The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 08/18/1976 - 6591City of fridley � AGENDA . ��•- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 18, 1976 CALL TO ORDER: � •..� !� Z ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COhB�IISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 4 1976 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 19 RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES CQhMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 5 1976 20 � 24 a. Dedication of $6,000 from City Budget for human development. b. Five Affirmative Action Program items. c. $1,000 be designated, for the next six months, to the Fridley Fine Arts Comnittee. RECEIYE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 1976 1. 2. a. Recomnendation on garages in R-1 zoning. HEARING: CONSI �e�ng a repiat or �ots i to 4 inc�usive, Blocks 21 through 26, and also part of Lot 1, Block 28, Inns- bruck North Townhouses Third Addition, to allow changes in the size of garages, generally located on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road N.E. Pu61ic tiearing open. PERMTT , �r.ii/0-IG, Cr rH6u rHUIU, 11VGUKYUFWTtU: To peY'tOlt a filn processing drop-off booth, per Fridley,City Code, Section 265.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Sylvan Hills Plat 7, the'same being 248 Mississippi Street N.E. 25 - 39 40 - 43 - 44 - 44 3. VACTION REQilEST, SAV #76-�5, ASSUtiANCE MANUFACTURIN6 COt4PANY: To vacaie the 16 foot drainage and utility easement bounded on the North by the Westerly extension of the North line of tat 5, Block 7, Onaway Addition, and bounded on the South by the Westerly extension of the 5outh line of Lot 7, Block 7, Onaway Addition, ta allow tfie connection of the buildings on both sides of the easement with a structure, the same being 7753 Beech Street N.E. 50 - 55 56 - 59 City of fridley.Planning Cortunission Agenda, August �8, 1976, Page 2 4. CQNTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 60ALS AND OBJECTIYES• At meeting � 5. REVIEW OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIDN MINUTES: Last agenda JULY 6, 12 AND 6th> 1976: ADJOURIJMENT: � � m C� J �� m PLANhIYG COMMISSION MEETING CALL ^'0 ORDER: CITY OF FRIDLEY AUGUST 4, 197E Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PAGE 1 P.OLL �ALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Lambert (attending for Shea), Langenfeld� Schnabel i'.embers Absent: Others Present: Peterson Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPRO'JE PLAIS�;ING COMMISSION t�iINUTES: 3ULY 28, 197b Mrs. Lambert said that regarding the third paragraph on page 3, the Fine Arts CommitLee was not the only accive subcommittee, but the �outh Pro;ject Committee was also very active. She also pointed out in the same paragrapn inat Human Relations should be changed to Human Resources. MOTION by Schnabel� seconded by Langenfeld, ;,l�at the Planning Connissicn minutes of July 28� 1976 be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote� ail voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATI0�1 COMMISSIOti MINUTES: JULY 26, 1976 N,rs. Schnabel stated she had a question concerning page 3 of their minutes� under item 2. She said��e�8�e��on uas raised concerning the soccer field at Locke Park� and hir. �iairis said that money had been appropriated £or i� in the budget. However, she said, when she went through the budget she did not see any money appropriated £or it and wondered i£ that was_ an error or if she had difficulty finding it. Mr. Boardman said that Parks and Recreation had asked for it last year and it was cut out by the City Council, He stated that this year he thought they asked for it again, but he was not sure. He suggested that would be a good thing to bring up at the next Planning Commission meeting Khen a representative from Parks and Recreaiion would be in attendance. Mrs. Schnabel said she had raised the question at the last Commission meeting of what the dollar amount of the total Parks and Recreation budget was. She stated that she had added the figures up herself, and thought the other members would be interested. She explained she had taken the top dollar amount of everything, which didn't include any monies that might come back to them through concessions or other resources, and it came to $1�8,613. F�� Planning Commission Meeting - August 1�� 1976 p�e p Mrs. Schnabel stated that her next question in relation to that would be, 3s the Planning Commission to make any decisions on this budget or is it totally Within the realm of the Parks and Recreation Department? Chairperson Harris � stated thst he thought the Charter was seL up so that Parks and Recreation proposes a budget, but the approval of that budget was completely up to the City Council. He added that iF Mrs. Schnabel wished to discuss it, they would be within the realm of operation. Mrs. Schnabel said that if the Planning , Commission was responsible to make any comments on it or ask any questions about it, she would feel inadequate in asking those questions as she didn�t lmow what the past procedure had been with regard to Parks and Recreation. She continued that if they were required to do that, then she, personally, would like some budgets £rom other years to make comparisons. Mr. Boardman said that the Parks and Recreation budget had never been reviewed by the Planning Commission be£ore. He stated the only reason it goes be£ore the Planning Commission was to see if it fit in with the adopted goals and objectives o£ the community. In other words� he said, i£ they said they needed a tennis court and according to the goals and objectives it was not needed� it would then be up to the Planning Commission to say that wasn�t an objective of the city to provide that. He said that this is where the realm of the Planning Commission'woul.d come in� but not necessarily an item by item budgeting going through past budgets, etc. Mr. Boardman sai.d he felt t5at would be very weighty to go through two Commission processes of•going over a budget and then to the City Council. He added that Parks and Recreation was supposed to be a responsible enough Commission to promote this with just a review by the P2ann3ng Commi.ssion 1s far as the application to the overall goals of the city. Mrs. Schnabel said she appreciated that explanation. She added she was not � aware of the process and wanted to be better informed ii' they were called upon to do anything with it. Mr. Langenfeld asked to be corrected if he was wrong� but said he thought that this was nothing but a proposed cash outlay and guide, Mr. Boardman said these were outlay costs--what Parks and Recreation felt they needed to develop these things. He explained the City Council would now take a look at it and cut it in areas and add in other areas. Mr, goardman further explained the Planning Commission should review it according to the overall views of the community, He said the whole purpose of the Planning Commission was an over-view Commission. He added that all the other Commissiors below �hem were to work on implementation of policies and then the Planning Commission was to see that the implementation xas carried out and to see that they were going in the right direction, Mr. Bergman said that he noticed that out of thirteen park areas, the Parls and Recreation budget only provided funding for numbers one through six. Mr, Boardman explained there were six maintenance areas in the city, and the budget was deve2oped according to those maintenance areas. Mr. Bergman asked if he was saying that in addition to the map which had thirteen areas� there was another map which had six areas� and Mr, Boardman said that was correct, Mr. Bergman asked if it was the long-range Parks and Recreation Plan that Innsbruck North Park be a nature center, and Mr, Boardman answered not necessarily. He said that all parks T,ri.thin the community except Locke Park, North Park end the • �� s Planning Commission Meeting - August lt, 1976 . Page 3 Island of Peace had heen given ta those thirteen neighborhood project committees �to see if the uses within the park area vere compatible with the neighborhoods. He added that they Were waiting for response toward the end of September on those. Mr. Bergmen said ne noted there was no money indicated in the budget toward Innsbruck North Park, and Mr. Boardman said he thought it was just about completed. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of July 26, 1976. Mrs, Schnabel asked if the motion should state they could hold additional questions until the next meeting. Chairperson Harris brought to the Commission's attention Ztem No. 6 on the agenda� which concerned reviewing the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of July bth and July 12th, 1976, and said that particular item could be tabled until the next regular meeting. Mrs. Scnnabel pointed out that the question she had aske3 earlier about the soccer field would be included in the July 26th minutes� and Chairperson Hasris suggested she make a note of it and bring it up at the next regular meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all noting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEAIS COMMISSION MTNUTFS: JULY 27, 1976 Mrs. Schnabel said that she would like to bring to the attention of the Planning Commiss3on a motion that was passed by the Appeals Commissic: on the bottom oi page 19. She explained the City Council had raised the fees within the city � recently� and it was the feeling of the members of the Appeals Commission that on owner-occupied residential properties the �50 fee :rom gIs �.ras excessive, and thought $25 ma�cimum would be a sufiicient fee. She explained that they asked that the City Council reconsider that one fee. Mrs. Schnabel said that to give them an example� at their July 27th meeting they had a request for a variance of one foot by a property owner. She said it was felt that fo: that groperty owner to pay $5Q for one foot appeared to be an excessive amount o£ money. Chairperson Harris asked how those fees were arrived at� and Air. Boardman replied they were arrived at according to Staff cos�s. He explained that whether the variance was for one foot or one hundred feet, the same amount of notices had to be sent out and there was the same amount of work as far as StafS operation costs went. Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Commi.ssion realized that at the time. However� she said, they did £eel that on that particular section of owner-occupied residential properties the fee was excessive, and they had no quarrel with industrial or anything else. Mr. Boardman added that the fees were also ��Parable to the co�mnunity fees. Mrs. Schnabel said she wanted to bring it to the attention of the Planning Commission as the members of the Appeals Commission wanted to eacpress their feelings on it. Chairperson Harris said it was so noted. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Corr¢nission receive �the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting o£ July 27� 1976. Upon a voice note, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousJy. � Planning Conm�i.ssion Meeting - August !�� 1976 Page l� 1. TABLED: PUBLIC OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S CORPORATION: Being a reptat or Lots t tio 4 xnciussve, niocxs zl Lnroug 2� an so part of Lot 1� Block 28; Innsbruck North Townhouses Third Addition, to a11ow changes in the size of garages� generally located on the West side of East Bavarian Pass and South of Meister Road N.E, Public Hearing open. Mr. Boardman explained that Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation was trying to work out some arrangements with the Townhouse Association, and requested that this item be tabled again. Mr. Langenfeld raised the question of how long something like this could be tabled� and Mr. Boardman replied about s'vcty days. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to relay something that she thought was rather interesting to the Commission. She said that as she drove out North Innsbruck Drive, the City of Nev Brighton�s survey crew was surveying the road at the F'ridley border. Whether or not they were going to do anything on it, she didn't lmow, She also said she wondered whether or not part of the stipulation of the Darrel A. Farr Corporation proceecl,ing with building the townhouses was that they shou2d grade out North Innsburck Drive, and said it was her understand- ing that a culvert should be put in the low spot which water is draining into currently. Mrs. Schnabel said that perhaps since they already have a model built and it was nearing final stages, they should be reappraised of that stipulation. Mr. Bergman stated that each meeting they had this item on the agenda� typically as number one� and each meeting they spent time on it. He said he would like it removed from the agenda until Darrel Farr Corporation indicated some £urther interest. Chairperson Harris said he thought because of the time element involved, since they were getting close to the ti.me limit when they would have to reapply, they should table it until the next meeting. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission table the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-05� Innsbruck North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Faz""r Development Corporation� with the Public Hearing open, until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2, PUBLIC HEARING; REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP. SINIGAGLIO: Per FY'idley City Code� Section 20 .0 1� 2 construction of a second accessory building, a 21� £t. garage� on Lots 18 and Z9, Block 8, Plymouth Addition, 1y715 3rd Street N.E. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sinigaglio were present. , .,, ..., �.,.. ...... by 32 ft, detached the same being MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a special use permit� SP /�76-12, by Joseph Sinigaglio. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:00 P.M, � � � �� Planning Commission Meeting - Au�tst �, 1976 Page 5 Mr, Boardman explained that this w3.s a request for a special use permit for a �24' X 32' detached garage. He sai3 the applicant presently has an attached garage to the building� and the lot that,he is on is 80� X 129�, which made it about a 10,000 square foot lot, He stated that this was in the Plymouth Addition, and there have been several requests in that area for garages of this size. Mr. Boardman stated the appiicant said he has about five cars, and the second accessory building would be used as a garage. He added that he had driven by the property and he had no problem with granting the application. Mrs. Lambert stated she had driven by the property and it looked to her like there were fences and things to the edge on either side o£ the property, and asked how they proposed to get to the back. Mr. Sinigaglio replied he would remove the fence on the North side to get access. He added that his current garage was on the South side� and presented the Commission with a dratiring of his propo5al. He said he had t�o plat or survey. Mr, Boardman said that as £ar as setback requirements went� Mr. Sinigaglio would be allowed to go down to three £eeL on the property line with a survey� and without a survey it would be !t� feet setback. Mr. Sinigaglio said he didn't lmow where his lot line was, but just took it for granted the telephone pole was the. lot line. Mr. Boardman inforr�d hir� that he really should get a survey on the property before the garage•was built in case a mistake was made� as it could make a di£ference i.n selling the pmperty. Chairperson Harris asked what he was planning to do trith the garage� and hlr. Sinigaglio replied that he had several cars that were sitting in his yard, �He said he didn't want to sell them and they were more or less deteriorating. He �plained they were vintage cars, and this was his hobby. He further explained he couldn't get in his present garage because he kept his snowblower, table saw� etc. in there, and he needed the extra room. hfr. Sinigaglio said the garage would be 2!�' X 2!�', and the last 8' on the South end would be enclosed like a patio or amusement room. Chairperson Harris asked if he was planning on having utilities in this structure� and Mr. Sinigaglio replied he would have electricity. h1r. Harris asked how large the attached garage was that he presently had� and S�Ir. Sinigaglio replied the garage itself was alwut 18� % 2!�'_. He explained he had a fire wa21 iahich put a breezeway between the house and garage, and that cut down on his garage area. Mrs. Schnabel asked if there was a limitatior or restriction on a secondary use iruilding as far as combining living quarters per se and garage space, t�r. Boardman said there xas no restriction as to what ii was to be used for. Mrs. Schnabel then asked i£ someone could then build a secondary use building and use it as living quarters. Mr. Boardman replied no. He explained the code said an accessory use was something like privately-owned recreational facilities such as swi�ning pools, tennis courts, etc., which are for the convenience of the residents and their guests. Chairperson Flarris said he thought they would have a hard time stretching that to livi.ng quarters. �Mr. Langenfeld pointed out that the petitioner indicated the use of the garage and that is why the Special Use Permit was being requested� and if the special use xas grented then the City would have control over that particular piece of �-. Planning Commission Meeting - August l�,� 1976 Page 6 property. He stated he noticed that Mr: Sinigaglio had a lot of neighbors, and asked what their general £eelings were. Mr. Sinigaglio replied that his neighbors an both sides had asked if he hacl any ulterior motives for building, � but he stated he did not, He said he just wanted to get the cars out of the yard as they were deteriorating, and stated that the neighbors said they didn't care what he did in his back yard as long as he didn't put the garage in the front yard. He stated he didn't believe there were any objections,. and felt that getting the cars out oY sight would be an improvement. Mr. Langenfeld asked what his hobby was, and Mr. Sinigaglio replied he worked on the cars he had. He explained that parts were difficult to ffnd� and over the last couple of years he would buy a bumper here and a grill there. He said he xould just leave the cars in the garage and take them out when the weather was nice. Mr. Langenfeld'asked if the garage would be compatible with the rest of the house, and Mr. Sinigaglio replied it would. Ae said it would have vertical xood 7.ike his home and the same roo£i.ng, and would essential�y look like a scale model o£ his house but it wouldn't be as long. Mrs. Schnabel noted that he did the reconstruction for his own persona2 benefit, but asked if he was in the business of doing this type of work £or other people or doing it with the intent o£ reselling the sutomobilies. Mr. Sinigaglio replied he xas not, and said the cars were just for his own use when he felt like it. He explained he did the work in his own garage now� but crould like to be able to jack up the car and Ieane it there instesd of takfng it up and dorm enery night. Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Sinigaglio hired someone to come in and work on the sutomobiles, and he answered he did not. Mr. Bergman said he had no other concerns with regard to the general plan and concept, but was a little concerned . about the di.mensional validity, He st ted there was no registered survey of the lot� and he was not sure that othe� than approving the concept in general there was any more they could do prior to City Council review without verification or dimensions. Chairperson Harris stated they could send this on to Council with their reeommendations and stipulations� and one of those stipulations could be that the petitioner get a sur�ey before he goes to City Coancil. Mr. Boardman said he really didn't lmow if they needed a surv�y before they got to Council. He �explained their main concern was that they don't take up more than 25� o£ their lot. Mr. Harris said he thought it would save a lot of time if before this got to Council there was a survey and all these things were checked. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to support the suggestion and comments regarding the survey� and added he taas sure Council would ask Mr. Sinigaglio to do that anyway. MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request For a Special Use Permit, SP #76-11, by Joseph Sinigaglio. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P.M. MOTION by Bergman� seconded�by Lambert� that the Planning Commission recoimnend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use.Permit, SP #76-11� by Joseph Sinigaglio, per Fridley City Code� Section 205.051� 2, A� to allow the s� � , Planning Commission Meeting - August �, 19T6 Page 7 construction of a second accessory building, a 2h ft, by 32 ft, detached gsrage, on I.ots 18 and 19, Block 8, Plymouth Addition, the sa�e being �715 . 3rd Street N.E., i.ndicati.ng general concurrence with the request and the proposed construction and usage� but subject to a dimensional verification through lot survey prior to City Council review. � Mr. Langenfeld said he tended to want to indicate "if possible". He said he got the feeling they were pushing these people for 2 survey, and they should have ones but wondered what would happen if they couldn't cor;e uo with one before this went to Council on August 16th. Chairperson Harris said they could leave it as one of their stipulations, and if the City Council r.anted to change that, it was their prerogative. i•Sr. Harris said he would 1`_ice to recommend thai the motion include something about limitation of t?:e structnre for any future use as a home occupation. Afr, Bergman said he was open to that thought, and asked if that wasn't adequately covered in the present ordinance. Mr. Boardman said that no accessory building could he used as home occuoation, but there were some around, ilr. Harris said that some time down the line hr. Sinigaglja may desire to sell his home or get out of the classic car storage business� and he would like to make it clear to everyone involved tha� tne accessory building could not be used as a cabinet shop, body repzir s:op, etc. He stated he felt it iaould not hurt to state it as a stipulation in the recommendation so everyone involved xould be clear on the matter. Mr. Bergman AP4�NDID the MOTION to include limiting the accessory building use to exclude home occupation. Seconded by Lambert. Chairperson Aarris wondered if it would be necessary to include in the moiien '� something about the garage being compatible with the existing structure, rir. Bergman said that the peitioner had stated it wonld be, and that discussion would be in the minutes for reading by Cs�pxncil. Mr. Harris said the problem was that when they got down the line at a later period, sometimes the discussion parts were omitted and the only thing that can be found is the motion ��itn the stipulations. Mr. Bergman asked if there wasn�t some type o£ incentive provided to the owner to make the aesthetic treatment consistent at the time he applied for the building permit. Re said that regardless of �:hat t:�e Commission said, the building permit process �aas where it really happened. Mr. Boardman said that was usually a stipulation on the building permit, UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voti.ng aye, the motion carried unani.mously. Chairperson Harris declared a recess at 8:30 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:55 F.M. 3. RECEIVE ME130 FROM MAYOR NEE TO TIIE APPEAIS COAII�IISSION: DATID NLY 15 1976 MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the memo from Mayor Nee to the Appeals Commission dated 3uly 15, 1976. Mr. Boardman said that studies show that only about 25B of families can afford �housing the way it is now. He stated that there would be some point in time when these 40' lots would have to be usedand the present standards would have Planning Commission Meeting - August �� 1976 Page 8 to be dropped or changed so that people would be able to afford housing. He said that right now about 75g of the families were really struggling in buying houses which they really can't afford because they can't find a need�d home in a lower � price range. Mr. Bergman said he recalled the �0' lot consideration which xas brought to the Planning Commission's attention from the Board of Appeals based on.a pending variance request. The Planning Commission, he said, then sent the question to the subcorimissions io come back to the Planning Commission with regard Lo golicy. Mr. Bergman said that Community Development was one of those inat reviexed uhether or not �0' lots should be considered.developable lots for housing, and they communicated back to the Planning Commission, as did a couple other Commissions, and the Planning Commission then pulled together or endorsed a policy-type situation in that regard. He asked if it was the Planning Commission dialogue that Bill Nee was referencing in his letter, or if it was something else. Mrs. Schnabel answered that it wasn�t really clear� but she thought it was the Appeals Comrtrission minutes of June 15th that prompted the letter. She stated she would like to review for everybody's benefit what has nappened in order to help clear the matter up a bit. She said that on February 10, 1976, the Anpeals Commission received a request for variance from a h�. Denis L, Villella to construct a residential dwelling on a 1�0' lot. At that time the Appeals Commission decided that since this was the first request to build on a 1t0' lot, they should perhaps request the Planning Commission and other subcommissions to try to develop some type of policy statement regarding LO' lots. She said the wo:3s "policy statement" came about because in reviewing the Administrative Staff Report to the Appeals Commission on that request� the remarks said something about city policy statement. She commented that the term got to be used a bit • loo�ly, but it got to be used. Mrs, Schnabel continued that on March 9, 1976, the Community Development Commission reviewed 1t0' lots, on March llth it was reniewed by Human Resources and on March 23rd by the Fridley Environ.mental Quality Commission. She stated that on April 7th the Planning Commission received the minutes from the three subcommissions and on April 27th the Appeals Commission received the guidelines from the City Council, The City Council received those guidelines prior to April 27th from the Planning Comrnission. Mrs. Schnabel explained that once the Appeals Cor�mission received those guideYines on April 27th from the City Council, they removed the request from Mr. Denis Vi21e12a from the table. Mr. Bergman asked £rom what body the Appeals Commission received those guidelines, and Mrs. Schnabel answered from the City Council. She explained that the three subcommissions came to the Planning Commission with their recommendations, and the Planning Corrunission developed tentative guidelines which were sent to the City Council for their approval. She stated that the Council held two discussions on that, as she recalied. She believed one Has during their in£ormal meeting and the second was at a regular Council meeting, and they sent their recommendations, which were not exactly in a finalized form but in a sense the approved tentative guidelines of the Planning Commission� back to the Appeals Commission. Mrs. Schnabel�stated that on April 27th the.Appeals Commission acted on the request to build on a!�0' lot. Mr. Villella had made six requests for variances, and the Appeals Commission approved four of the six and denied two� and passed � �� Planning Cormnission Meeting - August 1�, 1976 Page 9 their recommendations on to the City Council. She said at that time they had asked Mr, Villella i£ he would consider applying for a lot split and gaining � five additional feet from the adjacent neighbor,_who also owned the !t0' lot. Mr, Villella had not purchased the lot yet but had made a purchase agreement. On May 3rd, Mrs. Schnabel continued� the Gity Covncil heard the request from Mr. Villella with the recommendations from the Appeals Commission, and passed on a 3- 2 voie approval to build on a 1�5� lot, She said that Council's motion stated he must purchase five additional feet £rom the adjacent neighbor, so �rhat they approved was building on a lts� lot--not a!�0' lot. She explained that the adjacent lot was two 110� lots, or 80'. Mrs. Schnabel informed the Commission that the petitioner had not come in and requested a lot split to date, and the house was not under construction, Mrs. Schnabel said that because the Council 7ote y�as close and because they had made quite a few changes in their reco.nmendatior.s as opgosed to what the Appeals Commission had done, the Appeals Cor.unission felt that perhaps they needed additional information and maybe they were acting under ialse premises. She said the Appeals Commission didn't understand why Council overturned everything they had done� so they Lhen requested a transcript of ihat May 3rd Council meeting. hirs. Schnabel explained that it had been impossible for the City to get it o£f ihe tape, and it had been about a£ifty minute discussion. All the Appeals Commission received was one short paragraph xhich said "considerable discussion ensued" , the vote was 3-Z and this recommendation was made. She stated that then the Appeals Commission asked if they= could listen to the �ape recording of the City Council meeting instead� hoping they could fi.nd out more information because it had come to their attention that there was more information i" provided to the City Council that the Appeals Cor�mission did not have. On June 1y"th they.did listen to that Co•uncil tape ar.d held additicnal discussion at that time. Then on July 15th� Mrs. Schnabel said� they received the memo from Mayor Nee concerning the remarks the Appeals Commissicn made at the time they listened to the tape on June 15th, She added that at their July 27th meeting� the Appeals -0ommission discussed his letter in detail and agreed �o respond back to I*fayor Nee with a letter from the Appeals Commission. As far as she could pinpoint, she stated� there have been thirteen separate discussions on Lt0' lots siarting at the Appeals Coirmtission and including the Comr�unity Development Commission� Human Resources� �hvironmental Quality, Planning Commission, the Mayor, etc. Mrs. Lambert stated it had been mentioned that AIr. Villella made several requests for variances and the Appeals Commission approved four of the six. 5he asked if he had six forty-£oot lots, Mrs, Schnabel replied no� on one �y0' lot he had svc variances he requested: reduction in lot size, reduction in lot width, maeimum loL coverage i.ncrease� side yard reduction� setback reduction, and additional side yard reduction, She stated that two of the requests were because the lot was small, but the other four were because of the size and type of house he was building. Mrs. Laznbert said that Mr. Boardman had mentioned that only about 25� of today's wage earners could afford a home, and questioned if the size of a 1ot would really make that much diFference in the cost o£ a home, She wondered What the difference in cost would be between a lt0� lot and one that was 75�, and suggested �it might be about $3,000 -$lt,000. Chairperson Harris said he would guess a 1�0� lot xould be about $1i,000 -$5,�0� with all the utilities. He said there was � Planning Commission Meeting - August �� 1976 Page 10 more involved here than just land areas, and when they were talking lot costs they were talking raw land plus utility assessments and street assessments, and many times the street and uti2ity assessments were in excess of the raw land � costs. He stated this happened quite frequently. Mr. Bergman said it wasn't common in lower-priced development areas. Mr. Boardman said one thing about that was all the utility and street assessments were by front foot� and Mr. Harris said that was correct� so therefore there was a considerable amount of difference. T!rs. Lambert said that in trying to provide homes for an average home owner, did the size of the lot make that much dif£erence dollar-wise or the type of structure? Chairperson Harris said there were a lot of things that entered into the total cost of a home on a lot. Mrs. Lambert asked how much did land enter into it, Mr. Langenfeld suggested they use about $30 a square foot. Mr. Bergman as�ced if it wouldn't be fair to say that land and assessments were norma2ly 15 ^ 20� of the total, and Mr. Harris said that was reasonable. :f.rs. Lambert said that in order to provide homes for people who may not be able to afford them� would.a 1�0' lot be that much of a benefit? She asked; if they would be able to afford a home because they had a 1�0" lot, Ztr. Boardman said he thought there were other things that were involved, and asked the Commi.ssion to note rlayor Nee�s statement at the bottom of the first page� whicn said '�I want to underscore that there � be reasonable ways of developing the 40 foot parcel as a building site, but I have not seen such a proposal yet. It would cert,inly have to have some very flandamental planning work done on it...". Mr. Boardman said the problem with 1t0� lots right now was that they wanted to put standard size houses on them� and maybe that was not the way to go on it, He suggested that the standards that are set up under � code for housing, such as square footage requirements, should be dropped so that development of these lots could make it more affordable and smaller houses could be buil� on them. Mr. Bergnan asked Mrs. Schnabel i£ she could read to the Planning Commission the guidelines that were passed to City Council and apparently approved by them. Mrs, Schnabel said she would first like to say that when the request £or variance came before the Appeals Commission in rebruary� it was the hope of the Appeals Commission that perhaps there would be more definite guidelines such as reducing the size of house necessary on a l�0� lot. At that time� she stated� they were into approving the whole housing plan for the City and getting into low-income housing. She continued that the Appeais Commission felt this was an opportunity to find so:ne method of providing low-income houses by utilizing I10' lots within the city. Mrs. Schnabel read ihe following excerpt from the minutes of the April 27, 1976 Appeals Commission meeting: "Chairwoman Wahlberg stated that in addition to the minutes of the subcommi.ssions on ihe I�0 foot lots which were distributed at the last Appeals meeting� there is now available a list of tentative guidelines from the Planning Commission on substandard lots. She explained that the Planning Commission had passed these guidelines on to the City Council £or their review, and at this point the Council had not yet come up with an af£irmative plan. Mr, Holden said that this was discussed at the City Council meeting last night, and they concluded the Planning Commission guidelines were good pints to consider. � i��Yi �lanning Commission Meeting - August �, 1976 Page 11 He added that the Council suggested they should be considered on an individual �basis} with review and final approval te be by the Council. Chairwoman Wahlberg said that all the subcormnittees £elt the city should go along with building on lt0' lots� but there were stipulaLions they felt should be adhered to. TENTATIVE GUIDELINES FROM THE PLAt1NING COMMISSION ON SUBSTANDARD IATS: 1. The Planni»g Cormnission feels that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Housi.ng P1an tY�at sub-standard lots should be developed in Fridley� but each sub-standard lot should be con- sidered separately. 2, That there be no variance allowed from the present ordinance allowing a maximum of 2 h lot coverage. (For example� on a 5200 square Yoot lot, which would require a variance for lot size, only 1,300 square feet of the lot could be covered by the house and garage,) 3. I£ there is land available on either side of a sub-standard lot� every effort should be made to purchase that lot at a fair market price by the petitioner, so the lot size would be consistent with the existing building sites in Lhe area. If the petitioner refuses io try and negotiate for additional vacant land, consideration should be given to denying the variance. All denials have to be based on good� sound cansiderations. � !�. That the owner/builder make as much of an e£fort as possible to meet the existing codes. 5. That the house being built on a sub-standard lot blend in as aesthetically as possible with the eacisting houses in the neighborhood, realizing that a new home cannot always blend i.nto an old neighborhood. STAFF � S CONR�9ENTS ; a. Statement of hardship must include statement regarding Iength of ownership which �aould give indication if property was owned for a nu.+�ber of years� or recently acquired with the intention o£ speculating on development of a!�0 foot lot. b. All variances associated with the development of It0 foot lots would require final approval by the City Council." Mrs. Schnabel stated the M�yor posed two valid problems in his memo. One was, in spite of the Comprehensive Housing Plan� does the City have an obligation to the existing home owners in Fridley.who perhaps moved to the suburbs with the idea of acquiring additional space �m themselves. She said to then start building on 1�0� lots would perhaps not £it in tirith the general size of lots that the majority of the residents of Fridley now have. .She said she thought that was a valid point which had not been considered before. � Mrs. Schnabel said his second point was, how do you force a person to buy additional land from the adjacent property owner if it is available? She stated Planning Commission Meeting - August �, 1976 Page 12 that in his memo the Mayor Nent through that quite thoroughly. She said that additional information had come to their attention since the memo xhich showed pretty much where �0+ lots existed in the City, and evidently there were few • �0' lots which xere clustered together� or in strips. Mr. Bergman said that surprised him, because when they reviewed 40� lots in Community Development, the,y were given a location of every �0� lot and every 50� lot. He stated that all the addresses were listed and they even had sections of the city plan showing locations� and they concluded there were a lot of adjacent small size lots. Now, he continued, it comes out there aren�t. Mr. Bergman said they had concluded that in most cases there was adjacent property that a�0' lot owner could buy and expand his lot. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to correct him on that� and noted that according to the listing of �0' lots that she had, there were five existing strips. She stated that three of them were two �0� lots together� and two of tHem were three �0' lots together. She added that there were a number of other lots which varied in size from �7' down to 25' and any number in bet�een, not adjacent to 40' lots, which were individual, landlocked, interior lots. She said that as far as �0� lots in strips, there were very few of them in the City; there were many more that were interior lots or corner Iots where there was no additional property available. Mr. Bergman stated he thought it was a key point that what Mrs. Schnabel was describing as strips were very� very limited strips of �0'.lots� and there were justtu,? or three cases where this kind of thing could be possible. He said thaL this was an entirely different conclusion than they had reached in Community Development. A9r. Bergman said the conclusion they reached was that in most � cases where there was a�0' lot, there was an opportunity to expand that lot, He said he Wasn!t necessarily limiting opportunity to another adjacent �0' Iot, but there was some property such that a combination could be made. He added that he would have to review the data and the dialogue they had. Mr. Boardman said he didn't think they had been looking specifically at �0' lots at the time, but were also looking at 2$� lots and that type of thing, He said that in most cases the smal.ler lots did have adjacent property. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought part of the problem was that at the time these requests came to the subcommissions as well-$s 4.ne Planning Commission, a lot o£ this in£ormation was not available. Mr. Bergman interjected that he did have the data--a listing o£ the lots with their dimensions. Mrs. Schnabel showed him the listing she thought he had which sho� the number of !�0' lots and also went down to 2$� lots. Mr. Bergman said he didn�t think they had that data. Mrs. Schnabel said there wns another memo dated April 30th on substandard lots from Dick Sobeich� and a list of substandard lots under 50' with no adjoining vacant property and all zoned residential. She stated that these lots ranged in size from 25� to 1�2', and there were 21� of them. Mr. Bergman said he was conflised right now as to what data they had had in Community Development. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boardman what percentage o£ the substandard lots made up the available building sites that remained in Fridley. Mr. Boardman replied he couldn�t give a percentage £igure, but there rrere probahly about 150 lots left, Mr. Harris said that according to their survey, they were 85� built on R-1. Mr. Boardman pointed out that was back in about 1972, and they � had been doing a lot of building. Mr. Harris stated he thought they were missing Planning Commission Meeting - August �� 1976 Page 13 a couple of points. He stated that the problem was the available building sites that were remaining in Fridl.ey� and one of these days they were going to wake • up to the fact that the only thing left to build on as far as R-1 without some rezoning would be substandard lots, rie"said they should start facing up to that fact. Chairperson Harris said the Mayor also brought up the point of ta�cation, and asked how these lots were ta�ced. Mr. Boardman said they were probably taxed as buildable sites. Mr. Harris said i£ that was the case, he had a feeling they were legally in trouble. He stated he had been after the City Attorney�s office to get a memo out on where the City stood legally on �0' lots� and after all these discussions he had yet to see such a memo. He wanted to know if they could legally deny a buil3ing permit on a�0' lot, and said that was really the crlix of the whole situation, is. Aarris stated that i£ the City was taxing them as buildable sites� then he thought they irere morally obligated� if not legally obligated, to make some provision to build on them. He added that if they were not going to allow construction� they should be obligate3 to change the taxing structure on them; not only as £ar as general taxes went but as far as special assessments also. He said that if they were going to be turning them into gardens or something else, perhaps they should be tased as agricultural. He said he would like the City Attorney to tell him what kind of ground they were on. , Chairperson Harris said that a number of those LtO� lots were tax delinquent, and a lot more would go that way if the;� made a decision that under no circum- stances �rould buildi7g be allowed on them. He said thati then they would be �sitting with substan3ard lots which woald �urn into neighborhood junk-collecLion ground, or the adjacent property owners would use them. Mr. Boardr.ian pointed out that the problem was the City :aouid have to r�aintain the �,aeds, He said that under the normal weed program that would be charged off to the osmer of the property, but xith tax-forfeit property it was just assessed against the property. Chairperson Harris said he thought they had to look at the alternatives. He stated Lhat all the things that have been said are very true� but behooved them to start putting a plan together. Mr. Boardman said he thought the Mayor�s statement was valid when he talked about what was meant under Community Goals ay "quality of li£e". Mr. Boardman said Mayar Nee had stated that a 40' parcel under the present code was not a buildable parcel� and he tended to agree with him. Mr. Harris said he disagreed with the Mayor's one statement cahere he said that these were the neighborhoods that had the worst history of urban decay. He said he rrished to take issne on that� and wanted to say that he was born and raised in Northeast Aiinneapolis and moved to South Minneapolis and grew up there. He stated they had never lived on anything larger than a 40� lot and he didn�t consider the neighborhoo� to be in a state of decay. Mr. Harris stated he would like the Mayor to go to Northeast Minneapolis and tell the residents that their neighborhood was in a state of decay. Mr. Bergman said that he would like to make two comments: 1) He said he would �like to sug�est that the reason t}ie Council vote o° 3=2 was so cl�se i.n .bir. Villella�s request was because he did a marginal job in applying effort to the stipulations. 2) He said he xould like to point out the Community Development � .,.� Planning Commission Heeting - August lt� ].976 Page 1!t " minutes £rom their meeting of March 9th. Ile stated that item one in their motion was that if land was ava3lable on either side that cou2d be purchased such that the lot could be brought up to code� then building would be denied on a 1�0' lot. • He said that was a pretty specific condition for denial and that was their recommendation, but he didn't see it put in that context in Che guidelines that were received. Mrs. Schnabel read aloud point number 3 of the tentative guide- lines, and 1•1r. Bergman said that was quite a different statement. Mrs. Schnabel said that in this particular request there was no land, per se, available. She continued that the adjacent property owner was willing to sell five feet of land, but the problem created by his selling £ive £eet was that fn� garage was 5' from the lot line and he would then have a non-conforming garage. She said that was one oP the problems the Appeals Commission had with the City Council's decision; they felt Council was creating a new problem by demanding that the petitioner buy five feet of land, Mrs. Schnabel said she would also like to respond to the 3-2 vote, She stated that one of the Appeals Commission's concerns in listening to the Council minutes was that Councilwoman Kukowski asked one question that they could detect through listening to the minutes and voted no, and ;4ayor Nee made a statement inflicating that he would not necessarily vote against the request but then he did vote against the request. She said the Appeals Cormnission was not sure why they voted against it, and were not sure what their thoughts were. Mrs, Schnabel said the App�als Commi.ssion wanted to get as much informatien as possible because they felt chey were in the dark as to what Council's reason- ing was. She added that she wanted to point out that the £act of the matter was the Appeals Commission heard a request on a 1�0� lot and approved 1� of the � 6 variances; when the City Council finished iaith it they approved building on a±�5' Iot, so the question of building on 40' lots has not yet occurred in the City of Fridley. Mr. Bergman asked if one of the variance requests was a request from the maximum 25� coverage, Mrs. Schnabel answered that it was one of the variance requests, but the Appeals Commission recommended the petitioner reduce the size of his house by going £rom a double car garage to a single car garage, which would reduce the total size down to come within the 25% maximum lot coverage, Instead, she continued, the City Council agreed to the aouble car garage and in order to make up the additional land asked him to purchase an additional five feet. She said this then caused a code violation setback from the neighbor's garage� which the Council did not discuss as far as they could determine. . Mr. Langenfeld said that without question as the Chairman of the Fridley E,hviron- mental Quality Commission he could not deny Mayor Nee's comments concerning quality of life� the affect on present home owners, and so forth. He said that first off, they must have some kind of legal document regarding these lots; and secondly, if they are taxed as buildable sites it is implied they can be built upon. Mr, Langenfeld said that out o£ all this discussion he got the impression that City Council, as well as ihe Mayor, may have felt that the Appeals Commission was just handling these 1�0' lots as part of their Commission procedure. He said that he was thinking that Council and hSayor Nee were saying "hold it" because many factors enter into this picture cind the next thing you know they � P2anning Commission Meeting - August !�� 1976 Page 15 might be handling 35� lots ar�a z5� lots. He said he was just trying to simplif� this thing by making that statement, bu� thought they had to draw the line •somewhere. Mr. LangenSeld asked uhat could stop an owner of a l�0� lot Prom asking for a Special Use P�rmit, Mr. Boardman answered that tnere Has no condition for a 9pecial Use permit on thts. He explaine3 that a Special Use procuduxe Was set up for a special use on a property, and a living unit was not a special use on a R-1 prpperty, Mr. Langenfeld commented that he certainly felt that this Commission�s comments were really the right route to follow. Chairperson Harris asked what the attitud�;of the neighboring cor.crosnities were on 1t0' lots� such as Columbia Heights, Hilltop� an3 New Brighton, Mr, Boardman replied that he didn�t think Columbia ?ieights was having that much of a problem, and some o£ the newer communities weren't experiencing that problem because tnere were plenty o£ buildable sites around, lie said he would imagine that Coli;mbia Heights had reduced their square footage requirer�ents under the UBC, and there was quite a bit of difference between square footage requirements. Ghairperson Harris said t!-iat maybe it should behoove them to make this a project, and Mr. Hergman commented that they had one related praject going on ia CDC. He said the question be£ore the Comrmanity Development Commission was specifically whether or not a garage should be a requirement on substandard lots. He said they xould be addressing the question of a garage being required on a 1�0� lot at the next meeting. He added that the discussion held at a previous meeting seemed to s1anL toward the need to specify a garage regardless of the size lot for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Harris said that perhaps t�is should go back through the commit�ee process �to be considered again. He stated he had thought they had looked at it at one time, but suggested they look at it from a different standpoint such as different house design or smaller houses more compatible with the lot size. He said he had the £eeling they had to start someplace and they had better start doing something, Mr, Harris stated he woulu Sind it very disagreeable if the court would decide this issue be£ore they had an opporiunity to plan it out so it would work. P3r. Langenfeld asked if handling this on an individual basis wouldn�t dc the job since there weren�t that many, Mr. Harris said perhaps that was true, but perhaps what they should be looking at is smaller, more compatible structures £or !�0' lats. Mr, Boardman sai.d then what they were looking at is possibly a separate code section which said that on substandard lots or on lots under a certain square footage the minimum building area on a house shonld be reduced. Mr. Langenfeld commented that he didn't feel the Fhvironmental Quality Commission could actually say how large the house should be or if a garage should be required or something like that as they were not qualified to specifiy a form of construction. Mr. Boardman said they did have one square footage size limitation, and that was the UBC. He said.the UBC stated that no house shall be smaller than this. Mr. Boardman said that what Mr. Sobeich �,as talking about was that maybe they should come back and take a look at the substandard houses and ask themselves what they wanted to require on these lots. He said they would still want to maintain a maximum 25� lot coverage� but should take a look at the minimum square � footage requirement fo: housing units. Fle suggested that maybe on those sub- � Planning Commission Meeting - August �, 1976 - Page 16 ` • standard lots they sho�ld go down to the UBC minzmum. He comunenLed that they Houldn't have to say anything on the design of the thing, but say that a garage � was not a requirement on substandard lots and that way the option �ou1d be open to the owner. Mrs. Schnabel pointed out that in the letter she wrote in response to iSayor Nee�s memo� she made a suggestion that the persons invo7ved fn these origir.al discussions (the Planning Commission, subcommissions� Council and appropriate Staff) should get together and have some type of open discussion w�ere they could get some of these ideas out.and £rom there proceed to sLart to develop a new oolicy regarding buil@ing on !t0' lots. She stated she ihought the Mayor�s remarks were we11-taken and she felt he came up with some very good new ideas, and she thought the point brought out at this meeting concerning taxation on these 1�0' lots was a�ood point that hadn�t been fully discus�ed yet. I�frs. Schnabel commented that the problem was all of them had not gotten together to talk this out at one point to come up with some ideas to start to develop codes that would be pertinent to 1�0� lots, With regard to garages, for instance, she added, attached garages were only required on ramblers, split-levels and lot-splits� but were not required on other types of houses (such as a two-story hou�e). She stated that there were some situations on substandard lots where the existing code was so unclear that they were not sure garages were required at all due to the wording in�the code book. Mr. Bergman said this was the subjer.t they would be addressing at their next meeting in Community bevelopment, and Mr. Boardman suggesied that rather than just substandard lots they take a look at garage requiremenis on all Iots. Chairperson Harris saiu that maybe what they shvuld do at this point in time, since there seemed to be a comtmu�ication difficul.ty with Council, is request a time slot with them on that £ourth D4onday � to sit down at a workshop meeting and discuss this to see iP t:�ey couldn�t get some sense of directiQn or pplicy, Mrs. Schnabel said that was precisely what she had requested of the Mayor in her letter. 147s�s. Schnabel said that talking about codes and types of dwellings, there was a problem in the existing code book which could be relevant to building on !�0' 7ots. She stated there was a deseription o£ a singie-family dWelling unit of split-level design� and then there sras a description oF a two-story dwelling unit of a split-entry design. She said she did not lmow what the difference was between those two, and they had different minimum square footages. Mr. Harris said there was a difference betwaen a split-level and a sp1iL-entry, He explained that a split-entry was where you walked in o£f the street and there was a stairway going to the downstai.rs and one going to the upper level. He said a sp2it-7.eve1 was where there was no stairway at tlze entry and the rooms on three or £our levels were � story apart in height� and that sometimes a split-level would have half a basement. Mr. Boardman cited the example Where the garage was someti.mes below the hedrooms. Mr. Bergman asked if it would be a true statement that in the City of Minneapolis where there are a lot of homes built on 7�0� lots� that they are nornally greater than 25% coverage. Ntr. Harris said he didn�t think so, but it was possible. Mrs. Schnabel interjected that they didn't have those facts and £igures available, Mr. Bergman asked what was implemented in the 25p, and Mr. Boardman replied building struatures and accessory buildings.. Mr. Bergtnan said some of the homes must come pretty close to exceeding the 25� coverage. He stated there xasn�t � much of a back yard and there was typ3cally a garage in it from an alley, and Planning Commission tdeeting - Augu ;t 11, 1976 very little side yard. Page 1% •Mrs. Schnabel said that Alex Barna on the Appeals Commission had brought in books of house designs which could £it on !�0' lots without any variances required. She said that perhaps the designs were more modern than the City of Minneapolis was familiar witkt since those homes built on l�0� lots in t9inneapolis were oasic- ally older homes, but there were some very imaginative kinds of constraction that could be put on 1�0' lots. S:�e added that the price might be another subject as they didn't know what it would cost to build some of these new and ;ifferent type homes that would fit on l�0� lots with no variances. She suggested that maybe the price would be prohibitive to qualify for low-cost housing and that it might have to be a higher-priced home. Tss. Schnabel said the point was the�e were houses that would £it on 1�0� lots without any variances at all. Sne ad3ed that some of the questions that had to be resolved were: Do we want to save the 1�0' lots for low-income housing? Do we want those 1�0' lots to be built witn any type of dwelling? Do xe want to reduce the reauirements for size of struciure? She added that there Were many problems associated with building on a!t0' lot which she felt hadn�t been fully covered to this point, and that was w�y she wanted to get into this discu�sion again. Chairperson Harris said he didn�t feel they were going to accomplish a lot by discussing this any £urther� and called the ouestion on the motion to receive the Mayor�s memo. UPON A VOICE '40TE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by I.ambert, that tne Planning Commissioa be �allowed to attend the next informal City Council meeting to resolve tr,e problems concerning 40' Lots. Mrs. Lambert said she wondered if that might not be a good time to ask the City Attorney about the legality of this, and Mr. Langenfeld said he thougnt this would be taken care of within that discussion. �ir. Boardman said he s�ould make a point of having that information available ai that meeting. UPON A B�ICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Lt. CHAIR`NOAfAN OF THE APPEALS C01•'IhIISSION, MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman� to receive the memo from Mrs. Schnabel to Mayor Nee dated July 30, 1976. Mrs. Schnabel said she would like to point out the memo should read from Virginia Schnabel� not Virginia Wahlberg. She stated that they did truly appreciate receiving the memo from Mayor Nee because they £elt many of the points that he raised were good� valid points. She said she thought it was pertinent that this came up at this time be£ore they received another request to build on a 40' lot. Mrs. Schnabel commented that the Appeals L'ommission concurred With the Mayor that they did not like the hit and miss proposition o£ granting variances �on !�0' lots without anything more than the guidelines that had been established, She said they Pelt there would probably be other problems that would arise which had not been looked into, and some of these had been raised by Ma,yor Nee and the � Planning Commission Meeting - August It� 1976 Page 18 , Planning Commission at this meeting. She stated they were hopeful they could get some new dialogue started. Mr. Langenfeld asked if Chairperaon Har"ris thought they might have to have some • kind of consolidation of all the previous material prior to the meeting with Council� and Mr. Harris said he didn�t think that was necessary. He_suggested everyone just come in and put their cards on the table and leave it informal. Mrs. Schnabel said the Appeals Commission.would appreciate getting all the various thoughts out in the open and finding out as much inFormation as they could. Mr, Bergman told Mrs. Schnabel that he goL the impression that she was looking for something that she probably wasn't going to get, He stated that Appeals had a problern� and they could not escape the individual request burden and there wouldn�t be any panacea. He said the Community Development Commission submitted a license for denial, which somehow got turned into a license for approval and the context turned over from what they had intended. Mrs. Schnabel said Mr. Bergman was correct that the Appeals Commission had a problem� liut they chi not have any type of vehicle which which to solve the problem other than to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council. She sai3 they had used the guidelines which had been sent to them as the basis for approving and denying the variances� but they felt the problem was larger than what it appeared to be and felt some of the points the Mayor raised (i,e., the e£fect on the existing residents of FF.idley) were well-taken and had not come up before. That, she said, is why they feZt it should all be reviewed again. Chairperson Harris said that hopefully something would come out of the :joint � meeting and they would get a concensus of direction. Mrs. Lambert asked who would be the participants of the' joint meeting, and Mr. H2sris replied the Planning Commission and anyone else who wished to come. �;rs. Schnabel stated that in her memo to Mayor Nee she included members of Coznmunity Develop- ment, Human Resources, F�vironmental Quality, nppeals Commission and Ylanning Commission as well as City Council members and appropriate Staff persons. She said that it may be a large body, but it was the Mayor's prerogative to make that decision, and he may substitute the Planning Commission's motion over •her suggestion to him. . '� Mr. Langenfeld said that it was his intention �,�hen he made the motion that the meeting would include tha Planning Commission, but be an 4n£ormal meeting open to the entire public. Mrs. Schnabel said that the Appeals Commission felt there may be members of the other subcommissions who had some ideas or thoughts that they wanted to relate. to the rest o£ them� and they might have some very valid thoughts, Mr. Boardman explained that as far as the motion went� the Planning Co�nission requested to be on the agenda as a Planning Commission. However� he said� as Chairpersons they could invite their Commissioners to attend as participants because it would be an open meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion to receive the memo from Mrs. Schnabel to Mavor Nee dated July 30� 1976 carried unanimously. --• ,� . > `Plartning Commission Meeting - August !�s 1976 � 5. CONTINUID: HUMAN DEVETAPP4ENT GOALS AND OBJECTNES Page 19 Mr. Boardman stated he had nothing to discuss on this and would like it continued. Mr. Lange�lfeld asked Mr. Boardman if he couldn't incorporate somewhe:e under Program Objective D11t0 something about the handicapped. Mr. Boardman replied they were going to do that� and asked ii' he meant the Program Plan and not necessarily the Program Objectives. �b`an,�e eld said he was getting the impression that this was getting � }� �and perhaps the handicapped had been omitted. Mr. Boardman replied that under D1l�0 "�courage the advance- ment of recreation opportunities for all residents"� they would have something on activities for the handicapped. He explained that the Program Plans were not set and were pretty open� but what they were establishing now xere the Goals and Objectives. MOTI�N by Langenfeld, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission continue the Human Development Goals and Objectives until the next scheduled meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. . 6 REVIEW PARKS & RECREATION COAIMISSION MIhUTES: JULY_6TH AND JULY 12TEi, 1976 MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission table the Parks and Recreation minutes of 3uiy 6th and July 12th, and also the minutes of the July 26th meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman brought to the Commission's attention the Beer Or3inance as revised by the City Attorney. He explained he had just received it today and brou�t it be£ore the Planning Com:nission for their review. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the revised Beer Otdinance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Langen£eld, seconded by Bergman, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of August !�� 1976 adjourned at 10:35 by unanimous vote. � Respectfully submitted� /j )� /� � �n7! ) C / /�-�Mro .°�l! Sherrt 0'Dpnnell J Recording Secretary �,,.� .,; ,m--- { '_ i � �� Y �� . �k�e � .:.'��TFf. � � � � R �< �i� 5 . . . . - {.: �w }� �„,�.`!9f.� ��44' 3 4{A�Ci)H�� ":-�^ 4 . . . � . � f . .�� _ . . � . . . � . - {1�38T 5, 1476`, � �_�- , -_ ��y Lambert. t��3.� Sc�t, #��1k� �arold Belgum � � ;� �Sx,R S�13A _ . . .. � . - �,%� � � � . .- . E�i� ��+��'� ;eal3e,dF`ike mee�#Dr�t��e�'at I:45 F.m. �"� � ttrtv �F. " � c�7��. °�dp'�$&''C�SISS3�N MBETING: ,., . , . �� v�ed-�t� �ake the co�rer��-� �te-had assu�d thaE :��:��e=��tiV� d�i.�.-�.>#��E �eting. �, �eema�� yx H�srsld BeYg�mc,. �a�.�►raa+� tlte July I, 1976, ��f�a� �Riet�t7� sai:autts as p. _ ,� Upoa a. voice vote> P11 ati+�r caxti� u�auimausly. �, - - - ., , , =� `�r�Se #hg. C�i�i'AR m�r� `�E' t� �tatus af the lsey�get �"�,Ct�ssrc.i.l f$�G?i� �, �'launing-£�i�6i�op. =:`i5s. Shea had attended �S�S3n me�ti�g anct sT��: tmly hac�: the: �#tesousees Cc�oi:ssion �`;�e ha$' qqt lieerz� ar� #i�e ,5�� B�a- Commissio� meeting. ` i� vstotd t%e $.2Q,�OQD budget, ��t.Ftant: ta follwr the �ame �`�:' Ev'�sy, tia�e s�anoaie has.a. �t fYam:the Ht�dn Resouraes_ �� +�: �9 � t�ie #� �36esdyrs� �s�ioa i�st . then. -ttte req+iest q,q=�.�sion• ��n to t3t�fi��-��iUaci�.. -MS. Lamlaert statea _ � �',�.i3i � ��4 � a� � �23e�. no action was taken, �. � un}.�SS th� Ci�i�r I4anaeg�` gtit� `3�' barJ[ -iAto the bu8get � the oa t+�?�# i� ape�e�ting: u�� jg�'sy��m as last yea�, �, . _ �`�� '^J� . � Mr'.�Scott st�tsd shouid have roo#i:+ scz+ne: kind o£ an- pc�rpQSes . .T�fe 4t feel the e#ry sh� Senfpr Citizens, inuney �o wark wii Carenfssion wsiu�.d ��rdi+ hurnam reso�zrees d�re; thep ;kc�ve a ca�s��: t� ti� <ta #t; therefa�t rth� Y'}�te 1#�af�su �esourees�`ta@�rt tYr�p ;�aa recemanead.`�e'`,i� i�a Co�tnsi�+�ian memb'�cs'a�l �rr � �ry ws�� i 3.ata &' hssmasi devE a�n ia�sc ; :e�l a+7k �- ateveiopmec�t. FYf�ley kis�ais Resi Wfthtit its b�rtgat; � �5.aslcm, eoncn�*�+�.� Cr3r2�ii . Ugc�n a , w��et°vi TdB�.$1? AT L�ST ME�: 7 1�. Scutt 1is�'d t�,:i��j �. ; �> :. 8i�cuc�e�.,:ta�t��it� �f� s� - C�a: +C3.� �i�r � X: , . � ISf, 7�'iGG�L 881t�a�'`i3�i1 aw�ri� C�st��¢�$�6-hs a�t�u ��te�c�Yt�"�-�t't� b�inea�s ;:(smaE� 3�a� Progt�a, thxs ��,4,�e , - _ ^� ' ! Mr. S�ca�tt, rea�. �;� $# ` � „ , �_ Y �; •1 t of fiad un aFafm iCy. ; Mr, ScaEt JE ACTIQN , tn' see a m� that do �ii , further, s iaot awat� Le�d �ssfa .� � � �_ ,., � ;, t9�6 a ..:�.-..�, s Ea�? , �t �tha �m�a��t�sp��ea Crnmrtisaion � t 3iesput'�es' Commi�s#csn shauld have t27��Y�� Eo �ccrnnplish goa3 s 8nd � �� L��t ' ��taii� programs tt�ey :T,� G�111��"pe� Social Servicea, t�ouu��sriiientifiable amo�nt o'f c`a �si�t for funds, they $�e � t� is�rdget, the }Iuman Rest�ztrces :#2t �F�p �'koacl are�of cultivation of .g Eii� ��y:'s �o�nitment ttiaC, says :e$ auel Ci�sy< have' people that saaut �misS�pxi exercise some judgmeaC'. 7#iies to be .Ced'_�at�d to the� so i �� '' �th�+ls�#g �ns�eaviir ifi whieh society nnrces` �oi�mi�eior� s�±eks to prs�mo�e ��e,; b�s "it iesnLved;' that the ' �kt�-'�f,,8ri�leq eo�dQdicate � �ela�rese��. �� ft fuirther resoived ecmu�teaid�t�on of the. }Iuman Resources � ton,;�nsf appsov�i o£ the Gity rg muC�.#�t,�cal��iet� ui[anfmouslp, iae ��i�astive �ctftm Pragram: � � tkat �e City ,wikt nQt ve "�h�'S4€f�3mani�, �,e �ve�i4 c�at . �+� tt�e-��ef�.zmativ� A+�zfari e• Gz� t�t �tsi�ess. yo�� e- $'. �. � — u � N� . ��-� ��ittia�?�ri�h ra�aot i[ .tze r i� �o�#��n �o. ituaii�f p� .�'S ' !'�co��.j�ed by 6rac ��y. �o�is� �u.. ..8�3a,a vot,ce voEe, i !� �FY . . . -.. <' . . '8e.e'� .. .. .. �.� rn _a a' Page 3� � ';� � ,..:: 3��cCS r - � a- rs and M =y;s�agpiies � : � S the e `�;A�tices � ��atus, �.C9�;ta&e � �+togment. ��ss Eo do �..-c. .. _ . . . . E�y `#� aecept the �ad>. ,"IL requires i�." Upoa a voice �.p- ; : �� pf advaneement �ha�'.the Human Resources aBr deuelopment progra� ¢.. a �r#.ee vote, all vo�ing . 1,��ffis' in each jpb c7,ass a[-the Human Resources . EaR:p.fficer esCablfsh Cive i�etion Program 0# ;ttt the Ruman ;.�ge., -Ehe. motion adf€i�aal _iob cl�sses, Core� vi�men as�olfte- ��ea ceenn�e3sn�, ; � . �t-�SecstC; Se�t�udeil �ty �r�c�-i.��.-`�tat . Che Auman Resources �s t�at the �ity make a��t;in the Affixmative £1�°�sa�k'�:�?l�cil?B of l�ereflas;,�:#tk''�e-traditioaal job �s':.�.�•. �i. es t18'Fical :ya��;: 1e�tr6�3 a8 maaagers, xomen ; �� gtl�ir �h�t E��nfcians -�.� voi'ce vote, all voting � reas��ed. tmts�,�ly . t�?eual 8ref�rence �ti aur dne,tr�;tts y ;_-' ' � T. ,; . �;�z. ., : , '' : ` r„�- :` ;_ ; • ��` �> �� . � .flN : .. r=.�•- A[i[�fS9`. S _ h 416- . , � s 24 ` s 'c� "" �s . . ' ,! �., � �"- . . �} ,ee• . i'„�.,m�'.� � _ . . . . � n�. v . ,��5. � ` . . . . .. ' : - - ,ia3 p :. . � . � � . . Ct, S�€�etfi=h�r C<tace LyachF $,i�xo�d Belgum's i:act�t . aesa";�;�13a ag�nds. iiPptt �"` �rote, all voting aqe, tnimously., � �`. . �� ,�he-Camaissiva membsre to rea� �;��£er,, his draft of an open ��de e�tftletT "(ihat: is a City €o�r{'-��ke"Changes and coum�eats 'k�t-E+��s to him. �'�,_ � ' � � �t.ScaLG, s��a� �y �aroia se�� ra �[j�rn ct� meeting at k a vafce vete; ail yoting sye, t�e. . �.carried unanimously, �wi.t,t�el, �. � � � �� : ;z,, . -. _ _ r� , .. . . - � f i °i � f. u .5 �,�..a� - . . . � . . .. � � . .ni.'v . t. � . .. . � J. . , . �T . j I � � � .. �' 4 a.. .. .°' `�`rr� �"y. � _ �. ?�..{ k r! ... . - , �w .. .� a•- _ ; �,r • - � i = � �< k � . � �^' ,n�.. � > . . . ' , �� z .' � . ��. . , � ,� ,.. ' . :._ � ..: � (�. .. _ � . . t . :� � i. �_ °. � � . ..,, . y T. . W . �. � . ' ."'? .. .�_ l � . J:'.. . . . . . . � 1_ . . . . .. . . C': , � . � .. ... � . . . �=y � '' �.: y'' . . . � - . . - � �. � - ; �. � . _ �;� _' r „ . _ . � • . , � -. . , � �.,. _ . . _ . . . �,;�� - > - - �.. w i , a „', �' .. " .. � , . - '. ..,- +.. - . .. . , ,�:.�. . , _ ., , .: . �� :� , , < , , . , , , > _ . . . . � . _ , ..f w . . . g '" ' �r � � . �: *y `. � , . . .. . -_ . � � . - . . . m� � � �. � � �` - '� 'ey'1��4 �R i 'Y � ir _ .J . � � . . k4� t- . . . . . � � T,�... � .. F - . . . , . � . _. . .��. n.. ..uP�� a .�� - � � _ � _ . �-. �v: �"`�. ��;-: : 3 � � � FRIDLEY APPEAIS COMMISSION ME�"fING AUGUST 10� 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Virginia Schnabel, Alex Barna, Dick Kemper, Jim Plemel MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Gabel Ron Holden� Building Inspection Officer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7:33 P.M, APPROVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 27, 1976 MOTION by Kemper� seconded by Barna, to approve the minutes of the JuZy 27� 1976 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1, A REQUEST FOR VARIANCFS OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE AS FOLLO:ti'S: SECTION 205.103, �t, (C�1) TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM �S FEBT TO 10 Fr'�T� AiVP SECTION 205.103, �, (B,2) TO RIDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 1% FEET WHERE THE SIDE YARD ABUTS A STREET OF A COR'�ER IAT� TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A BUILDII4G IN G2 ZONING (GENERAL BUSINESS AREAS) LOCATED ON LOTS 16 THROUGH 19, BIqCK L�, HYDE PARK ADDITION� TiiE SA1�:E BEING 6005 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (Reauest by M& I Supply Company� Inc., 6005 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, hfinnesota 55a32). MOTION by Barna� seconded by Kemper, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQIIIR��fEHTS: Section 205.103, It� C� 1, to maintain a rear yard setback of 25 £eet in G2 zoning area. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide adequate open space around commercial structures for aesthetic and Yire fighting purposes. Section 205.103, �, B, 2, to maintain a side yard o£ 35 feet adjacent to a side street. Public purpose served by this requirement is to mainiain adequate side yard setbacks and aesthetic open areas around commercial structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: A hardship exists to applicant since applicsnt cannot expand their business without adding onto the existing building and inability to add on to business and e.xpand would create an economic hardship. �5 ��idley Appeals Commis3ion Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 2 C. ADMINISTRATNE STAFF REVIEW: The enclosed survey of 6005 University Avenue N.E, shows both the existing and the proposed structure locations, The alley to the East in 12 foot in width and has been vacated, so that 6 feet oY the alley is considered to belong to M& T Supply Company. The proposed structure will increase the lot coverage to 30�. It will be used exclusively for cold storage. Other possible directions of expansion are impossible due to existing required parking on the North side and front of the buildirig. Staff has no opposition to this variance request, but would like to request that a pleasing lr3ndscape design be incorporated into this improvement o£ the property. Also� the East (rear) property line abuts on residential property and should be separated from it by an appropriate privacy fence. Mr. Max Goldstein� principal owner of M& I Supply Company and his attorney, Mr. Irwin Ketroser� approached the Board, Also present were Mr. Dennis Barker, Mr, and Mrs. Robert Schmidt and Helen Byrne, all neighbors directly to the East of M& I Supply Company. Mr. Ketroser explained to the Board that M& I Supply Company was located on lots 16, 1%, 18 and 19, and stated they wanted to build an addition and even off the building. He sai.d that the proposed building Vrould maintain the ex2ct same characteristics on the exterior walls, height, etc., as the existing building, and aouldn't be changed in any way. He stated it would be rounded off to about SO'� 2nd be practically square. Mr. Ketroser added that the obvious reason for the addit�on was that they needed the room badly for expan- sion� and he pointe3 out that there was an alley that had been vacated so an additional six £eet of property belonged to M& I. He said he probably should mention that when the property was purchased they noticed in the title that originall�� 30' o£ the property was dedicated for street right-of-way� and subseauently vacated; at the time the street was built the street right-of- way was notrededicated, and so technically thirty feet of the street would belong to the owners. Chairpersm Schnabel showed the pictures Staff had taken depicting where the addition taould be going on and the proximity of the adjacent property. Mr. Plemel asked if the drive-in door in front was used at a].1� and Mr. Goldstein replied it was used quite often� and explained it was a receiving door. He stated that once they got the addition, most of the receiving would be done in the back. Chairperson Schnabel pointed out where the 17' setback would be, and asked if there was a similar request for the existing structure. idr. Holden replied there wasn't anything in the file, and asked how old the building was. Mrs. Schnabel looked through the file and determined it xas bnilt around August of 1953, although she said it kas hard to decipher. She said that in effect� if this request was approved, they should approve the entire structure. Mr. Kemper asked if this had been discussed with any of the.neighbors� and Mr. Goldstein said he had discussed the proposed addition with one o£ them. Mr. Kemper stated t.hat the planning chart for the two pieces of property to the North of M& I shuwed fencing� shrubbery and green spaces. He asked hox the City could attempt to accomplish anything with the landscaping since M& I only owned their property. Mr. Holden responded that they were presently in the process of talking to the owners of Club 1�7 and Mel's Van-O-Lite about the possibility of tying the area into a.more attractive package. � � � � � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 PeBe � n Mr. Barker stated he lived behind M& I Supply Company on lots 11� & 15� and his objection was to the damage it would do to his house by extending that building �: and raising it up. Mr. Ketroser explained that it would not be raised, but would � be no higher than the existing height of the South wall. Mr. Barker said he was a contractor and asked to see a plan of the proposed addition, as•they had no w�y of knoxing exactly where it was going to be unless they had a p2an. Mr. Goldstein answered that they did not have a plan. Nlr. Barker showed on a photograph the view from his patio and explained how the building would be raised up because of the sight line and block his view. He stated the building - was non-conforming now, and he objected to them building any more on it. Mr. Ketroser stated that Mr. Barker's house xas about 70' from the building, and that seemed like quite a bit. Mr. Barker explained he was talking about sight line. Pfr. Goldstein said he believed Nir. Barker's house was higher than his building, and Nix'. Barker asked what that had to do with it. Mr. Barker said when the building was moved closer� the sight line would go up. Chairperson Schnabel said that PSr. Barker had a valid point as the neighbor behind� and she appreciated that. She asked if the idea the City had in terms o£ fencing and screening the area would help his problem. Mr. Barker replied not at a1Z, He stated that if a 30' fence was put up it might cover the building� but not a little b� screen fence. Mr. Schmidt stated that he lived directly behind the Supply Company and next to Mr. Barker on lots 12 & 13� and he was also against the 3ddition, tirs. Byrne°�a.id that she lived at 6020 ltth Street, and when it was first explained � to her she was told the addition would be higher than her garage� and that was why she was concerned. � i Mr. Kemper asked how they were going to drain the roof. Mr. Goldstein said they would have to £igure that out, i•7r. Barna suggested running a drain� and Mr. Holden suggested they could put in an internal drain system or completely change the nature of the existing roof. Mr. Barna asked if there would be a basement under the new structure, and how high the ceiling would be, hir. Goldstein said there would be no basement, and the ceiling would be about 1!t'. Mr. Kemper asked who was drawing the plans, and i�ir. Goldstein replied a contractor, Mrs. Byrne expressed her concern over the height o£ the rooF, and Mr, Barna explairied to her how they would be bringing the roof straight out. Mrs. Byrne said her view would then be lessened by £our feet as her house was behind half of the existing structure. Mr. Schmidt said that i£ the addition was going to be going any higher or wider than the existing building� it would be increasing the exposure to his property. He showed on the photograph what his view was� and explained how he would see more of the building with the extension. Chairperson Schnabel explained to the neighbors that the building would be statying the same distance from 60th Avenue, and asked them when their houses were built. Mrs. Byrne rep].ied in 1959� and D1r, Schmidt said his was built in 1960. � Mr. Kemper asked if there had been any consideration to expanding the building in a different direction and adding parking to the rear. Mr. Holden said that � would take up parking stalls that Would be necessary for their business. Mr. �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meating of August 10, 1976 Page � Kemper asked if it would be possible to add parking stalls to the rear, and Mr, Holden said then it would be necessary to add parking access off of bOth Avenye, and thare wasn�t a lot oT room back there. Mr. Kemper.said it would be 24� plus � the vacated 6�� but Mr. Holden explained how they could hardly park in there at all. He added that the City�s plans called for that area to be re-landscaped to make it more pleasing to the neighbors. � � Mr. Kemper stated that right now the visual pollution was quite extensive� and asked i£ the addition of some landscaping and some fencing would be an improve- ment. Mrs, Byrne said it would be an improvement over what there was right now. Mr. Barker asked what exactly the hardship was for this. He again stated tkiat the building was already non-conforming and shoxed where it was supposed to be 35' setback but was only 17�. Mrs, Schnabel explained that the hardship was that the petitioner could not expand his business without this addition� and that would be creating an economic hardship. Mr. Barker suggested they m6ve to another site. Mrs, Schnabel said there were a number of businesses in Fridley who cazne in for variances £or this reason. She stated that economically it would be much harder to construct on a new site than build an extension. Mr. Barker said that since the City had the codes they should be adhered to. Mr. Kemper stated that people do need variances from time to time, and that was why they had provision £or them. Mr. Barker said he was aware that happened, Mr. Ketroser asked Mr. Barker to stop and think about the economic factors involved for the o.•raers of bi & I before he said they should just pack up and move, He stated that M& I �zas a good business in the City� and Fridley should promote every consideration to help them to expand, FIe said that Pf & I had expressed their complete willingness with the C�.ty to beautify the area. Mr. Barker said he saw those problems and sympathized with tnem� but they were damaging his property by doing that. He said M& I was asking Fridley to use about �y10,000 worth of land that they legally could not build on now. Mr. Ketroser said the average resident would not make the issue out of this ihat Mr, �arker was, and said.,he thought Mr. Barker was making a mountain out oF a molehill. Chairperson Schnabel said these people conld put an addition on their building and stay within the code, but it 470UZQR�t U8 very aesthetioally pleasing, hir. Barker said he didn't think they could build anything there without getting a variance. Mrs. Schnabel shovred where they could build without a variance. Mr. Retroser said they could conform the building in a very awkward shape, but he didn't think Mr. Barker would like what it looked like.' M:. Barker said that was possible� but when they went in for a permit there might be problems. Mr, Kemper asked Mr, Barker if there was any kind of rear-yard construction that would be acceptable to him, and Atr. Barker said he didn't think they could transplant trees big enough to cover up the building once the addition was built. Mr. Aemper asked if there was ar�y type of landscaping that would help sol�*e any of his visual problems, and Mr. Barker answered a fence and massive trees. Mr, Kemper stated they had an impasse and asked if there was any way the visual pollution could be reduced, Mr. Barker stated he didn't think there was. He said he planned on selling his house soon and felt the appraisal would be ].ower because of this. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Barker if he was looking £or monetary �% � � � � Fridley Appeals Commission MeeLing of August 10, 1976 Page 5 �9 compensation� and he answered he would rather have them not build the addition. MOTION by Plemel, seconded by Barna� to'close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Holden to explain the potential changes that were being considered concerni.ng the shrubbery and green spaces shown on the planning chart. Mr. Holden said it was an overall landscape program where anything that would be developed by the property owners would be cleared through the City. He said the real purpose was to try to make that area a more pleasing place. t�lx�. Kemper asked if the variance xas denied i£ it would be Mr. Holden's opinion that the proposed landscape plan would not be affected at this time� and Mr. Holden said he thought that was true. Mr. Kemper then asked if this was approved and accepted by Council if it would be affected, and i+Is'. Holden rep2ied it would. He added that the matter oi' developing and improving landscape programs was an on-going process and took a lot of planning and patience. Mr, Holden said that the question had been brought up regarding trees as a possibility for screening the building off from the residential proPerty to the rear. He said it would certainly be more expensive than typical land- scaping� but it seemed possible to provide trees that would be as high as the building. Chairperson Schnabel pointed out there were not a lot of trees on the property immediately behind rrhich provided any screening from the existing structure. Mr. Kemper commented that there wouldn't be a great deal o£ property left to plant trees on after the building was constructed. �� Chairperson Schnabel said that she understood �rhat was being proposed by the City was a privacy fence or screening fence put on the lot line directly behind the structure and some type of shrubbery planted. She asked if that shrubbery would go on the residential property. Mr. Holden replied it would be on the commercial side of the fence. Mrs. Schnabel asked iY the 10' wide strip of Iand £rom the rear of tne proposed building toseseo£CSafetng fMrCeHolden and shrubbery was a reasonable amount of land £or purpo Y• replied it was� and explained there was access to three other sides of i,he building for £ire-£ighting purposes, .� ' Mrs. Schnabel said that it appeared they had a problem in that the petitioner wished to expand his business and was� in a sense, locked in since there was not much property that was available on which he could expand. Pfr. Holden remarked that a proposed addition io the North would not get anywhere near the square footage as this proposal. Mr, Plemel said he was hoping a bit of a compromise could be worked out� but it appeared the neighbors in the rear were quite adamant. Se said he �rould be in favor of the variance with some screening in the rear� end thought the neighbor�s objections were a bit magni£ied. Chairperson Schnabel said it seemed to her that even if the building was moved northwards, it would still have to come back as £ar as it was in order to gain the amount of space that they want� and would encroach even further. She stated it was a very difficult thing. Mrs. Schnabel added that she under- Fridley Appea2s Commission Meev:uig of �ugust 14� 1976 Yage b 3o stood the petitioner wishing to make a neater buildi.ng by making the structure look as sesthetically nice as possible. She asked iP he intended to use the same exterior material that they had now� and Mr. Goldstein said it xould be the same type of buildi.ng that was there now--painted concrete blocks. �, Chairperson Schnabel asked what the existing height of the building was� and . Mr. Goldstein replied the North end was about 11�' where they had cold storage now� and they wanted to keep it that particular height. Mr. Kemp2r stated that whichever way the decision was made, one party or another would be unhappy. He said the question they had to ask was whether the area was goi.ng to be essentiaZly improved by this addition or would it tend to deteriorate. He stated that after hearing all the things that had been said and lookin� at the pictures� it was his belief that it would probably ultimately result in improvement to that coirmiercial area. He said it may detract frome private property owner�s value, but it may not, and it xas difficult to decide. He said he would be inclined to approve the request for variance because ot' the advantages of the proposed screening and the advantages of continuing to attract business to Fridley and allow those people in business to expand where possible. Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Goldstein if he had thought o£ a dif£erent type of roof, such as a false mansard roof all the way around the structure,to make it more aesthetically pleasing. I•ir. Goldstein said he hadn�t considered it. Chairperson Schn�bel asked if he would like to consider that to perhap:= make the building a little nicer as £ar as the neighbors were concerned� and Mr. Goldstein said he could look into it. Mr. Holden commented that from the discussion it seemed like Mr. Goldstein i� wanted to increase the height to about 17�. Mr. Goldstein said he decided ! against thai, and added.it wouldn't be any higher than the parapet height, He said they would m2intain the llt� height. Mr. Barna said he would feel more com£ortable with this if he had seen some type of drawing oP the proposed building. Mr. Goldstein said it would just be a block Uuilding squared off. 14r. Barna stated it didn't hit him as being very desirable, but if there was a good architectural design possibly the neighbors wouldn't object. Mr. Schmidt stated he didn�t hear Nir. Goldstein+s answer regarding the height of the building, and Mrs. Schnable told him the petitioner said he would go no higher than the 17', and may stay with the 1l�� because of the drainage problem on the roof. hir. Goldstein explained that when he was talking abeut 1!t' he meant the interior. He said the ceiling height in the new structure xould be about the same as in the existing structure. Mr. Holden stated that the petitioner does not propose to raise the height o£ the ceiling or the roof any more than it is, lie said the roof will come closer to the neighbor's propert,y, but not up� and the parapet wall xould be extended back. He added that the height of the building would not change. Chairperson Schnabel ssid that if the members of the Commission felt they would like to see an actual drawing of the proposed addition� they could consider �a �� = Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 7 31 tabling the request until such drauing was produced. She said if thgrfelt � they understoo3 and felt secure that the petitioner explained exactly how he intended to make the proposed addition without any drawings, they could �act on it. Mr. Kemper said he thbught he really didn't have to see a plan, and would prefer to act on it. Mr. Barna said he would go along with that. � � Mr. Plemel as%ed if they could stipulate that large trees be planted, Mr. Schmidt said he worked tirith trees and suggested they would cost between $85 to $100� planted. Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Holden if he thought this could be worked into the landscape plan, and Mr. Holden replied he thought it could. Mr. Kemper asKed xhere the trees xould be planted, and Mr. Holden said they would have to be planted very close to the fence. Mr. Barna asked if I3r. Barker would object to the trees being planted on his property, and Mr. Barker said he would be willing to take trees anywhere he could get them. Re added that his only concern with this whole thing was that they were going to damage his property by doing this� and added that he was an appraiser and he knew this. He suggested that if the owners o£ M& I didn't think it would damage his property they should pay for an aapraisal before and after. Mr. Goldstein and his attorney stood up and prepared to leave� saying they were ready to drop the xhole thing. 11r. Plemel asked them to please reconsider. Mr. Kemper said the problem that they faced was that even if the Appeals Commission was in favor of the variances�hfr. Goldstein would still have the Planning Commission to go througn and then the City Council, i�frs. Schnabel explained the Planning Commission would just review the minutes of this meeting, and the City Council would have another hearing on it, MOTIOI3 by Plemel� seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for variances with the following stipulations: 1) The block plan for _mprovemeni of the landscape (greenery and shrubbery planted on the �ast� West and South) be implemented, and 2) The roof design be no higher than the original building and the parapet no higher. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Sc'r.nabel iniormed Mr. Goldstein that this would go before the City Council on September 13th. 2. A RE�UFST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 20S.OS3� �t� A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO REDUCE THE RnQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK I'ROM 3S FEET TO 26 FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTIO?I OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED ON IAT 1, BLOCK 2, BRCOKVIE`rt TERFtACE ADDITION, THE SAi+� BEING 820 KENNASTON DRIVE N.E.� FR�IWY, PSIRidE50TA. (Request by Arlin E. Peters� 820 Kennaston Drive N.E.� Fridley� Minnesota 55432?• MOTION by Barna� seconded by Plemel, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERV�1 BY REQUIREMENT: Section 20�.053� �1, iront yard setback of 35 £eet. �+idley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10� 197b Pa�e 8 Public purpose served by this section oF the Code is to allow for off-street ; parking without encroaching on the public right of way. Also, the aesthetic � consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the '�uilding line of sight" �, encroachment into the neighbor�s front yard. ; B. STATID HARDSNIP: Need garage space, have no other practical way to go. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: 820 Kennaston Drive N.E, is an unusual lot in that its entire front yard is on the street radius. On a typical lot the proposed addition would be in the side yard� but in this case� it comes closer to the £ront property line than the required 35� setback. The addition will not be allowed to encroach into the Southerly 6' oF the lot due to the presence qf a drainage and utility easement, Addition an to the rear of garage would not be a very �practical' solution because of shifting cars in the garage and the already reduced size o£ the back � yard. Staff feels that the neighbo�s concerns would be the most important. Staff has no objection to this request. Mrs. Arlin Feters stepped forward to present the request, She stated they had an existing single car garage and were proposing to add another l� car garage on. She explained they would both be used as garages with some storage space, Mrs. Peters said she had a note from the adjacent neighbor stating they had no objections to the addition. MOSION by Plemel� seconded by Kemper} that the Appeals Commission receive � the note from Mrs. Loretta Pastwa, 86Q Kennaston Drive N.E.. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Peters explained they always had one car sitting out now, and in the summer there were usually both cars because of bicycles� lawnmowers, etc., in the existing garage. She stated they planned to reside and reroof the house. Chairperson Schnabel asked i£ there was a City boulevard, and Mr. Holden said there was a 7� boulevard. She asked i£ the structure next door was some considerable distance from the common lot line. Mr. Holden said he didn�t have a veri£ying survey, but thought the house was built about 20' from the property line. Mr. Kemper commented that seemed like a lot of room between structures to him. He said he tnought there was a visual problem� but there was a lot of green area and he didn't think the visual problem would be particularly great. Mr, Barna said he thought there would be plenty of view Scr safety purposes. Mr. Holden sated there would be about $' of the garage sticking out, Mrs. Peters said they had 2 boat� snowmobiles, bicycles, etc., and really needed �he space. She added they also had two children who were approaching d;iving age. 140TION by Barna� seconded by Plemel, to close the Pub2ic Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye9 the motion carried unanimously. Mr, Barna stated the need had been established� and the building line of sight � encroachment wouldn't be i:hat great in his opinion, so he would be in favor. Mr. Plemel said that since there c,rere no neighbors objecting, he would have no � �i �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10� 1976 Page 9 objection, MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission grant the request for variance. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • 3. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COAE, SECTION 115.02, 5, B, TO REDUCE THE 6 FOOT FEPJCE REaUIREMENT AP.OUND Sb1IPR�IING POOLS 1'0 5 FEEm, TO ALL(?W THE UTIL'IZATIOIQ OF AN EXISTING VERTICAl REDWOOD FE:dCE, IACATyD OY LOT !�� BIACK 1� HOLI➢AY HILLS SECOPID ADAITION� THE SAME BEING �37 RICE CREEK BLVD. N.E.� FRIDLEY� MINIJESOTA. (Kequest by Donald Gustafson� �137 Rice Creek Blvd.� P7.E.� Fridley� Minnesota 551�32). MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATNE STAFF REPORP A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERUED BY REQUI��IT: Section 115,02, 5, H, requiring a 6 foot fence around swi.mming pools. Public purpose served by this requirement is to protect unescorted intruders from the dangers of the pool area. B. BTATED IIARDSHIP: Petitioner said their fence was a vertical redwood non-climbable £ence between 5 to 6 feet in height around the peri�neter of the back yard and was completed before April 15, 1976 before the ordinance requiring a 6 foot fence was established. Additionally the petiticner states that the neighbors sh �re the feeling that aesthetically 6 ioot fences are deterrents to the neighborhood. C. ADMINISTRATIVE 5TAFF REVZEW: The existing vertical redwood Fence surrounding the backyard o£ 1�37 Rice Creek Blvd, was constructed this past spring beSore the ordinance went into e£fect. The old ordinance required only a l� foot £ence. The new ordinance xent into ef£ect on May 15, 1976. The new ordinance was written, in part� because the City felt that a£our foot chain li.nk £ence around a pool was not enough of a deterrent to small children entering the pool area. This fence is hard to climb because there are no horizontal slots to provide steps. There appear to be neighboring £ences adjacent to the North, E3st and South sides of the fence in question. The proximity o£ these iences would appear to make it more difficult to scale than a single fence. A possible solution� though technically diSficult� would be to raise alternate slots of the fence to a six foot height £rom grade around the entire fence perimeter. These slats uould be approximately 6" apart. Several pool building permits have been issued since the new ordinance went into effect� and several existing £ences have been altered in order to meet £his requirement. Staff�s concern in this matter is that the "intent" of the ordinance is maintained. .� a� � �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10� 1976 Page 10 Mr. Donald Gustafson apnroached the Board to present his request. He stated that the fence was put up prior to the ordinance changing, and it was a non- � climbable veriical fence that was'no less than 5•' and in some areas 6' high. He said he paid over $600 �or the fence and to raise it to 6� rrould probably cost ranother a":600. He added that the pool had just recently been put in. Mr. Kemper as;ced rr'ny the variance was requested now. Chairperson Schnabel said ASr, Gnstafson had vut in the fence be£ore the ordinance was chan�ed, and he put in the pool a£ter the ordinance was changed. Mr. Holden commented that one o£ the stipulations when someone applied to build a pool was that the applicant have a 6' fence� �,nd Mr. Gustafson already had a 5' £ence. Mr. Kemper then asked how he could go ahead and build a poo2 without a variarice, and Mr. Eolden said the fence was not required until the pool was built. Chairperson Schnabel said that Mr, Gustafson applied for a building permit for the pool on June 23rd and on that date a letter was sent to him from the Environmental 0£ficer, Steve Olson. In the letter, she said, the requirements for pool construction were listed, and included in that was an item which said "A Sence or other suitable barrier, a minimum of six'(6) feet high� that affords no external hand or foot holds and which is impenetrable by toddlers� must be provided around the entire perimeter of the pool. Al1 gates and other accesses shall be equipped with self-closing and self-latching devices ��;hich are capatle of being locked," rirs. Schnabel said the pool was constructed in June' and the stipulation on the Building Permit says "As per letter dated June 23� 1976". Mr. Holden said that the final inspection on the pool couldn't be 3one until the variance xas granted or the fence raised to 6'. hfrs. Schnabel suggested to 1^s. Holden that the variance on the fence should have been applied for before the pool was constructed, Mr. Gustafson said that something that confused him was that the fence had been called a non-climbable fence that was $'. He asked the difference betWeen that and a non-climbable fence that was 6�. Mr. Barna said there really was none. Chairperson Schnabel said they had two lettexs on file from the neighbors. One was from Arden Foss of �tbl Rice Creek Blvd. saying they thought a higher £ence would detract immeasurably in their neighborhood; and otte from Ntr. Gerald Maeckelbergh of 1�25 Rice Creek Blvd., saying that in his opinion the existing fence was adeouate to prevent the intrusion of small children into their yard� and that a bt fence would be unsightly. MOTION by Ple:-,el� seconded by Barna� that the Appeals Commi.ssion receive the letters from Ps. Arden Foss and Mr. Gerald blaeckelbergh. IIpon a voice vote' all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr, Plemel co:�:nented that he didn't think a toddler could climb that fence. He said an older child might be able to� but they coul.d get over anything. Mrs. Schnabel noted that there were other pools in the area, so the attraction wouldn�t be that great. Chairperson Schnabel asked Mr. Holden about Staff�s suggestion of alternate slats being raised. Mr. Holden said that wasn't that strong of a recommendation � �� Fridley Aopeals Commission Meeting of Au�ust 10� 1976 Page 11 8nd it Would be costly to the petitioner. He sai.d it was just mentioned as a suggestion. MOTI02d by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to close the Pulzlic Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all vot:ng �ye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTIOi7 by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the request for variance. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unaniTOUSly. Chai.rperson Schnabel asked Mr. Holden about the statement in the Administrative Staff Report s�ing that "Staff's concern in this matter is that the 'intent� of the ordinance is maintained". Mr. Holden stated that Steve Olson, the �vironmental Officer, was concerned that granting this variance would open the door £or soneone else to get it back down. Mr. Holden said he tried to assure hir.i that each case was considered on its individual basis, and said he Pelt the intent was met because it was a non-climbable £ence. Mr. Plemel said the intent to comply with the ordinance was there Vrhen Mr. Gustafson built the fence. 1�. A RE�UFST FOR VAPIANCES OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 205.113, �t� (A�1) TO R�UCE THE REQUIRIIfENT OF A MIN7MUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEr.T FOR USES OTHER THAA' THE 1,AIN BUIL➢IIvG TO 0 FEET FOR A PARKING LOT� AND SECTIO.i 205.113, �t, tC,l), TO REDUCE TriE REQUIRFr�IENT OF k MIIvIMU�i REAR YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 13 FEET TO ALIAW MORE COANEPdIENP PARKIYG rOR TiiE IIS, AND HANDICAPPr'� ON PROPr1ZTY ZOIv�F.0 CR-1 (GEidRAL OFFICE Ai�'D LIMITED BUSINESS) IACATED ON THE NORTH �00 FEET OF THE 'rinST 217.60 Fr.JT OF OUTLOT 1� MEIADY hfAIdOR LtTH ADDITION� THE SA?3E BEING 7075 MADISON ST9.EET N.E., FRIDLEY� hIIIQNFSOTA. (Request by FMC & Associates--Fridley Medical Center--7675 Madison Street id.E.� Fridley� t�linnesota 55h32)• MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADMIIdISTRATI'dE STAFF REPQRT A. PUBLIC PURFOSE SERVED BY RE@UIRETiENT: Section 205.113, 1�� imum front yard setback of 20 feet on CR-1 zoned property. - Public purpose served by this requirement is to prouide sufficient area for a landscape buffer between commercial structures and the public rignt of way. Section 20$.113� !�� C,1, minimum rear yard of 25 feet on CR-1 zoned property. Public purpose served by this requirement is to provide adequate open space around commercial structures for aesthetic and fire fighting purposes. B. STATID HARDSHIP: Request for variance on distance from property line to parking lot. Request a setback as presently used on present site. If we are required to abide 35 Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 12 �� with present codes� it would destroy the appearance of attempting to follow thru with a building design such as we have now. Also� it would eliminate � many parking stalls near the building which is important for injured, ill, or handicapped patients, Request for rear yard setback is an attempt to make the eacisting building a functional enti.ty. It is £elt that by adding 2688 square feet to the rear of the bniZding will enable better patient flow and result in more efiicient caz�e. It would also serve as a service area; keeping truoks, del.iveries, and employee parking to the rear of the building. Again� allowing the front area for convenient parking for our patients. C. ADMINISTRATTVE STAFF REVIEW: The proposed Fridley.Medical Center addition is designed to come within 13 £eet of the rear lot line (see attached drawing). This rear addition is intended to accommodate of£ice space� nurses lounge� d�ctors lounge and records storage. This rear (east) lo� line is adjacent to an existing blacktopped driveway. Present plans do not indicate i£ this 13 Yeet area would be paved or not. The vasiance cequest includes a zer,o setback in front to continue par!cing as it now exists. Compliance with the Code would eliminate several parking stalls proposed to be adjacent to the front of the building. The existing zero setback for parking in the £ront of the building is the result of a 30 foot roadway dedication secured from the property owners in 1965. Doctor Herb Strait and Ms. Vivian Linquist, Admini.strator, approached the Board to present thc-ir request. Doctor Strait showed the Commissioners a survey of the existing building they have now� and said they started in a five-man building and now had 13. He showed where they wanted to put ihe addition, and said they were asking for a variance so they could continue the bouleva.rd and keep the parking spaces, and also put this addition within 15' o£ the propert�* line. Chairperson Schnabel asked iS the proposed additicn would come out about half • way and split the parking lots into staf£ and patient� and Nis. Lindquist answered that was correct. Doctor Strait explained that in order to get the space they needed without a variance� they would have to build the addition the other way. He added that the hardship was they needed more space� and the proposed plan was the best way to give them the excessive parking spaces they needed. Mr. Kemper asked what nercent-.coverage there would be� and Mr. Holden replied 17� lot coverage. Mr. Kemper asked when they intended to start construction, and �octor Strait said as soon as they could. He added that right now they were moving their OB Department to get some breathing space. He further stated that the exterior was pretty well set as far as size, etc.� and the}> thought their plan was pretty workable. He said their would 'oe no access or egress in the back of the building, and between the building and the driveir�y would be green area. � � �8 Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10, 1976 Page 13 Chairperson Schnabel commented that it was a vital addition to the co�mmmity� � also. She noted that there was some correspondence in the £ile concerning � the soil tests, and suggested the City would like to review those. Mx. Holden said most certainly, MOTION by Kemper� seconfled by Plemel� to close tne Public Hearing. Upon a. voice vote, all voti.ng aye� the motion carried unani.mously. Mr. Holden said his only concern was the business of obtaining access through the driveway. r40TI0N by Kemper� seconded by Barna� that the A�peals Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for variance with the stipulation that iS access £or the Doctor�s parking lot isn't acquired as drawn� tne Appeals Commission be given the opportunity to review the plans again. Doctor Strait said if they couldn't get that, they would tr,y Lo get another access off of Osborne, or vacate the area. Mr. Kemper said that part of the analysis of this whole thing was to take a look at the entire proposal. He stated that if they didn't get that one particular entrance into the parking lot� they iaould have to do something quite drastic which could affect the Appeals Commission's decision. Chairperson Schnabel asked iF this would fall under some speci£ic inspection, � and wondered if there �,�ould be somebod,y on top of the situation so they would ]mow whether or not the clinic was able to obtain permission from the owner � to use that driveway. Mr. Holden replied that the Planning Department rrould be looking into it, He suggested the alternatives would be: 1) Get an easement, 2) Go off Osborne Road, 3) Abandon it, and !t) Provide a driveway on the North side of the building. Mr. Plemel said he would like to speak.against th° stipuiation as he didn't think it had anything to do with the variances, t�ir. Kenper said he agreed it didn't have anything to do with the variances� but felt they should take a look at the af£ect of the total plans. �Mrs. Schnabel said she respected , what Mr. Kemper was saying� and if the proposed plans would be drastically changed by the failure to get permission, she would agree with nim. She said she was a lil;tle reluctant to go along with the stipulation because she felt the Planning Department was really in control of that situation. Mr. Kemper said that if the plan was going to cnange he would like some assurance that it would be reviewed carefully. He added that if he could have that assurance he wouldn�t have any objection to removing that stipulation. PSr. Holden saicl that he had confidence in hSr. Boardman�s review of the plan� and the petitioner was conscientious to respond to the Planning Department's xishes. Mr. Kemper APSENDID the MOTION to remove the stipulation. Seconded by Barna. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimousiy. 5, RECENE MIIdO T� WILLIAM PdEn AfAYOR FR014 VIRGINIA SCNN9BEL DATEI7 JULY 30 � 197 ON UTILIZATIOid OF 0' LO'fS: � Chairperson Schnabel said that she attended the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday� end in the Planning Commission minutes was the letter that r.-� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10� 197� Page 14 3,� the Appeals Commission received Srom Mayor Nee and her reply to him. She explr�ined that when the members of the Planning Commi,sion read Mayor Nee's remarks there � was considerable discussion; there were some points brought out and questions raised, She continued that some of the questions raised were very similar to the questions the Appeals Commission raised� such as could certain allegations he made be substantiated� etc. �� C� Mrs. Schnabel said that another question that was raised was if these lots are taaced as buildable sites, and if so, did the City have any legal rights to deny building on them. She said it appeared thaL they are not taYed as buildable sites, so there was no legal problem in that area. She stated that another question that was 3sked was what happened if the property was tax- for£eit land� and who would pay for the maintenance? A point made by Jerry Boardman� she said� was that in a discussion with someone from the Fridley State Bank he discovered that only 25� of farnilies can afford housing as it currently exists, She said ihat the Mayor had stated that perhaps they had a�responsibility to the current residents of Fridley who possibly built with the intent of kaeping some open spaces. Chairperson Schnabel said that the Planning Commission passed a motion to request an in£ormal meeting with the members of the City Council at a time and date to be set, That motion passed� she stated� and it was also part of the recommendation in the letter the Appeals Commission sent to the Niayor, Mrs. Schnabel con�inued that £ollowing the Planning Corrcni:ssion meeting sY:e met t�iwyor Nee across the hall and told him they had just had a discussian� and asked if he had received her letter to him concerning the lt0� lotsr and he replied he had. She said they talked about the situation and Vaere joined by Dick Harris� Chairperson of the Planning Commission. She stated tl-,at the�r agreed they should take another look at the 40' lot as a building site, and agreed to set up a meeting. Mrs. Schnabel e�cplained she would be having surgery the end oF the week, and it was £elt that when she was able to participate in the meeting following that surgery, a time would be set up. She stated it probably wouldn�t be until September. Chairperson Schnabel said the one thought that came out oi' their discussion was that somehow or other they would like to see some t.ype of control by the City over the type of dwellings that are put on 1�0' lots. She stated she had brought up that Mr. Barna had brought in a book of houses that could be constructed on ?�0� lots with no variances required. She said if the,y had some means of having control over 1t0' lots, a speculator couldn't come in and buy a strip of 40' lots just to make money. r L. � She stated that another thought that came out o£ their discussion was to perhaps put all lots that are under minimum size under a PUD code so that there could be some type of control. She explained that PUD stood for Planned,vnit Develop- ment� and the Iand in Innsbruck North where there was a combination o£ townhouses� apartment houses and private residences was all zoned PUD." Mrs, Schnabel stated that thought was something they shculd probab].y pursue if they decided they wanted to have any construction on 1�0� lots� but they might decide for one reason or another that they didn't want to. +:(Staff correction: North I�insbruck zoned by individual development). � Chairperson Schnabel said that at this point it was the intent to get together the Plaztning Commission� the City Council, and any other people who were interested from the various subcommissions for an iniormal meeting concerning utilization of 1�0' lots. �' ° Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting of August 10� 197b Page 15 39 MOTION by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission receive the � memo to Mayor Nee from Chairperson Schnabel dated July 30� 1976 on the utilization of 40' lots. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6, RECEIV� COUNCIL PfINUTES ON VARIAidCES: N:dE 21, 1976 MOTION by Kemper� seconded by Barna� that the Anpeals Conunission receive the Council minutes on variances dated June 21� 1976. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� t�e motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Barna� seconded by P1eme1, that the Appeals Commission meeting of August 10, 1976 be adjourned at 10:58 P.Pi. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, tHe motion carried unani.mously. Respectilzlly submitted� � �ii'�v �� .rr �J ( l /tXl'/NOrO (!U� Sherri O�Donnell Recording Secretary � � � CO1�lUNITY DEVELOPMENT COT�ffSSION M6ETING AUGUST L0, 1976 PIfE!ffiERS,PRHSENT; Herman Bergman, William Forster, Dennis Schaeider lIFd�IDSRS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: LeRoy Oquist, Hubert Lindblad Jerry Soardman, City Planner Chairperson Bergman called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. `�(1 AFPRAVS CQ�AS(TNITY DEVELOPMENT COMIIISSION t�ETING MINUTES JULY 13 1976: M(1�LIO�i by Dennis Schneider, seconded by William Forster, to approve the miautes as wzitten of the-July 13, 1976, Cammunfty Development Commissiun meeting. Upon a voice Sa'.e, all voting aye, Che mo[ion carried unanimously. �ONTN6 CODE REPlEW OPi GARAGES• _ ."-t�. Boardman stated that one of his people had checked with different communities. He stated that they had received two ordinances at this time--one from Coon Rapids and one from Roaeville, and that each of the Co�ission members had been given a copy of these tsvo ordiaances. Coon Rapids requires one enclosed garage space per dvelling unit for a single ax�d two-family dwellings, and Roseville reqaires the same. ` They found that most of the conmunities contacted have a requirement of one garage per dveil#ug unit. Mr. $ergman staCed that previously from Planning Commission was a request for [he specific question of the need for or requirement for a garage for substandard lots. He atated he fe�t the Co�isaion should address this queation first. ilr. Boardman atated-thaC most of the coamunities do not deal with substandard lots. Fsom aIt the conmunities he had Looked at, they do not tie the garage to a lot. Mr. Bergmaa atated thaC the Fridley City Code seems to relate garages to lots . while the Coon 8apids code relates garages to a dwelling which he feels is more seneible. Mr. Bergman stated that there has been discussion at Planning C�ission level of the question o# requiring an enclosed garage. There has also been some discussion at Citp Co�ancil 1eve1. At both levels, [o his knosrledge, there were mixed emotions. One side fee]a.t#�e enclosed garage is necessary for housing all kinds of things [hat ight atherui$e=!he strewn in the yard (an aesthetic thing) and the other side are erned thaC w� should be providing housing oppor[unities per our housing plan �1 COMMi7NITY DEVELOPMENT COF4IISSION I�ETING AUGUST 10 1976 Pa e 2 for all income levels; and when you 'ta�k all these requirements on to housing, � then you price out the lower income peogle, . Mr. Boardman agreed that was his impression. The addition of a garage just adds to the cost of the structure. If you have a garage, you need a hard-surface drlveway, and that adds more. Mr, Forster sta[ed that he would Iike to see more reports from other communities and the Fridley garage ordinance so that the Commissioners could study and compare what Fridley has versus the other coumunities. Then, he felt the Commission members couid come back with mora input and do a better job. Mr. Bergman stated that they already had the ordinances from the cities of Coon Rapids and Roseville and that most of the other camsunities do not treat the question of substandard lots at all. These communities do not allow development on them; therefore, do not have the question. He stated that regardless of what the other communities are doing or ought'to do, the question is what this Commission feels ought to be the requirement--should a garage be a requixemenf or not. He stated that he feels the present ordinance did not consider substandard lots because they were not considered buildable lots. He stated he has no problem with attached or detached and feels the ordin�nce should be changed to exclude reference to attached or detached. Since this item has been tabled twice, it was his feeling that the Coumiisaion should act on it.' MOTION by William Forster, seconded by Dennis Schneider, that the Community Development Commission reco�ends to the Planning Cammission that one enclosed garage space be vrovided per dwelling unit for the following reasons: � 1. Reduce outside automobile parking. 2. Provide for enclosed storage of equipment and materials other than automobi2e to enhance neighborhood appearance. 3. Reduce safety hazards which may result from outside storage of equipment and materiaL 4. Promote the preservation and upqradinq of the neighborhood and maintain a quality living environment consistent with the housing plan. 5. Provide for the security of stored goods in the neighborhood. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, RECEIVE MEMO FROM MAYOR NEE TO THE APPEALS COhII�1ISSI0N DATED ,IULY 15, 1976, ON THE UTILIZATION OF 40 FOOT LpTS MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by William Forster, that the Community Development Commission receive Mayor Nee's memo to the Appeals Commission dated July 15, 1976, on the Utilization of 40 Foot Lots. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. � � . . . . .... . .... . . _ �V COMHITNIxP DEVELOPM�NT COPAtISSI4N'MEETING AUGUST 10 19?6 Pa e 3 ,rCEIVE 1�M0 PR�i VIRGINIA SCHNABEL, CHAIRPERSOPI OP THE APPEALS C01�IITiSSION TO kYOR NEE, DATED jiFLY 30 1976 MOTIfJN by William Forster, seconded by Dennis Schneider, that [he Community Development G�mission receive Virginia Schnabel's memo to Mayor Nee dated JuLy 30, 1976: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 14r. Boardman stated that these memos had been sent to the Cortmunity Development Ca�ission mafnly for the Commission's information since they had discussed 40 foot Lota. ;;", Mz'• $exgman seated that these two Letters are on the question of whether or not ;;:. 44 foot lots should be buildable aad developable lota within the city code. The r prayious minimum Lot size was 75 feet. Mr. Bergman stated he would like to co�ent on the Planning Cao�nission meeting when the Board of Appeals brought this question baqk to the Planning Commission, and said that Planning Co�nission had concurred with Co�unity Development Co�ission, it was passed on to City Council, Council passed it on to Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals were still having problems vith it, and on the pending request for development of a 40 foot lot which came before them, there were seven variance requeats along with the development request. The Board of Appeals granted five variances and denied ts�o. Mr. Bergman said he had stated to the Board of Appeals that one of Cammunity Development Cov�ission's reco�endatioas was that the requestor ceake every effort to :�onform to city ordinauce, and a person coming in with sevea variances is not making an effort. The City"Council passed this request with a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Bergman stated that �he thinks the culmination of this is that the Board of Appeals requested through the Planning Commission that a meeting be held vith the Council members, the Planning `�Gommissicm members, the Board of Appeals members, and any other coumission members interested, to bring together in voice attitudes involving these 40 foot lots. Hr. Schneider stated that on March 9, 1976, when 40 foot lots was first addressed by the-Coamunity Development Co�ission, the Commission felt that if land is availdble on either side which could be purchased to bring the lot up to code, then a`building request on a 40 foot lot should be denied. He felt Council was mis3nterpreti�g this statement to mean that a person can try to buy an adjoining Yot, but i€ it is refused, then the 40 foot lot request would be considered. This Camnission really meant that if there is an available lot, even if it cannot be pnrchased, then the request for building on a 40 foot lot should be denied. Periad! Mx. Schneider stated he would like this brought up in Ehe joint meeting. REPORT OI+T THE SIGN ORDZNANCE PROJECT COPII�ffTTE& MOTIOAT by Deanis Schneider, seconded by William Forster, to receive the minutes of the July 26, 1976, Siga Ordi�nance Project Co�ittee meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the mution casried unanimously. � ,_ , '-e �j COMMUNITY DEVELOPM4�NT COMMISSION MEETIN� AUGUST 10 1976 Pa e 4 DISCUSS GOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMhIISSION CHARTER MOTION by Wiiliam Forster, seconded by Dennis Schneider, ta table this subject until a later date when all Commission members can be present. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Dennis Schneider, seconded by William porster, to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p,m, Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Ly .�� Recording Secretary U � � 44 � OFFZCZAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO YJHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Planning Canmission of the City of Fridley in the City Elall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday, June 9, 1976 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 P.M, for the purpose of: . Consideration of a Preliminaxy Plat, P.S. #76-05, Innsbruck North RepZat 3rd Addition, by Darrel A. Farr D^velopment Corporation, being a replat of that part of Innsbruck North Townhouses Third Addition, described as follows: Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, Alock '1� Lot� 1 to 4 lnci.e�sive, i3lock 72t' Lots 1 to 4 lncluaivc, 3koct 2�� Lots 1 to 4 inclu:sive. .^.TocY. 20t Lots 1 to t� inclv�lvc., 31ocx 25r Lots 1 to 4 inclu.ive, Block 26t � also that part of Lot 1, 91oc:: 23 de,criDec: as followsi 8c{!inning at the ^�rtYiw?s! c:�r.>>r of s�ia Blork 21� Lhence North 9 der±�es y0 ciir.ute� ��3 ;econ�?s :rest a dintance o° 16 feett thenee No;th .",G de;^,rees 09 r..9.^.��tas 1' saccnds issst a distance of � 33 feett t?�ence South 9 de�rcea 5� nl�ute� 4$ seconds iia�t a distance of 16 feat to the northeast carr.er of slid 31ock 21� thence to the point of be,;innir� i alr,o th�t nart of Lot 1, `_ilec:- 2S �escribed as follo•xs+. Be�'Inr.in�; at the non•th•.vest co:�ie'r o* �aid B1ocX 22� thence North 2 de�;rces 39 i��nittcc ;�zst a Ciut:nnce of 10 feett th^_nce� �Tiol'th 87 Ce-recs ?.1 minu:es �ast a distance oY 33 feet� thettce South 2 de�tr�.^.s 39 c�i:iutca ^^st a�'.isCance of !0 feet to the northeast cui^i^_r of said 31a;:c 22; tyc:zce to the point oi ba:�inning� a13o that car. oi Lo± 1, Cloc_- 2N deac;i6ed as follovrs+ Oe{inning�nt the ��uthea.t co_•nar of said P.locic 22t thence South . 2 de�ree� 79 minutrzs :i^::t n dis�^nc� oY' G icett thence S'outh 8� degrces 21 �znut=s tiest a r.icvt^::ce of 77 feet� thence North Y dCPl'C•:i 3'� r�inutn.^. +/caL a ci•:�te.nce o: o feet to thc southwest eorner of s�id �lcek 22t th�nc•^ to the point of Eeginning� • nlso that �art of Lot 1, 31ock ?9 da�cribed a4 tollows� � tfeginning at thc sv�the::,t ccrner ot' asi.d i�lock 77� thence South y Aep,ree3 OC �aimi+es �1 ^ccorn!s 3ar.t a dictance of 16 fcet� thence South 92 dr.�reao 59 nimites 19 �econAs +lest a dist.^.nce o! 33 fcett thence North 1 de;,rees 00 mii�at�s 41' second:: West n distance of 16 feet to the southw.est corner of said �lcck 23i thence to thu point of begSnninc� nlso that F1rt oY Lo: 1, Olock 2A AeccribeA as follo�,rs� . Ac�;inning nC t!ia northwc.t curnr.r of sr�id Slock 24� thcnce yorth • a Ji�tnnce of 15 tecti thcr.ce i:aat z di�tance uf 37 feett thonce South n di�tance of 1C> :cet tu the ROI'CfiO:luL curncr ot aald illock 24� thence to tho point of bcrinning� , �✓ Paqe 2 4� alao that p•trt of Lot 1, �lor.k 2(1 Ac:crlbnd aa follows� . . 6eglnninf; at tho ;{outl:nu�it cornar oP ;nid 91ack 25R thence South � lj degree:; )7 mirtatce, 71 r:^conAr, a Aist�nee o.` lfi feett thence � .� tiortli 76 nr��n:r.a 2b minut.r.r: 19 aecanaJ ?ir.ct a dlstanee of 33 feet�. thencc NorCh 13 dcrrces J3 minutos 41 scr.onCc caet n distnnce of 16 leet to the couthw��t corn^r of r>aiA Ulock 25t thence to the p�int of beginni.nr;i ' also that part of Lot 1, 131ock 2A Gesr.e•ibeci�ns folloxs� � Berinnin� eC the seutheact corn�r oi said Block 2%�� *hense Srsuth 11 degrrr� 41 ninute.^. 11 sr.conds West n distnnce of 16 feet� thence NorLh 7� de�reos I:; �ainutes l9 :+econd� Keet a distance of j3 f9n!i tGenca 1lorth li de.�raea �+1 �i:�utes il secondr, _ast a distanco ot 15 feet to 1:ho southwest corner of �aid Hlock 25� thence to the point of br,gl.r.ning� ' • all lying in the South ilalf of Section 24, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. Generally located on the West side of �ast Bavarian Pass and South of�Meister Road N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard^with heard at this meeting. , � ' �,� � , Publish: May 26, 1976 June 2, 1976 reference to the above matter will be� RICFIARD�H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANN�NG COMMISSION CI7'Y OP FRIDLfiY p11NNCSU7'A � PLANNINC AND ZUNINC rORM ' NllM13ER • d-''� ��-05� TYPE OF REQUEST � RPPI.TCANT'S SI��ATURG ��i.,rr ,-in, ,`n,.- � . �. ,�, ,. J � •�' Rezoning Address - i.�:. r�� f '`� '�• = ii;�� S'l �° Special Use Permit Telephone Number "�': ""`'� � PROPERTY Oi4NLlt' S SIG�IATI)RE �_!I .� � c- Address �/ • Approval of Premiii- inary $ Final Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Other Telephone tiumUer �. � Fee�U Receipt No. SI � � Street Locati.on of Property =a•- (�� ;=,,:�c:+ �-;, �, Legal Description of Property �' : � ''� ` �'� -� � �� Present Zoning Classification �' ' Existing Use of Property Acreage of Property Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification '� , - i or type of use and i:nprovemer.t proposed _ 3, ,�, � 3•- -� -.: •- � �Or�� 6s..�L�� s :�n f'�ff.�� i� /Jrc ,'�i_ �9 .�.•�� ,- i�?-"�` ��vy_��_—i � Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use permit on the subject site or part.of it? / yes no. What xas requested and when? � The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any dcfect in the proceedings resulting from the failurc to list the names and addresses of all residents and property ox�ners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed proyerty and structure must Ue drawn and attached, sliowing the following: i. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the Ie.t. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structurc, and front and si3e setbacks. 4. Street Names. 5. Location and use of ndjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet). 'fhe undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. � _ DATE 'i,�:.. %,.3, SIGNATURE �-/r�, � �_ -'" � G,+ ' �jAPPLICAN'P) . . Dato Filed Date of Flcaring Planning Commission Approved (datcs) Denicd � City Council Approved (dates) Dcnied y• "� ' � MAILING LIST � � � ps. 8F #76-OS Darrel Farr Development Corp Replat Blocks 21-26 to Lots 1-6 to allow 2- 2 car gazages and 2 single car garages in each block Ms. Pamela J. Braun 5562 Meister Rnad N.E Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Donald J. Kunshier 5558 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Daniel Shaw 5554 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. James Hanson 5550 Meister itoad N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Margaret Schweizer 5546 Meister xoad N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Karl Klopfer 5542 '�•]eister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Stephen Tollison 5538 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Paul Leibman 5534 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Alice Shaughnessy 5530 1�leister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Susan Sisson 5526 Meister Road N.E. F=idley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Donald Olmstead 5522 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Aarry Zook 5518 Meister Raad N.E. Fridley, Mnr 55432 Mr. Kent Koch 5514 Meister Road N.E. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Planning Commission Mr. Iaobert Carqill 5510 Meister Road N.�. Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Richard Nafstad 5575 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Terry Wiley 5571 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Mary Blisha 5565 E. Bavazian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. James King 5561 E. Bavazian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Douqlas Van Arkel 5563 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Ronald Ferkingstad 5567 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Thomas Hummel 5545 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. William Goon 5541 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Ann Neher 5543 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. James Pries 5547 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Murray Heatley 5533 E. Bavaxian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55932 Mr. Wayne Bothun 5535 S. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 �-2 S- 9G Mr. Lynn Castner & Ms. Deonne Parker 5537 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Chailes Franke 5529 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Steven Kessel 5525 E. Bavazian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Shirley Dickey 5531 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. John Becker 5521 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Fdward Englund 5517 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Gary Odegaard 5519 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Ms. Linda Borry 5523 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Leonard lhitter 5540 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. David Johnson 5544 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, t�. 55432 Mr. Lorin Waods 5542 E. eavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55432 Mr. Richard Sharpe 5578 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, Mn. 55932 �� C� �� , ) Page 2 P.S. #76-05 Darrel A. Farr Corporation ! t�lr. LeROy Anderson 5582 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, tan. 55432 �r, Jerry Widerson 5576 E. Bavarian Pass Fridley, t�in. 55932 Darrel Farr Development Corp. 7286 Idorth 72nd Lane Minneapolis, Mn. 55428 � � :� � 1__— ---- � � � . : ;� �� . , . :� ,% . i i .. . i .��-�` . � .� E..�i f ;� v, : _ :' : T' �j€ • i'� . ? � ; ,� L y . ! i , i i . . � �4 i j '' I� � i R� 1 Z ' i S � �.� ; ;. ; ; � � • ; i e 1M1 i',bl:`�_ r: �----- _�r� "� i � i, ��- _.N, � � � �.�-1� ' � k��-_�._��.__I ��/ �r 1i�3�q1 '1 �1../��I � �q�l U � , �_1,T(1 � • � _�-._' �`� 4��.7_ . � ��-� �---, ,1�_sj, ..�:� l°�-��' �� _ LI � , , -�i , { =� �� -y^-.�� G� ,�`�'��°';` 1� � - j ^�_�1 . . � __ _ � �.. „ _-I = � �'-'I I i � J _ S: � � S � , L i 6 � i^..� i r,J a i lu y : l� � . ��-�J �'-;�--�=�_'� : _ . i .._ ; . j . I-:� i'' `� � ; I :_ � ;= � �-,. ! , ; ` , , � `, .__ �J.:'/ -� ;�-�;" .:�� _ `� .�i r t . '- ; � . . r__ "�`r _ . f `� i ��`_� -_f - _ L_`= � l:�l'�L �--�� : ._ _�__ ; . - j=_--�h r `;�;; �,1 �j -,:t ; � ,",,. �,— -��-'� : C_ ^�--- � � � 1� � '--j' 1 � : .- k-� "__. � s __. r-- �-�._.�1,. ,_ �s �;:�-�_::,: : . L! ;'� ,.� , �I: � �_: ;`` L � -I'� �, i _ l—J 1 �_ ��; �,�V:� __ . � � �- -'^ i1: �J � �v ` � -1 -` i . '��_��-I�� .� I � _� �, , a� ' � t _'; _. � � -. �� .. i i.. � ��l : _`� � � .r � l, �.. � -� _ ( t i __ �_i_ _Y1_. . ...___.... OFfICTAL NOTICE CITY DF FRIDLEY pUBLIC HEARING BEfORE TkE PLANNING COhH�tISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City af Fridley will have a Public Hearing in the City Hall at G431 University Avenue Northeast in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, August 18, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: A request for a Special Use Permit, 5P #76-12, by Paco Photo, Incorporated, to permit a film processing drop-off booth, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3(Ij, to be located on Lot 1, Btock 1, Sylvan Niils Plat 7, all located in the South Half of Section 14, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. � Generalty }ocated in the Rice Plaza Shopping Center, the-same being 248 Missisiippi Street N.E. Anyone desiring to be heard on the above matter may be heard at this meeting. Publish: August 4> 19�6 August 11, 1976 � a RICHARD H. HARRIS CNAIRMAN PLANNING CQM�lISSION 5fi NUMI3GR�� f(o�(� CI1'Y Ofi f�ftIDt.tiY MINNESO'fA PLANNING AND ZONING EOItM �PAKA� .QHOTO , IN� APPLICANI''S SIGNAIURC�� {� .-pps, 7— IWdress °IW- ►4T++ S-r. MP� 554e3 Telephone Number $! � ' �� ( PROPL'RTY OWNGK'S SIGNATURE ��P,f� �U,'�y,,l��,��,e� Address %515 �A%QYZLITA c-va - ��T� 202 � /�'S�, UU � r----- TYPB OF RBQUEST Rezoning 51 y� Special Use Permit Approval of Premin- inary �, Final Plat Streets or Alley Vacations Other Telephone Number 33 S � G%6 3 Fee Receipt No. 5treet Location of Property �^3- 1`�itSS�Ssi�l, Legal Description of Property �r � �K �. Sti'�v'd`� �'� ' Present Zoning Classification C• ZS Existing Use of Property �iCE �i.1�7�. Acreage of Pr.operty G�1Z Describe briefly Che proposed zoning classification or ty,pe of use and impxovement proposed � P/-i'�Tt7 F!►J IS.H t tJ�� + �-M 5a� t-�� . Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot split or variance or special use perrait on the subject site or part of it? yes �o. lt��at was requested and ��hen? � The undersigned uriderstands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be nttached to this application. (b} This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Respwisibility for any defect in the proceedings resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be dravm and attached, showing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. 4ocation of proposed structure on the lot. 3, pimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks, 4. Street N.vnes. 5. Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet). The undersigncd hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this appiication are true and correct. �R� p�� DATG �7�o't%��%� SICNATURE 17 �rl-r�'�Le'f�j / `— ' ° (APPLICANT Date Filed Date of Hearing Planning Commission Approved City Council Approved (datcs) Denicd (dates) Dcnied Planning Commission August 3, 1976 MAILING LIST � SP �76-12, Paco for a drop off film processing boo[h Yaco Photo Company Kvok Cheung & Tsui Chau Wan Wong' c/o H. Randolph Toth 221 Mercury Drive N.E. 9 W. 14th Street Ftidley, Mn 55432 � Hinneapolis, Mn 55403 Mr. & Mrs. Paul 3ohnson • Phillips Petroleum Company 6525 2nd Street N.E. 1750 Brentwood Pridley, Mn 55432 St. Louis, Mo 63144 � � American Oil Company 4940 Viking Drive Mintteapolis, Mn 55408 Rice Plaza 7515 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, Mn 55426 RAO Manufacturing Company 200 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 �'ridley Our Own Hardware 214 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Edstrom Realty 64 East 2nd Street Winona, Mn 55987 E. L. Fitch 1121 Oak Lane Circle Pines, Mz. 6 Mrs. Walter Sinner 6511 2nd Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Richard 3. Trezona 177 Hartman Circle N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Caroll C. Groth 201 Mississippi Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Project No. 56 Corpoxstion 7515 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, Mn 55426 B S W. Properties c/o the Towle Co. 6740 212 S. 6th Street Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Gift flouse 5tamps, Inc. The Towle Company Mn 55014 212 6th Street .So�� Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Mr. 6 Mrs. Donald Keefe 201 Satellite Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs. Walter Miskiw 221 Satellite Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mr. & Mrs, Milo Mannino 201 Mercury Drive N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 52 RESTROOM LETTER �J Date TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: //-a��.� The undersigned, regresenting �`/-le�� JeQe/+Sen hereby agrees to permit Pako Pho.to, Inc. employees use of the meri's and women's restroom facilities during working hours at: � /VD �P 6 F �d [e,v�-C`i Company Name J�k %�7�ss,,s�' � PP i Street Address y'�iD�ey /�/ �y— � ' City T State Pako Photo, Inc. working`hours are from °O a:m, t��•��Cp,m. and the %y%P�s.: Lt2rma.rs restrooms will be' av ilable to /Ehe Pako Photo, Inc. employees from 1��a ,m to, �'oo �p.m. � Lease No. �� Shopping CenCer Name Sy Signature ,/ ' . � C , 1 In_t�'�t�.��/-[.��.c��"ct-.�dCL� 0�03� �ii%et.d1�?�•�.�2.t� S-� /Vt. �� r Intersection Address �� , � �� Leas•ing Agent Cit�� State � 53 ... , , .. _ . „., . , _, _ . „• f•.i!:;i;�r3; i;�;s+ • , ,� . _ .�.a. ..�,: ! . � _ • .. . ..__ ._...._._',:�uuuuu � uuuwnunu�p • ; � �.. uuq n�� _ __ _ , � � . ,Gl�i� � �'��) �� 1 L` � � . J , � . . .. . . . � � 'J a .. >/sL�.J? ' . �� w � ..�` � ' :'; i` r i 1 � � ' l'T i j � � ° r P f � . ' _. . _ .. . .'J . � ' :l. � . .lii F•3 , : ti'IJ !� ��I I t,- i � _ � . _... „ i i j �'� . .. y � : �e r �j ! � . �. . r � . , t � : j � , .�i�• ��`• � i r•,� t �` � I...1 n /n �—i/ � � � �"..� i )_ . _� . . . . . il r = i-�-' . �� . - _�� '_ jt ..�� . �i = . . . � : ,ee:r !��' ' I . .. 1y 1 ." � - ___ � . ti...� �r t S �! � , �.. .. _ ., �.. ._. � • ., 1, � �( f... ;- ,., .� f ., .� r�,�.. , , �� _ - . c � - - ;; � ^ + U' ) i � (;' - � � . -- .. f� i I � 4 . ( � - .. . - � . � - � � ` ;��• [ �. �i. � + �� .1 .. ' .. • + . w . .�FJ'.• Y ' .r 1 '1 � - 1 . �. � r � } � � � ' ��' }_..i ... � .. � 1 / . . � � 4 . ; - , � � _ : �_ _� . -mqu�[A1IR�1[in4�eeu�uuqwu� ll . - . . r � , > f. . . . . � - .. � . , . . . :,� �. r -1 .,... '� � . � ;' . � . . i : - F `� ' .� J�S �3� ,:.� /�'iy ' I ' , '"' r., � ' :'.: :' i . j '� : . ____!i � t �, i � � :' " s� �.`� �,�. � � ' ; �� '� � - , �� i i . � _..- /"• ' ) t i" � I .. . , � �: r j _.. r � ' ] i/.% � t/ j �1d�li ♦ /�� }- - { i. �i.� nay-.. � �.. „ . _..i 1 _ '•� � � - , . . �--s .� : �_, ii ` .; 1 ,. �-� t i � r t . '___. ��..._ e � � . � � ,. _ ; J + . I . ..� .. I..�. ��- .. - J -. �_ .� � �� r,`� � � � � j�.,, , I - � i� � ; � . `�3,' � J., }��i � �= �i ♦ � l�i'tV._.. � 4 ` � � k ,� s; Li . �� _ . ` �, ` , S� IS� , ' � . I� I 'I �' ' � , ; � ' l� ;� �_I I' � � � .� � � / � ; � 4 4 ' if � F �� .' � � . � �- ; ... I � - - I' �� . �' : : � V � _ I 4 1 � . . :? ♦..�._. I �. ..... , 'R t ` f S , F .- / ' I n` ' ' f`T � Y ` 1 ,. � ti � , . ♦ !� . \� IJ � % .t o \ \. ' / n ` � ! I ) i I {" 4 . . . . , � � c'� 1 r � � 9 2, i y Y `✓� '} � ° Z i� � ! �. JI + .Y � � I y� �.' � ` � .. I� t � 1� ... �f , / ♦ � �^/L�1 JI �{ I• ` i. . . �r�.r k' _. . ��.. ��.c4aw...�v.r�`r..w. , �..��. (� 1 �l'�'% ,fi' �'�'.� r� �J � .� \i ` i.'e T.� ..*. � r '��C %_.+p.. I � �._I .1:�'tl , ' 1 �J 1} _.1 i_`__ . � � G: . , Ij . 1 ii ; ! V ' . . _ . �.. �...-� -r 5 ff :�. . / f t .J ♦ ! f f+-: i • .. r, �. � � _ ! � + � I � � 3u ' �- . . _ ' , '` .. � i � ' .. J / '"�V �Y F / � Y 2 f .� � . ' ' � ��- t / : / / 5' z J:.J l ' I L s � • 1�, . `,� R .\'. �� ` ( �l/ � i . t . . _ / \„�,.r / ��' v/ i LIlliCl'✓�l.f...Yl a'.:. (, d � �. F �JD ', �.^' O/ .., �Y�// •t � �H ' i . � t �/ . y �� i 1 ir. �-r� 1 �` I '�, ' . �%% � 1 � ' / 1 I Y � 1 � ` � � /n . : � '� �- 1.. ' 2 1 .. � ;, l�_, � � . � f,t' \ ' /_ 7t%`j •o. \� �.�/ GH� /�'x1�, • L l..�f._F / �.1�' . �� ' ! ^� i, (r'�IJ '(�1 (J � f I iI t 1 �� -� /` c � �1. ° r; 7 �. /', . \ Y • r � . . �I 1 ,t � r:.. (J I ......... \� qSp ' t '' `` � .. )/ i t1� i i il .y '> ` N ' i � � ' I � liV�1 . �! 7I � . � �a r r r � � ) j � � n : ; � w • u , i a� �� O . i %� G%� I % �i r. ! " _' ".'. //:y �� i -'� ^ � �� < �� •� � ...� � ' � ✓ � � 1 " ._ � � � 9+✓.% �4'. \` . ` �'4. . . . - � � 1 . � � . ��,. � � � \ ' �-.+ �.. , �-3. 3� � .�:� /.. ... , . �� 'C. ` i . '" i " ' c s � . � 1 ' - . �� ..) � 2 .' I � ,. , - , � E - -__ : _ , L•t`'� � �,� � s, 2r , ,� , 1 ,� � ,.,- � � \; � . �i ' �i �� 1 � � i ri�l ` . � (' t i.` � ` J i � � I '1�'r� .,rr � _ . , .. ' /;�h! ' G2�O, l ''` z_ � ` +-�`G ( � � � t �" -- __ . 's i`: : � � ' � . . - r — � - i -- _l (''�•� � i � 1 � � . "7 1 � � ^� � ^� � r,; � . _ .` . _ . j �1 � �tf.Jl� �4��, l, � : �/''. • i � -.• _.' `�� t , � � � _i �. � ' �: .,. �- , �� , ra' •,''� � � � lv r •' f�' � t � �' i`''.�1�_.._._�1,-'''�1%ZJ`4 �!. I r" "`,._!�`4��.�7';d�....,_�... -'..' ( � ! � i'-.L�l � �(,lj � _t, ' .' ':' i ; . . . _____. _. � ' . ` • . . � ..� _, �, �y � , �� : 1 �� I t, _ 1 � 1 � � ! ,;. I ' ± � i .--:' .' _. i .I .� � ; �a � : �`� � t ' ;� � ,: l� ,' ! �". � ' ��{� � :�1 f:i �t 4 � . , ' � i IJ � i � .. . •• i � •Sp�Zfi_12 PACOPHOTO, INC. ; ii�n!' i G�c. !, !' �,L� , , � . .-' : o � „ t � ��'• ', ITo permit a film processing drop- ,� '.� �'`;>+! ';off booth on Lot 1, I31ock l, Sylvan.,:'' � i ��)�:,`-�� _ ._- 4 ; . . _� .'.!�^G1 ':.. ." Hills Pla� 7, Rice Plaza Shopping ��• �.�.`• � .�r.-�� '.�1; ; ��;i �is`'� �•`�i„ ,�\�`'" .i �;``.�Center, 298 Mississippi Street N.E. �, � : L b ,.; , � /, \ � , , �' � . ..__.._' ' : ..... � ' v : ' // �� i'i' ` � n �� .•�� 1_=�:1 IJ! 7V �,. ' { � � 1 I : a� /� f s � - 9[� IJ ; �y��J% ,'� A�.�r^�\ � %' l('T� ' P ��1 � l' �y°�.. r i�� .� � .. � � ,.� � � ... .` . � / I t� r �� . .�.. ,� �1. y 1 � o'�%:. (/ ��. � . • � _. _ . _ ... �_ 1 .1�� . .��r1 �; 1 I,�'. : . `�,� . �'� r.Lr�'(,; :r � � , � � � JJ Excerpt from the Planning Cormnission minutes of December 5, 1973 • showing the stipulations made by the Planning Comnission on the request for a special use by Motofoto of America, Inc. which was located on the same site as the request by Paco. Motofoto has " been gone for over a year, this was why another Special Use Permit had to be processed. MOTION by Narris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the reqaest for a Special Use Permit, SP N73-12, by Motofoto of America, Inc., to permit a film processing drop-off booth on Lot I, Block 2, Sylvan Hi11s P1at 7, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.201,�3, I, at 298 Mississippi Street N.E. in the Rice P2aza shopping center with the foZlowing stipulations: (1) The traffic patterns be worked out with the administration and approved by the Building Sta»dards-Design Contrcl Sub- committee. (2j The parking lanes be striped and directionaZ arrows be provided fvr traffic direction. ..� (3) A11 utility 2ines be undergroand. � (9) A Ietter be obtained from an a.djacent tenant stating the empZoyees can use the pablic facilities,..within 200 feet of this film booth. (5) Zn the event the building has to be removed for any ' reason, the parking lot wi22 be returned to its original condition. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried ananimously. � � � 3�9f'X�'kR 56 571-3450 �it� o{ �rid�e� . ANOKA COUNTY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE NE qugust 9, 1976 FRIULEY, MINNESOTA 55421 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to notify you that the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley will be holding an informal hearing on Wednesday, Au9ust 18, 1976 in the Fridley City Hall at 6431 University Hall at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers to consider a request by Assurance Manufacturing CompanY+ SAV #76-05, to vacate the 16 foot drainage and utility easement bounded on the North by the 4lesterly extension of the North line of Lot 5, Block 7, Onaway Addition, and bounded on the South by the Westerly extension of the South line of Lot 7; B7ock 7, Onaway Addition, in order to allow them to connect the buildings on both sides of the easement with a structure. Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this time. RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION �-: -, NUMRCR .y/-f`/1/ %� 76'� � �' APPLICANT'8 SIGNA7URL• � Address �7 � Telephone Mumber PROPLRTY O�VNER'S SI Address CI7'Y OP PRIDI.�Y MINNGS�)TA AND ZONING FOR � �; � / /. / l S'7 /- ? i u-�� C ./. Telephone Number j ��' J ��J G ` � �G'"J �� Street Location of Property��,�.Yl %%� 3n•°�� %[�(-`. Legal Description of Property J% TYPE Or RGQUGST Rezoning Special Use Permit Approval of Prcmin- inary $ �inal Plat �_ Streets or Alley Vacations Other Fee �,%,� Receipt No. ��U Present Zoning Classification �_Existing Use of Property J rZC..�`}.� Acreage of Property jcla() �� 'r Describe briefly the proposed zoning classification or type of use and improvemertt proposed. C.p.�.vEG'f �vi�ni..ies O..! ��-,a-rrn_ S, o �t w i-rrr S-►z �,�� z� Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, piat, obtain a lot split or vari.ance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? C yes no. What was requested and i�hen? R�,q,R %�p,qd t,jF3{'t,�/a�7 The undersigned understands that: (a) a list of all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (356 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this appli.cation. (b) This application must be signed by all oianers of the property, or an explanation given uhy this is iiot the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the proceedi�igs resulting from the failure to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in qucstion, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drn��n and attached, showing the following: 1. Noz�th Direction. 2. Location of proposcd structurc on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. 4. Street Names. 5. Location m�d use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet). The undersigned hereby declares that all tbe�£3cts and representat' fls stated in this application are true and correct. '� � DATE l.�� %� SIGNATURE ; % � / ,� .�.«�i. — � � (AI'PLICANI') Date Filed Date of }iearing Planning Commission Approved (dates) Dcnicd_ City Council Approved (dates) Denied � � � MAILING LIST SAV �76-05. Assurance Manufacturing by Dallas Anderson Gerald W. Paschke, President Paco, Inc. 5920 Kirkwood Lane North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 Mr. & Mrs. Francis Anderson 7748 Elm Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Raymond E. Meggitt 3514 Lake Elmo Avenue Lake Elmo, �4n 55042 Rona7d & Denise 5mith 7786 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Brooklyn Tool Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Carlson 7775-79 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Datlas Anderson Assurance Manufacturing Company 7753 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Harvey Machine Sool 7713 Beech Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Harvey Machine Tool 7145 Sandburg Road Minneapolis, Mn 55427 D. W. Harstad Company, Inc. 7101 Highway #65 N,E. Fridley, Mn 55432 Mrs. Eileen Minshaw 719 East 16th Street Minneapolis, Mn 55404 �'� lC., yp r �,� y7c % r �?� Ma�nneapolis Gas Company c/o Leon Caouette Communication Department 733 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, Mn 55402 L. K.Rodman Northwestern Bell Telephone Company 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway Minneapolis, Mn 55430 John L. Ranck Northern States Power Company 4501 68th Avenue North Minneapolis, Mn 55429 Manager General Television 350 63rd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55432 .:,.�. �� I � I x � � __� .J_ �Z J.,I � . � e�I � . j`yi :1 � . ',`. ;� , w y' � ,' . � ' �~ r�` `y�29 ` '''`''' '-� ./ � � SAY �76-0 AS ANCE MFGJU C0. �^ ir '. � 1 1 t'.n: �x'��,✓.� % .f �t i � � � ' h '- , � �. , �f �( - acate 16 drai age �utility � b,� .� � a' 1 easerr�nt betwee lots 5 a, 7 I �� h� I � 'l�O� i t� Block 7, Onaway dditima:�o� I n �' I � ! , ; -•4, - - - - �i „ � ,,.., I` ,• , , . � ' � --- � � ........' � � i � _ _ � _ � ' � _ � � _ J' I ` _ � � ` • +: ! _ _ � 330_ . S� , . `j.7_. �+`: 7Ni � r v . i.�! ��„ . ars� � �.�. � il�.r�.. 76 . ,,1� 4�7o i. ZSJ y :0 y ii�.s' ; . i�o s - :, . ,_ • �. � i r _L , � � .yp /��J �/ 1 � ' �� y l39.3 / : � /6 � � � � ,....- J.l.�lY�j } ♦ .,l=�� : } CI.� � ' � „K? t .a Z � � i /? i v` 2 C � iZiiiT' �' r � �- I.rtl , /7 •r �a Z 7 � � �y�� :is.� 3 • w ' /8 3 �� W �Y7'�.—� -- , � . �;��J 3 . I.i a roo.3 � � : �9 ; y Ti : a : �y � , 9 "¢ ' t— - :� `� F' h . � 2G 5". ,.,:,; �l'i �az S � U� ' 2C S � N f� _� N` 6 -a�s oj i-,.,, 6 : Z/ 6 ` � Z�--- -- Z/ . ' �,. A zi �- z2 . .y -�r y:�� , � r -. =•;l.b E � wi�.�� ? = Q . � '\'• ' 1 23 8 1' � � z3 � � \;� i e. s � , � � � 1 . . 14 9 .��.. Y 2�r_,i _ t�. `� r Y,i`iz.�� Y� • ZS /O �� i. pt`S r: /O � \��.,'� t �, o U = 1G // !: ZL � � _� ' 2b `g ' /! ��N m�`�a Y . 27 /Z � ZT� • i_ ' � Zr : /2 ,,\c \�" tJ g /3g�� B�- !�0 �\ zE• ` ,� : . '`�' s ` Z . . -•' . , �$.__ ;: �:. , 29 z , ��a , .� `;� .? .. 2s : : /' 29� � t�__ Q . �° /S r--., 1 �SZ� ` 60 ?/3+.J � a .� s^ �O o 1.' � 1�p'� � �£O y° 3C J v �.°� i.i>.s a:G � �� ic \° e ?aTH x,'l�NUE �' ti•E. � � � ' �� .�;.. , , ,�v.� : �< r : , ,3..,- ., `; „<.r � .�c Oiw} �- � 5� : bt . s _ � �7'' /� .. �C e /6 '. :�z � a i1 �� rP :- _ � `�P •. / ,� ^ -f�.) � : V- �/ o c; ; x �� _ __ ` F "�.� , ,�� Y , 2 a - Z `! � � : �`, _ _ F �% 4.:F_ � Z y ne Stf � t- ��"•� ' 0 4 * 3 t;d �)- - ,?=�_; � ; �—'='s: 3 : �n ��-- �i i --� �a �— . �� -` � � ,\ ,� 7�y-- � �: __,� — i� 4 , • �. - : ?, � \,. S � N 9: ., ' � :: �a � _ 5 2G ° .S' - . ( _ . _ '' _. . ,j ; 4�� `• ., \ ' ' , ^ � 6 :7�_ ��: < , r ,��' o is) �-�--- � Z�—` ,,,;. � , ..-,. � . 1 ,.. ,.. 7 ,� '.. _ I = B.�F. �o.,ao.�fimn �¢ '_' � ,� �F� � 7.I i �g 'r� _ � P � .. � U .�•3�7 _ ��-J �V Kot�. � 9?� S t±.! ' j'f_�� I�: 1�. �—��° .J/ i:, - ;, ,,. 2 .., '� � a�� OO P iC d�j ; 2��1� ':G e J: Z.S c`.}� p'h�'. 4��. � `�^ ' � � ��%/ r ;— \: �Li� p a / � ��13 , : l z � i 26 ° �� + .: _ � � / • . /1J r •:� : .. M , I� �T /N. � /a� t >� e V � ' �-1„�;` �; , ; -! �/ 7 \ ^ N � i yr:i� -?� .m •. n : :' „f z7 >7ivP79?G�?/�T, �- : .�37 . �y \ � �' I� :1��} 3 9 S' ' � 31 �� I,{� j:! � ,t� � ` : c GC .•n.�r� ! � �'�• _Ix�._. :r- .., � . ' �' Z 1'L _ Vi , _ "^ � .� - - - � -_,`\-• S. f. Co:: ,� SEC.:, � � • , ..:. . ,•..., � ,�:,,. ; R.,- �' . . . . .tir i�yr tr-v .ti.: • . . ' r Ht: :..�.s0 - .: . • ... . °vr ! � �� dli. / ir . � /' f.ne i �iY � C :ti �•t�.• ' 6i . .. • �,,-.,, h'.,If:�,. i � . '� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , CITY OF FRIDLSY AUGUST 18� 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO OBDF�f.: Chai.rperson Harris calledtthe meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL• Members Preaent: Harris� Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson� Gabel (attending Por Schnabel), Shea Members Absent; None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPRAVE PLANNING CO?M:[SSION MINUTffi: AUGUST 4, 1976 lir. Bergman atated that on page 16, midx�y through the bottom paragraph, he vould like the word "implemented" changed to "included". Mr. Langen£eld said that on page 6� second paragraph� he asked if the garage xould be compatible r,rith the rest o£ the house and the neighborhood. He also noted on page 19, second paragraph, he xould like °pretty �¢uch set" be chsnged to "established". Chairperson Harris stat�d that on page 1, third paragraph, he believed it xas Mr. Boardman who made the statement that money had been appropriated. Mrs. Gabel said that regarding page 13� she had found out that the 1�0� lots vere not taxed as buildable sites. She also noted that on page 1 Mrs. Schnabel had raised a question concerning the soccer Pield at I,ocke Park, and xas vondering ii that could now be ansxered. Mr. Peterson stated that it wouldn�t be found as a specific item because it would be charged under general maintenance, Mrs. Gabel stated she had a question coneerning the £irst paragraph on page � regarding the surveys. She said she had been at the Conncil meeting and Afx�. Sinigaglio didn't have a survey, but Council told hi�a that becanse he xas Far enough from the lot lfnes that he didn't have to have a survey. She asked if this xas a geaeral procedure. Mr. Boardman said it xas a general policy. He ezplained that after the Planning Co�ission meeting Mr. Sinigaglio checked to see the price of a survey and found it to be around $200. He fl�rther eaplained that Mr. Sinigaglio then moved the second accessory building closer to the house so it xas about 15� from the lot line� and the City Council then said he did not have to have a survey, Mr. Harris asked hosc he vould Irnow it xas 15' from th� lot line rrithout a survey� and Mr. Boardman replied they had general plat maps that showed general distances from street curves, right of ways, etc. He said it could basically be determined by measuring off those distances where the ldt line vas. Chairperson Harris Plsnaing Cormaission Meetfng - August 18, 1976 Page 2 cowusnted that that was a very dangerous game to pley. Mr. Boardmaa esid that vith a surveq a gEarson xas allo�*ed to build ri.thin 3' of the property line� and ttithout a survey he could build rrithin 1�'-� feet of the property line xith a disclsimer from the next door property ormer. Chair- person HarriH asked hrnr he vonld ]mox tirhere the property line was. He said that in this particular case the houae vas built about 20 years sgo� and the o�rner couldn�t Yind the stakes. He asked srhere llt. Sinigaglio would be building !t�' Prom� and Mr. Boardman enawered £rom rrhere the estimated propert�yline xas. Mr. Hergman co�ented that Mr. Sinigaglio had alloxed about a$� foot safety factor� and he hoped the estimated property line xasa't 8� off. Mr, Hoardman stated that the Appeals Comnission had suggested that $50 £or a request for varianee vas �ceasive and wauted it dropped to $25, �d now this Commiseion xas requesting a person to spend $200 on a pxroperty survey. Mith the policy they had been folloxing, Mr. Boardman continued, if a petitioner waated tv apend the money that was fine, it vas for his protectioa, but it xasn't required. Afr. Bergmea a�ked if the City had a dimensional reoord oY this lot, and Mr. goardman ansi+e='ed that they had a plat which ahoved dimensions from the street right of xc�y. Chairperson Harris atated that it vas not necessary that the street xvn down the center of the right of W�� and that xas vhere the problems arose, I]r, Boardman said that they xere relatively close to the center� giving or taking a little. Chairperson Harris said that a fev years back he had an opportunity to go to Arlington� Virginia to do some work and talk to a few people. He said that George Washington xas the first president of the country and was also a survepor, and they have a terrible mess out there. Mr. Harris explained that they have people xhose houses xere built right on top of lot lines; the lot line runs right through their living rooan. He stated that George Washington might have been a good president� but he xas a lousy surveyor. He stated he got very nervous about pl�*ing fast and loose vrith lot lines. 1Sr, goardman said that rras one of the reasona they got a disclaimer from the neighbor. Mrs. (3abe1 stated that xhen she was first on the Floard of Appeals� everyboc�y reqnestisig a variance had a aurveq, and if they didn't have one their requeat was tabled. She said that late�}* people ha7e been coming in *ri.th little dratrings� and she was vondering hox that came about because it nsed to be eerq cut and dried. Mr. Boardman eaid that surveYs were required on all variances� and ISra. Gabel said that wasn�t necessarilyr true and could think of one that had gone through the Appeals Commission just recently xithout a survey. Mr, Bergman said he recalled back xhen he was Chairperson of Plats and S�bs� and a survey xas a requirement before dealing dimensionally on ar�ything having to do �rith a lot. He stated he agreed xith Mrs. Gabel that there hes been a lot of slacking off� and added that he was a little surprised at $200 to survey a lot. Hr. Lengenfeld stated he felt a survey was very important� otherwise he could foresee a Planning Co�nisaion neeting full of people xith problems concerning lot lines and it would be impossible to iron them all out. He added the City shonld be coasistent in its policy. Planning Coamission Meeting - Auguat 18� 1976 Page 3 Mr. Boardmau said that basical�y if a person xas askin� for a variance to a lot line or a variance to anything that required an exaet dimensional statement for a Public Hearing� then a survey was reqnired. Mrs. Gabel noted that a coupl� of weeks ago the Board of Appeals had a request ior variance Yor a garage and there was a problem of xhere the lot line vas and the petitioner did not have a survey. 4Ir. Boardman co�ented that he thought that was unusual. Mr. Langenfeld asked if a survey srould be required if a res3dent of the City wanted to put a Pence arovnd his yard. Mr. Boardman stated that the City did not get inv3�ved in that and did ttot issue fence permits, He added that they snggest that prope�ty oti+ner get a survey, but don�t demand it. Hr. Boardman said srhen a property owner puts that fence in on the property line, he is doing it at hia own riak; the City can't get involved every time that somebody xanted to put a fence on the property line� and there has to be a little responsibility on the part of the property owner, too. Nr. Bergman asked if in any case where a building permit ras required� iY a certificate o£ survey xas reqnired prior to granting the building permit. Mr. Boazdman replied it was� and said they also reqnired a verification survey when the structure xas done. Hr. Bergman then asked 3f a building perm3t xasn�t required for this second accessory building. Hr. Harris said absolute�y, and Mr. Boardman said he couldn�t ansxer that as he didn't ]mov xhat Darrel Clark required. Mr. Bergmen stated he was told that for improvements� renovations� construction� etc.� a building permit xas required when a�ything xas in excess af $.150 cost. He stated that the second aecessory building rrould certainly qualify� and asked if it vouldn't have to have a building permit and therefore a certiPicate of survey. Mr. Boardmsn said he didn't ]mox vhether a certificate of survey was required. Mr. Peterson coa�ented that he thought a second accessorg building under a certain siae did not need a bnildimg permit. l�fr. Harris said it would need a building permit� but did aot need a special use permit iP it wsa nnder 240 aq. ft. He stated that any second.accesaory building in eacess of 21t0 sq. £t. required a special nse permit and also a building permit. He added that aryy improvement� building, or remodeling in excess of $150, if he remembered correctly, needed a permit. ?(r. Boardiaan suggested that he could get �re information on this and it could be discussed again at ihe next meeiing. Hr. Bergman said he xondered if they veren�t talking policy on this, attd if policy on this subject isn't something that this boc�y ought toe�dress itself to and recomnend to Council. Chairperson Harris stated this ahould be put on the neat agenda for discussion. Hr. Lengenfeld said that regarding page T�d the comment he made on that survey, he did sey "if poasible�� end it waa not his intentis�n'ta-im�rly'that they didn't need one. He pointed out that he had stated later on that they should have one� but he thought that perhaps only a�+eek's time to get a survey rras short notice. Chairperson Harris explained they could do it inaa couple of days if thep had to and could find the stakea. 2+IOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Co�maission minutes of August 1�, 1976 be approved as corrected, IIpon a voice vote, sll voting �e, the motion carried nnanimously. Planning Coe�isaion Meeting - Aggust 18� 1976 Page !t RSC$IVS FiUlSAN RFSOU&CFS C014IISSI013 MINUT&S: eoausT 5, 1976 MOTION by Shea� seconded by BerBman, that the Plenaing Co�aission receive the minntes of the Human 8eaourcea Co�ai.ssion meeting of August 5, 1976. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Krs. Shea stat�d that the discnssioa they had the last time she vas present at the Planning Commission meeting was on the alleged $10�000. She said that since Parks az►d Recreation had the Youth Center and Senior Citizens, they deducted arbitrarily $It�000 from that amount. Mrs. Shea stated that the Human Resources Commission felt they wuld like $6,O�Q dedicated by the City to Humsn Rssources. Atr, Langenfeld asked if xhen they spoke in terms of dedicating, if they jrere asldng it be set aside. Hrs. Shea said that as far as she conld see, aceording to the motion and in talki.ng to Mr. Scott on it, the same sqstem xill be used. The various groups vould still have to come to Humen Resources� to the Plsnning Co�niasion and to Council for this �oney. She stated there was no difference from Lhe vqy it was done last year. lir. Boardmen co�nented that Humar► Resources xas requesting that a fund be put asida Yor this monsy. 14rs. Shea stated that her Commission xished an action on this by the Planning Coffiaission� that they either pass it on xith approval or disapproval. She said it xas real],y diificult for her to speak for the proposal, because if she had been there ahe srould have voted sgainst it. She atated that she nould really like a more open-end policy� i+here anybody could come in. Mr. Haz'ris said he conaurred. Mr. Langenfeld said he xas not trying to change the motion itself, but suggeated a reserve Por contingencybe considered. Ae said Ehat irould be a fomt of setting aside speEiPic fluids for unusual occasions or happenings. In other �ords, he continued, if the Plaaning Co�mnission voted for it, it would be just under that particnlar ttame; if it vas then needed for some other ihppening or co�ntingency� that could come out of that $6�000 in the event it xas not consumed by the Human Reaources Coaoissiott. He added it vould be almost like a contingency fund. Chairperson Harris said he thought rfiat they vrere aeking £or xas $6,000 to be set aside in a line item budget. Mr. Ber�nan stated he didn't really see xhat diYference it made! then! attd auggested theycooncur xith selected wrdage. Mr. Harris said he couldn't in good conscience note for that� and added that he Kas afraid that then there Konld be $6,000 to spend on Fiuman Sesources and that vould be it, Mr, Lengenfeld said he felt that even if this was dedicated� it xould be misinter preted that Human &esonrces did have $6�000. Mrs. Shea said they did have requests right nox for fluids; one xas coming through tonight and another would be coming through in about a month. Mr, Bosrdmen said that he tried to look at these things as to xhat xas set up under the ordittaace for the Planaing Co�nission� and th� Planuing Commission Planning Cc�ai.asion Meeting - August 18, 1476 Page 5 has a duty to reco�nettd to the City Gouncil on the Human Resonrces Coimniasion minutea on policy recoffiaendations only. He said that if a motion xas made� it shonld be directed tovard the teeling that it rrould be against some overall policy or general palicy of the City. Chairperson Harris stated that $6�000 made this a policy decision, and since srhat vas started this year rould undoubtedly be contittued, they vould be settis�g a precadent. ?!r. LangenFeld stated that Mrs. Shea had given him the i.mpression that the Huma� Resonrces Comeission didn�t mind tha w� it vas doae previously; the �rav the monies came and xhere they came from. He said he thought it was the general feeling of this Commisaion that 3t just remain that x�y. Mrs. Shea sai.d that xas her osm personal feeling, and Human Resources had discussed it when she xasn�t there. I+�T�ON by Ber�nan, seconded by Langenfeld for discussion, that the Planning Co�mnission, in recognition of the importnnce of human developnent within the City of Fridley, reco�mmend such reco�itiam to City Council considering the Human Resources Co�ission eapectations that during the coming period monies xill be required to pursue Human Resources programs aa►d the anticipation that expenditurea could approximate $6�000� and that this eapectation be considered i.n the Council�s budgetary process. Nrs. Shea stated that the $6�000 concerned her� and she felt it might not be enongh. Mr. Laagenfeld said that all they were doing was loxering the $10,000 figure from the last meeting� and Hrs. 5hea explained that had included the Senior Citizens and the Youth Center. Mr. Langenfeld said that by the same token� it could be $10,000, Mrs. Shea said it could be� but it could be $3��Os too. Hr. iangenfeld said he xould like to strees his concurrence vith the idea that the Planning Co�ission and the City of Fridley should be concerned about Hwnan Resources. He said,hhowever, that there vas something missing, and he couldn't come to a conclusion. Mrs. Gabel stated she agreed vith xhi►t had been said, but didn�t think it was a good idea to lock them into a figure. Mr, Bergman said that he xas back to budgetary process here� but vondered how the City Council crnild budget if nobody talked figures. He said the motion xas made to avoid telling the City hox to do it or which ihnd it should go to. He said that xas their prerogative. tir. I,angenfeld said that since Hwaan Resources was a relatively nex Co�mnission� he xould like to see an actual expenditure type thing for one year, or some real figure guideline in order to make a decision. Mrs. Shea sLated th�t she would like to see one, too, if the City had such a thing. She said that last December or January ahe had sat on this Conuuissioa and heard tke Chairmen talk about aickel end diming. She further atated that she thought some of the people vho ca� through here last year tirere a little put out by the grilling they had to go through to get the3r money. Chairperson Harris commented that he thought a little more grilling should go on because they mere spending the taxgayet's money. Mrs. Shea eaid that xas perhaps the idea behind this--that x�Y they conld get it all on one sheet. Planaing Cc�meisaion Keeting - August 18, 1976 Page 6 , I�Ir. Peterson stated that iP thep srere folloving a true budgeting process, Human $esources xould say that each one of these Punctione xas xorth so much money� and that rras a budgeting process. He said they were putting a dollar figure in and then carving up the turkey afterKards. Hr. Bergman stated he didn't feel that is what was happening. He explained that they had looked at a line by line liat of tahat°somebody called priorities end then put a dollar figure on them, and xhat aomebody else called a budget. He said that one of the conflisions in that review xas that for lack of a firm statement ot title being present on that list,tt�didn't Imow what they were dealing with. He said the request vas for priorities; Human Resonrces had been asked if they had $10,000 how they i►ould spead it. He stated the Couunission then d3d pnt some dollar figures dorm and came up irith $10�000� ao there xas a list. Mr. Bergman continued that they looked at the bottom item vhich xas miscellaneous or contingency of $3��, and he had felt a little objectionable to that, but there xere line items and he felt there atill xere. He stated he thought that $6,000 could be referred back to line items, so in that context it vaa a budgetary-type submittal. Mr. Peteraon said that the suggestion came from StafY to the Cowpission rather than the Commisaion going through and determining needs and putting them into tha budget. He atated it rras therefore not a budgetary procesa because Staff was ttot aupposed to ask quest�ons of how they xould apend money if they had it in the budget. Mr, Bergman said he agreed, but he thought that at this point in time he would like to consider this budgetary process and make one out ofiit. He said he thought that rras what should have been done� and maybe it was time someone considered that the proper thing to do. He cotttinued that there xere liae items that could be totaled to $6,000� and he xould like to talk budgetary proaeas. He agreed that that �ras not xhat had been tslked� and he objected to that. Chairperson Harris said they xere looking at a very small portion of the budgetary process� and the total budgetary process bothered him a little bit. He stated he xiahed the City iruuld have come along vith a dollar amonnt oY xhat they are alloxed to spend� sqy a milli� dollars. Out of that million, he continued, they xould have to provide fire and police protection, plox the snox and provide all the city services. He stated that also in th�re would be a'e�ntingency fUnd of % auaber of dollara� s�}r $50,000. Then� he continued� vhen they xere all done doing that and i£ nothing rettt hryyvise� they would have the $50�000 left and could afford to do these other things. He suggested that perhaps they could afford more than $6�000 6o do these other things and said he Pelt the City, if it really tried, could afford to do more things. Mr. Boardman asked rrhat aervices he xas going to cut out. Mr. Harris replied that vhat he xaa s�ying xag� inatead of syving $6,000 to begin zrlth, why not rrait before they do any funding to anybody until they could really see Where they xere at. He suggested they see hox much xas going to be left in the conti.agency fund as mqybe they couldn't afford to 11u►d Fine Arts and all of those things this year. Mr. Boardmsn co�nented that Nev York did that� and Mr, Aarris said that wasn't all bad. He added that when you got doxn te the end and only had $5 left in your pocket� yon couldn't go out �d spend $50. He said he didn't thit�k they were talking about droppi.ng any services� but they might be cutting out soaiething like a nerr dump truck or air compressor. Personally speaking, he said, he �+ould rather see that tex money go back in services then sitting in s duatp truck, and he thought it xas time they started thinking that way. Planning Coimnission Meeting - August 18, 1976 Page 7 Mr. I,angenfeld said he would like to emphasize that he felt an investanent in the Hmoan Resources developnent �rithin this City vas a worthvhile investanent. He stated that it xas his intention that by setting up that reserve they vould not have onlq $5 left, but xonid be able to get that $6�Q00. He said in other words� eaaess of something elae would then go iato this reserve and then these other things could be taken out. Mr. Langenfeld siid it rrould be a bookkeeping procedure to establish that vithin the budget� but he definitely �rould like to see the main itema such as services taken care of Pirst� xith other items co�ai.ng out oF the eaceas. UPON A VOICE VOTE� Hergman voting �e� 6hbel�.Harr`is-�1d�Peterson voting aay� Shea and Langenfeld abstaining, the motion failed. MOTION by I.angenfeld� seconded by Shea, that $6,000 be labeled in the budget for the Human Resources develo�ent. Mr. Langenfeld explained that thia vqy the Council xonld see this beiore them and would have to make a decision, Nr. Harris asked if he didn't think that xould be liniting the Hwaan Resources developnent, and Mr. Langenfeld ansvered that the xay it xas now it vas terribly limited. Mrs. Gabel said ahe xas concerned about referring to the $6,000 to apend and xas wondering iftthat meant xhen the $6�000 xas gone Humaa Resources development would be completely cut oPf. She said there could be aomething extremely irorthxhile that mi.ght come np� attd this seemed like it vould really be locking them in. !lrs. Shea said vhen she asked the members of the Cowaission that question, they said that is irhat they asswned. She added that they couldn�t foresee something that ii.tal coming np. Mr. Langenfeld said it xas his impreasion that iY they ezceeded $6�000, there would be a Ylat denial for further Yunds Yor that bndget xi.thin that year. Hr. Ber�an said he fd�t they srere getting all tied np in details and semantics irrelevent to the queation. He stated a bndget was a budget and there is fleaibility in budgets. I4rs. Gabel said that is rhat ahe xas asking: Is there fleaibility behind this fignre7 Mr. Her�nan said there alvays had to be judge- ment� and a bud�et figure was a guideline figure in his understanding oP the bndgeting proceas. Mr. Langeafeld asked if they would still have to go through these procedures for each particular item if this vas estahlished, and Kr. Harris replied that xas correct. UPON A VOICE VOTS, Harris voting n�y� Ber�an� Langenfeld, Gabel and Shea voting q}re and Mr. Peteraon abstaining, the motion carried. Hrs. Shea said the next item she of the rrording be changed in the vonld like to �uire the city t� rather than �enc�our _e. Mrs. Shea on the 6ity�s Afiirmative Action State Department. She said they of its policy, would like to diecuss ras a request that some City�s APfirmatiw Action policy. She said they � do bus3ness xith firms that do not discriminate, stated this vas simply the semi-annual check-up policy, and theg �rere granted this right by the xere asking that the City change a little bit Hr. Langenfeld said he didn't care for that 'require°� and felt it xas getting too dictatorial. Mrs. Shea stated that the Federal law said it vas required. Planning Coimaisaion Keeting - August 18� 19�6 Page 8 Chairperson Harria eaid he Imew xhat the lav vas� but the only problem was that it xas very� very diificult in dealing with the spectram of all the buainesses that do busineas vith the City of Fridley to require them to do that. He stated that if there xas a one or two man operation� or a very small contractural ogeration, it xonld be extremely difficult to do. Mrs. 3hea said that she realized this wasn't an easy thing to do� but it was the goal of Human xesources to keep looking at the City� and she didn't think anyone was going to bring suit againat the City. She said it xas their hope that thia vould be looked at a little closer� beoause as it is now it wasn�t being looked at at all. Mr. Bergman said that according to his interpretation of the motion made in the Hwnan 8esources minutea� it does not reqnire that the company xith srhom the City xould do business have mixed racial employment; 3t merely requires that that company does not discriminate end has sgreed to take affirmative action to recruit them. Hr. Ber�oan said that xhether they haTe them or not Wae not his interpretatiott oP the requirement. Mr. Harris cowmented that it was sometimes l7ven diificult to try to recrnit people. Mr. Bergmen said that it was not difficu�toto make an effort� which is s+hat the statement asked. Whether you sncceed or not� he said� is something else. Chairperson Harris said they should take in point the tree removal business. Using this only as an example, he said, he xould like to knw hov many lady tree cntters Hr. Bergman had seen late�y. 13r. Bergaran said very fex, bnt theq ma,y have made efforts to recruit ons and failed. He said the motion, as he understood it� applied to intent� not success; the requirement Was that they make an eYfort. Mrs. (3abe1 co�sLed that it �as totally unenforceable. Mr. Bergatan said it Was his impression that the Human Resources recommendation went fY�rther end used stronger language than is co�n accepted practice in other busineases xho also comply with Federal and other guidelines on sPfirmative action. He said he was speaking specifically about just leaving out the last sentence of the motion. Mrs. Shea atated that the state guidelines on affirmative setion use the xord r��n� p�., Bergman said yes� bat they apply that requirement to employers and do not reqnire of the county or municipal that they secondhandedly place a requireraent on the people vith xhom they do business, Mra. Shea said it vas not a law� but it xas in the state guidelines. Mr. Lsngen£eld said that he� personal�y, was all for the affirmative act�on as Yar as helping another individual or minority groups, and so on, but he got the Yeeling that sometimes vhan they got carried av�y vith these things they were actually starting to tie a rope around the good, old-fashioned compatition. Mrs. Shea said the second item under AfPirmative Act�6on vas aimed at women. She stated the City had p�vment programs for going on to school, but they felt a little more P.x, xork should be done on this. Hrs. Shea said it was simply counseling Yor some sromen rho were professional, career-minded women, but xho sat behind a desk poundi.ng a typevriter. She atated a lot of them were aware d>Bat the program existed, but they didn't quite Imox wh�t they wanted to do so thep sat and did nothing. Planning Co�niasion Meeting - Auguat 18, 1976 Page 9 Mrs. (iabel asked if the phrase "protected groupsa referred specifically to xomen, and ?lrs. Shea said yea� in the City of Fridley. Mr. Bergman asked what was meant by "develop a career development program". Mrs. 5hea ansrrered it vould be more ar less a counaeling program for women� and it �..c�uld help them decide vhat courses to take to become a technician or go into City tianagement, etc, Mr. Bergman said he was still a bit conflised as to vhat vas meant by item 2. He stated that the motion "that the City develop a csreer developQnent program to qualify protected groups for advancement" didn't mean telling women what courses to take� it meant educating them. Mrs. Shea said that the City does educate, and it did have a tuition progrem. Mr. Langenfeld said that his personal opinion was that he didn8t like the term "protected groups" and would rather see "protected persons°. He stated he thought this should be available not only to xanen but to az�yone t+ho was pigeonholed and had talents. Mrs. Shea explained tha schooling Was available, but not the eounseling. Mr. Boardman asked if the schooling was available. He stated he xas nnder the impression that the school programs vere aeailable if the City Manager Pelt it would be of benefit to �he position that person xas in. He explained he could take courses� but the only tvae the City vould pay was xhen the couraea ralated to the position he was in. Mr. Peteraon said that xas basically the Internal Revenue's ruling� and that is vhat the City xas folloxing. He explained that the only vay a person conld qualify for taz deduction from the Internal Revenue was if the schooling improved his skills �n his present job, He added that he thought the City xas getting on rather shakq ground gettiug into something that xas counter- current to the tau laxs. Mrs. Gabel stated it was hard fi,o define what courses would help someone in the job he xas in. She said a pretty broad spectrura of things could be advantageous to the job as a xhole. Mr. Boardman said that with regard to the secretaries� a ahortheaid course vould advance their skills in their present job� but taking managem�t courses xould not. Mrs. Shea suggested that she finish going through the Affirmative Act�on items, and rather than the Commission taking ar�y actioa on this it covld be tabled until the next meeting xhen Mr. Boardman could come baek with an ansrrer from the City. Mrs. Shea stated that the third item concerned the Human Resonrces Commission askiag for a semi- azurual report of the progresa of the Affirmetive action policy. 5he said that they Would like a breakdorm every six months. The £ourth item� she contirrued� concemed the City making a coiruaitment to seek placing of persotts i.n non-traditional job classes. Mrs. Shea stated that they lmew eventually there xould be a female police officer, aud there was one fema].e liqnor store mannger at thia time. She said they Trere asking that the City continue its efforts. Mr. Peterson asked xhy the Human Resourcea Co�renission elected two members to the Youth Board� and Mrs. Sheassaid she didn't lmow� but vrould have to find out. HOTION by Shea� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Comnission table the APfirmative Action Program until the next meeting. Upon a�oice vote� all voting aye, the moiion carried unanimously. Planning Con¢nission Meeting - August 18, 1976 Page 10 t4rs. Shea said she would like to discuss the motion by the Human Resources Commission that $1,000 be designated� for the next six months, to the Fridley Fi.ne Arts Coa�m3ttee. She stated that the Fine Arts Committee could not support itself, and they felt it xas a xorthxhile venture in the City. She explained that this year they xere asking £or $1�000, and last year they had requested a little b3t more. She further explained that the six months was a compromise aimplg because most of the Co�mnission felt they should get more than the $1,000. Chairperson Aarris asked vhat their program xas� and Mrs. Shea replied that they had another plqy coming up and over the xinter they hoped to sponsor concerts. She explained that the play xas the big expenditure last year, which csme to $2�800; and they used the City�s money and Co�minity School's money. Mra. Shea said that they had made $750 on the pl�y total receipt, and as far as they could see there xas no way they would ever break even. Mr. Peterson asked if they made any kind of an efPort to broaden their base as far as participation zrent� and Mrs. Shea replied that theycmnade great effort through the paper. Mr. Bergman said that he had seen the play "You Can't Take It With You•, vhich had rnn thr'ee nights, and there had been an avfully small percentage o£ the populatioa in attendance. He stated he was bothered a little bit by the figures, aad felt that possibly they might be trying to force culture doxn people's throats who rreren't that interested in b�ing culture. He added that if the plsy receipts xere $750 and the costs were $2,800, that said aomething. He further added that the $2�100 deficit was being paid Bgr by the other citizenry, whether they lmew it or not; and i£ they ireren't that interested, should the money be spent that wqy? tirs. Gabel atated that on the other hand, she thought the cormnunity should be given some time for the exposure 66 culture� and she would like to give it a chance. Mr. Peterson commgnted that the Footlighters vent out of existence for the same reason. Idrs. Shea said that the idea behind the Fine Arts rras to introduce local artists, and �he felt it vas a new concept and should be given some time. Mr. Leggenfeld said he agreed with Mrs. Shea� and added that the Fine Arts Connnittee xas just getting their feet wet. He stated that they might make money on a rock 'n roll type uusical, or something elae to compensata for the loas oP the plays. He flu�ther atated that according to the Housing Plan, in xhich there was an intenaive study, they found the residents of Fridley xere becoming more mature, and perhapa they would become more culture-minded if an e£Port ras continued. ?Srs. Gabel coimnented that ahe didn't think the exposure xas as great as it could be. Chai.rperson Harris stated that before he could vote for this in good conscience he vould like to see their program for the neact six months to see hor the money xould be spent. MOTION by Shea� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Coimnission table the discussion on the $1�000 to be designated to the Fridley Fine Arts Cormnittee until the next meeting. Upon a wice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEAIS CO19�IISSIOK MINUTfiS: AI36UST 10, 1q76 Ii0TI0N by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the minutea of the Appeals Co�ission meeting of August 10� 1976. Upon a voice Planning Coamission lieeting - August 18� 1976 Page 11 vote, all votiag �t*e� the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Gabel said she xanted to co�ent that the other night at the Council meeting� they talked about hav3ng a meeting xith reference to the !�0' lots, end they said they xould wait unt31 Mrs. Schnabel xas out oY the hospital. Chairperson Harris stated that Mrs. Schnabel, the Meyor and he had discussed this and 8e�ided to get all of their fi�ures together and hold a meet3ng in the latter part of September xhen she was able to attend. He sa:i.d he Wondered i£ Staff, Prom a planning standpoint, could come up with some recommendationa by that time. Nr. Boardman said they would do that, and added that the meeting xould probably be the fourth meeting of the month. Mrs. Gabel said she didn't want to get into a discussion on this, but would like to ask a quest3on. She stated she had seen a book of homes that vould fit on !�0' lots, but some xere very pecul3ar in shape. She xondered if this xouldn't involve a tremendous amount of cost to build these unusual designs. Hr. Harris replied not in all cases as it depended on xhat form they were trying to put it into, RSCEIVE CO?ANNITY DEVEI,OPlfF.NT CO1�AlISSION MINUTFS: AIIGUST 10, 1976 I�TION by Ber�nen� seconded by Gabel� that the Planning Co�ission receive the minutes of the Coimnunftfr.➢evelopment Commission meeting of August 10, 1976. S3pon a voice vote� all voting a�ye, the motion carr3ed unanimously. Mr. Bargiaan stated he vould like to discuss Item A� the reco�mnendation on garages in R-1 zoning� and restate briefly the Community Developanent Coimnission's reaction to current status regarding 1�0' lot controls as recommended previously by this body. He said that concerning Item A, it was queationing the require- ment for garages in R-1 zoning� and had started out aa a question bronght up by the Board of Appeals regarding the requirement Bor garages on subatandard lots or anything less than 75'. Mr. Bergman said they somevhat grouped those txo questions in coming up rrith their recommendatioa� and in doing so revieved some input from StafY. He explained they had a code item from Coon Rapids and one from Rose9ille and a general coimnent xith regard to the question of garages being required on substandard lots. He stated that other co�mmmities were checked srith and there was no response because they xere doing as I�Yidley had previously done� and s+eren't recognizing h�' lots as being buildable. He said they did recognized from the Coon Rapids ordinanee something that they would like to reco�nend Fridley adopt, and that is the recognition that a garage is pertinent to a house, not to a lot. He added that F�idley's ordinance should read thusly, and that would s3mplify the situation. Hr. Boardman then read the folloxing Yrom the Co�unity Development minutes of August 10� 1976: Motion by Forster� seconded by Schneider, that the Co�nity Development Cormaiss�on recommends to the Planning Comwission that one enclosed garage space be provided per dxelling unit. Mr. Boardman asked if that wasn't strictly for in a&.1 zone� as they did have diYferent garage requirements for mult3ple units. Mr. Bergman replied yes, that did get left off. He explained the motion xas either in consideration of Planning Commission Meeting - August 18, 1976 Page 12 R-1 zoning or in consideration of one enclosed garage space per dwelling unit in single or double d�lling units. Mr. Boardman said they rrere talking strictly about single unite as the double requirement for a garage was 1'� stalls per unit. Mr. Bergnfan said then this xss specificallq to a si88le family dwelling nnit� but he xas not going to concur that they talk R-1 zoning. He suggested they talk about a house, as that was xhy a garage xas needed� not because of zoning. He brought to the attention of the Coimaissioners the fine reasons given for the motion. Mr. Boardman sa3d that beYore thep got into a lot of discussion on this, he would like to reco�nend that this item be tabled vntil StaYf could gather in8ormation together and come up irith a reco�nendation on this as to how this relates to ihe Comprehensive Housing Plan. He suggested it also be sent to the Human Resources Commission to get their feeling on it. Mr. Boardman sai.d that maybe a garage unit should not be required for aqy single fami�v dwelling, and explained that they rrere looking at a possibility of people buying houses that they could afPord and at a later date be able to build a garage themselves. He said that people usually couldn't build a house themselves� however, a garage was a little easier type of thing that bhey could be-able to handle, He contiimed that if a garage unit xasn�t required at this time, they might see even dauble unita developed srhen the family could afford to build them. Mrs. Shes asked iP they vere talking about new bnildings, and Chairperson Harris replied they were� as there xas nothiag they could do about existing dsrelliags. Mrs. Gabel asked iP r�rhen Mr. Boaz�dman checked with Roseville and Coon Rapids and they said thep didn't deal rrith substandard lots, i£ this meant they had not come to the point xhere people xere requesting to build on ihese or that their codes stated that they could not build on thsh. Mr. Boardman replied that their caF.s stated that a garage unit xas required on all single family units. In other vozds� he eaplained, to build on aubstandard lots they had to have a garage unit. He said that they don't conaider the size oP the lot srham the dvelling ia to be built; they consider the garage as correlating to the unit. He added that Brooklyn Center had no requirements on their si.ngle familq hwses, but did require tvo ofY-street stalls. Mr. I.angenfeld comnented that there rras no question that a gsrage Was patinent to the existing atructure and not to the lot, and he was glad to aee that come out. l�tr, Boardman xondered i£ an undue hardship vouldn�t be placed on somebody irho might be able to afford a house in the City if a garsge wasn�t constructed along xith it, and at a later date vhen they got better off financially they could afford to build a garage. Chairperson Harris said he thought the pereentage cost oY the garage compared to the house xas rather small, and thought that if a family could sving Ohe financ3ng on the house they could make it on the garage also. Mr. Bergmen said he s+ould have to ask if they �rouldn't be causing an undue hardship on the neighbors on either side of this lot i£ the nev builder wasn't required to build a garage to encloae all the items which �ght othervise be out in the yard� and that might cause a possible safety hazard to the children of the adjacent property ormers. He said there vere two sides to the ooin. Mrs. Shea stated that she wuld like to take thia item back to the Hwnan Resources Commission, and Chairperson Harris said that Staff had requested that this be tabled. Planning Commission Meeting - Auguat 16� 197b Page 13 I�TION by Peterson, aeconded by Shea, that the Planning Co�niss3on table the disenssion on garagee unt31 the naxt meeting. Upon a wice vote, all voting �e, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Gabel said she rould like to request that these different discussions, such as that of the Coimuunity Develogment meeting� be for►rarded to the Appeals Co�mnission. She exglained that then everyone on the Board of Appeals xould have this information available. Mr. Harris asked when they could expect this item back on the agenda� and Mr. Boardmen repdied probably on September 2�d. Mr. Bergman said he vould like to recognize vhat apparently was happening here and register a mild complaint. He stated that this item had been bePore Comim3nity Develo�ent for four meetings� and it vas tabled three times; each time requesting input from administration. Haring tabled it three times, he continned� and xith some pushing by the Commission Chairman taking action on it for the fourth time, it appeared that StaPf xas still researching the data. He said he rrould have preferred that the researching would have been done sometine during the past four months and provided to the Commissions to coasider. Mr. Boardman stated that the tabling in the first place xas probably his fault. He eaplained that Community Deeelopmpnt had requeated input from ontside sources, surrounding co�rtunities, and thia type oYtthing; and at the last meeting 5taff had just pulled'�IiaG informatioii together for them. He ftu�ther explained that Coeommity llevelopsnent had made their reco�nendation at their last meeting� and Staff rrented time to digest what the results of that recommendation xould be. He added that they also xanted some response from Human Resources as to hov that would reltte to the housing program. Mr. Bergman said he vould like the record to shrnr the reviex by the CommmiEyt Development Commission of the minutes� the letters and the developanant seen subsequent to Community Development's recomettdations toxard the Board of Appeal's concern about approval of develoFment o8 !�0' lots, He continued that reading £rom their past minutes, it rras CDC's impression that some clarification oY their initial motion xas in order on two particular points: 1) That it was the intent of Co�nunity Development that 'the petiti�er�e every effort to conPorm to city ordinance" and that a person com; ro in xith seven variance requests xas aot mak3ng that ePfort; and from CDC's view� that vas grounds for denial. 2) That "If there is an available lot� even iP it cannot be purchased, then the request for building on a lt0� lot ahould be denied". This, he said, referred to adjacent undeveloped property. Mr. Bergman said those xere the recommendations of Community Developnent, and a�ht came out of M$yor Nee�s letter and so forth was quite different, Mrs. Gabel stated that there has been a lot of confusion regarding 1�0' lots, vhich xas x}�y they asked for that meeting. Chairperson Harris coimnented that hopefully it xould all be ironed out in September. Mrs. Gabel said something else she thought was important vas that the City oY Fridley should have some responsibility to the people xho alrea�v.lived there to see to it that the homes that vere being built vrere compatible vith the rest ot the neighborhood. She said the people living in the existing homes had a quality of living that rras de3�rable to them, and she didn't think the City had the right to let someone put a houae in rrithout a garage and let the3r junk sit out if ihe rest of the houses in the neighborhood had garages. She vas concerned about what this rtould do to the quality of the neighborhood. Planning Co�mnission Maeting - August 18� 1976 Page 111 I4r. Berpnan stated they had discussed in Co�unity Development a trap or an assumed mi,sconceptions someone ties substandard lots to people of lox income, and�they agreed that xas an assumption that may have no validity. He said that people of low income have maz�p other oppo'rtturities for housing! and it doesn�t have to be that if the City doesn't allow people to build on !t0' lots they xere discr3minating against people o£ lov income. 1. throu 2� and also part oP Lot 1� Block 28� Tnnsbruck North Townhouses Ttiird Addition� to allow changes in the size of garages� generally located on the West side of Past Bavariaa Pass and South of Meister Road N.E. Public Hearfng Open. Mr. Boardmen stated he had done research on this end talked i�n Jim London on it. Ae said that Mr. London was trying io convince Darrel Farr to submit a request for xithdraving this request. tir. Boardman said that at this time he would like the Planning Commission to reco�end that by the next meeting they expect a request for xithdrawal on this item or they will take action on it. Chairperaon Harris auggested it be rephaesed that the Plenning Coimnission would table this item until the next �eting and eapect to take action on it then. Mr. Hoardman said then if the Planning Coamission took action and denied the request and if it vas ilso denied by the City Council� then Darrel Farr could aot reapply for a six-month period of time. Mr. Hoardman stated he was sure they would xithdraw on this because Darrel Earr and the Toxnhouse Association held completely different views. Mr. Bergman recalled that at the last meeting the statement xas made that the longevity of a request waa s3xty d�s. Mr. Boardman said he had done research on that alao� and found there was no limit that was aet on the subdivider to table, but there was a limit set on the Planning Coam�ission to act. Mr. Peterson pointed out that then they couldn't act on this next time iP the petitioner asked Yor it to be tabled� as he had the prerogative to keep del�ying. Mr. Boardman said that xas a good point� and suggested the motion should read that it wo�.7.d be tabled indefinitely so that the Comuiasion vouldnTt have to respond to it any more. I�TION bq Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Public Hearing on consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #'%6-05, Innsbruck North Replat Third Addition, by Darrel A. Farr Developnent Corporation, be tabled indefinitely until the petitioner asks it to be withdrasru or put back on the agenda. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. 2� PiTRT.T('. HTiARTNR• RFL.ITTFST FAR A SPFrTAi ii'�' pF.RMTT� 5 P �'%(�12� BV P/KO PHaTC1,�Qj�agR9TF.D• To permi.t a film prncessing drop-off booth� per Fridley City Code� Sectioa 2a5.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lot 1� Black 1� Sylvan Hills Plat �, the same being 21�8 Mississippi Street N.E. � Planning Coimnission Heeting - August 18� 1976 Page i5 Messrs. Rando�ph Toth, Jack Helmen and Mario Fernaddez xere present� all repreaentittg Pako Photo. I40TION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Coimaission open the Riblic Hearing on a request for a specu�]. use permit, S.P, i1'16-12� by Pako Photo, Ixscorporated. Upon a voice vote, all voting eye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Boardman explained that this vas a request £or a special use permit for a film processing drop-off similar to Motofoto, and xould be in the sazne place that Motofoto was located in the small shopping center across £rom Holly. He ststed that since this vould be basically the same type of operation that Hotofoto was, Staff xauld go sloag eith a special use permit on this but xould require that they be restrict�d under the same stipulations that were placed on the Motofoto operation, listed on page $5. Mr. Bergirtan asked if he oould assume that the only requirements in order to meet all applicable codes and ordinances vere 1) sgecial use permit xlthin the ordinance� and 2) xashroom facilities. Mr. Boaxdman said that was correat. Mr, Fernandsa stated the building they vrere proposing to in$tall rras state- approved construction� soppart of the building xould be guaranteed by a seal of approval try the state. He explained that it xould be manuPactured in toxn and transported to the site and installed� and all necessary permits had been filed. Mr. Fernandez showed to the Commission a model oP the building theq rere proposing. He continued that in some occasions some co�nnunities presented objections to small strnetures unattached to other bnildings� and he felt part oY their objections were that the operations such as Fotomat or Motofoto vere buildings made mostly out of inetal� light in veight� and susc8gtible to be blovn by vind, etc. He stated they had taken into consideration all of those situations and had provided a building that was built eaactly as a home rrould be. He contixrued that it xould be pleasing in appearance and vould not detract from the City but add to it. Mr. Fernandez stated that Pako Photo was a very xell-respected neighbor in the co�mminity, and the City xouldn't be dealing with a small operation that xouldn't take care of its facilitiea. He said it vould be maintained all the time and comply xith all the regnlat�ons the City had at present. He stated that basically those �rere their points� and he �rould be happy to answer aqy questions. Chairperson Harris asked if he had read the stipulations on page 55 and if he had a¢�y object�ons. Hr. Fernandez replied they had taken steps to comply xi.th all of the stipulations listed. Hr. Lengenfeld stated that the Yirst stipulation ahould be changed as far as the latter part of the aentence xas concerned. Chairperaon Harris egreed, end said that "and approved by the Bnildi.ng Standards-Design Control Snb- co�mni.ttee" should be stricken. Mr. Boardman said he believed those traffic patterns had been worked out for Motofoto before and would be utilized again for thia operation. Chairperson Harris asked if there was heat in thoae buildings, and Mr. Fernandez replied it had electrical heating that was desigaed to meet the new energy ��g Comnission Heetfng - August 18, 1976 Pe�re 16 requirements, and it xould be insulated exactly like a home. MOTION by Bar�nen, secondad bp Peterson, that the Planni.nB Commission close the Public HearfnB on the request for a Special Use Permit, S•P� �7�'12, fi' pako Yhoto, Inaaz'Porated• Upon a'+oice vote, all voting �e, Chairperson Harria dealared the Public Hearing closed at 9�43 P•M• MpPIpN by Peteraon� seconded by Bergmsrs� that the Plaz+ning Commission recommend to Council approval of the reqnest for a special use: Pe d o' ofF•boo��2Per }�y Psleo Photo, Incorporated, to permit �I�� pbecloc ted on Lot 1, Block 1, Fridley City Code� Section 205.101, 3, Sylaa�t Hills Plat ?� t�e $�8 �� 2� M�ssissippi Street N.E�e with�ft�he agen¢a. stipnlatians agreed to by the Cit� aod Palm Photo listed on Pa8 55 ., f..77.,ssc: ._ `(1)` The traffic patterns be the same as worked out by administration for the previous request (SP #T3-12, Motofoto) (2) The parking lanes be striped and directional arrows be provided for traffic direction. (3) All utility lines be underground. (4). A letter be obtained from an adjacent tenant stateing the employees can use the public facilities, within 200 feet of this film booth. (Already provided) (5} In the event the buildin� has to he removed for any reason, the parking lot will be returned to its original condiditon. Mr, I,angenFeld stated he r�oaii lii� t,� see it put iA tbe record that this particulsr building would i�t+wtT 1+e31ow the same design as the modeZ. Mr. Fernandes atated they had alreadq snbnd.tted a set af plans identical in all details to tirhat they were seeing. UPON A VOIGE i►OTE� all votin8 aYe� the motion carried unanimously. 3, v�ca�.�ox��, Ssv d''i6-05Z AssURAi�CT MADtUFACTURING CONPANYt To vaeate the lb foot drainage and utility e-- asemen$ boun�e7 on £�ie �or£h by ihe Westerly extenaion of the Aiorth line of Lot 5, Block 7� Ona*�&Y Addit�Lon, and bounded on the South by the Westerly extension of the South line of Lot �, BIOCk 7f �aw� Additionr to allow the connection of the huildings ott both sides of the e882iA6At with a structure� the same being 7753 Beech Street N.E. Mr. Boardman explained that there Kas aa alley there before which had been vacated� and now Assurance Manufacturi,ng xaated to vacate tha drainage and uti2ity easemente that were being held in that alley sa theq can build across the alley and join up with a building thay want to buy across thesa�reet. He stated the City had contact �rith the utility c�panies and had received letters back from them sayiz►g there xas no problem as far as they Trere concerned. Mr. Hoardman �aid the only concern the City would have xould be for drainage, snd one of the stipulations for this approval vonld be the dedication of nax drainage easement to the South of their buil4ing to handle the drainage that is coming down along the alle�q. lf* �1ai.ned they Nould take it out to Beech Street� and the Fhgineeriq� �t�r11t hsd looked at it and said there �ere na problems. u t 18 1976 Page 1? Planning Commission Mee� � � � MOTION by Peteraon� seconded by 9l�� tlat the Planning Co�mniasion recommend to Council approval of vacation request� SAV #76-05� Assurance Manufacturing Company� to vacate the 16 foot drainage and utility easement bounded on the North by the Westerly extension of the North line of Lot 5� Block 7� Onaw�Y Addition� and bounded on the South by the Westerly extension of the South line of Lot 7, Block 7� (Aiatiray Acldition� to allox the connection of the buildings on both sides of the easement with a structure, the same being 7753 Beeeh Street N.E., witli the dedication of a nev drainage easement. Mr. Bergman asked what was considered a standard drainage easement yridth� and if there vas such a thing. Mr. Boardmen said that uanally they r+ere talking about ten feet. Mr. Bergman said he wondered if that should be specified in the motion. 1lr. Peterson AMENDID the MOTION to include the specification of a 10' drainage easement. Seconded by Shea. UPON A VOICE VOTE� five voting aye and Mr. Harris abstaining, the raotion carried. Chairperson Harris explained h�s season for abstaining was at one time he oxned a portion of abutting property to that vacation and still held sorae paper on it� and therefore to avoid sny conflicts he abstained. Chairperson Harris deelared a recess at 9:50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 10:20 P.M. !�, CONTIN(JED: iiUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOAIS AIVD OBJECTIVES: Mfr. Boardman ststed that at one of the previous meetings they had gone through all of the goal statements under the goal area of HumaF► Hevelopment and approved wording on that� and now he Wou1d like to go into D200 rrhieh related to learning and nultural deaelopment of residents. He sai.d that under this he felt that there xould be three program objectines: 1. Promote an awareness and appreciation of the Humanities. 2. Help stimulate appreciation and participation in fine arts in the com�rtunity. 3. Fhcourage an interaction of learning facilities and programs necessary to allov resudents a xide choice of purauits in education� training end cultural development. Mr. Bergman said that he would like a definition o£ the rrord "humanities", Mr. Boardman informed him that the Human Resources Commission suggested as humanities poetry� history� biography� science� Piction, music, art, painting and sculpture. He stated that as Par as he aas concerned, painting and senlpture would be fine arts, but they were in the humanity group of activities. Mr. Boardman said that the areas he uas thinking of covering under the Human Develo�unent section were the parks and recreation area� learning and cultural development of citizens, proeiding public information cofmmanication, promoting effective methods to provide human services (day care centers� ete.)� encouraging programs designed to promote effectine human understanding within the community (elder7.y programs or youth programs to help get some interaction wtthin a conmunity), He said that hopefully with these goal statements he had covered ' all areas concerned with human develolanent as far as Hwnan Resources went. He added that there were other areas under Human Resources xhich would be located in other areas; for instance, human rights xould be incorporated under a security Pianning Commission Heeting - August 18, 1976 Pap 16 requirements, and it would be insulated �actly 13ke a home. MOTION by Bergman, seconded b3r Peterson, thst the Planning Cammission close the Rcb13c Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, S.P. #76-12, by Pako Photo� Incorporated. Upon a voice vote, all vot3ng &Ye, Chairpersan Harrie dealared the Public Hearing closed at 9.43 P.M. MOTION by Petersony secanded by Bergman� that the Planning Cou¢aission recommend to Couacil approval of the request for a special usa; permit, S.F. #76-12, by Paito Photo, incorporated, to permit a film processing drop-off booth, per I Fridley City Code� Section 205.101� 3, �I)� to be located on Lot 1, Block l, , Sylvan Hills Plat 7, the same i� 21►8 Mississippi Street N.E., with the �tipulations agreed to by the C1t,T ard !'alro Photo listed on page 55 of the agenda. which are as follows: �-�, (1) The traffic patterns be the same as worked out by administration for the previous request (SP l�73-12, Motafoto) (2) The parking lanes be striped and directional arrows be provided for traffic direction. (3) All utility lines be underground. (4)- A letter be obtained fram an adjacent tenant stateiag the employees can use the public facilities, within 200 feet of this film booth. (Already provided) (5) In the event the buildin� hae to he removed for any reason, Che parki� lot will he returned to its original condiditon. 2{r, T,angenfeld stated he wct�ii 1i11� ��i��hesame designcasdtheamodels Mr. particular building xould iLtlli,tAtl7 � Pernandez stated they had already subadtted a set of plans identical in a11 details to nhat they were seeing. UPON A vOICPs IIOTE� all vot1nS aYe, the motion carried unanimously. 3� ��r�sm_ sav #76-05, ��NCE MANUFACTURING COt�II'ANY: To vacate the lb foot drainage end utility easement un e on e or by the Westerly eactenalan of the North line of Lot 5a Block 7, Ona�raY Addit�on, and bounded on the South by the Westerly extenaion of the South line of Lot 7� Hlock 7� ��way Addition, to a11ow the connection of the buildings on both sides of the easement xith a strueture� the same beiag 7753 Beech Street N.E. Mr, goardman explained that there was an alley there before which had been vacated� and now Ass�rance Manufacturing xanted to vacate the drainaga end utility easements that vere being held in that alley so they can build across the a1ley attd join up rrith a building they xant to buy across thess�reet. H� stated the City had contact rrith the utility coaipanies and had received letters back from them saying there rraa no problem as far as they were concerned. Mr, Boardman sa3d the only concern the Gity would have xould be for drainage, and ane of the stipulations for this approval xould be the dedication of nex drainage easement to the South of their building to handle the dra3nage that is coming dawn along the alle?w�. Hi sac�la3-ned they would take it out to Beech Street� and the Engineerit►� B�s�wtL had looked at it and said there Were no probleras. PiLanning Commission Meeting - Aagust 18, 1976 Page 18 section. Ae said that under security he xas talking about those things which promote human rights or social justice and that type of thing. Mr, Bergman asked if it was the intent that the section on Human Development goals and objectives by part of the city's comprehensive plan, and xhat was the end purpose of a Human Develo�nent sectioa. Mr. Boardman explained they were developing the goals and objectives of the coimminity. He said there were Yive major goal areas, and under those goal areas they had goal statements and plan objectives. Under those, he said, they had program plans which were actually work p2ans that rrill be devised to meet the requirbeedesi fations for objectives. He added that under those work plans the� may � a comprehensive park plan or comprehensive housing plan. Mrs. Shea asked Mr. Boardman if he would go through the five goal areas, �t�it and he stated housing� human deve�o�nent� sech�tYmorect SsaydabouRt D200 as y• He said that at this time he didn t have anyt g he felt he had covered that area which would help £oster an attitude to stimulate shee ould likeVtoi equestlt at a copy of1G a11StatementeD200 bessenteto aid Human Resources. Mr, Boardman stated that under D300 he had four program objectives, and Goal Statement D300 was "Provide public inFormation and communieation in order to foster an awareness of the City's varied acti �lob'�tivestobthetCotmmission: activities". He then read the following prog J D310 Secure and maintain a'clearing-house of information' position with respect to public and semi-public� cultural� vocational and recreational program opportunities. D32� Provide for adequate and viable means of partico et�entr£oress and reasonable access to the affairs of local g all citizens. D330 Provi.de for efficient method of dissemination oi' information. D31�� empublicgrsemirpublicrand privateusectorsdofs�andPopulation. pTr, Boardman explained that what he meant by "semi-public" was churches, �he Red Cross� all service organizations and that type of thing. He also explained that a"clearing-house of information" would be a type o�ecreational He cited an eacample that if somebody wanted inYormation regarding programs, etc., he would be able to come to the City because that is a position they would like to create. He said the City would be a clearing-house of information. Chairperson Harris asked if that wouldn't take Staff, and Mr. goardman replied that it would be an operation out of the CitbuHIanagTe'shouldce. He said they were providing a certain emount of this anywaY, be more organization in xhai they were doing. Chairperson Harris said that 320 brought to his mind the recommendation by the Charter Commission about redress and reasonable access to the affairs of local government for all citizens. He added that the Charter Commission wanted to change the Charter in the area o£ petitions for recall and things like that� and wondered how that would fit in with D32�• M�'• Boaz'�� aid he was talking about if a person felt he was cheated, how would that person come back in to discuss his problem? He stated that what he hoped to have come out of this xas Planning Co�mnission Meeting - August 18, 1976 Page 19 sQrtie City policy on xhat a citizen could do in a circumstence such as that; who to talk to, and that type of thing. He added that right now they had nothing anailable. Mrs. Shea asked if this included the Police Department, and Mr. Boardman replied it did. He said that he thought there xas something very lacking in the City as far as co�maunication bet�reen its residents and local gonernment and this goal statement xas something that, hopefhlly, a policy r+ould come out of by the City. Chairperson Harris stated he vasn't arguing yrith it� but vas just wondering how they were going to implement it. He said the redress of the public to the City xas a very tonchy subject. Mr. Boardman stated that he thought that was the reason there were xalls built between the City and the coimuunity� and the City should try to break those walls doxn. Mr. Harris said he agreed, but xondered hov they could do that. Mr. Boardman explained that once the goals and objectives were eatablished by the City Council, thea it would be up to the City Administration to set up a work plen to achieve those objectives. Mr. Bergman said that he would like to comment on D31�0. He stated that he xas a citizen of �idley, but his children xent to Columbia Heights' schools and he felt a very definite and speci£ic split loyklty. He said that he xas involved snd interested in Columbia Heights� ne�*a as it had any af£ect on the schools, which are where hia children vent and that vas important to him; and it detracted from his intereste and loyalty r�rith the City o£ Fridley. Mr. Ber�nan said he was aware that the school district�s boundaries did not coincide irlth the City's boundaries on three, if not four sides� but if co�nunity address was wanted to FY�idley there was a sizable number o£ people vith split loyalty and split interest. He continued that he lived on the North side of 6911, azid across the street from him vas the Innsbruck area, South of 69�t, and those people xere also citizens of Fridley but xere actually more 6olumbia Heights thatd he vas because they were on the other side of a very obvlous boundary structure. He stated there vere a lot of Fridley people around �rith only partial recognition that they were part of Fridley, and the other recognition that they xere part o£ the coimminity xhere their children xent to school. He said there xas a lot of split loyalty in that situation. Mrs, Shea coimaented that she didn't Peel that split loyalty that much, but did feel like the City of Fridley had let them dovn in a wey as there xere no Fridley parks in her area. Mr. Boardmen said another problem relating to the split-loyalty situation might be the dissemination of information� and asked hox often they got something from the City of Fridley telling them Trhat programs were available and that type of thing. Mr. Bergmsn stated that there was a close relationship between the schools and the City, snd he could care less about District 1lt. He said that, to aome extent, detracted from his interest in what vent on in Fridley. Mrs. Shea noted there were three persons on the Planning Cormnission from District 13. Mr. Bergman said he Imex it vas a real problem to chenge boundaries� but he Imex it had been done. He said that iP the City wanted to talk about loyalty� uniformity� etc.� he thought that Was something that ought to be addressed. Chairperson Harris asked if it wasn�t true that government tended to build a barriers between the semi-public and private sectors of the population. Mr. Boardman said definitely. Mr. Harris asked hox that could be overcome� and Mr. Boardman said that first you had to find out why those barriers were bu�ilt, He said they were usually developed because somebody was protecting information Planning Comnission Meeting - August 18, 1976 Page 20 or not xanting information out becanae of certain things. Ae stated that that develops distrust� and distruat is what builds the xalls. Another thing, he said, vas that inforraation was available to the public but people didn't lmox hox to get it. He commented that it was published in the Sun, but not all areas received that; so it xas a matter of how they could get information to the people. He said that according to the lax, it xas required th�t information be available if somebody asked for it, but hox did people Imox what to ask Por? Mr. Langenfeld said that was vhere D320 would eomeiin. Mrs. Qrabel stated that it was a matter of conditioning. She said that people are aYraid of government� and have been conditioned to expect that they are going to get nothing but a turn-off or a lot of red tape. Chairperson Harris said that people don't trust government, and the government fosters that. He cited the exaupple of a friend of his xho had an oak tree in his back yard that started looking atrange to him. His friend called the City Tree Inspector, vho said the tree had oak wilt and xould have to come dosrn in ten da�ys. The Inspector then xent around the neighborhood and tagged £ifteen more trees, and his friendtb neighbors xere out to hang him. He said there has to be a change in government so people would trust it. Mr. Bergman said that he rrould like to suggest that the impression he got throughout the el3ment oY Goal Statement D300 xas there is a coimminicat�on problem; and the City uill send out leaflets and brochures to everybody, 95� of xhich vrill go into the garbage because if they don't have some particular interest they are not going to look at it or read it. He suggested that something that xould be a lot more ePfective and a lot less cost would be some public relations advertising. He recom¢nended an ad Le put in the £ront psge oY the Sun saying "H1 there! We�re your friendly Fridley City Hall Administrators elected by you, and xe encourage you to call on any questions of any nature and guarantee you prompt, courteous response". Mr. Boardman said they tried to do that some- what with the design oY their eslendar, but he realized there was a tremendous public relations problem between City Government and its citizens. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Plenning Co�ission agree in principal xith Goal Statements D200 and D3� and their Program Objectives� and table this item until the meeting of September 22nd. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. $ RENIEW OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINIJTES: NLY 6, 12 AHD 26TH, 1976: Chairperson Harris stat�d that Mrs. Schnabel had several questions, and asked Mrs, Gabel if she had passed them on to her, Mrs. Gabel ansxered that the only thing Hrs. Schnab�l had related to her vas the question on the soccer field, and Mr. Peterson had already answered that. She said that anything that xas not in the minutes she wasn�t arare of. Chairperson Harris said that in regard to the July 6th Special Meeting on the budget� there was some question on some of the items. He asked vhy the item Locke Park footbr3dge xas listed, but no dollar amount. Mr. Peterson explained that xas because they hadn't Pelt the priority Xas high enough to put any dollar figure on it for this year. He said it had been included because the new recording secretary had put everything in rrhether it had a dollsr amount or not. Mr. Harris questioned under Account 4510 (Buildinga & Structures) the amount of $3,5� for reraodeling part of the old library, and asked i£ that xas detracting Plaxuting Commission Meeting - August 18� 1976 Page 21 in azry xay from any city recreation program. Mr. Peterson replied it was, end said they vere arguing with city management and the City Council that if they are going to charge $3,500 for remodeling because they r+ere moving the Parks az►d Recreation Department, then they should credit P& R vith $3�500 because the Police Department xas going to take over their present facility, He said Parks and Recreation rould be paying for space twice xhen management was teking space for their convenience. Chairperson Harris said he agreed with Mr. Peterson and felt this was a capital ezpenditure in the City Hall. He stated it should either come out of the general fund or the city fund� but not out of Parks and &ecreation. Mr. Boardman stated it should really go under eapital improvements or City Hall improvements. Mr. Peterson stated that because of this they xonldn't be spending money for a tennis court or a footbridge or some other item. He stated that anyhhelp they could get from anyone on this xould be greatly appreciated. Mr. Ber�nnan suggested that another argument r�rould be that rather than take the money from the Parks and Recreation budget to just leave them xhere they xere presently located� as they didn't want to move. Mr. Boardmsn said that iE was to a certain degree of benefit to Parks and Recreation because the adcninistrative office does have trouble in that area. Mr. Peterson said it xas really for the betterment of the b�tal administration that they move� rather than their betterment singularly. Chairperson Harris said that in all of these items they were doing an improve- ment to xarming houaes and all oP these things� and to him that should be set up on a capital improvement and not be detracted from a recreational program. I�fr. Peteraon said he had no argument `rith that� but this xas the was it had been set up and this was the vqy it xas being charged, He said that by the same tokea, all of the revenue that came in from the beaches and concessions xent into the General Revenue Flind, but was charged against their recreational budget. Ae stated that took axay from the program� too. Mr. Bergman said that Mr. Harris' suggeation was something Mr. Peterson could implement merely in the xay he organiz..ed what was sul�mitted. He explained that it wrk he typically submitted a capital improvement budget and separately from that an operating budget. Mr. Peterson said this vas their capital budget� and they had a reereational budget that they were still working on vhich xas difYerent� but they felt that their capital improvement budget should be apent on tennis courts or fiahing docka--but not for office apace. Mr, I,angenfeld brought up Item No. 3 on the first page� Island of Peace, $10�21�0. Mr. Peterson explained there vas an obligation that vas coming due, and iP Islends of Pesee did not raise the money then the City xas obligated to pay it� and it had been determined that it should come out oY the Parks and Recreation capital budget. He said they objected to that, but it had to be there because it was a conii'ogent liability due in 1977. He explained it was the principle and intereat due on the mortgage. Mr. Peterson said that furthermore, if they got fhrther do*an the line, they xere told that North Park rrould also be charged into their bndget because the City had a contingency liability there, too. Mr. Langenfeld said that the Hqyes Lots xere presently very hsrd on the Islands of Peace ia terma of paying for interest, and so on. He said it was really rough on the Foundation and the fund drive so they can�t devote their monies to improving their share of the project�: vhen all of their money had to go on intereat payments end hopefully on principle pc�yments. He said that if enough moneq couldn't be generated to ps�}* for the H�,yea Lots� he didn't feel that the Planning Conuniasion Meeting - August 18� 1976 Page 22 City vould lose in any manner� s�hpe or form as far as going back on the property because it had increased in value. He said the Citq could sell if if they xaz►ted to, and it would not be a losittg situation. Mr. Peterson stated there irere two things they had to realize; Pirst, the Hayes lots rrould not fit into the overall recreational plan of tihe Parks and Recreation Departroent in terms of land acquisition as they did not need more property xhere the Hqyes Lots xere. Secondly� there vere some other liabilities that would prohibit the City from selling these lots oPf to a private developer frithout haviag to pay off some other monies to �WCON �d all of the other people, so there were considerable liabilities that were involved. He said the City would end up paying for those H�yes lots and would have to put them into some type of park p1an,QVen if they didn�t want to, so it xas a drag on the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate that theq hoped t�e approach the City or the Council in regard to this item later on� but by the sacae token he Yelt their next approach to the State Legislature was goingtto be much more beneficial than it has been in the past. Mr. Bergman asked if it was Parks and Recreation's intent that the capital improvement bndget be subject to modification based on input from the neighbor- hood pp�ject committeea. Mr. Peterson stated that if they got the information from the neighborhood project co�i.ttees in time to put it into the 197? budget they xould modif� according to that. Othex�ise� he said, they vould have to do it in 1978, and realistically speaking they vere looking at the �78 budget for the neighborhood project co�i.ttee's input. Mr. Peterson said they told the people that yrhen they ceme to the meeting on the 12th. As an example, he said� one lady told them they had put in a tennis court zrhere they had wanted a ball field. He said he eaplained to her that the many people xho came en masse to-Parks end Recreation xanted a tennis court� and they weren't told an,ything about s ball f3eld. He stated that this xas the type of thing they hoped to avoid after they had the people study xhat they vere doing in their oen neighbor hoods. Chairperson Harris asked if the figures Yor the eqnipment xere ball park figures or pretty close. Mr. Peterson replied they were supposed to be figures that had been quoted to them. Mr. Harris co�maented that some of the items seemed a bit high. He asked Mr. Peterson to eaplain what "ColorKote" meant. Mr. Peterson said that this referred to the tennis courts� and that every three years they ahould be Color-Koted. He explained it xas a continuous maintenance type thing which provided a proper playing surYace and increased the longevity of the conrts. Chairperaon Harris said he wondered yrhy on one court the cost xas $1,500 and on another $725� and asked i£ tennis courts veren�t basically the same size. Mr. Peterson ansxered that there might be two tennis courts included in one Yigure or there might be a tennis court and a basketball court. Mr. Langenfeld said he rec�lled nov one oY the questions that was asked concerning the budget xas there was no overall total� and they had come up xith $l1t8�613. 14r. Peterson said there should have been an overall total, and there had been one when they left the meeting that night. He said it was a negotiated compromise betrreen the City Manager and the Connnission. Mr. Peterson explained the Parks az►d Recreation budget would be seimaething over $500�000, of xhich capital xas $1l�8�000 to $150�000 approaimately. The other $35�a� Would be for salaries Planning Commisaion Meeting - August 18, 1976 Page 23 and programs� and also interest p�vments for land acquisitions and things like that. Chai.rperson Harris stated he vas a bit confused. Mr. Peterson said the thing to realize was that Fridley did not have a capital improvement program� and this is xhat xas handicapping the Recreation Department, He said that at this point in time they xere seven years behind the ma8+�er plan that xas developed in 1965. He ezplained they had only been able to do three years work in ten because they had to make do out of each year's budget and it gets cut; and xith inflation the budget has not increaseithat much in total. He riu�ther explained that srith inflation on the salsries they got leas and less each year to do the capital improvement. Chairpersoa Harris asked vhy they were paying out sormmich interest for land acquisition. Mr. Boardman ensT+ered it was mainly because the C3ty did not do it on a bond-issue type thing. Ae explained they budget it over the t�renty or thirty year period� end take it out of each year's budget. He added that they icere probabl,y still pjydng for Locke Park and Co�ons� and he lmew they were p�ying for North Park. Mr. Peterson stated that if Springbrook Nature Foundation should happen to default, it could wipe out the Park end Recreation Department for the contingent liabilitiea the City has. He e�cplained that the City had entered into an agreement and the City was the guarantor of that purchase. Mr. Bergman asked hox this capital improvement budget o£ $1l�6,000 compared to the budget o£ last year, and Mr. Peterson enswered that it xas up by only 5�;0 He said he was going by memory, but he thought the total Parks and Recreation budget had only grvvn by about 60,000 to 70,000 dollars in the past five years. Chairperson Harris askediif there had been any attempt to set up priorities in relation to eapital i.mprovements versus a recreation budget or a program budget. Mr. Peterson replied that it xas prioritized because for a certAin dollar of program there had to be a certain dollar of equigeent to run it and maintain the parks and that type of thi.ng, and that is xhat they tried to do. Mr, Langenfeld co�nented that xhen he talked to fellow citizens he heard the con¢nent about the "sky.high" budget o£ Parks and Recreation. He said h�s personal opinion xas it was terribly misleading when a given figure comes out, £or instance $500�000� zrhen Parks and Recreation might talce in $100�000 in forms of revenue. He stated that vrould at least reduce that overall amount and make that figure not look so excessive. Mr. Peterson said that realistically speaking they xere probably looking at something bet�een $20,000 to $25��• He stated that if Fridley's budget xas compared xith citiea of comperable size� for the facilities that Fridley has and the prograzns that it runs, Fr3dley is in the top three cities in the entire metropolitan area. Mr. Peterson said that Parks and Recreation xould rather have a half million dollars and then have the revenue added back into the budget so they could do some other things they felt they should do. He said that in a 6ity this size, their budget xas not that large. Mrs. Gabel stated she didn�t fully understand how North Park could affect the budget� and asked that it be explained. Mr. Boardmen said that the City �;a Plenning Coffini.asion Meeting - Auguat 18, 1976 Page 24 purchased North Park through a-I./+wC.qN application. He said that out o£ $200,000 $100�000 was paid by the Federsl Government, $50,000 by state and $50,000 by the City. If for any reason that property was taken out of a designated recreation area per LAWCON application, they xould have to p�y back that $100,000. He ezplained that North Park was designated as a recreation area at the time it rras purchased under the LAWCON application. IP a city garage, for instence, xas to be built in that area, then there frould be some monies that xonld have to go back in. He stated they just got a$54,000 grant under LAWCON for developiaent of North Park as a Nature Center, and if that didn't develop as a Natnre Center there Was the possibility they xould have to refund the $27�000. Mrs. Gabel asked if this xould have to come out of Parks and Recreation�s bndget� and Hr. Peterson said that at this time the City had no other place to charge it. He said it wss land that would come under the Parks and Recreation aspect as far as the City Charter xas conceraed; and it vas a liability just as they had for Islands of,Peace. Mr. Boardmen siid it was a little diYferent situatioxi becanse there was a two-year period that all action had to be taken jrithin on the Nature Center� and in 1979 they would have to match the LAZ�CON grant. Mr. Bergmaz► asked if either Mr. Boardman or Mr. Peterson imew hox the City of Fridley�s Parks and Recreation budget dollar amonnt comp�ared to other city's Parks and Recreation dollar a�unts „ and Mr. Peterson said Fridley xas about average. Mr. Boardman said that in some conm�unities r+here they go on bonding issnes they don�t have the obligation directly related to Parks and Recreation vhereas Fridley does. He said xhat �idley xas trying to provide was a recreation program for less money then they are opersting xith as their recreation progrems are probably better funded. Atr, Peterson said that FY•idley had a program that was eqnal to or better,'irith iess monep, than others becauae of volunteers. He said people xere villing to donate their time vhereas other areas vere pqying for it, and that xas xhat vas saeing the programs in Fridley. Chairperson Harris asked if they would receive a suamary of the recreation budget, and Mr. Peterson said hopefully they Would receive it this month, but it xas still in the negotiation stage. Hrs. Shea asked if they could get an income along with that� and Hr. Peterson replied he woul.d like to get that� also. Chairperson Harris thanked Mr. Peterson Por all his ansvers, and said it had been a very inYormative discussion. Mr. Leugenfeld said he only xished a lot more people lmex this. ADJOUSlAI6NT• MOTION by Leugenfeld, seconded by Bergraan� that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Co�niasion meeting of Auguat 18� 1976 adjourned at 11:55 P.M. by unanimous vote. RespectPully submitted� C�`�� % �i�i�C'l,tt 11z2 �� Sherri 0'Donnell� cording Secretary ��'�� . ��--4 � �� 9 - � Z � ,�� ,t� '��. �u/lf `�, � � t(� L ��d �� .� , �� : �, � — --- -- :� , �:�,�c-- � , ��:�.:-� __