Loading...
PL 12/19/1973 - 7473� A G E N D A PLANNING COMMI5SION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: DECEMBER 19, 1973 ROLL CALL: APPROVE MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF APPEALS: NOVEMBER 28, 1973 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES; DECEMBER 5, 1973 RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: DECEMBER.6, 1973 RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: DECEMBER 11, 1973 � l. REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT: L.S. #73-10, BY WILLIAM � F. SHARRATT: .Split Lot 4, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 5, being 201 and 221 Satellite Lane N.E. so City records agree with Country records. .,� 2, PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #73-13, BY A. DAVIDSON: To permit the sale of used cars at 7395 Highway #65 N.E., being a half block North of 73� Avenue N.E. �nd East of Highway #65, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101 3, I. 3. CONTINUED: ARMORY REQUEST � ,� � � �� ,�' 4. ARTICLE ON SPECIAL USE PERMITS ��/- �� � � ��°a��`� � ,� � � � � � � � 8:00 P.M. PAGES 1 - 23 24 - 30 31 - 36 37 - 43 44 - 48 49 - 55 56 57 - 60 � ./_'� n CITY OF FRIDLEY SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 28, 1973 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDERt Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad, Drigans, Blair None Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm. Board of Appeals Members: Harry Crowder James Plemel Virginia Wahlberg - Patricia Gabel 1. �CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIIIER.ATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #73-09, BY THE WALL CORPORATION: being a replat of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter Qf the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota; with exceptions. (Former Riedel property.) 1�, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45.073, lA, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE AREA REQUIREMENT FOR APARTMENT UNITS FRO 2,500 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT TO 1906.08 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 130 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON THE SOUTH 698 FEET OF THE NORTH 1066 FEET OF THE�WEST 385 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, T-30, R-24, ANOKA COUNTY, EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET TAKEN FOR STEET AND UTILITY PURPOSES, THE SAME BEING 6401 5TH STREET N:E., FRIpLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY WALL CORPORATION 8030 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH, BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA.) Mr.��Rudolph Dante was present to represent the petitioner. � Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals had tabled the request for a variance by the Wall Corporation from 2500 square feet per unit to 1906 square feet per unit for an apartment complex, at t.heir meeting of November 27, 1973 because the Planning Commission had asked for two�alternate plans at their meeting of,November 21st, The Board of Appeals decided to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission so they could make their recommendation on the same plat recommended by the Planning Commission. The plan presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 21st, had a cul-de-sac road to 8 lots fcr a total of 28 R-1 platted lots. We didn't consider this proposal too encouraging, so we asked the Wall Corporation to look at a couple of alternatives. The first alterna- tive was to have a large apartment complex on the R-3 area surrounded by'all open area with no lots platted in the R-1 area. The second alternative was to take out the lots served by the cul-de-sac road � � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commissi.on and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Pdge 2 and just,have 23 residential lots, with the addition R-I open area being used to justify more than the 130 unit apartment complex originally suggested. The Planning Commission.said they were thinking of somewhere between 160 and 165 units. Mr. Drigans continued, that the Wall Corporation came back to the Board of Appeals meeting on November 27th with the proposal as we described with a request for 180 units with 23 residential lots. • Mr. Drigans said this brought everyone up to date_as._to where �hey__we�e at the present time. Mr. Dante said the preliminary plat he was presenting was the same plan they had presented at the Board of Appeals meeting: The plan presented at the last Planning Commission meeting had a cul- de-sac road to 8 lots off Mississippi Street. At the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting they had presented a plan with a cul-de-sac road off 5th Street to 5 lots. It was determined �at that meeting that this cul-de-sac plan would cost about $25,000 oi $5,000 per lot. He said the Wall Corporation had taken out the cul-de-sac proposal and have taken an area o� 8.5 acres, which is open area, and are asking for 180 apartment units which would make one unit for every 2,048 square feet of land per unit, which would all be built on the R-3 portion of the property. Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals can only consider thE: R-3 portion of the proper�y for the variance request. He said tliat some of the R-3 property does extend in to the platted R-1 lots on the South side of this property, so there is an overlap of zor�ing. The figures have been a p�oblem to us because the figures used by the Wall Corporation and the figures� used by the City staff do not agree, so we have had a problem in evaluating this proposal. Mr. Dante has said there is 368,725 sauare feet of open space and the City staff says it is around 360,000 square feet. � . Mr. Dante said in using the R-3 only and allowing the City�says the square footage per unit cames out to This same variance notice gives the dimentions as 385' but because of the 30 foot right of way for 5th Street, amount of buildable R-3 land is 355' x 698'. 130 units, 1906.08. x 698', the actual Chairman Fitzpatrick said as he understands this proposal, some of the R-3 i.s in the R-1 plats and the unplatte�.F�l is going to be used in conjunction with the apartment complex, although the actual construction of the apartment complex will all be in the R-3 zoning. � ' Mr. Dante said the ponding area which is all R-1 zoning will be owned and maintained by the apartment complex. The R-1 lots could have been larger, but they were set at the code requirement, so �his.gives more open space that must be maintained by the apart- ment complex. . � n Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 3_ Mr. Clark said if you use the code requirement of 2,500 square feet per apartment unit, then they can only have 92 units on this R-3 property. If you want to rationalize the variance by using the vacant R-1 area to justify granting the variance, this is your decision: Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was any problem of platting a lot with two zones. Mr. Clark said there wasn't. Mr. Harris said that according to our ordinance, you can use R-1 property for parking lots for apartments. Mr. Clark said this would require a Special Use Permit being granted. Mr. Dante said that all the constructicn for this apartment, including the parking, will be held to the R-3 portian of the property. � Mr. Fitzpatrick asked how many units by using 2500 square feet per unit on�the property and the unplatted R-1 property. could be constructed R-3 portion.of the Mr. Clark said he had prepared some information on this before the meeting and he gave each member of the Commission and /� Board of Appeals a copy of this information. He explained that the R-3 land.er_•uals 228,975 square feet and this divided by 2,500 square feet equals 92 units. The R-1 vacant land in the ponding area is 74,750 square feet and this devided by 2,500 square feet would equal 30 units. The R-:1 vacant park land is 55,003 square feet divided by 2,500 s�xuare feet equals 22 units, for a total of 144 units. Our ordinance requires that.l0% of R-1 platted �and�be dedicated for park land. On this plat it is approximately 230,000 square feet, so the dedication would be 23,000 square feet and this divided by 2,500 equals 9 units which would have to be subtracted from the 144 units, so that 135 units would be allowed if all the open space of the unplatted property were zoned R-3. If you are talking about 180 units on this same property, . it would make the square footage about 2,000 per unit. He said }�e had talked briefly with the City Attorney by telephone today, and he said he thought he could defend the City in a court of law for granting a variance based on the R-3 property and the vacant�` • R-1 property to allow 144 units and he felt it might be difficult to defend the City if the units went beyond this amount, but he said he would like some more time to think about this. n Mr. Lindblad said he favored using the entire 14 acres for figuring the density on the R-3 property, and having a 225 unit apartment building construct �d on tk�e R-3, surrounded by all open space and park land, and not have any R-1 platted lots. He said he felt the open land was more of a buffer for the adjoining R-1 property across the street from this site than platting more R-1 property. There is heavy traffic in this area and with people backing aut of driveways on 63rd Avenue, 7th Street and Mississippi Street would only add to this traffic probl'em. The apartment complex could have controlled access. � n Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 4 Mr. Dante said he had suggested this plan and thought it was a good orie. The construction of the apartment complex would be held to the area zoned R-3. . Mr. Drigans said if you go back into the history of this property, it was all zoned R-1, and when part of it was zoned R-3, it was felt the balance of the property should be R-1 to create a buf£er zone between the R-3 and the surrounding area. Mr. Drigans said he felt it was up to the developer of the R-1 area to determine what type ofmarket there will be for the R-1 property with R-3 zoning behind it. Mr. Lindblad said if we go ahead with this plan the way it is being presented tonight, and in the future find that the R-1 lots cannot be sold because of the apartment complex, it will be too late then to change the apartment units, and the R-1 area could sit there undeveloped. Mr. Plemel said there had been a good market for property : � on Mississippi Street, and maybe with the.energy crisis, there �could be quite a few people who would like to live close to shopping, buses, etc. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Dante if the Wall Corporation would be � selling the R-1 lots individually. Mr. Dante said they plan to sell the entire platted R-1 to one builder. He`said he has prepared a letter that is ready to go out which will be sent to developers of R-1 property: � Mr. Crowder said he felt the problem seems to be that the City says they want 130 to 135 apartment units in this complex and the Wall Corporation says they want 180. This seems to me to be a major confrontation and if some compramise can't be worked out, all this discussion seems academic. Somewhere along the line an agreement must be reached on the number of apartment units which are going to be al.lowed on this site. Mr. Clark said the City pJ_anning staff is not planning 130 units. T think any plannEr could design a building with 300 units for this site. What determines the amount of units is our code requirements. If you used our code reguirement on just the R-3 property they could only have 92 units. By using full credit for the open R-1 land, it gets the units up to 144. Mr. Crowder said his question to Mr. Dante is if l44 units are attractive to the Wall Corporation. Mr. Dante said not with 23 residential lots. Mr. Crowder asked how many units the Wall Corporation would need to make it economically feasible to have 23 residential lots. Mr._Dante said 180 units. Mr. Dante said they have just built 180 units off of Lake Calhoun. In three and a half months we have them 96 to 97� oecupied. He said Mr. Utter had been over to look at this development and he was impressed with it. He said it was designed so ali the view is to inside courts. These units feature either Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 5_ � — /1 a sunken living room or sunken master bedroom and fully electric kitchens. _ . Chairman Fitzpatrick said the City Attorney has stated it might be difficult to defend more than 135 to 144 units on this property. Mr. Harris said he thought the City and the Wall Corporation had come to an agreement at their special meeting of October 17, 1973 and I think we should work within the guidelines set up at this meeting. Mr. Clark said that at this meeting many different figures were mentioned for the number of units for the apartment -complex from 125 to 135. At the end of the meeting there was a summation of what was discussed but there was no motion made. He said this was an alternative to the Wall Corporation's proposal to have 155 rental townhouses that would be smaller than those originally proposed, with one car garages. Mr. Harris said at this meeting there was an agreement for 135 apartment units and 23 residentiai lots. ' Mr. Clark said he would have to say in defense of the Wall Corporation that they came into this meeting with a proposal for l55 townhouses and came out with this alternative. Mr. Dants said he did mention at that meeting having 225 apartment units with the balance of the property being used for a park-like area. The people representing the,Wa11 Corporation and the Riedel property were asked�to leave whil� the Council discussed this, and when we came back to the meeting this alternate proposal was brought up. A very rough drawing was made to show what they were suggesting. I asked the City Engineer what the code requirement was for R-1 lot's and this was just a guess as to how many residential lots there would be. Mr. Clark said the combination of the residential lots and the apartment units would come to about 155 units, which would keep the density on the property about the same as if it had been a townhouse development, and he thought perhaps the Council was trying to come up with an alternative so the units wauld be about the same. Mr. Harris said there has been mention of a preliminary plat with 8 lots being served with a cul-de-sac road off Mississippi. This was not the preliminary plat•approved at the Plats & Subdivisions- Streets & Utilities Subcammittee meeting of November 14, 1973. Mr. Dante said on the plat presented at that meeting, the cul-de-sac was off 5th Street, but because the road was not wide enough, it � . had to be changed. The plan with the c�l-de-sac road off Mississippi made only one access to Mississippi instead of three. Mr. Harris said this was not the plat approved at the Plats & Subs meeting. . n Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 6 Mr. Harris said he likE�s the plan where the apartment complex would be built on the R-3 ar:d the balance would �e open land, but he didn't think.th� neighbors would stand for this. Mr. Clark said he didn't think that plan could be used without rezoning the entire property to R-3. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we are faced with making a recommendation that is beyond the number of units suggested by the City Council or below the number that the Wall Corporation'says is economically feasible. Mr. Drigans asked about the availability of City services and utilities if we recommend more units for this property. Mr. Clark said this would be no problem as far as water and sewer. Mr. Drigans said we also had a list of stipulations that some agreement had to be reached on also. Mr. Clark said these stipulations represent the original R-3 zoning stipulations and stipulations that came out of the October 17th Council meeting. Mr. Drigans said he asked the Wall Corporation to respond to these stipulations at his meeting. ^ MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the prEpared statement by the WaZ1 Corporation in answer to the stipulations by the City. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Dante said he thought the�stipulation on what these unit� should rent for was way out of line because this should be.determ�_ned by the Wall Corporation. He said that limiting this building to 2 to 2� stories was out of line also, when the code said the building could be 6 stories, not that the'Wa1T Corporation wanted a six story building.. Mr. Dante said that the recreational facilities would depend upcn how many units they built, and as far as a tot lot, they weren't even sure they were going to rent to people with �hildren.. He said as to;the request for preserving the large grove of trees, these were mostly Elms and scrub. Mr. Clark said r�e believed the rental rates were mentioned by Mr. Wall at the meeting of October 17th with the Council. Mr. Dante said this was takE:n out of context and Mr. Wall was talking about the 180 unit apartment building that Mr. Dante ha= already mentioned. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that where ever these�stipulations had come from, they are not stipulations that the Planning Commission has made on this plat. � . As the plan has changed, these stipulations would just be advisor.y to the Planning Commission, Mr. Fitzpatrick continued, anc� as far as the outside recreational facilities, even if they we�e not needed for the apartment complex, we would still be faced with having facilities for the R-1 property. � /'� Special Jo.int Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 7 Mr. �Drigans said Mr. Clark has brought up the point that at the time of the rezoning to R-3, there were stipulations agreed to that wot�ld still hold on the R-3 property. Mr: Clark said there was a signed agreement at that time. Now we are having a different complex on property that was rezoned for another purpose. He said he didn't think the tenr�is courts had been part of the agreement. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Dante if the stipulations he had given to the Planning Commission this eveni�g were the one's tr�e Wall Corporation would agree to. Mr. Dante said they were. Chairman Fitzpatrick read the prepared s�atement by the Wall Corporation on the stipulations they would agree to. It is as follows: 1. Prot-ide a drainage pond on the said property as shown on the approved final plan which would receive the drainare from the adjoining properties and drain the said property. The surface water will be stored in the pond during the � rain and will be let throught with an overflow into the existing storm sewer at Bennett and 7th Street slowly after the rain storm subsides. The location of the permanent portion of the pond would not be any closer than 100 feet from any road right-of-way lines. The design of the permanent portion of this pond would be based on the 5 year frequency �8,.2 acre feet) with the temporary expansion of the pond to be designed for 50 year frequency (12.0 acre feet). The water in the ��ermanent pond wauld be pumped up to a fountain for aer.ation purposes to eliminate the stagnation effect of the water in the permanent pond. The bottom and the shoreline of the pond will be such that it is as maintenar.•ce free as practical and the whole shoreline and the grounds around the ponding area will be landscaped. The design of the complete drainage and storm sewer system in this property shall be zpproved by the City Engineering Department and storm sewer pip�.ng constructed to the City's specifications, but not to exceed mean specs now existing. City agrees thE: watershed area for this property shall not be increased. . 2, Provide a drainage easement to the City of Fridley for the ponding area which will be under water considering a 50 year design frequency. 3. Bear fully the cost of the total drainage system within the proper�y. If in the future there is additional outlet construction necessary, this property will pay their share of the assessment for the improvement. Such assessment based on construction required for the Wall Corporation property only. � � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board o� A�peals November 28, 1973 Page 8 4.a) Keep the building within the R-3 zoned area. b) Provide about 80 garage stalls which is a little over. one third of the total �eeded parking stalls. c) Provide recreational facilities, including swimming pool, sauna, party room and exercise room at the discretion of the Wall Corporation. d) Keep all the ponding and drainage facilities outside the proposed platted residential lots. The upkeep and ' mainten<<nce of these areas to be part of the apartment complex. e) f) g) Outdoor. recreational facilities will be at the discretion of the Wall Corporation. � If possible, preserve hE:avy grove of trees in the northerly area of the property. Provide.good landscaping. h) Proper water circulation, and upkeep of the ponding area. ^ Mr. Lindblad said that in another discussion, Mr. Dante said he felt they would want to provide more than 80 garage stalls. Were they now saying they would put in 80? Mr. Dante said he thought they would be providing more than this. Mr. Drigans said that at the Board of Appeals meeting the Wall Corporation did present a proposal that underground parking would be provided. He said in the prepared statement from the Wall Corporation they make�refer- ence to many of the stipulations that the City has proposed, only they are at the Wall Corporation.'s discretion. � Chairman Fitzpatrick said we now have the job of comparing the stipulations of the rezoning and the stipulations by the City on the sheet dated November 13, 1973, and the stipulations presented by the Wall Corporation. Mr. Drigans said one stipulation that was missing from t�e Wa11 Corporation stipulations was 2C of the City stipL:lations. This reads "Waive any liability against the City for ponding the water on this property and drop any pending lawsuits against the City". Mr. Clark said the pending law suits were dropped at the time of the rezoning. Mr. Drigans asked where we stood as far as the original stipulations of the rezoning when the property was going to be used for a different purpose. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the rezoning stipulations still stand, but we can recommend changes. Mi:. Harris said he would like to know the stipulations that were agreed to at the time of the rezoning, by both parties. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning'Commission'and Board o� Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 9 ^ Mr. Clark said there was a stipulation to plat the land, which is what they are dQing now. � The paragraph on drainage is the same. on all three interpretations of the stipulations except the limits of the temporary ponding around the time of rain could extend beyond the 100 foot limits, and the Wall Corporation have added that the specs are not to exceed those existing in the City. Mr. C1ark said this was no problem because he was sure the specs would be the same as in any othE:r part of the City, and it did have to be approved by the City Engineering Department. Mr. Clark said the second paragraph� _ is the same except on the City stipulations they have added "including tY:.e storm sewer inlet and outlet". Mr. Dante said he did not include this because he didn't know what it meant. Mr. Clark said that the intent was that the easement to.the City of Fridley would include the 12 acre foot pond plus the inlet pipe and outfall pipe. Mr. Dante said thE:y would agree to that. Mr. Dante said they omitted the next item that said "Waive any liability against the City for ponding the water on this . � property and drop any pending lawsuits against the City". Mr. Clark said he thought the purpose of this�stipulatior. was to insure the City that if this pond should malfunction, that the Wall Corporation would not place a new lawsuit against the City for any damage to the complex. Mr. Glark said that if we had ^ an excessive amount of rain and the ponds filled up and water came into the basement of the apartment complex, even if this . was a City approved plan, we would consider this an Act of God and would not want to be blamed. Mr. Dante said he could see this but he wasn't agreeable for a blanket clause holdirig the City blameless. Mr. Iiarris said he agreed with Mr. Dante. He was not in favor of blanket hold blameless clauses either. He said he would recommend that this stipulation be rewritten to hold the City harmless if the water levels exceed the designed expectations, , or something like that. If this is designed for the 50 year flood and we have a 150 year flood, this would hold the City harmless, expecially when flood ins'urance is going to be so cheap in the City of Fridley. Chairman Fitzpatrick said we can leave this stipulation in and ask to have it reviewed at the Council level and have the City Attorney decide on the exact wording. . . Mr. Clark�said the next stipulation was D. "Set the lowest floor elevation of the walkout type home at least 3 feet higher than the 50 year flood line. The lowest floor elevation of a non- walkout type home will be no more than 18" into the 50 year flood line with a grade elevation at least 3 feet higher than the 50 year flood line. The lowest grade elevation for the recreation bt�ilding ^ will be no lower than 3 foot into the 50 year flood line with flood- � proof construction up to the 50 year. flood. Rest of the structure must be water-resistant construction". Mr. Drigans said this doesn't sound like a stipulation of rezoning, more of development. Mr. Clark said this was for the townhouses that were part of the original plan in the rezoning request. � Special �oint Meeting of the Planning Commission andPBgerdOof Appeals November 28, 1973 /'� " Mr. Fitzpatrick said this stipulation was not in the Wall Corporation stipulations and asked Mr. Dante if he would accept this stipulation. Mr. Dante said no. He said this would pr.etain to the R-1 portion of the property and'they were not going tc accept stipulations for the developer of this property. If the City wants stipulations on the R-1, they should be taken up with the developer. Mr. Drigans said we are being asked to approve a plat with R-1 lots. Mr. Clark said these stipulations could be placed on the R-1 lots at the time building permits were taken out but he felt strongly that this stipulation should pertain to the apartment complex also. Mr. Harris said he thought we needed this stipulation on the R-1 lots, and whet�ier its put on now, or later seems immat.erial. Mr. Clark said the next stipulation was stipulation E, "Bear fully the cost of the total drainage system within the property. If in the future there is additional outlet construction necessary, . this property will.pay their share of the assessment for the improvement". Mr. Dante said they have added to this stipulation that such assessment based on con�truction required for the Wall Corporation ^` property only. We felt that any additional construction that might be necessary for other homes in the area should not be assessed to the Wall Corporation. Mr. Clark asked if they would agree to the stipulation t�at the Wall Corporation be responsible for any construction that was necessary to maintain_or improve the outfall for this drainage district? Mr. Clark said we certainly are not gqing to asses� the Wall Corporation for an outfall two miles from here, but if in a few years from now, the pipes would deteriorate for this outfall and had to be rebu�lt, the Wall-Corporation would be as��ssed as would anyone else in the same situation. The stipulation should say ' for this particular drainage district' which would include this property and quite a bit of the R-�l area in the.surroun�,ing area. Mr. Fitzpatrick said they would only be assessed for a portion of this improvement which is the �����n� .City poli�cy. � � . Mr. Drigans said that by adding ' for this partict�lar drainage district' , I think we can ask that the statement added on to the Wall Corporation stipulation that such assessment based on construc- tion required for the Wall Corporation property only, can be removed. Mrs: Wahlberg said that in the event`that the Wall Corporation ' should sel� off the R-1 property prior to the development of the R-1 area, she questioned the statement that the Wall Corporation should "Bear fully the cost of the total drainage system"� as this �'� • stipulation states now. Nir. Clark said that when the R-1 lots are put up for sale, the Wall Corporation could add some of these costs to the sale of this property. Mr. Clark said maybe we should change this to read "At no cost to the City". Mayor Liebl said he agreed . with this statement. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 11 n Mr. Clark said the next item on the stipulations from a year ago, was traffic. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this item was not on the capy of the stipulations that the Commission had. Mr. Clark said he knew it wasn't but he would read�the stipulation anyway. "Pay the cost of putting an addition<<1 lane on 7th Street, starting 200 feet South of Mississippi Street to the Mississippi Street right of way, for a cost not to exceed $3,000." Mr. Clark said he believed this was deleted because on the original proposal, there would have been a lot more traffic on 7th Street. The second item under traffic has already been done and that was to dedicate the Easterly half of the 5th Street right of way along the West boundary line and accept the assessment for the improvement of 5th Street in accordar:ce with normal City policy." . Mr. Clark said Item 4 had to do with townhouses, which no Ionger applies, and Item 5 was on the o1d apartment complex. Item 6, Planned Developmer:t, states that "They follow all City setback requirements along the boundary streets of this develop��ent, but the setb«ck requirement within the development along the R-1 and R-3 zoning lines will be set up on the basis of-a total development concept. He said he believed this had more to do with the inter- mixing of townhouses with thE: apartment complex, and certainly the apartment complex and. the R-1 housing will have to meet the present zoning requirements for setbacks. � Chairman.Fitzpatrick said as far as traffic is concerned, we may want to have something in the stipulations for thE: apartment complex. Mr. Clark said you could have this in the stipulations for the apartment complex, but the.R-3 property would only have ���ess on 5th 5treet. . Mr. Clark said the next stipulation is to provide lighted walkways within the area. Chairman Fitzpatrick said this was for the other proposal also, and would not apply now. Mr. Clark said they might want lighted walkways in the ponding area, or for the apartment complex, but we don't have a plan for the apartment complex as yet. Mr. Fitzpatrick said these could be stipulated on the building permit, rather than the plat. Mr. Clark said the next stipulation was to provide an under- grounc', sprinkling system and connect it to the City system with a� timing device to use water at low demand periods. This was also made �:t the time there was going to be townhouses and apartments. The next stipulation was to provide a 5 foot sidewalk along 7th Street, 63rd Avenue, and Sth Street, at least 10 feet from the street curb. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Clark a.i this was a stipulation that would still apply now. Mr. Clark said � . he feels that sidewalks are still necessary on these streets, but ' whether the Wall Corporation should have to put them in for the R-1 area is another question. We had shown walkways going through this property on the R-1 lots, but the Plats & Subs Committee didn't think this was a good idea, so we do,need the sidewalks. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 P�.ge 12 � Mr. Dante said he didn't think the Wall Corporation should have to put in thP sidewalks for the R-1 area. Mr. Drigans asked about the R-3 area along 5th Street. Mr. Dante said if th� City required a sidewalk in the R-3 area, they would put it in. Mr. Clark asked if they would put it in far the one R-1 lot that abutted 5th Street also. He asked Mr. Dante if the Wall Corporation would consider peti�ioning for the sidewalk for 7th Street and 63rd Avenue. This would then be a pending assessment on the R-1 lots and the people who purchased these lots would be aware of • this assessment and it could be added to the financing of any - home being purchased. He said if this-assessment was added after the homes were built, it could be a hardship on the new owners. ,�"�, �1 Mr. Harris said he agreed with Mr. Dante that the R-1 lots would not be their responsibility as �far as the sidewalks were concerned, but the Planni�g Commission is considering the entire plat, not just the R-3. Mayor Liebl said he felt the Wall Corporation should be responsible for the sidewalk on 5th Street. Mr. Dante said he thought the developer could come to the City and find out the requirements for developing this property. Mr. Harris said it was not in the code that every R-1 lot have a sidewalk, so this would have be a stipulation of the plat. Mr. Clark said we can make a stipulation for the sidewalks which would not be binding on the Wall Corporation, until they sign an agreement. Mr. Clark said the next "stipulation has to do with screening, berms and plantinqs. He said this had to do with the original proposal also. Mr. Harris said there should be some screening between the apartment complex and the adjacent R-1 lots. Mr. Dante said they had the stipulation to provide good landscaping, but they have left the screening out. Mr. Liebl said they didn't want any metal fencing, but there should be some screening with plantings, etc. . Mr. Clark said this was all the stipulations of the rezoning. Chairman Fitzpatrick said there were additional stipulations on the City proposal. Mr. Drigans said they pertained to the present plan for this property. Mr. Clark said this is from a sheet prepared on November 13, 1973. Mr. Dante said they did not come out of a meeting held with the Wall Corporation. Mr. Clark said they came from the August 8th Planning Commission meeting, at the time you were getting approval of the townhouses. Mr. Dante said he thought they were a smattering of everything because at that time they were not discussing a 130 unit apartment building. Mr. Clark agreed. Chairman Fitzpatrick said we could go through these stipulations and see which ones still apply. . Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Pa e 13 � Mr. Fitzpatrick said No. 3 states it would allow a 22 to 3 story apartment building having 130 units, etc., which is part of our problem because it hasn't been determined how many units will be allowed. Mr. Harris said that maybe we should discuss what type of apartment complex this will be and how many stories it will have. Mr. Dante said this would be determined by how many units they were allawed to have. Mr. Harris asked if there were 180 units, what kind of a building would it be. Mr. Dante said it would be a 3 story building with elevators. ' n, � Mr. Dante said he thought this would be handled at the Building Standards meeting. Mr. Harris said this was a subcommittee of the Planning Commission, so they could ask for this information. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Commission could ask for this information, but it wouldn't have anything to do with approving the plat. Mr. Dante said the question is whether the number of units will support the _ amenities. Economics will dictate what goes into this apartment complex. . Mr. Drigans said they had agreed to these things when they wanted to have 155 townhouse units. Mr. Dante said it was the recreational facilities the City wanted that blew us out of the ball park on that proposal. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the first stipulation would be left out because the�number of units hadn't been determined. He� said the second stipulation was to keep the apartment building within the R-3 zoned area. Mr. Drigans said this included the apartment building, garages and outside parking. Mr. Dante agreed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next stipulation was to provide about 80 garage stalls which is a little over I/'3 of the total needed parking stalls. Mr. Clark said he would suggest they delete the number of stalls and just say 1/3 of the total needed, because we don't know what 1/3 will be. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item was for providing recreati.onal. facilities in the building, including indoor swimming pool, sauna, party room and exercise room. Mr. Drigans said the difference in the Wall stipulations is that they just say swimming pool and all this is at the discretion of the Wa11 Corporation. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Dante just where the discretion came in, as to what kind, � or what. Mr. D<<nte said it is the same as he stated before. If the number of units will economically support all the amenities here, they would be put in. We don't know if we want an indoor or outdoor swimming pool, or maybe just a whirlpool bath. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we can decide on the wording of this stipulation at the time we make our motion. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next stipulation was for keeping all the ponding and drainage facilities outside the proposed platted residential lots. The upkeep and maintenance of these areas are to be part of the apartment complex. Mr. Dante said.they have the same stipulaticn Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 14 n on their proposal. Mr. Clark said he would suggest that the ponding be at the 50 year flood-level. Mr. Drigans said he thought this would depend upon the grading of the R-1 lots. Mr. Clark said this was probably the intent of the Wall Corporation anyway, but it wouldn't hurt to stipulate what pond we are talking about. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item was that the outdoor recreational facilities will be two tennis courts, tot lot, picnic facilities, skating area, walking paths with liyhts, water circulation system in ponds with fountain. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that many of these apply to the townhouse plan, but his .concern at this time is that we are talking about an area that we are including as open area for density purposes in the R-3 area, and it seems to me we have to take into consideration that there should be some facilities provided fcr the R-1 area. To say that there is no need fo� a tot lot for the apartment complex because you aren't going to rent to people with children does not mean that a tot lot wouldn't be ne�eded for the R-l.area. We are talking here about platting the entire block. We have an ordinance that l0o of any residential development should be set aside for recreational purposes, so maybe just what form this stipulation should take should be discussed. The Wall Corporation � stipulation just said the outdoor recreational faciliti�s will be.at the discretion of the Wall Corporation. I am not so concerned about the specific facilities, as I am in having an area. set _ aside for this purpose. Mr. Fitzpatrick said if we are talking about preserving that grove of trees, we�would have the area. Mr. Dante said this area is 55,000 square feet. Mr. Clark said that the R-1 lots were approximately 10,000 square feet, so 23 Tots would be about 230,000, square feet and l00 of that is 23,000 square feet, which is smaller than the •land occupied by the grove of trees. Mr. Fitzpatrick sai� then there is no big problem as far as area is concerned. Mr. Harris said he had a question on how all these recreational facilities could be provided and still preserve the heavy grove of trees in the same area. Mr. Clark said he didn't know if this was taken into consideration wheri the plan drawn by the City was made. There would have to be trees taken out for the tennis courts. There would also have to be some grading done, because where the tennis courts .would be located, .it � is �not Ievel. . Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there were specifics the Planning Commission would want to discuss with Mr. Dante on these stipulations. , Mr. Clark said it would come back again to the amount of units � that were going to be approved for the R-3. He questioned if 180 � units were put in the R-3, where the parking would be. Even for 130 units, the building area is pretty well filled up with the building and the parking lots. He said he would concede that parking could be put in the R-1 ponding area. The requirement is for two stalls for a two bedroom unit. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this would be one of the reasons for not having 180 units if the required � � Special Joint Meeting of the Planning�Commission'and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 15 parking could not fit into the R-3 area. Mr. Clark said he couldn't say it wouldn't fit when he hasn't seen a plan. Mr. Dante said there would be more than enough land in the R-3. We have recreational facilities and a 180 unit apartment building on 4 acres by Lake Calhoun. The area in the R-3 here is 82 acres. Mr. Clark said 4 acres is 174,000 square feet and you have 228,000 square feet in the R-3 area here. Mr. Clark asked how many parking stalls tY�ey provide for this 180 unit apartment. Mr."Dante said there were 220 parking stalls. Mr. Clark asked how many bedrooms there were in this complex. Mr. Clark said if they aver.aged out to two bedroom units, it would require 360 parking stalls in Fridley. Mr. Dante said these were efficiency apartment, one, two and three bedrooms, and it didn't average out ta two stalls per apartment. Mr. Clark said he thought they would need about 270 stall here then, and you,do have more room here, but without seeing a plan I can't commend on whether it would fit on this property or not. He said he didn't expect the Wall Cor- poration to draw up a plan until they knew how many units they could have. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we just want to make it clear to everyone that we don't'want encroachment on the R-1 area. Mr. Drigans said Mr. Dante has already agreed to keep the buildir,g and all the garages and parking stalls on the R-3 property. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the outdoor recreational facilities will be in the R-1 area. He said the next stipulation was if possible, preserve the heavy grove of trees in the northerly area of the property, and d�velop a picnic area and tot lot in this location. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this is related to the previous stipulation and we have discussed it. Mr. Drigans said this is not what the Wall Corporation has in their stipulation. Mr. nante said he would like to back up a little. He said the plan prese�t�c�o the Board of Appeals was for 130 to 135 apartment units and 28 residential lots. The variance was from 2500 square feet per unit to 1906 square feet per unit. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the plan we are considering is for 23 residential lots. • Mr. Dante said this was an alternate plan suggested by the Board of Appeals. There will be 130,000 square feet in the unplatted R-1 and dividing it by 2500 square feet you come up with 52 units, and adding this to the 130 allowed with the variance, you come up with 182 units. n Mr, Fitzpatrick said you are going to need the area wherF you had the additional lots, for density so there should be no problem in preserving the trees. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission andPBOerd6of Appeals November 28, 1973 � Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item is for providing a me:tal fence, if�necessary, to fence off the area which will be part of the apartment complex, which we have already had some discussion on. We talked about not having a metal fence,'but somF screening should be provided between the apartment complex and the adjoining R-1 lots. Mr. Drigans said this should be part of the Building 5tandards stipulations. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the next item was for proper water circulation and upkeep of the ponding area with.the adequate. over.flow storage area to meet the drainage requirements. Mr. Clark said in making your motion, the things you feel strongly about could be recommendations, and the things you would just like to see'included in the plat, you could just ask that these things be encouraged, especially some of the things the Wall Corporation is rather touchy about. The Council can then do as they wish, and there will be another agreement drawn up for this proposal. . � Mr. Fitzpatrick said the reason the members of the Board of Appeals are present is because they have before them a request for a variance on the density of the R-3 property. �. Mr. Driqans said the reason for the joint meeting is because -- both the Commission and the Board felt we had to look at the entire plat before we could determine what our recommendation should be. He said Mr. Clark had explained and given all� the members copies of how the combination of the R-3 property and the unplatted R-1 property would allow a density of 144 units if the property had been ali zoned R-3. If you take out the l0o park dedication for park land, we are down to.135 units. � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark what was the lowest square footage requirement we had allowed before on apartment complexes that had over 90 units. Mr. Clark said it was on the 5 Sands c o m p l e x o f 2 95 units where a variance was granted from 2,500 square feet per unit to 2,374. He said this variance was rationalized because�of the excessive right of way that was , dedicated for East River Road and this property was all zoned R-3. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission close .the Public Hearing on the proposed preliminary p1at, P.S. #73-09, by the Wall Corporation. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said the density for the apartment complex is the overriding factor in the consideration of this plat because so many of the�stipulations depend ori the the number of units that w�ii be allowed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he felt that when we were going through the stipulations that if the density figure was now agreeable to the Wa11 Corporation, it didn't matter where we put the lights or the sidewalk. Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission andPagerd7of Appeals ^ November 28, 1973 Mr. Har.ris asked Mr. Drigans if they had made any mc,tion at all on the density the Wall Corporation would be allowed. Mr. Drigans said the�� hadn't and had continued this request until tr.is evening. He said the plat being presented by Mr. Dante was not the plat he had at tr�e Board of Appeals meeting, but was a suggerted alternative we asked for. Mr. F�.tzpatrick said it was his understanding that the plat the Planning Commission was making their recommfndations on was the plan being presented this evening. Mr. Drigans said this was not the plan the Board of Appeals tabled their motion on. . � Mr. Plemel said the way the variance request reads, I would say we would have to turn it down, because it specifically states it is for 130 units and the density was from 2,500 square feet per unit to 1,905 square feet. If we recommend something,different, the variance request will be changed. �He said his sympathies lie - with the developer on_this to make the property pay off as much as it can. ^ Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason this was tabled was because the City prepared the figures for the variance request, and Mr. Dante wa= not�ready to accept these figures. Mr. Dante said it was mentzoned at the last Planning Commission meeting that if the extra lots made by the cul-de-sac were taken out of the plat, that perhaps more density could be allowed in the R-3 area. Mrs. Wahlberg said in using'all the R-3 land and all the un- platted R-1 land and using a density of 1950 square feet per unit on all this property, they could have 184 units in the R-3 area. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the 1950 figures comes from a variance request for the R-3 property only, and it seems that our thinking is changing to figure the density on the combined R-3 and unplatted R-1 together, but whether we would want to increase the density by this much has to be deter.mined. Mr. Clark said the Board of Appeals can make any recommendation they want, but I question whether.the Council could approve a variance of more than 1,906 on the R-3 property�without sending out notices again. � Mr. Clark said you would have to arrive at a rationale that ^ � you were going to use to arrive at allowing this density. Mrs. Wahlberg said at the time they were considering this variance reruest, it seemed like there were too many gray areas, so that it was impossible to make a determination on what area we were to use. � � Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals Navember 28, 1973 Page 18 _ Mr. Lindblad said he thought we had to use the unplatted R-1 in our consideration because it is not going to be used for any other purpose but to belong with the apartment complex. Mr. Harris said there had been agreement on 155 townhouses on this property and with the present proposal for 130 apartment units and 23 residential lots, we have about the same density as the townhouse proposal. Mr.�Drigans said on that pr.oposal the Council allowed more " density than the Board of Appeals had recommended. Mr. Harris said if we are going to allow 180 ap«rtment units and 23 residential lots this will be 203 units on this property and what is that going to do to the traffic patterns when this area had heavy traffic now. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark how much vacant R-3 property was left in the City. Mr. Clark said there is some property that would probably be best used for R-3 that hasn't been rezoned, but of the zoned R-3 there isn't too much left. Mr. Harris said if we allow too high a density on this property, we could be setting a prece�enee that we wouidn-'t want. Mr. Harris said this is why I think our recommendation should be based on our present zoning ordinance giving them credit for the vacant R-l. . � Mrs. Wahlberg said the present figure for the R-3 property does not include the R-3 property included in the R-1 platted lots. Mr. Clark said this was correct. Mr. Drigans said he still felt that when the 155 townhouse units were approved for. this site, that was the density this property could have.' ' Mr.. Dante said the original proposal was for a 108 unit apartment and 61 townhouses which would be 169 units. He said comparing the different proposals as to the number of units was like comparing apples and oranges. He said there would be a lot more profit in 155 townhouses than a 130 unit apartment building and 2.3 residential lots. • Mr. Drigans said he liked the concept of 130 with 23 residential lots with no cul-de-sac road. said they would eliminate the cul-de-sac road and on the R-3 property. apartment units Mr. Dante put 180 units � Mr. Fitzpatrick said it seems like the City is faced with the question of what density it can bear on this property. Mr. Glark has reminded us that we should not vary too far from the ordinance requirements which we have made other builders in the City adhere to. Joint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission andPBgerd9of Appeals �.T.�,�TOmhr�r 7 R_ 1 9% 3 W�� - 7� MOTIDN by Blair, seconded by Lindb�ad, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of proposed preliminary plat, P.S. #73-09, by the Wa11 Corporation as presented and allow a density of 2,300 square faet per unit on the R-3 properiy and include the vacant R-1 property, to a11ow 156 apartment units on the R-3 property. Mr. Clark said this motion would have to of Appeals as it their function to recommend Planning Commission would make the motion;on No vote was taken. come from the Board on the density. The the plat. Mr. Clarle asked Mr. Dante if he believed they could break ground before January l, 1974. Mr. Dante said they could if they could build 180 units because they already have the plans for this size complex. It would just be a matter of bringing in the elevations. Mr. Clark asked about getting financing that soon. Mr. Dante said this plan is a known quanity because they have already con- structed a building like this with success. Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commission would recess and let the Board of Appeals make their recommendati�n. � MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Wahlberg, to take off the table the request far a,variance of Section 45.073, ZA, Fridley City Code, to reduce the area requirement for apartment units from 2,500 square feet per unit to 1906.08 square feet per unit, to allow construction of a 130 units apartment complex, by the Wa11 Corporation. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous2y. /'t Mr. Drigans said this plat.was not�the plat they had tabled tY:�e motion on. This is an alternate plan. Mr. Clark marked the plat presented tonight as Exhibit A, dated November 28, 1973, so it could be determined what plan the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission based their recommendations upon. Mr. Plemel said because of the joint meeting, it has evolved � that the unplatted R-1 may be used along with the R-3, in considering the density of the apartment complex so I think we have to deny the original reguest. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if a denial of this request would mean that the Wall Corporation couldn't make a similar request for six months. Mr. Clark said he wasn't sure if this held true on a variance request, but to make sure, they shouldn't deny the request. They could make a different recommendation and let the Council and the City Attorney decide the legal aspects. Mr. Drigans said he was thinking about Mr. Clark's statement that the City attorney could support approximately 130 units using the R-3 and the unplatted R-1 so the density would be 2,500 square feet per unit, which is the code requirement if this property was � Joint Special Meetinr of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 20 _ _ all zoned R-3, and t�at he would be hard pressed to support any add'itional uriits on this property, without rezoning. Mr. Plemel said if we recommend 156 units we are down to 1400 or 1500 square feet per unit on the R-3, and I don't see how we can recommend that. Mr. Drigans said we are legally bound to put the units on the R-3 area, and that's the only place we can put them. Mr. Clark said you can rationalize how you arrived at the number of. units you are recommending with the unplatted R-1 property. Mrs. Wahlberg said the recommendation that Mr. Blair gave us said we could use the vacant R-1 in our consideration for the density. Mr. Drigans said the variance can only be based on the R-3 property, so the more units we recommend, the higher density we are recommending regardless of how much property we are �nc�uding in.our �consideration. Mr. Clark said to let the Council and City Attorney decide on the legality of what you recommend and when you determine the � number of units you want to allow on �this property and your rationale for your recommendation, let them decide on how this is to be handled. If it has to come back to the Board of Appeals, it has ' to come back. Mrs. Wahlberg said she thought the first thing,they should do is determine ho�+ many units they wanted to recommend. She �aid if we only allow 1.30 units and we use the R-3 area plus the vac«nt R-1, we will be exceeding the code of 2,500 square feet per unit. I think we should use 2,500 square feet per unit on all this property that is not platted into R-1 lots and allow 144 units. This is based on the unplatted R-1 on Exhibit A, dated November 28, 1973. Mr. Clark said if you just used the zoned R-3 property, the Wall Corporation could only have 92 units. Mr. Plemel said there is a lot of R-1 property lying in limbo which we have to consider. He said he would like to go along with 156 units as a compromise between 130 units and 180 units. Mr. Drigans said he preferred 144 units, so it would be at the code requirement of 2,500 square feet per unit, if this property was all zoned R-3, and I think the City Attorney cauld defend this f igure . � Mr. Drigans said he wanted it called to the Council's attention that this would be in excess of the original variance request and they should determine if this required re-notification. J.oint Special Meeting of the Planning Comm�_ssion and Board of Appeals /� November 28, 1973 Page 21 MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Plemel, that the Board of Appeals, in Iieu of the variance request to reduce the area requirement for apartment uniEs�from 2,500 squ�.re feet per unit to 1,906.08 square feet per unit, to a11ow the construction of a 130 unzt apartment complex, per Fridley City Code, Section 45.07s", 1A, recommend that the City Council consider that the Wa1I Corporatian be allowed the. construction of a 144 unit apartment complex using a density of 2,500 square feet per unit, using the buildable R-3 property and a11 the unplatted vacant R-1 property in this consideration, based on Exhibit A, dated November 28, 1973, and that the entire apartment complex and parking be located on the property zoned R-3. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the moiion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission returned and Mr. Drigans told the Commission what recommendation the Board of Appea�s had made to the City Council. MOTION by Blair, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recomme�d to Cc�uncil approv.al of the.propos.ed preliminar.y p1at, P.S. #73-09, by the Wa11 Corporation, being a replat of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County or Anoka, Minnesota, with exception: being based on Exhibit �. A, dated November 28, 1973, with the following stipulations: 1. Provide a drainage pond on the said property as shown on the approved final plan which would receive the drainage from the adjoining properties and drain the said property. The surface water wi11 be stored in the pond during the rain and will be 1et through with an overflow into the existing storm sewer at Bennett and 7th Street slowly after the rain storm subsides•. The location of the permanent. portzon of the pond would not be any closer tY�an 100 feet from any road right of way lines. The design of the perm.anent portion of this pond would be based on the 5 year frequency (8.2 acre feet) with the temporary expansion of the pond.to be designed for 50 year frequency (12.0 acre feet: and the limits of the t�mporary ponding around the time of the rain could extend in to the R-1 platted 1ots. The water in the permanent pond would be pumped up to a . fountain for aeration purposes to eliminate the stagnation . affect of the water in the permanent pond. The bottom and the shoreline of the pond wi11 be such that it is as maintenance free as practical and the whole shorQline and the grounds around the ponding area wi11 be landscaped. The design of the complete drainage and storm sewer system in this property sha11 be ap.proved by the City Engineering Department and storm sewer piping constructed to the City's /� � specifications. City aqrees the watershed area for this property sha11 not be increased. 2. Provide a drainage easement to the City of FridZey for the ponding area.which wi11 be under water considering a 50 year design frequency including the storm sewer'• inlet and outlet. . Joint Special Meeting of the Plann�_ng Commission and Board of Appeals November 28, 1973 Page 22 /`� - 3.COUN�IL PLEASE NOTE: PLANNING COMMI5SION REQUESTS THAT THIS STIPULATION BE REWRITTEN. Waive any Iiability against the City for ponding the water on this propertz� and drop any pending lawsuits against ihe Ci t y, 4. Set the lowest flood elevation of the walkout type home at least 3 feet higher than ihe 50 year flood 1ine. The 1ow�st floor elevation of a non-walkout type home wi1l be� no more than 18" into the 50 year flood line with a grade elevation at least 3 feet higher than ihe 50 year flood 1ine. The 3owest floor elevation for the apartment building wi11 be no .Zower than 3 foot into the 50 year flood line with f.Zoodproof construction up to the 50 year flood. Rest of the stucture must be water-resistant construction. 5. At no cost L-o the City the total drainage system within the entire property wi11 be deve.Zoped. If in the future there is additional outlet construction necessary for this drainage district this property wi.Zl pay their share of the assessment for the improvement. /'�, 6. Keep the apartment building including garages and parking within the R-3 zoned area. 7. Provide garage stalls for 1/3 of the total needed parking stalls. 8. Encourage recreation facilities in the apartment buildinc to include indoor swimming poo1, sauna, party room and exercise room. - . 9. Keep a1.t the 50 year Ieve1 ponding and drainage faciZities outside t.he proposed platted residential 1ots. The upkeep and maintenance of theseareas to be part of the apartment complex. 10. Encourage outdoor recreational facilities such as two tennis courts, tot Iot, picnic facilities, skating area, waZking paths with lights. 11. Encourage preserving the heavy grove of trees in the north�- erly area of the property, and encourage developing a picnic area and tot 1ot in this location. • .Z2. Required areas planned for pt�bZic Iand uses, including schooZs, parks, playgrounds and other public purposes ^ sha11 be offered�for dedication or shaZl be - reserved for fut:ure public acquisition. Should such planned public areas .be more than 10 percent of the gross area of the land to be subdivided, 10 percent of the area svb- divided sha11 be offered to dedication and the remainder reserved for a period of two years durirg which time �oint Special Meeting of the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals � �ovember 28, 1973 Page 23 � /'`ti the City or other public body may buy such Zand. Should plannFd public areas be Zess than 10 per cent of the gross area in the purposed subdivision, a cash payment equivalent to the difference in Iand value shall be paid into the park fun�1. 13. The Wa11 Corporation to install the sidewaZk on 5th Street for the R-3 property and R-Z 1ot adjoining this property ana petition the City for sidewalk for the balance of 5th Street, 7th Street and 63rd Avenue. 14. The R-3 property and the unplatted R-1 propert� a11 be platted as one 1ot. . Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting at 1:20 A.M. Respectfully submitted, !/`-'L<��,,�� ��i-�=22- Dorothy Ev son, Secretary � �� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1973 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:45 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Drigans, Lindblad Members Absent: Blair - Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm.. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 21,. 1973 MOTION by Dxigans, seconaed by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the November 21, 1973 meetinq as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 vo•ting aye,.the mo.tion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: NOVEMBER 27, 1973 � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Cammission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting of November 27, 1973. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #73-12, BY MOTOFOTO OF AMERICA, INC.: To permit a film processing drop-off booth on Lot 1, Block l, Sylvan Hills Plat 7, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.L01, 3, I, the same being 248 Mississippi Street N.E. in the Rice Plaza Shopping Center. Mr. Morton Sleet was present to represent the petitioner. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice �or a Special Use Permit, SP #73-12,'by Motofoto of America, Inc.' Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously�. M�. Sleet presented pictures of a similar film processing drop-off booth operated by his company in Fargo, North Dakota. He said these booths were generally located at the extremity of a parking lot in a shopping center so as not to hinder the parking for such centers. � � Mr. Sleet had a plot plan showing where this booth would be , located in the Rice Plaza shopping center. He said the island for this booth would be running perpendicular to Mississippi Street. Mr. Lindblad asked how much property would be needed for this type of installation.. ' �J Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 1973 Page 2 � Mr.�Sleet said the actual booth was 4'x8'. The island is 18'x 25'�with a planter a� each end. The pad is actually only 5 feet so the actual driveway for this installation is common ground and so states in their lease. '• Mr. Harris asked if there was any provision for heat, lights or utilities. Mr. Sleet said there would be electrical and telephone lines coming into the building. There will be a 5,00,0 B.T.U. Bryant � baseboard heater and a quarter ton air conditioner. We are talking about a 32 square ft. building. Mr. Harris said he understood all the utilities would have underground installation. Mr. Sleet said they would be all under- ground. Mr. Harris said there would be no water or sewer in this building then. Mr. Sleet said that in this type of business, it is accepted that if there are facilities near by, this is all that is required. Mr. Harris asked if this was in the terms of their lease also. /"� Mr. Sleet said he would be bringing in a letter from one of the tenants of the shopping center that the employees of the film booth can use their public facilities. Mr. Clark said the O.S.H.A. requirement is that a facility be available within 200 feet. Mr. Drigans asked if they had any other booths located in the Twin City area. Mr. Sleet said this was their first booth. They have been doing business in Montana, their home•base, and in North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado. We have just recently gone into a franchise program. Mr..Drigans asked how they happened to start their operations . here in Fridley. Mr. Sleet said it was because of Fred Levy. He owns several shopping centers. Mr. Drigans said that since Fridley already has � similar fiim booth in such close proximity to this location, it would seem that another location would be a better place to start. Mr. Sleet said it was a strategic move. � Mr. Fitzpatrick said the sign that will be on your building says Kodak film but you will process any type of film, I assume. Mr. Sleet said we will process any type of film with a code /^1 , of C-22 by a patented Kodak process. Sears or Wards fi,lm, for � instance, will have to go back to them for processing. /"\ � Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 1973 Page 3 Mr. Fitzpatrick said you will be selling Kodak film then. Will you be selling anything else? Mr. Sleet said they would be selling cameras and would have a small camera display. Mr. Harris asked if they will want any other signs other than the one on the building. Mr. Sleet said no. �� Mr. Harris asked if this building was pre-constructed. Mr. Sleet said it was. The building has Reynold Aluminum siding, Owens Corning insulation, fibreboard on the inside, steel studdings and will meet the reguirements for wind resistant and roof loads. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if there had been any compl�aints or�any vandalism on the film booth already located in Fridley. Mr. Clark said not as far as he knew or recollected. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Sleet if they had a problem of robberies in these booths. Mr. Sleet said he knew some booths had this problem but this unit has a floor safe grouted into the cement floor so they felt this would eliminate.this danger. � MOTI011� by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the PZanning Commission close the Public Hearinq on the request for a Special Us� Permit, 5P #73-12, by Motofoto of America, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris asked if the traffic patterns had been worked � out for this proposal as yet. Mr. Clark said they would be before this went to Building Standards. The lanes will have to be striped and directional arrows put in for the film booth. /�'\ Mr. Harris said he thought this was far enough awa�r from the intersection not to cause problems. Mr. Clark said the most troubie would come when the traffic was backed up because of a train. Mr, Drigans asked Mr. Sleet if they ever had to relocate these booths because of economics. Mr. Sleet said they sometimes have to relocate but it is in their lease that if this happened they would remove their construction and the property would be returned to its original state. MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #73-12, by Motofoto of America, Inc., to permit a film processing drop-off booth on Lot 1, B1ock 1, Sylvan Hi11s Plat 7, per Fridley City Code, 5ection 205.10I, 3, I, at 248 Mississippi 5treet N.E, in the Rice P1aza shopping center with the foZlowing stipulations: (1) The traffic patterns be worked out with the administration and approved by the Building Standards-Design Control Sub- committee. (2) The parking lanes be striped and directional arrows be provided for traffic direction. ��� Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 1973 Page 4 (3) A11 utility lines be underground. , (4) A letter be obtained from an adjacent tenant stating the employees can use the public facjlities,:.within 200 feet of this film booth. (5) In the event the building has to he removed for any reason, the parking lot wi11 be returned to its original cor�dition. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark told the petitioner that this would go to Council on CQUncil on December 17th. 2. VACATION REQUEST: SAV #73-12, BY EDGAR HOUSER: of a street and alley described as Gumwood Street between the Westerly extension of Lot 11, Block 6, Onaway Addition and the South right of way of 78th Avenue; and the alley running on the Westerly property line of Lots l- 8; Block 5, Onaway Addition, between 77th Way N.E. and 78th Avenue N.E. Mr. Clark said this request was started two years ago as ^ SAV #71-04. It was recommended by the Planning Commission for ' approval by the Council, and the first reading was read. We decided to readvertise this to make sure it met.all the legal requirements. The second reading was held up to see how-the developement of Beech Street was going to occur. Now that Beech Street is developed, this is the last parcel left. Mr. Houser wants to sell the North half of his property and access w'ill be provided at 78th Avenue. . Mr. Fitzpatrick asked the purpose of this request. Mr. Clark said it will be landscaped and made part of the property, but the utility easement will have to be retained. Mr. Harris said half the vacation will go to Mr. Houser and the othe�.half to Mr. Smith. Mr. Clark said that when Mr. Smith requested the addition to his building, it was felt this vacation should be reinstated. Mr. Harris asked if there was anything in writing from Mr. Smith and Mr. Houser saying they wanted this vacation. Mr. Clark said there wasn't but he was sure there would be no problem in obtaining these signatures. • Mr. Harris said this is an old plat with 40 foot lots, and with this vacation, there will be lots without access. � • ' Mr. C1ark said Mr. Houser is the owner of these lots and he is the one requesti.ng this vacation. Mr. Harris said there should be someway to tie these lots together so there would be no confusion at a later date of a subsequent owner selling some of these lots. � 0 n �:�. . Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 1973 Page 5 /'1 � Chairman Fitzpatrick saYd we should be cognizant of the fact that we are creating land locked lots and I think the City should have some obligation. Mr. Clark saic� if the vacation isn't granted the proposed building will not meet the setback requirements. Mr. Harris asked if there was dedication for the cul-de-sac at 78th Avenue. Mr. Clark said we will be getting this dedication. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that tlie Planninq ' Commission reaffirm their recommendation to Council to apprave vacation request, SAV #73-12 (SAV #7Z-04) , by Edgar Houser, to vacate a street and a11ey described as Gumwood Street between the Westerly extension of Lot 11, B1ock 6, Onaway Addition, and the South rig�t of way of 78th Avenue; and the a1ley running on the Westerly prope�ty line of Lots 1-8, B1ock 5, Onaway Addition, between 77th Way N.E. and 78th Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: (1) Both parties sign an agreement that they agree to the vacation. - (2) Cit� retain a11 the existing utility easements. /'\ (3) Have the City Attorney look into Block 5, Onaway Addition, to see if some type of agreement can be drawn up so that the exteri�or .Zots not be sold without access to 77th Way or 78th Avenue. (4) Provide dedication for 60 foot radius cul-de-sac on 78th Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voti•ng aye, the motion carried unanimous- 1y. 3. CONTINUED: ARMORY PROPOSAL Chairman Fitzpatrick said the letter in the agenda was g�epared by the administration at our direction. . Mr. Clark said if there were any names any member of the Planning Commission wanted on the mailing list in addition to those attached, we could add the.m at this time. Mr. Lindblad asked if any organizations outside of Fr�dley would be notified. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that most of the �ervice , organizations have branches in Fridley so this eould be limited to Fridley at the present time. . /"`1 ' Mr. Lindblad said he thought it would be a month or more before we get any response from this letter. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we can continue this item ar�d any response • can be put in the agenda for each meeting. 'He said he thought the Planning Comrnission would be.ready some time in January to make /'1 /'\ 1`1 �� P.lannin Commission Meetin - December 5, 1973 �age 6 their recommendation. Mr. Drigans asked t�i"r. Clark if there was a copy of the type of resolution that would be needed if they decided to- reCOmmend favorably on this request. Mr. Clark said he did and it was a"gentleman's agreement", really not binding by the City or the National Guard. �. ENERGY CRISIS Mr. Harris asked what steps the City of Fridley as a governmental unit had taken to conserve energy during the energy cris�s besides turning off the outside lights at 1:00 A.M. Mr. Clark said all the pump houses and the filtration plants have been insulated around the windows. The storage area of the City garage is kept at 50° and the working area at 65°. As far as City Hall if concerned, we can't change the thermostats until we have a few days,of colder weather so we can set the air mixture properly. We have a Phase II of our plan which will have to be approved by Council because it will affect the services provided by the City. This would include a policy change in our snow plowing, and whether we should shorten our work day by having half hour lunches or go� to 4 ten hour days. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he thought 4 ten hour days would give more service to the public than a shortened work day on a five day basis. � Mr. Drigans said the last time they discussed this subject it was my feeling that we should, as a Planning Commission, be involved in this energy crisis, either by giving input or as an ad hoc energy commission. Mr. Harris asked what the policy was for City vehicles. He said it seemed like there was a lot of joy riding going on. Mr. �lark said that Mr. Volkman has instructed the Public Works Dept. that if they don't have anywhere to go, to stay where they are. . Mr. Harris said the State has instructed the highway patrol to only go out on specific calls and then at a 50 mile per hour speed. Mr. Clark said their function was different from the police depart- ment who have routine patrols to make and this is a nessary service. Mr. Harris asked if there was any rEason for Fridley vehicles to be used outside of Fridley. Mr. Clark said they were used for picking up parts downtown, or for meetings, but always for City business. Mr. Harris said people get exasperated when they are told by government to conserve energy and then these same governmental units waste energy like its going out of style. He said if Fridley is making an effort in this enexgy crisis he thought it should really be publicized to show how a local government was leading the way. . �� Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 1973 �age 7 � . � Chairman Fitzpatrick'said we are talking organizationally whether we want a subcommittee to be an energy commission or w]�ether there_should be an ad hoc committee formed. It seems to me we are talking about something that when the policies are set that would be it. He said it seemed to him that these were Council decisions,but where the input was to come from,was something else. Mr. Drigans said he thought they should consider offering their services to the Council to be used in any way - see fit, in.terms of the energy crisis. As we are all chairmen of subcommittees we could get input from these subcommittees and use this feedback to help determine what the policy should ' be . . . Mr. Lindblad said he didn't think Fridley should be curtail.ing services, if other cor.lmunities were not doint� the same. He said he couldn't see the sense of stopping Little League hockey in Fridley if they were still going to play hockey out at the Met Center. Mr. Drigans said you can't always wait for "big brother", or you may wait a long time. He said the school boards and some companies were making decisions to conserve energy and he thought the City of Fridley should do the same. /\ Mr. Harris said we already have some guidelines from the Federal and State government. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he thinks most people look to the Federal and State government for direction and he didn't know how much attention City government would get except for the services City government supplies. He said this might not to right but this is generally the way it was. Mr. Drigans said he would 1'ike to ask the City Council to pass a resolution banning outdoor lighted Christmas decorations. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, recommending that the City Council view the Planning Commission as an Energy Commission for the duration of the energy crisis and invite them to refer any action they need to take, for review by this Energy Commissio�. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commis�ion recommend that the City Council pass a resolution discouraging the use of outdoor decorative Iighting durinq the Christmas season to conserve er•ergy. Upon a voice vote, a31 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned �he meeting at 9:40 P.M. � Respectfully submit�ed, /Q���� � <! "' (.L.-Z,C(.� t� ;'� C. -�'� Dorothy enson, Secretary n � .^ 31 BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOb�1ITTEE MEETING OF DECEh1BER 6, 1973 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lindblad at 8:07 p.m. DIEMBERS PRESENT: Lindblad, Tonco, MEMBERS ABSENT: Simoneau OTHERS PRESENT: Jerry Boardman, Treuenfels, Cariolano Planning Assistant MOTION by Treuenfels, seconded by Cariolano to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 8, 1973 as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A REQiIF.ST TO CONSTRUCT A\ELV BUILDI�'G FOR OFFICE � AND WAREHOUSE USE, LOCA1'ED ON LOTS 16 - 19, BLOCK 1, O;iA�'+AY �1DDITION; 'I'HE SA1�IF. B�??�G 7893 EL�I STREET I�?.E., F�RIDLEY, i1li\1i�ESOTA 55432. (I2EQUEST BY PACO hI�'�SONP.Y, 5920 KIRKI'r00D Lt\:\E I�ORTH, 1�II\NEAPOLTS, D4In'�ESOTA 55442) Mr. Jerry Pascke and Mr, blaynard Edson were present for the request. The gentlemen stated that the building would be identical to the building that they built on 79th Avenue and Main Street. The plan has just been reversed and the buildings will sit back-to-back. . Mr.Lindblad asked Mr..Boardman if there is any difference of any type in this b uilding compared to the other building. Mr. Boardman said there is no difference, the same material will be�used on the exterior and Paco has gone through the Board of Appeals for all of the variances needed. Mr.: Boardman asked if they had done any type of grading. Mr. Edson said they had done some rough grading. Mr. Boardman said he would like to see some type of berming done on this location and also some done ori the previous building location in order to tie the landscape plan with their neighbor, Mr. Harstad. Both Mr. Pascke and Mr. Edson said they had plAnty of material to work with for the berming and would give it a try. A4r. Pascke pointed out that they had some very nice clusters of trees along 79th Street and Elm Streets ar�d that he did not want them to be destroyed. Mr. Boardman agreed and said to try some berming where±here are not any trees, perhaps in the area in front of the trees along Elm Street and along. the side of the building facing Main Street. The men agreed to this idea. Mr. Tonco asked about the driveway. bir. Pascke said the original plan showed a slanted driveway, Uut the new plan straightened out the driveway. Mr. Lindblad asked about the drainage plan.. Mr. Pascke said the driveway sloped in such a manner that the water will drain out to the street and the entire area drainage plan is being worked out by Comstock F� Davis. Mr. Lindblad asked h1r. Boardman if there was any p�arking problem. A1r. Boardmar said he did not believe that there was a problem, but wanted to check the file on the previous building. rir. Lindblad asked if there was any type of roof equipment. Mr. Edson said an air-conditioning unit would be on the roof. Mr. Lindblad said this would have to be screened so as not to be seen by the public eye. rir. Edson said the unit will stick up approximately 18" and be back from the edge of the building a good distance and the only way the unit would be seen is if you were in an airplane. rtr. Lindblad said in that case the unit would not have to be screened. a�� BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOb�4ITTEE MEETING OF DECEb4BER 6, 1973, Ag. 2 � . Mr. Boardman returned with the file on the previous building. He said there was no parking problem. He said they also had stipulated 8" x 8" wooden guard rails on the previous building to protect it from the cars, screening for out- side refuse b e provided and a 5' low maintenance strip b e provided between the alley and the driveway. Mr. Tonco said he did not like to see the guardrails attached directly to the building, but since this was what was stipulated on the previous building, then he felt the Board should put the same type of stipulation on this buildir.g. D4r. Pascke and Mr. Edson both agreed to these stipulations. The Board asked if the block would be painted along the north and south elevations. Mr. Pascke said yes. The exterior on the rest of the building is a brick veneer. The Board included the rest of the stipulations as imposed on the previous b uilding on this�one. . MOTION by Treuenfels, seconded by Cariolana, to recommend to the City Council approval of the building with the following stipulations: 1. 8" x 8" wooden guardrails b e placed on the b uilding b etween the paxking stalls and the building. 2. Any designated outside rubbish area to be screened. � 3. Adopt drainage plan as worked out by Comstock F, Davis. 4. Have a final security light plan for Council. 5. 6" x 18" poured concrete curbing along driveway. 6. Provide a 5' low maintenance strip b etween the driveway and the alley. � 7. Berming to b e done on the two building sites to be left up to Paco's discretion. UPON A VOICE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. CO�iSIDERATION OF A RF.QUEST TO ALLO�V PLACEi•fENT OF A PRE-CO�ISTP,UCTED SAI,ES UNIT LOC�1'I'ED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SYLV�v IIILLS PLAT %; 'I'HE S�`�IE BEI\G 2��8 bIISSISSIPPI S'TREET, PRIDLEI', PtII�\ESOTA. THIS BUILDING WILL BE USED FOR ItETAIL P(IOTOFINISHING AND FII.A1 S�iLES. (RFQUI:ST BY b10T0� 01'0 OF �II:RICA, INC. , 7851 b1E'�RO PARK �VAY, SUITE 306, P�IINNE�POLIS hiINNESOT�'1 55420) . - • Mr. f�9orton Sleet was present for the request. %� • Mr. 51eet said the unit is the exact same one they have been using in the Fargo, North Dakota area. They are on their second winter there. He explained the set up very briefly. �The company estimate� 1? minutes per customer, 30-40 customers a day, open 6 days a week from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The building is 4' wide and 8' long, rests on a�18' concrete slab with a planter on both ends that will be filled with plants suited for local conditions. 33 r„� BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1973, Pg. 3 Mr. Lindblad went over the stipulations that were placed on the request at the Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 1973. 1. Supply a signed agreement for use of a sanitary system within 200' of their building. Mr. D4orton presented a signed agreement between Motofo� and Alpen Tram, 238 Mississippi Street. 2. If the building is removed from the premises, the site will be restored to its former condition. ' 3. A11 utilities be underground. 4. Traffic plan be worked out with the City. 5. Stripping and arrows b e provided to aid in traffic �ovement. Mr. Lindblad said the building met with City code requirements for construction Mr. Mortion said they follow the National Building and N ational Electrical Code for their buildings. . . . Mr. Boardman brought a plan forward that he and Mr. Nlorton had worked out to solve the traffic flow problem. Mr. Boardman said there would be a 3' area for stripping, 10' driving aisle, 5' area for the cement s1ab, 10' driving aisle and ^ another 3' area for stripping. He also said the City would like a 25' driving aisle b etween the present structure's sidewalk and the 3' stripping area. (The present structure is Rice Plaza) This would allow the traffic to drive up to the b uilding in the 10' driving aisles and go around the b uilding and exit on th e 25'� driving area. . � The Board asked if there would be any type of si�ns other then what was on the building itself. Mr. Morton said no. MOTION by Cariolano, seconded by Tonco, to recommend approval of the stxucture with the following stipulations. l. If the Building is removed from the premises, the site will be restored to the former condition. 2. All utilities be underground.• � 3. Traffic plan be used as set up by �he City. 4.� Stripping and arrows b e provided on the blacktop. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye,' the motion carri�ed unanimously. 3, CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUC'F AN APARTTtE\T CO`�tPLE : LOCA'I'ED O�I 'I'HE SOU�rit 6n8 F�ET OF TIiL \ORCH 1066 FLEf Or 1tll: IVEST � 385 FE�T 0�� 1'}IE C�S'i IL�1LF OF T}iE �ORTtIEAST QUARTEK OF Tr1E SOU7'f[iVEST gU�RTPR OF SECTION 14, T-30, R-24, ANOKA COUNTY, EXCEPT TIiF �4'E:SI' 30 F�ET 7't\hEN FOR S'I'RfiET AND UTILITY PURPOSI:S; 'I'1I� SA`.1E I3EING 640�-5TH ST1:IiC'i', PIZIDLL'Y, M1N:iE5U"�'A 55�32. (RF.��LJ:�ST BY t�f1I,L CQR°ORA"CIOt�', � 8050 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTEI, BLOO�IING'I'OV, �f���ESOT�} . ` �� � BUILDING STt\NDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1973, P• 4 Wall Corporation, by request, was put on the Special meeting of Building Standards-Design Control on December 13, 1973. , D40TION by Cariolano, seconded by Tonco, to table Wall Corporatian until December 13, 1973. UPbN A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSIUER�TION OF A REQUEST TO COVSTRllCT � ADDITIO', F0� USE AS A IdAREliOUSE O�I Tt{E PRF.SEPd'I' BUILDING i3OCa'I'ED Oti LOTS �-8, BLOCK 5, ONAtiVtlY ADDI'I'lOti; THE S:��?� b�ING 7786 BEECH S'F.:EE:T N.F.•, FFIDLEI', �II:VNE�O'TA (RE��UCST B�' F.0`::aLD S�9ITH, 7756 BEECEI STREET, FRIDLEY, P•1I`\ESOTA 55432) . Mr. Ronald Smith was present for the request. � Mr. Lindblad ask�ed about the design es onethetSlan thathl�lrbuSmithghad �Mr. Boardman said he had made a few chang P brought in. He said he had taeSearelshown.onmthe pbantelevatianathat was smith seemed to agree. These chang presented and approved at the meeting. /'�. Mr. Tonco asked what type of flashing wouldsbe usedtto matchftheesamelused� Mr. Smith said a galvanized metal, painted, on t�4e present structure. Mr. Lindblad asked if there wasta Wi�hithiProbanmbutMit shouldabeSStipulated he would meet the parking requiremen s he will rovide extra parking stalls that if and when Gumwood Street.is vacated, P in the vacated area if thith1wouldeagreeatoethis.paMr1nSmithlsaidrhenassumes that Mr. Tonco asked if Mr. Sm Gumwood Street is going to be a gift, and he really does not care if the area is used for extra parking• Mbe anladditionalevaluethfs and when1Mr. Smith�shou d said this parking area would decide to se11 his building, as future o�ti�ners would have enough parking stalls. Mr. Tonco asked if there would be any office space in the addition. I�2r. Smith said it will be only located in the present structure. Mr. Boardman presented a list of stipulations that the City felt should be� imposed on Mr. Smith. They are: . 1. Agree to all landscaping as shown on approved plan. b4r. Smith agreed, � 2. Agree that all storage of material and equipment will be inside, hfr. Smith agreed. 3, That the present�loading areas on the north side of the existing building will no longer be used and all loading and unloading will b e done inside of the new building, rir. Smith agreed. - �J BUILDING STANDARDS DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOI�fITTEE MEETING OF D�CEMBER 6, 1973, Pg. 5 ^ 4. Provide easements to the City for the westerly 10' of Lots 16 and 17, �lock 7, Onaway Addition. This would allow the City to go onto Mr. Smith's land to service the sewer that lies here. It would not impair the use of this land by Mr. Smith. Mr Smith said his lawyer, Wyman Smith has these easements.. 5. Drainage plan b e worked out and approved by the City, D1r. Smith agreed. I 6. Any outside storage of waste material must be completely screened, the City would like to see it inside. Mr. Smith said this would be inside. 7. Roof equipment, if any, must be screened, Mr. Smith agreed. 8. All curbing will be 6" x 18" poured concrete curbing, Mr. Smith agreed. 9. Additional parking on vacated Gumwood Street b e provided if the City deems it necessary, Mr. Smith agreed. �ir. Boardman also asked to have the following two items stipulated, Mr. Smith did not giye a forma,l answer. � 10. Letter from Houser approving the vacation of Gumwood Street stating that he will not sell off any of the property with no access. ^ 11. Letter from Ron-� Smith approving vacation of Gumwood Street. The following stipulations asked for by Mr. Boardman were not agreed upon by Mr. Smith, as there is an internal problem that Mr. Smith and the affected companies must agree on. The one stipulation called for signed agreements to provide joint parking between 7713-15 Beech Street (Sperco Tool, Ronald Smith) and 7733-55 Beech Street (Assurance Mfg.). Mr. Smith felt th at Assurance Mfg. should pay for the blacktop driveway and parking axea as their employees are the ones parking all over the area and causing the problem. Mr. Boardman and the Board felt that this problem of paying for the parking lot would have to be decided b etween Assurance and Ron Smith, and that they could'not make a decision on this matter. Mr. Boardman said th at the City does not care who pays for the work so long as an agreement is given to the City stating that there is a joint parking area agreement and th at Ron Smith will not cut off the access to the parking lot of Assurance (Driveway leading to Assurance Mfg. is all but 2z' of . Smith's land). Mr. Tonco recommended th at perhaps the City Attorney could act as a mediator betw�en these two parties so that some type of agreement could be given. b1r. Tonco also said that he wants it stipulated that before a building permit is given to Ronald Smith for his addition to 7786 Beech Street that the City must have in hand a signed written agreement b etween the parties resolving� this problem of parking between 7713-15 and 7733-55 Beech Street. Mr. Tonco asked Mr. Boardman if he could bring this to the attention of tiie City Attorney. The Board was not sure of the legality 'of this stipulation, but thought it would at least get the b all rolling for the improvement of this area. � • The other stipulatian that Mr. Boardman presented was for a signed agreement to provide parking and landscaping for 7795 Beech Street and 7713-15 Beech Street with completion dates. Mr. Smith would not give an answer here. The Board felt that since the items that Mr. Smith would not agree to would /"1 �1�: BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOrM�fITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1973, Pg. 6 have to be handled between the affected companies and possibly the City Attorney, that they could'make no further recommendations. MOTION by Tonco to recommend to Council approval of the addition with the following stipulations: Seconded by Cariolano 1. Use landscaping plan on approved plan. 2• All storage of material and equipment must b e inside. 3• Loading areas on the north side of the existing building will not be used and longer and alI loading and unloading will b e inside of the new addition. � 4• Provide easements for the westerly 10' of Lots 16 and 17, Block 7, Onaway Additinn. S• Drainage plan b e worked out and approved by the City. 6• Any outside storage of waste material must be screened. 7• Roof equipment (outside) must be screened. � 8• 6" x 18" poured concrete curbing be used. 9. Additional parking on vacated Gumwood Street be provided if the City feels that it is.needed. � 10. Letter from Houser approving the vaeation of Gumwood Street stating that he will not sell off any of the property with no access. 11. Letter from RonaldSmith approving vacation of Gumwood Street. The Board strongly recommends that the City Council not issue the b uilding permit for 7786 Beech Street until the City receives a signed written agreement stating that an agreement was reached for providing joint parking between Assurance Mfg. and Sperco Tool, the City Attorney to act as mediator. Also that an agreement for landscaping b e provid�ed to the City for 7795 Beech Street. UPON A VOICE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lindblad adjourned the meeting at 9;40 p.m. spectfully sub mitted, �r�f_. � . � r.c-c.�.. �.s-/`.� . � �\ ^ Paula Long, � Secretary a��� THE MINUTES OF THE BQARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 1973 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Drigans at 7:40 P.M. /1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Drigans, Gabel, Plemel MEMBERS ABSENT: Crowder, Wahlberg OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Mattson - Engineering Aide MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to approve the November 27, 1973 minutes as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to approve the minutes of the November 28, 1973 special joint meeting with the Planning Commission as written. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 214.053, 3, FRIDLEY CITY CODE2 TO INCREASE TH�.MAXIMUM SIZE OF AN AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN IN A C-2S DISTRICT FROM 100 . SQUARE FEET TO 214 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT�OF A 14 S UARE FOOT PANEL ONTO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN LOCATED ON PARCEL 1500, AUDITOR'S SUBDNISION ��88, THE SAME BEING 6225 H�GHWAY ��65 N E, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY POLLIE'S PLACE, 6225 HIGHWAY ��65 N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA.) MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to waive reading the Public Hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. Mr. S. Schmidt, owner of Pollies Place, was present to present his request. �"1 Mr. Schmidt explained Pollies Place is where the Casino Royale was located, at the East end of the Shorewood Shopping Center. He said since they are so far from Highway ��65, a small�sign on the Shopping Center pylon would help them a great deal as the traffic coming int� town would be ahle to see where they are Zocated. He said it will be a 14 square foot, good iooking sign, double faced, and lighted. He said they think they have a pretty nice pl�ace and they would like to make it go. Chairman Drigans stated if the variance is granted, wouldn't the other tena�ts be asking for the same advertising. Mr. Schmidt replied that the King Chalet, a tenant, already has two other signs out by the Highway. Chairman Drigans asked if there was any reason they can't make the sign ` coniorm to the Code. Mr. Schmidt said the sign that is there, is the Shorewood Center sign and it is 200 square feet. He said all they are asking for is 14 square feet. Cnaixman Drigans asked if they also advertised on matchbooks, etc., and also if the sign is multi-colored. Mr. Schmidt answered they do, and they also advertise on the radio. He said .the sign will be black and white. %1 Mrs. Gabel questioned why a variance was needed on the existing sign area plus the additional panel. rage � The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting of D�cember ll, 1973 Howard Mattson explained the existing sign was erected in 1962, when it met the �� Code, The sign, at this time, does not meet the present sign ordinance and is ^ therefore considered a non-conforming sign. To add more sign area to an already oversized sign, you have to grant a variance for the total square footage over the maximum size allowed. That is why the request reads from 100 square feet to 214 square feet even though they are only adding 14 square feet. Mr. Plemel asked how much this sign would cost and Mr. Schmidt answered about $400.00. Chairman Drigans asked what they considered their hardship to be. Mr. Schmidt said the fact that people can't see their present sign when they are coming into town. He said if they could see where Pollies Place is located, they might stop in, and it would mean alot. Mr. Schmidt added that Mr. Saliterman, owner of the Center, has said he will not allow any other signs to be added to the Center's identification sign. Howard Mattson stated the problem the City faces here is the same as with any individual request. He said we can't concern ourselves with just the one individual, we have to look to see what will happen after that person leaves and what we will be left to deal with. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being na nays, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Drigans stated the Center owner may, in t'ne future, get another tenant who would feel, because of his business, that he would also require special ^ advertising. He said it seems there is noone else in the Center that feels this way now, as there haven't been other variance requests. He said he felt the Board could create a problem hy granting the variance but that they could stop it now by denying the request. . Mr. Gabel said she c�uld see why the applicant would want the sign there,.but s�e didn't think a sign of that size would draw much business. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to recommend denial of the variance, to Council, as it is likely to set a precedence with the other tenants. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 2. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 214 054, 2A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO INCREASE ' TiiE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR A FREE STANDTNG SIGN FROM 80 SQUARE FEET TO 108 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW THE ERECTION OF A FREE STANDING SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2� BLOCK 2, CENTRAL VIEW MANOR, THE SAME BEING 7315 HIGH�JAY ��65 N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY BRRDE, INCQRPORATED, 2211 BROADWAY N.E., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.) Mr. Charles Lerbexg, of Brede, Incorporated, was present to present the request. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to waive reading the Public Hearing notice. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. �,;, �Mr. Lerberg stated the Code restricts a pylon sign to 80 square feet but if a business is on a corner lot, it is allowed one 80 square foot sign and a second The Minutes of the Board of A eals Subcommittee Meetin of December 11 1973age 3�� 50 square foot sign. He said this property is on a corner lot but that they � only want to erect one pylon that is 108 square feet. He said this is 22 square feet of sign area less that what they are allowed. He said this sign.is a standard size sign for the Hudson 0i1 Company who is presently in the process of erecting four other identical signs throughout the Cities. He said since it is their standard size, they would prefer the one sign instead of two. Mr. Lerberg said the property is on the corner of Highway ��65 and 73rd Avenue and used to be a Gulf Service Station. He said they will use the existing pylon pole which does meet the Code for height and setbacks. Mr. Lerbexg said the top portion of the sign (12' x 4') reads "Hudson of Deleware" and the bottom portion (12' x 5') will have the prices for regular and premium gasolines. He said it will be lighted, but have no flashing, and the sign does meet the Electrical Code. Chairman Drigans asked if there would be other price sign on the ground and Mr. Lerberg said there would not be. Howard Mattson said that the price signs are usually not considered part of the main sign area but in this case, they are basically a part of the main sign and must be considered in the sign area. Chairman.Drigans asked if the station was open and what it handled in the line of services such as groceries or trailer rentals. Mr. Lerberg answered that the station is operational now and it only handles ^ gasoline and car maintenance. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being n� nays, the motion carried. . Mr. Plemel said he had no objections to the variance, as they could put up alot of other signs,.such as stamp, price, etc., which they are not going to do. Mrs. Gabel said she would rather see just one sign than two. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to recommend to Council, approval of the variance for the reasons stated above, and stipulate no second pylon. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 3. A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES OF: SECTION 205.103z l, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO RED'JCE THE MINIMiTM LOT AREA FROM 20,000 SQUARE FEET TO 11,200 SSUARE FEET, AND SECTTON 205.103, 4BZ TO_REDUCE TfiE REQUIRED SIDE YARD FROM 15 FEET TO 3 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CHANGE�VER OF AN EXISTING DWELLTNG INTO OFFICES, LOCATED �N LOTS 5 A.'�1D 6, BLOCK 8, CITY VIEW ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 218-57TH PLAC� N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY MR. STUART ROTHGEBER, 5200 GREENFIELD AVENUE, NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112•) . Mr. Rothgeber stated he is just requesting perntission to convert an existing house into three offices. He said the property is zoned C-2 and the Code requires �..� 20,000 square feet in lot area bu•t the land next to this has a house on it that is to nice to tryar down. He said he would like to fix this property up a little and rent it fai affices and then sometime in the future someone might want to buy up enough of the land to develope it commexcial and would then tear down the structures.- rhP Minutes of the Board of �eals Subcommittee Meetin of Dacember 11 197.3 Page 4 The proposed plot plan and the aeriai photo of the area were shown to the B�ard. ,^ Mr. Rothgeber pointed out that noone could develope this area commercial with the required lot area without.tearing down some nice houses on the adjacent property. He said the house has been unoccupied for about one year and it has been vandalized but it is not an eyesore. He said the property does haqe some nice shrubbery but it is not a territic house. Chairman Drigans asked if this was to be speculative or if the tenants were already found. Mr. Rothgeber answered noone has been definitely signed yet but he thought they would rent possibly to a lawyer or a cemetery plot salesman. He said the offices would share the bathroom and the garage. � Mr. Plemel asked if there will be an entrance from both 57th Avenue and 57th Place. Mr. Rothgeber said the plot plan shows two entrances but he plans to have only one and will close off the 57th Place entrance. He said this would Iook nicer by keeping the lawn across the back. Chairman Drigans asked if he planned to xenovate the inside of the structure plus the outside landscaping and Mr. Rothgeber said that he did. Mr. Plemel asked if he planned to put in fences and Mr. Rothgeber said that the fences are existirig. He said there is a cyclone fence and also a redwood fence. He added there axe some �rees on the lot that he would like to save. Howard P2attson said the existing landscaping could be spruced up a lit�le and the parking area should be blacktopped and curbed. /"� Mrs. Gabe1 asked �ahen the renovating of the inside is done, will it be done to suit the tenants and Mr. Rothgeber answered he plans to start renovating now but he will change a wall here and there if the tenants desire. Mr. Vogel, son of Mrs. Abitz, 216-57th Place, said he was talking in his. mothers behalf. He said the public heaxing n�tice says the house is 3 feet from the lot line but his mothers survey shows Mr. Rothgeber`s house being at one point only 2.4 feet away from the�£ence. He also said the stop box for that house is on his mothers property and also when Mr. Gage, previous owner of Mr. Rothgeber`s propexty, built his garage, he never even got a building permit until the garage was finished, when his mother complained about it. Chairman Drigans asked Mr. Rothgeber how.long he had owned this house and Mr. Rothgeber answered since November 5, 1973. Chairman Drigans informed Mr. Vogel that since the house is existing, and has been for s.ome time, the City can't do anything about the�setback of the house from the lot line. He said on this request the applicant is asking for a 3 foot setback as that is the average distance between 2.4 feet arrd 3.8 feet which the structuxe is from the lot line. Mr. Vogel said the house is a rats nest and the squirxels have torn the inside � apart, the windows are broken and the roof sags. He said the house is a fire � hazard and it should be torn down instead of being fixed up. He added again that the waterline for this house was moonlighted in and is on his mother's property. �� Page 5 The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meetin� of December 11 1973 Mrs. Gabel asked if he would still object to the house being used as offices, it /1 the applicant cleaned up the property. Mr. Vogel answered he would object as this variance would be washin� out the rest of them. He said for commexcial development the Code says you need 20,000 square feet which would be four lots (40.' x 140') and if you.approve this variance for having only two lots, noone wi11 want to buy four lots when they can get by on two. He said he was against it because the houses are to close together and create a fire hazard. Chairman Drigans stated the applicant is asking to renovate it and get some tenants in it and make sure it doesn't burn down. Mr. Richard Bistodeau, 101-57th Place, stated he tried to build a garage and it took him 6 months to get a permit because the land was zoned commercial. He said if the City starts to grant variances, thats fine, but grant them to everyone, because we are a11 in the same boat. He said the land is zoned �ommarcial and the pxoperty owners had nothing to say about that either. Mrs. Gabe1 said outside of youx own problems, wouldn't you rather see this area cleaned up rather than left the way it is. Mr. Bistodeau said yes, but it wi11 cost him alot more to bring that house up to Code than he will ever make on it. ' Mrs. Gabel stated hex house is in this area also and because of the zoning she hasn't put that much money into improving her house. She said she would like to enlarge her gaxage but she doesn't want to invest money that she might � not get back. She said Mr. Rothgeber is willing to invest money in hopes that h� will get it back again. Mr. Donald Weeding, 247-57th Place N.E., said there are some things about the request that he likes and some things he doesn't, but it would be nice t� have the pxoperty cleaned up. He said he thought before it was renovated, that the house be checked into to see what all has to be done to bring it up to Code. Mr. Bistodeau said he doesn't like the idea o€ turning this into a commercial building. Chaixman Drigans asked if he wouldn't rather see something small and commercial go in there than what is there. Mr. Bistodeau said yes but he would sti11 rather see it residential as he plans to live in his home for a long time. He said his property was residential when he bought it 7 years ago. He said they are a11 stuck in this area now as noone will pay the amount he would have to have when the house is in commercial zoning. He said Mr. Rothgeber has good intentians but good intentions go bad so often. Mrs. Abitz said that since the house is so close to her fence, the grass in between the two has never been cut and it.is a fire hazaxd. Mr. Rothgebex said he agreed with this but added that the house has been vacant and he does plan to clean up the property. .�. Vogel stated he will sell his lots to Mr. Rothgeber and then he wouldn't �. need any variances. Mr. Rothgeber replied that he would also sell his land to Mr. Vogel. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. - - ��r Page 6 The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee Meeting�of•D�cember 11, 1973 Mrs. Gabel stated she lives in the area so she knows how the people feel but she ^ thought she would like to have the area cleaned up. Mr. Plemel stated he didn't know what to think. He said he didn't know how Mr. Rothgeber could come out ahead on this but that that is his business. He said that �rith all the possible corrections that might have to be made to this structure, it's going to be awful expensive. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Gabel, to recommend to Council approval of the variances as the side yard setback is existing and the renovating of the structure will improve and clean up the area. He said the approval does have the stipulations that the entrance on 57th Place be closed and that the building be - throughly inspected to see what corrections have to be made ta allow occupancy. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 4. A:4EQUEST FOR VAR?ANCES OF: SECTION 205.153, 2, FRZDLEX CITY CODE�TO INCRI;ASE TH� MFl(LIQ FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 56 FEET TO 76 F�ET AND SECTION 205.052�4BZ____ TO Ii�DTJCE THE SIDE XARD SETBACK FROP1 10 F�ET TO 6 INCHESZ TO_ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE A.�tD GARL�GE ON ZOT 9, BLOCK 3, ELWELL'S RIVERSZDE HEIGHTS PLAT 2� TiiE � SA.�IE B�ING 7514 ALDEN tdAY N.E.Z FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY MR. NASIM M. QURESHI, 5720 EAST RIVER ROAD N,E., FRIDLEY�MT.NNESOTA. Mr. Qureshi was present to present his request. Mr. Bob Lahti, 7524 Alden Way, Mr. Thure Erickson, 7515 Alden Way, and Mr. Arne Sjodin, 7541 Alden Way, were present to hear the proposal. n The survey showing the house location and the aerial photo of the area -were shown to the Board and the audience. Mr. Lahti said he was concexned that� the variance was 6 inches from.his property but since it isn't he had no objections. Mr. Exickson said he was concerned with his view of the river being obstructed but after seeing the proposal, he had no objections. Mr. Qureshi stated because the lots are narrow, he proposed to place the house on the lot so it would be farther away from Mr. Lahti's property in case Mr. Lahti decided to add on. He said this placement would also save some nice trees on the lot. He said the front yaxd setback variance would line his house up with the existing houses. Mr. Erickson asked how he could build within 6 inches of the line and main�ain 6 inches from the line. Mr. Qureshi said he plans to work with the St. Paul Wate�aoxks, adjacent land ownexs, to try and level the slope on the side of the lot down more so it won't be difficult to stay at•the 6 inch setback. Mr. Erickson asked if Mr. Qureshi had a house plan that they could look at. Mr. Qureshi said that he had a tentative plan which ha presented to the Board. He said the basic idea was a 43 foot long split level dwelling with the garage �..� jogged to the front to make a shorter driveway. 0 - 4`3 Page 7 The Minutes of the Board of A�peals Subcommittee Meetin¢ of De�ember 11, 1973 _ Mr. Lahti asked Mr. Qureshi if he was aware of the blue clay strata in the area � that is down about 15 feet, that has caused springs from the underground water flow. Mr. Qureshi answered he was not aware of it and that he wou.ld check into it. � Mr. Erickson said he would probably object if the house was placed f�rward from the proposal but the way it is he has no objections. Mr. Qureshi stated he could meet the setback requirements but he felt this layout would be better for the adjacent property owners as well as for himself. Chairman Drigans stated that in 1970 another request for a sideyard variance and a fxont yard variance had been asked for on this property by a previous owner. He said there was a letter in the file from the St. Paul Wa�erworks which•stated they had no �bjections at that time and apparently they have no objections to this present variance as they have made no response to the notice that was sent them. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to close the publzc hearing. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carri.ed. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. ' MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to recommend to Council approval of the variances as the neighbors seem to prefer this plan to building to Code and because the St. Pau1 Waterworks seem to have no objections. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried.� ^ 5. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053 5A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE TQ REDUGE � THE STDE YAP.A SETBACK ON THE STREET SIDE OF A C��Ri�ER LOT FROM 17.5 FEET TO � 10.5 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED PORCH ONTO A D'nIELLING LO�ATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 5, INNSBRUCK NORTH� THE S�'� BEING 5400 MAT�TERHORN DR1VE N.E., FRIDLEY Z MIN�NESOTA (REQUEST BY WHITE OAK BUILDERS, 8415 CENTER DRIVE, rTrntNE�POLIS. MINNESOTA 55432) Thexe was noone present to present the request. The Board want over the survey showing the proposed location of the covered porch. Chairman Drigans stated�that since the Board has questions on this request that the City Staff cannot answer, the request should be tabled until the next meeting to have the applicant appear and pxesent his request. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Plemel, to table this item until the January 15, 1974 meating. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried. 'ADJOURNMENT • ' The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. by Chairman Drigans. Respectfully submitted, O ^ MARY HIN Z Secxetary �'orm #5-68 � .� � � � � �� � � . � �� �� � �Q'��� 0�3 � �,�w N�,�to � � °' .� � � m �4-, :� p .-r � �� � � � s: �d � Pw + u�, + � y �� � ��� �c w +� � U F-i .�� x LOT SPLIT APPLICATION C TY QF FRIDLEY _ >d��3 ' /r i�f�d?v���� % A�'PLZCANT t b %�' L /� /�/ � � �' �-i i L / � i � J s�� �s✓%. � - � �1V.r_-"�.I ,��i��i� `� ADI�'�F�'S.: z�% -3� �� et � Citv Zip Cr�de TELF.�'�-ION'r� # ��.� � - � y � 7 � �c5� _. c� � ;3 / Home Bue �,neaa PR�PII3TY OWNE�( S � � � � ��/�'� r=L-`... T,£ �f� ^/�' . � �pplicant's Lot Split � � I Date Filed; Fee:� Recei�t � �,C 1/�1�/ C�urlci 1 Action: liate RFY�iARKS : �""J c c.. �? i��' _ , � '� � .!'., l'. Jii /1/./G��t1' it/ yt'�/� /i /Z''V ;�� / I Z. ADDRES5i. =� � r-�.3�" __�_'�/ �j /�%�' J /� � - • St.reet �ity Zip Code Street City Zip Code TELEPHUNL �( S } . iv� � -- � yL 7 � `� S� � �� �i Hozne Busineas �roger.ty Loc�tic�n on Street �` �� o� �cact Street �ddress (IF ANY)��: � -//'+j'�GL �T� ��,�"�� '� ''` �.�t...N r Le�l pescrip-tzon of Propertyc � ,� �a G e •V �,r%� � �L ��� � ,�/• � � .t' ,���� I ` sS, R�ason fo� t Split: - /G" G�%�c� d` �l 0 %/!'�" �o i tLJ / i�,l cJ �<'�/�� U� f���"c'% �,v 7`0 % t-e! c: �'�rT'G.�"S" .. �1-�1GrY �tJr T/f � �,��c.o.•✓C /�^�� G/`ls��i'/r�.�' ;�'^r2.�'_'�,/ �"/' �� �:"�/r��� ote�l �A�ea o �� G.4'- �// ��.I/=f...�N G-°"V�.I�� i✓/ .-�✓ �.:+L%�•I/'��_/'�"�-%�ai�,s_ :ys'3 �2?sq. ft. � Preaent Zoni Claeeific�tion The undereigRed hereby declares that all the �'acts e.nd �epaeeaez�tationa steted in ttiie a�p�.icatioz� ase true and co�cact. � , �A'�E s �7- � � 7 � SIGN�A`�RE j l-�'�'Y''r= ". ' - 1�-�-��: _ . � See* ��arew� �i,� �o� additional �natructi�na� . BELOW FQR CTTY USE C�IdTI;Y _� :.:�. k'I.ATS dc SUBS; Datp of Conaide�ation - Remarke: � pj,ANrTING COMM�SSI4N: Date o�' Conaiderstior� .- ___— Kema�rk� � --- CITY CQUNCIL: Date o�' Conea,�@r�ti�n - H���'kg 3_. ---� 0 � 7�F J . .n �� ' Iti�IJJf�.SlP'i`��� . . �, r: ` ,� "`� �t�y 1?° 'T•^Z s � � ' , _..... , � �r I � ?UU �Z�� ZiU ZpO,�� :5�av.?4,a.� �♦ ' '1 �� 1 � � I', " ', 7 . � .. . � � : . � � *� vC CB. �. � ` . � �'��1 .L..�._�.. �_�_171�-. `a� � . ��� � � I,fft. � �'� � .. � � • � i. n : i� _ . _ . . . . , ' , ,� �: -� `-�rlJ_�_ � � ���,. �;r� i',�;:....,_, �• ��� ., . � /"� ;.; . t �� . � � � " __;, , ' �L„ :,�--- � -- � � .v.•.. y i sQ � .� �. \ � . 7/ /�'� 4 . � ... .. .. . � . . �� 1 ---; � ; 1 �i - -� : � � ��,:� ; ,1..' . ? , . , !� �.,` 6 I Z9 . a � �t -- _1 — ,: ,� , z f'" 6�i� � V ,Z �t ( ' �� ___�F ' �` ;'� ' ._.. , � �----�--- �- - � `' __� _.1�.1:.' r F�� "` �� ��. , h � �,� -� , ; .� �,� � P �° � �(���' � '`... . . ��.� � e �% � e r � j'�d�� � �,� .. ������,��rv�.� z_; ,, , � . , ,. . : ��/1� ,_ .. � - , _ � ,, i�,� . . � ��. � . : � .y . J _ i,_ . . 6 hJ� - �.°. .. . �.._ ��. . � ^ F. � �i: �i . ��� t ' � 4 ' ' _. . ._. 1 �7 � �i""' e.i ' � � . �f,. �.'S, �J i i""�'�� c� I ,.. __.. r f ��V !� ra i') � �+ %.� ;; . ��, ; -:. � ' �, ` . -- _ i � r--� � � � �„ �.,., �, r ..., �? � � l <�_�„ , , . -:: r t � � � _ — o s L . � � . L , ' , ____�__._. 1 g'�-17� ; � �� �> >�; ;; ; ,_.s,.�„_,�..-� � � 1 .., ..:... . _ , . � � � .., : . � � ,_ , . . . ..r q. � �, � ,�.. �'"'"'' �.:_...�..._,...._._..._......�.�.. , � <. m� � � �s , i - � j'u_ ' . . . - C ± 1 `. ` �'1 �,f- � r il .i.=� C' '� .�' �.. , - . . ; � � : • � � "' ' '-� _ " S "_ .) . � . � , _ ,..... ,-�-.- u-�- _-, . . , b _.__ t� +'„ w.,�e�.� „-t _ ,� .ra ` !9 � r -SJ6 � � �..I " 1 G � ? . . � - '. : � � .' `4 . ��a-�i � ��0 ��.l;i 'Ij�} � �jt) �c°� ,-�� �., c � � ,1� .� ,�c' 't > . ';l. �I � `, { t � __ , � � � � .. • 4 � / .�.,� r.i ' �,�. L ~ i ;. E . . i tD ` ' C � . ` j '~ . I � �f . � � �' �.w� � - ''`� i . 1 .. �� .: .. ' �. � ;: J ' \ � E 1 �� e., \` i � f, `j �� _ I � i s� � � t.: ry aa' � e :i '"`�.1 io �`�� '_�-°_`�.� ' +N---� i+yF rlY- J. _..... . i 5' t • F:� . .o p rro.a_ �.', S� , ��, i;r - �l•' -q-i Ec B-'�ti5� Pc ;���. i M ..�.....-...-__- ----"-( ---t r-7- - ���-- - � � , .� � ,� / t j? i � < `� a d � �t � . � I \ �. v� q � �� Yl t _.. '___ I ' /= 1a ��I. \ �tiJ �� ��'�\ ���`ti. !„)! �, t � � io ,y �., d� ! � ly) �. `� I ~' / .. /L .� �Y,. e 1`I . �_ °.. (' ' [.�'� , . I ,.. •�� � � � � A/c { . , ; �� 1, ; I'.; �' I � j� l � .���11:� i ; . � :>r 9 � � '-� . _� � :....�. .:. .o�._.. ` � (�,� `� , �w � 1.,�� ' ;._,_ >, �9 Z- '�' j j' ;� � i s . , , ; � . . �- � „�.�-^�,.� c',.'\ .�_ , . ���.. -.S ._ L�`i'i�S' Z�,. r _ `- � � , � ,+ o . ..r� e�'\ `s �/� . � . i � -3,i 1 .� . . „ n� e I /� , +y , � ! . a i..P� A ��. � �- . C L . �. ..w.�,.+..�..a..,..g+""°r." i . . , � ��' .�-.e._ � ..�.�1 ...,.....� _ r ! , ` L3 5 .., ' � I �� ' ( ?` � f � � � � � � �� �' t =�-- ' "`' - -Z `�' `� 2 � f' � " I � 1 � :" � ; 1; �,��s� rj+jU � f �;' �� ��t) � �,.. �'�,,� ,:- � % -,I -, 3 `� j `,� ':� 1 i� i•rc;i; � � - . � r" . `T 1 j �� . � i , �<�„�..,.=. : '•� � � � -�. �rl , , t � i I ' � �1- } _ •� � `, a % ' ', «Y, �� 1 ^'/--- t j r- I I Z' , , � �j 27� -, i ., . -- --;,-� ��-, :; �-�-- � J I , h. ► G: � . ,r� (z �'' , ,,..,� � , � � I � ,� 21 �� Z 31 ! -�--•°� � t : � � t � ` � . � � ' � �'`� � � •` ° ��'`� / � , � ,� ! '`� I � � . _ : �..._._, ., . / lij y�e+, r `: .. . . 'I .�� •.) /7 / � /S I o _ - __. .. �W `\l /1Y(/��� 'a�4.:�/ '� 1 �'i� L�� � C-4)!+� �/`�II ?�CJI �e �>. ' Vl I'J , `` �..^. °�a. °' � I ?, { o � � � . 5 i ' ,/ + �� tl�� f�- - � --� •y �;, �'°_• 4 4��,,,�.a...�-.....+.,'-. �....` t ' . /' � � � _� . � � � � . .. . / . - - . � , t E� , �, 1 . �_ � - -." � � . ° - - 2 F", - - - - -- - -- - --- �.,. - ,—. -- , w - 4 . .. f � .1.. _' �. ✓� � .."'w.;.'y,1. ... VAt 1 .. � . ' . 'r�v[:r�•j., � . r .., a � _ � . ` � �'��" � '�l -.._._ � `�.� ...�.».c. �..�..�.I�..�..r ..�+ � �.�. � . < Y J . ' __'_"__ .. . i . , ' _ ' i': `�j,�, ir (°, ^ t�tt�} � `�J� '� !'t!� i Lr•� �f.•f� � . �' J `\° �,2 �'d �, �-';� �- �j � � ^ ., ;� � :i - ;, ,� � � ���ig R�` . . _ . � C: . � i _ �- _ _�`' O `ty l � •� ` �� �,, a �C� I ' � � 1 ( ____. � } �,Zc.j�� iM f�Z� ;.�` .�` y:, _�- , i ., r rv�.:_._ ' � i. -i � r � �` ' ; i �2 �'`� , - ` �-" "-�,.� ` �.� , .r.. ;.', I ` � :�:,� � - { _ -/ O " ,,� �.� , �„� , . �. ,� I , -- � Nj Z z' n U 1 \,,,... -„"' , r `S � • , �+�, � ,� , 7 l�.t3` � � � � a ry •� f , ! (;i�31 1h, - t,,, ; • : �� : , � ' :� � � � � ia .sFj i...�, . ��J. b��� °"�'� `�~ , � ' ;'-- • -1�� � 2/U � � �-. � {. , i2o �^�� '�.�,....,�..v..:,�f� � • ; — . .. . -- - - --�--- . � � .. . . � c 2�� i� :• � w I, 2to �'{,;,.o.-�' P P I �� :� ,; ; , y , _, � . � . ` 6 —� .. � _ � j �D :,,,,.. �,....---�°-r--,---�;"�, , ;? � (p � � � � , � , :. -�"' .-'Z� � , G2�;� �, (��,�Si ";' � ; , �� � ;; ' �� � .� �'i�128,4 "��i+� ! \ �'��� � z 1 c . :,'oJ G2(o0 �Z70 c�2�� �a� r� ���. . ..! � (112� `," y , 3 ; "1` �,.i `' ^ --"" � "—�-.. " r I) ' � _l �f __ _ aLt ` �, � �2 � � ', N�, ,.,'`-�_ ` ,P __� � � � � ���"; -T _. - ; --== --�, .. ' ` !� �� ., ., �' ,�?- . :3 ,` s� '� � � f... , r(`: , �,.Lc� 21� ; �ti�� ; ��c�' , .� �.��ti A . . . � �� � � ���1 �t., i L..S. #73-10, William Sharratt „'� . ti , '`. . y•' '' ��; ��; f �\� � Split Lot 4, Bl.ock 1, Sylvan ' ' ° Hills Plat 5 � � _ __,.--. �;��� � ��, . �� . . . . � �_ . . . ��ii� � .,_,`._-----�---� , L . 5 . # 7 3-10 , WI�LIAM SHARR�I�T � ,...------ --- ---� ------~"�" SPLIT Lot 4, Block 1, `-- � i � � Sylvan Hills Plat 5 � � r � �'^ • � , ...� ,..� ` , � (_, � j � '�'� � . - . � ; � 1 �;; _.._ ; �1�� <-� ' ` „`�«� �- � . . """� . `-� _ c . o F� � � , I � _ v.. �" - ��ti ---•� c.' ` ' ri � � � . �Z. l . . `�� •. � , ` �. _ . �. : � . ^'•,. , �. � . i . ^ �,•ar � �--- . \y�j y y ' �' / _ t �_ , . - :�^��'1 �r �1 ` � � � . �� � ' i ' �� % 1 `� 4 ". �" Y �'� f ��t- . . � . . . �- � r J � � . � ' � � --� 1 �: � i : �� t � �= � � - �` { . � } �` .�G� � �• ' . � r � � v1 i ��� . v: Q./''�. �'f � � 1• �. � � � � .. � _ ,•� . � i-y .Y+ �, ,F � . � K, � `'\ '���.. 2 � � �,,;. i � 3 ."_.... � .� t"'� . F„_.." � f � 1 j . � � ; / � `�-� .' � � . c ��- � _ . � � -- ,• i', ss � - F ��; � ., ._ �.. . � . � � � � . •.. _ j � -- � , ;� �`� - � `" --- �"'�r f 4 �`1�.,� � �' . . � � L� �. _ � �� --- � . � . _ _� �� ..� -- `.. � `",1 ►- � ... - - , . �,,, �p �•.. '"_"i .1'` , `' . �".!' . ��-� .,,,,�...� r�. � . � . .. � . . � - � ._,,..� C . ,.� f,,, ��..., .� N � . � • �'- �- aur�>�at;;n;a ��sodc.►y . l � �j ti.=..% ` � �. � . � . . . � 1 � � ,� ` l� . f . I . . . � `� � ,�}� _ _ ` � "" �Z �� C� ` : + M , . . --- 1 . � � \ " .� r..� ,� ���.�' .., � � �_ , . _.. .. � �:� .'°-;` ``—`_` ` � _ �- �_ 1 � `� �=`� — �.ti.+ ' �_.�.' ,, � `-J � . ('� � \ � ti � # M ,M �`� . . - � {.•�» � � � . . �y . . . . . . . ' � ' . . ti' : \ . . �\. �'..� . . •..+. �.�� �._.�..��.� •� • � �� . . \. .� 1 � 1 � � t.,,� l9'a► � �'�Y • hi 1 '"'� --- �' �� � ' • . • . �..-� i �, �- �. • � , � � r�-' �: i �--;. �/ Y / 54 — ° `�/� ` �`� :,� { `-_,� ' `� � ; .= j ( i �.► � �� a . ` ' d E f ! . ` . , � � �- � � , T �� s ` ' _ , t = x . . � .,,•, � ; �i � � � � .Ca� • • ' � f `, k, � /� ' ; ., ; �--. � �-- -- � S j, � ' � r I �_ � - \. 1 . � ^ y; F % � / I, ' �, �` � .-- � ; F •^ - / i . . . , r. . �;. � � / �: � . A � � n. � '_`� oi � �' � ` , C . . ., �L i , �,��/ _ _ -1 � n !`� �,. 4 . '�� � �_.. ` „r� �_ ._ .._-.� . � :.�. � � � ` ' . ` � • ; . `� ` �� �- ' �.� � • � . . . . � 'j'J; _ ' ' � � _:.�— L.S.#73-10, WILLIAM SHARR.ATT �M � � � �lit Lot 4, Block 1, Sylvan HILL � .' r /'*� + ^ s . f. � J a' �J .. 1s �► � . 7' ,� ng � � � r � �% P lat "�� 6875 �f!�hr;^v �� ,. . �.�/ � • . , � � � , h � * � iJ�7J t;J. T:t•;7y, ' ^ �• r �...:✓ ,,,� ;; �.. .,� ��,•t,p•.,,,.,; J: � /'�-�{ .rtir "� ..-............ �. ��' e- �� � .. .S, • . 7 '� �" " ! '^ ' . � . ; ? � � J Vj � � i � J 'V . �i�tr.Cti 'J a � � .f � �v . � � 'r y � a �rs .�s 1 ...` . iI `� 'S + - � . SwtSF � 4�-aL�vu �1�:! :� .i �:•.7ic:.k7i / . , � . ' -- Ett in ee rs � Su� �%cJors --- f,•��„e�r,n� Q . .l �� P+� � ��,5,� '�` ��-t rye-���.r-� a' � � ���� �, �'-'� Q � ..� �..�... `J :.. -° ,1 a. � � '? r, •.� � ��':.•j � - ..,, 1.....� �..+ ...+ � iy.:, �. .ti. ...a � • . �;ortl� ��n� o� L�T �- " . �` - / 95. o - "`''�.. � r o a _ �roN � � ;�� � � N , d �, � � �" �� Q`�`�, ��� Pr��.;� za . vwru�c� �� o \ J f J N • `� � ` \ 25.0 `,� � C� / �.: • � � � I! . d .{.' � /p V � 1 �c�' � " � ,� ,° � �� f- � \ I y N �J � � �- � -r� ' � � � f �-- • gs ;o? _ d � O � .�� ` , � � ^ � \' . \`�. \\ � . . . - � - . � '� � � . YO�RS- . `. . � ��}.�� ` T.. . . ...� , ., ., � _ . �' �c t 1 U�viT A�hR-ii,��U ► .. � u- �G`e�. , _ .�,, � '.\ � \ �S O � � _ . _ . a . � � � � � � . . � �9.� `\\ ,` .f � s •� . � � o �� : � J . . . � � -� W � . � // . � �� /^ I1 i t � 9 i.i . ' f..-� ��`_ � '!c�.✓l� " ��� . . � � o. 99 . �7C�;�� itr,? � � L.� T •r � . � �T'� � � 1�" �. � ,A �' � �j/ �., , . The `.��s� `.'��� i-� ct la,- 4 C;L�cr l !vav. ��':;y P'�c,} � �� � ,:� �.c i�;:� �..�, • . . Sy . ��I f1llr�JU ctr'rf�J �9f k1J5 /S O�"i1C Ond CcYft�T /t0�!'S�ntJflOn C/ C S1N'VfU ��� bcvnCOr��S c}�'%:c abo�c c�uri�d :'and,c�.d � • .� � . . -J,f _ G"i.�� � �cry:n , Gw o:/ r�S�Cr' U:;r�C��.r,Cn�S , ��o��. �^vTl or a7.sa�d �r'::U. /+S SL'!'YCyed by �17e ��;5 - pt f�:�ca;-:cn ,� �,� ti�;r�,:;as,, �f" .�� .. :• ' �.L� %J�..a.. ��/✓IJl�Vr1l� l./\�/�����/\I/�lJ � �/Vli. fn��nc:.rs E . Svrreycrs ; ., , ,",! � ' � • ' i- � .^ r11 �}L's . � � .'�*� L.S. #73-10 WILIAM SHARRATZ � Split Lo�t 4, Block l, Sylva ,,, � � � � + ��,i� i /� 1 �Y d�^^��� �"? Hil ls P1� �.�rS /r' :.� ^;� *;y !'_. L.:n.1 r - . „'t:1 �' ' � '� '� �1 • w � ' �./ �,'k/ d �J y. , .! ' ,`_,� ... W �.,. v v �(�•;»:c�:t';.7:. �.\�.....,'Jcrv<,,�;:,� . Y . � �t r. g -,� _ .....� � ,-, � i� � ; ��i �°_ �,�•::x'.w'J '= ' "`�`�' :�' � �i1 �i'6.l� � i :�:... y t. i � ��'v+t i d `/. . • .SUl1�C.' � ��' a'�'l�l'l7 fr�:�✓ t'.�,�-.'.�z71 � . i. .. F��fKL'r1.a En ii�eers � Surve�ors --- 9 . ... � �-- .� �.+ � ��.} , : �, .r� ..�. .n �� � � � �'°,"�'�'�;��. � � � :CAhG�i?'.r1 � }',�`i:. , �..� �Y f.d Li ! � �� Y� 6...ri tY `�iI i fJI ��C� � . . . 1 . . 1��rT� ;',r,c o � ��T �-.-, •r".�A..� �� . � ��4�. / � . . .`�--Jlt1 - . . . ^ , \ .. . . .`\ � � . .. \ � . � �l+ �. `�� N t ..`, �t'O�OSp� JQr4=�� � �` \` � � � , � � � ` � 25.D � /� � D . � • � • � . ;.;�, ,, � . . � . � . o . �. � ` _ � . D ,:1 • a � • . � � L.J � iv - . � � c+- ��L ��i '.. ` , ` O �/ � .�i \ �� . ' Vr7Cn!.��� ,`�\ � � � . • y � l � r . , T ..- r . d � o •, I� UN`T tirnr�cT^f �;� 1 � l/ ! - -'�i- � , ` , . ;s � � '� a o� � . _ . �,,�. . � . '`. � ��;: y� . � � , r - •. 85 �'7 . e ( ' A �• — �- - �� 7c.a1... � —' . _ T �a . . __�.. %' -±- ! ro u �i . � � � � e_eg•.��`-��" - � . w � � , � -- � o � � _ . ��,�N ' ' - . � . . . , _ � - �%!'. j � - ,r.�iroi�� . �jo,j�l.. Itr.r ot l.�T � � _ ��,? � � �!�Y�. ��1 i � �A�`L I 'Ti4q} Qv�r� Ot �..,�� t', Ci��C'� � ��',j'''�u`f� !i1�1i5 �•`tn.l...� .-��R��� y3,� . � iis��th•• 1�\�i^,.�t,_.,:; G� �; �r,n '�;�a �`' la^.D t' GGZ' .,�.� c�.� 4pi. ,-r f:._1 r�„ ' f j' t/ �'"i• 5ov�r.QO/'iBt ;ire abatC cEscr�G�d .`en4,ai,d ^1 FtreGc/ �rr-r�u ...,,, �,.5 is a lrue and correc �en�es�nfvfron r o sc�rve c� ,. ,. ^ , , 1.� ...�ti. %'L.7 �'ln C: v�� �h:���'u':�?9S � ff'•'.2'C/1 , C,".�0/I r15l�`!t UCl7)CG�1rs7C/lff �:��0%l/. �iCYT/ 0!' A? SJId /cn� As su�vef,t� V y� ��°- ff'�,f •����� , . ' i � .i ✓ °�n :'�-`�-.;• ' a.rfs..:.j. ' S(18U2�3r'�V EIVG;IVE%F2JNG, lNC. • � f �inetr,t E Siu+-reyo�s f �� � . . �� •i .. ��� . '_ J � � OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley will have a Public Hearing in th� City Hall at 6431 University Avei�ue Northeast on Wednesday, December 19, 1973 at 8:00 P.M, in the Council Chamber to consider the following matter: A request for a Special Use Permit, SP #73-13, �. .by A. Davidson, to permit the sale bf used cars on that portion presently zoned commercial of all that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Easterly line of the Northwest � Quarter of Section 12, which point is 726 feet South from the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence running � Westerly 1338.6 feet to a point on the�West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12, which point is distant 726� South from the Northwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12; then running South along said West line a distance of 140 feet; thence running Easterly to a point, which point is 140 feet South from the beginning, thence running North along said East line of said Northwest Quarter of said Section 12 to.point of beginning, per City Code 205.101, 3, G, � all located in the North Half of Section 12, T-30, R-24, City of�Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. � Generally located at 7395 Highway #65 N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this meeting. � Publish: December 5,.1973 December 12, 1973 EDWARD J. FITZPATRICK CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION CI'fY QP FRIDL�Y MINNES01'n , �'`�, PLANNING ANU ZONING FOI�4 Number �� � �'-� �l� � . - � i APPLIClWT' S SIGNA'TURE /` o�=� ;� < < �-r�' � G� � /C1�� l� Address� L� T�� ' � q rn �n PR-i r�r�a rn7_-i�., FF1ilT Telephone Nwnber 227 3o9LE -- -. PROPERTY O�VN�R' S SIGNA`TUR� rf� ��✓����--�"'��"''�'L'', �� / TYPE OF R�QULST Address�'�����.�t�z�`�x��_�,,�r; �L�-�rn��1P p�rP �� T��],s, 55'-�i� � �L: Rezonitig I � Special Ose Permi.t Approval o£ Preli�ninary Plat Approval of Final Plat Streets or Alley Vacatiorls Otlier Telephone Number �27-35�?� �.3 �� �'�� C S Street Location of Property 71�t'� and H��1V 65 - Legal Descripi:ion of Property That portion presen�ly zoned commercial of Plat 53912, Pareel 4780, Section 12 (See Attached Legal� Present Zoning Classification Commercial �'�,� �xisting Use of Property Proposed Zoning Classi used car sal�s Describe briefly the blac�cto cati�on, Special Use, or other rec{uest Sr?�cial use-- of Use and Improvement Proposed T anc?�cat2� n�, Acxeage of Property a•� rox Has the Present Applic izt Obtain a•Var'iance or IViien? What was requested � Date Filed 8 Pr.eviously Sought to Rezone, Plat, Obtain a Lot Split, ecial Use Permit on the Stibject Site�or Part of It? n � Fee Lnclosed$ ?0.0 Onec. No. � � 4 �� 7"' Date of Hcaring �i'Uu�tNltdr {4N�} ZONTIj�C ,FOc"tM tat�b�r ?�j; � 7.�'�-� � '�q �pdcr8lg`neci underetands thet; (a) (b ) (c ) , �t�����c�C� and �nerr of �'roperCy �Lthin � ��tS()t:5 � �' . --.f �/�{.'"i.,/ r.�-s � ./� •,,l;�s :.� �.,,�.L% �_ _' f,il,i .._,/� __Sa�(.����G/ �'u-='� �•�i 1.'.. �.��� 4�'/( i`.�✓� .� ''���1'�'�-�✓ �',j,,-�°-a'�i _ + V'1 �f`FlY� } . x�f"�L�?'✓^1'V �/G��; .%7.-t�.::..- t -�,�z.�-�:�Cr.�.� _1/�f�'-=�--�2 n�.-rrc,� .�� � V'�ln �11 • ! r � {J� : PAC'�; � . A liat of All resident� t�nd� owngrs 4f �Mcs- per�ty within 300 fee[ esust �� pttachec� �,Q this a�clication. This Appiication must be �si�n�d b�► sll o�lners of thz property� a� �n e�x��ana��f���► �iven why thie io not the �aae. Responsibility for any deicc[ 1�1 tha p��� cecdin&� resulting from Che faii��e tc� �,��� the nt�mc-� and a3dreeses of ¢lTy xeaic��n�.t� - und property owr,erb of propszty �,�,�Ctiaq ;;+��`� feet of the prop�rty in queaCfon, ���o�?;t3 ta the undcrsi�ned. 340 feet:� ' � ABDRESS � � .� v � S�S�..�.� i , ����/�5y �./, �x�,a ��.�,� � � + r � / �Z �'1 7<� ./ -G���, . �7 �,, : ;,`5"�;3.�-�— r���J 4 l� ,,�Y,�' �.r�;c.�a, ,j� G`� �S;S"�'..3�-- qp�r i�sM tr.. � . /%�G �'.r_.� �,..��'<J ; ; ,si. 7,? � �.5'SSs�� -� �7.,�.�'>' �•��?"}� ��-e, . %�! � f.'.'.� 4;' .S s �i3 .; ���� +�.�p�'4"' ��t���ch o� proposed prcperty and gtructure ��� pt' ��tact��d ��how:n� the fol lowin�: 1. �. �: 4. S. i'h� qndexs��ned herNby dQClpraa that all Che t1iAe ap�licatlon ere true enrl correct. 1 muet be dra4�n o� the back p� th�e lorth Direction L.ocntic��a af F'rc�poged �t1CliCtl23�8 an i��. Aio�:nsions �� prc�p�rt�, �rv�as�� �tructurP. �nd irant �nd side ��et,.�aT�„t�, scr�et ?�a�es Location �nd u�e of od,�ac�n� cxf�tf�n� buildln�s (within 30fl feet). facts and repzeseatr�tion� st�t�d {�p �,� // — �? � -- 7 3 � � /� SIGi�ATURE �� _ �,%""� f,.L-s��f -��.x.,.._-.-_.• — - �.�..�.. (APi''LICkNT) � • , . . . �. �tr,�*�oe�.•.St** ��sroved lMaied �ta6,�QCt .to Che polloufna Conditions; ths :,o�rd o� �p�ek6e ..�..� ' �1t2's; � /'`� �pprov�d D@ni�d by the Plmnnin� Co:Kmi�aion an ���� �ub���t Co the �,ollawing Conditiona: ���� �'ti�praved Benied by ehe Council a� �cab3se� La the Fpl�.ocvi�g Con�itions: � dfl[� �or� Pc �ea � 0 . _ . � / \ ' � ;� '. . � " S� 1 . � � • 3 . � GO�i SP #73-13 A. Davidson to ��'`"�� permit a used car lot That �ortion presently zoned commercial'�of all thai; part of ttie S�; • of Nid,� des. as fol: Com, at a pt. on E'ly line oi Ntr1,; of See. �12, which pt. is 726' South frcr� i1E corr.er of 5�,4 of 2��v'-,i�-; th. runnir.c; W'1�; 1=',3�,C� to a pt. on ir7. line of sd. SLi; of P�'�7� of sd. Sec. 12, which pt. is dist. '(��� g, from the P�L�T corner of sd. SE,i-, of NW,�-� of sd. Sec, 12; th. runnin� S, a.long sd. W. line of sd. SE-4 of r�'t��u of sd. Sec. 12, a dist. of 1�+0' ; th. runnin E'ly to a pt, on sd. E'ly line oi sd. NW4 of sd. Sec. 12 whict� F�t, i.s 140'� S. from pt. of beg.; th. running N. alon� sd. E. line of sd. NW�, of said Sec. 12 to pt, of beg. A � � ti 0 I � n n MAILING LIST SP #73-13, A. DAVIDSON On the part of parcel 4780 that is zoned C-2S 550' x 140' approximately to be used for a used car lot. Per Fridley Code 205.101 3, G. Mr. & Mrs. Carl Sorenson 4615 University Avenue N.E. Mi�neapolis, Minnesota 55421 Central Auto Parts 120i 732 Avenue N.E. Fridley, M'innesota 55432 Peter Brook 7450 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 - Glenn Wong 1160 Fireside Drive N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Sheldon Mortonson 2289 85th Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432 A. Davidson 5245 Lyndale Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55419 Planning Commission Council 0 � u{i v . � � `. .. r� `�`�� - SP #73-13 A. Davidson ! on that part of parcel 4780 that � ,'�� 2� � f763.n> is zoned C-2S, approximately 550' �' . tir.i��,.u��,�.;�tf�cf�o x.140 for a used car lot, per � d Fridley City Code 205.101, 3,G. �(p�� � c� , qC :,, . �.�,.. ------------ °-- - -- c.�o. z o . . I� . . . � � • . � � ���� � � �7SJl 0,;�- �?ea /ry Ga;�. �G � , p � p � i1 ��a. .;� /1_7.�i ( � ✓irv/1 i�'C..::'Y � inc � ( _ --- - -- - - __ ; . tt') L11� �_ _'___ _ _ -___ __.-_ � � • �' °I, (< <�,, �1 (F'6,SOi �- ,�°r�1 �. , .,� , , � , . ..M� � ;. � j�- �� . � �.,.,� ' i . : - —_-____'_. . ._� . _._...__-___-- '--,__ _______...t-- � . ra" . " � '� . � . . ..k.. � � !�s •' i � � . � ' . . - a (,'.�5�. ' � ol,e���:xa,o �' ; . � �.- � --- -- ---- -- �- � ; �sl:ito� G Gar�r,� effe �' ,f! . � (�.3fo � Good `�� .� , � � � � . ,, , n . ,_ i� '.: , " .'�_ /ilo�, '_ _"__ .__'_"'—' "'__ �-- � � _ _ - � --_ .. _ _-- - -,;:.a z�7 . lA� � �' . ...i . . � � I • � . � . �' I . . . • . � . i �e fei r7 Ar�o,�, �. (4 FooJ ' �46ftoJ i 4, .35�',tia n� ;s=�.fOj =j � 3Y� �:i. ��� .•;� 16o-�G. �: , � ( . � ��� ' . I • . � . ! ' � . . �. I . � � � . . i � �. ' .�.. 1 I � �. i!'.. �y. 7.��6« ...' . 2Fb' ."Y".' C��1Z.� . . . . .-.. . ' . . __ _. _______ _._. _._""' '_.' '_. ___��--_ . . .7.��(�� . _ . . � � �S . . �>7��) �.� , �:� �. � ' Sh�/c10 � f3t v�i/y /19citc nso� r � . . v� I �� v-:� + � � I ; _ - � Lv � 2;i � \ r ' �� � 1 � I ,/F- �/ ! i r' ., o .� �y `� ;� ! ;J :� r'' +� � �, _: . I � '� , e, 'ry . � . y. . 1. .` y. �' 1. • i0 . �ti .. _, .� a� .. �i . :� a, o� . u'� b' � r `� ov � i�. Y >J o- i� I ���: : � � � �G. 1 //�' /z . , �. . . �'c , � r � . V . .. \� : �:, y, � `:�� •�° , � 1 ; j I ' � ' � I �' i ^ , ,: tr i ; i . ;� . , , t`, �. • �. ` t � F� � *73 I/2 AVt. Pd.E ,SR.� �,;;�_� • ' ` �, ?e �r ' • F, ��': • r`_!'E I � `� ' � f �'�1 c � , � 'i �G� 2` �' '� J' a , . � I . t � � ,., ` i ; <r ,, \ ; �°' ;; • ' iS� � :S / ' !1' " ' ? f `i , y� , '� � ' r� , , ' � � � ?y � (;�`•-'� � `��f� . : � . � � :� �.y,�. . �i : � � V � �.'�; i�� � . w , t . � � � /'�.� �,Q, i � i ' �� i . � � � . . ' I � . .�� , i� ,� : 76 � � ` 7� l3 i :: � . , �� %v (� � sc rs .. �, , . -oc,�i.__-- '� ' 3 c ,d �.`s /" . . E'� ��+ �. "�Y'.._ cf'.'."_' A K,'w : : r� �: t I �_ .. �tb i ' c��9 - �� ,,._ _ __.�k ..y � . '; �.. _ f� _ ., �;� , ., z_; ; ,^� 7 :; o`; e :, _ �..� C` � '__ '_'i� ..� � , k9� 3 ��! . �.. � '�I j t !' � �'� � �� � .q� � -� n�. �,-.af 1 � � R`� ' 7�'i �� c,� i --; � . i V i ��:�; I ! i \, � �fe.� 'i ✓ - -. y l . ,.e.....�_.... ( �^- t (': �� � t � � i 1 l l l i( � � � ' �..- , � e)�..SFA! i _ I � ;��� ( �� ;�� � �1+ i.a� �:J v C� i.`v ; � :I i .� � � I :�a.:.•:F' � � .. i r� ! �� i �� 1 ' t n '— "' '�<r � ta.. � .�. �.. �� o r . ��� �3o. � ' i . � � i �0 � q� � . ' ; � � _ �,..- �,, ; . . . L ti � :'; 7-� � i � /'1 . �� � � � %� �� SP #73-13, A. Davidson for a used car lot at 7395 Highway #65. � /� FRlL7LE - A�'CEES Deaember 11. 1973 Mr. Jerrold L. Boardman Planning Assistant City of Frldley 6431 Universlty Av�nue N.E. Fridley, t�n• 55�+32 Dear Mr. Boarcim�an� a � . . .�,` �.. i.J BOX 32004 • FRIDI.EY, MINNESOTA 55432 IDn reply to yrour letter dated Novemb�r 30, thare is vne fea�ure of the proposed armory that would definitely be of value to the Fr3dley Jayce�s. That is tha rifl� range. �or th� Past several years, the Jayc�es have been conduc�ing aourses in firearms safety for the �outh of tha communi$�. Part of this course consists oP actual rifle fire. At th� presant time, the youngstars are transparted to the range in Anoka. I kno� cf ��veral oth�r groups that also eonduat the progra�. and aould makes use of tha range. I feel also that the large drfll hall woul� serv� as an excel2ent � ple�c� to hold dances and other youth aativities in the city. The past two years we have aonducted a Fiallowcen party at the Junior High School for th� 7- 9th gradara. This.hss been limitcd to students enrolled at the Fridley Junlor gigh. As gou are aware, tthere are four school districts located within the boundaries of Fridley, thus a large number of young�ter� are eualuded. glso, tha armory would scrve as an egcell�nt meeting place Por the various organizations in Fridley that da not have a build.ing of thair own. Sincerely,; , ,.�, ' 'y�-��:!l�i�� j , `�r � �-�'7 � - Hichard F.�Young� : Fresident "Leadership 7'raining Through Comrreunity Development" ..-�•• VI�IV11`IhI Vl\ � LlC11UN 1 I��n a.V�Jr �+Iw 1 ���wu �r� n � � ..�w . ...�. " _r ` ' REPLIER - Return YELLOW copy and retain WHITE copy. � �, � � � � MANVfACTURED •Y NOLDEN OUSINESS iORMS CO. �MINNEAOOLI3, MINN. 55101 � � � �nTTeNTioN oF: �-� CITY OF FRIDLEY � � / , 6431 University N. E. To �/�ti;' -:C%�, �:-n—r�� _ Minneapolis Minn. 55421 Y�---. - 612-560-3450 �- �� � �' � L�--- � � /� ��� � .t,. `,�� /%��<.., /Ci� � ; 7t .L<i DATE SUBJEC� <--G < .� � - _ A' L/ ,v , - ��' �%C t"f.L. �:-L.� f ` � ,�-�.,�.� /ly,-? � -`i f � � , �� ' ��--r'--,�.- r - � -� , � � . . �f . � . r � .� / �(' � � jL�.� / � � t ;'� �,c._� � C.�l� C-�-C�-.� � c�.-��% � L- �s"-l� ji ..� �-��C i�:-s f L�`'---�i...-C%`-.. �c.�..-�`"' ..�---r„�/ �--C_ ... . .. .... . . . .. ..... • �; L �- � I T • ' G � L../C- : . / . / ; , � . . . .. . ' . .. . . . _ . . .. . ... ' � � /�--c C� . \��-'`�: `'�._.���-l'�� !�C!� l � �-� � ��..�.�L,��,.�� � �` ;-�� _� � � �--f:_� � __ < < � . ` P , � , /�s � . � � /� �.�f� �� "�'C� J ✓ _i � � �./ � / .� ��if.y " ✓i /� ` /��' p" / �.i /�. ' / c��L/ „/ `"%' i' ''' _.� . - �C�� l / �-�. � / :/ s' (, �-'lr��..!L,�- r . � � . . . _ . . � ... . . . . � � . . . . . . � , �,s �j ----^— � _. / � � ^ �-�- �' -/ �.ic,/L .���C / �' C�?'Z-'�-..�--�..-� l � - ::7 � � _ �� ' � C / � ,� C . � /l . . , . . , `, � . � i � � � �� ' �� � -� ' .� v � L.c. C,c,c'�c. - G�L c�, c._.x.: � ��.� �`� �.-�.? �..:—t„�c'_-' •'";% ,. L 71i� � � j r' � _ _ _ _ � . � ,�, _ _ _ _ . _ , , � . _ % � ^� �/ �c_.�.--r. SIGNATURE , �:,. l�`—'— �C `� " � REPLY: . • _ ._ _ _ _ _ _. _ . __ �__ _ _ . _ , _ . _ __ __ __ _ _ � _ ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATE SIGNATURE ��PQ.lE:"5 CCS�''f — [c{�ibtited F�}2 'YG'•afi: �-'s`_�5 • _. � /� ' \ . , � . \ �1 �'"� . i''1 � ,_ .,,, ,`i . s�.,i ;� ..� l ! :.:� R; �'.. � .'. :� t"�i �;" � �.j i,; �{ ..i � W � E�1�lINENT DOh1AI�V The Envirofur,.ental Riglits fI ct o} 1971, �d.S'. Clicrptcr 116IS, �vas enactcd to e�istrre that enviror:- mental "fcrctors wi(! he o�trsidered by �.rsons co�rdr.ctiit, n,rry type of activities withitt t/iis state, arrd therefore rt Ifi1711S lI1C power of pirblic �igeircies to conde�rrri la;irl for a puGlrc purpuse. This case d�cidetf several very significan� issu�s cor�cern- ing the effect of tr,e 1971 en- viro►�mentai rights legislation on the riUhts of eminent do- main vested in local autt�orities. The Court admitted that the issues presented in this case were of first impression, and exp►icitly utilized tt�e broad leg- islative intent und�rlying this Act to resolve ihem. Because of th� importance of this case, it mi�ht be valuable to briefly sum�narize the facts. Suit wa; originally brou�ht by an owner of 1'l0 acres, a!! but 99 af which had been improved for agricultural purposes. Of tPie remainin� 19 a;��roxim��te{y 7 �/z ' consist o{ a natural marsh or �Enan�cin; Cca�z3rr�asn3�y � Dev�Sa�n��r�r . 7his semin�r is �?IRIE'CI c�i {JOth loca( adn�inis;raiors anc! elect�d ��nd appointed o(ficials �vho are responsil�(c for irnplcrrientind development plans in thcir comrnunities. Par[icipii�ts wi11 be ak�le to discuss their f�articu- lar c��nmur�ity's p;oblertis �vith seminar faculty �vho arc� er,p;►•- ienced in the field. Local, state and (edera! rc�lescnt<7tives will o(fer th�ir expertise throu�;h ?. 3 .:j t � ..� , �� ' �� , ,', s ' � � � `1 , ` �� �� � .,, ,� �.,..µ,� :, a , ; ',; : � � `;� : � � �'� wetland, including three op�i watei� ponds. Tiie county pro posed to condemn a strip o the fann for the �ur�ose of re locating a c�unty hi�,htivay, Th� pra�osed hi�,h�vay �vould cros� approxir,iately 600 feet of tnc marst� arel eliminating ap�roxi mately .7 acres of t!��e marsf indudir.g o;ie of the c�pen �^rate ponds. '�he Coiirt cor�cludec that ti��, rnarsh �vas in fact a protectib!e n a t u r a I resource under ti�e Act, ar�d thtzi ihe proposed highway represented pollution impairment or de- struction of that resource. t3rieffy stated,, the Court set- tlerJ t(iree issues. �irst, any per- son, including a far;��1y farmer, has stanciing to br(ng a suit unde; this Act; and the Siate Attorney Genera{ arid Sierra Club properly int�rveneci in the case. Secc�nd, it is no��v settled in Minnesota that the public po�ver o( emir;ent domain is fimiiec� by the pro�-isions of this act. Finally, th� Court discussed the requirements for a prima facie case under this law, and lectures; panel presentations, and informal cfiscussions. Dates and locations of the three tin�es tl�e seminar �vill be gi��e7 are Nov. 19-20 at Rocf�es- tei; Nov. 29-30 at i-iiUbir��;; and Dec. 4-5 at P�tarsh�ll. For further i►�form;�tion, con- tact thc -Trainin�; Coorclin��tor, Ufficc of Lacal antt Urban �\f- fairs, Ca��itol Squar� Gld�;., 5SU Ceciar St., St. I'���il 55�101 or call (G12) 296-2��1). �� concluci�d that tne farmcr i�; this �cas� had producc�d sufri- cient evidence. [iecause the issue of a possi- ble affirmative defense (,'�q,s, 116.(304) an the part of f���, county had not been corisid- ered at trial, the case� �va; re- mandec) for furtlier proceeciin�; at the trial levei. �a�;;�s3 - �,; FCE1°�)t?�!) V. i:1'j/§tje"1 t���ilfltl. $LI7. Ct., AuU. 31, 1973). - Ll�U�R-1�,lUN�fcRliJcSS 7 AQ)Y2L,SSlO)1 of evirlenc.e of �I�'- r fenda�rt's rejir.r�rl to si�binit tv � chemicrrl tc.stitlg in u pr�auecutioi: � ai a charge of �Irivij�g ufrd�r ilrc � i�tJlu.errce of �r�i �zlcoholic bevera��, M,S. 109.121, VlOIC1IfS (7 �i,,f�rl- dn�iPs right not �to Fie co�n�ellect in a crifninal case to Ge a rvit;ress agai�tst lii;�iself. The Mir�t�esota S u p r e m e Court in this case rez;firmecl its decision in sf3t� v. �,?���u�-�,z�, 25g Minn. 24, 104 N.Vd. 2d G7; (1960), th�t the admissior� of eviderzce that permitted tli;� jury to infer the defendar�t had refusecl t� subrnit to chemicdl testing constituted prejudicial error. The Court rejected tl�e state's cor�tention th�t ttle 1965 U. S. Suprerr�� Cour-t decision of ��i3mez�ir v. C�li$ars�:�, 32.} U. S. 757, required ti�at the MacCarthy decisian �vas no:v obsolete. The Minnesota Court indicated that altfiough 5: f�sner_ b�r held that the acimissicn of the results of tests conduct�d on bfood sainples ta!<en from the accused v,�ithout his p�rmis- sion did not violate the accuseJ �riUht not to be com,��tl�d in any Crit7�ina1 trial to bE �1 �vir- ness against hirnsetf, it cloes not follow that the accused f►as no constitutional ri�ht to have evi- ; dence of that refusat exclucicd j from evidc�ce. j The Court also indic�zted thrtt � it ciid not re�;�-�rd ihe le�;isla_ i h1innesata M.�nici��al;toes �._._.�.T _ _.. .. .___. �� . . .._ . . .. _.____ . ___.�_. _._. ____�--� _ _ 1 . F.-- ' 1 icfed that des ite �� ture's eli�nination in 1971 of the' In this case tl�e council did state Court c ec p � provision in M.S. 169.121, Subd.�: its reasons, and the Court's con- some indications to the con- ;: 2, t t tf��� r��fusal to permit the � sicleration was limited to the trary in the trial court's record g ta� of a hlood sarnple for ; dcterr�iinatic>i� of whelher ttze and memorandum, the pro- � an1l��sis �vould not be ad�i�is- i pro�osed �as statior� w�u(d be posed use �vould not endanger �� sible in evidence, as a Gefinitive � corn��atible within thi5 ��articu- the public f�caltt�, safcty or gen- f exprESSion of In�islative intent ; 1ar zone and �vhethc:r it would eral tivelfare of the community. '`} i ,; that suc.h refusal �voulcl be ad- �' adversely affect the pul�lic AUuding to the council's �x- „4 ,:. i7iissil�le. Although this decision � health, safety, and general wel- pressed Uelief that there 4vere ;;: is expressly decidecl upon con- fare of Eirooklyn Parl;. �The . already an excessive ntimber of ;,� stitulional grounds (U. S. Con- ;' stitutian An�enclmert V� n�lllfl2- �_ _ r-c �r n.- o .*� . .r •• 2. ,--p �s'•-;;rr ,r.::� u t . �i sota Constitution Article I Sec- ; _ _ �'� the Court seemeci � , tion VII} i - , , `'{ , � ; '' _ �i� 50171°wFiat ambivalent d5 l0 � `� t . ' � �� wheth:.�r a cfear expression fron� ; - . � k i� the legis(ature as to the aclmis- � � .� c .-� � ,I! �� � � r � � ; � c � � �: � '." ;+; � ?.! sibility of this evidence mignt : ? ! � r , , ;} ,� i_ y � „ � � �! � � �, � � i ; > �� + not be determi�7itive. �:zi° v. • ._ �_. � r_ _ � ; � , I'r` �� � � ri ., � �1r�tire�vs Minnesota Su reme ;, � j� i e � � 73 �' i. ��'������r��l���l, �������� �o , ��� �rti Court, S..pt. 1�, 19 ). y _ � �; y , �: �/"_' . 7_O�;1NG— �,r�� ri' � � � � ! � ;� j � � � `: - � S{ FCtA.L USc NcRhlil'S � , :.,r 't..� ! • * -_ - j�here a ir.urt%cipal orcli�:arice t .. _ . . .. _ ,� _ ... `� '. i ; . . - 1 ; cloes rrot specify stand�rus for ilie E _ ? � r`� # 5 � ?[tEY1tQ1 O f li SyECIQi i!S° Ji'.rlllll, R t ; r (+ � c( r.� (� '' � � � �,����,�17'���_i � �i� I� J��; ,$ de,r'`� is arbitrary ivheTi the rtse 4 - . ; � is c..��IJntible within tJIP' j)CiYtlCI1IC,Y ; , _ � , :4 i.� , ` , �:,,� , , � f=�+ �`, z�o�Te. and tivoisld rtot nrlversefy y . ; � i� � � � � ( � P, � ;, ;-� ;�' �; � , , � �. � ,. , �'.r affect tlie �«blic l�r.��lt)z, s��fety, or � ' j �� -, gerte►c�t welfttra of the conrmctftity. � ;'�,,r � � �'.. i �'l(!, � �� � 1 � �`� � � �.��_ � i—� � � � 1 t" : 1'his recently deci�ed case by � t.�- the hlirinesota 5upreme Court ! , �-�r.=: 'r`� is highly siUnificant �or rnunici- ? � M � `� k� �.� � � �7' I G � : ''� paGiti�s who reiy on the use of � �,�.yj, ,� , ` �� � � � .,._.,,._ ; �._; �.�. .�. ... ��:.� ��;; + special +ase permits in their _. .-,.i �..• �- .�.�._�..._. . - anin orJinances. The case in- �" '" z � : volved a gas station, and th� ' de��ial of a req«ired s�ecial use p�rmit by the. Ci+.y of Groo{:I�m Park. Tl:�� plaintiff oii company in tt�is case had contracted to purchase propert}� in a commer- ' cial di,;irict and properly ap- , pliccl icr a special use permit as required by lacal ordinance. The Court ernpha�ized that 4vhe;� a �;overninb bady c�enies an ap��lication for a special use ,r.rmit, the factual basis antl ���ns for the deriial must in SU(ilE t11df1f1E'f �C CE'.COCCiCCi COfI- l@i11�70Cdi1COUSIY WJlI1 its action. ° Novernk��r �973 .-, � � _ . � s � ` ���� t 7 - '� _ � , � r:.X.i:.�f -rRnr�ic ProoF � 3�(aty fEar.,e ard safety ' stem cc�plin� s^para;° cleznly� cn co!lisicn im• pact e+ith ra d�nni�� to stem or 6arteL Ti�ey're easi!y repaircd in min� ui�s v�ith an inexpensive repeir kit. � ��\ !� � <� � , � ,. �� � - '�� � ::, . ,� t, � � � s �7 ..} iY �' � �..-,,._,._._Si �.� AROIiE-G,",OUNQ r�ir.ir�TErar,ucE Pr�ssure testir,n, lu6ricatir.n, irsF^_ction--tiizq're al! dore whi;out di���in�. �1'atcr pres- snre holds t'�^ main e,,iv2 close.d, pre��eats flau;ling. Lar,e v:eath�r c:,p cover: vi(al ;iy6rant parts, discourages tan�pe�ing. �` • � ,� ( �� i� �� ... �_ w FREEZE FfiQO� Hy�dr�rt rpsrtion force- flushes double drain va!��es to a�sure cam- p!e;e draini;e ard a drr, irea�e prcef barre! when . Ay�drant is not in u��. , �� . � f �� = i� `�.� � ,____ ___J GET 7HE fACTS Yn�r P.4ueller f��pressnt- ati•�e hss mary more good reas�ns arhy the Mu�ller A1`llh'A Im- pruved fire H•;ur2nt is yocr Dast buy. C�11 � im tod�y or ti.�ite us dir�cf. � , ",.'. /DEC�TI.�R, ILL �:,:`��1.�::: �,`�.��:ai.T'� E..-.A�:s�. , < <.�,o ,�.�,�., w��„�..�,o ..,.�..�..,�. W 30H serrf>ig Nrc u•afer rtnd gns iredustries st�tte IY57 7J � � , � �i si i f� s ;i .i .� � e � � /'�. �n �. � gas stations in tt�is area, the Court held that the limitation of the numb��r of one type of busi- ness or use �vithin a particular r.one does not t�ear a sufficient relatiun to the public health, safet��, or general ti•velfare t�f the commur�it�� to justify d�nial of a special use permit. The num- ber of permi�sif;le uses within a z�ne, the Court continuetl, is to be :�etermined by the opera- tion of econornic la�vs rati��r than by the collective opinion of a rriur�'scipal gcverning boc;y. �'he �Cvurt �� indicaivci that its decsian rz�i;ht have E�een dif- f�rent had the city's zoninb code emr otivered tfle city coun- cii to deny permits b�cause of imba(a��ces tfiat mi�,ht. be cre- ated by zn excess of a}�articu- lar use. Also si�nificant in this cas� was the fact that the city's compref�ensive plan, �vhi�h the city had relied or� durin ; t�ie "i�}� � ��.� � � �,�� r� �. �1 c �..i > _� � :. �.�� t'1 r ';�� r��-_, j,f o-1 t � � `,� H � ��•� � i `� ' 1 � !i � #i . � � ) E.f" i�. $� � �.� ��S'...�+ �,.s✓ F� t 2G ��3�. For t�turkioal S�ver $yrviea 121 idrnf�n �infi .�v�r.�.s ���s9 Du�u!ir, 'Pninnawi••� 55i�Q3 /�re� �od� -- 21 y r0�3°��l�tt9 --- �.a-�Jy'� � Te!svi=ion In:,nactit,n . of pi�ing . � � • S�wer C!�a7ing 0 Iris,�ecfions of ��lalls 0 Unr��rnva;ar Insp�cfiion � Rodding af Pi�a 0 Scsrvey: of Ye�r Sys,�ma _ � . . ��� triai, had not yet been officially � znning orrli�ianc.es rriny be ,qra�itcd ; adopted by th� eity counci{. � by' II1C J�7l111lC1j?Glll)� iJ tJ�e �r�nitirtg 7he Court seemed to be �ri- ' therc:if is iia ki�e�>%jrg �rith tl,e marify cor�cerned �ti�ith tfze dan- � spirit u�ul ultr�nt o; tl:e orrlirr�rrtrc ger of unfettered ciiscretion �� und tlrc ►•efrrsa! to grc•rrt rl�er�r vested in city courcils �vh2� ro ; titi�orcl;l carr.se trn�ltre 1:rr�lslrip. sta��dards are sp�cific� 1iy ex- pressed in a �articut� � ordi- nance. Anothf>r significant factor in this case �vas t;�e CourYs itZker- pret<<iion of ti��c eviclence pre- sented l,eih to the c�a��cil clur- in� its hearings on the �errnii and during the trial. Gcnerally speakirb, the Cot�rt sitnt�l� cjid not �ive muct� credericc to tf�e evidence pres�nted b}� the cit;� in suppart o; its contentio;� tnat the deniai of the �errnit �vas based on le�itimate health a+�d 4ve1#are cansideratians. One conclusion •to dra�v fr�om this seems to be th�t th� Court will not hesit�te to loo!: beyt�nd the actual record of a cas� ane! �vi(i : a t t e m p t to uncierscar;d the underlyin� rationai� for council decisior�s. P�.srtro ;�'�.f, 9,zr�ary�ar-; agzc�, v. Ci.y o; �:as�n�yn �'�ap!: (Minnesota Supreme Go u rt,. September 21, 1973). y; �F ZONING—VtlRdAh1C�S�'`� Ut�der tlte PY1in►tesota A�1uniciper1 Plara�ring r�nd Develol»»ertt ilct (M.S. 462.351 et, scg.), �u�d loc�al ordin�nce, nori-trse vari��nces front This casE involvE:d the co�- struction of a :>2-unit apar,rnc:ni dwe!{ing in t��e pro}�er tiislrict ���ithin St. Pa��l. Plai�itifis co„- tend::cJ that t1�e �VOi�US of M.S. ��2.357, Suuu. 6, rec�uire th��t the undue hardstiip necessary for a variance mu�t arise from circumsi:anc.°s un��ue to th:� r r o p e r t y itself not to the a�vn�r, surraunciin� r��iUhbo�•- hoo�, e:.or�omic fL?sii�ility or like elements. The Court rejected this re- strictive interE�retati�n of the planning st�.t��te and allo�ved tfie St. Paul city council to de- cide that the sit�cation was imic�ue, that strict enforcement of the ordir,ance v✓ould cause undue hardship, and inat the granting of non-use variances �vould have no adverse effect pn surrounditig property. The varianc�s i�� this case imroive� off-street �arkinv spaces, set- back requirements and the li�;e. R�i�rra�saa �'ar3c C o c:� �� u n i t y Co�wr;cii, lnc. v. 1�,3�f3��o��nri (A1inr,esota S u p r e m e Court, Se}�t. 14, 1973). �; � � � ��� f. i '� � � � � � `�"�' � � r �. � 1 r �} , j ��' � � : � y=� } 4#; c � I� {1;� 4 �`f i� �� c t.:"�l �� ��....i c4:� i� 'k:..ri E.1 F. ..� �� ���i�! C� ,� t i �,� r•-.+� ri � "t �r. �w� � �:t �,:��'L•}�t� ��w� �j��'!�� F'�arn�T ierviea on Fme�r��r.�y �";in"�r E'14r!e Cr.�fl Fi 7-2iQ7 �-- F: 7-2102 Cle�or lr��cs�law� ��1+9� �4::3rt �#J�:�'1 �51� ia�;3G fi4%�7�t Minnesoia lblirnicipaiiti�s