The URL can be used to link to this page

ZOA76-03 CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA PLANNING ,AND Z NG FORM- NUMBER Z� TYPE OF REQUEST APPLICANT'S SIGN TUR `, ! Rezoning Address Special Use Permit �– Telephone Number �� 3 Y- � � � Approval of P remin- i inary $ Final Plat `ff i PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE �1' l�Le Streets or Alley Address Vacations i C� '�d�� Other � Telephone Number – ' FeeReceipt No Street Location of Property S �Z7, 4U_j yy Legal Description of Property Present Zoning Classification !!t /Existing Use of Property Acreage of Property .�� Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvement proposed Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? es no. ' What was requested and when? Jam' 7/ - /..5 �tG . �Ca 117/ 1 The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation t given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all. residents and property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. r 4. Street Names. S. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet) . ° The undersigned hereby declares that 11 the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE �f [.L� oZ G SIGNATURE —j (AP ICANT) Date Filed Date of Hearing t Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved (dates) Denied (dates) Denied (Official Publication) CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMhIISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there Will be a Public Hearing of the her ninlan g Commission of the City of Frid- ley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Nottheast on Wednesday, September 8, 1976, in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M.for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning re- quest, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson,to rezone Lot 19,except the East 190 feet thereof,and ex- cept the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) to allow a condom' ' located in the North Half of Sec- tion 12,T-30,R-24,City ,of Fridley, County of Anoka,Minnesota. Generally located at 7325 Cen- tral Avenue N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. RICHARD H.HARRIS (Aug.25,Sept.1,1976) Chairman SBB 1 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, September 8, 1976, in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson, to rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses) , and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) , all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) to allow a condominium-type development, located in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at 7325 Central Avenue N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN Publish: August 25, 1976 September 1 , 1976 OFFICIAL NOTICE toil CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City' Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, September 14, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. .to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 205. 142, 1 , Fridley City Code, to reduce the minimum acreage for a townhouse development from 5 acres to 3 acres , located on Lot 19, except the East 190 ' feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes , presently zoned C-1 (general office and limited businesses) and the West 147 .74 feet of Lot 18, ;presently zoned R-1 (single family dwelling areas) , all in Auditor' s Subdivision No. 129, all of said property is now in the process of being considered for rezoning to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) , the same being located at the intersection of 73rd Avene N.E. and Central Avenue N.E. (Request by Evert R. Swanson, 258 Windsor Lane, New Brighton, Minnesota 55114). I'F Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. I VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION I . a I . I 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, September 2.2, 1976 in the Council Chamber -at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #76-08, Central Townhouse Addition, by Evert Swanson, being a replat of Lot 19, except the Cast 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, and the nest 147.74 of Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allow development of a 32 unit townhouse site, located in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka; Minnesota. Generally located at 7325 Central Avenue N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: September 8, 1976 September 15, 1975 _ E.R. SWANSON; ZOA #76-03, _ B P. S. 76-08 , T 76-03 & Variance i� _ zsF pY ,k I'0N o c � 0 4 _. •; C J�3`*F' r o y¢19 GUT:c 17 /Z.Z Z6' /� ?:p.. - i 1'11;.-" 90 I -i/.J Z her¢ c 13 '<° y o,10 . r:Zu 0m nso 89335 ZOA > # 76-03 Evert Swanson 331 { 777;y it 'I �, •rd� r .� p u \a ,oaf 'will"�Ouimeffe �`f/�Gvod '� $ � 3 \ 4 5 �6 � 7 3 ^ y 2 Lj I y (9ro� (w" ,(9,v) mz Eo ?9d•r z rte«..;fR, 6fl.z DRlVE 10 . I Jiiz 20 /nG// /zo 7S 7dz7 z6.e 1 1 oael644•. a"a°77J'a"JSzl '4�` /64 4 �( 3 � , 6N� cry . ,�roo/r o q UNC f E I I y M 1 A9'c2i6' 203.1 i / ;'va 7S po F_.r. IreONONDAGA w Liras 3G'.- ",v oif--• m+4,o%P(. ..nr:r �� - n•aa' zSe,&: 75 75 7f /o' 3}33 cE1.43' rs � ' A1. / (2z�, a�uE. 3 ° �4jO 5 ti f 13-3o C lf>9d,J �I i �: �,� � f � � yy,,� •7 � �y I 1 (2360) ' a-0 35 ` 17 N o \ I A/ruai+on.2fa 12 /3 /4 /✓f /6 /7 ^ /8 I I �9G sc Ai fa rwi�C#>leo' Sladdrick 4' LOA7L/6 � Siwwy.rE/p� 6o z /. hI ' LO.BuaGoJinLi7tON (/.t70) Aetna%Sfo� .� 2egio/7 - &XV `� tiI ' Na_ .3 Q Ay//%r (/3ot;� (r4sc? yfb/brisye (/72n1 N 7092 3 ry I I '(1550) (/Soo) (DorothyG ' O lB6o) i o�rittlon ayo) 3339 I,4O) c ' �Z /j /¢ �.r �� 7 w ` /�' (900) a I �� ✓esSrl. (/�J � � �3 I✓s+s�ttl<B�j!e �, { 50 ice, z7 s �- T - - 0;8------ N�rER SEC. /2 j 13) • e �i -...K.. - 1 `" tr .+s.:,—.rwr�+a�,=ria...- . ....,� t!: 6 T � S 1 1,;.,�.....� 1 t I Planning Commission Mailing list Council ZOA #76-03 EVERT SWANSON Part of Lots 18 and 19 A.S. #129 Mr. & Mrs. John Dickenson Mr. Kevin Olson 1360 Onondaga N.E. 1370 Fireside Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Becklin Michael W. Bayer 1405 Onondaga N.E. 1381 Onondaga N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Grant Arline E. Saba 7314 Hayes Street N.E. 7345 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kohlrusch Mr- ,& Mrs. Melroy Krugerud 1398 Fireside Drive N.E. 7356 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Czeck Mr. & Mrs. Albert Pomper 1395 Onondaga Street N.E. 7370 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. Charles Bitzan Mr. Evert Swanson 1360 Fireside Drive N.E. 258 Windsor Lane Fridley, Mn 55432 New Brighton, Mn 55114 Mr. & Mrs. Harold Tieden Mr. & Mrs. Lawrance McCabe 1365 Onondaga Street N.E. 7328 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 A J L & S Investment Company Mr. & Mrs. Donald Harland 7500 University Avenue N.E. 7342 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Robert Carlson Jeanette B. Huber 5214 36th Avenue N. 7300 Hayes Street N.E. St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Fridley, Mn 55432 I Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Knutson Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Fosse 1366 Onondaga Street N.E. 1367 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Chester Cole Mr. & Mrs. John Young 1382 Onondaga Street N.E. 7343 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Roy Fosse Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Seger 1390 Onondaga Street N.E. 1401 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. David Porath Mr. & Mrs. Elmer Hallatz 744 Polk Street N.E. 7395 Hayes Street N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55413 Fridley, Mn 55432 Mailing List Page 2 ZOA #76-03 Evert Swanson Mr. Russell Rankin 7385 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. James Hinricks 7355 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Roger Fredrick 7371 Hayes Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 John D. Babinski 1290 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 John W. Haluptzok Route 2, Box 381 Forest Lake, Mn 55025 Mr LeRoy Halupzok 1240 73rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Clifford Thoe 7250 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Walter & Floyd Gustayson 7410 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Onan Corporation 1400 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. Michael Virnig 1365 - 73th Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 i 1J CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITION COVER SHEET Petition No. 17-_1976 _ Date Received SpptPmhPr 2A, 1976 object Petition in favor of rezoning request, z0A #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson to rezone from C-1 and R-1 to R-3 for the property generally located at 7325 Central Avenue Northeast. Petition Checked By Date Percent Signing Referred to City Council Disposition 1 �--X .,A . 1K We the undersigned group, here-to-for to be known as "neighbors", hereby agree to the rezoning of the property known as Lot 1.9, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West, 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) , all in Auditor's Sub- division No. 129, to R-3, subject to the following stipulations concerning the construction, occupation, and maintenance of said property. 1. No structures shall be constructed any closer than currently indicated, on the plans dated 9/8/76 and retained by the "neighbors". (e�xrrlaIr "C") 2. All structures exceeding 1 (one) story in height, shall be constructed at a minimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering property line of the nearest. "neighbor". 3. The "neighbors" shall not be burdened with any assessr-ents, levies, or taxes of any kind, now planned, or planned in the future, as a result of the construction, occupation, or riai.ntenance of the above described property, as the result of good or poor planning on the part of the developer or the City of Fridley, for a period of up to 5 (five) years following the completion of said construction. The costs of all assessments, levies, or taxes, shall be borne by the developer, and/or the City of Fridley for this period. Alsot if any assessments are now planned, the "neighbors" would like to be informed of them at this time (9-22-76) . NAME SIGNATURZi ADDRESS zat Cg��'a `{ ?3Z�3 1�a� - /�• , • •� F .lit r.L{C-/�:''�' L� d11'.E`7<` yl-zl�let- yip m 1L �o11N a��d 6Tky your `73`t3 HC Sl - 1`(•�, 7 7,?21 �Kge--Qj I I 1M CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITION COVER SHEET Petition No. 18-1976 Date Received Seetember 29, 1976 Object Petition against the rezoning request ZOA 376-03 by Evert R. Swanson to rezone from C-1 and R-1 to R-3 for the property generally lora d at 7325 Central Avenue Northeast Petition Checked By Date Percent Signing Referred to City Council — Disposition too", l PJ We the undersigned group, here-to-for to be known as "neighbors", hereby disagree to the rezoning of the property known as Lot 19, excei:t the East 190 feet thereof, and except the ;dost 17 feet taken for highway I,urposes, from C-1 (general office and linited businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lotl8 from R-1 (single family dwelling area,), all in Auditor's Sub- division No. 129, to R-3. NATE STCNATURB ADDRESS gY K 0 •v o ry c�ct,,q a S 7� Ate Agenda of 12/6/76 BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR E. SWANSON REZONING � PLAT, WITH RELATED ITEMS. f ,Fridley Appeals Corruni551on Moeti.ng of Septe•r:ir,or 1!i, 1f)76 Page 3 Fie showed on a dia.grarn how the cave would extend ovi:r the steps. 1' Mr. Barna asked if this 'was going to be contracted out, and Mr. Skjervold replied it would be. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to cl.;,se t},e i1xb1.:;:; Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unn-ru-aously. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appe<,.-I.s Commission approve the variance requests for both the side yard and front ,yard setbacks as presented. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTIO�I 205.1.112., 1 I'RIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE MINI EUI•i ACREAGE FOR A TO,J`HOUSE Di ViELOP"_"': FROM 5 ACRES TO 3 ACRES, LOCATED ON LOT 19, EXCEPT THE EAST 190 FEET Tii1�:,ECF, AND EXCEPT TI-IE •:;ST 17 FEET TAK0NT FOR HIGII;dAY PURPOSES, PRESE'rdTLY Zti1, C-1. (GEIIEFA.L OFFICE AND LIMITED BUSINESSES), AND Ti.E WEST' 147.74 FE"T OF LCT 18, PRESEiLTLY ZONED R-1 (SINGLE FAI-TILY DrdELLING ARFV�S), ALL iid AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 129, ALL OF SAID PIROPrRTY IS INOW IN THE F 1,OCESS OF BEIIIG CONSIDERED FOR REZONING TO R-3 (GENERAL 1N11ULTIPLE FA-.ILY D,[ELLINTGS)) THE SA!i:E BEING LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 73RD A',%Fi`,u;; I.'E. AND CENT tAL A=i'.UE N.E. (Request by Evert R. Swanson, 258 Eindsor Lane, New Brighton, Minnesota, 55114). MO`T'ION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unaninousl-,,r. ADMII'1ISTRATIVE STAFF REPO:IT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREVENT: Section. 205.153, rec:�iring five (5) or more acres for a townhouse development. Review of code indicated a conflict between 5 acre request m-id area/unit request, After staff discussion it was suggested than perhaps the public purpose served by this section of the Code was to provide an adequate number of units which make the affiliated tot:-nhcuse association economically feasible. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Restriction would mc-0�e q�iner-occupi..ed townhouses impossible. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STI':FF RIVIE'AT: This request is b�i..ng presented at this time in order that the variance and rezoning requests may be presented to Council at the same time. This would eliminate the request having to be returned to either one or the other Commission if only one aspect were handled first. As nearly as staff can determine, the five (5) acre requirement evolved from an estimate of the minimum number of units that would be required to make the towrr'.iouse association economically practical. The other portions of the code limit lot coverage and regulate open areas. (See Section 205.143, A & B). Staff feels that the petitioner should show how the proposed development will, in fact, provide for a townhouse association which will not be an excessive burden of the occupants. • 'Fridley Appeals Cortr-nis.nion Meetirif., of Septel%'>,!P 15, 1W, Page Mr. Evert Swanson, propert"Y owner, and Mr. A11-,,ert Hof-I'Meyer, architect, approached the Board to explain the request. Mr. John Yo„nlf,, 7343 llvcs St. N.F.; Mr. Jim Hinrichs 4 E.; and , 7355 Hayes St- N.E.; Mr. Michael J. Virnig, 1-365 73rd Ave.'N. Mr. Lawrence McCabe, 7328 Hayes SIt. I.I.E. also stepped fon-.ranrd to view the plans. Mr. Hoffracyor showed the Commission and the intcr(:sted parties a color-coded plan for the toirnhouse!;� and expi ij)ej. what thf,� differen _a L colors represented. :, lie stated they were proposing six buil.dini-,--, units,-ith six each, so there would be a total of 36 units in all. lie explained that they would be putting, a fence all around so people wouldn't walk through; ac,,d would be, landscaping behind this fence so there -would be complete screenin- :.'rocs the adjoining property. lie 4 ng that this be bu-11-111- --',.n stages, (,oing in sequence from said they were propoSi t� one to six, and showed on the plans where building #1 would be located. He said they hoped to do this over a period of about one year. Mr. Hoffmeyer was asked if these buildings iio,,Od be classified as toi,,nhouses., and he replied that they would be ol..7ner-occuriled cordomIniluo, townhouses. He explained they would cost between 4`U,00a ax,d '�,-`6(0,,000., and could have one., two or three bedrooms. He ,-;as asked if' he was tal. i.ng four or five people per i unit, and he answered that there probably wthan would be no more an four people to a unit. He said that., as far as traffic and interference with the neighborhood went, the amount of people that these oils es would generate wouldn't make a significant difference. lie explained tlrie-Y -,.-anted t1his to be a community unto itelf, and they didn't -,,,ant kids tramping throe-h there. He showed whiere the fc'n„e would be, and explained it, would be eight feet high. Mr. Holden stated that seven feet was the limit, so 11.1r. Hof_,`T:eyer said they would make it seven feet. Mr. Hoffmeyer was asked if there would be rental with option to buy, and he replied there would not be. Mr. McCabe no ,ed that if there were four people in every unit, there would be a total of 144 people on three acres., and thought that would be quite crowded. Mr. Hoffmeyer said that if they didn't rezone5 they would go commercial and put in an office building or a restaurant with a parking lot in the back. 14r. You-ng asked then the fencing would go up, and Mr. Hoffmeyer replied it i.,ould go up first. He added that they wanted to save as many trees as possible. Chairperson Gabel asked if there would be any tot lots, and Mr. Hoffmeyer answered there wouldn't be, as they didn't wanL -il-,o encourage children. He added that there wouldUilt be welfare people in thure or a. lot of kids. Mr. 'McCabe commented L� that he found it hard to believe that an;one i,-ould wlmit to invest $403000 to $6101000 in a toi-aahouse with a junk yard across the street. ?Ir. Hoffmcyer explained they would be putting up a buffer. Mr. 11offmeyer explained that they had a flexible plan. He said they had a basic split-entry plant with one bedroom, one bathrooiii, a kitchen, living room and dining roo,,.,.. He said they could exp,-a-.d those units with options and they could have a loft,, another bathroom upstairs, a recreation room, etc. lie explained that a person could even finish it himself; buying, a shell and expanding as the need arose. Mr. 11offm-eyer stated that they wanted these units to be attractive, and he was concerned about the surrounding neighborhood. He stated +Fridley A ncals Commission Meeting of e =- ember 15, 1976 Page 5 they were also concerned .bout the junk yard and had Knutson, Eberhardt, - Edina Realty and others look at it and they all rccornn,.ied thu to�:snhouses be fenced in. Chairperson Gabel explained to the interested pnriles that. everything; Mr. . Hoffmcyer did would have to meet City Code and would bc inspected periodically. Mr. Holden connented that the code didn't say he had to have a fence, but they would encourage it. Mrs. Gabel noted tt1al could be a stipulation. Mr. Young asked if that could be put in writing, ann fir:.. GOO said it could be. Mr. Young asked if these could end up Wing built over a period of three or four years, and Mr. Hoffineyw replied it was poasi.ble but it wouldn't be a very good project if it had to be dragged out that long. Mr. Young asked if there were people interested in the townhouses it the present tame, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied there were. . Mr. Young asked if the zoninS was the same for rentals as owner-occupied, and Mr. Holden replied it was. Mr. Hoffmcyer stated that the people who moved. into these units would also be concerned about what happened to the rest of Ve property, and that is inhere the flak would come from. He said the people in the first units could say "you're not living up to your proposal", and talc him to court. Firs. Gabel asked if there wouldn't be a Toynhou. e Association that could step in, and Mr. Hoffmcyer replied absolutely. Mr. Holden asked if the number of units would be sufficient enough to generate capital, and nr. Hoffine; er replied it was all proport.i.onate and all related to the site of .the development. He explained he had 42 units in 4''ayzeta on a little less acrea^e than this, and there were no problems. He added it had been suggested that a Legion Club be put on this property, but he thought that was not the highor,t and best use for the property. He stated that townhouse units fit very well in there because they were a buffer, and a lot of thought had gone into this. Chairperson Gabel pointed out that even if Mr. R ffi:eyer resorted to renting the units at some time, the rent would be high. Mr. Hoffineyere agreed, and added that they wouldn't ever go ahead and build number one if 80% wasn't sold beforehand. He stated that Itinutson would give them a loan on the whole thing, but they wanted to presell 80i of the entire project„ He said that each one of these buildings would run about $250,000 to $300,000 apiece, and if they had to pay interest.on all 36 at once it would rally add to the price of the proje3t, so they wanted to make it simple. Mr. Swanson said that the land was originally purchased to put a warehouse in there about four or five years ago, and con mente::i that they couldn't afford to just have the land lay idle. Mr. . Virnig stated that the condensity of the area had him bothered, and thought it was quite a bit on three acres. Mr. Hoffmcyer said lie knew Mr. Virnig would like to see single family dwellings or gardens in there, but that wasn't realistic. He stated that single family dwellings were not economically feasible. Mr. Young asked if they were going to do anything, with the rest of the property, and Mr. Hoffmcyer replied they were going to make the property presentable enough to make the units salable. ' Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 Page 6 Mr. Virnim+ said he was also worried about what would happen during construction, and 1✓r, rY6oung raised the problem of the dust and wondered about the length of time . ie buildings would be under construction. Mr. Hoffineyer replied that there would be some dust, but they didn't really know for how long. He added that they wanted to move the project as fast as possible. Mr. McCabe noted that Mr. Hoffineyer`had mentioned that he could build anything he wanted commercially, and asked if that was true. Chairperson Gabel said that it was zoned that way. Mr. McCabe commented that he couldn't see where commercial would be that bad, and Pars. Gabel pointed out that a shopping area might generate a lot more traffic. Mr. Holden asked if anyone had any other questions in regard to the plan layout, or any concerns with the design of the buildings, and Mr. McCabe replied they didn't know that much about it. Mr. Hoffineyer stated they would have to make them attractive enough that they would sell,. and explained he had been in the architectural business since 1964 and had done a lot of projects. Chan. p r ers•on Gabel asked Mr. Holden if he didn't think this would raise the value of the homes in the neighborhood, and he replied that it was a buffer, it was less dense than what-the code required, and the traffic it would generate would be extremely low. I1r. Kemper said that it seemed to him that the properties would be increased more by this than by the development of some commercial pr.)perty. Mr. Virnig stated that he thought everybody's concern was that this wouldn't be a low-income type of project, and Mr. Hoffineyer again stated that they would cost between $h0,000 and $60,000. 1.1r. Kemper asked if this satisfied the neighbors, and Mr. Virgig replied that as long as he knew Mr. Hoffineyer had to take this in steps with the City Council and if it met all City codes, and if there were any major deviations he would have to come back for approval, he would be satisfied. . Chairperson Gabel said that in terms of rent, if these units were rented they still would not be for low-income families. Mr. Hoffineyer added that they wanted to have a good community. P1 . Mr. Barna explained to the neighbors that the To,,mhouse Association was almost He said it was a roup of people banded together like a city within a city. g to maintain the to.mhouses and grounds on a group basis, and when people bought a townhouse they were locked into the Townhouse Association. Mr. McCabe said that they did not have the majority of the neighbors with them tonight, and asked at what point would be the last time for them to say "No" to this project and stop the whole thing. Chairperson Gabel informed them that would be at the City Council meeting, and told them it would be a good idea to attend the next Planning Commission meeting and voice their opinions there also. Mr. Kemper pointed out that all they were doing at this meeting was talking permission to reduce the coverage. Mr. Kemper said lie would like to know if everyone's concerns had been discussed and satisfied. He asked Mr. McCabe if his concerns about density had been Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting; of September 15, 1976 i'aE;e 7 satisfied, and Mr. McCabe replied that as long as it met code he would have to be satisfied, but he still thought it would be heavy. Iie said he had no more questions on this at this time, but would like more. of the neighbors to come in. Mr. Young asked about the fencing, and if it would be just a verbal commitment. Mr. Kemper said no, it would be in writing. Mrs. Gabel pointed out that they could make that a stipulation when it came before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kemper informed the interested parties that they should be sure to get as many of the neighbors as were interested in this to come to the Planning Commission meeting, and he said he would also encourage them to look at the alternatives because obviously the owners were going to develop this. He explained that this proposal would be attractive to the neighborhood and increase the property *Values, or it could be developed into something which would be more appropriate to the existing zoning such as a warehouse. Mr. Kemper added that he would also suggest they take the time to visit some tormhouses. The neighbors asked where they were, and Mr. Hoffineyer and Mr. Swanson gave them directions. Mr. Barna added that another point to consider would be that there would be more people paying taxes to the City of Fridley. Chairperson Gabel asked what it would cost the people for the Tovmhouse Association, and Mr. Hoffineyer said it would be $28 a month. Mrs. Gabel asked if there was a specific organization thesepeoplewent to, and Mr. Swanson said they had directors and so forth, and had meetings once a month. He explained that all the residents were welcome to attend the meetings and object to anything they didn't like. For instance, he said, if there was inadequate snow removal or the grounds weren't kept up, they cculd voice thein opinions. He said that motorcycles and snoivmobiles .•weren't allowed to drive around on the grounds, and garbage cans couldn't be left outside (they must be in the garage). He explained that this would be a lot neater than with regular residents. Mrs. Gabel asked if they would become a member of an already established organization, and Mr. Barna said this would be an individual association. Mrs. Gabel asked if they would have guidelines, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied they would have the bylaws. Mrs. Gabel asked how they were going to form this to get financing, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied that the people in there didn't determine this association; it was. determined before the project was built. Mrs. Gabel asked if the first building was constructed and the residents paid the $28 and the snow was very heavy for a month, would that be enough to tale care of all of the snow? Mr. Hoffineyer replied that it was flexible. Mr. Virnig said that the proposed project would probably be more beneficial as far as property value than anything else that could go in there. Mr. McCabe said that one of their primary interests was that it wasn't a welfare project. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kemper stated that the matter before them was reducing the minimum acreage acres to three acre and that provision seemed to be there because from five a s , of a concern by the Townhouse Association. He said� he felt that three acres Townhouse Association and for want of any was certainly satisfactory for a Town , a y ry accept that statistics he had to ac pt Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of September 15, 1976 11,1ge 8 Mr. Barna stated he had no objection, and was satisfied with the cost require- ments per unit. Mr. Kemper added that he believed the plans that were presented it were quite well thought out and he was impressed. i Chairperson Gabel stated that the traffic patterns were well planned, and she would rather see the toimhouses on that property than some type of business. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council approval of the variance to reduce the minimum acreage for a townhouse development from five acres to three acres. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLO"'IS: SECTION 205.063, 11D, TO REDUCE THE BACK YARD SETBACK ON A DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT, FROM 35 FEET TO 18.45 FEET, TO ALLO?J THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON LOT 13, BLOCK 21 HAGEL'S LOODLANDS, THE SAI•]E BEING 7431-7433 ABLE STREET N.'E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2,. T,10 FAMILY DIWELLING AREAS). Request by AIr. Marvey Aiayer, 7431 Able Street N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open.the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting ayes the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.063, 4D, requirement of 35 ft. rear yard setback on a double frontage .lot. Public purpose served by the requirement is to allow for adequate open rear yard areas should any of the buildings in a double frontage block face the "rear". B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner states that he laid out his proposed garage directly in line with the garages to the south and north of his property so the setback from the house to the garage would be the same as his neighbors. C. fil)MINISTRATIV E STAFF REVIOU: in June of 1975, Portfolio Realty was granted 10 similar front yard variances from 35 feet to 20.5 :feet. These garages . have been constructed. This request is for a garage with an attached ;porch, that is twice the size of the neighboring garages and a slightly greater variance. The difference of 20.5 feet to 18.45 feet could be made up by moving the garage closer to-- the house. The petitioner's garage plans show a three car garage which would increase the lot coverage to 24%. Staff feels that there is not sufficient hardship shown to warrant the variance to 18.45 feet, and that the 20.5 foot setback should be maintained. The difference of two feet could be made up between the dwelling and the garage itself. Please note that due to the R-2 zoning, this request must proceed through the Planning Commission and City Council. ' 1B CITY. OF FRI])LEY ]IL/INNING CO3MMISS10N MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1976 PAGE 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Ray Leek, Planning Aide APPROVE PLANNING C01,11 ISSION MINUTES: SEPTEi BE3,Z 82 1976 Mrs. Schnabel stated she ;could like to affirm on page 24, item 13, the date set for the joint meeting with the City Council on 40' lots. She said she was se;.•ry she hadn't been able to set up the meeting earlier, and November 22nd would be fine with her. She added she appreciated it being set up and would get in touch with the appropriate people. MOTION by Lmigenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes of September 8, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTTNUED: PUBLTC_HEARING: REZONING I?E,'tUEST2 2 ,',{76�BY rVF '.T R. SWANSON: Rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feetr-th4R.reof; and except the West 17 feet taken for hightigy purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Sub-division No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to allow a condominium-type develop- ment, the sane being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were present. } MOTION by Berkman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA 06-03, by Evert R. Swanson. a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7 :43 P.M. Mr. Leek stated there was no further input from Staff other than what was discassed at the last meeting. Chairperson llhrris asked if the Fire Marshal had looked at the plans, and Mr. Leel; r oplied he had and there: was no problem with .it. . r �'larining Cornsni sc;i_an Meeting September 22, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Swanson stated he now had some elevations to show, and invited the interested parties to view them P y which they did. Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Swanson would be in agreement with the stipulation that T, ox-mer-occupied. Mr. Swanson roved the.�e to,rnhouses would be if this was approved,, Ip � answered he would be. Mrs. Shea asked if anything had been done to move those condominiums back, as one had been only 20' from the residential property line. Mr. Olson stated the plexi he had before him shouted a 26' setback and a-301 setback, and pointed out on the plans where those setbacks were. Mr. Janes Hinrichs, 7355 Hayes. St. N.E., asked what the term "condominium" meant, and if it was any different than a to-nhouse, and if one was more desirable than the other. Mr. Sti:anson said that although the notice did read this was a condominium-type development, which was owner-occupied apartments, this project was actually a to;•anhouse development. He said the occupants would own the land that their particular part of the building was on, and would have their own yards and patios. Mr. Leek commented that there was no definition for the term "condominium" as such in tine City Code, but it did define townhouses and the development in question fit that definition. Mr. Hinrichs stated they were trying to keep the value of the neighborhood up, and he wouldn't object to a townhouse development. Mr. Larry McCabe, 7328 Hayes St., N.E., stated that he had two petitions to present. He explained that one wLs in disagreement with the rezoning and was signed by two neighbors, the other was in favor of the rezoning with stipulations and had 18 signatures. Chairperson Harris read the first petition, which stated: We the undersigned group, heretofore to be known as "neighbors", hereby agree to the rezoning of the property known as Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the -est 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses) and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to R-3, subject to the following stipulations concerning the construction, occupation, and maintenance of said property: 1. No structure shall be constructed any closer than currently indicated on the plans dated 9/8/76 and retained by the "neighbors". 2. All. structures exceeding 1 (one) story in height, shall be con- structed at a minimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering property line of the nearest "neighbor". 3. The "neighbors" shall not be burdened with any assessments, levies, or taxes of any kind, now planned, or planned in the future, as a result of the construction, occupation, or maintenance of the above described property, as the result of good or poor planning on the part of the developer or the City of Fridley, for a period of up to 5 (five) years following the completion of said construction. The costs of all assessments, levies, or taxes shall be borne by the developer, and/or the City of Fridley for this period. Also, if any assessments are now planned, the "neighbors" would like to be informed of them at this time (9/22./76). I ' Planning 0oin�i:1cion Fleeting - Septei fiber 22, 1976 Page, 3 _.r I D Chairperson Harris noted that petition had 18 signatures. He then read the following petition: We the undersigned group, heretofore to be known as "neighbors", hereby disagree to the rezoning; of the property knc7-m as Lot 19, except the Fast 190 feet thereof, and except the I.-lest 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) all in Auditor] Subdivision No 129, to R-3. Mr. Harris noted that patition had t;ro signature. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the two petitions. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the notion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris asked lir. Swanson'if he had any concerns about. the stipulations, and he answered that the only one ;•:oul.d be the second stipulation requiring a two-story stride vure to be a minimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering; property line of the nearest neighblor. Mr. Olson asked if it was the intent of the neighbors to question the 26' setback ,which he indicated on the plans. Mr. McCabe stated that at the .time the petition was put together 35' was arbitrary., and the general- feeling at that time was since tie- d`a' not ha-;-c any idea of the exterior of the buildings they did not want just a large straight wall any closer than 35t to their property lines. He explained they had asked. a week ago for an idea of the exterior or total height of the to,:-nhouses, but hadn't gotten any help at that time. 'i•ir. . Olson stated that the total con-lex, including floor plans ifith details and elevations had been drawn up according to the City's reou:irement•s for setbacks. He addedthat the measurements on the plans were actually a little in excess of the minimums which were required. Mr. Swanson asked if the neighbors would have the sane compla-int if it was a two-story single--family dwelling that was being constructed. Air. ticCabe said they intended to bring this in as a matter of arbitration, although 3;' was in agreement among the neighbors. Mr. Hinrichs commented they Just didn't want an IDS `i'oi•;er next to their back doors. ;._r. Swanson stated he iu-derstood that, an the buildings wouldn't be any higher than any other two-story d;•.ellin:- would be. Mr. Hinrichs pointed out that there presently weren't any t;oo-story dwellings in their area. Mr. Olson stated he wanted to point out that the entire project would be meticu- lously landscaped, and it wa., possible to bring a tall building down in height by the planting of tress and so forth. lie added they should also bear in :mind that this wouldn't be a straight stall going up as there would be areas on the second floor that would come out two to four feet, there would be winnows that would project out, and so forth. Mr. Hinrichs stated that the building on the Southeast corner did not follow their stipulations, and asked that the architect reconsider and move the building over five feet and in nine feet. � Mrs. Schnabel noted that Mr. Olson had mentioned there would be extrusions of two to .four feet on the second floor elevation, and asked if those extrusions t would extend over the 26 foot setback. Mr. Olson replied they would not, and said the ground line of the building might possibly have more than a 26' setback. . : Planning; Commission Meeting - September 2.2, 1976 Page la r Chairperson Farris stated it would be a good idea to number the documents, and identified the petition in favor of the rezoning with stipulations as Exhibit A, the petition in opposition as F'.rhibit D the color-coded layout plan as Exhibit C, and the floor plans as Exhibit D. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like to point out that when a husband and wife C signed a petition, it was courted as one signature and not two, and Chairperson Harris said that was correct. i-ir. McCabe explained they were just aiming; for a representative as a property oFm er, whether it was .one or both. Mr. Hinrichs stated that in their petition, they agreed to the plan dated 9/8/76 with stipulations, and noted that there was a discrepancy between those plans and the plans Mr. Swanson had with him. I,Ir. Swanson commented that the plans 'had been revised, and the one dated 9/3/76 was obsolete.. Mr. Hinrichs said he would like the petition to be changed to read "the plans as shown in exhibit C", and Chairperson Harris said it would be so noted. Chairperson Harris said he wished to speak to stipulation #3, and ccrrmented that he hoped it would be good planning. He said that concerning a guarantee that there would be no assessments or levies against that property, he wasn't quite sure t-ahat the neighbors were driving at. Mr. McCabe explained they were talking about assessments or levies that would be a direct result of that project. Mr. Langenfeld said he also felt they meant if there were major street improvements within that area as a result of this construction, the rie:'_ghbors dial not wished to be assessed because of that. hr. McCabe said that was correct. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any proposed construction or assessments for this area, and Mr. Leek replied not to his In owledge. Rr. Harris asked if the storm sewers were in, and Mr. SZ-ranson said he believed they were. Pir. Harris asked if there were storm sewer assessmernts .now, and was told that there were on Hayes. Mr. McCabe stated that they felt that the assessments that were in now were paid for by the neighbors, and if new ones arose they didn't want to split the difference with the new people and let them get a free ride. Mr. Langenfeld commented that one of the functions of the Planning Commission was not to become an assessor, but the possibility could exist where this might be beneficial to the tax situation and be a reverse situation. Chairperson Harris stated the reason he brought this point up was because the Planning Commission could not make any agreements or commitments for the City; that was up to the City Council. He added that from his past experiences with the Council, he thought it would be difficult to get the City to agree to that last stipulation. Mr. McCabe stated that the word "City" could be eliminated from the petition. Mr. Harris said that would have to be an agreement between Mr. Swanson and the City, if lie would consider making such an agreement. Mr. Swanson commented that to his knowledge there were no assessments against this property at the present time. Mr. Harris explained the neighbors didn't want additional expenses because of the development for street improvements or modifications in the street to facilitate traffic or excess drainage of storm waters, and things like that. Mr. Langonfeld said lie noted that one, individual. was concerned at,out a larlre wall adjacent to his home, and pointed out that the rearrest they were. cons-ldc:ring was changing this area from C-1 zoning, aril with that type of zoning something could be constructed that would be much mord: unf•avor. blc:. Mr. Hinrichs asked if this property could be used as rental at a later date if the project got half completed and the money ran out or the units didn't sell for some reason. He was concerned that construction costs would be cut to get the costs of the building dorm to be used for rental. Mr. Swanson said that anybody who orrrred a pi.cce of property had t;:e right to rent it out; but that was not his aim. He added that if they couldn't be sold and had to be rented out, it would be better than having them stand empty. A:r. Leek commented that there was nothing in the ordinance that prohibited! rental. Mr. Langcnfel.d stated this brought concern to him when it had co,-,,,e up prev`o;r l.y, because he didn't, see hog,* it could be stipulated that it be only oT,rner-oc,-Xpi ed. Mr. Hinrichs said in that, case he would like his name taken off' trre p etitio.- in agreement with the tc<:,nhouses and be put on the opposition one, and no-I, risk Mr. Swanson missing his target. 11i s. Shea said that at the last meeting ''-Ir. Hoffineyer had stated that they would build one building to sell, end wouldn't start on another until 80� of it was sold. 11r. Swanson said that was correct, and he couldn't afford to rent them an"flWay. Mr. A1cCabe said he thought they yore ;•rorried about the intent, and at what point Air. Swanson would say is a turning point and decide they coa-Ldn't be sold and just throw so:;iething up to rent. A1r. Harris explained that once the townhouse development plans were approved, they were tied by buildir,.g pernit to a specific type of constructioli and could not deviate in mL:jor ways fro:% thaC t;pe of construction. Mr. 1icCabe said they were concerned because t.; townhouses were going to be two stories high, and in spite of the redV ood ,,Il ;e the occupants would be able to see the two junk yards, trailer court, auto dealers, etc. in the area, and were ?•ronrdering, what was going to sell these units for $0,000 to ;60,000 since there was nothing-on the order of a srrimmi.nc; pool or other luxuries planned. He said that seemed like a steep price for what they were getting. Mrs.. Schnabel stated that she ;lac! read a copy of the report that came out recently by a study group formed by the Metropolitan Council concerning housing in the metropolitan area. She informed the Ce,,-rissi.on and he citizens that the current situation in housing was very critical. in the metro area, and a single-family home was a. rare find these days. She said that i f they could compare what you got for $1.0,000 in a single-family ho.--le today with what you got for the sane price in the late l;70's, they would be a°used at; the difference in the quality of housing that is available. She added th2t there is a market for housing and a ver) strong demar:d for it. Airs. Sc,inabel. sail that there were many people who reached the point where they didn't wish to have a great deal of maintenance in a private duelling of their ot•-n. She said she thought that basically the main concern right now was whether or not to grant a rezoning on this property. She stated that their concerns as neighbors were well justified, but she thought they had to let Mr. Swanson worry about how this would be marketed and who would buy it. !'according to the studies, she said., there is a great demand for this type of housing; single family houses, are so expensive and the amount you are getting is so little in comparison to what it was that, there is a great demand for the townhouse concept. She added that. there probably was a ricu•ket that, ra uiy of thorn didn't realize, but if they Checked with other builders or realtors they would find there was a definite market. Plannin" Commission Meeting - September 22, 3.976 Page' 6 1G 1requirement + r r r Bergman a � �tba k of a townhouse M asked what ,.h.. code w�_„ for setback structure from 11-1 property, and Mr. Leek said it was 15' with appropriate screening. Mr. Olson pointed out that they were 26' from the property line on the East side and 30' on the other side, so they were in excess of the code by quite a bit. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he would be agreeable to moving that building from 30' to 35' from the R-1, and Mr. Swanson said that should be discussed with the architect. Mr. Olson said that would decrease the' distance between buildings h and 5 by 4' , and there would also be four feet less green. area. Mr. Olson asked if it was the Planning Commission's suggestion that the architect restudy buildings 5 and 6 according to 35' instead of what the present codes required. Mr. Harris said he couldn't speak for the whole Commission, but in his own opinion he thought it would enhance the property if they had a little more space on those particular sides. He said there would then be 31' between the buildings, and it would mean shifting 5 and 6 to the North. Mrs. Schnabel asked tim at that would do to building #6 on the West property line, and Mr. Olson stated that would be reduced by roughly 91 . Par. Olson said he would like to point out that across Central Avenue to the West was sone unenvironmental property, and if he lived in the neighborhood he would welcome the proposed development on the suggested site rather than thinking what could be developed on the site in lieu of the toimhouses. Mr. Swanson stated that if it went commercial the neighbors would have the back yards of stores fac—ing them, with those large garbage containers and a lot of debris. Personally, he said, he couldn't see why anyone would object to it. Mr. John Young, 7343 Hayes Street; N.u., stated that he didn't think they were against the development. He said they were agreeable to it in their petition, but wanted to make sure it was a good development and aesthetically pleasing. M.r. Swanson said that question had come up before and he had done all he could to assure the neighbors cn that point. Mr. Olson pointed out that once the plans were accepted, that is what had to be developed. He said that these plans also carried an architectural. stamp with a state registration number, so the architect would not be willing to jeopardize his own profession and would see that the plans were carried out as proposed. Mr. McCabe said he was basically reassured about stipulations one and two, but would like a little further reaction from Mr. Swanson on the assessment end of it. He added that he couldn't see any benefit to the neighbors from any assessment that had anything to do with the development. Chairperson Harris said he was wondering if there was an area assessment for storm sewers, and that got to be a rather technical question as to whether it benefits the total area or what area it benefits. He said that has why storm sewers were taken on a general area assessment. He added that if the storm sewers were in, and the streets, sewers and water were in, he couldn't see any future improvements. Mr. Swanson said that he didn't know if one person could be individually taxed and not the community. He added that no matter what went in on that property., the same thing would apply, whether it was commercial or residential. Mr. McCabe asked if Mr. S;,ranson would or would not be willing to pickup the tab for any .future developments that were related to the project, and Mr. Swanson replied by asking how an individual could commit himself to paying for improve- mcnts that would benefit the whole area. Iie added lie didn't foresee any coming up. Ar. Hinrichs s,-:id that Mr. Swanson couldn't foresee any, but asked what, would happen if the sewers weren't big enough to handle all the water from these units. .I11.nnning Cojvrilsslon Meeting - September 22., 1976 Paye 7 Mr. Swanson said that if the area was commercial they might have the same problera. Chairperson Harris suggested clearing; up the matter of what could bey constructed in a commercial district, and Mr. Leek read the permitted uses for C-1 districts. Air. Langenfeld asked if Staff had prepared an administrative report on this, and Mr. Leek replied they had not. Mr. Langen.feld asked if tl-iey ha.d found any l)roble;n with drainage, and Mr. Leel; said no such situation had been mentioned to him. Chairperson Harris said he had tallied to Ir. Boardman earlier in t?e evening and asked if the administrative department: .had looked at this, and Mr. Boardman said they had. Mr. Harris said he had asked if there ;•;ere any comments or documentation, and apparently there wasn't any. Air. Michael Virnig, 1365 73rd !avenue N.E., asked how far back the screening would be off the.property line. Mr. Leek said the code didn't stipulate that, but just stated 15' with the landscaping located on the R-3 propert-y. Mr. Vi.rnig said that he had, a fence on his property at the present tine, and oras wonder'.n- if there ;•:ould be tvo fences just 611 apart filth no maintenance _J.n between. He said he -,:as also wondering; how far the fence would extend, because if it extended too far he would have a problem going in and out of his dri.vc,;ray. Mr. Harr,s said the fence could not extend 7' in height all the ',;ay to the. street. Mr. Leek read from the City Code Thich stated nothing would be a?lo;aed to impede vision, and !,Ir. Lang onfeld. co;�fraented that Staff would make certain that the fence would not be a visual barrier. Chairperson Harris said that ;•cath rcRa_rd to the two fences to,-,-ether, he hoped that the t O a.I joi.ning neighb,;_•s could work that out. Mr. Virnig asked if there could be some stipulation on completion of the fence after initiation of the project, and 14r. S.-Lnson said.that they -uould do the landscaping on each building :after it, was constructed. I-Irs. Schna o"I asked if }ie was talking about the Landscaping surrounding the building i itself, and Mr. Swanson said yes. Mrs. Schnabel asked about the landscaping of the exterior portion of the property running around the property line itself. I r. Swanson replied they ,could do all the landscaping for a particular building out to the lot line .for each building, Airs. Schnabel. sa.l_d that one of the neighbors ,-:as concerned because he was surrounded by buildings numl�er 1 and 5, and asked if the landscaping ,;oul.d be done around building number 1 upon its completion, and finish the "lm;dscaping around building number 5 when it was completed. !'Ir. Swaz,son said that ,,,as right, end added that up until that time his back yard would have the same, view it had right now. I;r. Langerifeld coi-raented that particular pine of property would remain in its natural. state until construction co.-am nced. Mrs. Schnabel stated she was still quite concerned about stipulation number 2 in the petition a,grceing with the rezoning. She said she didn't think they had answered that: to the satisfaction of the petitioners or the builder or the architect, and she felt. they were leaving something hanging in slid air if they didn't address thenisel_;-es specifically to the problem of the 35' setback the petition-r...., ve.re re-que's ting. Air. Olson sa:i d that, the plans, kno,,m as exhibit C., met all sctb_ick reouireinents, and, •asked if it was now also part of the require- ments to riaot stipulation numb..�r 2 of exhib..lt A. Mr. 'foung, speaking for the Planning, Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 8 neighbors, said they felt :if it was within the code they would strike stipulation number 2 from their petition and would go along with it as planned. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, "LOA #76-0_�, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson ilarris declared tine Public Hearing closed at 9:1.4 P.M. 140TION by Langenfeld that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of. rezoning request, 7.,OA #76-o,3, by Evert R. Swanson: Rezone Lot 19, e;ccept the East 1-90 feet thereof, and except the West 1.7 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the: 11est 10.71 feet of Lot 18, from R-1 (single, family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to allow a condominium-type development, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. with the folloz-r;ng stipulations: 1) Every effort be made to maintain the setbacks as sho,.;n in exhibit C, and 2) All the necessary- studies be made on behalf of the assess- , ment procedure. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that perhaps the stipulations t•;ere premature. She said this hearing was strictly on the rezoning request, and though consideration of the stipulations might fall under consideration of the pr,el i.m_i.nary plat or the townhouse development plans. i r. Langenfeld agreed'. Mr. Langenfeld fifiTE11DIED the MOTION to recommend approval of the rezoning request ZOA ?;=76-03 by Evert R. Swanson without the stipulations. Seconded by Bergman. ?ors. Schnabel said she thought it would be ,rise to point out that the majority of the adjacent neighbors did concur with the rezoning request as indicated by their petition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PITBLIC f1> ARTNG: COidSTDI R:1TTOl'',T OF A PPOPOS D PREL11tiIN'AR" PLA'i C�.; t ,�r OIil0US1 »DT:iOit, iii ='Ji .t1 a. ,,;il; ,;t,i re,l of Lot .� except `' e East 190 feet thereon', aid cxcc pt t}ie :, l7 feet tarsen for highway pur. ces, and the Lest. 1!.,'l071 fe;<cn t of 13, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. '.9, to allow the deve>x� t of a 36 unit townhouse site, the same being ocated at t: intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, pr -, rty ozme and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were present. MOTION by Sc'r gel, seconded by Langenfeld, t;hat Planning Coinni.,;sion oven the Publ: fearing on consideration of a proposed prelir '. ry plat, P.S. "76-08, Centr To,-rnhouse Addition, by Lvert. ft. Swaanson. Upon a voice te, all voting aarrc , Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:20 P.1, . Plann-Ing Commission A1eet:i.nf.; - September 22, 1976 Pae 8 nei , ibors, said they felt if it was within the code they would /Public '/Ulation numbe 2 from their petition and would go along with it as pl U MOTION by genfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Co,onie the Public II- ring on the rezoning request, ZOA #76-03, by Everon. Upon a voice v -te, all voting aye, Chairperson Ilarris declared Hearing closed at\?:14 P.M. / f MOTION by Lang enfeld Xat the Planning Commission recomme d to Council approval of rezoning request, ZOA `76-03, by Evert R. Swanson: rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof,-,and except the West 1.7 feet taken for high-aa, purposes, from C-1 (general`5fice and limited bnsip6sses), and the Ilest 147.74' feet of Lot 18, from R= (single family dwgll.ing areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to -3 (general multiple family dwellings)., to allow a condominium-type develo -lent, the -le being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 7 d Aver e N.F. with the follownc, stipulations: 1) Every effort be mad . tqmaintain the setbacks as sho,n in exhibit C, and 2) All the necessary St es be made on behalf of the assess- . ment procedure. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought th perhaps they stipulations :._ere premature. She said this hearing was strictly on the rezonin�.,request, and thought consideration of the stipulat dns might fall under nsidera. of the prei i.mi.nary plat or the tot. .ouse development plans, "r. T,ant er,f�ld aur�ed. Mr. Langenfeld p'-.1ErDED tlfe MOTION to recommend approval of",the rezoninc request ZOA 1.76-03 by�ert R. Swanson without the stipulatitNs. Seconded by Bergman. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it would be wise to point out that\ e majority bf the adjace neighbors did concur with the rezoning request as in< ca t.ed y their pe ition. UPON 1. VGICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONS ID,'sRATION OF A PROPOSED PRELDMINAR" Pf,,T, P.S. Jt7��-08 CENJ'RAL TO,jiJH01L)SE ADDITIU;� it �'vi,:�T R. 5, ��i�SC',;:�A renlau of Lot—,) except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the ,;est 17 feet taken cr highw,V purposes, and the Llest 147.74 feet of Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allow the development of a 36 unit toinihouse site, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Air. A. R. Olson, architect., were present. NOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Com:11ission open the Public Hearing on coi:sideration of a proposed preliminary plat, P.S. =76-0$, Central Townhouse Addition, by Evert It. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting eye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:20 P.M. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 9 Chairperson Harris stated that this would entail a nein lenal description, and Mr. Swanson asked if that meant putting it into simpler language. Mr. Harris replied yes, they would just be cleaning up the legal description. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he had a replat plan, and he replied he had no other documents other than what had already been discu^>:;ed. Mt.Harris asked if he was replatinl ;, and Mr. Swanson replied not Uat.•he knew of. Mr. Langenfeld pointed out the Planning and "Zoning I'or:�, on pane 2.7 of the agenda, F,igned by Mr. Swanson. Mir. Harris noted lie had also paid the fec. l.ir. Harris raid he was wondering why a replat was needed, and asked if sora�•bod<< at Staff level had requested a replat. Rr. Swanson said he didn't know. '?r. Leek said c ;-.� 1 �,7 • cnda. e had no other information other than whams was in the Chairperson Harris said he thought they would be bringing the legal description_ into to one lot because they had parcels of two different lots, and ",he legal description was very un.•rieldy the way it read now. }NOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the PisrLning Co .Ln: ssion close the Public Hearing on consideration of a proposed pre! ..inary �.la�, P.S. 'r76-0II, Central Toi,mhouse Addition, by Evert R. S:•renson. Upon a voice vote, all voting Ch person erson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9: P-1-14P. .. F!Ye� 14r. Langenfeld said it was his opinion that since they were lack__!g the specifics 1 ke a decision. Chairperson as fpr as the replat description, they could not ma }arras said he thought ht it would be proper er at this time to recon-Nand approval of the preliminary plat, if that was the C0r,-1-;1ission's -ish, and refer to exhibit C. ) TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission reco:nnend to Council approval of a proposed preliminary plat, F.S. 676-08, Central Towmhouse Addition, by Evert a. Swanson, as indicated in exhibit C: A replat of Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the .Test 17 feet taken for highway purposes, and the ;Nest 147.74 feet of Lot 1S, all in :ud 4 tcrIs Subdivision No 129, to allow the development of a 36 unit tow,nhoa!�e site, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Schnabel stated that she ::as a little upset that Staff had no knowledge cf what was going on at this poin=t, and that the Chairm n of the Co .�-fission did not have any information on this either. She said she felt Staff sould have informed the Chairman since the person who normally services the Co:r,ission She added that she felt they titere shooting in t':le dark, cauldn t be resent. 1 • P amd. didn't really l.1loz4 for sure what was intended. She said she could not vote :in favor of the motion because of that. Mr. Leek said i-e- appreciated Mrs. Schnabel's concern, and said that part of the fault was he had failed to ask the appropriate questions du ing. hi=s' briefing. He staved his undorstandinu ,was that the situation was'understood,' but apparently it vasn't*. Mr. Harris commented that it hadn't occurred to him to delve into it further. Y-'x. Langenfeld said }ie was certainly in agreement with llrt. Schnabel, but since this would be a simplification of a legal description lie didn't think it should I;►e something that should hold back ;anything they had already started moving f=orward. firs. Schnabel stated that was just all assum �ti on as to j..-hat this wras about; it appeared that nobody knew for sure what the request vas really for. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Chairperson Harris said he agreed with Mr. Langenfeld, and as long as the I T p�. r recommendation would be tied to exhibit C, lie didn't see where there was any problem because that located the buildings, the landscaping and everything on the property. Mrs. Schnabel said that was really relevant to item 3 on the agenda, and Mr. Harris stated that they could all be tied together. Mr. Bergman stated he thought there was more involved in the preliminary plat than what they were discussing. For example, he said, he would like some i. nation on utilities an easement requirements and drainage additional confirmation , Y with per to problems. He stated that wz�n that in mind he felt it would be proper se defer action on this stern until they got a preliminary plat with those things cheered out by administration. Mr. Langenfeld stated he wished they would have a Staff Report available wrhen they took on projects such as this. Mr. Langenfeld WITHDREW THE I:OTION. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that 'the Planning Commission table the consideration of a proposed preliminary plat, P.S. X76-08, Centras To:.•n house Addition, by Evert R. Swanson, subject to receipt of a preliminary* plat t regard to drainage, utilities,- and also rcvie,.a of including Staff input with r g C , 1 T waterN 1 .1 trees curbs serer and relative to items including s , , assessment-type ., � 73rd St. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris stated that this item ;could be tabled until. October 6th, and•,i.-.formed hr. Swanson this action would probably not delay him because the City Council would have to seta hearing f or the rezoning. F. 3. ' T-#76-03, TOT,^-HOUSE DEVELOP E'??T PLANS. BY EVEERT R. S'A'1\1S0..: 36 Unit Townhouse Development for Uentral io,.nhouse Adaiticn. NOTE: See Appeals Commission minutes of September 15, 1976, with the recommendation to Council through the Planning Commission of approval of the variance from 5 .acres to 3 acres for this townhouse develop^=ent. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were present. • Chairperson Harris asked what size, initially, the trees in the landscaping In would be a combination of ber?a, would be. }rr. Olson replied the landscapg fence, and trees; the-. usual type of plantinn. He stated the trees rrould be recorLmended by a nursery, the evergreens being about four to six feet. fir. Olson added that the other types of deciduous trees would vary in size according to species. Mrs. Shea noted there were trees on that property now, and asked if any effort would be made to try to save there. Mr. Olson replied that every effort would be made to try to maintain as many as possible. Chairperson Harries asked what the exterior finish on the �� and Mr. Olson replied they intended to use textured one-eleven,buidings would be, which was a commercial wood siding. }ie added that the buildings would be stained, which would weather better than paint, and the roofs would be regular asphalt shingles. Mr. Swanson added there would possibly be some brick facing on the lower part of the buildings, and anything other than what was shown on the plans would just be an improvement in appearance. Planning Commission Meeting - September 2.2, 1976 Page 11 Chairperson Harris asked in what direction tale garage^ were going to face, and Mr. Olson replied that would vary according to what particular building he was referencing. fie showed the Commission on the plans the 6ifferent ,rays the garages were situated, thereby not having a long row of garage fronts on the street. Mr. Ber€nan stated he would like to know what the $20,000 di'_"ferendd .as between a $40,000 and $60,000 to•.cnhouse, and particulai•7.y if there :r�re any pans to use different construction naterials between that range of price. He, was wondering if this was including or excluding fixtures and ap li4nces, or if the difference had to do with the size of the units) and so cin. :;r. Olsen said that a lee;•;ay of $20,000 was established because they har? no con ractnal_ estimates as to what it would cost to build a building, and ,.'i th infla6i0n prices for building costs were changing tremendousl;,T. tie sai. d t is ::=s more r^ or less a figure to work with. t•ir. Olson added that a '41 {0,0 0 house a_�;:� ha; no brick, one bedroom and one bath, ;whereas a ;60,000 home raight :cave brick, two bathrooms, three bedrooms, etc. Yr. Swanson added that the -nten-:ion was not to cheapen any of the construction. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the guest parking would be in the center are," bet,.-:een the garage areas, and Mr. Olson replied it would, and also a-rons were provided in front of the garages for additional parking. Mrs. Schna-al noted tat these were single car stalls, and asked where an occupant T•rould ;.:ark -:is second car if he had one. Mr. Olson said he would have to park it in front his first ::arl s parking stall. I1rs. Schnabel said her concern s',c��_ed .frD., t !e fact that if an o::ner had two cars and one had to sit out, a:..d if the-- or someone else had guests over, there could be a problem with -con&r_:;-1Uic-n of c _rs in that area. She added that there might be a safety hazard as =a,' aS fire trucks and ambulances getting in and out. lir. Olson said t~era :*ould be a�:tple room on the street where ca-,-s could also park, but he didn't kno ; i f tze Totmhouse Association would allow parking there. Chairperson Harris noted on page 34 of the agenda the plans stated 36 si,rgle garages, 108 single aprons, and a total of 14.14 par ting space-t-. e as-:er. Olson if they were proposing 144 parkin; spaces within the c:eveloyp:,,en�, and Mr. Olson stated that according to his plan that :was correct. I:rs. Sc_,r,a el asked if he could identify where biose 108 aprons ;•.ere., and Yr. Olson said he would have to plead ignorance. Chairperson iTarris stated th t i this ;cas recommended to Council for approval, it ;:ould be in order to stipulate that a mare detailed parking and plat plan layout be provided than. wh-st t'ney had now as exhibit C. Mr. Bergman said }ie would like to pay some recognition and co.iplir,icnt to Mr. Swanson and Mr. Olson because they had put a lot of thought into the plans, and the plans represented good and professional efforts in r.ost cases. He added that they had obviously spent a great deal of tine on then.: and Azad done a good job. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning C.-:omission recommend to Council approval of T-06-03, Townhouse Development Plans, by Evert R. Swanson: 36 Unit To,:zlhouse Development for Central To,tinhouse Addition, referencing exhibits C & D, and with the understandinn that this is townhouse construction intended for owner occupancy, with two stipulations: Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 12 • 1. That as the property is. developed from building 1 through subsequent buildings, the landscaping, including fencing, be completed as construction stages are completed. 2. That prior to Council view the parking proposal be clarified with regard to identifying the total parking as indicated on exhibit C. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARD. 0: REZONT!',G REQUEST.: 7.0A #76-05, BY ITP- 1'i Rezone the Easterly 200 feet of Lot 13, except the ;:or�herly 3� feet.thereo: also the Easterly 50 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdiv:i.sivn iIo. 89, from R-3 eneral multiple family dwellings), to C-1 (local business areas), or C- (general business areas), to allow the construction of a speculative bui ing to be used for offices and assemblies, generally located on the South ide of Norton Avenue N.E. where it intersects with Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Leroy B. ith, property owner, and Mr. Wyman Smith, attorney, were present. MOTION by Schnabe seconded by Shea, that the Planning Co„I�issivn open the Public Hearing on a ezoning request, ZOA #76-05, b:r 1,�,rman Sm: th. Upon a voice vote, all votin aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 10:05. Mr. Leek stated that there rere a couple of concerns th,�t Staff had regarding this, and was somewhat uncert in about how they feel it should go. He said that Mr. Boardman and 11r. Clar felt that ideally the area in question should be industrial since it is surroun ed by industrial (he referred the Commission to the maps on pages 40 and 41 of eir agendas); ho:.rever, there were presently single-family dwellings in the area. ?r. Leek said the feeling had been expressed that if there was -an ideal 1 ation for an apartment structure in the city, that would be it. He added ththere was no one reco:-L:-nendation regarding the property as far as Staff vas oncerned. Mr. tdyman Smith stated that Mr. Leroy Smith ha oti•rned this lot for more than fifteen years, and the taxes and assessments wer now $900 a year. He said °that in spite of Staff's suggestion that this woul ' be ideal for apartments, the property has been for sale for an apartment site for 15 years and no one had put together a package where it could be develore • for aoart. ents. He said that something had to be done with it, and Mr. Ler Smith thought there was a need for some retail shops to serve the public that is in that area. Mr. Wyman Smith stated there was a very definite market in ridlcy for an assembly room that wedding parties could rent and public ass . bl-es convene. He said the assembly room would be on the second floor, and th + could also be modified into offices if there was a need. He stated that pro ably this would be an o£fic building, as Mr. Leroy Smith was talking about fi ding a place for accountants and that type of thing. He presented the Comm sion with a rough sketch of the floor plan of the building. Mr. Langenfeld stated this request confused him a bit. He said there was othing wrong with a rezoning request from R-3 to C-1 OR C-2 (one or the other), bu CITY OF FRIDLE'Y PLANNING C01-2-IISSION MEETING OCTOBER 61 "1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at-7:38 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Petersor. (arrived 8:00), Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner Dick Sobiech, Public WDrks Director APPROVE, PLANNING, COI-TN'ISSION ;;TNUTES: SEPTEI'IBEI22, 1916 MOTIOPI by Schnabel, seconded by Shea, that the Planning. Coa Fission minutes of September 22, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all ioti._g aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINUED: PTTBLIC HEARTI"G: COi SID"r'.`73'./ATION OF A PROPOSED ?BELT?ITIdARY PL4-T, P.J. f jb-O , 'F7` HAL T0,- i .0US- AJ iITICi', BY I _," til'J�.'c y� E n a rE}) a of Lot 19, except tale East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, and the West 147.74 Feet of Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to allow the deve:lop7,ient of a 36 unit townhouse site, the sane being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. •Public Hearing closed. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. Al Hoffrleier, architect, were present. Mr. Boardman explained that this was a preliminary plat on the townhouses to locate the buildings on the site and also clean up the legal description, and it was a typical townhouse type plat. Chairperson Harris stated there had been a. question at the last meeting concerning; parking; stall locations, and Mr. Boardman snowed the Commission parking a plan depicting arkin stalls. Ile said that although these plans did not depicting show it, Mr. Hofi'niei.er }lad guaranteed he would also shift the buildings. Mrs. Schnabel said that they should note that the niuirber of parking; spaces t the last meeting. Mr. Hoffmcier said the lan presented a 1, had changed from p Cp Planning Ccmirnis:,i.on Iicetjnf; -- October 6, 1.976 PaF;c: ?.. l X he had made a mistake in his maLhemati.cs on the first one. Ile stated that the requirement was for ninety parking stalls, and they had 99. Chairperson Harris marked the plan showing the parking stalls as exhibit D. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the proposed preliminary plat, P.S. x/76-08, Central Townhouse Addition, by Evert; Swanson: Being a replat of Lot 1.9, except-the East 190 feet thereof, and except the 1,1'cst 17 feet taken fcr hid'tnaUy purposes, and the YIeJt 10.7h feet of Lot 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to alloi.: the development of a 36 unit townhou e site,. the same being located at; the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mrs. Schnabel said that in looking back in the minutes from the last meeting, one o1' their concerns was the review of the assessiment type items relative to 73rd Street. l•Tr. Boardman stated that the sewer and water and storm sewers that were in the streets were designed to .carry capacity loads for development in that area. He added that this development would not overburden that load. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2 COJN1TT1-UrD, i✓i?_�F,T^ HEARTNG: REZONTi3G PE�UEST. ?OA X76-0 , �Y �',�'iiA:d `_`T'I' i one the Eastnr y 200 ?feet of Lot 13, except ti2c^ ort::er_i.,y jC feet~ then also the 'masterly 50 feet thereof, Auditor's Sucdi_v=isi.on No. 89, from R- general multiple; family dwellings), to C-1 (local business areas) Or C-2, (general business areas), to allow the coriS"t•rUCtiC:i Of a SpeC12lc2:•i_`.'c bui".din- to �� 4 cd for offices and assemblies, generally located on t•k-,e South side of ?e0 ion Avenue N.E. where it intersects with Central Avenue N.E. Public Iiearing cicised. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded b Bergman, that the Planning Cormnission receive the letter dated October 5, 1976 to he City of Fridley from Leroy Smith withdrac•ri nl; this request.. Upon a vole . vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 'I"ir. Earl Dunbar, 11_x„ Norton Avenue I1.E., std d he had a petition which he would like put in t-ie files for .future referenc Chairperson Harris read the petition, dated October 4, 1976, aloud: We:, the undersigned, as concerned residents of Nor XAvenue Northeast, City of Fridley, wish to make the follo;aing staterier wishes and desires concernir_g the proposed rezoning: reques6-05t.o rezone the E;-, tcrly 200 feet of lot 1.3, except the y 30 feet thereof and also the Easterly 50 feet thereof, audi 'ivision No. 89, from R-3 to C-1 or C-2: It is our desiro that the above reg22esL be denied, and that any similar requost. i e likewise denied; "In short, -t:2at the property mentioned, as well. as all unoccupied property on Norton Avenue North ast, remain R-3. or C ?1141T"T r 119'>Tv 1 > &DDIT10:1 J Ay,TI(:I,I I a `i Y (` r' n�} oP y :-9 rfi,t n {"mac, rn p p L. J. ILS" C. t':�.f! C"..:.�.`i%t} _atC; �_:� S"T1•A�xS.�. .l�f`��,�/Js*3e t#(�.(l..b i.-.I.f.'�'n here nrvt.?,cr referred ci rui therArJ1s` �`il":�,,.tc,.„P%is:.�. UAt'�'�.?`.`. of the C;C.L"�- °Cti r, oh�.1I be t<:�c.e.:� Test )'"'r. but of I iia A ti L" °ttid. C�t rt^f.,.'.�v-aL * 4 ” s� �: T�e'1� t ouch location in. the: �>Vat o� by the Board of 1,31TICLE' 1-T. eEAL`"=Csci ,'tion" ;Ii-all Trarai and r fer to C`ymt'R"E9l i`vw hctu;e Addit3cj1 .!t.q ES�1G!`,, r',^U:�'3 E*a.T'S.d assi?:.'nu. s!,"C`.tiol—I* 2. Et�x'� '::;d,^' a.�?aoEE '�r�'d ...l._� T:t`: t E'a, ,. ±".e�x er -t V-t n • ,- .t- y v.3 �L C .Y`Z t.'1:1Y` 7"..-Exp, jiI`O��"T t.�" Gra:SCTz`I.Z C:C� :�n t1he 3ee fm.. Ition o �"C?w.. c ':st3 E Ccn d:it ans t.j..} ..i("� t :d 'L{ (C F,1( "'r lw l f 3i iv t 6 �� r ii�'%a'`:1'f_:"u� LLFi }`i�1"; �2�r:i'c��`):E;r �.� : }nCr� 'vithin 'ssSc`. ��Yi° udicti{7n of the J• ,um1 4,.LEs, `3 `•+..i 1`:`.:C`3E'1 F-0.1 realj? s..Y7 .3' y G`4. '.:f?C.! b-" 4.S:ao,. ADS !f°°`1 foC , rzn cr.— ._,P. urt' W '?. Iic�Qsi.�'7l% (if ttae (r i,:? i`Aa "Lot" slit l Lref;9,P). r°Is3�r' m,.i,er •,J ullot Of l€S1id n-.- of E.-of the pX'oTPerIrA^3 V-112'111 thO �!:!.4i1 of G :i' C.7 syr: .r�rd ;>. 'Qtr '•.�:,E° shall. zt—,a and ri:fc.r to he rez00sr(A GIMM3-, g or ?.v. `Jf xrenn,> or f.I;r.'t-,Ies, of l—,s !" Oe G.»r;,`dc t 'tle to vm,- ..cit `a`ts��'2 I a j. x:.'nl ti Of 1.. °T'`i l"C.?E tf a iI?.i:ly� inn nof1}' rf,-,C"L iiC?..Llf'dws, birt t)1Qs t- S'.lrly'1!1j U f.;'.T3 eyF '•1"�'F'C"�[_`;o.''t1"'I�°: fi�:i..L., ,",.�':"aa ai""1d a"f:?f'r to it `�Y,iiE d.`.i'aa.s'�✓-,`,"es -F1.`.' l:A fr} '�.$ '-, »:s' :�. " is}..":li �:1%.f w"t,'f1 �: `':x or C'",a".'sl(,;n .".tho11lCs. £�.`"'�""?ql..%�"r?.' mores t:h,i0J, one i . .;�:rs,c.Cf,C.,C.r.! � .. ._ `l ` '.'ra. - Vic p 'E czo of C�ev'eil "n-s �.� �t,.,r La,z,.. �?'C?a°'Ja3 VS�.(L" �6:�''1. ar$.R a+.e�'�r for '4"�.:I �4.� ") t`j�!•*",., SC'•1„'ti ,t`ti4Z �. �z)G"a^, :_na l.�".�t'„�FfiO• [S} "'.... n.t`fut cov; ..7antl�,. con—dit,, g and �C uti F"'"�,C.ii:e.�:iu IS?)l'Sb.%€",::.'l?�.� tO th- t+ it C. �S• .ner of thet sa ' _ >�a* �. - e .. .. r�,.. . c 's��i..�.. e,��' Bec'tion 8. a,v,e `.:er s.i"l,°3U '1...:n, 3E,.ild refer to 41IO!ICF i rf s t-I . ed to mn—l7erahip c.3 pro'vided in the /!rMITCT, , M. Vt7TIN't R101"ITS Section 1.. ane Ai soei..a*ion 1:11n,1 have two r.: asueu o" voting r^,m.barehipt A. Ciae t; r•:_e 1)e t3 sivill be n11 -eta.°,,-o nwm.er:i ris defined in Articbc- II vi.'i:i1 the -.::cept-ion of `:;its Doll fl(>r :.'r. Claim :t 5�;'�L�c'T'?3 f'.i?:)ll lx' enti tied to on t°(t'C,e for evch Lot: irl vidr: Awr.. 1,,ie vote for *uili Lo. shall. be exo,,rclned as they among determil.r-Q, but in no event shall more than one vote be east, irith reapcct to ally I/A. B. !rhe Developer �ball be -bo tnole Claes B mmber. The Claus B morber sh0—', 10o c-Pititled to one hu:,'rud (1,00) vc;.-,Ls in t:ke 11anocintion. Me Cl asu B membfF�;Ur, ohall. ccw;e and tr:.r.-Ana tm,on the hap en,.i,.I,- of either of the f olloving %tichevcr f�rst occu.1-1-1 (a) Mhen the 1F.st Lot Living, Liviiit U-1-At -P*Ltluln the Acsociation is sold; or (b) On Docc,-A.,or 31, 1960. Fron aj,A af"t ar thn happerUni,- of (!itber of these everts,, -;ehichever first occurs,, tho C' B memb .r sh U� l be deell, d td be a f.%lt-vis A erft-`tlt!d to o7-,-- vete for Lot or Uvii�r Unit (uz provided for Class A 112iMuers) in which it holds the int:'rests w; roquil ed for undor ;Xticle II. APTICLE IV. 4 .7`=171+.+n tl OY 11�11---BDTI Scction 1. lunmial The annual izeting of the members shall be 12(-116. wj.',-Mn C37-ie vefix Prw-,l I-111c dsmte of4neor- poration of tAle Msociation, avd ew.11 ;U1Qa-!,-1U,!nt mgrula.r amil'-41-1 of the r,4,mbers ohall bn held on tl-,,e L7fme .day of '�he f;ame i-.�onth of each yc,,:,.r there,,:--,.Nt,•r, at tlwn, holur of 2.-00 o'clock T).m. If t1he Or4r for t1to rmi-aw! Of the r-.,:tberr, is a IeLTal hcli day, the inucting will be 1il-ld a-k. tCtz! au.-te bo*T.,,r on the firsl%- iJay 01JaVrl 1,,- fill' '- _ ( :11 JS not a legal h o 11.t41 uy• Sectior 2. Fllpf:,tcial Vaiz-tirggs. 13recif".1 neetilic's of the mny be called Lit arzy ti:;ru 1by the prcsident or 'U',F "Zljjj` ofon 'writter. requ,4--st, of the 7"v-nliers Who are, entitled to vote orle-l"ourth (1/4 ) of all the votes of th4ci -Class A mmberehlp. Sact-ion 3. 1101�--Tce of 'Mel-tings. Wrft�t�m notice of each neet-Ling of the rembers shall be given by, or (,t -dhe 6irction of', t1ae sccrete-on! or person authorlu.-d to rflAlling a copy of -a-h Il t'C:C. T)(-1-3i-aL?,P- pre.,pald, at lecv3t bic-fore L-uch meeting to ouch nen--caber entitied -to ,mte thereat, addressed 1A to 7--. m"ber's C-Ad laut a)-wearirig on taiz books of the A-mocintion, or Mipplied by :Ir-nber to -Une Anaociat�oxi for the -ourpose of notice. Such notice L11.u.-Il speci-,',y li,-Illi� plact?, dny tats. homr, Of the ta,,etirg, Fmnd, in the cazp of a specirl racel"'ing, tiw purp�uuc of the Section 4. k�uorum— II-1,,e pranarce at t m ii:��etingof r meilex 11 Ls ant itled to cast, of -,rToxies .,:iatitlod to ca0t, on-&--tenth (1/3,0) of rite vates of (mch clazt, Of 01. LI com3tit-t,lur--, a quorum for any, acticai except tas othervive provided ill tl e j'U,t . a-0 T:)Lorpert3tio,., , the Dtiefarion, or tou ! 1 -,La- 1. If, however, Such o1morurl ollrAll, not be prtcEeiM or r--pre se rite d at cmy nr-,etinc,,-. th--n mmbars entiticd to t '.'Orcat f3-,.n3j- have pc?;*%%-r to adlioiuni the meeti.ng, tame to title, without V. 10 notice o-her thum tinnouncement at th-- meting,, tritil a quorun m- aforesnid t3haU be pit'ant; or be mpresented. 50KIon 5. Proken. At all nes .Ai rg; of PenbarG, each reTbar may vote ill 1)erno-1 or 1)y !Yoxy� Aal pronics shell bo in writing tod filed uith the vocratary. Eve�r7 be revocool, awd anomatic-li-Ily C^av-f' 1"'r'on convepzico by tha manber of his Qta B&M OF SUL,5,110a, TMPM OP WICE Suction 1. Wher, The affaina of this ARsocl anion aball be managed* by a Board of not less than three (3) nor more- tbaza .(9) directors, uho need not to rembera of tho Annociaticn. Ssatian 2. Wo of office. At the fir6t annual Lze'-,;:1Lng, the shn3l PIM three (3) alrectorn for a torn of owe (1) yt�ar, vire,,� (3) directors. fbr a torn of two (2) years W threc (3) directora Mr a term or threa (3) yearn; nnd at each anna,-.1 veet;nG tha vxan-.bars chnil elect three Mactoza for a term of three (3) yeara, 810tion 3. Wrovol. Aary dtrectur mey be removed from the Board, with or Wthunt cause, ty a nalorizy vote K thn caylaru of the Association. In the event of Math, rMENatiou or janov*2 of a director, UN successor ahall be selecttd bY M remaining men "= of the Board and shall nerve for the unexpired term or W BMW h. Wpinvatinn. Do director ahall receive compensotion fbr any zervice Va ray rorlor to the Wr hia actoWt incva't-'-d in the Saction 5. Act5on tnken e. The directors shall have the right to take MY latiOn in the Khoonce of a rnotKA ,;.A. '.t Key could take at a 11✓y the writtan concent of n1l the Wroaturs. Any action no approvcQ Mull have 4t,,--. seL,,,k taken at a uneting of the directors. 4 U XID •MECTICA OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Nomination. elcation to the Board of Directors shall ba nrd-� by PCorniu HoWnations vny also be made frnin the War at .rho nn"Uni wetirs. Th: Nominating Camnittop Wall consist of a el;iai -i."' "i:110 uhrs11- ,.,t -i of the Board of Directors, and too or more =Wrs Of t%e <,a1. Tha Ruminating Committee ahull be uppointed by the Board of Directors pricy to ennu annual matting of the rumbern, to serve from the close or such ananni rxeting until the ejo5n of the ncxt annual recting and such apPOHLIng V401 be unnorneed at each unaual wevt�in, . !il,.e llo!,,�Inatiojq ' j a ., Co--�� -tte shall rate an vonX nowinaliona for election to the MrA of Directors an It shall inits discretion dumnine, M not !nos than the vxv-.---cr of vacrncieu that tvo to be filled* SUCh notInatio-d fj f_ b -nde frnm urpvr7 or non-menber.q. o T Section 2. MetiOn. Motion to the B-oc-ova of D11,rnators shall be bb'y secret written ballot. At such Wetion the isKers or thoir proxica nmy cant., in respect to ench yncmRcya, votes an they ure entitled to exercise under the provigions of the Brolaxntion, The perocan rrceivIng the largest number of votes Hall be elected. Cu-,;,,,..LLu.ti%rT.- is nut 'nt-rnitted. -13- 1-93021i`IG OF DIPIXTORS If Section 1. Regulax INIxactings. }fit goJar rx-.-��'Urgs of the Board of Directors Lhall be held nQnthky vlthout notico, at such place and hour an ray be fixed from time to 07a by rciolution of the War& Should said reeting fall njoa a legal 4oliday, Mn th"t nzeWri shall be h0d at the vane time on the next day Whic4 is zot a legal holiday. Section 24 Ppecial Oetirra. Upecial nectinEs of the Board of Directors shall be hold Oen called 'by the pre.,,iident of the or by zuny two wirectors, arte not We than three (3) dqy3 notice to cacti director. Scetion 3. Quorun. A najority of the nurler of directors 4:x12'11 cou6titute a quorun for tou trcrynztion of buVnem Every nM or decision doY e or rade by a naJority of the directors present at a duly held meeting at w4aich a qunnuja ia preaent shall be regarded ai the act ot the Board. Section 4. Me transaction of any busS.n;F�,�iw at any roeting of the Board or Directors, hawavor calInd s"d LoWnet, or vNerever Kid, shall he as Mid ��C- thouFh at a reeting duly held after r> quOr call Rnd notice if a quorvm in precent and, if Nth= before or Mer the rantK3, coah of the directors not 'sent aiqn3 a written waiver of notice, or a cQnnnnt to the holding of suzh reez .ng or an approval W the Ldrrzteu thereof. All nunh waivers, consents or apq';rovals f"h""11 ba filed with the coijorato racorde and made part of W mlnute',i of the n-ctinn' ARACH Viii. P01,1BES haf1OF T!-M, 017 Section 1. Pavers. ON Board of Directors shrll hr-ve- power to; (1) adopt and -Publish nLles ayA regulations the I.W-e of the Coomon Man and facilitiev, and M pQrsonal c*nduct of tht rembers P-,.d the-J.r guei.-.tj Vereon, cad to ezUblish panaltics for the infraction thoreof; (b) ouspend We voting rights and right to uze of the recreational Mailities of ain aamber during xr qvy per-�o�t which such mznber shall bo in default A the payment of Paky 'Mr the Ansociction, SUM rQhts Mny also be auspended after notice and hcoring, for a paried not to exceed 60 dais for infraction of p4blWhwd rulcs ond regulations; (c) excroso for the Association Q1 powers, duties and authority vasted in or 00crated to this Assoclunion and not reserved to the ncnbership Q othcr provinions of these By-Laws, the Articles of Acorlaration, or the Declaration; < a - (d) S:C''C;_•i%➢`im Me office OF a 2 o..aber of '=i1a Humid of yya arec c a to be '- - ) _ 1 .'..,.4: :.tiv' event .s'..:..di !. ._..ir�E3.0"" shall.�, ice;: f.:...:v:�-.:;< .fi3."�T7 three . 3 ['a C:onIecvYut�.f+e regular T -t:,ln -.°3 CYpf y.:�'e is'�µi.�,`crd of fWi Fid',;;.�f,?2`n; 77.3nd `y (0) c'," p C,l+S a �l i4 ct3{��a g an .i,6id.: '�•��rx::.A..�y�e'.Y}l� coat I.ani:rdr or ouch N•`hei. e�� )a1ayc.ofi e. a they dL,'..m ��eceessut.�ry, 1'And to proscribe k.t ai:.•,S duties. It flikt,"13- !,o the d-,uty of the Board of Directors to., (a.) e , ,.,. a to be krs-:t: a ccmpleta record of all it_. eats and corporate WaIrs Cfod to present a ntatencnt thereof to the t;e ply:. or at any t+ 4.� any fpecF jj -a .e ++.. g f•.^lt+a ^F :`:ii - ..♦' j .. i:Rst J ra.$ ' .�..."..,(� f.w L i iZ� H,:t:.:�Y � �V :�.. 8)V .F,� •...,v� a writing (b) F c.$f,?:`..`Vine all wiC.k,.r s r 3 snts e�-T,,IC', cno of this Wi;.'1".:.tlNy`on, I to nee that their r du in are pr .,�,;:',"•% }+ (C) an more WHY ;)`t'ovi uCi. :.i'_ .''.:-.teff (x) fix the: i iil nt"i of the a:tE7o"..?..R. cx5essment against each Lot L3ti least thirty (30) dayn in advance of cash unnual a2seasnant period; (2) send written notice of each 3"e.r ka'?.[}?w "ee,.. ta.; rct o Q l E an,'3 . ° `s .t (.:0) fare in alvauce of e sh 3".,:.:tY;ual (3) --•rs,:','clt.,. ... tiha Ma i s-f-naz L ,:-iy are not paid Wthin thirty (30) dh%ys Co�,ie, date cr to brim- a €; ... u1 rpt .r.F C v a mat the owner sa Pe vo l,�.r i�t_lic d•,:ed Yea J�-y the name-, -, df issue, Or caa+ . an apploprinte o fr. . 'r to { s. &'n upon d. : a Cby e,^.� ; lupsonG a. Cf;a. r:...i€etv cotting forth r e w ."t'aer av not. any 7...3.'.RL..1.nut ,.aag j been paid.» A. . _ u oI )tn 4charge S y be IEe .y the Board f' U ` the ,.7. ;.s ' issuance tea. MOP certificates.C`L�f.,,..r ..6 %: t«E-"s eiMK..whe stam a ,..al`J€s': Y-,v,"P-t e�E�z °vn paid,d�, &i..ch c�i:�o-'a�.t..sficht a shall d.'.., conclusive evidence F �u r, C?{+ (e) procure end maintain adequate liability and hazard Inaurance an property awnK by the Assacimtioa; (f) »fit,' all E ; ..,f:,0ra or ° lae„dr Wing fiscal lsCfl ?ca'?onnQ . a Jes to W banded, so it may deem npproprintsi (L:.i) .1..J i'1 v3'1.e +e e..w..moil Area 6s4:: be maintained. PATC M it, Section 1• Unnuneration of Offices. The officesoftrAnnoclation y be a pr °;}.?i_'' :r and to 4:rho ; i", ! at all W';t s l}F! nrr3T;)'nrn of tho. Wl-7"'a of Mractora, a .,i°t''i.atur ,, r. d Cl tf�"4.. >i.el"c`t'`y, $'n'n d s'61ch other officers as trit t' CFl1 d m. yj' :d1:m tima to time by resolution create. De(:'ln,i.an Ga LUCK= of O:°',.,'t.Crtirrs. The t:;letw4ion CC officers r��::{a,,.�•� �.r l\.!`' T`';d':r'ez at y...he fa..ret n. .{``ie,1n .j 7 t� f D r`eg ?{s . f.y €3�t,s` .. each .<`..,A t «: Ct� t•-�� .�.: i`tt C} yr.> _.1 .�.�. 3 .1 Ltd. .�.�. t;t.'.r9 .1"� �'�a. can mewher6. Section 3. Term. Nrm, The ofricers O • H a f A_ : `i :tt.; ` shall Zail b^ COOK ys. S y 7 1 is �l 'S Kp: '? a - a Z r. t%;� l;h� a si.a�`,Z �iCfC,t ¢:�`.: ;C:s:�:i CkU. office .. .._ s'_�.� �M1 f '..1 tt`3.�€.T.3t3 L:_ be or t.'re? serve. Section 4. special A? ^.fX.i... .., n"t o. ?:C.,ard rry elect cuch GN:r....r officers I the affairs C.:. thq 2ie'y rnquire, E?<;ch Gni whom `;i;ac`:,dl hol of .tom? for a.. period, have nuch 7 3:e` ?:-f 11-,y, i,' d 1>, ,, „onn •,.i:.na 42F''=.: .es an WaV !tOa ej to Wet o, Section ,ix i'reaj Fn:s,'i;..nn €z,.''t+ removal. Ary officer 7' e removal f'"lC.;.i. .. -. o •: n car . .,,s«:..�).<� cause by the Hu .d.e Any officer°''r n.a"zG written en t7C::tic to uha W'?.rd, at 7 ,res C ,l " or the sL'e 'Y a Such s w .:sign li^.;::1 wi:lc3..d.l take L::,.s.C:"ct on the d,..se Cr., r'e;;°r.wpt or ..'l;.`W.`h notice r`r at i't1'a". later Mk W.,C,"3.fi^'i:.5 ta3''`L'"eifF, u..C: Woos otherwise spinifiel 'ti$ta.. _,:4 , the acenytanco of •uch "s R,.gbarel`t,io.ia Hall nut U`.. :.e�:ba t3w:,} i.Y-�r .;_f ��,U ^u Lt He Y'..Lon 6. A. PlIancy inany01 ice noy e fillra by U's Pt, .0 ii by the Board. The C5 r €r+ j.•.�.,._ ) .r,. f'.. " ,2 ' ra Val!r ae v ory S ......i d.«,.. ..,...a. .Xk.t�1 .,_t..::i_A ...� 1J Lfi.vLS vacancy ST� '�.�..: .0�+. .).�,. �l,.��t. K_ oP -the tc_,:-i of the officer he roplaces. t rt Section 7. Multiple �%:Cy,l.'�Ct`..:a a.l'?:i C3. 1.[,s',',. 6,.. sYcvvt2ry z3 < . . w . t: huld by the same v .. .1; � . i l o . 8a , . , +f} ] role ti ,z . oil, tuft j°v7 (--f other nfricel except in the s ti"f: of parouant to Section 44 of thin WON. HOW r'r• The NO= of the ti. ., that , ShalltM r 5- arC .. z f_.:.:d ruialations a. Wrd r P,a. ;'i '4 y carried.Lt,'�:s Ll.:}v , "' : v r.z. e,,..rr`x Nods .a Es C.a:`.r; a.h..litss'. ."::'.�,� .: ".ivy � d shall ... ..t`;x. all checks r r+„�;T t (1:3) t.'.._.,. ae.,;,r :w t.itdF.t3 chall F?-. the sJ�.4;:: .-.., :?.1.. .).a'2. inability an �""4�''fu ,.1 �'r ll nxerains and, !60..Al .1"s;,;: (" sa A ..,-z•l'�E'¢�.' f ...,r; r.�,'.- F shall ree ' e Wca and 'sqt t- -•t'1 1 t .,j ,. a ,!aaze :...1.":,> „7,:'�r 1:�.,�, .:..•,e «.<. s.. .. ,y . .. ...,: .,4. .... ..... . . . _,5and Pronandinga at the d}!`a r.F': VA. of the m1... ., ser= notice of i.ant:'`a,." s of the Board and .y,J. AQ r mb£'... s.'9°ti:.Z) " ` rero3't._ GAC- *,1: No o ._.h;'ga's of ,t,.. KgoKsHon topouncr with their C a:Nd.l s_.es, n:.4a shall s . r.-4jnm suah other friuv.... .. an 'r" :.a: by the WTI, (d) r r^ t +zrr The treasurer : -35 a'1rL v: Fg,Yi't d ET.= ':t r+.3.a in is :'opr%°:t:_ r'.Ll k.-wl.<i va or i hn 1....-....t.,i st i on Gn . shall Go0:.i'Ct•.rne _.+ ........ 't,. y Mc. board.moi ,x D - • h:1, �.�i.s� F;i� i+sa _si:�[.�"�, t.'-r` i :'c��.1?'C'.>.olZ (fid dlf` .L� •� �..� /1re��to::-�-� � L.I. z,,!:,. vhc a)�fi n, tw promWory notes of the r_._gt?r':i '.tion# keep proper WO ^ec t.. l[•rna • u F•, r• ' "t 3 ,1•, ..TE . ti Who i.., t �Y O� :t.,r.Q'W")L.� f.<<t..,_t:. f:S]t annual If(1 �i +,� ar. t,. .vti z.sNi-.AC'i^. ?._? '! . 1,„V a • d w.iC ,�� thi,p of T,: h flEenI t -£`rAx LaJ sl j j. projace mn t'r::..u2 fil s:nd a L i..a e:t?T';en ti ASI' <.a...,.G;:n mad 4`!'xl3e Tldi(?',.re3 to ha presented to the c;?mber ahip at i fS FSnnio.r,l iactisng, £C:d s' doliver a f -`,j of ea3v),4 to ''.h Tt}�' i) :'t•°.Td 'I ARTICLE X. CMUUTTU!* A-ssocti.),tion shall appoint nu Axabitectural Control Committee, as provided in the baclaratio.j., cnd n NomMaYng Loamittee, as provided in Woe By-Laws. In addition, the uosrd of Directora Wall appoint other committees as deemad appro- priate in carrying out ita puxpoavo, ARTIC IT M 00 N-S AIM The books, records nnd paynrn of the Association ON! mt all tires, durin?7 reasonable businnon hours, bc robIret to Wspection by .!ny 7z�.-A7er. The Declaraticn, the AMMn of Tnvorper1n%tic;a 10hc2 By ,,-I:,--�,,.�a of the Asvociation chall be avall- albo for WTectic -f_,�'.y twvher us the offles of the Assuciatlon,, copic,; iaay be purchnned W =Aonable cost. ARTICLE 711. As Y,...,,`2' fully provided In thjt� each le oblirsted to pa-Y to the Asascionlon &upo& nnd &pecks! usevarnents which PTe weaurea by a continuing lien qp= the property s3ainst vVeh the acnuorNent is noqe. Any assessments; Mich &rn not p0d vn2n due, W11 ba daliquent. If tlhe if, not pnie, vithin thirty afs,e thn doe date, the zsaeaswe% Lih.,01 b-..-n Lnterest frcn thr date of at the rate of WrAt (3('�) pf�r r--.nrnx-,., and tho AnscHolOn nav icing an avion at law njamst tne Myr pnrovrMy abligntuill twi tri!._ or fo7oulosura tho lies agaUst the property, and interest, r« v. aad remeatuble attorney's Mc of nqr Luch chall Le Wad to the anount of such vovnr."ant. to Owcctr .f - Ive. or othcrulne encapp 30bility for the E', t'? for h,�Yein by- nc)a-use of the Wmzn Area or auandonrant of his Lot, APTIM X111. Thz Association --ihall have ru crn.7,oratc- sc:U. Section 1. Thene by-Mus moy btt�...,,at.f•L? :t a regular or spenial teeting of the by ei of a naJority nit' of ranners present in person SFA by -.cept that thu 110ral Muni, Asminlotrstion cr the Veterans rl Hall humv We right to veto while there Is Class P) vashernhip. Section 2. In the caae of tny conflict between the Articlen of incorporation and tiiic;,,;,. the Articles Pull oontro!Z and in the case of any conflict Wtvaun tho z,_nd theue ly-lave, the Declaration shall control, Ai�TTCLIIII 1XV. The Meal year of the Associntion shiOl ibvi�,Jn on the first My of JunuarY en�! vn th�� 31nt M1 of Dec%abor of w ary year, excvpat t that tlik-� x1sez-04 year Mail begin on the date of incorporation. M WITNESS IMERBOY1 wet being all of the directow of the Association, Central TuMouse Addition, have hereunto act out handi this d of November, 1976. STATE OF !RNNES02A) C OF On -'U!io cLn.."' of l'.Yr6, befora no a rata, Pubile personaj%r apDeared vhO Wynowlcdged that they are the directora of Untral Twnhwise "AF "cuted the 0=90ing a-, their flee act and doed. hotary &110� 1, the undursiqned, do hereby certify: That 1 am the My elacted and acting swereM7 of Central rat ion,, Mut the foragoing BY-LAvB Qf said Awoclat .on, as duly ajDpted at n ryeting of the bcard of Directors thoreof, held on ihis ._ iay of Noverjoy, 1976. Ili VIJIMPPIP"C"Y' I have hereunto "Y' this day of November, 1976. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COWISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER- 8, 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langen.feld, Peterson, Gabel (attending for Schnabel), Shea. Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE'S: AUGUST 18L 1976 MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission, minutes of August 18, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUESL� EOA #76-03 I EVERT R. SWANSON: Rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feet th ..xcept the 'rest 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74 .feet of ,Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) to allow a condominium-type development, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. • Note: See copies of a public hearing notice for a variance request to be heard by the Appeals Commission on September 15, 1.976, and for a Preliminary plat to be presented to the Planning Commission on September 22, 1916. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner; Mr. Albert Hoifineyer, architect; and Mr. Michael Virnig of 1365 73rd Avenue N.E. were present. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, 'LOA x%76-03, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Boardman explained that a Townhouse Plan and plat would come before the Planning Commission at their September 22nd meeting, and this item would also be going before the Board of Appeals as it involved a variance request. Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 2 Mr. Boardman stated that this property was located on the corner of 73rd and Old Central Avenue, and the owner wished to develop owner-occupied townhouse units. He said he had just received at this meeting a copy of what they were proposing to do there, and it was somewhat different than what lie had seen before. He added they would have all the actual layouts and locations ironed out before the next meeting. Mr. Boardman passed out to the Commission copies of the plans for the development to give them an idea of the kind of proposal that was being provided, and explained which areas were zoned C-1 and R-1. He said the zoning to the North of the C-1 property was commercial zoning, but the property around the rest of the perimeter was R-1 zoning. He explained they were asking for R-3 zoning in this section to allow for 36 owner-occupied units, and that with the square footage they had under R-3 they would be allowed Lila units, one for every 3,000 square feet. Mr. Boardman said that Staff's recommendation would be that rezoning would be in order for that area, and thought an owner-occupied development would be preferrable to renter-occupied. Mr. Al Hoffineyer of Architects 1500 stated that he didn't think apartments would be appropriate in that area and preferred the townhouse concept. He said that rental property was not as desirable as owner-occupied property for many reasons. He pointed out that the property would take 44 units, but they were putting in 36 units with quite a bit of green area. Mr. Hoffineyer explained that the units would be built in stages starting with the Southern part of the .property, and the first building would be on the corner of 73r�- and Central. He sta".>ed that the only drawback to the property that he was concerned with was the property on the West side of Central, but they planned to put up a buffer on the West end of the property. Other than that, he said, he thought the location was excellent and felt it would be' a successful project. Chairperson Harris asked if they were all six-unit buildings with options, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied they were. He added that there were many different plans that could be incorporated into these units. Mr. Harris asked what would happen if the six units were built but did not sell immediately, and Mr. Hoffineyer said that was why they were building them in stages, and he had no doubt that they would sell. Mr. Harris asked if Mr. Hoffineyer would wait until they had commitments on those first six units before he started another unit. Mr. Hoffineyer replied they would have to meet HUD standards so they could get FHA.or VA financing, and HUD said a project could not be started unless 80% of those units were presold. Mr. Harris said he understood that, and asked if it was Mr. Hoffineyer's intent to have commitments on the first six units before starting a second building. Mr. Hoffineyer said absolutely, and explained they would use the first six as models. He said that the basic unit they would be starting out with would include a single car garage, and they were all in the $40,000 to $50,000 price range. He said the options would include the number of bedrooms, room for expansion, and so forth. He added that they could combine several different options, so there was a variety, and the buildings would not all be of the same design. Mr. Hoffineyer explained he couldn't tie down the exact composition of these units in terms of price until they got approval from the Planning Commission because HUD wouldn't look at what -they had until Fridley passed on the concept idea. Chairperson.Harris asked if, in the event the units weren't sold, they would possibly be rented. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he had no doubt that they would Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 3 sell, and he had talked to various financing agencies and their only concern was what was on the other side of Central Avenue. He stated that, if they couldn't sell them, they couldn't rent them. He added that they weren't in this for rent--they were in this for sales, and that was why they had all the different options. He stated they could go from $10,000 up to $60,000. Mr. Hoffineyer said they had enough safety factors built into this project that they were not locked into a price range; they had a flexibility of price range, a flexibility of market and a flexibility of financing. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the six units would be within a common fire division, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied that in order to meed: HUD standards there would have to be a one-hour fire wall between each unit. Mr. Langenfeld said that Mr. Boardman had stated the rezoning to R-3 was for owner-occupied townhouses, and asked if he could make stipulations like that on a rezoning. Mr. Boardman replied that he could for owner.-occupied within a R-3, and explained that under the townhouse ordinance it set up certain square footage for each of the units under each district. Mr. Langenfeld asked if it could actually be specified when an area was rezoned that it be owner-occupied, and Mr. Boardman said that with the Townhouse Plan it could. Mr. Langenfeld asked if all 36 units would be in one big cluster, and Mr. Hoffineyer explained that each building would have six units, and there would be six buildings so there would be 36 units. He further explained that each unit had its own fenced-in garden space and a single-car garage- He said the middle units had an interior fenced-in garden, the •er.d emits had their own fenced-in garden, and each unit had its own outside deck. He stated that it was like zero lot line concept. Mr. Hoffineyer said that originally the concept they had consisted of nine units in each building, but they didn't have the green areas; now they. had plenty of space between them and a lot of green area. He added there were no through streets; both streets were dead end. Air. Bergman stated that from the land-use viewpoint this seemed awkward to him. He said they presently had an area that involved zoning of industrial, single- family residential and commercial, and now they were asked to grant a rezoning of 3.1 acres of multiple family right in the middle of this. He said this seemed awkward from a relationship to the different zones. Mr. Hoffineyer said that there was single-family presently on the North, East and South of this property right now. Mr. Boardman said he would attempt to clarify this, and asked the Commissioners to look at page 30 of their agendas. He pointed out the area that was a kind of island of residential area, and showed how it was completely surrounded by industrial, commercial property. He explained that along the edges of this island of residential property there was a sprinkling of commercial and R-3. lie said that generally along 73rd there was quite a number of apartment units. Mr. Boardman said that he thought in order to be on the future-planning end of this they should try to look at that area as a total residential unit in which there would be some buffer areas on the outside of the apartment complexes where the R-1 could be included in more of a family- oriented type operation on the interior. He said that the more heavily traveled roads of Central Avenue and 73rd would benefit higher concentrations of units more than the interior roads. Ile stated that this'was one of the reasons they felt this development would be within keeping in character with the residential island. Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page It Mr. Bergman said he still felt they were talking about a spot rezoning of an R-3, bordered by industrial on the South, Commercial on the North (for a portion), and no other multiple-family. He asked if Mr. Hoffineyer had considered the land-use relationships. Mr. Hoffineyer replied he wouldn't have come in here if he hadn't considered it. Mr. Bergman explained he was concerned with relation- ships in terms of traffic, of services and of activities, in which an R-3 was different from any present zoning. He asked if the request for rezoning was to any extent based on hardship with the present zoning. Mr. Hoffineyer replied that there were other things that could be put on that property that he didn't think would be as desirable. He said all kinds of things could go there, but that wouldn't make a buffer for the R-1 zoning that adjoins it. He added that other ways of developing this property would not tie in, or from a planning point of view make it as compatible as what he was suggesting. He further added that this particular area was ideal for interspersing because of the green areas around it, and he pointed out that behind Medtronics there was quite a nice apartment complex. Fie said that he didn't think it was a hardship type of thing, but it would be the best use of the property. Mr. Peterson noted that the 3.1 acres had an odd shape in terms of a parcel of land, and asked what happened to the property owners immediately to the East of this piece of property in terms of their developing it or using it. Mr. Boardman replied that it was all developed; there were all single-family houses to the East. Chairperson Harris asked when the internal street pattern would be built and who would maintain it. Mr. Hoffineyer replied that this would be the Home Owners Association, and the first street that would be put in would be the one on the South. He added that they would keep progressing as the buildings were developed. Mr. Harris asked when the Home Owners Association would be formed to maintain the streets, and Mr. Hoffineyer answered that it would be formed immediately. He explained that before he could even talk to any lender he had to have all those documents. Mr. Harris said he assumed the green areas would also be taken care of by the Home Owners Association, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied yes, just like Innsbruck. He said the whole thing would be maintained as soon as building number one was erected. Mr. Bergman stated he was unable to define from looking at the plan the green areas. Mr. Hoffineyer directed him to look at sheet number one of the blueprints, and explained that the buildings were all outlined and numbered, the driveways were shaded in, and all the rest was green area. Mr. Bergman asked if he planned anything in the development as far as a common recreation area, communal area or playground. Mr. Hoffineyer answered that he did not, but there was enough green area that they could put in some swing sets. He explained there was no swimming pool, horseshoe area, or anything like that in this project. Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of financing would be available as far as a person desiring to purchase one of these units, and Mr. Hoffineyer replied they were going to be flexible on this. He stated they would have conventional, VA and FHA. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there would be such a thing as a contract for deed if a person wished to sell. Mr. Hofineyer said he hadn't thought about that, but he didn't think so. Fie added that from a planning point of view he didn't think financing entered into the picture, and it would be up to the lender to analyze the financing. Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 5 Mr. Michael Virnig, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E., stated that his property was right next to this parcel of land and he was totally neutral at this point. He said that he hadn't seen any plans or heard anything other than what was in the notice that was sent to him. Mr. Hoffineyer showed him a set of plans, and Mr. Virnig said there was nothing further. Mr. Boardman stated that this was the first time had had seen this proposal, and there may be some Staff requirements of this type of development. He suggested that the units in the "dog leg" be shifted North to provide a little more area between the back end of those units to the South property line. He said another thing they would be looking for would be protection for the single families on the other side by heavy screening in these areas. He said this wouldn't be just the normal landscaping but a screening landscape. He said he felt some pretty nice things would corse out of this project as far as land- scaping goes. Chairperson Harris said that before this got too far down the .lige, he would like the Fire Marshall to take a look at it. Mr. Boardman stated the Fire Marshall had looked at a similar plan and it was approved. However, he said, the plan that he had seen had a loop in it as a drive, and he didn't know what the Fire Marshall would say about the two dead-end roads. Fie said they would have those answers at the next meeting: Mr. Bergman asked if he assumed correctly that there were two ordinance concerns: 1.) rezoning, and 2) a variance from the minimum acreage requirement for townhouse development which would be going to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Boardman said that was correct. Mr. Bergman then asked if aside from that, were looking at rant all other requirements as far as numbers the -al an the g _ y e stalls, open area of garage alls o density, lot coverage, etc. Mr. Boardman said , g g that was right. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there was an administrative report on this, and Mr. Boardman replied there wasn't. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Boardman could foresee any problem with the drainage as indicated, and he answered not at this time. Chairperson Harris asked how far back from the intersection the access on Central was, and Mr. Hoffineyer said it was 270' from the corner. He stated that the access from 73rd would be about 142' from the corner. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Mr. Boardman could foresee any problems with the traffic control., and Mr. Boardman replied he couldn't at this time. He added that he didn't think there would be that much traffic out of there units. Mr. Harris asked if there was a four-way stop at Central and 73rd, and Mr. Boardman said it was. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA ##76-03, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Peterson said that on page 29 of the agenda Martin 0. and Dorothy L. Erickson were listed as owners of property adjoining the parcel they were considering for rezoning, but he didn't see them on the mailing list. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 6 Boardman explained that the owners had changed since that time, and to get• the names for the mailing list they went to their assessing files and the owners were pulled off of those files. Mr. Langenfeld noted that there was quite a number of people involved as far as the mailing list was concerned, and to this point there hadn't been much input for or against the proposal by the surrounding residents. He said this troubled him because he would like to see these poeple have a better chance to view the proposal so they could voice their opinions. He asked if the zoning request was recommended for approval if the citizens would have an opportunity to voice their feelings at another hearing. Chairperson Harris said that was correct. He added that if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this, it would go to the City Council and they would have final action on approving or denying. Mr. Bergman said that because of the sizeable list of people invited to the Public Hearing and because not much had been heard from the public, he would like to have a show of hands from the audience if this was the item that brought them to the meeting. Four people raised their hands. Mr. Boardman pointed out that the City also put up rezoning signs on the property. Mr. Langenfeld said he assumed there was no correspondence from citizens concerning their feelings on this item, and Chairperson Harris said that was true. Chairperson Harris said that since the Staff has not had an opportunity to study this plan and since the Fire Marshall has not had had opportunity to look at it, he would feel more comfortable tabling this item until the appropriate departments had a chance to look at it. Mr. Peterson stated he felt the same way, because the gentleman who said he was an adjacent property owner said he was neutral because he hadn't seen anything on it up to this point. Mr. Peterson added that somehow he thought this was the weakness of the Public Hearing system; a notice was sent but it didn't inform the people what it was or why, so people came to the Public Hearing to find out what was happening. He said he didn't think this was quite right. Mr. Boardman pointed out that people were free to call the City Offices, and Mr. Peterson commented that it was sometimes very difficult to get a hold of the right person to talk to. Mrs. Gabel added that it was very hard to explain a plat over the phone. Mr. Bergman stated he shared the concern on this item and thought there should be. additional consider- ation on the part of the public and this body. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by-Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission table the request for rezoning, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson, until the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Boardman explained that this had been the intent the way it was set up, and it would not delay the petition. He said that this rezoning along with the townhouse plan would all go to the City Council togethfr. Mr. Peterson said he wished the maker of the motion would have included something about another opportunity to inform the public who were concerned on this issue. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - September 81 1976 Page 7 Chairperson Harris stated that this would come before the Planning Commission again on September 22nd. Mr. Langenfeld said he wished to let those people present know that they could come back again on that date. Mr. Bergman brought up another mailing to the public, but Mr. Boardman stated he didn't see where another mailing would be appropriate. He said they had mailed out the notice of the variance request, rezoning and the preliminary plat,and the dates for 'i'wnhse. .Devel. and Plat were noted as September 22nd. Mr. Langenfeld noted that those people present could also pass the word to their neighbors, and Mrs. Gabel suggested that if they came to any conclusions before the Board of Appeals Meeting, they should come to the Appeals meeting and voice them. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA x/76-04, BY GORDON ASPENSON: Rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple dwelling areas) to allow the construction of a tri-plex, the same being 6500 2nd Street N.E. Mr. Gordon Aspenson was at the meeting to present his request. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA #76-04, by Gordon Aspenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:50 P.M. Mr. Boardman explained that this property was located on the loop back off ississippi Street. He directed the Commissioners of the service drive along i to look at the map on page 37, and explained it would be on the corner of that service drive and 2nd Street. He. stated that on the property directly North of this there was presently a 4-plex, and the properties across the street were also apartment buildings. Mr. . Boardman said that Mr. 'Aspenson had buildings on Riverview Terrace and Mississippi belay. and he was proposing three units exactly like the four he presently had. He said that the buildings were the townhouse type built on two levels, they were very attractive and he said he wished they had more in the City. He stated that there were two residential properties directly to the West of this property) and the City Staff felt this rezoning would be in context with the plan of the City. . cMr. Aspenson said he was proposing what he thought was an efficient and attractive building. He stated he intended to keep it in his possession and maintain it, and he thought it would fit in very nicely with this particular area. Mr. Langenfeld asked Pir. Boardman if there was a rezoning sign on this property, and he replied there was. Chairperson Harris asked if when the underpass was open that little leg that swings back to Mississippi Street would remain open or be closed. Mr. Boardman replied that would all be closed. Mr. Harris asked if then there would be access off from Mississippi Street on to Second Street and to the service drive. Mr. Boardman replied there would be. He explained the building would sit right on the corner, and access to the garages would be off the service drive. He said the units would be facing Second Street, and entrance to the units would be on the West side. Chairperson Harris asked what the size of that parcel was, and Mr. Aspenson replied 90 ft. by 136 ft. He added that it was a couple of thousand feet larger than was necessary for a tri-unit. Mr. Harris asked what the minimum I Planning Commission Meeting - September 8, 1976 Page 8 lot size was on R-31 and Mr. Boardman answered it was 10,000 sq. ft. for a three-family dwelling. He stated that Mr.. Aspenson's was close to 12,000. Mr. Boardman said that it had been nip and tuck for 4hile on the handicapped codes, but they had finally gotten some clarification from the state on that. He explained that as long as the entrance to the unit was to the outside, the three-unit buildings were not required to have handicapped facilities, but a multiple unit would be required to have them. Mr. Lynn D. Hansen, 210 67th Ave—N.E.2 ve—N.E.2 stated that he owned the 4-plex that was on the property adjoining Mr. Aspenson's, and asked if he could see the plans for the proposed building. Mr. Aspenson showed him the plans, and Mr. Hansen agreed it was a nice-looking and attractive building. Mr. Donald F. Cable, 6530 Second St. N.E., stated he was the caretaker for Mr. Hansen's building, and he also thought the proposed structure would be beneficial. Mr.. Bergman said he would again like a show of hands of those people in the audience who were concerned with this item, and two people (Mr. Hansen and Mr. Cable) raised their hands. Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Boardman could fill him in on -the zoning surrounding the lots in question. Mr. Boardman directed the Commissioners to turn to the map on page 36 of the agenda, and explained the property directly North was R-3 (4-plex), the property across the street was R-3 (apartment buildings), North of the 4-plex was City park property, and 6525 Main St. and the property just South of that were zoned R-1. Mr. Bergman noted that there seemed to be some land left after the service drive went through, South of lot 11 and the one to the West of it, and asked if there were any plans for that property. Mr. Boardman said that was county right-of-way. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the. Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA ##76-04, by Gordon Aspenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:05 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of rezoning request ZOA #76-04, by Gordon Aspenson: Rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park from R-1 (single family,dwelling areas) to R-3 (general multiple dwelling areas) to allow the construction of a tri-plex, the same being 6500 2nd Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PE1U•;IT2 SP #{76-139 BY KENNETH BELKHOLI-i: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to allow the construction of a second accessory building, a 20' x 26' detached garage, to be located on Lot 1, Block 6, Bennett Palmer Addition, the same being 5870 6th Street N.E. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Belkholm were at the meeting to present their request. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP ##76-13, by Kenneth Belkholm. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:07 P.M. '� " CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Schnabel, Shea Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: Ray Leek, Planning Aide APPROVE PLANNING COiIMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 8, 1976 Mrs. Schnabel stated she would like to affirm on page 24, item 13, the date set for the joint meeting with the City Council on 40' lots. She said she was sc_•ry she hadn't been able to set up the meeting earlier, and November 22nd would be fine with her. She added she appreciated it being set up and would get in touch with the appropriate people. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes of September 8, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC, HEARING: REZONING REi?EST ZOA , 76-0 BY EVF ILT R. SWANSON: Rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 fee _ r ��, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.7h feet of Lot 18, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Sub-division No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to allow a condominium-type develop- ment, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, property owner, and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were present. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:43 P.M. Mr. Leek stated there was no further input from Staff other than what was discussed at the last meeting. Chairperson Harris asked if the Fire Marshal had looked at the plans, and Mr. Leek replied he had and there was no problem with :it. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 2 1 C Mr. Swanson stated he now had some, elevations to show, and invited the interested parties to view them, which they did. Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Swanson would be in agreement with the stipulation that if this was approved, these townhouses would be owner-occupied. Mr. Swanson answered he would be. Mrs. Shea asked if anything had been done to move those condominiums back, as one had been only 20' from the residential property line. Mr. Olson stated the plan he had before him showed a 26' setback and a 30' setback, and pointed out on the plans where those setbacks were. Mr. James Hinrichs, 7355 Hayes St. N.E., asked what the term "condominium" meant, and if it was any different than a townhouse, and if one was more desirable than the other. Mr. Swanson said that although the notice did read this was a condominium-type development, which was owner-occupied apartments, this project was actually a townhouse development. He said the occupants would own the land that their particular part of the building was on, and would have their own yards and patios. Mr. Leek commented that there was no definition for the term "condominium" as such in the City Code, but it did define tolmhouses and the development in question fit that definition. Mr. Hinrichs stated they were trying to keep the value of the neighborhood up, and he wouldn't object to a townhouse development. Mr. Larry McCabe, 7328 Hayes St., N.E., stated that he had two petitions to present. He explained that one was in disagreement with the rezoning and was signed by two neighbors, the other was in favor of the rezoning with stipulations and had 18 signatures. Chairperson Harris read the first petition, which stated: We the undersigned group, heretofore to be known as "neighbors", hereby agree to the rezoning of the property known as Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses) and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to R-3, subject to the following stipulations concerning the construction, occupation, and maintenance of said property: 1. No structure shall be constructed any closer than currently indicated on the plans dated 9/8/76 and retained by the "neighbors". 2. All structures exceeding 1 (one) story in height, shall be con- structed at a minimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering property line of the nearest "neighbor". 3. The "neighbors" shall not be burdened with any assessments, levies, or taxes of any kind, now planned, or planned in the future, as a result of the construction, occupation, or maintenance of the above described property, as the result of good or poor planning on the part of the developer or the City of Fridley, for a period of up to 5 (five) years following the completion of said construction. The costs of all assessments, levies, or taxes shall be borne by the developer, and/or the City of Fridley for this period. Also, if any assessments are now planned, the "neighbors" would like to be informed of them at this time (9/22/76). Plarnzing Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 3 1D Chairperson Harris noted that petition. had 18 signatures. He then read the following petition: We the undersigned group, heretofore to be known as "neighbors", hereby disagree to the rezoning of the property knoim as Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) all in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3. Mr. Harris noted that patition had two signatures. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded ,by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the two petitions. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he had any concerns about the stipulations, and he answered that the only one would be the second stipulation requiring a two-story structure to be a minimum distance of 35 feet from the bordering property line of the nearest neighbor. Mr. Olson asked if it was the intent of the neighbors to question the 26' setback which he indicated on the plans. Mr. McCabe stated that at the time the petition was put together 35' was arbitrary, and the general feeling at that time was since the,-, did not have any idea of the exterior of the buildings they did not want just a large straight wall any closer than 35' -to their property lines. He explained they had asked a week ago for an idea of the exterior or total height of the townhouses, but hadn't gotten any help at that time. Mr. . Olson stated that the total complex, including floor plans with details and elevations had been drawn up according to the City's requirements for setbacks. He added that the measurements on the plans were actually a little. in excess of the minimums which were required. Mr. Swanson asked if the neighbors would have the same complaint if it was a two-story single-family dwelling that was being constructed. Mr. McCabe said they intended to bring this in as a matter of arbitration., although 37' was in agreement among the neighbors. Mr. Hinrichs commented they just didn't wart an IDS Tower next to their back doors. Air. Swanson stated he understood that, and the buildings wouldn't be any higher than any other two-story dwelling would be. Mr. Hinrichs pointed out that there presently weren't any two-story dwellings in their area. Mr. Olson stated lie wanted to point out that the entire project would be meticu- lously landscaped, and it was possible to bring a tall building down in height by the planting of tress and so forth. He added they should also bear in mind that this wouldn't be a straight wall going up as there would be areas on the second floor that would come out two to four feet, there would be windows that would project out, and so forth. Air. Hinrichs stated that the building on the Southeast corner did not follow their stipulations, and asked that the architect reconsider and move the building over five feet and in nine feet. Mrs. Schnabel noted that Air. Olson had mentioned there would be extrusions of two to four feet on the second floor elevation, and asked if those extrusions would extend over the 26 foot setback. Mr. Olson replied they would not, and said the ground ]wine of the building might possibly have more than a 26' setback. f Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 4 .� 1E Chairperson Harris stated it would be a good idea to number the documents, and identified the petition in favor of the rezoning with stipulations as Exhibit Al the petition in opposition as Exhibit B, the color-coded layout plan as Exhibit C, and the floor plans as Exhibit D. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like to point out that when a husband and wife signed a petition, it was counted as one signature and not two, and Chairperson Harris said that was correct. Mr. McCabe explained they were just aiming for a representative as a property owner, whether it was .one or both. Mr. Hinrichs stated that in their petition, they agreed to the plan dated 9/8/76 with stipulations, and noted that there was a discrepancy between those plans and the plans Mr. Swanson had with him. Mr. Swanson commented that the plans had been revised, and the one dated 9/3/76 was obsolete. Thr. Hinrichs said he would like the petition to be changed to read "the plans as shown in exhibit C", and Chairperson Harris said it would be so noted. Chairperson Harris said he wished to speak to stipulation #3, and commented that he hoped it would be good planning. He said that concerning a guarantee that there would be no assessments or levies against that property, he wasn't quite sure what the neighbors were driving at. Mr. McCabe explained they were talking about assessments or levies that would be a direct result of that project. Mr. Langenfeld said he also felt they meant if there were major street improvements within that area as a result of this construction, the neighbors did not wished to be assessed because of that. Mr. McCabe said that was correct. Chairperson Harris asked if there was any proposed construction or assessments for this area, and Mr. Leek replied not to his knowledge. Mr. Harris asked if the storm sewers were in, and Mr. Swanson said he believed they were. Mr. Harris asked if there were storm sewer assessments now, and was told that there were on Hayes. lair. McCabe stated that they felt that the assessments that were in now were paid for by the neighbors, and if new ones arose they didn't want to split the difference with the new people and let them get a free ride. Mr. Langenfeld commented that one of the functions of the Planning Commission was not to become an assessor, but the possibility could exist where this might be beneficial to the tax situation and be a reverse situation. Chairperson Harris stated the reason he brought this point up was because the Planning Commission could not make any agreements or commitments for the City; that was up to the City Council. He added that from his past experiences with the Council, he thought it would be difficult to get the City to agree to that last stipulation. Mr. McCabe stated that the word "City" could be eliminated from the petition. Mr. Harris said that would have to be an agreement between Mr. Swanson and the City, if he would consider making such an agreement. Mr. Swanson commented that to his knowledge there were no assessments against this property at the present time. Mr. Harris explained the neighbors didn't want additional expenses because of the development for street improvements or modifications in the street to facilitate traffic or excess drainage of storm waters, and things like that. Mr. Langenfeld said he noted that one individual was concerned about a large I F wall adjacent to his home, and pointed out that the request they were considering was changing this area from C-1 zoning, and with that type of zoning something could be constructed that would be much more unfavorable. Mr. Hinrichs asked if this property could be used as rental at a later date if the project got half completed and the money ran out or the units didn't sell for some reason. He was concerned that construction costs would be cut to get the costs of the building down to be used for rental. Mr. Swanson said that anybody who owned a piece of property had the right to rent it out; but that was not his aim. He added that if they couldn't be sold and had to be rented out, it would be better than having them stand empty. Mr. Leek commented that there was nothing in the ordinance that prohibited rental. Mr. Langenfeld stated this brought concern to him when it had come up previously, because he didn't see how it could be stipulated that it be only owner-occupied. Mr. Hinrichs said in that case he would like his name taken off the petition in agreement with the townhouses and be put on the opposition one, and not risk Mr. Swanson missing his target. M:s. Shea said that at the last meeting Mr. Hoffineyer had stated that they would build one building to sell, and wouldn't start on another until 80% of it was sold. Mr. Swanson said that was correct, and he couldn't afford to rent them anyway. Mr. McCabe said he thought they were worried about the intent, and at what point Mr. Swanson would say is a turning point and decide they couldn't be sold and just throw something up to rent. Mr. Harris explained that once the townhouse development plans were approved, they were tied by building permit to a specific type of construction and could not deviate in mE.jor ways from that t,ipe of construction. Mr. McCabe said they were concerned because the townhouses were going to be two stories high, and in spite of the redi,rood fence the occupants would be able to see the two junk yards, trailer court, auto dealers, etc. in the area, and were wondering what was going to sell these units for $40.,000 to $60,000 since there was nothing on the order of a swimming pool or other luxuries planned. He said that seemed like a steep price for what they were getting. Mrs.. Schnabel stated that she had read a copy of the report that came out recently by a study group formed by the Metropolitan Council concerning housing in the metropolitan area. She informed the Co.imission and the citizens that the current situation in housing was very critical in the metro area, and a single-family home was a rare find these da%rs. She said that. if they could compare what you got for $140,000 in a single-family ha:e today with what you got for the same price in t:.qe late 1950's, they would be amazed at the difference in the quality of housing that is available. She added that there is a market for housing and a very strong demand for it. Mrs. Schnabel said that there were many people who reached the point where they didn't wish to have a great deal of maintenance in a private dwelling of their ovn. She said she thought that basically the main concern right now was whether or not to grant a rezoning on this property. She stated that their concerns as neighbors were well justified, but she thought they had to let Mr. Swanson worry about how this would be marketed and who would buy it. According to the studies, she said, there is a great demand for this type of housing; single family houses are so expensive and the amount you are getting is so little in comparison to what it was that.ther°e is a great demand for the townhouse concept. She added that there probably was a :market that many of them didn't realize, but if they checked with other builders or real.tors they would find there was a definite market. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 6 1 G Mr. Bergman asked -:hat the code requirement was for setback of a. townhouse structure from R-1 property, and Mr. Leek said it was 15' with appropriate screening. Mr. Olson pointed out that they were 26' from the property line on the East side and 30' on the other side, so they were in excess of the code by quite a bit. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Swanson if he would be agreeable to moving that building from 30' to 35' from the R-1, and Mr. Swanson said that should be discussed with the architect. Mr. Olson said that would decrease the distance between: buildings 4 and 5 by W , and there would also be four feet less green. area. 14r. Olson asked if it was the Planning Commission's suggestion that the architect restudy buildin`s 5 and 6 according to 35' instead of what the present codes required. Mr. Harris said he couldn't speak for the whole Commission,, but in iris own opinion he thought it would enhance the property if they had a little more space on those particular sides. He said there would then be 31' between the buildings, and it would mean shifting 5 and 6 to the North. Mrs. Schnabel asked what that would do to building ##6 on the West property line, and Mr. Olson stated that would be reduced by roughly 91 . Mr. Olson said he i-;ould like to point out that across Central Avenue to the West was some unenvi.ronmental property, and if he lived in the neighborhood he would welcome the proposed development on the suggested site rather than thinking what could be developed on the site in lieu of the toi�mhouses. Mr. Swanson stated that if it went commercial the neighbors would have -the back yards of stores facing them, with those large garbage containers and a lot of debris. Personally, he said, he couldn't see why anyone would object to it. Mr. John Young, 73h3 Hayes Street Ti.E., stated that he didn't think they were against the developent. He said they were agreeable to it in their petition, but wanted to make sure it was a good development and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Swanson said that question had come up before and he had done all he could to assure the neighbors cn that point. Mr. Olson pointed out that once the plans were accepted, that. is what had to be developed. He said that these plans also carried an architectural stamp with a state registration number, so the architect would not be willing to jeopardize his own profession and would see that the plans were carried out as proposed. Mr. McCabe said he was basically reassured about stipulations one and two, but would like a little further reaction from Mr. Swanson on the assessment end of it. He added that he couldn't see any benefit to the neighbors from any assessment that had anything to do with the development. Chairperson Harris said he was wondering if there was an area assessment for storm sewers, and that got to be a rather technical question as to whether it benefits the total area or what area it benefits. He said that was why storm sewers were taken on a general area assessment. He added that if the storm sewers were in, and the streets, sewers and water were in, he couldn't see any future improvements. Mr. Swanson said that he didn't know if one person could be individually taxed and not the comn-tnupity. He added that no matter what went in on that property, the same thing would. apply, whether it was commercial or residential. Mr. McCabe asked if Mr. S;-ranson would or would not be willing to pick up the tab for any future developments that were related to the project, and Mr. Swanson replied by asking how an individual could commit himself to paying for improve- ments that would benefit• the whole area. He added he didn't foresee any coming up. Mr. Hinrichs said that Mr. Swanson couldn't foresee any, but asked what would happen if the sewers weren't big enough to handle all the water from these units. Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 Page 7 -- 1 H Mr. Swanson said that if the area was commercial they might have the same problem. Chairperson Harris suggested clearing up the matter of what could be constructed in a commercial district, and Mr. Leek read the permitted uses for C-1 districts. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Staff had prepared an administrative report on this, and Mr. Leek replied they had not. 1'°r. Langenfeld asked if they had found any problem with drainage, and Mr. Leek said no such situation had been mentioned to him. Chairperson Harris said he had talked to Mr. Boardman earlier in t',e evening and asked if the adhinistrative departments had looked at this, and Mr. Boardman said they had. Mr. Harris said he had asked if there were any comments or documentation, and apparently there wasn't any. Mr. Michael Virnig, 1365 73rd Avenue N.E., asked how far back the screening would be off the property 'line. Mr. Leek said the code didn't stipulate that, but just stated 15' with the landscaping located on the R-3 property. Mr. Virnig said that he had a fence on his property at the present time, and was wondering if there would be two fences just 6" apart with no maintenance in between. He said he was also wondering how far the fence would extend, because if it extended too far he would have a problem going in and out of his driveway. Mr. Harris said the fence could not extend 7' in height all the way to the street. Mr. Leek read from the City Code which stated nothing would be allowed to impede vision, and Mr. Langenfeld commented that Staff would make certain that the fence would not be a visual barrier. Chairperson Harris said that with regard to the two fences together, he hoped that the two adjoining neighb6rs could work that out. ir. Virnig asked if there could be some stipulation on completion of the fence after initiation of the project, and Mr. Swanson said that they would do the landscaping on each building after it was constructed. Mrs. Schnabel asked if tie was talking about the landscaping surrounding the building itself, and Mr. Swanson said yes. Mrs. Schnabel asked about the landscaping of the exterior portion of the property running around the property line itself. Mr. Swanson replied they would do all the landscaping for a particular building out to the lot line .for each building. Mrs. Schnabel said that one of the neighbors was concerned because he was surrounded by buildings number 1 and 55 and asked if the landscaping would be done around building number 1 upon its completion, and finish the landscaping around building number 5 when it was completed. Mr. Swanson said that was right, and added that up until.. that time his back yard would have the same view it had right new. Mr. Langenfeld commented that particular pine of property would remain in its natural. state until construction commenced. Mrs. Schnabel stated she was still quite concerned about stipulation number 2 in the petition agreeing with the rezoning. She said she didn't think they had answered that to the :satisfaction of the petitioners or the builder or the architect, and she felt they were leaving something hanging in mid air if they didn't address themselves specifically to the problem of the 35' setback the petitioners were requesting. Mr. Olson said that the plans, known as exhibit C, met all setback requirements, and asked if it was now also part of the require- ments to meet stipulation number 2 of exhibit A. Mr. Young, speaking for the Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 1976 page 8 , neighbors, said. they felt if it was within the code they would strike stipulation number 2 from their petition and would go along with it as planned. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #76-05, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:14 P.M. MOTION by Langenfeld that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of rezoning request, ZOA ##76-03, by Evert R. Swanson: Rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited businesses), and the West 147.74. feet of Lot 18, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings), to allow a condominium-type development, the same being located at the intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: 1) Every effort be made to maintain the setbacks as shot-m in exhibit C, and 2) All the necessary studies be made on behalf of the assess- . ment procedure. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought that perhaps the stipulations were premature. She said this hearing was strictly on the rezoning request, and thought consideration of the stipulations might fall under consideration of the pr.ei im.i.nary plat or the townhouse development plans. ,fr. Langer,feld agreed. Mr. Langenfeld AMEiDED the MOTION to recommend approval of the rezoning request ZOA ##76-03 by Evert R. Swanson without the stipulations. Seconded by Bergman. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought it would be wise to point out that the majority of the adjacent neighbors did concur with the rezoning request as indicated by their petition. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELDIINARY PLAT #176-08, C "ill L WNHOUSE ADDITION BY EVE=ZT R. S�IANSOPd: Are of Lot 19 except-114e East 190 feet thereof, and except the 17 feet taken for highway pur es, and the West 147.74 feet of 18, all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 9, to allow the deve hent of a 36 unit townhouse site, the same bein ocated at intersection of Central Avenue and 73rd Avenue N.E. Mr. Evert R. Swanson, pr rty owne and Mr. A. R. Olson, architect, were present. MOTION by Sc el, seconded by Langenfeld, that lanning Commission open the Publ' fearing on consideration ofa proposed pre * plat, P.S. x'76-08, Centr Townhouse Addition, by Evert R. Swanson. Upon a voic te, all voting a , Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:20 P. . 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, November 8, 1976, in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: Consideration of a rezoning request, ZOA #76-03, by Evert R. Swanson, to rezone Lot 19, except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for Highway purposes, from C-1 (general office and limited business) , and the West 147.74 feet of Lot 18 from R-1 (single family dwelling areas), all in Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) to allow a townhouse development, located in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located at the intersection of 73rd Avenue N.E. and Central Avenue N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. WILLIAM J. NEE MAYOR Publish: October 20, 1976 October 27, 1976 100 t REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1976 PAGE 3 I I DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL WITH DISTRICT NO. 14 SCHOOL BOARD TO DISCUSS ITEMS OF COOPERATION AND COf1P10N INTEREST: i Mr. Qureshi , City Manager, stated that there were a number of areas whereby they are cooperating with the school board and school administration and perhaps a meeting of the City Council and school board to explore the areas of further cooperation and future policy direction would be helpful. Councilwoman Kukowski then sugnested a meeting date sometime in November. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the meeting dates of November 4th and 18th would be acceptable. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick directing the City Manager to forward the letter to Chairman Sangster of the School Board. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1976: E. R. SWANSON; Z #76-03 73RD AVENUE & CENTRAL: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set the matter for Public Hearing on November 8, 1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski . Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CENTRAL TOWNHOUSE ADDITION; P.S. #76-08, E. SWANSON AND TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, T. #76-03: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to set the matter for Public Hearing on November 8, 1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. E. MADSEN; L.S. #76-06, 246 RICE CREEK BLVD. : fir. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that this was a request by fir. Madsen to split existing parcels of property at 250 Rice Creek Boulevard. Ile further pointed out that the reason for the request for the lot split is to better describe the property line in its relation to some existing dwellings. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot split request with the stipulation that an agreement be provided by the property owner. fir. Sobiech then asked if there was a representative present, and fir. Madsen stated that he had nothing further to add -- only that it is a mutually agreeable situation between Mrs. Murphy and himself. MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to approve the lot split. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor flee declared the motion carried unanimously. F. J. VOTH; L.S. #76-07, 5801, 5805-5809 ARTHUR STREETS: Mr. Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that this was a request for a lot split to portion off a large parcel of property in three building sites, and the Planning Commission did recommend approval. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the lot split, allow the building permit on lot two and after he works with the property owner and prospective buyer to resolve: (1) the garage encroachment, (2) the 20 foot street easement, and (3) the ownership of the shed on park property, then allow the permit on lot one. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. I CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1976:— _ M. MAYER; 7431-7433 ABLE STREET: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to concur with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission and grant the variance. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, 1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Unon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. pplwpr REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1976 PAGE 4 CONSIDERATION OF ACQUIRING TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY ADJOINING NORTH INNSBRUCK PARK AND TRANSFERRING PARK PROPERTYY ALONG RICE CREEK EAST OF CENTRAL TO ANOKA COUNTY: Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, stated that on the proposal for the property that is east of Central along Rice Creek, basically the amount the City is asking the County to pay for is what the City's cost for the property is, which works out to be $9,062.79. Also, on the acquisition of tax forfeit properties next to Innsbruck North Park, the proposal is to acquire all the property except only acquire 12 feet access easement on Lot 1, Block 1, Carl Peterson Addition. Councilman Starwalt indicated maybe erre should acquire that lot also and then later make a determination to sell portions of Lot 1, Block 1, Carl Peterson Addition, also Lot 42, Auditors Subdivision #92, and also acquire all these lots outright so that any of these properties can be sold, especially these two lots. Mr. Qureshi indicated that once the property is acquired, there might be some resistance from the people to sell these properties because they would think the City was disposing of some park property, even though the City is buying these properties with the intention of selling it, and this route might be financially better for the City to follow. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the f addition of Lot 1 , Block 1, Carl Peterson Addition, and the amendment of the assessment figure to $9,318.82. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. i CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE CITY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN ARTIFICIAL AERATIOP( SYSTEM AND A FISHING PIER AT MOORE LAKE: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the agreement. Seconded by Councilman t Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE NORTH SUBURBAN FAMILY SERVICE CENTER: MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to table the matter until the next meeting. Seconded _ by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY COUNCILMEMBERS KUKOWSKI AND HAMERNIK TO ATTEND THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1976 CONGRESS IN DENVER, COLORADO, NOVENBER 28 - DECEMBER 1 , 1976: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the attendance of both counciimembers at the conference. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 104-1976 - SETTING AN ELECTION FOR COUNCILMEMBER - WARD II: MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 104-1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. UPon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 105-1976 - DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1976 GENERAL ELECTION: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to adopt Resolution No. 105-1976. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to amend the pay for election judges to $3 for head judges r - and $2.50 for regular judges. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, k all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously: fRESOLUTION NO. 106-1976 - APPROVING MHD FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR TRAFFIC NOISE I ) ATTENUATORS; I.694 FROM MAIN STREET TO 7TH STREET: I � MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 106-1976. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. f: I r 178 . i THE MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF NOVEMBER 8, 1976 The Public Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of November 8, 1976, was called to order at 7:32 p.m, by Mayor Nee. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Nee led the Council and the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Fitzpatrick, Councilman Starwalt, Councilwoman Kukowski, Councilman Hamernik, and Mayor Nee. MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to adopt the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. i PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQUEST, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZOA #76-03, BY EVERT SWANSON, TO REZONE FROM C-1 AND R-1 TO R-3; INTERSECTION OF 73RD AVENUE AND CENTRAL AVENUE AND RECEIVING PETITION #17-1976 IN FAVOR OF REZONING REQUEST AND PETITION #18-1976 OPPOSED TO REZONING REQUEST AND PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLAT SUBDIVISION P.S. #76-08, CENTRAL TOWNHOUSE ADDITION, BY EVERT SWANSON AND CONSIDERATION OF TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, T 76-03, BY EVERY SWANSON: MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to waive the reading of. the Public Hearing notice and open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing opened at 7:34 p.m. Mayor Nee stated that this matter is before the Council with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and there are two petitions, numbers 17-1976 and 18-1976. Petition #17-1976 is in favor and Petition #18-1976 is opposed. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to Receive Petition #17-1976 in favor of the rezoning. ! Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to receive Petition #18-1976 in opposition to the rezoning. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, led the discussion stating that this is a request for rezoning a parcel of pronerty nenerally located on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and 73rd. The existing parcel consists of a certain amount of C-1 zoned property and a portion of R-1 zoned property. The request is to rezone all to R-3 which would allow for a townhouse type development. Mr. Sobiech continued stating that to the north is presently zoned C-1 and C-1 up to Onondaga; to the east is generally single family zoning; across the street is the existing M-1 and again, commercial at the intersection of 73rd. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at the Commission's meeting and there were two petitions received--one in favor with quite a number of signatures and the other in opposition which had two signatues. The general layout of the proposed development incorporates i 171�)w I .. PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1976 PAGE 2 f { the existing C-1 zoned property off Central Avenue, together with the R-1 property approximately 300 ft. off Central Avenue. He further stated that it is the intent of the developer to construct six structures which would allow for thirty-six units of townhouse development. It should be pointed out, however, that there is a recommendation from the Board of { Appeals with a request for varying the existing townhouse area requirement from five acres to three acres. There is a recommendation for approval. The actual recommendation from the Board of Appeals, however, will come before the Council in disposition of the rezoning; but for the present public hearing purposes, there is a pending hearings request. Mr. Sobiech further stated that at the administration level, they felt that the variance request is legitimate in that one of the requirements of the townhouse development is to comply with certain density requirements. For the R-3 density requirements for R-3 zoning, the townhouse density requirements would be 3,000 sq. ft. per unit; and with that they are complying with the density requirement for a R-3 zoned area. f Mr. Sobiech also pointed out that at the Planning Commission meeting, another matter came up for discussion involving setback requirements from existing R-1 properties.. One of the stipulations was that the petition for the rezoning indicated that certain minimum setbacks would be incorporated. Also as noted in the Minutes,• the petitioner did resolve with the property owners that this plan would be adopted. . They initially wanted 35 ft. from all residential-properties and the existing plan is 26 ft. to the east and 30 ft. on the west and south, minimum. There is an agreement with the petitioner that he will shift the location of the two easterly structures in order to provide the 40 ft. setbacks north and south. Therefore, as far asthe setback require- ments are concerned, they are in conformity.. In regard to the parking requirements, they do have an adequate number of stalls in excess of what is required. Mr. Sobiech then mentioned that Mr. Evert Swanson was in attendance for questioning on the matter. Mr. Al Hoffmier, architect on the project, then commented that this is not a large project wherein a lot of financing to put the project across will be needed. The project is going to be done in a very simple manner. Mr. Hoffmier further stated that there are no amenities with a project of this size because they are anticipating that the owners of the townhouses will be using the facilities that Fridley already i has. Insofar as the project not being successful in terms of financing, Mr. Hoffmier stated that it is easier to finance a simple project rather than a larger more complicated project. Mr. Sobiech along with Mr. Hoffmier, then approached the Council to look over the architect's plans. Mr. Hoffmier stated to the City Council that they were trying to make the most flexible type house that people can afford. Mayor Nee then commented to the audience that there were people present on this matter and asked those concerned to come up for discussion. Mr. Hoffmier stated that as the different stages progressed, they would put up fencing. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she was concerned about the neighbors. Mr. Hoffmier commented that he was concerned, too, as they do not want people coming through their; property. A visitor asked Mr. Hoffmier if the area is rezoned R-3, what is going to keep him from putting apartment buildings in. Mr. Hoffmier responded that they are making a committment. Mr. Hoffmier further stated that if they cannot sell 36 respectable townhouses, they would not ask for the rezoning. Councilman Starwalt stated that the concern of some of the neighbors was if the portion which is now R-1 is zoned R-3 and if the project does not go, nothing would preclude there ultimately being apartments there; and this was something that the neighbors did not want. Mr. Hoffmier stated that once the townhouses are suggested and zoned R-3, with the setback requirements and everything else, it would be impossible to get apartment buildings in there. Councilman Starwalt then stated that in the past there have been changes on the part of the developers, and he would like to avoid telling people one thing and then a year or two later something else happens. Councilman Starwalt further stated that perhaps if there was a stipulation on the rezoning which could be contingent upon the total concept being built, this would possibly be a way to go. Mr. Hoffmier commented that either the whole thing should be rezoned R-3 or forget it. i i 180 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1976 PAGE 3 r Mir. Qureshi, City Manager, stated that there were three choices: (1) It can remain R-1, (2) Rezone to R-2. and (3) If rezoned R-3, there could be some kind of a covenant filed against them to restrict them. Mr. Virgil Herrick, City Attorney, stated that the covenant would have to be filed by the owner--not the City. He further stated that there was one other possibility, although somewhat untried, in that there is a kind of emerning series of cases in zoning that would permit contractual zoning wherein the developer of the City enters into a contract prior to rezoning a piece of property. This is, however, quite new ( and has not been tested. Mayor Nee a-;ked if it would automatically refer to R-1. i Mr. Herrick responded that it could u:;ssibly be made part of the contract and if the development does not take place as described in the contract, within a certain period of tim-x, the rezoning would revert back to what it was previous to the request. Mr. Herrick suggested that a draft proposal could be drawn up which would incorporate what the develc;;ers are talking about and an agreement between the owner and the City. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that the matter was not going to be voted on by the Council at this time. Mayor Nee stated that this would come up again for discussion next Monday at which ! time it would be the first r:ading of at that time. an ordinance, but they would have an indication Mayor Nee they: cc;d^mented that Councilman Starwalt would want to have a draft of a contract at that time. Mr. Herrick stated that he would have one drawn up. i MOTION by Councilman Fitzpat:ri,k to close th-� Public Hearing on the rezoning request. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voi:a vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing closed at 8:31 p.m. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to close the Public Hearing on the consideration of the final plat. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimouity and the Public Hearing closed at 8:31 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING REQUEST, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENOME ZOA IE76-04 GORDON PENSON TO REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-3; 6500 2ND STREET FJ.E.: Z0 MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to waive the readinq .of the Public Hearing notice and open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the Public Hearing opened at 8:32 p.m. Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, then proceeded to state that this is a request for rezoning from R-1 to R-3. The Planning Commission did have a public hearing on September 8, 1976, and did recommend to Council approval of the request. Mr. Sobiech asked if FSr. Gordon Aspenson was present, and he was. Mr. Sobiech further stated that the rezoning would be to j allow for the construction of townhouse style triplex, which he and his staff believe would fit quite well and are extremely attractive buildings. Mr. Sobiech then referred i to the west side of town, Riverview Terrace and Mississippi Street, where there is one in existence. There were no objections noted at the Planninn Commission meeting after j the plans were reviewed by the adjacent property owners. Mayor Nee then proceeded to ask the Councilmembers if they had an there were none. He then asked the audience if there were an Y questions, and and there was-no response. Y questions or comments, MOTION by Councilman Hamernik to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mavor Nee declared the motion carried ' unanimously and the Public Hearing closed at 8e36 p.m. i i i I i 198 i REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1976 PAGE 3 CONSIDERAT T READING, OF AN ORDINANCE ON REZONING REQUEST, ZONING ORDINANCE APIENDPiENT ZOA #76-03, BY EVERT SWANSON, TO REZONE FROM C-1 AND R-1 TO R-3; INTERSECTION ( OF 73RD A NTRAL AVENUE: Mr. Virgil Herrick stated that at the last meeting he indicated that he would have a proposed agreement that would limit the use of the property. A draft has been prepared, however, he has not had an opportunity to discuss this with the applicant. Mr. Herrick suggested to the City Council that they may pass it on the first reading and hold the second reading until an agreement has been reached and signed by the applicant. Mayor Nee, for the benefit of the audience, explained that there is a side agreement that could be enacted as a condition of the rezoning that spells out the many concerns of the people in the neighborhood with regard to such things as the fencing going in first, that it be owner occupied with no rentals, and it really addresses a number of the questions that the people have. Mayor Nee asked if there was anyone in the audience other than the petitioner who was concerned and there was no response. Councilman-Starwalt stated that he believed there were going to be people present on the subject. Mayor Nee proceeded to give the petitioner a copy of the proposed agreement. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to waive the reading and adopt the ordinance on the. first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1976: REAL ESTATE 10 ADDITION, P.S. "76-11: MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to set a public hearing for December 13, 1976. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. T. SKIBA, L.S. #76-10: Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, stated that this is a request by petitioner for a lot split in the general vicinity of Bacon and Onondaga Streets. The Planning Connission did have a hearing on November 3, 1976 and did recommend approval of the lot split. He pointed out that there was some concern reciarding a parcel of property that appeared not to be included in Lot 11 , but after checking with Anoka County, that parcel is included in Lot 11 ; and the description as it reads in the Planning Commission minutes is correct. Mr. Qureshi questioned whether there were any additional water and sewer assessments and-Mr. Sobiech responded that they were in and assumes they have been assessed. However, the netitioner would assume any of the assessments for the develonment of the property. Mr. Ton Skiba, 4010 Bunker Lake Road, was in attendance and stated that he was the individual reo,uesting the lot split and he was aware of the assessments and had no questions at the present time. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to approve the lot split on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilman Hamernik. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1976: VID PROPERTIES, 4300 MAIN STREET N.E.: Mr. Sobiech stated that this is a request by the property owner in an industrially zoned property at the corner of 43rd and Main for a variance on the lot coverage as it presently exists. He further pointed out that the owner proposes to make an addition to their present facility which would be nenerally to the west of the building and the rear of the building. The proposed addition would be constructed on an existing retaining wall. Previously, there was a sloned portion of landscaping and basically this was to ensure that the foundation in this part of the building i i i - ly9 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1976 PAGE 4 i i would not freeze. Mr. Sobiech also noted that the basic buildinn covers approximately 50 - 51 % and with the additional proposal, they would be in the neighborhood of about 55 - 56% lot coverage. The Appeals Commission did, however, recommend approval. He also pointed out that the construction of the initial structure was in the early fifties prior to the requirements that presently exist and he thought perhaps some additional stipulations with the building permit could be made in that i they would work with the Staff to acquire a joint parking anreement with Burlington Northern. There is a concentrated parking problem in the area; however, to the south there is a lot that is basically empty all of the time. Councilman Fitzpatrick questioned the reasons for the areatly increased on-street parking and Mr. Arvid R. Hansen, 4300 Main Street N.E., responded it was due to the fact that there are all kinds of salesmen coming and going to Burlington Northern. Mr. Hansen proceeded to mention that the average call of a salesman is 15 minutes and Burlington Northern probably net 100 salesmen, and they net approximately 10 a day. Mr. Qureshi stated that a stipulation could be made wherein authorization be given the administration to work with the property owners to study a plan that would be an appropriate arrangement on the parking problem. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to approve the recommendation of the Appeals Commission for a variance to increase the lot coverage, and that the petitioner work with the City Administration to try to alleviate part of the parking problem that exists both along on-street parkins and on property. Seconded by Council- woman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 112-_1976 - ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ,ESTIMATES OF COSTS THEREOF: STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1977-1 AND ST. 1977-2 MSAS): Mayor Nee stated that it would be in order to amend the resolution with reference to 19774:-.:Mayor Nee stated that after the plans and specifications and cost estimates have been prepared, the item will come back once more for actio;; by. the City Council at which time a deletion could be made if in the judgment of the Council , such a deletion should be made. Regarding Channel Road, Mayor Nee stated that the resolution deletes that part of Channel Road north of 60th Avenue. Ile then asked if there was a motion to modify the Channel Road proposal . Councilman Starwalt stated that he had a proposal for modification and it takes into consideration viewpoints of sonic, of the people regarding the sanitary sewer. He further stated that he would like to include the ennineerina -all the way to the end, including the possibility of a cul-de-sac. Iir. Sebiech stated '..hat if during the Council 's travels throunh the neighborhood, there are any changes, they can add them back in. Ho�!2ver, the resolution would order the final plans and specific,;tions for this. They can be nrenared and they can be deleted at a later gime. Tihey could wort: v.,ith the adjacent property o,,ners on the sanitary sewer proole!n. As it. now exists, however, ii: is going to he very expensive. Mr. Sob ech stated that: he believed it would be okay at this time to order the •improvemE!nt and nothing woUld be lost if it was deleted at the next resolution. Councilman Starwalt stated that although he realized the next hearing would not be a public hearing, he questioned whether there could be a letter notification from the City to the affected property owners so that they are made aware of the meeting. Mr. Qureshi stated that it may be more appropriate if the Administration contact these people personally and give them all of the background information. If they have a change, they can contact one of the councilmembers. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to add north on 68th to Channel Road through the cul-de-sac. Councilwoman Kukowski stated that she was going to second it just so they can have the plans drawn up, review them, and be in contact with those concerned before a final move is made on the matter. She later withdrew her second and Mayor Nee stated that the motion failed for lack of.a second. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this 21st day of December , 1976 , by and between Evert R. Swanson , hereinafter called the "Owners" and the City of Fridley, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City" . WHEREAS , the Owners have petitioned the City to rezone the following three acre parcel of property (hereinafter referred to as "Property" ) from the present R-1 ( single family dwelling) and C-1 (general office and limited business) classification to R-3 (general multiple family dwelling) : Lot 19 , except the East 190 feet thereof. , and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 129 , all in the North Half of Section 12 , T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota (presently zoned C-1) and The West 147. 74 feet of Lot 18 , Auditor' s Subdivision No. 129 , all lying in the North Half of Section 12 , T-305 R-24 , City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota (presently zoned R-1) ; WHEREAS, the Owners have petitioned the City to approve the pro- posed plat of Central Townhouse Addition, being a replat of the Property, and the development of thirty-six (36 ) townhouse units; WHEREAS, the Owners petitioned the City to approve a variance from the City of Fridley Zoning Ordinance to allow a townhouse development on a three acre parcel of property instead of the required five acre parcel; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezoning and the proposed platting and townhouse development of said area will be in the public interest, welfare, and convenience to the people of the City of Fridley provided certain restrictions on the type of uses ar•e placed on said Property and provided, further, that the Owners • agree to lay out, develop and maintain said Property according to standards agreed to in advance by' the parties hereto. Consideration for this agreement shall be the rezoning of the Property from R-1. and C-1 to R-3 use district and approval of the final plat of Central Townhouse Addition together with authorization to develop thirty-six ( 36 ) townhouse units on a three acre parcel of property. The Owners , their successors and assigns do hereby covenant and agree as follows : I The development of thirty-six (36) townhouse units on the three acre parcel of Property is economically feasible. Agreement -2- II The use of said property shall be restricted to development of thirty-six ( 36) townhouse units , and further the. following uses permitted in Section 205. 071 of the Fridley City Code will not be permitted on the above described property: 1) 1jultiple dwellings and multiple dwelling complexes. 2 ) Motels , apartment hotels , motels . 3 ) Lodging and boarding houses. III It is the desire of the Owners to develop the townhouse units on an i owner-occupied basis in conformance with the Homeowners Association by-laws. IV An amount of $4 , 730 will be paid to the City in lieu of dedic tion i of 100 of the land area for public purposes , as required by the City Platting Ordinance. Additionally, the Owners will construct a swimming pool or other suitable recreational amenities within the townhouse development as approved by the City Administration. i The swimming pool or other suitable recreational amenities will be constructed upon completion of eighteen (18) townhouse units . V Dedication of a fifteen (15) foot easement for street purposes adjacent to 73rd Avenue NE . VI All utilities including water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer, and all road construction within the plat shall be constructed to plans and specifications approved by the City Public Works Department. VII A six (6 ) foot wood screening fence will be installed along all property lines adjacent to existing single family residences upon completion of the adjacent townhouse structure, at the time of placing of landscaping. VIII To use the aforementioned Property for those purposes permitted within Section 205 . 071 of the Fridley City Code as amended and restricted by this agreement, Owners shall not occupy said Property or buildings until receipt of a certification of occupancy which shall be issued only upon compliance with the Fridley City Ordi- nances. It is agreed by the parties that said certificate of occu- pancy shall be cancelled if the Owners or their successors in title permit any use of the Property contrary to this agreement. .It is mutually agreed that the provisions of this agreement shall Agreement -3- be binding upon and enforcible against the parties hereto , their successors and assigns and all subsequent owners of -the Property here described. An executed copy of this agreement shall be filed with the Anoka County Recorder' s Office and made a part of and be binding upon the above described Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. In Presence Of (Ti, le) Owner - Evert R. Swanson BY N/A (Title) State of Minnesota) ss County of Anoka ) On this °� � day of cC'J�. c�,.�� 1976 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County and State , personally appeared rLe/z °" , to me known to be the same persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. WALTER J. ^AULUJIY _ //n`�'I•- q cr,; ..,,,: NOTARY P(J . IC �t> Vtzsaiogton ccunty Notary Publ ' c Comm. Expires Doc. 1•i, 1978 Y vwvwvv lln'V V•nitivw"vw•'vvvw Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands this a/ �-r day of L2eC Sr>t � _�5 1976 . In Presence Of Mayor - Willia /. Nee ,>< . ,�`'� ��''�,•�`,`.,��•^:�" �J (<<�r << 1 !�1 • ( ��'-c reshi 4 t� City Manager - Naslm m. u State of Minnesota) ss County of Anoka ) On this / day of c:srna re , 1976 , before me, �( a eared a Notary Public within and for said County, personally PP William J. Nee and Nasim M. Qureshi, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Fridley, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument , and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation, and said William J. Nee and Nasim M. Qureshi acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal cor- poration. Notary Public CLYDE V. mORAv]ESOTA NOTARY PIiLtLIC — MllVN i Et ANOKA COUNT • • ' hiy Commission Expires Dec. This instrument was drafted by: City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (Official Publication) ORDINANCE NO.627 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA BY MAK- ING A CHANGE IN ZONING DIS- TRICTS The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Appendix D of the City Code of Fridley is amended as hereinafter in- dicated. SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley pre- sently zoned C-1(General Office and Limited Business Area), and de- scribed as: Lot 19,except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes, Auditor's Subdivision No.129,all in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka,Minnesota, Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District known as R-3 (General Multiple Family Dwell- ing Area). SECTION 3. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley pre- sently zoned R-1(Single Family Swel- ling Area)and described as: The West 147.74 feet of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No.129,all lying in the North Half of Section 12,T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka,Minnesota, Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District known as R-3 (General Multiple Family Dwell- ing Area). SECTION 4. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to indicate the above zoning changes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 6th DAY OF DECEMBER,1976. WILILAM J.NEE Mayor ATTEST: MARVIN C.BRUNSELL City Clerk Public Hearing:November 8,1976 First Reading:November 15,1976 Second Reading:December 6,1976 Publish:December 29,1976 (Dec.29,1976)—SB8 ORDINANCE NO . 627 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 does 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 C-1 (General Office and Limited Business Area) , and described as : Lot 19 , except the East 190 feet thereof, and except the West 17 feet taken for highway purposes , Auditor' s Subdivision No. 129 , all in the North Half of Section 12 , T-30 , R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota, Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District known as R-3 (General Multiple Family Dwelling Area) . SECTION 3 . The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley presently zoned R-1 (Single Family Dwelling Area) and described as: The West 147 . 74 feet of Lot 18 , Auditor' s Sub- division No. 129 , all lying in the North Half of Section 12 , T-30, R-24 , City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota, Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District known as R-3 (General Multiple Family Dwelling Area) . SECTION 4. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to indicate the above zoning changes. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 6th DAY OF 1976. MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE ATTEST: CITY CLERK . - MARVIN C. BRUNSELL Public Hearing: November 8 , 1976 First Reading: November 1_; 57Q Second Reading:— Decem er , Publish. . . . . . . : De�� ,� �, 976