Loading...
PL 05/19/1976 - 6585CITY OF FRIDLEY � AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 19,, 1976 .� �._. / CALL TQ ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 5, 1976 RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CON�IISSION MINUTES: APRIL 26, 1976 RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COhB7IS5I0N MINUTES: MAY 3 1976 A. Recommendation on the red tagging of some tax forfeit lots for future park development RECEIVE COh4�1UNITY DEUELOPMENY COMMISSION MINl1TES: MAY 11. RECEiVE HUMAN RESOURC.ES COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 6, 1976 RECEIYE APPEALS COMMISSION MINU7ES: MAY 11, 1976 1. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UES7 FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, S#76-� C6, KENNE Y T NSMISSI�N: To allow automotive transmission repair and service, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.701, 3, D, in a C-2S zone (general shopping areas), to be located on the Easterly 200 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the North 160 feet thereof, subject to street, utility and drainage easements of record, the same being 7700 University Avenue Northeast. 2. LOF SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #76-04, BY ROBERT A. SCHRQER: Split off.the Easterly 200 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, except the 160 feet thereof, subject to street, utility and drainage easements of record, the same being 7700 University Avenue Northeast. 3. 4. 5. ',�"� 6. IN NUED: RECOMMENDATIONS ON HUMAN oirrrrvcc RE-EUALUATION OF STREfT 4AYOUT NEAR NORTH PARK: PETTTION 8-1976 No action needed, wait for Environmental Quality Commission review. C 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1-9 10 -i8 19 -36 37 - 41 42-43 44 - 58 59 - 62 63 - 64 At Meeting At Meeting 65 - 76 � CITY OF FRIDLEY � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 1976 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:42 P,M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 Members Present: Harris, Shea, Bergman, Wahlberg, Langenfeld, and Aeterson, who arrived at the meeting at 8:40 P.M. Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION hf1NUTES: APRIL 21, 1976 MOTIOIJ by Laagenfeld, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Corrm+ission approve the minutes of the Rpri1 22, 197b meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimou�Zy. RECEIVE ENUIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINU7ES: APRIL 20, 1976 Mr. Langenfeld asked if anyone on the Planning Commission wanted .� clarification of the Environmental Quality Commission minutes of the March 23, 1976 meeting. He said that the minutes as written didn't really represent what was said about fhe stand taken by some of the memhers of the Planning Commission on including East River Road in the Criiical Area Corridor. ' .� Mrs. Wahlberg said that it sounded like she was anti-East River Road, but she would discuss this with Mrs. Sporre personally. She was happy to see that the East River Road Project Committee was moving along i� the right direction. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Langenfeld why they had tabled their recom�nendation on Leigh Terrace? He said it was his understanding that this item would be handled as quickly as possible so this recommendation could go through the PTanning Commission to the Council for the Public Hearing by them on May TOth. Mr. Langenfeld explained that he had asked that his Commission look at this plat just because of their interest in development along East River Road. There was discussion by the members of the Planning Commission that due to the new structure of the Planning Commission, they didn't think any of ihe member Commissions should make recommendations directly to the Council. Mr. Langenfeld brought to the attention of the Planning Commission a motion that was made on page 6 of these minutes. He said the motion was " ..recommend to the Planning Commission the adoption of Chapter 70 of the Uniform 8uilding Code as a replacement for the present Chapter 2i2, known as the Miniii� Ordinance, and that any proposed ordinance be brou9ht back to.the Environmental Quality Commission prior to being submitted to the City Council for its approval." Mr. Boardman said this would be on the next Planning Comnission agenda. Planning Commission Meeting May 5, 1976 Page 2 • MOTION by Langenfeld,.seconded by WahlLerg, that the Planning Comm.ission receive the minutes of the Apri1 20, Z476 meeting of the EnvironmentaZ Quality Commission. Upon a voiae vote, a21 voting aye, the motion wrried unanimouslg. � Mr. Boardman said the next item on the agenda should have been to receive Parks & Recreation Corrgnission minutes, but they haven't been completed because the items on the agenda of the April 26th meeting were not comp1eted, and they had another meeting on May 3rd to co�plete their agenda. He said there were items discussed at these meet'rngs that were going to be gaing to Council, so they sfiould be discussed, but he thouqht they should wait until Bob Peterson, the Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Commission arrived for this meeting. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission delay their discussion on the-ltems from the Parks & Recreation Co�mN ssion meetings of Apri1 26th and May 3rd unti2 2ater on in the meeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS COt�MISSIOfd �dINUTES: APRIL 27, 1976 Mrs. Wahlberg clarified some discussion on a variance request for 1411 Kerry Circle. Mr. Mike 0'Bannon, who was in the audience for another item on the agenda, said that the statement he made in these minutes was correct, because he had gone out right after the Appeals Commission and measured it, and it was 37 feet from the curb to the garage, on the lot they had been discussing at that time. Mrs. Wahlberg explained what Mr. Villella had decided on his request to construct a home on a 40' 1ot. Mr. Harris asked if the City Council had � come up with any recommendations on 40' lots. Mr. Boardman said that they had discussed this at their workshop meeting on April 26th, and basically agreed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. They said that each lot had to be considered on its own merits. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Apri2 27, 2976 Appeals Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PU6LIC HEARING: REZONTNG REQUEST, ZOA #76-�2, BY ROBERT D. DEGARDNER: Rezone the South 150 feet, front and rear of Lot 9, and the West 47 feet of tl7e South 120 feet of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, from R-3A (apartment and multiple dwellings district}, to CR-1 (general office and 1imited businesses}, the same being 6431 Hi�ghway #65 N.E. Mr. Robert DeGardner was present. MOTION bg WahZberg, seconded hy Bergman, that the P2anning Commission open the Publfc Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #76-02, by Robert D. DeGardner. Upon a voice vote, aII voting aye, Chairman Harris dec2ared the Public Hearing open at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Boardman said that this property was just North of the apartments on Nighway �65, and 5outh of the apartments was a ski shop, with a gas station on the corner. A11 the four corners at Mississippi and Highway #65 were � residential. He said the property that Mr. DeGardner was makin9 the rezoning reques� on had been zoned residential (R-1) until 1972, when in was rezoned to ,� . _ _ _ _ __ __ ___ 3:: � P)anning Commission Meeting - this commercial buTlding w e the same calibre. Mr. Harris said that he knew that Mr. DeGardn ad built some nice homes in his area. Mr. �Elmquist, 8140.Long Lake Road, said that he owned tfie three ent buildings South of the site in question. Ne said that he had a7ways been in favor of this site staying residential, but he was inpressed with the building that Mr. DeGardner was proposing. He said he would rather see another apartment building on this site however. Mr. DeGardner said that if this property remained zoned R-3A, it would probably sit vacant for another ten years, because there just wasn't financing available for apartment buildings. He said this site was oniy Targe enough for an eTeven unit apartment, and the numbers just wou]dn't work out, as far as for investment purposes. He said that if this property was developed as commercial, you can get higher rent for commercial offices, so the numbers would work out. Mr. Elmquist said that he would rather see a variance granted to ailow a 14 unit apartment on this site, than to see it be rezoned to commercial. He said he felt the rent structures woul•� 6e changing in the near future, so the financing picture would change too. Mr. Harris asked if this lot and proposed building met all the requirements of CR-7 zoning? Mr. DeGardner said there was an 150 foot frontage on this lot and his buildi�g would be 100.' x 40'. He said the side yards wouid be 15' and 35' on the side of the building next to the apartments. He said there �buTd be a 20' driveway on the 35' side. There wou7d be 28 parking stalls. Mr. Boardman said this proposal meets all the zoning requirements. Mrs. Wahlberg asked about the access to this site and if it would have direct access to Highway #65 or would they have to use the service drive down at the corner of 63rd. Mr. DeGardner said they would be using the serv.ice drive. Mrs. Wahlberg said she was concerned about people traveling North of Highway �65 at 55 miles per hour and looking for this building. She wondered if it would need a right turn lane? Mrs. Euyene Lane, 1132 Mississippi, said they had been approached many times about selling their property, so that they could rezone it to another use. She asked Mr. Bpardman if he had any idea what use their property would be put to, if they sold it. Mr. Boardman said it would be hard to say, because that would be up to the person petitioning for rezoning. This was one of the concerns he had, that tf this rezoning was approved, more pressure would be put on the present owners of R-1 property to sell their property so it could be rezoned to another use. � � Mr. Langenfeld said that he thought the residents in the area shouTd be aware that sometimes a multiple dwelling could be more unpleasant in a residential area than this type of an office building. He stressed what kind of occupancy would be allowed in this building if it was zoned commercial. Mr. RusselT 6urris, 1150 Mississippi Street N.E., said that he had lived in this area for 25 years, and if commercial development was coming into this area, he would seil his home, hecause he wanted the area to stay residential. Ne said that years ago he had been a member of the Board of Appeals, and they would never have allowed a co�ercial venture in a residen'tial neighborhood. � He said he was glad to see that the Planning Commission was concerned about the traffic generated by this proposal. Planninq Commission Meeting - May 5, 1976 Paqe 5 Mr. Peterson arrived at the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 P.M. � - Mrs. Shea said that if the people who wanted to visit this building had to take the service drive, she thought this would eliminate some of the traffic problems. Mrs. Wahlberg said she felt it could be a situation like had been created with Wickes and Plywood. People would be traveling 55 miles an. hour on Highway #65, drive past this building, and then create a traffic hazard when they tried to find the entrance to the building. Mr. De6ardner said that a sign could be placed at the entrance of the service drive, and he felt that this wou1d eliminate a lot of the traffic problem. Mrs. Wahlberg said that if this building vtasn't on such a heavy traveled highway, she wouldn't be as concerned about the traffic situation. Mr. Narris asked Mr. Boardman how this area was treated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Boardman said it was recommended that this area remain residential. Mr. Ber�man said that it was his concern that if this rezoning reGuest was approved, we would be getting into a situation that couldn't be stopped, and the area might complete1y change. He said this spot rezoning could have far-reaching effects. He questioned if the proposed building could be tied into this rezoning •request. Mr. Harris said it could be, if it was so stipulated. Mrs. R. L. Anderson, 6428 Dellwood Drive, said she had no objecticn to this proposed building, or its use, but she would be opposed to more of the � area being rezoned from R-1. Mrs. Wahlberg said that she thought this was a very attractive building and that it should be built in Fridley because i-t was something our community needs, but she felt that she could not approve of the rezoning of this particular site, mostly because of the concerns she had with the traffic situation. Mr. Langenfeld said that he had to agree with Mr. DeGardner that this proposed building would probably enhance the area, but it was still spot rezoning, which was against City policy. Mr. Peterson said he did not wish to make any comment on this proposal. Mrs. Shea said that her primary concern was the additional pressures that would be put on the adjoining property owners to sell their property for rezoning. Mr. Bergman said that he agreed �•rith the comments that had been made, but he was very impressed with Mr. DeGardner's proposed building, and with his presentation. Mr. Harris said he also agreed with all the comments. He said that he would like to see this �uilding constructed in Fridley, and he would like Pir. DeGardner to be able to work in Fridley. He said that he had done an admirable job in makin9 his presentation, and he could understand that Mr. DeGardner felt this was an ideal location for this commercial building, but � he felt it wasn't in the best interests of the community to approve rezoning this property from the present R-3A zoning. MOTION by Bergiean, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commiss�on close the Pubtic Hearing on rezoning z'equest, ZOA N76-02, by Robert DeGardner. Planning Commission Meeting - Mav 5, 1976 Page 6 Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing � closed at g:OS P.M. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by LangenfeZd, that the Planning Commission � recommend to Coonci2 denial of the request for rezoning, ZOA �76-02, by Robert D. DeGardner, to rezone the Soath 150 feet, front and rear, of Lot 9, and the West 47 feet of the South 220 feet of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 88, from R-3A (apartment and"mnitiple dwellings district) to CR-1 (general office.and Iimited businesses), the same being 6431 Hi9hway �65 N.E. for the following reasons: I. This would be spot rezoning 2. If thzs rezoning request was approved, additional pressure wou2d be put on adjoining properL-y owners to rezone their property, and change the residential character of the area. 3. The additional traffic problems created with comrttercial vse in this area. 4. This proposal contrary to our approved Comprehensive Plan, and would not be in the best interests of the community. 5. Because of the objections of the adjoining property owners. Upon a voice vote, Shea, Bergman, Harris, WahIberg, Langenfeld voting aye, Peterson nay, the motion carried. Mrs.: Wahlberg told Mr. DeGardner that she hoped he could find another si•te in Fridley to construct this building, because it would be an asset � io the community and the type of building that Fridley has a need for. Mr. DeGardner said he thought that he had found.the perfect site for this building. Mr. Langenfeld said that he felt this was a good proposal also, but ihe Planning Commissian hatl to consider the City as a whole unit, and there could be major problems with the rezoning of this property. Chairman Harris asked the secretary to make sure that Mr. DeGardner got a copy of these minutes. 2, PUBLIC HEARING; CONSIOERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #76-�4, HEATHER HILLS 7HIRD ADDITION, BY P1IKE E. 0 BANNON: Being a replat of Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivison No. 22, that was not already platted as Heather Hiils Znd Addition, generaliy 7ocated South of Heather Hills Second Addition and West of Rice Creek Estates Second Addition. Mr. Mike 0'Bannon was present. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Coimnission open the Public Nearing on a prel�minary p1at, Heather Hi1Is Third Additian, by Mike E. 0'Bannon. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, Chairman Harris decZared the Publzc Hearing open at 9:16 P.M. Mr. 0'Dannon said that all the lots would exceed the 9,000 square foot requirement for residential lots. He said the lots were comparabl�o the lots in the other Heather Hills addition. There was a 50 ft. right of way � for the streets, and the streets would be 36' from curb to curb. He said he had been working closely with the Engineering Department on this plat, and everythin9 was as it should be. , P}annin�Corrmission Meeting - May 5, 1976 Page 7 � The Planning Commission hadn't seen the plat before the meeting, so � they all checked their half section maps to determine the exact location of the plat. Chairman Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this plat. There was no response. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded bg Bergman, that the Piaaning Commission se the Public Hearing on a preliminary p1at, Heather Hills Third Addition, bg Mi E. O'Ban:zon. Upon a voice vote, a22 votinq aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 3:26 P,M. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recotmr+end to Counci.Z approval of a preliminarg plat, Heather HiZ1s Third Addition, by Mike E. O'Bannon, being a repZat of Lot 23, Auditor`s Subdivision No. 22, that was not already pZatted as Heather HiS2s Second Addition, generaZly located South of Heather NiZIs Second Addition and West of Rice Creek Estates Second Addition. Upon a voice vote, a21 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous2y. Chairman Harris declared a recess at 9:30 P.M. and reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 P.M. REVIEW OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMI55ION MEETINGS OF APRIL 26TN 9PJD MAY 3RD, 1976 Mr. Peterson said the reason that the Planning Commission hadn't received the minutes from the April 26th meeting was because tfie Parks & Recreation � Cononission had been requested at 9:;0 to come to the Council workshop meeting, so our agenda wasn't completed unti1 May 3, 1976. He said they had discussed with the Council recreation in the City of Fridley, the di�•ection they should take on a new Director for the Parks & Recreation Department, and a proposal by the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation. Mr. Boardman said he didn't know if the Planning Commission wanted to get too involved with the nature center, but the Parks & Recreation Commission did make a recommendation on the teen center. Mr. Peterson said the Parks & Recreation Commission voted not to concur with the recommendation from the Human Resources Commission, for several reasons. One of the reasons was that while the young people felt that this proposal should be under the Parks & Recreation, but they didn't recommend that anyone from the Parks & Recreation Commission should be on the Board of Governor's, although that wasn't the reason that they didn't concur with the original proposal. He said the Park & Recreation Department did not have the personnel or budget to haridle this proposal. There were several Commissioner's who felt this would be dupliaation of services and there could be potentiat or duplication of services in the "Y" moves out to this area. They asked the young group to get in touch with the Northeast Y and find out the status of their program and see if a workable solution could be made with their facility and their intended use. Another reason for their decision was that the Park & Recreation Commission did not feel that the room that was being asked for could be vacated or that the library room should be used for that purpose. � Those were the reasons we voted not to accept the recommendation of the Human Resources Commission. Mr; Boardman said that another item that had been before the Parks & Recreation Commission was on tax forfeit property. Mr. Peterson said this , \ Planning Commission Meetin� - May.S, 1976 Page 8 was a proposal.to red tag same tax forfeit lots to park development so � they weren't put on the tax forfeiture saTe. He said_he couldn't give the Planning Co�nission all the locations af this time, but there were six or seven parcels of property. He said the Parks & Recrea�ion Commission voted to accept the Springbrook Nature Center as presented, with four more stipulations which were: 1. An additional 10% (Or $5,400) budgeted for contingency before approval of this plan is given. 2. $2,00� for maintenan�e��Y costs that may be reim6ursed by the Foundation back to the City, rowed before our construction. 3. ThP City should protect itself, under provisions of accepting this or any other plan, from the City having to operate this at the City's expense on a continuing basis. n. That the Parks & Recreation Director's time under no circumstances be allocated to Sprtngbrook Nature Center. Mr. Peterson said there was also a proposal for a sign, which he noticed was approved at the Council meeting on May 3rd. He said he didn't agree that the City could put up any type sign they pleased because there was nothing in the sign ordinance about government signs, but he was c��tvoted. Ne said he didn't know if this was a conforming sign or not. Mr. Boardman said that a71 it says irr the sign ordinance was that any sign that the City might want to have had to be approved by the City Council. Mr. Peterson said that it was his interpretation that tiecause the land in North Park sti17 belonged to the City, this was the reason the development plans had to be reviewed by the Parks & Recreation Commission so that any deveiopment wouTdn't be at cross-purposes with any plans this Commission or the Planning Commission and Council might have. Mr. Harris said that he felt that action from these meetings should be � delayed until the Planning Commission had the actual minutes, because it seemed like this Commtssion had covered a lot of roaterial at these meetings. He said he was particularly interested in the red tagging of tax forfeiture lots. Mr. Boardman said he would have the maps for the next meeting. Mr. Peterson asked if there were any other questions, because he did have to leave the meeting. Mr. Harris said he was excused, and Mr. Peterson ]eft the meeting at 10:05 P.M. 3. REVIEW 3.2 BEER LICENSE REOUIREMENTS Mr. Boardman said the City CounciT had asked the Planning Commission to review the 3,2 beer license requirements because they thought the requirements were quite weak. He said this ordinance had been reviewed by most of the member Commission's and there recommendations were in the agenda., There,,was discussien on all the commission's recorronendations, but Mr. Bergman feTt`'that the four recormnendations by the Cort¢nunity Development Commission encompassed aTi of them. Mrs. Wahlberg questioned the feasibility of putting this under a special use permit requirement, but it seemed to be the consensus of opinion that this would give the City more control aiong with the annual renewal of a beer 7icense. The four recommendations from the Community Development Commission were: Restrict the beer tavern licensing to C-2 or C-2S districts. 2. Require a special use permit for additional contro7. 3. The definition or a tavern include any beer sale operation intending to operate over any 6 day consecutive period or more than 6 days during any 6 month period. and, 4. � Temporary beer sale operation can be allowed only with Council approval. Mrs. Shea pointed out to Mr. Boardman how the sexual bias ed language could Planning Co�nission Meeting - May 5, 1976 Page 9 be taken out of this ordinance. Mr. Harris asked Mr, Boardman to rewrite tha � 3.2. beer ordinance requirements into a proposed ordinance chan9e using the recormnendations made at this meeting,, so the Planning Commission could review this at their next meetin9. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman said these were the same recoimnendations the Planning Comnission had looked at their last meeting. MOTIDN bg Shea, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission table their reconmiendation on Human Development Goa2s and Objectives until they have more information. Upon a�vo�ce vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried ananimously. 5. RE-EVALUATTON OF STREET LAYOUT NEAR PJORTH PARK (PETITION 8-1976) _ MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recefve Petition 8-I976, which was a request for street clarification on Ironton Street and Ashton Avenue in the v.icinity of 83rd Street. Upon a voice vote; a21 voting aye, the iaotion carried ananimouslg_ Mr. Boardman said the City Council had sent this down to the Planning Comnission. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that this petition (8-1976) � be referred to the Envlronmental QuaZity Commission and the Community Development Commission for review before the PZanning Commission makes their recommendation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to give the member Commissions and the Planning Commission any other pertinent information that would help them in making a recommendaion on this petition. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 1976 adjourned at I0:50 P.M. pectfully submitted, ity Planner � � � 10 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 26, 1976 MEMBERS P&FSENT: Bob Peterson, Aave Harris, Leonard Moore� Jan Seeger� Aarvey Wagar HEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRFSENT: Karen Budnick - RivervieW Heights Concerned Action Group Margot Eastman - Riverview Heights Concerned Action Group Bette Hlair - Neighborhood Park Committee - Dave Allen - Neighborhood Park Committee Ron Steclanan - Neighborhood Park Co�ittee Juan Salas - Soccer Dan Huff - Acting Director, Parks and Recreation Department Steve Coyle - Directors Girls So£tbail Division of F.Y,S.A. Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.�. APPROVAL OF MIPNTES OF AfARCH 22, 1976 PARKS AIv'D REC:iEATION CONRfIS5I0N MEETINGc MOTION by Harris� seconded by Moore, to appmve the minutes as Written. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA : Mr. Moore requested that a general discussion on ilitnre plans for Glencoe and Springbrook Rinerview Heights Parks be added to the agenda. Mr. Peterson said that due to the time factor of this evening's meeting, that topic may have to be postponed until the nezt meeting. Director Huff stated he xould like to.add under the Director's Report the folloxing additions: B. Discussion of possible nev position for the Recreation Department I. Discussion on the snowmobile situation in NY�idley Mr. Huff gave each o£ the commissioners a copy o£ the agenda for this evaning's City Council Conference Meeting� and stated that items 5, 6� 8� 9 and 10 directly concerned the Parks and Recreation Commission. He informed the members that the City Manager had asked him to relate his apologies for not being personally in attendance at this meeting to present these ideas� but since some of these items need tu be acted on immediately he is asking that the Commission join the City Cotincil Heeting at approximately 8:30 for a discussion of these items. Chairman Peterson said he had taJ.ked to the City Manager and e�cpressed his disappointment xith the timing in terms of bringing these items to the City Council Heeting and before our Commission at the same time. He stated that items 5, 9 and 10 were directly related to the operation of the Parks and Recreation. Director Huff stated he felt that item 5 was beyond the city staff's control at this point as the nature center at North Park is simply being given to the city _ �� T �1 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMI55ION MEETING OP APRIL 26� 1976 - PAGE 2 by the Springbrook Nature Center. He said that at the Covncil meetingiopinions � could be expressed that perhaps it should come before this Commission for review before it is approved. ' MOTION by Mr. Harris� seconded by Mr. Moore� that the Commission take care of the guests and visitors and any old business and then adjourn to attend the City Gouncil rfeet3ng� and if time permitted return to handle the remaining business on the agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried vnanimously. ON NUMBER 9 OF TNE_CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDA - SCOPE OF CITY Chairman Peterson said that as he under�tood it, one of the things that will be discussed is the possibility of having a Parks Director and a Recreation Aide, He stated this would be changing tne philosophy oi o�eraticn, and as a Gommi.ss?.on Member strongly felt it would be a step backward. He said that if there wasn't a combined Parks and Recreation Diractor, he felt the two positions should be equal as Recreation was as important as Parks. Mr, Wagar stated he was in favor of having a man for Parks and another man for Recreation� but he didn�t think he would be called a Recreation Aide. He said the jobs comb3ned Nere getting too big for one man to handle. Director Huff explained there �rould still be a Parks and Recreation Director . who Kould have supervisian over the entire program as in the pasi� plus there would be the addition of a ful2-time person in Recreation, The idea is that we don't decrease Recreation--we increase it, he stated. Mr. Harris sa3.d he felt the combining of the activi.ties of the Parks and Recreation was done to facilitate having one body view it instead of having too man,y peopl.e i.nvolved. He stated his position at the time was that there was not adequate supervi.sion in the Recreation Program� and now was the time to make a change.. He said he was in favor of a Parks Director and a Recreation Director, and felt a better program would be the result. He commented that the budget continues to grow and the dollars are being expended because there are more people involved in the program, and if there was someone solely in charge of the Recreation Department enough could be saved out of the budget to pay his or her salary. Chairman Peterson stated he had no quarrel with that, but he had been told the position would be called Recreation Aide, which didn't have the same prestige as Director. SOCCER PROGRAM DISCUSSION: Mr. Juan Salas appeared before ihe Commission to discuss the soccer program. Director Hsff read aloud a letter from Mr, Salas to his attention concerning the budget and equipment needed for soccer. MOTION by Mrs. Seeger, seconded by rLr. Harris� to receive the letter from Mr, � Sales. Upon a voice votey all voting sye� the motion carried unanimously. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION HEETING OF APRIL 26� 1976 - PAGE 3 '�'� Chairman Peterson stated that last year the Commission gave the soccer program �- $500, and Mr. Harris said the same amount had been allocated this year. Mr. Petersoa said there was money in the budget for field improvemett+. as Mr. Salas had asked for upgrading at their main field in Locke Park� and Mr. Iiuff said there was a plan for that. Director Huff said that the cheapest set of goalposts that they would even consider was about $1100. Mr. Salas sup,gested he could make the goalposts if the wood was supplied to him, and Mr. Huff said there xould be no problem if Mr. Salas provided him with the soecs. Mr, Hu£f noted that Madsen Field was smaller than a regulation field and asked �ir, Salas to draw out how he would like it marked, He stated that 1liesda�ys had been set aside for soccer� and he could also order the balls for Mr. Salas. t4r. Salas asked what decisions the Corrmiission had made regarding the soccer budget, and Chairman Peterson said it had been decid.ed to start on a program to upgrade the field. He added that it would probably not be completed alI in one year� but the work Kould start. Mr. HuYf stated the field would be top-dressed as soon as there was time. Director Huff asked if Mr. Salas wanted him to order the T-shirts, and I3r. Salas said the shirts cost about $3.40 apiece and this money was included in the $5.00 charged to each player. - Mr. Harris suggested to Chairman Peterson that he prepare a budget for Mr, Huff � aside £rom any dress wear and determine what this money can be allocated for. Mr. Peterson suggested that it might be beneficial to Mr. Salas for them to work out some kind of an association so the Commission wouldn't handle the money . but would at least have a working arrangement, and would understand what is happening, too. He explained that wovld give them their registration fees plus the budget money. � Mr. Sa1as asked if the person who marked the field was paid, and Mr. Huff answered that he uas. Mr. Salas aolunteered to mark the fields free of charge, and Mr, Hu£f replied that if that was a concern when the budget was planned it would be considered, � S2. TO Mr. Ronald Steclanan read to the Conrtaission the follo�ring petition for a park signed by 26 of the area residentss We the undersigned are requesting that the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Fridley provide a safe area for xhich our children may P18,Y.. Presently there is no safe area for our children to play either singularly or as a group� without driving them to another area. '� The taz-paying citizens of the community vhich is making this request is bordered on the West by East River Road� on the Eust by the Burlington _ �' �3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF APRII, 26� 1976 - pAGE lt Northern railroad tracks, on the South by Mississipgi Street, on the North by Locke Lake. There is presently a parcel of land which is unoccupied, and we believe oxned by Anoka County, that would be an ideal location, This piece of land running from Mississippi St, to 6�th Way between Ashton Ave, and the railroad tracks. This piece of land has alread,y been partiall,y improved due to the construction of the underpass on Mississippi St., and could easily be converted to a recreational area with some £encing. We also believe that commimity as oppos0d but a mere dump. this area could be an aesthetic part of our to an eye sore, since its present purpose is To reiterate our request� we wauld like a constructive and safe area for which literally dozens df our childreri could use without parents worry of cars in the street, trains on the tracks, or one of the children drowning in the creek. These are all worries we as parents have todap in this area. Mr. Steclaaan said that 100% of the homes he went to signed the petitien, and these 26 homes representec3 55 children. He said their immediate concern taas to have a portion of that area fenoed off so they woulcin't have to worry about the children. Mr, Harris stated that at one time severa7. lots in that area had been red-tagged for a park, but people at that time didn't ssem to be interested in pursuing t,hat idea. He stated that if the people in the area are concerned, the Commission would certainly trv to do something, He added that he believed the re3-tagged lo� had been released back to the county. Mr. Harris said the area didn�t have enough depth to have a ball field, and would actually be more of a pla,yground than s park, Mr. Peterson added that ihey imew from past experience that if they tried to put in a baZl f3eld or even let them play sand-lot ball in an area that is not large enough� there would be trouble. He explained that older kids would drive the litile people of£ and they would chase the balls that went over the fenee and onto the tracks, He stated that staff would ha�re to 1.00k at that very carefully from the stand- point of what type of iacilities would go in there, and that generally they would have to put a top Iot on that type of area, He explained they had some xell- developed guidelines as to what fits on various size properties. Mr. Allen stated the main thing was to have some open area for the children to plqy, and Mr. Steck�nan added he didn't want to dwell on the ball field. Mrs. Blair suggested having a top 1ot for the smaller kids� and also possihly a tennis court and basketbaZ3, area, � �� Mr. Nuff stated that the underpass construction has reduced the circulation through the parking lot of the Redeemer Lutheran Church. The county, he said, is working • with the City Manager to deveiop a park plan which would include some type of a parki.ng lot that woulct aid both the church and the park. Mr. Huff said that Jerry Boardman has produced a preliminary plan for this property. � � . PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 26� 1976 - PAGE 5 Mr, Harris stated that there xas nothing in the budget this year for this� but if these are tax-forfeit properties it could be discussed when the budget is planned in July. MOTION by Mr. Wagar� seconded by Mrs. Seeger� that the Director red-tag the land that is iax-forfeit property� and all that is contiguous (in the Ashton area behi.nd Redeemer along the railroad tracks as far up as gossible) for the purpose of developing a park for that area. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, " MOTION by Mr. Wagar, seconded by Mr. Moore� to receive the preliminary petition for the park. Up��n a voice vote, all voiing aye� the moiion carried unanimously. F.Y.S.A, - GIRIS SOFTBALL PROGRAM: Mr. Steve Coyle read to the Commission the following Protest Procedures: 1. Notice that the game is being played under protest must be £iled with the umpire by the coach immediately at the time of the disputed decision attd beFore the next pitched ball to the batter or next play. 2. Written report setting £orth all the facts of the protest must be filed with the Division Director or League Coordinator withixi forty- e3gkt (}t8) hours of the date of the protest. 3. League Coordinator shall aopoint three (3) members oF the league not connected wi.th ar�y of the teams to serve on the Protest Committee. 4. Before a decision is made by the Protest Comunittee and League Coordinator, a clarification and interpretation of rules may be secured in xriting (letter or telegram) from American Softball Association Headquarters. 5. Final decision of protest shall be decided by the Coordinator and his appointed committee. Mr. Harris sai.d he has alw�ys felt that if a protest is going to be filed� a monetary filing should also be made. He suggested this because he felt it xas so easy to protest because it didn't cost ar�ythin?, but he thought for the first year it could be tried according to the above procedures. MOTION by Mr. Harris� seconded by Mrs. Seeger, to accept the Protest Procedures as written, Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. �4 "�,^""4' . �5 PA&KS AND RECREATION COtgffSSION MEETING OF APRIL 26x 1976 - PAGE 6 Mr. Coyle read to the Commission the following Participation Rules: a. In the Junior Division each coach submit a batting order with all eligible girls listed. Each girl must bat once before starting through the order a second time. In addition, each girl must play two innings in the field. b. In the Intermediate and Senior ➢ivision all eligible girls must play at least toro full innings. c. .Fligible girls are those who have attended at least two-thirds o£ the scheduled pradtice sessions. d. The intent of this rule is to guarantee equal participation by all girls. There may be circumstarices that require a girl to play less than two innings (such as injury, arriv-F�ng iate� etc.t In these instances, the onposing coach and the umpire should be in- formed of the circnnstances, e. Failure to abide by this rule may be grounds ior protesting the game which could result in the forfeiture of the game. Mr. Harris questioned item "e". He stated the coach should assume some respon- sibility, and asked what would happen if the coach chose to ignore this rule. Mrs. Seeger suggeste3 changing the word may to will. Mr. 8arris suggested that any coach who violates the rules should be subject to dismissal. Mr. Coyle suggested including an extra rule stating that any intentional violation of the rul.es may result in dismi.ssal of the coach through public hearing. Mr. Peterson stated he would feel more comfortable if this Nere handled through the protest cotmnittee. He said he didn't think any coach should ever be dismi.ssed without some kind of hear3ng procedure� because he is also a nolunteer, Mr. $arris suggested the addition of item °f" which would read: An intentional £silure to abide by the above rules under Rule 25 may lead to the dismissal of the coach after proper hearing before the protest board, MOTION by A4r. Wagar, "f" as written above. unanimously. seconded by Mr. Moore� to accept the addition of item Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried Mr. Coyle passed out to the Commissioners a list of the girls softball fields and the required maintenance on each, � � Director Huff stated he would do some stud,y on the list. Ae said the improvements of the jimior high fiel3s should be their responsibility� but they mi�ht not agree. He said the decisian would have to be made if we want to spend the money � to repair the•fields. He added that each field has a permanent home plate� and PAR�SS;`AND RECREATION COMMISSION HEETING OF APRIL 26� 1976 - PAGE 7 ?� � last year £our bags tirere provided. He added that any improvements in Fridley's parks xould be done as soon as time.allowed. Director Huff said the Cormnission should be made aware that vith the agreement we have with the F.Y.S,A.� girls softba7.l will cost the City of Fridley more than it did last year. He stated we are saving because we don�t have to pay a Coordinator ($700, last year)� but we also aren�t receiving the fees this year and we still have to buy the balls and bases� pay for any improvements� field markings and maintenance and the o££iciai's wages, He added that last year they had $3 to $!t per person� so the net has gone up with this type of agreement. Chairman Peterson said that Has one of the reasons the agreement was asked to come back be£ore the Commission. He asked Mr, Coyle if this rras now being looked at as a i1u�d raiser £or the F.Y.S,A, Afr, Coyle replied it was not� and they didn�t expect to ma.ke money ca i�. Mr. Harris stated that he hoped that this year the Commission would go with the program as outlined� and if there are some excess doilars the members should understand that they are getting rid of the liability o£ running the program� and it wi.11 be better run._ HOTION by Idr. Harris� seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Director sign the agreement regarding girls so£tba11 with the F.Y.S.A. uith the addition of the items ihat were discussed this evening. Ugon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion � carried unanimously. Mr. Coyle remarked that last year each umoire was issued a set of bases and catcher�s'equiument at the begi.nning of the season, and Air. Peterson said that this year there should be enough equinrient to handle it the sar�e way, DISCUSSION ON PLANS FOR SPRINGBROOK PAZKS: Mrs, Eastman was present at the meeting and asked the Co�mnission if there was a�y funding for Springbrook Park� and Wir, Huff said he was sure there xasn�t anything in the budget for it this year. She asked if the planned basketball court for Glencoe cotil d be moved to Springbrook. Mr. Moore supported Mrs. Eastman� and said there were lt53 students attending Anoka County schools from Springbrook and Riverview Heights, He said he wouId •like to see the group from Riverview Heights get the f�nding from Glencoe. Mr. Harris asked when construction xas scheduled to start� and t5r. Huff replied he had the specs for it right now and E ngineering was doing the draxings. Mr. Harris then suggested getting the plans drawn for both, and if one doesn't work we.could go ahead with the other one. He stated that money was budgeted for some improveroent in that area. Chairman Peterson said that nothing vould be done until the next meeting when engineering studies xould be ava3lable� and a decision xould be made at that ,� time. ,�`� �;PARKS AND RECREATION C049MSSSION MEETING OF APRIL 26� 1976 - PAGE 8 NAMING PARKS: Director Huff relayed a message to the Coimnission from the City Manager regarding naming of parks. He felt that names of local origin mean more to the penple in onr area and would be locally more acceptable, and naming them after people or the neighborhood would be a better alternative, It was also suggested that we don't simply try to find every single piece of property and slate it for park development in the future and name it, but instead wait until the develop- ment is emi.nent and we have plans for it and the money is there and then name it. Mr. Harris said he supported a resolution not to name parks a£ter people as it wasn�t fair to many people who worked ver,y hard,and weren't recognized. He stated he also felt it vrasn�t fair �•rhen someone has donated the land to the city for a park,to name it after someone else. Mrs. Seeger submitted to the Commission a list of suggested park names from the 7nter-Tribal Council of Anoka County� along with their meanings. MOTION by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Wagar, to accept the list of Indian names. Upon a noice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MDTION MOTION a aye� Mr. Harris, seconded by Pir. Afoore, that the Planning to the CitY Cnuncil that Glencoe Park be of£icially sk. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion c i�ir, Harris, seconded by A4r. N.00re, that the Planning to the Cit,y Council that idorth Park be o£i'iciall,y na ce vote� all voiing aye, the motion carried nnanimou Mr. Harris, seconded bv Ntr, Gta�ar, that the PlanninP to the City Council that no nane be given East River �e is further develornnent in that area. Upon a voice iotion carried unanimously. , � c-i-icu u„a.,i,n�u�iy. Commission � ed North Park,� ly. Commissior. � all voting Mrs. Seeger said she suggested Glen Park for Unit,y Hospital property as Glenn Thompson had so much to do with Unity Hospital. She also poi.nted out that 91en meant "Tender of the Valley." She explained that a letter had already :been to Mrs. Thompson saying a park was to be named after her husband. MOTION by ATr. recommend to named Glexalale unanimously. MOTION b,y Mr. recommend to epen ance unanimous y. nded by Air. Wa ,ar��he Planning Co cil that the UnitY Hospital Prope:t;� bc a voice vote, all voting aye, tMe motio nded by Mr. Moore, that the Plannin� Co cil that F'arr Lake Park be officiall,y n voice vo_e� vo �ng aye� e mo ion sion sion carried MOTION bp AIr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Wagar� that the Planning Commission recommen o, e � y o;incz a a: r1s e s a es e o tc nam d en enni ar . pon a voice vo e, vo ing aye, e mo ion carr e unanimous y. • � � PARKS AND RECREATION COt1MISSION HEETING OF APRIL 26� 1976 — PAGE 9 �8 seconded bv Mr. rtoore, that inabe, w3th "'fhe Yeonle" in parenthesi�. -Upon a aye and two voting nay� the motion carried, FRIDiEY YOUTH�CENTER DISCUSSION: Director Huff stated there oras not enough room in the City Hall £or a youth center. He anticipated problems srith noise if there was r.iusic, plus problems with parking and supervision, He sai.d the problem was that in being against this particular proposal it looked as if they rere agai.nst youth centers. Mr. Wagar stated he was for the youth center, but a�ot the suggested location of the City Hall. He said we are growing and may need more space than �:hat we have presently. MOTION by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mrs. Seeger� that since the Cotmnission is in fsvor of a youth center but not in favor of locating it in the Cit,y Hall, the Human Resources Co:mnission be asked to talk to the people at the Northeast Y and find out the status o£ their program and see if a workable solution can be made with their fac3lity and our intended use. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: � M4TION by Mr. Harris� seconded by Mr, Hoore, £or a continuance of this meeting next Monday at 7:30 p.m, so that the Commission could attend the City Council i•Seeting now'in session. Upon a voice vote, a].1 voting_aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p,m. Respectfully submitted� , �'���(ry' �'.-.r-�� Sherri 0'Donnell Recordi.Mg Secretary � . `� � SPECIAL MEETZNG OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MAY 3, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Peterson (arrived 9:15), Dave Harris� Leonard Moore, Jan Seeger� Harvey 4!agar 1�i�tBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Huff� Acting Director, Parks & Recreation Department danet Konzak� Admin. tisst, io Ciiy hlanager L. Vernon Moen, Board of Directors, Springbrook Nature Center Found, Clarence E. Krueger - 173 Pi2ot Ave., N.E., Fridley Frank M. Pilarski - 137 Pilot Ave., N.E.� Fridley Shirley McMartin - 121� Pilot Ave., N.E.� Fridley Bob McN:artin - 121� Pilot Ave., N.E.� Fridley Kevin Drury - 121t Pilot Ave.� N.E., Fridley Acting Chairman Harris reconvened the meeting at 7:32 p.m• � APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Director Huff asked to have the following additions on the agenda: J. Tentative park plan for the Ashton-Mississippi Street area K. Discussion of the policy of drinking alcoholic beverages in the parks MOTION by Mr. 4Jagar� seconded by Mr. Moore, to approve the agenda with the additions of J and K. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ANALYSIS OF RECRE_4TIOiVAL PROGRAMS: Janet Konzak was at the meeting to present information that related to different recreational programs and activities. An analYsis was done at the staff level which resu2ted in the gathering of information on the major recreational programs that are offered and a listing of what activities are currently self-supporting, partially funded by the city and fully funded by the city. It includes a comparison of recreational activities sponsored bp other cities that can be used as a comparison with the city of Fridley� and a beginning list of activities sponsored by other agencies and organizations in Fridley that also provide recreational activities. � Ms. Konzak passed out this information to each oF the Commission members, and told them the purpose of her being at the meeting was to present this information to them for them to do with as they pleased. She explained they had taken the thirteen ,�OSPECIAL NfEETING OF TIiE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSiON - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 2 major activities sponsored within Parks and Recreation ranging from so£tball to • concessions, and using the program budgeting mechanism available they had listed the costs for supervision, officials, maintenance, equipment, etc., and a total cost figure. She emphasized that these were not exact costs down'to the penny� but the study was done in the same way for each of the thirteen areas that were looked at, so the costs were relative. She said that the total cost figure was looked at in terms of the number of teams or participants to get an idea of the fees that are paid� the net cost to the city, the cost of each participant to be in the prograrry the hours they were in the program and the cost per hour. Ms. Konzak further explained that from that information they could see that the costs range from 7¢ an hour to 8l�¢ an hour per person� excluding maintenance. Ms, Konzak explained the second section looked at those areas in terms of difFerent funding reauirements. These were broken down into three groups: 1. No fundi.ng reauired (self-supporting activities) 2, Partiai Suntiing required 3. �11 funding reauired She further explai.ned that the next part of the study was a comparison o£ recreational activzties with other cities. She stated that the eight other citzes were chosen because their amount o£ staff� their population� their number o£ dwelling units, etc., average extremely close to the City of Fridle,y. She stated it was broken down b,y organized activities� individual activities� and recreational/cultural activities, and that all o£ these cities that were used have a community schools or community edur,ational program so the,y are providing � activities other than those listed in the report. Ais. Konzak stated the £inal sheet was a compari^,on o£ recreational activities sponsored for the citizens of Fridley by the city, school programs� com�munity school programs aad others. She said she had added some X's to indicate the possibility of over2apping activitzes. Mr, in'agar voiced his concern on not seei.ng any activities for the elderly, and Ms. Konzak replied that Anoka-Ramsey Community College did have programs provided for the senior citizens. Director Huf£ added that one of the problems was that some of the programs didn�t ].ike to be identi£ied speci£ically as being for the elderly� but would rather have the vast majority of all the other activities so tail.ored that they would be able to participate. Mr. Sarris noted that ski trips appeared under both Cit,y of Fridley and School Programs, but since it was self-supporting and £ully funded he felt that although it ma,y be a duplication there was no con£].ict. He stated that in relationship to some of the others such as football, basketball, softball, and items listed as Major Recreational Activities� the discussions previously with the schools indicated to him that these are not duplications but were serving a different group of people and dif£erent age areas. Ms. Konzak said she had just talked with the school representative last week� and softbaZl starts in 7th 5rade with intramurals� and in grades 8 through 12 start i.ntea-murals, Mr. Wagar stated that unless they had changed� the boys only participated in football about two days of'the week, and then two days in another. sport. He said that a child could not play solely f.00tball. .� . . , . . .. ... _ . . . . . ... . . . . � -+w�+s►— SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 3 Mr. Harris stated that intramural Was more educational than competitive, and � that in some cases the duplicate X's were not necessarily duplicates, He added that he was sure there were some areas that may be aimilar, but those that xere involved in FYSA Were not competing with schools. . i 21 ±>� Mr. Moore stated that his views were a little different as he £elt the schools did a pretty good iob with physical activities� but there are other activities not covered� such as for the elderly, He contirued that if there wasn�t enouPh money to go around, then those duplicates should be drawn out a bit. He said he was looking at net costs o£ $71,000 for hockey, $7,000 for baseball and $5,000 for softball. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Moore indicated the hockey program has a high ratio per hour cost� but the Len £u1l-time people involved belong to the maintenance program on a continuing basis. He stated in the summer thev take care of the playgronnds, soYtball Tields, etc. Director Huff explained that iF thev didn't have hocke,y, they could lay sane part time people of£ in the wirter as the city had enough to do the plowing without usin� the parks personnel. Ais. Konzak added that another consideration was that overtime had been used extensively in the hocke,y program� and it could.possibly be cut down if, for instance� there was more cooperation between the city 2nd the hockey association. Ms. Seeger asked i£ she was to understand that these ten full-time people were charged to the hocke,y program for the full year� and Ms. Konzak said they were not. She explained that these people divi:ded their time between the general skating rinks and the hockey rinks in the winter, and in the summer their time was charged to park maintenance. Ms. Seeger asked if there was a breakdown of the ages using the activities� and Ms. Konzak replied that there was, from the registration material, Rts. Seeger said she would like to ]mow i£ there were activities covering the broad spectrum of age groups. Director Ruff answered that in some there were and some there were not; for instance! the basketball program had an adult program and a boy's program. , Mr, Harris said that what he was trying to point out was that in hockey the costs were divided against 5�0 participant,s, but there were also the kids playing hockey at various times who did not belong to a team. He felt there must be a thousand who were using a hockey stick and puck. He stated he felt there was some validity in stating that cost in maintenance does provide overtime, but he said he didn't think the cit,y could hire £ull-time people on an alternate season basis as these people wouldn't remain and also the union would step in. Mr. Huff pointed out that scme cities operate differently than Fridley, and nnst of.than spend less money, but they don't necessarily have the progr�n sophistica- tion that Fridley has. Mr. Moore said he £eltiif there were duplications that this money could be withdrawn to supply the particular areas that need it. Ms. Konzak stated that in her discussion with the City Manager on this� his thought was that if the Commission wanted to raise fees and revenues, he would be willing to recommend an increase in terms of ilinds to be spent, Director Huff added that there were more vays to reduce costs� such as changing around the activities provided by different groups. He said that in his neighborhood (St. Paul) the rinks were flooded by ,�,,,.,�. nP�CIAL MEETING OF THE PA.RKS & RECREATIOI3 COMMISSIOI3 - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE !� s.,iG volunteers who also took care of the snow removal� and they hadn�t had an,y union • problems. Mr. Wagar added that the cit,y also asked them to schedule the men to work four to midnight, but the union wouldn't allow it. Mr. Harris stated the Commission shonld go back to some of these associations and tell them there are other aspects of these programs that they could help with. He added that if they got into the maintenance area� he thought they were getting beyond the scope of this Comnission. Mr. Wagar asked Ms. Konzak to explain under hockey and general skating the cost of warming houses and vehicles. She reolied that tiiey had taken the total cost of warming houses and split in in half to divide it between the t�ro programs, which came to $393�t for each; 2nd the same with vehicles� which came to �2605 each, Mr. Harri,s pointed out the di£.fererzce in numbers o£ participants using hockey and general skating rinks� and thought that more of the cost should be related to open skating since there r�ere ten times the participants, Director Huff esplained that e�c!� t_me a skat�^ us�d the general rink it counted a� cr��� whereas with the hockey they were talking about the number of team pla,yers snd not counting every time they played. A4r. Harris said that then Lhey should divide this into cost per hour and that would be reduced also. He stated the,y should Lake $!�0 and multiply it by 30 to come out with the cost per person. Director Huff replied that that was an 2ccurate cost per person ($2,63), but the 37¢ was not necessarily accurate. Mr. Harris said he felt tnere were a lot of variables in this information. He said if there is any sport the city is providing the £acilities for, whether there are 30 or 60 softball teams or none at all� people are going to play so£tball • and the cit,y is going to proyide maintenance for that £acility. He thou�ht that charging it off against a certain team or sport didn�t represent a valid cost. Director Huff brought up the fact that it took the flzll staF£ ten days to two weeks just to dissassemble and store the bo2rds from the hockey_rinks, and hlr. Harrzs pointed out that rras because the parks were being used for other purposes. Ms. Konzak said it became a question o£ what, for instance, would working on the field and cutiing the grass be charged to--softball or park maintenance? She agreed that there crere difficulties� but the information was as closely verified as possible. Mr. Huff said these had been gone over several times and were pretty accurate. The relative cost of the various programs inciuding maintenance were correct. Mr. Harris stated there were a lot of things to go over on this, and suggested that the Commission review the in£ormation for their next meeting, He thought the people that use the hockey rinks would be happy if the boards would staq up all season, but he understood the needs for using a softball field, He said he thou�t the charge should be prorated and based on more than one thing. Mr. Moore said he would be interested in seeing the Commission come up with some kind o£ recommendation to make a shiFt in the duplications or raise the fees to cover additional facilities where there were none. llirector Huff said that this was the first time the Commission has been given � any figures on 'individual progra�ns� so at least they had something to start With _ ,�.:-. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSTON - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 5 23 and could rationally decide where the money should go. Mr. Harris stated that � everyone involved in parks and recreation activities knex that these things were here to stay� and if the costs could be off-set by additional fees or something else, that is an additional consideration. � ' Ms. Seeger asked if they shouldn't consider the fact that some of the time the fathers put into helping is actuall,y their form of recreation. Afr. tdagar agreed and said that if the fathers didn�t run the program the city couldn't afford to have it. Mr. Harris brought up the excellent response they had always received in getting donations Yrom organizations, and stated they felt it was worth it to help keep the kids out of trouble, Dire�tor Huff said he realized there is always immeasurable value in recreational activities� and all they wanted norr was to start by being able to give the Commission the fiscal reports� and i£ the figures were straight the itrmieasurable values would fall in line. Mr. Harris suggested if the figures were accurate the Corimission could depict how much they yrere going to pay per individual for a particular activity� and if the fees came up short then they could go back to that association and tell them that a ma�cimum amount of expense had been set and the fees had come short by X amount of dollars� so they would have to come up with whatever that came out to. Ms. Konzak told the Cocmnission she had some thoughts to leave with them� and� asked that when they were looking at �.�hether the program should be self-supporting, partially funded or fully funded by the city, there should be some thought to xho � was being served and hoFr many were being served, She said that when you get into a question like ballet that is provided by different private groups and communit,y schools� perhaps there is the ouestion that it should be made self-supporting, She stated there should be an idea of how the funding should relate. Some programs are more expensive than others, and other programs could perhaps be read�usted to become self-supporting. She went on to say that the sztuation �•rith the economy is such that in ].967 the dollar was worth one hundred cents� and now it is worth sixty cents, so if the rates haven�t increased much since 1967 they �ere losing approximately 1�0¢ for every dollar. Mr. Harris said one of the things he kould like to see done in relationship to activities as such was to get in touch with the Y24CA and see what they project in areas of arts and crafts and other individual activities. He explained the, Y was in the throws of fund raising; they needed 21 million and had 1�-� million raised. He further explained that many of the substantial commitments £or money were contingent on the facility being built withi.n a certain period of time� so they were looking very.carefully at where this money is end how long it will be available. Ms. Konzak thanked the Commission for allowing her to present the material, and expressed her willingness to return to the next meeting if they desired. DISCUSSION OF MINI-BIKE AND SNOWMOBILE AREA: � 2€r. Clarence E. Krueger o£ 173 �lot Avenue, N.E.� Fridley, represented a group interested in mini-bikes end snor+mobiles. They requested that the area behind _ � � SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 6 2�� the skating'rink and ball field at �9th and Main Street be fenced off for use by kids to run their mini-bikes, with a �et of rules and regulations, Mr, Wagar stated that the city had only a small amount o£ property (2 _ 1� acres) leased from the railroad, so it was mostly railroad propert,y. Mr. Harris said at one point the city was interested in getting more land from them, but the railroad was not interested at tha't time. He explained the cit,y leased the land on a year to year basis� subject to cancellation with a 90-day notice. Iie suggested Mr. Krueger talk to the railroazl people to see if the,y would have any objection to the property being used £or their desired purposes. Director Huff said there were areas Por the kids to ride their mini-bikes in Fridley, such as private �ropert'y 2nd industrial areas with permission from the owners, Fir. KnLe�er stated there was no place for the kids to play in thei_r neighborhood as older men had taken ever the ball park� and sugpested seme type of scheduling, Afr, Huf£ informed him that there was a parks ranger.�n duty to 10 - 11 p.m.; and if the o]der men n3.dn�t have ^ permit they couldn�t kick anybody off the field. Director Hu£f explained it would be almost impossible to have a city-sponsored motorized recreational a.rea because the hazards would be so gr2at. He said the city would take on a public risk to manage it� and if a child got hurt the cit,y would be faced laith a law suit, He also pointed out that there F;as a state lata against snowmobiling on any railread right o£ way, so if the rai7road let them use the property without proper fencing they might get on the ri�ht of v?ay. Also, if the railroad gave them permission� then the railroad would be liable �nr any accidents, Mr. Harris suggested that the group get in contact yrith Director Huff during business hours and try to get in touch with the gentleman from the railroad who couid give them permission to use the property. hir, i�oore also suggested that they check with the YMCA. SPRIidGBROGK NATURE CENTER FOUiVDATION PLAN FOR AtORTH P.ARK: Mr. L. Vernon Moen, Chairman, Board of Birectors of Springbrook Nature Center Foundation was present to di�cuss ihe plan. He stated that they had actuall,y been t��orking on this plan for several years, and he had been involved since January lst. Ae felt many of the citizens of Fridley orere getting a little amcious tind were wondering what. happened to North Park. He said they respect£ully �sk the Commission�s consideration and hopefully they cou2d have the plan passed *�ith the one correction noted in his letter to the Fridley City Manager and Council dated Apri1 30, 1976, Acting Chairman Harris stated they had just received their copies of the plan last week, and this was the first ti.me it appeared on'the agenda, so Mr. F'IOP.h could assure his people that the,y were acting on it at their first opportunity. Mr. hioore said his major concern was taken care of under item A on page 13 when "and �rithout reimbursement" was changed to "with reimbursement as shall be ugreed upon between the parties concerned". He said another concern he had was a � � . ; �_ _ ____. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - MAY 3r 1976 - PAGE 7 �5 toilet facilfty being at the entrance of County Road 132. Mr. Harris said it � was his understanding that the parking lot is coming off County Road 132, and _ the rest room £acilities were at the southeast corner. Mr. Moen said there would be rest room facilities'inside the building. ' Director Huff stated the rest rooms on the schedule on page 10 would be the last thing to be done� so their location was really tentative. He said that before these would be built, specifications would come back to the Commission for anproval. He explained thev were considered the lowest priority because satellites could be used. He said the idea was to have restrooms in the Nature Center Building, but there would be almost a mile walk to where the others were located. Mr. Harris pointed out that nomhere in the plan did it state there would be facilities in the parking lo t� and suggested it be'part of their recommendation to Council, He said the Commission was to make recommendations or suggestions on thiss or could pass it just as it was� so if any of the members had suggestions they felt should be implemented in triis plan� now was the time to do it. Mr. Moore stated his concern was if the building they were going to build included rest room facilities� and since it did he had no oualms about it, t4r. Aarris pointed out it roras a two-phase plan, so there would be a lapse between the start of Phase I and the compl.etion of Phase II. Mr, Wagar asked if the reason there iras onlv one access taas that a person taking a nature trip would w2nt to start at one point and go all the Vray around, hir. Hu£f replied the big problem with rruZtiple access wou'Ld be the cont.rol o£ van^:slism, � Mr: Flagar said that concerning page 13� ?s a Commission member he still didn't feel it agreed with the agreement that :ras signed by the city i}�ith the group originally. He referred to the agreement on page 18. Director Huff explained that what they are indicating is that this simply means the plan is fine, but as far as to tiaho is paying t.hat, that would be rrorked out in � dif£erent agreement with the Foundation and the city. Mr. Wagar stated he had no aualms about Dan Huff the Naturalist being involved i.n North Park, but he did have reservations about Dan Huff as Parks and Recreation Director being up there. Director Ruff replied that he didn't see why he would be up there. He said his Sro time would involve making phone calls, orderinP materials� getting bids� meeting laws and engineering-type requirements. He said thi5 brings it back into the Parks and Recreation Department where it should be� as this is our park land being leased and xe are ge�ting more control o£ it. Mr. Ylagar said he agreed and disagreed with what Mr. Huff was saying. He stated that the agreement was like a contract� and when a contract is signed it must be in black and white. He said he felt like they were spinning their wheels because it was not in black and white. He stated he wished they would sa3� that they want Mr. Huff for a certain amount of hours. Dirsctor Hu£f said he could make the - recommendation that if the Naturalist was separate from the Parks and Recreation Director� he should spend not more than 25% of his time; or if the Parks and Recreation Director was involved� he not spend more than 2% of his time. He felt that would be a logical reco�renendation. � '�,...�i 2�PECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 8 Mr. Wagar asked if there was going to be a Naturalist in the Parks Department. � Director Huff answered by saying that he applied for the Parks and Recreation position and he felt he could manage that and this other propram, which would only be utilizing a small percentage of his time. He said he suggested to the City Manager that he eliminate the position of h�aturalist by comoleting the North 7nnsbruck and the Dunes this year� and then hire another person to be involved full time in all the recreational activities. Mr. Moore stated he would like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission help pay ta establish the �ature Center since it is part of the Parks and Recreation Department, Mr, Harris stated he would like to make some comments on the basis of doing a review of the pl2n� and on the basis that they were not just discussing a plan but a.piece of oraperty that is owned b,y the city and it is required by ordinance that this Co*nmission advise the Council on all proposals. He said the Commission should take a look at this proposal in the light that this is a city-owned piece of property and what would happen in relationship to the land on a long-term basis, He suggested there are nrobably four possibilities that might h�ppen after the £ive-year expiration date: l. The Council may at this time extend or enter into a renewal for an additional period of time with the Springbrook Found3tion or any other Foundation to continue a nature program, 2. The City Council might choose not to negotiate another lease, or the � Springbrook Foundation may reauest the Council no� extend the lease for tt,ro possible reasons: a) The city may say they have not lived up to the agreement that was signed and therefore they are under no oblivat3on to extend the lease. b) Springbrook Founda$ion� �rhich is a non-profit voluntar,y organization, mzy come back to the city and sa,y they have tried their best to perform at North Park but they can no longer afford to manage it. 3. The City Council ma,y want to continue a nature program of their own using the facilities that are there, or may sa,y it is an expensive operation and they cannot afford to operate it. They might want to allow the land to remain as open space with no programs or plans for future development. !�, After a period of time if.one or more of the above si.tuations come to pass, the citizens may request that the land be developed £or another use such as tennis courts or so£tball ditunonds. Director HuFf suggested two other possibilities: 1. Once the program begins to operate� the Foundation may request that another agency or foundation take over their program and request that � the City Council give the program to this group. (Mr. Huff suggested that.a longer lease may be obtained to help eliminate this possibility). SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECRFATION COMMISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 9 �.� �; 2. The Foundation may say they don't want to be involved in the day to day operaLions any more� except in an advisory capacity, and ma,y want the city to take it over so they could be just a fund-raising organization. Mr. Harris stated he £elt that capital improvement projects started b,y Springbrook should have to be flilly Funded be£ore this Cormnission shonld pass their construction or building. Mr. Moen said they realized that the City Council had to pass all capital improvements. Director Huff asked what type of documentation he was suggesting, and Mr. Harris replied he thought all major capital improvements (anything over $2,$00) should come to this Commission for aoproval. Director Huff stated it �ras a ver,y ambiguous situation zs to what is iluided� as volunteers come forward to provide a service xhich is already funded in the budget. For example, he explained, the Jaycees want to build the sign and there is money in the budget £or it, Mr, Harris said if tney had C�.T.A people xorking� he thought a decision rrould have to be made as to where their best use kould be. He added that i£ item It was implemented� then sta££ should come up with recommendations so that any capital improvements or projects that might be used in the area might be projected �o that the city isn't sitting with a large piece of land that can't Y�e used. He told Mr. Huff he didn't think they had the time to send him up there because any time he was spending at Springbrook would be time tat:en away from the city. Director Huff replied tlzat PIr. Harris was forgetting that thegr were getting a � full-time man in Recreation through December through CETA personnel. In the agree- ment we write up with Springbrook� he said� it should be stat4d that .re can conmit 5� of the Director's time through December. He explained that CETA stood for Comprehensive Employment Training Act� �rhich provided an increase in public service at no change in local taxes. 7+Ir. Wagar asked if the Recreational man was going to be CETA personnel� and Mr. Huff replied he was. He stated it has been funded through December by an act of Congress. Fir. Wagar said then Lhey were actuall,y hiring a full-time but temporar,y man� and Tir. Huff agreed and added that his duties would cease after December. Director Huff sai.d he hoped that by January 1 the Commission would recommend to Council that another full-time man is needed. He explained it could not happen in mid-year without Council action. Mr. Harris stated that the area designated as North Park has a property valued in excess of a million dollars, and it seemed unrealistic to provide such a minimum develogrtent on such expensive land as outlined in Phase I o£ the construction proposal. If proposals 2 and 3 are to be considered� he said, the City Council should continue to maintain the facilities utilizing public funds� then some e3�anges should be made to make certain the bulk of the expense does not revert to the city at this time� or that Phase I should be fully £unded, He said that for all construction, certain amounts should be set aside £or contingencies. He said he thought there should be an additional 10� added to the $51t,OD0 so there xould be a contingency budget of $S,�t00. - Director Huff replied that 20� was provided in the plan, and explained they took the estimated cost and added 20% to every item. He further explained it didn't � specifically state that in the grant because they didn't want that. He said the _ _. � '�*�� " "SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION - MAY 3� 1976 - PAGE 10 citv staff explained to the City Council that they added 20% of the estimated • cost on an item to item basis so they would be sure of having the moneyy and this inr.luded materials and labor. Mr. Harris asked what would happen,if these items were more than that amount of mone,y� and Director Huf£ replied that if the materials were mare� construction would have to be stopped or some item might have �o be eliminated, but chances of that happening were very sma11. Idr. Dioen said he thou�ht it was common practice that an,ything considered for future construction had an added amount for inflation, and any of the major items are put out on competitive bids� so they vrere covered on that. He added that , he thou�ht they were going to come out on the fat end of this, At this point Mr. Moore had to leave the meetingy but he said he wanted the Commission to lmow his vote was to anprove the plan. Mr. Narris asked ahout the costs for maintenance, and Director Huff 2nswered that the city agreed to furnish �r�aintenance of North Park on a regularly-scheduled basis, the costs to be reimbursed Lo the city by the Foundation, Mr, Harris then asked s�hat would haopen if the Foundation didn't have enough money to reimhurse the city, and Director Huf'£ said then the Council would have to decide u:hether they wanted to do it, or not. I•ir. Moen added that they had a fund-ras:�ng com�iLtee and the members i.•ere dedic3ted and hard working, and they were goir.g to approach mary funding sources? businesses, the public� etc.� and he didn't think there was a7y chance of them failing. Other tha� contingency flmds and reimt,ursement £or mai.ntenance, HIr. Harris said� • he tias also concerned about items ?_ and 3 and v!hat Woul.d hanpen under this proposed grant to protect the city from having to operate this facility 2t the public's expense, Di.rector Huff said there we�^e no operati.ng costs in the plan, and ihe cit,y �rould not have to ooerate it. He explained the city �aas liahle £or the improvements from the day the,y got the check, ti�hether the,y have any agreement or plan with the Foundation. He further expla.ined that if costs of i.morovements went ahove expertations� an amended development nrocedure �rould have to be filed with Lawcon Agenc,y. F!r. Huff added that there was no obligation on the part of the city accepting this grant to maintain or continue North Park on the program that is started by the Springbrook Foundation, Mr. Peterson apologized to the Commission for arriving late. He said the city did have certain commitments because if SoringLrook did not renew the lease so the nature center aspect of North Paric roras not carried out, the city would have to go to Lac�rcon to ask for permission to remove the improvements. He stated that there£ore the city had committed thai property to a nature center. Director Huff explained that the city bought the property with Lawcon £unds for a golf course. He continued that after the City Council decided that this should be dedicated as a nature center� the city went back to Lawcon with a revised program, and Lawcon said that was no problem. He sai.d that all they were appraving now is these improvements being developed. Mr. Peterson stated he was not for the plan as it was here because he was not satisfied Xith what was happening with the Parks and Recreation Department and • the way Director Huff's time was being split. Mr. Moen explained to Mr. Peterson -__ SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 11 -� that he had missed part of the discussion, and.that while Mr. Huff would delegate most of this, the.y needed him in that he had an ongoing relationship with this �� and worked with the members of the Springbrook Board to get it undeiw:ay, hlr, tioen said that if Director Huff could direct somebody and keep tabs on him, he thought it oould be done with minimum use of his time. Mr. Peterson disagreed and said supervision didn't work that way as it took a lot of time and nobody could run something like that on a 5� time basis working with volunteers. Mr. Moen said that if Atr. Huf£ were required to do all the work himself� rir. Peterson would be absolutely right, but he would be supervising the work. Mr. Moen stated he thought it was a viable plan. Mr. Harris said that looking under B on page 13 regarding Phase II, it didn�t say what Phase II is other than it is going to be planned as soon as funds ���ere available and there is going to be a building of anproximately 5�000 snuare feet� and he was conce:-ned about not being able to tie that dok�n in a little tighter prooram, He sai3 that in cr3er for thi� bo3;� to sit dow-n �nd plan and mana�a� park use and park land, the funding of the plan under Phase II should be covered under Phase I, i�ir. Moen stated that they had the City Council bring up the same q_uestion, and they seemed to be satisfied with the answer. He continued that so much depends on this ongoing ooeration �nd what type of citizen response the,y had� how much work there would be in handling this propram� that they could be certain there would be man,y changes made before getting into Phase II. He said it was difficult to m2ke it concise when there were many changing factors. Mr. Peterson said he was talking about buildings and structures, and the plan ,� said the Foundation "expects" to complete it, He titated he felt the plan i�ras le£t open to a point that Phase II may never materidllze. 'rir. P•Ioen explained that they had to have a plan in hand to say "this is y:hat ire axe goine tc do", so as soon as it �ras approved they would have something they could show. � Mr. 47agar stated he agreed with i•1r, Harris' points� but he felt they should give the Foundation people a chance to get off the ground, Mr. Harris said he had a responsibility as a member of this Cocmnission to sa,y what he thought should be done� and he was not against Springbrook, He said he wanted to go ahead with it but he wanted to protect this committee and the people in this community. MOTION by Dave Harris to accent the North Park ftature Center Plan unth the addition of the.following £our items: 1. An additional 10°� (or $5,�t00) budgeted £or contingency hefore approval of this plan is given. 2. $2,000 for maintenance costs,that may be reimbursed b,y the Foundation back to the city� should be escrowed tiefore any construction is done. 3, The city should protect itself,under provisions o£ accepting this or any other grant, from the city having to operate a Nature Interpretation program on a continuing basis. !t, Aevelopinent planning forphase II be flmded vnder Phase I. . .�,"'i' SPECIAL MF.ETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COhQfISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 12 The motion died,for lack of a second. Ms. See�er said she wouZd like to explain that the,y had to have the dollars for an arch3teet to come up with the schematics, and that isn�t incladed in Phase I because I doesn't include a building, and the,y did have a t�ro-year contract, She said priorities had to be put first� and the site could operate without a building. Mr. Peterson asked if Mr, Aioen had the $27,000 grant or if it was contingent on the approval of this plan, and Mr. ?�ioen said ii was coniingent on them matching funds with either labor� money� or materials, or a combination of the three. Mr. Peterson then asked if the approved plan vrould enable them to raise the funds, and Mr. hioen replied they Vrere all set to go. l�ir. Peterson asked who prepared the brochure� and Nr. i�foen answered that they did it partly with a suggested plan that Mr, A?alkowski drew up� the Board sizpplied information� Director Huf'f suoplied a great deal of infnrrnation and the Vrcrk involved in organizing it� but the Founc�a- tion worked over the plan page by page in their discussions. Mr. Wagar said he believed the people were hcnorable, and he would second Ptr. Harris' motion if numper 1t tivere elimina�;ed, NO".'IOti by Dave Harris� seconded by rir. ;daga.rx to aecept the North Park Nature Center Plan with the addition of the Follo*rring three items: l. An additional 10� (or �5�l�00) hudgeted for contingenc,y before approval of this plan is given. 2. $2,000 for mai.ntenance costs that ma,y be reimbursed by the Foundation back to the city, be esCrotv2d, 3. The city should protect itsel£, under provisions of accepting this or any other grant, fx•om the cit,y having to operate this at the city�s expense on a continuing basz.s. Mr. Peterson said he could not vote for the motion because Director Huff�s time was being allocated to Springbrook �uithout any indications of amount o£ time. Fie said no one could spend oniy 5� of iheir tine and supervise a program that is going to be:vn basically with vol.unteers an3 accomplish what they want to accompiish, and he didn�t think Springbrook *a3s being fair in asking that. He added that he was speaking against the motion because he L.a.s not in favor of the Paxks & Recreation Director serving as our Director and being programmed to spend time wiih another organization. He stated it should be either/or� but he alsa felt Springbrook should be allowed an opgortunity to develop the nrogram that the people �sanf,ed. He added that he had no quarrEl with the points made by Mr. Harris, but was against the motion because the plan included the request for Director IIuff�s time. Mr. Peterson suggested the motion be �nended to include a statement saying that the Parks and Recreation Director's time under no circumstances be allocated to Springbrook Nature Center, and Mr. Harris said he would so amend the motion. Dave An additional 10� (or �w5,l�00) budgeted for o is o an i: �iven. before approval � • � SPECIAL MEETIP�G OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COt•ShiISSION - MAY 3� 1976 - PAGE 23 ��. � 2. $2�000 for maintenance costs that ma ac o e ci y, be escrowed before 3. The city should protect itself, under a con y be reimbursed b.y our construction, of accentinP this or That the Parks and Recreation Director�s time under no Upon a voice vote, Messrs. Harris, i•!agar and Peterson voting aye, A?rs. Seeoer voting nay, the motion carried 3�- 1. (Mr. Moore had left the meeting prior to this motion) MOTION ce MOORE LAKE BEACH HOUSE E%PAtdSION: :.• at the si.pn for the Nature AT tiG3TH PARK. Uoon a Director Hu£f passed out to the Commissioners a diagram of the proposed tioore Lake Beach House alteration. He sho..*ed them how the existing i��al1 could be moved to the north for expansion and £rost protection added around the footings of the building on the northk*est corner for approximately $tt�500. � Mr. Peterson said he felt it wasn�t large enough to handle the peoole at the concession area, and Director HufT said t.here r�as the possibility of adding a second window. He £elt it had to be expanded to allow.room for a£reezer and ice cream. He stated there had to be enough room for people inside that area to su££iciently operate. . Mrs. Seeger r,�as concerned that on rainy days r;hen the resuscitation classes were held, there rroulcln't he enough room !'or the chilnren, and she suggested using movable walls, Director Huff said ii' a sliding door was opened up, the concession stand would be accessable. Director HufF said he realized he brought copies of the wrong plan, and Mr. Harris suggested he mail out to the members of the Commission the corrected drawings along with any informatzon relating to its cost. MOTION by Dave Harris� seconded by Harvey itiagar� to approve the concept of the ��x foot shift in the wall. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. WEEKEND TOURNAMI��ITS IN FRIDLEY: Mr. Peterson said that since the two big tournaments (Jaycees and Fire & Police) were ver,y well respected and good flxnd raisers for both of them, the city has protected those two organizations because it has been a tremendous fund raiser for them. Ae was concerned that if more people were allowed to play in tournaments� it mi�ht detract from their fund-raising drives. For that reason� he stated, he would be a little �}rehensive about changing the policy. Mr. Harris said he agreed with Mr. Peterson, - -,�.."i, 32 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATIOII COMMISSION - MAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 1Lt Director Huff said he had to have a policy established� even if it was onl,y . providing for the Jaycees and Fire and Police, so he would have something to tell those other people requesting tournaments. Mr. Huff asked £he Commissioners their feelings about concessions� and hir, Harris eXplained that this was how they made their money� as the cit,y �ave them a special license. MOTION by rlr. Peterson� seconded by t-ir, Wagar� that this year the cit,y continue the policy of only having tne toro fund-raising tournar�ents (Ja,ycees and Fire and Police) and if other ch2ritable groups v;ant to have tournamenis ihev will t�e re�uired to com� be£ore the Cor�mission for per:�ission, and that all �;roups post a�1QO bond t•rhirh would be returned if the fieLd Vras properly cleaned un. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the moi;ion carried unanimous2y, TENNIS COURT LOCATIOiIS: , Director Huf£ nassed out di.2grams of the propos�d tennis court locations, and informed the Com-�ission that the courts in Ruth Circle Park and Summit Scuare were scheduled £or this year� but the budget roras $6�000 short of the �12�000 needed £or t�e i•fadsen court. TdOTION b.y Dave Har^is, s that Rri1S COt'.,"$ bC carr? er. OVP,1' LO I7BXZ+ ye:jr 1c;A GVUIU1GLltni c ce rote, all votin�; zye, the motion carri.ed unanimously. Director Y.uff proposed that th? court be put in an east-vrest position� south . of the volleyball field. Ms. Seeger asked if the existing lights in Ruth Circle cculd be turned around to service the tennis courts� and i�ir. Huff explained the present polic,y v;as that there be no lighted tennis courts. rlr. Peterson pointed but that it wonld inerease the recreational use at these courts, and P4r. ;�'agar said a metered system had been discussed previously. Director Huff inFormed the members that lighting the courts �.*ould increase their cost by 50°�. t�1rs. Seeger pointed out that perhaos in Ruth Circle and other similar par'r.s the existing lights could be made multi-purpose to serve the needs of both hockeu and tenni.s. rlr. Peterson asked Mr. Huff if he could take a look at this and make a recommendation For Ruth Gisole� and if the lights couldn't be used the wa,y Mrs. Seeger suggested� then they 4rould have to t�ilce the location that was on the diagram, iie ssi.d his main concern ti�ras that the court not be too close to the neighbo:s. Director Huff said that S•�unmit Square was a twe-piece park� with a playground area across the street. He said he agreed with the location on the diagram as he didn*t see any other place to put it in this park. ri0TI0N by Jrin Seeger, seconded Hy Harvey Wagar, to accept the tennis court locations with the recomriendations discussed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � SPECIAL MEETING OF THF PARKS & RECRF.ATION COMPIISSION - MAY 3� 1976 - PAGE 15 �� BASKETBALL COURT RETACATIOtd FROM RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS TO SPRINGBROOR• � Director Hu£f said it had been suggested that the basketball court be moved from Riverview•Heights to Springbrook, He said this taould leave the Riverviela Hei�hts park large enough for ball playing, and since Springbrook rras so small the basketball court was about the only thing that Vrould fit there. He stated he was neutral on this, but the advantage to putting it at Glencoe would be to discourage kids from pla,ying baZl and running through yards and breaking windows. However� he said, if the,y still played catch, the same thing xould happen. Mrs. Seeger suggested displaying a oositive sign sayin� something like "Ball Playing Allowed for Age 11 and L'nder". hfOTION by Jan See�er, seconded by Harvey �•IaPar, to move the proposed basketball court £rom Riverviec,r Heights to Springbrook. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. TAX FORF�IT PROPE.RTY: Director Huff shoYred the Co.�nmission the ta�c £or£eit properties on the map, 14rs. Seeger suggested utilizing some of the properties to nake small� neighbornood parks which would be l:eot up by the citizens� and :aould encourap,e cit,v pride. Mr. Hu£f explained that this :�ras a hard thing to do as the peonZe could injure themselves. He added that when ,you h2ve a pax�k ,you are encoura�ing people to go there, so the parks have to be big enough to serve a purpose, �Mr. :•7agar agreed, and said that the little tot lots caused man.y prob]em�, He said that the parents of the little ones w:inted £ences around the park.s, and there rorere problens t,fith the older kids playing ball and getting them in the neighbor's Yaz'd. Mrs. Seeger suggested contacting the Riverviecr Heights grouo and consulting them, Mr. Peterson asked if Director Huf£ could find out if there was any propert,y north of Riverview Heights in Coon.Rapids that was vacant, and suggested that perhaps some kind of an arrangement could be nade for a park area. MOTION by Jan Seeger, seconded by Harve,y Wagar� to red tag all the circled pieces of tax-forfeit property on the map. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimous],y, USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVF.RAGES IN PARKS: Mr. Peterson i.nformed the Commission that the City Council had passed an ordinance regarding the use of liquor in the parks which allowed the use of 3.2 beer on oceasions, ASHTON PARK: �Director Huff showed the Commission a preliminary diagram of the park, He stated that because the building of the underpass had caused a reduction of circulation . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ��1 �}t�PECIAL T4EETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION CAMMISSION - htAY 3, 1976 - PAGE 16 through the church parkin� lot, the coUnty was interested in getting a parking � lot to be used by the church on Sundays and also for use by the park. He showed where a pond 4rould be put in� plus two tennis courts and a basketball court. Mr. Wagar suggested a permanent brick building for use as a warming house be built. a MOTION by Jan Seeger� seconded by Harveg 4fagar, to approve the preliminar,y plans of the park with the reco:nmendation oi' a building being included, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. SOFTBALI,. PROGRAI�T REYORT: Director Huff made a brief report on the status of the softball progr�n� and informed the Corunissi.on there were 5t� teams in softball this ye4r. SP70?rPr-IOBILE RES^1RICTIONS: Mr. Peterson suggested the Commissic5n come up *:rith an ordinance restricting snowmobile use, and rir, k'agar said that there orere other citi�s crno banned them, such as Coon Rapids, iie pointed out there z�rere trails on ldest Rioore Lake �.nd in Locke Paz�k, but there �aere a lot of complain�s 2bout the roise. Director Huff also pointed out that there was a lot of damage in Locke Park cansed bY snowmobiles. He said thai most of the peogle t,;ho use the snowriobiles'were l:nder- age� so it iaas a matter oi convincing the parents. •. � ADJOURNIu�Ir NT • IfOTION by Harvey Ytagar� Geconded by Jan Seeger� that the meeting be adjourned at 12:25 a.rn. Upon a voice vote� aI3 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully subrutted� � �� 4� Sherri L. O�Donnell Recording Secretary � •�w- . � � � � T0: FROM: �� - . Nasim Qureshi - City Manager � Dan H�ff, Acting Director - Parks and Recreation� RE: Tax Farfeit Property DATE: May 5, 1976 7he Parks anc� Recreation Commission has requested that the following tax forfeit parcels be held from public auction fior future park development: J'F—Y,o�S!� of L.35 ; L.7> S)k 7 Aud. Sub. 't92 � Ed9,_e�•rater Gardens E!ZofS z of L.3� � L.B, f31 k 7 Aud. Sub. T92 �Ed: eti•later Gardens Loi 4l L,9, Blk 7 Rud. Sub. �92 Edge��iater Gardens Lot 42 �,7"l�gj�c"� j _"""� A�d. Sub. x92 i Ed e:��ater Gardens � l'ot 4� ���'" .11, Bik 7 , A��d,,, $�p„�9�. � Edge;:ater Gardens ' Lot 48 C , _Fud,_ Sub. y92 Edger:ater Gardens ��� .,� �! i.ia, niK i �ud. S��b. =�92 I Ed e;;ater Gardens � !ot 32 !.l-3, Blk 15 �� � Fridl� Park L.T, BIk�1�; '1 L:i''; �: - Car1 Peterson ' !•taria�� Hills .'L—T� 811'c'l� - -- L.13, B1k ) errace r'larian Ni11s ^r � ��--�+-�K ---------- L.14, E� k Edoc::ater Gardens :i4arian 2.3, BTF,-b�--- Ec�ge�•rater Gardena L.4, BTc�' Edqe:aater Gardens 1.5, Blk 6 � CC:Tom Ed ewater Gardens� Colbert .�. L.l, Blk 7 ,�� � •Edgevrater Gardens - Elsie �g�T Hanscom 9 � Ed eti��ater Gardens L.3, 81k 7 • Ed��:•: �tC'L ' L.4, ulk 7 L.S, Blk 1.6, [3! k EdGet•:ater > a ; �tiits a. � .. L. , Blk t4arian Hills 2nd !�, D 1 k i c,� F�°�ot�:! �•i:'..nQr L•.11, �lk l b7elody Ftar.or • . Outlot l, !4Plodv �•fanor 2nd L.1 , 61 k .+A, Riv2rvier� keights_____ L.'s3, 81 k rl;�, , Riverviee� Heights ,_ L.3�, 611:�AA, Rivervie:,r Heiqhts r--��- . � v �y �� „ � � '�.�� ewm.IRwrYn - . . � . ��.� ��TS1�i 4 I�� � — I � . � . �_' � W � �.. � � `` �� 6 �`�._ .,.a' I `-°-_��,� �"-' __�� `� �� . � .. � 11_ =�IG "_ - 3 � �,• _ .�' _ - � . �lt- .` - - � � _.� � ` i�,a.`�`i � ..;.I+ ;I i r __ - - -- � i a. \ ':*" � '� 'I � ?- - -- � � " `�; � '" iT 1�;c-' -- ,�: � � =� >� ; _° - ..'c /'_ ": I f `iJ . . `� i -_��i 1� I�. ��� � . .,j}=;�,_,�- �` '�tl�: ✓ 31.OtT5 .d ai � . � � ; ,t_ � �. '�t � � � i� ���`- � F--�i� — � ' �'3=�� � �� �`(" \, � � i�� �� r�� �I � �� �� � � � � �5 � rr--:, F i �i . -� � ' � N � . .�-` ri 1 - i' „t � /�;e i-?a I � ( �. �.` �:i� : . . . _ � ` � -J t �� �' r / r � �L,�.`H i ti �L �� . w��E 1 � '-,�`Y,� �'�y � � � _ ��I j a�i �.; -- �- � I��,' 3,-'� ` I �! � � ^ � �„-.�--,-_ . ��� i g % ��,1 r � � # � • �� � •-i f i { ,i I , � 7/:='`� �„ —� � � —r `��-*�-_-��� ,�` i � � k�1 �� , 2,� ' , �ri-� �`'�, ,� ' y.-.�'' . � � j � ' r (� _ �� �A. � � ?L� a �. � . ��� � . � � TS i"'� � tr � r�' �. r'�' �1� \. � P� '�'���'�..L-� 1 i I� ._-_+ � 1� . L � • ' - w_� '_. � ��� I {i'^'�� ::` ..� .y i.�r�, -ii S. -i-3 � t �� '�. I � fr C..J: .�`-1 �� , �TT • T ��'� , �; ��� �, ,�-•��7�' ��' u'�'T�! � � i; � � � � °� . �,� ��� �� � . ��li il ��i/ ; �i t �4 � L� �s�a �` � � �� � < � ' ��.,r � �=�t i ��,„� �.r�'�?. � � �`�`�, ' : €� � , TT '� � 31.��5 I 'L I� � �:Lt1� � � ` �� � F �. �/� ' f: /� � . i' TE7�� � . #,1' Pe�t� � i✓ �� "--+� �; -�,�_ * T1.�L � r � , '� . `� � / 'yw; . ;� �������^ J �I�`i�`�� � "y"� �. . 1 ° '�� � -�-'� J��, �� ,x 7 Lars �i,�� is- / i es.. � / ''�' •--�. � ��, .-- `� - ,r'^-��a .-c�/= � � .. T i_- , � �: � .� /s'��-s.F� � .♦ f � 1 1 � �� - [ i� ��i 'l`\ i:._ at� ` t�r t.'_. I� y�• C" r ' � J ,'� �e�� y��F__ `y \ 4 �� �! d i� _ ` .� � �.y� � ���,.��� _�_ � � ' VJ��� ^ 1 . ' (�I , �-i i ...,.�s,, � T,rTF,''�� - . . ` � '' � �/�; . � ��� i� ' ! � 4 , � ��� l� l� I —� ✓ � ' � �J ' . 1 � r ��� �� S .. I �j[��. l �Ol{7i�'j 1 � � � ! �� � f � ' � . ' _ _ _ � . � i ic� � ~ i �, � ii � `;0�� ,i �l� _ ' � = _ a � � , �r� _ - s =� �\q -- F TT�� � _- — - _ n \ \ r � ,� !11!L� cr � _' � � . � � � $ � . � � �� ` v \u � ��..,.� _ _ 1 . _ . � 1 �� . P � � ' J� ��.. �' _ - = _ _ ? � �E' _ -- — -- — _ ° �, � ' . _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ — � l; � , l� _ _ - _�_ _ _ _ _ � - - --- - - /� _�� �_l._.L� _ - _ = . ; .r_ " ' ' ' . . "' " __ _ . C=i�� �!T'- - STREET MAP-CITY OF = _ _ : ; �;� FRi�DLEY -.- , " 4 � � ` - . _--..._ _`.�.. _` --- - : _.�— . � - - .:.. " � . ^_ ' � COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING � May 11, 1976 MEMBERS PRESEN7: Herman Bergman, Dennis Schneider, LeRoy Oquist MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Hubert Lindblad, William Forster Tom Colbert, Asst. City Engineer Jerry Boardman, City Planner Chairperson Bergman opened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: Mr. Schneider stated he would like to add an item, the approval of the sign project committee members and reviewal of the preliminary goals and ob3ectives of the committee, to the agenda. MOTTON by LeRoy Oquist, seconded by Dennis Schneider, to approve the agenda as amended. Upon a.voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1976 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETIN6: MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to approve :� the minutes of the April 13, 1976 Community Development Commission meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all Voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' � AP N COMMITTEE AND R HE PRELIMI Mr. 5chneider presented a list of names of possible persons to serve on the sign project committee. He added it was his opinion Carig Lofquist from the Naegele Sign Company should serve only in an advisory.capacity. Mr. Boardman stated he had contacted Mr. Lofquist, and he had stated he would be happy to help the com- mittee in any way possible. Mr• Bergman Regls �dne a potential stated he had spoken with a Mr. Howard Mossman of and he had stated he would like to be considered as member. Mr. Schneider stated � had not been contacted by anyone from the League of Women Voters; however, a member of the League should possib]y be considered for membership on the sign committee. MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to accept as members of the sign project committee the following persons: Pat Gable (Appeais), Carol Donahue (Citizen), Sob Schroer (Chamber of Commerce), Dennis Schneider (Chairperson), Lloyd Louis (Citizen), and Howard Mossman (If he accepts the position}. Also, that the Commission consider the 7th member a potential candidate from the League'of Women Voters. Upon a voice vote, ali voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. } ^� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING MAY 11 1976 PAGE 2 Mr. Schneider stated he would contact Jim Stafford, Ralph Carpentar, � and Crai9 Lofquist as possible resource persons of the committee. The Commission reviewed the goals and objectives of the project committee as compiled by Denn'is Schneider, Chairperson of the project committee. The goals and objectives, as finalized by the Commission,are as follows: Goal 1. Objectives Goal 2. Objectives Goal 3. Objectives Goal 4. Provide input in the development of a si9n ordinance which addresses itself to the concerns of the visual environment of the city, thereby making the city a more desirable place to live, work, and visit. A. Propose standards for "visual sign pollution". B. Review existing ordinances (Fridley and elsewhere regarding signs. C. Set criteria for use and type of signing D. Define and categorize the primary uses of signs. Provide for automobile and pedestrian safety by eliminating distractions caused by poor use of signs. A. Collect statistics on accidents possibly caused by sign distraction. B. Propose criteria for placement, itlumination, animation and physical size for signs. C. Propose criteria for multiple signing that allows adequate signing-for business, yet minimizing distraction. � Provide for the freedom of design, style and information on a sign necessary for the business community to utilize signs effectively. A. Develop guidelines so as to allow for new innovations in signing. B. Through public hearings and open invitation to participants with the committee improve the communication between business and public with regard to signage. C. Propose a"code of ethics" with regard to objection- able mater-�al-on signs. Reduce structural hazards to public rights-of-way which may be caused by signing. Objectives: A. Develop a set of standards for sign construction. B. Develop standards for maintenance and repair of signs and destruction of abandoned signs. Goal 5. Protection of land use. Objectives: A. Propose criteria for areas in which signs should be highly restricted or totally banned. �� � ' ;� � � „ -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETIN�, MAY 11, 1976 PAGE /3� . Goa1 5. cont.) B. Identify those areas within the city which meet the criteria of A, above. C. Propose timits on numbers of signs/distance between sign. Goal 6. Recognize the importance of signs in a community. Objectives: A. Identify needs of local business and industry with regards to signs. B. Identify needs of non-local business and industry with regards to signs. C. Identify non-commercial use of signs. Goal 7. Propose fair balance between the environment and needs for signs, thus promotio9 the public health, safety, general welfare, and economic stability of the community. Objectives: A, Provide for a process for public and commercial input prior to adoption of new sign ordinance. B. Propose periodic review of sign ordinances to insure continuing balance. MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to adopt the preliminary goals and objectives of the sign project committee. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. The•Commission decided a report from this project committee would be a standard agenda item for the CDC meetings from this point on. RECOMMENDATION FROM YPC ON TEEN CENTER PROPOSAL: Mr. Boardman stated City staff put together a space utilization program and that the space requested for the teen center will, in. time, be needed f.or administrative offices. He stated it was staff's feeling if a youth center is provided in the City Hall, it should be temporary with the understanding another location be found within three to four years. Mr. Oquist questioned using the City Hall, an administrative build- ing, for the purpose of a teen center. Mr. Schneider stated he saw nothing wrong with using the City Hall for this purpose. The Commission had concerns about the location of this teen center. They also felt the report lacked detail. Mr. Schneider stated he felt the Commission could not act on this proposal until the Commission had further detail. MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to table action on the proposal from the Youth Project Committee until � the next meeting because of a lack of understanding, and that a written invitation be sent to Ned Storla of the YPC inviting him to attend the next Community Development Commission meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. rt �O _ � . .. .. . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETIN6, MAY 11, 1976 PAGE 4 .-" RE-EVALUATION OF STREET LAYOUT NEAR NORTH PARK (PETITION 8-1976): • Mr. Tom Colbert, Assistant City Engineer, was present at the meet5ng to discuss this petition with the Commission. Mr. Colbert stated the City has no plans for a street improvement project in this area. He stated the circulators of this petition were looking for a guarantee toward what will happen in the future. Mr. Boardman stated if 83rd Avenue is deleted from the state-aid status, that would make Ashton Avenue also a City street to be developed with Cjty funds. ATso, the City will have to repay the State for funds used prsviously to develop Ashton Avenue. MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist, to receive petition 8-1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission formulated the following motion followed by the considerations evaluated by the Commissioners. MOTION b LeRo 0 uist, seconded b Dennis Schneider, ihat the Communit DeVe o ment Commission recommend to Plannin Commission t at there be no change to present street patterns as requested by petition 8-1976 at the present time, and that si9ns be placed at Ironton Street to rohibit industrial truck traffic on Ironton Sti^eet. T e following considerations apply: . 1, Some of the {nvolved property ls not yet deVeloped and may require street servlce. 2, tndustrial activity may result from addition development 3�ing dccess pressure. 3. Until further and more final development plans are presented, the possibility of the right-of-way and railroad crossing on 83rd should not be dropped. 4. Every consideration should be taken.to preserve the tree if road development occurs. 5. State-aid funding is involved in the vacation of 83rd and Ashton. 6. Cul de sacs should be avoided and are undesirable, in particular, at industrial park services and in this particular case are in ordinance violation due to street length of Ashton. 7. Consideration of services to residential properties along the corporate limits must be considered. 8. The cul de sacs proposed involve riqht-of-way acquisition. 9. The industrial propertv north of the intersection of Ironton � � F _ i _ ,. . . _ ' _ _ _ . . _ _" ' _ _ i ' _ _ _ .� _ . _ _ _ - UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ,.,s. _ .. .. �1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING MAY 11, 1976 PAGE 5 , i HUM Ri6 � � S COMMI [�iL �Zil.l MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by LeRoy Oquist to accept the Human Resources Commission's Guidelines to End Unconscious Sexual Biases. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye> the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ON BIKEWAY PROJECT CQMMITTEE MEMBER RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Boardman stated Joan Elwell had expressed a desire to serve as a member of the Bikeway Project Committee. She would replace Mr. Schneider on the committee. The Commission requested Vern Moen be present at the meeting, and that at that time someone be nominated as a member of the Bikeway Project Committee. ADJOURNMENT: next CDC and approved MOTION by LeRoy Oquist> seconded by Dennis Schneider> to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, ��. _ Holly onsager Recording Secretary � �� ����� �y �:��� i, _ .k _ � m� {'_ �:. ��{� ' c fi s 4 ��Id�I�I� 1�S$QNxC.E$ �� � ,.;,�...- _ � `'� ; �.�.. �%c :��>_>-: : ;i: _ .� ,�x. � � �� - ��. ,i s ; � r :� �"� s `# �c� # � � '" +'� ,..� . s�:# _ � �r`" +:: i :� � � � � May: 6. ��! �'3 FRBSBNT: Baibua: She�a,_ $asol �S ABS�T. William Scott, Nsac S PRESENT: �arroll Kukowsici, t �i2�svn .Shea opened the meetf�pg ; ���� � � � [�t4li'`3x,� Grace Ayach, $econded'by� �����icte,s_�f the'��April� l, 19]6 H {���3g aa vritten. Upon a vaiae ' .,��s' -��-�.-rY-?�- _ y� �� .F. . £ � �'� 1 �� ,1 �:'. . f �;i�tim, Grace LynCh c F��ert �t�il'voman p.�. RCES COMMIS �e2gam, to app�ove nurces Commission 1 uoting aye, �he �."�a�ried unanimo�8ly. . B�Jt C��TBR STATUS: �Ygum etated he had_ atteuded a C�tamitaity School Board meeting hat the teen center idea had been �asaed; however, they d'; t�tey woudd mot be interested i3c[' su�ervising it or participa- i`n it. hea stated the Parks and.Recre.�Ci�� Gommission had turned the, gxopo&al for 3 wain reasaas: .du�iication of service; of. �exstsanel:or budget to hap.tlie 3t�: and' the room asked 8y iaRt he availab�e. . ej.�um: suggested Sending 8II. �4Ea3'ID&x. C07qntt1II3C8tjOR t0 the �d Recreation Cosmissioa sEatiqg khe Human Resources n��s�cpneexa Lhat the�eaucapt;'o£�a Tgen center belongs_�- ��z' btoad as�a of parks aad ree�;��;�3.oa". �~ b Harold Se � ;.� y �g, �f.secoadt� �p � ae��ynch �to send:snch-an oaal cummun#cati�=�o;; the Par$e "' � �e� ��ereatian Commi.ssion. �--yoice vot�, a�.�.�'.rx¢tiag aye, ��i� �p�ian carried ungnimously. :. . �>'ssj.ou ti�d beeii flitected to a letter �an Home: �Etki:a��,�Fi►at services are iCy. �i sead � tbe C��stv�.ew -Lutheran Home � � #-zen � s Paa�rL�let �t]t�ng' with a cover letter �her 9�eatfaA�ea t��� maY Call either �` , Me-:., Shea,, atated the'; C" '� ; ,�¢iti�-t�ha.G�estview �t��e_ _ � �Y.d4�2,9�i�.�i=,#u-�`this epml&�i3. ��* •�'� �� � � � � ��'8.; I�yu�� stated sice �ra� -t°it'�isp9�` c�£; the Senior C�.�' �a� � �'s�a��:4� �hey have f�it� �'.` ; ��s I��Z ur Bili �coG� .. „_., _. . , � , ^-' - ::: , , >� - � - Y w .� � �3 y� � :° $ - .. - F �aSi '�" ��' AUPtfi#N lt�$#„tf � HUAfAN RSSOttRG`�"e�=�W� 'l4s. Shea sLatet� she ' iiuman Reerrurc�� Avan letter to Pa�1.,�GUSta � �ou tlte aw�rds-"�� gub, � �he Commiesi�ip��tleeic� � �of the °aw�a�rd (� w31� will he p�ea�i�ed d� GtTALS AND OB.%���xtFB� Ms.`Shea bri���'re� Commission di:�xissetY includ� eammtrn�y +v� �8e a#tied- the��r' �%1� ,-��CE��t1g,. � P�IrBRITIE& OF?=�� A1� 1Ks. �hea stat�� Nir. � :age�d.s, The :Ca%�ttais� at Ch� naxt r��ika�;s 8�t' the next Cv��,s�� WINfi$1tIZA2I0N �' I{Ul'� '- �!s . Lyrech s tat�d 's.h� trping to wienC�ti�,�- _ iu Anoka CounCy� at `d on low fixed: ia�svme�s high. Wint�r��i�g.'C �ills:� She�aii4t`ed�t.E� ���to. reiaia tl�e c�i�,ls � pare xhe, di€fei�Ttes. iaheCher 8he f-�� tTte yearts bndget-.',}�a doxs ;;Ms'. Ruftota�ki: s��ed' C3.Cy Gouucil `f��C yr� howevex, fund��C.srttid " • � . ,' , ADJflUR2i�i�1VT; HDTIO� by 6raee Lyda meeting at 9:05 p.�; �¢L#oti casried uaaui - ` �ies�ec`tEully� ��mitt ����� � � ����y' Tanaags������ �i�eoxdfag S��i�eta�� � -�$ -� ..� �-_ u __ _,� ,, �LQ�t MEE1'%NG���ii 1�,�,476 PA�E 2 � d.��eeived seve�al t�ominat3ops far the S�e suggested."the Co�mi�s:ion write a- p�€,�£=the Sun'askiag'that the mews article si�� again. �Y �_ . „�- �.'. . ���£inal d�#E�pii#ati.vn as to th$ -r2c3p�i�nt(s) : �; e�de at th�°=.7�ne areeCing. . Tha award(s) ��'�he 49er IIBty.�; C�lebiation. s�*sc�, the gcrals a�eas �rhich the P1aar�iMg : L t"�ieir last meeLfugf :She added these goals i Ttt�, access,'and s�tuzity, amang othera. e.d.�.seuss�d sud #isa2.i`�ed -at' next month's : . . � . _ ... f ��.�. � �St?ITRCLS C(YAIktTS$ZflPi; att:h�d requested this iC�m be �ut vn the a yr�a askeci st� �irit�g,in the3r pxiorities �t�,dg. This `�t�ut will be di�¢u�sse� further m�8ting. �a � . . . � �:i'.�: ,�s a?orking fa� 2n otgaaization iahich was_ �T��tmes of lc�cr���covie and sen3ar e�:�ti��na� t:cr��. She sC�t�d man}r peoplg are 13ving �iri �aome of th,�%;t;'hsating bills are' very i�`'�6mes couJ:t� �;el� eut dcswn these: heating s�tt��T tequire��ttf`.wou�d be for Efiese families' €ar$ and aftei She winterizaiian to com- M8.`"Lynch aske� :Cou�cilwoman:Rultnwski ity': Caunc3:1 would allat fynd's �rofa nsxt e tt� this`;cause. � s�me orgaat�ation had eome befoi�e tha ��� had rec�.$vec} na �unding. S�e`'adde$, e, r�quested a��ain thi�_;3�ear. �s�t3nded by Harold' �e3gum, to adj:ourn the i]p"u#t a voice .voCe, ail: vaCing ay�,' the u�l� . �; � �- �,: � � � FRIDLEY APPEAIS COr�1ISSI0N MEETING MAY 11, 1976 MEM$ERS PRFSENT: Virgi-nia Wahlberg, Alex 9arna, Pat Gabel, Dick Kemper� Jim Plemel ME'.�iBERS AflSENT: None OTHERS PRrSENT: Ron Nolden� Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman 47ahlberg at 7:33 P.m. APPROVAL C?F APRIi 27, 197fi A°P�.P.LS CO`:"fISSION t17A1U?ES: Mrs. Gabel requested that on oaoe 8, tne £irst paragraph should include the sentence "The granting of the variance �.ouldn't violate any of the stated staff's public purooses". She also stated that on page 9, the fourth paragraph from the bottom should state "and conforms to all other codes". Mr. Barna said that on page 5, the fourth oaragraph from the bottom should read "25 feet from the curb to garage on lot 6". • Chairwoman 'rJahlberg asked Mr. Holden if he had obtained any information on clariiying the prohlem stated on oage 12� paragraph 5, an3 he replied he hadn't yet but would follow up on it. MOTION b,y Mrs. Gabel, seconded b,y Mr. Barna, to approve the minutes of the April 27� 1976 meeting �.ith the additions noted. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously, 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOZdS: 5ECTION 20S.OS3� LB, TO REDUCE THE SIDE Y.9RD SETBACK ADJOINING LIVING AREA� FROM THE RE�UIi?ED 10 FEFT TO 6 FEET� TO ALiA'v1 AN ADDITION TO BE COtdS2RUCTFD TO AN ERISTING IvON-CCNF03'�ING D�LLING IACATF,D OPd THE SOUT?i 20 �'EET OF I.flT S, AND ALL OF IAT 6� 3LOCK 3, ?��'�ILTON'S ADDITION TO MECHAtiICSVILLE, THE SAME BEING 5618 - 5TH STR�RT N.i:., FRIDLEY, AIId. 55�,21. (REQUEST BY D?RS. PAT DUPAY� 5618 STH STREET N.E.� FRIDLEY� P4V. SSlt21} Chairwoman Wahlberg informed the Commission that this request had been postponed unti2 their next meetinp,. 2. A RE�UEST FOR A VARIANCF. OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOidS: SECTION 205.OS3� l�A, TO REDUCE TH�, FHONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 35 FEET TO j1.6 FEET APPcZOXIMATELY (NO SURVEY AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME), TO ALLO'r� THE : CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO BE IACATED Oh' LOT 18� SLOCK 2� S;JATJSTROMS COURT ADDITION, TfIF. SAA'E BEING 1391 - 53RD A9ENUn N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNFSOTA. (REQUEST BY MF?. RAY PRESTENOir� 1391 - S3� AVENUE N.E.� FRIDLEY� MN. S$�2�-) ��RIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING -0F MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 2 Chairwoman `rlahlberp stated that since Afr. Prestenon was not at the meeting to • present his request, and no one was present to represent him� she would entertain a motion to table this request for aariance. MOTION b,y A1r. Plemel� seconded by r1r. hemper� to tahle Mr. Prestencn�s re^,u^st for variance, Upon a voice vote� all voting a,yet the motion carried unanimously. 3. A RE�UBST FOH A VABIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOi�7S: SECTION 20S.OS3� �A, TO RF,DUCE THE FRONT YAHD SBTBACK FRONi THE REQUIRED 3S FE�T TO 30.8 FEET� TO ALI,O'r1 THE CONSTRUCTIOPJ OF A�N .9TTP.CHRD GARA.GE TO BE LOCP.TFD ON LO'fs 66, 67, A;ID 68, BLOrK A, xlvERVI�d HEIGHTS ADDITIOPI, TiiE s,tl•;E BEIA`G 3b9 HUGO STREET' P1.E. � F&IDLEY, P9IIINESOTA. (RnQUEST BY MR. JOHIu fL KOBS� 369 HUGO STREET N.E,, Fr�IDLEY� PiINidF.SCTA 55t,32. ) NOTIOPI by Mr. Plemel, seconded by Air. Barna, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, al; voting zye� tne mc'cion carried unanimou�l,y, ADMINISTRnTI�IE ST.4FF P�EPCRT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIFiEDiENT: Sect.ion 205.053, 1�A, front yard setback o£ 3$ feet. Rtblic purpose served by this section is to allorr for oFf-street parking withoui encroachin� on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consid- eration of the neighborhood to reduce Lhe "building line of sight" encroach- ment�into the neighbor�s £ront yard, • B. STATED HARDSHIP: Variance needed to save the 19.ving room window, C. ADr1IPdISTR4TNE STArF REVIEGd; 369 Hugo is bord�red on the East by a creek and several trees. It is bordered on the ?dest by a house wit,h a setback of approximately 21t feet. The natural terr2in of the lot in question 4rould allow for an attached �arage with the standard 35 foot setback. The sta£f feels that the primar,y considerations in thi.s appeal are any concerns of the neignbors and saving the i-rindow in the East wall of the house. It also appnars that moving the gar�ge back any more than requested t,�ould involve a considerable amount of £ill. Mr. Kobs was at the meeting to pres�nt his request. He showed to the Commission a survey of his lot with the garage sketched in and a phutograph o£ the side o£ the house. He explained the reason he wznted the garage set four feet to the front o£ the house aas that then the n3rage u�ould only go back 22 feet on the house, and his living room windov.� could be saved, He said that without the four foot variance the garage would go 26 feet back on the house� t3nd the back wall of the garage would come directly in line with the window, Mr. Plemel ttoted.that the house to the East was 24 feet from the lot line, and the one to the blest 1M1*as about 20 feet, Mr. Kobs f�rther explained that he would have a concrete driveway� and his present blacktop driveway would be used as part of the fill. He said the property to his east . contained the creek, but it was his understanding that the owner had applied for a .�„'„�.., . 46 �� FRIDL�Y APPEAL5 COriMISSION A7EETING OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 3 . building permit for that property and had been turned down because of the creek. MOTIOh by Mrs. Gabel� seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motio.n carried unanimously. Mr. Plemel said that he could understand Mr. Kobs £eelings� and because of the reasons stated he would have no o`ujection to grantinr, the vari�nce. M^. Kemper agreed. MOTION b,y iAr. Plemel, seconded by i;rs. Gabel, to grant the variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairwoman Ftahlberg informed Airc Kobs that he could now apoly for his building permit and proceed iaith construction� and that this would also be routinely reviewed by the City Council, 1�, A RE�UEST FOR A VARIAtiCE OF TAE FRIDLBY CITY CODE AS rOLLObIS: SECTION 205.053, ��� `P� P.rDUCE T�IE SIDE YARD S�TBACfi FOR LIVIPIG AREA FROFf THE RE�UIRED 10 FEET TO $ FEET APPROXIi4ATBi,Y, (ii0 SURVEY AVAILABL� AT THIS TI1•ir:), TD ALUJ?�7 AN ADDITICid TO BE COtiSTRUCTr�D ON^10 TN.E BACK OF API EXISTI.TUG D1^��LLZNG LOCnTED ON LOT l� BI.00K l� i�fEP.D047L1'+izDS ADDITIO;d, THE SAi•� BBIi1G 881-66TH AVE�'UE N.E., FRIDLEY� MIiV;VESOTA 55l�32. (RE�QUEST fiY 2•R. ?�!ICiirBL J. GUSTAFSGid� 881-66TH AVa�,1Jr� N.E. � FRIDLe,'7� AiIidtiFSOTA SS:132. ) • MOTION b,y ,fr. Barna� seconded by i•Srs. Gabei, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voiing aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADPfINISTRAl^iVE Si'.iFF RBPORT A. PUBLIC PURFOSE SERVED BY RE��UIR.F�iB1dT: Section 205.053� �B� side y2rd setback of 10 feet. Putilic purpose is to maintain a minimum o£ 20 feet between livinc areas in adjoining structures and 15 feet between garages and living areas in adjoining structures to reduce exposure to confl�ration of fire betr�een structures and to allow £or aesthetically pleasing open 2reas around residen'tial structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Family (with single car garage) needs more room and private covenant on land doesn't allow building of an accessory structure, C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIErr1: Field measurements show that there is 10 feet� 2 inches between this existing garage and the garage to the west. There is no living area below these two garages. The back walls o£ the two garages are approximately in line� which would mean that the proposed addition irould involve living area within 10� feet of the neighboring garage. The petitioner has stated that he doesn't plan to install any windo*as on the west side of this addition. Apparently the lower level would be used for storage. Although the petitioner's deed or priva_te covenant on his land doesn�t allow : for an accessor,y structure, City Code section 205.051, 2A, allows one accessory structure. It is not the City's job to enforce private covenants, Staff feels that a primary consideration in this request would be the feelings of the neighbor to the west. �'�'RIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION MESTITIG OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 1� Mr. Gustafson oras at the meeting to present his request. He shorored the Commission . photopraphs of his house and a surve,y that was made before the house taas constructed. He pointed out where the addition would be put on. Chairwoman Wahlberg asked if his d4relling iJent back at an angle, and Mr. Gusta£son said it got S'urther awa.y from the lot line. She asked what he proposed to add on� and he replied a walk-out basement with a family room upstairs followine the exact constrtiction of the house, He explained th�re would be a door into the basement and a door into the upstairs� and that the basement would be u=ed for storage. Ae stated thac he had a sinAle-nar gara�ze and r.i.s deed stated he could r.ot build a shed� and his family� rrhich included three children� nreded the storage room, Chair�!oman Wahlberg asked if there were an,y other living quarters behind the �arage� and hir. Gustafsnn renlied th�re �•rasn�t� anri it had been fi.11ed in. NIr. Kemoer asked if there was oresentl,y a basement under the home but not under the garage� and Mr. Gustafson said that was correct, and he o;ould not be dirging out under the garage, 1�Ir. Plemei as1_:ed if the neighbors had something built or.� and t�fr, Ulrstafson answered tnat they had added on 2bout five ,years ago. Chairwoman iN'ahlber;; asked if there iaere any particular reauirements that the city 4•rould make on this in regard to fire hazardss and I�Ir. Holden said he 1;-oul.d strongly reco*mnend window� be e2iminated zn the living asea on the o;est side. He also said tha.t sheet rock V:ould be reouired before the siding went on. Chai_rcaoman Wahlberg poinied out the £ire r,rotection Urould be wise for their orn protecti.on 2nd for insurance ourposes as well, and i:r. Gustafson said he didn't mind if there were any.stipulations. . Chairt•:oman Ylahlberg r�ad the fol7:o�:rin� letter from hlr. Gustafson's neighbor to the vrest: Re: I•;ichael J. Gustafson 861-65th Ave., t�.E. I give My permission for a variance i�rith the �'ollovrin� stipulation: that the house is extertacd not any closer to the lot line than it is now. If it tiaere extended closer it would make rry propert,y lose in resa7.e value, as the FHA and VA would not approve of loans for a house with an unclear title. The letter was signed Kerry Brunkow� and dat.ed ?Iay 9� 197b. MOTION by Mr, Plemel, seconded by P4r. Barna� to receive t}ie letter. Upon a voice vote� all voting a,ye, the motion carried unanimously. Nr. Barna asked h]r. Gustafson ii he realized he Vrouldn�t need a vzriance i£ he would move the addition over� and A1r. Gustafson replied he did t�ut then there riould be dead space and the cost would be 2bout the same. He also explained he wanted to coincide with the existing overhang £or aesthetic reasons� and that i£ he did move the addition over he would have to break up an existing patio. Chairwoman Wahlberg said she was concerned about gas fumes, and asked if there was any direct access from the house into the garage from the room behind� and Mr. Gustafson said there vras not. � �:� .. FRIDLEY APPEAIS COhiMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11� 1976 - PAGE 5 �� MOTION b,y hir. Plemel, seconded by Mrs. Gabel� to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. .� MOTIOPd by Mr. Kemper, seconded by Mr. Plemel, to approve the request £or variance with the stipulation that a fire t�rall be re�uired on the west side. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl,y. Chairaoman �Iahlberg er.plained to Mr. Gustafson that his reauest had been approved and he :aas iree to apply £or his building permzt, S. A RE�UEST FOR A VARIAidCE OF THE FBIDLEY CITY CODi AS FOLIA,JS: SECTIOI� 20�.053, �t1, TO R?�D'JC� TH: �ROi1T Y.L�iJ SF:i3�CK F??Ci�1 TIlE F.P�.^..uIR??D 35 FT.�zT TG 29 =�FT, `i0 AiI,O',1 1HE CO2d�T3UCTI0id OF ? HOIIS� 4Sdll GARAGE TO BE LO�ATED ON THE EAST 85 FFET Or LOT 1� BLOCK l, 0AK CREEK ADDITION'PLAT 2, THE Sk?;n 3EITwG 109 GLEId CREEK 30AD N.E.� r^�IDLEY� ;•iI;dIIESOTA. (REQUFST BY i•iR. ROi'd EidR00TH, 73�t0 EAST RNER ROAD Ri;,., FRIDLEY� rQ1. 55432) MOTION by Mr. Kemper� seconded b,y PLs. Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting �,ye� the motion carried unanimously. ADidINIST�TNE ST9FF REPORT A. PUBLIC PiTRPOSE SERVED BY Rr.QUIREhfENT: Section 205.053, 1�A� front yard setback o£ 35 feet. Public purpose served by this section is to allo�r £or off-street parking . � �,rithcut encroacliinp on the public right of way. Also the aesthetic consid- eration of the neighborhood to reduce the "building line of sig}:t" encroachment into the neighbor's front yard, B. STATED HARDSHIP: A 3$ ioot �etback would involve the removal of one additional tree� and a lesser setback l.�ould fit in better r.-it� existing setbacks. C. ADi9IIQISTRATNS STArr R�VI�•F: �7camination of the lot shoors that a 35 foot setback would in £act require the reMOVal of one additional tree. The house ?�1est of this lot has a 39 £oot setb2ck. The g2rage to the ��st is setback 23.2 feet from the front loi line� :�7hich is pexmissible bec�u=e it is situated on a corner lot. This lot is the result of a recent lot split by the oz•mer to the East� caho is also the petitioner. Although an additional tree would be sacrificed to build with a 35 foot setback, such a setback zaould not be out of order because the City Zonzng Code does allow for a 17.5 setback for a corner lot such as the lot to the East� in this, case. There is an 8 foot boulevard in this area� which would give a 37 foot setback £rom the curb �aith a 29 foot setback. Mrs. Fnrooth was at the meeting to represent her husband� who had been called away on a business trip. Chairxoman [dahlberg read the following letter to the Appeals Commission dated May 10� 1976 from Mr. Ron FRirooth: � Subject: Request for variance - front yard setback - 109 Glen Creek Road, Fridley. '�"..'�.� _'FftIDLFY APPEALS COt•1�9ISSION t•IEETING OF A9AY 11� 19?6 - PAGE 6 A business trip for my employer (HoneyYrell) has made it impossible for � me to attend your meeting 'Ilzesday ni.ght, Please do not judge my absence as a lack of interest or importvtce on the above subject matter. A lot split� earlier this ,year, was apnroved by the Planning Department and the Cit,y Council� conforming to city regulations. I have t,�ro reasons £or req_uesting the setback variance: l. To save one mature maple tree. 2. Provide a gradual setback in comnarison to tn� adjacent lots� i.e.: the setback to the east is 23.2 feet� to the west 35 £eet. In addition to the setback� the city has a£ull 10 foot easement from the lot line to the street. I have discussed thi.s setback variance rrith a11 the neighbors �:'ithin 100 feet of said property� vrithout ob;ections. I own the proaerty to the east� Ben Ho to the south, end Dean Coleman to the west, Please see si�ned statem�ts from I�irs. Ho and ;•Irs. Coler�an, Thank you for your consideration. P•SOTION by i�Trs. GabAl, seconded by l�Ir, Plemel� to receive the letter Srom �Ir. . E�rooth,• Spon � voi.ce vete� all votiing aye, th� a��ion c3rri.ect unanimoL�sl;/. � Chairozomar. i;T<,hlber� said the surve.y sho��:ed a 30 foot sEtback, and asked if this Nras a. chanFe from the 29 foot setback, t•Yrs. Enrooth replied she thought so, but wasn't positive, hir. Holden showed on the dra�rin� thai; bp us'ing the house plan sho�mithe trees cou].d b.e saved, Chair�roman '�+ahlberg asl:ed i£ there ;,�as seme douot in their minds as to the actual design oi tne house� �id i�Irs. �3irooth said the,y chose the side- split to save the trees, and the plans zaere being dra:m no���. Chairtiaoman ,�Jahlberg said that i.f there was any way they could taork out the p7.an to go bacic even flcrther, that t,*ould be preferable, bui 29 feet v=ould be as c].ose �s the�� could come if this ��arianr.e is to be anproveci. She asked if the living area would be across the back o£ the house, and rtrs. �rooth replied it i•rould, i•;r, Barna asked if the back of the lot was on the creek, and Mrs, k�rooth said it.was not. P10TION by Mr. Plemel� seconded by Mr, Kemper, to close the nublic heari.n�. Upon a voice vote� all voting a,ye� the mot.ion carried unanimously. Mrs. Gabel comrnented that aestheticall,y this would be more pleasing� and she favored saving the t^ees. She said she wouldn't have any objections. AfOTION by Mrs, Gabel, seconded by Mr. Barna� to grant the variance, Upon a voice � vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimousl,y. Chairiaoman WahlberF told Mrs. Enrooth that the,y could proceed with the construction. FRIDLEY APP�AIS COMMISSION NIEETL'VG OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 7 `�3� •6. A REGUFST FOR A VARIA,ICE OF THE FrTIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOYIS: SECTIOIr' 205.�53, 1B, TO REDUCE TH� IAT AREA� FOR A LOT PLATTID BEFOR� D�CE'i•IBER 29� 19SS, FR019 75�0 S"UA�E FEET TO 5500 SeUP�F FErT� TO ALLO:^7 Ti{E CCi:STRUCTIQN OF A D;�IELLINQ i0 BE LQCAT'r'.D O:d LOT 17 AND 18� BLOCK H� RIVF.RVIE:•? HEIGHTS� THE SAt�iE BEIN�^. 533 GL�tiCOE STRnET N.E., FRIDLEY, hiRi. (RE^UEST BY hiB. A. L. WILLIAI�IS� 9L�% - 86TH AVE?1UB N.�r7. � COOy RAPIDS, MINN. ) MOTIOt1 by Mr. Plemel, seconded b;,r Itrs, Gabel, to ooen the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. ADhiINISTRATIVE STAFr REPORT A. PJBLIC PURPOS� SERVE� BY REQUI��'•iENT: Section. 20$.053� lA� lot area reauire- ment o£ 7$00 square feet. Public rnirpose served by this section is to avoid the condition of over crot�rding of tne residentia2 neignborhood. Also to avoid excess burden on the existing water and seiaer services. B. SiATED HkRDSYIP: Lot as platted is undersized. C. ADr1INISTRATIVE STAFr REVIESd: Staff research and pictures indicate that there are several other houses built on 50 £oot lots in this immediate area. This lot is serviced Y71t.h set•rer and water, as are most ot.her 50 foot lots in the area. The lots on either side o£ 533 Glencoe are alread,y • deve�oped. Unless there is some objection by the neighbors� Staff has no objection to this variance reauest. 1•Ir. �dilliams t•;as at the meeting to present his reauest. He told �he 3oard th2t he was a build:ng coniractor, and the loi as pl2tted laas undersized. He explained that no survey r:as available yet, but he wished to build a 26� R 3�' house witn no garage. Iie said that most lots in ihat area were 5G'. I�?r. Barna said th� rouse io the East was new� and the house to tne 1^:est t:as an older home and had just changed hands. He also said there s:as no possibility of there ever being an alleyway. Chairwoman �-Fahlberg asked if this was a lot split� end D1r. Williarns said it was aot, She stated the City Code said at least one of£-street parking stall should be provided, and Mr. SJilliams explained they required hard-surfaced drivewa,ys but no garages on these lots, and said there were many homes in the a_rea without gara�es. Mr. Plemel stated he thought that new construction required at least a single- car garage� but hir. Williams said that was not the vay the code read. Chair�•:omasi Wahlberg commented that the ordinanee was not clear� and onl,y talked about 9,000 square foot lots, She said it stated that at least one off-street parking stall shall be required for each dwellin� unit� and Mr. 4lilliams said he believed that . meant a blacktopped area� and that he thought anything less than 7�500 square feet did not reauire a garage. He stated he built on a �5 X 110� lot last summer and there was no requirement for a garage. He added that the house to the east did not have a garage� and that was a new one. 51 FRIDLEY APPEALS COP'�ITSSIOi1 MEETING OF MAY 11, 1976 - PAGE B Chairwoman 'rdahlberg said that the ordinance also required that the parking stalls i shoul.d not re�uire an,y portion of the £ront yard� and Mr. P,arna stated he t•iould be in fa_vor of building on this lot just to get the other people to clean up their property. Nlr, Holden said the stall would have to be on the side of the house� and added that variances had been granted in the past r:ithout garages on lots of thi, size, Chaircaonan �rah2berg asked i�ir, Williams i.f he �aas planning to put in a drivewa,y� and he replied he was �oing to put in a hard-=ur£aced drive��ray, hlrs. PJahlberg said then it was clearly i•�thin the ordin^sice as it appears. Mr. Ylilliams showed the Commission a olan of the house he would build� and hIrs. Gabel asked �•rhat would ha�nen if the gara;;e was left on the p]_an. B1r, bdilliams said there was no *,;�a,y it would fit on tre propert�r, hlrs. Gabel said she �ras very concerned about visual nollution. Chairt�=oman ,•lahlberg asked iY he had considered buildi_�� a garage in the oack yard� and I•ir, l�illiarns said thdt this house was sellir.g for $30�000 Urithout a gara.ge and it c�rould be better to let i;he home o*.aner add the garage himsel£, Mr. Kemper asked i,r. ?�tilliams tahen he planned on starting con;,truction� and I•fr, ti�lillivns replied as soon as he pot the okay. Chai^woman L�tahlberg ask�d if he had snoken directl�� to tne neighbo;s on either side� and i!r. ��iilliams replied he hadn't as ne didn't think it taas necessar,y. Pir. Holden sei.d he had spoken to on� o£ the neighUors and they didn't seem to have any objections. DSOTION by Tir. Plemel, seconded b,y rlr. Barna� to close the publi.c hearing. Upon • a vozce vote.� a17. voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. h1r. Kemper stated his position cias that, he wou13 like to see building on these sub-stendard lots� but was conc�rned about the intern^etation of the code. He added that he would like the City Council to be made a*,,are of t?:is request. i•Irs, Gabel agreed, �sid sa:d it shnuld be in+,erpreted m.ore �'.,^rou;hl;�. Pir. Iiolden said that a possible con�i.deration vrould be that since it is a small housa there may not be any cars on the lot at all� i'or instance if a zetired couple purchased i.t. Mr. $arna stated that tne property o*aners behind his lot had built garages last year, xhich made the back of his ].ot a solid „�a7.1 of garages. He said that this visually encroaches on the property directly behind them. Chairiroman tiiahlberg asked .if the Plann9_ng Commission should review this� and the Commission agreed.that it should, I�fOTION by Mr, Barna� seconded by Mr. Plemel� to grant the variance, Chairc•roman idshlber_¢, said they should make the point that their interpretation of the code as stated eurrently is that no garage is required� however, a parking area is required to the side of the house beyond the 35 £oot ::etback. She suggested a motion to request the Planning Commission and any subcommissions that iaish to address this si.tuation, to review the subjer,t of parages on sub-standard lots, � She stated the iahole zoninR ordinance was to be reviek�ed in the near future� and this Commission should reauest specific guidelines on this. S2 FRIDI,�Y APPEALS COAIMISSIOtI ASEETING OF hIAY 11� 1976 - PAGF, 10 • Public puroose served is to provide desired rear ;✓ard �pace to be used for green areas �rihich add to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Ii also provides needed spaces for tne mental r�*ell being o£ the Samily. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Lot unbuildable as olatted an3 v3riance to rear yard seth3ck renuired in order to lruild house as planned. C. ADh;IT1TSTRATIVR STAFF REVIE`;1: 8030 Broa3 Street I'd.E. is bordered b,y houses imnediately to the Ilorth, and across the street to tne South on Broad Street. The house to the ;;orth, Fi090 3road Street� is setback 36 ieet £rom the street. This house is bu?.lt on t�•:n thirt,y toot lets and one 25 £oot lot, total:in^ 85 feet, To the Sout?� ri00 El�� Str�et is huilt on two thi.rty £oot lots� annd two trrenty-five foot lots. T'r.zs house is s�toac'.< thzrty •`eet £rom ?3road Street. West oS thi� property are t.ro ttiaentv-zi.ve _oot lo�s not oc,ned U� the petitioner. These t:?o t��:enty-£ive foot lots are served t-;iih se:*�r and iaater� as the t=ao lots at 80R0 3road Street id.E, Ideall,,�� all. £o�ir lots should be developed as one, but separate o�aner�nip is _nvolved. The rear yard variance rec?uest may be of some inconvenience to the neighbor to tae ?Test t;hen and i±' he builds. Several other lots of similar =ize have been develoned in this area. 4tr. :+illiams explai.ned the p?�otograph of the lot to the Board. He expl?ined this � i•*as a corner lot o£ 60 X 21G' :rhich t•rould be Sacin� 3road Sir•�et, Chair:roman :?ahloerr; asked wny the re�r ��ard setback r:as 27�-� £eet, and i�ir. Holden replied it i�ras because 27�� o£ the lot depth i•ras re^uirea. Ch�irc•rom�n ��Jahlberg referred to the Cit,y Code r;hich stated: Th� side }-erd s-:idth on a street side oS a corn�r lot sh?11 oe not les=. than 17.7 feet, �;m�n the lot to the rear has £rontage a'_ong s side streei, no �ccessory building on ti�e corner lot� ~:�ithin 25 feet of the conmon prop�rtv line, �hall be closer io said side street than 30 feet; DTOVided� ho;reve^, tnat thi.s regulation s?�all not be so ittterp�eted as to reduce thc buildable �ridth of a corner lot to less than 27 feet. She asked if Broad or F2irmont is cons:.dered the side si;r�et fcr the house benin? them, :ind i•ir. ?:�: lden rer.lied Broa l S*reei. "'r. �3arna explaine3 the 2ot front was on Fairmont, but the house front ::*as on �road. Chairtaoman l�7ahlberg said +heir main concern r,as reducing the lot area £rom 7�500 square feet to 6,boo s?uare feet� and reducing the rear ,yard setoack from 27za £eet to 21 feet. She asked ho;a close the st:-uctur� �•�as on Fairmont� an�1 Pi^. ?�?il.lia.�s reolied it ca2s prettv close to the lot line in back. i�ir. ?•Iilliams said that that garage was underneath the house� and shoiaed the Commission ho:a he would drive in to tne tuck-unrler garlge. Mr. lJilliams stated that a 7.ot in Riverviea Hei�hts iaas not �rorth �10�000, and each fi.°t,v £oot lot was valued arnund $5�500 in tliat 2rea. He stated that this lot needed a 1ot of fill on the North end of the lot 2nd up agai.nst Broad Street. � Chairwoman Wahlber� said that if this passed� t'�ey were creatin�; another fi£t,y foot lot cahich rrould be squeezed in� as the house kould be ten £eet from the lot line, She also r.oted that it rras close to the floodplain,area� but not in it. 5TyRIDLEY APPF.AIS COhU�fISSION hfEETING OF MAY 11� 1976 - PAGE 9 J A9r. Holden su�±!*ested that they might he getting into a sticky area making this contingent on this particular renuest because of the policy that had been set in the past allowing structures with no garages, Mr. Kemner said that in this particular case the Administrative Staf£ Report did not address itself to this particular item, and the plans didn't appear to be available. Ae added that he was concerned that the subject of garages on sub- stsndard lots be clarified in the code, Upon a noice vote� Chairwoman Gtah].berp� Mr. Barna and I-ir. Plemel voting aye; P1rs. Ga_bel and 1Ir. KeMper voting nay, the motion carried 3- 2. ttOTI0T1 by ?�?r. Remner� seco recr.irements for sin�7e or un;�aved drive;•rays as ih�y b,y the Pl?nnin�; Commission votih� a,ye, the motion car . Barna, that he szb,�ert o£ �a reauirements for 000 snuare feet ions. Unon a vo or � Chair;aoman ?Iahlberg stated that part of their concern in making this reauest is the number of 1�0' lots �a 50� lots aY�ich ar� being truilt on, and tahich potentially could be built on, t•rithout garages, She said this Commission would like some guidelines, Chaircroman �r7a_hlberg asked i�Sr. Holden if the Inspection Department would take a look at the drive:•*ay on the adjacent property to the East of 533 Glencoe� as it appears there is a violation of the ordinance. 7. A RE�JUESi F03 VARIADTCFS OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COD; 9S FOLI.OtdS: SECTIOid 205.053� 13� TO REDUCE TA� LO^1 t1REA� FOR A LOT PLaTirD R��'pgE DF.CEh'.�,ER 29s 19'>5� FRO?1 7[00 S�ii�R� rr,3T TO 6b00 S�UI!.RE FEET� A?v'D SrCTIOi'I '05.��3� !�C� TO REDU�� THB RE;F. YA�D S13TBACK rr[OM TI�F �E�UIR}3D ?�''� FE;ET TO 21 Fr.ET� TO PLL0�7 THE COtdSTRUCTIOP: OF A D;v'F,LLItiG AND G'E.ItP.GE TO BE LCCA1'ED Oid LOTS 1 ADTD 2� BIACK U� RIVERVIESd 'r',EIGi�TS� THE Ski�iE BEII�G 8080 BROAD STREET P1.B., ri2IDLEY, hfIPdNi50TA 551a32. (RE^UEST BY 2�fR, A. L. idILLIAhiS� 9�17 -�6TH AVENUE �i.'�d.� C00tv RP.PIDS� A1Di,) P,OTIOi7 by hlr. Barna, seconded by Mr: , Ga_bel, to op�n the public hearin.g, Ugon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanirnously. ADMINISTRATIVE STA}�F REPORT A. PUBI,IC PURPOSE SERVED BY REOUIR�-L5T1T: 1. Section 205.053� 3�� lot area reo,uirement of 7500 sauare £eet. Public purpose served by this section is to avoid the condition of over croording of the residential neighborhood; also to avoid excess burden oh the existing sewer and water services. 2. Section 205.053, l�c, a minimum rear yard setback of 25� of the lot depth not less than 25 £eet is required. � . � FRIDLL'7C APPEAIIS COh4+lISSI0P7 1�iEETING OF P�1AY 11� 1976 - PAGE 12 5� . Riblic purpo�e served by this section is to allox for off-street narking without �ncro�ching in the public right of wa,y. Also the aesthetic consideration of tne neiPhborhood to reduce the "buildin� lin� of sight" encroachment into i;he neighbor's £ront ,yard. B. ST,4TED IiARDSHIP: Lot as nlatted is unbuildable. Setback variances re�uired to build a?!�' X 3L' house� srith a 20' % 22� attached garage. C. AD�fI1lIST3ATIV"3 STAriF REVIEi:: Checkin� =urrounding p^operti.es� Staf£ finds that several other houses in the area have been built on 60 foot and even 50 foot lot.s. 698 Jane�vil2e is bordere3 on tne East and Scuth by vacant lots, inis addres� is serviced �•rith sermr and i•:ater, Sta£f cannot comment on the house desi�n or size :u�til ol�ns are provided, I4r. :dilLar:ls explained to ths Com.mission he �-:ou13 be using the sa-�e house plan. He shorred to the�n the survey and a photogranh o£ the ].ot, I9rs. Gabel asked 1•Sr, ?^iillia �s i.f he tirould be able to save some o£ the trees, and he rcplied he *.�ouldn't be able to save too manf� but they i;ere box e�der trees. I:e stated he didn�t t2.e anv trees doxm that didn't have to corre do;:*n. Chair-,:oman '.•Iahlberg a;sked if the entranc� to the gar?ge :aould cone n£f of Ja�esville, and D1r, l;illia�ns rF�lied it t;ould. �ne asked I>?r. Ho7.den r:hat constitutes .�a:in� a front yard� and he replied that it :;as a vard extendinz across the °ull :rid+h of the lot and lying bet��een the front line of the 1ot and near�st line oi ti:e • buildinF. 1•Irs. Gabel asked i£ the neighbor� had any objections� an� i'�r. ?•rilli�-,s renlied they diu' not, 1�OTIOId by I•il. Ba.rn2� seconded 'o�r ?�ir. Ker��e^, to clos� the public hearinr�, lipon a voice vote� all votino aye� the motion czrried un=:nii:�ouslv, ?�1r. Kemper asked if there vrere any build5.ng conditions, and A?r. Holden *enlied that since it tiaas close to a floodpl2in ar�a� elevaiions xould ae set 2nd recuired, MOTION bZ> i•?r. Plemel� seconded bg i=?r. B,rna, to grant th� variance, Uuon a voice vote� all voting ave, the motion carried unanimously. 9, p ggnUgST FOR A VARIANCi OF TH� FRIDLEY CITY CQDE !�S F�LLOI-IS: SECTIOiJ 20S.OS3� 1�8, TO REDUL'E THE SIDE YP.RD ADJOIiJIIvG LIVIidG AR'r,9 FROI•I THE RE^;JIRED SETBACK OF 10 FIi�T TO 5 FEET� iCl ALLO�ri TAE COi:S1'BUC^tIOPv' OP' A HOL`SE 9T�iD GP.IiAGr TO $E LOCATED 0[3 IATS 39 AI(D IiO, BIACK 5, SPRIir'G BROOY PARK ADDITIOTd� THE S?1I� BEI�G 160 LIB'r.;RTY STRE�T Td.E.� FRIDL�Y, ?•�u. ;51�32. (�c�u�;sT ar r�. LAiv:tFNCE A. SCHNiIT2,� �1057 L•7.4SHIivGTOId STREET N.:., A1IidNEFR�LIS, 1•1:7. 55:121.) hfOTI0:1 Uy rfr. Barna, seconded b,y i•1rs. Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting a.ve, the motion carried unanimously, ��� 5� FRIDT.F.Y APPEALS COI^��fISSIOid hYEETING OF PiAY 11� 1976 - PAGE 11 Mrs. Gabel stated she hated to be in this position if the,y didn't have to be, but sometimes it appeared they had no choice. She said she didn�t see an,y particular • oroblem �rith this lot� and the house plan would be pleasing to the area. hi0TI0N b,y hir. Plemel, seconded by Atr. Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Air. Plemel said this t•*as a nice lot in that area� and he taould speak in favor of this because of the reasons Mr. �r7illiams presented. 1•fOTION b,y i•ir. Barna, seconded hy P•ir. Kemper� to gr2nt the variance, Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried una.nimously. 8. A RE�UEST FOR VARIAidC'sS Or THF FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLOi'�1S: SECTIOiI 20-ri.OS3, 1B, TO REDUC : TRc LOT AF�� FCR A LOT PL!tTTED BEFOP.E DECII,BER 29� 1955� r'�Ot•1 7500 �QITGR�. F�ET TO 6216 S�Ui.kE FFET� 9ND SECTIOid 20S.�S3� �C� TO REDUCE THS REAR YARD SETBACK FROP4 THE REQUIRED 29 F&r,T TO 22 r EET, AtdD SECTIOid 205.OS3, ti!+, TO REDUCn THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM tHE Rr.�UIRED 35 FEET i0 25 FNE1� TO AL7Ab; THE COPdST?UCTIO:d Or A D.:'ELLING AND G".RAGE TO BB LOCATED OId LOTS 29 APID 30� BiGCK (a� RIU�RVIh�d AEIGH?'S� T[iE SAI�i�' IiEING fi98 JPSdEjVILLr SiRr'.�T P3.E,, FRIDLEY� tIII1A7r.SOTA 55432. (itE�UEST BY Au`�. 'a. L, l��LI,Tf��,`S� 91�? - 86TH AVEidlir. � Id,T^7, � COOIv RAPIDS� ?-;id. } Ai0TI0N by P1r. Barna� seconded by hyr. Plemel� to open the oublic hearing. linon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion car:ied unanimous7i�. ADP4INISTRATNF STAFF RFPO.T A, PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREI�fENT: 1, Section 205.053, 1B, lot area requirement of 7500 sauare feet. Publir. purpose served by this section is to avoid the condition oi over crooiding of the residential neighborhood, Also to avoid excess burden on the existing crater and sewer services, 2, Section 205.0$3� LtC, mini�mim rear yard setback of 25io of lot depth V�.th minimum of 25 feet. Public puroose served by this section is to orovide desired rear yard space to be used for green are2s orhich add to the attractiveness oF the nei�hborhood. It also provides rzeeded�spa.cn ior the mental well being of the famil,y. 3, Section ?_05.0�3� �tA� front yard setback of 35 feet. i - -,�..,,,,� - FRIDLEY APPEAI�S COt'U�fISSION I•SEFTING OF idl�Y 11, 1976 - PAGE 13 ,ry�j ADt•fINISTR4'PNE STAFr REPORT • A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIR�i9EIIT: Section 205.053� �'�� side yard setback of 10 feet. Azblic purpose served by this section is to mai.ntnin a mini^!iun of 20 f�et bet-•r.en gar�.�es and living areas in ndioinin� structures to: 1. P.educe exposu*e to conflagration of £ir� bet;•�een structures, and 2. To alloro; £or open areas around residential structures to maintain 2estheticall,y pleasing surroundings, B, STATED H�RDSI�IP: Size oi proposed house doesn't allot�r for 5£oot and 10 foot setbacks. ' C. ADRtItdIS'Pi�ATIVE ST."•.FF REVI��7: 160 Liberty is comprised of t;-ro 30 foot lot� and is bordered on the ?dest b,y a house consiruct�d on t*.•ro similar 30 foot lets. Our £iles �ho*.r the o�.ner oi' the t:ro lets at 160 libert>� and the t.�o 30 £oot lots to the East to be S&;•7 Realt,y Comp3ny. In as much as several other 60 foot lots are being built on in Fridley w�ithout variances to sine yard setb2.cks� t?�e Staf£ feels that a house could be designed either criih an attached or detached gara�e to comply !�ith the Code. Mr, and i�Irs. Schmitz aoproached the Board to present $cir recu�st� alerig �;ith i�?r. James Bergstrom o£ 170 Lio�rty Street. P>rs. Schmitz s1-io*a�d t^e Commissien nhoto- • graph; of the 2ot and tne house plan. She er.pla:ned the lot r:2s on a de�d end streei ;:Tiih a factory on the other side, hir. Bergstrom, their neighbor to the ?`est� described the problen he had t::ti� the factor�r t:orkers oar'_�ino in front of ris house and un ar:d 3cr.z? t�e street. I•?r. Holden said tha_t eitrer the £actory�s narkin� faciliti�s re�e no+, beina used� or there :lasn't adenuate parking nrovided, an3 ne ;�:ou1d look into it, Cha_ir;,onan Ulahlberg pointed out that tnere taould be sFrious nroblems i•rnen const*uction s;arted with trucks coming to the site rrith all the parked cars on th� street. Chairi*oman ;;'ahlUerE, asked i.f t.he,y h*ere planning to build saitnin £ive feet oi the lot line on both sides� and hirs. Schmitz reolied t�:ey �•:ere. I�;rs. 4i�hlberg asked if they needed a double garage� and ?Sr�. ScYu:�i'tz ans:rered they ?:�ould as the,y had two cars. Chairwoman :Tahlberg said tne nroblem t�;as the,y i�ere literally fenced in on both sides� and 1•ir, Bergstrom said he intended to take his £ence doNm, He said he was concerned about building a separated gara.ge in the back on his lot three feet from the property line� and he was told he could do that, Chairz•roman Ylahlberg suggested to the Schmitz� that the,y turn their house plan totally around so that their living area would run along the back of the lot. She pointed out thaL they would gain more orivacy, hir. Holden suggested the,y have Plywood hiinnesota do a mirror image of the floor plan, so the bedrooms ��rould be to the factory side. Chair4roman Wahlberg said they would still need a variance, but it would be less of a variance, • Chaireroman 1Jahlber� told 1•ir, and Mrs. Schmitz thai it would be unfair of the Commission to suggest this change without giving them time to consider it, and offered to table the request until the next meeting to give them time to think it over. �z ��i'RIDLEY pppg,pLS COI�A;ISSIOi1 A�F,ETING OF 1�fAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 1!� Chairsaoman l�?ah7.ber� said ;he :�ras concerned about granting this variance v�hen she • felt tnat perhaps if the £l.00r plan was turned there would be another alternative to consider, A sixt,y foot lot is buildable, she said� and she didn�t see an,y proolr^i••it!� th� �oL size in findine a^ian that �;ould fit on the lot, Mr. Kemoer �oint�d out that t'��Y had alread,y contractr.d £or that particular plan on that lot, Mrs, Sr?�mitz ;:?id �he would ].ike to ���ait and have time to consider turnin� the house around, Chair�;;oman ?�;a_hlberQ sugge>ted she take the plot olan rri+h them to Pl,yrtrood ]dinnesota and an explz.natioh of the code saying they had to be so many feet from thr lot lire, tahich reouires these set;backs. She add�d she �-aould nut rir, and i•irs, Schmitz on �the agenda for the nex.t meeting. rI0TI0;•: b�� 1°[rs. Gabel� seconded b,y Btr. Y,^mner� to table this re�ue�t fo.r variance. Upon a voice vote, �ll voting aye� the motion carried unanimousiy. DISCUSSIOti OA1 FO�TI r^OOi IOTS -'rut, JILLELLA�� Rn'?UES^1 FOR Vt?c2IA1uC�: Ghairwom��n '.+Iahlberff expla.ined to the Co�ission t?�at I;r. Vi7.lella's reruest had gone to the Citv Council� and the;� ended up changing the Cornmi�sionis su��=,esti.on to tnem, She said th;�r granted the variance providing that one side ,yard he from the reauired 17.4 feei to ].3 ieet; the other side Yard from the reruired 10 Seet to F3 feet; and *,-ith the �tinulation tha.t the petitioner arr�nge for a lot split that �nould provice for an additional Fi.ve feet. She fl�rther exp].ained tnat there had been considerable discussion at the Council meeting and sh� had hoped to find that in the minut�s, b;rs. ':�ahlaer� st�ted she taould �ike to obt�in a copy of the tr�nscriotion o£ those minutes. • 7�Ir, Ho1dPn stated he had not lato:m about t1:e minutes from the February l0, 19%6 meeting ?,hen I�'Ir. Vil.lel?�� reque�t �ras orin-nall,y presented� anci there had been no d?scussion of the a..d.ditional £ive feet at the recent meeting. i-irs. Gaoe- no=nted out that more infor��ation c�me out at the Ci��� Council meeting than this Comrnissi.on had to �::ork vrith. Chai.rr�oman Flahlberg said that in the mi.nutes of the February 10, 1976 meeting it said the neip,hoor to the idorth had no oojecti.on as he was the one �-rho vras sell9n�; the lot.. ;ir. Villella s2id a rntrchase a�:eement ha�3 been si�;ned for this lot, She continued that she thought some of the discussion iaas omitted from the mimites pertaining to �:hether or not he could buy adc�itional land From the adjacent neighbor� as she recalled talking about it, t�trs. :dahlberg stated that it appeared that if the Council c•�as going to ask i:r. Villella to bu,y an additional five £eet, that it irould come to the edge o£ the garage. 1Ir. Holden comcnented that the,y yroulci be solving one problem hut creatin� another. Chair*.�roman '�.'ahlberg said her concern was that there had been ouite a bit of discussion rornich .ras not reflected in the minutes, and asked Nir. Holden if he could obtain a transcription for her, She stated that if the City Council £elt they acted impronArlv, then they should be advised of th,�t and given some guidelines so they would knor� how ta act in the f�ture. T?rs. Gabel asked rir. Holden if he could include in the Administrative Staff Reports concerning the fort,y foot lots� information showing who nresently owns • the lot and ho�a long the,y have owned it. �roa�flt � FRIDLF.Y APPEAIS COAmfISSION i•fEETIt1G OF T•fAY 11, 1976 - PAGE 15 �8 � Ch�ir�••om�n l,'lhlberg r-ked ':r. Holden .�hat, '�r��nt?1 �•cll b^ing" m�^nt. in tiie StefF Reoortr,� and h^ r�r,lie3 t�at it 1•ras rea�ly a pa�'aPhrase oS the ndministr?tive Sta_ff P.eport �;iven on February 10 on lot cov°ra^e. He stated it was ver,y di£ficult to define v:hat a back var3 tiaas fo� (pla,y ar��� barbecucs� private area� etc.) rnd it was decided that thi.s statement �r^s as va?ue o^ genera7. as Stasf ::anted tn define it, He continued that obviou^l�r it ti�ias not a�ood deSinition� and requested that if the nenbers oi the Comnission ��d an,t sur�estions he :rould anrreciatr ine*s. Hr. Fiolden su��es ��d sho^tenin�, it to "nrivac��"� �nd this *.ras agreAeble to t!�e Coruni s s ion. ADJOUnid:-IEiIT : • Chai.r;:oman '.?ahlberg adjourned the meetin� of ihe Apneals Conmission at 11:26 n.m. Respectfullv sub:nitted,. t Mry���(� :,. 'a> •!__!�'([�'- � Sherri 0',Donnell c�ecording Secre�arv • �� -� • � OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY �f ERIDLEY PUBLIC HEARTNG BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on May 19, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M. for the Purpose of: A request for a Speciai Use Permit, SP #76-06, by Kennedy Transmission, to allow automotive transmission repair and service, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, D, in a C-2S zone (general shopping areas) to be located on the Easterly 200 feet of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the North 160 feet thereof, subject to street, utility and drainage easements of record, all lying in the South Half of Section 2, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. � Generally located at 7700 University Avenue Northeast. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this meeting. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNIN6 COMMISSION Publish: May 5, 1976 May 12, 1976 59 _,.. . . _ _ - -_-- . _ - _. ... -�� - ��-.. , - � CI7'Y 0� PRIQ4IIY MINNESUTA � �� � NUPiBER <_>'� ��•- D� , APPLICAtiT'S SIGNATURC Address ING ANU ZONING rORM �� ���� Telephone Numbcr p g�-' �� � � PROPGRTY OR'NEP.'S SIGNATURG j\�/j SGhV�('� � Address�/!i (�(�S I �Y/rv !U.C� �- ��i�Grlt I�o���{ 6� ,�,J TYP� OP RGQUEST ��_L Rezoning f �_ Special Use Pennit Approval of Premin- inary F; Fina1 Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Other Telephone hwnber . cti Fea�� ✓Reccipt No. Q��� Street Location of Property 1 G \ '% � ' CP�ytut � 77 �, G�� The E. 200' of Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd, Legal Uescription of Property g s�P� �he N�69' �he1'ee#=3„�,; nty-Qf— Present 7.oning Classification� � Existing Use of Vroperty �if_ .� �?�Or 1 Acreage of Property 3����C S�, ,,-- Describe brie:ly the propcsed zoning classificatian or type of use and improvement ��roposed /4UJ'Q/11���/(� �Ya�15)�i��d�t� f'F'pa(r �a�(f —�—. ScW v(C i`'� �� �''' ,,?G � � / 0 I � ,�' — Has the present applicant previously sou�nt to rezone, p12t, ooiain � lo� spli� o, variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? yes_�no. l�liat x�as requested and ivlien? � _ The undexsigncd understands that: (a) a list of a11 residents anu oi.mers of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoni�ig) mest Ue attacned to this application. (U) This application must be signed by all o�aners ot the,property, or an explanation given ���hy this is not. tiie case. (c) Respons:bility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names ar.d addresses of all residents and properLy otivners of property i�i questio�i, Ueloi�gs to the undersigned. A skefclt of propused property and structure must be dratian ancl uttached, sliowing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Locat.iom of propesed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structw-a, and iront and side setUacks. 4. SLreet Names. S. Location and usc or adjacent existing buildi.ngs (within 30G feet). The undersigned hcrcUy dcclares applicat DATG� � Dntc �il Chat all the facts and represencations stated in this Planning Commission Approvcd (dates) U aticd`_ City Council Approvcd (Jatca) Dcnied -s�r�t�- MAILING LIST � SP �76-06 Kennedy Transmission 8ruce Kennedy Kennedy Transmission 9740 Humboldt Avenue South Minneapol:s, Mn 55431 Franks Nursery Sales . 6399 Nevada Avenue Detroit Michigan 48234 Shell Oil Company Box 20329 Houston, Texas 77025 Win Stephens Datsun North 7810 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Robert Schroer 490 Rice Creek Blvd. N.E. � Fridley, Mn 55432 Fridley Development Inc. c/o Terrence Troy 580 Northstar Center Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Capp Model Home 7710 University Avenue N.E. �ridley, Mn 55432 Evans Products Co. P.O. Box 3295 Portland Oregon97208 Manager Town Crier P�ncake House 7730 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Consolidated Container Corporation 763 North 3rd Street Minneapolis, Mn 55401 � PLANNING COMMISSION 5/4/76 61 �� ; U�' � � �o�r7��ob �'� {� , � � � . . � I i . �� ry l��x� I , � . . ),I,p��; d I� ` -�,.�• ��`� — — �� ._._._ ^._ _ � ..,.. �._..._ L�_�•. .. _ JS � �l�lr.Cf.C1F f /;': ` . . .-.� . �-1?I- - ^ '�" • ���;:� i n iY ✓ s i.: n° °:=.' " " -�',,. .�:., . - "��.,. � `�,5':��..�-�, '� �,,''�e+ R � � : t SI IJ J 8 � ' / ` � 8 � '' Y � % 6 ��� � �-��. � l." - �. �1 � � � �i .� :� �� .C� �r.-�� � % 6 i`� `b'..`��`\ \`a• "� � �.- � e� Ff � �', B 4� � ,�: � 9 bA�� ;� � z F �`� yy!!, e.`; l� � e � � � ��� � r.j �;; 'y" �X..2� - �} k{ ..�} �� ti ^�. a ifl \\\\�:1J \ �� � i�. ,x:` � �? .:y � �:�::..i 3; �D ; �> �� � � R-J C� �v �� ltl �� '' r! — V1 w:d9'ts �+y. �� ' ' 1..;::_, �� � � � • �2' . �� •W �� � a = N •�. � �� �'� � �:ti , , , _. � . �`JOfi T� i .� � . 1 �I .1 .... ��. 1 � � i ;4 � il., . � G li I � 1 � .. � rr, ; `+1_��_� . . i �,�'x ; lYi) ' . � �'�� :1 » �e! .�.a ; ��;� .�, ���'_��~'__ _ .. . ���IpVV -`���. �. :, • i J • ! {t) 1 {�� t:�_:.._._.�__ . . . � � . � i :;, i Y� ` li � 0 `° � ' I :� �70/ �?o� z � ���� � � �.� : a � v � , l _ �� ;� n �t p � � s 8�A .� i:.i I`� � - `: 77 JC � . A a , F t �03 � . a r � � ; ,J. :�. � � � ,z; �1 ° (,, � •; ; I ��'t,� ....i ••a %.1�(i'o,a'�Y I(�� � � , 1•a '� I � � 5 S, a� ai� . dS � �� ' '!' � 5 �� ;A : � . . � .� �D' .s.- ,.' Y..•�1-c(. _ rER' �� /' .' !(°! :IS f � I I i w�n.,r w • G, n.....«� � l� . . ;'' �t�. � 1, � �� . . .. � � . � � ��- . . ' :. . . _ . . �-� � . . . . : . . . .� . . . __:. . .. _ _ _. , . ._.. . .. _ _� _ . . -��.,.. LUI �t'�1 i ��rru�ni �v�r CITY OF FRIDLEY APPLICANT:�T /� JC/-/Rfi� � AllDRESS : ��10 (iC ! C'/� ��h' ��UJ FiE'i DC t� S��3 2 Stxeet City Zip Code TET,�PHONE �{ � 7°/ 9� Y( � S 7/ -l�? 's� - Home 13usine�s , PROPII3T7C Ol•7NEEZ�S� � /}U�CJCT � JL'!��'r�E.(' AllDR�SS(E5� �a�� ty CTTY 11 � c Idume Split F►3 Date Filed: � �� � Pce:`��o",. Receipt if•51':� Council Action:Da�e ! ItENIlyI2KS : ' 3 �Y3Z Code 5treet City Zip Code TLLLPI30N� �E(�� 5 7y_ Yj�/ s 7/-G6�v Aome }3us ine s s ---- Yroperty Locatior on Street - /' � � or Eaact 5treet Address (IP APIY� 77o� !%�fJ'iou'Citi iYJ� — ,egal Descripti.on of Yroperty: S�Lrr �. �-�� �,f��� Split off the Easterly 200' of Lot 4, Block.2, East Ran h,Estates.2nd Addition ex ept th North 160' thereof, subject to street uti�izy & drainac�e easemen�s o� record�. �.�.� ieason for Lot Splii:: b i�R.CT ✓7'%/'Fr' iAEG�4/✓'Ff'JL'�'J' . . of The undcrsi;,med hereby decic�res xepresentations stated corrc:;t. s-7 Dl��l'r: S �ji / �/ TT }3F,i3OI•7 POR CT'I'Y iiSP ONLY t `Loning Clas:iPica that all {;he £acts and (See reverse side for additional instructions) ,� PLAT.", & SUBS: ➢ate of Consideration - Remarke• PLANNING COMMISSIOPI: Date of Con�ideration - Remarks: CITY COUNCIL: Dute of Considerntion - Remarks: ii . i i . �i � I . �� • � � . '� . J � . 1�� ' � � � '� � I �` ._ _ _ _1"L ._ .+I �rl�r�lr,�nr �.e.•�. d . �, d, °.. ._ .��, J✓� " • :i��_ `, .`�; � � sl 1�����. ql ]3 1J 8 A� � � � 8 • � /J1Ae �- _/plr� �/�! — A'?i rT'l'N . n-i7r1 �� � ��i � /' � �l � � 0 � )'�! �`' Y�' b , r � z � ,;� y 1" ,. � ; �y� `'� �, (�' � �<� � �? E��`�ri � .. �•L�� _'__� ° �^ � 4 -" " �':::%.+�; o�� � � `�� `.�� � � •�"� 6 G �; - 3. � ?y i 4J . � FI� 1 _� • �P n> i�. A:A�'Ff i�x. �M n'✓l�i:� ,L r%�%� � � Q 0 � � x "a � ,.. . � �I � A,.�•a�� _ ��03 � �T .,. ( il I ��i � „-. �. ! . �� s : r �.: L.S. #76-OW'ROBERT SCHROER . � W � . Split off the Easterly 200' p' , � N o•f Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranc15 -- ' Estates 2nd Addition, except�the p = • Northerly 160' thereof. �I �`� _. . — _ _ � � ...,,..,, ..._ _ _ � . . i � �'y . � / � �+ � � !,9 1 �4 � � y � • �i3 �-�_�—_::i:i H, lY'fi � � � � z ��:� �' . n ��.-.- 6"� ,< ,� ��;��.�. � ` t�' r) `-- '. p01 i,;.� .., °� �� 'c� _ ".H+.'t� ^- �A t�` , �. ~`- � 1 > —4� :i, fi+..�. .. ; e; tts � �''-i � � ��_. , � ,, � :,; .� I \ �. � , � 3 ; ; ` 0 ; � � �_L� ;� '. �L" 4t=i `N., I �a Wr^ . �� V/ � �"� 1 �..rv' ;'rN. . .�'— � rg? i�;� : ;: �� in �:.► � —': �..,��...>� � . . � , • t..... .� �', , ! � 1 3� � ; i� �� � `� i : �r� � l . ti 1--10 �� . 'i:;_:�., � I�',�� '�� . 1 •1 I � U� `:,I i �.. '''' ; LI; ��"- ' � 4: � i�� � �. . .'v�o ; � x: :; I � . i �J� ' ' : i:7 :�. , .�., ; � ' �'� ��------�=- ; i � , { � f � � � � � � ` I �.. � i-- I .', Q Iy� 1 � � �f .. • ,. • ,, e.� K.,� �•.�, �, es ;,,� :,.� „-� •a ,�.�,,� �'ti ��° N` � • T7 T1 � • 1'�1,�+.Y � �' . ,.. ,�-.. � ;`.. ;�.•. ,,. - - • .:Sr�• -- �t•r s»�f-' {� J � rER ..:.�.,�4r . �r.r..� �v � , I . . , ' ( � � Y •~n . i � . � .. ��i i • . �9 ' . . , • �. � . s' . , - r . � . • � _ ...,.,, _ . .. ... ... • . . . • . . • . ' ' -.- . _. . ., _ . . .. _ ' _'p47n'�9_ .J 2i2.01. Mining Permit R^qulred 212. MiNiNG SAND AND GRAYEL . � A mining permit�shall be apptied for and shall be-issued by Ihe Zoning Administrator for Ihe minign ol sand, >� gravel, rocks, minerels, peal or dirt of any kind in Fridley where such operations will substantially aNer Ihe .. exisUng grounC contour or would change exisling drainage or would cause ilooAing or erosion or where dynamite or other explosives are used �generelly or incidentalty in said mining operations or where such oRe�alions affect the value, use antl enjoyment of othec properry in Fridley. (ReL 79) �� 212.02. Appiicatton � � Any person�tlesiring a permit shall first submit a written application setting�lorth the following facts: 1. Mames and addresses of applicants 2. Legal descriplions ofJand lo be mined. 3. The names and addresses of all owners ef saitl land. 4. The nalure ot the mining operation. 5. Whether dynamite or other explosives wiil be used either incitlentally or generally. 6. Details of how long mining operations have existed in the pasl and whe� mining operetions will nex! commence or continue and the approximate completion da4s ot the mining operations. 212.03. Fees, Bonds and Conditions A permit may be issued by the Zoning Atlministrator aller ihe applicant has: 1. -Sobmitlell the application. 2. Paid a perinit fee. The annual permit tee and expiration date shall be as provided by ChaD�er S! of fhis Code. 3. Posted a surety bond acceptable to the City or a certified check in an equivalent amounl for the sum ol S1,OOO.OD per care oi fraction thereot for the Vand to be subjecled to the mining operation !unning to fridley te secure salisfactory perlormance of the following requirements: a) The pit shall be surrounded by a fence 4 teet high and adequate as protection against accidenlal fall or fnJury. b) No water o• other wasie shal'�. be allowed to rue off trom any pit ioto any siream, take or pond so as fo oollute the same. . c)� Operations shall be limited to reasonable hours ihat will not interfere wilh the health and safety o( surrounding residents and the psemises be so opereted as not 10 aeale a nuisance. d) When ezplo5ives are osed tfie permitee shafl use the utmostcare and lake all necessary DrecaWions not Io endanger lifc and damage and tlestroy property. e) AIl explos:ves shall be slorea in a reasonably secure and safe place or places and ali such storage places shall be clearly marked "Dangerous — Explosive". ^- Q The mathod of stortng and handling explosivec and highfy inilammable materials sfiafV contorm with all , � laws a�d regutations relating thereto. ' �' QI A 1op of the time and day and personnel IamlBar wllh the work shall ba kept of aU� blasdng and a �,2.�3 G ��. Mlning 7orm11 Requlred ppplication Fees, Bond. aoa Conditions 2t 2-• "^!�" ; T �•�- P � Copy of sald lop shnll be mada avallabte to the o1flGale ot tbe City. h} At the ond ol each season's operatlons and no later than Ihe laat doy oi Doaember of eacb Yeaf, the .� pN is lo bo left In a neat and ordorly condlUOn, with reasonab�y unl(orm alopos without overhanp and without ver11ca1 banks and wlth a levef bottom. 414,OC, Wetver o1 Requtrements The Council may waive the requirements of the surety bond and eertifled chock deposit when iha apDlicant or pppllcaNS are ihe ownars of the Droperty to be mlaed. � ��� 212.05. Dollnitloris The mining of santl, gravel, rocks, minerals, peat, or other dirt of any kind shall mean and include any excavation In lhe oarth (or the purpose ol removing any sand, gravel, rock, minerals, peat or dirt of any klnd Including lhe removal wllh any ove� burden necessary to reach sald sand, 9ravel, rock, minerais, peat or dirt of any ktnd, other than an excavation intended and used sofely as a basement ot a bullding. 212.06. Hours All oporaUons shall be Ilmited to �easonablo hours that wlll not Intertero wfth the healih and safety of eurrounding resldents and the premtses are to be so operated as not to create a nuisance. � � 212.0T. PubUc Nulsance Any minfng operafion not consislont wilh tho regulatfooa provided herein or wfth the IMent and purpose of thfs chapter are declared to be a public nuisance.� . � 2t2.08. Rsmedy o4 Couacit T�e Council may in additlon to any or all other remedies avaiiabie for violatfons of this ordinance, after a public headng held upon ten (10) days notice by mall to the last known address of tho owner or owners of the properly, .meY proceed to have the necessary work done to comply with the provisions of lhis chapter and assess ali of the � costs and expense thereof against said property. 212.09. Ponaltfes � Any violation of thfs chapter Is a misdemeanor and is subJect to all penaltles provlded tor such violations under tha provisions of Chapter 907 of thls Code. : - � �v siz.ue � W�Fror ol Requlremems Detinitlons Hours Public Nulsence pemedy Of � Coundl Penalifea � 212-2 ..�.. _.. - _.. ..�. ^� - � �� CHAPTER 7Q of the Uniform Building Code EXCAVATION AND GRADING PURPOSE ' Section 7001. The purpose of this Chapter is to safeguard life, limb, property and the public welfare by regulating grading on private property. SCOPE Section 7002. This Chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control exc�vation, 9rading and earthwork construction, including fi11.s and embankments; establishes the administrative procedure for issuance of perm�ts; and provides for approval of plans and irispection of grading construction. PERMI75 REQUIRED Section 7003. No person shall do any gradin9 without first having obtained a gra ��ermit fram the Building Official except for the following: , ]. Grading in an isolated, self contained area if there is no danger apparent to private or public property. 2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid � building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation nor exempt any excavation having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet after the completion of such structure. 3. Cemetary graves. 4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations. 5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities. 6. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law provided such operations do not affect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or pressure upon any adjacent or continguous property. 7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or engineering geologists. 8. An excavation which (a) is less than 2 feet in depth, or (b) which does not create a cut slope greater than 5 feet in height and steeper . than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical. 9. A fi11 less than 1 foot in depth, and placed on natural terrain with a slope flatter than five horizontal to one vertical, or less than 3 � feet in depth, not intended to support structures, which does not exceed 50•cubic yards on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. ' -1- HA2ARDS Section 7004. Whenever the Building Official determines that any existing '�, excavation or embankment or fi11 orr private property has become a hazard to � life and limb, or endangers property, or adversely affects Yhe safety, use or stability ��f a public way or drainage channel, the owner of the property upon which the excavation or fi1T is located, or other person or agent in control of.said property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the Building Official shall within ' the period specified therein repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment so as to eliminate the hazard and be in conformance with the requirements of this Code. DEFINITIONS Section 7005. for the purposes of this Chapter the definitions listed itereunder shall be construed as specified in this Section. AS-GRADED is the surface conditions extent on completion of grading. BEDROCK is in-place solid rock. BENCH is a relatively leve7 step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed. BORROW is earth material acquired from an off-site location for iase in grading on a site. � CERTIFICATION shall mean a written engineering or geological opinion concerning the progress and completion of the work. CIVIL ENGINEER shall mean a professional engineer registered in the state . to practice in the field of civil works. CIVIL ENGINEERING shall mea� the application of the knowledge of the forces of nature, principles of inechanics and the properties of materials to the evaluation, desiqn and.construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of mankind. COMPACTION is the densification of a fill by mechanical means. EARTH MATERIAL is any rock, natural soil or fill and/or any combination thereof. ENGINEERTNG GEOLOGIST shall mean a geologist experienced and knowledgeable in engineering geology. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY shall mean the application of geologic knowledge and principles in the investigation and evaluation af naturally occurring rock and soil for use in the design of civil works. EROSION is the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice. � EXCAVATION is the mechanical removal of earth material. FILL is•a deposit of earth materiai placed by artificial means. GRADE shall mean the vertical location of the ground surface. -2- � � � k�5 EXISTING GRADE is the grade prior to grading. .ROUGH GRADE is the stage at which the grade approximately conforms to the approved grade. FINISH GRADE is the final grade of the site which conforms to the approved plan. . GRADING is any excavating or filling or combination thereof. KEY is a designed compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material beneath the toe of a proposed fill slope. SITE is any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof, under the same ownership, where .grading is performed or permitted. SLOPE is an finclined ground surface the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. SOIL is naturally occurring surficial de{.osits overlying bedrock. SOIL ENGINEER shall mean a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soil engineering. SOIL ENGINEERIP7G shall mean the application of the principles of soil mechanics in the investigation, evaluation and design of civil works involving the use of earth materials and the inspection and testing of the construction thereof. TERRACE is a relative level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage and maintenance purposes. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREPIENTS Section 7006. (a) Permits Required. Except as exempted in Section 7003 of this . Code, no person sfiall do any grading without first obtaining a grading permit from the Building Official. A separate permit shall be required for each site, and may cover both excavations and fills. (b) App7ication. The provisions of Section 301 (b) are applicable to grading and in addition the application shall state the estimated quantities of work involved. (c) Plans and Specifications. When required by the Building Official each application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soil engineering report and engineering geology report. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer when required bv the Building Official. (d) Information on Plans and S�ecifications. Plans shall be drawn to scale upon substantial paper or cloth and shall be of sufficient ciarity to indicate the nature and extent of the �aork proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provisions of this Code and a11 relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The first sheet of each set of plans shall give the location of the work and the name and address of�the owner and the person by ��hom they were prepared. The plans shall include the fol7owing information: 1 2 General vicinity of the proposed site. Property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. -3- -�-t- 3, timiting dimensions, elevations or finish contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage channels and related construction. 4. Detailed plans of all surface and su6surface drainage deJices, vralls, � cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructe� with, or as part of, the proposed work together with a map showing the draina9e '•area and the estimated runoff of the area served by any drains. 5. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within 15 feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. Specifications shall contain information covering construction and material requirements. �_ . (e) Soil Engineering Report. 7he soil engineering report required by Subsection (c) shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures vrhen necessary, and opinions and recommendations covering adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building Official shdll be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. (f) �En� _ineering Geoloqy Re ort. The engineering geology report required by Subsection (c) shall include an adequate description of the 9eology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy � of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building Official shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. (g) Issuance. The provision of Section 302 are applicable to grading permits. The Building Official may require that grading operations and project designs be modified if delays occur which incur weaiher generated problems not considered at the time the permit was issued. FEES Section 7007. {a) Plan-checking Fee., For excavation and fill on the same site, the fee shall be based on the volume of the excavation or fill, whichever is greater. Before accepting a set of plans and specifications for checking, the Building Official shall collect a plan-checking fee. Separate perinits and fees shall apply to retaining walls or major drainage structures as indicated elsewhere in this Code. Tfiere shall be no separate charge for standard terrace drains and similar facilities. The amount of the plan-checking fee for grading plans shall be as set forth in Table No. 70-A. The plan checking fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between such fee paid for the original permit and the fee sho�an for the entire project. (b} Gradinq Permit Fees. A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the Quilding Official as set forth in Table No. 70-B. � The fee for a grading permit authorizin9 additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original pe rn�it and the fee shown for the entire project. • . -a- ��� � TABIE N0. TO•R-4Ud•CHEC%fNC FEES 50 cnbic pards or less ......................................_ ....._._.....Ko Pee � 5! tn IOb cubic yards ..........................._.............-..._...........SI0.00 �ot �<� i���K� «�t,�� y:��d.. ..........................:.......__................. is.uo lOOt to lo,cu�o cnb;c ydrds .....................................:.......:...... 2nAn IU,001 tn 10l1.000 cubic pards —$°D.00 for th� first 10,1N1p cubic -� yards plus �510.00 for cacL additional 10.01N) cnbic }•ards or iraction thcrcoE. � 1(IO,fi01 to ?IN7,(N70 cnhic yards — S110.00 fnr thr firat IQ0,000 cubic yards plas 5fi.00 far earh nJdi[innal 1Q,01l0 cubic }:rtds nr fmc�inn thcrcnE � 20(1,001 cubic yards or morc — Sl i 0.00 {nr the Grst 200,0(10 cuLic puds, �plus $3.00 [nr cach addilinn:�1 iU,(HID cuhic yarc{s or fr:tctinn ihemo(. BONDS 7ADLE� N0. 7D•8—GfUDING PFRMIT FEES �> � SU cnl>ic S'.�rds ur ItY5 .............._............................................S10.U0 SI ro 100 cubie �•ards ................_..:....................................... 75.00 Ibl tu I0c�0 cubic 4ards — 3t5.OQ ior �he first 100 cubic y:ad+. plus 57.OU 1nr cach adclitional l0U cuhic y;vcls or fractinn Ihrrad. 11N11 ln �n,nno ttibic�yards — 5�5.00 fnr the first 10(Hl cubic rards, plus SG.00 for each nd<Iition:J ]000 cuLic pards or fraction thercol'. IQ001 to SU0,000 cubic yards —$192.00 for thc first 10,000 cubic vanls, pi�rs S?7.00 [or each aJclitional 1QQ00 cubic yards or fraction thcm��f. 100,W1 cubic �mrds or more —$375.00 Tor thc first 100,000 cnbic yards, ptus SI5.00 for cach additiunal 1U,00U cubic yuds or fmdion Ihercof. � Section 7008. The Buildin9 Official may require honds in such form and amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work, if not completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, will be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions. In lieu of a surety bond the applicant may file a cash bond or instrument of credit with the 6uilding Official in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond. CUTS Section 7009. (a) General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering andJor engineering geology report cuts shall conform to the provisions of th.is 5ection. � . (b) Slope. The slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Cut slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one �� vertical. � � (c) Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided ' as required by Section 7012. � FILLS Section 7010. (a) General. Unless otherwise reco�u�nended in the approved soil engineering report fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section. In the absence of an approved soil engineering report these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures. (b) Fill Location. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than two to one or where the fi17 slope toes out within 12 feet horizontally of the top of existing or planned cut slopes. (c) Preparation of Ground. Tlie ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable materials as determined by the soil engineer, and, where the slopes are five to one or steeper, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material. (d) Fill Material. Earth material which have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and have no rock or similar irreducib1e material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches shall be used. (e) Compaction. All fi1Js shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by U.Q.C. Standard No. 70-2 or equivalent as approved by the Quilding Official. . (t') Slope. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended�use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. . . -5- -•.�---:. , . �v- , � � (g) Drainage and Terracin�c. Drainage and the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of Qaved as required by Section 7012. and terracing shall be provided terraces shall be graded and r �/�.r SEiBACKS . Section 7011. The tops and toes of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from the property boundaries as far as necessary for safety of the adjacent properties and to prevent damage resulting from water runoff or erosion of the slopes. The tops and toes of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from structures as far as-is necessary for adequacy of foundation support and to prevent damage as a result of water runnoff or erosion of the S�r°,oved soil engineering and/or engineering Unless otherwise reco�nnended in the app 1 re ort and shown on the approved grading plan, setbacks shall be no less than geo ogy P shown in Table No. 70-C. • � TABIE H0. 70.C—SFfH1.CKS � � � 0 � 1N t[CT o- io 3" =� 3 5 ]1-39 (SIi?)' 3' l[i.'3)' 7� 31 and Ovcr 1� 3' 1'' la DRAINAGE ANd TERRACING Section 7012.(a) General. Unless otherwise indicated on the approved 9radin9 plan, dra�n-�- age facilites and terracing shall conform to the provision of this Sectioi�. (b) Terrace. Terraces at least 6 feet in width shall be established at not more than 30 foot vertical intervals to control surface drainage and debris. Suitable access shall be provided to pettnit proper cleaning and maintenance. Swales or ditches on terraces shall have a minimum 9radient nf 5 percent and must be paved with reinforced co;irhte natminimumhdepth�aththeldeepestnpointrofnl approved equal paving. They sha ave foot and a minimum paved width of 5 feet. � A single run of swale or d�tch shall not collect runoff into a downUdra�narea exceeding 13,500 square feet (p ojected) without discharging (c) Subsurface Drainac�e. Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with 5ubsurface drainage as necessary for stability. (d) Dis osal. All drainagy facilities s�he}Quildin9�Offic�alaanj/orters to the nearest practicable draina9e wa approved by -6- �' U otiier approporiate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters. If drainage facilities discharge onto natural ground, riprap may be required. At least two percent gradient toward approved drainage facilites from building � pads wi11 be required unless waived by the Building Official for nohhilly terrain. EXCEP7ION: The gradient from the building pad may be one percent where building construction and erosion control will be completed before hazardous conditions can occur. EROSION CONTROL Sectian 7013. (a} Slopes. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion_ This control may consist of effective planting. The protection for the slopes shall be installed as soon as practicable and prior to calling for final approval. Where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials, such protection may be omitted. (b) Other Devices. Where necessary, check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety. 6RADING INSPECTION Section 7014, ta) General. All grading operations for which a permit is required shall 6e subject to inspection by the Building Official. When required by the Building Official, special inspection of grading operations and special testing shall be performed in accordance with tfie provision of Section 305 and Subsection 7014 (c). (b) Gradinq Designati'on.All grading in excess of 5000 cubic yards shall be performed in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared by a civil engineer, and shall be designated as "engineered grading." Grading involving less than 5000 � cubic yards shall be designated "regular grading" unless the permittee, with the approval of the Building Official chooses to have the grading performed as "engineered grading." ' (c) Enqineered 6radinq Requirements. For engineered grading it shall • be the responsiblity of the civil engineer who prepared the approved grading plan to incorporate all recommendations from the soil engineering and engineerin9 9eology reports into the grading plan. He shall also be responsilble for the professional inspection and certification of the grading within his area of technical specialty. . This responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, inspection and certifica- tion as to the establishment of line, grade and drainage of the development area. The civil engineer shall act as the coordinating agent in the event the need arises for liaison betvreen the other professions, the contractor and the Quilding Official. The civil engineer shall also be responsible for the preparation of revised plans and the submission of as-graded grading plans upon completion of the work. Soil engineering and engineering geology reports shail be required as specified in Section 7006. During grading all necessary reports, compaction data and soil engineering and engineering geoiogy recommendations shall be submitted to the civil engineer and the Building Official by the soil engineer and the engineering 9colo�ist. The soil engineer'sarea of respo�siblity shall include, but need not bc limited to, the professional inspection and certification concerning the preparation of ground to receive fills, testing for required compaction, stability of all finish slopes and the design of buttress fills, where required, incorporating data supplied by tfie engineering geologist. The engineering geologist's area of responsibility shall include, but necd not be limited to, professional inspection and certification of the adequacy of natural � ground for receiving fills and the stability of cut slopes with respect to 9eological matters, a�d the.need for subdrains or other ground water draina9e devices. He shall � report his findin9s to the soil engineer and the civil engineer for enginecring analysis. Tfie Duilding Official shall inspect the project at the various stages of the -7- r�� �q � r►ork requiring certification and at any more frequent intervals necessary to determine that adequate control is being exercised by the professional consultants. � (d) Regular Grading Requirements. The Building Officiel may require inspection and testing by an approved testing agency. The testing agency's responsi6ility shall include, but need not be limited to, certification concerning the inspection of cleared areas and benches to receive fill, and the compactian of fills. Wfien the Building Offical has cause to believetfiat geologic factors may be involved the gradin9 operation will be required to conform to "engineered grading" requirements. (e) Notification of Noncompliance. If, in the course of fulfilling their.responsibility under this Chapter, the civil engineer, the soil engineer, the engineering geologist or the testing agency finds that the work is not being done in conformance with this Chapter or the approved grading plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing to the person in charge of the grading work and to the Building Official. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall be submitted. (f) Transfer of Responsibilit,y for Certification. If the civil engineer, the soil engineer, the engineering geologist or the testin9 agency of record are changed.during the course of the work, the work shall be.stopped until the replacement has agreed to accept the responsibili•ty within the area'"of iheir technical competence for certification upon completion: of the work. COMPLETION OF WORK Section 7015.(a) Final Reports. Upon completion of the rough grading_work and at the final completion of the work the Building Official may require the following repo"rts � and drawings and supplements thereto: 1. An As-Graded grading plan prepared by the civii engineer including original ground surface elevations, as-graded ground surface elevations, lot dra.ina9e patterns and locations and e7evations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. He shall provide certification that the tvork was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. 2. A Soil Grading Report prepared by the soil engineer including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soil engineering investiga- tion report. He shall provide certification as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. 3. A Geologic Grading Report prepared by the engineering geologist including a final description of thegeology of the site including any new information disclosed during the grading and the effect of same on reconunendations incorpor- � dted in the approved grading pla�. He shall provide certification as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use as affected by geologic factors. (b) Notification of Completion. 7he permittee or hfs aqent shall notify the Building Offical when the grading operation is ready for final inspection. Final approval shall not be given until all work including installation of all drainage facilities and their protective devices and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the final approved grading plan anii the required reports have been submitted. . ' -8- ". � Y -�. .• u k `v `�v i, t`. _ � • �.'. — c s - - i. :2 `-� � ` � :1.� ` � v v `l i u'_et-- ` Y. .� l S � � (i V :l � � r� J � Y � [ � �~ � + -• ._ .. U .. CU="'..cG.: � � V f v � r V_ U U C ^^- _-'. 4 L � �� � � V ` � G ` ` V _ ..�c: .r.� U_ tl C_' _ , " 0 4 v = = � .°-> .=c=��u � -' O �- GL P1 f.:, � � u� �`.. v � N Z 0 H U W M a' � � z � � � ,s z v ¢ � F � � W O. U U�� ^ ^ _—,`.` ^� . '—" ` `� = _ � , � .c ' �.% � i u ` ; �,= •� � ` V � r V J � -- J V ��`^u__ (`. L v - P O . _ 'J �. _ ; % _ �, _ � � V � Y�J 'I' J :u � J. : � � � � '� r� ✓ `�1�� V u _ � ; C r= v.' _ .^, �S U ^ ^ _ " � a�.,�� u� v. p C. � U �� n�J � J V � y � � Y G v 1 _ _ _ _ :. J'� y � .��. :J „ ` ti :l . v J � ` { � � � � V= � � � J i J � C. � V U � _ L � � � � U � � O t � 1 � � G �. �� _ U - S; :f %_' _= � � � V �- 1 ' `__ -` _ _ � y �= u i. J � _ « � ^- - y .� u ` ' i � ' r `l. � _ _ l � � C O � <+ L� O ;+� + v � ' J ^ v r .0 � ` y � � � . V ' 6 G i : i _ C+ L : % O L'� Ci - C =. _ �- o _ � � _ �1 y J � = i = = i: � _ 4 ; 's: U G O ,(.� 4 U V � L ` J Y ` i _:t:.�_u� _ �_°'�� uo � ��'� �� ` - �w�r�ryj^� . ..^�._.�:•- _ -?,x_ u ^ G � _ � ' � � ��` v. 5 V.c: v. _ �-.. V G � �� G � `-= � p � =u—=__`..� - - � L 4 � r U ^ _ L ~ V :i - i ` = _ ^_ ^ : � • �•V ` `. J�� U 'GI L r� � V � � ? .� u� =L �,-V„<�= � . r C i'V �� �.0 � V f ` � '.�.' V = = - V ^ v V N G n = - 4 '�" '� '_" _ J _ ...: i' �' U .^- �'1 � � � 4 ^ � �. .y C - • : C^ �- G Q. C: ' �? � ^_ � .- G � v•^.J�^��J,-�G 'O � (�� � C' Qi CT V � � � L`i -�-.- _ 4 (i J Y G - ,� t V 1 � i CI =• .- � 6 Uu � : ` � U L � �� �. �r 4 � 'J � == L � ✓ L � G G.1 « � ^ � ,�� � �- .:...� .... N � u :t� .V �� _ V �• ` V J 1 —`= . �_ � u `a.-'- � � �� ^ u � ' � � � 6 � � _ � V �� = V '.. G = �' v y„ _ � U p ° �'O .�' ~ ^ � � � v ._. 5 .. u� ' � � _� `� � � � y � .�� G�' v -' p r CX '� �,^ U O "' C �L_ V Y � � � �' � � O � , _ u �t;-- � r - =/ :i... ._ :1 � �. �� i � Jv �+. v ;� C .1 � ^ � � L . U �' Ci G Ci U ` '- � `L : G .• � _ �. � Y � % � U _ - J — � � � — (i ` � � ' - i a: G _'� V C L J G _ b o � _ J � � � � � ^ V .�. ' L ` � _ �. Ji _ c, r _ c._ ,='»E,. � V ._.:' - G =-6� ! 6 � � � = ,. v � ` ' � _' •� O :17 C«_. ^ u �`_ � � ..G G L C__ � 4 _ " � _ b .� _ G � = � � ` ` ��i. :A ` � �i ` M T h � �` --�-�^ue. ,`-,C U C..: U� ^.�k:' � �=�— ,. � � ' ' S . � .__„—"=c. J � r — U v ^ . _ �,,_,'� y y � p � J � O - � � m _ ^ _ i �� « `^ � V � U i _ L c. : ,r w = -� 4 = '^• � `u" u. tc •: r��, ^ � V v u � ` = ^ u a Yo__��.= _ " _ � u �u`-_'��c.� E � � � = u ^.• _ �„ `.0 - .fj � V 't.V `' v - - � V �.: .l L _ 1 C � � � G = ^J+ � V _ _ G ° •- � ^ G _ U .i G .'J �� 4 � C.`. G.:C-� i �� Y �" 1( ' `! . � J � �. ! _� = ' /. � l J �/ (i � -:,- � �— � �4 � i ^ ` ' V ` :..: '-_ C� - J � `"' ..w - i. ' y ^ _ ti : � U v ` J � V l! � J ^ �i: CJ a:, � .. i r-- f � � `l ,y, � .� V _ _ `" '_ C r �- � J � 7 V � � _ V 4 U � f � :' � � � �< � 4`. / :L � _ .' �' = - . r � � J. � � ` 4 � - � � � • J _ - - � V v G - � ^ �C P - ^ - �• .. 4 :� r. U v J. �(, S ' � � c. i J .^ ' " _ � � � 4 � U �� Ci _ C�-� =� v 9 �' _ L G ._ - � v � ° � O L L :f.= 4 1 ' `'� , � - = O '1 4 [i�" _ i._ ' _ V � Y - 's -=r-- _'-y= % CJ :/ ` . _ _^. / � j) r i � � ' % � ` ^ ' 1 .l, u` _ '� 1 - _ _ �- -�__=�-__ GG'�-;,�:^^_ __ Ti D� ` � �,.y _ _ �'` ` `V :I V u V I %: - _ t^ '�-' �: 4 � ,ry t^ - - - -- i �: J ` _ ` = = / "'�5 � �1� � � - = N � `. 6 � � - % -- - .i G U v. _ %- , � � � � � V 'V � 4' � J :J V — ' �; � _ i � ✓ � !. � ` � c : � � � � � � `A � y^� L ' � ` ` V i .. ... � x v . _ � _ � � � -� �.-�^^' � 7� � �� C 0 u W C A V �n° �,-j.o .9 � ��=t 's - °-- ,u � = c " - '� y.O •N G^ t L � S .. U:0 R v ` .�. .. �. �7. O ,.'• t,Cj � 4 C _ � F� '� G��V . ` `u � `7 .se = ° ° : � .p. �.y ..� C V,� � L u G i.—'� e�� . � ❑ �° % °� _ � : �_ � _ v .. _ �. - ._ : . <. U a � G C:J � � r �� u;..;,0 u .'� _c�� _� - _ = - �G.^ ..� a �.� .. - �� - ' � ^ .0 ^ V .A�7. U - U 1 ^ _ ' ^ - L V w ' � .� ' ' � L i. ._. � � ` YO � U /_ ` U -' " � 7V - �'_�. ^^�'_=�_' � � y � CI r " � :� �' - :J v G � U � 4 " x � v � U `L l � � �' ;i � _I �%i� �/ �'� �/. � r L =_ ' ".� _ _ J = = : < = U ""'.. _. _ �Li� C�`l:�C..:—.:.G=_ �_' � � 4 ^ C.. ^..� r - 1 <'.-'f'✓. u Y � '^�' u C. = ` L' � - _ . •C � ..' �. _ 4M-�?Oy� �U��J�—U�"ufv U ��... :a7~� V`,� :'-;.0 l'� O c.= '�� J _ V'—°c_''..".'�'�=�+"^-- -�'--- ^ V U � G ^ � � i :i — ' � L y = � ' ' ✓% ^ � �" p 7 c. r. '`•� � _ 'v cs ^ _ .� _ C � 1^C "~� �'^%^v^i?= oGGO ' � 2 V 'n = :x: '.f. � - V _ .� �. �;,� u L ;C � i. ._ y�_ .. - o n.r^C i_ 1�; V:cb,_'v�LVi�v'!: �.V' C�_C_ V '- U ' ' _ '✓) V C � .-.. CV ri �t. U� ' ^ � ' _ _ �;�.° V^- �-_ � �" C O '^ � � .. o O r� 7 C ^ u�'.. �'+ 4 O .= L .� � IV ^i p . V Y r'7. W o � G �- ❑ � � �'�. �� C U �O O O $ O O G C G�U C.'V LL'L _ � v. U � (j C � v.L �, :1`V._ � U .. C ._ O ., Ga.. p x V.•� � i. �.. O p -L' = G C :J r G J i '�J L� C u C C' Y. ^ V .�.� CJ �" �C ` ` � y � � � � � L :lY V.J � --G v^�'u y.. ,..i J A+ C' U " C ,'^„ G V U y r u.., � U C , � _ O �� U � U,G . : G 7, �.`_ p ... .. V V� G C U C : .�-. O :� - '_ J V C�W— v ^ U— C c; G ` � c.� Ci C _ i'� U�-' = 0 C �"J. % �.': � G V F^" O _ � C4`' > �,'�`^ � V 4 L .Y ^ ^ U � � ^ � .0 V U '-�- O ,"�,,, �(i ` .�:J � t ~ U U C �n � ' C.� -�:� c^ .: ' � Y ' � n � r'J� ~ O f v U �'y :J �� n .� ) � L I� V U.V p p _ � C' C �'Vj ^ � °a o < ^ ° ° � v e� � O y 4 N. aw. G� O C � G � C GcC � ^ r. o O�.^. �-7. a V .: � D'� ^ F G c '� �.. � O ._ . � C c.t 'K ��F C" r� = U C l N � n 6)"=~`" Y'"' ^[� p Q V= C O O � y' V V C ��_V..'7. =-puL, ^% J L`' U� E" C y'y �o"`u�c,e,a��u � Y c_ -� � h '�'' .y. " y, �S i U • Y .. N F�7• O N p V O"'^ � 4 � = N y ^ t' R^ G G U «� � _ y O� r V�'� iC C N � N:.. fJ � G V� O.� r V � ^ J � �r .".. P.� V V ^'O.^l� �� X F�- C= V U '. '� V G`�^ O�: y U d r � v V " � C i V U � V v4' ��n'._. .. i �`" �V �..�. u r��. V O C,� Y - 'J [L'D Ci � U V .'•'J � O ^ r = '� i. C ��. �^" � J� 4 v%j ^! 0� C� U � V y y.-. r V C- G. V>'� y'_ � .J y V q .-^. O' 4! C ,� ` .=. : �. x O U � � V C U.:: .:< U G'J C' v �r i 5 O�. O ry i� v � � �.. -, S .. �.. O R � �,�y.? J C �:J v�i.:. U1 : f'i '- � .. �.y w'� "3 '-v'� p':j "ti •^• G U � G U _ -- L, i F ' �._ C .. V � v C � : " �- C �V— v���.�. V� F V� C z��su�. m�o ati � �'� 4 y.�i S.' U V � .��. F:� •_ �u^oQ:� � ��� � � Y ~ i M. ^n C "' �; - : ^ U C.U-�r CF �V ^ .^... p .. n.- cu. :: � C v. = � v V C ❑ = U .. > N � ti F ����`'. � � v � � :n -j - ' l ° �i. : �'J'.. � � v C O ^'J .". v y S �nX �� u ^� � c ` � ^ � F (�-- U` �: i y ` - V � v � � F L��W� "J v � � �/ y r v.V J � v :a C d O G �j .- .0 �. � � i W � 5 V C �. C .i�..0 � U C 'Uvo R �n � �u � : U j i:w C pp V ya.. ti � G � �. � O � O .A � ^ V .i � y F .^ tl y C � � .^"�. V �'` �'aoo � � O T C� O � O � p N •l .. � f: U O ^ t'n o M u^J V C � C. N D .. QM '_' C .�. ^ U.�•_ p` .:< �. `'_ O ." O � V ti �'� C Q 4 �.0 O � C � G > H � V G O V n � � F " ^ � F u N V r r�� T^^7 � ��.- I 1 � ; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER• CITY OF FRIDLEY rLSY 19, 1976 Chairman Harris called the meeting to ord@r at 7:33 P•m• ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris� Bergman, Langenfeld, Gabel� Peterson Members Absent: Others Present: S�Tahlberg, Shea Jerrold Boardman� City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 5, 1976 PAGE 1 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langen£eld, that the Planning Commission minutes o£ May 5, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTFS: APRIL 26, 1976 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by I.angeni'eld, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes o£ the Parks & Recreation meeting of April 26, 1976, llpon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 7L Chai.rman Harris said that with regard to the petition on the parcel of land running from Mississippi Street to 67th Way between Ashton Avenue and the railroad tracks, apparently a petition had been received for a park in that area, and asked i£ that was correct. Mr. Peterson replied it was, and informed the Commission that at their May 3rd meeting a preliminary sketch £rom sta£f had been anailable showing what would be done in that area. He explained that it was ta�c-forfeit land and they really wouldn't lmow for sure where it would all be until the street is in and the final survey was in. He £urther explained the Parks and Recreation Cori¢nission was planning on including this in the budget £or development in 77-78� and said it would be a continuing type of development with a master plan. Mr, Boardman asked i£ they recommended holding all 17 lots, and Mr, Peterson replied they had. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, to cqncur with the recommendations on pages 8 and 9 of the Parks and Recreation Comfnission minutes concerning naming o£ parks. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting sye, the motion carried unanimously, RECENE PARKS & RECREATION COMMTSSION MINUTFS: MAY 3, 1976 MOTIDN by Peterson� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of M�y 3, 1976. r11.►i � Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 2 � r� � Mr, Peterson asked the Cormnission to note that it was a reconvened meeting, and not a special meeting. Chairman Harris said he would certainly encourage the Parks and Recreation Coimnission to try to get the Springbrook plan for North Park on firm ground, as it appeared to be up in the air at this time. Mr. PetPrson explained that at the public information meeting of the City Counoil on April 26� the Springbrook Nature Foundation made a presentation to them concerning renegotiating the contract, He said that this was the reason he had adjourned his meeting, and explained they had wanted to be there £or the presentation. Ae stated the City Council had felt it should come back to Parks and Recreation for them to look at and make recoimnendations, and then send back to the Council. He said that the discussion starting on page 2�t (page 6 of their minutes), involved renegotiating the plan. He stated that basically what occurred was that when the contract was first signed by the city, it seemed that Springbrook had then pledged that they would raise money from outside sources for the development of tne operating with the city to furnish certain services. Mr. Peterson further explained that the Sgringbrook Nature Center has a grant of $27,000 contingent on the fact that it be matched by goods� services, or money in an equal amount toward the development of the nature center. He said they had asked that the city £urnish the time o£ the City Naturalist to the Foundation on a no-cost basis. He continued that this involved considerable discussion and it came back to Parks and Recreation� and they felt there were also other things that were important in including in the agreement with the Springbrook Foundation. Mr. Peterson sai.d that the City Council accepted the renegotiated contract with the stipulation that the City Naturalist be rei.mbursed for his time� but �ithaut the four points suggested by the Parks and Recreation Con¢nission. Mr, Harris noted that Item !� on page 31 stated that the Parks and Recreation Director's time under no circumstances be allocated to Springbrook Nature Center� and Mr. Peterson said that it was not part of the agreement as the City Council chose to include that. He said that he didn't know how much o£ Mr. Huf£�s time had been allocated� but he had been talking about 5� and Mr. Peterson said he objected to that because he didn't feel anyone could spend �� of their time and supervise a program that was going to be run basically with volunteers. Chairman Harris said he wished to call their attention to pages 35 and 36 regarding the tax-forfeit property hold that the Parks and Recreation Commission has requested £or certain areas, and said he had some questions about some of those lots. He asked i£ it was the Parks and Recreation Commission's intent to hold all of those lots listed, and Mr, Peterson replied that at the present time it was. Ae said that one of the things they tried to do is hold as much property as they could in the Riverview Heights addition as they felt there was a definite shortage o£ recreational space in that area. He stated that 17 lots involved the proposed park� and the other lots were held because they xere close to some existing property and would fit in with the overall scheme worked out by Mr. Boardman and Mr. Brown, and they felt it would be a mistake to let that property go at this time, Mr, Harris stated he vas particularly interested in the single lots alone, and asked if it was that these narticular ones tied in next to existing parks or were particularly large pieces o£ property. Mr, Peterson said he was talking about the lots that were close to the property that the city had in the Unity Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 3 7� ..�,.-�- area, and Mr. Boardman explained the one lot is an easement off o£ Unity Hospital that was being donated. Mr. Harris asked if all of the lots being held were zoned industrial, and Mr. Boardman said they were. Chairman Harris said the reason he brought this up was because in the past lots had been red-tagged and held for a number o£ years and then released because they were too small to develop. He stated that if they weren't large enough to develop then the hold should not have been put on them i.n the first place. Mr. Boardman said it had probably been done to give the city more time to look at the preperty to see if it could be developed, and added that at this time he would like to hold all of the lots that are tax-forfeit until the parks plan was completed. Mr. Peterson said the Parks and Recreation Commission tried to take into their consideration all the points that were mentioned, and that they had spant a con- siderable amount o£ time going over the lots on a one to one basis, UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECETVE COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT COMMISSION MINUTFS: MAY 11, 1976 MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Conmmnity DeveloFanent Corr¢ni.ssion meeting of May 11, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye! the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris said it would be in order to discuss the street layout near North Park (petition 8-1976), and asked if this would be in the agenda later on. Mr. Boardman replied it would be coming back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. RECENE HUMAN RFSOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 6, 1976 MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Human Resources Co�rmiission meeting of May 6� 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson said he was a bit concerned about the Youth Project Co�nittee}s Teen Center status. He stated it was a little bit like talking against God, motherhood snd country� but it was easy to endorse the idea of the Teen Center and then say it belongs under the supervision of another Cormnission. He said i£ it was that great of an idea, the other Commissions should be willing to be involved. He added that the Community School Board also said it was a great idea, but wouldn't be interested in supervi.sing it. He thought that before the Planning Commission took a stand on it one xay or another� they should be willing to do more than just vote on it. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the Cormnission Would mind not discussing this further until their next meeting when the minutes from the Environmental �uality Commission would be available as they haa touched on it at their laet meeting and ceme up with some valid ideas. Mr. Boardman said he could notiiy the Youth Project Committee to have a representa- tive at the next Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. Langenfeld said then when everyone is done reviewing this they cauld talk about it with all of the ideas in mind. Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page Lt % � RECEIVE APPEAIS COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 11, 1976 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Appeals Connnission meeting of May 11, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Gabel stated that at the last Appeals Coimnission meeting they had some dif£iculty interpreting the code concerning garages on 50 foot lots, She said that they had been operating under the assumption that garages were necessary on these lots, but looking at the code there is nothing specific on 50' lots. She added that the,y should look at it in terms of l�0� lots, also. Mr. Bergman asked i£ the Board of Appeals was looking for some other Co�mnission involvement or input� and Mrs. Gabel said they were asking how to interpret this code when it doesn't apply to !t0 or $0 foot lots. She said that she was quite concerned that without garages there would be a problem o£ visual pollution. Chairman Harris stated there was a problem as far as criteria for where garages were required� and i£ they got an opinion from an attorney, he would say that garages are required on all lots having a minimum lot area of 9,�0 square feet. Mr, Boardman said that it was required that all lot splits having less than 75 feet have a minimum of a single attached garage, and stated they needed an interpretation on this in that there uas a mistake when ii was printed up. He said that what it should have read is £or lots resulting from lot splits having mOre thari the 75 ?oot lot width have a single car garage. Mrs. Gabel asked Mr. Boardman that iF they had a policy that they followed in terms of garages on certain lots, would he get this dorm so the Appeals Con¢nission could have something to work with� and Mr. Boardman replied he would. Mr. Hergman said that the Coimmmity DeveloFxnent Commission had looked into this, but they had been concerned about the size of the garages, Mrs. Gabel said she wondered if they should look into it in terms of whether or not a garage should be required since people have become so much more aware of visual pollution than they used to be� and Mr. Bergman said he would be willing to take that question to the �o�mnunity Development. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Peterson, that the Community Development Commission review the ordinance with regard to garages on any R-1 property. Mr, Peterson stated that some time back when they had worked on the housing code for the City of Fridley, they had felt that anyone who wanted to live here should be able to. He said he got a little disturbed by such things as making a require- ment that a person has to have a garage because that prices the dwelling to a certain level which might not fit in with our stated objective of encouraging all people with all levels of income to live in this area. Mr, Langenfeld agreed and added that it may be putting hardships on people's wishes to purchase a substandard lot, because if he has to purchase a garage he may not be able to a£ford it. Mrs. Gabel said that those were good points and they should be taken into consid- eration when taken up by Con¢rtunity Development. She stated the Appeals Commission talked about this in terms of keeping the community a clean and desirable place to live. Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page $ % P Mr. Langenfeld said that he thought if the city had that type of restriction they would be violating the housi.ng program which this Comni.ssion did approve. Mr. Bergman stated he had a little trouble with that, because the code does put restrictions on what can be built, and this would be merely one more item. Mr. Peterson said that in terms o£ the motion, whenever restrictions were put on they were put on for a purpose, and �the cost of the dwelling is being added to they were stating who could live in a particular area. He said this violates the objective they have in the housing code. Mr. Bergman said he was suggesting they do the same thing when they put a minimum size on a home. Mrs. Gabel stated that on the Appeals Coirnnission� she found it was the builder who didn't want to go through the expense of a garage. He sells it, she explained, and before long the owners are before the Appeals Commission wanting a variance to build a garage. She said most people find a garage desirable as they need a place to put the mower� snow blower, sprinkler� and all the items necessary to maintain a yard. Their only other recourse would be to have a tin shed for storage, she stated. Chairman Harris asked Mr. Boardman to contact Mrs. Shea to see if Human Resources wanted to handle this matter. Mr. Bergman said he thought the Environmental Quality Commission would want to consider this� and Mr. Peterson agreed. Mr. Langenfeld stated if they were just going to analyze an ordinance and determine whether or not a garage should be required he didn't think their involvement was necessary, but when you start talking about tin sheds he would have to agree. Cha3rman Harris suggested ihat perhaps they should expand this and look at the whole spectrum of accessory buildings. Mrs. Gabel asked if an attached garage was an accessory building, and Mr. Boardman said it was, UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris said it was up to the F.7ivironmental Commission if they wanted to look at it. Chairman Harris commended the Appeals Coimnission for all of their work, and noted they had handled many items in a very judicial manne*. PiTBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #76-Ob, KEtutv�;uz 'rxen�Ml��� To allow automotive transmission repair and service, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, D, in a C-2S zone (general shopping areas), to be located on the Easterly 200 feet of Lot I�� Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition� eaccept the North 160 feet thereof, subject to street, utility and drainage easements of record� the same being 7700 University Avenue Northeast. Mr, Bruce Kennedy and Mr. Mike Elko of Kennedy Transmission were present, along with Mr. Charles Vonderharr� ot.mer of Midvest Transmission at 6031 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a special use permit, SP#76-06, by Kennedy Trsnsmission. IIpon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M. Mr, Boardman explained the lot they were looking at is just north of Bob's Produce and south of Capp Homes along University Avenue just north of Osborne. Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 6 � 7 Q He said this would be going to the Appeals Corr¢nission £or the side yard setback� and it also requires a'lot split. He told the Conanission that the building itselY does meet code requirements� eaccept for the side yard setback, and City Staff has no problem with it. He said thare were several things regarding the lot split which should be brought out as there were several conflicting road patterns in this area. Mr. Boardman stated that Bob Schroer has a proposed road going behind the cormnercial properties, attd there is a frontage road, The utility road, or service road, behind this would be to service those commercial properties that are landlocked. Mr, Boardman showed the Co�nission a map of the area and explained which cormnercial properties along the ironi were being split oif o£ the larger lots, and shotaed them the diroider line separating the industrial to the west and the co�mnercial to the east. He stated that at the present time there was a road easement o£ 33 £eet� snd that road e�ment cuts into Kennedy Transmission property, He stated that they would want to reco�nend that this easement be vacated and the additional 33 feet be picked up, and added that Mr. Schroer was in agreement wi.th this. Mr. Boardman then showed to the Commission the proposed road system that Mr. Schroer had planned� and said that by providi.ng that road easement the�city would be about 7 feet ofF their bulding, and the building could probably not be developed if that road easement was carried through, He showed them a picture of the building itself and a survey� and said what they would require on this special use permit would be a stipulation on the property that iF the road goes in� twenty feet of green area would be required. He stated that this would allow them to have a 12.� drive . He continued that another suggestion he would make is that with the dedication of this easement, another fifteen feet be dedicated as green strip, which is similar to what was done at Win Stephens. Chairman Harris asked where the egress came from� and Mr. Boardman answered from the proposed service drive. Mr. Harris said that then for all intents and purposes the service drive would have to be used, and Mr. Boardman said only if this property which he poinied out on ihe map is developed, rlr. Harris said one thing that puzzled him was "if" the road goes in� and asked c�rhat alternative there was. Mr. Boardman said the back property could all be sold, and they would have to rezone. He explained that the problem with this was that they are not sure 3f the road is going to go in or not� so an easement has to be provided for it so they don�t become landlocked. Mr. Harris asked how wide the street was, and Mr. Boardman replied 30 feet. Mr. Peterson said thai xas too n�rrow £or a coimnercial property street. Mr. Boardman said that the City Council has approved the actual plana and they had been picking up �0� righi of way to match this plan. He stated they would probably want a fourteen £oot driving aisle with no parking, Mr. Boardman stated that i£ the road goes in the,city Vrould probably ask for additional righi o£ way o££ of these properties� but that would make them smaller yet,, and he added he didn�t know if he really saw that as a viable commercial zone. Tie said there has been quite a problem there anyway; £irst it was platted into these lots, and then lot splits have been granted of£ o£ those in a piecemeal fashion. He said he would much rather see a total development plan making the actual size o£ the commercial lots a little larger and then going with the industrial Planning Corrunission Meeting - May 19, 197b Page 7 7 R h�nd it� b�t he said he thought they xere developing a pattern and this would be a completion o£ the pattern. Mr, Boardman said all the drainage would be drained off the road onto the service drive where there was pickup� and said the landscaping was good and the Kennedy Transmission building was of nice design. Mr. Kennedy approached the Commission and stated they had served a lot of suburbs and didn't quite realize the problems they would have to overcome. He said he wanted to stress that the tsaffic from his business would be minimal. Ae £urther stated that they were a clean, neat business and intended to stay that way; and would add to the area rather than take away from it. He said there would be less traffic in the area because of them, and wouldn't be an industrial tyoe o£ thing at all. He asked the Cotmnission to view some pictures and slides of the other two existing operations he had. Chairman Harris asked if they would be handling anything larger than a two-ton truck, and Mr. Kennec�y replied they would handle strictly automobiles and light trucks and occasionally a motor home. He stated they were opposed to motor homes but would occasion211y handle a 20' one, so the building wou13 be larg� Anough to get one in the door and one stall would be provided. Mr. Kennedy introduced to the Commission his partner, Mr. Elko. Mr. Elko stated that this was a very specialized business today, and they were very specialized in it, He said that the shop in Fridley would be �heir third one, besides their main one in Bloomington, He stated that he and Mr. Kennedy had been in business together since it started in 1962, and the,y had no other partners except those that they took in when the.y opened a ne�e place, He eacplained they had a code of ethics that defined what their shop cou13 do, and they itemize each thing. He stated they were proud of their business and they had been a good neighbor in Golden Valley and Bloomington, and wanted to keep their good name and be a good neighbor in Fridle,y. Mr. Harris asked i£ anyone else i.n the audience would like to speak, and Mr. Vonderharr stated he was the owner of Midwest Transmission at 6031 University Avenue� and just wanted to let the Conm�ission lmow that there were two trans- mission shops in Fridley right now. Mr. Kennedy stated that their Bloomington shop was very close to a Midwest Transmission, and he didn't think there would be any friction in this area. He said they felt there was adeouate business for honest� reliable businesses like both o£ theirs. MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Corrunission close the Public Hearing on a request for a special use permit, SP #76-06, bY Kennedy Transmission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Kennedy had stated the only time he and Mr. Elko took another partner was when they started a new operation, and asked Mr. Kennedy i£ this meant that the Fridley operation wwld have another partner. Mr. Kennedy replied it would, and he would be a long-time employee of Kennedy Transmissions. Mr. Ber�nan asked if it was properly within the process of a special use permit question to get involved in street right-of-way, green area widths, street patterns and even side yard variances. He asked if those were really germane to the question o£ a special use permit applicable to the property. Chairman Harris Planning Conm�i.ssion Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 8 % S replied that all those mentioned except the side yard setback would be germsne to the topic� and the side yard setback would be under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Boardman about the landscaping on this, and he replied that he had looked at the landscaping and he did approve it. He stated he £elt it was adequate and they did a nice job on it. He said he would question the size of the trees� as they show 1�" trees and the standard size is 21-�". Mr, Harris asked Mr. Boardman if the lot split Was approved if they would have to come back with a vacation request, and Mr. Boardman replied they would. He suggested what this Commission might want to do� however, is request that the City Council vacate the easement so it would not have to come back here, but could be processed through a public hearing proce�s at the City Council. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded for discussion by Bergman, to grant the request for a special use permit, SP /f76-06, Kennedy Transmission: To allow automotive transmission repair and service, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, D, in a C-2S zone (general shopping areas), to be located on the Easterly 200 £eet of Lot 1y� Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the North 160 feet thereof� subject to street, utility and drainage easements of record, the same being 7700 University Avenue Northeast, with the following stipulation: If a rear road (public right-of-way) is put in, it would require the transmission shop to put in a 20� green area on their property. Mr. Bergman asked if the vacation of that right-o£-way was germane to this partic- ular question, and Mr. Harris said it was because without it the building could not be constructed. Mr. Boardman stated that this whole thing revolves around the road, and the road was the big "if" in there. However, he said, by providing the lot splits we are landlocking property� and because o£ the landlocked property easements have to be provided and that is what they are doing. He said they were not sure if that property is going to develop, but they did have to provide that easement, Mr. Peterson said the "ifs" were caused because this had been done piecemeal, without any particular plan. Mr. LangenYeld agreed, and said he saw that the city should be aware of future planning and then plan this accordingly. Mr. Boardman stated this project should not be held up because it was the only link to reality, and anything behind it was the big "if". Mr. Langenfeld asked if all these "ifs" would cause anyundo hardship on this particular business at a future date, and Mr. Harris replied he couldn�t see them causing this particular piece of property a lot of problems. Ms. Harris stated he could see it causing the property behind a lot of problems, and had some real questions in his mind as to if it would be econoraically feasible to go with large industrial properties because of the soil. He said he didn't think this particular parcel would have any problem with this action. Mr. Langen£eld raised the question o£ the street width� and Mr. Peterson and Mr. Harris agreed that they £elt it was too small. Mr. Langen£eld concurred, and asked i£ there was a means in which it could be changed without altering plans. Chairman Aarris said that could be worked out with Mr. Schroer� and he didn't thi.nk it had anything to do with this particular piece of property. Planning Corrunission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 9 % T - ----._— Mr. Bergman stated that he was concerned with the street right-o£-xay, not relative to this piece of property, but relating to the lot split. He suggested that they address the street question on the next item. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. IAT SPLIT REQUEST L.S. if76-0lt BY ROBERT A. SCHROER: Split off the Easterly 00 Feet of Lot � Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition� except the North 160 feet thereo£� subject to street, utility and drainage easement� o£ record, the same being 7700 University Avenue Northeast. Mr. Jon Peterson, a representative of Robert Schroer, was present, Mr, Boardman e�cplained that basically this was the same item they had previously discussed. He said they do have the problems o£ the east/west road going through this property� and Sta££ would recommend that this roadway be vacated and the easement be picked up. He stated the easement was 33� on the side and 30' a]1 along the back. Mr. Peterson said he would feel better if there was a 36` ease- ment. Mr. Bergman stated they were talking about egress to cormnercial and industrial property� and he asked the administration what would be a standard right-of-way width based on city standards. Mr. Boardman replied they normally try to get a 36� roadway, with 50� right of way. Chairman Harris said that in this particular area at the time of platting, it was requested that the rest of the road system be serviced with a 66' right-of-way. He stated that on the service drive it is a 50' right-of-way; and 79th, Main Street, Beech Street, Elm Street and 77th are all 66'. He explained that at the time of platting the administration was vehement that they retain a 66' right-of-way for Main Street, and he commented that it seemed like standards changed dramatically. Mr. Peterson asked what action the City Council had taken on this, and Mr. Boardman said it was h3s understanding that they looked at the plan and concurred with the actual planning o£ the layout. Ae said they did not take action on the final plat, but they concurred with the concept behind it. Chairman Harris asked i£ they made a recommendation to the City Council to grant the lot splita what would happen in the future when the road was put in, and where would they plow the snow? Mr. Boardman suggested showing their concern on the road width in a special motion. Mr. Peterson said a special motion wouldn't mean anything because the lot split would already be granted. Mr. Bergman said there was a request from administration to provide data toward a set of street standards £or the City of Fridley based on zoning, of£-street ver=us on-street parking, identifjring streets as to residential, through streets, etc. He stated he did not lmow the status of that request� but felt it was pertinent to what they were discussing. He said he would not be adverse that the data toward street siandardization, along with this plan, be sent to Community Deve2opment to put together a set of street standards and apply them against street planning problems. Mr. Boardman asked if he was talking about holding up this lot split, and Mr. Bergman replied he was, He added that he just wanted to lay these thoughts out on the table� and would accept suggestions. i Planning Commission Meeting - M�y 19, 1976 Page 10 7 � Mr. Boardman stated that if the roadkay easement takes ayray 33' of their usable property which vould be used for parki.ng and landscaping, they would be parking on the easement, which would be allowed. However� he e�cplained� if we maintained that as a street right-of-way and the road �,�ent through� thev would lo�? that property. Mr. Peterson said he thought that was an acceptable plan, but there was still the 30� street. Mr. $oardman suggested they request a KO' right-of-way. Mr. Bergman said he felt what this body should be doing is what they felt was the proper thing to do. He said he felt that what had been proposed� which is in essence to turn back half of what was intended to be a 66' right-of-way, Was not groper planning. Chairman Harris said he understood that Mr. Schroer's problem was that this whole thing is up in the air and undecided, He stated he wished the whole street situation would be settled� as it would be to everybody�s advantage. Mr, Peterson said he specifically remembered asking at the time the lot split was aoproved for Win Stephens Datsun that more planning be done� and he sai.d they had been assured it would happen before there were any more requests for lot splits. He pointed out that here they were a year later looking at another lot split and were still piecemealing. Mr. Jon Peterson, representing Mr. Schroer, stated that it appeared Kennedy�s needs and the city�s needs would have to be met in order for them to develop the property the way they want to. He said that if the city told them to make it a wider street� it appeared that they would have to do 3t. Chairman Harris stated that what they were driving at vas that this area right now is in a state of £lux� and Mr. Schroer doesn't lmox �rhich *,ray to go. He said that Mr. Schroer should start deciding if these were to be commercial lots or industrial and if there was going to be a street in there or not� as these were questions that had to be settled. Mr. Jon Peterson said that it appeared that the reason no more of this had been settled was the "L" shape of the parcel remaining, Mr. Harris suggested Mr. Schroer get together zrith the property owners and find out what their p2ans were. Mr. Jon Peterson suggested that since there was more front commercial land to be d�veloped and since the requirements for the street were to be wider, maybe eliminating the need for some of the blacktop, making the lots facing the west with industrial zoning and the back door controlled by the city planners would be a solution. Chairman Harris said Mr. Schroer should be urged to determine how the whole area is going to be developed. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Lot Split Request L.S. #76-01�, by Robert A. Schroer: Split of£ the Easterly 200 £eet o£ Lot l�, Block 2� East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, except the North 160 feet thereof, subject to street, utility and drainage easements of record, the same being 7700 University Avenue Northeast, with the following conditions: l, That the existing street dedication o£ 33' on the south side of the property be vacated and replaced by a 50' street dedication on the property immediately to the south (East Ranch Estates, lst Addition). P12nning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 11 � V 2, That the city prohibit permanent construction on the proposed roadway on the west side of the propert,y until further development o° total area planning, including a more firm street dedication plan, in recognition that the 3o' planned width is not adequate. Upon a voice wte, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl,y. Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10:10 and reconvened the meeting at 10:32. REVIEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE IN CHAPTER 602,,BEER: LICEN$E REQUIRII✓�ENTS Mr. Boardman said he had been asked to draw up the ordinance per the discussion at the last Corrmiission meeting and bring it back to the Planning Commission for their revieW and recotmnendations. He stated the ordinance was one establishing Chapter 602 and repealing the old Chapter 602. He explained he had expanded the definitions to include what a tavern is (The term "tavern" shall mean any on-sale beer operation intending to operate over any 6 day consecutive period or more than 6 days during any 6 month period) and what a temporary beer operation is (The term "temporary beer operation" shall mean any on-sale beer operation not subject to the provisions of Section 602.01 paragraph 2 of this code and shall be subject to Council approval). Mr. Boardman said the process he had to go through was to add the definitions and remove all the sexist language. He stated that he also had to make a revi.sion to Chapter 11, the fee chapter, and he suggested it say "Add new £ee under subject of liquor (non-intoxicating malt) for temporary license. The temporary license fee shall be $20. per day". He said they would be charging the same £or a temporary six-day license as they would for a permanent one-year license, which is $120, because it would be similar to a full-time operation. Mr. Langen£eld commented that he felt six days was too short and the $20 fee was too high. Mr. Boardman explained the Commission had passed on the si�c days, but the $20 may be too high. Mr. Peterson stated that tournaments usually lasted Pour days, an3 the two main ones were the Jaycees and the Police and Fire Department, which were non-profit. Mr. Boardman explained that there was something included in the ordinance stating that non-profit organizations could request the fees bei�aived. Mr. Peterson said that in the Parks and Recreation Commission they had estimated the cost was $100 to clean up the diamonds other than normal maintenance after a tournaznent, so they had requested that $100 be posted. If the field was cleaned up to the city�s satisfaction� he explained, the,,rwould get it back; if not� the city kept the $100. Mr. Peterson said that in section 602.01 the term "non-i.ntoxicating malt liquor" was used and also "intoxicating liquor", and questioned what that meant. He stated he objected to the term "non-intoxicating° when referring to malt liquor, Mr. Board- man explained that this was the terminology that is presently used in the code. Chairman Harris said that for some reason when they were working on ordinances they came into "state language", and that didn't necessarily make it right. Mr. Boardman said it may not be right, but it was consistent. He said there are many possible con£licts as far as terminology, so it was best to have the termino'_og« consistent with that organization that is making the regulations for legal purposes. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the reason the state wording was used was because they have already approached the legal aspects. Planning Cormnission Meetin� - May 19, 1976 Page I2 % �j Mr. Bergman said it was his nnderstanding that any party or organization could apply for a temporary license� and over a twelve-month period of time could operate for twelve days of non-intoxicating beer sales during the year, and in doing so would then pay twice as much in order to operate for twelve days as the present annual license fee. He stated that did not sound reasonable to him. Mr. Boardman suggested a$10 fee, and Mr. Bergman said that sounded more appropriaie, Mr. Boardman said they are making changes in three sections: Chapter 602 (beer ordinance), Chapter 11 (licensing}, and Chapter 205 (zoning ordinance). Mrs, Gabel asked if there was a limit on the number of these licenses, and Mr. Boardman replied there was not. Mr, Harris asked how an organization would go about applyi.ng for a temporary license� and Mr. Boardman said it would be the same as £or regular license requirements. Mr. Harris asked if there were any location restrictions for temporary licenses� and Mr. Boardman answered that there was a restriction regarding hours, but not locations. He said it could be sold anyplace with City Council approval, and the controlling factor on that was the Council, Chairman Harris raised the question of drinking in parks, and Mr. Boardman said 3.2 beer was permissab2e for drinking and selling �n Locke Park and Go�mnons, and any other neighborhood park with City Council approval. Mr. Peterson said that this sometimes got out o£ hand crith the so£tball teams, and there was the public nuisance aspect o£ it. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission concur with the proposed ordinance changes as £ollows: with Chapter 602 as written; with Chapter 11 with the revision of the temporary license fee being changed from $20 to $10 per day; and with Chapter 205.101 as written, Mr. Boardman said that just recently the State of Minnesota allowed temporary beer operation on school properties, and said he had been trying to £ind it in the ordinance. He stated that the city should try to be consistent with the schools; and if a school social wanted to sell 3.2 beer, he believed they would require a license. Chairman Harris said he questioned that because school buses are not under the domain of the Highway Department, but were under the domain of the school dzstrict. Mr, Boardman said he was sure they couldn't be less restrictive than the state. Mr. Harris stated that the school jurisdiction was just like any other unit_of government, and he wasn�t sure the city would have any jurisd=ction as to what goes on on school property, Mr. Boardman said he would check into it, and if Mr. Herrick felt it should be in, it would be added. Mr, Harris said he didn�t £eel that should be done without checking with the school boards involved; and stated he would almost think that as £ar as the schools go, that should be han3led as a separate entity, UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, , GONTINUED: RECOMPSENDATIONS ON HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Mr. Boardman said that copies o£ the recommendations had not been run off the copy machine yet� but goal statement D-100 had been reviewed at the last meeting and he did rewrite it and narrow it down to £ive objectives, He asked the Commission if they would prefer to postpone discussion on this until copies were available. Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 13 ] x MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, to table discussion of the recommendations on Human Denelopment Goals and Objectives until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RE-EVALUATION OF STREET LAYOUT NEAR NORTH PARK: (PETITION 8-1976) Mr. Langenfeld said that this had been handled at the Fhvironmental Quality Commission meeting the night before, and the minutes would be ready at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, Mr, Peterson said that before moving on to Item 6 he wished to call the CoTmnission�s attention to the Comparison Of Recreation Activities which had been passed out. He stated that this was the first time that Parks and Recreation had anything like this, and a lot of the co�rmtent on it was in the minutes o£ their May 3rd meeting. He added that he had requested copies of this information be made £or this Commission. Chairman Harris said a motion would be in order to receive the Guidelines To End Unconscious Sexual Biases which had been passed out at the meeting. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, to receive the Guidelines To �d Unconscious Sexual Biases. Upon a voice vote, all Qoti.ng aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson said he had a problem accepting under Number !t, using "salesperson" instead of "salesman". He stated he was a salesman and he was oroud of it. Mrs. Gabel said it was good to get away from sexual biases, but it does take away one's identity to constantly use "person". Mr. Peterson said he thought this type of language change was in order, but he did object to having his identity taken away. Mr. Langenfeld stated he felt the whole purpose o£ this was to try to eliminate some o£ the domination that is applied by the use o£ 'hnan" all the time. FROM EQC ON REPLACING CHAPTER 212. U.B.C. Mr. Boardman said that this had gone to the City Council last Honday, and it was a reconunendation from City Staf£ that this U.B.0 Chapter 70 on FSccavation and Grading be included into the Building Code. He stated he did not want to delete 212. Mining Sand and Gravel as they have two separate functions. Mining Sand and Gravel covers an actual commercial operatipn� whereas the U.B.C. hasidles guidelines and set� forth standards ?or setting grades� etc. Mr. Bergman stated he thought what the City Administration .ras saying is that they have adopted section number such and such of the Uni£orm Building Code, and what they were talking about was replacing a mining ordinance with that same thing. He said he felt they were talking about tvro different ordinances. Mr. Peterson said that may be so, but he got disturbed when Staff went directly to the City Council and bypassed the Planning Commission, Mr. Boardman said that the Planning Commission does not handle anything that goes on with the U.B.C. He explained that every year there are new amendments that come out under the state Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 1� % Y --- building code and it goes to the City Council for adoption into the building code. He sai.d the building code does not go through the Planning Commission. Mr. Langen£eld read the following motion from the �viromnental C6mmission Meeting of April 20, 1976: MOTION by Mike Parioovich� seconded b,y Bruce Peterson, that the Flzvironmental Corrmission recoimnend to the Planning Corunission the adoption of Chapter 70 0£ the Uniform Building Code as a replacement for the present Chapter 212 lmoxn as a mining ordinance, and that any proposed ordinance be brought be£ore this Commission £or review prior to being submitted to the City Council for its approval. Mr, Langenfeld stated there was no need for them to even consider these things if they were going to go direct. Mr. Boardman explained they were talking about two separate things. He said they were adopting Chapter 70 of the U.B.C. as a document to fit into the building code. He further explained that the building code operation was separate from the actual zoning code operation which controlled lands; and the building code was for actual detailing of construction of buildings. He said the reason this doesn't go to the Planning Commission is because they would be bogged down as there are constant amendments. Mr. Bergman stated that he would like to get back to the subject of Item b and review the recorrmiendation from the E�vironmental Commission on replacing Chapter 212 with Chapter 70 of the U.B.C. He said that it seemed to him to be out of conte�ct as he couldn't fully understand why they should replace a coirunercial mining section within the zoning ordinance with something from the building code. Mr. Peterson suggested that it would be Well to re£er this back to the E�vironmental Quality Commission to see if they should take another look at it. Mr, Langen£eld said that here again the,y were starting to talk about land alteration ordinances, and they definitely felt that the Mining Sand and Gravel was not applicable to land alterations. He said the trouble lies in that Mining Sand and Gravel was construed to be the governing ordinance for alteration o£ land. Chairman Iiarris read from Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code under Section ?003 where it stated that no person shall do any grading without first havin� obtained a grading permit from the Building Official exceot for the £o].]owing, and under Number 6 it stated: Mining, quarrying, excav�ng, processing, stock- piling of rock, sand, gravel� aggregate or cl�,y where established and provided £or by law provided such operations do not afFect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or pressure•upon any adjacent or continguous property. He stated that this is where the mining code would come into e££ect, as Chapter 70 would cover everything but that, Mr. Langenfeld said that this particular motion was the a£termath of a suggestion made by the Staff inember at the meeting. Mr, Harris said that he agreed with the EYivironmental Commission on Section 212, as he felt it was lacking. He stated he was concerned about the condition that the land was left in after mining� and the £ill� which could be a pro6lem later on. Mrs. Gabel suggested that something for restoration should be included, along with a way of enforcing it, MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission, in recog- nition that Chapter 70 0£ the U.B.C. has been adopted within the City of FY�idley Huilding Code� and that it specifically treats mining operations as a separate consideration from that chapter� and that the Planning Cormnission does not concur Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 197b Page 15 � Z. with the recommendation to replace Chapter 212 with Chapter 70 0£ the U.B.C. but does recormnend that the Ekivironmental Quality Commission review Chapter 212 £or improvements. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld stated that ordinances were di£ficult things for any commission to analyze and submit an intelligent recommendation on, and it was made more difficult when inappropriate recoimnendations were made from Staff. He said that from now on they would analyze these as a Commission and act on that basis. HOUSING DISCUSSION: Mr. Boardman informed the Cormnission that the Community Development Block Grant that had been submitted was denied, He said that in that block grant some of the monies would be used for loans� rehabilitation� etc.� and that they were into two separate areas: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Fridley State Bank� which has applied £or a$100�00� loan so they can go ahead with the low interest loan applications. He explained that now Metro Council has come to him on another program they are working on through other Federal funding sources in Washington, and said that the others are state agencies. He stated that he would be going to the City Council Monday night to ask for a recocrm�endation from them to see if h�e should get involved in these programs from bfetro Council. He added that 20% of the funds they received from HUD could be used £or administrative costs. Mrs. Gabel asked yrhy the Block Grant was denied, and Mr. Boardman replied Metro Council reviewed the application on different criteria than HUD; their criteria being amount of overcrowding and aznount o£ poverty. Mr. Hoardman explained Fridley ranked loa in both of those areas. Chairman Harris asked i!' the a,lterna�e crogr�^.s were a3ministered b,y HUD also, and Mr. Boardman answered they were not. He explained they were separate Federal programs that were availableto regional bodies, and that regional body was Metro Council. He stated he had just talked to Metro Covncil on this� and was somewhat concerned about city staf£ operating the actual loan aspect. At least with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency it was all handled through the Fridley Bank. He continued that there were some questions he had with Metro Council on this, and he hadn't received an answer yet. He said one was if the city could have a bank operate it and then charge of£ to the bank. Mr. Boardman explained the person would be taking the loan out, and the city would be subsidizing the interest rate. Mr. Harris asked who would be on the hook in case of default� and Mr. Boardman replied it was his understanding the bank would be, He said the c�ty would just be paying the dif£erence between the interest rates, but the bank would have the contract with the person, Mr, Harris asked if he was s�ying that the city administrates this, and Mr. Boardman said the city would administrate the money to the bank. Mr. Harris questioned if the city would be involved in granting the loans, and Mr. Boardman reolied they would not� but they would probably be involved in doing the credit checks to see if the applicants were qualified. Mr. Harris asked if the city had the staff personnel to do this. Mr. Boardman said that they would be getting a 20� reimbursement; £or instance, if the city got monies from this program for $100,000, then $20�000 of that is administrative monies and $80,000 is left £or the operation o£ the program. Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1976 Page 16 �� Mr. Langenfeld said that if John Doe decides he is going to get this loan, which the city has agreed to subsidize, he thought it would be conceivable that the bank is going to get the highest possible interest on this loan and charge the cit,y perhaps 12�. He said then the individual would only have to ne,y 2� and the citr would be forced to pay the 10%, and asked if that was how it was going to work. Chairman Harris replied that he thought the legal lending rate was set at 8-3/b�, and these were set by the state on a quarterly basis. He assumed that these loan rates that the bank would charge to the individual would be 8-3/��. Mr. Bergman pointed out that the rates they had been ouoting were applicable only on commercial loans, Mr. Langenfeld stated he never lmew the city was going to back up interest rates, and Mr. Harris explained this kas part of the HUD application and was in the Housing Plan. He said he, hoxever, did not ]mow the city was going to become involved in the actual lending of the program. He stated he did not think the city was equipped or sta£fed to get into the lending business. Mr. Boardman said he would check into this further to see what type o£ ooeration it is, and that he didn�t see any problem with a grant program. He said it bothered him that the city would have to admini�rate a loan program. He stated he realized he did not have all the information to present to the Commission, but he l�ranted to let them lmow the direction that was being taken and get their feeling on it. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Gabel, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1976 adjourned at 12:15 A.M. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, ��� / � `�"i"" _ - /� Sherri 0'DOnnell, Acting Secre�lary , � ; i : l�/s�s 3��' �'�1 f�' �'"/ r- 08.� tf��S °�. nyiNSa'�`jQ 7�Si0/ C�i �+�'^'�'J o..ti.m-m,.�rti%p' a/£'4/' � �r',�s's 3�v � -�;^�-�, � � �o�' �'d� -�,,,�' s p �fr6 � '�a ��v����-�h� i d�oa.� 7�aa,f� aJ �� �� q I �! � �� iv �Y-� f�'CI 6�j �i ty�r�(7 ��{�?l � Q�� �� �!� ���'r? �// � � �..�.�� �Q�, . a �z� ' ,�� � � � �� �� ; Ss321tlCT� �j 3U.t�fN �.l.1111�0� ��37� � � w .� ���.� ��,..f � ��� �1 L! �! r� �