PL 12/14/1967 - 7247A G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1967 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL•
Pages
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 30, 1967 1-12
RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES MINUTES:
DECEMBER 7, 1967 13-16
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: NOVEMBER
28, 1967 . ll-18
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: NOVEMBER 29, 1967 19-20
ORDER OF AGENDA:
� 1. PUBLIC MEETING: RESIDENTS ON JOHNSON'S RIVER LANE
INTERSECTION PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI STREET & EAST RIVER ROAD,
BOB'S PRODUCE RANCH: 21-23
See Page 14, Item ��2 - Plats & Subs.-Streets & Util. Minutes �
2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��67-01, MYLO PARKS, PARCELS 2000, 2010,
2020: Auditor's Subdivision ��10 Revised (Owner Herwal, Inc. --
George Walquist). 24-30
See Page 15, Item ��3 - Plats & Sub.-Str. & Util. Minutes
3. DISCUSSION OF AREA BETWEEN 57TH AVENUE AND 61ST AVED'UE:
UNIVERSITY AVENUE TO MAIN STREET:
4. PROPOSED ZONING CODE: - `
` f� !�
�^ +f� 1
� � J ��
_ �y ��� �N--� �
^ . � �!
^
_ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 30, 1967
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hughes at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Ylinen, Erickson
Others Present: Engineering Assistant Clark
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: OCTOBER 26, 1967:
PAGE 1
MOTION by Erickson,,seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission Minutes
of October 26, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 9, 1967:
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission Minutes
of November 9, 1967 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: NOV�ER 1, 1967:
n MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Board of Appeals dated November l, 1967. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE NfINUTES: NOVII�ER 2 1967
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of_the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting
of November 2, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STA1�tDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: NOVIIrIBER 7 1967:
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Building Standaxds-Design Control dated November 7, 1967.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: NOVEMBER 8, 1967:
� Member Ylinen, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, gave a short resume of a
"request for variance by waiver of requirements or provisions relating to the
constxuction of a one family dwelling on the SZ of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5,
Block 14, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, which property is actually
a portion of land described in legal description on which Permit ��4746 issued
to construct a 3 family structure at 5370 5th Street N.E.". In this situation,
^ the original structure, a triplex, had the proper space requirement. At some
later date, a portion was sold to another party. A third party purchased a
piece of land as required by City Code as far as land space was required. There
are no requirements at the present time in the City Ordinance to prevent this.
This could be serious in the future as land becomes more scarce, and we ought
Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 2
^ to ask the City Council to consider it in order to prevent reoccurrence. The
Board of Appeals approved the construction af a single family dwelling on the
60 foot lot and they are already going ahead with the dwelling. Al1 assessments
are taken care of so that is no problem. Because the triplex was originally
sold without the necessary land area, the owner felt he should be able to sell
it in the same condition. Denying the variance would not remedy the situation
as the owner of the triplex cannot be made to comply with the code. If sold
to another party, this party could request a variance as an "innocent" party
and we would again be faced with the problem.
Chairman Hughes suggested this situation could be included in the Planning
Commission study of the Zoning Code.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Erickson, that the Board of Appeals Minutes
of November 8, 1967 be received by the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote,
all voting'�ye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 27 1967:
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive
the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of November 27, 1967. Upon a voice
vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Hughes stated the Planning Commission would be receiving the minutes
of the Parks & Recreation Commission fxom now on.
^ ORDER OF AGENDA•
Chairman Hughes asked for a show of hands of the people interested in the
public hearings scheduled for this mee�ing and it was decided to reverse the
order of the agenda, taking the last item first, etc.
1, PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-12) INNSBRUCK NORTH, ACRES, INC :
That part of SE4 of Section 24 that lies North of State Highway ��100 R/W.
Rezone from R-1 to P.D. (about 120 acxes).
The public hearing notice was read by Chairman Hughes, who then explained
the order of the hearing.
Mr. L. J. Mori.axty, attorney for Acres, Incorporated, said he thought it was
germane at this time to point out that the change of the zoning system from
residential to P.D, does not necessarily show exactly what will be built in
that area. If he understood the procedure correctly, that is the subject of
some later hearing and at this point, ask it to be changed from residential
to P.D. That is the basic change. If they wanted to build an apartment build-
ing, it could not be done until a fuxther hearing testifying exactly what can
be built in each place, and when that plan is made, that could not be deviated
unless there is a subsequent hearing.
Chairman Hughes informed Mr. Moriarty that P.D. not only permits multiple,
^ but it permits residential or commercial.
Mr. Moriarty asked if a discussion here tonight would be premature to pre-
senting or saying exactly what they are going to put in in Innsbruck North at
this time, and to get permission to do that is a subject for a later public
hearing. He was asked to show his proposed plan which he said was tentative
Pla.nxling Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 3
in nature. The terrain is irregular and there are several small ponds. The
^ apartment houses and town houses would be in the center; there would be a
neighborhood shopping center, which would be confined to the services for
the people in the area, located in the northeast corner. There would be a
nine hole golf course. It was estimated it would take some ten years for the
development of the whole project. Without specifying the sizes of the build-
ings, that is as far as they have gotten and in order to proceed, they have
asked for P.D. zoning of the area.
In answer to Member Myhra's question, Mr. Moriarty said there is some land
between Grace High School and the project. The land is, at the present time,
landlocked, but it will be worked out with New Brighton.
Mr. Billman said there would be 3 High rise apartn?ents. The proposed entrance�
of the development would be off Silver Lake Road. They are thinking pretty
much of minimizing access to the development, trying to make a private access.
Chairman Hughes elaborated on Planned Development. He said the category was
added to the City zoning code about a year ago for the purpose of allowing a
more tightly controlled development of large tracts of land. The addition of
this category was prompted by the number of situations occurring in which it
was apparent that a tract of land might properly be developed with some kind
of residential and commercial. Where our existing zoning codes would require
separate action on individual zonings of tracts, this would create hardship
to the person trying to develop the area. The other thing that prompted this
was the desire on the part of the City to maintain somewhat tighter control
^ than was possible under previous zoning code on the type of building and manner
of building in a large development so that this is the basis for the zoning
category. The first s�ep is to have the land rezoned to P.D. and in order to do
this, a public hearing is held before the Planning Commission and another before
the Council, which has the final decision. If Council concurs in rezoning to
P.D., an ordinance will be drawn stating the zoning change be made and shown on
the zoning map. At that time, the developer may proceed with the plan, but not
proceed with any building. The land is marked in the building inspector's
office that no permits are to be issued in the area only after the developer
has produced a plan for the entire area and brought that plan to the City.
There will be another hearing before the Planning Commission on the planning
and following that, it goes before the Council. So that this evening we are
here to discuss the desirability of the zoning. No specific plan has been
pre�ented. It is not incumbant on the part of the developer to develop any-
thing like this, but we cannot hold him to it.
The meeting was then open to the public.
Herman Bergman, 5503 Regis Trail: I would like to speak against it. One of
the reasons I moved out to Fridley was to get away from multiple dwellings.
To my knowledge, the area pxoposed to be rezoned was, in my opinian, residential
in 1955 and was purchased by Acres, Inc. to build single family residences. I
have a petition with 45 names tivho would like to see it stay single family resi-
dences. They are people who live in Parkview Oaks just West and people in Inns-
bruck to the South.
^ MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the petition presented by Herman
Bergman be received by the Planning Connnission.
Paul Riddle, 1225 Regis Lane: I speak against this change to P.D. I really
Planning Commisston Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 4
question the safety hazard of the heavy traffic coming into a very limited
^ access. Already there is traffic through the residential area, which has a
great number of children. It looks like high density type of population will
add to the automobile traffic. I wish to present a petition against this
rezoning which has 19 names from Lynde Drive.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission re-
ceive the petition presented by Paul Riddle.
Tony Gnerre, 1202 Hathaway Lane: I speak in opposition. Approximately
95% on Hathaway Lane oppose this zoning. The three brothers of Grace High
School also opposed this plan of rezoning. I wish to present a petition
opposing the rezoning.
MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive
the petition presented by Tony Gnerre opposing the rezoning.
George Bukovich, 1244'Regis Terrace: I speak against this, also. It
appears to me that there would be no definite advantage to the City at this
time not knowing what would go into the Planned Development. I wish to
present a petition of 33 names opposing the rezoning.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission receive
the petition presented by George Bukovich opposing the rezoning.
R. J. Reed, 1204 Regis Terrace: I, also, have a petition opposing the
^ rezoning of this area from R-1 to P.D. riy basic reason is I am recently a
new home owner and that I do appreciate the residential district.
/'1
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission receive
the petition presented by R. J. Reed opposing the rezoning.
Lowell C. Mellum, 5517 Regis Trail: My property is immediately adjacent
to the proposed planned developmento I, too, oppose rezoning. They want to
go from single to multiple family and want to put in under a different name.
I moved out here from the City at a great expense. One of the reasons was the
zoning of the area. There was no multiple family zoning in the area and I see
no reason for it now. I am presenting a petition against the rezoning from
single family to P.D.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive
the petition presented by Lowell C. Mellum opposing the rezoning request.
Chairman Hughes noted that some of the petitions were original copies and
some xerox copies, and that there was one duplication because of this. He
stated that it is the proper procedure to present the original copies of the
petitions and these are forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�nission receive
all six petitions opposing the rezoning of ZOA ��67-12, Innsbruck North, from
R-1 to P.D. upon receipt of the original copies. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, the motion carried unanimously, (The original copies were delivered
12/1/67 to �ngineering Office)o
Membex Ylinen stated the oxiginal copy would be most helpful if the names
and addresses of the person who circulated the petition were on the petition.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 5
Doyle D. Mullin, 1233 Hathaway Lane: I can see why they want it rezoned
^ to P.D. but why do they want to have that particular development as opposed
to residential development, I can see that in order to have this kind of
development, it must be rezoned, but what is not clear is why they want that
type. �
Mr. Moriarty: Simple economics of the pxoposition. We started in Inns-
bruck South in 1958. We do not have to apologize for it. It has done more
fox any section of the �ain City area and done more for the particular sectior
of our area, second only to the country club district in Edina. It has up-
graded this area. The answer to the question is economics. The cost of land,
plus taxes, is such that we cannot afford to put it into single family dwel-
lings and then sell it. The taxes are that high, that to put in sewer and
water and price lots, the price of lots would be so high that the single
individual could not buy it. This is not slighting anybody for I could not
buy it myself. The only other thing is to put the finest type of multiple
dwelling system into this and we believe it would increase the value of
your homes.
Mrs. Herman Bergman: I wonder if the terrain has changed since it was pur-
chased. It was originally zoned single family residential.
Mr. Moxiarty said the terrain had not changed except for erosion. He said
they were not going to develop apartments like the ones down on Hwy. 65.
i�tilliam D. Shontz, 5547 Regis Trail: I recently purchased property adja-
cent to the area with the idea in mind that I was in the area of Innsbruck
^ Noxth which would be at least single family dwellings. It is quite obvious
his plans for the entrance will increase the density to an unknown magnitude.
The streets which are indicated here, are open to Hathaway Lane. The land is
1,000 feet in elevation, almost the highest point in that area. The high rise
apartment plans would in no way add to the aesthetics of the area, nor would
the apartment houses add to this area.
Richard E. Hudrlik, 5502 Regis Trail: I do oppose the plan as population
density will be bottled up in one area.
Mrs. Henxy Wahlberg, 5659 Regis Trail: Does the City of Fridley need more
land for multiple dwellings? How much is undeveloped?
The City Engineer Qureshi answered that, basically, all the land which is
zoned for multiple dwelling has been used. There is a large tract available
northwest on East River Road where they are building a complex. There is no
large tract left in the City outside of this one.
Mrs. Donald Heyda, 1224 Regis Terrace: I do not understand why you have t�
build that type of buildings. Why not have residential like Innsbruck Sth?
Cherle Pedersen, 1030 Hathaway Lane: I moved out here for one reason and
that was to have a place for my children to play. Now we have a fulltime job
on Hathaway Laze. I don`t see it will profit anything by having more buildings.
It is a race track right now. We have had a terrific amount of traffic and
^ it has gotten to the point where you don't dare put the children into the
yard. It is taking away everything we moved out here for. - -
A citizen stated that he had been looking for a lot to build on next year,
but right now he does not know what is going to happen in this area. If this
project gets build, he asked what would be the ratio of the residents by
�1
Plannin� Co�nission Meeting - November 30, 1967 pa�e 6
family that would be occupying the area under this plan as compared to single
family dwellings?
Mr. Moriarty: Three to one. It is interesting to hear these comments.
If you were going out to buy a house, you could not get one for less than
$22,000 and the average young person today cannot make a payment on the
house. Why then is there opposition to a beautiful apartment building done
in the proper way without destraying the tree beauty of the area?
Ronald L. Morin, 5531 Regis Trail: I don't know a multiple dwelling that
has stayed as nice as when it was built. I really don't want that in my
back yard as they will not look the way they did when originally built.
George Bukovich, 1244 Regis Terrace: So far all I have heard is that this
will make a better deal for Acres, Inc. I have not heard how it wi11 be a
better plan fox a11 of Fridley.
Herman Bergman: Private access to the area -- you cannot build a private
access and tell everybody not to use it. There are large residential areas
bordering your property on both the west and south and a good share of that
will probably use your road. You have a nice residential development in
Innsbruck. I agree. I think it is a credit to the community of Fridley
and you ought to build another one.
Doyle Mullin: I hope the Gonunission will analyze this carefully. People
are taking fanta.stic prices for lots. I think people are paying too much
for them. I would like to point out that access to this area is a problem.
^ Duly considered, the traffic problem is not just one thxough the residential
area. All the traffic starting at Hwy. ��694 north to beyond Gardena funnels
down to one intersection and that is Hwy. ��65 and Central Avenue. Frankly,
I do not see how that intersection can stand more.
�
Lowell C. Mellum: You said single family homes were too expensive. Your
property borders on our property and we built there. I would object to a
town house on that short 130 foot lot in back of ine.
Paul Riddle: If the City plans to encourage permanent residents, you are
not encouraging permanent residents but encourage a transient kind of popu-
lation which may or may not stay here.
Another citizen said she objected to the P.D. because she had never seen
a town house ox apartment building that ever looked like a house. If the
land is zoned residential, it should stay that way.
Still another citizen said he has a house he would be willing to sell
today. The cars go 60 miles an hour across the street from the apartment
houses. People move in and move out. He would like to move because of the
apartment and now they are going to put more in.
Another citizen added that they were bound by apartment houses on the west
- and south. The proposal here would block them in effectively with apartment
houses on the east.
Paul Riddle: This does not affect Fridley in itself, but it affects the
area in which we live. The .population explosion of one to three -- it would
be putting a large burden on the people who live in Fridley and their educa-
tional system.
^
Planning Commission Meetin� - November 30, 1967 Page_7
Doyle Mullin: I rathex suspect the ultimate is to provide low cost
housing. If these multiple dwellings are going to be as nice as he said,
the cost will be quite high,
Herman Bergman: 3 to 1 ratio sounds horrible to me. I compliment Mr.
Moriarty in the courage he had in answering he was going to triple the
density of houses we have in the area. I checked the zoning before T
bought a lot. If it had not been R-1, I would not have bought. We paid gooe
prices on the basis we were in the midst of an R-1 area. Getting down to
basics, what Acres, Inc. is proposing is to change the zoning in which they
can make more money. The City Administration should not allow someone to
make a change which would be a financial loss to the adjacent neighbors.
If they can sell town houses, why cannot they sell R-1 homes?
Mrs. Richard Hudrlik, 5502 Regis Trail: I am appalled at the population
density of the area. How could this help the health, safety and welfare of
the city?
Lowell C. Mellum:
strictly economical,
As long as there is
their property.
If the reasons or justification for rezoning were
it would be for a relatively few people in Fridley.
a possibility, they are going to make more money off
Herman Bergman: Would you ask for comments from citizens in favor of the
rezoning? There were none.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission close
� the public hearing of the rezoning request ZOA ��67-12, Innsbruck North, Acres.
Inc. of that part of the SE� of Section 24 that lies Nor.th of State Highway
��100 right of way. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
^
The petitioners were asked if an unfavorable decision were made, would
they still want to go ahead with the petition, and would they be willing to
have part of the land built up with single family dwellings. Mr. Moriarty
answered that they understand there is a certain market for such lots, but
not a very big market. By virtue of the terrain and cost -- it cost them
$3,SOO per lot to bring in sewer and water all of which they were required
to pay within one year -- they had a terrible time with it and that is the
kind of cost they are talking about'and, in this case, it would be more
costly.
It was mentioned that the underlying objection was traffic, and the Com-
mission realized there would be problems connected with it, but they felt
they could be worked out. As far as the City was concerned, the City would
have somewhat more to say about the manner in which the area is laid out.
The people should bear in mind that Planned Development category was estab-
lished as a tool to accomplish a specific end.
Member Jensen commented: I think that we are all missing the point be-
cause of the sketch. I think this sketch was an error. The entire hearing
this evening was a review of this sketch. We started out by saying the
sketch was meaning less at this point and all felt they were actually going
to build this. We should throw this in the wastebasket and start over
thinking about P.D. and recognize that we still have a very comprehensive
control of the develapment even though the P.D. rezoning would be granted
Plannin� Commission Meetin� - November 30, 1967 Page ;
by the Planning Commission and Council. I think, from my own standpoint,
^ this property would be best developed with P.D, zoning even though it might
be entirely separate homes. Due to the extremely rugged terrain, the variet::
of types of ground in this area, it could be handled in a great many ways.
I can see a great many advantages of this property being zoned P.D. but I
am not commenting about this plan. I think we should keep on the track.
Chairman Hughes said the point was well taken and they should not be in-
fluenced by the showing of the plan. We should listen to the statements
made by the petitioner as it appears the plan which he will present later or..
will be strongly, if not entirely aimed at multiple dwellings. It should be
presented with a plan that wi11 be predominently single family dwelling. TYi�=
intention is predominently r.�ultiple dwelling uses. If we should proceed to
recommend in favor with t��' �aithout explaining our position, it would be ar
indication that the Commi:• �.1 ratified and approved the general plan. I
agree entirely that the �.: � i.oners are not committed to this drawing. The
following items should be :iied: 1. Bottleneck of traffic occurs at
Central Avenue and Hwy. r''���. May like to look further at the type of build-
ing in the area. 2. The c.:��tter of load on the school system. 3. It is
proper to consider what the question of possibility of the continuence of
this matter and have something in mind of the purpose of continuence.
Member Myhra stated he was opposed to the rezoning P.D. because he though_
it being used primarily as a rezoning. He felt the P.D. concept was a good
thing but this request did not seem logical.
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission
^ recommend to the City Council denial of the petition fox rezoning from R-1
to P.D. Development ZOA ��67-12, Innsbruck North, Acres, Inc, that part of
the SE4 of Section 24 that lies North of State Highway ��100 right of way.
Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The members agreed they had nothing against the P.D. Development request,
but if the petitioner would be coming in with a new type of platting with a
mixture of single family and multiple dwellings, they would be glad to work
with it.
The audience was told that a public hearing would be held before the Cit;r
Council on December 11, 1967 and that no further notices would be given.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-11) JAMES LUPIENT: Lots 18-20,
23, 24, SZ 7, 8, NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park Addition to rezone from
R-2 to R-3. �
The public hearing notice was read by Chairman Hughes.
Mr. Lupient asked that the record indicate that the property he owns and
is requesting a change in should be corrected.from "all of Lot 7" to read
"S Z of Lot 7".
Mro Lupient presented a map and plans to the Commission explaining he
^ planned to build two 7 unit apartments renting at about $140; two 4 unit
apartments renting for about $150. They would all be two bedrooms. It
was noted the four unit buildings would require a variance in ord�r to
build if the rezoning were granted, as the fourplexes would be on two lots.
Planning Commission Meetin� - November 30, 1967 Page 9
�ldon Schmedeke, 5900 University Avenue; Tahat is the zoning on that
/'1 area? (Answer, R-2). On an 80x120 area if a fourplex were built, where
is the parking? An apartment across from me has nine cars. If a variance
were pexTnitted here, there would be a r�umber of variances where there are
two vacant lots. There will be a lot of variances and we would have to go
along with them. If this happened, could I build a duplex on the corner
40 foot lot? We have to draw the line some place and I say we should go
strictly by the present code.
It was mentioned that the City has not issued pennits for 40 foot lots
in the last ten years. The present Code does not allow anyone to do so.
Mr. Schmedeke continued: If we are going to allow people to come in
and change zoning in an area for profit, and that they can come in within
a month's time to change it, that does not seem fair. It would be quite
a mistake as we have a really desirable commercial strip which will be
gobbled up by apartments, and we would have small homes set in between the
apartments. I cannot•see where this would benefit Fridley. If commercial
came in, there would be no small homes as they would be purchased by com-
mercial and the area would clear up. I know some of this has fallen on
deaf ears for some time. It is coming to a head putting pressure on you
fellows and those who have been here for awhile. If you studied this
area, do you think the homes would be worth much setting between these
apartments? I think before you pass on this rezoning, study it as commercial
area from 60th Avenue South -- 22 Street already has a buffer zone. They
cannot make money building three units, so they want to build four. A good
^ strip of commercial property is being thrown away -- we should give it con-
sideration. People who o�,m small homes have something to say about traffic
situation. I wish you would consider commercial before you go into this.
I have been there 20 years and probably understand the problem as well as
anyone here, so please consider it.
Myhra said to Mr. Schmedeke that if he were living down there, he might
very well sign Mr. Schmedeke's petition that he would not want an apartment
in there, but he wondered if he would want commercial. It was a complex
situation and he just �aondered when Mro Schmedeke was getting a petition,
if he discussed it with the people who signed. �
Lawrence A, Muggli, 5973 3rd Street: I have a small machine shop. I
always understood it was commercial and lately was told it was R-2. I am
in favor of commercial. I think the zoning is all illegal. Originally it
had been commercial but without proper notification, through the requests
of one or two parties who had single residences ten or twelve years ago,
the zoning was changed to R-2. I have a few words on that thing to come
up a little later under Item ��3 of the agenda. This is one and the same
problem. We have people come in and tell us they will benefit the axea,
they �vant to rezone it, put in units that will make them a lot of money.
We all know that to make money is the basic idea, but why should the resi-
dents, who have been there all the time, not have the same opportunity?
If they want to benefit the area, why not build a unit on that property
that complies with the present zoning. It does not set very well with the
/1 neighbors. Everyone has spoken abou� the parking problem, but the slight
parking problem �ae have had up to now, is nothing compared to what it will
be if we allow all these apartment buildings to go in. Traffic is the
primary consideration.
Marvin 0'Berg, 5947 22 Street: Apartments --we know they cause a great
Plannin� Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Page 1D
deal of trouble with police and everybody else. They do not build good
'^ apartments, but jusi: low grade ones. Double bungalows would have peo le
P
that would keep them up. At 60th it is quite nice. Down towards 59th, it
has horrible apartments. Houses would be about the same height and look nice.
Mrs. Frank Gabrelcik, 5723 3xd Street: If you took the whole strip from
60th to 57th and commercialized it, that would take the little houses and
they would upgrade Fridley.
Ruben Lauseng, 5948 22 Street: As far as commercial goes, I am not for
or against it. It would not do me a bit of good. We all like to make money.
Actually everybody is talking about making money. I own my own home and I
cannot make any money. 1'f they build triplex, that is not so bad, but if
they build 7, 8 or 10 units, this will still knock the bottom out of- our
place. On my block there is a fourplex on one side and four to seven units
and behind me all new homes. As soon as I bought, a new apartment came up,
but I do not care to have more apartments. A triplex is O.K., but I am not
in favor of a four, seven or eleven.
Mr. Muggli added, according to the present zone of R-2, two family or a
duplex are allowed, but with a rezoning can a triplex on 40 foot lots be
built? Are not these applications asking for a fourplex on two 40 foot lots?
He was informed that the applicants had an application before the Board of
Appeals to lift area requi.rements.
Mr. Lupient: I am no� a newcomer to the area. The area is being used
� for multiple and I did not feel �here would be a lot of objections because
there were so many apartments there.
rirs. John Peka, 5925 22 Street: When we first moved in, we were not �noti-
fied they were going to build apartments across the street. We have never
been notified about the fourplex on the corner. Our house is the little
yellow one in the middle and we will be penned in and there is nothing we can
do about it:
Chairman Hughes told Mrs. Peka if the apartments were built according to
the Uses allowed, she would not be notified. If it were necessary to be re-
zoned in order to build, then she should have been notified. It is highly
possible there was no irregularity.
Mr. John Peka: Putting apartments on each side of here -- I do not think
would be fair.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the public hearing of the
rezoning request (ZOA ��67-11) James Lupient, Lots 18-20, 23, 24, SZ 7, 8,
NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park Addition, be closed. Upon a voice vote, all
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Myhra said that Mr. Schmedeke mentioned we should make a study of this area.
He spent better than one half day down there. He thought all the remaxk.s
tend to bear out the fact that tha� area has many, many different aspects
^ from commercial to small single family dwellings. He, for one, did not feel
competent to make a decision on tohether this ought to be rezoned and how.
He thought that this may be the time tivhen the Planning Commission could use
some profcssional help, and he hesitated to use the word, but it is such a
mixed area, it is hard to say whether it ought to be this, or that, or leave
it as it is.
PlanningZCommission Meeting - November 30, 1967 1'age 11
Chairman Hughes added he shared Mr. Myhra's opinions. He has gone through
^ the area many different days (walked and drove) and he has always come away
feeling somewhat the same as Mr. Piyhra described. It is quite apparent that
area is improving itself. His feelings were he hated to take any action to
change single small parcels simply because it was noC clear what the area
itself should be. If it becomes clear later on, we would feel very badly
to rezone tracts that por�ion which should be commercial to residential.
If it appears later on that the area should be held in R-2, we would look
awfully dumb if we had made it all commercial. We have a situation that
does not show into what direction we should go.
Jensen added that the zoning in this area is wrong and that is about as
far as he cared to go. Exickson agreed he felt very much '-'�e same way and
was of the opinion the Planning Commission should have co�. .��1.
MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the Plannin;; �,oiYUnission
recommend to Council the denial of the rezoning request (ZOA ��67-11), James
Lupient, Lots 18-20, 2�, 24, SZ 7, 8, NZ 9, 11-13, Block 11, Hyde Park
Addition from R-2 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
Myhxa commented that when a person owns property, he has a perfect right
to request a zoning change fox rezoning and there is nothing wrong to make
a profit out of ito
Chairman Hughes said it is desirable we recommend denial rather than
^ table the rezoning request because it seems that likely that the solution
to the overall pxoblem is going to be on another project and that it would
be unfair to the petitioner to be left in doubt what the situation should be.
3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST ZOA ��67-10, HENRY LAPIDES: Lots
29 and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, rezone from R-2 to R-3A.
Chairman Hughes recalled that at the time the hearing was continued, we
had heard the public and a number of comments fxom the Petitioner and Com-
mission. Myhra commented that this was the original reason that the Com-
mission talked about studying the axea.
Mr. Lapides said in light of the fact that you might considex having the
area studied, he would like to malce one point in asking consideration on
this request. He did not feel that approving the request would greatly
change the aspect of the neighborhood. There are two fourplexes on 3rd
Street directly across from his lots, University Avenue to the east, and
on his side of the street, two lot:s down, is a fourplex. He was not abutting
any 40 foot lots and felt that in this instance, they were justified in
askz.�.zg for a rezoning.
Mr. Schmedeke felt that corner lot would make a nice slip off to Univer-
sity Avenue for commercial.
,/, Mr. Lauseng: Either le� it stand as it is or get the home owners and
let them get a petition. .
Mr. riuggli: I am all for anyone making money but not at the expense of
anyone else without anyone having anything to say.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 30, 1967 Pa�e 12
� MOTION by PZyhra, seconded by �rickson, that the continued public hearing
of the rezoning request (ZOA �r`67-10) Uy Iienry Lapides, of Lots 29 and 30,
Block 12, Hycle Park Addi�ion, to rezone from R-2 to R-3A be closed. Upon a
voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Myhra observed that talking in. terms of study, he found merit in what the
petitioner said, but he thought the point sti11 goes. LThat type of zoning it
ought to be, he didn't think the Planning Commission ought to assume anything
at this time. If a professional planner is to be asked, it seems i:his request
ought to be denied.
Chairman Hughes added that it seemed to him i:hat a11 the reasons given to
the previous petitioner for denying the application are applicable to this,
also. And an area which all the members seem to find themselves in agreement
on poor zoning, it seemed poor practice to him to change rezoning of a tract
in the area when they did nat know the direction the area will develop.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that in view of the aforementioned
reasons, that a motion be made that the Planning Commission recommend to the
Council denial of the rezoning request ZOA ��67-10, Henry Lapides, of Lots 29
and 30, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, to be rezoned from R-2 to R-3A. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Hughes aslced if it were desirable to make a motion requesting
permission to employ a planner for the purpose of studying this area.
^ Darrel Clark suggested mentioning some guide lines and how extensive a
study they would want so that an estimate could be made by a planner as to
what a study would cost.
Mr. Schmedeke said he �aould like someone besides Hodne for that area.
Myhra felt the Rice Creek Area study by Hodne had good results. It would
depend upon who is available and willing.
Chairman Hughes felt it would be desirable to have someone show up at the
next Planning Commission meeting to discuss study costs.
COMMUNICATION FROM CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, NOVEMB�R 17, 1967: Re: 10-17 unit
apartment buildings in area east of Washington Street and west of Sullivan
Lake on the south side of 53rd Avenue.
MOTION by �rickson, seconded by 1�lyhra, requesting the City Manager to
correspond with the Manager of Columbia Heights asking him (1) the entrance
on 53rd Avenue be kept to a minimum (2) xequest that they try to bring up
substantial screening of the side of the buildings facing 53rd Avenue to
provide the greatest possible protection to the single family residences
across the street in Fridley. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion
carried unanimously.
� ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Chairman Hughes adjourned the meeting at
11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Hazel 0'Brian
Recording Secretary
��
PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-
^ STREETS & UTILITZES SUBCOMMITTEE DEC�IBER 7, 1967 PAGE.1
ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at 7:35 P.M.
Members Present: Nagel, Myhra, Jensen, Albrecht, Schmedeke
Others Present: Engineering Assistant Darrel Clark
ORDER OF AGENDA•
There were no objections to the order of the agenda.
i. RICE CREEK ROAD/CENTRAL AVENUE STUDY: Opportunity for property owners to
present alternate plans.
The following property owners were present: Rev. D. M. Henderson, Wayne
Larson, Richard J. Schneider, Mr. and Mrs. Ed Bauler, Dorothy Miles, Ixene Skog,
Ida Mae Kassow, Mr. and Mrs. Theilmann, Richard Carlson and Leonard Cochran.
Chairman Jensen referred to the letters from Mr. Bauler and Mr. Morley
and to the plans turned in by Mr. Bauler and Mr. Theilmann. He said at the
meeting tonight they are going to try to study the alternate plans that the
people involved have to offer and hope that, possibly, would be able to come
to a conclusion, or perhaps table for further study.
� .
�
Mr. Bauler was the first one to explain his map. Chairman Jensen read
Mre Bauler's letter dated November 16, 1967, and a discussion ensued regarding
the drawing. The Subcommittee felt Mr. Bauler had made a good contribution.
Mr. Theilmann spoke next and discussed his map. He said that he felt
the same way Mr. Bauler did. The road should be put over between 0'Bannon
and Skog property. The road in the original plan would devaluate their
property because of division of land and he took the cul de sac out of the
back of Skog's property. Chairman Jensen commented that Mr. Theilmann
followed the original plan quite closely in many ways. He was asked if he
could see any reason why an east-west road brought through the middle of
his lot could not be �ncorporated into Mr. Theilmann's drawing to make use
of this property.
Chairman Jensen continued that the road plan we are talking about, and
have talked about over the past few months, is something that will be on this
land perhaps for a lot more years than we are. I would not like to see your
lot remain lacked in this size and shape forever.. You may want it this way
now, but when you go to sell, maybe the next person would too, but at some
point along the line someone would want to change it. Then the City would be
faced with an impossible situation. I would like to see a plan that would
eliminate this problem by giving flexibility to this property. Mr. Theilmann
said it is expensive living on the two ac:re tract. Some day �e might want to
split or consider the possibility of building an apartment house. Chairman
Jensen said he believed his plan is practical, The cul de sac in this plan,
also, presented a problem as the maximum length is 500 or 600 feet. He certainly
appreciated Mr. Theilmann's efforts in presenting an alternate plan and he
thought it was very worthwhile studying.
_ . ��
Plats & Subs.-Str.>& Uti1,�Subcommittee - December 7, 1967 Page 2
The next alternate plan was presented by_Rev. Henderson. He felt that
!"� . rather having the road along the back, it might come from the north and work
to the south. It would divide Mr. Morley's property, move over and come down
the middle. The alternate is something_of a similar nature, just moving the
road over. The church had not put it on record in a definite motion as yet.
The plan that he felt would fit the land best was left with the Engineering
Assistant to run off copies for the Subcommittee and return the original to
him.
Mrs. Skog was asked how she felt about the proposed road running down
along her East line, as both alternate proposals had the road there, one
stopping behing her house and going,across and the other continuing all the
way across the South line. Mrs. Skog said she would agree to the North-South
road, but would not agree to the East-West one.
Chairman Jensen said that one consideration that we have to make relative
to both plans of placing the road between Skog's and 0'Bannon�s is that the
planner's initial thinking was more or less of a continuous line out to Rice
Creek Road and is more or less abandoned. It would change the character of
this crossroad.
Mrs. Kassow wondered if they were going to put another road behind their
property. .
Chairman Jensen explained that the alternate roads with a road in that
location or in another location, would not really have any effect on this
� plan or for a long range plan. It would very possibly delay any sort of
development. The long range feature of the plan would not be affected at
all. We are trying to plan for years in the future. The fact that we still
could choose to put a road either in that location or another location,
would not have any bearing. It was also mentioned there was a very steep bank
there.
The Subcommittee decided to meet informally on January 4, 1968 to consider
the plans submitted this evening and develop a more or less comprehensive
plan combining the latest thinking and have something to show at the first
meeting in January. He recommended that those interested in reviewing the
results prior to that meeting could stop in the City Hall and see Darrel Clark
sometime after the first of January. Some sort of a sketch will be prepared
prior to that time.
'I'he January meeting will be on Thursday, January 18th, and the Subcom-
mittee hopes to come to a conclusion and make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. There would be no time schedule to the plan and it would be up
to the individual property owners to determine their own time schedule. One
of the things achieved is that there are very few instances where any indivi-
dual property owner will have to have a road forced on him.
2. INTERSECTION PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST RIVER ROAD BOB'S PRODUCE
RANCH: Referred by Planning Commission 11/9/67.
� Maps of the latest proposed plan were distributed and Robert Schroer and
the Subcommittee discussed all aspects. Darrel Clark said the only comment
he had to make, which does not alter the plan, is Council has seen this and
they are talking somewhat about moving the entire complex in a Westerly
direction towards the river.
�r
Plats &_Subs.-Str. & Util. Subcommittee - December 7, 1967 Pa e 3
^ The former plan had the service road running on the property, into the
' center of the property and change the entire layout within the property.
Mr. Schroer thought this plan was the better one. Chairman Jensen �oted it
did remove the commercial and heavy traffic from the front of the apartments.
He said the Gertzen shop is going to be changed into a Murphy Oil Service
Station eliminating the present structure.
3.
�
�
Member Schmedeke recommended that the property owners in Johnson's River-
lane Addition come in and give their future plans.
MOTiON by Nagel, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Plats and Subdivisions-
Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recommend to the Planning Commission the
plan submitted by Robert Schroer, being the same one presented to Council on
November 20, 1967, with the condition that (1) the two entrances to the
parking lot be moved further back from East River Road (2) a 12 foot egress
at the South end of the property be widened (3) that the property owners
in the Johnson River Lane Addition be notified of this proposed plan. Upon
a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The Engineering Department was asked to mail the notices to the property
owners on Johnson's River Lane before the Planning Commission meeting of
December 14, 1967. .
LOT SPLIT REQUEST: MYLO PARKS, L.S. ��67-01, PARCELS 2000, 2010, 2020,
AUDITOR'B SUBDIVISION �k10 REVISED:
Mr. George Walquist was present.
The Engineering Assistant reviewed the lot split request saying that
when this went to Council and was denied, they approved the back portion but
requested the two lots West be left as one parcel. One thing that should be
pointed out is that Mississippi Street will be widened and perhaps sidewalks
will be built,
Mro Walquist said the type of business they plan having is open the
year around, that they have adequate parking as far as the Code is concerned.
Chairman Jensen cautioned that it was outside the grounds of the purpose of
the Subcommittee to cansider anything except the lot split.
Mr. Walquist said the cost would be out of proportion if he had to use
the whole property for this one venture. In speaking of a right of way for
Mississippi Street, Mr. Walquist said if they have to go back 5 or 10 feet
to accommodate this, it can be worked out.
Chairman Jensen said it would be a reasonable question for the Subcommittee
to consider their requiring an easement along the South edge of this lot as
a condition of a lot split request. There is a landloeked parcel up there
now. It is a separate parcel but not a separate ownership,
The description af the lot split was to be found on Page 8 of the Agenda
(Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities, December 7th).
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Nagel, that the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets
& Utilities Subcommittee recommend approval of the Lot Split (L.S. ��67-01)
requested by Mylo Parks, for Parcels 2000, 2010 and 2020, Auditor's Sub• ��10
��
Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Subcommittee - December 7, 1967 Page 4
Revised, to the Planning Commission with the stipulation that the owner,
� Herwal, Inc. give an easement of six feet for sidewalk construction along
the South edge of the property for the entire 235 feet. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously,
4. STREET STUDY SPECIFICATIONS:
� The Engineering Assistant prepared a compilation of the information
sent by the municipalities listed in the November 2, 1967 minutes of their
street standardso The Subcommittee went over these and discussed future
study. The Engineering Department was asked to collect the following data:
1) Total miles of streets in.Fridley
2) Total miles of State Aid streets
a) State Aid streets build to State Aid standards
b) State Aid streets open but not to State Aid standards
c) State Aid streets not open
3) Total miles of swale streets
4) Total miles of 31�B.B. Asphalt curb
5) Total miles of 31 B.B. Concrete curb
^ 6) Total miles of 36 Concrete curb
✓'1
In the meantime, Chairman Jensen said, they should fill in the study
of other communities and get other data. He hoped that when they get done,
if they find cause for change that it will be pretty well documented.
Darrel Clark commented that whenever street standards are changed, the
catch basins and hydrants have to be moved,
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Nagel, that the Plats and Subdivisions-
Streets & Utilities Subcommittee adjourn at 10:30 P.M. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the motion caxried.
Respectfully submitted,
Hazel 0'Brian
Recording Secretary
� /l
� 1.'l.i
^ T� MINUTES Or THE BUILDING STANDARDS - DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 1967
The Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Dittes at 7:50 P.M.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dittes, Hauge, Tonco
MEMBERS ABSENT: Biermann, Erickson
OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Gasterland, Don Gearhart, George Walquist, Bill Shaw,
John Breher
1. CONSIDERATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING
AT 5149 - 3RD STREET NORTHEAST (LOTS 1,2,3,4,5,6, BLOCK l, CARLSON'S SUNINIIT
MAilOR ANNEX SECOND ADDITION). RE�UEST BY S&S "'•<;ESTMENT, 1202 PIKE LAKE DRIVE,
NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112: �
Mr. Bill Shaw was present representing S&S Investment. Mr. John Breher was
representing the architect. Mr. Shaw brought with him 3 complete sets of
working drawings and a scale model of the building and site.
There was a discussion concerning the structure of the building and garages.
Mr. Shaw stated that the garages would probably be revised to have individual
� stalls for each apartment. It was pointed out that the storage under the stair-
way would have to be eliminated and it was suggested that it could be included
on the first floor. The building apparently would have adequate sound control
facilities provided that all the party walls be of staggered stud construction
and that all the bedrooms, living and dining rooms be carpeted.
MOTION by Hauge to recommend approval of plans subject to the following;
(A) Storage lockers to be removed from under the stairways
and included on the first floor.
(B) Drawing ��2 of 5 to read staggered'wall of 2"x4" studs to
be 8" O.C. on a 6" plate.
(C) All living rooms, Dining Rooms, and Bedrooms to be carpeted.
The motion was seconded by Tonco, and upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion carried.
Z. REQUESTED RECOMNIENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE CONCEKNING A PROPOSED Mi?' "''ITARY TO BE
.__ _ .. —
LOCATED AT 6210 HIGHWAY 65 N.E. (LOT 3, HERWALS SECOND ADDITION): �
Mr. Wahlquist and Mr. Gearhart were present at the meeting to request a recommenda-
tion. Mr. Erickson looked at this proposal before the meeting and asked�
^ Mr. Gasterland to see that the parking lot and connecting driveway be included
in the legal description for a building permit. Al1 the members, P'Ir. Wahlquist,
and Mr. Gearhart concurred.
^
��.y ,1 ._
�i4D
BUILDING STANDARDS^DESIGN CONTROL MEETING, NOVEMBER 28, 1967 PAGE 2
After a discussion on the virtues of various veneers, it was decided to
recommend all brick rather than brick and stucco or brick and redwood.
MOTION by Tonco to recommend approval of the building subject to the following:
(A) Provisions for the construction of the parking lot and
the building site to be contained in a single building permit.
(B) A written legal description of the easement for the connecting
road between the parking lot and the building site be included
on the building permit.
(C) The total exterior is to be a brick veneer.
(D) Permit is to be issued only upon approval of complete sets
of working drawings including a landscaping plan.
The motion was seconded by Hauge, and upon a voice vote, there being no nays,
the motion carried.
3. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE PRECISION SHEET METAL FACTORY LOCATED
AT 5250 riAIN STREET NORTHEAST (PARCEL 1875, PART OF LOT 4, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION
��47. (REQUEST BY HUGH TH02SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 100 WEST DIAMOND LAKE ROAD,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5541�:
^ There was no one present to represent Precision Sheet Metal, but the drawings
submitted were sufficient to present the proposal.
MOTION by Hauge to recommend approval of the addi�ion subject to the following;
(A) Walls to be 12" concrete block
(B) Steel reinforcement to be placed in the poured concrete
wall as per code.
(C) Steel reinforcing web to be placed between courses of block as
per code.
The motion was seconded by Tonco and upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
motion was carried.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Acting Chairman Dittes declared the meeting
adjourned at 10;20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
R. E. DITTES
Acting Secretary a.�d Chairman
�
THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Or APPEALS MEETIIVG, NOVEMBER "9, 1967
The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Ylinen at 7;35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PP�ESENT: Ylinen, Mittelstadt, Ahonen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Saunders
ADOPTION OF MINUTES. NOVEMBER 1 AND NOVEMBER 8, 1967:
�
MOTION by Mittelstadt, seconded by Ahonen, to adopt the minutes of the two
previous meetings as presented. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the
Chairman declared the motion carried.
1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 45.262 CITY CODE OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
1963, REVISED DECEMBER 31, 1965, BY WAIVER OF FRONT YARD SEPBACK RE�iTIREMENT
FROM 35 FEET TO 23 FEET AND A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 45.24, CITY CODE OF FRIDLEY,
MINNESOTA 1963, REVISED DECEMBER 31, 1965 BY WAIVER OF SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT OF
5 FEET_TO 4 FEET, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON LOTS 6& 7,
BLOCK 0, RIVERVIEja HEIGHTS ADDITION �ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SAME BEING 725
KIMBALL STREET NORTHEAST, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432. (REQUEST BY RUSSELL G.
TENNEY, 725 KIMBALL STREET NORTHEAST, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432Z_
Mr. Tenney was present and presented his proposal. He had a written petition
of acceptance by his surrounding neighbors. No one else was present on this
^ item.
�
MOTION by Mittelstadt to accept the variance for the following reasons:
1. There are 12 neighbors which have no objection to the
proposed garage.
2. There would be no obstruction to traffic because Kimball is a
dead end street and the garage would be consistent with the
general appearance of the neighborhood.
The motion was seconded by Ahonen. Upon a voice vote, Mittelstadt, Ylinen and
Ahonen voting in favor, the motion carried unanimously.
2. REQUESTED OPINION OF PROPOSED FOUR-PLEX AT S00 CHERI LANE (LOT 17, BLOCK l,
MURDIX PARK) . JAI�IES LUPIENT:
Mr. James Lupient appeared as a visitor before the board to ask their opinion
of a proposed four-plex at 500 Cheri Lane (Lot 17, Block l, Murdix Park). He
will need a variance of the minimum lot size in order to build the fourplex.
The board received and discussed preliminary plans and Mr. Lupient caas advised
to submit ulans and a request in the normal manner.
�.�
•r 5:.
BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 29, 1967
�
3. ACCEPTANCE OF A BOARD MEMBERS RESIGNATION:
�
�
PAGE 2
MOTION by Ahonen to accept the resignation of Wayne F. Saunders, seconded by
Mittelstadt. Upon a voice vote, Mittelstadt, Ahonen and Ylinen voted in
favor. The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Ylinen requested that the Council make an aPpointment to fill the
position opened by Mr. Saunder's resignation. ^
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Ahonen to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mittelstadt. Upon a
voice vote, there being no nays, Chairman Ylinen declared the meeting adjourned
at 8;15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
;
� • ' . . ,,
,- - - �� ,
Jan Gasterland
Acting Secretary to the Board
`x� ,��
Y�Z i
��
REGULAR COUNCIL PIEETTNG, NOVLrivER 20, 1.967
PAGE 13 r�y�
- Mr. McClisli was asl:ed i£ he ���oul_d be wi_lling to deed 15 feet of land to the
tri-plex if he wer.e allo�aed to build on a 45 foot lot. Mr. rlcClish said
^ that he would if the o��lner taere �•ailling to pay tlie back taxes on it. Tlayor
Kirkham sudgested that if he �oould try and nedoti.ate this with the owner of
the tri-pler,, and give him 15 feet, and the Council allo���ed hin to build
on the 45 foot lot, he could still maintai_n his 10 feet si.de yard require-
ments, and this may be a satisfactory compromise. Council.man Sheridan said
that they could also work out a driveway easeuient regarcting tlie garage.
The City Engineer suggestecl that the problem of the required four paved
parking areas for off-street parking for the tri-pl_ex could be solved at this
time also. Councilman Sheridan said this �aould be fine, but the agrecment
should not be contingent on solving this problem. Mayor Kirkham suggested
they get together with the City rSanager and try to work out an agreeme.it.
,l f
I
� �
i
d
�
�3
3
�
riayor Kirlcliam said that the Council does not need to take actior. this
evening, but that it can be turned over to the Administration to come up
with a reasonable solution.
MOTION hy Councilman Sheridan to receive the rlinutes of the Board of Appeals
Meeting of Novenit�er 8, 1967. Seconded by Councilman Li.ebl. Upon a voice
vote, there beiiig no nays, Mayor Kirkham declared ttie cnotion carried.
PLAI�TNING CONi�1TSSI0'vT MEElING MINUTES, NOVE�iBEP. 9, 1967:
1. IN'CEP.SECTTON PATTLRN: MISSISSTPk'I STP�LFT AND EAST P.IVER f:OAD, EOP'S
PRODUCE 1�NCH; �
Mr. Schroer was present at the Council rieeting and came to the Council
Meeting and came to the Council table while the Council looked at hi.s
new plan f:or his property at the intersection of Mississippi Street and
East fiiver Road. The plan is to go to the Plats & Subdivisions - Streets
& U�ilities Subcoi;�nittee and will come back to the Council with their
recommendat�ions . '
2. PP�OPOSED PI,AI�NED DrVELOP��NT: INNSFFtiCY A'OP�TH, ACRESz INC:
MOTION by Councilman Sheridan to set the Public }Iearin� for the rezouing
(ZOA i�67-14) proposed Planned Development �or Innsbrucl: North by Acres, Inc
for December 11, 1967, Seconded by Councilman Samuelson. Upon a voic.e
vote, there being no nays, Tlayor I�i_rkham declared the motion carried.
MO'1'ION by Councilman Samuelson to receive and fi.1e the Rll.11'L1tE.'S of the
Planning Cotitmissi.on Tleeti.ng of November 9, 1967. Seconded by Cotincilm4n
Liebl. Upon a voice vote, there bein; no nays, Playor Kirl�,liam declared the
motion carri.ed.
DANGFI:OJS �iJIT DIi�;G ACTIO\ FOP. 6015 - 2 z STI'.LET N0.^.TI�iAS`1' :
Council.man Liebl sai.d that- he has brou�ht this praperty to the attenti_on of
tlic Courcil by aski_n� t[ie Ci_ty rtai?a�;er to put it oii the a�end<�. Fle said
this buildin� is not up to standards ancl is an eye sorc for the City. He
said tt�at tf�ere ��:e�-c nice tio:nes on ei.t}�er side of ; hi.s buildi.no. TFic Ci.ty
Attoi-ncy saicl t�c had prep� red a pet.i.ti.on for condemnation and requesti.nb
the removal of tlic bui.ldin� basecl on t.lic report..
�,
560-34��
e� � � �g�l�
� �
ANOKA COUNTY
6431 UNIVER517Y AVENUE NE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55421
December 8, 1967
PUBLIC MEETING
The Planning Commission of the City of Fridle.y is ooing
to be studying an intersection plan for the Mississippi St-reet -
East River Road intersection at their December 14, 1967 �!eeting.
The proposal being studied includes several alterations
and would change present traffic patterns.
^ One of the alterations would be the closing of Mississippi
Place onto East River Road, another would be the elimination of
left turns off from East River Road to properties fronting onto
East River Road for a considerable distance north and south of
Mississippi Street.
The Commission would welcome ,your interest and attendance
at their December 14th meeting. There are drawings of this plan
at the Ehgineer's office in Cit.y Hall if ,you should want to
stud,y it before the meeting. The meeting starts at 7:30 P.M.
If you have an.y question with reference to this matter,
please call me at 560-3450.
Yours ver.y trul.y,
�:-___ _�-- �- %' i
��. •� �it � `-
� .._../C` ° �. �
DARREL CLARK
Engineering Assistant
^
� � • • • s.� �ra . �: ��, � , _ .ar . � � � ( ' i�� � g �r . � w �� � � l % � 0 L. </fif1.Sdf�-rtr � �� . �ro ,
, � . . �+�
t i � ' J • �r�, � . 1� �
� ` � i r.•1 � ,r fc! � � f , � 1 � _ �' t.3�
�,f� t�. t�` i 1� l'�: I�tJi.d._� �• i���' � '
`y ( ���.��• . � � ♦ ( I . - . . �
f,�` ,:� . . . . , .U•erXeyW.! C•� :i/ ,fr� .S:x��J s/�.»rr�ry . . � 2 �V f � , . . • � ' '
� ` j' ' � 1� �F �.J' _ � 1� n ' l�) ! . . ' '
r� ' � � �>� � � 1�• �'� ` '
1 ' �y, ' d� .= k�' �
� z ;�', I 1 t� `;^'.� d � i..
+�. • r!
� _ ; i i ' ��� q� � � � �, �`-� � " 1 �� Tt QiJtit e�tr fr/wwo p/�/ •
, i . a� � '-< ^s+�� e{y �s :'Mr�'•lr�v/�d.P�ri/� e� kJ H �
�' ..
�; \
� 1.� � , � l� a ^ ,, :.�.� .N n'� �, f_` _. _ _. _ _. _: _ —
- - ----- -� '_ "
�. � , __.... ..._.... ._ - �.. + . '"' •� �+, ` � - —
� � I � � ' , , �� 1��;,� ` .~► *��� `� � . A .
� � � G� _ ,. � - j � ,,,\ . •v - - -. �,, �� ; ;,i','
� e ,� ' � . � { � � �. _f, • �.,::�... � �" �t � �
�'�Y l 11 ��)' 1 � � � . `Nl;t~ �' ��� ��
ii;� i.. i 1 . � .�, ' �� ,� .' 1 � I;,\
s: x
� a'� '�is3 �. �t� � � �
� .� ;�,�: �; �e ' �; � �
, - .. i' \ � '� c� '
i �: . v.« 31�:t � 1 ` �� F N ` �
,, �.
` ' � . 1 �`GG �, �. • • +' , ,1 . ` :6'` t � `.. �
� ' ` � Y�1� +� .y ` '�,.t ..C/` �+5 .
.. 1 ' , . . � �t � " • -• •lIp• 't 7 'S :' ' � _
' / � � ,•r, � R+CE "'' �' is �i� 9� ti�
/� +�,,,j .� _ : � � t: x� r. ,� �.� w a •
a' - � �e. f•1 � ��� t ��,�. Ln `1t e-.,
� . . . . ♦ `�• � � ,.� ' ° p � .•.r
+ `. � z rp P,v o{ � � o` ♦ �r ' a ' � . r'' -� 6 S 1t •� -
s, i , • • - � � ,.T i� � 3 '� � ,�/ � n'r.� ' i6 �. � ,e ,t �-
� •.' d ��) �.�A i , `�'u,i � � �
! ' � , �. '�/' `1 Vt `� � ��/ � � ` e +"� �t � ����� -
' � ' i' � � ��� .b' y Pt�j .• �� 4., w i:� � *. .. n' �j �.`
ti. : ' wv
_ ' y: i' , �� : t+� r � /�') `+ . � "� � � � � �• fi. 4 � .
�t; � , � . � •��� . '�� .Mt-:' ./�'s_� .-�" ���NV� � °y``4 �c r i '"r.'� ' o-f, �e �
� . v� . � , V\ . i•'' i � �,,} .• , �
� t'� `�'� *1����1 v '��� �. �N���y./.�/ \'G,�/!� I �{ � �' �Sfi � ` � "
i � �/ � N� g�'{► ' �.- y �,�e 6�
� ' . R��N�� � Y , � 1� �� , � ` �' W s
^� ri�' � -�V •' � .
` _ ��if0)�e��t� ^ �t:�� _y,Rs/ ��� �� � /. / . . ..
, ��� . � s • _ � :
r � o�'� �„de+ /.•-J `
,�: .� ' � � • � �, /�� �jy��� f 0 ' � t~\y� � � � � � i N:� N 9 .
.� .\ � I4}I `� .
i A %� �s � •��'
�,. � �a� �� . ,�s ,�� �' �O � y K ` <�ac�
t� , . '\ V ,��,p) �� Y� � /o I�. :- i
a�.# . , �.� � R Pi�"•. �� ' � � ` � �� . r � _ �
, � � . �
�. . ' , /�� �\':• ; i�• "� � o � " `
�� A �.; � � ,c� � �'j� - ".: �
L N � . �� `c
�I�.' . � ' . . � \ �!' 1.� � � � .,:1i /'_J`��/� ' �� � �•�V. K�,�
�; . . � ,,; '���-:��:� �-- � � � '�o P�p, �,t,�. c�,��, �
t . � ,' � . i� �; c� ''� i, - s � � . J► ,
� c; • � „ !o !i ,i• �t, • /_�� ` i - ,� ,.�\,s S r ' �� > •: "
' �` E -' 2� 'T 1 \ �� �jl , t � �'_ - � -
_, . �� ; � 1 , _ _ ; .,, y = _ �
�, 1 t ,=Q � �t;�. t� - !Z -� ,e .
�j' .\ I, lyol t _�r , 9 \ , �� '� -I' �;
e; � ;\ � A S �• � � � �,' . 1�
.--,� \ ' ` '` � - `iL„ �, a -`�s� `� - ",�
'\ J� � L, �a s . _ � �►' ! .� ' , p - �;, _ _ �:s
� ,-, � � . .
y ; I l%
' ., l , � '.` . � �" . . --,— � n �� �M` �ty. ' � , ro
.i \ . . � r . ` d . �f :_ - i► �. I,,3_--- �' -T�i�
h � ' " y o � � �"':,.. V
\ . �' d � � � _ ��t" \ � ,►
ti �! $ 'd . . �- _ . /'� `�•.KJld�-� i¢s(d�.�e,imdaLPt
� t \ ` � � � � b � �'. ~ ' 1 `-/ �� i. w�. N!e
.� ��:. �0 a o� 4 j v`- il
�\ f 1 [ � '� : i � ` � � ' � �:��� , . .. ,
^\ � `1 �� 0
� �+j A� . " � � ad . . �j* L� ~� r
\�� � ' t'
` ��� Peter J. Lindberg - ZOA ��66-11
� � f, ,�,,.a+�-` �� . .'"„+.,_ . . .
/'1 ' :-,'Sect. of East Ranch Estates, Inc.
'` ,, Parce�.. �,� B1. 22, 23 , Fridley Pk�..Add :
Parcel ��2= `P'�rt�--of:,,��,, ,7 . �; - Rev . A. S . ��23
---..._._...__.�V.._._..__....__.,�.,...... �._........�......r.__.........,...,.... ........:....__.._............_- _... ._...
�
^
c`fo Y�c��e
� �
ANOKA COUNTY
6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE
� �l% �/ /
, j�`� _j _
November 13, 1967
Mylo Parks
1341 Mississippi Street
Fridley, Minnesota
Re: Lot Split Request
Dear Mr. Parks,
560-3450 ��
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55421
Your Lot Split request was brought before the Cit,y
Council at their regular meeting of November 6, 1967. The
Council felt that this should be processed as a new Lot
Split request, and should go to the appropriate committees
before going to the City Council.
If you wish to proceed with this request, please
submit the Lot Split fee of $15=00 along with the three
copies of your plans. _
NQ:jm
� , �%��'% 1
G-:,` � V -�,� �' / ; J�L'� �� j
,,� �. , .
�',;,��, , L L.;.- �
�. �%� - .
�,� .
Yours very truly,
, f1 ;
�-� ���: {,�1, l. L ' r; t:4 � L.
NASIM QURESHI, P.E. �
City Engineer
� �f- = ��
REGULAR COUNCIL'rILE'1ZNG, NOVEP113Eh 6, 1967
PAGE 7
t,�
�:�
Council wants it to go back to �he Plats and Subdivisions Sub-Conmtittee, it
^ can. The City Engineer said that Mr. Parks has the property to build a deceiit
drive-in as he o��ns both parcels. Councilman Harris said he felt the Council
would be setting a bad precedent by granting this lot spli.t. He said ttiat
tEie Subcommittee had been created to handle these things, and that this should
be vie�•�ed as a new request. •
,._ .
�
i ^
�
MOTION by Councilman'Harris that this request be referred to the Plats and
Subdivisions Sub-Conunittee for their consideration if this is the petitioners
request, Seconded by Councilman Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, there being
no nays, riayor Kirkliam declared the motion carried. �
REQIJEST FOP. riORE POLICE PATROLLING IN AIEZODY MEINOP.:
Mrs. Bruce Beaman, 7363 Memory Lane Northeast, said that she and some of
the�other residents of rlelody Manor were present at the Council Meeting
to bring before the public the fact that there have been five burglaries
in Melody Manor recently that are still unsolved. She said that the main
thing she �oanted was more patrolmen in Melody Manor as patrolling has
fallen off. She said that ZO or 2� oth�r people have volunteered this same
conunent to her. She said that only a few of the other women could be here
also, but that many of them, whose husbands travel are �traid to st:ay home
alone. Mrs. Beaman said that they have been told it is probably kids from
the area. She said she had talked to the Police Investigator and given
him the name of a suspect �aho had been bragging �.bout the burglaries, but
she had received no satisf_�ction irom the Police Departm�nt. She sai.d she
had called the Investigator twice, but he had not returned her calls.
Mayor Kirkham said he would suggest that this matter be handled by the
City Manager and the Police Chief. He said that if they decide any
legislative action is needed, the Council will be happy to take care of it.
Mrs. Beaman said that none of these bur�glaries had been publicized and she
felt that people should know what is happening. Mr. J. W. Gassner, 7310
C;oncerto Curve said tti��y were not asicing for a revie�o, but were asking for
more patrolling. Playor Kirkham aslced Chief McCarthy if he would like to make
any comrnents. Chief McGarthy said he taould lilce to review their records
before he commented. ' .
FI.E1G PP.ESENTATION BY ANff:RICAN LEGION REPP.ES�NTATIVE :
A representative of the Ameri.can Legion said that it was their job to see
that all of the public builclings fly the American Flag proudly. He presented
a flag that has flo�an over the Nation� s Capital to rlayor I�irkham. He said
that i•�hen i.t �:ears out, they are to be called and the Flag �•;i11 be replaced
ir�une d i a t e ly .
The Counci.l thanked him for the Flag.
RECESS:
Mayor Kirkhat�i called a brief recess . Ttie l�ieeting was reconvenec? at ��; 17 P.�1.
�
EXCERPTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 6, 1967 MyLO PARKS Page 1
� IAT SPLIT RE,,�liEST: L.S. '�67-01, rIYLO PAF.i:S: Parcels 2000, 2010 an3 20?0,
�Auditor`s Subdivision �r`10 (Revised) - splitting for speci�I assess���nts.
The City i•ianager explain�d the circumstar.ces of receivin� tne request
at the Iast minute. The lots were split in Anoka because of taxes, but tre
County- will n�t split assessr.tents. The fonner o�Tners have sold �portions
and h�ve not gone throu�h the formality of a Iot split. One of the present
owners will have to pay the assessments on land which he does not o��n, in
2ddition to nis property, if the lot split.is not oranted. �
The Engineering Assistant caas requested to make a draTai�� to be read;r
for the Council meetin� on �fonc'ay, April lOth, shoorir� the lots to be,
from West to East, approlimate?y ILO feet, 125 feet, 109 feet, and 90 fee�
of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision ;�1� (P.evised). .
MOTIOV by 3en��n, seconded by ?�.yh-ra, that t1�2e Flanr,in� C��T�ission
recor�end approv�L of Lot �p1it �5i_O1, al1 of Lot IO�A�sditor's Subdiv�sion
��10 �RYvised) with fronta;es on i�iississi�pi Stree�_Tr��n �dest to East of.
_ � — --
approximately 110 feet, 125 feet, 109 feet and 90 feet, subject tu veriii-
cation ar_d clarification by the Engineering D�gartment. Upon a voice vote,
all voting aye, the r.iotion carried unanimously. �
It was noted there are t�ao zoning categories in the above parcel, but -
the Comr�ission relt that no fuxther actior. c•�as required no�a, but there is
^ the possibil.ity of a request later on to esten3 the com�mercial zoning.
EXCERPTS FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 10, 1967
i0T SPLIT - LSlr67-01 - rfYLO PAF,F:S:
The City rlanaozr explained that ore port? on of this lot i�as been soI.d ��ith-
out going throuoh the formality of a lot.split. He said that Anol:a Ceunty
will split the taxes, but they �aill not split ttie assessments, and if a
lot split is not granted, one of the preser.t o���ners �vill have to pay assessu,ents
on land i•Thictz he does not own, Cotincilman San�uelson as�ed if *_he tt•:o lots
are describer� as separate enti.ties. Tfie Ci.ty �I1na�er said they were.
Counci.lman Sheridan aslced ho��T the Ordinat�ce was ���orded on _splittin; a lot
af.ter it has been split once, zs this Iot has been split once already. The
City Attorney leo�ced up tne ordinance anct said the r�i.niraum square Tootn�e
must be betwe�n 27,000 square feet and an acre. Councilnian Sheridan said h::
was a�rai.d the Counc.il �aould be creat�nG the sam` situ�tion tha* they had on
Or►dondaoa Street aad 01d Central �•��lere �ir. �;y�arc�'s �ahole lot ��o�:Id be used
up by a setoack. Th� City ri_anaoer said that the Placzn'in� Co�r��issioa haci
poi.nted out that thi.s F�ill Iandlock one lot. The Council discussed Che �et-
back ord�n�:�ce. Z'he Ci_ty Engineer said that: therc is no backyard s_�'�ac�: for
C-2, but in P.-1 it is 25 feet, and it �•rould be a 35 foot minirm�r.i on tne =rot,t
� setback. Fie said th� *:aitti tF�e parki.n� requirer��ents for a buildin�, t�i� s
lot koul.d be ve-ry smali, and a corner lut should be a lit�le better, and tEiis
COU�Ci b(: starti�!� 2_ C��?.1R L'_RCt10l?, iF?e Cl.tjr i11C'.2.oET' S� LC� }?C ��Ic13 ROr reco�,.^,endin_
this Iot split, but the Cour.cil has co<<sidered t;:i� tyce of split in tnc pa;=.
�e said the bi��est probl.e;,i is that the cor,�er lot '��:ould be sri.sll.
1 - CLc J
EXCERPTS FROM SPECIAL COUNCIL NNIEEETING — APRIL 10, 1967 CONT. MYLO PARKS Page 2
�
riayor i�irktiam said that pex�haps the problem could be solved by correc�in� one
line an:t denyi.np the rest. Tiie Council discusscc'. graarin� the 35 feet tiiey
wanted �:!d not m1'.-:in� t�•�o lots. This �:-ay ti�ey could pay ttie taxcs and tiie
oc!ner. coul.0 �aorry lbout Ltie t�.*o deeds o<< t'r�e pro��crty.
iT7". V1L11%:_1R� 1 V1.S1.tt7?' tQ ��IE' (�'OL1ilC1.1 �`C�:�7.IlV� 2�t:E'.C.� i.f t:11.5 UC't.LC1C�L: �11(1
bCE'.il Sl1DC.I� ��t'C� CU ���1:_' Pl�lilRl.li; CO�i!::LI-SS10[2 O1 1� L� (12C1 COCIIC :12YGC���' t0 C�li"'
CoL�t�cil. ,•tayor ?:irl.liam said tha� this h=td �or.e to t�ie Planni.n� Coa��ui.ssion
firsr.. for tijcir recc�m��!,nctati.cn. �
itOTIO�? by Councilman Sheridan to grant a 1,ot Splir to �lylo Parns on Lot ,',`10,
Audi.tor�s Subdivisiozi �o. 10 (fievised) so ttiat startin� froui Ceatral Aveciue
goit�g East, the fi.rst ��arcel size will be appro�;iriately 235 feet, the riEi�:t
parcel to ttie East �•rill be 109 feet, and the third parcel, which is the
fartt�est to ttle East, will be 90 feet. Secoiided by Councilr:ia,� ?�Iarris. Upon
a voice vote, there beinb no nays, �Iayor Kirkham declared th; mation carried.
^
^
����������`r� C�� ��������� ��
FI (lmore 4593 - 94 - 95 (� ' PR ioi dQ50
^ RALP�-i D. TtiOA��AS & ASS�ClAiE� lNC. �\� '
ENGINEERS
�00 N,ET. LIFE BLDG. `
MINVEAPOLIS l, h�INNESOTA
�,� _._ ' ..
5� - - -
s �-- -- - -- - -� - i3s, °�; 3 - �°'' iao
r------x-- ;�
�
� i � EXis- � I
n � ( � ��6 D:s=��. �;,;
v ,�� ��___. f
\ � � � -- � ; --�1
' �v
,
\` �; � o
�� ►; � �
�,�=3 � ;
Ji ( ---��
�i �' �� !�� � i
jF2 �%t:.4Y �
L. . � I .
� � �� z i S'�R�i �'
��� ��T -� 1 y�� �,
9 � � � 1� ,1 -3�- /
[ � � o'-p' . /J-' ��r
V i � �_— Y —� � �
4 - x-
i� �
��� � � i
i ,�, i t
�� ,
' � � � %�r�%/SJ I�S./Pr'i �T,-i' � -T , � � ' �C�`': y�
- - - �� � - - _
-��" -- -_ _
� -- ---. �- --`�. -- — - ----__ __ -- _ _------ ---
►�.S..Y, Cpr. _ Fii��. �/; Gf .S'eC.l9 - — - '�-�'.� � - -
Mylo Parks - Lot Split ��67-01 �
Lot 10, Aud. Sub. ��10 Rev.
�tT� hcrei�i� cirtift� T;iAT 'Y'VE HAV= O'� THIS _
l41ADE A SURVEY G�� Ti-'.t REAL E�iA?c CESCRiBED AS
�
, �
�, �
� ��
, ,��
s.,
�
!
..� �
;,;
_.�___ ��sL
J �.
. • Scale: 1"= �_'
�+ - f,%i -:,v
2�5 %� DAY OF �:��� 1�, 14 �_.
i,`'� t�s. /i:_. f.:°��; n?� <.?� . �:''_..�" 2_ �
��=.`-- �{ _�O� . � � `7il7,'T��f"S S:l.: �'s�;'S,'—'7 :e'.,. ,�C' � - Yi�,� G.: _ � . _ .�I'l..r'_'�L' "i
�%
An�f� __ _- - _ _ ---_____.. _ _ __ _ _ _ i:.: °y<r^i CC;UNTY, MIhNE�OTa,
AS S�10WN ON 7rlc A30Vc °Lr.T.
SURVEY MADc FOR . "r:: : r . _.�'� R,�-� _ _--- - - - -- -
A7 TH� RcQUES? O� . � , . : i'� .� =, -?, : �
I her�by c�rai=y th :t th;s surv-�y, pian, or r?�c•ri
��c� pr<�per��d 'oy m. or �ruar my dir2cS supe; vi:ion
.:nd ;'.,�.� I em, c �uf i R�� �, �rad Cerd S�rv� �r undar
rhe Lcevs et t';_ Sta:e or ,'.'�inne�o'�. Jr RALPH D. T�-iC��1t-`,5 �u AS:;.^�Ci,�T�� ?NC.
- Engin2ers
l/ ,
� �_...�_ '�. ,c.��.�-r.1 ..'',' Reg. Nc. 31C�
__.
`�y-:�\pol;s !:�. No. ?8S� �- Proie�t No. 675 - . ._ . . _ Shect :.o. � _.- - —
\_ . .
/"\
(.._ f' � v"1' i:- ,_ l_,.
�� (
� � / �
�� � . ����� .
� (J
/ \
�E/7/G1
��.
�
�
N
tf' .
��
t�+
t}
..
V
•--
�,
��
�
� el
�t
t
;
t"� �� �; . i\► `•.� �::.
�
0
0
�
��
V
. --� �.y U � r � . .. . , ;, :._.. _ : ; , _ :,; --____: �.�� .
-` ' ,; t r f �� ; ;.� ' ' _ �� .
� � {� ., l��_l�yr�� ��s� . ,:____}- . _
i!C' - " 11J �� � , � _ , ' � . t. 1
`T- r .� . � : . ; ' ' : . � -% w, ' _ - " . °, � � .
, ;�: � � u `� - _ . rf � : _F r � ,: ,�., .
� ,,�, . �` > ; . �i !�'` ��� 1 ! � o-.J s � !c%�a; �• �-
i ;'. �.• � '{ � � � :' . ' w
�l
� �
L ��' `"� O • • . . � � I'V "`! i .,e�
i, ,�� ' . ,. .. . � ' - ��- I ' �! � C�
�- ��. �_ 1 . �. : � � � 6 r, Y H F{4' (� . f� • t= • � dJf�� ` � �"`�
___,,-� ;
.. � '`y� I � '-.- ._'_:"'_ � tr��-:.—_--'-'-=C'-"�_'_==4�: g3-�i�a3'�1 I ' .
� 5 (. �..T-.�-. ....... . � ' �i e , � ' � .
� _ __._ ._-_-�'_'_' .._ _. . `� 1 �_., . � •° `` ,i'y�' .` G; � `c� `�'. � � yl .
.V � � � . �':• i � � \ �i � t
G - e, ' `C � ., `. � ;
_ ;o.c �1 ,^�. �, . - ���`:�- -------��.�--�y---��b�
� - . t . , . . , ^ �: l` � ,� � � �V � �r;t �}� , i
'" ' ' ----------�- - ----- � - � � . . • � • �/�~`�o (,'e.zo,' �; �� p� ~I� � �
� w , '` � V
_ i6�°-� I 10�'=' - \ . ,. � ;. � � ^ � t: �
\J � i
V `' :fi7 � jj �` ,'C �w o1 � i )
�7`-�' -- � _ . _. "' � - -`-� � 43 ''�... � � �3 flh�f3 ' �/� �
� � L± = �.�_� -_ _ -_ -:.. _______--�---�------r---� , . -�� J �,�
l:.i ► �� . 1 1so l)� �°• .� .� i �
_ o � � :T. . � . _ _ � �,:+ , \ :.�• �,� �
._ �% � �" ; ../` ��`- I :
�. r -- -� .__ _ . , i .. - � , j - -� -. '� c . o � ' � t Or���f l ` 7f � � f Z I
:� � ' � �� ,
_ ; ; i � ; � � - - �:•- �
._ - �� � � ¢�j �! �--� 7 "' �� o
�l• '.' ` �� � fJ' � a a o 0
t v i: � �
+' n G ti n/ . + �� �t:-� ��- 9i ---I - - --'� _
•• �'_ i L _' _J_-' �frJ h ' �� ' �O ' �� ...- - �.--. ____-'_' � ' 4 I�i. ZS � ,��Q �vI � � I
- �.i . ^ �:. � f 3-.y 4 � �� �� �-� ! ti I
.n • '�i � � i.� � . :; � ';,r` �� � 'j Pr.:ia (� �'''� .t`1 kl O � � . .
`� �' � � I v � ,7'79jj __ . -1 ih -� . w \� C, V � tt^
r: � � • . _'- ' ; , .� �� .� •� ' .clr� L .� i 7f /D/ �``�v i.S `` � y!4 '1 4� '�0 3
, ------ - - - --- � � \ ; rv � � �� ��
, � ..����
C � y / i � , � '^-� _ e_ i'� I w`� „ A.. ° �' fa:� L� I �\ 3�
:'i �;` � -- - • :p� % ` °� /r�F 2 � ' � t;� 'I �l c- `,�� °� � '�.
` -i L '� V
� / l,�.. � V
•- -� �---'-- :a cf.. U • � t . .� �` .� , � .t,. �n � � 4r. f / ` I A � �
-- ;� � � � � � - � ]�'��' c>�„ � ..�� � � `�.
_._ •�i s,� � m-- . .r ' °-_::�_ -�,ti_3'_....._•'s_ _.:�_.,_,,,,,::'_.._;. "`.:__..:�.�.....�.,- ,..�.-.- --.
`� . �. �..�i �i? x � � ._...�.`:c.` f � . . ° � ^ �. ..a F;r �f o
. ,
'a'.�'i. -E ��.:=__s__.'._
^+ - "� �?.; 4 • ,'_ 3=-: �^.— - -- --- J-E — -
� i -..'!Ey=.�-i "'._�ts' -��%3�' -- - T ' ---` - - -;� - - - - - -- --- '-- ���..� ...�..o�....�r.�-��.._._.�..,.........---a-..._.........va..e.--- .
. �._._. ._..._.�..�.�----•-• -`^�,E/YTEi��_.._._,.�...._.� .•��_-
� �EC. / ' ,
• � Lot Split ��67-01
\ Lot 10, Aud. Sub.
� ,` • ��10 Rev .
�-1 � Mylo Parks
• � ��� .
. � ...�.____...�-_.,.._-__----,..-.._.. . -..�_...____..____..__--__._-...-----------
�