The URL can be used to link to this page

ZOA72-04 c CITY OF FRIDLEY TYPE OF REQUEST MINNESOTA ,,_,,,,_Rezoning PLANNING AND ZONING FORM Humber Z O 4 *-7a _D _,_Special Use Permit .L� ---Variance APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE- Approval of Pre- liminary Plat Address 3296 Ri ce Qr2eh S v Approval of Final Telephone Number 636-19,16 Plat Streets or PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE Vacations Address 6305 East River Road Other Telephone Number 560- 3569 Street Location of Property 63rd 1.7ay &; East River Road ,Legal Description of Property hots Twelve (12) Thirteen(13 ) , Fourteen(14 ), Fifteen(15), aixteen(16 ), Seventeen 17 , and the :lest five feet of mot Block Sixteen(1'6) e Fridley Park, and lZing adjacent thereto. Present Zoning Classification R-1 Existing Use of the Property Sint le Family, Dwell ins, Proposed Zoning Classification, Special Use, Variance or other request CR-1 Describe briefly the Type of Use and the Improvement Proposed Remodel the existin structure to be uses, as s Real Estate Office . This use of re Tropert,. WIII create €+ FuTler a eenxis 7Fp- gingle TaLmily no es Acreage of Property, _7 and East River Road. Has the Present Applicant Previously Sought to Rezone, Plat, Obtain a Lot Split, Obtain a Variance or Special Use Permit on the Subject Site or Part of It? no When? What vas Requested Fee Enclosed $ 40_00 Date Piled Date of Hearing f A PLANNING AND ZONING FORM PACE 2 • NumberZ o ��—a The undersigned understands that: (a) A list of all residents and owners of pro- perty within 300 feet must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the pro - eeedings resulting from the failure to list the names ind addrebses of all residents and property owners of property within 300 feet of the property in question, belongs j to the undersi-ned. Residents and Owners of Property within 300 feet PERS014S ADDRESS SEE ATTACHED LIST. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dray*n on the back of this fora or attached, showing the following: 1. North Direction 2. Location of Proposed Structure on lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side set-backs, 4. Street Names = 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet) . The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and repr sentations stated in this application are truo and correct. SICNATURE-, Z0- (APPLICANT Approved...^... .�ganfed by the Board of flppeAls Subject .to the Following Conditions: date Approved — -- Denied by the Planning Cerzai33ion on Subject to the Following ConditiorIs: Approved Denied _ by the Council on Subject to the Following, Conditions: date Form PC 100 OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, May 3, 1972 in the Council Chamber at 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request (ZOA #72-04) by Leigh Investment, Inc. (John R. Doyle, representative) to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business) Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park, lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at East River Road and 63rd Way. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. OLIVER R. ERICKSON CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: April 19, 1972 April 26, 1972 3 r �(Ie- �/• 1r ZOA #72-04: LEIGH (Lee) INVEST. INC. !"yf =,c Ta ' �� ^�B�'s•�s� L. 12-17 & W. 5 ft. of Lot 18, B1. 16, t ' Fridley Park. Rezone from R-1 to CR-1 Icy 0 y . L(GenOffice & t us _ \` d B �.7 ..•• :y. •, ` ° �� 1 1 1J ems' � •i0 Ile 4 . ! a Wz40 /3 I 3p� 45 O�Ea 2829 4:TH ea•�S' R bmf 6s r3F> Q i ,,:..f WAY x Q 7 �� 517. ; / - I '✓ �5 ' :2�°' iIJ J °\ . ''4�'''• 950!7 p"£ 61 r i ,I ICZ 12 41 ;/9 Zv r2/ ZZ 29 24 Z6`27 o .... s .jD- S7-4 79 75 A^ ��b-^'� •ao .. oe r i Vf 1 •+� 63 1/2 WAY 4 3 " m 7 4 40 11` ^ 3,. 8 7ICIS -! i3jZ� /6: /7 i C p.,. it } •,o . 57.99 I i ase o eQ 1Z �3 14/s'a� 7 y!Zo /Y ZZ ,Zhu � !o :'x ' 7.f 7X 7f 7S 7S 7s 644/ 5 0 r •¢ 3 z �� l c Y r `�° :� . Jq AY ~OIiG EA .../Oul /..:.....• BE'B �'I�;• \ 33� J �, .. ., �f ! ';•a is -I. iS 7S 78 7l 7S 76IN 4x•. Ye' �� 1 i 40 �4 i !Ir�.. / O • t,,. 3 12 41,AAll OrI e/H✓o/rrrav ��/ (49oc) iz +. 1 "y` z , 53 of/or 15 Aud Sub•No..?3 �" ! �"• / t GVISGD ' f., 3IeZ✓3 /A I/5 /6I17�/6 1-9 20 ( : t I 1 o . ' p +„ I �{ j....,e,3 4,`/ `` Z... // •._u , % 621/2 WAY V `1Aj .�y7+ \k:� 'p rig, ' ,. .• 4w'rX I _ .j !J•� �tv YW ',+I! �a 9 ,8 7 6 .S 14 3 Z'it 1 • '-� ::oF 3 w` 2 _ 1 e: AY •Sass.; tt.a Bt.o itr.a Ny.er�` 'i 'e .. 11 117 U ZS14 = ; Y i t� B /0 1 I 4o tS .~.. A T I z �. 2�1 D MAY b tij a S9'J• A Au— d �., /z /i /o 19 IS 7 !6 S 4 'Z I Z r, '„ 6 '.'.�� `' .f el 3 � BIZ / /}\ -�I, ? �.I: � I K .S• r;. O t. oe, •,. ,, to 'v�! /6 7�/8 /9TZD Z/ lu ! B e 8 e y� f REZONING: ZOA #71-04; MAILING LIST: Leigh Investment, Inc. Planning Comm. April 14, 1972 Council. . . . . . . May 23, 1972 Leigh Inv. , Inc. Albert Dahl 3296 Rice Creek Terrace 62 632 Way New Brighton 55112 Fridley Arthur Anderson David Chaston 15 632 Way 110 63rd Way Fridley Fridley Francis Morrison Clarence Theisen 19 632 Way 111 63rd Way Fridley Fridley Roger Pence • TUC• 39 632 Way 123 63rd Way Fridley Fridley Mildred King dw� 71 632 Way 135 63rd Way Fridley Fridley Adell Holkman Max Finkel 79 632 Way 147 63rd Way Fridley Fridley Albert Johnson Paul Kumhera 6211 East River Rd. 134 632 Way Fridley Fridley Mike Evanoff Rachel Henderson 6266 East River Rd. 122 632 Way _ Fridley Fridley Harry Crowder Edward Wilbert 146 63rd Way 110 632 Way Fridley Fridley Lloyd Staldy Wallace Roeker 134 63rd Way Fridley 4 ' b±nsua��T22 Richard Morrow Ben Calvin 122 63rd Way 5651 Brunswick Ave. N. Fridley Mpls. 55429 Donald Thompson Carl Sorensen 40 632 Way 4615 Univ. Ave. Fridley Columbia Hts. 55421 Peter Hendricks William Sorenson 20 632 Way 15 622 Way Fridley Fridley -1- r Mailing List ZOA 971-04 . Leigh Investment, Inc. Melvin Kocinski 43 621� Way Fridley Everett Swanson 45 6211 Way Fridley George Corba 3556 No. Fremont Ave. Mpls. 55412 Gerald Gerber 6275 East River Rd. Fridley Edward Ellis 70 63rd Way Fridley Paul Gomez 40 63rd Way Fridley John Othoudt 20 63rd Way Fridley Lewis Doyle 25 63rd Way Fridley Loren Wolle 33 63rd Way Fridley George Danielson 6305 East River Rd. Fridley John Wiens c/o Twin City Fed. Say. & Loan 801 Marquette Ave. Mpls. Chas. Benzinger 57 62% Way Fridley -2- z` Fr_i.d.l e- MN 5.54?? /Fdwprd .::i.lbet t Po �- -n Pon T..onsor, 40 631 Wa'y \1110 63-z Way p►F Peter. Hendricks Rachel1 Hender-on 20 6� 122 63_1 Way %jT, : Albert Dahl Curtis Teske 12 63-1 stay 1 K 63rd Way T7 : Le is Doyle Fenn Realty Co. , ln,� 25` 6 :day 3�. > 123 63rd. tray N^ =k tit Toren Walle Clarence Theisen 33 53zV3 tiny 11163rd Way r'F rt Ei I'IliS ' Dave Chaston 110 63r3 as-r rrc+ John Othoualt Richard Marro-i-7 20*63x3 i•1ay 1?2. 63--d •;ray Pall. Gomes: Lloyd Steady N) 631�i ' y 134 63rd '�,av _r;er_ai.d G^rber c: Adel! Foli ran s 7. Way q r 63i �eW av C'narins 1_ er7in gcr ttiI.-Irp,! t(i_re* 57 62: `,,_y Everett S ,%,son Ro>rer Pp-ne 45 521 Melvin Kac;r.siSi. Franc;s ?'orri,or41 Arth�a.r. Anderson •'J `i. 1 Sorr9nson 1 1 15 6? ia3 ,Trh,, Uiens (11, ?"argnq tt mN A'Y, ry..lyin j I, i i Rezone From R-1 to CR-1 ZOA 472-04: Lots 12-17, & West 5 ft. L. 18, Block 16, Fridley Park Leigh Investment, Inc. This is a complete lisp of all property owners within 300 feet of the- property at 6305 East River Road. Edward '..'ilbert 110 632 way Rachel Henderson 122, 63�',Ilay N.E .Paul Kumhers 134 631 'Vay N.E . Max Finkel 147 63rd Way N.E. Ki -11 & 0 135 63rd Way N.E . sGo-YkV3 ! Penn Realty Co.,Inc. 123 63rd Wad* N.E. Clarence Theisen 111 63rd Way N.E. David Cha s t on 110 63rd 'Nay N.E. Richard 11orrow 122 63rd Way ii.E . Lloyd ataldy 134 63rd Way N.E. Harry Croivde2° 146 63rd Way N.E. Mike Evanoff 6r,66 East River fload Albert Johnson 6211 East River Road Ade l l HoUme n 7 9 632 Way 1!ildred King 71 63` uVay Ri.E� Roger Pence 39 63? Way N.E. Francis IYorrlson 19 63:- Way No E. Arthur Anderson 15 63q 'v"tray N.E .. Albert Dahl 1.2. 63-q hay N.E. Peter Hendricks 20 63- Way 1 .E. Donald Thompson 40 632 Way N.E. George Danielson 6305 East River Road loren Wolle 33 63rd iWay N.E. Lewis Doyle 25 63rd Way N.E. John Othoudt 20 63 Way N.E . Paul Gomez 4.0 63rd Way N.E . Edward Ellis 70 63rd I'Vey N.E. Gerald Gerber 6275 East River Road George Corba 3556 Freemont Ave No. Charles Benzin�er 57 621 Way N.E . Everett Swanson 45 68T Way N.E . Yelvin Kocinski 43 62-� Way N.E . 'dYilliam Sorenson 15 62;� Way N .E . Carl Sorensen 4615 University Ave. N.E . Ben Calvin 5651 Brunswick Ave . No. John -i iens 801 Marquette, Ypls, Wallace Roeker 4175 W. Broadway, Robbinsuale t es-if 30 1663 00G Zzzgegci.q Ila 'to da}I ed-efq -oo s eI eIi{T .b=,ofi gO1119 Jean 30613 Its yJ'15()Wr q ew �Ea oil �7adlf'.:' b iswba . H.I4 -zmw,Ea SSI larfoag . �.11 ,,r 1 c:a kc;l A7erfmux trisq S.Vi yj&W b-iEa V-�l la.lal% XAM .a.X -sr* b7&& aE r IIAVUG mA1II1w ,a.Vi ,rayd b763 GSI .onI 4. oG .Jlaeff nrteq .a.0 y2Vv b-%Sc) III neelerfT eornen213 . a.,f vA ' bga3 CII no3PAffG b.PV.PQ . 3.V yaW b7Ea SSI wo7Koid bqur`olF . a. 1,1 gaW b76a 31,1 gebwao-x3 yq'121 baoif 7eVIR ;tend 8a2a Ytonav3 e>11M b-iaoff g0VIH JSAa IIS3 rosnrforu J-fedSA =Z,aw � aaw-Mil I l obA \H.N �;aw dad I�' 7,5nlX beKbllM ,H.iR yaw Ea E7rsoH .a .H YAW ls�Ea C:l rxoelnnoM efonAgq a.d4 xsw *Gv cI :o r ebnA -t(rrFJgA . a.of vAia ;I Iii¢Q J7edtA .a. i yaw -- p 0q zafo 2bnaN neJeq .;3.'JI X's`tv 116'a 0noagn.ori'T blanoQ baofi 10VIH J?,A 'o0c;b cc e%shall e.37ce0 .H.X XAW bKEa EE etloY [Is-fol el-�oa e twe,I .3.1g ,oAi(i �a GS 41 Uorfj() nrfoZ Y Q b76a 01% semo0 1"16 a.K Xa'd b-168 QV s GIIH bnAwba bROH `Y8V1H JISH aVSa Ksd7et btaarre� cit :�-rt. %xoraee7`'i �3aaG edgoC a roe 3.it rrjaW Sa Va 'Ye�ni3f:9U tel7a f3 . �.� -QAYV laa ak aoP.nmwa jjegeva • &14 AWSa �k blaff fox r11Vt3'd . 2.12 rAW �S8 at noerxe7oa miallI t �.a ,OVA yJ 18,T5v fnU d Lai noenessoG I��aO .olf . &VA :4c)1wercrrYd4 lana nlvlaG n9S lalgM �e��e�rp7sM 108 Baf3lW nrfo% elabealddoH tyzwbAo73 .W a7lk 7e);eofi so2118W b j�72 • 4 �-c�_ dZ • �. «.L,- ZOA 472-04: Leigh Investment Co. N Minneapolis, Minnesota April 23, 1972 ZOA 772-04: Leigh Investment Inc Mr. Oliver R. Erickson Chairman Planning Commission Dear Sir: I have been informed that a Public Hearint of the PlanninIg Commission of the City of Fridley is to be held on Wednesday, May 3, 19'72 in the Council Ch=ber at 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of discussing a rezorin,- request (ZOA #72-c4) mode by Leigh Investment, Inc., John R. Doyle, representative, to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 seven lots in Block 16, Fri ley Park, laying in the South Half • of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Due to a prior commitment, my wife and I will be u=sable to attend this hearing on May 3, 1972, and I would appreciate your receipt of this letter as being a vote against the rezoning regaest made by Leigh Investment, Inc. D. Ro erira, 1 2-632 Way N.E. Fridley, Minnesota x CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITION COVER SHEET Petition No, 6-1972 Date Received May 4, 1972 Object Rezoning petition from John Doyle, Leigh Investments , Inc. for the property at 6305 East River Road (R-1 to CR-1 , ZOA #72-04) (Planning Commission) Petition Checked By Date Percent Signing � g Referred to City Council Disposition PETITION: : TO: Petition 6-1972 ZOA #72-04 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL FRIDLEY PLANNING CC: ."ISSION We the undersigned Residents and Property owners of the Community along; Et'13T RIVE,={ ROAD and South of P;:i s s i s s ippi St .,, and bound Primarily on the East by the Railroad and on the .'Jest by EAST RIVER ROAD, have been Contacted by Yr. John Doyle of LLI( H IreJESTYENTS, INC . concernin- the Property at 6305 EAST RIVER ROAD. Yr. Doyle has explained that he would lice to Remodel the Existin- D;velling, I�?odernizing its Exterior Features, and use it as a Real Estate Office . He Has Explained to us that in order to use the Property as he wants he '.Jill need a zoning chanf-e and has ExplAined how thiscould affect our property and the advantages We may see . At . the same time he has asked us Whether ',ire are Interested in a Zoning Change for our Property as i1ell . Our Feelings are indicated below : NATE PROPERTY MCA'TION I DO NOT I '�'VOULD I DO NOT OBJECT TO AjS0 LIY>E T APPROV�; THE PROPOSED,: BE OF Ar, USE OR CONSIDERED REZGIJIJ'?^- RECLASSIF. 2OR I: THIS TO CR-1 RECIASSIFI AREA . cation --7e)r i E ' I v, W Zi � AJ�,; 33 > w 6 LAt - t 6 on 6 72. ZOA #72- ►V E ADS• `` fE - a '- R O � pin ryCLG l�� O U a.• ' ry813 7 . IDa i A to 9 9 e ` /O •t j xs rapt y «. � ti z --- �/ 0 // r Ile cc �y 19J..if ,a.�=is' _ 29 4TH WAY , 30 rs .,g2 v ' ci, zcr ✓ ` u 42 J !: .. - 7.1 ,: /9 .ZD ,Z/Zz Z3 .4 ?5 67: 27 � - �f 2, 63 VZ WAY .: . CI SO s8q-44 9 /6 /7 l o, /Z RIVER i J -. �� T /rt ��ZIA N.E. Af % a.,63 RC WAY s �,/!/O 9 8 7 6 5 4 / t. s Z REVISED a ?f7..,�,, S /s sJ /8 ,:9 20,Zf 2 CC Q 4- V O V 62 1/2 WAYorrIoN z • /� j •Y —,3 W I/ /0 9 B 7 6 S 4 3 Z,: l f M t 1,• ., /.Z/3 /4 /S /d /7 /8 /9 2P �' r t ULTis 1 a z cc SC — w ti *ADDC5 T � r;ON fV0 WAY s .- LLI 4 .. :- 0 f RIVER EZGE 'rel R June 12, 1972 I hereby certify that I am one of the circulators of the attached pEEtion against rezoning project, P'elition # 7-1972. N" 0�-RRPysp'(� 7�1 ' r�SP��oO�.�o ��y 19�R ,.N• * scud � 'r��o before me, a notary public, this 12 day of June, 1972. 0 44 ID 1� { I June 12, 1972 �s I hereby cer ,�tha I am one of the circulators of the attached petition against rezonin .r R ysI)ret tion # 7-1972. N�RP M\N A �c �isc ,�Se��p sworn to before me, a notary public, this 12 day of June, 1972. June 12, 1972 I hereby certify that I am one of the circulators of the attached petition against rezoning project, Petition # 7-1972. ""AAAA CASSANDRA -- ,;, CASSANDRA M. BERRAY NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA t�cr bedA�c(Fawgrn to efore me, a notary public, this 12 day of June, 1972. Gomm. Expires Sept. 27, 19 a C .vvrvvVVVVVVVVW l I i CITY OF :RIDLEY PETITION COVER SHEET r' Petition No, 7-1972 Date Received May 4, 1972 Object Against rezoning from R-1 to CR-1 (Lots 12, 13, 14, 75, 16, 17 and West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park) ZOA #72-04. (Planning Commission) Petition Checked By Date Percent Signing Referred to City Council Disposition vie the undersigned are against the rezonin: request (ZOA 7x72-04) by Leigh Investment, Inc. (John' R. Doyle, representative ) to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (Seneral office and United business Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park, lyin,- in the South Hal: of Section 15, T-301 R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka Flinn s of a. Generally located at Last River .=load and 63rd ;Tay. NAMES ADDRESS -� •�-f��Fn G� •� ��i�'-rL .��-�L ! �i � �/�� rye I n L./—��/! G•r.� j T� Lel:/�t�L.F.i Z�L �� l (�',�� a [.`L ?,i �!` , 'pCCt4 • 2-t 0 J Li Jz'-'V 4t4 J ^i �'�L� �--',�:-�,.., 4'_-�i�-�►L.�.-�, 1 � I Fes, �L,, � �� -�4 c-� / 7 J We .the undersigned are against the rezonin3 request (ZOA #72-04) by ' ,eigh' Invesi-ment, Inc. (John, R. voyle, representat _ve) to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (;general office and limited business Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and '::est 5 feet of Lot 18, Blocs. 16, Fridley Park, lying. in the South Izalf of Section 15, T-302 R-249 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at Last River Road and 63rd Way. NAI E ADDRESS PL yz� i ` C b ci .0� L =�` - 1 o COW S."we (a '_ OeG� ��' �l Ste' C�xy :Je .the undersigned are against the rezoning request (ZOA "72-04) by Leigh' Investment, Inc. (Jolm, R. Doyle, representative ) to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business ) Lots 12, 13, 1L,,, 15, 16, 17, and West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park, lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-309 R-244 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at East River road and 63rd Jay. NA ,�, ADDRESS _ r lit pul-111f 11 W-1-14 4-1 V3 y J s 4 ae the undersigned are ar-ainst the rezoninC reauest (ZOA r72-04) by Leigh Irvestrient, Inc. (John R. Doyle, representative ) to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and li~.iited business ) Lots lam, 13, 141 15, 16, 17, and :lest 5 feet of Lot 13, Bloc: 16, Fridley Fars, 1--in in the South Half of Section 15, 1:-302 R-244 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, minnesota. Generally located at East River Road and 63rd ;iay. , ITA 1, ADDRESS %lit 'L CLC t _c-L_ �' 'vlsf—C l ►ll t� �s eweX-a 7. 6?1 P441;4� 'ZOO 2314 . / 7 � 6-1 o.I-.j!-«�v i f C � /-'-r v.../ oL. /' - 'l�j,�- !. (�L/�•'� Jam' Z_ 61 �/4eZ'Z-- lie the undersigned are a-ainst the rezoning ,request (ZGA X72-0 DY Leigh Invest---dent, Inc. (John R. Doyle, rovreser_tative) to rezone fro- R-1 to CR-1 ( er_eral office and lLi- ited business ) Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and :Jest 5 feet of Lot lu, Bloch 16, Fridley "rami, lying in the South TTalf of Section 15, T-30, R-241 Cit; of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at East River Road and 63rd ;,Jahr. ADDESS /f 0/7 Actl� 1,2 Y2 el "V- 0 7s a ` «� 412�1-- . `We the undersigned are against the rezonir, reauest (ZOA #72-04) by Leigh Investment, inc. (John' R. Boyle, representative ) to rezone fron r - ed business) Lots 12 1 1 1 R l to CR-1 (general office and li.�t u 1 3, , 5 16, 17, and ;Test 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park, lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-301 R-244 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. 7 Generally located at Last River oad and 63rd :Tay. NADP ADDREL S 34 Z�, -21 22,1 �- l �; � ' �� .;��,��•�•� /its - �� 2� yzrv ; euf Terr, a.�. ��G�� / -..,G•�t cel � .-�� - --.. li� ✓.�% l� -J 6 21: ►-O c-6/i CSG � y 9 R. We the undersigned are against the rezoning request (ZOA X72-04) by � Leigh Investment, Inc. (John R. Doyle, representative) to rezone from U R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business) Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, (� 16, 17, and Nest 5 feet of Lot 16, Block 16, Fridley Park, lyir-,, in the South Half of Section 15, T-30, R-244 City of Fridley, County of Ano��a, Minne s o t a. Generally located at East River Road and 63rd :lay. NAME ` ADDRESS '�-- U 1 I, a�� "`2 O�uL�Lih�C / _ (G,ZGCJ - / yc� ! / i:�• �� / / Z'.. 7/1 Af CU 1 _ a 2- �t7 77, C Z)6-67 ll 7 L i I i .•de the undersigned are against the rezoning request (ZOA rr72-04) by Neigh Investiuent, Inc. (John R.. Doyle, representative ) to rezone frau R-1 to CR-1 (general office 'and limited business) Lots 12, 139 1L, 159 16, 17, and lest 5 feet of Lot 1B, Block 16, Fridley Pare, lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-301 R-2ZJ., City of Fridley, County of Anoka, T-Unnesota. 4 v e3 � located at Last River Road and 6 rc. Tu Generali 1 d v Y 3 Y ivAl ADDRESS 0 HO /67 ,2 w, -E__ C &k� 4/ l a 0 .0 =a 0 Cel., zd Q, V �? G A L� �-7 r �" - We the undersigned are a-ainst the rezoning request (ZCA #72-0I;.) by f, Leigh Investment, Inc. (John R. Doyle, representative ) to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (-eneral office and limited business ) Lots 12, 13, 14o 15, 160 17, and CR 5 feet of Lot 16, Block 16, Fridley Park, lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-30, R-241 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Tlinnesota. Generally located at East River Road and 63rd Way. ivAME ADDRESS • :,n,h.Q� ��.�-�c�t�t� �. 'ti l�,�� 1.0� � �i`�.r.�c�'.Ec ti/ �,�y�:�. sY33- { i is PETITION 73 We, the undersigned citizens of Fridley, MN, have a sincere interest in the growth and developement of that portion of Fridley outlined on the attached map. As such, we have met with Mr. John R. Doyle of 6305 East River Road and, after examining Mr. Doyles proposed use of the above property, support his application made before the City Council of Fridley requesting that he be permitted to operate a Real Estate office on the same property. 12. CY �-17 j'. '( 4. CZ-6- / (tet ici�_�- = 14. -33 f Q.� -- i5: 3-1 3 r 16. 8. C� � ��,. • 18.7 9- y F, 19. /.5 10.1 ..1;. f1 ids._ 20._ The following are concerns of the citizens that relate to the above approvals 1. Parking Loti I. Lot size sufficient for five cars. 2. Asphalt Surfacing ` 3• Bumper Curbs. 4. Short Privacy shrub around the parking area. 5• Space sufficient to turn cars around to drive out of the lot. 2 Hetd-es to the south to be trimmed-in a neat orderly manner to enhance the looks of the community and provide privacy. 3• Specialized use is to apply only to John R. Doyle or one of his immediate family and shall terminatelf this business vacates the _ ---------Property._During this special use period, none of the proposed �ropert�is to be sold. 4. During special use Puz1od, coning t& to remain consistent with surrounding neighbors. 5. Maintain all fences belonging to thegrope in at least or better than Present state of repair. 1 i i I i✓ - �� t� t. - �TS.•/,..� it '� fir: ^1--- -- JAI ', .1• ':i`�'•:`'�', ��'• J� Via• �.I�. '�. _ -._. . t� 'i:: __ mac; ZOA #72-0/1: LEIGH (Lee) IIv'VEST. INC. .� ori ?1,�%•` �1 h,' 1 L. 12-17 & of L � � �s.�- •'�_. .-. W. 5 ft. of 18, B1. 16 Fridley Park. Rezone from R-1 1 to CR-1(Gen. Office & Ltd. Bus.) ; .� •'i fes•._ �'. �-�'';•y-�� ` � � �F�-::. _ __._ � --- �, 41 13 z ��,�+� .` � I� '"1 �� . tL i .,moi �•• � fQ t - ! .s !• r . ` �^ ��;'_.-- ter- ;- ..,� �.� � �� ?,- � 'F•) /9 2 31 Y _ '•., t (-L��J 6 'q /�,CrSca�- %31 4• is'�S i�i i j`' i `j .;' f✓fjj -/+ \�- �J 113 t7 I S �S + r+ �3 .Z Z �. r�"',. , 1- ___.•"_ 1 'G. y f i { i �f i t �: ,:t �.t--_.. l� ��.••�-/�7'�'z�,ri� � 3 '^ `' ``` 1 �',2 y1�..`'l 1j::�.,!-..,� ..�,.f'.M�_ I I_.......'•• � { /•ems�� 3 � �. .f �� 1K 1 1 j� ✓- i 'j mac , A f It �S r- ,- ;/9 '2? .l/ 2 23 27 t A •'�+`�� , 7� ' 73 ,, �-3 +.`+�a� 1 (•.i`1 ...�.�..i�..a..':.. 1a�.....:.�.�....,.:.�..1`....� ••J�,...� O _ C,j� i+ - � *' G� •.: Q, 33 3 :i/ 7 'Z.� I��j-`t•. ��'.t-'".•• } (.,- !F 1 .•„� 1/2 t/ ;1 i °�-��rn Sn` it ti •� f•� •-r t� 7__.=-''f i ��1 �ao I j •"i:G:i�!J.< ''�:• 1 •��'� b `I �, °o• /� /7 BZ i Er.! • u t 7<�S 7` ��-?....._..� _P�95`j• I F9 f� 1 _��•�'^ i I»..._ �`2�13 'A' IS /S f/7' ,9 x.2,9 21" 7 �I 6 '�� 't 3 �'� Z �.t � ` R r _ 1i,.7,• � o t 1.' s � \j :l �.` all" ( 3 17 ��.r <33>r f �\ 1 r `•...��1{' � t �1 I j � � �f+��i i ^ .' 1' iSs�- f =/'vJ`/ /'f c.rr�f✓-=r_r.� f� \jr�.^c) /r K`" .-..... .. ! ,.,, .�"'•.p ��-,� t_. . —~ ��:V!S-) .f" _/.Z:/.3 •J4i/S /G`17,131/9° + C (j ie 3t q• •(� Tito N!_ _.rte JI� r • ! � .' ' !. -•ro. •• 111 ;a itt �j r ��'� •� � �f ry (.� �Jj l �•� r;,•�..� 1�e C.3 i/ t!. Lr/-� ) 'o i Lrj 9 '.9 17 �6 .�`` I� '3 �2 1 ? (!Al !` �: 1 efZ;/9?✓'r^ J Al;/7 IS�/JT 2�` r-7 Ut�.f�i� '. ,`.: .:• j I:• .:o ._ ^{ _ri.'�- ."•.II 1 j 1 1 w, i ' r _._._._a, _f_ `r i `tom Al,99S 7 it 6 ' f (�. J; 1 �e �,_♦ C, • + `f ^:J.!'t !�.! {� w! ��`: ._...I:......._-.I... I!..�IJ!'^...1_�.�y...�..�il �' � �; :+ �� s (,s� LtY 1 + 6305 E. River Road Minneapolis, MN 55432 August 13, 1973 Mayor and Councilmen City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. NE Mpls. , MN 55432 Sirs: Ref: Property at 6305 East River Road In the spring of 1972 a rezoning to CR-1 was requested on the above property and at the objection of the neighbors was denied. The in- tended use of the property was for a local small Real Estate office. At the final hearing on the subject a hand poll was taken by the Mayor of Fridley and the people felt that they were afraid of re- zoning, however, they stated by a showing of hands that they did not object to what I had pro;—red to do with the property. Therefore I respectfully request that you change and amend the city ordinance on R-1 property to allow the city council to entertain and issue a special use permit allowing a Real Estate office in a Resid-ential neighborhood at the discretion of the city council. If I may be of further service, please feel free to call me. S cerely f John R. Doyle P.S. Would it be possible to get permission to operate as a Real Estate Office during the time that it yes to process this application and zoning ame me t . r 560-3450 U a City o J"dl'y ANOKA COUNTY I 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE September 11, 1973 FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55421 i Mr. John Doyle 6305 East River Road N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Re: Real Estate Office at 6305 East River Road Dear Mr. Doyle: This is to confirm our September 11th telephone con- versation wherein we discussed your request to change the zoning ordinance in order that you may request something othEx than rezoning. It is my understanding that your attorney was to meet with our City Attorney to research the possible ways to dispose of this item. I have placed this itE:m on the September 12th agenda, therefore, I urge that you try to prepare something for the Planning Commission to study for further action. Sincerely, DARREL CLARK Community Development Administrator DC/de cc: Virgil Herrick, City Attorney 4 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA September 14, 1973 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council MEMO FROM: Nasim M. Qureshi SUBJECT: Status Report on the Request by Mr. John Doyle to use 6305 East River Road as a Real Estate Office In the early part of 1972 Mr. Doyle requested this property be rezoned to CR-1 to allow it to be used as an office building. Denial was recommended by the Planning Commission on May 3, 1972 and the Council concurred on June 19, 1972. There was a large petition against this request at that time as the City Council is fully aware. On August 20, 1973 the Council received a letter from Mr. Doyle requesting a procedure by which he would be allowed to conduct his real estate business at this location. He also requested that he be allowed to operate the real estate business during the time it takes the City to process his request. This item was then referred to the Planning Commission and discussed at their meeting of August 22, 1973. They continued it to their meeting of September 12, 1973. The City did write a letter to Mr. Doyle requesting that someone representing his interests be present at the Planning Commission meeting of September 12, 1973. His attorney was supposed to supply some legal precedent established previously to help the City to come up with an alternative method of processing this request. He did have one telephone conversation with Mr. Virgil Herrick, but was unable to attend the meeting of September 12, 1973 with the Planning Commission due to a previous commitment. This item has been tabled again by the Planning Commission to the meeting of October 3, 1973 at the request of the petitioner. We have received calls from the neighbors in the area asking whether Mr. Doyle has permission to conduct his business now. At the present time he works in the building with a part time gentleman and a lady answering the phone. He does have a small sign on the top of which it says "Home Office". As it is evident, resolution of this item will take a considerable amount of time. The Council did refer the request to the Planning Commission, but did not give a direction to the Administration whether they are giving permission to the petitioner to conduct his real estate business at this address while the request is being processed thru the City. I would like a clear direction from the Council whether they want the City to let the gentleman operate until a decision is reached or tell him that he should cease operations until approved by the City. NASIM M. QURESHI Acting City Manager - iV�IQ/mh ATTACH: Rezoning Request ZOA #72-04, denied by Planning Commission 5/3/72 Petition #6-1972, for rezoning 5/4/72 Petition #7-1972, against rezoning 5/4/72 Rezoning Request ZOA #73-04, denied by Council 6/19/72 Letter from John Doyle 8/13/73 Council Appearance 8/20/73 Planning Commission Minutes 8/22/73 - DRAFT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER FRIDLEY) MINNESOTA October 25 , 1973 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Request for a Real Estate Office at 6305 East River Road by John Doyle The Council at the meeting of October 15 , 1973 considered Mr. Doyle ' s request for a real estate office and tabled to the meeting of October 29th this item with the request that Mr. Doyle investigate whether it would be practical for him to have a salesman live in the house . On October 24, 1973 Mr. Doyle came into City Hall and made app cation foT a rening from R-1 to R-2 , for the �V4-TIU -J O p three double bungalows . He indicated that his first choice for the use of the land was still for a real estate office , and requested that the Council act on this item, hopefully by ordering a change to the City Code . If the Council chooses to deny this request and not change the Code, then he will follow through on his request for rezoning to R-2 . No action will be taken by the Staff until the Council makes their determination. If thereal estate office is turned down in its entirety, then the soonest the rezoning could be considered would be a public hearing before the Planning Commission on November 21, 1973. Mr. Doyle stated while in the office that he , or a representativ5 was planning to attend the Council Meeting to answer any questions the Council may have . Respectfully submitted, NMQ ACM i MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission and City Council i Fridley, Minnesota On or about May 3, 1972, John Doyle (d/b/a/ Leigh Investments, Inc.) presented an application to the Planning Commission for a re- zoning of his property on 63rd Way and East River Road, Fridley, Min- nesota, to C R - 1 class. This culminated in a denial at the regular I: Council meeting of June 19, 1972. The feeling wast that time, how- . I; ever, that people living in the area were not opposed to the request- ed use, but were opposed to the rezoning. This was so indicated in the minutes of both the Commission and the Council. - i At the time o'_-" the beforementioned hearings, a comprehensive plan was being developed for a number of areas within Fridley, the area in question, being one of these. Since that decision of June 19, 1972 the Cit Council has adopted, for the area in }. � Y p , question, a � proposed zoning of "high density". This, to a large extent is due to the fact that the area is in a transitional stage and it is appar- ent that the R-1 zoning classification will not be appropriate. 0From my discussions with some of the neighbors immediately surround- ing Mr. Doyle's property, it is apparent that they realize a change is imminent and are anxious for a decision to be made with respect to their property, It was also my impressionthat these people were not upilaterally opposed to Mr. Doyle's use of his property as a real estate business. The area in question is shown on the attached map. Also, for your information, I have attached a list of those neighbors we were able to ascertain to be within 300 feet of the designated property. With this packground in mind, we chose not to reapply for a zoning chance. This, in part, was brought about by the Board's strong recommendation that rezoning would not be viewed favorably at this time. This left us the special use or variance alternatives. Minnesota Statutes 462.357, Subd. 6, seems to eliminate the variance: "...The Court of Appeals andr'.djustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under-the ordinance for property in the zone where the effected persons' land is located. On the other hard, the leading case of Zylka vs. City of Crystal 167 N.W. 2nd 45; 283 Minn 196 (1969) suggests that a special use might be in order. There the Minnesota Court indicated that a j special use permit was proper within the discretion of the governing body. They went on to say that where an ordinance does not specify standards, as is usually the case when final authority to deter- mine whether a permit shall be. granted is retained by the Council, an arbitrary denial may be found by a reviewing court when the use is compatible with the basic use authorized within the parti- cular zone and does riot endanger the public health or safety or:. the general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole. This view is confirmed by Section 45.191 of the Ordinances of the City of Fridley where it is set out that a reasonable degree of dis- cretion in determining suitability of certain uses is given the City Fathers. Generally, when: passing on a special use permit, -the governing body looks to the following: health, safety and welfare of the community including traffic hazards, land valuations, compatibility of uses and the. overall character of the area as it is, and as it is to be. The comprehensive plan has indicated that. iast River j Road which is adjacent to the property in question is a major source of traffic congestion and danger. also, the entire area in question was proposed as a high density use rattier than R-1. It is apparent that Mr. Doyle's proposed use of his property for a small, local real estate office, will not add to the traffic hazard already existing in the area. Likewise the health, safety r � r a and general welfare of the community will not be effected. The operation as he proposes to use it , would certainly be compatible with the existing homes in the area. It is uncertain at this time what effect, if any, there would be on land values. I expect that in the long range, after a serious rezoning is contemplated for the entire area) the net effect of land values will be to increasl 1 For these reasons we are making application for a special use permit under section 45.5, subsection 4 , of the Ordinances of the f; City of Fridley,. a copy of which you have before you. It is my belief that subsection 4 , entitled "Other Uses" , may be interpreted to mean, r other uses similar to those specifically set out in your ordinance as permitted uses by special use permit. With this in mind, and with the realization that the area is in a state of flux, I am asking both the Planning Commission and the City Council to use the reasonable degree of discretion % ;n7 g permitted them by State law and to ma.e a determination that a special use permit be granted to Mr. Doyle. Respectfully, $CHIEFFER, HADLEY, BAKKE & JENSEN By; Aeffreyy A. Carson _ tittorneys for Petitioner, John Doyle d/b/a/ Leigh Investments , Inc. 610 Brookdale Towers Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 561-3200 t Jt P- - - - i ' I i 1 I I I _ Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 1972 Page 7 The water must have been running into the Riedel property. The rest of the water is running North into three culverts on 63rd Avenue. As far as thinking about this property being a park, he did not feel this should be considered as a park because the Fridley Commons Park is close. Children have grown up in his area without a playground of any kind. As far as children falling into a pool, he did not think Rice Creek was fenced. The small children should be watched care- fully. Until all these questions are answered, he can't give an answer. If-a.,..._._ home for the elderly were put up, he did not know if they could be sure it would be for the elderly, but low income. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission continue the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-03, by the Wall Corporation to rezone. from R-1 to R-3 for Townhouses and Apartments on the Riedel property until the June 7, 1972 meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Minish said the traffic concerns him, particularly exiting on Mississippi Street. He would like the petitioner to do some studies and see if it would be possible to have an entrance only on Mississippi Street. The audience was informed that the next meeting would be on June 7th and no notices would be sent out. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #72-04, LEIGH INVESTMENT, INC. , BY JOHN R. DOYLE, PRESIDENT: Lots 12 through 17, West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park. Rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business) for Real Estate Office. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing Notice for the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-04, Leigh Investment, Inc. by John R. Doyle, President. Upon a voice vote, .all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Erickson, at the request of Mr. Doyle, read the zoning restrictions on the CR-1 Ordinance. Mr. Doyle explained his plans using drawings to illustrate the changes in the home. He said this is a modest home. They would like to go into the house and use this dwelling as a real estate office for the purpose of conducting a business. The reason for asking a rezoning was due to the fact that at this point and time, he did not intend to live in the house, but under CR-1 he could do so. He intends to use the house for conducting of real estate business. He intends to remodel the structure, give it more of an up-to-date appearance, look well, blend well with the surrounding neighborhood, complement the houses in the area. The house will have a chalet appearance, small foyer and front room ,area. They would not be adding more space to the house. They will extend for a porch and entry on the front of the building itself. As far as the way it fits on the land itself, they were making very little change to the existing property. The driveway to the garage will have a turn around. There are trees to the side and fence with provisions for shrubs. Trees to the back and front. The entrance to the parking lot will be onto 63rd Way, West of the house. It will not pass by anyone's driveway. Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 1972 Page 8 Mr. Doyle continued stating the total 'area is six lots. The property to the East along the tracks is zoned industrial. The property to the rear is zoned and occupied by a duplex and renters. There is a lot South of here, across East River Road, which he understands has been changed to a duplex zoning. They felt this zoning would blend in with the neighborhood very nicely. It will be kept up and in good condition, if not better than what it is now. There will be a small parking lot. During the rush hour traffic, they expect virtually no more than what the duplexes generate. There will be one small sign fairly close to East River Road. It is expected to be of normal size, about 30 or 40 square feet. There will be no changing to any type of industrial or manufacturing. It is set up in such a way now that if you lived in the property, you could use it as a small real estate office. Paul Kumhera, 134 632 Way: He said he had nine pages of signatures of people who are against this rezoning. One of the reasons would be the additional traffic problem, the area is residential now and they felt that even this type of commercial zoning would devalue their property. He thought this would be an opening wedge to make all the property from Mississippi Street to Highway #694 commercial. They were just putting their foot in the door. He presented the petitions. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission receive the petitions against the rezoning request, ZOA #72-04, by Leigh Invest- ment Inc. , John R. Doyle, president, the signatures being collected by Mrs. Gerald Gerber, 6275 East River Road, Raymond K. Humann, 40 622 Way and Mrs. William Hoyt, 190 62nd Way. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Richard Brown, 6103 East River Road: He wanted to know what difference it makes who gets the petitions as long as the people know who signs it. He was opposed to the rezoning. He'd like to know how you would make an inconspicuous sign. He thought it was a foot in the door. Mr. Doyle was asked why he chose this particular site and he answered this area was chosen because it was on East River Road which is a heavily traveled road. It obviously gives a great deal of exposure to traffic at this location. It is readily accessible. The ordinance in Fridley requires a small sign. The remodeling of the home itself will be attractive. With something like this in the area, it will .be upgrading. There is industrial zoning along the railroad tracks. Sooner or later you will have industrial development here, but they are in an excellent position to act as a buffer. Some day it will be developed. They are making a proposal which they feel will have the least amount of impact and the greatest amount of protection to the area itself. Ed Ellis, 70 63rd Way: He moved in Fridley in 1948. They have paid all of +their assessments as a home owner. He did not want commercial property across the street from him and he objects to the rezoning. Gerald G. Gerber, 6275 East River Road: He was opposed to rezoning of this property. Mildred King, 71 632 Way: She asked what benefit will this be to those who live here? Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 1972 Page 9 Mr. Doyle answered that the tax base of the property would go up quite appreciably. They would not be producing any children from here into the school system to contribute more heavily towards schools than what you do yourselves. They would be in the immediate area to help service their needs when you get ready to sell or buy property. Mr. Doyle continued that he had no connection with any other property in the area. No other designs on rezoning anything. They were rezoning to a very limited commercial status. They are imposing the least amount of impact on the area. Mrs. Gerald Gerber said she lived across the street from Mr. Doyle's pro- posed building. She can't get excited over the parking lot. Mr. Harry Crowder, 146 63rd Way: He would compliment Mr. Doyle. His plan might be well for the area except for spot rezoning, traffic problems, speci- fically East River Road which is heavily traveled and which makes it attractive for commercial use. The lots there are quite large, which again makes it attractive to commercial property. Most of the homes are quite modest, some are vacant, one has burned. While Mr. Doyle's place might well make the area look good, he was afraid of the next request and the next one just because it does not lend itself to large homes. Another citizen said that, in his opinion, notices should be sent to people more than 300 feet away. Loren Wolle, 33 63rd Way: He agreed with the rest -- that this is a start to get it all commercial. Mr. Doyle presented a petition which he had circulated for favoring of the request. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission receive the petition circulated by John R. Doyle in favor of the rezoning request, ZOA #72-04, by Leigh Investment, Incorporated. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Charles Benzinger, 6255 East River Road, requesting their names be removed from the Doyle petition and the letter from Mr. and Mrs. D. J. Roetering, 182 632 Way requesting this letter be considered as a vote against the rezoning request, ZOA #72-04. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Doyle said the general area consists of very modest homes, about $18,500. It would be very difficult to even talk about building a house for that price now. It is going to become more and more difficult to sell. Some people in the area have over built for the area. You are bound on one side by a very heavily traveled road and on the other by the industrial area. This will force the issue. As industries come in here, and it will come, they will force the whole area to become industrial. When that comes, this whole area is going to go. Unless you abolish East River Road altogether, it is going to happen. He was not coming in trying to oppose the whole neighborhood. Each property owner has the right to use his property. These are all small lots. He had checked the plats and everything in this area consists of 40 foot 'Lots. Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 1972 Page 10 Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace: He had to agree with Harry Crowder. It has been for a long time that he did not go along with spot rezoning. The whole East River Road situation is a mish mash but two wrongs do not make a right. There was a proposal before Council that a study be made of this situation, but that got side tracked. He wondered if it would be possible for Mr. Doyle to have the real estate office on this property by special use permit and that a study be initiated on the whole zoning along East River Road and get lines set up. Chairman Erickson explained to Mr. Harris that under our ordinance it was not possible for a special use permit. The Planning Commission is now studying a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Fridley and it will probably be finished within the next sixty days. Mr. Harris thought it might be well for Mr. Doyle to wait with his request until the Comprehensive Plan is finished. Mr. Doyle said there would be parking space for 10 cars. The customers and salesmen will be parking in the front on the East side of the parcel. He continued that the downstairs of the house does not lend itself well to office space. The dining and living room would be ideal for reception work and files. In real estate office you do like to have some kind of privacy where you can talk to these people away from the hubbub. They could have four offices on the second floor. Mrs. Gerber asked Mr. Doyle what would happen if he had to give up the office. Mr. Doyle said if something happened to him, there was no way he could know this. As to the green areas, he had no reason at this point to make any changes here. It was not really an area he would want to live in, build on or expand the office. He wants to use the building for an office and one of the lots for purposes of parking. Mr. Ellis said he knew they were in for a new street and curb in the near future. He knew there will be some big assessments against the property. He thought Mr. Doyle should change his mind about holding the lots open. Richard Dittes, 6291 Riverview Terrace: He felt very much in line with Dick Harris. He did not go along with spot rezoning. He thought Mr. Doyle should wait. He would be very disappointed if something wasn't done about buffering along the railroad such as a complete commercial development. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Public Hearing of the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-04, by Leigh Investment, Inc. by John R. Doyle, President, be closed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Erickson explained to Mr. Doyle that, if he wished, his request could be delayed until the Planning Commission completed the study of the Comprehensive Plan of Fridley. This would be a matter of two or three months. Or the Planning Commission could act on it tonight. Mr. Schmedeke said he toured the area this afternoon. He saw lots of nice homes. Many were under $20,000 that he'd like to own. Cleaned up, painted and fixed up, they'd look real nice. He didn't think the area had deteriorated down to the point where they should be picking on them. On the West side are beautiful homes. The ones next to the track should not be mentioned as "on Planning Commission Meeting - May 3, 1972 Page 11 I s the wrong side of the tracks". He met Mr. Doyle before. He advised him that we have many areas in the City of Fridley it would be well for him to look at E and would like the type of house he would be developing. In his opinion, if a party comes in to do commercial business, he should be in a commercial area. Mr. Zeglen asked if it weren't true that if a man lives in the house he could have his own business in the house, even though it would be a traffic hazard. Mr. Minish said he was terribly concerned about the traffic situation. The problem is severe and serious for a number of years. It has been under study. Even though the Commission completed their plan and came up with a study, he would be opposed to this request principally because of the fact that up to ten or more cars being funneled out to the East River Road traffic problem. Mr. Schmedeke said that this is spot zoning. He was sure even after the study is completed, the Commission would not approve spot zoning. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council denial of the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-04, by Leigh Investment, Inc. , John R. Doyle, to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business) Lots 12 through 17, and the West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park for Real Estate Office. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST: ZOA #72-05, EINAR "TED" DORSTAD: To rezone from R-1 to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) for an apartment complexlLot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision #77 except part to Greenwood #5640. Mr. and Mrs. Einar Dorstad were present. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing Notice for the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-05, by Einar "Ted" Dorstad to rezone from R-1 to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) for an apartment complex on Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Sub- division #77 except Parcel #5640. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dorstad said that when he came to Fridley on December 20, 1970, across the street from this property was a filling station, A & W Rootbeer and Pizza Kitchen. Lot 16 was not commercial. There were no new houses. There were houses across from commercial. They were adivsed by five different people they should not attempt to make it commercial property. However, it is not really IR-1 property. If they had R-3, they would build alongside Mr. Greenwood's property. They want buildings nice enough that they'd want to live next to. He could understand objections such as different cases where multiple dwellings were vacant later on. That is nothing new to anyone. But you just can't count on selling single dwellings across from all that commercial area. There has been some thought or discussion putting a street through the middle of his land. One plan was across the water easement which is the extension of 75th Way and this was an alternate plan. If the street went through, the price of the land would be cut considerably. Planni n3 Commission Meeting - August 22, 1973 Pa e 13 Mr. David Harris said he was concerned about the first stipulation. He said hE-- knew the intent of this stipulation, but he didn' t want it misconstrued that he was responsible in determining the drainage and storm sewers for this area. Vice Chairman Harris said it was shown in the minutes that the City had to determine this before. development. They just want this brought to the Council's attention. 3 . REQUEST BY JOHN DOYLE (6305 EAST RIVER ROAD) Mr. Clark said that on the previous Monday night (August 20, 1973) Mr. Doyle had appeared before the City Council asking that a real estate office be allowed in an R-1 District with a Special Use Permit. The Council has referred this to the Planning Commissio, Last year Mr. Doyle requested a change in zoning from R-l. to CR-1. This was denied by Council and the people in the area were very opposed to this rezoning but indicated they had no objection to Mr. Doyle continuing his business without rezoning. Mr. Doyle has requested that he be allowed to continue as he is during the time it would take to change the zoning ordinance to allow a real estate office in an R-1 District with a Special Use Permit: Mr. Drigans said he thought the Planning Commission should have copies of thEs City Council minutes before they could consider: this request. Mr. Clark said a real estate office would be allowed in an R-1 area if the home was used as a residence and only people who lived in the home worked for the real estate company. This is what our home occupation code states. Mr. Doyle does not use this home for a residence, only for his business, and has outside help employed. The staff feels that if this is allowed under a Special Use Permit, we are going to be asked for a lot of similar uses. Mr. Drigans asked if Mr. Doyle was continuing to operate at this time. Mr. Clark said Clarence Belisle had stopped there and hE: said he was not operating as yet. Mr. Harris asked how this would fit in with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Clark said the recommendation was for a townhouse level.- opment in this area, no commercial. Vice Chairman Harris said to put this on the agenda for their next meeting. 4 . BOARD OF APPEALS SECRETARY Mr. Drigans said that at the July 30th meeting with the City Council there had been discussion of problems with various committees. He said that at -the August 14, 1973 meeting of the Board of Appeals Planning Commission Meeting - September 12, 1973 Page 4 2 . PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERA^1ION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #73-08 , BY JOHN JOHNSTON: To permit trailer and truck rental on Lots 9 and 11 of Auditor' s Subdivision No. 94 , wit:: exceptions, per Fridley City Code 45. 101. Section B, 3, E. Mr. Clark said the petitioner has been asked twice for a letter withdrawing this request, which we have not received. He did call on the phone and say he was withdrawing this petition because he is moving from this location so has no need for the Special Use Permit. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #73-09 , BY OPEN ROAD INDUSTRIES : To permit a sales and service building for recreational vehicles on part of Lots 11 and 12 , Auditor ' s Subdivision No. 155, being parcels 2210 and. 2400 , per Fridley City Code 45. 101, N. The same being 5500 Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what this request was for. Mr. Clark jcrsnr•h as s LJLd 1"l was tc, well an'" viCG r c' eut ^nates , Winebagos, etc. In their deed when they bought this property from Target there wa.s a covenant that would prevent anyone from building any building that would obstruct the view of Embers from I . 694. This was a private restriction put on by Embers at the time the property was purchased by Target. The petitioner is trying to get the covenant less restrictive, but rather than have the Planning Comm.iss.ion keep continuing this item, has sent a letter withdrawing the petition at this time, and if the legal problem can be taken care of.. , will reapply at a later date -�-� REQUEST BY JOHN DOYLE, 6305 East River Road John Doyle was prey iit__ - Mr. Clark said this item was before the Council on August 20 , 1973 and was referred by Council to the Planning Commission. As a I understand it, Mr. Doyle ' s attorney and the City Attorney and Mr. Qureshi were supposed to get together alternate routes that could be taken to dispose of Mr. Doyle ' s request. Mr. Doyle' s attorney is doina some research but neither- attorney has any thing ting f-biS evening. Mr . Nasim Qureshi said Mr. Doyle' s attorney has discussed a number of proposals and one of them was to allow this use as a temporary use until a variance can be obtained= Mr. Herrick has said i-hat this use should not be allowed under a variance and it should be rezoned. Mr. Doyle ' s attorney has said there have been cases allowing this use with a variance. Mr. Qureshi said he was, lure ZI1e riaiiiiiizy i Oiiui�iSSiO,n waS familiar ;=73 th the history of this Case. About a year ago Mr nnyie asked for rezoning of this prop- erty and at that tim-, it was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Council. ' M Planning Commission Meeting - September 12 , 1973 Page 5 Chairman Fitzpatrick said it states in Mr. Doyle ' s letter of August 13 , 1973 that although the neighbors petitioned against the rezoning, at an informal poll at the City Council level there wasn' t objection from the neighbors of his continuing his real estate lJUSli1C7 1 -witr-io !t _rezoning. MI . Fitzpatrick said he wasn't at the Council meeting, but there was a lot of objection to this business from the neighbors at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Everett Utter, Council-man-At-Large, said :it was so stated in the Council minutes that the neighbors didn' t object to Mr. Doyle .continuing hi.-: h»si_n_ess if the property wasn' t rezoned. Mr. Doyle said he just found out the day before this meeting that his item was on the agenda tonight, and it was too short of a notice for his attorney who had previous commitments . He was .H +-ha a-. 4-h J-..,., L.e J- a 1. l 1_L... .1.. F /1,..i.. L-.�. 1 C:�.-�uV�Vii1� t�llu t1..11iJ ilcall LC l.oil lei ilucu uil k-_L l..l l'C:. lilGc lr i it-1 vt VI.L� 1Jl-1.. 3rd meeting so his attorney had time to prepare a presentation. Mr. Utter said Mr. Doyle was at the Council meeting when this request was referred to the Planning Commission so this was not a surprise to him. vir Ul_l�C1 .�7alU because 1.11 . IJVY 1e Uoej lloL 11ve 111 Ll 1.5. 11V 11IC, he didn't see any way that this could be allowed with a Special Uir_,'e Permit- !Ti ar_"i R-1 area.. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if Mr. Utter was objecting to the Planning Commission nearing this item at all. Mr. Utter said in a way he was. He said Mr. Doyle has asked for rezoning_- whirrh has been denied Na i c aski nrr fnr an nrrli nano.- change. so that this can be allowed in an x-1 area with a Special Use Permit. This would be opening a pandora' s box because it would be allowing CR-1 businesses in the residential areas throughout the Citv. We have land zoned commerical in Fridley, and I want the commercial business to be in these areas . Mr. Harris said he was opposed to letting this business operate 11-d-..r .a. v.'..ri' 4-1,4nk th; o ici riarvro tJ ng the ia� T think this matter should be settled once and for all . Let' s not continue to keep dragging the neighbors in here to protect their rights. I 'm opposed to trying to skirt the zoning ordinance. Mr. HarriS Saiua fa-hS property was gong to e ZOleu CT'- i ,ii L.11iu a-1-e 'h � I-o i s 1-, a n D—� a .. 1 +- 1.V C S +- Lllcal a..11c cil�iic Garcu olly uiu Lc zonedC-R- .s_, ao e Aon �. lluvim. r.v rezoiiir�g. He said that according i0 Lii� coiii�Jreiieii5ive pial"1, tills is a ,changing area, so if any rezoning were to be done, the neigh- bors should get together and rezone the entire area. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this was considered a changing area because o.L the various requests that have come ill for th.Lj urea Mr. Clark said the guide line of the comprehensive plan was for high density housing, which will still keep the area in resi- deritiai use, not conlTiercial. Planning Commission Meeting - September 12 , 1973 Page 6 Mr. Harris said he was not aginst home occupations, but this does not fall into that category- because Mr. Doyle does not live in the home. Mr. Clark said the Council wants input from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission can' t give any input until we hear from Mr. Doyle ' s attorney and the City Attorney. Mr. Harris said he feels we have the machinery in which to operate. This propery is zoned R-1 and I don' t see how we can recommend a variance when we have zoning laws . Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission isn' t being asked for a variance or if this should have a zoning change so it can be allowed in an R-1 area. The Council wants to know if you can recommend any other way to handle this request. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn' t think the Planning Commission had any information to act upon at this time. He asked Mr. Utter what the Council wanted when they recommended this to the Planning Comiuission. Mr. Utter said it was just recommended to the Planning Commia�.�..r-, mke- roun-il rn1,1l do t r•nme to any deci ci on and T 1 `If really don' t see how ti-le Planning Commission can either. He said he agreed' ;.ith Mr. Harris that this was R-1 zoning and we are waiting for a uE:GlSion L)_y tiie attorney' s to iliiu 5viiie way w sneak around this zoning. Mr. Doyle said that if the attorneys do find a solution for this, he felt the Council and the 'Planning Commis.-Zion were making an arbitrary decision by not waiting until his attorney could prepare his tindings on this matter. me said his attorney was an expert on municipal law and he didn' t want them to not be even be willing to listen to what he has to say. Mr . Harris said that as Mr . Doyle ' s attorney was preparing a statement lie wantCu to present that i would only be fa-, -- to the petitioner to continue this item as he has requested. MOTION by Harris , seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission continue the request by John Doyle, 6305 East River Road N.E. , Until October 3 , 1973, to allow his attorney sufficient time to prepare his case . UPON a voice voce, all voti7iy, aye , the motion carried unanimously . Mr. Clark said Mr. Doyle ' s attorney would have to convince (Jur C1ty Attorney tll at tii1S uje CVuid be (.711VwGd. 7 "r. LinQI1dCSaid he felt ti-1at tti-11S 1' 5 111 vw 5vite things, that aren't al:•:ayS in the hest interest of the City, hapnen _ Some requests just o on and on and the people et dis iib ted and uit iviiiin to - y- . Y' 1' g g q g the meetings, and without opposition the petition wins approval. He Said hcn thalught i-hi c S.Tac iinfai r fn t_'he np.nnl e who Live__ in this Fire;:, _ Planning Commission Meeting - September 12 , 1973 Page 7 Mr. Doyle said at this time of his rezoning request, the Council said there was a comprehensive plan being prepared. It there any action on this? Mr. Harris said the Council was waiting at the time to see what the guidelines would be for this area. The comprehensive plan said this area would lend itself to high density housing . The comprehensive plan does not rezone any property. This request still has to come from the property owner. Mr. Doyle said he would like to have this request in limbo until the area is changed to a different use . He said the property along East River Road is a .heavily traveled area. It` s between this heavily traveled road and the -r-JI -o-1 tracks. He didn' t think this was condusive to an R-1 area. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this property was zoned R-1 when Mr, Dnyle purchased the property. Mrs. Gerald Gerber, 6275 East River Road, said she raised five children in this area and she thinks there is dangers no matter where you live. You just have to teach lour children of the dangers. She said she likes the area the way it is . If this areas went to high density housing, East River Road, the railroad tracks and the river would all still be there. Mr. Clark said ;.;hen the comprehensive plan said this area could be used for high density housing, this was in the future, and was a guideline so that with this use there could be controlled access to East River Road. Mrs. Loren Wolle, 33 63rd Way N'.E. , said she saw no reason for a change in the area at the present time. She likes the way L , is Mr. Fitzpatrick said that no one from the City is requestin, a change. This request would always have to come from the property Cv,«p owners. rt,he reheplan lan i s ;,,st a guideline for any future L- �- development. Mr. Clark said this request will be on the Council agenda next Monday night, September 17th. There will be a report on ho. .-. this property is being occupied now and they will be discussing whether to allow Mr. Doyle to continue on the small scale he is operating now on a very temporary basis , during the t-inic that to a a , ,,; " i f theie iG we will be listening to the attorneys w ucLeJrmLi.i,� an alternate route by which this use can be allowed. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this would be on the Council agenda September 17th as Mr. Clark mentioned, and on our agenda October ,,tu .rte CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3 , 1973 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8 : 05 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris , Lindblad, Drigans , Blair Members Absent : Fitzpatrick Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm. Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant 1. CONTINUED: JOHN DOYLE REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE : 6305 EAST RIVER ROAD Mr. John Doyle and Mr. Jeffrey Carson, an attorney representing Mr. Doyle, were present. Mr. Carson said he was representing Mr. Doyle and he would loke to present this request in a form of a memorandum which states : "On or about May 3 , 1972 , John Doyle (d/b/a/ Leigh Investments , Inc. ) presented an application to the Planning Commission for a rezoning of his property on 63rd Way and East River Road, Fridley, Minnesota, to CR-1 class. This culminated in a denial at the regular Council meeting of June 19 , 1972 . The feeling was at that time, however, that people living in . the area were 'not opposed to the requested use, but were opposed to the rezoning. This was so indicated in the minutes of both the Commission and the Council. At the time of the beforementioned hearings , a comprehensive plan was being developed for a number of areas within Fridley, the area in question being one of these. Since that decision of June 19, 1972 , the City Council has adopted, for the area in question, a proposed zoning of "high density" . This , to a large extent is due to the fact that the area is in a transitional stage and it { is apparent that the R-1 zoning classification will not be ap- propriate. From my discussions with some of the neighbors immed- iately surrounding Mr. Doyle ' s property, it is apparent that they realize a change is imminent and are anxious for a decision to be made with respect to their property. It was also my impression that these people were not unilaterally opposed to Mr. Doyle ' s . use of his property as a real estate business. The area in question Also, for your information, I have is shown on the attached map. . attached a list of those neighbors we were able to ascertain to be within 300 feet of the designated property. With this background in mind, we chose not to reapply for a zoning change. This , in part, was brought about by the Board' s Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 2 strong recommendation that rezoning would not be viewed favorably at this time. This left us the special use or variance alternatives . Minnesota Statutues 462 . 357 , Subd. 6 , seems to eliminate the variance: " . . .The Court of Appeals and Adjustments or the governing body as the case may be , may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for in the zone where the effected persons ' land is located. " On the other hand, the leading case of Zyllka vs . City of Crystal 167 N.W. 2nd 45 ; 283 Minn 196 (1969) suggests that a special use might be in order. There the Minnesota Court indicated that a special use permit was properly within the discretion of the govern- ing body. They went on to say that where an ordinance does not specify standards , as is usually the case when final authority to determine whether a permit shall be granted is retained by the Council, an arbitrary denial may be found by a reviewing court when the use is compatible with the basic use authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public health or safety or the general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole. This view is confirmed by Section 45 . 191 of the Ordinances of the City of Fridley where it is set out that a reasonable degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain uses is given the City Fathers. Generally, when passing on a special use permit, the governing body looks to the following; health, safety and welfare of the community including traffic hazards , land valuations , compatibility of uses and the overall character of the area as it is , and as it is to be. The comprehansive plan has indicated that East River Road which is adjacent to the property in question is a major source of traffic congestion and danger . Also, the entire area in question was proposed as a high density use rather than R-1. It is apparent that Mr. Doyle ' s proposed use of his property for a small, local real estate office, will not add to the traffic hazard already existing in the area. Likewise the health, safety, and general welfare of the community will not be affected. The operation as he proposes to use it, would certainly be compatible with the existing homes in the area. It is uncertain at this time what effect, if any, there would be on land values . I expect that in the long range , after a serious rezoning is contemplated for the entire area, the net effect of land values will be to increase. For these reasons we are making application of a special use permit under section 45. 5 , Subsection 4 , of the Ordinances of the City of Fridley, a copy of which you have before you. It is my belief that Subsection 4 , entitled "Other Uses" , may be interpreted to mean, other uses similar to those specifically set out in your ordinance as permitted uses by special use permit. With this in mind, and the realization that the area is in a state of flux, I am asking both the Planning Commission and the City Council to use the reasonable degree of discretion permitted them by State law and to make a determination that a special use permit be granted to Mr. Doyle. " Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 3 Mr. Clark said the Council sent this down to the Planning Commission to see if they could determine how this request could be handled within the confines of our present ordinances . At the present time, we cannot accept the application of a special use permit. It will be up to the Council and the City Attorney to determine from any recommendaion made by the Planning Commis- sion whether or not we can accept this application. Mr. Harris said the recommendations made in the Comprehensive Plan are just guidelines . Just because this is considered a chang- ing area, it does not mean that rezoning is imminent. If the fee owners of the property want it to stay R-1, it will stay R-1. Mr. Clark asked Mr. Carson if he would explain how he interpreted Subsection 4 and why he felt Mr. Doyle could apply for a special use permit under this subsection. Mr. Carson said this subsection is headed "Other Uses and says "For other uses , other than dwelling units , permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permit , indicating or suggesting that other uses other than those listed for a special use permit could be allowed, otherwise , why this section -on other uses . I am not presenting this as an argument, only as a rationale to allow- my client to apply for a special use permit, Acting Chairman Harris said that under Section 45 . 052 , Paragraph 2, under "Uses Excluded" it states "Any use not specifically per- mitted in the preceeding paragraphs of this section. " He asked Mr. Carson how he interpreted this statement. Mr. Carson said he interpreted this as not excluding what they proposed under "Other Uses" . In other words, other uses are permitted, similar to those that are permitted. In the new code, Section 45. 19 , it states that the purpose of a special use permit is to provide the City of Fridley a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suit- ability of certain types of uses etc . That' s what we ' re asking- is that the City of Fridley exercise that reasonable degree of dis- cretion to allow this request to be handled as a special use. Mr. Clark said he didn ' t want to give his interpretation of Subsection 4 but he would like to give the Planning Commission some thing for thought. It depends upon how you pause when you read this paragraph. I believe that this subsection means that when you are considering a special use permit for the reasons enumerated in this section, that then the requirement for setbacks , buildings , -parking, landscaping, screening and exterior materials shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other districts . In other words , for other uses , other than dwelling units , permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permit, the requirements change, and they have to go to the section of the code where these things are allowed without a special use, and use those requirements. Mr. Carson said that refers to other sections of the Zoning Code and that is what he has done also. Mr. Clark said that in other sections of the code, it does have the statement that other retail or wholesale sale or service uses which are similar in character to those enumerated above, will not be dangerous or otherwise detri- Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 4 mental to persons residing or working in the vicinity thereof, or to the public welfare, and will not impair the use, enjoy- ment or value of any property, but not including any uses ex- cluded hereinafter. In other words, in the C-1 section of the code, for instance, if it says a creamery can be allowed with a special use permit, then an ice cream making plant could be allowed because this is similar in nature. This is not what Subsection 4 says . Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission was favorable to this request, they could recommend to the Council that this be allowed under a special use as the ordinance reads if they agree with Mr. Carson ' s interpretation, or else recommend that the code be changed to allow a real estate office in the uses enumerated under the Special Use section. Mr. Carson said he believed the Council felt that changing the code was the least desirable recommendation. Mr. Drigans said he questioned the statement in the second pa.ragrph of the memorandum where it states that in your discussion with the neighbors , it is apparent that they realize a change is imminent and are anxious for a decision to be made with respect to their property. He asked Mr. Carson if he could elaborate on that statement. Mr. Carson said the neighbors are under .the .impression that rezoning is imminent. They have expressed frustration because they would like to know what is going to happen in this area. He said he thought his was up to the Council to decide. Mr. Drigans said he thought this was up to the fee owners of the property. Mr. Clark said that according to the ordinance the City can start the rezoning process, but the property owners can come back to the City if they feel they are being hurt financially by the change. Fie said that the City institutes a zoning change very seldom. Mr. Harris said his feelings were that according to the 5th amendment to the Constitution that people have the right to life, liberty and property, trough due process . He said he wasn 't an attorney, but I think if rezoning was iniated by the City where I live, and it was zoned R-1 and I wanted to continue to live there, I think we ' d all be up seeing the judge in Anoka County. Mr. Carson said he thought Mr. Harris was right, but on this particular area, they have the railroad on one side , and improvement of East River Road to handle more traffic flow, and they are hold- ing up the improvement of some of the streets in . the area until they determine whether this area is going to retain its character. Mr. Harris said a comprehensive street plan was developed about five years ago . The City is going through the City section, by section, until all the streets are improved as to curbs , gutters , sewers and storm sewers. As this area was paved in 1956 , it has a low priority in relation to areas that have no improvement. Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 5 Mr. Drigans said that Mr. Doyle came in a year ago for re- zoning so he could operate a real estate office, and this was denied. I would like to know the status of this business at the present time. Mr. Clark said he was there about three weeks ago, and there was a woman there to answer the phone and it was not being used as a residence. Mr. Doyle said he had to start using this house because he had to move from his former office in July. He wrote a letter to the Council dated. August 13 , 1973 requesting that he be able to use this residence for his business while they studied how this could be allowed in an R-1 area. Mr. Carson said the Council gave Mr. Doyle this permission, while they were exploring if this could be allowed with a variance or under a special use . Mr. Blair asked Mr. Doyle if he was going to make any improve- ments to this propE:rty. Mr. Doyle said the improvements he inter,�Is to make would rewire no permits . He intends to paint, make some repairs and do some landscaping. Mr. Doyle said he knew that if he lived in the home, his real estate business would be a legal home occupation. But the house is too small for his family and he would be forced to greatly expand the dwelling. This would constitute a large investment and would be very burdensome. Mr. John Othoudt, 20 63rd Way N.E. , said he can see how the City is growing. With the completion of the railroad development, I look for more industry to come into this area, because of the access to both the railaroad and to East River Road. Mrs. Gerald Gerber, 6275 East River Road, said she liked her home and it took a long time to get it the way it now is . She said she knew it was not the most desirable location but she was used to it and she likes the area. She said if any rezoning was going to occur, it should be for the entire area and not just one street. She said she always felt this area would stay R-1, even with the railroad so close and never thought she would have a busi- ness next door. She said as far as Mr. Doyle ' s proposal was con- cerned, she would rather have a neighbor-businss than a business- business next door. Mr. Loren Wolle, 33 63rd Way N.E. , said he would be next door to this business. He said this was a secluded neighborhood. They are off by themselves , and that' s the way he likes it. He said he had nothing personal against Mr. Doyle., but he didn ' t want a business next door. He asked if this area has been set aside for rezoning by the comprehensive plan. Acting Chairman Harris said this is one of the areas studied in the comprehens.;-ve plan but the comprehensive plan is not a hard and fast fact. The people in the area are the ones to say what will go into the area. Mr. Clark said that before the City could rezone this area, they would have to prove that this was -for the Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 6 betterment of the whole City before they could ask for condemnation proceedings . Mr. Boardman said studies were made of areas that seemed to be changing areas . Guidelines were set up, but spot rezoning was not good in any area. Mr. Doyle said he would like the opportunity to use this property and he will upgrade and enhance this property . I would like to use this property under a special use until we know what is going to happen in this area. Mr. Harris asked that if this special use was granted, and Mr. Doyle moved out of this property, if another real estate company could come in and use the property for the same use , under the same special use? Mr. Carson said he thought they would have to re-apply. Mr. Clark said that if it was the same small type of operation, he thought the special use would still be in effect. Mr. Wolle said if this special use could continue after Mr. Uoyl.e left the property, he would definitely be against it. He thought it should r.evert back to R-1, with. no special use. Mr. Drigans said that on Mr. Doyle ' s application for a special use permit, he was asking for parking for 10 cars and a 48 square foot lighted sign allowed under CR-1 zoning in the sign ordinance. He thought this sign should not be on this application. We have a separate sign ordinance. Mr. Doyle said a more practical request would probably be to have parking for only five cars . I have the room to provide more spaces , but my concern is not to have the street full of cars because of this request. I would like to have the sign to announce my presence in the area, a lighted sign that is 48 square feet, according to the CR-1 regulations, out along East River Road. Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Doyle why he want to utilize this property for an office when there are commercial areas , like Holly Center for instance, where you could have a real estate office without all these problems. Mr. Doyle said that different real estate companies , such as Calhoun, Edina, Bell and one or two others , have had offices in Moon Plaza and they have all left in about a year. You do not get the traffic needed for a real estate office in that location. What I want to do is expose my business to traffic. I have done my own traffic count, and there are about 600 vehicles an. hour going past this property I have on East River Road. He said his land covers a large area, almost 3/4 of an acre. It has a lot of trees on the property and does provide privacy for the neighbors. This , coupled with the fact that analyzing this from my point of view, that if this area isn' t changing now, it will be changing. Mr. Drigans asked him why he didn't try to rent some of these oil stations that have gone out of business? Mr. Doyle said they are difficult to heat, would require a lot of refurbishing and would have high rent. Planning Commission Meeting October 3 , 1973 Page 7 Mr. Ron Steckman, 58 Rice Creek Way, said he was here as an interested citizen. He said he is a salesman that operates from his home and he was in favor of Mr. Doyle ' s real estate office being allowed. He thinks Mr. Doyle will be upgrading the property. He said if he wanted to put up a sign with his name on it on his own property, he wouldn' t want the Council to tell him he couldn' t. Mrs . Gerber said she didn' t think a 41x8 ' sign was going to upgrade the neighborhood. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Steckman if he had his business in his own home . Mr. Steckman said he did. Mr. Harris said that was .the difference. Mr. Doyle does not live in this home. Mr. James Langenfeld, 79 632 Way N.E. , said he could see more problems for the City if Mr. Doyle was allowed to operate a real estate office in an R-1 area. Mr. Drigans said we can get problems if we deny this , also. There are a lot of home businesses that don' t quite meet the ordinance requirements . Mr. Langenfeld said that Mr. Doyle seems like an intelligent business man so he thought it was strange that he found himself in this predicament. Mr. Doyle said his request was similar to requests made in other communities . There, rezoning to CR-1, was allowed because it had the least impact on a residential area. Mr. Clark said he didn' t think the City could handle this request without a change in the ordinance. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Doyle if he had had any meetings with the neighbors on this request. Mr. Doyle said he had and he still felt the neighbors were not opposed to his request to have a real estate office. There were concerned about what changes would be made in this area. He said they talked about having a meeting with someone who could tell them what plans were being considered, as long as the City felt this was a changing area. Mr. Wolle said that was why he was opposed to this request. Once you let something commercial into the area, it could snowball, and the area would change. Acting Chairman Harris said that although this was not a Public Hearing, he would like to close the discussion so the members of the Planning Commission could discuss this request. Mr. Blair said he was in favor of this request being handled under a special use , with stipulations . He said he has seen this property and he believed it would meet the CR-1 requirements for buffer zones , it is large enough, and on the North side there is screening. He said he thought the parking should be limited to five cars . He said the only other stipulations he could think of at this time is that there be no storage of materials on this lot, or improvements to the other lots. I think the sign ordinance will take care of the sign. Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 8 Mr. Clark said the size of the sign could be restricted as a stipulation also. Mr. Boardman said that in reading the ordinan-e, the sign would be governed by the zone that it is in. If he wants a sign that is larger than what is allowed in an R-1 district, he would have to go to the Board of Appeals for a variance . He said he didn ' t see how a special use on a structure can follow through on the sign. Mr. Lindblad said he was opposed to this request. He said more of the neighbors were against this request than were for it. He said Mr. Doyle was not living in the house and we would be spot rezoning with a different name. You've got parking, traffic and a sign. You've got a business. I have to consider if I would want this in my neighborhood or not, and I wouldn ' t. I feel one neighborhood is as good as another, so the neighbors have to be considered in this request. Mr. Blair said he felt the neighbors weren' t objecting to the use of the property, just the rezoning. Mr. Lindblad said if anymore requests come from this area , for use different from R-1 , then he thinks the area should be rezoned, but it was up to the residents of this area. Mr. Drigans said Mr. Doyle was in business to make money and to do this he would have to be successful . Anoka is a good area for real estate, so if he is successful, his business will grow and expand. He bought this house, not to live in, and to operate a business. I have to agree with Mr. Lindblad, in that you can call it what you want, but he is requesting to operate a business in an R-1 area. I feel if we recommend a special use , we 're telling not only real estate people and other sales people, that they have a right to speculate and buy a small house so they can open up some type of small business . I think it is obvious that people in this area wouldn ' t object tohaving a neighbor in the real estate business , but I consider this a business , and not a neighbor. Mr. Blair said what do we do about illegal home occupations . He said he knew there were people employing outside help for their home businesses . He said Mr. Doyle was honest in his request, and we are turning him down. Mr. Clark said if these illegal home occupations were brought to the attention of the City, the City could investigate and regulate them. Mr. Clark said the special use permit was designed because some of the lots in Fridley border on commercial , even if they are zoned R-1. When a request is made, we look at the pros and Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 9 cons of the request. The question here is whether you want real estate offices to be considered in R-1 zoning. Mr. Clark said that he could not interpret the present ordinance so that real estate offices can be under a special use permit in R-1. If you want to consider this use under a special use, then I think lawyers offices should be considered also, because if you think real estate offices can be considered under a special use, then lawyers offices are the only thing left out that are considered in CR-1. Mr. Clark said there are three things the Planning Commission can recommend to Council. You can deny the request, you can recommend that the ordinance be changed to allow real estate offices in an R-1 area, or interpret the code the way Mr. Carson does , and say that this is allowed under our present zoning ordinance. Mr. Harris said Mr. Doyle ' s request has precipated this , what we recommend will not affect Mr. Doyle directly. We would not be recommending that a special use be granted to Mr. Doyle. That would still have to be a separate Public Hearing. We have to consider whether we want to recommend that real estate offices can be under special use or if it can be allowed under Subsection 4 . Mr. Lindblad said we have these uses under our present CR-1 zoning. Mr. Clark said that one thing to consider was that a special use permit is more restrictive than CR-1 zoning. Mr. Harris said a special use permit is like a contract between the City and the applicant. Mr. Drigans said if we put too many restrictions on this request, we might be infringing on Mr. Doyle ' s right to do business . Mr. Clark said if Mr. Doyle agrees to the restrictions , then he is content with the stipulations . Mr. Drigans said we do have a zone for real estate offices. When Mr. Doyle asked for rezoning, it was denied, because the people didn' t want a real estate office in their neighborhood. Mr. Carson said that what you are saying is that the zoning code is the zoning code. We think this is a changing area and the zoning classification could change. This use will not be in- compatible with the area. You are granted discretion in inter- preting the code. Mr. Blair said he thinks there are other R-1 lots in Fridley that border on CR-1 uses in that there are buffer zones and they meet the required screening requirements . Mr. Drigans said if there. are lots like these, then I would have to conclude that there are other business other than real estate that could go on these lots . Planning Commission Meeting - Octaber 3 , 1973 Page 10 Mr. . Harris asked Mr. Clark how many lots there were like this in Fridley. Mr. Clark said that any lots that are on a main arterial street would be in about the same situation. Mr. Lindblad said the purpose of the various Boards and the Council was to study each individual case and try to determine what was the best decision. As to this request, I have to take into consideration the objection of the neighbors . They bought in an R-1 area and have stated they want the area to stay R-1 . Mr. Clark said this is the reason for a special use . The neighbors did object to rezoning, but with a special use, the property will remain R-1. Acting Chairman Harris asked if the other members of the Planning Commission felt this request could be handled under Subsection 4 . Mr. Blair said he felt that this could be handled this way, with special restrictions as to the buffer zones , etc. Mr. Drigans said his interpretation of the code is that we have a special section for real estate businesses . We can make a case for any type of office or similar occupations of selling, in Subsection 4 . If that be the case, then I think we should recommend to Council a consideration of changing the code to grant special uses to those lots that the Council feels are buffer areas between two zones and not limit it to real estate office but for additional uses . Mr. Lindblad said he still feels that each request is an individual case. I think the use are defined quite well for each zoning district. Mr. Harris asked if we should define what should be allowed with a special use permit as to other uses . Mr. Drigans said that if we do, some one will come in with a request that is not specifi- tally mentioned. Mr. Harris said he believes, like Mr. Lindblad, that if we were to follow the Zoning Codes to the letter, it would not be necessary to have a Board or a Council to decide these things. He said that in areas that are zoned commercial or industrial , we don' t have to be so strict on what goes into these areas . When you get to R-3 and R-2 , you're starting to talk about where people live and by the time you get to R-1 zoning, you are taking about a man' s home and I believe a man' s home is his castle. If the neighbors are willing to give up their rights of privacy, then I could go along with this request. He said he feels that there should be a change in the code , to expand the uses allowed with a special use permit in .Section F, of the R-1 Zoning Code . I think Subsection 4 is ambiguous and should be changed. I think the 'other uses ' should be struck from this paragraph so that someone won' t use this paragrph to construe other uses , to other uses than the ones listed. Planning Commission Meeting - October 3 , 1973 Page 11 Mr. Clark said if you are going to add other uses to Section F, under special use , you should include lawyers, real estate, medical and dental . Mr. Clark said that if Mr. Doyle was worried about the time element in changing the code , that this would take no longer than meeting the requirements of applying for a special use permit. MOTION by Drigins, seconded by Blair, that. the Planning Commission recommend to Council to consider amending the Zoning Code to allow real estate offices and lawyers office to be added to a use allowed with a Special Use Permit in R-1 , Section 45 . 051 , Paragraph 3 , F, to R-2 . Section 45 . 061 , Paragraph 3, F, and to R-3 , Section 45 . 071 , Paragraph 3, H, and to add to the same three Zoning Districts the statement: All uses which are similar in character to those enumerated above , will not be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing in the area thereof, or to the public welfare , and will not impair the use, enjoyment or value of any property, but not including any uses excluded hereinafter . Upon a voice vote , all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously . Motion by Blair to amend the motion, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission also recommend to Council that Subsection 4 , entitled OTHER USES in the Zoning Districts of R-1 , R-2 , and R-3, is ambiguous and very vague . This should be rewritten so that it is definite that it pertains to uses which are specifically stated as allowed under a special use permit . Upon a voice vote on the amended motion , all voting aye , the amended motion passed unanimously . 2 . COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN Mr. Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant, made thE: presentation. Mr. Boardman said the main reason for developing a park plan was that previous to this, all we have had is inventories of what we had on the plan and no direction per se, as to where property is needed and what type of facility was needed. This comprehensive park plan is a guideline to direct the Parks & Recreation Commission and also the Council in setting up priorities , as to which areas need parks and where they should try to acquire land for this use. At present we have 430 acres of park property and 100 acres of school property that could be used for recreational purposes . The goals that recreation should accomplish are : (1) physical health, (2) mental health, (3) the social adjustment of the individ- ual, and (4) intellectual and aesthetic expression. The way to accomplish these goals are through the objections of the parks and recreation plan. These objectives are an imple- 1 OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Monday, June 12, 1972 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request (ZOA 472-04) by Leigh Investment, Inc. (John R. Doyle, repre- sentative, to rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business) Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park, lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at East River Road and 63rd Way. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. FRANK G. LIEBL MAYOR Publish: May 24, 1972 May 31, 1972 f THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1972 The Regular Council Meeting of the Fridley City Council was convened at 7:43 P.M. , March 20, 1972. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Liebl led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INVOCATION: Councilman Kelshaw offered the Invocation. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Liebl, Utter, Mittelstadt, Breider, Kelshaw MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1972: MOTION by Councilman Breider to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 28, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, <Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1972: MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 6, 1972 as presented. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion cart.ied unani- mously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Liebl said there were items to add to the Agenda as follows: At End of Meeting: Complaint on Speeding from Jack Young, 6549 Lucia Lane. Appointment to Parks and Recreation Commission. Communication: Receiving letter from Director of Parks and Recreation to New Hope Regarding Warming House Plans $ Specifications, (At request of Councilman Utter) , .MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Agenda as amended. Seconded by -o�Councilman Kelshaw. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. ��fl 1 VISITORS: Mr. John Doyle, 3296 Rice Creek Terrace: Presentation of Plans for Real Estate Office on 63rd Way and East River Road: i Mr. Doyle said first he would like to thank the Council for the opportunity of addressing them. He said he was considering acquiring property for use as a REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1972 PAGE 2 real estate office on 63rd Way and idver Roach. dais piece of property was picked because of the size, location, and the large amount of shrubbery and trees already on the lot. There is an existing building on the lot, and presented a sketch of what the building looks like. He then presented a sketch of what they would like to do with the building, in making it appear more modernistic and with a chalet flavor. He said he was associated with Leigh Investments, Inc. and they would divide up the interior into offices to give it a feeling of spaciousness. They plan on adding a dormer across the front and adding a lot of windows. He said they figures they would need 10 parking stalls and showed a plot plan on the easel. There is 135 feet frontage on East River Road and 245 feet frontage on 63rd Way. The existing building is located in approximately the center of the lot. There would be about 80 feet between the building and East River Road and also between the building and 63rd Way. The parking lot would be between the building and East River Road. The access would be from 63rd Way, then out to East River Road. He said they feel that traffic will not be a great problem due to the fact that there are lights both north and south on East River Road just a few blocks away. He said they are willing to meet the Code in regard to the parking and will have the proper setback. Mayor Liebl asked how many parking lots he was speaking of. Mr. Doyle said they anticipate one lot with 10 stalls, however, there would be access to the rear where there would be more than adequate parking. This lot is sheltered from the neighborhood on the east and north by quite a few trees, there are also many trees on the west side. Mayor Liebl asked if he knew of any opposition from the people on the west or north side. Mr. Doyle said on the north, the property is zoned for duplexes. He said he had not talked to the owner, but he has talked to some of the residents. On the west side across East River Road and to the south there is a duplex. He said he had not talked to the people directly across the street. He said he felt it would be an improvement to the area, because the building as it exists now would receive a face lifting. Councilman Breider asked what was the zoning. Mr. Doyle answered R-1. Council- man Breider wondered what zoning he would ask for. The City Engineer said there were two types of zoning available. He could fit under the C-2 zoning, or if the building is only to be used for offices, he could request a CR-1 zoning, which is more restrictive. If the plan is to use the building only for offices, he would suggest that Mr. Doyle request the CR-1 as he could receive less opposition from the neighbors if they we>e assur1;i that it would be only office use and that at some future time somthing else, such as a grocery story or a gas station, could not go in. Councilman Breider explained to Mr. Doyle, that under the State law hearings must be held for any change in zoning classification. He said the procedure was to make an application in the Engineering Department, notices of the hearing are sent out to people within 3001 , the hearing is held before the planning Com- mission, and a recommendation is made to the Council. Then notices are again sent out for the hearing before the Council. After the hearing is held, if the Council approves the request, an ordinance for the zoning change must have two readings and be published. The City Engineer reported that Mr. Doyle has received an appligation form, but he has not submitted his request as yet. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1972 PAGE 3 The City Attorney said, in considering this particular rezoning, would the Council have any desire to consider rezoning a larger piece of property at this location? There was at one time some talk of changing the zoning to commercial in this area, and suggested that the Planning Commission could look into this. Councilman Breider said that when the question was put to tfie people in the neighborhood, they did not express any particular desire to rezone to commercial. He said he assumed it would be acceptable when they come before the Planning Commission after the notification, they could give their views on rezoning their property. Councilman Mittelstadt said that he felt this should encompass more than just the 300' and should cover the area from 61st Way to Mississippi Street, and all those people should be notified. Mayor Liebl said that the City Engineer will have to proceed as the Charter provides, which is 300 feet. He added there is a fee for this request to cover publication costs etc. Mr. Doyle said that he has a list of the people within the 300' radius; and that he could get the names of .all those from 61st Way to 14ississippi. He said he was willing to go one step further and personally contact each person within. the 3001 .radius and ask them to sign a petition on what they would like to have done. Councilman Breider said that the City Administration goes through the procedure of getting all the names for the hearing notifications, so he could get the list from City Hall. Mayor Liebl asked how long the procedure would take until it is completed. The City Engineer said, considering the meetings and the requirements for all the publications, aocut 3 months. Mr. Doyle commented that if this property ever did go back to residential, the building still would not be obnoxious to the neighborhood. The City Engineer said that he did not have a clear understanding of what the Council wishes were in regard to the notification. Did they want only those within the 300' or the entire area notified. Councilman Mittelstadt said only within the 300' for this particular property, but if the Planning Commission would want to consider this totally from 61st to Mississippi on a broad basis, then all the residents in this section would have to be notified. He said he would recommend going ahead with this particular piece of property, then let the Planning Commission consider the overall zoning concept for the area. The City Engineer said that the Planning Commission is working on a comprehensive plan` for the City, they could consider this in relation to the overall plan. ``- Mr. C H Benjamin, 5708 Jefferson Street: Request for "No Parking" Signs; T Mr. Benjamin said that he has a 241 street both on the east and south of him. There is a difficult problem in this area with cars parked on Moth sides of the street, especially in the winter with the snow banks narrowing the street even more. He said he would like to request "No Parking" signs for. both sides of the street from Lakeside (5711) to 58th Avenue and on Lakeside from Jefferson to 7th Street. He said he would also like to request another street light. When the theatre opens, this area is used as a lover's lane, and disturbs people at night. There is one on Jefferson and Lakeside now, and ho would like one further north. Mayor Liebl said that there should not be a problem in putting in the "No Parkingl' signs, this would appear a difficult situation and would be a' reasonable request. l REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1972 PAGE 4 As to the street light, he told Mr. Benjamin that the City feels the first priority must be intersection lights. All the intersections in the City are not lit yet, and the City puts in as many as they can afford every year. There are still street lights available for 1972, and asked that the Administration check into Mr. Benjamin's request. MOTION by Councilman Kelshaw to concur with the request for "No Parking" signs for Jefferson from Lakeside to 58th Avenue and on Lakeside from Jefferson to 7th Street, and instruct the Administration to follow through on this. As to the street lighting, he would refer this to the Administration to check out, taking into consideration those most needed, and monies available. Seconded by Council-- man Mittelstadt. The City Manager asked if there would be any problem in limiting the parking on both sides of the street. Mr. Benjamin said that the other streets are 601 . He said he had company about a week and one half ago and there were cars parked on both sides of the street, plus a lot of snow, and a car could barely squeeze through. He went up to the Police Department, and they came out and had the f _.cars moved. They said they could see no reason the cars would have to be parked on,' this narrow street. If there were "No Parking" signs, the Police Department would have the right to do something about it. THE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carl Paulson, 430 57 Place N.E. , Request for Traffic Control on 57th Place, 57th Avenue and 4th Street: Mr. Carl Paulson said that in considering signs, the Council and Administration should consider some "No Parking" signs in the area of 57th Place, 57th Avenue and 4th Street where the service drive loops around. This area is a bottle- neck, and there should be some sort of improvement to the conflicts at this location. Mr. Paulson said that he would also like to have the Council justify hiring a now man to head the Police Department at a high salary at a time when everyone is trying to cut costs. He added that he was on the Police Commission when Chief McCarthy was hired. Mayor Liebl said that the Council will make the decision when it is on the Agenda, and they are not in a position to answer at this time, It was pointed out that the recruitment process has already started and there is money provided for this position in the 1972 budget. Mr. Paulson said that he understood that the Police Chief had been demoted and Mayor Liebl replied that was not true. ORDINANCE #507 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE REGULATING THE LICENSING AND MANNER OF CONDUCTING DANCES: MOTION by Councilman Breider to adopt Ordinance #507 on second reading, waive the reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Utter, Upon a roll call vote, Mittelstadt, Breider, Kelshaw, Liebl and Utter voting aye, Mayor Liebl+ declared the motion carried unanimously. A ' REGULAR COUNCIL, MEETING OF MAY 15, 1972 PAG:' 14 it being done so the people can compare the costs. There is also a provision for holding back 10% paymen so there will be a fund set aside in case there axe any damages incurred by the contractor. He said he had checked out Mr. Germundsen and Brooklyn Cent r was pleased with the quality of his service. He said his recommendation i to award the contract to Mr. Germundsen for 1972 with the option to carry the ontract into future years if both parties agree. MOTION by Councilman Breider t award the contract for Weed Abatement to Mr. Brian Germundsen for the year 1 72, with the option to continue the contract on into future years if both pa ties agree. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, May r Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLAN ING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 3, 1972: 1. PROPOSED ZAPATA RESTAURANT AT 905 UNIVF_j_,1TY AVENUE N.E. : Lot 9, Block 3, Bennett-Palmer Addition, Lo 16 & 17, Block 13, Hyde Park Addition, plus vacated 59th Avenue. The City Engineer said this restauran would be north of Mr. Steak and this request was sent to the Planning Commission b ause they did not meet the area require- ments at present, but they would meet a requirements as proposed, which would be to change the 25,00 square feet area equirement to 20,000 square feet, and the front foot requirement of 200 feet t 160 feet. Since the ordinance is still in the planning stage, the applicant will need a waiver of the Code rgquirements. He said they will be covering 95% of thei area with blacktop, concrete and building, and there will be very little reen area. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to approv the construction of a Zapata Restaurant subject to the stipulations imposed by the uilding Standards - Design Control and, grant a waiver of the present Code requirem is of 25,000 square feet area, to 20,000 square feet, and front footage requir nt of 200 feet to 160 feet. This waiver is based on the premise the Planning C mmission will be forwarding on a recommendation that the Council adopt the ame ent based on the above figures. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice ote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. 2. REZONING REQUEST: ZOA #72-03, THE WALL CO . , BY DENNIS MADDEN (RIEDEL ESTATE) : To rezone from R-1 to R-3 for to ouses and apartments. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to table this it until the Planning Commission is ready to forward their recommendation on to the Council. Seconded by Council- man Utter. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Lieb declared the motion carried unanimously. 3. REZONING REQUEST, Z 72-04, LEIGH INVESTMENT,I C. , BY JOHN R. DOYLE, PRESIDENT:_ Lots 12 through 17, West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park. Rezone from R-1 to CR-1 (general office and limited business) for real estate office. The City Engineer reported that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request and unless the petitioner requests a public hearing before the Council, the action would be to concur. Mr. John Doyle said he would like to request a public hearing before the Council. a. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 15, 19',,2 PAGE 13 Mrs. Barb Hughes said th Council has the comments from the LWV for strengthening the commission. She said the LWV supports Mr. Jacobson's arguments for cre- ation by ordinance becaus an ordinance requires public hearings and a resolution does not. A commitment on the part of the City can make this work, they would need funding to make an eff ctive commission. She would not want to see a committee or commission tha does not have the support and funding necessary. She said the LWV urges an or ' ance for the commission and a strong commitment for funding. Councilman Mittelstadt said th t when he introduced this proposed ordinance he stated a commission rather than a committee because in the City of Fridley a commission does have funding. H said he thought it was time to start developing the ordinance using the input fr the League of Women Voters, Mr. Jacobson's committee, the Planning Commissio and the Chamber of Commerce. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to instruct the Administration to proceed with drafting an ordinance for an Enviro ental Quality Control Commission. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT - OWING SERVICE: B. Ge undsen V.R. Vasecka 6901 M gda Dr. Quality Turf Mpls. , inn. 438 Independent St. Champlin, Minn. Tractor w/ side arm mower per hour $6.00 $12.50/hr. operator included Tractor w/ pull mower or flail type or rotary type or equiv. per hour 6.00 12.50/hr. operator included Tractor Operator per hour 4.50 6.00 Riding mower w/ min. 20" cut per hour 4.00 9.75/hr. operator included Truck - 1 ton or larger per hour 10.50 6.00 Hand mower - per hour 4.50 6.00 Riding mower - per hour 4.00 9.75/hr. operator included Spraying equip. labor - per hour N.B. 24.00 Clean up man - per hour 4.50 6.00 The City Manager reported that Fridley was notified la month that the present Weed Abatement Contractor did not wish to continue, so ecifications were developed, advertisement for bids were published, and tw bids were received May 5, 1972. The low bidder is Brian Gerundsen. There a e a number of different items compared with the previous contractor in the Agenda. The majority of the work is with a tractor and operator and this cost went from $10 per hour to $10.50 per hour or a 5% increase. He said the City A istration has tried to alleviate the major complaint from last year's weed abat ent procedure which was that people did not have any estimate of the cost f the work before it was done, to give them an opportunity to hire their own co tractor if they so desired. This year they will be sending out estimates of a work prior to ..REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 01` :MAY 15, 1972 PAGE 15 i MOTION by Councilman Breider to set June 12, 1972 as the public hearing date for the rezoning request by John Doyle. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. Mdyor Liebl said there were rumors brought to his attention; one of which was that there would be a factory going in that would be belching black smoke. Another was that Mr. Doyle would be down-grading the house and another was that if he did not get his rezoning, he would bring in 235 homes. When Mr. Doyle came before the Council with his proposal, he was told to follow the proper procedure, and he, personally, felt that this plan would be an improvement. Mr. Doyle said he was very surprised to learn at the Planning Commission Meeting that there was a petition going around with 216 signatures against this rezoning. In order to get 216 signatures would encompass quite a bit of area. It was a stated fact that at least a part of the signers were renters, not land owners. In Addition, after the petition was submitted, at least one individual had been informed it was to be rezoned industrial and he was asked "How would he like to have a factory belching black smoke?" He said he had talked to a fair number of people within the 300 feet radius of the property and a great many indicated they did not object, so it seems many changed their minds later. If he had talked to many of these people, obviously the 216 signatures goes far beyond this area. He said some of the circulators did not know what his presentation was, so how could they go around and tell people what he was going to do? He said he was not looking specifically for a rezoning, he would be just as happy u with a special use permit that would allow him to fix the house P and use it for his real estate office. He said he certainly did not intend to build any apartments, houses, or "factories belching smoke". From the street this office would look quite like a private residence. He said if he is unable to use the property as he proposes, possibly an alternate would be to build houses, but he did not feel this area would justify a $35,000 - $40,000 house, so it would have to be a low priced house. Another alternate would be double or multiple family units. He said his impression was that the Planning Commission has another design in mind for this area, but he thought that his use would have less impact on those plans than anything else that could go in. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1972. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS - DESIGN CONTROL MEETING OF MAY 4, 1972: 1. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TRIPLEX LOCATED ON_OUTLOT 1, RICE CREEK PLAZA SOUTH ADDITION AND LOT 32, BLOCK 4, LOWELL ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6591 MAIN STREET N E_ , FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY ALVIN A. NITSCHKE, 6441 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. , FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA) z The City Engineer reported the Building Standards recommended approval with stipulations. Mr. Nitschke has submitted new plans incorporating their conditions. MOTION by Councilman Breider to approve the request to construct a triplex by Mr. Alvin Nitschke with the revised plans submitted this date to be used. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. • i REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 15, 1572 PAGE 16 2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SERVICE CENTER LOCATED ON THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST �9 OF SECTION 11, T-30, R-24, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST k OF THE NORTHWEST T DISTANT 636.8 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST '� OF THE NORTHWEST fit; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 400 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 110 52°02" TO THE CENTERLINE OF OSBORNE ROAD; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER OF OSBORNE ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN SOUTH FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID NORTH DESCRIBED LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE SAME BEING 315 OSBORNE ROAD N.E. , FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY KORSUNSKY- KRANK, INC. , 1525 GLENWOOD AVENUE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55405) : The City Engineer reported that the Building Standards recommended approval of the plans with stipulations. The square footage of the building is in excess of the Code requirement and there is not enough parking, so they have applied for a variance. When the rezoning was approved the plans showed a building with 4070 square feet, now they are proposing a building with 6650 square feet which is almost a 50% increase. He suggested, if the Council wishes, they could approve the building using 6000 square feet which would meet the Code, then if their variance is approved, they could increase the size to 6650. The 650 feet difference would be for a variance to the parking requirement. Councilman Breider asked if the shopping center would be a solid building and the City Engineer said yes, it would be a row of shops within one building. He then showed a rendering of the proposed building at the Council table. Mr. Ernst explained that he had already talked to the Board of Appeals and the item has been placed on the Agenda. Councilman Mittelstadt said that if they still have to appear before the Board of Appeals, perhaps the Council should wait for their recommendation. Mr. Ernst explained that they are pressed for time. There is some special soil preparation necessary and they are proposing to prepare for a 6650 square foot building, in the hope they are successful, and the outside walls could be reduced easily if not. Councilman Mittelstadt asked if this would require a public hearing before the Board of Appeals and the City Engineer said yes, the notices will be sent. Councilman Mittelstadt said if the Council approved the request it would put the Board of Appeals in the position they would feel that they had to concur with the Council action. He did not feel they should be put in this position. Mayor Liebl said that this project has been discussed very thoroughly and there were many stipulations to the rezoning. There is a great deal of dirt that has to be hauled and that takes time. If this was laid over, the Council could not act on his request until June 5th, and although he agreed the proper process should be gone through, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. MOTION by Councilman Breider to approve the request to construct a service center requested by Korsunsky-Krank, Inc. subject to the Building Standards stipulations and approve the building permit with 6000 square feet, unless the variance to allow 6650 square feet is approved by the Board of Appeals, in which case they could use the larger building. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer reported that Item #3 (Viewcon quadraminiums) will be going before the Planning Commission and will be forwarded to the Council after their review. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1972 PAGE 2 ORDINANCE #514 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZING DUTIES FOES SAID POSITION: MOTION by Councilman Breider to adopt Ordinance #514 on second reading, waive the reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a roll call vote, Utter, Mittelstadt, Breider and Liebl voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUEST ZOA #72-04 BY LEIGH INVESTMENT, INC. TO REZONE FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO CR-1 (GENERAL OFFICE AND LIMITED BUSINESS) - 63RD WAY AND EAST RIVER ROAD: Councilman Mittelstadt said there were a number of options open to the Council in this case. The first would be to approve the rezoning to CR-1, however, at the public hearing there was a petition presented to the Coi.Ncil stating the majority of the property owners were opposed to the rezoning. He said through a survey he made, their concern is that if CR-1 is allowed here, there would be additional requests for commercial and they fear the area between 61st and Mississippi would gradually become a commercial area. They also fear that the Planning Commission's comprehensive plan will describe this area as a commercial area. He said in talking-to these people, he tried to supress these fears. Another option would be to allow the business in a residential area with a special use permit providing the applicant lived there, but he believed Mr. Doyle did not plan on living in this dwelling. Another option would be to send the request back to the Board of Appeals for a variance on the gzwnds this would be a hardship. He did not feel this was a valid consideration because the Board of Appeals is a subcommittee of the Planning Commission which already denied the request. The last option open to the Council would be to change the Code to allow special use permits to be given in residential areas. This, it would seem, would bring a flood of requests. He said as to the question of whether or not to rezone to CR-1, representative because these people are opposed to the rezoning and this is a re p form of government, he did not feel he could approve the request. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to deny the request of Mr. John Doyle of Leigh Investment Inc. to rezone from R-1 to CR-1. Seconded by Councilman Breider for discussion. Councilman Breider asked if it would be possible to issue a special use permit. The Acting City Attorney replied no, not under the present zoning. Mayor Liebl asked if it was rezoned to R-2, could a special use permit be given. It seems the people are opposed to the rezoning, but not the use. The Acting City Attorney replied no, there is no provision in the Code for special Use permits under the residential zoning categories. He then read from the Code Book the uses that would be permitted under R-2 with a special use permit, none of which are strictly a commercial venture. The only way this could be allowed under the Code would be if the applicant lived in the dwelling. Councilman Breider said that his impression at the public hearing was that the people were concerned with their neighborhood, not knowing in what direettan they were ;roving. The system used for issuing special use permits creates tight controls over a building. In this case if the zoning were to remain if and When the the same, but the use was permitted with a special use permit, 1 THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 19,1972 The Regular Council Meeting of the Fridley City Council was convened at 7:45 P.M. , June 19, 1972. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Liebl led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INVOCATION: The City Manager, Gerald R. Davis, offered the Invocation. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Breider, Liebl, Utter and Mittelstadt MEMBERS ABSENT: None PRESENTATION OF AWARDS: Certificates of Appreciation for Resigned Members of the Human Relations Committee: Mr. Walt Starwalt, Mrs. Lillian Wegler, and Mrs. Ruth Kelshaw: Mayor Liebl asked Mr. Starwalt to come forward and said it was a great privilege to present him with the Certificate. He then read the inscription on the Certificate. Mrs. Wegler was not present, so Councilman Mittelstadt volun- teered to deliver her Certificate to her. The City Manager was directed to mail Mrs. Kelshaw's Certificate. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1972: MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Minutes of the Board of Equali- zation Meeting of June 1, 1972 as presented. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously, ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Liebl said the following items are to be added: Receiving memo regarding changing precinct lines to conform to Legislative District lines. Receiving letter from Third Marine Division Association, Inc. Add the Fireworks License for 100 Twin Drive-In to the Licenses. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. , VISITORS: Mayor Liebl asked if there were any people in the audience that wished to spear, with no response. , PEGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1972 ?AGE 3 use ceased, the building would revert Lack to R-1. This type of business would suit itself to $ie area along East River Road and he said it bothered him to have something that could b.2 worked out but it could not be done without changing the ordinance . He wondered if this particular case did not point up • the need to take a closer loot at the special use permit section of the Code Book. He said he shared the resident's concern, he would not like to take a small chunk out of the middle of their neighborhood and rezone.it to commercial. The Acting City 1,ttorney said that their office is in the process of recodi- fication of the Code Book, so if the Council is thinking in terms of a possible change in this direction, it should be done so that it could be incorporated. They hope to have the recodification done by September lst. He suggested the council may want to table this item, as if it is denied the ordinance precludes another application for a rezoning_ for six months. Councilman Breider said that would not apply to a special use permit application, which could still be made. He said he did not think any of the Council members are considering a zoning change, but are working toward a special use permit. TUE VOTE UPON THE MOTION, being a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. councilman Breider asked the Acting City Attorney to work on this special use permit situation, not only for this case but for others in other areas where a special use permit would be satisfactory but a rezoning would not. The Acting City Attorney said he would meet with the Staff. ORDINANCE #515 - AN ORDINANCE FOR REZONING REQUEST ZOA #71-08 BY GENERAL REALTY COMPANY, LOTS 16-22, BLOCK 13, HAMILTON'S ADDITION TO MECHANICSVILLE: The City Engineer refreshed the Council's memory by saying this rezoning is to bring a gas station out of a non-conforming use. It has been in R-3 zoning, which was allowed at one time, but is no longer. Their concern is if the station burned, they could not rebuild. The second reading has been held up until, a letter is received from the petitioner stating they will pay their share of pavipg the alley. This letter has now been received. 140TIQN by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt Ordinance #515 on second reading, Waive the reading and order publication. Seconded by Councilman Breider, Vpop a roll call vote, Utter, Mittelstadt, Breider and Liebl voting aye, Mayor Djebl declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT F.S. #69-12 OF SHOREWOOD PLAZA PLAT, REQUEST BY MAX SALITERMAN: AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR VACATION OF A PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT SAV #70-02, REWEST BY MAX SALITERMAN: A(OTXQN by Councilman Utter to adopt the Ordinance for vacation, SAV #70-04 ;pquested by Max Saliterman on first reading and waive the reading, Secogded Cqunallman Breider. Upon a roll call vote, Liebl, Utter, Mittelstaq ani} PTOjoer voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE- 19, 1972 PAGE 4 • MOTION by Councilman Breider to approve the final plat P. S. #69-12, Shorewood Plaza requested by Max Saliterman. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried tnianimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAN OF PHASE I (QUADRAMINIUMS) REQUESTED BY VIEWCON _INC., CONDOMINIUM PORTION OF TOTAL MULTIPLE UNIT COMPLEX ON PART OF OUTLOT H, INNSBRUCK NORTH ADDITION, BEING THE 1600 BLOCK: Councilman Mittelstadt suggested, since the Council has no objection with the units themselves, that the discussion center around the additional parking and the garage location. Mayor Liebl asked how things were progressing with New Brighton. Mr. Darrel Farr replied that they have been meeting with New Brighton and are getting much closer, the only snag now is density. Mayor Liebl said he realized Viewcon is trying to utilize the natural terrain as much as possible and preserve the existing amenities. The Council requested a new plan for the quadraminiums, which they have drawn. He asked if he would foresee any traffic problems with the present layout. Mr. Farr said that he thought any traffic problem would be more serious in the existing townhouse area. In the quadra- minium area there is a garage plus a parking space for each unit, with no tandem parking. Mayor Liebl said he felt the layout of the street fit into the area, and that he was concerned about the stability of the street, but Viewcon has taken into consideration utilizing the existing land and green areas avail- able to them. Mr. Farr said yes, the street follows a natural ridge and will be double loaded with houses on both sides. He said it would be very difficult to build any other way, and still maintain the natural amenities. Councilman Utter said his concern was that the garages were so close to the street that when a car would back out of the garage, he would actually be into the street when he was about � way out of the garage and there would be poor visibility. In the winter time when the snow is piled high, the problem would be greater. Mr. Farr said that this could be considered more like a parking lot in an apartment complex and that it was actually a private street. Councilman Utter said with 60 units, there could be up to 120 cars. Mayor Liebl said these streets would not b�; plowed by the City of Ftidley, but would be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The City would still have -to get in in case of fire, but there is this problem in other areas, and added that a fire truck could not turn around on his street either. Mr. Farr said there were other choices available, but they felt this was the most desireable layout. If the garages were moved back, more green area would be lost. This is a very difficult area to work with. To develop any other plan with anything other than a double loaded street would wreak havoc with this location. Councilman Utter asked what was the width of the street and a Representative of Viewcon replied 24 feet, with the garages set back 5 feet. Councilman Breider asked what was the distance between garages across the street and Mr. Farr replied 34 feet. Mayor Liebl said this would give enough room to move around much like at the Georgetown complex. It was pointed out that there was curbing extending out into the street to delineate each parking stall between the garages. Councilman Utter asked how wide these islands were and Mr. Farr replied 8' - 101 . THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1972 The Special Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of the City of FPidley was convened at 7:35 P.M. , June 12, 1972. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Liebl led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of A legiange to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Liebl, Utter, Mittelstadt, Breider MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF AGENDA: .. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to adopt the Agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. SLIDE SHOW PRESENTATION BY LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS - "TALE OF TWO CREEKS": The slide show was narrated by Mrs. Wilbur Whitmore, and showed the destruction of Battle Creek as compared 'to Rice Creek which has been relatively untouched, The emphasis is upon preserving Rice Creek and not allowing it to become the eyesore Battle Creek has become. Mayor Liebl thanked the League for pointing out the problems so graphically and said that he hoped that measures would be found to prevent this erosion. Mrs. Whitmore said that the signs cannot be ignored especially since Fridley is the downstream community. She then showed a map of the watershed district on the easel. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQUEST AQA 72-04 LEIGH INVESTMENT, INC. , TO REZONE FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) TO CR-1 GENERAL OFFICE AND LIMITED BUSINESS) 63RD WAY AND EAST RIVER ROAD: MR. JOHN DOYLE ""� AND RECEIVING PETITION #7-1972 AGAINST THE REZONING: AND RECEIVING PETITION #6-1972 FOR THE REZONING: The City Manager read the public hearing notice at the request of Maygr 14*bl and the City Engineer showed the location on the overhead projector. MOTIQN by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive Petition #7-1972 against the rezoning, Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. i SPECIAL PUB41C HEARING MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1972 PAGE 2 M4TICN by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive Petition #6-•1972 in favor of the fezoning. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. mayor Liebl informed the audience that the Council would allot 30 minutes for "IN hearing as there are many other items on the agenda and other people would like to be heard, He then asked Mr. John Doyle to make a presentation. Mr, Doyle came forward and placed a sketch of the existing dwelling on the easel dod said that he has presented his plans to the Council previously, but he would again for the benefit of the residents from the area. This is at the intersection of Ord Way and East River Road and he plans on remodeling the existing building to make it look like a chalet type of building and adding a foyer, with the building to be used for a small real estate office. He then showed a sketch of what he was proposing;: Se said he also plans on adding a 10 car parking lot, !high should b4 more than adequate to cover the needs of this office. He said he would not be disturbing any green areas or the privacy hedges and there would pot he Acceas off East River Road, but the access would be from 63rd Way. He is not proposing to do anything different than what many other agencies have donor such as D.C. Bell and Mr. DeGardner's office on about 80th and East River Road9 lie to not intending to disrupt the neighborhood and he is certainly not intendinq to build a factory and he does not want to put in multiple dwelling units. Hp said it was not his desire to build single family homes in this area, he simply WaAta.to put in his office and carry out his business, whether by rezoning or •spegiai use permit, he did not care. He felt that in no way would this be a dont to the neighborhood and as a property owner, he had the richt to ass for Council consideration on his request. He had occasion to sit in on a CQuncil posting In another city and a similar instance came up. The proposal was for retuning and there was a lot of neighborhood objection. Their City AttQrney took great care to explain to the Council and the audience that it is the constitutional right of a property owner to come in and ask for a rezoning or spegiel use permit and unless that rezoning does have a detrimental effect on 49p#one else in the area, that it should be given very serious consideration, This proposal lends itself to being used as a buffer zone, and would, not be iag a drastic change. There are areas zoned for duplexes close by, and light industrial only � block away on the tracks. If at any future time he should h4Vs to se,i,l the property, for anyone else to use it for anything other than what tt would be zoned for, would require another hearing. The CR-1 zoning category is a Very restrictive zoning. He said he also understood that if he was to change the use of the existing property, he would again have to come before they Council, CR-1 is a zoning only conducive to real estate offices, doctor's offices or something of that nature. ggyiix Liebl asked his estimated investment and Mr. Doyle said that he thought the 49ual Would need new siding, and with the addition of the foyer and the glass, plus thoyggking lot and driveway, he thought in the range of $8,OOQ to $19,QQQ. Msygr Mehl asked if Mr. Doyle is the owner of the six 40 foot lots and Mr, ;?Ry�s replied yes, Mayor Liebl asked, if the Council did not grant the CR-1 rAntnq i;hi1Apet what would his interests by in the property then? Mr. Doyle answer9d t4At if the &aning was left as it is, there would be a couple of choices left open} t9 'theMr none of them what he felt would be satisfactory. The first would be tp ;oat the house out, but he did not feel that would be acceptable. The next 09ice would be to either pgrchase the house there now or tear it down and bViid SPECIAL VUbLTC HEARING MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1972 IRAQ& 3 AeW NV$eP, This property is bounded on one side by East River Road and on the other by railroad tracks and he did not think the majority of home buyers Would Want tQ buy a $30,000 - $40,000 home in this area. This would mean that the house built would have to be in the lower $20,000 range. Mayor Liebl said that the suburbs are required by the Metropolitan Council to re-evoluate their comprehensive plans and the Council has instructed the Planning Qommission to come up with a plan for Fridley. He asked how long this real estate office would be at this location, and what if the people desired omother Rezoning, such as industrial, would Mr. 'Doyle oppose this or work With the people and the Council? Mr. Doyle said he would work with the people in the area, and added that he is trying to now. Mayor Liebl asked if Mr. Royle would b@ melling the lots in Al Rose Addition. Mr. Doyle said he would like to, but when he bought this lot, he did not know they were there. He said he chose this pr9m. porty be cause of its proximity to East River Road, among other things. Mayor Liebl then asked for comments from the audience in favor of this rezoning, Mr, John Hickman said that he lives next door to where Mr. Doyle conducts big present business, and there is no disadvantage in living next door to him. He in a good neighbor and there is not a lot of traffic going in and out, 11 he Werg to put in 10 parking spaces, that should more than take care of what he Wants to Work into in the future. He said he was in favor of the rezoning. Mr. A,C, Mattson, 6320 Riverview Terrace, said that he had lived behind Holly Shopping Center before it was built, and if he and all his neighbors had banded together to oppose the center, it would not have been built and would not be available to service the community. Nobody would want to live on East Riv*r Road, the land there is only good for 235 homes, especially with industrial aoning only � block away. That kind of housing falls into a state of disrepair quickly. This man is trying, to make the arca useable, and in his opinion, it was a good use. There are double bungalows across the street, so there is 41- ready traffic. He said he is selling the lots in Al Rose Addition through Mr, DeGardner'S firm, so Mr. Doyle is actually a competitor, but this type of service Js needed in Fridley to make it grow. Under this proposal, there would be no childrent but if there were 235 homes, there would probably be children and 'sere would be more chance of children being killed-on East River Road. He said he has nothing to do With Mr. Doyle, but he had asked him to speak because he works put of Mx. DeGardnerls office on 80th and East River Road. That house and the grounds are kept in very nice condition. Mr, Ole 8jer%esett, 100 635 Way N.E. , said he lived in this area and at than 94" around with a petition and talked of "smoke stacks and warehouses", He said he thought the people have been misinformed. The question here is how many are for 9r against within the 300 feet that is stipulated. With the many names on the petitign, there had to be people that are not close enough to be involved one wAY or the other. There are only about 60 homes in this area. He said his coa- tact With his neighbors indicated they were in favor of the proposal, KAygr Liebl said that the Council will now listen to those that wish to speak in opposition, $YBQIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1972 4 Mr, Paul runythera, 132 6A Way N.E. , said that he had helped circulate the potitiqjlf inglUding a visit to the man who last spoke. lie said he had done his best to mhe himself clear and in some cases made two visits. He said he did not rem.eagr +,alkinq about any "factories" and tried his best to give the true situation, fie eaaid his point was that if this was all6wed in the middle of residential zoning, it wQulcl have to be allowed up and down the street and would end up being a qctw�erqial area. He asked Mr. Doyle, if someone on his block wanted something liXe this, would be be opposed to it? He asked why is a radius of only 30Q feet wpoidered; further away people would also be affected. He felt that the poople on p4ver, XdVe way would be affected and they are concerned that it WOU14 loiter their property values. He said he was acros.9 East River Road from this sitpp bpt ho could as* it, and he felt it would increase traffic, which is already baf, No said he did not understand why Mr. Doyle did not go into a commercial area, he Wo,414 be Vlad to have a commercial enterpri"- ccxw, into Fridley, but not in an Area zoned for residences. Mayor Liebl said that as to the concern about traffic problems, under the p;esent g9ning 4 person Qquld put in three homes and what would that do to the traltio situation? Also, under the present zoning, 235 homes could go in and the qounctl Qould not stop them. He asked Mr. Kumhera if he would rather have low inQqmg housing come in? Mr. Kmnhera said he could not speak for anyone else, but he Would rather have the land stay R-1 because then it would not be setting a pre- gident. He said he was not familiar with the 235 program, He added that he knew of a gentleman who owned a $25,000 home and wanted to move it onto a lot hql owned tin Locke Lake, but he could not because the homes there are in the $40fooQ rVgq, If the City has that power, why can't they control the low income reusing? Rayer 4ebl said that many of the citizens had asked the City Council to stop Vern Dopnay from putting in the 235 homes, but the Council does not have that legal right, The residents did not want this type of construction, but it was zoned properly. Mr. Doyle could do this also, then the residents would be saddled with 10 times more problems. He said he was not ah advocate of spot zoning,but he must evaluate what is in the best interests of the community. He must also qUeetion how much tax money the City will receive, then how much would have to go back out in maintenance and service costs. It is entirely possible that if there were three 235 homes built, there could be up to 20 children. Thi , - s area ak qanngt stay as it is now, and the Council must look at this request from ail 4pqlelf but they certainly did not want any more traffic on East River Road either. Mr, Kumhera said that he just did not want the whole area turned into a gomercial area. Mr. Doyle said he was asked how would he like it if someone came into the P19cX Where he lived and asked for this. He said he has three businesses in his $medltate neighborhood (not in Fridley) , one is the next thing to a general m9rghandiso sale; it is a continuous sale out of a garage. He ,said he does AQt objeqt and neither do his neighbors. He said neither would he be opposed tp rgggping to commercial, He added there are already businesses working out of holes in rVidloy Aqw, 9r, Ed Allis, 7Q 63rd Way N.E. , said that he did not object to the real estate offiggf but Mr. Doyle has said that he could not use the property under a ppeciAl u4o permit, that he needs the rezoning. He did not think anyone would want 99WQr(;Jal-9oming into a neighborhood where people have been paying i , the X taxes can their hoRes for their whole life. This could not help but degradethe pro- , pe.vtyl 23$1s could not be worse. He said, in his opinig he did not think the yoopIq are objecting to the real estate office, only the rezoning. $PZCIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1972 PADA 5 Mr. Gerald Gerber, 6275 East River Road, said he lives across the strew Apd he is opposed to the rezoning. Mrs. Gerber said that Mr. Doyle mentioned Mr, DeGArdner's office, however, he lives in that home. She said she would have no objection to the real estate office but she would object to the rezoning, As far as chldren on the east side of East River Road are concerned, on that side of the street they are bused. She said they have a nice quiet neighborhood, granted there is industrial property along the tracks, but she has lived in her home 23 - 24 years and it has been zoned industrial since she moved in. They knew it was then and took their chances. She said she feels she is being threatened that she will have to accept the real estate office or have low inm come housing and she resents it. Councilman Breider said he got the feeling from the Planning commission Minutes and again tonight that the people are concerned about the rezoning, but not the office. Mr. Elliot said yes, they are concerned about a checkerboard type Qf zoning starting in their area. Councilman Breider said that when the improvement of East River Road was discussed, there was some thought to changing the zoning along East River Road, and that maybe the people would want to initiate some nation, however, the City will not start it, it will have to be petitioned for by the property owners. A member of the audience asked who could qualify for a 235 loan. Councilman Breider Said the situation is such that a builder can apply for H.F. 23$ funding fr9m the KUA offices and can come into Fridley and build a home meeting the minimum Code requirements provided the zoning is proper. Mr. R. Hamann, 40 625 Way N.E. , said he was against the rezoning and asked for a show of hands. Mayor Liebl asked how many opposed the rezoning, with approxim mately 12 hands raised. He then asked how many were for the rezoning with. 3 hands raised. He then asked how many were for the real estate office without the rezoning with'about 15 hands raised. Mayor Liebl informed the audience that the Council does not take action at the yublio hearing meeting, but that this item would be on the Agenda June 19, 1972, lie then thanked the people for coming and expressing their opinions. MGTIQN by Councilman Mittelstadt to close the public hearing on the rezoning request ZQA #72-q4 by Leigh Investment, Inc. Seconded by Councilman Utter, Upon A voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously arld the hearing closed at 8:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ON SHOREWOOD PLAZA FINAL PLAT P.S. #69-12 BY MAX SALITEP4ANI NATION by Councilman Mittelstadt to waive the reading of the public heor4ag notige, fccQnded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the potion carried unanimously. Mayor Liebl asked if Mr. Saliterman and the City have agreed to the 5 stjpwlat4QA4 qu liped in his letter dated May 8, 1972, and Mr. Wyman Smith, Attorney for Mr, $41iterman, replied yes, he had'met with the City Staff on behalf of Mr, $alitg on the items lasted in his letter. The preliminary plat was presented to the Council a number of years ago and has been pending since then. Since there has t been An Understanding reached, the final plat can be prepared. $uburbdn 9pVineexing is working with Mr, Saliterman on the details cif the plot sugh as t419 utilities, Which still have to be drawn in. T49re is a draingge sasggont SP&GIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF JUNE 12, 1972 held by the city of Fridley and he would agree with the City Attorney, that the Charter requires the City to vacate this land by ordinance and convey it bgqX to Mr, saliterman who will in turn provide a storm sewer easement in his plat. His understanding was that even though the deed is restricted to storm sewer' use, it would have to be vacated by ordinance. There are a number of utility lines serving Shorewood that have not been properly identified, The deepription is very long and one of the fruits of the plat would be to eliminate the motes and bounds description, and the description would be a simple one with lots and blocks. The Acting City Attorney said he did not anticipate any problems with the utility casements, so the ordinance.for the vacation could be prepared. Councilman Utter said there have been complaints about the area and he noticed in the agreement there is a provision for the clean-un s umps ,,, of the property. He noticed that the t Mvo Wen removed, Tt seems there has been a lot of fill removed and he wondered what Mr. Saliterman waw going to do about the steep banks. Mr. Smith said that they were going to be cmaing in with plans for a proposed building very soon, The plans are being drawn by the architect now. The plans are to expand the Sears building to the east. For that reason the east side of the building was not bricked. The north side of the Country Club block of buildings will be painted and cleaned. He understood the stumps and trees have been removed and when the equipment is brought 'in for the groundwork for the new building, the cent of the levelling etc. will be taken care of. Mr.. Henry Peterson, 6312 Pierce Street N.E. , said he has lived in this area 15 years. At one time the Frostop Drive-In wanted to go into Shorewood, but the residents objected and they located on Osborne Road. He said he would like to know what was planned to go into this shopping center. mayor Liebl explained that the plat is only being considered at this time. It is a commercial area, Put plans have not been submitted as yet. Mr. Peterson said' he did not want any drive-ins. mayor Liebl said he did not believe Mr. Saliterman would use such valuable land for such an endeavor. MQTIQN by Councilman Mittelstadt to receive the communication from Mr, wyman With dated May 8, 1972 and approve the five stipulations as conditions for approval of the final plat. Seconded by Councilman Utter, Upon a voice voter all &year Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously, MQTjQN by.Councilman Utter to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat F.So #69-12 by Max Saliterman. Seconded by Councilman Mittelstadt, Upon a Voigo voter all ayes, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously and the hearing closed at 8;50 P.M. INFORMAL HEARING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #72-07, BY REYNOLD E. SWANSON, TO OPERAM, 61101BILE HOME SALES LOT AT 7151 T.H. #65: Mr, Reynold Swanson said he was asking the Council consideration for reneWal of g special use permit that has been existing on this property since 1969, He has submitted a plot plan with some changes they would like to make, which ahowq hoW the homes would sit on the lot. He said he presently works for Castle Mobile Homes, castle has expanded greatly and he hoped that in running t;hjs P"Iaeqs, he could expand also. He said he has been brought ug in the City of rXi4ley, The permit that exists on the property for Castle expires July $th, 100 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF SEPTE11BER 17, 1973 PAGE 2 , MR. JOHN DOYLE: MR. JEFF CARSON, ATTORNEY FOR MR. DOYLE: Mr. Carson, Attorney for Mr. Doyle, addressed the Council and asked if the item concerning Mr. Doyle-would be on the agenda that evening. He said I he would like it scheduled for November 3, 1973 if possible. He believed + the matter would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the l Council reviewed it. E Mayor Liebl said the members of the Council had received a report from the Acting City Manager on the matter, but there was no mention of the matter on the agenda. Mr. Doyle asked which meeting this item would be considered at. Councilman Utter thought this would be done at the October 15, 1973 meeting and would be late in the month because of the legal holiday. Mayor Liebl advised Mr. Doyle's Attorney to get in touch with the City Attorney and try and work out something that would be agreeable. MR. EDWARD FITZPATRICK: 5273 HORIZON DRIVE: Mr. Fitzpatrick addressed.the Council and said he was speaking for himself and on behalf of some citizens of the City of Fridley and would like to request the City to make a formal request to the Metropolitan Airport Commission for the use of Janes Field for a Fridley golf course. He said if this is done, the portion of the property should be specific to enable the M.A.C. to respond to the request. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he was concerned if there would be no feasible way to develop a nature center at this time, he would like the site of North Park to be preserved for future generations in its present form. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he would like the recommendations in the Brauer Report to be investigated, and one of the recommendations was to determine the possible use of Janes Field as a site for a Fridley golf course. Councilman Nee said he had read the report and thought there was a possibility of talking to Blaine about the recommendation. He explained this had been avoided because of a political problem, but this problem no longer•exists. He thought a majority of the elected officials in Blaine would favor such an idea. a Councilman Utter recalled the City of Fridley had already contacted Blaine and they said they were open to the idea of the golf. course in Blaine. He added, they could not give the City of Fridley an okay, the City of Fridley would have to go to M.A.C. h Councilman Nee questioned if this would take a formal request,. with the 1 request being submitted to both bodies. E Mr. Fitzpatrick said if the same information is submitted to both places, a the City of Fridley would be in good faith with Blaine. Councilman Utter asked if it would be possible to make an application to the Metropolitan Airport Commission with an attachment and copy to the City of Blaine for their remarks. He added, the entire application and the remarks of the City of Blaine could be submitted to M.A.C. Councilman Utter said the report's recommendations had listed this possibility, and he did not see what harin a request could do. i Mayor Liebl asked if it would possible to draw up such. communications and submit them for review as regular agenda items at the next meeting of the Council. He thought this could be best taken care of if it were placed on.the agenda for the next meeting of the Council. He emphasized j the point that some elements of the community may be discouraged if the matter were taken care of when it did not appear on the agenda. He stressed the importance of considering the matter in a way that would not be discourteous to a neighboring community. Mayor Liebi continued saying the i matter should be worked on by the staff and not handled during the visitors I section of the meeting and at the spur of the moment. MOTION by Councilman Nee to instruct the staff to prepare an application E to the Metropolitan Airport Commission inquiring about the possibility, i E 9!+ THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL, SEPT. 17, 1973 The Public Hearing meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m., September 17, 1973, by Mayor Liebl. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Liebl led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Nee, Breider, Starwalt, Liebl, Utter MEMBERS ABSENT: None. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Liebl said he would like to add a communication from the National League of Cities concerning the appointment of Councilman Breider to the Public Safety Committee. Councilman Breider said he would like to add an item under New Business, bringing back from table the rezoning request by Mr. Robert Schroer concerning the property north of 79th Avenue N. E. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. VISITORS: PROGRESS REPORT ON LOGIS BY TED WILLARD: Mr. Willard addressed the Council and presented a brief summary of the LOGIS program and an explanation of the title to the Council and audience. Mr. Willard said Fridley had contributed $26,000 to the program and this community was one of 10 members. Fridley had been choosen to act as the Pilot City for the program six months ago. He said the reason for this choice was mainly because of the knowledge of the City Manager and the smooth running administration in Fridley. He added, some member communities are not fortunate enough to have such an administration. Mr. Willard explained the cost targets have been met and he would appraise the program as an unqualified success. He added, the system and the City of Fridley were fortunate to be able to create the test system before { entering into a contract. He said the cooperation of the Fridley staff has been a major determinate in the success of this venture. a Mayor Liebl' commented he understood that the work was right on schedule and i the program is progressing just as it was anticipated. Mr. Willard agreed and said the system has accomplished something that has never been done in the past by any other group. i Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace N. E., asked if there was a determined amount that the system had saved the City of Fridley. Mr. Willard explained the amount put into the system by Fridley was at this point an out of pocket expense and has been matched by the other communities involved J and also the Metropolitan Council. He thought at this time it would n f P 9 of be possible to calculate the savings. He added, the system has made it possible to provide much more accounting background and provide data for services and cost studies. He said in time the use of the computer would stablize the cost and make it ossible to acquire more p q r information. Mr. Harris asked if the City feels they are not getting the benefit of the system, are they tied to it? Mr. Willard pointed out any member may withdraw from the group at any time. He said there will be no decisions made until the facts are obtained. Mayor Liebl thanked Mr. Willard for his presentation. t / f ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS The Council of the City of Fridley do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter indicated. SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley presently zoned R-1 (single family dwelling areas) and described as: Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and the West 5 feet of Lot 18, Block 16, Fridley Park lying in the South Half of Section 15, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota i Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District CR-1 (general office and limited business) . SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to show said tract or area to be rezoned from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to CR-1 (general office and limited business) . PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1972. MAYOR - FRANK G. LIEBL ATTEST: CITY CLERK - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL Public Hearing: June 12, 1972 First Reading:: jfi; 972 Second Reading: Publish. . . . . . .