The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/29/1968 - 7254t A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 29, 1968 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES; FEBRUARY 8, 19_68 RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: FEBRUARY 14 i968 RECFIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOi�II�IITTEE MINUTES: FEBRUA.RY 15, 1968 ORDER OF AGENDA• 1. HYDE PARK REZONING PROBLEM: Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman. 2. CONTINUED REZONING REQUEST• ZOA ��68-01, ELDON SCHMEDEKE: Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-2. . 3. .� 4. 5. 0 LOT SPLIT REQUEST• L S ��68-06, RUTH GEDIG: Lots 15, 16, 53 and 54, Block G, Riverview Heights. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-05 i�ALTER R. MACIASZEK: Lots 18 through 20, Lots 26 through 28, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition. i� OAK ADDITION, P S ��66-03, ANDREW P. GAWEL: Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision �fyl. Referred by Council 6. RICE CREEK ROAD/CENTRAL AVEATUE PLA1`;: Continued. . 7. INTERSECTION PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI ��:'�ZEET AND EAST RIVER ROAD: Final reco�nendation set for March 14,y1968. �� PROPOSED ZONING CODE: STUDY WITH CITY A PAGES 1-11 12-13 1► -lb 17-18 19-20 21-2l� 25..?$ 29-32 .9, DISCUSSION OF riEETING WITH UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE: Program 1 Metropolitan Area Development. � APPROVE COrf�iITTEE ON ORDIPdANCE REVIEW MIDTUTES : February 22, 1968 APPROVE COMMITTEE ON ORDINANCE REVIE[d MINUTES: February 24, 1968 � REZONING REQUEST• ZOA ��68-05, DR. K. H. INGEBRIGTSEN: Lot 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands 3rd Addition; rezone from R-2 to C-1. � Set public hearing date. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEF MIrNTES• FERRUARY 28 196$ � A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 29, 1968 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGES -�, APPROVE PLANNING COMM�SSZON MINUTES: FEBRUARY 8,. L968 1-11 RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: FEBRUARY 14, 1968 12-13 RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES; 1�1-1b FEBRUARY 15, 1968 ORDER OF AGENDA• 1. HYDE PARK REZOIJING PROBLEM: Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman. 1'j-18 2...� CONTINUED REZODTING REQUEST• ZOA �k68-01, ELDON SCHMEDEKE: Lots 16 19-20 `" through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-2. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST• L S ��68-06, RUTH GEDIG: Lots 15, 16, 53 and 54, 21-2}� � Block G, Riverview Heights . 78 y° 7`f ° � 4. LOT SPLIT REQUEST• L S �k68-O5, WALTER R. MACIASZEK: Lots 18 �oz� 25�2$ through 20, Lots 26 through 28, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition. 7�ts ��''"' 5. SHADY OAK ADDITION P.S. ��66-03 ANDREW P. GAWEL: Lot 2, Auditor's 29-32 Subdivision #92. Referred by Council 6. RICE CREEK ROAD/CENTRAL AVENUE PLAN: Continued. , 7. INTERSECTION PATTERN: MiSSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST RIVER ROAD: Final recommendation set for Maxch 14, 1968. 8. PROPOSED ZONING CODE: STUDY WITH CITY ATTORNEY 9. DISCUSSION OF MEETING WITH UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE: Program Metropolitan Area Development. �� _� ��- - a�' -m�l 2 �:,,,; - � -,�.� r _� �;Z� �,�u-�-� - /` •` 3�► � a pLANNING COI�IISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 8, 1968 PAGE 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Hughes. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Myhra, Jensen, Hughes, Erickson, Ylinen . Others Present: Engineering Assistant Clark APPROVE PLANNING CO1rIlKISSION MINUTES: JANUARY_25, 1968 Member Jensen called attention to the sentence in the minutes of January 25,. 1968, Item 5, Rezoning Request, ZOA ��68-03, Aro Industries, Inc. "A suggestion was made if it might not be feasible to tile because of the terrain" saying it was completely in error, and, as it could not be determined exactly what it meant, he felt it should be deleted. . MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission minutes � of January 25, 1968 be approved as corrected above. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CObII�IISSION MINUTES:_ JANUARY 22, 1968 MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of January 22, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: JANUARY_24, 1968 RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: JANUARY 31, 1968 MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Myhra, that the minutes of the Board of Appeals meetings of January 24, 1968 and January 31, 1968 be received. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ORDER OF AGENDA• Chairman Hughes said that, in addition to the items on the Agenda, there is a communication from Mr. Malcolm Watson, City Manager of Columbia Heights, a letter from the Peoples Church, and a letter from Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Co�nission receive and file the letter from the Peoples Church and the letter from Malcolm Watson /�'� of Columbia Heights. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 2 1. PUBLIC HEA.RING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �k68-01, ELDON SCHMEDEKE: Lots 16 thru /'� 19, Block 12 and I.ot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition. Rezone from R-2 to C-2. Chairman Hughes read the public hearing and explained that in the past it has been the practice of the Planning Commission to give the petitioner an opportunity to speak in favor of his request, then the Planning Commission mem- bers may ask questions and finally the members of the public speak for or against the petition. Mr. Schmedeke asked if there had been any correspondence opposing his request, and he was told that nothing had come in. Mr, Schmedeke continued the main reason for the rezoning request was to get a better title for his property. In case of his death, his wife would have a difficult time to sell and he doubted the party buying it would be able to borrow money with this type of situation. He wished to make it crystal clear that Lots 16, 17, 18, Block 12 are couanercial property and 14 and 15, now used for T.H. ��47, were considered commercial and bought as such. This property has been used cammercial since May 1, 1948, before Fridley, and since then there has been new ordinances and new code. He was never informed in writing, never received notice of any kind when this was taking place, and according to the rezoning, he was zoned two times, if not three, since he came out to Fridley. Lately he was informed by "the people in the know" to take this route. Because two lots were taken away from the front of his property, which were definitely commercial, he had to buy two more lots, one north and one south, and they definitely have to be rezoned. He decided to �. include all the lots, even though three are, and always have been, commercial. He wondered if the Planning Coirnnission received the Council study of his prob- lem, and as close as he could judge, it seems they also are in doubt whether or not he is commercial. The small lots were left commercial on the East side of the a11ey, but when he purchased the 1ots, the State took half for T.H. ��47 so half of the building set on commercial. Other than that, many of the people that he talked to about this were surprised that he was not zoned commercial and figured he was after being there so many years. The Chairman then asked for comments or questions from the members of the Planning Go�ission. In answer to Myhra's question about the commercial property, Mr. Schmedeke said when he came out to Fridley, there were no buildings, just lots. The people purchased the land, built their homes and then found out they were zoned couanercial. When they rezoned, he was not informed. At 7:55 P.M. Member Erickson entered. The audience responded as follows: Daniel Erickson, 5860 3rd St. N.E.: I am a close neighbor and I do not have anything against Schmedeke having his property commercial. Mrs. Frank Gabrelcik, 5923 3rd St. N.E.: I believe that Eldon's property � was commercial, has always been and should be commercial property. We probably would be confronted with the same problem and his property should be so zoned. Don Crooks, 5910 2nd St. N.E.: I have lived here since 1946, Eldon came shortly after. It does seem unfair to change now. The change should have been made when he built his business. I have known nothing objectionable. He should be zoned commercial. Planning Commission Meeting - February �, 196� Pa�e 3 � Frank Gabrelcik, 5923 3rd St. N.E.: I have property on 58th and Univer- sity. I always thought my property was commercial. Schmedeke has been no bother for 20 years. I would have the same problem if I were to sell my property. Mrs. Lucille Heins, 5832 University Ave. N.E.: We have been living here since 1956. University Avenue is considered the main street of Fridley. I see no xeason why anybody on this side of University should not be conunercial when the other side is. Mrs. Harlow Kinney, 5841 2� St. N.E.: I, personally, have lived here since 1948, my husband since 1936. I have always known it to be commercial and have no objections to having �t zoned commercial. Mrs. Raymond F. Harris, 5840 University Avenue.: I always thought it was couanercial and I think he has the right to have it zoned commercial. Mrs. Elmer Gabrelcik, 5845 2� St. N.E.: I think it should be commercial, too. Member Myhra said he noticed quite a few of the people here tonight have indicated they had lived in the area prior to November 14, 1955, when there was a meeting on rezoning the City of Fridley. He asked if any of the people in the audience had attended this meeting. The answer was that they had not received a notice of the meeting. � Mr. Schmedeke said he did not know of anyone in his area that had attended the meeting. He asked to present a petition signed by the people within 200 feet of his property. He had not consulted the apartments because, he said, the people keep moving in and out and the apartments are sold frequently. He showed pictures of his buildings before and after the tornado. MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning CoIIUnission receive the petition, with nineteen signatures, presented by Eldon Schmedeke this evening. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Chairman asked if there were anyone present who was against the petition. There was no answer. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing of the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, of Lots 16 through 19, Block 12, Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition to rezone �� from R-2 to C-2. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani- _. mously, .,: - - � The Chairman explained that at this point the Commission has the oQportunit:; to discuss the matter, act on it, recommend approval or disapproval, continue for further study or refer to the Subcommittee. He wished to point out one thing relevant ta the.discussion. Mr. Schmedeke commented he felt the present . situation, under the zoning code as it now stands, would allow the continued present use, regardless of ownership, and that the land, if it would be trans- ferred to another owner, could be used in this manner. It is correct that a non-conforming use would be continued in that fashion in the future so that it is not an emergency matter. It would not work a hardship against the owner at the present time or the future owner. Planning Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 4 � Member Jensen said he thought the problem the Planning Commission is facing here this evening is somewhat clearly pointed out in a statement made by one of the audience this evening. Mr. Gabrelcik made the comment to the effect that he has pxoperty on 58th and University Avenue at the present time and believed it � was zoned commercial. He, also, made a comment something to the effect that he would like to be included in this rezoning. Jensen then added that the Planning Comm�ission had a more or less continued study, in some form, of this area in the past year. It was not always a zoning problem, sometimes the problem o£ street access and just recently a number of requests for rezoning to apartment houses. The Planning Conanission has recognized that they have very unusual circumstances in this rather large area of the City of Fridley. The zoning is peculiar to say the least, to have nearly 80 acres zoned in such a fashion that the highest use that could be allowed would be double bungalows. He felt in his own mind that this is an error made in the past. We are all familiar with the area. Recently, within the last month, the Planning Commission turned down two separate individuals who requested zoning to multiples. The basis for turning down these requests was the fact that we could not be put in a position of spot zoning. If we take a single little piece of this fairly large area, consider it only by itself and rezone it to something else, the stage would be set for a rather broad overall rezoning in that area. If we turned down a rezoning request for something across the street in the same circumstances, that individual could take his grievance to the court and demand this second rezoning would take place. � • �' Jensen continued the Planning Commission is cognizant of the problems and recognize the need for additional study so that a completely thorough new look could be given to this area. They have taken steps to contact a professional planner. Tonight Mr. Chapman of the firm of Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman, Inc. is here with a proposal by his firm. This proposed study has been initiated at the Planning Co�nission level and the Council is aware of it only by reading our minutes. We have not discussed this with the Council. We want to talk in terms of facts about the cause and need for this study and give them a time table. We must determine whether this study is to be made before we can make a reeommenda- tion on the request. Based on the statements he just made, he said he felt the only proper and logical course for the Planning Couunission is to continue this item until they are able to make a further examination as to whether or not a study can be undertaken by the planner. Member Myhra repeated the fact that the people have a real problem, not only those with a non-conforming use but the balance of them. He thought that having this study would be the best thing for the people in that area. He would be voting out of ignorance as this is altogether too complex to simply make a decision; and he added that.for this time, would vexy much like to have professional advice. Regarding the date of postponement, the Chairman said if Council approves the request for a planner, the completion date would be tentative; if Council does not approve the request for a planner, then the Planning Co�nission will have to work from their own knowledge. - --�---- � � MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission move to continue to the first regular meeting of the Commission, following action by the Council upon their proposed request for a professional consultant of the Plannin� Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 5 Hyde Park Addition area, the rezoning request,.ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke of � Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition to rezone from R-2 to C-2. Member Erickson wondered if the Commission could table action on the rezon- ing until the next item on the agenda was considered. Member Jensen agreed. The MOTION failed. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01 by Eldon Schmedeke be tabled this evening until completion of Item ��2 (Proposal for Hyde Park Addition by Planning Consultant) of the Agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The Chairman said that assuming the request for a planner was put on the Council agenda for February 19th, it could be brought back to the Planning Com- mission on February 29th. Councilman Liebl, a visitox, said that Mr. Schmedeke and the people are here fox one question, and that is to ask this Coimnission if they are willing to approve the request of Eldon Schmedeke only, and not for the whole area. He urged them to make a decision, either approving, or disapproving and stating the reason why. The petitioner and people who signed the petition would like an answer one way or another. The Chairman thanked Councilman Liebl for his comments and said the Com- ^ mission members who spoke on this request pxeviously, outlined his opinion. If • The Planning Commission were to vofie on this "yes" or "no", he could not vote knowledgeably. In terms of the impact of this rezoning request upon the long term zoning pattern of the area, he agreed that R-2 zoning was not proper, but iri the form and mannex in which the area had developed in the past, it was not proper to keep it at R-2. This he felt sure of, but beyond that, he found him- self unsure. He felt the Planning Commission could do a much better job in the way the Hyde Park Area should be developed in the future by getting the opinion of an expert. This is not an emexgency situation and his feelings were that this is the best thing for the Co�nission to continue the study. Membex Erickson said he did not think the Commission wished to be pushed into a situation where they would have to vote on the xezoning reques� now, and that he was really firm in the belief the matter should be studied fuxther. Myhra stated that this does not s2em to be an unusual procedure as it has been done in the past. Mr. Schmedeke added that he, also, would like to see approval ox disapprova'. He suggested that if the Planning Commission would read the write-up of his property prepared for Council, they would see that one half of the lot that his building is setting on was at one time zoned commercial. It is not a new buildin� or a new business. He has every intention of tearing down the house on the north property where the trailers and caxs are stored if the rezoning xequest is granted. ^ It is also true, Chairman Hughes stated, that two requests for rezoning to apartments wexe turned down on the basis that the Commission did not feel it proper to set a preeedence of rezoning in this area at this time, and chose to deny both petitions. � Plannin� Co�nission Meeting - Februar 8, 1968 Page 6 Mr. Schmedeke asked if the Planning Coimnission was aware that he was asking to rezone five lots which included the two lots he first bought. He asked that the request be approved or disapproved. When the gublic was asked how many would like to have their property zoned commercial, a majority of the hands were raised. One member said he did not think it would be necessary to hire a planner for the area from 57th to 60th as there-are no objections there. Mr. Schmedeke said the majority of these peopie who signed his petition were within 200 feet of him. There is a petition coming from the entire area but he is trying to get his request through now. He said if he had to, he would go further, but he was hoping he would not have to. The three lots are commercial and he thought�he could,prove�that. If he had to go further he supposed he would but he was trying to do that the easy way. Member Myhra said he thought that Eldon was perfectly right in speaking only for his propexty, but he didn't think he was asked to serve on the Planning Com- m�ssion just to consider one piece of property. The members were expected to think in terms of the entire City and think in terms of long range planning. If we get a professional consultant, and if the planner solves the problem, Mr. Schmedeke would have no problem. If we have a professional consultant, and Mr. Schmedeke's problem is not solved, he would not be in a different position than he is now. � MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the previous motion be remade and that the Planning Co�nission table this item, take Item ��2 (Hyde Park ' Addition Rezoning Problem) on the agenda and then come back and consider this item. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. /''\ 2. HYDE PARK ADDITION REZODIING PROBLEM: Bill Chapman of Nason, Wehrman, Knight & Chapman, Inc. to present cost proposal. Mr. Chapman reported he had made a review of the large area, and that he had no planning answers for the property at this point. The proposal is for the performance, for technique and professional assistance to help the Plan- ning CoBnnission. He said, addressing the general public, it is well for them to know the Planning Coum►ission are people donating their time to help them with no particular guidance, something like a trip to California with just a car and compass. This Planning Commission has made a decision to ask for a proposal. To be considered is what can happen to this area and how can it be improved. Our proposal is to review these various aspects, get the feeling of the people concerned. Some of the alternates would be developed and discussed with the Planning Coartnission members. To prepare a background plan that would give this Planning Commission some guidance for the regulation of the area in the future, alternates of pattern of use would be developed. He hoped upon completion of the study that, working with the Planning Conanission and develop- ing a circulation type of resume, i.e. work the example as to the intent, whether it is residential, commercial or industrial area and to the community in the future. It seemed to him it must be a plan that can be carried forward; can be performed over a period of time and a sequence of steps for the Planning Couunission. The services would be on a time and cost basis with an outside limited figure. It would be performed within a period of three months: Member Jensen thought it would be false economy to delay this particular study waiting for a staff planner. �.. Plannin� Commission,Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 7 � Councilman I.iebl said since he was councilman of_that ward, he was very surprised to learn of the request for a planner because nobody in his ward has asked for a feasible study, His people have told him this, that they were interested in a change from commercial for 57th to 60th, but not between 60th and 61st over to Main Street. There are nice and beautiful homes there now. He did not know at the present time if the people were willing to change to conanercial at 60th and 61st from University over to Main Street. Chairman Hughes explained that the Planning Commission was not attempt- ing a decision but they are asking for a study; not for a study to change from something to something, but a study for the area based on the fact that this Co�►ission does not feel the whole area should be R-2. Myhra said that the.reason for considering the area from 60th to 61st, was to study the road pattern coming to 61st. Erickson mentioned the Commission thought the area of 16 squaxe blocks zoned for two family dwellings is improper. We are trying to find out the proper thing for the area and not to take it lot by lot. We feel this is the correct way to go about it. He didn't think taking two lots at a time is the proper way to handle it. � Chairman Hughes informed the audience that it costs $40.00 to go through the procedure of rezoning. If each awner had a lot in that area and put in for rezoning, it would be $40.00 for each lot. It can be done that way, but the Planning Couanission members feel it would be erroneous to do it that � Way, Councilman Liebl said, regarding the area between 57th Avenue and 60th Avenue from University to 3xd street, that the people feel it should be �commercial the same as on the East side of T.H. ��47, which is commercial. Those people could not understand why commercial is on the East side of University and they are not zoned the same. He thought that was why they were asking to justify it by requesting to rezone to commercial. They just want their problems solved. He did not think very much would be accomplished by a study and there were people in that area who did not go along with it. Erom 57th to 60th Avenue the people thought they were commercial. He felt he could see no justification for the fact that the previous Planning Commission made the East side of University Avenue com- mercial and not the West side also. This is the problem. Member Erickson recalled the property on the West side of University Avenue was commercial but the highway took it. Councilman Liebl stated it was commercial, but was rezoned to R-2 so the State got it cheap. The whole layou�`"o�"this plan should be commercial. Near 61st, the people are proud of their homes. Jensen aslced if he were assuming the Planning Conanission was talking about commercial for the area between 60th and 61st. He had no understand- ing of that, but he agreed with Councilman Liebl that he was correct, there ^ are beautiful homes, largely single family dwellings in that area. He didn't think it was fair to those people to be in an area zoned R-2. They deserve some consideration, also. He thought it was unfair to them "as well since the entire tract is zoned R-2 and the study must include that area without any attempt to prejudge what it might be changed to. � � :_.. Planning Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 8 There was a discussion regarding rates, personnel assigned and method of procedure with Mr. Chapman. Member.Myhra said he believed that, in view of the fact that the City Manager and the Planning Co�nission feel the need of some help in the study of Hyde Park Addition, it seemed to him they should now go to the City Council for what they need, and it seemed to him Mr. Chapman covered the subject, and he will be working with the Planning Com�nission. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Coimnission recommend to the Council that a special zoning study of Hyde Park Addition as outlined by B. B. Chapman of Nason, Wehrman, Knight & Chapman, Inc. in their letter of February 6, 1968, be adopted in order to give professional help to the Planning Cosisnission in the matter of resolving the'rezoning problem in this area. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Ylinen added that he had heard a lot of comments in this particular ares, and believes it points out the necessity for some professional guidance. It was mentioned tonight that in the last 10 or 12 years mistakes were made in the zoning and classification of uses of the land in this rezoning and this is exactly what would happen if the Planning Commission made single decisions. That is the reason, he added, that he had seconded the motion and was in.favor of recommending this proposal to the Council. Mr. Gabrelcik said the people who live in the area do not believe in having a planner. The Chairman made a summary by saying the Cos�anission has said individually and collectively that they presently feel very highly in favor of a study of the area as necessary and at this point the Commission has two choices: 1) to undertake the necessary study on its own using its limited time to accomplish the task or 2) hire some assistance. The present man power in the City Engineer- ing Department is not sufficient to do this. The individual members of this Counnission, however dedicated and self-educated in the problems of use of land, are not qualified to conduct a study of this sort. The amount of time required that the Co�anission should undertake on its own would be prohibitive from the standpoint of giving an answer for rezoning of this area. The only logical thing they can do at this point is to take on a trained, knowledgeable planning consultant who can do the leg work necessary to get a logical answer and lay down ground work for the future of this area. By hiring a planner, we do not close doors, we open a lot of them. We do not close ourselves to any course of action. We are not even committed to listen to the planner. It was his under- atanding that the firn► of Nason, Wehrman, &night and Chapman, Inc. is highly qualified and comes to us highly recommended. The audience were inforn►ed that this request will go to Council at their next regular meeting on February 19, 1968. , RETURN TO ITEM ��1: PUBLIC Hr�xltvU : x Lots 16-19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block ZOA ��68-01. ELDON SCHMEDEKE : , Hyde Park Addition. l'� Chairman Hughes explained that, under the circumstances, the Planning Com- mission has no alternative but to continue this matter until Council's wishes are made known. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission continue the rezoning request, ZOA ��68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, Lots 16 through 19, Block 12, and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park Addition, to be rezoned from R-2 to C-2, to Ylanning Commission Meeting - Februarv 8, 1968 page 9 � February 29, 1968 and with the condition that if the Council at its next meet- ing approves the hiring of the firm of Nason, Wehrman, Knight and Chapman,. Incorporated to study the problem of zoning in Hyde Park Addition, the Commis- sion will have to wait for further action until the study is completed, and if Council does not approve, the Co�nission will take action on February 29, 1968 or March 14, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani- mously. 3. RICE CREEK ROAD/CENTR.AL AVENUE PLAN: Continued from January 25th meeting. Mr. D. L. Scherer, 6523 2nd St. N.E.: I prefer having the street come in on the North side where presently shown. If you take a road on our side, there is nothing left. The latest map was again checked by Mrs. Kassow, Mrs. Skog, Mrs. Miles, Theilmann's and Rev. Henderson. Mxs. Skog: I was wondering about a road going out to Central Avenue. If it is not put in we have no outlet. We have to have another outlet onto Central. Member Erickson showed her that this road would enable her to develop the entire paxcel. Mrs. Skog: I could put a cul de sac in the center and still get out, however, I don't want to block Morley or Scherer. � . The conunent was made that the road does not have to be put in at that point. The problem is whether it is desirable to force a person to put in a road they don't want. Myhra observed that the point is there is a goodly number of acxes which should be developed and considered. It is in conflict with individuals and the Planning Coaanission tried to avoid this. Rev. Henderson reaffirnied that they were just not ready for it now or other alternatives. They wanted to go on record being firm on this. Erickson questioned if there was any possibility of temporary cul de sac on both 0'Bannon and Skog property as far as developing was concerned if the Central Avenue road didn't go through. He was told by Jensen that it would be quite possible and feasible to put -temporary cul de sacs in a number of potential spots. This initial study was brought about by the recognizing of the Subcommittee that this area had to have a street plan, something to point towards. The plan in front of them now is a kind of conclusion the Subconunittee felt they should draw -- a simple street plan that Council can adopt without any specific pressure on any individual to take this plan and plat his property. It was not his feeling that anyone has to be forced to give us a road with possibly one or two exceptions. The entire idea is to be as flexible as possible. It could even take fifty years � to plat and the plan would still be workable. The Chairman explained that the Subcommittee took the initiative. The aim was to develop a lasting worthwhile street pattern. Pressure to change will. eventually come and we are fortunate living in a community that will protect its citizens by providing a workable plan. What has been done is unprecedented in Fridley. ._ �_ Planning Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page The audience were told the fact that the Subcommittee might recommend � this for a street plan for adoption by the Council does not take away the right of the individual to come in and present an alternate plan. The plan won't be put through until the actual construction takes place. If this were adopted at Council level, it is rather unlikely that anyone would come in with a better plan that would supersede this. There is always those alternates that someone would come in with their own specific plan and it might be adopted if it proved to be superior and conform with the suggested plan. It gives people an opportunity to see how they couid do something with their property in conjunction with the balance of the area. Mr. Theilmann mentioned there were two cul de sacs on each side of his property and he wondered if he would be taxed for street maintenance. He was told that could not be answered now, but if water and sewer are stubbed up to the cul de sacs, then he would not be assessed, but if it went through them, he might be. The sewer might go in this location, but if he desired to have no street, then he would not be forced to have one. However, he would be assessed for the piping. Mr. Theilmann said it would be of no advantage to him to have his land cut up in small pieces. He was going to object from the start if the piping goes through. CORRECTION JANUARY 25, 1968 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: � Under Item 8, Rice Creek Road/Central Avenue Plan, on top of Page 5, the first sentence reads "The Commission tabled action on the item until the February 8th meeting." The date should have been February 29, 1968. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that, under Item 8, Rice Creek Road/Central Avenue Plan, at the top of Page S of the Planning Commission minutes of January 25, 1968, the sentence should read, "The Commission tabled action on the item until the Februar� 29th meeting". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes reaffirmed the statement that Item 3, Rice Creek Road/ Central Avenue Plan on the Agenda of February 8, 1968 be continued until February 29, 1968. 4. INTERSECTION PATTERN: MISSISSIPPI STREET AND EAST RIVER ROAD: It was suggested that the City Attorney be asked to prepare a motion � for the meeting of February 29, 1968 for the intersection plan, that a plan be drawn without Bob's Produce name on it, acquire additional 10 feet for right of way for the East-West street and recommend the yim rovement. It was agreed a recommendation of the adoption of a futu�eA wou�'d be in order. Chairman Hughes stated that Item ��4, Intersection Pattern: Mississippi Street and East River Road, would be continued until February 29, 1968. �"'� 5. DISCUSSION OF MEETING WITH UIVIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE: PROGRAM METRO- POLITAN AREA DEVELOPMENT: � The Chaixman said this was the program the Chamber of Commerce heard last fall. The film shown was very well done. It described the need for metropolitan planning. He recommended it as a worthwhile program. Planning Commission Meeting - February 8, 1968 Page 11 /1 Item ��5, Program of Metropolitan Area Development, was to be put on the agenda of February 29, 1968 for further consideration. ^ /"'� 6. PROPOSED ZONING CODE: The members of the Planning Co�aunission set the date of February 22, 1968 to meet at 7:30 P.M. at the Suburban Engineering, Inc. for the purpose of studying the proposed zoning code and submitting their suggestions to the City Atto�ney for his corrections and conclusions. ADJOURNMENT: Thexe being no further business, Chairman Hughes adjourned the meeting at 11:35 P.M. � ' Respectfully submitted Haze1 0'Brian Recording Secretary � BUILDI�IG STANDARDS - D�SIGN CONTROL I�ETI?VG 1�IINUTES OF FE3RUARY 14, 1958 /1 The �iee ting was called to order by Chairman �rickson at 8:03 P.i�i. ROLL CALL �_.._____ i•fi'r,[�iBERS PRESEIJT: Erickson, Dittes, Biermann� Hauge� Tonco i��IB�:,RS ABSEiv`T; None 1. COI�TSIDy'��RATIOiV OF S�R.VICE STATIOAJ R.�MOD�.LING AND EXPANSIOTd - C2S DISZRICT 101 'JNIVLRSIiY AVy,�NE n. E. BLOCi� � PARCLL � 0� AI?DITUR'S Si)3, 9, RF�iT�,5r�.D Ry THF, S:iET.L UIL CO., 77__OTlQ AVE., ST. PAi?L, iIII�rt•3�,SOTA: Since no one was present i.nvol•red with this matter, it was put off until later in the meeting. 2. REiTIE`y� OF M& I Ai:TJ STORE RF�fODFLIP?G 60�5 tT�TI��RSITY AV't,'h�UE N.E. LOTS , 17, 1, BLOCK , HYDE PARK FR02�! JUNE , 9 7 rr��TTNG. M�ION by Biermann that a final certi£icate of occupancy be issued. Ssconded by Dittes. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. ^ 1. CUNTINUIDt -_-____,.,..� Stan Johnson - �n�ineerin� Construction Depaxtment� Roger Ilstruf - Real Estate & Land Development� representing Shell Oil Company. Discussion centered around the proposed service road in tr.e rear. This c�ru�ittee studied the proposed new structure as presented ignoring the proposed new serviee road. iy10TI0N by Dittes to recorranend issuanca of a building perr�it for the addition and remodeling as per plans as presented subject to exceptions as follows: A. Final plot and landscaping plan must be presented and approved before issuance of a building permit. B. City Council to resolve service road realign:nent before issuance of a-building permit. Seconded by Tonco. Upon a voice vote� there being no nays, the motion carried. 3. CON;�I�ERATION 0� ADDITI0�1 TO CAR ;tirAS�i 7�.51 EAST RIVER ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK IITTTI'.T?TATCnrr nrn�rmrn�r �..,.,,,,-.,-,...,.. ______ __ _ I�IOTION by Biermanri to reject proposed addition to car wash at Super America Station� 71�51 East River Road for the following reasons: ,�''� , BUILDIPIG STANDARD3 - DE5IGi� CON'PRUL, FEBRUARY 1l�, 1968 PAGE 2 /'1 A. Construction does not meet the fire code requirements of UF3C, f ire zone �1. B. The proposed addition does not conform to the existing structure. Seconded by Dittes. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. !t. COI�TINUF'D DISCzJ�STOIl OF 'PFiE iJ�L 0� TRUSS ROOH SYST!?.'�Ss Jan Gasterland to check into Council action on 2nd reading of the adoption of UBC as pertaining to roof trusses. ADJOURM�Ts The Meeting adjo�arned at 10:00 P.M. � Respectfully submitted, ^ Carrol Hauge Actin� Secretary to the Committee 0 %'1 �3 � ��Lu.. PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS- STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1968 PAGE 1 ROLL CALL• The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at 7:35 P.M. Members Present: Schmedeke, Jensen, Albrecht Members Absent: . Myhra, Nagel Others Present: Engineering Assistant Darrel Clark ORDER OF AGENDA• The Subcommittee decided to take Item 4�6 first because the petitioner was present. The rest of the items would be taken in the opposite order as written, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. 1. LOT SPLIT REQUEST• L S ��68-a6, RUTH T GEDIG: Lots 14 through 18, 53 and 54, Block G, Riverview Heights. Mrs. Gedig stated that she owns Lots 1�'through 18 on Hugo and her house is on Lots 15 and 16. She plans on selling Lots 53 and 54 but her house is built practically on the lot line. She is requesting a five foot strip for �'`� additional rear yard, � Member Jensen said the house sets on the back of Lots 15 and 16, and if she sold lots 53 and 54, except for the requested five feet, he wondered if it would be possible for her to get the contractor, who would be building, and have to have a certificate of survey in order to get a building permit, to verify the location. Mrs. Gedig was informed that when the contractor orders the survey for` Lots 53 and 54, that he show the location of her house, how far it is to the house from the new lot line. Mrs. Gedig stated the stakes are easily identified on the back of the lots, but in the front of the lots, she wasn't sure. When she stated that a neighbor wanted to buy part of Lot 18, she was infonned the cost of a survey goes down considerably on the second lot. By putting the whole thing together, she might come out considerably better. However, the Subcommittee could pro- ceed to take action regardless of the plans for the other lot. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Albrecht, that the Plats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcommittee approve the lot split, L.S. ��68-06, Mrs. Ruth T. Gedig, to split five feet in depth, 50 feet in width off the South end of Lots 53 and 54, this to be added to the North end of Lots 15 and 16, Block G, Riverview Heights, waiving certifieate of survey for Lots 15 and 16; provided that the location of those lots are indicated on the survey for � Lots 53 and 54. Upon a voice vote, all voting.aye, the motion carried � unanimously. Mrs. Gedig was told that when the builder gets his lot, he should request the surveyor to locate her house in relation to the new lot line and that . ��: Plats & Subs.-Str. & Uti1. Mt�. - Feb. 15�1968 Page 2 /'\ . should be provided for the next Planning Commission meeting on February 29th. The actual measurements to the edge of her house should be shown on the . survey. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-05, WALTER R. MACIASZEK: Lots 18-20, 26-28, Block 2 Oak Grove Addition. • The area was checked on the aerial map. The question was asked if it were necessary to ask the petitioner to provide a survey and descriptions. It was decided that at this level a drawing is sufficient because if changes have to be made, it will be of less cost to the owner than having a survey changed in the beginning. MOTION by Albrecht, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Plats and Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subco�¢nittee reco�nend approval of L.S. ��68-05 by Walter R. Maciaszek of Lots 18 thru 20, 26 thru 28, Block 2, Oak Grove Addition subject to certificate of survey for consideration of the Planning Commission, splitting Lot 27 in half with half going to each of Lots 26 and 28 making two 60 faot building sites and them the same on Lots 18 and 19, splitting into building sites of 60 feet each. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-04, LARRY DEAN FERGUSON: Lot 21, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside. � The Engineering Assistant produced a street pattern which had been adopted sevexal years ago. It showed that Lots 20 and 21 will have access on the rear of the lots. The back half should be red tagged as far as building is concerned until water and sewer are put in. However, the Subco�anittee felt they needed more information. The garage should also be tied in. MOTION by Albrecht, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Lot Split request, L.S. ��68-04, Larry Dean Ferguson, Lot 21, Block 2, Spring Lake Park Lakeside, be continued until March 6, 1968. Upon a voice vote, all.voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. LOT SFLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-02i ARTHtTR CHRISTENSON: All of Lots 2 and 3, and part of Lots 20 and 21, Block 2, Rees Addition to Fridley Park. The Engineering Assistant said the location of the land is North of the telephone building. The rear (Westerly line) is one foot from the old City Hall garage which was moved to that property. He said Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, are zoned C-1 and Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are zoned light industrial. The Pxofessional Building is commercial as we11 as 1, 2, 3, Block 1, and the "�� telephone building is light industrial. Lots 2 and 3, the way they are zoned, are basically impossible to build on, as they would have to maintain a 35 foot clearance. They are still under one ownership, but Mr. Christenson wants to ' have the split for special assessments for now. Being the request for the split was in two different types of zoning, the � Subcommittee believed this was more of a zoning problem than lot split. If . both lots were zoned the same, there would be no problem of setbacks, and if � they approve this lot split, an illegal sideyard would be created. .� Plats & Subs.-Str. & Util. Mtg. - Feb. 15, 1968 Pa�e�3 ^ MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Albrecht, that the Lot Split request, L.S. ��68-02, Arthur Christenson, of all of Lots 2 and 3 and part of Lots 20 and 21, Block 2, Rees Addition to Fridley Park be continued until March 6, 1968 and ask the petitioner to attend the meeting for further information. 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��68-03, JOSEPH ZIZAK: Lots 6 thru 9, Block 27, Hyde Park Addition. ' Membex Schmedeke, who lives in that area, asked th�.t, because of a.possibl conflict of interest, he would refrain from voting on this request: The Chairman tabled the item of the Lot Split Request, L.S. 4�68-03, Joseph Zizak of Lots 6 through 9, Block 27, Hyde Park Addition until the meeting of March 6, 1968 for consideration and study and because of a lack of a quorum. 6. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT: P.S. ��68-01 AL ROSE ADDITION ALBERT M. JOHNSON: Lot 36, Revised Auditor's Subdivisian ��23. Engineering Assistant Clark explained that Mr. Johnson was out of town and wouldn't be back until after the first of March. In examining the preliminary drawing, the Subcommittee felt there was a question about Lot 6, inasmuch as it was not a legal lot. It would be turned down under our Building Code. They mentioned combining Lots 5 and 6 � by moving the lot lines of 4 and 5, making three lots into 2 lots. MOTION by Albrecht, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Preliminary Plat; P.S. ��68-01, A1 Rose Addition, Albert M. Johnson of Lot 36, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23 be tabled for further consideration and stipulation that Lot 6 must be improved as it is not suitable building site in its present dimensions. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. STREET STUDY SPECIFICATIONS: The Chairman felt there should be a complete committee to study this item, and continued the Street Study Specifications until the next regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT• There being no further business, Chairman Jensen adjourned the meeting at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted Hazel 0'Brian Recording Secretary � �.� EXC�iPT COLil�dClL MEETING - FEBRUARI 19� 1968 �PL•ANNTT�C COT�+IIvIIS�ION I�SEETING, FEbRUARY 8, 1968: 1. pJBLIC HEARING: REZONING R.EGL'EST, ZoA ,#68-Ot, ELDON SC?�Y�DEKE: LOTS 16 THROUGH 19, BLOCK 12 ANU LOT 30, BLOCK 31� HYDE PARK ADllITION. REZO�IF FROM R-2 TO C-2s �AGF 1 Councilman Liebl said that :�Zr. Eldon Schmedeke had requested this rezoning and was present at the Council !�eeting. Mr. Scr.m.edeke said that he had asked for a simple rezoning, so tha� his property �rould be rezoned the same as the property across T.H. #l�7� and he could see no reason why the request had been tabled. He said that the Planning Commission feels they need 3�la.►ir_er� at the cost of K2�000� and he di3 not agree with spendin� �2�000 on a simple request. He said that if the Council is hiring a City �lanner within the next three months, they would rather work with hi.m rather than a planning consultant. Ma�ror Kirkham said th�t the Planning Commission is trying to consider all angles of the situation, and to make certain +,hat it will be the best pl�,.� for ti:e City. He said th�t his own personal recommendation would be nat to hire a consLlting planner� but a staff planner as intended, and have him consider the.whole project. l�ayor Kirkham said that he did not f.eel that I�ir. S�bmedeke �s request should have to wait for action on a planner� but should be acted on i.�ur�ediately. He s aid that he cansidered this rezoning request just 2. correction, and snculd be taken care o.£ as soon as possible� and the Council must ict k�ith all haste in h�ring a staff planner to st�:dy the overall project. Counci.lman Sheridan said that he concured� and would ask that the Planning Commiss�on give Mr. Schmedeke�s rea,uest reconsideration prior to A4arch llth� �when he felt the rezoning rea�zest should have a public hearing.. i.7i'I�1J by Councilman She: idan to set the date of March 11� 1968 for a �"ublic Hearing to hear the rezoning request of :�Ir. Schmedeke to rezone Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30� Block 31, Hyde Park Additicn from R-2 to C-2. Ssconded by Councilman Haxris. Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� May or T�'irkham declared the motion carried unanimously. Cc�.zncilman Harris 3aid that the Council some time ago set criteria and qualifications for the planning position� had received applications� and he felt this should be pursued. MOTION by Councilman Harris to request the City r".anager to r�tiiew the' qualified applicants for the planner position and re?�ort back to the Council. He said that if the City Manager felt any or all of the applicants were qualified� he could eall them in f or an interview� a�d come back .aith a recom.�endaiion for t,he Council. Seconded by Councilman Samuelson. Councilm?n Liebl said that the Chairman of the Pla,nning Coirnnission� who ha.d asked for a planner, �ras present at the Council I�Iceting� and he would like to ask him his vpinion of •�rethex the :°lannino Commission would prefer that the Cit�� get a full time planner as a City employee or just call in one �ahen there is a need in a specific ar�a. Mr. P.obert Hughes said that the Planning Cor.L*nission had discussed this at scme length about three months ago, and at the ti.ms the co�niitee reviewed the applicants. He said that at t�hat time it was �their unanimous opinion tliat it was relativsly clear the City could use 2 time ervices by a professional planner and they reco*runended this to the Council. They felt that if there ware sufficient other duties bAsides the work relative ta the ?'lanning Commission, a full ti�ne planner could be hired. Mayor Kirkham said that in the memorandurn the Council received from the City :�an�ger, it had EXCr�RPT COUNCIL :�iEETIi�11 - r r.BRUARY 19� 1968 PAGE 2 �� been his recommendation that a City �lanner could h�ndle the Standards Control� and oversee the �rspection Bepartment� so he taas needed. Go�ancilman Liebl asked if his qua,�,ifications ti�ould be ari en�ineering background. Gouncil�nan Sa._muelson said this was correct. The Cit�t ?:anager said that we migi:t not be ab?e to get a degreed engineer, but we mi�ht have to settle f or experience in pl�ning. n �"� The VOTE upon the notion was a troice vote� there being no nays, i•iayor Kirltham declared the notion carried: ,. , /`� , , CITY OF FRZDLEY MINNESOTA PLANNING Ai.vD ZONIN� FORM Number ZOA ��68-01 1 /' �� APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE �('�� f,, „� -� �G"� ,,f' ..�. Address - =� %� � �� : .�(,' � ( /�I c� � /�, �-� Telephone Number 5^� �.� - �c- jc'- PROPERTY OWNER' S SIGNATURE '�yl �-; �` : -�.: • ,��,�J _ ... � � , � i Address �- ;,.-• �_._ Telephone Number �� :-z_ �_ __ .. • . . . . - ..' . �� 1/17/68 TYPE OF REQUEST ��Rezoning ��Special Use Permit Variance Lot Splits Approval of Pre- liminary Plat Approval of Fina]. , Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Other Street Location of Property �� ? V,�, ��, ;� � �,;� Legal Description of Progerty _ t,�� j� ._ ��_ ��_ �c � L�..� ,� � Z �, � /`\ G. c:s � ?�c�., 't�'_ '_.. ��.. � � � z• c� � f � 1, < Present Zoning Classification � _Z Existing Use of the Property _ ± � `�;,� ,� � � ; �> m�. �� ; �r �,� � Proposed Zoning Classification, Special Use, Variance or other request C--?, Describe briefly the Type of Use and the Improvement Proposed Acreage of Property �_ t; /�� r. - �'�, f -r- , , .. . _ r , .. ,. Has the Present Applicant Previously Sought to Rezone, P1at�,.Obtain a Lot Split, �" � Obtain a Variance or Special Use Permit on the Subject Site or Part of It? � �-� � When? �� What was Requested Fee Enclosed $ 40.00 Date Filed Date of He4r�ng �''\ T ' LORNER sE�. P3_ t �=� - - 'r�vrJr— - - l^ F se c� : + Z► 1 + s� t ' td l tI = 1� 4 17 � � � 2f . s u s � u ` !l i = �� u '; � z3 � � � 'ZZ ° ►��n �'� �: 11 1° V) Z1 lo N o !l � Zo u , ' 1� 11 !� 11 . ,tp �� .td L � 11 l4 • 17 1+ 1 f'^ � -- : � 60 TH • y .f! . / OJJ � ' • O = t � 1/ Z , � zs � - � � • r� s � s ' ,t! i ' Zi ! ` 2! f u � . tf 7 14 1 � z3 e r� � 9 r i ;p . 1 .. le . , ' .:d l: _... ' zo _ L _ . � ' 19 dt � 1� �i: e ^ 1��,.� 2 : p : 1f i rs � z� 14 I � j = rs v : yt lp • '= so :c • 19 l� z • 1/ 1! N � s� �� ,f6 l��i�:� � cirY ELDON SCIiP�DEKE . 2O � ZOA ��68-01 ' L. 16-19, B1. 12 Hyde Pk. Add. L. 30, B1. 21, Hyde Pk. Add. . ' � ...ort�,..�� si '(6..c s.....>) - - •vc•u �r .. ' � ... .r... - --7�i-Trvc-wi.:.wr� . �. i J.� i:L>'n /l�.i .n. . � t. tt G J �� M .O r.t ` .i. u.� � 1! 1 �' � Y1 1 � � OO ��o r � a r � ' j� -� I g � ' � ' 0 � �a + t . Z� i �_ 17 � t � !' .� 1! t 1i 3 s ,,r#'� � > > � tr c � - zs � H't� \ "' 'e ' ts _7 - .� t� _ � _ _ Q ; ,. . . . e - _ _ _-_ . . � z.� B - � s, i � , ' Zt 1 t3' j• ss � .R►, � 0 a` ' . N' 21 L'� �Q - Z! 10 �� a ' e s ,i t! i e ° ` � 10 11' : te _ 1� _Jt _' � ' 1� tt • ` t � � .v ' 18 !, r ° 1/ � IJ � � ` y � p • ' e b 17 _s � I.• � r� !t l 0 0�'� 6 t " Si .;. s �� ;' s ttI 1 �� _ .• i .es • ar'. � � � �b� . � '' �.. � ... _��r:.�.. �; n . ,.,,4., ... , 4V�NUE � 1J �a � 1 � � � J ' �o a � ��O s t i a _� � t1 Z � �J p � • Z� r _3 � ° s/ � • _. O. _ b.. s�._... � ° I1 .i t ' Z7 �i ''4� � a' ' � t y = Ii d' T4. • 1i � �; � tf- �� = 2l i�'W R� s ,v a • 24 �� . Zs � � A. e ' ` 2d S 0: � 21 0. y; e e ° u� ZZ 9+�'' ,a� • Zt J �3 3 � . 7I I/L!1'C . � i iw . F: � ♦ � a I •� �� 1 17 1F� � °, Sf :' ; : 1 ,>r:� .' t e �rf. •� ii. ; : i :, _? �:'y, � zi � �_� r- , z� �o.:N u t �� ,u � ; > Z� 7 � � � -s - � � ,ZZ ! ' �: : ' ' t! 14 = p � ,qJ Ip, � �: N l0 u � . u �� i! it � � � . ' f� � 1! lt `� , N• l� il � � It !J a ' ti %S ' l� i .J ' • le f� ��it x. i l6 .� n:' � i i� w .r - ' � 58 „TH AVE. a� t�H p � . � � � i � :0 • � ; � = t � 9 1 = : : : B �__. ' � : 1 , : B � � � ♦ 6� s S.. S�a ` iir..0 t f �� _�s. i S.:� n Z . »� ,�., I'J �� s c 7 e 9 �o u it L� H � Z! � t ' .. « �� . : 57 TN b .. . .r « .. :_ r . . . . ' . �Q � . . !23 t 5 L 7 e- auiz,!/f • P3 N �e � M ' �i� CORNEA " --S�--T __ � � . — Ccr 9f // 1 •: � . .i � :• ., t��;: s �F ' ,�, • w �� t- , � ,� � a . "f' F— � � fl1. ' �a "'�r-� U� r ; , .:�.... Y 6. �JlU .� .•. p � ' i / •, :�' r � � � s i r m�. :• � , . �_ �• �� rt� avE. i � �. ,1! / ! �' 'r � r ' r s V � ,• • A 1 , � � d I f� � q e ! r! 4rnw r 'x / e � � r � � h 9 , � C►J 58 � tii AV�. R ,_, 0 •/ 2 3 4 S 6 7 /o // /2 /3I /I I!� =I 2 3 4 3 � 7 /O '/i Y- --�..�•_ ." '"—'_ti�i�xt�--_'_" .,�.�' , ,.. . . �� 0 CITY OF FItIDLEY MINNESOZ'A PLANNING A.'VD ZON�NG FORM Number L„� � C�'Y ' C�(r APPLICANT' S SIGNATURE �;,c: ��L• �; �,.,2 ��(. �� Cr��C " Address �� / � �� ) Telephone Number ��'y- ��y�l.`� PROPERTY OWNE R' S S IGNATURE S i� �y ��.. � 5 H(� � L> c, TYPE OF REQUEST Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance �_Lot Splits Approval of Pre- liminary Plat Approval of Final Plat Address / Streets or Alley Vacations Telephane Number ' Other Street Location of Property 52j J /�/�+�,C, Legal Description of Progerty Lt,•r5 i y-- JS �� S, -�y ��. �,r,� (� � 1'\ 1\� �ii Yi � � �� `- 1'� liri �•Yl'� . . . Present Zoning Classification � -� Existing Use of the Property _ (9 �, .� ��i.,�; 4 � :� {= f��•, �, `�. `�:`. iZ � � � ,�}�. Proposed Zoning Classification, Special Use, Varfance or other request Describe briefly the Type of Use and the Improvement Proposed Acreage of Property Has the Present Applicant Previously Sought to Rezone, Plat, Obtain a Lot Split, Obtain a Variance or Special Use Permit on the Subject Site or Part of It? ��('� When? What was Requested Fee Enclosed $ �`� �� Z �'`'� T'� Date Filed Date of 'c:a.^ring � .� L. s. �68-ob Ruth T. Gedig L. 11�-18, ana 5 Riverview Heigh � � Ta� � F W �Z � � � � •r o0 � �� n b �54, Bl. G � O v► .l � � N � w N N N H . v . e � . � � . � W r ; . 0 L � � �� ' c E , �. . s �- —_ --�' � L w . �� X n y�, � � �o � � 0 u N W � � y � � � � � � � 0 � � O � U y 22 n f'i-" � 4 a � � , RoKi 30� �-i o�t. s e � s b w� 1T a r� 1- o? s I 5- I b ♦ r M v � � � locl� G I.oTs 1 �} - I� "��v-17 `t � �� . � �- � a k. �s-�" c�,.,t ,�..�:.�,.,.. ��:..: : � , .- J r i � - .��,.,,e,t,f �.. f s.�t �.�.�..i� 4.. :. ut�. ' T��. S i? ,�.�(" �,,;, . t�.�f' %� : � i �; � � t. t� .-� , ,,., ..� •..� -4 �� :. �_. .,;� � ` G �zo . ,� � . r� `� :.� w�-�•� �"� . • ;,.. �.�'x„ � �� ; ; ,_ r��,. .,.,,�`��..,,,�.,, �r{ � . ' ' 1 �. �: _ ', • ��—�... . . - . t\ �y� 4, t.. 1 `•, �'`�t� 2 �—� Jr :J-��-�.:::.�;,L � , � ��t _:, r ..S ; � � i' � �; s y k' � . . . C� • �' �� ScG1idN �'(AK�' �c `�LoM �� 10 sec �' t�M 1.._; ��. 'IKe�,:Ri �►NG _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ �I � C"�rQl 'i- . . hr � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — � � X S` l� � I I . � T� S 7'A k4 � � � � R o NTo �/ 5T; B 1�� K� l,�Ts 5�-- 's� . __..P.� _ . _ �:`::�" ` AUDI 4 Rs • • • - REVISED 3 �_ �4 � � ~ - .r„e.,.� �„ �• •• � �, . .. ..; :. , -,. s.; � ,r... �.w �"p' • ; . _ " = �� '"'� : �"� � �� 3 ` 2 � y�+ ' � J� y ;�Il J � � \ " ` 2 . •: �s t. ec a �e �l: t � • _.,� ,..., � ' . w. � f � �"_ �r, E. � ,.,� - `� � t � i f• ��n'�� t�! AV u ; ia�s � l� � v n : i.� , � �t' ` f •'� . . /sr.L + 3 �' i r`� f Q�N i7 s.s��"='�- '''2f-1� .�, � � � • ` I y . , . '., / : _ �.. l'' 8 a• \ ;: eS .: O s• u� " z ' y. 'Kr M.1�.i1`�. io o /. ti `i _ / � � E y ; . - � . � �j �e: j».i 9J \ �i. `0� , .�.� � <� , � - � � 0 � �i� � \ � ` f�" �/t1; f.'1.SO �� 3 w' z 1)T E //. y, � � ' . � � � 0 Y � : �7 � 5 � • .� . s� ,� �. p � �s'� .e .�•� ; � . .- . , � �Q _�. ' � � 3 � � . - - - { , _ 5y � ;�; , � _ �° ��g5's � � . `. � f - ; i � - . _ �. �. � N � .( ♦ 6 � �B � �i � i i7 � ` � (�I � . ' __ `. j ��. _ .` � 6 e . ♦ <"' � .,� � , ° \ � � � p \ 1 .� 7 �:�� t� `i /7 � /i� � �� - 7 �r,�► `_at N �� . �� . =d�.,�, , ic : � � _ io , � L. s. #68-06 ,: � - - Z ' 1+. ' y "' Ruth 1. Gedig _.�..� � . � ^ + �S ` � 7, _ � � �l L. 1!j-I8, ar.d � . r '( • 53-5l., Bi. �, Q� : 3 � � � v � 47f� ,.. �°" g Ri vs: riew Heights ��,.�. � ,.,.. ,.. ... ; �Z � : .¢ ' J . '°•� � � � ` a : /4 � /3 /2 // ti /p . 9 � j3 ' , ` (� ; � � � : . .�� ° � � � � a� ics.i �.. . ., e ics ,r �� tJ . <:,,�;�, i � : ,..� � -.<<e�. ' ';lSSISSIPP�, � , u.• , /�I � - 7� 4� . f• s c i w u � - ' d r o u.11 � �,i . . ° i .0 au � u• �. u �. . . �� e•,,3 �� 1,�j,..�M '. i 3 � _ ' u � � �I w. ki •. .. 1 � �� ',�'. � f' - ` \ � I � ` � \ � s 3Y= � 9 � �' �EZ . � .r . /7 .�, /B ` /9. � 10 � 2 / ^ �� . : j ., ' a�P r „'. , , * w y .0 �F' � , T� • �•- � r� `' ��T ' � ,,, � ' , � � �.. .e. ' ; �' 9 � r � . �y y M. i � • tf + _. l) • + � . . AUD.. SU .14 22 � ��. ' r ; ., , �, ,t.e = , ' � � ' � CITY OF . . Nor l0 15REV�': z�� : �� ; _c ,y�� COON RAPIDS -----,,,�_,----- � . • ��> • ,. » ' . • ' " " ' , �=:_ • -::.:::�':'�:.... �16 - • .Z4 �" a j ' 1 � « ,. « % f [„e. �, , .� r f i ..(i..t�?.. ,• • _ N .. n ' w Z� f ` �� ! � �� I ,n � i�. - ..Cif•N=• _ /N � �,. .. �- w ..�,�,�:-� - ' �' -- " �GItY OF '� � � j6 ' ` ��' � . `�� ` '' �:� � ,..� e RIOLEY ,,,� , � " 1bT ` ' ' �� • y � a � � � , e > > � �•' �y ': �`+p� �. : � �JtlJ 3 • `ie 8 \T� a , u ,, � �1� , . ' J k i +i'� , ``t.lt 9. 7. ` .•� \.. .. w %'? \ .. w � •l �� .�. S�Ci� `S ', N " Z , (��! ZO .�....�� a;. t a .s.r INA! J � � y � � � � {,� rw a v, L � _ � � ..,�%it._ - � �SiSO% �'��' , � �,�� ; 21 r 2 e�. � c,wj . _ � � � " A. wxY,rwor � iw.�/ / I � 1RON70l� 9 '��` �..r�� ...,. , ,.�.. ..� �2,��, , � _ �,�., , r . . � �Q ..,. :., , . . . "S � � ��x �,� w. . )e s fi,� ^, 8�5 - A J7�7 7 7i 7� r � n .I..I. " � �.L- i� .•�. ; $ ..,. , ,.',� . t? J` ,� s s , .....,.- -. � -„ t •s7tlo�a� n i � `er.�� t n. . . .. • . _ . lt.�}- � K.fi � 1t .. y„ . � �� ! _ . ��% ' � t � �' =, � • � REVISED A1 i . �. '_ � SUBDIVISION . �� : .�. ,. - � � r� � . �; i �, i 2 _, _ ,: - � . . _ _ ,� CITY OF FRIDLEY MINNESOTA PLANnTING AND ZQNING FORM Number L.S. ��68-05 . APPLICANT'_S.. SIGNATURE % �1.� '~ � w � � :� Address �''� 1 4Ct'r, r";ve. T;,E. Telephone Number 7�-� -� � 00 ' � / ! � PROPERTY OWI3ER' S SIGNATURE !' i"�.-'( � f t _��°L i�t-t_. Address 4E�� University i,ve. �,T.E. Telephone Number 560-4142 � .. • .. _; . _ �.+5 TYPE OF REQUEST Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance X Lot Splits Approval of Pre- liminary Plat Approval of Final Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Other Street Location of Property 6E�� ilock on l�no'.�a St, ':?.E. � Legal Description of Progerty Lots 1 �-20 �nd 2r'-2c �loc� 2 Ca?� Grove �dd, Fridley Present Zoning Classification R-� Existing Use of the Property Va cant Proposed Zoning Classification, Special Use, Variance or other request R-1 Describe briefly the Type of Use and the improvement Proposed 4 Sin� le fa��:ily dti�ellirr�s • Acreage of Property �2 , C00 Sq . f t. �Has the Present Applicant Previously Sought to Rezone, Plat, Obtain a Lot Split, Obtain a Variance or Special Use Permit on the Subject Site or Part of It? No --------------_ _ - When? --------------------------------- - /"'\ What was Requested ----------------------- Fee Enclosed $ 60.00 Date Filed Feb. �' FS Date of fI��ring _ � M�_w _ _ ! Lt�t;�v..,....�% -- 3 O t.cr—tJ ' �.��i . _ _-- ------ `1n -�-- �. � C� � �'� /1 .� � , � Lot Split ��68-OS ^ ti•lalter R i�_�ci�szek � 1 1 l+Ot1_-i �ve . i; .E. :�;pl s . .•'in?1. ��1+c 1 Refer �e: rlannin� Co:�mission anc, City Council Request for lot s��it on tl:e f.olle,�rin� lots �oc�.tec in t'r�:e C�.k Grove �cd, in rridlev. Lots 2� 27 2� =loe�r 2 C�.�T groS7e �cc. ( 120ft. ) �.�tc ttao (�Oft. ) front�.�e ;�u� lcin� sites. Lots 1�� 1 � 20 �lock 2 C�L'_� Grov� Ada. ( 12Cft. )� into t�,o ( FOi�. ) fronta�e �,uilcin� sites. Re�.son for lot split is t�iat i�.E cost oi the lots ( 12Cft. ) mu'_�es it unprofit�.�.le to build a sin�-le �v;ellin� osz it. n 0 � ti'ours i ruly , ., �� . �� ' C�`''`:'�`' � � � � ,f�,:G�, . � � �.� � . L. s. .#58-05 ti741ter R. I�Iaciaszek � Carl L. 3crenson - Owner �^ ' L. 18-20, 26-28, B1. 2, ' Oak Grove Addition � y � A � N � � -i � lo %� T=v i I %��4. / 30 �� / I = z9 � � ,Z z � � � - o � z8 � � 3 �� ro Q .- M � C id i ---�+t--- ' �% 3 `� � �� ' i/ o•_ 2. ` � a S ,p,�� ,�� . . , � �90'¢' " ' zS � � � � , /� � � 2 �f/ ' � � y '� � � � a3 I I�C o Rz. p 9 � � � zz s D /o = �� : ZI I i ,�, io �o M �� y � - 2� � n Qt �z ---F9-- � � O N � �z 13 � `8 I � m ' i� �¢ � : � i� � � �•C �� S � $ y� /G �,S lo b T=� ,�(v� j • � �% � � � n -� N � � n � _.... , _ � �� T—��.z�—s— no-�r --r 'ia � r �, � s. :: I��. � � � � Oa' ��1 VZ� ��v _\ q; i � �� '�a'� 3��$�o �`�•e� � ,". ! � ! �� I �v �� : ' , „ TEV SED !N. f. CORNER �� 4 SEC. 13. —r— - ---�4�4t}-- -"-N-"-- �+; _• _ �.�,�,... ,�, . . . . •I�✓Y,�'�c L. s. �5�-a5 �rTa? ter R. Maciaszek Carl E. Sorenson - Oarner • . L. 18-20, 26-283 Bl. 2, Oak Grove Addition ' V , 1�-- )- a Rd� � �.. • . . . . ` A � i M•.•.•.,'1 ' � J (�► ! (�} :� �� REEK � � `� . �. y ' . ' _. . . ' . . ^ V, 1 V I i ♦ ( ' j ! �oRS s ue�o�Y�s�ay � ; � ��' $� � � � � 1--- -- �` 2 � � �b� � � . � � • e ; ••io ,i's ' �• : , jo i �f.o : se a iii e a ` ix �xx. N.e. ��.••�!7 I � ' � : / , `. . zs 1 7 I :� �/3 w� /� �L � 3 2I ! = 2A 3 � Q. -,; . , , � . I:� s� x. � -•-•---•-...•-- , - � � . u.. t7 I Z� t � c� ,a �r�. �tq ' LlI i Y./1 � R.fl ; i.h `•.� .. i I ZL [i s •:� . r� 66 V2 AYE. N:E. s aD� /T ON' '= - • :S � 6 � �� io -,,.�, ( I � ' - M � _ _ �I __ I� � ' � I ,! !< - r � I� 7 7 �"' an / . ,� 4_37I _1_e� ri S��y• 23 a V B W _=�'=� n� _;yt� 11 9 �� 22 ��O (,V •�,2 1 j� t• �. �t nr��.IM/ 9 � ' � � � � �. ii i s. j� ia �` �` : ' 0" r� /o N io � • io ' :r, s:.r,�-a�r—.z.,, ': a }" O � 10 p zo N ii �W�9�, :(II :a.3..s Q3F" � + ., . I ., ., ` � � � � 4 is iz .s i: �r � 6 s � � � . . N.E. � v�a : � . � �e �3 = .a .� - • � ' • ,. ��,,,..� ` �°� . �.., � ' : Grml I � �s �� . p . . �4 � N � ; FI.♦.r• _�} " ps:.• � • � � . .i , e . . , o � Ri 7 5 + f � ��. �.. ��C.V� j � /� � ,� � S • /If o . a �ta• • • � o • � ♦ �is�.si �1�.1f q .. � u7 ' � r I ( � 66 TH AVENUE � N.E. �/'1� � �L� � � ' ry ,,.':.. ,...,.< ; � � , \ NV�. �Q �� 2 I � !o� i� ` ja' �'° j 'j' � : � � '6 '��• (�' .. e ��c iv r I� 79 2 19 l i � j � °' .• • � '"' �.r eS_ i I 4 ` 1A 1 zi 3 3 3 3 W , � ' I �� 1 � * a r' �i 4 ,� � � Y 2 I ''� _, ; �' � j` f O 2c J S f �� J ' . I ' Q 1s" i Z• s �,,, • �' i�. ?� �y,�i. �M—. , \ ti 7 Q • � �i • 7 . I 7 ` 'J . �' . ..,I 1 _ - ' �� (ixu) � ss s � O z.r s • G B '�it� ' 2 <sml , �, � � � ; � V , 4 i � 27 9 ' !: � 9 � � : 9 ' � 4 Q. U Iirin.�o Q,' � � ti i ti io • 4. � �O . I 'O O � i M..�re/J�' O s � $ it. Gii! ►� d�� 'i I: (.uw,J �� to ii lo ii ii .� u Q• ,'t o� c � . "� ��62�i ��: �idi /9 /I i9 i1 � /I -ir�1� ��3r�.ii�r ( 6� � u I �� ! � � �� ' iJ i3 _ q i3 i! /3 � i �� ♦ �� '.. N At . /7 /I . . /./ . /t � / � 7 yr � �� iS • ii i • iJ � / � N • � • • ♦ fa • � � i ♦ !� il u • � '� � i< « � �� . . !e w • ) ` � � 7 � � • �_ l�� _.._ '_StL ' � n ui _ u \4 u� `'� _ � � � ""'!�"�_� ' _ . �l [. �va coAaER 3EC. 13 � !Y . � � . /wtI �N•J'J � � �N.SI . . ' /%r7-!/•!/ �/M 9-!•� s'�rl� .I•W.A. � �. _� -- �'�: . TI-iE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING r1EETING - JAi�iUAP.Y 8, 1968 '� ^ .� The Special Public Hearing Meeting of January 8, 1968 was called to order by Mayor Kirkham at 8:03 P.M. , OPENING CERE�fONY: Mayor Kirkham asked the audience to stand and join in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ' ROLL CALL • MEMBERS PRESENT; Kirkham, Liebl, Harris, Samuelson, Sheridan MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Mayor Kirkham recommended that Item 2, "COMMITTEE AND COi�L'�IISSION APPOINTMENTS", Item 4, "RESOLUTION DESIGNATING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON NORTH SUBURBAN SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BOARD, and Item 5, "RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR - SUBtT.QBAN RATE AUTHORITY", be deleted from the Agenda because the Council has noi had their organization meeting. ° � MOTION by Councilman Harris to adopt the agenda with the deletions as suggested. Seconded by Councilman Samuelson. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - C0�'SIDERATION OF PFOPOSED FINAL PLAT - ANDREW P. GAWEL P,S. ;�66-03 SHADY OA ADDITION: Mayor Kirkham read the Notice of Hearing. The City Engineer showed the Council the proposed final plat and explained that this had been approved previously by the Council as a Preliminary Plat. He said that Mr. Gawel has been studying the road plan with the other property owners in the area, and . temporarily tfie City is requesting the dedication of '� a cul-de-sac e�sement, which can be vacated when the final location is decided upon. There�was a discussion of a road that will have to be cut through in this area when all the property owners decide on an integrated plan. The City Engineer said there were no utilities in this area, and the improvements would have to be petitioned to put the street in. . Mr. Gawel, 1546 - 16th Street N.W., the contractor developing this plat, Mr. Ken Korin, 6051 Benjar.iin Northeast, and Mr. Richard Schneider, 1568 Northeast Ferndale Avenue, two interested property owners, came to the Council table. There was a discussion about where the proposed houses will be built, the proposed grade for Benjamin Street, and the necessity of slope' - easements because of,the �teepness of the road. Mr. Schneider said that � when homes are built on Lots S, 6, and 7, the water will stand on Ferndale ! /'� Avenue because there will no longer be the proper drainage. He sa;,d that � � someone will have some flooded basements, and asked if anything is planned for a storm sewer now. The City Engineer pointed out that this was just � a small portion of the land to be developed, and the storm sewer will come when the road is to be put. through. Mayor Kirkham said there were long range plans for drainage, but'asked how this problem c�ill be taken care of � � ^ � ,,�.,.,._ SPECIAI. MG�TING, JANUARY 8, 1968 PAGE 16 in the meantime. The City Engineer said that Mr. Gawel has the right to develop this property, and he will have to petition the City to put in the street, hearings can be held, and a section can be put in. He said• that the City is working with the people in this area to agree on an overall road plan. Mr. Schneider said he had nothing against the plat, but he just wanted something done with the ro�d, as he was told when he built that Benjamin would be cut down. Mr. Schneider said that if Mr. Gawel is going to build right away, there is going to be a drainage problem. Councilman Samuelson said he felt the developer should have to bring in a drainage plan showing where the sewer and water are going and how the water will drain out of the subdivision. The City Engineer said that eventually there will be storm sewer in this area. Councilman S<:muelson said that the water in the meantime is going to come down the slope to the north and there is presently no outlet for the water. The City Engineer said that it would be hard for him to give a plan, when he does not know what will be done in the surrounding area. Mr. Schneider said that Mr. Cochran had told him that they know what the Z�vel of Benjamin Road will be, and that will drain to Rice Creek Road. The City Engineer pointed out the way the water will drain. Councilman Samuelson felt there should be a development plan, because if the Council were to approve the plat, they would have very little control over the streets and utilities. Mayor Kirkham said he would agree with Councilman Samuelson, as an individual owner of a lot c�:nnot interfere with the drainage so that it would possibly back up into someone else's yard. Councilman Harris requested that the City Engineer physically look at this area to see if tliere is any way to lower the east end of Ferndale at its intersection coith Benjamin. There was a discussion of the possibility of putting in a portion of storm sewer which could be tied into the larger area at a later date. The City Engineer suggested that this public hearing be continued, and he can bring back the plans for the Rice Creek Drainage District for Council study. � MOTION by Councilman Harris to continue the Public Hearing on the Consideration of the Final Plat as requested by Andrew P. Gawel to the Special Public � Hearing rleeting in February. Seconded by Councilman Samuelson. Upon a � voice vote, there being no nays, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. RESOLUTION ��2-1968 - DESIGNATING TIME A1�TD NUMBER OF REGULAR COWi CIL rtEETINGS: Mayor Kirkham recommended that the current program be continued. MOTIOV by Councilman Samuelson to adopt Resolution ��2.-1968. Seconded by Councilman Harris far discussion. Councilman Harris said that presently the Council is getting through with th_ir meeting� at a reasonable time, but if it were to .start being 1;00 or 2:00 A.M. again, he wondered if starting a half hour earlier would be worthy of consideration. Mayor Kirkham said he would prefer to continue with the present time, and the public is used to the present schedule. Councilman Sheridan suggested the Council be sure they are through before riidnight. The Vote upon the motion was a voice vote, there being no nays, rlayor Kirkham declared the motion carried. 3U C -i" A �- � � � � . �. � � � � ' �:�. n . �.' p •- 3 � � � � ^ � �' 3 Andrew P. Gawel Contractors, Inc. ""� ! J � �J . ^ 270It I�.�. Washington - ?�9-bllb � °'� ' j� � s • T 5l�6 16th � "t° �-- � a.� � L.s. #66-10 . � L. �2, A. s. #92 - . �,..� � �i Q � � � t� 1 `�� L�,' ' - ._s � - � . i _�..�. - - �-- -- -- _'+_ _-.:�� --- ---?�:�.�"��_�I �,�� . --/� . - ;.. �. i>. 3 ,- � / ' � -- y '-^_ � . , ! �. � _.�, ,� ' � . -` �- . . . _ �-- � �� 5` �t. -� �3� <C' - � ,. � 1� �-r'� ti r., � � �� ( �; � � - � �--�� ... :., �; � � � i ��_�� ` � w i — � �. c'. �. ,� \ r" �'- f_ � Z ^ r. �, � � '�. . i .3 3. C� ._ -- --- � 3 �.C6 ��' I , ; � t �.� � � � 1 . C ' i ;r A4F � � \ � It 1 � - � � `�t� � > � � . 1 � � � - ,.1 � � . J _ ' � � . ' . .� � ' ` 1 " - /33. ci _7_. : ` /"�' L2 --_.,_. --- — ,�_`_. � ._ � � . ' � . . . - -- . � : �., , � � ; � �� `� � : ' �� • �l e'i . : � � �� i � � t�' � , ... � (' ` i / — ^ � r' /32� �" �.=... .� rD � - _.�.,.---- ---- — .— _.. _�._� - . I . . � �, -� •\ \ J 1 �. . � � � � �.�`. 1 � � �� ' �� I . �� . ' �� ' ��u � � _��v= � . � � . . :� � : � . ,. ,. _ . _ ; rs == ��i � � �r '9'.i � � /'i . ;'9 � � /32. J� ;% ' �✓i y • � � � ��. �� • ; � .`�� , �r -� r j . . ,.�z Y . - _ �r_.�: 'r� . � jI ;' 'v � .. .' -.. .___ �: � i I • :• ---- ,«. _ ..._. .�__ .. _ — .. .,�. :---„y _ ,� _ . Andrew P. Gawel Contractors, Inc. 32 ,•.•.�.,,,,.�,,, s.�„� 2704 N.E. Washington - 789-6116 �� . - - •- --�9.3c%Z c�. �z�3:�.4cJ-----1546 16th� � ,� L.S. ��66-10 ��-- •• i:s • !/,.y�� '` '.'— _._ _� ...._ . . . .L...- - • �J . �t•., . L.2, A.S. ��92 � � . � ; � � � , ' ✓e :.•Y:i.�'� � . . . • �( • a '' � �i'�/-H✓ ... h � � i � -�.,:, ' ' • ' • • • /; j / •� `4 � .. i � : ;Nn � � . �`o�� ` •q :'`; � ti� t 'r. �. -,.! !: C i ° " v: • :,• � '`b �' 2 , 3 �. ,i , .1±� � � � �. �• , - _ . . / �E .� ; ` � `_.i ''+;. ..+j' `• • C (`y, � •t _ —_� . .. . .� . • ` � :_ � ' \ ; �C �� Y ---- ° ' � � / � �i � �, `i � �: F � . . ` • s i ��s '",_ ' _., - �'-' ', .y ,y�:a�dC.�i.�i�l ��i;��,��.��js� f'�1V��:V��` J:�!" • ✓'f- . /ii,v ,. �, � . . - . � . 1 rf? y J/,�J "� 7• ; l) .• �•, �.l � � �. 5�1. •l4 • rar.i c� e.+ H � � (, j• And��i+ k� I • . ' �. � ( � `a � ;� � , � /Ai....�: .ini E/�ws -; � :i+v '� ,P�� n�z � ' `�. ., r P,��,t,. � �5 ,,. . � , ` , '� "`' "• ! '; ; 1 � '• i' : � « `i �e {� . :.h � fi,� � :. � .,r�o�B-.. !j. ' ` \' ` (�� "i S � `�• ; .; F 2 2: �n ✓ �� • ., '• !',�` L� '!: .i fl,Sd`v � 1 � � e: � � � ..1�� '. t�h ..+ `V »fr , d, �`� iF�4 . •• _ tr.• �,' „ l'�\ ' • ' � ' \ �� C'� � '� � K� �'i.. :v;. r''s� �� .L .14 � � �. � � � � ` iL :. " .� � :/i L.. . • '\ � � � 0• < � /� / n I�).y- .. �. \ � • ��r� ✓�'�S � `` V ` �?' �' o'' �`j��/) �� I '� � rQ.'S �e. �'9e�1 t, �, I.l� :j� �� \' " � � �(. . � .� , / `� ,"L�� }� � . 4 � � : � � ; � ' ' - ,� ,'\ � '-r f .� \ �. � /I��• I 7F ,A �, � ^ '.:}. .. i � • ' _ (ri I� : -Y✓' : .+ . �r t 4 . 1� ^ !�s Y: ': � �� \ � � ��y. � ...��. {/�� (/}{�J I//�� r'1� �.�1�l:✓i/ii��i.. iJl... �1i � \ �F� .� �lS. .�M4,Y• il~• NM/+H✓7�l � V� �� I1V`�Y� J.'11� � "' .w �! . s: � ' � �, �,., I. � ,o :: , . ., � . �; s , , i `:1 r, � ;. ��'; \ �, � ; c, ,..,,.-�,•_�:"-.<.��.,:�.r o -- - :�.. �; �/AN, CLEAfIGrS ;' �I ' • _ . �3GA„ Y.� � � � ••r. � _- -.u.•..1 _ .1� �*-I. .�.,�. � �,,,;� 'r:� �� --'�-�----�:,� Q w J C �-+ } .� .�.. �n o> ,y. .:, . � 7 � 1 '•' ... r uT J / �, pl y � Ia L ~ !: �"�t�iV� `I5• � �1LL �4. .__ �--- � � � � ��1 Tlal'�I � � �. ; ,�,D� 1 .. �:;,� ; :� �_ �,._w� .�. • ,, � r�; �f; j� ` r ' +•fY ,t�l�! ii (Jf/• � l.n/si•I i � ' � : � • �' ; �!}i f!r � � ,� ♦ �t •'i h�-,y ��' `�' •RV• . � .-.s ❑ ♦�;-1 � ^ �� I �� i / /n,�\l�%fi� ....'- � , '. J''vr " � . .. r ., . ••• ;�. ,;i,,,� �(��w.. f � '�S . . Vr �. �.i . • ^q� V . 4 rt. •.• /.ie.^A��i,s � . . ,f 1 �{ v. Y� , �� / �j Z r ( -7 r C i �.'� � . . . . . + � 1 � --..._.. � / � . �• / . y _ . . �i..t� i � [{��l_ •� `w � � � . Z. �O ��n `�Qiw/ y � � , . 2 ` . . . - ` . ✓MLJ:-.'vI � I � q � . :v:�,�.,�y k �� 22 � �� 2G.' !.�,. ' �: � O.s/i.c/ Ab �/ r ' j �. y" _ .� _. . • � � . .. . , ._.._ --- ,. �9 � � � v¢ , 3 . � :�. .c ,. , �;; 0, � :ta:r•� _:.,�.�, ! ' � . J � • � �";;�': �� . f._ ' �c� �, � ;• � w y' PI Pn �f . � ,�� - • . _ .. : �.:i.�J i... ✓.::,�SY! � �",7 iL�7!> /i'��JM ' :� . �Y /l1�!.{� /�.� y' �� ¢, y : , � ._., � � . . = • :vrri,,. V ii 1 i � t 1 i1' � 'I� s�.....,� <�� f � •Iv V r' � ♦ i�' f�...� S' . _ (: i ~ .Y� ;�.V% � fj....c/� :ir... .... {„� , ' `,�/ . :: � �� , s � D) `�- 7t i �. J �.._.. _. ' � �.• . � �v � � y� •t • ��',isr.-0 • . � , � � . �_:•/ �.%�..n�� • . ..__... . . .. 15�:�. . t. ... , .. ...� 4�n . ('��w O � �..•� �.'�:�'•,...j ,LJs:++r.c ' . . � .. . . . '��' . �'�� . \�! ` !.''`.o..� �Jf.. v+.i+j iI Jli�si � --- . . � i)p . `. ;� � �\~� � � �. •�y;r..:!^ie'.�='----' •� t: . . , 2s , 29`-- . ._ 3 f ° 32 �� ! - _ _ 3� 3� : :30: - � . Q 44-' ' * .. i �.,ry„ c; ; -� _.i;:�.•�!'. �., _;: � , a � 1 / h * �► Mr ; � � i �.y ' F. ' . _ • • . �i .� . -..! . i . L ` r h , : '� ..i �b j y i . . ///�� M. . . � ^ � . i - , . , / \ . �: ��S •' � � � •. � . �. . � v •' ` I . � . . . ' ...... � � '� , :.. . . .. t.... ....... _. .._ . _ . . � ♦ o ' I .♦ / •e r � � / +� / • I `•.� i , ' tia. , . , • . �i �� .L _. �, '. ti� - `� � .l;•.•'s ' i: _ . . � t . . � . . .. . ' . . ♦ � . �' . . , .i �.i: . ' . . _ � � . . �� : �-•: • � � , _ . . --........ __.�__.. . . �-. �_ • ..•• / • . � BUILDIhG STANDARDS - DESIGN CONTROL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28� 1968 The Meeting was called to order by Chariz�an Erickson at 8:00 P.M.. BOLL CALL MEM33ERS PRESENT: Biermann, Tonco, Dittes, Hauge, Erickson �ERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESEN�: Clai�ence Belisle - Buildin� Ins�ctor 1. COI�TSIDERATION OF 50� X 80� ADDITION TO FRIDLEY STATE BANK AT Present and representing the Bank - Herb Bacon, Roy Carlson of Fridley Lumber Co. MOTION by Dittes to recommend that a foundation permit be issued. That a building permit be granted subject to the followings 1. rec�ipt and approval of a final plot plan 2. receipt and approva7. of a landscaping plan Seconded by Tonco. Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� the motion carri�d unanimously. �. RECOATSIDERATION OF TRUSS FRAMING SYSTEM. Clarence Belisle to get information from other cities in the area concerning code requirements for truss framing systems. ADJOURNr1ENT Respectfully submitted� Carrol Hauge Acting Secretary to the Committee 0 ,I � . �