Loading...
LS76-08 orm 5-6s LOT SPLIT_ APPLICATION Ile � �c e is �0 76 CITY OF FRIDLEY74 FOR CITY USE ONLY Applicant' s Name APPLICANT: Kenneth A. and Karen E. Gasper Kenneth A. 5asper Lot Split _ ADDRESS: 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Fridley 55 +32 - ! S t City Zip Code DateAiled: ������ o 00 TELEPHONE # 571+- 781-6061 ex 8nn Fee: v Receipt �?,``�i-. Home Business Council Action:Date___ d o REMARKS: PROPERTY OWNER(S) I:icnael J & Ruth T McNiff Cd P 0 3 - ADDRESS(ES) 485 Rice Creek Blvd. Fridlev 55132 F ¢' H Street City Zip Code M 0 - 118 Pa jaro Way V0 I e in Cil;f. 1, ; -P 0) d Street City Zip Code o H ami -H TELEPHONE #(S) 571-4240 o d a Home Business -P U) _P d N O U P, � to U] O P -H P V, Property Location on Street or Exact Street Address (IF ANY) Between 475 Rice Creek Blvd. and 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. w H Legal Description of Property: 0 See attached sheet Reason for Lot Split: The applicants wish to purchase the land as it is a flat area 1 that their 4 children could use for recreational activities such as catch. — i Total Area of Propertyft 300 sq. ft. Present `tonin; Classification ?� The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DAT E: X976 SIGNATURE rMW BELOW FOR CITY USE ONLY (See reverse side for additional instructions) PLATS & SUBS: Date of Consideration - Remarks: PLANNING COMMISSION: Date of Consideration - Remarks: CITY COUNCIL: Date of Consideration - Remarks: i LOT SPLIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE i 1 . Obtain application form at City Hall. (6431 University Ave. N.E. , Fridley) 2. Return completed application form with the. required sketch of the property ++ involved and the lot split fee of $10.00 for each original lot being split. i t 3. The application will be submitted to the Plats &Subdivisions and Streets -& Utilities Subcommittee for, recommendations. This Committee meets once a month, when required. The City will supply the applicant with minutes of the Subcommittee. y 4. Following the Plats & Subs Committee recommendation of approval, the owner must then obtain a Certificate of Survey on the original parcel or parcels I along with the new parcels created with all existing structures tied in. 5. The Certificate of Survey should then contain a simple description of a part of a platted lot or registered lot and be filed with the Engineering Department for Planning Commission recommendations. The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Thursday of the month. The City will supply the applicant with minutes of the Planning Commission. 6. The recommendations of the Planning Commission are submitted to the City Council for final action. The Council meets on the first and third Monday of the month. _ Council approval may be subject to certain stipulations which must 7. The City Coun pp y � p be complied with by the applicant. 8. A letter will be sent to the applicant to notify him of the Council action and to advise him to comply with the conditions imposed by the City. The letter will also contain any necessary deeds for easements and other pertinent papers for his signature. 9.' When all the conditions of the lot split have been complied with, the applicant should file the lot split in Anoka County. 10. In all cases where Council action has been sought and denied, no petition for identical action can be presented until a period of six months has elapsed. I NOTE: THE RESULTING REAL ESTATE TAXES AN!, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE NEW PARCELS IN TOTAL AFTER THE LOT SPLIT, MAY EXCEED THE AMOUNT ASSESSED TO THE ORIGINAL PARCEL. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF FRIDLEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS. ?} .,`,R ,� 7 • .� , . _;"• Agri 1�Vodx! `h[.9 h..............da•10`......................................................... betzve,a...................He I en E. Ha t Ey,.......a N^.dn�r...and..unrem, rried ..... ................................................. + t Ano! _ Mi nnesota of the County of................... ... and. St1 .c o art..y....... Kenneth"A'; 6asTrer and Kare E. was—pei� hus6an'd"arid"'wl'z' of the first part, and.. .........................................................................................................................'......................................................................... + ................................................................................................ ................ • ........................................... o t.te County o AnokAnoka ..................and State o i nneso a tJ .a................... f....................................................................................I parties of the second part, i ------- Mitlit�SEtrj, That the said party....... of the first part, in consideration. Qf the sum of "J -----One Dollar ($1 .00) and other good and valuable consideration -------- 1G .l //J11 ................................ a �I,a.IJ'l��S, j to.............er............. ..i-n hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby ac7-mou-1- edged, do..S...... hereby G7-ant, Bargain, Sell, and Convey unto the said parties of the second part as joint i tenants and not as tenants in common, their assigns, the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and a sids f the survivor, Forever, all the tract...... or parcel...... of land lying and beins in the County of • .........•..............................................................and ,State of Minnesota, dese7•lbed a..s follows, to-wit. z Lot 9 Block 2, Holiday Hills; and that part of Lot 8, Black 2, Holiday Hills, lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of Lot 8, 15 feet Northerly of the Southerly corner of said Lot 8; thence to a point on. the Westerly line of said Lot 8, 137 feet from the most Southerly point of Lot 8; and that part of Lot 8, Block I , Holiday. Hills 2nd, lying Southeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 8, 20 feet Northwesterly of the Southerly corner of said Lot 8; thence to a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, 99.65 feet from the most Southerly point of Lot 8, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the 1 duly recorded map or plat thereof. E i Subject to restrictions, reservations and/or easements of record, if any. 11� o A STATE OF , +:�, DE_PT.,b _ ate.-•• : _ s. DEED •,v 'STAJAP MAY10'73 u�u• i (. — I TAX --------.- ea.1.s 1 a _— { 1 moi;}... .+_l ..., ..c.. ,,y .si�1 ?r _.�_ ._ ._..,.I•_.<i _ rt7� ;r- y C.SL�JBEu t � TAX STATEMENTS FLIR 111+ RUL , 1N THIS IFISTRUMENT SHCC,:, 0: 'win City Federal as &-Loan Assn f State Deed Tax Due Hereon: ;�.,1Q 801 Marquette Avenue _ / Iiimeipclis, 1•iinneszota 55402 _ T ker with all t r enanaes there- ...__.____._._.- - .... _ --_•-.- _.___ .:�:, T.R. BOOK 0 DATE _ //D '.� the s uZ parties of the second part, their assigns, the sur- of th survivor, Forever, the said parties of the second part MUNICI. /� ,11 TCV p com on. ; a 'dow and unremarried PLAT / [)O c_,..... .................................................................................................................................... ..... 6�'T'� PARCEL' 4_0 ' 7,;& r heirs, executors and administrators do..es .. t7ceir assigns, the su7•vivor of said parties, and the heirs ,...well seized in fee of the lands and premises aforesaid and Ile in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are TAY,ES PAYABLE IN 19 'EXz�_?V ILE FOR EIT FILE, i ASSESS NO CNG ADD CP i RE:f:07>, USE NEW DESC. 1 and premises, in the quiet and peaceable possession of the DIVISION # A c" the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and assigns of the Wring or to claim the whole or any part thereof, subject to FROM V N d, the said parc...y ..... of the first part will U'arrant and � MAIL:- -TO: j vart..y.... . ..of the first part ha_5....... hereunto set....her LOAN NO. .......... ......................................................... ZIP !..:�.. .z.. r AUD. �DATA ASSN. Helesz... .•....Ha...e.y.................................................................................. # • VALUE-C.O.R.E.V. 4 �i?CL'D �- ...... ....... ........................................................ BY ASSN ':OL RECORDED INVOICE 485 TO Kenneth and Karen Gasper 501 - Rice Creek Blvd. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 This invoice serves as your receipt for purchase of the South Section of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills from Lot line to 55° North. Attached is the certificate of Survey with area marked in red. Purchase price is $30,00 per frontage foot x 55° e $1650.00. Purchaser agrees to update his title. Michael and Ruth McNiff `, 485 - Rice Creek Blvd. ti?� Fridley, Minnesota 55432 �` 1 i 71 it it ENG (/*��, INC1 ,4fi�ttro�.ux31. E N V I N E E R l N 'i, . {�dx�[SGtJ Kiri��A'hl7'iN:i7l7) ul1�F,�1rQbb f.7 �tk4'T'f. � � /v Ff?y1�oti er s Sur e of-.5 certai £icate of suzv \/M .�.,; c � �_!rti e .•� z t�-lam Or# I 4e TT r t a /h&l°Gy ad, >'7rtt l/5 :� O Irth' and clrr2�f rc/>/C4Plt�4t�o/7 of�:1 sur vr�/ 1� 6—d*,�e5 q 'Ar abw *,,,bed 4wd,&V i ,!"aor ai said 4xrV- as svry yed by me P* _�y J SU6U126AN ENGINEERINCI I N g, N 131.06 N is'30(2903 --?10 cr 00 / lu N I oar �21.4� i co © '------- X33.23------ m oo ,W N a ----- �r 83=03=1'1..E C Q` °•o pp c- N NN D� M 1o5.rcG ch \ � 223•x$ Oklilt WN 0 ) r N / k\ 1•� r \ ILI o�. �,.<,� r ��� �� / " � `f� F i f f r �_ Ohriio coq vEO Y KENNETH GASPER L.S. 476-08 •'= - °, ,. 69TH AVE, 5 BB .-.- p,.°> .'dna f'yRna. P•,k•1 Z+•.es Eu�Q�- - --w:sm� , I �~a4� Si C o i 5' � ,• i r � < So �"' j N�b a„i° •w 1�ti �ie� 2. tz Im 2%4- .wu I li � N N h �F45Y eJ• :�1 n! ■r .3T. , 4 lea e k !✓ vy �••�, ' a Q i! _ tr ��t-�. or /`.•.. � a♦°t �y e(�'q0 T �®`�N -_ /ot o. 5¢�.5 Y y �f• � /fly •.i ��.\ `gin r w w .,�8•` f �/ ¢ I "mi z .,f,•,�—► ''r ♦♦ 'n~SBI•L ff, G► m � 1�•j aq fjly ♦ �� a �-,./'_. y4rs4 9'p, G •'a S a y ro a \ 'b•as ,0 sM1 s }� 3 o a.. S' s' »_ ', F r S' ry, y /^.•_,fff aaa��• �,N • , V `• �o`' moi.. /�+� O ,ti rw, o, � 1, ,�9 "•s1 y V/ye 17 r:=„ y `.�^♦ 2', \ `�'; 'rc, s•eo' ,�\,y "� fr /1 �••.,,,+. .M1•e R,0s�.Ls �J •.f� *01 75 12 50 ui ti :aae � � `� `�, �N/F-�'�h'• � oma;' .e? ___ r� 4 h Z �� ��',: �1� e 8• ,, � N }� 5 h a ? r OMNI �y 1 9 Cal !� c. „ 7s ,io of c,- �o B� �o 71 °3: 4t'5e "il 90 �s r t _ r.. i -! ;s >t "s yg go ao bo,•;<< � -s I ' ' I � F -p 'Fa • i I . l nl ? - f f M 75 1 \ Planning Commission Meeting .- October 6, 1976 Page 14 Mr. Leier said it was his intention for the City to do this work and assess him for it. He said he also contacted the owner of the apartment adjacent on the Eastern side, and that person also owned the property where 731-, would go straight East, and he was interested in doing something there, too. Mr. Leier asked if, for example, the City would take over the curbs, street, sewer, etc., if they would couple that bid with others in the area. Mr. Sobeich replied that they tried to incorporate street projects with the annual city street improvements, and would hopefully get the lowest possible bid for construction. He added that sanitary sewer and water would be another bid, but they'.tried to combine as much as possible to get the lowest possible price. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-09, Deleier Addition, by Donald M. Leier. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 P.M. Mrs. Schnabel asked if they were approving a replatting into four separate lots of that R-3 section for the purpose of those parcels eventually being built on as R-1 property. Mr. Boardman said he was sure -that was what Mr. Leier's intention was. Mrs. Schnabel then asked why they would not rezone at the same time they replat, and Mr. Boardman answered because R-1 could be built on R-3 property. Mrs. Schnabel stated that the lot size bothered her. She said that she had some problems going along with replatting with lots of that size since they were trying to be consistent in the City to maintain 75' widths. Mr. Boardman pointed out that it would be difficult to do it any differently. Mrs. Schnabel said she didn't have the magic answer, but felt it would require a variance at the time it was built upon. Mr. Sobiech stated that a variance would not be necessary if the plat was approved as such. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #76-09, Deleier Addition, by Donald M. Leier: Being a replat of Lot 33, Auditor's sub- division No 129, to allow the development of 3 R-1 lots (single family duelling area) and u R-3 lots, (general multiple family units), generally located in the 1500 Block between 73rd Avenue N.E. and Onondaga Street N.E. with the following understandings: 1) That street easements to complete 732 Street and its intersection of Lakeside Road will be completed, and 2) That if the R-3 property is actually developed for multiple family, that access not be off 732 Street. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye; the motion carried unanimously. 8. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #76=0 BY MR. & MRS. KENNETH GASPER: The purpose of the lot split re split off 55 feet of front footage of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and make it a part of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, but the request now includes other properties listed on their deed that has never gone through the lot split procedure by the City. The complete request is as follows: That part of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, said point being located 97 feet Southwesterly of. the Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 13 4 73� would go through that property and connect up to Onondaga Street. He explained that this was an existing plat from Auditor's Sub, and what was being requested was a replat of that Auditor's Sub. He stated that page 73 showed what was involved, and said at this time Mr. Leier was planning on going with single family homes in the R-3. Mr. Boardman said that if an apartment unit was allowed in there as it was according to the zoning, he I.ould suggest that a stipulation be made allowing no access to 731; St. He brought to the Commission's attention a memo from Tom Colbert dated October 5, 1976 concerning the watermain, sanitary, and easements in the Deleier Additicn. Mr. Leier said he bought the property not knowing of the platting, and found out Lakeside Road was supposed to extend to the cul-de-sac. He said he had invested in this and would have to go ahead with it. Mr. Leier said the lots were not 75' wide, but 72.25' wide, and it was a tough situation. He added that this was an area where large homes would not be built, and the square footage on the smallest lots were 9,970 feet and and the largest -,,-,as 11,00 square feet. Chairperson Harris asked if the area designated as R-3 was all one parcel now, and was told it was. He asked if Mr. Leier proposed to split that into four sections, and Mr. Leier replied he did in order to have a wider range of possibilities for it. Mr. Harris asked how large the total R-3 parcel was, and Mr. Boardman said it was getting close to 10,000 square feet. Nr. Harris asked how many units that would hold, and Mr. Boardman replies' about 1.6. Mr. Ha_ris asked if there were any problems with any of the lots in t:_e R-1 area, and Mr. Boardman said there were not. Mr. Peterson asked if he understood correctly that Staff had no problems �•:ith the petitioner's request with existing codes, other than the stipulation for the egress onto 731x• Mr. Boardman said that was correct, and he didn't have a big problem with that area going either R-1 or R-3. He said if it went R-3 he would suggest all traffic be connected to 73rd. He added it was even possible for half of that to go to R-1 and half go to R-3. Karen Eggert, 7351 Pinetree Lane, N.E., asked if the plan called for 73 2 to go through or if it would stop right there. Mr. Boardman explained the road would connect, and suggested that should be a stipulation. He added that he had contact with the owner of 2180, and his intent over the phone was to go for a lot split North and South, and he would be coming in to apply for that some time next week. However, he said, he still felt the stipulation for easement should be connected to this plat in case he didn't apply for the lot split. Mr. Sobicch interjected that in order to achieve the integrity of the future development that was planned there, it was the City's intent to make that connection, and in order to make that connection they must maintain that easement. Chairperson Harris asked if the City would require these people to acquire the easement, and Mr. Sobiech replied that was their intention. He explained that to this date they had had the developers acquire the easements, and it was not unusual. John Eggert, 7351 Pinetree Lane, N.E., stated he lived on lot #3, and in talking to the neighbors around the area they agreed they would like to see the area go R-1. Planninr Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 1.5 Northeast corner of said Lot 82 a distance of 99.65 feet to the most Southerly point of said Lot 8, thence Northwesterly along the West line, a distance of 75 feet, thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning, AND, that part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, that point being 15 feet Northeast of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 8, thence Northwesterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a' distance of 137 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 8, thence South- easterly to a point of beginning, all to be part of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, the same being 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mr. Kenneth A. Gasper was present. Mr. Boardman explained to the Commission what areas they were dealing with, and said that Mr. Gasper was requesting a lot split of an additional 55' from HolidayHills Second Addition. He said that since this lot split had never been approved by the City, that should be done at this time also. He stated that the petitioner cid have the approval of the property owners on each side. -Mr. Gasper explained that his children played on that particular piece of property, and he had wanted this lot split for some time. He said that to look at the geography of the property, it looked like it belonged to his lot more than Lot 8, Block 1. MOTTO` by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. ##76-08, by Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Gasper: The purpose of the lot split request was to split off 55 feet of P P P front footage of Lot 8, Block 1, Holiday Hills Second Addition, and *sake it a part of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, but the request now includes other properties listed on their deed that has never gone through the lot split procedure by the City. The complete request is as follows: That part of Lot 8 Block 1 Holiday Hills second Addition, described as follows: Beginning at l line of Lot 8 Block 1 Holiday Hills Second Addition, a point on the Easterly , , Y said point being located 97 feet Southwesterly of the Northeast corner of said Lot 8, thence Southeasterly along the East line of said Lot 8, a distance o¢' 99.65 feet to the most Southerly point of said Lot 8, thence ;orthwesterly along the West line, a distance of 75 feet, thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning, AND, that part of Lot 8, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 8, that point feet Northeast of the most Southerly bean 15 Y a corner of said Lot �, thence g Northwesterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a distance of 137 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 8, thence Southeasterly to a point of beginning, all to be part of Lot 9, Block 2, Holiday Hills Addition, the same 501 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. Mrs. Shea stated that for personal reasons she wished to abstain. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson and Schnabel voting aye; Shea abstaining, the motion carried. 9. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #,E76-09 BY BENEDICT NOVAK: Split off the Southerly 102 feet of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, subject to 9 foot road easement 713!* Way N.E., to create a new building site, Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1976 Page 16 the same being 145 712 Way N.E. (The address of Mr. Novak's residence will have to be changed when a building permit is taken out for construction on the new building site). Mr. Benedict Novak was present, and stated he wanted to take off 92 feet, not 102. Mr. Boardman explained that this lot split request was tentatively granted by the City Council when roadway easement was given up by Mr. Novak to allose development of 8 lots. tie indicated to the Commission where the property was located on the map on page 82 of the agenda. Mr. Boardman said Staff would request the lot split- be no less than 89' and that 9' of that would be required for roadway easement. tie said they would also request that the lot split be no closer than 10' to the present structure. Mr. Novak said he had had his property surveyed, and the lot split would be 8' South of his fence, and the fence was over 10' from the existing house. Mr. Bergman questioned what could be made out of a 9' street easment, and Air. Boardman explained they had a present road easement there now, and an additional 91 would make it a standard size. Mr. Sobeich added that the additional 9' would make it 42', which would be consistent with the adjacent property. Mr. Boardman said that the City Council allowed him only one lot split, so although the lot to the South was large enough for another lot split, the Council said only one would' be allowed. It had also been agreed, he added, that the property would be split by a simple lot split instead of platting. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #76-09, by Benedict Novak: Split off the Southerly 92 feet of Lot 34, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, subject to 9 foot road easen.ent 712 Way N.E., to create a new building site, the same being 115 71'2 May N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Since representative,- of Anoka County were present to discuss East River Road, Chairperson Harris suggested deferring Iters 10 until after Item 11 on the agenda. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission take the receiving of the Community Development minutes as Item 11-A. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 11. RECEIVE FRIDLEY E,'�VIRO'ZIENTAL QUALITY COT FMISSION M,,I\TUTES: SEPTEMBER 21, 197 MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Fridley Environmental Quality Commission minutes of September 21, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 165 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 PAGE 4 KENNETH GASPER LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L #76-08, 01 RICE CREEK BOULEVARD: i Mr. Sobiech proceeded to discuss the matter stating that this was a request for a lot split to split off certain parcels of property adjacent to the subject property located at 501 Rice Creek Boulevard. The request is being made by the petitioner II in order to make greater use of the adjacent property. Mrs. Kenneth Gasper was present and Mayor Nee asked Council if anyone had any questions, and there were none. However, fir. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, asked Mrs. Gasper if there was I going to be an exchange of deeds and she responded that there was. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to approve the lot split as requested. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. BENEDICT NOVAK LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #76-09, 145 712 WAY N.E.: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the lot split as requested. Seconded i by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1975-3 (EAST RIVER ROAD): j Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone present to discuss the matter and Mr. Mike i Paripovich, Member of the Fridley Environmental Quality Commission, 8200 East River Road, addressed the City Council . He stated that the purpose of asking for a moratorium was simply that there was not enough information at this point to even agree on what is being argued. Also, more information is needed from some federal agencies requiring noise levels and air pollution levels surrounding residential dwellings and the purpose of the moratorium is to enable Mr. Paripovich to get this information together. Two years ago, the County Engineers had no plan to show him and now they are ready to ao ahead with a four or five hundred thousand dollar project, and there is a good deal of resentment on the part of the people who live in the subject area. He further pointed out that until his Committee can net a good plan together, j one that can test against federal standards and state and county highway standards i as they exist, and until several studies can be made; he and his Committee do not feel the City should go ahead and spend four or five hundred thousand dollars. Councilman Starwalt then proceeded to ask Mr. Paripovich in regard to his concern over the noise levels and pollution levels alona East River Road, why wasn't he concerned about Highway 65 and University for the same reasons. Mr. Paripovich stated that he was concerned and that this was a matter that could be discussed in future projects. However, his Project Committee was set up to study East River Road. Councilman Starwalt asked, assuming the noise and pollution fumes are more than the people desire, what Mr. Paripovich proposed to do about the whole i three areas and all the traffic that enters there. Mr. Paripovich then referred to the East River Road Project Committee report and as pointed out, the Minnesota Highway Department study showed that there will be approximately 9,000 cars per day on East River Road. This study is based on the completion of the Georgetown area. He further stated that he believed it would be in order for the City of Fridley to seek some relief from the traffic pressures the City has. Councilman Starwalt stated that it was his position that, as nice as it would be for East River Road, he believed the burden would be put elsewhere and he felt that this is simply a problem that all would have to live with. Mr. Paripovich responded that the people who live between Mississippi and Georgetown recognize. this fact and were simply asking that their share of the problem not be increased. fir. Sobiech pointed out that although an improvement should be made, basically the only problem the Project Committee and the County and City Staff differ on is the Committee's proposal for a two lane roadway with medians and shoulders as opposed to the City and County's proposal for a four lane roadway with medians and shoulders. The medians and shoulders are proposed to provide safe access for the adjacent neighborhood to get on and off East River Road. t ° MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the moratorium with a thirty day time limit. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote. Councilmembers Fitzpatrick, Kukowski and Mayor Nee voting aye, Councilmembers Starwalt and Hamernik voting nay, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried three to two. I 165 i PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1976 PAGE 3 ; He further pointed out that he believed the entrance to the Islands of Peace should be well lighted, and it was time to ask the public to cooperate in any way possible to prevent the threat of vandalism from happening. Councilman Starwalt stated that he understood Mr. Wilmes' viewpoint, however, whether ! a reward would be the best type of method to achieve this, he could.not fully agree. He further pointed out that there were people reviewing the sign ordinance. There is some sign psychology and sometimes signs turn certain individuals to destruction. Council- man Starwalt stated that he would like to encourage this be given to Staff and perhaps for the Parks and Recreation Department to review the matter and be brought back to the City Council at the earliest opportunity with something that everyone could agree on. Mayor Nee stated that if it is feasible, it might be worthwhilein all of the parks. He further commented that the matter would be discussed again when the City Council has received some feedback from Mr. Chuck Boudreau, Parks and Recreation Director. NEW BUSINESS: CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY F FRIDLEY: Mayor Nee indicated he thought they had already had the first reading of this ordinance. t Mr. Marvin Brunsell , Finance Director, said that the consideration of the ordinance previously included everything except the item the Public Hearing was held on this evening. Mayor Nee said that maybe this item can be added onto the previous consideration of the ordinance as an amendment and we can hold the second reading of the ordinance as amended. Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, said that we checked with the City Attorney's office ! and the thought was that, even though it was not too substantive a change in the Charter, it might be better to consider it as a first reading, including all changes, and hold the second reading next Monday at the next Council meeting, so as to avoid the raising of any questions of improper adoption of the Charter amendments. Mayor Nee said there was a section on resolving in the case of an inconsistency between two initiated ordinances, and from his point of view, he withdrew his objection to it. He said it is still the same problem -- his problem with it hasn't changed, but his view of whether or not it is serious has changed. He said he could not convince members of the Charter Commission of his point of view. He said that at least for his part of it, he agreed to vote for the language as suggested by the Charter Commission. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to waive the first reading and adopt the first reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1976: 0 INNSBRUCK NORTH REPLAT 3RD ADD., P.S. #76-05: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set a public hearing for December 13, 1976. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. INNSBRUCK VILLAGES SECOND ADDITION, P.S. #76-10: i MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set a public hearing for December 13, 1976. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. DELIER ADDITION, P.S. #76-09: l MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set a public hearina for December 13, 1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. - 3 . l i i } �4 4 • j i