The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 03/17/1971 - 31097'"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 17, 1971 The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M. by Chairman Erickson. RO Li., CALL : 8:00 P.M. Members Presento Zeglen, Ericksor►, Fitzpatrick, Schmedeke, Minish Members Absent: None Others Present: Nasim Qureshi, City Engineer-Director of Planning, Peter Herlof5ky, Planning Assistant APPItOVE PLANNING CONIMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 3, 1971: MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeqlen, that the Plann�:ng Commission approve the PZanning Commission minutes of March 3, 1971. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMrII.TTEE MINUTES: MARCH 4, 1971: MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission �eceive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcorr¢nittee meet- �ng o€ March 4, 1971. Upon a voice vofe, all votinq aye, the motion carried �"� unanimously. i � ��I,� v�� RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOINMIITTEE MINUTES: MARCH 10, 1971: MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the PZanning Corrmiission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meet- ing of March 10, 1971. Upon a voi ce vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanirr� us 1 y . RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MtNUTES: MARCH 9, 1971: 1�TION by Schmedeke, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of March 9, 1971. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. INFORMAL HEARING ON ADOPTION OF 1970 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND THE AMENDMENTS TI�REOF: Ctiairman Erickson said that he had been concerned for some time that, �e the City of Fridley had not adopted the 1970 Uniform Building Code and had been operating under the 1967 Uniform Building Code� }�e decided to request a public hearing on the item. In checking with the Building Inspection Department, he found they were right up with him and they were going to recom- mend adoption. The City Engineer explained that in 1962, the City of Fridley adopted the Uniform Buildin� Code which was compiled in California. A large part of the Country, basically in the West and Midwest, are adopting, more and �� Plannin�; Commission Meetixag - March 17, 1971 Page 2 more, this code by reference< Since Fridley has adopted this code, we have had modifications that fit in better with our communities. In fact, Fridley is one of the first few coamnunities who are adopting the updated code of 1970. Chai.rman Erickson said be believed there were seven communities now who have adopted the Code, some with amendments. Mr. Qureshi continued that Minneapolis at one time had their own building code but now they are using the Uniform Building Code. In the Agenda of this evening, on pages 16 to 21, in the form of an Ordinance, the amendments are listed and only the portions which are proposed to be changed are underlined. The�e has been some pressure from contractors regarding trusses. Under 46.021, Framing, one modification proposed is to allow trusses at 24 inches on center with a heavier sheathing required than under the Uniform Building Code. 46.030, Masonry walls are proposed to be 12 inches minimum. 46.031 Footings are to b� 4 inches wider than wall thickness. 46.032 Frost Footings are pro- posed to extend 3'6" below grade on principal structures and accessory stxuctures extending into side yards ahead ofr the rear line of the principal structure. Recommendations from the Fire Department -- 46.056, Chapter 3804 proposed to be amended deleting four stories and requiring two stories in height regard- less of type of construction. Under Fire Extinguishing and Fire Alarm Systems, 45.057, a new subsection was added for an alarm system in multistory or single story structures with six dwelling units or more. Under Fire Separation, 46.058, "All gypsum joints in such separations shall be rough taped to prevent penetration of gases and odors" was added. Under 46.080, permits for one or two dwelling units shall be considered expired one year after date of issuance. The new permit fee will be based on the estimated valuation of the remaining construction. The purpose of this item is to give incentive to the builder to complete the work. Under 46.2, Security System and Devices, because of the increase in break- ins it was felt the requirements provided here would give a reasonable amount of safety and general welfare for persons occupying multiple family dwellings. The comment was made that Brooklyn Center had adopted this method with success. SeGtion 46.5 relating to Electrical, Heating and Plumbing will be brought back later. T'he above is the short resume given by the City Engineer, the meeting was then opened for discussion. Section 46.021: Framing. As explained by Hank Muhich, there has been pxessure from the contractors and the public for the City to allow trusses as more aad more trusaes are becoming available. The Building Department proposes to accept trusses approved by the Uniform Building Code at 24 inches on center. � Section 46.022: Sheathing. The City Engineer explained that the Uniform Building Code allows �" roof sheathiazg and even goes to 3/8" under special conditions. We are suggesting to require 5/8" sheathing on the roof�basically a � a �,�� Planning Commnis�ion rieetir►g�- March 17A 1971 Page 3 � £or duplex and si�gle family structures. If the workmanehip would always be gaod, there would not be any problems. We are basically following the same policy of requiring a little extra above what the Uniform Building Code allows pn sh2athing as we have done in the past. Mr. Jim George of Tr1-Company, Inc. (builders) asked if any research had been done with other suburbs who have used trusses, and if so, have they ehan$ed? He said he realized the City was not dependent upon other suburbs, but trusses have been used for some time. I�e ur�derseood Blooffiington and J�dina had permitted trusses, but he was not as,rare if they have changed the sheath�ng thickness. As far �s his company was concerned, they have had no comp�aints where they have used theme Mz. Muhich went on to say that under 46.022 no plywood which.is less than '�" sha17. be used for purposes of wall sheathing and composition and quality must be appraved by the Building Inspector. The reason the Building Inspection likes '�" is, theoretic�lly, a carpenter is not supposed to miss a stud, but it happens and �" will t--'�Cr..�r--e„��,�i✓e O 46.024a Double Wall. This para�raph was read by Chairman Erickson. He commented �hat it was not in the Uniform Buildin� Code. The Chief Building Inspector Muhich-explained it was put fn the City Code some years ago. Prior to th.�t time, the Department found that they actually had nothing to tie in the house where the garage is attached. Noc�, "All walls between attached gara�es and fr�ne buildings shall have sheathing extending from top plate � to bottom plate" is a requirement of the Code and the purpose is to strengthen the connectian. Mr. Roger Myer, Tri-Company said in a house; qou are going to wind up with 14" or 24" at the end of the house and you have sheathing on that. Your first wa11 would be sheetrock. You are still going to line up all four walls with so mueh sheathing for strength. The �arage ia one of the walls rather than the end of the houae. 46.030: Masonry. Chairman Erickson said he did not think there was any- thing to diacuss as 12" masonry is �1 below, ade. 46.031: Footings. The Chairman said that this is another item that has been in practice for a long time, but had not been written into the City Code. 46.041; Roof Access. Sank Muhich explained that some of the utilities firms have had difficulty getting the men to work on a roof at night without a stairway. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace: Mr. Harris felt that t�is would be a burden financially to conatruct a stairway for a small indust�ial plant. A line should be drawn betweea what kind of equipment is being s,grviced and the height of the building. He did not think Section l+6.041 referr�d to our community. . Nasim Qureshi added that, as a matter of protection, most of the la�rge concerns do provide these safeguards. � Planni�g Commission Meetia� - M��ch 17, 1971 Page 4 H��s Sondheimer, 5841 6th Street: He explained that he worked for Haar- stick, Lundgren & Associates, Architects, and he has des�gned school build- ings, commercial buildings and has done inspection work �long with designs. He wou�d like to empha.size that there should be a difference qf type and size of stru�ture. Consideration should be given to the fact that wages are going up for electr�cians. They get $11.00 an hour without overtime now, and soon it w�11 be $12.50. Consideration should also be given to the equipment used. For example, air conditionin� could be l�ft for sever�l hours before being repaix�d. Mx. Miniah asked if there had been any requeat from the utility companies. Mr. Muhich answered that this section was almoat word for wpxd with what they gave h�m. 46.Q56: Fire. �"his is a condensed version of the Uniform Building Code and se�erxed to Class A cities. 1'he orfginal copy refers to occupancies of four stories high, but to conform to our standards, the Fire Inspector re- quested �he wording be changed to two stories high. 46.057: Fire Extinguishing a�d Fire Alarm Systems. Mr. Sondheimer re- ferred to a�ire alsrm system which goes off when the temperature reaches 136 degreea or 190 degrees. A lot of damage could happen before the alarm sounded or th� eprin�ling system be activated. He felt this would not give security, but juat added cost. It was pointed out that the system required was mostly n manua7, • kb.058: Fire Separation. It requires a cover of 5/8" gypsum board. The part $dded by the City states "all gypsum joints in such separations shall be rou$h taped to prevent penetration of gases and odors". The Building InspeGtAr sa�d that this always has been the policy of the City but never has been spelled out. 46.059: F'ire Separation. Thia referred to the one hour fire wall se�aratian. There were no comtnents. 46.060: Fire Walls: This was put in at the request of Robert Aldrich, F�.r� Inspector. Chairman Erickson felt the Fire Walls section should be studisd further. 46.080t Permits. This states "All permita for one and two dwelling units sl�a1.1 be considered expired one year after date of issuance� The new permit fee will be based on the estimated valuation of the rem�ini�g construction". '�.'he City Engineer said that there have been cases where the building of � house has stretched out for several years. The builder would construct a certai.n amount, let the unfinished building stand a year and then begin again. The lat and part o� the building would be just an eyesore to the neighborhQOd. �hairman Erickson aeked what they could do to make the builder complete � his work -- you cant't. Mr. Qureshi said that was true, but it is hoped this would be an incentive to complete the work. The builder can come in and ask - fax az► extension. ' r °1 Planning Commission Meetin� - March 17� 1971 Page S 46.081: Fees. Elevators and grain storage was deleted. Mr. Richard Harris said �at the last time they took out a permit, they got charged a plan check fee. He realized that Uniform Building Code allowed a normal building permit and a plan check fee, but he felt they were charged double. The permit fee is suppo��d to go for inspecting the building. PXan check fee is that somebody, suc'h as a consultant firm or company which plait checks for co�unities, checks this ��.an for the plan check feee What pa°ofess�onal service checked his plans? 46.2: Security System axad Devices: This refers primarily to multiple dwellin�s. The police have suggested �he type of locks referred to in this section. Brooklyn Center has been using this type of system for two years. Bob Eibensteiner of Kootenia Builders, sa3d he had planned to build a six unit apartment house in the City of Fridley, but because of the security systems and devicea, he could not do it. It was impoasible to build a foyer in add3.tion to the hallway. He has built some units in Edina, but not with all the securities listed in the proposed ordinancea Chairman Erickson read the following list of communities which have adopt�d the 1970 Edition of the Uniform Building Code: Bloomington, Chaska, Circle Pines, Eagan, Hopkins, Minneapolis and Orono. Zn addition to this list, the municipalities of Minnetonka, Roseville and St. Louis Park hope ta have the 1970 edition adopted within the coming month. All will, however, � attach some amendments to the code. Mr. Richard Harris said it came to his attention in the past year or so, a new product on the market called "High Density Carpeting" was being installed in apartment building hallways. Would it be possible to require safety meas- ures to go with carpeting? It was proven that this type of carpeting, when it catches fire, gives off poisonous gases and heavy smoke. Mx. Mtnish asked.that the following information be given the Coumnission: A memca from the F3.re DepartmeAt , as it would be helpful. A copy of the request fram MLnneapolis Gas Company regarding roof equipment access. How many other commuuiities in the metro area are adopting the Uniform Building Code? �.'he Planning Coaimission decided to continue, without motion, the Informal Heasing on the Adoptiora of the 1970 �igp�tBuildin� Code and the Amendments 'i'hereof.to the April 7, 1971 meeting. �he City Engineer distributed pamphlets on a proposed State wide building code. ' 2. CONSIDERATIOPT OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A DOUBLE GARAGE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A FOUR STALL GARAGE FOR A TWO FAMILY DWELLING: 7°he City Engineer said there were comments made by different people who felt Chat we h�ve only a limited amount of single family building sites left n in �'��dley. There are areas where we have problems because the people now wi�h �hey had double, rather than single garages. The Planning Commission has elec��d to study the proposed ordinance. '�he audience �8� �,�,�q��, ��}at the Planni�,�; �q�,�y��,on had not taken a stand, but they are acting as a sounding board for the public. They had never diacussed the ordinance as a Commiasion. �� Planni�g Cou�ni�sion T�i�etfa� � P�tsarch 17, 1971 Page 6 Leslie G. Svendaen, i332 Oakley Street: He s�..d that he was present as part qf a graup who feel that this proposal is not �.n the best interest of the community. There are three objections. This kind pf praposal is completely unnece8�ary• A second car garage does not improve the qua].ity of life in Frid- ley. �� increases the cost. Many people do not wa�t or can afford two cars. It seem,�3 unnecessary that we require them to build � two car garage. Residents may sot�etime wi8h to add a garage, It would seem a more sensible way to advise them tp make pxeparation for this, such as building the home six feet off center of the lot -- this would enable theffi to add �bout 12 feet. It seems unnece��ary to impose a$300 to $800 for �arage as well an addition of $24.00 to $4�.00 to the property tax. If the concern was to increase tax revenue, he que�stione$ whether or not all �the lots availabl� would be developed if this ki.nd o�' requirement had to be met. A lot with no home does not bring in tax revenue. 2' This requirement would be detrimental to the image of the community as it could be conaidered as discriminatory. It would prohibit many low in- eome f amilies to settle in the community. He was certain it was not the intent but it �ould be the effecto It would be significant in making Fridley a closed commun�ty. Many persons �aould not b� able to afford to build with a double garage, plus increased property taxes. 1�Iany of the people who live in Fridley now px�obably would not live here if the requirement had been here before. ^ 3) This kind of requiremeat is essentially in conflict with the Housing Section of the Metropolitan Development Guide adopted by the Metropolitan ° Council. Metro Couacil would assign a low priority in the review of Federal Funding to the community who did not provide for low cost iaousing. Psr. Sveadsen said that he spoke with a member of the Metro Council who indicated before a Federal Grant is approved, the Metro Council reviews the request and makes xecommend�tions to the Federal government. This would put the City of Fr�Cdley on dangerous grounds when it came to securing Federal Funds. Unless we should think the Metro Council are pawerless, Federal Funds have been allocated to many projects which the Metro Counci�, have recommended. The Federal Govemment seems to consider their recommendatians. (,�airtnan Erickson asked Mr. Svendsen if the gentleman from the Metro Council appxoved of being quoted. Mr. Svendsen said he would call the man and let Mr. Erickson kaow the answer. Mrs. Helen Treuesfels, 5248 Horizon Drive: She would like to second Mr. Svendsen's statements. She referred to a zoning map of the City where the vacant land was colored. She said she felt that in the Innsbruck area, the requirement of the zoning ordinance could be met. She asked if the Coa�ission felt that in the Riverview Heights area homes could be built with such condi- tiona imposed? Instead of having houses that would pay their way and taxes, thexs would be empty lots. T'he City Engineex said the City of Fridley has existing homes in all price rangea �rom $15,000 to $100,000. City is not trying to eliminate low income n housin�, but the proposed ordinance referred to certain► size lots that would meet the requirements, and the proposed requirement �or double garages will not apply to lots less than 9,000 square feet. We have lots along Riverview 0 �, �lanning Commission Meetin�- March 17, 1971 Page 7 Heights which are less than 9,000 square feet. There �re only a few large areas left fpr single family dwelling developments. Houses �n this area woul� probably be bui.lt with double garages anyway. The majority of the permits issued for single family dwellings have been with double garages in the recent years. _ M�. Svendsen said that Edina, Spring Lake Park, Coon Rapids Councils have passed requirements concerning one car garages, not doub]�e garages. He xealized fpr 5ma11 lots this ordinance would not be accepted. He thought a young couple may want to build on that lot and should not be penalized if they could nok afford to build a garage right away. The ordinance was discriminatory. Fridl�y is his home, he wants to live here. This may be very hard for him. Consider employ ees of new industries. Are we going to penalize their employees? There should be more leadership on the part of our communities -- leaders to see that housing is provided for people of all incqme ],evels. M�s. Richard Ph�.11ips, president of the Fridley League of Women Voters, �ead a statement in which the Planning Coaunission was commended for inviting public opinion regarding mandatory garage requirements. The League of Women �lote�s were opposed to the ordinance for the following reasons: At this time, when there is a housing supply shortage, no government should place unnecessary restriGtions on housing; the proposed requirement is an unnecessary require- ment, as they felt it would serve to exclude families who could afford a decent, if lesa expensive, home; proposed adequate planning for a garage to be built later; �.f tax base is the reason, why isn't the City's atudy on tax return and pu6lic service requirements for various classifications publicized? As they u�derstand it, the study showed that single family homes do not pay their way �-� they cost the other taxpayers money -- that industry breaks about even, 8nd �hat apartments, multi-family dwellings and eomanercial development more than carry their load and lighten the tax burden on the rest of u�; regulations are pet�ding which would penalize communities which have unnecessarily restric- tive zoning regulations making it virtually impossible for the community to obtain Federal Fun.ding fox �any project. pavid Paulson, �.01 R�ver Edge Way: Mr. P aulson said he telephoned the follow�ng suburbs in the Minneapolis area to see if they had an ordinance in regard to tnandatory garages: Edina does demand two car; Richfield, none; �p- p1e Valley, no specifications; Burnsville, double car gaxage and surfaced driveway; Blaine, none; New Brighton, none; Golden Valley, none; Crystal, none; Brooklyn Center, none; Brooklyn Park, none; St. Louis Park, none, Spring Lake park, double car� gar�ge, (:oon Rapids, one car garage but not in effect; Anoka, Aone; Roseville, none; Hopkins, none. . 1�Ir. Paulson also per family according to Income Under $ 3,000 � 3,000 - $ 4,999 n $ 5,000 - $ 7,1►99 $ 7,500 - $ 9,999 � $J.0,000 - $14,999 $15,OOO�and Over checked with income. No Car 55.3% 28.47 12.3% 5.9% 3.5% 3.4� Triple °'A" concerni�.g the number of cars 1 Car 40.0% 58.6% 62.8% 56.3% 45.b% 3�.3% 2 Car k.0% �.1. 7% 22.2% 33.1% /+2.8% 50 .1% 3 Car 0.3% 1. 3% 2.7% 4. 7% 8.1% 13.2% The above figures were verified with Txi�le "A" and some additional ones were added. The difference between the percentages and 100% is because some o�` the people,did not return the questionaire. � �l.annin� Com�nis�ion F��.aa� ° P�a'ch 17, 1971 __ Page � -,. Mx�. Sondheimer explained that he was a member of the Board of Appeals. I�e did not believe the ordinance ehould be made compulspry. He did feel the building plans should be drawn up in such a way that the garage could be added �.atex� on, whether it was a one or two stall garage. Chai�an Erickson, expl�ined that there had been a lot of problems come up when peoplea who wanted to build a garage onto an existing structure, did not have enou��i lsand to Conform to the City requi.rem�nts, �nd would have to go befoxe the Bo�rd of Apyseals fo� a va�iance. Mr. �itzpatrick thought the proposed ordinance was also, to some degree, discriminatory. Chairmaa Erickson explained that the City had to have a side yard require- ment. �aometimes a person would waxit to build a double garage in the rear of the lo�, or having built a single garage, would like to add on to it. These are conditions where the sideyard requirement would go down to two feet. Should the City turn down these requests? �+, �itizen asked if the request would depend upon the approval of the neighbor and not the �lanning Commission? Mx. Minish said, as Chairman of the Board of Appeals, that Body has bee� involved in a good maay requests for a waiver of a sideyax'd requirement. The � neighbora within 200 �eet are given notices. The apprqval of the neighbors is not necessarily a factor in the decision. When the Board of Appeals have granted approval for $ variance, each case was considered separately. Some- times �he house is placed in the center of the lot. Sametimes it is placed to oae side or the ather to allow for a future garage. fle felt if the proposed ordinance were to be seriously considexed, it ahould be geared to secure footag�e of the houses. Mr. Svendsen said that made a good deal of sense to him. l�ix. Fitzpatrick said he could not have built his house on his lot at the time he did and left room for a second car garage. You are still saying to a man you c�n have only a certain size house to allow for a garage. Mr. Schmedeke said he would like to remind the people present that the planning Commission were not the originators of this ordinance and it seems the Commission is getting the heat. If he were building a home, he would like to be able to choose whether or not he could put up a one car garage or two stall garage. A solution might be a smaller sideyard footage if they could leave room to put a two car,garage in the back. p�x�. �itzpatrick said his first reaction to the proposed ordinance was negat�.ve . Mr. Zeglen agreed that it was his first reaction also. But he felt i� a n persor� built a$35,000 hoane with one stall garage, thexe was too much money ir�vo7.ved in the inveatmemt, and he would have a better selling point with a two car garage. p�annin�a Commi.��fon Mee��n� - March 17, 1971 Page 9 �\� Mx�g. Eleanor Phillips s�id she was wondering i� the Commission felt there might be a problem in the future. Could the problean be met without an ordin- ance? Clxairman Erickson said he would have to disagree ra3.th the type of ordin- ance that attempts to establish the number of stallp according to the valuation of ths house. An ordinance is an attempt to protect. Public transportation would help solve the problem of a family needing two or three car garages. He had expressed his opinion as being much opposed to the ordinance on a number of grounds. A man has the right to live in a house of his own choosing and this applies as to whether or not he wants a single family garage. He realized it can� be a problem building on a garage later on. Our ordinance probab ly should make some condition for expansion to accommodate a garage later on. Perhaps a 13 foot sideyard would do ite He was definitely opposed to the proposed ordinance as it was now written. Mr. David P aulson said that Apple Valley garage ordinance reads a garage could not cover more than 30% of Che size of the house. If you are on a small lot, and have room for one garage, you would have tp live with that. There are a number of alternates, such as limiting the si�e of the garage. Economics will generally deter�aine a one or two garage. If a man wants to build a house without a garage, he should be able to do so. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recom- mend to Council that the Ordinance Amending Section 45.055 relating to qarage r requirements in the R-1 District and Section 45.OG5 relating to garage require- ments in the R-2 District NOT be adopted. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. REVIEW AND FORMULATION OF POLICY REGARDING FU�URE DEVELOPMENT OF GAS STATIONS: Nasim Qureshi told the Commission that there has been a large increase in the number of gas stations in the City of Fridley. In the last five years, the number of gas stations have doubled. Since November, 1969, the last change in the ordinance regarding gas atations (Ord. No. 419), a special use permit was required to construct a gas station in C-1 and C-2 and M-1 and M-2 Districts. Since its adoption there have been three or four requests for gas stations. City has gone along with it. He would like to see if the City wants to set a policy stating how many more atations the City should have and where they should be allowed. You don't have to �ive them a permit if you feel it was not fox the betterment of the area. �n Brooklyn Park a special use permit was reqqi.red, the Council denied it, the pet�tioner went to court and the court upheld fihe decision. Fridley has 22 bas�eally gas stations, 5 car washes and pum�s, 6 grocery type, making a total of 33 gas stations for a population of 30,OOQ. Also, does City want four gas stations on four corners of an intersectiqn? �., The question before the Com�atssion is whether or not there is the need � fox �dditional �as stations. The area we are conc�rned with now is North of Qsborne Road. How many gas stations do we need anc� how far apart? Should anothex type of development be encouraged? The se;vice road loopbacks are rea�ly �arge enq�� t�� y��,Q� oCl}er types o� faci�.itie�, but they are especially attra�cti.v�. for gas stations. '- �" Plaxbnin.� Commis�ion Mee�in� - March 17, 1971 _ Page 10 r"1 Chairman Erickson had ax�other thought for the Co�i$sion -- was �hat type of servi.ce road detachment a reason�ble approach to the intersections? The City Engineer indicated that he would like to $iscourage service roads �long the highway and would like the roads to be set baCk 300 feet away from �he higtlway to service the properties along the highway. The pl�n.ning Commi.ssion decided to continue witlaout motion the Review �nd Forwulation of Policy ltegardin� Future Developffierat of Gas Statioas to the �pril 21,, 1971 meeting. :NG ELEMENTS A k. The City Engineer explained that the City adopted a comprehensive zoning map in 3.956 and over the years we have changed zoning, road patterns, crossings, etc. Wt�.at comprehensive planning does is putting all this information together, what we have done before and what we are going to,do in the future. The exist- ing zon�t�g ordinance is what we have done. You have appxaved pl.ats and rezonings. We have tried to put �11 these p��asofoFederal��rant�requiresaa comprehensive and wha� we are to do now. Any � plan,. This plan does not mean a new zoning map, but it gives the City a direc- tion fot future planning and development. � A colored Zoning Map with existing Land Use was studied. Mr. Qureshi ex- plained that sometimea the propert}► is used for som�thing otlier than basic use $llawed under the zoning district•IfHa develoderuistinterestedein commer- which w�11 require fuxther studying. P cial, he can be told where it is. The Planning Commission decidesion Re axdin WElements�andnProc sseof�nary Discussion with the Planning Commis $ � Comprehensive Plans for the City until the April 21, 1971 meeting. 5, RI�VIEW AND REEVALUATION OF EXISTING PLANNING NORTH OF W�ST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE TO CITif LI1�TS : Mx. Qureshi said that the purpose of this presentation is to review the past planning done in this area, especially regarding road patterns, railroad crossings and zoning.� The Plaaning Commission has recommended rezoning an srea a�ong University Avenue from M-2 to C-2. Part of the areac�ercialdy developed into a small piece of commnercial. The time of atrip eo le tend zoning is �one. Now you have to have large commexcia]. areas. The P P �o gp to large conunercial centers. Crossovera and Signals: ,As £ar as we are concerned, we would like to get away from service roads. n Mr. Schmedeke felt th� loopbacks should be made 7.arger so that it would encouxage other types of buainess, instead of gas statipns, to go in there. Se said that most filling etations have autos for sale. Referring to his copy of the Dealer's Guide of the State of Minnesota, it is unlawful to engage in aellir�g cars without a dealer!a license. � Plannin.g Commission Meetin� - March 179 1971 Page 11 � The Planning Com�ission decided to continue w3thout motion the Review and Reevaluation of Existing Planning North of Osborne Road and West of University Avenue until the Apri� 21, 1971 meeting. 6. OONSIDER DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL MINNESOTA STATE AID STREET: Main Street: 79�h Avenue to 83rd Avenue. The City Engineer explained that the City is enti�led to � mile of State A�d street. In 1960 this street was designated as a State Aid Street, but about two years ago, it was taken off the list. Now it is to be put back on inasmuch as this area is being developed. MOT.TON by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Minnesota State Aid designation for Main 5treet from 79th Avenue to 83rd Avenue. Upon a voi ce vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. a�ou�rrr : MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 1971 be adjourned at 11:35 P.M. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. � Re �pectfull submitted ��,� �'��.� Haz 0'�rian Recording Secretary ��, � ��/ � }-� �;d '� l Gi- 7"j ?-j i 7-j � �_ c:? 7�7 ii7 � S � l r' '/ :�� n �rt �(I�°�Z`_ � ��-r'e. r-J � �, �% t''/ _ /Ya �rz �'_ _ _ s / � � i � �d � tf` r, � ; A � �,'�,E :,�?::�� ; ��...�`',�� _ . � � p \ ,t� e+T / .'f`r`� r ""t. { � �(p i .� �,°,y/qr .'�.� +'"'� '.,� ,..� ,.� P 4P �� = �- . . /�� r`^^'° 4 � i,t�",-�-.: : n_'°+�"^ : . ,"4.r' cY..-�,..C.-�.,-K,_ " �X �✓�t-''� r �. + 1� a , �a�� -_�_ �� : �. �� 11�►1>C3�,�� . C ,_.: _-� _ _ r � .: , . � , , � � ?'" :..�--- - . _ _ ��J. e i .....,. _ � � �-�-_ - �'�l- sr ��_ , . �� . _ �_ � -�.-: � � ,. , ; . � . �, � . .r ,w. . _� ,.. _ _ , _ _ _ __ _ �Tf �� lf . .�'.a!x, . .C`? � � � r,�, � � j : •� `' �- � �, � ,� ��` .� , . ,, - ��'� , �' •�r � f r�'`J'�- . q _ . . "� +� _ ._ . _ . , , . , , � " .� l�l „ �� . _ _ _ �. � � � 4 � � a , ,.� ��. _ _ �-� *�� :�w .// . � - _ +_ .. .r ........ ..:. ,r',�, ..�. -. r`a�� . � .. . �� ,s..- � r "�:. `��,.s�. s v,..�. . . . _ _. . . � _- � i , �-��, :� � � _ �f; �! `. , f �� . ` � � � . -�� .-��.. �•,,:,. , f� _�. _ . . I�-' ��xi.. ..� ":.1.� " . � _ � . . . . .. .. . ' - _' � . _ :_ , _. . :_.. . .. _ . _ _._�. _ / r .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , ,�,�,.._-� - ��. �. ry � -�"�- �. � �T + _� _ _ 1 v �/\./ _ -` -- � F. . ....... . .. . _ _ _ _ _ . . `� �� , . , : F'� � � ; �� : .- , ._�4!" y _, � _ _ , � _ . ._ _ _.. _ � �,r �: +� � . � . _. k° �. . !. �4��"4 . � . . . ,.� ,-�� ,...a ,�6"r'.� _. __ _ _ ___ _ i � / 7—�cY `Y'c-� .� j_ ' "� � 77�_ ��— Ir , � � � `� , „ � � � f h � k �'`�". ,�"�'Cf � �".. �� '`�.'� E"r'`""�, o— y 7._�"� z°� m,�- .�.�� -: �'� __ � p : . �i � ,i � s�. � , � ., � K� r� r ` ♦ F. _ � � .. _ �. ._ . . _.. _ . . . _ _ . •. �- ' (/ t < /�, f"] _ .E i ��.�` �,� � -- �j �`,� � °'r-,� ...,.�.,r,,, � -�, _ 'J Ci%�o a � �` �, c� �. �`�� w ,�J �. �} 3 2�:a � � �� !v .�.. � � . �� '��- .�. , 'S d f � =�-: . ;�i �� _ ��_�. _ _ � _ __ ,� � '� �� _ �i � 1 ''� `'. _ ,� / -_r;�� , �. _ �� /��ya� � � ..� � �,r' �.,' �.... %� � 1 � J.- Y ir �"°d t r . ?.. v`a . . _ . . . ! ( � '. � 3 � a-- � �: F� � �..,� �� ,.- .� -�, � ° ,,� �� ; t' � ,��' ��' �.�� ,�, > u. �. . �` � b 1 �, � v�-►23�� ,'' � �,.. � � � 3 � "` ` 1 � � �m ,. �.� ,�,� � � ` . � �. „�fr`1 '`? `"`' �` ._. � i� a* �� ' ,, ,ss`.�`.�/er �% �.�.�_ _ _ E 4 �' � _., , 't "',� ! � � .._ _ ... .... . . ... �f _� ��''� �� ` _ � , �-. __ �.._ _ � - � m� � . _ ,� ,� � _ _,:� � _.�_ .. _ :�^ , .� r ,.� ..�_ , .. , .,�` , � .•�c t. �,.. ..�� :, f�,�` �,�i�Z.� .� -�..•'' .. � .. f , t��.. L„��, v:4 C � ..,}#� � / � 9v%� :Y�. �7 �;� . . _ f/- . .- , - � ; , „ , , ; � , r, � : . �� ..� b o � b 1 � ,�. � � � E- , f , , � , , ; f , ��s!_ ._�-ll�r "x^?'f�t°`t j� .. ... _ _. .... , , ,� r � ..' �'�,,,% - --- �- -.._ ---- - - --- , �YF � " �. r z� L-�- y, ,�- ,, 3 � : _ _ � � __. Z_ �'`�, _ . _. � .. ....__..__ _ 2. __ _ _ __ _�:._ . � � _ __ _� �'c,..J w �. . _.____ . _. . �'C� - �'� � � �-� � �� = f: _ �1�,: � l� r �, ��T � � _ _ �/-n�� _ ��c�y-f?-S� % ,''} .-- . _ _ . l � f 7�/-�-. , � �, �„ , ,. , � � � (�e�- � � f' _ r. .. -� �,.-. ,� - . -�-t �. ,- - _ � -� �` �' � � � �= -� ._ ..._ slLf � . _. . . _ . .. ... _ Y _ „... l.. .. - � - .... . . _ ._. .___..___.__. ,,... . . . . . . _. .. . . . . .. ... . . .. . fj �. �. i .. . . . . . . . .. ... ... .. . . ._ � .. ` ` . ._... ___-_.__ � ' ``"- . . .._. �� 4._",.._._/: �.P;./��ri�j �`� .. . _ .. . . ... .. . ..... . . . .... .. .. .... .. . . . .... . . � . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .... . ._.. _ ___' � . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . ... . . ... ... . . . . _.. ....__. . _ .� � _ . . . . . '� . � . . . . � . . _ _ . . . _ � 1 .. . . . ... . . ... : . _ . ... . _... . . . _ _.. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . � _ _ .. . _ . _ . . _ ... . . � . '-.._. _......___.___'"" I � I . ' . . .. . ....._ . I ._ _ . _ . . . . ... . . .. .... . _ . . .. . . .. . . .. I . .... _. . _ . . .. _ .._. . . ..._ .. . . . . . . . ._ . ... . .. . .._ . _ ..� .... .-_._..� ... . . .... .... . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . __ .. . . . I _ .. . . ... .... ... . . ..._ _. . _....... . _ ' _ .. ... _.____ _. _. � . ___ __ .. .. _. . _ .. _ _ .. . .... ._ . . _.. _ . ...... ... .. . .. . . . __ ...._ .... ._.__ _ _...._._. _..____ .1 .... __._ _ _._..... _' ___ . ._. ."__._.'__. -__"_-"____ .."-_.'--_'. ..__' __.._... . _._ . � . ...... _.._ _ . ...... .. ........ . . .. . . __..... . _.. . .. i \ _. ... ..._.. _. .. __ _ __..._. ..._. _ . _.. _ _ � -__._ . _ . . _.. . � . . ._ __ _.'. _ _ .. � -__-_ ._. ..._-_ _-' _..__-- _ . ___..__ _..__ - ____ ___....-_"._. _'___-_ / ...- "._- ___ . . __'_- ____ .-__