Loading...
VAR 05.75City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. 1 PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 = � CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 ,•j 612-560-3450 SUBJECT . APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF .1 2 APPROVED BY 800 Name thone -. es5 V .G PJ��® Legal Lot No. Block No. T ct or Addn. Description �f Variance Request(s); including stated bards ps (attach plat or showing building, variances, etc., where applicable) survey of property e Dat Meeting Date rlAq 13, IQ7S Fee 4/..00)�U� Receipt No. ✓ -52 Signature = - 'IZ1- ff V Comments & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Council Action and Date City of Fridley AT THE TOP OF THE TWINS r ' � • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIV. r PROTECTIVE INSPECTION SEC. 1 � � 0----1 CITY HALL FRIDLEY 55432 612-560-3450 SUBJECT APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS (Staff Report) NUMBER 910-F23 REV. 1 DATE 3/21/75 PAGE OF 2 2 APPROVED BY 800 Staff Comments Board members notified of meeting by date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans tb Name Rat 1L e30. Jq')r List members, attend hearing. Plan Date To Attend Al -.7 8 -12s- �s 6s �S Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 'feet notified: By Whom Name Date Phone or Mail Notified �Du� 2 /?7AI2Gk+ lea 1 - Yd ✓ - ( - CAT o �-I LdR5&Aj - I F /Y)iv C, Sr. I-IdSag - COAQ D a w 21 So / M +.� C0v6, re, j ,C4mL-�JD $6-ruSo&I Loui&LL nJoe 7 o&) (-oa) . P4,LLIA <S4�-RIJ009nl .7Am6s ®',Dom4JELU (14AeUs. AAJQ 14orEe l°IACL ,4E2lpcy P&JOLD So -moot, bis-neic ' 410 -S8-f 14 4fF-- &3o 0446. ba o .. (-oa) . 4LLFoJc�S 6.3/-. 14-LXAJ6 14ELWF- PLAQ- leSl l°IACL �g-ri4 pub. 6000 W. /h. LAKE- 4/e. OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 13, 1975 to consider the following matter: A request for avariance of Section 205.053, 4, B4, Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard adjoining an attached garage from the required 5 feet to 3 feet, to allow the construction of an attached garage to be located on Lot 7, Block 8, Donnay's Lakeview Manor Addition, the same being 621 -58th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432. (Request by Mr. Thomas Corbett, 621 -58th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesota.) Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. WILLIAM A. DRIGANS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE. BOARD OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 13, 1975 to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4, B4, Fridley City Code, to reduce the side yard adjoining an attached garage from the required 5 feet to 3 feet, to allow the construction of an attached garage to be located on Lot 7, Block 8, Donnay's Lakeview M or Ad�.ion, the same being 621 -58th Ave tie N.E., Fridley, Minnesota 55432. (Request by Mr. Thomas Corbett, 621 -58th Avenue N.E., Fridley, Minnesofa:) Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. WILLIAM A. DRIGANS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS Land Planning �( 1�(it t� 6875 Highway No.65 N.E. Land Surveying �' Fp• s•++ pp Minneapolis, Soils Testing r'�� F�(r"��t'P®��OF P�f(r• Minn. 55432 Civil Engineering (/ ( Telephone 784-6066 Municipal Engineering Engineers & Surveyors Area Code 612 Mortgage Loan Survey for l `�/VA COQ6ETT i r� ' [[ f RGPcuEU 021 a t AVENUE N.[ LOT 7g 22LOCk,1 9 kW This is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. This survey is made only in connection with a mortgage loan now being placed on the property and no liability is assumed except to the holder of such mortgage or any other interest acquired by the reason of such mortgage. It is understood and agreed n4, monuments have been elyced for the purpose of establishing lot lines or boundary corners. Dated this L Z clay of,A ,�A. D. 19 L'i «c ; SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers Surveyors bya ADOi TION I o a 41- 114 Land Planning SMAM41wrn 6875 Highway No. 65 N.E, Land Surveying�� • • Minneapolis, Soils Testing n�2��'/�GQ�t��Z�7 ♦ • Minn: 55432 Civil Engineering Telephone 784-6066 Municipal Engineering Engineers & Surveyors/1 Area Code 612 Mortgage Loan Survey for TOM CORBETT Drpir)o P Ot ll'f Ea xw)ent 53" AVENGE N.E SOT 7BLOCS OONNAS LTJIV.1 VI EW MAJOR NOk-R oaI,17Y This is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. This survey is made only in connection with a mortgage loan now being placed on the property and no liability is assumed except to the holder of such mortgage or any other interest acquired by the reason of such mortgage. It is understood and agreed n$, onuments here been Iced for the purpose of establishing lot lines or boundary this 77- Dated thiy of �y rl t A. D. I9 SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers S ry ora by�> ,Y �y . 'j._ Z , . APR1 L- ,19-15 ADDJ TION 0 THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 13, 1975 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Drigans at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Drigans, Crowder, Gabel, Plemel, Wahlberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Mattson, Engineering Aide Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the City Attorney had responded to her request for a report on non -conforming uses as far as time limits were concerned. Chairman Drigans said he had not received any report on this and Mr. Mattson said he also had not heard anything on this. MOTION by Crowder, seconded by Wahlberg, to approve the minutes of the April 29, 1975 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053, 4, B4, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO c REDUCE THE SIDE YARD ADJOINING AN ATTACHED GARAGE FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET TO 3 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF All ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 7, BLOCK 8, DONNAY'S LAKEVIEW MANOR ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 621 -58TH AVENUE N.E., FRi:DLEY, MINNESOTA 55432. (REQUEST BY MR. THOMAS CORBETT, 621 - 58TH AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA.) MOTION by Crowder, seconded by Plemel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mr. Tom Corbett was present to present his request. A survey of the lot, showing the proposed construction, was shown to the Board. Mr. Corbett said he would like to attach the garage to the east side of his home. Mr. Crowder asked if the neighbor to the east has a garage. Mr. Corbett said he does not, but his neighbor's house is located on the property the same as his, so if he was to build a garage, it would also be placed to the east of the dwelling. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if Mr. Corbett had considered putting the garage behind the dwelling. Mr. Corbett said he had considered it, but he also plans to add a 16 foot by 22 foot addition onto the back of his house, to be used as a family room, so he would like the garage located as proposed. Mr. Crowder asked if there is a slab there now and Mr. Corbett said there is nothing there now. Mr. Corbett added he had talked to the neighbor to the east, and he had no objections as long as the garage wasn't going to the lot line. Mr. Crowder asked how the slope of the roof on the garage will be and Mr. Corbett said the hipp roof will be extended. Mrs. Wahlberg asked how the fire trucks would get to a fire if it was on the back of the house. Mr. Crowder asked what is on the lot to the west. Mr. Corbett said there is a house and garage that is about 5 feet from the common lot line. Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there is an alley behind the properties. Mr. Corbett said there is a 30 foot street easement. Mrs. Gabel asked if a fire truck could get to the house on this easement and Mr. Corbett said it could. Mr. Crowder asked if they are a 1 or 2'car family. Mr. Corbett said they have only 1 car now but his son will probably be -getting a license soon and then they will have 2 or more cars. Page 2 The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of May 13, 1975 • ' Mr. Crowder asked if the construction had been discussed with the neighbor. Mr. Mattson.said he had received a call from the neighbor and there was no objections as long as the garage was not going to go to the lot line. Mr. Corbett added that the neighbor had also mentioned not disturbing the fence between the two properties. Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Mattson if the City staff had any comments on this. Mr. Mattson said a firewall had been discussed for the east end of the garage since it will be so close to the lot line. Mr. Corbett said he knew he had to install a firewall between the living area and the garage but did not understand why he needed one on the east end of the garage. Mr. Crowder said that with the overhang on the garage and on the adjoining house, the structures would be getting pretty close together. Mr: Corbett said he had no objection to installing.the firewall. Chairman Drigans said this can be worked out with the administration when the building permit is applied for. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Crowder, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Chairman Drigans said it seems to him that the hardship is the size of the garage and the proximity to the property line. He said the garage width, 21.6 feet, is about the minimum for a double garage. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Crowder, to recommend to the City Council, approval of the side yard variance from 5 feet to 3 feet. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 2. A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE -AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 205.103, 4, A2, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE, FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO 54 FEET ALONG 79th AVENUE (NORTH LOT LINE), AND, SECTION 205.103, 4, A2, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE FROM .A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO 54 FEET ALONG EAST RIVER ROAD (SOUTH LOT LINE), AND, SECTION 205.103, 4, A2, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, FROM THE REQUIRED 80 FEET TO 20 FEET ALONG LINCOLN STREET (EAST LOT LINE), AND, SECTION 205.103, 4B, TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FEET TO 10 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LOT -LINE, AND, SECTION 205.104, 1, E2, TO ALLOW OFF STREET PARKING TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE FRONT LOT LINE INSTEAD OF SET BACK THE REQUIRED 20 FEET, AND, SECTION 205.103, 4, C2, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FRO M THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO 20 FEET, AND, SECTION 205.103, 6B, TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE OF ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT (R-3) FROM 50 FEET TO 10 FEET (SOUTH LOT LINE), ALL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECULATIVE BUILDING (COMMERCIAL) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PEARSON'S 1ST ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7899 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY MERIDIAN CORPORATION, 15 SOUTH 9TH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.) MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mr. David E. Nordale and Mr. David M. Noyes, of the Meridian Corporation, were present to present the request. 3 Z8 -1 1 /Z8 113tl�� 3 ZB 3 P�bh 5ti ¢ Z7 ¢ Z7 4 27 t7 4 Z7 5 26—- 26 5 Z� �,- -BOARD OF APPEALS ZSZ.1 }-- Z5 ITEM #1 24 g= .Z ; _ 23 d 23 23 B I f ; Z4.-- -t 9 22 ZZ y z= 2z 9 2/ /O Q 20 // Za /Z /9 /2 /9 /Z ✓9 /2 !p /Z m 17 a ff Leo F.fy d w , /a09i a />y'e h 3o�a _=:i :/ p •� +moi _ 5 !j �� .J ti 2 � O O �a�V•• � 0751��' b 9S�'1a 0 !>9 ✓J2Y. t B — -- +nom 91 � 2Z7 c Bo •7 20 £ 26rg TH S9 AVE. N.E. b �j 5g G � �ss Z W °� z6 s o w 4`��b bio bSo l��o^ 21- 6O y tiJ Z5 E b� y i s 413 5� Is 6r6 b �t 1®t riv MARIGOLD TERRACE 5,TPI" Z b - 3 C`j ^ 0 �y o b V `! �O. "�_ "� ®q '! �® i6.4 5��0n �� 9:. �• n ,J __ �/���6N/�p�ffL �l �•t�� � �i ib_ AMS z 1LA3 T--�b9 k�•�Jc r'R 8®. �^o c ~c 75 ® q /,6Z-9 •'2 3 �/�n, qtr , �1 �qt•; �7) jl 91 �dl °%ll 'Zl.� 2 r, J" LLzo d 58TH AVENUE d a 6o JS aJ:ti: abs 72t ,770. A /� C ry ®R -.... / .:� � _ q Ef2ED bZ! i �3i by/ (ogl ibbl �, b�r�; "-4 C3170 P. (Pso) �•�•,• •-" Pc LpCE n Z �sURVEY W� 57Q HELENE r 79 65 co`3® �''/® Z,60;G9v.17°�� moo. °°` S9 M 6 :+ fy 79 a REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1975 PAGE 6 Councilwoman Kukowski said she hoped that the City Attorney could get together with the property owners. The City Attorney said he would do this and see what could be accomplished. MOTION by Councilman Breider to approve the Special Use Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission with the stipulations suggested. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. The Public Works Director said this was large lot on Brookview Drive and the applicant requested to move the existing garage to the rear of the property and build a two car garage in the front of the property. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor -Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Breider to set the Public Hearing for the rezoning request ZOA #75-03 for July 14, 1975. Seconded. by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL: ISLANDS OF PEACE: Mayor Nee explained that this item was to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION STRUCTURE: There was no action needed on this item or the remainder of the discussion items in the minutes.. MOTION by Councilman Breider to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 7, 1975. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski.-Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD.OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 13, 1975: The Public Works Director explained that the request is for a variance in the side yard set back from five feet to three feet to allow the construction of an attached.garage. The Public Works Director indicated that no objections had been voiced at the Board of Appeals Meeting. The Board of Appeals had recommended approval of the request. Mayor Nee asked how close this construction would be from the adjecent home. The Public Works Director answered, 10 feet. Mayor Nee asked if this would be on the bedroom side and the Public Works Director said yes. The Public Works Director said there was some concern over the existing fence and the applicant said that this would not be disturbed. The Public Works Director asked if Mr. Corbett was present and he responded. Mayor Nee asked if the next door neighbor would be building a garage. Mr. Corbett said if this was done, it would be constructed on the east side also which would be on the other side of the house from his home. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to approve the variance as recommended by the Board of Appeals. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. N REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1975 t I ' o a PAGE'5 Mayor Nee commented that the people are now serving until the new members are appointed. Councilman Starwalt mentioned that in this case, there would not be an urgency to appoint people at the present meeting. Mayor Nee said this conference meeting would be held in the community room. The City Manager said there would be appointments made on June 2, 1975. Mayor Nee said yes. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 7, 1975: S. #71-08, BY CLIFFORD THOE: TO SPLIT OFF 23 FEET, EXCEPT FOR THAT PART TAKEN FOR HI ENUE N.E.: Mayor Nee asked if Mr. Thoe was present and there was no response. Mayor Nee asked if the man had been notified that this would be considered by the Council and the Public Works Director said he had been notified. The Pu' .lic Works Director said there was some problems in the zoning of the property. He mentioned that there is a service station and residential property on the same parcel. He said the request is to split the residential propdrty from that that the service station is occupying. The Public Works Director explained that this would create two parcels that did not meet the standards for residential or commercial. He mentioned the residential portion would only be 6,300 square feet. He also mentioned that if after the split, the house would be damaged more than 50%, it could not be replaced. He said•the commercial property would also be far below the minimum. The Public Works Director said the Planning Commission had taken this into consideration and had suggested that some other legal means be provided to solve the existing problem. Mr. Sobiech read the reasons for the Planning Commission recommending denial of the request from Page 2-C of the agenda. The Public Works Director recommended that this property remain one large commercial site. Mayor Nee said the recommendation of the Planning Commission was to deny the request. Councilman Starwalt said he agreed with the Commission. He explained that he had talked to the property owners involved and said the home is being used as a retirement home. Councilman Starwalt said the split does not really clear up the matter. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to deny the request for the lot split by Mr. Clifford J. Thoe. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. , Councilman Breider asked if there was any legal ways to get around this. The City Attorney said he did not know what the problem was. He asked if one of the individuals owns the gas station and the other residential property. He said one legal means would be to lease or rent the portion of the property which is residential. He said the property could be purchased as an entire parcel. The City Attorney said there should be some method other than a lot split to accomplish what they are working on. Councilwoman Kukowski said she would not want to deny the request right at the present time. She said she would rather have the problem worked with and have someone come back and inform the Council What is going on. Councilman Starwalt asked if the request is denied, would it be another six months before any further action could be taken on the lot split. The Public Works Director said yes, this is true for variances and lot splits. The City Attorney said if he would be any help in trying to work this out, he would meet with the property owner and the Public Works Director to come to some agreement. He added he would see if a contract could be*entered into. He also metioned that he did not think the lot split would be the answer. I 207. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1975 PAGE 7 motorists because of the existing stop sign. He said the installation',of stop signs do not end a speeding problem. He said if there is a speeding problem, he would.recommend that this be handled through enforcement, not installation of stop signs. He recommended that Benjaimin from Gardena to Rice Creek Road be signed as a through street. He said the existing stop signs on Benjamin and Briardale Road should be removed. The City Manager explained in some cases, stop signs increase traffic problems rather than stop them. He said he would recommend that additional speed limit signs be posted. The City Manager questioned the placement of a stop sign on the steep hill and indicated this would cause problems where people would not be able to stop or make it up the hill in the winter months. The City Manager continued to explain he recommended that this area would be placed on the priority list fora special service area for Police enforcement and monitoring of problems. He said he would also encourage anyone in the area who observes any violations to call the Police so that those in violation could be apprehended. He thought these recommendations would better control the traffic of the area than the placement. of additional stop signs. The City Manager stated the City might be in the position of having liability suits due to the placement of unwarranted stop signs. Councilman Starwalt said these were good points expressed by the Administration. He noted that the people who live on these streets are convinced that there are violators and they. are not being caught. He asked what the diff, _rence would be between patrolling and monitoring. He asked if this would mean that Lhe violators would not be ticketed during the monitoring. The Public Works Director said this is correct. He said.they just go into the area to determine if there is a problem. -Councilman Starwlat asked if it would be possible to use unmarked cars for patrolling. He said the people do not abuse'the law when the police are present. The City Attorney said he would be concerned about the patrolling with unmarked cars, unless the law had been changed. He said cars used for regular traffic patrolling must be marked cars. Mrs. Kathy Malone, 6131 Benjamin Street N. E.,addressed the Council and said the area residents knew that the Engineering Department was opposed to the placement of the stop signs in this area, this is why they had come to the meeting and made this request to the Council. She mentioned that the homes on Benjamin were all new with most of them being built within the last year. She questioned if the report of the area for the past three years was very representative of the current situation. She questioned if the residents had to wait until one of the children of the area were hurt and this showed up on an accident report. She mentioned tht the Public Works Director had indicated that the bike accident was attributed to the stop sign. She mentioned that it was the unmarked car using the radar that had caused the accident. She said she did not think, by any means, that the stop sign had caused the accident or injury. She said the monitoring was done during the period of time when the violators were in school. This is why the study indicated that there was.no problem. Mrs. Malone said she did not think the posting of speed limit would do one thing. She indicated that the action proposed would not be any better, in fact it would take them back to the beginning. Mrs. Lynn Gasparro, 1604 Briardale Road N. E., addressed the Council and said she agreed that the survey did not show the true facts. She said when the car was used for monitoring, everyone could see the car when they came over the hill and the speeding and problems did not exist. She said if the adults could see the police vehicle, surely the kids that are doing the speeding could also see the car. she claimed the violators to be Grace High School students. She continued to comment that the people of the area had told the police who the violators are and the speeding cars toot and waive at the police officers. She said nothing has been done and the police stop and talk to the kids, they must be friends. She questioned if the residents of the area have to be penalized. Mrs. Gasparro continued to explain the problems with the increase in gasoline costs and questioned when thiswould force the violators off the streets. Mrs. Gasparro referred to the placement of additional speed limit signs and said there is not one in existance in the area at the present time. She also mentioned the recommendation to be that the existing stop sign be removed. She asked how much it would cost to install the sign and said the area residents would be willing to pay for it. She mentioned if the police would start to ticket the violators, the money for the sign could easily be raised. She contended that the money that had been spent on the surveys and staff time along with the time spent by the residents of the area was making the stop sign very costly. She said she was planning on continuing to pursue the request. Mr's. Gasparro mentioned that she had'two children and a dog and would not want them killed. She again commented that they want a stop sign. She questioned why the tax payers were not given what they want and continued to state thai{they are the ones that pay the Council's salaries and also who vote them in and out of office. She asked why they could not be given what they want. Mr..Dennis.Schneider, 6190 Stinson Blvd., said he resided on the corner of Briardale Road J. 208 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1975 PAGE 8 and Stinson Boulevard and he -could hear the squeal of tires from Benjamin street at his home. He asked the Council to consider that there are many young families with children in this area and with the constructionof the park facility, this would increase the usage of the area by children. He said he would recommend that the Council not remove the existing sign. Mayor Nee directed his question to the City Attorney and said he was curious about the remark made by the City Manager concerning reporting the violators to the Police Department. He questioned if the residents would have to sign a complaint. The City Attorney said this is true. He said the police could not sign the complaint unless they observe the violation. He said it would be possible for the person -being charged,to sue the City if the police do not witness the violation. The City Attorney said the residents would have to identify the vehicle and the time of occurrance. Mayor Nee asked if this would be an enforceable thing. The City Attorney said the residents would have to appear in court if the violator would plead not guilty or if there was conflicting testimony. Mayor Nee said the residents could not sign a complaint concerning speeding, but they could on a violation of the stop sign. Mrs. Malone mentioned that when the people stop and look at the stop sign, they also stop and se- the children. She continued to comment when they are speeding down the hill, they do not look. She questioned how the.children on Benjamin would be able to cross the road to gain access to the park. She continued to explain with the construction in the area, the children are forced to stand in the street to catch the bus because they cannot stand in the mud. Mayor Nee asked Mrs. Malone if she felt the existing stop sign had helped the conditions in the area and Mrs. Malone said yes. She said she also felt it would be necessary to install a sign on 61st and Benjamin. Councilman Starwalt said the location is in his Ward and would be his problem. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt that the stop sign on Benjamin and Briardale Road remain because of the ultimate plans for the area and the installation of the park and the continued construction in -the area and that he wouldnot recommend the installation of the other stop sign at this time. Councilman Starwalt referred to the recommendation of the City Manager in that the speed limits should be posted and the addition of a sign that -said "Caution Steep Hill" be installed.. He said they could also use a "Caution Playground" sign. He also stated that there should be more patrolling. He said he did not understand why the police did not approach and ticket the violators. Mayor Nee said the police officer would have to see the violation. Councilman Starwalt said a schedule should be developed where the violators would be apprehended. He said if the police officers cannot apprehend the violators, there is something wrong. Mayor Nee said the Police office would have to see the violation each time. Councilman Starwalt said the patrolling should be done in a period where there would be more success. Mrs. Malone asked Councilman Starwalt to reconsider his motion. She added the people . of the area need protection. She asked that the area be given the stop sign and mentioned that the children are out of school all.day now. Mr. Robert Erickson, 5950 Benjamin Street, addressed the Council and asked if the number of stop signs'were to be limited, he wished the Council would consider that the traffic also speeds by their homes on the other end of Benjamin Street. Mayor Nee asked if there was a second to the motion made by'Councilman Starwalt and DECLARED THE MOTION DEAD FOR LACK OF A SECOND., Mrs. Malone said the whole thing started because there was aneed for stop signs at Briardale and also 61st. She mentioned that the people up the street also felt that a sign was needed in this area. She said the area residents agreed to wait for the installation of the sign until the completion of the study, but the signs were needed at the present time with the children out of, school. Councilman Starwalt said with the number of signs proposed, there could be one sign on every corner. Councilman Starwalt said it would not be possible to please everyone and where would this stop. Mr. Erickson again mentioned that the remainder of Benjamin would have to be considered. Councilman Starwalt said another petition had been received in the area of Ferndale at the top of the hill. He said the staff had recommended that there be no signs in the whole area. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1975. PAGE 9 guy Councilman Starwalt said at the expense of ruining his political career, he would not offer another motion. Councilwoman Kukowski said she would not touch it. She further explained that the Council had been asked by three groups to put up three different signs. Councilman Starwalt said they had proposed two and one was taken out. Mayor Nee explained that the Council had taken action to install the sign on 61st and unless this action is reconsidered or repealed, the sign would have to be installed. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to reconsider the installation of the stop sign on 61st and Benjamin. Mayor Nee DECLARED THE MOTION DEAD FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilman Breider suggested that the Council try the sign on 61st for some time and direct the Police Department to study the area and stage the patrolling of the area ina way that it will not be at the same time of day. He said the work will get out that the area is being patrolled at random. He said he agreed with the residents in that they should not have to police the area and sign complaints against violators. He again said, why can't the signs be tried for some time? The City Manager said the sign would be instal ed. CONSIDERATION OF DRAINAGE PROBLEM AT 5950 BENJAMIN— S� N. E. (ROBERT ERICKSON)(FROM MEETING OF MAY 5, 1975 Councilman Starwalt said he was asked to make a.recommendation•to the Council. He called on the Public Works Director to make a presentation of the plans proposed. The Public Works Director explained the four proposals as follows: Alternate B-1 has a projected cost of $20,981.25. He explained that this proposal would intercept runoff at the catch basin on Benjamin and pipe it directly to 60th and Oakwood Manor and would not include any alteration of the low area. Alternate B-2 indicates a projected cost of $24,481.25. This is the same proposal as alternate B-1 with the addition of lowering the pipe four feet. If future development occurs in the vicinity of the low area, approximately 7,500 cubic yards of fill would be required to make use of the facility. The installation of•the energy dissipator is the third alternative with a projected cost of $1,000. This alternative is offered with the intent of the City to install the energy dissipator with the necessary restoration. The fourth Alternative, Alternate F, would require easement acquisition with a projected cost of $10,150.00. This plan would involve the installation of a pipe to the low area from the catch -basin on Benjamin with the addition of obtaining an easement for ponding purposes. It also involves remodification of the intersection at Benjamin and Gardena. The City Manager said the people of the area have to be called in if anything but•the original proposal for this area would be used. -Mayor Nee asked if there would be any overlapping of assessments. The City Manager said the maximum amount for the area would be $8 per 100 square feet. ! Mr. Erickson said it was not clear to him who would pay for the various plans. Mayor Nee said the CityWould pay for the energy dissipator from tie general funds. He said the other three proposals would be assessed to the district. Mr. Erickson said proposals E and D would not be acceptable to him. He said he had tried a crude energy dissipator and it did not work. He asked if the costs on alternate F would be shared by the people i on Benjamin Street. He questioned if the residents of Benjamin Street would want to pay out this amount for a temporary solution. Mr. Erickson said he would like to clarify a point with Mr. Starwalt. He mentioned that j Councilman Starwalt had visited with some of the residents of the area and had a copy of the petition that had been signed by those people, but attached to the petition, there was a map of the proposal for the storm sewer Mr. Erickson had suggested.- He said it was the people's impression that this map had accompanied the petition and it had not. Councilman Starwalt explained that this is the way he had been presented the material from the administration and he was also under the impression that it had accompanied the petition, i but it had not. ! Mr. Erickson questioned the method used to draw the drainage district. Mayor Nee said this is done by means of a topographical map. He said they are willing to testify that the water �\ does drain in the direction indicated by the district. Mr. Erickson said this matter had been discussed in the past and he did not think it would be worth the Council's time to talk about this at the present time. He said he was present at the meeting to see if 210 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 2, 1975 PAGE 10 the City was going to do something about the restoration of his property. He said he had repeatedly tried to get an answer before beginning legal action against the City. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set a public hearing to discuss the various proposals for the installation of the storm sewer in the Benjamin area for July 14, 1975. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Mrs. B. L. Lillemoen, 1583 Gardena Avenue, addressed the Council and questioned what was in the various plans. Councilman Breider said this would be discussed at the public hearing. Mrs. Lillemoen said she would prefer the least expensive project. Mayor Nee said the least expensive project is not acceptable to Mr. Erickson. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING INTOXICATING BEVERAGES AND 3.2 BEER: The City Manager explained that the present ordinance prohibits any intoxicating or non intoxicating beer and liquor in City parks. He said as the Council knows, people are using it in the parks -and the Administration felt if there is an ordinance on the books, it should comply with the desires of the community or it should be enforced. The City Manager explained theproposal to allow the use of .2 beer in Locke Park with a permit and in Commons Park. He said the use of 3.2 beer would be prohibited in the small size neighborhood parks. He said there had been some discussion on the part of the City Council concerning thisproposal. He asked direction on whether the Council would like an ordinance prepared as proposed. He thought this type of ordinance would allow the people to act legally. Councilman Fitzpatrick suggested that the Council approve the recommendation of the Parks and REcreation Department. Mayor Nee said he did not think this was the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mayor Nee said the motion on the.part of the Commission was to enforce the ordinance. Councilman Fitzpatrick said this. -is not what the CIty Manager had said. The City Manager pointed out that - earlier in the discussion the members of the Commission had stated that they believed that this would be a feasible change. He said the ordinance would provide the mechanics for selected activity that could be permitted. Mayor Nee said the proposal had been received by the Public Safety Director. Mayor Nee referred to the motion in the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission and said Mrs. Shirley Caldwell had said that she would agree to this modification and voted for the motion to enforce the law. Mayor Nee said he would like to see 3.2 beer be allowed for neighborhood picnics in small parks. The City Manager said this could.be provided with a permit from the City Council. Mr. Ken Sporre questioned the use of the smaller parks in the softball tournaments sponsored by the Jaycees. He mentioned that Commons is not large enough to accomodate the entire tournament so the smaller parks are used. He questioned if the proposal did not include the smaller parks, could this be continued. He said the way the ordinance is now, they can sell beer at all of them. The City Manager said this is all against the current ordinances and the police are looking the other way. The City Attorney said he didnot care to say anything about it at all. Mr. Richard Harris, Chairman of the Planning Commission addressed the Council and asked if.there was some provision in the estate for Locke Park where this would not be allowed. Mayor Nee said this prohibits the use of intoxicating liquor, not 3.2 beer. Mayor Nee again said he would like to see 3.2 beer permitted in the neighborhood parks. He said he would like to see the ordinance brought back with this type of amendment. The City Manager said it would be possible to serve, but not sell in the.other neighborhood parks. Mayor Nee said yes. The City Manager said this would be brought back for the first, reading with this type Of -modification. The City Attorney said the person would have to submit the proper application -to the City and the City Manager said yes. MOTION by Councilman Breider to bring the ordinance back for first reading at the next regular meeting , June 16, 1975, with the provision that 3.2 beer will be allowed in the neighborhood parks upon application to the City Council for approval. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.