The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 06/22/1967 - 7235,� � � A G E N D A PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING JUNE 22, 1967 ROLL CALL• APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: JUNE 8, 1967 Pages 1-11 APPR(lVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: JTuTNE 15, 1967 Page 12 RECEIVE MINUTES OF BUILDING STANDAR.DS-DESIGN CONTRQL SUBCO�IITTEE MEETING: JUNE 6, 1967 Pages 13-14 1. CONTINUED: REZONING REQUEST: ZOA ��67-04, S& S INVESTMENT CO., REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM SHAW: Lots 1-6, Block 1, Carlson's Sunanit Manor Annex 2nd Addition. Rezone from R-1 to R-3A. 2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED ZQNING CODE: Continued from June 8th meeting. � �� . �� .. �� ...� ��..�� .� � . � Pa�es 15-19 _ _ _ _ . � PLANNING CON�IISSION Nt�E�TING - JUNE 8, 1967 PAGE 1 ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P,M, b� Chairman Hughes. Members present: Ylinen, HugYies, Jensen, Myhra, Erickson Others present: Cit�r Man�.ger ti�Tagner APPROVE PLANNING COl lISSIOI�T MINUTES: P�IAY 25, 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission minutes of Ma�T 2j, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried un�.nimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINU'�ES: MAY 24, 1967: MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Yliner�, that the Plantzing Commission receive the Board of �lppeals minutes of May 24, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ORDER OF AGIIVDA : Chairman Hu.ghes stated the order of the Agenda was established in the /'1 setting of the time for the four public hearings. Unless there is some objection from the members of the Commission, we are cor-rect in the order which is given here. 1. PUBLIC FIEARiNG, 7:30 P.M.: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #67-05, LO�TERY REALTY COMPANY, REPRESEN'I'ID BY R. L. ERNST: Lot 8, 2nd Revised Auditor's Sub- � division #21. Rezone from R-1 to R-2, R-3, and Open Space. The Notice of Hearing was read by the City Manager. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Petition dated Nay 21, 1967 opposing the rezoning request ZOA #67-05 be received. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes continued that two members of the Planning Commission (Jensen &�ickson� have indicated that, because of possible conflict of interest, they will not be participating in the discussion of the rezoning. The order which the Planning Commission used will be to hear the petitioner first, +,he Commission members to question the petitioner and then ask for comments from the public. , Mr. Ernst was asked to present his ideas and said that first of all, I'd like to commend the Plannin.g Commission on the excellent cover letter. , It does a good job of describino in the layman's terminology the rules ^ pertaining t:; Pubiic Hearin�s. He continued�yau will recall at the Apr.il • 27th meeting my describing the proposed r�zonino of Lot 8, 2nd Revision Auditor's Subdivision ��21 to allow ior tihe development of a multiple dwelling complex that will support 125 multiple dwelling units. In addition � . it will provide four. R-2 or double bun�alow lots on the North and provide for the dedication of approximatel,y 12 acres for park. Planning� Commission Meetin� - June 8, 1967 Page 2_ This would be a continu�.tion of the existing park. This accomplishes a ^ number of thin�s for Fridle�r: l. Provides a living area for a greater number of family units which would be a wise usage of land because of a shortage of land we will be faced with in the future. The Plan connects 67th Avenue from the propert�r down to Oakley Street, allows for easy snour removal, inprc,ves traffic and fire and police protection, increases the amount of park land to eig•ht acres. In addition, the park woul.d then extend North to 68'�' Avenue providing direct access to the park. The proposal assure,s a lar�e tax base. There were a number of questions in opposition such as: spot zoning�, incompa.tible with surrounding family, traffic problems created, dep-ression of propert,y value and the land should be used for parks, which I will try to answer. This proposal gives 17� to the Cit.y. 2. Depression of property valu�s: This objection is pure speculation and is no�; based. on any known or recorded facts. If the frontage on 68�' were developed under the existing plan, this area would accept 8 family 1ots. This proposed plan provides for fous double bungalows. The Plan does create additional traffic on Brookview, but with an average of 20,000 cars a da� on Highway �65, we will not make an appreciable increas2 to the area, as 67th and 68t" are two way st.reets . Mr. Ernst used a map for the following di.scussion. Spot zoning, incompatibilit�, and surrounded b� single family dwellin.gs can be discussed � together. The propert� is not surrounded by single families. To the West _ is park land, that when developed and used can. be considered as commercial. To the North is an interceptor stop street. This area shaded in red is going to be developed commercial this fall. A mortuar�r will be developed on that propert�. Most ordinances group res- idential uses together, connecting between commercial, business, industrial and R-l. Use them together and they are, in use, compatible. � Comparison of tax-seturn by residential land use type� Single family and multiple dwelling - this read by Mr. Ernst. This proposed zoning change would make the Cit.y of Fridley a better place to live and I respectfully submit that you present this plan to the Council. � In answer to Member Ylinen's question, Mr. F�nst said the preliminary plan calls for three 34 unit and 1 20 unit buildings, making something less than 125 units. Everett McCarthy, 6830 Oakley: Asked that by building this compl�x and extending Oakley Street, how does this facilitate fire, police and snow r�moval? Mr. Ernst said the large snow plows would have a hard time turning around at this dead end street. He was then asked, you have 122 units in the preliminary proposal, what rental would you be using? N1r. Ernst said the majorit�r would be one bedsoo� units for youn� couples or retired couples. Mr. McCarthy then saic� that this compl�x `aou.ld. then create similar problems a: the one on Lucia Lane. Mr. Ernst sa,id he was not familiar with that situatior.. Ed Berntson, 925 Mississippi Street: I have lived here sincc 194�• In regarc� to the proposed street, what is to be the width of the finished st.reet? Mr . Ernst said it ��ould be what the Ez�gineerin� 1?epartment r�quests . i`rir • Planning Commission Meeting -• June £3, 1967 Pa�e 3 Berntson said that Oakley Drive is now a 31 foot street, substandard, and how does the elimination of the dead end stree-t solve the problem. We would � have a street equivalent to Oakley goir� through. Brookview is the same, �+xid that would not be u�idened. With your figure of 122 units in a 82 acre area, ' how many cars woulcl there be? Very likely each unit will have at least on.e cax and some possibly two cars. Mr. �nst said tYie Ordinance allows for 12 stalls. Nlr. Bernt�on continued, on this basis, we haTre 125 automobiles to �tart with, leavin�; in the morning and return.ing� at night plus the second family cars, and this additional traffic would be on substandard streets. Another point, your figvs•es for school children show four. This is a hypothetical figur_e. There is .r�othin� tha,t would compel t'nis area to take one child. You've got sorne fine figures on the school figures, but I do believe that you are underestimating the capacity of tY�e area. In regard to the land you propose to build the complex on, it is peat foundation. I don't believe the area will substantially s�apport t'ne type of building �ou propose to put on it. NIr. Berntson continued that 80� of the people have signed a petition opposing the rezoning. It was brought to T�Ir. Berntson's attention that he had signed the p�tition twice. He said he would be glad to remove his name the second time. On behalf of these people who signed the petition, considerable weight should be given it. They came out here to get awa�r from this type of zoning and wanted. single famil� dwellings. We would like to have the park as it would be a fine thing if it would be developed and would give the children a place to play. Also, you will have tYie garbage problem in the back facing private priva�e resi.dences. � Orville C. Johnson, 6600 Brookview Drive: Brookview Drive is not wide enough to handle the p-roposed tr.affic and who would pay the cost for widenin.g the street? Mrs. Mar,y Schreiner, 6851 Oakley Drive: She stated that when Hayes . School was rebuilt, it was with the idea that it would be adequa.te to take care of all grade school childsen in that area, bu.t that is not the situation and man�r of the chilctren are bused out of the area which is an additional expense. Sewer and water - this was put into the area fcr R-1 and not R-3. Are we going to be able to caxry all this sewa.ge. This rezoning request is an excellent example of spot zoning. T�ere are hidden costs, such as election judges - addi�;ions for each 100 voters. $1.20+ cost to register. Garbage, how many more pickups for. 123 units. There are 47 children on Oakley Street and 20 homes. Where are these children and all the additional children from the apartments going to play. Skating ponds, we finally have them from the Parks and Recreation. If we wanted to be suffocated by all kinds of people, we could have stayed in the cit�r. Chairman Huohes asked Mrs. Schreiner if Hayes School with a capacit�r of 600 students, had to bus students from.this area at the present time? She answered the�r are busing out of the Hayes area into other areas. Hayes school cannot hold all the students. We have been told there has been a problem in some areas where students a.re transferred in and out of various school districts. I think, too, I night add somethino on m� own. That people in the apartment buildings are not as interested in the community. � Alan E. JerLkins, 6711 Overton Drive: Ver� few people in the subvsbs have less than one car, and 122 units would create a traffic problem. James Bruder, 969 68� Avenue: He askcd �Zr. Frnst if he said th�,t so�ne traffic patterns could exit on Hi.ghway ��65 frorn 68�-h Avenu�, and when the answer was negative, he said he had misunderstood. . � Plannin�Commission Meeting - June 8, 196`% Page 4 Mr. Erns�; said the R-3 area totalled about six acres. It would be wise to use�the land �;o put in a road pattern similar to this �indicating his map on the wall�. Don Brimer, 9G1 Overton Dr_ive: I believe that a proposal like this will attract people of younger ages. If .�ou check national figures, the majority of auto accidents involve your�ger people. A large percentage would live in these apartments. I wonder if the fire department had adequate fire fighting equipment to service this complex. Keep the area as R-1. Mrs. Don Brimer, 941 Overton Drive: You cannot wash clothes at night because there is no water. What will u�2 d.o with 1?_5 more people using it? Mr. Berntson mentioned th� fact that this particular area shaded green and part of the blue is substandard in soil cond.ition, not suitable for single famil,y dwelling. If it is riot suita'r�le for. single family, how can he justify puttin� in 3 or 4 story family dyrellings? At this point, Mr. �nst submitted a petition representing 50f of the rn?mber of property owners in favor of t'.ne rezoning. Chairman Hughes rea,d the petition. Member Erickson arrived. MOTION by M�rhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive ^ a petition dated May 16, 1967 to change the zoning of Lot 8, 2nd Revision of Auditor's Subdivision #21 from R-1 to R-2, and Park. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. � Mr. Berntson asked for the names on the petition favoring the rezoning. Mrs. Marlys McCarthy said it seems the petitioners on the second petition are all financially interested parties. MOTION b�t Ylinen, seconded b�r Myhra, that the Planning Commission close �the public hearing of the rezoning request, ZOA #67-05, Lowr� Realty Company, represented b.y R.L_ Ernst, Lot 8, 2nd Revised Audi�tor's Subdivision #21, to be rezoned from R-1, to R-2 and Open Space. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, except Jensen and Erickson, the motion carried unar.imously. Member Ylinen said he wished to thank i`4rr. E`rnst for his well thought out proposal and data. I think zoning of this type would char.ge substantially the character of the susrounding area. We have an obligation to the people who moved into the area when it was zoned R-1. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the Council of the rezonir� request, ZOA.#67-05, Lo��rry Realty Compan.y, represented by R.L. E�nst of Lot 8, 2nd Revised Auditor's °Subdivision #21 to be rezoned from R-1 to R-2, R-3 and Open Space. Upori a.voice vote, all voting a�e, except Jensen and E�ickson abstaining, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hu;hes told the aud.ience tl��at this matter will be before the Cit,- Cou.ncil at the June 19, 1967 meeting, The material will be forwarded to the Council. � /1 Planning Commission M��eting - June 8, 1°67 Page 5 2. PUBLIC HEARING, 8:00 P.M.: SCROGGINS, INC.: Yar-t of To rezone from R-1 to R-3. RELONII�tG REQUEST, ZCA �{�67-07, REES, THOP2SON Lots 17 and 18, Auditor's Subdivision #78. Bob Pritchard, head. of the commercial department of Rees, Thomson, Scroggins, lnc. explain2l that tY�e pi�ce of pro�ierty involved is a small strip of land that lies adjacent +o the Mississippi River from Highway #694 to 65�' Street. All the a,djoinin�• propert.y to the East is now zoned R-3. This is a land_locked piece and can't be nsed as it is. Chairman Hu��1es said. that Mr. Lametti; by letter dated Ma�r 17, 1967, stated he �aould like to have Lot �, �31ock 2, Hayes River Lots considered at the same time to be�rezoned R-3. Mr. Arthur Fosler•, owner of the two buildin�s that front j}-� Way: First of all, I would like to use all ihe aro rnents the last group used. East River Road is a traff'ic h�,zard. It still has too much traffic coming out o£ these buildings. Last mor�th or two, there we:re four or five accidents on the two corners. Wh,y not leave it the u�a�r it is and keep the natural bea,ut�r of the rive.r. M,y apa_ctment bui.ldings are not lush buildings and I feel they would b� a feeder for your bu_ildings. Mr.. Fritchard said we are not trying� to change the character of the land. TYie strip of land being rezon.ed wi]_1 not change the amount of buildings, it is not going to ch�,nge w�1at we plar_ to do there now. We pian to .follow whatever the City feels a.re the rules and regulations. I understand your feeling,.but �rour renters are not going to rent in the kind of buildings we are going to build. In answer to Mr. Fosler's question as to the wa�r the buildings would face, Mr. Pritchard said the,y did not have their plans, but the project will be a complex type of project. � In anszaer to Member M�hra's question that, whether this is zoned or not, it would not change what you would plan, Mr. Pritchard said he did not mean that, but it will not change the size of the complex. Mike Tema said that we alread� have a lot of traffic. It seems to me there is enough traffic to warrant another briclge. He was told. there would be another bridge at 85�' Avenue. Mr. Filister said it is my opinion tha� when this land was originally zoned R-3, that, through some error, the strip of 100 feet was omitted. There is about a 20 foot drop to the river. We are speaking of a piece only 100 feet the entire length zoned R-1. Mr. Fosler suggested the rezoning be postponed. until a later date so that he can get the service of an attorney. • Chairman Hughes reminded him that adequate advertising and sufficient notice, since May 12th, have been given and that the Planning Commission � does not give the final solution, and that if action is taken, it will be taken in final for.m b,y tne City Council after anot��er hearing. MOTION 4y Myhra, seconded b� F�'ickson, tha�t the Public H�arin�;, of the rezoning request, ZOA #67-07, Ree�, Thomson, Scrog;ins, Inc., part of Lots 17 and 18, Auditor's Subdivision �78 to be rezonec]. from R-1 (sin�le family dwellin�� to R-3 �general multipl�� faciily dwellinosl�be closed. Upcn a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - June 8, 1967 Pa�e 6 , Chairman Hughes said it is fair for the Co�!mission to declar_e that the request is �'or a rezoning of a nar�ow strip adjacent to a large piece of ^ land which is alrea�� zoned R-3. The appearance on the map is s-trange. It may solve the correction of zoning in another part of the City where a sraall strip was zoned in a cate�ory different from the basic tract. One of the reasons is the cor-rection of an e-rror in a previous rezoning and it is my opinion this i_s an example of it and not what a thinkin� bod� would do if it were zoned for the first time. Member P�lyhra stated I am in favor of the rezoning, but I would like to point out that whether we rezone or no-t, it urill not change the neighborhood, a,rid in view of that, I��ill �ake the follo�;ing motion. MOTIOId b.y NIyhra, seconded by Fricksor., triat the rezoning request, ZOA #67-07, by Rees, Thomson, Sc-ro��ins, Inc. for part of Lots 17 and 18, Auditor's Subdivision �f78 to rezone from R-1 �single famil�r dwellin�� to R-3 �general multiple famil�y dwelling� be �,pproved and sent on to the Council. Upon a voice vot°, Jensen abstaining because of conflict of interest, all voti,nb aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING, 8: 00 P.M. , REZONING RE�UFST ZOA �`67-04, S& S INVES�i'i�7ENT C0� REPRESEN'I'E� BY `�JILLIA�Z SrIAG1: Lots 1-6, Block l, Carlson's Su�nmit Mano-r Annex 2nd Addition. Rezone from R-1 to R-3-A• Kenneth Benson of A.rvid Carlson & Sons, Inc. stated ��e are the owners. Originall�r this property was zoned multiple through an error on the part of the original drawing and then rezoned R-l. This was carried through ^ registration proceduses, and we are now back, at this time, to request this be rezoned multiple, this being the best use for tY?e property. It was noticed that Arvid Carlson owns the land immediately to the South, immediately to the Ncrth and on the West side. Jack Velin, 5101 Horizon Drive: Are you going to build a three story building? I live on the corner, and the neighbor, who recertly purchased his lot is to the North. We have taken up a petition in the neighborhood. It is zoned for single family now and we were assured when we bought, that it would be single family and we just can't see that it should be changed. Chairman Hughes read the petition stating there were 25 sign.atures. MOTION b� Ylinen, seconded b;� Myhr•a, that the Planning Commission reEeive the petition of the people opposed to the rezoning ZOA n67-07. Upon a voice vote, all voting a.ye, the motion carried. Helen Truenfels, 52q.8 Horizon Drive: In our neighborhood the pecple who received the letter were spctted every�ahere. How do you pick them out? Phyllis Brozak, 5110 3rd Street N.E.: Wh,y don't the�r clean up their oproperty? � Another neighbor said that ano+Yier 24 unzts and there will be anoth�r 24 automobiles. A youn� �ro�_�p lives �n apartments for �h� mos+, part but trey ' are thotightless. They do not take an active ir�terest in the neighborhood and are not concerned with it. Plannin� Commission Meetin� - June 8, 1967 ._i Page 7 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, tYiat the Public I-Iearing be closed for ZOA �67-04, S& S Investment Company, Represent�d by � William Shaw, Lots 1 thru 6, Block l, Carlson�s Summit Manor Annex 2nd Addit'on, rezoning fron R-1 to R-�3-A. � � _ , �� G� �> G�.,z : o� -e�,�2r., -� - Member Er_ickso� sta�ed that we a e�with property abutting University Avenue that has R-3 use on each side of it, and for that reason, he would like.to s�tud� the rezoning reyuest further. � The explanation given that evening �ras, up until 1.963, the R-2 in our zonin� ordinance was called limited mul�iple dwelling and the only difference between R-2 and R-3 was ttlat for each unit over 4, 1500 square feet were required�for R-2, and 1,000 square feet for R-3. In 1g64 the Counci:,_ changed it. That is wh,y there are R-2 zones u�ith mu].tiples. R-3-A is a new cate�ory in the last four year_ s an.d that; has the saine area r•2quirements as R-2 . MOTION by Erickson, seconded b� �ensen, that the decision oi the Planning Commission for the rezoning ?oa �67-04, S& S Investment Compan�r, represented by William Shaw for Lots 1 thru 6, Block l, Carlson's Summit Mano`r 2nd Addition from R-1 to R=3A be postponed until June 22, 1967. Upon a voice vote, two voting aye, two voting n_a,y, the Chairman voting aye, the motion carried. 4. PUBLIC I��ING, 9:00 P.I�Z.: REZOVING REQUEST, ZOA �67-06, 4JYMAN SMITH REPRESEN'1'ING MARIAN HILLS DEVELOPT�N1 CO.: Lots 1-11, Block 2 and Lcts 1-6, Block l, Marian Hills 2nd Addition. Rezone from R-1 to R-3 and Special Use Peruiit . W�rman Smith explained the purpose of rezoning sa,ying, basically the proposal is that the lots be rezoned for apartments and then across the street, which would be to the North side of 52nd Avenue and sort of into the hill, Special Use Permit, possibly d_oubles, maybe something less concentrateci. The reason is this land was developed quite early in Fridle..y's history. It had a grid plat called Horizon Heights, and then Marian Hills Subdivisicns were sort of a replat of the undeveloped part. It was slow in developing, but developed very well. But this one street in the lower part has not hacl bu�ers and there has been a variet� of builders and none have seemed interested in it. Apartment houses were built along 52nd Avenue between the We�t edge of Marian Hills 2nd Addition towards Central Avenue and Robert Hall. The covenants that were originally put on Plat 1 and 2 had ten years duxation. Now that the ten years have run out and the developer has reached a point where the cost is substantial, assessments and taxes and it becomes almost an economic requirement that some use be made of the land to get the money out. Mos+ of the dwellings are on the hign level so that they would be above the apartment houses. The Development Company is not in the building business. There have been some possibility of sales if it were rezoned. Chairman Hughes read trie letter from Columbia Heights stating Frank Clayton would be present and he was called� on. Mr. Clayton said it is inte��esting to sit on this side of the table and listen to�the hear�_ngs. There have been storm drainage problems between /, � Columbia Hei�hts and ��Za-rian Hi11s. Part of the pond �ras in Colur�bia Heighis and he doesn't see hc��r this p-roperty could �tev�lop until this pond is taken . care of. As stated, developin� i�Iathaire as soon as the pondin.g problem rras eliminated, began. Four houses were built this sprin� from �25,000 p�,s'� $40,000. I live �ehind apartments that a1..ready existed and -there is not any problem because I have a deep lot and the apartments have deep lats. Plannin� Commi.ssion Meeting - June 8, 1967 Pa�e 8 ihe area here with apartmen�Ls in Fridley anr� in Columbia Heights is R-2. The area from Central Avenue to lotirer section of Polk Place is double � bungalow. And pasi. that part, it is al1 zone R-1, restrictive residential. This area has developed as Marian Hills. I think, on behalf of Columbia Heights, what you people do does af'fect us and what Columbia Heights has done, affects you. I think it would be very bad to rezone this to anyt�.ing but R-l. There was a problem and the ar_ea couldn't develop until the pond. was drained. On behalf of Colu�bia Hei�hts, we hope �ou would not consider rezoning R-1, as now it would be detrimen�tal to property o�rners in Mathaire and Innsbruck. I an speaking� ori behalf of ous Planning Commission. Member Jensen would like to verif� that the petitioners are the owners of the lots included in the petition re�ues�t. There is a single family home relativel,y new, constructed on Lot l, Bl.ock 2, Marian Hills 2nd Addition included in the petition. Also Lot 11 is pr�sently used as a driveway entrance to the apartment buildings to the wes�l;. I wond.er if you are the owners of that lot. Mr. Smith said there was a lot sold to the apartment building. I talYed. with the Cit,y assessor's office. The� must no-t have filed a deed. We did sell a lot to the apart�?ent house people for the driveuray. Mr. S.T. Frokopowicz, 1350 52nd Avenue: Fresente� a petition objecting to the rezoning ZOA #67-06. MOTION b�r Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Plantiing Commission receive the petition objectir!g to the rezoning of Lots 2 to 11, Block 2, � Marian Hills 2nd Addition and Lots 1 to 6, Block 1, Marian Hills 2nd Additiori . zoA �67-06. Mr. Prokopowicz referred to the statement of the burden of the assess- ments for the developer, a,nd said I am the one that bought the lot that was in error. I found myself pa,ying for the assessments, not the developer. 52nd Avenue Speed trlay: There were several occasions we had to contact the police department and if you pai.d a visit durin.g �rinter months, you woulct be convinced it is a tra,ffic hazard. The apartment houses are bel�w the crest and the street just is not wide enough. There may have been a variance and special use peru�it because I don't believe these apartmen+s are set back far enough to give adequate traffic conveyance from the area. The cul de sac is where the speedster begins to make �he hill anc� go right by my house. The area has selected lots. You are speaking of detriments and just opposite the lots in Columbia Heights, they are beirg developed. These lots that are adjacent to Columbia Heights could be developed as they are being developed in Columbia. Heights. What I hate to see is that if you are �on�emplating rezoning i�, this will discouraoe the neighborhood. Had I lrnown, I never would have bought. � I don't think the residents should be penalized because of a poor investment of.the developer. We have a very first call on consideration because we ��ere there first as builders. It is not impossible to develop ^ � the land as resid�n�ial, but it will cost money out the developer should have b2en awarz of this - and cauld charge more for the choice lots. I hat� to see the area spoiled. . Planning Commission Meeting - June 8, 1967 page 9 Donald Delich, 5284 Taylor S�. N.E.: We cannot use the apartment . , for a buffer because of a natural buffer -- the hill. We have paid for the storm sewer. We have all paid for our own assessments so the Marian Hills ^ Development has not had to pa� this. This is still a desirable area. Apartments or multiples will not make it desirable. The police will enforce parking on one side, because 52nd Street is narrow and during winter, it is inaccessible. This is one of the last areas that are plowed open. This is an early part of the City that has been developed. In the last 10 years the houses were built and our home in the last 4 years. Undesirable tenants: Tenants in apartment houses have no interest in the couimunity or property. The secretary for North Park School said that school is full. The schools are full and chilcLren are being bused to other schools. Apartments will not help the situation at all. It was said that all apartments were at high level, but those on Taylor Street are not. The street is only 50 feet wide and should be 60 feet. Wally Strand, 1145 Po1k Place: New homes are pres.ently bei.ng built right in back of the present apartments, and there seems to"be no reason why single family homes could not be developed and make a terrific residential area. Apartments would be detrimental to the entire area, especially Columbia Heights where it backs up to Fridley. I own Lots 13, 14, and 15, and another person is building on Lot 12 at the present time. If it is rezoned for apartments, it will affect all the homes now being built. All the lots on Polk Place look doum onto the area. �,.� Wyman Smith: It is sort of overwhelming - the opposition to this rezoning request, but I would like to straighten ou± one thing regarding economics. Prices are up on everything and there is no question but what ""you have substantial houses that can carry it. There has been no pushin.g of these buildings. So it was presented to me and I agreed to make the petitior and propose it, and whatever you do with it, and I assume that, with the overwhelming feeling, you are going to deny the request, but I just want to point out that in the development of a plat, we put a covenant iri for ten years. You have to think in terms that the development of the land is a business and that is what this has been. Certainly, back in my own mind, I realize there would be an increase in population growth we are going to have and there is a lot more multiple dwellings than we thought of years ago. Maybe this is not the appropriate yard stick. Mrs. Richard J. Sherry, 5220 Buchanan St.: Have you turned down anyone who was interested in a lot for a single family residence? Francis Hunter, 5200 Buchanan St.: I haven't really seen any real change in developing the axea, but now, after the pond has been drained, you would not want to go another ten years now that the land is usable. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the public hearin.g be closed on,the rezoning request, ZOA #67-06, Wyman Smith representing Marian H�lls Development Company of Lots 1- 11, Block 2 and Lots 1- 6, Block 1, Marian � Hills 2nd Addition to be rezoned from R-1 to R-3 and Special Use Permit. � Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes commented: It strikes me as being an area which is admirably suited to single family residential purposes as opposed to multiple. We have a situation, as far as zoning, which is quite appropriate as it stands at the present time, but the la� of the land, the slo�e of the hill, � serves as a buffer in it5elf. Planning Commission Meeting - June 8, 1967 Pa e 10 The zoning along the hig�hway, which is commercial and back from the highcray, ' which is multiple tend to serve somewhat as buffer. There is a slope downward we'st of Taylor which tends to make the apartment buildings to the � west less obtrusive as they might be. Lots 11 and 12 serves as buffer or open space. The lay of the land, as well as serving as a buffer, seems to me to provide a defiriite asset in terms of imaginative construction of buildings. As far as I can see, the need for buffer in the north-south direction between the existing development, Marian Hills, and the development that is underway in Columbia Heights is non-existant. The uses are similar on both sides of the area and it would be legal, in m�r view, to continue this type of zoning. I have seen a-reas in other cities which have been developed very adequately as superior residential property. My feeling is that this particular request is not appropriate for the area in question and should be denied. Member Erickson said he concurred with the remarks and, frankly, could see nothing but problems �rith R-3. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra,.that the Planning Commission concur with the remarks of Chairman Hughes and recommend denial.of the rezoning request, ZOA �67-06, W3rman Smith representing Marian Hills Development Company of Lots 1- 11, Block 2 and Lots 1- 6, Block l, Marian Hills 2nd Addition to rezone from R-1 to R-3 and Special Use Permit. Upon a voice vote, all votin.g a,ye, the motion carried unanimously. Wjrman Smith said they would waive the rezonin� request before the Council. 5. II�lMY H. RIIDEL ESTATE: RE SPLITTING SPECIAL ASSESSMEN'I'S: To split off the /"1 land purchased by Dr. Trezona, approximately 1.37 acre tract. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive the letter from Donald H. Lamm, dated June 2, 1967 referring to an approval for a lot split, and refer the request to the Plats and Subdivisicns - Streets and Utilities Subcommittee and request that the adminisi;ration get in touch with Mr. Lamm requestin.g that he provide a copy of the metes and bounds description of the Trezona tract for consideration at the Subcommittee meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. F'U'i'URE LOCATION OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GAR�GE: Councilman Harris entered at 10:15 P.M. He said he had just come from a meeting rega.rding the back half of the proposed Ice Arena property with the Minnesota Transfer people. We are trying to work out a concession type of thing with the acquisition of the land. Final determination will be made by the Planning Commission and the Council. The County indicated that they would not sell five acres, but would sell ten acres. The County said, inasmuch as they are acquiring land for an Ice Asena and park area, they thought the property of the Public Works should be buffered in such a manner as to be as inconspicuous as possible. They suggested putting the garage in the far end of it. Councilman Harris assured them we will provide adequate "buffer, submit our plans and specs to them. The Planning Commission thou�ht it would be wise for the County to inspect the filtration plant as an exarriple of what might be done. They would have a blank wall facing them. We can � . provide a ce-rtain setback to plo�� the snow, also there F�ould be 9 or 10 acres as buffer. � Councilman Harris said he would be meeting again on Monday. Planning Commissi.on Meeting - June 8, 1967 Page 11 � '. The Planning Commission discussed the location of the Public Works and garage with Councilman Harris and came to no conclusion. � � ADJOURNMEIV�l' : MOlION by Myhra, seconded by Frickson, that the Planning Commission meeting adjourn at 10:45 P.Mo Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. - Respectfully subm' ed, /j` � �� G�C._%''� ��,:.�� Haze� 0' Brian Recordin.g Secretary Plannin.g Commission � � � _ . -3'G.+ PLANNING COMMISSIOAT MEETING - JUNE 15, I967 ROLL CALL• The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M, by Chairman Hughes. Members present: Erickson, Jensen, Myhra, Ylinen, Hughes Others present: City Manager Wagner, City Attorney Herrick PROPOSED ZONING CODE: Section 1.1 - Purpose, and Section 1.2 were read by the Chairman, and each item was reviewed by the Commission and the City Attorney. The City Manager suggested that because of the tenuous nature of zoning maps, the Ordinance contain an appendix describing each zoning category of the City as legally described. The following was suggested for describing zoning categories: Everything that is not zoned C-1, C-1S, CR-1, G 2, etc. is R-1. It was noted there are areas in Fridley where a lot is split by a zoning line. It was suggested that, in the near future, the Engineer- ing Department put on its schedule to draw the legal description for each type of zoning. Section 45.02, that part referring to the protection of recrea- tional lands and waterways should be included, but as it is written now, is much too wordy. The City Attorney was going to rewrite that section. At 7:55 P.M. the Council members entered to discuss the Ice Arena and possible purchase of land for the Public Works and Garage with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned until 9:55 P.M. ' Section 2. - Definitions. Items from l through 25 were studied. The Coaunission wishes the Proposed Zoning Code to be put on the Agenda of June 22, 1967. ADJOURNMENT • The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. by Chairman Hughes. Respectfully submitted, � ,��' . ✓' �' L/ ;;�u.�w Ha.ze3. 0'B,rian Recarding Secretary � 1. BUILDING STANDARDS - DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JUNE 6 1967 The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Erickson at 7;38 P..M. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Erickson, Hauge, Dittes, Tonco, Biermann MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Building Inspector CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARMCO STEEL NORTHEAST. PARTS OF LOT 1, AUDITOR�S SUBDIVISION AND TANK SERVICE 4775 - 3RD STREET NORTHEAST: LDING, 7210 CENTRAL AVE 9, OWNER, DE TERMAN WE7, Mr. Determan was present at the meeting. A plot plan was submitted, along with a foundation plan and elevations of the building. MOTION by Dittes to approve plans subject to submittal of a revised plot to the building inspector per the sketch submitted this date to this committee. Seconded by Tonco. - The applicant was shown a copy of the NSSSD charges. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTIOT? OF SIX - 12 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON LOTS 3 AND 4, HAYES RIVER LOTS ADDITION (5911 - 21 - 31 - 41 51 61 ANNA AVENUE NORTHEAST). REQUEST BY JAMES NEI,SON COMPANY, 7601 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, MINNEAPOLIS ^ MINNESOTA. 3. � James Nelson and Bob Minder were present representing the builders and owners. Several alternates for parking lot and garages were submitted. No plans were submitted for the garages. The roaf construction would match that of the apartment building. Garbage and trash would be picked up daily. No incinerators. MOTION by Tonco to recommend approval of proposed apartment complex with parking lot alternate ��1, subject to the approval of the Board of Appeals with respect to setback of garages, also sub•ject to dedication of Anna Avenue to south property line, and subject to receipt of garage plans and screening in of rubbish disposal areas. Seconded by Hauge. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR A MOVING PERMIT TO FROID'S ADDITION (401 IRONTON STREET NORTHEAST) FROID. 445 IRONTON STREET NORTHEAST• A HOUSE ONTO LOT 1 BLOCK 1 UEST BY MR. AND MRS_ �Fnur_F Mr. Froid was present at the meeting, A fu11 basement would be put in. The house would be rewired. The house would have to be brought up to code in wiring, plumbing, etc. MOTION by Bierman to defer this item until the next regular meeting so that all Board members can see the building and lot. Seconded by Tonco. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. �a� BUILDING STANDARDS - DESIGN CONTROL, JUNE 6, 1967 PAGE 2 � 4. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAUi2.ANT ON LOT 6 BLOCK 2 COI�IERCE PARK (7362 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NORTH�AST) REQUEST BY WILLIAM SHAW REPRESENTING CROjdN REALTY AND TACO TOWN OF AMERICA: This item was tabled until the next meeting because of inadequate plot plan. 5. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE BUILDING ON LOTS 16 17 AND 18 BLOCK 4, HYDE PARK ADDITION REQUEST BY M& I AUTO PARTS COMPANY, 6005 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NORTHEAST: Owners, Isadore Goldstein and Ma.x Goldstein, were present. Sonny Miller of Sonny Miller Construction Company and Quentin Benson were present. The construction will consist of rebuilding the existing structure destroyed by the tornado. The building will be used only as an auto parts store. No garage repairing and servicing will be done. Downspouts will be installed instead of open scuppers. The discussion centered around plain exterior of front wall. MOTION by Hauge to recommend appraval of this building subject to some architectual treatment of the front wall with respect to a sign or fascia, subject to approval of this board prior to occup�ncy certificate being issued, also subject to blacktopping around front of building and on north side to property line, also that downspouts wi11 be installed in lieu of open scuppers, paint coat on outside ^ being of sufficient thickness to cover block and front permastone like treatment. Seconded by Tonco. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 6. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ON TRUSS USE ON 24" O.C: Elmer Ledger of Stewart Lumber Company was present. No action was taken. AD JOURNMENT : The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Erickson at 10:39 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carrol Hauge Acting Secretary to the Subcommittee � � /'1 � CITY OF FRIDLEY' MINNESOTA PLADINING AND ZONING FQRM Number ?_ c ; � �( I - c� � APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE��=r��r�-�. � _.��_%� ��`' f-'>✓ Address 1_� _,%, i,r1�: �� ..;�...� ��' � 7 - - �rt TYPE OF REQiJEST • �lRezoning Telephone Number i'_S!' / 7/._ /: ��-� �! j�: �/ , <-. �r� v � t� � � L s:=>;�� r-��,; �_� YROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE~i�'^'n'"`"�"�� h' y� ��`� � Er,J� �, �-@-�� -�.z, Address .:.� -�. i� �.�, -n. _..��rc- .�,-*-- Telephone Number � � % .._- � L�� { ...._, �`Special Use Permit Variance Lot Splits _________Approval of Pre- Iiminary Plat i Approval of Final l:` �� Plat _,__i_,_,Streets or ,Alley.--.., Vacations Street Location of Pro ert �;�� .- '� � � �-�' p y - / ,., --- /��` � _ r,egal Description of Property ,�%_: � . t-;_,,�/ ? </ , Other Present 2oning Classification � / � . Existing Use of the Property _?/„ 1_,,. __ , � f j� �.--__ Proposed Zoning Classification, Special Use, Variance or other request '� �a - . _ . Deacribe briefly the Type of Use and the Impro ement Proposed_1 �� /"_f.:� 7 C ./TJ.'±•.. / � � .� � d f' / i � � _._ �/. , .T _ I ✓ /� i � Acreage of Property .:� %% - , = f �� ,'�� , (� ��, :�'�� ✓ Hae the Present Applicant Previously Sought to Rezone, PZat, Obtain a Lot Split, Obtaia a�Variance or Special Use �ermit on the Subject Site or Part of It? -- ,i� _ When? , What was Requested � Fee Enclosed $ • Date Filtd Date of Hearin� �� ^ CITY OF FRIDLEY PETITIOV COVER SHEET . Petition No. _ 23-1967 Date Received June 15. 1967 Object _ Opposed to rezonin� from sinQle family residences to _ apar trnent buildings. (Carlson's Summit Manor South Addition) petition Checked By Percent Signing Referred to City Council Disposition Date a �� - v �-i [v- ! � � lr'le, the undersigned, ar.e opposed to the rezoning of�this area . from sin�le family residences to apartment buildings. Our homes were built here because the ar�a ti�ras properly zoned for private homes, and ti�re feel it .�rould be unfair to us to change it no�v, as it �r�ould advers�ly affect the value and liveability of our homes. Na� e G� , . � �� ,� i��.�.�� ,,, �,��--�--- � �G�u��c-� .�/,��'-rUcu�-� ��?� � � �i'�-�� , . -� �� %��-� �� ' � ,��-� � � ,:y��.�� '�•,�.�>�� r�r.�.�-� �� ' 1''�'� � �� ✓ � . � '� � P �� ',. :.� _� �.Q-v �_ -J �i�.N.�1� - � � �2�1� ��'-�.� � ,��►�� /�j. �-� � � i�ti �� v , � I C� ; " (n��- ��-�-�i'� . � ,�r,� !. , , ;, . � ��, f,,��,, � t:� �� .�� , Address V�� 'r ,'�( f'�-�i �..-�, �.it . � � .�(' ,�2� � �yQ - � so�� "L%�Y _ .�v��- �—O yc/ — �! J G'� - ��.�.�� 1� ��-�P, s�� . � . `3 �, .�Cl�' ' �L : �' , � �� .�- ��- � - � � :� �� , 5 /; 1 /�lo�� ', i''� � � , � ��v �S� �,:� � �i � _ ��,.� �. � � ? ��. j,� - . � 5Zu� .�'/ d � c,�/� 5�� — � � �� //.S � � �� `� o ti Z �.., � y .. � O�>�/ 'v�'vf�J�� `�2'� z.�. .. -� ` �---� `,`�u-� �� '�l'o - � ��%' S �; it; ,t,� � � � ,; � s��`� ;�.�.��_�:- � -- �� =1�c J �. � � �, v�� *F- 6 � --•�j / . �-"--c . .�/ ,��, / �.� ��_7� i . • • . �`f , ° , +/ �� ^ �`Je, the undersigned, are opposed to the rezoning of this area ° �rom single family residences to.apartment buildings. Our homes rrere built� here because the area ��ras properly zoned for private homes, and vre feel it µrould be unfai.r to us to noc=r change it, as it tivould adversely affecz the value and liveabil.ity of our ho�es. , . tdam e � p �' ZZ'7�-Lr-c� � �--�—�C� �'� � ��t._ �, C/�'l�� _ ' 0? • �:'�ti� �� •'�-�'�f=t'l.� �(l �`� � � s / /,/=' (,,. f G- l� �/�/�� %� L';'..-.�-,:.� � �r �' , , `' L�Z , _ �,. �� /�-i-�� ,�� -, �� %J . � , f�-� .�.:.. .,. _�� , n � 0 Address ��'v S� � ��% -�� . i `S G �lG - ��. -� ,C� ' � C.- -- S^c i � �,�� -�. � �`, � / ' ��.._.y-C: ,�',�,��, • � � ��L'-� �j ' � �,•j�' /�i�C� tl '! � C�. ✓✓ ; 5^G �5� -''��1'.`�'` � - r � ' �• _ � �q .: 4: .'`t� �G�� El � t� ��i o� ZOA ��67-04 ' J� �� S& S INVESTMENT C0. � O� BY William Shaw � Rezone from R-1 to R-3 � (general multiple family dwelli� ♦ . � � J � � N, ,4 ,. � AC10.'COR/1£R � � fr� � ;� rM :� �: ? � S£C. 6 � • : .' ,.M :,a ^ :' :;:� , I a,., _ " � �, r n � - �?:�. ' � ''v .ie •4.'� � 2�,`r��.. �».i'i� _ J�4= : ��i5 /� :s I ,�(Jy�+ 3i :t: I �. �r-i' � �'._- ,�v :�� '�S, ° � ... � • � ..... � � M.. c j • �� .�,o s� � � ,��f ,,.,�j �- � ...-- -'-� �. J � ��.f+� :i ��}� �L � �� S k� r'' �' cJ i� � �.�� '"i�i LfJ k;t� `, ,ru u � `<< � �, � .�" .• � ;� � p,'�", 3 ' - y -`� � _�_ iN.• ..s 1��,'�• w , j rf �''+: �.� �.�-. ::. :•n.«�:• �+u" 1 ��: � a� � T�al�+� �;,wn. 'r' ` -a t .�`. ,� i � ��N.rt'r � ; -.�2;;3I � � ��, s " ii t�' )T � l,I ( f! ' _\ W/�J/J�"L ^ !!�` • r�.n � ssi.- � nni.�i��.ir�� :f !.. ...777��,,,� � /i `�� 1�r 3 t�w:• J ' ir�.s : A >. 4 i N �4.a • IZ .` VMi� r�"�� "'��w4 F '' N�.n �. �f Y : � � O � n i u 'a i�d- ;�`°� +�. �.a�:r'� : /! � 4� ; Z � /! 2 �it `', �- ! + � .e ' L's , �y iy �� /_! � �� i \4'.� � j ^ � �; ;. i ir't � �-t`h�••w ?2 / 1 ` il !1. i ` w1 �•..l :+ I. . I. � t � 1 � I. ti . �� ,� ��, � =N __� � � ;+ � ' � 1 i ' \ � �. .. � .� . Q 4 ts : Z� �I._- �� , � � � � �� }�- �j �.,� � ; -� �_= I .�� . �� ._. -; _ j�' ; �� ti � � CII � �-- - - -� I. . -�v�: t. �1 � �• � AVE. ---� , � `__ �- , cn _ F _.. I� � –/e L - ro — __. �. ' IP // �Ii // f n is N iz , w �. _ — i7 : is � ii _!! _ '� i: is � n ;r I r :� 2 !;� x,. t .c l " �— .� _�) J�f s _.._' ' : � � I �Jt � ' �•/� � _r0 _ _ {{{{{{ i:9 P S 1! I__ �: � 1/ J :/ ! �_ _ i� 17 < 11— =f � i I << : 1� -, . . �} v t `r j�. !� I zi / �i —_� + iZ. � It 9 ' l' — J.. �. f� � [' /e 1_ __ ' �� i� �, „- __ -- .� �� .I /! /1 _ ii_. • � . I��I , ' . // /! . _ � /f H ' � ��, � K � � -� 3..-' _. . � /L l h // j L�.��%•J e� ` ' I � �07N. .�.� . I }: � -r.r- j ��:� �' x�. �I . G;; Y o; r• r:��EY ' FOR YOUR AGENDA Q4�1 U"71V_ �StTY..4E. N.E . Y \ � �,.. � � i � � � � JUN � 0 �°67 . �� PM �i�.�. -�li��i4�5i6 ! June 20, 1967 b:r. R. J. I:�a.ghes, �cting Ch_air�an Planzn in� Cor�,mis si on City oi" rridley 6l�31 University Avenue N. E, �i�inneapol�s, r�innesota 55J�2�. Re; Rezoning the area on Third Street N. �„ near 51st I�ar 3��"r. Hu�es and Con:r,�i.ssion �i::er�l�ers : •i:�nbers of o�ar comzr:ittee �vish to go on record ux�in� you and yaur co_7r,�nitte� to request the City C�ancil to reject tre �xroposal to rezone iror i�� to R3 the area or. Third Street near 51st for the f oll�r.�.ng ^ reaso:zs : 1. Residents vrho have bui?t their homes on Third Stree� �er� assured the area rrould not be rezoned. 2. 4de oppese, generally� spot rezoning. 3. '�'ie feel strongly tna-t the traffic probl.am is severe nowS Speed is not controlled on Third Street, nor in the alley- �ray beh:ind present apzxtmerits. Also, there is genErally rare than one car per a�rt- ment and often they are left standing in the fiel.d. a�e are definitely in favor af enpty property on both sides of Third Street bein� develop�d but not tivith mar�e t}relve unit apart�nts: Ver�,� truly yours, Su�.t I:?�.rior Cor„mittee Edward Fitzpatrick, Cha,irman � i�� , ��'c.� , �.��E� /�/. � �i , Secs+eta. � � �. u