Loading...
SP 79-06�In�- > CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JUNE 62 1979 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the June 6, 1979, meeting of -the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Hughes, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Harris, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Treuenfels Members Absent: W. Langenfeld (arrived at 7:35 P.M.) Others Present: Mike Franzen, Planning Staff 1. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 23., 1979: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the May 23, 1979, minutes of the Planning Commission. Ms. Hughes stated that on page 3 of the minutes she had stated there were 48 signatures on the petition. She later discovered there were a few more so that figure was not accurate. Ms. Schnabel stated that on page 4 of the minutes, the 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence from the end should be changed to read: "attempt to make a right hand turn off Highway 65 to go there. Also, the next to the last -paragraph on that page was in error. The people who wrote the letter were in favor of the office rather than the apartment. Ms. Hughes stated that on page 8 of the minutes, "eye -beam" should be "I-beam". UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MINUTES APPROVED AS CORRECTED. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP 06,.BY ROBERT J. CARLSON: Per Section 205. 051, 2, A, of the Fridley City Code to allow the construction of a second accessory buildingj a 16 ft. by 22 ft. detached garage on Lot 4. Block 2. Juli-Ann Addition, the same being 151 - 62nd Way NE. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Franzen stated that the applicant requested a Special Use Permit to construct a second accessory building. The first accessory building is located in the front part of the property. One stipulation would be that the second accessory building not be in a utility easement. At the present time, the second accessory building is not within this easement. The easement is shown on page 29 of the agenda. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUIN 6, 1979 - PAGE 2 rte.- , v proposed accessory building would be 16 x 22 which is approximately 352 square feet. The proposed use is storage and at this time there are no plans for an access, however, there is adequate room available for a driveway. Staff would have no objection to this request as long as the building is used for storage and not a home occupation or living quarters. Mr. Oquist stated that Mr. Franzen had indicated that the second accessory building would not fall within the utility easement but noted that it was close to it. Mr. Franzen gave the Commissioners a more detailed plan of the proposed construction. Ms. Hughes asked what the first accessory building was? Mr. Franzen stated the first accessory building was the existing two -car garage. Ms-. Schnabel asked Mr. Franzen if the purpose of the second accessory building was for storage only? Mr. Franzen stated that was correct and Staff had no objection as long as it was used for any use other than a home occupation. Mr. Robert Carlson, 151 62nd Way NE, came forward and stated that it would be a detached garage. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson why he needed a storage building of this size? Mr. Carlson stated that his existing garage is 19 x 22 and he has two cars. It is difficult to get in and out of the cars because of the bicycles, garden tools, toys, etc. Because of this congestion, he would like a building for storage. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson if he had any plans, now or in the future, to use the proposed building as a garage and convert the existing garage into living space? Mr. Carlson stated he had no plans to do that and also that he was not planning to put in a driveway. Ms. Schnabel asked Mr. Carlson if he would be doing the construction himself? Mr. Carlson stated he planned to do the cement work and would have a carpenter to help with the other work. Ms. Hughes asked if it would be garage construction with an overhead door? Mr. Carlson stated that he intended to put an overhead door on the west side and it would be regular garage construction with trusses for the roof. Mr. Harris asked if he was going to put the overhead door on the west side? Mr. Carlson stated that was correct. Mr. Barris asked if that wouldn't be tight to get in and out if he decided to use it as a garage? Mr. Carlson stated he had no intention to use it as a garage.. y PLANNING COMMIISSION MINMS, JUNE 6, 1979 - PAGE,3 Mr. Carlson also stated that there is 19 feet there. Mr. Harris stated they usually figure that it takes about 20 feet for an auto- mobile. Mr. Carlson reiterated that he did not intend to use it for storing a car. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Carlson if he would object moving it slightly to the east and asked how far he would be willing to go? Mr. Carlson stated he could go east another foot. He added that he had decided on the placement of the garage because of the window placement in his house. Mr. Harris asked how high the structure would be? Mr. Carlson stated there would be regular 16 foot trusses. It would be built on a cement base which would be about 2 inches off ground level. There will be 8 foot 2x4s running from the cement ups so the building would be about 8 ft. 2 in. from ground level to the eaves. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Carlson if he had talked to any of his neighbors? Mr. Carlson stated he had talked to all of them and they had no comment. He stated that he had heard that someone had second thoughts but he apparently decided to go along with it. He stated that the proposed building would have the same siding as his house and he would construct it in such a way that it would add to the looks of the property. Mr. Harris stated that he was concerned about moving the garage to the east because if it was ever used to store an automobile., it would be much easier to get in and out without encroaching on his neighbor's property. They figure that an automobile parking place is 10 x 20. Mr. Carlson stated he would be willing to move it a foot. Mr. Harris stated that 2 feet would be better. Mrs. Carlson stated that there is a 6 foot hedge along the neighbor's property that would make it impossible for them to go over on their property. Mr. Harris stated that at some point they might want to use the building for a garage and being that close to the hedge would make it difficult to get in and out. Mr. Oquist asked if he decided on a 16 x 22 foot building because he planned to use it for a garage in the future? He stated that most storage buildings are 8x8or8x12. Mr. Carlson stated that the people he had.talked to about it suggested he figure what he needs and then add a little. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, im 6,_ 979. _ , , .�. _ _ PAGE 4 ` Mr. Oquist asked how far the proposed building would be from the existing house? Mr. Carlson stated it would be 25 feet. Mr. Harris stated the plan indicated about 28 feet and noted that it was a good size lot. Mr. Carlson stated that another reason why he placed it where he did was because of existing trees. He did not want to have to remove any trees. He added that moving it east 2 feet would not hurt it at all. Ms. Hughes asked Mr. Harris if he was sure the building should be moved? Mr. Harris stated that because of the 6 foot hedge' moving it over 2 feet would give him more room. Ms. Hughes asked if that would be a stipulation? Mr. Harris stated it would. Ms. Schnabel stated that the 20 feet was based on an existing ordinance which was written when the average car was bigger than what they are now. *. Harris stated it was still tight even for a small car. He stated it would be a one car garage and would be tight. Also, the other house at 6211 Riverview Terrace sits rather close and there wasn't much back yard there. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the northers part of the building would go up to the lot line? Mr.. Harris stated it would not. As indicated on the drawing, it was a good size lot. There were no other comments from the audience. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHA]RMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:58 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to recommend to Council approval of the request for Special Use Permit, SP #79-06, by Robert J. Carlson: Per Section 205.051, 2, A, of the Fridley City Code, to allow the construction of a second accessory building, a 16 foot by 22 foot detached garage on Lot 4p Block 2 Juli-Ann Addition, the same being 151 -62nd Way NE, with the following stipulatiais: 1 in accordance with the survey it be not less than 20 feet rather than 19 feet, 2 it be compatible with the existing neighborhood and his home, 3) no home occupation be allowed. Ms. Hughes noted that the notification that was sent to the neighbors indicated this was to be a detached garage, however the comments in the discussion were in terms of - other things, and if we pass this motion it will be possible for him to use it as a garage in the future. She asked if the notice that this was a detached garage adequate for the neighbors to -understand that they could be looking at a detached garage? , . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE A, 1979 PAGE 5 Mr. Harris stated thattA what it is and that's what it was called in the notice. Ms. Hughes stated that the fact that the neighbors were not here indicated to her they had no problem with it. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Mr. Harris informed the petitioner that this would go to Council on June 18, 1979. Mr. Harris stated that he understood he was a second class citizen, but when some- thing comes up within 300 feet of his property, he would like to be notified. Mr. Harris stated that he lives at 6200 Riverview Terrace. His father was notified but he was not. 3. VACATION REQUEST: SAV #79-03L BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: Vacate thatop rtion of the alley in Block 11, Hyde Park not vacated by 0 'nance 533, between Lots 1- an ots 25-30, and between Lots 14, 15, 1 , and E. Located between 9th and YQOth Avenues and between 2- treet ani Street NE. Mr. Franzen stAfd they were looking at one of four,ilternatives as explained in Memo #79-24, date'q June 6, 1979,*from Jerrold Boardman to the Planning Commission. This memo stated t e Cityts policy on vacation requests. They were looking at trying to turn over the property to individual " nership and retaining the alley as a utility easemen . The Commissioners we given a letter dated June 1, 1979, from Warren R. Johnso of NSP regarding thi easement. MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld seconded by M . Hughes, to receive the memo, #79-24, from Mr. Boardman to the ing Co ssion, and to receive the letter from NSP regarding the easement. Mr. Harris stated that another maintain it. Ms. Schnabel noted that th memo in four, so it wouldn't matt if they ive would be to improve the alley and there were three options and listed another option. UPON A VOICE VOTE, A VOTING AYE, CHA HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Oquist state that the map in the agenda i dicated that the area that was darkened was to a vacated. He'asked what wool happen in between? Mr. Franzen Xtated that was the property of NSP. structures On the north and south ends of the al for getting into the parking areas, and does not stated there were apartment and that easement was used through the entire block. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUKE 6, 1979 ' r. PAr.r H Mr. Harris stated that they then had two dead-end alleys in the same block. Mr. Franz8 stated that the center part of the alley had already been vacated. Mr. Harrisno ed that the notification stated it was the lots not vac ed by Ordinance #533 They were talking about Lots 1-6, Lots 25 - 30 and etween Lots 140 15, 16 and 7. He asked how those people would get in and out f this was vacated? How wo d they get to the apartment building parking 1 s? Mr. Franzen stated\that Mr. Boardman was looking at turning t(at portion of the property over to thk individual owners and it would be main)fiined by them. Mr.- Harris asked how people in the apartment at 60th Ave. NE into the t rking area? Mr. Benjamin F. Carman, 5 5 22 Street NE, stated He also stated that there s an entrance off of to use to reach the parking rea. , Street would get from t 594.0 was a private residence. Street for the apartment people Ms. Pat Gabel, 59+7 22 Street came forwa and stated this was not a request by the people that live there to ecessarily acate this alley. It is an alter- native the City is using rather tha doing t they should, which is to clean the area up. There has been a probl done their job which is to make them c are knocked down, they dump oil on the had to repair a very expensive fence o e for. two years and the City has not it up. There is garbage there, fences es and shrubs, etc. Her neighbors have eral occasions. In talking to Ed Fitzpatrick, it was his suggestion t t the vacate it and put a barrier 6 feet out from the fences in order to kee their pr erty in tact. None of them really wanted 6 more feet of property to ake care of ut 1t is a matter of protecting what they have. Over the years a apartments ha a become run down and the tenants are problem type tenants. So t 's is not really t it idea but is an alternative. Ms. Schnabel stated that 5980/was where the are. Ms. Gabel stated there Yedeither. driveway between two of the partments coming in. Also, if they vacate that 12 the apartments would lose som parking spaces but they were not supposed to being back there anyway because i is a public easement. This has not been enfor Mr. Barris stated theA 5901 and 5902 were apartment buildings. Ms. Gabel stated tYat was correct and that was all vacated in betwe so it had no bearing on thip request. Mr. Harris stat d it was part of the vacation request. Ms. Gabel sta ed that they apparently werentt concerned about it and was no sure what the Cit is thinking was there unless they wanted to get the whole thing one at one tame0 /00 187 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1979 PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING ON ALLEY VACATION, SAV #79-01, KATHRYN GERARD BETWEEN 48TH AND 49TH AVENUE N.E. & 2ND STREET AND 211 STREET N.E. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive reading of the public notice and open the hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing opened at 7:56 P.M. Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a petition to vacate the alley located in Block 3 of the Plymouth Addition lying between 48th and 49th Avenues and 2nd Street and 22 Street N.E. The City received a petition signed by all the residents along the alley with the exception of one, which is a rental unit. There were no objections and no objections were voiced at the Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 9, 1979, and recommended approval with the stipulation that appropriate drainage and utility easements be maintained for NSP power poles that exist there. Kathryn Gerard was present at this meeting but had no comments. Mr. Sobiech stated that there the alley was not used for access and all the garages had access from the streets. He noted that it has been City policy in the past to release ownership of these alleys. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that everyone has agreed to this with the exception of the person who rents there and that person made no objection. Also, we have the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Therefore, he would have no reservations concerning this. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the public hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. NEW BUSINESS• CONSIDERATION OF 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE OF CITY OF FRIDLEY - REZONING ZOA #79-01, THE LIFT -SKI AND BIKE, INC.: Mayor Nee stated that if there was no objection to acting on this now, a motion would be in order. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval and approve the 1st reading of vacation ordinance under Section 12.07 of City Charter. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST BY GREAT EXPECTATIONS, 765 - 53RD AVENUE: Mr. Sobiech stated that they had an official request and statement withdrawing the request for variance from Great Expectations. RECEIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1979: �/ /� REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #79-06, BY ROBERT CARLSON, 62ND WAY: Mr. Sobiech stated that this was a request forecial Use Permit to allow construction of a second accessory building at 4r- 62nd Way. At their meeting of June 6, 1979, the Planning Commission had a public hearing on this matter and recommended to Council approval with certain stipulations. The ` stipulations state that `he construction be not less than 20 feet rather than l 19 feet from the adjacent property owner to the west of the proposed site location and also it was stipulated that it be compatible with the existing neighborhood and his home, indicating that the proposed structure be surfaced 188 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1979 PAGE 4 to match his existing dwelling. The third stipulation was that no home occupation be allowed. As noted in the Planning Commission public hearing, it is the intent of the petitioner to utilize the second accessory building for storage of materials. There was discussion relative to future use of the second accessory building for a garage. There is space between the existing j dwelling and the property line which would allow a driveway to that second accessory building in the future. Mr. Sobiech stated that even though there were no objections noted at the Planning Commission hearing, it was commented that there were some residents who felt uncomfortable with the proposed second accessory building. Mr. Theodore Burandt, 6211 Riverview Terrace N.E., came forward and stated that 1 i he is an adjacent property owner and that he is one of three people who object to the second accessory building. The other two people who object wish to remain anonymous. He stated that initially, he had no reservations, however, he did feel that there was adequate room for the garage to be added to the structure. He felt that from a real estate resale value, it would be better attached, rather than in the middle of the yard. If helps that it would sit 20 feet away, but felt that since the yards were small, placing it in the middle of the yard was not a good idea. Mr. Burandt stated that his house is immediately to the west of Mr. Carlson's house. Mr. Sobiech showed Council an aerial view of the location and stated that the petitioner's property was about 180 feet deep. Mr. Burandt lives to the west and has the minimum 25 foot setvack on his house. Mr. Burandt was indicating that the proposed structure would be in the rear of the yard. Mr. Burandt felt there would be room for a 16 x 22 just west of the existing structure, and could be tied in with the existing garage. i Councilwoman Moses asked if it were set back the maximum amount it could be? I Mr. Sobiech stated that it would be approximately. 78 feet from the rear lot line, and offset towards the center of Mr. Carlson's property. Councilwoman Moses asked Mr. Burandt if it would help if the proposed structure were set back further? I Mr. Burandt stated that would not make much difference because his whole back yard is adjacent to Mr. Carlson's rear yard. Mr. Carlson stated that before he petitioned for this, he went around to each neighbor who bordered his property and explained what he wanted to do. There were no objections. He stated that he and Mr. Burandt had paced off the area where the structure would go and Mr. Burandt did not have any comments. Mr. Burandt stated that he had suggested to Mr. Carlson at that time that the structure should be added on to the existing garage. He stated that at that time he did not really have any objection, but after thinking about it, he would object. Mr. Carlson noted that Mr. Burandt has a 6 foot hedge. He stated that he intended to build the garage in accordance with the rest of the property and it would add .to the looks of the property. He had indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that he planned to put in an inner court which would tie it all together. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he would guess that if these objections had come out at the Planning Commission meeting it would have helped. He asked Mr. Carlson if he had considered attaching the proposed structure to the existing garage? Mr. Carlson stated that because of the way the land slopes on.the west side and because of his neighbor's hedge, it would be more of a problem to put ; it there. He stated that he was not concerned about the resale value, that he plans on staying there and using it for storage. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Carlson if he had any reservations in view of the fact that his neighbor was now objecting? Mr. Carlson stated that he wished he had objected before this. 189 REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE 18, 1979 PAGE 5 Councilman Barnette asked Mr. Carlson if the neighbor to the east had any objections? Mr. Carlson stated he did not and that neighbor had a shed also. Councilman Barnette stated that the objections should have been voiced at the Planning Commission's public hearing. He felt that Mr. Carlson had followed the correct procedure and should be allowed to proceed with his project. Councilwoman Moses asked if it would help if the building were farther back on the property? Mr. Burandt stated that he felt the other people would object to that. He felt the most logical solution would be for Mr. Carlson to attach the structure. •He stated that this was developing into a neighborhood feud, and that way why the other two people wish to remain anonymous. Councilman Schneider stated that he had difficulty with people objecting anony- mously. People have every right to object, but it was not right to do it anonymously. Councilman Barnette stated that he agreed and respected Mr. Burandt for coming forward. He felt that it took courage for Mr. Burandt to come foreward, but was still in favor of Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson stated that there is a large tree to the west of the proposed site and also a large pulm tree to the southwest of the proposed site. He did not want to have to remove those trees. He also planned on an inner court between the house and the garage. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that in view of the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission and even though he sympathizes with Mr. Burandt, he would like to make a motion. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of Special Use Permit, SP #79-06 - 161 - 62nd Way. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Mayor Nee asked if there was any way to work out a compromise? Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that the only compromise he could see was for Mr. Carlson to attach the structure to the west and Mr. Carlson gave the reasons why he did not want to do that. Mr. Burandt stated there was an 18 inch drop there that would require one load of fill to take care of that problem. Mayro Nee stated that since the fellow to the east didn't object, maybe he could put it further east. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that the minutes of the Planning Commission explained why it could not go further east. Mr. Carlson stated that the reason he chose this particular location was because he was tying it in with the patio and the entrance to the patio would be on the west end of the building, off the sun porch. If he put it to the east it would be in front of his dining room window. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that in approving this request, they would not be approving a specific location. Mr. Sobiech stated that the Special Use Permit is to allow the construction of a second accessory building. The location on the property should fall within the code requirements.. Normally, we attempt to review the concerns of the neighbors and certain locations are picked out because they have minimal impact. So a Special Use Permit is usually approved with a plan in mind. 190 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1979 PAGE 6 Mr. Herrick stated that if a Special Use Permit were issued with a limitation on the location, Councilman Fitzpatrick's statement would be correct. He stated that Council has the alternative of issuing a Special Use Permit and specifying a location. Mr. Herrick stated that an alternative would be to return this to the Planning Commission. Councilman Schneider stated that he would like to see the property. He didn't look at it prior to this meeting because there were no objections at the Planning Commission public hearing. Mayor Nee stated that one week would solve his problem and give him a chance to look at the property. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that with the permission of Councilman Barnette who seconded the motion, he would withdraw his motion and make a. motion to continue this for one week. Councilman Barnette stated that one week would be satisfactory, but would hope it would not be any longer than that. He felt that Mr. Carlson had done everything he was supposed to do and had taken vacation time to do this and it would not be fair to Mr. Carlson to put it off any longer than one week. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated there was a conference meeting next week and asked if they could take action at that meeting? Mr. Qureshi stated that Council could look at it and give Staff the authority to do what Council decides. Mayor Nee stated that if they reach an agreement next Monday night, Staff could issue the Special Use Permit and Council could confirm it on July 9th. If they don't agree, it would have to come back to the July 9th meeting. Councilman Barnette asked that the people who have objections be at the meeting next Monday night. He suggested they be notified. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he would make a motion to continue this until next Monday night, but pointed out that there was a motion on the floor and asked if the seconder agreed to withdraw it? Mayor Nee stated that they didn't have to withdraw that motion now. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to continue consideration of the request for Special Use Permit, SP #79-06, by Robert Carlson, 161 - 62nd Way, for one week and if no agreement is reached at next week's meeting, a final decision will be made on July 9th. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Herrick stated that in reading the Planning Commission minutes regarding the philosophy and requirements of a Special Use Permit, he found a statement that troubled him. That statement was that the City has granted Special Use Permits because they were threatened with a law suit. He didn't recall that they had done that, in fact they had been to court several times when they have denied one and were sued. The Planning Commission and Council should be aware that when a Special Use Permit is denied, the burden of establishing why they are denied is on the City. They have not granted one because of a threat to sue. On occasions, he has.recommended they grant one when they did not have any valid reasons for refusing to grant one. As long as the Planning Commission and Council realize that, he did not feel they would have any problems. But that statement bothered him. Councilwoman Moses asked if a valid reason for denying a Special Use Permit would be devaluing someone else's property. Mr. Herrick stated it would but that would have to be proved. REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1979 PAGE 7 191 Councilwoman Moses asked if they would want someone more knowledgeable like an appraiser to look at something like that? , Mr. Herrick stated that normally that wouldn't be necessary. The property owner and the objector should state their reasons and if there was a real question they could have a real estate person who was disinterested look at it and give an opinion. But normally they would not have to do that. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #79-03, BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, 59TH AND 60TH AVENUES, BETWEEN 22 AND 3RD STREETS: Mr. Sobiech stated that Planning Commission made a motion that a meeting be set to discuss this matter. He asked if Council would be interested in that meeting? He stated that the owner of the apartment building would be living there soon, about the last week of June. He suggested they wait until the owner has moved in and plan a meeting on the site with the neighbors involved and with the owner of the other.apartment building who lives in the metropolitan area. Councilman Fitzpatrick asked Ms. Gable if that timing would be acceptable. Ms. Gabel stated that she had two complaints this evening before coming to the meeting. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he had read the minutes and agreed they had talked about this enough, but the proposal was to talk once more. He would have no objection to that meeting. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the Planning Commission's recomendation that a meeting be held. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Councilman Schneider stated that he would like to attend that meeting and asked that he be notified. Mayor Nee stated that the motion was to have a special meeting. ( Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried j unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the Planning Commission minutes of June 6, 1979. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE THE CABLE COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 1979: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to receive the Cable Television Commission minutes of June 5, 1979. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF PAINTING OF HOUSE NUMBERS ON CURBS, K. STEVEN RICE: Mr. Sobiech stated this was a request to allow or permit house number painting on curbing. This has been done several times in the past and has aided our emergency services such as police and fire. Mr. Sobiech gave Council copies of notices similar to the notices Mr. Rice would be passing out. Mr. Rice is currently working in Edina. Mr. Rice stated that Council was given two examples of the notices he passes out. One example was the original version of the notice he generally passes out and the other is a revised notice that specifically states that ( people are not required to pay for the service. He wanted to make that clear because there were some minor complaints from some residents. He explained that the way he works is to pass out the leaflets and wait one or two days in order to give the people who don't want it a chance to call, then he would paint the numbers on the curbs and then would collect. The collection is termed a donation with an estimated value of $3.00. From experience, the majority of the people will pay the $3.00, some will give $1.00 and some will pay $5.00. By stating that they don't have to pay, people don't feel forced into it. Regarding the benefits, they are reflective numbers that show up at night and are a help to City services and private citizens. He was not sure how the winter would effect the numbers because he never did this in this kind of climate before. His previous experience with this was in.San Diego and Arizona. O r 2 REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 18, 1979 PAGE 8 Councilwoman Moses stated that then the City would pay nothing and Mr. Rice would do all the collecting, etc. All he needs is permission. Mr. Rice stated that was correct. He stated that he lives in Isanti and Edina is further away from him than Fridley so it would be more economical for him to work in Fridley. Councilman Schneider stated that the notice indicated that people should send it back if they don't want it. He asked why they couldn't ask people if they -want it. Mr. Rice stated that depended on the process he used. This way seems to work best for him. The majority of the people like it. Mr. Sobiech asked Mr. Rice what kind of complaints he received. Mr. Rice stated that some of them were that the people didn't ask for it, they didn't like the looks of it, it creates a bad effect with the black and white numbers going down the street and some people didn't want to be the same as everyone else. Mayor Nee stated that this was done in the past in Fridley and he didn't recall any complaints. Mr. Herrick stated that he understood that the police and fire departments said it was helpful. He wasn't sure how long the numbers lasted. Mr. Sobiech stated this was done in 1970, 1974, and 1976. and seem to last two to four years. Councilman Schneider asked Mr. Rice if he could give people a week to respond to the notice. Mr. Rice stated that most people resond within the first day.. If Council wanted him to give people a week, he would, but it would be easier for him to continue as he has in the past which would be to give people only one or two days. Councilwoman Moses stated that if people are on vacation or simply don't j see the notice the first two days, it would be better if they had a week. She asked if five days would be too many? Mr. Rice stated that would make it more difficult. Mr. Qureshi stated that he felt there was some value to having numbers on the curbs but also had several concerns. His first concern was that they were using implied consent by the City and secondly, if the numbers are painted, some people would feel obligated to pay for it. Councilman Schneider agreed and stated that he had no problem withthe request except that if someone is on vacation and comes home to find the numbers painted they might resent it that someone invaded their privacy. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he didn't agree with Mr. Qureshi's statement about implied consent. The notice made it quite clear that this was a private enterprise. Councilman Barnette stated that if it was done before and nobody objected, it didn't seem likely they would object now. Mr. Herrick stated that he didn't recall any objections. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the request to paint house numbers on curbs with the stipulation that Mr. Rice distribute the notices, giving 1 people three days to respond, paint the numbers and make collection. Also, the notice must be approved by City Staff and the whole City will have the opportunity to receive the service in order to make it uniform. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously.. REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 99 1979 PAGE 2 199 - Mr. Bryant also requested a copy of the franchise to be mailed to him. He thanked the Council for their time and Councilman Schneider for his advise. Councilman Schneider advised Mr. Bryant that someone from the Cable Television Commission would be in contact with him. OLD BUSINESS: t.doiscussions IDERATION OF REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #79-06 BY ROBERT CARLSON, - 62ND WAY TABLED FROM JUNE 18. 1979 l9DON by Councilman Fitzpatrick to concur with the recommendation of the ning Commission and grant Special Use Permit #79-06, confirming the of one and two weeks ago. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon ice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE OF CITY OF CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #79-03 (6319 HIGHWAY NO 65) MOTION by Councilman Schneider to waive the second reading of this ordinance and adopt it on the second reading and publish. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Councilman Schneider questioned if the stipulations had been agreed upon by the petitioner. Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated the City has not received a signed statement from Mr. Holmer agreeing to the stipulations. Councilman Scheider felt there should be a firm commitment regarding the stipu- ations, before action is taken on the rezoning and special use permit. MOTION by Councilman Schneider to table the second reading of this ordinance for the rezoning and table the request for the special use permit, until the administration receives a statement from the petitioner for execution of these stipulations. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 694 UNDER SECTION 12.07 OF THE CITY CHARTER TO VACATE STREETS AND ALLEYS - KATHRYN GERARD, SAV #79-01 ALLEY BETWEEN 48TH AND 49TH AVENUES AND 2ND AND 2-2 STREETS; BLOCK 3, PLYMOUTH ADDITION): MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the second reading of Ordinance No. 694 and adopt it on the second reading and publish. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: RECEIVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 1979• APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 1979: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REDUCE BUILDING SETBACK AND REI No action taken on this item as it is to be considered at the time of the rezoning. -STREEET P YARD OF Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated .this is a request for a variance to allow off-street parking at a residence at 5614 4th Street. He explained the property has been sold and FHA requires on-site parking be provided. Mr. Sobiech stated there was a vacation proceeding in 1964 and by this vacation, access to the rear of the property was eliminated. The Appeals Commission has recommended approval of this variance request. 198 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF JULY 9, 1979 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Nee, Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilwoman Moses, Councilman Schneider and Councilman Barnette MEMBERS ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 18, 1979: MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the minutes of June 18, 1979 as presented. Seconded by Councilwoman Moses. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Councilman Schneider requested an item be added as follows: "Receiving Letter from Mr. Bob Bryant, 5421 7th Street, Fridley, MN 55432, Regarding a Complaint Against General Television." MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Mr. Bryant, 5421 7th Street, appeared before the Council regarding his problem with General Television. He stated he has been in contact with Councilman Schneider regarding this matter and was advised it would be processed through the proper channels. He stated, however, if the Council had any questions he would be happy to answer them. Councilman Barnette questioned what Mr. Bryant's problem was. Mr. Bryant stated he connected with cable television approximately four years ago when he moved to Fridley. He stated he enjoyed the HBO service and, therefore, had the full service installed approximately 90 days ago. He stated, after trying this service, he found it was not worthwhile and called to have it dis- connected. He stated he was talked outof this by General Television as they explained they were having new equipment coming in to provide better service, etc. He stated he then continued with the service for another 45 days and there was no increase in service, except the directory service. Mr. Bryant stated his quarrel is that he cannot disconnect from this service and was not informed of this or else he wouldn't have signed up for full service. Mr. Bryant felt he should be allowed to continue with the HBO service only. Mayor Nee felt that General Television is caught in the middle as it has been the City's view not to permit them to sell HBO service only and this was never permitted under the franchise. •He felt the best way to proceed is through the Cable Television Commission to see if this matter can be handled so it is consistent with the franchise. Mr. John Eddy of General Television stated that Mr. Bryant has summed up the problem and hoped the Commission could correct this problem. He felt probably the best way to proceed is with consultation with the Commission in trying to get the matter resolved.