. &'Mrs. Ing Siverts, Jr.,.6850 Siverts Lane NcE Burton Smith-1365iOsborne Road N.E. Verlyn Vanderlugt-1863 Long Lake Road New Brighton, Mn 55112 M/M Virgil Halgrim-6860 Siverts. Lane N,E. M/M Theodore Klohs-6851 Central Avenue N.E. For Internal Use 17w 8431' UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 812)571-3450 August,15,.1980 NOTIC.E OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice -is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers at 64:1 Univer-' city Avenue Northeast at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, August 26th, 1980, in.regard to the following matter: Request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum .height of a fence within the limits of front yards from 4 feet to 6 feet, to allow for additional privacy•on Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 3 (Parcel 2500, the -same being 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given an opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. VIRGINIA SCHNABLE CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action -on this request; unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not agree with the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continuf to the City Council through the Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. �- CITY OF: FRIOLraY, SUBJECT vuNNrzsorA COMMISSION APPLICATION RAa.'CN 0Fi/ld 6 Uepor rwsiont tiumder tiev r�pa Approved by Date �i o _I ae, lq�4&L �s Y APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 26, 1980 Page 3 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 2, Christie Addition, the same being 666 Mississippi Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota; and that instead of curbing a physical barrier of some kind be placed on Bennett Drive and that the landscaping be worked out with the City Staff and, that they come to the Appeals Commission and the City Council for a review in three years to determine if the physical barrier has worked. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL.VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPER 205 OF -THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, _TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ON A CORNER LOT FROM.THE REQUIRED 17-1/2 FEET TO 7 FEET, TO ALLOW A 28 FT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE, LOCATED ON LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK. 2, ADAM'S STREET ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 5753 7TH STREET N.E. (Request by Timothy Gudim, 5753 7th Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Mr. Gudim was not present at this time. .MOTION by Mrs. Gabel; seconded by Mr. Barna, to continue this matter at the end of the meeting.- UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THIS MATTER CONTINUED UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING. 3. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE. WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FRONT YARDS, FROM 4 FEET TO 6 FEET, TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PRIVACY ON TRACT.C,-REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 3 (PARCEL 250), THE SAME BEING 6850 SIVERTS LANE N.E. (Request by Mr. and Mrs. Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Mr. Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., was present and Mr. Darrel W. Bacon, 1350 69th Avenue N.E., was also present. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:32 P.M. t Chairwoman Schnabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: `Section 205.154, 3, 2nd Paragraph, requires that a fence.or wall not exceeding four C4) feet in height is permitted within the limits of front. yards . Public purpose served by this requirement is to reduce visual pollution in the front yards of residential neighborhoods and to prevent the elimination of a neighbor's "line of sight." B. STATED HARDSHIP: We request to build a 6 foot horizontal redwood fence along the peoperty line facing Siverts Lane which is across from the park. Since the change of road configeration, added privacy and security is necessary. Auto headlights now shine in.the living room window and traffic has increased, therefore a security fence is necessary. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 26, 1980 Page 4 ' C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: Staff has no objections to a 6 foot fence. Future plans for high density use of part property to the east could justify having a 6 foot high security fence. Mr. Clark reported that he had Engineering write the Staff Report and that the fence be set 8 to 12 feet back for snow storage to prevent damage to the fence. Mr. Siverts stated that, since the change of the road, headlights of vehicles 4 have become quite bothersome (shining in their windows) and there appears to be a bit more traffic even though it is a dead end lane. He feels -the added privacy and security is necessary, especially with the anticipated use of the park across the Lane. Mr. Bacon stated that he has no.objections to Mr. Sivert's proposed additional fence. At this time, Chairwoman Schnabel read a letter from Bob and Barb Anderson 3360 69th'Avenue4N 0 , neighbors of Mr. Sivert, as follows: "To the members of the Fridley City Council: We are unable to attend this meeting so are sending letter to voice our opinion. We are against the 6 ft. privacy fence that the Siverts want to put up. We went along the sewer, water & blacktopping of the road (Siverts Lane) because we felt they needed these improvements. As a result they have put a large sand pile behind our property for the drainage ditch, which has cut off our view beyond our fence. Now they to block what little view we have left by putting up this fence. If they are permitted to put this up we might as well move our house to 694 and look at the wood sound barriers there." Mr. Bacon stated that the Sivert fence would not block the Anderson's view. - MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mrs. Gabel, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Barna,, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to receive. the -letter from the Anderson's, dated August 26, 1980; regarding the Sivert fence.. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE LETTER FROM THE ANDERSON'S REGARDING THE SIVERT FENCE; DATED AUGUST 26, 1980, OFFICIALLY RECEIVED BY THE APPEALS COMMISSION. > r APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 26, 1980 Page 5 MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission approval of the variance to increase the maximum height of a fence within the limits of front yards, from 4 feet to 6 feet, to allow for additional privacy on Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 3, (Parcel 250) the same being 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, with the stipulation that the fence be 10 feet back from the edge of the blacktop. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRI_DLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE BLACKTOP IN THE LOADING AREA AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING BUILDING, TO BE 0 FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET, LOCATED ON LOTS 6, 7, and 8, BLOCK 2, PACO INDUSTRIAL PARK, THE SAME BEING 7151 COMMERCE CIRCLE EAST. (Request by Gerald Paschke, 7258 Commerce Circle East, Fridley, Minne- sota 55432). Mr. Gerald Paschke, 7258 Commerce Circle East, was present. MOTION by Mrs. Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the.public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:03 P.M. Chairwoman Schnabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 7151 Commerce Circle East N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.135, E3, prohibits off-street parking (blacktop) any closer to a main building than 5 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to protect the building from unnecessary maintenance due to vehicles hitting the building. B. STATED HARDSHIP: We do not want to install concrete curb behind the building in the loading area. No buildings in the area has concrete curb in rear yard. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: This area is not used for parking towards the building, therefore protection of the building probably does not apply.- It is an inside court which is not visible from a public right of way. If approved; we do recommend that posts beplaced around the gas meters and transformers.. APPEALS COMMISSION.MEETING - AUGUST 26, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Clark reported that Mr. Paschke rents a sweeper to keep the area clean and it is easier to maintain without curbing. He stated that the public view of the courtyard is rather limited and it was a staff error that curbing was not there before. Mr. Paschke stated that the tenants. do not maintain their own area and that his sweeper sweeps right up to the buildings. He also stated that if curbing were there someone would have to shovel for snow; the snowplowing would be limited. He said that the loading docks are protected with rubber and there is a remote possibility of damage to the building. He also said he will put barricades around the gas meters. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Plemel,-to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:16 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr.:,Rlemel, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, approval of the variance to allow the blacktop in the loading area at the rear of an existing building, to be 0 feet instead of the required 5 feet, located on Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, Paco Industrial Park, the same being 7151 Commerce Circle East, Fridley, Minnesota, with the stipulation that protective posts be placed around the gas meters.and power transformers. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At this time, Mr. Timothy Gudi.m, 5753 7th Street N.E., arrived regarding Item #2. Chairwoman Schnabel read the Staff Report: ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 5753 - 7th Street N.E. i A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4B, 5a, requires that the side yard setback on the street side of a corner lot shall not be less than 17.5 feet. Public purpose served by this requirement is to maintain a,higher degree of .traffic visibility and to reduce the "line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The side of the existing house is 7 feet from the lot line. I want to extend the front of the house 18 feet forward which would also be 7 feet from the side lot line. This is needed for the aesthetic value of the house and for ease of building the addition. r M August 26, 1980 Item #3 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.154, 3, 2nd paragraph, requires that a fence or wall not exceeding four (4) feet in height is permitted within the limits of front yards. Public purpose served by this requirement is to reduce visual pollution in the front yards of residential neighborhoods and to prevent the elimination of a neighbor's "line of sight". B. STATED HARDSHIP: We request to build a 6 foot horizontal redwood fence along the property line facing Siverts Lane which is across from the park. Since the change of road configeration, added privacy and security is necessary. Auto headlights now shine in the living room window and traffic has increased, therefore a security fence is necessary. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: Staff has no objections to a 6 foot fence. Future plans for high density use of park property to the east could justify having a 6 foot high security fence. 250 REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 PAGE 8 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to grant a variance to Fridley United Methodist Church, 666 Mississippi Street, to reduce the parking lot setback from the required 20 feet to 6 feet, with the understanding they will work with the administration on an acceptable landscaping plan.. Seconded by -Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon.a voice vote, all voting aye, .Mayor Nee delcared the motion carried uninimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to instruct the administration to bring back the question.of the concrete curbing in three years:. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ^ REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO INCREASE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FENCE, 6850 SIVERTS LANE, MR. AND MRS. SIVERTS: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a variance to increase the height of a fence from 4 feet to 6 feet to allow for additional privacy. Mr. Flora stated the Siverts initially wanted -to construct the fence along the curb, however,, the Appeals Commission recommended the fence be back 10 feet from the curb line. He stated, if this is done, staff has no objection to tha fence being six feet high. Councilman Schneider stated the only way he could see where the view for the Anderson's property would be blocked was if the fence was running perpendicular to Si.verts. No persons in the audience spoke regarding this variance request. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the 41ppeals Commission and grant the variance to increase the maximum height ui a fence, within the limits of front yards, from 4 feet to 6 feet, with the stipulation that the fence be 10 feet back from the edge of the black- top. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. FOR Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a request for a variance to allow the blacktop in the loading area at the rear of an existing build- ing to be 0 feet instead of the required 5 feet, at 7151 Commerce Circle East. He stated this area would be easier to maintain and keep clean without curbing. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated, in this case, the purpose of the require- ment of curbing is to protect the building from unnecessary maintenance due to vehicles hitting it. He stated most of the area would not be used for parking and the intent of the ordinance would not make sense, since most of the area is used for loading docks. MOTION by Councilwoman Moses to concur with the recommendation of.the Appeals Commission and. grant the variance to allow the blacktop in the loading area in the rear of an existing building to be 0 feet instead of the required 5 feet, with the stipulation that protective posts be placed around the gas meters and power transformers.. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 10, 1980. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF AUDITING SERVICES.FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,•1980: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with George M. Hansen Company for the 1980 audit. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 • PAGE 7 to the Commission and the City is doing what the Commission has requested as a matter of routine. RECEIVING ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES, AUGUST 26, 1980 ITEM - CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAIMING WEEK OF SEPTMEBER 28 TO OCTOBER 4, 1980 - ENERGY WEEK_: ,Action was taken on this item earlier in the meeting. RECEIVING APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 1980: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO WAIVE REQUIREMENTS ON CURBING AND PARKING LOT, 666 MISSISSIPPI STREET, FRIDLEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the City is working with Fridley United Methodist Church in developing the property'to be in compliance with the City Zoning Codes. He stated it was requested the church increase its landscaping around the parking lot and install concrete curb and stripe the parking lot. Mr. Flora stated a variance has been requested to waive the requirement for the concrete curb on_the.entire perimeter of -,the parking stalls, and replace it with landscaping, and to allow the parking lot to be 0 feet from the property line instead of the required 20 feet. Mr. Flora stated the curbing requirement was discussed, however, the church felt it was a considerable expense. Mr. Flora stated there are alternatives that could be used, but the church's position is they don't have the funds for curbing at this time. Mr. Flora stated staff would like to get screening along the perimeter of the parking area and obtain a committment for installation of some sort of concrete curbing. _. Councilman Schneider stated the two issues involved are a setback less than 20 feet for landscaping and the concrete curbing. Mr. Bill Peterson, representing Fridley United Methodist Church, stated they could stand a five foot loss in the parking lot without giving up a row of parking. He felt a solution might be to go in five feet on the boulevard and also put in some culverts. He stated the church would stripe the parking lot. and enclose the trash container. He stated they would work out the landscaping matter, but wanted additional time on the concrete curbing. Mr. Qureshi,.City Manager, stated he would suggest a variance from 0 feet to 6 feet as this would still give them their parking stalls and add some space for plantings. He stated he would suggest the matter of the curbing, be left open for several years, as the church may then be in a better financial situation. Councilwoman Moses stated the problem is that there is an ordinance saying concrete curbing is required and to allow the church not to have it would be setting a precedent. She questioned if the rest of the churches in the City haveaconcrete curbs. Mr. Flora stated they are up in various stages and staff is trying to work with all persons in attempting to get the properties up to code. Mr. Peterson stated he had no problem with the 6 foot setback requirement, however, they would lose parking stalls on the East side, and would come back in three years to review the question on the concrete curbing. 1:: �I- CITY OF FRODLEY 6491 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLE'Y, MINNESOTA 65432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 CITY COUNCIL September 29, 1980 ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Mr. & Mrs. Ing Siverts 6850 Siverts. Lane Fridley.Mn 55432' ' On September 22, 1980 the Fridley City` Council officially approveu!vur request for . variance for fence height..' with the stipulations.iisued below: 1. The fence to be 10 .foot back from edge of blacktop. If you have any questions-regar."ding the above action, please'rall the Community Development, Office at 571-3450. Sind ly, J LD. . ;0l1 4lMAN JLB/de 'ity Planner Please review the noted stipulations,'sign the statement belov.1,.'and return_ one copy to the'City of Fridley. Concur with action taken. -r CITY OF FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 October 29, 1982 Mr. Ingvald Siverts 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Fence Height Along North Property Line at 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Dear Mr. Siverts: It was brought to the City's attention and confirmed by an on-site inspection on October 26, 1982 that the fence along your north property line was higher than City Code permits. Said inspection determined that the fence was at least 9 feet high and possibly higher. Section 205.154, section 3, of the Fridley Zoning Code states that "... no fence or closely grown hedge, bordering lot lines, shall be more than seven feet in height in any rear or side yard..." A review of our files has determined that on September 22, 1980 you were granted a variance to install a 6 foot high fence in your front yard. There is no discussion or variance listed to permit you to install a fence higher than 7 feet along your north property line. If you have some information or correspondence that permits you to have a fence this high, I would appreciate receiving copies for our files. If there has been no variance granted to construct this fence, then the City must require that you bring your property into compliance with the Cith Codes by either applying for and receiving a variance to have a fence taller than 7. fleet or by reducing the fence height to 7 feet or less. A reinspection will be conducted on or about November 22, 1982 to determine compliance. At that time it would be expected that either the fence be 7 feet or less or a variance application be in the process. we are confident in your cooperation on this matter and if any questions or problems result from this letter, please feel free to contact me at 571-3450. Sincerely, d S N J. OLSON, R.S. Environmental Officer SJO/mh CITY OF FAIOLEY, SUBJECT 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. NE. FRIDLEY, MN. 5543e 9612).571.3450 VARIANCES ADDRESS 6850 Siverts Lane N. E. APPEALS COMMISSION: APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: REQUIRED: YES CITY COUNCIL:'. STIPULATIONS:' APPROVED DISAPPROVED DATE 1W0/ d lori, DATE Jan. 3,1983 NO. U NAME Ina Siverts FEE $60.00 RECEIPT N0. '?9 9-3 (Check No. 3836 Attached) LOT. NO. BLOCK NO. TRACT OR ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: "C" Anoka County Registered band Su-vey No VARIANCE REQUEST (S): (Attach plat or survey of property showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) e/ List specific hardship(s) which requires the variances(s): Request to vary side yard fence in height both on the. South & North property, kine to be hi5rher than seven feet in some areas,-- In both cases the neighbors immediately abutting North and South sides have agreed to the higher fence. They are Halgrm on the North & Smith on the South. The length of both these fences would be approximately 200 ft. and would start at the most westerly point on the north south line & run due east in each case to be flu h with- he east ho e lin of Smith & rim. —' bop Jan. 3, 1983 SIGNATU ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. 571-8267 .. VARIANCES FOR CITY USE ONLY Board members notified of meeting by date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to attend hearing. Name Gabel List members, ' Plan Date To Attend Barna Plemel Betzold _ Person making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: Name By Whom - Date Phone or Mail Notified "Mr. A: Aasland; 1360 69th Avenue N.E. Mr. Edmund Widlinski, 1320 69t4 Avenue N.E. . Lois Aasland, 1330 .69th Avenue N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Logid, 1340 69th Avenue N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Darrel Bacon, 1350 69th Avenue N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Ing. Sieverts, 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Burton Smith.,. 6840 Siverts Lane N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Virgil Halgrim, 6860 Siverts Lane N.E. 6 ' t'IBJECT i COMMISSION APPLICATION ION REVIEW Numuet Iliev I r,.:;;a 1Approved by I Uulo 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 January 7, 1983 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING e is hereby given that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley conduct a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers at 6431 University e Northeast at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday., January 18, 1983 'in regard to the wing matter: Consideration of a request for a variance pursuant to Chapter 205 of the Fridley City Code, to increase the maximum height of a fence from 7feet to 10 feet in.the rear yard and side yards of Lot C, Registered Land Survey No. 3, the same being 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest therein will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above time and place. PATRICIA GABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not agree with the Commission's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the Planning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Commission. Tabled at January 18 meeting _ CD - S -A Qin c� C \A -'A V d � 8 vY,�T- -a ' <aVA -n )J r d J -� n 0 Via a -cam-,+ of <-J \A a = L I -Q \-A w-Y,� S S--4)119 n 0 OIAA --�- 1 1M CI � 83 Vv" Co %A Cev_ t- X f - p r A\A a V\ \A --- ----.rev► ��-- - � tia� �-e - ----a r -� � __ � s �.�, b , --}-- _ _M CQ_-,___.___. v Y v✓�-e r G v t ti a "--d W F S .p' Y rG•.e —`ems, c -e ova -� ---- ©k, vin a -r 4-tN-Q &-Q OS -1- - Ll. v- _ e l � wt ) �-e 1o_tr oev___ ''-- l Vv\ a< I& Vvev 5 -�- c�.Qg� - 60- ^ o� • - A-5 •i ti G9- i ca, -ti cP, Ca. VA--Utom--., - k` t� b (-eMn �av c.., S 4-c::) to o v- 4 S • vv� c'.•wn�� - _ - o� A Item # 2 January 18, 1982 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.154, 3, restricts the height of a fence to 7 feet or less in the side or rear yards. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow adequate height for privacy while restricting the height for aesthetic considerations for providing open areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Request to vary side yard fence height, both on the south and north property lines, from 7 feet to 10 feet in both cases. The neighbors (Halgrims & Smith) immediately abutting the north and south sides, have agreed to the higher fence. The length of both fences would be approximately 200 feet and would start at the most westerly point on the north/south line and run due east in each case to be flush with the east house line of Smith's and Halgrim's." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Because the fences are to be located in rear yards, the two adjacent neighbors are the most affected parties. The fences will not be readily visible by others. The terrain is fairly flat to the north and falls downward to the south and for this reason we question the necessity for a 10 foot privacy fence. The fence along the north line is partially complete. It is constructed of vertical slab wood nailed to a wood frame. If the Board approves this variance, we have no stipulations to recommend. Item # 2 January 18, 1982 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.154, 3, restricts the height of a fence to 7 feet or less in the side or rear yards. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow adequate height for privacy while restricting the height for aesthetic considerations for providing open areas. B. STATED HARDSHIP: "Request to vary side yard fence height, both on the south and north property lines, from 7 feet to 10 feet in both cases. The neighbors (Halgrims & Smith) immediately abutting the north and south sides, have agreed to the higher fence. The length of both fences would be approximately 200 feet and would start at the most westerly point on the north/south line and run due east in each case to be flush with the east house line of Smith's and Halgrim's." C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Because the fences are to be located in rear yards, the two adjacent neighbors are the most affected parties. The fences will not be readily visible by others. The terrain is fairly flat to the north and falls downward to the south and for this reason we question the necessity for a 10 foot privacy fence. The fence along the north line is partially complete. It is constructed of vertical slab wood nailed to a wood frame. If the Board approves this variance, we have no stipulations to recommend. Appeals Commission Meeting - January 18, 1983 Page 4 Mrs. Gerou felt the plans were well thought out with everything taken into consideration. Mr. Betzold said the only thing that bothered him were the narrow parking stalls. Mr. Barna said he had no problems with the changes and that closing off the driveway on Mississippi Street would be an improvement. Ms. Gabel said she could see their need to do this to compete with other busi- nesses and there is a large demand for drive-thrus and this may also be a way to facilitate traffic and free up the corner and that the petitioner fully understands that there may be redevelopment in the future. Mr. Betzold felt there should be a stipulation about the signs for the drive-thru. MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, approval of the variance request to reduce the parking setback from the required 5 feet to 0 feet; reduce the sideyard set back from the required 30 feet to 14 feet, and reduce the parking stall size from the required 10 feet by 20 feet to 9 feet by 18 feet, located on the Easterly 75.1 feet of the North Half of vacated 64 - 1/2 Avenue N.E., and the Northerly 125 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, the same being 280 Mississippi Street N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432, with the stipulation that a "Do Not Enter" sign shall be placed upon the driveway for the drive-thru. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. VARIANCE verts Lane N.E., T TO CHAPTER n_t. vequest 6 ey, Mn 554323. THE FRIDLEY CIT ET . Ing Siverts, MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Barna, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:03 P.M. Chairperson Gabel read the Staff Report: L:20 E STAFF REPORTts Lane N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERV Section 205.154, 3, restricts the height of a fence to 7 feet or less in the side or rear yards. Public purpose served by this requirement is to allow adequate height for privacy while restricting the height for aesthetic considerations for providing open areas. B. STATED BARDSBIP: "Request to vary side yard fence height, both on the south and north property lines, from 7 feet to 10 feet in both cases. The neighbors (Halgrims A Smith) Immediately abutting the north and south sides, have agreed to the higher fence. The length of both fences would be approximately 200 feet and would start at the most westerly point on the north/south line and run due east in each case to be flush with the east house line of Smith's and Halgrim's." Appeals Commission Meeting - January 18, 1983 Page 3 Ms. Gabel about the number of parking stalls in the back and Mr. Clark said there would six parking stalls. Ms. Gabel asked i the shed was going to stay and Mr. Fitch said it would stay as it is a stora a shed. Ms. Gabel felt the driveway was a little narrow and Mr. Clark said i is adequate for one-way traffic. Ms. Gabel noted that some of the par ng never seems to be utilized while here is usually a traffic jam in the oth r parking area. Ms. Gabe felt there should be some kind of :9tr iers up and Mr. Fitch said they will be p nting shrubs and bushes acrossthfu11 front of the lot and they will be usilandscaping timbers as borders with rock to maintain the shrubs and bushes an 8" blocks as barriers. Ms. Gabel said ere is a lot of traffic i the summer and asked how long Mr. Fitch thought a c r would wait in the driv -thru. Mr. Fitch said they thought this would help un og the area by trying to get people to flow out the rear driveway which woul help that corner an that all of the parking would move to the back. He said hey figured that 0 percent of their business would go through the drive-thru. Ms. Gabel aske how wide the entrance driveway is and Mr. Clark said it is 30 wide. Mr. itch said someone could still pull into the lot if there are cars the drive thru. Ms. Gabel asked about costs and Mr. Fitch said they could ge the whol thing done for about $ 4,000 and that they are minimizing their cost in vi w of what may happen in the area in the next couple of years. Mr. Barna ske why they needed narrower stalls and Mr. Fitch said they are narrower to ma'n ain the number of stalls needed and the existing stalls are 9 ft. He said ey would lack one stall if they expanded to 10 ft. and they will be putting in a hand i a ed stall by the driveway which will be an It ft. stall. Ms. Gabel noted they wil just meet the parking need if they are granted the variance. Mr. Fitch s id wi 18 ft. there is still room for people to drive through. Mr. Fitch said hey hop to have this done by the time they open the first of March. Mr. Betzold said it seems inevita le that someo a will bump into someone else. Mr. Fitch said they have never h d an accident in the 20 years they have been there. Mr. Betzold asked about he lighting. Mr. itch said they have security lighting over the back door. Ms. Gabel said traffic has always been a problem there and what about making an " ntrance only" and an "exit only." Mr. Clark suggested that they try this fi st and if it is a probl they could make it strictly an entrance (north) an exit (south). Mr. Fitch said usually people cut across the top and go out t e other side and they will of be able to do that anymore and these changes ill keep people going at a p oper flow and they plan to put up the "one wa , do not enter" signs. He al said the lot is more like 155 ft. long. He urther stated that they are no going to put up a speaker system, which runs about $3,500, as they don't know ow the drive- thru is going to work yet. If things go well and there is redevel ment in the area then they will put up a s eaker system. He felt this drive-th would in- crease business enough in the ext two years to pay for the investmen'. °4. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, to close the public hearing.. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING�.,CLOSED AT 8:58 P.M. Appeals Commission Meeting - January 18, 1983 Page 5 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: Because the fences are to be located in rear yards, the two adjacent neighbors are the most affected parties. The fences will not be readily visible by others. The terrain is fairly flat to the north and falls downward to the south and for this reason we question the neccnsity for a 10 foot privacy fence. The fence along the north line is partially complete. It is constructed of vertical slab wood nailed to a wood frame. If the Board approves this variance, we have no stipulations to recommend. Mr. Siverts (petitioner), Mr. Bacon and Mr. Halgrim were present for this matter. Ms. Gabel informed Mr. Siverts that in order to grant a variance there has to be some sort of hardship involved and that she was not sure what the hardship is in this matter. Mr. Barna said the hardship is stated on the drawing of the area - "the north one to block Onan and Medtronic parking lights and sound" and "the south one to block Smith's home from Siverts and vice versa." Mr.Halgrim said that about four years ago the fence was started and it is only half -way finished and it has fallen down several times and that it has been down all summer. He said he has no problem with the height of the fence. Mr. Barna asked if he was objecting or wanting it all done and finished. Mr. Halgrim said he wants it all done; that he wants the appearance taken care of. Mr. Bacon said he did not know why the fence had to be that high. Ms. Gabel asked the height of the fence that is completed and Mr. Siverts said it is 9.75 feet high and she asked him to explain the hardship. Mr. Siverts said the fence posts are on his land and the fence is inside the property line. Mr. Halgrim said he could not mow around it. Mr. Siverts said the fence is not finished because of the availability of the material. He thought he had enough when he first ordered the material for the fence and no more is available until this spring. He said a strong wind has torn everything down, including trees. He said he has been there about 20 years and Onan moved into the area and their lights light up the entire area and the height of the fence would block those lights and Medtronics has their lights on 24 hours a day and you can see the entire building from his house and they consider that pretty much of a hardship. Mr. Halgrim, who lives on 69th Avenue N.E., said the lights from Medtronics do not bother him. Ms. Gabel asked what condition the fence is in now, if it is stable and standing. Mr. Siverts said it is extremely stable and they have double -posted everything. At this time, Ms. Gabel read a letter from Burton Smith, 6840 Siverts Lane N.E. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to receive the letter and incor- porate it into the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Both Ms. Gabel and Mr. Barna asked why he needed the additional fence and why it had to be 10 feet high. Mr. Siverts said they are quite close to their neighbors (Smiths) and they can see into every window on the north side of that house and it is a three-story house. They can see into the bathroom, kitchen, living room and they have mutually agreed to extend the fence and will match the Smiths' fence. Appeals Commission Meeting - January 18, 1983 Page 6 Mr. Siverts said they are -also planning an addition on the southwest corner of their house (combination dining area and Teenhouse with pick-up stations and flatroof) which would come quite close to the property line. Mr. Barna felt he does not need a 10 foot fence. Mr. Siverts said they need a fence to the top of the window, probably not higher than 6 feet but they put in a request for 10 feet in case they had to go higher. Ms. Gabel asked about the distance between the structures and Mr. Clark said it is about 30 feet. Ms. Gabel felt they could start a terrible precedent by allowing 10 foot fences and that this re- quest seems more like a desire than a hardship because it could clearly apply to everyone in the neighborhood. Ms. Gabel said she is not sure that it is a harmful thing but it creates a problem of precedence and that a more valid kind of a hardship would be if they were looking at a junk yard. Mr. Betzold asked how long it would take to.finish the fences and Mr. Siverts said he could get the material now and put up the fence as soon as the snow get out of there. Ms. Gabel asked if the fence had been inspected.and Mr. Clark said he has been up to see it but did not go inside. He said there is three feet of fence on top of the post, 10-12 feet apart. Mrs. Gerou asked how it will be replaced if the fence blows down again. Mr. Siverts said it blew down in one piece. Ms. Gabel asked about the costs and Mr. Siverts said he spent hundreds of dollars on the fence and that it is also a security fence for them. He said he has had two people actually walk through their bedroom window (6 -foot sliding door); one person was lost and the other was drunk. Mrs. Gerou asked if the fence would be illegal if it was 10 feet high and Ms. Gabel said yes. Mr. Siverts said he talked to the City and felt there was no problem if the neighbors were in agreement and then he found out he needed a variance and that the fence was over half -way finished. Ms. Gabel said the consensus of the Commission is that Mr. Siverts does not have a hardship except that the fence is almost completed and if the neighbors don't mind, one solution might be to finish the one side but not grant the variance on the other side and that it does concern her that it might set a precedent and Mr. Smith indicates in his letter that Mr. Siverts could work out something on a lower level. Mr. Betzold suggested tabling the matter until the fence is inspected and the standards are met. Mr. Clark said they certainly could check it out and also said that if the lights and noise are bothersome they could build a 7 foot fence andplant something that will reach greater heights and block out noise and lights. Mr. Siverts said it was agreeable to him to table this matter and let the City Inspection Department check things out. Mr. Barna suggested that Mr. Siverts come in with some photographs taken from his window and with something.more specific to show a definite hardship. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, that the Appeals Commission table this Agenda Item No. 2, to allow the City Inspection Department to inspect the fence and area, until the next Appeals Commission Meeting on February 15, 1983. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Appeals Commission Meeting --January 18, 1983 Page 7 Mr. Betzold asked if notices would be sent out again and Mr. Clark said yes and they should probably send a notice to Mr: Smith. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by.Mrs. Gerou, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1983, ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Deb Niznik, Recording Secretary Ile YVL o Ak-r� zl- cyn C,0-4% CA.M� -� do mb;t- 4i<k to yto\. szwitks 0 1 Rlas g �AAc.,,,—�e G vA c -e v - i o i Sj v v4s��D 1330 N.E. 69th Ave, Fridley MN 55+32 25 March 1933 To Whom It May Concern,: Mr. Ing Siverts, of Siverts Larne in Fridley, informs me that he must have the concurrence of his neighbors is order to erect a fence on the northern edge of his property. The Pence would be over the city limit for height, and apparently there -in lies the problem. My understanding is that the Pence would be a continuation of the one which he started some time back, a Pew Peet of which 'was blown down by winds, a year or so ago. Such a Peace will not, in, my opinion, have any adverse effects on my property, will blend in well with the local scenery, and is acceptable to rate, if that is what he really wants. I have no objections to his erecting his fence. 4L�_ A, (Miss) Lois M. Aasland 0 HYATT REGENCY DEARBORN FAIRLANE TOWN CENTER DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48126 USA • 313 5931234 TELEX 235613 YAZ-� 0 S , 9AX---� . r A COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 28, 1984 AGE 8 Planning sion had recommended approval. of the special use permit, subject Commto proval of the lot split. He further stated theIncil ttorney for Kunz Oil dicated the lot split requested would be on the C 's April 18, 1983 agenda. Mr. Flora stated the proposal is to put a Pullman r lroad car on this property r use as a hair salon, as part of the firs phase in development of this cel. Mr. Flora st ed it is proposed, in the second ase, to purchase an actual depot and move it to this location to use for pecialty shops or, if this is not feasible, to building a depot. Mr. flora stated t e Planning Commi/ao ecommended approval subject to certain stipulatio s regarding year timeframe; fencing and landscaping; approval of the lot spoval of the billboard; reguiring a drainage plan; and r ucing the a radii to 32 feet. Mr. Flora stated the devel fasperagreeable to providing the easement and they are working on getting nement on the north parcel. Councilman Barnette stated M ngelkoch had approached him several years ago with this idea and he f It it ould be good for the City. Mr. Qureshi asked what w uld happen \tte hadn't completed the depot in two years. Mr. Flor sated theal use permit would then be discontinued. C/oard man Hamerni questioned whether the pe itioner was willing to accept tmeframe of two years for completion of t e depot and the petitioner ied this s agreeable to him. Mby Cou ciman Fitzpatrick to approve special u permit, SP #83-01 we fo owing stipulations: (1) there be a timefr a of two years for tpot o be placed on the property; (2) a fence be nstalled which mo ng Code requirements and landscaping be provided; removal of tl oard presently on the property; (4) submission and appoval of a Oa plan; (5) a 45 foot street and utility easement from Par 1 B be ed and; (6) all subject to approval of the lot split. Secon ed by lman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee dec ared ittion carried unanimously. L. B. ITEM FROM APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15. 1981: INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF FENCE FROM 7 FEET TO 10 FEET BY TNG SIVERTS. dW :. Councilman Schneider stated he spoke with Mr. Siverts and one of the concerns in his mind was he was told not to go to the Planning Commission meeting at the Appeals Commission meeting. He felt, therefore, this item should be sent back to the Planning Commission in order that Mr. Siverts can be heard before the Commission. Mr. Siverts stated, from the minutes, it is indicated the Chairman of the Appeals Commission had stated she was unaware that any action would be required by the Planning Commission and this had come as a total surprise to her. i i MAr • 1 _ 1_a-* R&-1;ff*VM-XM 44 N 113 IR m0mialU. •11t. A�. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated Holiday Warehouse had a special us permit for a garden center, however, they wish to relocate this garden cent to the northeast corner of their building, therefore, it was felt this ould come back to the Council. Mr. Flor stated the recommendation of staff, if the special use permit is approved nd the garden center relocated, would be that Hol day comply with their ter of the June 3, 1982 letter and provisions PS X82-03 by October 1, 1983; the fence be adequately screened; no outside storage within the rden center after cessation of this business and no customers to enter the garden center from outside the store. Mr. Jensen, r resenting Holiday Warehouse, stated t y have taken out the fence on the ast end of their building and ho to establish a very abbreviated typ of garden center, with a few b dding plants and small shrubs, at the n rtheast portion of their buildi Mr. Jenson stated they plan to use a cyclone vinyl covered fence and to r install a shed or ooden guard rail around a lower portion of the f ence. He stated it is pro osed to operate this rden center for about a month during the year, an it wouldn't be a pe anent type storage. Mayor Nee questionedow traffic woul get through with this garden center located in front of a store. Mr. Flora stated there s a larg driveway and the Fire Chief has checked and there is adequate room r providing a fire lane and drive for vehicles. MOTION by Councilman Fitz rick to amend special use permit, SP #76-03 to allow for the relocatio of a garden center to the northeast outside area of the building with t e follo ng stipulations: (1) There be no o tside storage ithin the garden center area, after cessation of this/business and, when his operation is closed, the area will /riewed ed nd cleaned; (2) Custome are to enter the garden center from e store, not from the outs a parking lot; (3) The area shouluately screened with a vinyl co ered, no slatted, cyclone fenceis special use permit is given for three year period and will ed at the end of this time; and (5) ompliance by Holiday with s of the June 3, 1982 letter and the provions of the replat, PS #8October 1, 1983• Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a vocell voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the _otion carried 1 PF" USE Of _ROAD CAR AND AN •__i DEPOT TO BE USED FOR FOR •:mfr i. RIVER • 1 Mayor Nee felt this item was out of order as there isn't a request fRr a lot split for this property. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated tte ti 1 K Z tw MY._ _ 1 _ o) AV,L31 OV, W-1-Fiffin, PAGE 9 ,: Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the point he wants to make is the process and it seems this item could have come directly from the Appeals Commission. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to refer this issue of the variance for the fence back to the Planning Commission and to notify Mr. Siverts in advance of the Planning*Commission meeting. Second by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider stated this is not to set a precedent at all, but items like this should go to the Planning Commission. Counc man Schneider stated he felt the neighborhoo/cess-arily ram objectives to insure equate access, development, etc. were verrtant and is not suggesting he Commission change their priority, buis offered only as his feel\ on the matter. He stated he isn't looking at signage, but diNL feel it was an important program. Mayor nee stated hal so felt the neighborhood idfintif ication program was important. MOTION by Councilman Sc h eider to con/Ne h the 1983 Workplan of the Community Development Com ission. Seby Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voti aye, Mayoeclared the motion carried unanimously. Ly D D.APPROVALfir f%vo COMMISSION 19 3 WORKPLAN: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrickt oncur with the 1983 Workplan of the Human Resources Commission. Seco ed by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Ma or Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 5 MOTION by Councilman Schenid r to rete ve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 1 , 19$3• Se onded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voti aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilma Schneider to concur with the reco mendation of the Cable Television C mission to allocate the $10,697 fr Storer to the Anoka County Comm ieations Workshop. Seconded by Counc\ man Hamernik. Upon a voice vot , all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the m tion carried unanimously. MOTION by Co oilman Hamernik to receive the minutes of e ,Cable Television Co ission meeting of March 10, 1983• Seconded by Cou ilman Barnette. U n ion a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the y t carried una imously. 1 I Mayor Nee requested a further explanation regarding the January 11, 1983 letter from Storer regarding the franchise fee percentage. e MOTION by Cou ilman Fitzpatrick to appoint.JohYFl a, Public Works Director, as rep esentative to the Hazardous Wastesing Areas Task Force. Seconded Councilman Hamernik. Upon a ote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee deet ed the motion carried unanimou +!_�.�4?!�'1.�1�_}��1���.�1���:[;.Lt��ll�i�•litsar�s-. Mr. Flora, Public Works irector,stated at this time, staff would recommend the bids be re ived and they would be further information available at the next meeti regarding arding the contract. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to rec ve the bids for Street Improvement Projects ST. 1983-1 and 2. PLANHOLDER ND BASE BID ALTERNATE BID Hardrives, Inc. A. Maple Grove Executive Centre 7200 Hemlock Lane North 5$ $246,206.70 $29,081.50 Maple Grove, MN 55369 H & S Asphalt Company 700 Industry Avenue 5% 51,038.00 $34,552.00 Anoka, MN 55303 Northwest Ashpalt, C. 1451 County Road 89 5% $265, 3.41 $32,780.00 Shakopee, MN 5536 Ashbach Constru ion Company Box 3738 5$ $272,902.6 $34,589.00 St. Paul, MN 165 C. S. McCro an, Inc. P.O. Box A 5% $275,312.67 $31,63 .00 Osseo, MN 5369 Thomas Sons Construction Co. 415 - d Street S.E. 5% $2809068.90 $3 ,273.10 Osseo, MN 55369 Ale nder Construction 14 1 Johnny Cake Ridge Road 5$ $282,646.72 $35,7 •20 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1983 7:30 P.M. City of Fridley EN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRU 20, 1983 7:30 P.M. CALL TO"ORDER:: PAGES ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 30, 1983 1 - 4 1. ITEM FROM APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 1983 5 - 11 A. Variance for a fence for Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane (goes back to the City Council) RECEIVE MEMO #83-18 from Jerrold Boardman on Planning 12 Commission Role on Various Member Commission Recommendations to the City Council 4. RECEIVE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH WHITE 5. RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 7, 1983 SALMON 6. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 30, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Vice -Chairperson Oquist called the March 30, 1983, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Goodspeed Members Absent: Ms. Schnabel Others Present: Bill Deblon, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MARCH 16, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 16, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. Ms. Gabel stated the item regarding the variance request by Mr. & Mrs. Siverts to increase the maximum height of their fence from 7 to 10 ft. came before the City Council at the Monday night meeting. She stated the petitioner was unhappy that the Planning Commission had acted by concurring with the Appeals Commission. So, this item will again be coming before the Planning Commission at their next meeting, at which time the petitioner will be present. Ms. Gabel stated that the Planning Commission had understood at their last meeting that the City Council had asked the Planning Commission to act on this Appeals Commission variance request. She stated the City Council had not requested any action from the Planning Commission, so there was a communication gap somewhere. She stated she felt the public hearing was sufficient at the Appeals Commission level and this did not warrant another public hearing at the Planning Commission level. If the Planning Commission is going to start holding public hearings on items that also go to the Appeals Commission, then the City might as well do away with the Appeals Commission. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed there was no reason for the Planning Commission to hold a public .hearing on this item when one had already been held at the Appeals Commission. Ms. Gabel stated that all commissions sometimes ask for input or a motion from the Planning Commission when a commission wants the support of the Planning Commission, but she had seen this variance request as a routine matter. She stated she would not like to see this happen again. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 30, 1983 PAGE 2 1. RECEIVE MARCH 8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RECEIVE MARCH 10, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 10, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES. Ms. Gabel asked what was happening with regard to the rent due on the hardware building and what kind of arrangement was made with NSP on the cost of the under- ground electrical line in 5th St. Mr. Deblon stated he did not know, but would report that information to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE MARCH 15, 1983, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 15, 1983, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Svanda stated that Bob Hutchison from Anoka County talked about Anoka County's Solid Waste Management Report which is currently being reviewed by the Metro- politan Council, along with the other counties' plans. The County's basic proposal is to come up with a RDF (refuse -derived fuel) type of facility. That was the County's big emphasis, and the Commission was concerned that it would preclude the City doing anything and that if the City and other cities did things to reduce the waste stream, it might adversely impact the County's proposal. Mr. Hutchison assured the Commission that the City could do almost anything they wanted; and, if anything, it might benefit an RDF facility. Mr. Svanda stated the Commission's next step is to have a meeting with the City's haulers to talk about curb -side pickup, yard waste, etc. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION 1983 WORKPLAN: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO REVIEW AND CONCUR WITH THE EQC 1983 WORKPLAN. Mr. Svanda stated this was the 1982 workplan updated for 1983. The plan basically focuses on trying to develop a plan for the City to follow in developing some kind of waste reduction -type of program through curb -side separation (depending PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 30, 1983 PAGE 3 on how the meeting goes with the waste haulers) and then to look into some kind of public education programs. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE MINUTES OF SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 17, 1983: MOTION BY MR. GOODSPEED, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 17, 1983, SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Saba stated that on page 5, Mr. Treuenfels had stated that "the City Council came up with a proposal that there be two categories for competing for funds: (1) regular human service organizations; and (2) public services". He wondered what was meant by "public services". He also stated he did not know if he approved of the request by'the senior citizens -for $4,000, what it would be used for, and how they could justify that $4,000 to be taken out of CDBG monies. He asked Mr. Goodspeed to find out this information. Mr. Oquist stated that since it was also stated that the Community Development Commission might handle the public service funding requests, he would like more information for the Community Development Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE MARCH 22, 1983, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. GOODSPEED, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 22, 1983, ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Svanda stated he would like the Environmental Quality Commission to view the video tape on the "Super Insulation" seminar that Mr. Deblon had attended. Mr. Saba suggested a joint meeting be set up between the Environmental Quality Commission and the Energy Commission and that other commission members also be invited to this meeting to view the video tape. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Saba stated a motion had been made on page 5 to commend Bill Wharton for his service to the Commission. He would like the Planning Commission to concur with that motion. MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT BILL WHARTON BE COMMENDED FOR THE FINE JOB HE HAS DONE AND THE LENGTH OF TIME SPENT ON THE ENERGY COMMISSION. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE'MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 30, 1983 PAGE 4 7. REVIEW ENERGY COMMISSION 1983 WORKPLAN: MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. GOODSPEED, TO REVIEW AND CONCUR WITH THE ENERGY COMMISSION 1983 WORKPLAN. Mr. Saba stated this was also their 1982 workplan updated for 1983. They have added the MECS (Mn. Energy Conservation Service) promotion, developing energy conservation programming for video tape, and an effort to facilitate the CO monitoring service as part of the residential conservation effort. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE MARCH 22, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 22, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MARCH 30, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully slibmitted, yn Saba Recording Secretary 61 City of Fridley APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1983 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gabel called the Appeals Commission Meeting of Tuesday, February15, 1983, to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Patricia Gabel, Alex Barna, Jim Plemel, Jean Gerou, Donald Betzold Others Present: Kent Hill, City of Fridley Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., Fridley Vivian Hoese, 7675 Madison Street N.E., Fridley Blanche Erkel, 567 Rice Creek Terrace, Fridley Ivy and Jack Young, 17925 -26th Avenue North Les Gerdin, 6739 Kennaston Drive N.E. APPROVAL OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 1983: The word "asked" was inserted as the third word on the first line, page 3. Mr. Siverts had corrections on page 6, third paragraph line 5, should read"5 .feet apart" instead of 10-12 feet apart and line 9, should read "walk to their bedroom window" instead of through their bedroom window; and line 19, the words "on a lower level" should be stricked. MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to approve the minutes as corrected. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT Of A FENCE FROM 7 FEET TO 10 FEET IN THE REP B50 SIVERTS LANE N.E. (Request .E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mr. Barna, to remove this agenda item from the table. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hill submitted drawings to the Commission and said that the petitioner has withdrawn his request for the south side yard variance, and that 7 feet has been agreed upon by the parties. Mr. Siverts was present for this.matter. Ms. Gabel said she spoke with Mr. Clark and the fence is not structurally sound as it stands now and these plans are what is necessary to make the fence structurally sound; that the specifications have to be followed. Mrs. Gerou stated she visited the area and found the fence to be wobbly, tied with phone wire, that the vertical boards are uneven and do not run in a straight line and the horizontal boards are bowed. She also said the angle support beams are on the neighbor's side of the fence and 3 feet of the fence is above the 0 Appeals Commission Meeting -February 15, 1983 Page 2 support beams. Ms. Gabel said, according to the blueprint, the fence can be made structurally sound. Mrs. Gerou asked the petitioner why the angle support beams are facing the neighbor's and if he takes care of the property on the other side of the fence. Mr. Siverts said the support beams are on his property and he does not take care of the property on the other side of the fence. Ms. Gabel noted that his neighbor objected to that at the last hearing. Mr. Barna said he visited the area and looked at the walkway at the Medtronics building and he could not see the hardship as stated and said the Commission is looking for a sounder hardship. He said the parking lot is not on the street side and he does not have street sounds. Ms. Gabel said she visited the area also and that everyone in the neighborhood is subject to the same conditions and if they allowed a 10 -foot fence to be put up, the whole neighborhood could put one up. Mr. Siverts asked if the Commission thought the fence would be out of place aesthetically and Ms. Gabel, Mrs. Gerou, Mr. Barna and Mr. Betzold agreed it would. He then asked how important the neighbors opinions were and Ms. Gabel said it is one factor and that is why the public hearing notices are sent out and having a definite hardship is another factor. Mr. Barna said if objections exist either with the neighbors or the commission, then it is up to the City Council and even if the fence was a joint venture with the neighbors, there would still have to be a hardship. Mr. Siverts presented two letters from two neighbors who had no objection to the fence. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the two letters from Mr. Siverts' neighbors and they both do not object to the fence. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE 140TION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Siverts said there is a constant humming sound coming from somewhere and Mr. Barna said that it was the reflection of sound of tires off Highway 65. Mr. Siverts felt the fence would be a protector from he sound and in some placed a 7 foot fence would not be adequate because of the elevation of the terrain in the area. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Betzold said he has visited the area during the daytime and evening and he is not convinced of the hardship. Mr. Plemel said the Siverts' home is in a unique setting and did not see where the fence would be readily visible by others. Mrs. Gerou felt the fence is an eyesore and was not convinced of the hardship. Ms. Gabel said she was not convinced of the hardship either. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, denial -of the variance request to increase the maximum height of a fence from 7 feet to 10 feet in the rear yard and side yards of Lot C. Registered Land Survey No. 3, the same being 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, THREE VOTING AYE AND TWO VOTING MAY, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. VARIANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO _CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY THE ELY STREET N.E. Request by Vivian Hoese, B. M. C. 8 Associates (Fridley Medical Center Bldg. i Land),7675 Madison Street N.E.. Fridley, Minnesota 55432). 1v 7 — Variance 6850 Siverts Lane lz Ll oC16 � =S ..L Y 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 6 2. RECEIVE JANUARY 13, 1983, HOUSING & REDEVEL02W- r AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. GOODSPEED, SECONDED BY MR VANDA, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 13, 1983, HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M TES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING YE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE FEBRUARY;8; 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. DA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEV PMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON V CE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 15, 1983, APPEALS.COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 18, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Deblon stated it was his understanding that there was a motion on Item 01 that needed action by the Planning Commission. The City Council had requested a recommendation on this from the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated this was a surprise to her. She hadn't realized a recommenda- tion was needed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated this was a variance request by Mr. & Mrs. Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane, to increase the maximum height of a fence from 7 to 10 feet in the rear yard and side yards. She stated there is absolutely nothing about the fence that is aesthetically pleasing. The Appeals Commission felt there was no hardship, and that whatever lights or noise there realistically is, a 10 ft. fence will not take care of the problem. Ms. Gabel stated the petitioner had asked if he needed to be at the Planning Commission meeting, and she had told him that the Planning Commission would only be receiving the Appeals Commission minutes. She was unaware that any action would be required by the Planning Commission, and this had come as a total sur- prise to her. Mr. Goodspeed stated that since the petitioner had not been notified about any Planning Commission action, he felt they should table any action until the next meeting when the petitioner could be in attendance. Ms. Gabel stated she did not feel any new or different information would come to light if they were to continue this discussion at another meeting. The information is already here, and it is just a matter of concurring or not con- curring with the Appeals Commission. Mr. Goodspeed disagreed. N PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MINUTES RECEIVED. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO CONCUR WITH THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE FROM 7 FT. TO 10 FT. IN THE REAR YARD AND SIDE YARDS OF LOT C, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 3, THE SAME BEING 6850 SIVERTS LANE N.E., FRIDLEY, MN. -55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, KONDRICK, SABA, SVANDA, GABEL, VOTING AYE, GOODSPEED ABSTAINING, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Deblon stated that regarding Item #2, the City Council had alre y approved a variance request for the Fridley Medical Center, but the approI was based on approval by the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated that at the City Council meeting, she ha questioned why Planning Commission approval was needed when the P1annin Commission just receives the Appeals Commission's minutes. Generally, the Plan ng Commission makes a recommendation on an item only when it something that stands out and Planning Commission input is requested by the Appeals Commis on. She saw the variance request by the Fridley Medical Center as just a ro ine matter. Mr. Oquist stated this is one more example of h the subcommissions are not being utilized. All of a sudden the Planning mmission has to concur with the Appeals Commission's motions. The charter of the Appeals Commission is that its motions go directly to City Council. If the City Council didn't want to rule on this item, they should have tabled t and asked for the Planning Commission's recommendation. If action i always needed by the Planning Commission, then there is no need for a Appeals Commission. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MRABA, TO CONCUR WITH THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVA OF ;VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 T. TO 13 FT. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 3,000 SQ. FT. TO BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICE AND MEDICAL SPACE, LOCATED ON THE NOOH 400 FT. OF THE WEST 217.8 FEET OF OUTLOT 1, MELODY MANOR 4TH ADDITION, THE E BEING 7675 MADISON ST. N.E., FRIDLEY, MN., 55432, WITH THE STIPULATION TH T THE PETITIONER UPGRADE THE TEMPORARY CONCRETE CURBING TO PERMANENT 6 -INCH POURED CONCRETE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI�i1G AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. r 5. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 15,/1983, ENVIRONMENTAL ( 1LITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 15, 1983, E11VIR- ONMENTAL QUALITY COM)fISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTIO17 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission had recommended approval of the special use permit, Kunz to apprindicated the the lot of splitplit. He requested wouldrbetoned the the Council'sey for April Luaz 011 indica 18, 1983 agenda. Mr. Flora stated the air salons as part of posal ito put a Pullman first aphase in development ilroad car on this property for use as a of this parcel. Mr. Flora stated it is proposed, in the second phase, to purchase an a al this depot and move it to this location to use for specialty shops or, is not feasible, to building a depot. al subject to Mr. flora stated the Planning Commission recommended aper fencing and certain stipulations regarding a two year timefr e; pD landscaping; approval of the lot split, removal of the illboard; reguiring a drainage plan; and reducing the entrance radii to 2 feet. Mr. Flora stated the developer is ementonorthparcel an tto roviding a easement and they are working on getting an eas Councilman Barnette stated Mr. Mengelko had approached him several years ago with this idea and he felt it wo be good for the City. Mr. Qureshi asked what uld state apthe iapecialhadn't e percompleted would then be two years. Mr. Flora discontinued. Councilman Hamernik ques oned whether the petitioner was willing to accept this timeframe of two ars for completion of the depot and the petitioner indicated this was eeable to him. MOTION by Councim Fitzpatrick to approve special use permit, SP #83 01 with the follow stipulations: (1) there be a timeframe of two years or the depot to b placed on the property; (2) De pnovided;nce be i stalled wli f ch meets Zoning ode requirements and landscaping the billbo d presently on the property; (4) submission and approval of a drainage lan; (5) a 45 foot street and utility easement from Parcel B be provid and; (6) all subject to approval of the lots Ma itor Nee- Seconded declaby Coun lman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye , Y ed the motion carried unanimously. • B. ITEM FROM APPEALS COMa"ISSION MINUTES OF FEBR As RY �5 798: L_ INCEEASETHE 6850 S YERTS LAME: Councilman Schneider stated he spoke with Mr. Siverts and one of the concerns in his mind was he was told not to go to the Planning Commission meeting at the Appeals Commission meeting. CHe ommission felt, in order therthatet this item should be sent back to the Planning erts can be heard before the.00mm133i0n. Mr. Siverts stated, from the minutes, it is indicated the Chairman of the Appeals Commission th ioiah� stated omissionwas unaware that and this had come asyaaction would be total surprise required by the Planning to her. 10 Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the point he wants to make is the process and it seems this item could have come directly from the Appeals Commission. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to refer this issue of the variance for the fence back to the Planning Commission and to notify Mr. Siverts in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. Second by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Schneider stated this is not to set a precedent at all, but items like this should go to the Planning Commission. � ��Y� 1 � - j • � �<Y�Y f � � � � Y 1 � i • j � � 1 Councilman Schneider stated he felt the neighborhood program objectives to insure \,e access, development, etc. were very important and is not suggestCommission change their priority, but this is offered only as his on the matter. He stated he isn't necessarily looking at signaged feel it was an important program. Mayor nd he also felt the neighborhood identification program was importa MOTION il an Schneider to concur with the 1983 Workplan of the Communilopm nt Commission. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a ote, 1 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimo /-- D D. j MOTION by Councilman Fitz trick to concur with the 1983 Workplan of the Human Resources Commission Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting ay Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schenider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 16, 1 83• Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, ayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur wi h the recommendation of the Cable Television Commission to allocate the X10,697 from Storer to the Anoka County Communications Workshop. Second d by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee dehlared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to receive the inutes of the Cable Television Commission meeting of March 10, 1983. Se onded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Ne declared the motion carried unanimously. 11 TMS CITU OW DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC WORKS FRII ILY A ®ATE April 5, 1983 FROM 1D.P. SUBJECT er�6oardman Planning — Planning Commission Role on Various Member Commission Recommendations to the City Council 12 MEMORANDUM MEMO NO. 83-18 TO ACTIONI INFO. Planning-CommiSSiOn x Nasim Qureshi x John Flora x There has been a question raised about the function of the Planning Commission in reviewing the minutes of the member commissions prior to submission to the City Council. (Specifically with regard to the minutes of the Appeals Commission). The process that we set up was merely a review process so that additional imput concerning parks, energy, environmental, human resources and planning policy could be added if the Planning Commission felt is was necessary in the review of the commission actions to the City Council. It was NOT set up for the purpose of hearing and overturning actions of the Commissions. Recommendations from the Planning Commission are then sent along with the member commission recommendation for the City Council action. The Planning Commission in no case is required or obligated to make recommendations on any of the items being recommended by the member Commission. The only action that is important is the receiving of the minutes so that we have record that the Planning Commission is aware of the actions of the member commissions, and that if those actions affect any other commission, the Planning Commission can recommend that another commission has the opportunity to comment. In the past, we have highlighted specific motions of the member commission in the Agenda outlines so that they are specifically aware of motions. This has not been done consistently and only on an issue that may be controversial or have direct concern for the Planning Commission. This highlighting does not mean that the Planning Commission must take direct action. I can see where there may have been some confusion on this and will take steps to be consistent on all future agendas. We will highlight all commission motions for easy reference to the commission minutes. This will not require specific Planning Commission action on any item. JLB/de CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Commers called the March 31, 1983, Special Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL -ML: Members Present: Larry Commers, Carolyn Svendsen, Elmars Prieditis Members Absent: Russel Houck, Duane Prairie Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, Executive Director HRA Nasim M. Qureshi, City Manager William J. Nee, Mayor - Edward Fitzpatrick, Councilman Edward Hamernik, Councilman Mark Burch, Assistant Public Works Director John Flora, Public Works Director Sid Inman, Director of Central Services Harold Skjelvostad - InterDesign, Site Planner/Landscape Architect. Jerrold Boardman - Executive Director HRA submitted the bid tabulation sheet for the Center City Plaza and Phase II Project. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager,,asked for some indication from the HRA on which bid along with modification is acceptable to HRA and he would like to present them to the City Council at the April 4, 1983 Council meeting. Mr. Commers questioned this procedure and asked why it must be sent to the Council. Mr. Qureshi explained that this is required of the City Council because the HRA requested the City to assess the project. The City Council is the one who calls for bids and will be awarding them. He explained that it is the purpose of the staff to take the information and choices made by HRA to the City Council directly before awarding the bids. The HRA cannot call for and award bids unless they want to pay for a project directly and not use the special assessment procedure. Mr. Qureshi explained there are four elements involved in the development. They are: the parking lots (Civic Center and Office Building) 64th street realignments, water and sewer for the Office Building and the Plaza Development. Mr. Qureshi stated that in January of 19831, it was requested the City Council go ahead with the Parking Lot, 64th Street realignments and the Water and Sewer Bids. The numbers were sent to the HRA and they were comfortable with the numbers. n0USIM AND EMMMLO MEIN AL'1'L'F1M= KEET 1Qx MARCH 31. 1983 PAGE 2 Mr. Qureshi stated the Architect initially estimated the project costs in January 1983. The costs were then given to the HRA for their confirmation and got go ahead for the project bidding. The bid proposal request was layed out with base bid along with number of different alternates so that the HRA can pick and choose depending upon the bid cost and the amount of money budgeted so the HRA can get the best type of facility for the money. Mr. Mark Burch, Assistant Public Works Director, explained the different parts of the bid. Base bid included: Mark explained the base bids and the alternates for.the Plaza: Alternative A-1 is for the fountains; A-2 is for the irrigation with plastic heads; A-3 is for irrigation with brass head; A-4 is to provide sleeving for irrigation; B-1 is to install wall lights; Br2 is for the Plaza lights with trash receptacles; B-3 alternate Plaza lights and B-6 is the electrical service connections. It was recammended that they award the base bid with the following alternates: A-1, A-3, B-1, B-4, Br5 and B-6. The base bid included the landscaping for the Plaza area. They are, Alternative 1 for the Landscaping for the office building, Alternate 2 is the landscaping for the 5th Street island, Alternate 3 is the landscaping for the Clinic and Alternate 4 is for the 5th Street boulevard. Mr. Qureshi stated the costs came in much too high when the bids were received. The fountains were estimated at $20,000 by the Architect but came in at $87,000. The electrical was estimated at $20,000 and came in at $40,000. Mr. Qureshi explained how alternative material could be used in the construction of the fountains, such as changing the type of aluminum in order to bring the cost down. Mr. Qureshi stated there are alternatives and certain choices available to you for you to make determinations. Mr. Qureshi went over the project costs and bids for the HRA. Plans were submitted for their review during the discussion. The items that were discussed were the fountains, irrigation, wall lights, pylon lights, overhead lights and electrical service. The following alternates were recommended, bringing the alternates cost to a total of $163,960. Alternate A-1 Fountains $87,000.00 Alternate A-3 Irrigation 18,600.00 Alternate B-1 Wall Lights 16,740.00 Alternate B-4 Pylon Lights 3,000.00. Alternate &-5 Overhead Lights 35,595.00 Alternate B-6 Electric Service 3,025.00 $163,960.00 H=Ti`Y' AND RED=QE= A.FPH TTY MF:F*P=I MARCH 31. Mr. Commers stated that this is a substantial increase. Mr. Qureshi then explained the landscaping bids. He felt that cuts should be made, however, those cuts should not destroy the integrity of the Plaza. He explained sane of the possible reductions: 1) 1 flag instead of 2, 2) delete some unnecessary walls, 3) eliminate recessed lights and provide satisfactory replacement lights and 4) eliminate 1 planter but leave shrubs. These reductions cane to a total of $61,551. Mr. Comers asked what is the "cost to the others"? Mr. Qureshi stated that those costs relate to the work around the office building, the clinic and the work on 5th Street. Mr. Qureshi stated that the alternatives with the base bid is the total cost for the whole project. These costs are then broken down and allocated to the specific items (like the office building, the parking lots, 5th Street and the Plaza). Mr. Qureshi stated that the office building and Civic Center parking lot was $140,000 and would be assessed to the HRA. This would include the paving, lights and irrigation related to that property. Mr. Commers stated that the initial cost of the parking lot was for $140,000 but he was not aware that this included anything more than the paving. Mr. Qureshi stated the bids for the paving were let separately because all similar project items should be handled by the contractor best able to give a good product. Mr. Boardman stated the plaza and the parking lot and street bids were let separately as was the landscaping. This saves the HRA a lot by combining similar items in one bid. Mr. Prieditis questioned the Alternative B-1 bid for the wall lights. He asked if the recessed lights would be deleted and if they are recessed in the concrete and if there would be a credit. Mr. Burch stated that the concrete is fix and form and that the additional concrete work is included in the light bid. Mr. Qureshi suggested that the HRA members see the sheet regarding the possible deletions on the Plaza. He stated that a change order in the contract for $61,000 would be necessary if you want to award the base bid to come within the guidelines. Mr. C=mrs asked about the difference in fountains. Mr. Qureshi stated that the fountain is the highest area of cost discrepancy. The problem is the increase from the Architect's estimate of $20,000 to the actual bid cost of $871,000. HOUSE AND RF'• EC OPMEBir N=OZLT'r+s' M TI j MAS 311 1983 PAGE 4 Mr. Qureshi said that they were given a price from the Architect's estimate of the Plaza. This information was given to you in January. Mr. Commers stated his principal concern is about meeting the numbers and making sure that the HRA cash flow is adequate for the development in the area. Mr. Qureshi stated the costs of the Plaza with the suggested cuts and other contributions is $248,000. If you add in the contingency and finance costs, the project will be below $300,000 and would fall within the HRA budget. Mr. Qureshi stated there are two ways of doing it; 1) the HRA can choose to pay up front for the project or 2) the City can loan the money and have it then assessed to the HRA. Mr. Ccomers asked Sid what does that do to the HRA cash flaw. Mr. Inman stated that it does not change the expense for the first twelve (12) months but reduces future assessment payments. - Mr. Prieditis asked about the lack of contingency. Mr. Qureshi stated $52,000 include contingency and interest during construction, etc., is built into that $300,000 figure. Mr. Cammers asked that if the HRA is assessed for the plaza costs that $52,000 is for interest and carrying costs and other contingency. Mr. Qureshi stated that this would be the cost if the HRA wants the assessment and the City finances the HRA during construction. Mr. Cammers asked Mr. Inman to give them some numbers on the effects of an outright payment for the plaza. More specifically, the effect of direct payment in 1984 & 1985. Mr. Imnan stated that the original effect obviously would be to reduce the amount of cash available by $300,000. This would reduce the HRA's ability to earn interest at the same rate that the City would charge to loan that money. Therefore, the first twelve (12) months would cost the HRA just about the same irrespective of whether they were assessed or pay up front. From that point on, the immediate effect would be in the inability of the HRA to invest the $300,000, which would be offset by the additional assessment payment they would not be making. For the first two to three years the HRA would be behind in actual cash flaw and after four years could potentially gain. It would really depend on the interest rate and the time. Mr. Cammers asked what the cash savings are and how badly does that hurt our cash flaw over 15 years. HfxHIM AM =MUM= ALMMITY MMU, MARCH 31, 1983 PAGE 5 Mrt Qureshi asked Mr. Inman to came up with an estimate within the next ten minutes. Mrd Skjelvostad then explained the changes in the materials and design for the fountain and the sun dial. He explained the bids came in high. The bids from the contractor could be reduced by building 7 fountains instead of 9 saving $28,000, and by changing the number to five and the material they could save $3b,000. Mr. Qureshi.stated the reduction in number and having the same shape and use a di�ferent aluminum, with the hope that enough money can be saved to have at lest seven structures. Mr. Boardman stated that each option saves money. Mrj. Prieditis stated he would like to make sure no reflective, sound bouncing off the aluminum or whistling would occur. M1}. Cominers stated he is concerned with the maintenance of it in regards to the Public Works Department. Skjelvostad explained there should be no change as far as maintenance is ncerned. He also explained that it is more reflective but not much. woPrieditis stated he would like to maintain the numbers if possible. He uld like to see a material change with the initial design. Mr. Qureshi stated another item was the deletion of the wall lights with a replacement of overhead lighting. This could reduce the bid by $20,000. They are nice to have but the bid costs came in too high. Mt. Cammers stated that the carrying cost was never given to them. They thought that they were talking about a total cost of $3001,000. Nr. Qureshi stated $30,000 would be the City's financing costs. . Qureshi stated he wanted to make it clear that the construction costs for e Plaza came in at $300,000. That means that the total -costs to be assessed to the HRA would be approximately $360,000. If the HRA wants to bring the total costs under the $300,000 figure, cuts would have to be made. If the HRA Wants to pay the Plaza costs directly there would be a savings to the HRA regarding the carrying costs. Mr. Qureshi asked in what areas does the HRA want to make adjustments to and What guidelines do you want to give the City Council to aid them in awarding contract. pir. Campers asked Mr. Iman if he has had cash flow projects yet. HOUSIM = RF'.T)F.VF'TnPMF a AI7-M ITY MF=Iffi;J MARCH 31, 1983 PAGE 6 Mr. Inman stated that the information that he would give them now was rough and that he would have to run it on the computer to be absolutely accurate. Generally speaking, at the end of 1983, the HRA would be approximately $450,000 less in their cash flow position than they would be if they did not pay the assessment up front. He further stated that at the end of 1984, they would only be approximately $160,000 behind the difference being the $300,000 they paid up front plus the loss of interest along with the assessment payment they would not be making in October and the additional interest they would earn on that. Mr. Commers asked Mr. Inman what the effect would be on his worst case model and Mr. Inman stated that the worst case model included no interest income anyway. Therefore, reducing the cash balance by $300,000 would not effect the worst case model. Mr. Burch showed brochures of the different types of lights. Mr. Qureshi stated that they should try to make rational changes. Tied to the guidelines as we feel the plaza will be used mainly in the summer time. That it is your choice if you want it assessed. Mr. Prieditis stated he preferred the recessed lighting over the other. Mr. Skjelvostad stated it is costly to add lights. Mr. Qureshi stated before the base bid is brought to the City Council, alternatives should be presented for approval. This should be done before we sign the document and award the bids. MCY-rioN BY MR. PRIEDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO PAY THE $300,000 UP FRONT FOR THE PLAZA WITH NO ASSESSMENTS AND TO INCLUDE AS MANY ITEMS AS POSSIBLE SUCH AS RECESSED LIGHTING AND THE EWWAIN, ETC. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. PRIEDITI,S, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO RECa*MM TO THE COUNCIL TO AWARD THE BID TO MONETPE CONSTRUCTION WITH ALTERNATIVES Al, A3, Bl, B4, B5 AND B6. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY. 0 HOUSTM Atm E< p1utFn1T AttmET TTY MEETING. MARCH 310 183 PAGE 7 BY MR. PREIDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO AWARD THE BID, TO NOBLE ERY WITH THE UNDERSMMING THAT $23,137.50 WILL BE CHARGED AGAINST THE UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANINDUSLY. BY MR. PREIDITIS, SECONDED BY MS. SVENDSEN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UP ON VOICE VO'L'E, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON COMMERS DECLARED THE MARCH 31, 19j83 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:08 P.M. i i CITY OF FRIDLEY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 7, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Goodspeed called the April 7, 1983, Human Resources Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Brian Goodspeed, Peter Treuenfels, Robert Minton, Barbara Kocher Members Absent: Mary van Dan Others Pre, sent: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVAL OF MARCH 17, 1983, SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: MOTION BY1,MR. TREUENFELS, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 17, 1983, SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE ON PAGE 3 PA;2AGRAPH 3: "JERRY SIKORSKI" SHOULD BE CHANGED TO "GERRY SIKORSKI". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GOODSPEED DECLARED THE MOTION 'CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS - ROBERT MINTON AND BARBARA KOCHER: Mr. Goodspeed introduced Mr. Minton and Ms. Kocher and welcomed them to the Human Resources Commission. l 'Mr. Minton stated he lives at 1538 No. Oberlin Circle. He stated it is his :'first experience on a city commission. He stated he was chairperson of the Accessibility Project Committee, a temporary committee that put together "An Access Guide to Friendly Fridley". This committee has now been disbanded. Ms. Kocher stated she lives at 7650 Jackson St. N.E. She stated she has two children] who attend Woodcrest Elementary. She is presently employed by ,the Anoka -Hennepin School District as a part-time teacher. Her husband has had a business''in Fridley for five years. She stated she is interested in what is going on',in the city and is interested in furthering things for children. I. OLD BUSINESS: a. Discuss No -Fault Grievance Procedure Mr. Treuenfels stated he had contacted a person to help the Commission With the setting up of the No -Fault Grievance Procedure committee. He :dad asked her to attend this meeting, but it was apparent she was unable to attend. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING; APRIL 7, 1983 PAGE 2 Mr. Treuenfels explained the No -Fault Grievance. Procedure to Mr. Minton and Ms. Kocher. b. Discuss Affirmative Action vs Equal Opportunity Mr. Treuenfels stated that under Human Rights, the question arose as to whether the City was doing its part in the area of affirmative action and equal opportunity. The Commission had received a breakdown of the City staff as far as minority, gender, which positions were held by Yarious people, etc., and this information was very helpful. However, the question he had was that there actually is a difference between affirmative action and equal opportunity. He wondered if there was any interest on the part of the other Commission members to pursue this. further. If so, he would ask a speaker to talk on this subject. Mr. Boardman stated the Commission has reviewed the City's Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity plan. The real question was whether the Commission had any problems with this plan. If they do, they should look at it again and make recommendations for changes. If they have no problem with the plan, then they shouldn't waste their time on this subject. Mr. Minton stated he did not think the subject was that complex that the Commission needed a speaker. Mr. Trueenfels stated he did not have any particular problem with the City's equal opportunity policy because he looked at it in terms of state law. c. Review and Update Funding Guidelines Mr. Treuenfels gave a brief overview for the new Commission members on how the City had made a certain amount of funds available in the past for social service organizations. The Human Resources Commission had been entrusted with the task of Serving as an advisory commission in reviewing and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council on which organizations should be funded. In order to do this, the Commission had put together funding guidelines to follow whereby organizations were rated on a point system. He stated these types of funds are now almost a thing of the past; however, the City has been awarded CDBG monies through HUD, and 10% of the total grant can be used for social service funding. Mr. Boardman stated the City is still in the process of applying for the CDBG funds. The City Council made recommendations on expenditures for 1983-84. Those recommendations have gone to the County Board. The County Board approves and submits those recommendations in application form to HUD. The funds will not be available until the end of June 1983. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1983 PAGE 3 Mr.!Boardman stated that from now until the end of June, the City will beutting together any information the County needs to support the City's application. The City Council set aside approx. $17,400 for human service activities. Based on recommendations, the City Council is looking at $10,000 of that for human service funding and $7,000 for public service funding. At this time, how that is going to be reviewed and who: is going,to review that funding is still a`question. He felt the human service area would probably continue to be reviewed by the Human Resources Commission. The public service area would be reviewed by either the Parks & Recreation Commission or the Community Development Commission, but that has not yet been decided by the City Council. Mr." Boardman stated it is important to remember that, according to the HUD guidelines, these funds must benefit low and moderate income people and must provide a new service or a substantially expanded service. Itiiis a one-shot deal, and organizations funded in 1983-84 would most likely not qualify for CDBG monies the following year. Mr' Boardman stated the City Council has already gotten one funding request from the senior citizens for a staff person for recreational needs for the Senior's Drop-in Center. That is more of a public service, and that is the reason why the City Council split the funding requests into two categories --human services and public services. Mrs Boardman stated that under the new Jobs Bill passed by Congress, there is a new pool of money ($1 billion) being set aside in new block grant programs where at least 50% can be used for public service -type activities. These funds are to be used as much as possible to provide jobs for the unemployed. The money is supposed to be coming into the counties by the end of April. Mri Treuenfels asked Mr. Boardman to briefly explain the difference between human services and public services. Mr' Boardman stated they were looking at human services as more of a social service -type related activity like SAGA, i.e., human service organizations that provide services in the City of Fridley. They look at,,public services as the YMCA, Fridley Youth Sports Association, i.e., other organizations that do not specifically provide a health, welfare - type of service. They felt they needed something to measure the recreation -type requests versus the food and health -type requests. He stated he was open to suggestions and recommendations from the Commission toiiwork out some guidelines in this area. Mr''. Treuenfels stated their old funding guidelines will definitely need to'be revised in light of the legal requirements imposed by HUD. Mr. Boardman stated he would recommend the Commission look very closely al the HUD regulations under the public service section as it very clearly defines what and what cannot be done. If nothing else, The HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1983 PAGE 4 Commission could just define what should be included under human services and anything else would go under public services. Mr. Boardman stated that in Anoka County there is a new Human Services Task Force that has been in operation for about one year. This task force is getting�a lot of heads of human service organizations together to talk about trying to figure out what the needs are as a group and is starting to organize and work as a group instead of working against each other. Mr. Treuenfels stated that, in the past, one difficulty the Commission had in reviewing funding applications was to find out which organizations were providing what services. One of the points in their funding guide- lines was to find out whether there was any overlap or duplication of services by the service organization applying for funding to any other existing service organization. Mr. Minton asked that he and Ms. Kocher receive a copy of the HUD guide- lines and the Commission's previous funding guidelines. The Commission could then discuss this at the next meeting. He stated he also had a taxonomy of services that could be used as a framework for revising the funding guidelines. He stated he would bring it to the next meeting. d. Discuss 1983 Workplan The Commission members reviewed the 1983 workplan which had been approved by the City Council. Mr. Treuenfels stated that on page 2 of the workplan under Human Services, they were looking at researching the need for a community -wide volunteer program. He had noticed that on page 4 of the Community Development Commission's 1983 workplan, that commission was looking at developing the neighborhood concept and doing some things on a neighborhood -wide basis. It might be that this could tie in with the volunteer program. Mr. Boardman stated that when you talk about volunteers, you are talking about a great deal of staff time to reinforce the volunteer program so people do not start losing interest. Mr. Minton stated he felt the volunteer program was very unrealistic unless there is a staff supporting it. Mr. Treuenfels stated one of the reasons for the volunteer program was to alleviate so much demand on City staff. Mr. Boardman stated sometimes they focus too much on the City and they don't watch what is happening at the county level. The county is working on volunteer systems. He stated Anoka County, through CAP, is HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1983 PAGE 5 working on a county -wide coordinated volunteer effort. Instead of the City of Fridley researching the need for community -wide volunteers, maybe the City should take an active part of an overall package and get active citizen involvement in the County program to help some of the City's programs. He felt that was the best way to handle this goal. Mr.l Treuenfels stated it is difficult for City staff to work with the County and essentially donate city time for non -city projects; however, the Commission could participate with some fruitfulness in discussions at'the county level. He felt there was a real need for a liaison for interaction between the City and the County agencies, and the Commission could provide that liaison. Mr,:Boardman stated he could keep in touch with Mary Cayan, who was a founder of the Human Services Task Force, and was also working on a voluntary action type program through her job at CAP. He could keep up,'rto-date in that way, although there would not be any direct liaison. Mr'''. Treuenfels stated the Commission should probably meet with Ms. Cayan occasionally. Mr::. Boardman stated that, regarding alternative transportation, Ms. Cayan is'''also on an Alternative Transit committee which was established with transportation needs for seniors and handicapped persons in mind. Mr°. Boardman stated that, referring to volunteerism, he thought one thing the City has been lacking very seriously in the past is any kind of'follow-through for volunteers. There is no recruitment process, no training process, and no recognition process. If nothing else, maybe the Commission would want to look at formulating some process by which the City would recognize volunteers. Mr.. Treuenfels stated that under "Disaster Preparedness", the Commission hats been asked by the City Council to look at making suggestions or guidelines on what can be done by people in mobile home parks to prepare or cope with a disaster such as a tornado. Mr. Treuenfels stated he felt the Commission's "Housing" goal kind of 11 overlapped with the Community Development Commission's "Housing" goal, and maybe the two commissions should work together on a joint plan. e. Project Reports MrR. Goodspeed stated that in regard to the Commission's objective to research the need for a low interest loan program for barrier removal, he had made a telephone survey of ten businesses. Eight businesses had said "no however, these were large businesses that were not owner - operated. The two smaller, owner -operated businesses commented they had remodeling in sight 2-3 years from now, and they would not want to remodel a portion of the building when they were planning on remodeling the entire building in a few years. However, they might be interested in a low-interest loan program at that time. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 7, 1983 PAGE 6 Ms. Kocher stated she could see why some businesses would not have the incentive to make their businesses handicapped accessible when they may not have clientele who are handicapped and there is no law requiring it. Also, the economy is not good right now, and a lot of businesses are not doing very well. Mr. Boardman stated he would be interested in getting some feedback from local churches or non-profit organizations that do not have the capital to do this type of remodeling and would look at the loan program as a kind of assistance. Mr. Goodspeed stated he would make some more telephone calls and would include some churches. 2. NEW BUSINESS: a. Election of Chairperson & Vice -Chairperson (to be held in May) Mr. Goodspeed stated he had to leave the meeting early. Since there was no vice -chairperson, he asked that the Commission members elect a temporary vice -chairperson to chair the meeting in -his absence. MOTION BY MR. TREUENFELS, SECONDED BY MS. KOCHER, TO ELECT ROBERT L. MINTON TO ACT AS TEMPORARY VICE -CHAIRPERSON FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE APRIL 7, 1983, MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GOODSPEED DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Discuss Agenda Items for May 5, 1983, Meeting Mr. Treuenfels stated the Commission members should discuss changes to the funding guidelines and procedures. Mr. Treuenfels stated he would explore ways of publicizing for volunteers for the No -Fault Grievance Procedure committee, and would try to find out the dates of upcoming training.sesssions. The Commission should also discuss the waiver form. c. Review the Community Development Commission 1983 Workplan Mr. Treuenfels stated that, as he had mentioned earlier, there seemed.to be some overlap in the "Housing" goals of the two commissions. He felt it would be a good idea for the Commission to keep informed on what the Community Development Commission is doing by an exchange of minutes. A joint meeting might be helpful some time in the future. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 7, 1983 PAGE 7 ADJOURNMENTI: NOTION BY MR. TREUENFELS, SECONDED BY MS. KOCHER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON MINTON DECLARED THE APRIL 7, 1983, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Res ectfully su mitted, Lynne Saba:' Recording Secretary -r CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 20, 1983, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Menbers Present: Ms. Schnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Goodspeed Members Absent: Mr. Oquist Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Sandra Stone, 6396 Baker Ave. N.E. APPROVAL OF MARCH 30, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 30, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. ITEM FROM APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF EgEU.A.RY 15 1983 a. Variance for a fence for Ing S�6850'Sivis Lane (goes back to City Council) Ms. Schnabel stated that, as the Planning Commission members were aware from reading the March 28th City Council minutes, the City Council voted to send this item back to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Siverts was to be notified in advance. She stated it was not totally clear in the City Council minutes why the City Council wanted this to come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated she has talked to Mr. Qureshi, the City Manager, Mr. Boardman, and a number of other people regarding this, includinq Mr. Siverts. She stated Mr. Siverts was unable to attend this meeting and he had asked that the Planning Commission postpone any hearing on this item until the May 4th Planning Commission meeting. She stated she had told Mr. Siverts she would get back to him after this meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated that after talking to a number of people, she felt what happened with this whole problem was that at some point, someone C on City Staff pulled this particular item out of the Appeals Commission minutes and put it on the Planning Commission agenda as an item to be h discussed. At the time the item came to the Planning Commission on el "MO. 20 1983 5th St. *0 I MEETING APR11. all {ees on areas 1ISSI0N r waiving in the other NNING c fitter a tette charge NSP hatsclear there will be a D THE MOTION t stated it clear WOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARE Mr. Boardman have made however+ they ALL VOTING AYES CHAIR NUT ES: VOICE VOTE, ISSION MI THE APRIL 7, 1983' UPPED UNANIMOUSLY• UMAN RES�Rctc COt�'► 1983 N ICONDRICy • To RECEDE RECEIVE APR IL MR Mr, Saba 4. SECONDED B meeting + , BY GOODSP ESSION MINUTES• fission r citizens d 1N�o'1'I°N MR -�RCES COMM last Planninue ted by the senior be use OMAN RES t at the req that money in center. Hies stated �s drop- ted stated that of C0 Mr •Good needs at the senior commission Mr ' G sked about d be used for- had a it wool n for recreational t the last VIhuman 5ervicaired n what a staff person asked a Versus l uestion ices Mr. Boardman exP hire other q ublic sere ia1 service- s commission meetings of the 50c that provide oodspeed stated r nce between P n werethe YMCA. tions Mr . t no was the d Hu sane Resour human servicesn service organ' services are wel f are- mee d a h 6 + that SACH--huma of Public ser de a health + Ne He state 3, Paragrap such as Examples rovi Page activities Fridley• Spec' fically pro activit,With some on p related ac nott u ices type re the City that d° or recrea to come P man sere t10ns ith recreation Commission of th�nJS hu d under servic other orga but deal w • c rc and what es of covered fYSN- Human Resou types n type ed Staf f has t and on human se would then be those stat clar�fica loon . services THE MOTION kind of SCHNABEL DECLARED should include• cxAIRWOM0 human services. VOTING AYE, UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALLOUSLY• UPON A VOICE CARRIED UNANIMING- THE MEET 1983 PLANNING N1 ; MS , GABEL, TO AD' THE APRIL 201 ADJOURNME SCHNABEL DECLARED SECONDED BY MR. SAGA" D%" NED ATN8�45 P.M. MOTION BY VOTING AYE, VOTE A MEETING A COMMISSION i tied + Res ectfully su y e Saba Secretary Recording COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 2. 1981 PAGE 1 It was the consensus of the Council that they. sympathized with Mr. Grater's problem, but that this was not permitted under the City Code. Mrs. Sharon Gustafson, Chairperson to the Human Services Board of St. Philip's Church, appeared before the Council regarding their application to HUD for funding for an elderly and handicapped housing.project. Mrs. Gustafson requested the Council consider allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds, if their application was approved. Mayor Nee asked if they knew their costs for the project. Ms. Judy Lee, advisor to the Human Services Board of St. Philip's, stated the costs depend on the purchase price of the land and the amount of soil correction for the property. She stated an estimate would be they would need about $80,500, however, that is an educated guess. Ms. Lee stated they would like a commitment form the Council that up to $100,000 of CDBG funds would be provided. Mayor Nee questioned if a commitment of $80,500 would accomplish the same thing. Ms. Lee stated they would need a letter by June 30 indicating the Council agreed to commit $80,500 of CDBG funds for this project, in order to submit it with their application to HUD. All the Council members indicated they are in favor of this project and would be supportive of it. Mayor Nee suggested staff be contacted and to work with the administration in drafting a letter to be submitted with their application. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table this item to the next meeting at the request of the petitioner. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 1983• Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO, 775 ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 205 AND REPEALING OLD CHAPT 205, ENTITLED "ZONING" (FIRST READING 12/6/82): 1 Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated the changes were incorporated as discussed at the Conference Meeting and shown in the April 29 draft of the Zoning Code. 6 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 775 and adopt it on the second reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to add 1-1/2 acres on page 205-98, Section 205.173 - 1 (Lot Area). Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to delete the words "before January 1, 1983" on page 205-100, Section 205.175 - 3E and 3F. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE ENERGY COMMISSION (TABLED 4/18/88): MOTION by Councilman Barnette to table this appointment to the Energy Commission. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 171 1988 AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 6. 1988 ON ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY• MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to receive the minutes of the Charter Commission Meeting of March 17, 1983• Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set a public hearing for June 6, 1983 on the ordinance amending the City Charter of the City. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR FRIDLEY COMMUNITY PLAZA SIGN CONTRACT (ON1 4/26/83)1 R!1 CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE -ORDER NO, FOR -THE -COMMUNITY PLAZA _31U CONTRAC M 11T Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated two bids were received and the low bidder was Nordquist Sign Company. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to.receive the bids. Bid Base Planholder Bond Bid Alternate #1 Nordquist Sign Co.,.Inc. 5% $20,630.00 $11,750.00 312 West Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55408 Lawrence Signs, Inc. 5% $25,913.00 $18,765.00 945 Pierce Butler Route St. Paul, MN 55104 3 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 L TO ORDER: Chairw n Schnabel called the April 20, 1983, Planning Commission meeting to order 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. hnabel, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, Mr. Goo speed Members Absent: Mr. Oquist n� my� Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, "'ty Planner Sandra Stone, 6396 B ,,Ave. N.E. APPROVAL OF MARCH 30, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION UTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE"- E MARCH 30, 1983, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VOTING AYE CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED � , � � � MOTION 1. ITEM FROM APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 1983 a. Variance for a fence for Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane (goes back to City Council) Ms. Schnabel stated that, as the Planning Commission members were aware from reading the March 28th City Council minutes, the City Council voted to send this item back to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Siverts was to be notified in advance. She stated it was not totally clear in the City Council minutes why the City Council wanted this to come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated she has talked to Mr. Qureshi, the City Manager, Mr. Boardman, and a number of other people regarding this, including Mr. Siverts. She stated Mr. Siverts was unable to attend this meeting and he had asked that the Planning Commission postpone any hearing on this item until the May 4th Planning Commission meeting. She stated she had told Mr. Siverts she would get back to him after this meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated that after talking to a number of people, she felt what happened with this whole problem was that at some point, someone on City Staff pulled this particular item out of the Appeals Commission minutes and put it on the .Planning. Commission agenda as an item to be discussed. At the time the item. came to the Planning Commission on 3A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE 2 March 16, Ms. Gabel questioned why it was on the agenda. No one seemed to have a very good handle on why it was on the agenda so the Planning Commission acted on it. It was her opinion that the item should have been deleted from the agenda. at that point, because it is not the Planning Commission's responsibility to hold public hearings on items that have already had public hearings at a member commission level. The Planning Commission's role is to merely review the member commissions' minutes with the idea that if any item would come from a member commission that might affect another commission, the other commission would have the opportunity to also review it before it went on to City Council. It was her opinion that the Planning Commission acted in error. She thought the Planning Commission should recognize that it was an error and merely pass on the Appeals Commission's minutes in total to the City Council. Ms. Schnabel stated that in talking to the City Manager, he seemed to feel this was probably the best way to handle the situation and that the City Council also wasn't really clear on why the Planning Commission acted on this item. She thought the Planning Commission should just take all the information the Appeals Commission had gathered on this item, pass it on to City Council and let the City Council act on it. Ms. Gabel stated she was in total agreement with Ms. Schnabel's suggestion. Mr. Boardman stated there was also some confusion on the part of the City Council about what the Planning Commission's role was. He stated he wrote Memo #83-18 on "Planning Commission Role on Various Member Commission Recommendations to the City Council". This memo has gone to the City Council as well as to the'Planning Commission. This is his understanding, based on the rules and regulations set up, of the process that should be followed. Mr. Boardman stated that because of the way the item was*put on the Planning Commission agenda, he could see why it was confusing to the Planning Commission, but it should not have been handled the way it was. He apologized for Staff for that error. He stated that sometimes Staff does pull out motions made by member commissions that might need action; otherwise, those motions sometimes get lost.in the minutes. He could not explain why this item was pulled out and not any other items. Mir. Boardman stated he did not feel the Planning Commission has the role to over -rule and recommend differently on an action by a member commission unless that recommendation is based on policy. Ms. Schnabel stated she had told Mr. Siverts she would get back to him after this meeting. She had told him that she felt the Planning Commission should be doing more housekeeping policy -type decisions, rather than hearing this specific case again, because it has been heard by the Appeals Commission and will be heard again by the City Council. Mr. Siverts 3B PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE 3 seemed comfortable with this item going to the City Council, so she did not think there was any problem with the Planning Commission doing that. However, if the Planning Commission members did not feel comfortable doing this and would prefer to have a public hearing, Mr. Siverts would come to the next meeting. Ms. Gabel stated she thought the action recommended by Ms.Schnabel was appropriate. The only reason she went along with acting on this item at the March 16th meeting was because she was under the impression that the City Council wanted the Planning Commission to act on it. Ms. Schnabel stated that once the City Council reviews Mr. Boardman's memo, she was sure they would concur with this action. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. GOODSPEED, TO RESCIND THE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MARCH 16, 1983, MEETING (PAGE 7 OF THE MINUTES) REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY MR. & MRS. ING SIVERTS, AND TO RECEIVE THE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEB. 15, 1983, IN TOTAL WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION ON ANY ITEM. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY] RECEIVE MEMO #83-18 FROM.JERROLD-BOARDMAN-ON--PLANNING-COMMISSION ROLE ON DTAt1C'Mcuoco rnMMTCCTnM' DcrnMUrNnA•TN1MC'1V1` `i�T7V:;? nI1MrT1 . MOT12M Y M9. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO RECEIVE MEMO #83-18 FROM 11R1 BOARDMAN. UPON A VOICE , ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOU 3. RECEIVE MARCH 31, 1983, _PECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MIN MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECOkZED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE MAR. 31, 1983, SPECIAL HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT THORITY MINUTES. Mr. Saba asked about the situation wi l the hardware building. e Mr. Boardman stated the HRA has already to ., an unlawful detainer actin to move them out. The HRA has also started a", it for back rent. He stated it is very difficult to get top-rated ten` -.,s with an 18 month lease., and this is something the Housing & Redevelo`nt Authority is going to have to discuss. He stated unless the HRA is Willi to go with a 5 -yr. lease with options with the possibility of having to buy'`" t the options if development goes in, they will not get top-rated tenants. Ms. Gabel asked about the arrangement with NSP regarding the under electrical line in 5th St. PAGE COUNCIL METING OF MARCH 28. 198 8 10 arming Commission had recommended approval of the special use permit, au ect to approval of the lot split. He further stated the attorney for Eun it indicated the lot split requested would be on the Council's April 18, 1 agenda. Mr. Florae tause aseaphrair &alonsal g as part of to put a the firstrailroad phase incar development property of this paree Mr. Flora stated' t is proposed, in the second phase, to purchase an a this depot and move it this location to use for specXappral , is not feasible, to ilding a depot. Mr. Flora stated the Pliing Commission recommenubject to certain stipulations rrding a two year tcing and landscaping; approval of tbIot split; removal of reguiring a drainage plan; and reducing`�be entrance radii Mr. Flora stated the developer they are working on getting an Councilman Barnette stated Mr. Mengel ago with this idea and he felt it wo�u eable to roviding the easement and t on t north parcel. had approached him several years ,good for the City. Mr. Qureshi asked what would hap n if they�� dn't completed the depot in two years. Mr. Flora state the special ,so permit would then be discontinued.. Councilman Hamernik ques oned whether the petition -,,','was willing to accept this timeframe of two ars for completion of the de and the petitioner indicated this was eeable to him. ;T SP X83-01 MOTION by Councim Fitzpatrick to approve special use pe it with the follow stipulations: (1) there be a timeframe o years for the depot to b placed on the property; (2) a fence be inst` �, led which meets Zonioderequirements and landscaping be provided; (3) i�oval of ng the billbo d presently on the property; (4) submission and appro ,l of a drainage !an; (5) a 45 foot street and utility easement from Par ce B be provid -and; (6) all subject to approval of the lot split. or Neecdecla"bd Coun loran Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. R_ B. . ' t {i■=1,1 NCpEASE THE HEIGHT OF FENCE FROM 7 FEET TO 10 FEET BY ING SIVERT� 6850 SZVERTS L -ANS: Councilman Schneider stated he spoke to with Mr. Siverts Plaani g Commission concerns in his mind was he was told n 8oto the meeting at sent bakato themPlanningmission eeting. He Commission intorderrthate, this itim Mr. Siverts should be seec can be heard before the Commission. Mr. Siverts stated, from the minutes, it is indicated the Chairman of the Appeals Commission had stated omission and this had come asyaaction would be total surprise required by the Planning to her. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the point he Wants to make is the process and it seems this item could have come directly from the Appeals Commission. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to refer this issue of the variance for the fence back to the Planning Commission and to notify Mr. Siverts in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. Second by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unani 'ously. Counc loran Schneider stated this is not to set a precedent at all, but itemsjlike this should go to the Planning Commission. �. C 0 Cc c lman Schneider stated he felt the neighborhood program objectives to insu dequate access, development, etc. were very important and is not sugges the Commission change their priority, but this is offered only as hi ing on the matter. He stated he isn't necessarily looking at Signa e, b' did feel it was an important program. Mayor'nee sta d he also felt the neighborhood identification program was important. MOTIO by Council Schneider to concur with the 1983 Workplan of the Commu ity Developm ntCommission. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon voice vote, 1 ting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Dt. �. D.�RECOMMEND ANL.Bi MOTION by Councilman Fitz tricky o Human) Resources Commission Seco` voice vote, all voting ay Mayo unani ously. concur with the 1983 Workplan of the led by Councilman Schneider. Upon a � Nee declared the motion carried MOTIO by Councilman Schenider to rece . e Commi sion meeting of March 16, 1 83• Seca Uponvoice vote, all voting aye, ayor Nee unani ously. the minutes of the Planning ded by Councilman Barnette. €declared the motion carried MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommdation of the Cabl Television Commission to allocate the $10,697 from toren to the Anok County Communications Workshop. Second d by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee de Tared the mot i' carried unanimously. MOTI N by Councilman Hamernik to receive the inutes of the ble Television Commission meeting of March 10, 1983. Se onded by Counci"' n Barn tte. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Ne declared the moti carried unanimously. 3 D' 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16,1983 PAGE 6 2. RECEIVE JANUARY 13, 1983 SING.& REDEVELOP AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. GOODSPEED, SECONDED BY MR VANDA, TO RECEIVE THE JAN. 13, 1983, HOUSING 6 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M TES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING YE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE FEBRUARY,8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. Sy"DA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 8, 1983, COMMUNITY DEVRLOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON ACE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 15, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY BR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 18, 1983, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Deblon stated it was his understanding that there was a motion on Item#1 that needed action by the Planning Commission. The City Council had requested a recommendation on this from the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated this was a surprise to her. She hadn't realized a recommenda- tion .was needed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Gabel stated this was a variance request by Mr. & Mrs. Ing Siverts, 6850 Siverts Lane, to increase the maximum height of a fence from 7 to 10 feet in the rear yard and side yards. She stated there is absolutely nothing about the fence that is aesthetically pleasing. The Appeals Commission felt there was no hardship, and that whatever lights or noise there realistically is, a 10 ft. fence will not take care of the problem. Ms. Gabel stated the petitioner had asked if he needed to be at the Planning Commission meeting, and she had told him that the Planning Commission would only be receiving the Appeals Commission minutes. She was unaware that any action would be required by the Planning Commission, and this had come as a total sur- prise to her. Mr. Goodspeed stated that since the petitioner had not been notified about any Planning Commission action, he felt they should table any action until the next meeting when the petitioner could be in attendance. Ms. Gabel stated she did not feel any new or different information would come to light if they were to continue this discussion at another meeting. The information is already here, and it is just a matter of concurring or not con- curring with the Appeals Commission. Mr. Goodspeed disagreed. 3E� 9 3F PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 16, 1983 PAGE 7 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MINUTES RECEIVED. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO CONCUR WITH THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE FROM 7 FT. TO 10 FT. IN THE REAR YARD AND SIDE YARDS OF LOT C, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 3, THE SAME BEING 6850 SIVERTS LANE N.E., FRIDLEY, MN. 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, KONDRICK, SABA, SVANDA, GABEL, VOTING AYE, GOODSPEED ABSTAINING, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Deblon stated that regarding Item #2, the City Council had already approved av4riance request for the Fridley Medical Center, but the ap I was based on appy al by the Planning Commission. Ms. GabRtheFri at at the City Council meeting, she ha questioned why Planning approval was needed when the Plannin Commission just receives the Appsion's minutes. Generally, the Plan ng Commission makes a recommen item only when it something that stands out and Planning Commissirequested by the Appeals Commis on. She saw the variance request`spy Medical Center as just a ro that/ matter. Mr. Oquist stated this `,s one more example of h96 the subcommissions are not being utilized. All of tl' sudden the Planning mission has to concur with the Appeals Commission's motion , The charter of the Appeals Commission is that its motions go directly to Ci' Council. If the City Council didn't want to rule on this item, they should`',ve tabled t and asked for the Planning Commission's recommendation. If "tion i always needed by the Planning Commission, then there is no need a Appeals Commission. MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDEDIT A.,, TO CONCUR WITH THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL OF VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FR. TO l k''T. TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY . FT. TO E USED FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICE AND MEDICAL SPACE, LOCATED ON THE0 FT. OF "_ WEST 217.8 FEET OF OUTLOT 1, MELODY MANOR 4TH ADDITION, THING 7675 MAD SON ST. N.E., FRIDLEY, MN., 55432, WITH THE STIPULATION TETITIONER UPG E THE TEMPORARY CONCRETE CURBING TO PERMANENT 6 -INCH PCRETE. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOT G AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST" LARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 15 1983, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION `MUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA,ISECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECEIVE THE FEB. 15,k ENVIR- ONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON -A VOICE VOTE,1 ALL VOTING AYE, VICE -CHAIRPERSON OQUIST DECLARED THE CARRIED UNANIMOU Y. 3 G' 69 City of Fridley APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1983 PAGE 1 Chairp on Gabel called the Appeals Commission Meeting of Tuesday, February 15, 1983, to der at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: pricia Gabel, Alex Barna, Jim Plemel, Jean Gerou, Donald Betzold Others Present: Kent 1, City of Fridley Ing Sive , 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., Fridley Vivian Hoese .7675 Madison Street N.E., Fridley Blanche Erkel," 67 Rice Creek Terrace, Fridley Ivy and Jack Youn 17925 -26th Avenue North Les Gerdin, 6739 Keri ston Drive N.E. APPROVAL OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUAVY, 18 1983: The word "asked" was inserted as the third word on t _first line, page 3. Mr. Siverts had corrections on page 6, third paragraph `'I' a 5, should read"5 feet apart" instead of 10-12 feet apart and line 9, should regi',"walk to their bedroom window" instead of through their bedroom window; and line 1 he words "on a lower level" should be stricked. MOTION by Mrs. Gerou, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to approve the minute�,s corrected. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION'RRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. T ANCE REQUEST PURSUANT TO 550 SIVERTS LANE N.E. (Request .E., Fri dley, Minnesota 55432). R 205 OF . ing Siverts, CITY CODE verts Lane MOTION by Mr. Betzold; seconded by Mr. Barna, to remove this agenda item from the tabTe. UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 140TION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hill submitted drawings to the Commission and said that the petitioner has withdrawn his request for the south side yard variance, and that 7 feet has been agreed upon by the parties. Mr. Siverts was present for this matter. Ms. Gabel said she spoke with Mr. Clark and the fence is not structurally sound as it stands now and these plans are what is necessary to make the fence structurally sound; that the specifications have to be followed. Mrs. Gerou stated she visited the area and found the fence to be wobbly, tied with phone wire, that the vertical boards are uneven and do not run in a straight line and the horizontal boards are bowed. She also said the angle support beams are on the neighbor's side of the fence and 3 feet of the fence is above the 34 Appeals Commission Meeting -February 15, 1983 Page 2 support beams. Ms. Gabel said, according to the blueprint, the fence can be made structurally sound. Mrs. Gerou asked the petitioner -why the angle support beams are facing the neighbor's and if he takes care of the property on the other side of the fence. Mr. Siverts said the support beams are on his property and he does not take care of the property on the other side of the fence. Ms. Gabel noted that his neighbor objected to that at the last hearing. Mr.'Barna said he visited the area and looked at the walkway at the Medtronics building and he could not see the hardship as stated and said the Commission is looking for a sounder hardship. He said the parking lot is -not on the street side and he does not have street sounds. Ms. Gabel said she visited the area also and that everyone in the neighborhood is subject to the same conditions and if they allowed a 10 -foot fence to be put up, the whole neighborhood could put one up. Mr. Siverts asked if the Commission thought the fence would be out of place aesthetically and Ms. Gabel, Mrs. Gerou, Mr. Barna and Mr. Betzold agreed it would. He then asked how important the neighbors opinions were and Ms. Gabel said it is one factor and that is why the public hearing notices are sent out and having a definite hardship is another factor. Mr. Barna said if objections exist either with the neighbors or the commission, then it is up to the City Council and even if the fence was a joint venture with the neighbors, there would still have to be a hardship. Mr. Siverts presented two letters from two neighbors who had no objection to the fence. MOTION by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the two letters from Mr. Siverts' neighbors and they both do not object to the fence. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Siverts said there is a constant humming sound coming from somewhere and Mr. Barna said that it was the reflection of sound of tires off Highway 65. Mr. Siverts felt the fence would be a protector from he sound and in some placed a 7 foot fence would not be adequate because of the elevation of the terrain in the area. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Betzold, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. Mr. Betzold said he has visited the area during the daytime and evening and he is not convinced of the hardship. Mr. Plemel said the Siverts' home is in a unique setting and did not see where the fence would be readily visible by others. Mrs. Gerou felt the fence is an eyesore and was not convinced of the hardship. Ms. Gabel said she was not convinced of the hardship either. MOTION by Mr. Betzold, seconded by Mrs. Gerou, that the Appeals Commission recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, denial of the variance request to increase the maximum height of a fence from 7 feet to 10 feet in the rear yard and side yards of Lot C. Registered Land Survey No. 3, the same being 6850 Siverts Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, 55432. UPON A VOICE VOTE, THREE VOTING AYE AND TWO VOTING MAY, CHAIRPERSON GABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. ST TO CHAPTER 205 OF ITY CODE. TO REDUCE EET N.E. (Request by Vivian Hoese, B. Associates (Fridley Medical ter Bldg. 6 Land) , 7675 Madison Street N.E. , r ' I,, nnesota 55432) . t MOTION by Councilman\Ramernik to close the public hea n%. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voti. aye, Mayor Nee declared the motiofi ca ied unanimously and the publi hl� ring closed at 8:06 p. m.re✓� ►'�_ c DID 021 4,,O W _ - _- •! �1� • �_. ��i �4 • _ � ; �_ 4 :. 1ZW"U1U-4rWJ 1V r1JHLYL ALW2 %AM_ _AAA2 .LWWViiv it\\LVJ�iiL a1LiVall. FROM 7 FEET 'ID 10 FEET BY ING SIVER'I.S., 850 STVFR'i!G T _ mARr, 5/2/83): Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the Appeals Ccmission heard this variance request and made a recommendation for denial. He stated the Appeals Commission had some concerns about this variance meeting the hardship requirement. Mr. Siverts stated he had thought about a fence along the north edge of his property for many years, however, it took him a long time to find material he felt was =rpatible with the neighborhood. He stated, however, he felt the telephone poles he is using are natural and do fit in with the trees in the area. Mr. Siverts stated he called the City, before putting up a section of this fence, and told them it would be rather tall and it was stated to him there shouldn't be any trouble, as long as the neighbors didn't object. Mr. Siverts stated he began constructing the fence, with the agreement it would be stained whatever color his neighbor wished, and put in over 385 hours in constructing the fence. He stated he was unable, for a period of time, to obtain any telephone poles, however, they are once again available. Mr. Siverts stated, over the last five years, he has changed the structural design due to the high winds and doubled .up the 4 x 4 posts. Mr. Siverts stated his neighbor has written a letter to the City, f basically, asking if the fence couldn't be finished. He stated a City Inspector did come out to his property and he was told he needed a variance as it was too high. Mr. Siverts submitted a plan to the Council for the fence and stated he wanted to complete it as soon as possible. Mr. Siverts stated they decided to put in a higher fence because of the lights from the neighboring industries. Mr. Siverts stated he has letters from his neighbors at 850 Central a Avenue and 1340 69th Avenue indicating they have no objection to the fence and has also obtained letters from persons within 200 feet of his property and they also have indicated no objections. Councilman Schneider stated the question is the validity of the hardship. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated the variance must be based on some showing of hardship or unique situation that is attributable to this property. Mr. Siverts pointed out the reason for a variance would be exceptional circumstances when strict enforcement would cause undo hardship and strict M COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 161, 1983 PAGE 4 conformance wouldn't be feasible or practical under the circumstances. Councilman Schneider stated it isn't unfeasible to build a 7 foot fence, therefore, a hardship is hard to justify. He stated he would feel better if they had a letter from his neighbor or even if he had expressed a stronger concurrence. Mr. Siverts stated he has talked to him and he doesn't want the fence to be taken dawn. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he would agree with Councilman Schneider regarding the hardship and is not convinced of any hardship. Mr. Siverts stated the Commission's concern was this may set a precedent, if a 10 foot fence was approved. He stated he didn't feel the City would be receiving that many requests for a 10 foot fence and possibly these requests would be only where people have swimming pools. Councilman Hamernik stated he didn't really see where the fence would be aesthetically unaccpetable to the neighborhood, but does feel the concession. Mr. Sivert has made to reduce the height in some areas is beneficial. He stated he would have to agree, to some extent, the hardship isn't really defined, but there probably were other cases where the hardship wasn't explicitly defined. He stated he would agree to go along, with a slight deviation in this case to not build the rest of the fence that high, but to leave what is now existing. Mr. Siverts stated to complete the fence now, he world lower the height. on the ends as per the plans submitted, and to graduate the height of the fence. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission to deny the variance request based on the fact that a hardship hasn't been defined. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Councilman Barnette stated the vote of the Appeals Commission on this variance request was not unanimous. He stated he has taken an oath to defend the laws of the City and, in his own mind, thinks he has some reason to support personal likes and dislikes in the community. He stated Mr. Siverts was a resident, before Onan and Medtronic, and the fact that they put up lights and they infringe on his property is, in fact, a hardship. Councilman Hamernik asked if the variance was approved, what timetable did Mr. Siverts have for completion of the fence. Mr. Siverts stated he felt it could be completed by the end of May. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to table the item to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ARMINDOU TO , 22 COMISSION (TABLED 5Z2 MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to table this item:, econded by Councilman Schneider..,:, pon\a voice vote, all voti ,,ai Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unaii.mously. COONCIL MEETING OF MAY 16, 1983 PAGE 4 conformance wouldn't be feasible or practical unde� the circumstances. Councilman Schneider stated it isn't unfeasible to build a 7 foot fence, therefore; a hardship is hard to justify. He sta he would feel better if they had a letter from his neighbor or even�if he had expressed a stronger concurrence. Mr. Siverts stated he has talked to him and he d*n't want the fence to be taken down. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he would agree with Councilman Schneider regarding the hardship and is not convinced of any I hardship. Mr. Siverts stated the Ummission's concern was this may set a precedent, if a 10 foot fence was approved. He stated he di It feel the City would be receiving that many requests for a 10 foot f nce and possibly these requests would be only where people have swimming is. Councilman Hamernik stated he didn't really see w: aesthetically unaccpetable to the neighborho concession. Mr. Sivert has made to reduce the beneficial. He stated he would have to agree, to s isn't really defined, but there probably were hardship wasn't explicitly defined. He stated he with a slight deviation in this case to not buil that high, but to leave what is now existing. Mr. Siverts stated to om plete the fence now, he the ends as per the plans submitted, and to gr fence. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with Appeals Ccomission to deny the variance request hardship hasn't been defined. Seconded by Counc Councilman Barnette stated the vote of the Appe variance request was not unanimous. He stated h defend the laws of the City and, in his own mind, t to support personal likes and dislikes in the com Siverts was a resident, before Onan and Medtronic, put up lights and they infringe on his property is, re the fence would be 1, but does feel the ight in some areas is e extent, the hardship ther cases where the uld agree to go along the rest of the fence d lower the height on to the height of the recommendation of the ed on the fact that a n Fitzpatrick. is Commission on this has taken an oath to inks he has some reason unity. He stated Mr. nd the fact that they in fact, a hardship. Councilman Hamernik asked if the variance was appy ed, what timetable did Mr. Siverts have for completion of the fence. Mr. iverts stated he felt it could be completed by the end of May. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to table the item to the next regular meeting. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon ajvoice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Coffman Hamernik to table this item. conded by Councilman Schneider._. pon\, voice vote, all voting -,aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unahimousiy. 6A ti 68.50 siverts Lane 6'6 L ti •I �zi f� a L i 6BII r:5 CUM -M HEEr= OF J= 6a 198 SAGE 7 Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated if Mr. Skinner wants to develop his property, he should get together with Mr. Brickner to try and resolve the problem. Mayor Nee felt nothing was being accomplished with the present='discussion and if Mr. Skinner had a concrete proposal to submit to the CoLaf6il, he could do so and it would come before the Council at one of their meetings. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the1;r'eading of the public hearing notice anO open the public hearing. Second,' by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor a declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing open e at 8:50 p. m. Mr. Walt Starwalt, Chairman of the 'anter Commission, stated he, as well as Mr. Treuenfels, was present to saver any questions the Council may have regarding these proposed Charters amendments. Mr. Qureshi, City Managers stated this is one segment of the Charter amendments, submitted by tk-*e Commission, which the Council has discussed and had no eorments contrar I o the Commission's recommendations. mr. Truenfels, memo -r/A6t the Charter Commission, stated under Section 2.03 perhaps the referee 's to the years in the 1950's should be deleted. Mr. Starwalt sta ' this was discussed at the Charter Commission meeting and they felt the 'arter was a historical document, therefore, to leave in these dates would be//valid. Mr. Truenf s felt perhaps the place for this wasn't in the Charter. MOTION Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declar d the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing closed at 8:55 Mayor Nee stated the motion, before the Council, made at the May 16, 1983 meeting was to deny this variance request. Mr. Siverts stated, since the last meeting, the fence has been completed and built to the-T*cifi.cations he submitted to the Council. He stated it has been inspected and approved structurally by the Public Works Director and he will comply with the neighbor's request to stain it dark brown and plant vines. Mr. Siverts presented a letter from his neighbor immediately to the north of his property. 7 MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the letter from Mr. SivertIs neighbor. Seconded by Councilman Eamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Siverts stated the letter basically states that his neighbor has no qualms regarding the height of the fence and understands it would,`be stained and vines planted. Councilman Schneider stated he has no objection to the athetics of the fence, but questioned the hardship or uniqueness of th's situation. He stated, obviously, the neighbors dont't have a concern. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he would withdraw his second on the original motion for denial. Councilman Schneider stated with/,the second withdrawn., there is no longer a Potion on the floor so he would <withdraw the motion. MOTION by Counciinan Barnette to grant the variance'to allow the fence to be built at a graduated height, as shown in the drawing submitted, rather than the required 7 feet, with the understanding thel,;,itaining and bracing of the fence and planting of the vines would be completed by September 1, 1983. Further, the hardship is based on the lig fits ane noise from industrial centers which have located near the Siverts'/`'residence; however, in the event this fence is ever destroyed or torn down 'Fit would be rebuilt to meet the code requirencnts. Seconded by Councilrim!Hamernik. Councilman Barnette stated froir the 3to 2 vote by the Appeals Commission, there was some disagreement by these members whether or not to grant the variance. K" Councilman Schneider stated there'`isn't a financial hardship involved or a stivation where Mr. Siverts cannot do it another way. Councilman Fitzpatrick stateo�"he had seconded the original motion for denial, but has looked at the fence,""and done some thinking about it and didn't have any problem. This nay seta precedent. He stated he believed if someone else wanted to construct such a fence, there would be objection from the neichlc�r�, bmever, t1ixt, 15n't the case in this situation. LSI A_ VOICE VOTE 7 FII Cfi 7H1, ABOVE NOTION, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Hamernik and Councilman Fitzpatrick voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Schneider voted against the motion. Mayor Nee abstained from voting. Mayor Nee declared the -;'motion carried by a 3 to 2 vote. RESOLUT.0 F EW;RMEM IW=10N OF CITY OF ILEVtE Al'�'HE ' `FRIDLEY (TAPLED �5Z16_ /831 Mr. Flor , Publ#, work$' Director, stated the" U. S. Army -Corp of Engineers can provide, 'at no„,.cost, a'preliminary study ;of the Mississippi River levee to =te a Ciy on the condition .of the dike's ani` provide ,suggestidns on e'` ce,,�and corrective actions,, He'state'a ins`>order to accomplish this inspec ions "the Coun�il must first adopt this resolution. N`r— F or states, i a roblem i fond during the inspection, it would be nese to came backs to the Cgtancl with' another resolution to determine how FT'�P�, oceed. He'stated, at the /present :time, if a flood pr�ect was to be conl)Federal funds would bused at r ' .cost to the City, however, this could change at any time in the future. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing on this rezoning request for July 11, 1383. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 1 e LOT SPLIT RECUFST, L S #83-01. BY MARGARET SEGER, 1586 OSBORNE mtw tuNu pay ,jnr.�wr. maw; Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated this is a request to split off the southerly 104.02 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside. He stated the Planning Corwdssion has recom i�eneled approval of the lot split with the following stipulations: (1) staff clexify the ar-ount of easement neec-66, off Osborne Road for street and bikeway/walkway; (2) staff check to see if any easements are required from the utility companies and cable television; (3) staff clarify the sewer line; and (4) the applicant get a survey of the property prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Flora stated a 17 foot street and a 15 foot bikeway/walkway easement for a total of 32 feet is needed along Osborne Road. He'further stated, as far as the easements for the utility companies and cable television, these wouldn't be necessary as they are serviced off Lakeside or Osborrne Rad. fir. Flore pointed out a problem does exist, however, for ae1jacent Lot 2, if a lot split is ever requested for this lot. rr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated with this lot split, the City is trying to assure utility access for Lot 2, even though Lot 1 is the only one requested to be split at this ,articular time. He felt a five foot easement should be required on each side of the division (split) line. Mr. Qureshi stated another stipulation would be payment of water and sewer assessments if they haven't already been paid. Mr. Seger presented a certificate of survey and voiced concern over providing, a 32 foot easement on Osborne Road, as it really cuts Cov-r- the kize of the -lot. Mr. Qureshi felt this wouldn't be a problem and the staff could work with the petitioner on this point. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant lot split L. S. #83-01 subject to the following stipulations: (1) a 17 foot right-of-way easement be provided or, t1le ncrth side of the northerly lot and the additional 15 foot bikeway/walkway easement to the City; (2) a 10 foot easement for utilities be provided on the lot split line; (3) the property owner agrees to pay any water and sewer utility lateral and service connection assessments if they havver't already teen 1� id; and (4) payment of the $500 park fee. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Ur -on a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. fin. MEFTrIM OF JUNE 6. 1983 PAGE 9 Mayor Nee stated if the levee needs to be rebuilt, is there a requirement for the City to rebuild it. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated if the inspection and evaluation is made by the Army Corps of Engineers and deficiencies are indicated and recomnendation on what actions should be taken to correct them are mane and the Council did not feel they could proceed with the corrections, he felt there should then be some notification to the properties within the area as to the results of the study. Councilman Hamernik asked if there is the possibility that the current levee could be determined to be a permanent levee. Mr. Flora stated it would be a possibility, but the chances would be relatively slim. He felt possibly with some modifications it could, in fact, become a substantial structure. NO'T'ION by Councilrran Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 51-1983. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carries. urenivously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to table this item. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ENEVA;"I'T-301 I - 0 wm -; THE CITY Q 'FRIPLEX -(CI-T-Y aPKj5MN1QN E MISC ULU, 1 -VD, s U4 am 15-U01: MOTION by Councilnem Schneider to waive the first reading and approve the ordinance upon first reading. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. 10 RFCF1-VmNG TLF= FM MU STAR Z T CHAIRN OF THE CHARTER COMMISIAND ON OONSIDER,TION OF SEBA PiJ. LIL BEARING ON AMEM5-D ,SECTION 3.07 OF THE FID CITY CH_AFUML R_. aW 11, 1983 : MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing for July 11, 1983. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RF'.CEpaNC M= COMMISSION MIN= OF APRIL 22,- 1983: AM 69ET PUBLIC MIR JULY 1. 1983 QN AMENDED SECJOM OF THE CITY CHARTER: MOTION by Coucnilman Hamernik to receive the minutes of the Charter Commission meeting of April 21, 1983. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to set the public hearing for July 11, 1983. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. June 10, 1983 Lriel S i ,n. 1 - 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE W.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 66432 TELEPHONE ( 612)571-3450 Mr. Ing Siverts 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Re: Fence Height Variance at 6850 Siverts Lane N.E. Dear Mr. Siverts: On June 6, 1983, the Fridley City Council officially approved your variance request to increase the height of a fence from 7 feet to 10 feet with the following stipulations: 1. The staining and bracing of the fence and planting of the vines on the fence will be completed by September 1, 1983. 2. In the event this fence is ever destroyed or torn down, it will be rebuilt to meet the Code requirements. Please sign the statement below acknowledging receipt of this letter and return a signed copy in the enclosed envelope to the City. If I can assist you in this matter or any other matters, please contact me at 571-3450. Thank you for your time, cooperation and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, WILLIAM S. DEBLON Associate Planner WS D/mh ENC: 2 I acknowledge receipt of this information and agree to the listed stipulations. Signat a ate A 7� A _© 7� - s _ r Y i i _OF FRIDL EY-. e 13 N / COR,R 7. a � .�. .lO.S.• icd —`f . _:��-+---^N�--�_-.-. 1 ,� _.BJH• .- fsa�._ /p �.-.- - 1310 13zo-, 1330 1340 ' 1350 'l3bO : 1370 t38� x`390! 140Q d 6890 I ti �a : �� , _ _ - - % : (� � i�• :229v' � l,C`�.Z� r,Z.iFC `� ;T •:..^C ms ' J $ � • ! -' '1 � � _ ( o� of ° : .°�^ �° c{� �� :'�,�,. �� .v > $► - 17 18 ~I 19 ~ 2 U I - 12, jAe I j t a (6851 6/a/77. PCO P 'V%ti a 6850 68 ra oi3 At 6882 r�,l�� d=f✓l:�.z�t�/ fs� � G.'fr moi.//i1.��.•.. - _ •.a �� �`. ?; Ss/e of ." .o na. ...Fos t�`- .W V \3 _ a... -.a ,...A. �,.� .. _ •. - .rit :I �mti i 'L � - $" _ ' - r �_ :;� � rA I - s _ r Y i i _OF FRIDL EY-. e 13 N / COR,R 7. a � .�. .lO.S.• icd —`f . _:��-+---^N�--�_-.-. 1 ,� _.BJH• .- fsa�._ /p �.-.- - 1310 13zo-, 1330 1340 ' 1350 'l3bO : 1370 t38� x`390! 140Q d 6890 I ti �a : �� , _ _ - - % : (� � i�• :229v' � l,C`�.Z� r,Z.iFC `� ;T •:..^C ms ' J $ � • ! -' '1 � � _ ( o� of ° : .°�^ �° c{� �� :'�,�,. �� .v > $► - 17 18 ~I 19 ~ 2 U I - 12, jAe I j t a (6851 6/a/77. PCO P 'V%ti a 6850 68 ra oi3 At 6882 r�,l�� d=f✓l:�.z�t�/ fs� � G.'fr moi.//i1.��.•.. - _ •.a �� �`. ?; Ss/e of ." .o na. ...Fos t�`- .W V \3 _ a... -.a ,...A. �,.� .. _ •. - .rit :I �mti i 'L � - $" _ ' - r �_ :;� � rA