Loading...
PL 03/17/1976 - 30440/"1 �;,.: � �, CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 17, 1976 P11,GE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at ?:40 P.M. ROLL CALL: � Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Peterson Members Absent: Wahlberg, Lagenfeld Others Present: Patricia Gabel, Vice Chairman of Appeals Commission LeeAnn Sporre, Member of Environmental Quality Commission Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE�PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH 3, 1976 � Mr. Bergman said the sixth stipulation on page 14 of these minutes read "Review if there was a need to only allow off street parking". He said that this should read " Review on-street parkir�g relative to street wzdths". MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the March 3, 1976 meeting as corrected. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Zy. iREC�IVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES: MI�RCH 9, 1976 Chairman Harris pointed ou� that these minutes contained this Commission's recommendation on 40' lots, which would be put on the agenda of the Planning Commission as soon as they got the recommendation of the Environmental Quality Commission. MOTION by.Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the Planni.ng Commission rec�ive the Community Development Commission minutes o.f' the meeting of March 9, 1976. Mr. Bergman said he would like to point out some of the highlights of these minutes. He said they had establish�d 5 points of conce-rn in regard to a t�en center in Fridley. Th�se were spa.ce, time, cost, accessibility, and validity of survey. He said there was a motion mac�e to communica-�e with the Human Resources Commission to see if they could obtain a timetable on this request by the Youth Project Committee, and �able any actiori Uy �he Community Development Commis- sion until this was determined. Mr. Scott said the Youth Committee Project Committee function was to advise the Human Resources Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council on youth activities. They themselves do not vicw themselves as an action-type Committee to run a youth center. They jus4 want to b� the means where mat�ers relating .to youths ar� brought to the attention of the.City. They are not sure that there was a nc�c�d tor the teen center. They arc conducting a youth rally on Thursday, Mar�i� 18, 197'6 in the Civic Center to determine if the young people in this � . __._ ..__ ,___,r,_.: , � . . _ . ..,,�,�..., Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 2 community want a teen center and if they would support it. They have gone out and got some professional assistance to pres��t to � the people who attend this rally�, both adults-and'young people, �-� different proposals from different teen centers around the Metropoli- tan Area. This way the young people who attend this rally, if they want a teen center can decide which way they want to go. He said that he would expect the Fridley Youth Project Committee to ultimately make a recommendation to the City on this proposal, and whether it was feasible or not, rather than they themselves run ni.ng a teen center. Mr. Scott said the young people would be running this youth rally, and they will permit adults to attend to listen to what they have to say. However, they have asked that the adults don't say anything unless they know what they are talking about, and they feel that that way, they wouldn't have too much adult participa- tion. They feel that this proposal for a teen center was something new, and they would like to get as many people involved as possible. Mr. 5cott said he thought it would be a good thing for adults to attend ju�.t to see how the young people conduct themselves. Mr. Bergman said they also passed a motion recommending to the Planning Commission that the ordinance be revised to require a . public hearing before a business license can be issued in a resi= . dential zoned area. He said the Community Development Commission was open to direction on this matter, and would like the Planning Commission's comments on how they think this should be handled. Mr. Bergman said this motion grew out of a home occupation license being granted with some conflict and concerns by the neighbors, � and particularly the surprise to this neighborhood. _ Mr. Boardman said he felt there was some misunderstanding by the Community Development Commission. He said there was no license requirement: for a home occupation• He said that none of the businesses in Fridley were licensed. Some of them were licensed by the State, and we do have some licences by activity, such as food, vending or liquor licenses, etc. He said that any activity that met the provisions for a home occupation did not have any review process by the City. He said that if someone wanted to have a beauty shop, for instance, in their home, they can do this without City review, although this requires a State license. They just have to meet the requirements of a home occupation. He said that many people check with the City administration to see if what they want to do in their home meets the home occupation requirements in the Code, but if they know these requirements, there was no reason for the Ci�ty to become involved under the present ordinance. Mr. Bergman asked then why the man in question did come to City Hall. Mr. Boardman said he just wanted to check on the home occupation requirements, and if his business met these requirements. Mr. Board- man said he thought the proposed business was blown all out of proportion. He said that because Columbia Heights does license business, and had denied him a license, and it was publicized in the Sun, everyone got upset. He said this man had a full time job, and had a small clientele. Mr. Bergman said the City ordinance on home occupations did not require that he contact the administration �l at all then. Mr. Boardman said this was correct. Mr. Harris said � that maybe that particular business should be licensed, and maybe the Community Development Commission should look at that possibility. u ,.. ... ,. . . .���l.... Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Boardman said that �f it pleased the Planning Commission he � I would prefer to have this go d5 one item under the Maintenance Code. ,,,, I We will be talking about business licenses in that section. He j said a determination could be made at that time, rather than Ihandling them as two separ�te items. Mr. Scott said he had some reservations about a business license for a home occupation because he thought they were treading on pretty thin ground when they start telling people what they could and could not da in their own home. He said a fellow in his neighborhood had a photography shop and he said some people could take offense of that. He said he thou�ht this should be handled in the review process when they dicussed business licenses. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES> MARCH 9, 1976 MOTION by Gabel, seconded by 5c�tt, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of the March 9, 1976 meetinq. Mrso Gabel said that on the variance request by Mr. Rotter to reduce the front yard setback from 35° to 25° to allow cons�ruction of a house at 8100 Ruth 5treet she would like to go over some of the points that helped us arrive at our decisiot� to approve this I variance. She said that Mr. Rotter was present at this meetinge n First, the terrain drops o�€ considerably in the back of the lo�, and for him to meet the 35` setback would be economically unfeasible. � Second, he would run into the water table if he met the normal setback requirement, because some of the neighbors did comment that sometimes their back yards were flooded, and this could happen on this lot also. Mrs. Gabel said that Mr. Rotter also agreed to put � up some type of shoring along the creek to prevent further erosion. I She said one of the other neighbors has already done this, and Mr. Rotter said he would be willing to work with this neighbor. Mr. � Ro�tter has also agreed to try to save trees.� on this wooded loto Mrs. Gabel said the Appeals Commission felt that the hardships invol�Ted on building on this lot were obvious enough to warr�ant a � I variance being granted. �, Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission had received a new administrative r�port on this request and a letter �rom a neighbor. He would like a motion to receive these, and then he would read them ta the audience. MOTION by Gabe1, seconded by 5cott, to receive the admanistrative staff report and the .Ietter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch of�8101 Fairmont Circle. Upon a voice vote, a1l voting aye, the motion •, carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPO.RT 8100 Ruth Street N.E. This repart was prepared in response to a request by the Appeals Commission in their March 9th, 1976 meeting consideration of a variance to the 35 foot front yard setback requirement at 8100 Ruth Street N.E. The staff was asked to determine if any governmental Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 � � Page 4 bodies or departments have imposed any restii•ctions on the proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek�in the area n in question. This report is to be presented to the Planning Commission at their March 17tht 1976 meeting in conjunction with their consideration of the March 9th Appeals Commission minutes. REPORT It was first determined that neither "Rice Creek Watershed District" or "Coon Creek Watershed District" were involved. (The area in question lies between their respective jurisdictions.) Spring Brook Creek can best be described as a"Public Waterway" in as much as it drains the North Park area which is designated as such. The Pollution Control Agency of Minnesota has no juriscliction in this area bn such questions as house setbacks from the Creeka The State Department of Natural Resources has no jurisdiction on work near a"Public Waterway", but they would require permits before any work could take place directly on the Creek banks or in the Creek itself. The City's Flood Plain Ordinance jurisdiction does involve�Spring Brook Creek, but only from -�he ngississippi River to East River Road. (The area in question is upstream from East River Roadm) Finally, the City of Fridley's Public Waterways section of the City Code addressesitself only to work on -che immediate banks of Spring Brook Creek or in the river bed itself. On �the basis of the above information, it.appears at present that there are no restrictions on the proximity of house footings to Spring Brook Creek in the 81G0 block on Ruth Street. How�ver, any work on this property on the banks of the Creek or in the Creek itseli should be first cleared through the City of Fridley Engineer, and also through the Department of Natural Resources. Prepared March 15, Ronald E. Holden Building Inspection 1976 by Officer The following is the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch: City of Fridley: To whom it may concern: � "In regards to the March 9th meeting at which time Mr. Dave Rotter requested the variance on Lot ��hanged from 35 feet to 20 feet from the cities 9 foot boulevard. At that meeting Mr. Rotter stated that he would build "regardless°' if he qot the variar�ce changed or not. But, is the lot actually "buildabl:e" at the 35' _ variance considering the size ot nouse he has lIl mind to build, which would be very close to the cr�ek bed, and also might cause : a problem with the water table if the variance is not changed. As it cvasdiscussddat the meeting, Mr. Rotter knew when he purchased "Spring Brook Addition", that Lot 4 would be difficult to build. �''1 A large house on Lot 4 may spoil the natural appearance of the � lot and area, and maybechange the flow of the creek. Is Mr. � � Rotter really interested ir� using Lot 4 for its best qualities, I _. . - - - __ . � _ , :. .�_ .__ _ _ �_ -., - . . . . . , - . . _`. .' _._.. - ' y. ; , ! Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 5 ! of a natural creek area or is his only interest building a I particular style house. Mr. Rotter also stated that the house ^ I that he has plans to build would increase the value.of the i properties around it. Maybe a different plan house that would '" compliment the natural surroundings of the lot and creek would I be,just as profitable to all concerned. If a house is to be � built on Lot 4, the 20 foot variance would probably be best in ! order to maintain the natural sorroundings of the 1ot and protect I the creek area. Mr. & Mrs. Robert Fritch, 8101 Fairmont Circle - I Lot 7 owners." Mr. Boardman gave Chairman Harris another letter that had just been received. MOTION by Gable, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receiv� the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Charles L. Klinefelter, 8145 Ruth Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris read the letter from Mr. & Mrs. Rlinefelter. " In reviewing the min�tes from the Appeals meeting, March 9th, we feel there have been a few points mis�ed. (1) If Mr. Rotter is asking for this variance to build a bigger and better home than the minimum code requires, he has the right to receive that variance. (2) We feel that if the lo� is kept at the 35 ft. set- back, whoever owns that property is limited to what he or she could build on it. This means there is a possibility of building n a low value ho�teo to mee� these codes, which could and �aould ' lower the value of the homes around i�. A higher value home will not only add tax dollars to our City, but increase the value of the surrounding homes. (3) If the real reason for opposition of � this variance is because someone doesn't want any home built on that lot, for whatever reason he or she may have, we suggest tha� person should try to buy that property from Mr. Rotter. This would not tie up someone else°s money for another's personal � reasons. (4) It was noted that some of the people fel-� there could be an aesthetic �r p oblem with a new home on that lot. We . believe we already have that problem there, with weeds, trash, beer cans, etc. We hope this (City) Council sees fit to reduce the setback, or whatever it takes, to allow this man to build. We believe he has the right to build the home he wants, as long •i as it stays as.close to codes �s possible under these unusual circumstances. Thank You." Signed by Chuck & Bonnie Klinefelter. Mr. Robert Venn� 8118 Ruth S�reet N.E., said his home was next idoor to the lot in question. He said he felt it would be best fo allow the petitioner to obtain a variance to construct this ihouse somewhere ahead of the required 35' setback. He said that � he knew the drop off from the back yard was extreme. He said that iin order to see to it that the neighborhood was maintained in a decent manner in terms of the kind of Structure that could be built on this lot, he thought the structure should match the �neighborhood as best it can. He said he would rather see th� , building farther forward and a nice structure, than to see something with very minimum standards. As far as the placement of this house obstructing the view, he �aid from his house in any A Planning Commission Meeting �- March 17, 187� � Page 6 in any direction, if they examined the curvature of the street, and notice the setback on the extreme ends of it, they all stand n further forward than what was requested with this variance, so this wasn't a big problem either. He really felt that the petitioner deserves to develop this 1ot in this manner. Mrs. John Walton, 8066 Ruth Street, said that their house was on the other side of the lot in question. She said that at the Appeals Meeting a lot of time was spent on the type of house that Mr. Rotter wanted to constuct on this lot. She said this lot was a peculiar shape and it had peculiar problems. She said that the Appeals Commission discussed whether they had the right to tell a property owner how to develop this property. She said that the Commission was divided on this issue. She said she felt this was a big house that would crowd the two houses on either side of tliis property. She thought the proposed house wouTd look like a big apartment building with residences on each side. She said '-hat Ruth Street curved right in front of this lot, and the Creek be3 took a lot from the back of the lot, so it left a small space that would be buildable. She said that the construction of this large house would destroy the look and feel oi the area. Mrs. Walton said she had asked at the Appeals Commission why there � was an ordinance which stated that the front yard setback had to be 35'. She said that she was told that it was for parking and aesthetic purposes. She said that Mr. Rotter was claiming that by developing this lot, it would improve the neighborhood, and on the other�hand he was saying that aesthetic considerations � should not be considered by the Commission. She said she liad no objection to Mr. Rotter building on this lot, but'she felt that a variance af that degree would be obnoxious, aesthetically. She said tMat Mr. Rotter bought up a lot of property at one time in this area, and he knew the problems he was buying with this lot. He knew that a house couldn't be built on this lot without a varianc�. She said that at this point in time sh.e felt that Mr. Rotter was building this la�ge house for self profit and self gain ta '�he detriment of every neighbor in this block and she protested. Mrs. Gerald Carney, 8125 Ruth Street, said that they lived directly across the street from the lot in guestion. She said she was told at the Appeals Commission that her feelings didn't count because she objected to this request for personal reasons. We have a smaller rambler type house, and the houses on this side of the street were smaller than the houses across the street. She felt that the type of home that Mr. Rotter wanted to build on this lot would lower the value of our homes because the� were not as�p�et�ntious as the othe� homes in the area. Mr. Harris told Mrs. Carney that her opinion counted. Mrs. Gable said she was sorry that Mrs. Carney got the opinion that her feelings didn't count because the Appeals Commission did spend an hour and a half coming to their decisioz�. She said that in regard to this house, it was being built on a 100' lot, and the only variance they had. asked for was the front setback, otherwise it did meet all the �`,� other setback requirements of the code. The Appeals Commission didn't feel this house was too large for the size of the l.ot. . _ . ,���`.-` Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 7 Chairman Harris said that he had been over and looked at the r"'� lot and he wondered if there was a site plan for this lot. Mr. .� I Boardman presented a drawing made by Mr. Rotter, showing the elevations on the lat and the terrain next to the creek bank. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Rotter how he would shore up the back of this lot. Mr. Rotter �aid that he would use railroad ties, and it would be a system of terraces done with railroad ties. He said it would he the same system that was used on the adjoining lot. He said the house was so designed that the end.o� the garage ; would be closest to the high water table. Mr. Harris asked the lot size: Mr. Boardman said it was 100' by 100'. On looking at the site plan, NLr. Harris said that this proposed house would meet all the other setback requirements except the front setback. Mr. Rotter said this would be a split entry home. Mrs. Sporre asked if by approving this variance so that a building permit could be issued if the City would,be liable if there was flood or water damage to this home from the Creek? Chairman Harris said no. Mrs. Sporre said there was a growing danger of flooding because �here was 2300 acres in that watershed. Mr. Harris said that from the top.of the bank to the normal water level of the Creek was 19'. rir. S�ott asked Mr. Rotter if he ha.d built other homes in this � i area? Mse Rotter said he had, rir. Scot'� ask�d the price range , of th� homes he ha�. buil•t. P�r. Rotter said from $45 000 to 85 000 a . $ � Mr. Scott asked if the hous� he proposed to build would be in that price range?' Mr. Rotter said it was comparable to the other ihouses he had buil�t in the area, somewhere in excess of $50,000. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Rotter if the �roposed home would be salable. , Mr. Rotter said it would be. ��, Mr. Harris asked if this would be a walk-out. Mr. Rotter said it had to be. Mr. Harris asked if he had thought about any other type of design for this house. Mr. Rotter said this design required the least amount of variance. He said he had asked for a 15' variance, but he wanted to use the least amount of variance as possible. He said he would try to set �the house as far back as possible �o try and maintain the look of the neighborhood and he would also like to save as many trees as possible. MdTIDN by Gabelr�seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that they concur with the Appeals�Commission in the approval of a front yard variance on Lot 4, Block 3, Bourdeaux's Spring Brook Addition, the same being 810'� Ruth Street, Mr. Bergman said he read in the Appeals Comznission minutes that if this house was built at the normal 35' setback that it would involve great expense. �ie as:ted Mr. Rotter if he could explain what this meant. Mr. Rottter said this house would cost between $55,000 to $65,000 depending upon the amount of work he would have to do .�n the back yard. He said that if he.met the setback require- ment he would have to remove six large oak trees, and it would cost $200 a stump to have these removed. He said there wouldn't Planning Commission Meeting = March 17,� 19�76 � Page 8 be any back yard then, and he would have to �uild�a series of decks so that his children would have someplace to play. Mr. Bergman asked if he had built the homes on Lot 3 and �ot 5. Mr. Rotter said he built the home on Lot 3 but not Lot 5. He' said they had to bring some material in for Lot 3 to bring up the rear yard. . Mr. John Waltont the owner of Lot 5, said they hadn't h�d any problem with their lot. Mr. Rotter said that Lot 3 looked a lot like lot 4 does now, but it had been shored up with railroad ties and terraced, and he would continue this same shoring on Lot 4. Mr. Bergman said he was trying to determine the neighbors: Mrs. Gabel said it seemed like were pretty evenly divided as far as being for variance. the feelings of the neighbors or against the Mrs. Gabel said that Mr. Rottei had agreed to two�stipulations which were to build a retaining wall and to set the house as far back as possible. Chairman Ha�ris said his concern was the bank preservation. He said that if this variance was granted, he thought the staff should pay particular attention to the bank preservation at the time the building permit was issued and during the construction. UPON�a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris said he had a question on an item that the Appeals Commission did not handle and that was on the blanket variance on the townhouses in Innsbruck Village. Why was that not handled? Mr. Boardman said it was the decision of the City Attorney that under the townhouse ordinance there were no setback require- ments. The townhouses were approved strictly through the town- house plan. Chairman Harris said he thought the attorney had better read the ordinance. It doesn't say that any place in the townhouse ordinance. He said the front yard setback was 35' in R-3 zoning and the townhouse ordinance was never meant to preclude the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman said it was the City �ttorney's�interpretation that the setbacks on a townho.use plan were approved with the plan. Mr. Harris asked if these variances were on a private road or a public street. Mr. Boardman said they were from a public street. Mr. Harris said then they should meet the setback requirements of a public street in his opinion. He said they could discuss this at the time they considered the townhouse plan for Innsbruck Village. � � Upon a voice vote on receiving�-of the Appeals Commission meetinv%� Scott, Bergman, voting aye,"Peterson,�GabeZ abst�ining, Harris, nay, Chairman;Narris�counting the two abstentions as 1 vate for appr�va?, he declared the motion car�ied. . , Mrs. Gabel said she felt this variance shouZd have been acted �'�1 n � Planning Commission Meeting - March i7, 1976 Page 9 upon by the Appeals Commission. Chairman Harris said he voted the way he did because the handling of the variance for these townhouses hadn't been answered to his satisfaction. 1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEAR2NG: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #76-02, BY PLYWOOD MINNESOTA, INC.: To allow the construction of a 10' x 30 billboard zn M-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), to designate the entrance to Plywood Minnesota and Wickes, to replace an existing non-conforming sign, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, located on Lot 9, Biock l, Great Northern Industrial Center, the same being 5301 East River Road N.E. Public Hearing open. Mr. Charles Seeger, Wickes Furniture, and Mr. Eugene Hunt, Plywood Minnesota, were present. � Mr. Seeger said they were back where they startedo He said he had talked to Tom Colbert, the Assistant City Engineer, and to Paul Ruud of Anoka Couni:y, and they would likE to have the intersection at 51st Avenue after the Industrial Park was developed. He said this development could be in 5 years, 10 years, or 27 years, who kno�vs? He said that what he was asking for was for someone to make a motion to allow us to do what we wanted to do in the first place, which was to take the present billboard and bring it up to the City Code< As he hacl said before, they would foot tfie bill for any other business that came into the area if they wanted their name added to this sign. He said that any ,time they were requested to take this sign down or to move the sign due to development or a change in the road, they would be very willing to do this. He said that in the mean time, they just wanted to help people to get to these two business establishments, and first and foremost he wanted them to ge� there without taking their lives in their hands. Chairman Harris said you couldn't get any help from the County at all then. Mr. Seeger said the help would be about 10 years down the road. He said they didn't want to jeopardize the public or two multi-million dollar businesses until the County got around to the problem. Mr, Peterson said that he was in complete sympathy with this problem. He said the only problem as he saw'it was that if this special use permit was approved for the sign, he didn':t know if this would take care of a lousy traffic situation. Mr. Seeger said he didn't dispute that this was not the solution to the traffic problem, but this was an interim solution until the City came up with a solution. He said that even if the City could solve this problem in 90 days, they would be willing to take this sign down then. Mr. Harris said he wouldn't hold his breath until the City and County came up with a solution, because so far we had got nothing. He said this problem was started at the time this industrial park was platted. He said this was zoned M-2 and at � P�anning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 10 the time it was platted it was never intended that we put 5,000 n cars a week into an industrial type operat"ion. What we have is two commercial enterprises f:n an industrial area. Mr. Harris said it had been his hope that we could have put some pressure on the County to solve this problem. MOTION'by Peterson, seconded b� GabeZ, that the Planning Com- mission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-02, by Plywood Minnesota, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing clos.ed at 9:03 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabe1, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council apprqval of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #76-02, by Plywood Minnesota, Inc., to allow the construction of a l0` x 30' billboard in M-2 Zoning (heavy industrial areas), to designate the entrance to Plywood Minnesota and Wickes, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, Iocated on Lot 9, B1ock 1, Great Northern Industr.ial Center, the same being 5301 East River Road N.E. with the stipulations that a directional arrow be added to the billboard and that new businesses be included on this sign, the cost of which being borne by Plywood and Wiskes. Mr. Scott said he was speaking against the motion because essentially what this was, was a traffic prablem.and building � billboards solves no traffic problem. He said this was a plain � and simple billboard that was in violation of the City Code. He said that if you want another non-conforming billboard in the City vote yes to this motion. If you want a traffic sign in this area, vote no to the motion. Mr. Bergman said that he felt the Planning Commission was being asked to bear a greater burden than was applicable. He said he somewhat concurred with Mr. Scott's statements. He thought the County was being wishy-washy in their responsiblity. He said he sympathized with Plywood Minnesota and GVickes who want to in the best fashion identify their business, but he said he was not sure that this was a City concern, but was a business concern. He said the request for this billboard was in conflict with the City ordinance in two of the eight criteria. He said that for lack of a better solution, the Planning Commission was being asked to recommend approval of a quick and dirty treatment, and he felt sensitive to giving approval to a nnn-conforming billboard. Mr. Peterson said he would speak in favor of the motion al.though he did not necessarily disagree with Mr. Scott or Mr. Bergman, but he did think the City had obligations towards its citizens who are �Gax paying members and who are in this situation that the City allowed when it granted building permits for this area. If the granting of a non-conforming billboard under the stipulation that if something was done to improve the traffic problem that the � petitioners•would be happy to tear it down, he felt that from that standpoint we did have an obligation to give a good City for our businesses to operate in. I�'laybe we were being asked to solve problems that we shouldn't, but on the other hand these businesses �'1 � Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 197.6 Page 11 were there, and we as a City have granted the building permits and the development plan that has caused the problem, so in that respect, the City does have an obligation. Mrs. Sporre said the Environmental 2uality Commission has formed an East River Road Project Committee because they under- stand that ther� are very many problems involved. We are concerned about the aesthetic beauty of East River Road and the problem that Mr. Peterson was addressing. She said they were also concerned about the safety of East River Road, and that was of paramount concern. Traffic problems would be something that the Committee would be addressing, but she understood this was a necessary stop-gap, and therefore she would recommend that-the Planning Commission approve this request because this wa�s something that had to be dealt with because people's lives were at stake. She hoped that the Committee could come up with a better solution in the future. Mrs. Gable said that she agreed with Mrs. Sporre. She said that she personally did not like to see another billboard go up, and a billboard will not solve the big traffic problem. It does seem that a directional sign would aid people in getting to thes� businesses. She said that both these businesses pay taxes ta the City of Fridley, and they have the right to direct people into ther.e business, so she was in favor of the motion. Upon a voice vote, Seott and Bergman voting nay, Harris, Peterson and Gabe1 voting aye, the motion carried. Mr. Seeger said he would continue to work with the City and the County for a better solution, but he thought the Planning Commission had made a wise decision for the present. At least it will keep the patient alive until the doctor gets theree 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT , P. S. # 7 6- O l, INNSBF.UCK NOR'I'H TOV�'NHOUSE IV AND V ADDITTONS, BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPr2ENT CORPORATION: Being a replat of Outlot H, Innsbruck North Addition, generally _located South of Innsbruck North Townhouses, Phase I, II, ana III. Public Hearing Closed. 3. CONTINUED: CONSIDER.ATI(.?N OF A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT O�' 100 UNITS, T- #76-0�, BY DARREL A. FAF�R DEVELOPMENT CORPOIZATION, F�R'INNSBRUCK NORTH TOWNHOU�E IV AND V ADDITIONS. � Mr. Darrel Farr and Jim London, along with an attorney, James Druck, were present. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public•Hearing on a preliminary p1at, P.S. � j #76-01, Z'nnsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, Chairman Narris declared the Public Hearing i reopened at 9:15 P.M. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 ��age 12 Chairman Harris said there were several concerns that were mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting; and questions �} were asked of the Darrel Farr Development Corporation and of the City staff. He said that there was a memorandum from Darrel Farr and the City's answer to that memorandum, plus the answers to questions asked of the City staff that were given to the Planning Commission just prior to this meeting. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Com- mission receive the Darrel Farr Memorandum, plus the memo to Dick Sobiech from JerroZd Boardman dated March 16, 1976. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Chairman.Harris said the first concern was that the streets did not me�et the City specifications. The Darrel Farr memorandum states on streets: 1. The City of Fridley is the grantee under the road easement from �he Fridley line across New Brighton to the 5ilver Lake Road. (Paragra�h 3, Page 2, Development Agreement dated February 1, 1971) a. The taxes being paid on the townhouses p�esently in place iri the Black Forest is in the area of $200,000 exclusive of single-family houses. b. It seems reasonable that Fridley should maintain and plow North Innsbruck Drive until such time as the permanentroad is constructed. 2. The road from the Fridley line to Silver Lake Road was built according to City specifications and with the City's approval. (Paragraph 4, Page 3, of the Development Agreement.) ,,.-� Chairman Harris said that the City staff's reply to these two - -it�ms was the followinge l. & 2. The City should not, at this time, take over the maintenance of the road easement from the City line to Silver Lake Road. This road is the primary entrance and exit for all construction vehicles and should be the responsi- bility of the developer so long as development is still occurring. Agreements for this maintenance should be drawn up as a stipula- tion for plat approval. At that time when construction is com- plete, and if New Brighton has not firmed up road development in this area, the City could consider take over of the maintenance of this road if.the developer would insure that the road is brouqht up to City standards. Mr. James Druck gave the Planning Commission a copy o� the Development Agreement. - Chairman Harris said that item 3 under streets in the Darrel Farr memo states: 3. The Developmen� Agreement sets out on Paragraph 5, Page 3, that all s�treets and utilities in the town- house area shall be approved by the City of Fridley. Mr. Board- man's answer to that was "The streets and ultities in the Townhouse Association property have been constructed to spe�ifications ap- proved by the City. There should be no additional burden to the Association for repair or maintenance over that of a normal resi- dential street. Although the width of the private streets are �` not necessarily the same as a residential street for public use, they were approved by the City." Number 4 in the Darrel Farx memo states: 4. As regards street repair for construction traffic �,::�.�:�;, - - Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 13 in Addition 4 and 5, the following: a. West Bavarian Pass was designed with future construction traffic in mind and as such �1 is a nine ton road consistingaof a 4 1/2" asphalt and a 1 1/2" u wear course. b. Although we will be using both West Bavarian Pass and Meister Road for construction traffic, we will, to the best of our ability, restrict heavy vehicles to West Bavarian Pass. c. We will escrow $10,000 at the start of construction with the Homeowner's Association to apply to resurfacing or repair of existing streets. This will be treated as a prepay- ment of fees required of the developer at the rate of $10.75 per month per lot. d. $10,000 should pay for a 2" overlay on Meister Road and West Bavarian Pass, e. We will block East Bavarian Pass from the end of the Vienna Townhomes to the Fifth Addition during construction. f. We will patch the asphalt during the construction period and will sweep the streets because of construction mud as needed. This wil"1 be done at the developer's expen�e. 5. The off-street parking in the Fourth and Fifth Addition has been requested by the City and is shown on the plan. Mr. B��rdir�an's memo in his answer said in regard to number 4. We fE�.l the memorandum covers the Association's concern on street � repair t3ue to construction traffic, and number 5. Off-street parkin�_-; is acceptable as shown on the plan. Mr. ��r_ said that in regard to his memo, they had met with �the Bo-: �f Directors of the North Townhouse Association last Friday '�t (March 12, 1976), and we discussed all the stree� problem: regard to the interior stree�s in the Association. (� We did c: �- to verbal agreement with them, and our legal counsel was draii_�_ng an agreement that would be signed and executed prior to the City Council meeiing of April 12th. Mr. Douglas Van Arkel, �resident of the Townhouse Association confirmed Mr. Farr's statemen�. Mr. Peterson asked if the negative statements that were made by people in the Townhouse Association had been answered by this memo. Mr. Van Arkel said the Association Was not as concerned as they had been about the interior streets, but they were sti11 concerned about the extension of North Innsbruck Drive between the Fridley line and Silver Lake Road. We still wonder how this problem can be solved. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Farr how much work would be involved in bringing the North Innsbruck Drive extension up to City stanards. Mr. Farr said he didn't know, but it would cost more money than he would want to pay. He said that what the City memo was saying was . _ that the City shouldn't take, over the maintenance of this road at this time. He said there would have to be some new type of agree- ment drawn up if he, as the developer, was expected to maintain that extension road at the present time, because his obligation to maintain that road had expired on February 18, 1976. He said that as this road needed repair now, he felt he was under some obligation to repair the road at this time. Mr. Peterson said that as Mr. � Farr was coming before the Planning Commission and the City Council for new development in this area, he would be very interested in how the problem of this road being maintained was going to be handled before he had to vote on these proposals. � � _.._ _ _ _ -- - _ - _ ._"�'"�`�. Planning Commission Meeting� -� March �1�7�, 1976� ' ��� Page ],4 Mr. Farr said that he thought a reasonable alternative, and. he hadn't discussed it with the City staff, was for us=to maintain/-°`�e road until such time as we complete constructian, which was a concessi.on on our part, and for the City to plow this road in the winter, because he felt this had been the biggest single problem. The equipment that we have to plow the Black Forest was not large enough to do an effective job. The equipment that the Townhouse Association has was not large enough to do the job either. He said th.� City already plows North In.nsbruck Drive, and for them to plow this additional 1300 feet between the City line and Silver Lake Road seemed a reasonable request, as this road was used by Fridley residents. He said that he.was agreeable that they would maintain the road until such time as the construction was completed if the City would plow the road in the winter time. Mr. Bergman said the pot holes in this street extension were getting deeper every day. Mrs. Gabel said she was completely confused on who was supposed to be responsible for this road. Chairman Harris said �chat was the crux of the problem. Thisstre�t seemed to be in limbo at the present time. - Mr. Harris said the Planning Commission had some.concerns about the parking for the recreational bu�lding. Mr. Farr's memo states: l. At the time of the planning and zoning, the City did not want to provide a�lot of parking in the area of the recr.e- ational building to preclude the use of the recreation building for things unrelated to the Homeowners Association, i.e., antique sales, etc. 2. We have provided parking for approximately 27 cars at present. 3. We can provide an additional 20 car parking on the east side of Meister Road and south of the recreation build- ing. a. This parking, because of the topographical conditions, would require the partial.filling of the low area east o� P4eister Road and the destruction of a very large area of trees. We in- tend to leave this decision to the Homeowner`s Assoc�.a��on. Mr. Harris said the City staff was agreeable to these statements. Mr. London said they had dicussed this with the Townhouse Assn. also, and they will make this decision by April lst. Mr. Van Arkel said that he felt this decision was up to the Townhause Association and was between them and Mr. Farr. He.didn't think this was up to the City, and they wouldn°t be involved in this decision. He said that many people in the Association were not in favor of the destruction of a great number of trees to provide more parking. Mr. �'arr said they were prepared to put in an additional 20 parking stalls at�the Homeowner's Assocation direction. Mr. Harris said that to back up, he asked Mr. Boardman what was meant in his memo about the maintenance of the extension road between the New Brighton line and Silver Lake Road. Mr. Boardman said that in the past, the City had a five year development agreement with Darrel Farr on the maintenance of this extension. He said the intent of that agreement woulcl that the construction would be entirely completed within these five years, and that by that time a decision would have been made by New Brighton for permanent road location. This wasn't the way it happened, but � � �-� �� ,.---- _ _ _„�:. - P�anning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 � '' Page 15 administration feels that as construction was still going on in the area, it should still be the responsiblity of the developer �...1 to maintain this road, and any responsiblity the City might have s would be after the construction was completed, if the road devel- opment plan hadn't been firmed.up by New Brighton at that time. He said the developer would still be using this extension 'for entraace and egress during the development of the property. He said that when the developer no longer owns property in this area, then he would then have no responsiblity in maintaining the road. Mr. Boardman said he didn't believe that this extension road ha� been constructed as a 9 ton road, and he didn't know if any inspec- tions had every been done on it. He said it was put in late in the fall, and by the next spring it was pretty well broken up. Mr. Peterson said that Mr. Farr has stated that he would be willing to maintain this road during construction, if the City would plow�the street, because this had been.inadequately done because of the size of the equipment used in this development. He asked Mr. Boardman if he �oresaw any problems with this pro- posal if the road was maintained in such condition that it could be plowed. Mr. Boardman said this was a decision that would have �o be discussed with the Public Works Director and the City Manager. Mr. Farr said this road was put in the day after Thanksgiving, and they knew it was going to break�up, but� they had to have some way for the people to get in an out of the area in the win�er � time. He said it was resurfaced the following springo Mr. Jim Lakaszewski, 1536 South Oberlin Circle, said that as far as he could understand, the Darrel Farr's agreement was at an end, and it's�he City of Fridley's turn to play the game with this extension. Mr. Boardman said that it was the in�ent of the agreement that it would be in effect until the construction was completed in this area. Mr. Peterson said that wasn°t what the agreement said. He said that most of the City adminis�ration tha� were here in 1971 are s�ill with the City. He said the agreement was signed that this would expire in five years, and now they want to change the rules of the game in the fourth quarter. Mr. Druck said that Mr. Farr did not have any quarrel about maintaining this road during construction, if in turn the City would agree to plow the street, because of the size of equipment. He said this would only be about 1/4 of a mile, and with all the streets that Fridley plows now, this wouldn't seem like too much of an additional burden. ' � Mr. Harris asked if the Planning Commissiori wanted.to go all through both memos before any additional comments were mude. Mr. � Peterson said he didn't think there was much problem with the rest of the memo. He said it seemed that the Homeowner's Assn. was satisfied with Mr. Farr's memo and the City staff was satisfied, and there was agreement on everything except the extension road of �}�, North Innsbruck Drive. Mr. Bergman said the North Innsbruck Drive was a fine street, - _ _ .� � Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 16 � . up to the Fridley boundary. At that point, it narrows appreciably to a 24' street which was curbless. He said this�street merely ,� follows the natural terrain with hills and vales, including some sl.ippery spots. He said he thought the bottom slope carried water across it, instead of being raised and having a culvert running under the road. He said there was quite an amount of gedestrian traffic with no place to �alk except along the edge of this curbless street which was presently poorly plowed. He said that �he statement in the staff inemo on this extension could mean that any actual improvement on this street could be ten years away. He said that with the increased density that will occur with the completion of this density will make this problem get worse instead of bet�er. He said he was concerned because we were discussing stop gap measures instead of addressing the real problem. Mr. Harris asked future to ha�e this it was. He said �he end of the improved gravel pit where it if it was the intent that at some time in the road connect t� Palmer Drive? Mre Lond�n G�?_d road would then start to curve right at the Nor�h Innsbruck Drive, and then around the would tie into Palmer Drive. _�. : Mr. Peterson asked if the easement had already been given for this proposed road. Mr. London said tha� at the time this road proposal was approved, they owned that property, but he didn't think there was an easement now. Mr. Boardman said that road pattern would be worked out when the property was developed in New Brighton. Mr. Peterson said then the only property that was under the control of rridley was the granted easement for the extension of North Innsbruck Drive to Silver Lake Road, so that's what they should be concerned with and not pie in the sky at some period in time that could be quite far into the future. Mr. Farr said that at the time these developments were planned in Fridley, they had also planned 1,000 units in New Brighton. The traffic study they had done, using the new street proposals did slZOw that this area would not have any traffic problems with that sireet plan. He said that if he still owned the.property in New Brighton,�he would hurry up and build this road. He did feel that if the extension road was really maintained, that people wouldn't be quite so upset with this road. Mrs. B. J. Ewers, said that she felt this 24' street was too narrow for two cars to pass now, and she d�dn't care what any traffic study said, she felt there had to be an answer to the traffic problem that existed today. � Mr. Stephen Tollison, 5538 Meister Road, said there was a question raised at the last meeting about the people in the townhouses paying the same taxes as people who 7ive on public � roads and have their streets maintained and plowed, as opposed � to people who have private roads, and bear all these costs themselves. Mr..Boardman said that taxation was based solely on valuation of � property, and not on services provided. (Several people in the �� audience took exception to this statement and said it was contrary to what they had been told by the Asssessor). I � �, Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 PagE 17 Mr. Harris then proceeded to read all the answers in the ,,� s�aff inemo which had been directed to�them at the last meeting. 1. The street specification is answered under I(3) of the '� memorandum. To date there has been no parking problem related to emergency vehicle operation that we are aware of in the Association property. If this does become the case, it is anticipated that 'no parking; signs could be located where needed. 2. Taxation is based solely on valuation of property, and not on services provided. The City will not take over the maintenance of the streets in the Townhouse Association. The roads do not meet right of way, setback and width requirements for public streets and any take Qver would set a precedence for the maintenance for other private developments. 3. The City of New Brighton will not take any positive action ori road construciion un�il the property is developedo They have been granted a State Aid connection when final location is decided upon. �� ,� Mr. Terry Wiley, 5571 East Bavarian Pass, said �hat as Y�one of their taxes were going towards the maintenance or plowing of their streets, then he thought it Shouls go towards giv�ng them a decent road to Silver Lake Road. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing on the considera�ion of a preliminary plat, P.S. �76-01, Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions, by Darrel A. Farr Deve2opment Corporation. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:15 P.Me Mr. Bergman said he thought they were involved in a step by step process here and what he thought should be step one would be to elimina�e the hazards on the extension of North Innsbruck Drive. MOTION b.y Bergman, seconded by Gabe1, ihat the Planning Commission _ request the City CounciZ to pass a resolution that the City adminis- tration get together with the Darrel Farr Development Corporation and physically view the extension of North Innsbruck Drive ap to Silver Lake Road, and establish an agreement for immediate correction of the present surface hazards. Mr. Peterson said that he spoke in favor of the motion, but he had some questions and one of the questions he had was what was fair for �he Darrel Farr Corporation because he felt that , he had come to this meeting with a good proposal, and he had tried to be agreeable. He said he was sure that Mr. Farr had no objection to meeting with the City in terms of looking at the road and in establishing wh�t should�be�done, but he has said that he would be willing to pay to repair the road. He said that before we make a motion like this, he thought some assurance should be given to Mr. Farr that we concur with his request for develop�ent. Mr. Bergman explained his motion, and said he wasn't toa concerned �on who.�ixed this road, just so that it got done. He said that if Darr�l Farr didn't want to fix the road without assurance that his' proposal would be approved, then he thought the City should fix the -.. _ _..-_ � _ . ,- . , . .. �' Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 18 pot holes. Mr. Boardman said that he didn't know if the City administration could take some action on this without Council � action, and the next Council�meeting was Agril 5th. He said a resolution took Council action, it wasn't a decision that could be made by the administration. Mr. Farr said that if they could get asphalt they would patch that road right away. Mr. Bergman said he would appreciate that. Mr. Harris said then there was no need for a resolution to have the City go out and patch the road. Mr. Bergman said that on the basis that Darrel Farr would patch the pot holes, he would WITHDRAW HIS MOTION. MrG. Gabel withdrew her second. . Mrs. Sporre asked who was going to plow the snow. Mr. Bergman said when he made the first motion, he knew there were many other problems to be addressed. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think the question of the extension of North Innsbruck Drive had been answered as had been requested at the last meeting. Mr. Boardman said he thought that it had. He said there were two positions on this street, the City administ�a-. tion's and Darrel Farr`s. He said th e Planning Commission should make a recommendation on how this conflict could be resolved, but it was a Council decisiono He said there would have to be a new � agreement worked out on this North Innsbruck Drive extension. He _�'. said that City administration could not say how it was going to be handled. It was not their decision to make. Mr. Bergman said that it seemed that if a developer says a street was going to be public, then it had to meet certain guidelines, but if a developer says a street was going to be private, then i� was no longer treated with the same guidelines or requirements, and he couldn't understand why this should be. Mr. Boardman said that the streets in a private development have to meet specifications approved by the City. When we talk about City specifications for streets in public areas we are talking about the required street width, the right of ways and setback requirements. He said there was a public responsibility the City had on public roads. Streets in a private area were no longer a public responsiblity was no longer in effect at the City level. This was the reason why although we approve the specifications far the construction of the roads as to mat and base, the street widths can vary for a private developmernt. Mr. 5cott said he thought it should have been outlined clearly what streets were the responsiblity of the City, what streets were the responsiblity of the developer, and what streets were the responsiblity of the Townhouse Association. He said he felt that the extension road from �the Fridley line to Silver Lake Road had , been badly bungled by the City, and because they had bungled in ,.� in putting a five year agreement on the maintenance of this road �� which has now expired and the development of the area was not completed, he felt it was the City's responsiblity to see that Fridley residents had a safe exit and entrance to North Innsbruck Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 19 Drive, and hopefully the City would take care not to get caught aga�in in this type of nonsense. �1 MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that a recess be dec3ared. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared a recess at 10:35 P.M. Chairman Harris reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 10:54 P.M. Mr. Terry Wiley, 5571 East Bavarian Pass, voiced his concerns. about the problems on the 24' streets during the construction of the townhouses in this plat. Mr. Harris said it had just been called to his attention that the Public Hearing had been closed on Inrisbruck North Townhouse zV and V Additions, and there were people who wanted to discuss problems in the 5�h Addition, sa this public hearing should be reopened. MOTION b� Peterson, seconded by Bergman, tlzaf the Pl.anning Commission reopen the Public Hearing for the consideration of a preliminary p1at, Innsbruck North Townhouse V Addition, by Darrel Farr, part of P.S. #76-01. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting aye, Chairman Harris dec.Zared the.Public Hearing open at .I0:52 P.M. ;� Mr. Wiley said there were itcems mentioned at the last meeting - that hadn't been discussed at this mee-�inge He said that it was s�tat�d -�hat East Bavarian Pass would be closed during construc�cion of the appro�ima�e number of 50 townhouses in this area. He said tha-t after the construction was coinpleted, and �he people from these 50 townhouses start using Eas�t Bavarian Pass, it was going to create a p�:oblem. He said it was very difficult �o back out of garages on East Bavarian Pass because there were usually people waiting to get on to Meister Road. He said he felt there should be a second exit for this area. Mr. Harris asked Mr. London if there was anything that could be done to eliminate the bottleneck to Meister Road? Mr. London ° said that East Bavarian Pass had been approved at the time of the Vienna Townhouse proposalo He said that the reason the two garages 50' from Meister Road were set so close to this road was because of the topograpliy of the area. Mr. Boardman said the Southern exit off East Bavarian Pass was quite steep, and if this exit•wasn't so steep, some of the traffic could go this way to Meister Road. He said the City would like to see two good exits from East Bavarian Pass. Mr. Wiley asked if there couldn't be another access that would join up with the s'ervice drive for the Heritage of Innsbruck \ Nursing Home? Mr. London�said the problem with trying to have ,� an access in this location was that we would be talking about � � another extension that went into New Brighton, and as there weren't � any road patterns established in this area in New Brighton it wouldn't be a solution now, but ultimately there could be an �. �_��' . Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 20__ access at that point. Mr. London said the IV and V Additions would be annexed by the present Townhouse Association, with all private roads. MOTIDN by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Innsbruck North Townhouse V Addition, by Darrel Farr Development Corporaton. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:05 P.M. � Mr. Peterson asked.if there was any way that the 24' road that was the extension of North Innsbruck Drive could be widened. Could the City obtain a larger easement so this could be widened to at least 36 feet? Mr. London said the City had a 66' easement for this road. Mr. Peterson said they had been under the impression that this was only a 24' easement. He said that this made a lot of difterence because. there was room to widen this street and even put in sidewalks. Mr. Peterson raised a point of information, and asked Chairman Harris what action they could take on this plat. nir. Harris said they could recommend approval of the plat with stipulations, or they cou.ld make a recommendation for a resolution on particular problemso Mr. Feterson said he was still in sympathy with Mr. Farr in developing this plat, but because of the discussion we have had on the 1500 feet of unsafe road, and the fact that we now find that th� City has a 66 ft. easemen-t for this road, he would like to see: some type of resolution that would express the concern of the Planning Commission to the City Council on behalf��of the citizenry, and that we would like to see a street put in on that easement that would meet all the City specifications for a public s�reet, that could be a shared cost of the City and the developer, or by an agreement that could be worked out with the developer, so that we don't have this continuing problem. � Chairman Harris said this could be handled as a separate item, but for himself, he would like to study this 1500 feet fur�her, and he didn't think he wanted to see the approval of this plat held up, while this road problem was being studied. He felt this road affected the entire area, and should be handled separate from the plat. Mr. Peterson said that his problem was that he approved of the plat, but he couldn't vote in favor of it, when there wasn't an adequate road to get the people in and out. Mrs. Sporre said there should be some assurance given to the people who would be buying these townhouses, that there was an adequate road to provide fire protection also. Mr. Harris said he agreed, but this was such a large and important issue, i he thought the road problem needed more time spent on it. Mr. % Peterson said he would like to make a motion to approv� the plat, �� and make one of the stipulations that their be a solution to the 1500 feet of road in New Brighton within a certain time frame. _ . --,�,�.� - Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 21 � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the PZann3ng - � Commission recommend to Council approval of the proposed plats, P:S. �76-01, Innsbruck North Tawnhouse IV and V Additions, by Datrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a replat of Outlot N, Innsbruck North Addition, generally Zocated South of Innsbruck North Townhouses, Phase I, II, and III, with the following stipulations: � \ � .� � 2. 2. Provide easement for public traiZ adjacent to neighborhood park. Plan specifications for streets and utilities are to be.submitted to the City for approval. 3. Off-street�parking of 4.25 stalZs per unit be provided on thoseunits fronting the 24' streets, 4 spaces sha11 be provided with each ind.'vidual unit, the additional spaces shouZd be provided in close proximity to the affected units. 4. Darrel Ae �arr Development Corporation wi11 provide recordable legal docomentation notifying purchaser that there wi1l be no noise buffer provided from inter- state traffic noise. 5. Trai1 development and trail lighting wi11 be completed with landscaping of adjac�nt units. 6. One tennis court wi1Z be provided on Association property and wi1l be completed with the completion of construction of the first 20 units in Phase IV. 7. One tot 1ot wi1l be provided on Association property in Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions with the completion of the first 20 units in Phase V. 8. City wiZ1 require a standard performance bond for exterior development (paths, lighting, tennis court and tot 10�) � of 50% of the anticipated cosi. 9. Thai within one month, the City administration and the Darrel Farr Development Corporation present a proposal to the Planning Commission for a solution to the 1500' extension oF North Innsbruck Drive to Silver Lake Road. (As any proposal for this extension would have to be at the City Council's direction, this one month time period would have to be from Apri1 5, 1976 (�ouncil meeting) to May 5, 1976 (Planning Commission meeting). UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman said the intent of the 9th stipulation was that this proposal come back to the Planning Commission for action at that time. Mr. Peterson said that was the intent of this stipulation. � . Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 22 Mr. Boardman said the units which would be built in units of two were basically the same as the townhouses that had been developed in Phase I, II, and III. Mr. London said there would be basically two types of buildings in the 4th and 5th Additions. He said one plan would be to have the two units separate and connected by a garage.. This type of building would fit on land that sloped up from the street. He said where the two buildings were-joined together would be where the land sloped down from the street, and would be generally the walk-out type. Mr. Scott asked the price range of the townhouses in these plats. Mr. London said they would be in the $40,000 to $50,000 price range. Mr. L�ndon said these plans have been taken to the North Innsbruck Townhouse Association, the Architectural Control Committee, and we got a lot of recommendations from them which have been incorporated in�o the plans for the new development. We did get the approval of this Committee. Mr. Boardman said the staff felt that the designs of the townhouses in these plats were compatible with the existing units. Mr. Farr said the revised figures for these townhouses would make the cost from $45,000 to $60,000. He said th� units were expandable, and could be as large as 5 bedrooms. He said the biggest unit had 2240 square feet and the smallest unit was about 1400 square feet. Mre Boardman said ihese were not the structural plar.s. They would be submitted at the time building permits were requested. �� Mr. Scott said he had some concerns about the limited range of the costs of these units. It tends to gravitate towards one specific group. He said that the Human Resources Commission felt �hat with innovative designs they could provide for more variety to provide for a broader range of income levels. Mr. Farr read from a 1974 study by the Metropolitan Council on Planned Unit Developments (PUD). He said this was on housing costs. He read "'It was difficult to ' single out one or two of the highest priced PUD's, but one would be the townhouses at � Cedarview with a top price of $65,000 and the single family homes of Innsbruck North which may sell for up to $80,000 or more. Developments having a diversity of price would include Briarwood, Innsbruck North, Shellv�ew, and Eagle Lake. The condominium's / of B�iarwood in Gol�en Valley sell for from $15,900 to 24,400. The Innsbruck North Apa�tment� �ill rent for $149 to $208 a month. A townhouse may be purchased for as little as $32,600 ��� and a single family detached house may be purchased in the range of $50,000 to $80,000." Mr. Scott asked if what Mr. Farr had read pertained to what had been developed, or if it included what 0 ,�, � ,� Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 23 was being proposed in this plat, and would what was in th�_ same townhouse assoc'iation be considered as one Planned Unit Development. ' � Mr. Boardman said that the Planned Unit Development was all of Innsbruck that Mr. Farr developed. The preliminary planned development that was approved by the City included the single family area, the townhouse are�, and the apartment area. This has been c9ns��ucted in phases, but it was all one planned development. He said he didn't think you could judge this by just one part of this development. MOTIDN by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommen� to CounciZ approval of a townhouse development of 100 units, T-#76-01, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, for Innsbruck North Townhouse IV and V Additions. - Mr. Berman said that he felt that in the context of the total p1an, that there was a very broad price range in thi5 development. Mr. Scott said that when he looked at the total development he saw pockets of this group living here, and another group living there, each group being of a certain income range. He said that in his opinion this was stereotyped planning, and he could see this developing the same as one group on one side of the tracks and another group on the other side of the'tracksa He said he would like to see a broader range of housing for a larger range of income groups. Mr. Farr said that this development covered 60 acres, and he thought that in those 60 acres this development did meet that criteria, and this was a fully integrated community. He said that in the same article he had read from before, it cites Tnnsbruck North as a fully integrated development as to styles of hausing, and price range. Mrso Sp.orre said she felt this whole development offered a variety ot life styles. She said that people who bought into a townhouse development were buying into an exclusion area, and did so because they wanted to be in a private area. She thought this fi� into the housing plan, because it did meet the needs of people who wanted a different life style, and Fridley should be proud that they can offer such a development. UPON a voice vote, Bergma�, Harris and Peterson voting aye, GabeZ abstaining, and Scott voting nay, the mo.tion carried. 4. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY _. PLAT, P.S. #76-02, INNSBRUCK VILLAGE, BY DARREL A.'�ARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Being a replat of Outlot B., Innsbruck �orth Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210' of Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, generally located North of North Innsbruck Drive and West of the Black Forest Apartment. Public Hearing closed. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 24 5., CONTINUED: CONSIDERATION OF A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT OF � 100 UNITS, T-#76-02, BY.DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, FOR INNSBRUCK VILLAGE. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission reopen the Public Hearing on the consideration of a preZirrtinary PZat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Village, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Upon a voice vote, aIZ voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 11:45 P.M. � Mr. Boa�dman said it was proposed to construct 25 4 unit townhouses on this plat. He said the preliminary agproval for this phase of th� Innsbruck development was for a 251 unit apartment complex to be constructed in this area, so instead � of having 251 units in this area, there will be 100 units. There are HUD monies involved in the dev�lopment so West Bavarian Road will be a public street �aith a_50'. right of way which will be a connecting street between Arthur Street and North Irinsbruck Drive. The spur roads in the development will be private streets, and this will have a separate Townhouse Association. Chairman Harris said this was the plat where there were structures too close to the the street, and where they had requested a blanket variance. Mr. Boardman said the City Attorney has said that any variar�ces needed were subject to approval with the approval of the townhouse development, and whether the Planning Commission agrees with his interpretation that this didn't have � to be heard by the Appeals Commission was up to them. He said that :now�ere in the townhouse ordinance does it mention setback requirements. Mr. Harris said this property was zoned R-3, and he felt they had to meet iche R-3 requirements on a public street. Mr. Boardman said that under the townhouse ordinance requirements, that this was the only time in our ordinances that there had to be both a plat approval and a plan approval. Mr. Boardman said he felt that this was the basis of the City Attorney's ruling. (Mr. Boardman and Mrs. Gabel both thought there had been requests far variances in other townhouse developments but a search was made through all townhouse data, and there was no record of any variances going through the Appeals Commission�.) Mrs. Sporre asked Mr. Boardman where this development did not meet the R-3 requirements. Mr. Boardman said the only require- ment they didn't meet was the setback from public right of way. The area requirements are met, the open space requirements axe met. He said the City Attorney has interpreted the townhouse ordinance that any area requirements, open space requirements, and setback requirements be part of the approval of the townhouse development, and this included any variances needed. Mrs. Sporre asked what variances they were being asked to approve in this townhouse plan? Mr. Boardman said it was the T,, 35' setback from public right of way. They.were asking for a 1 blank�t variance from 35' to 0' for the garage of some of the units. He sasaidhthe Warage doorstwouldrnot�face thePstreetine. Mr. Boardman g �.� Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 25 � Mr. Peterson said that if he remembered correctly, th� reason for the placement of the units as was presented was because � of the topography. Mr..:�oardman said there was a high ridge that pushed these units closer to the street. Mr. Scott said that as part of the A-95 review process the Human Rasources Commission was to conduct a hearing on this applicatian. Rather than have another public hearing, the minutes of this meeting will be part of that review. He said the A-95 review was a separate action. ` Mr. Farr said they had a model of the development, which he thought would answer a lot of questions that wereJermane to this development. He said that if a greater setback was required, it would have a diverse effect on thi�s development. Mr. Harris said that he wasn't even considering the pros and cons of t�.a variances. He was more concerned with the procedure they were following to grant the pronosed variance. He felt they were circumventing the zoning code. Mro Bergman asked Mro Farr to state the hardships involved in this variance request. Mr. Farr said the hardship was the cost consideration, and whether that would be classified as j a hardship, he didn't know. We want to keep these particular town- ��,.•1 h�t��es as low priced as passible. We are looking for young married couples. The size of the units vary between 800 to 900 squ�re feet. We would like to keep the price of these units in the mid $30,000. To dQ this, one of the considerations was to provide F.H.A. fi- Inancing, because the amoritization was greater and the down payment was less. In order to get F.H.A, financing, and because West Bavarian Pass connects to two public streets, North Znnsbruck Drive and Arthur Street, they have required that this street be a public street. He said those were the hardships that prevail. He said that by making West Bavarian Pass a public street and adhering to the 35' setback, the development would no� be viable. He said we would have to go to Plan B, and not have this as a public street, but go back to a private street, and this would have to be financed conventionally, or do something else. By making the s�reet wider, as you can see hy the model, we would be destroying a substantial part of the site. We would be destroy- ing trees, we would have to change the existing topography sub- stantially. The units are designed to fit into a hill. They all go up. We have tried to preserve public areas.. The drive side � and garage side are public areas, and the pedestrian areas are � private areas. He said that.as they widened West Bavarian Pass we had to push �he units together, so that we could develop a continuity of flow of the green areas. He said that instead of having 300' to 400' between units, we have 100' or 70' less than � that. He said they thought about the setbacks a great deal when they designed the units.• He said that he felt that one of the � reasons for this setback was to allow stacking of cars in front of a garage. All of the garages in this entire development �ere structured so that the cars drive,into the side of the garage. The side facing the street was a finished wall. There were no garage-doors facing the street. Each drive way was an L shaped .,. ... ..._ .... ... ... . � Planning Commission Meeting �-� 'Ma�rch� `1�7, 1976� � ' • • � � Page 26 ! , " drive. He said the only structures that would fall within the �,,, : normal setback line are the garages. The units themselves would be 40' back from the property line, so he didn't think this would cause any visual blight, because the garages were relatively small structures when compar�d to the units themselves. He said these were the basic reasons for asking for a variance, or whatever it is. � Mr. R. M. Rumpsa, 1481 North Innsbruck Drive, said that ; when the single homes were developed, they had to meet covenants that were established by the Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation. Now, when Mr. Farr wants to put in another development, it seems that this has come around about 180°, because this development doesn't even meet the setback requirements. He said that when he bought his lot, he knew there was supposed to be an apartment complex on this si'�e, and he wasn' t so sure that that wouldn t be still the best idea for this site. He said that by putting homes in the $33,000 to $39,000 range, that he felt that in 10 years, this would be a hell hole. � -Mrs. Sporre asked Mr. Farr if he knew of any other �.Qwnhouse development where the garages were set so close to the street. Mr. Farr said that in most townhouse developments the garages were quite close �o the stree�. Mrs. Sp�rre asked about public streets. Mr. Farr said that the only townhouse development that he knew of i that had alI public streets was in Albuquerque9 New M.exico. � Mr. Harris asked how wide West Bavarian Pass was going to - be. Mr. Boardman said there was a 50' right of way, and the � street would be 31'. Mr. Harris said he didn't think they should.be allowed to have a 31' street because all the other residential streets in Fridley were 36'. Mr. Boardman said the F.H.A. requirement was a 30' street, and that there were just as many 31' residential streets in Fridley as 36` wide streets. Mr. Harris said that he felt that any curved street should be a minimum of 36'. He said he lived on Riverview Terrace which was a 36' curved street, so he knew the problems. Mr. Scott said he understood that the townhouses in this plat would be a separate Townhouse Association. Mr. Farr said that was correct. Mr. Scott said he could see problems in the maintenance of this area, because people in this price range of homes wouldn't be able to maintain the area. Mr. Bergman said he wouldn't be able to vote in favor of this development because of the setback problems. He said he knew we were talking about setback problems versus nature, existing t�rrain, saving trees, etc. He said he knew everyone was in favor of saving trees, but they also wanted to see a reasonable amount of the setback requirements met. He said that with this street being 31' and the location of the garages, that he would feel like he was driving down an alley, wh.ich he felt was not � the intent of having a public street. He said a variance request from•35' to 0' does not recognize the setback requirement at all. Mr. Peterson said he felt very uncomfortable because the F� Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 27 Appeals Commission didn't debate this issue at their last meeting. r''� He asked Mrs. Gabel why this wasn't done. Mrs. Gabel said that > when this came to the Appeals Commission they were told the City Attorney's interpretation, and we were told we did not have to act on the variance request. Mr. Bergman said he didn't think they should get all hung up on procedure. If someone says we can approve or disapprove the plan, he would be willing to do that, considering the setback as part of the plan. Mrs. Gab�l said she couldn't agree with Mr. Farr that a garage placed 7 feet from the street wouldn`t be a visual blight, and she also felt that this would be a traffic hazard. . Mr. Boardman said that al.l the garages weren't at the 0' se�back. He said that instead of going through the variance procedure on every garage, they just asked for a blanket variance. He said that in most c�ses the gazages were setback at least 5' from the property line, and in other cases, it was a greater distance than tha�,• but the actual request was for a blanket variance. Mr. Harris asked if there was going to be concrete curb and gutter on the public street of West Bavarian Pass. Mr. Boardman said there would be. Mr. Harris said the street would � be built to City specification of 4" base and 2 1/2" ma�t. Mr. ;'"1 Boardman said i-� would. Mr. Harris asked if on-street parking would be allowed on ;this st�eet. Mr. Boardman said it wou.ld be allowed. Mr. Harris said that assuming �that a driving lane was 8', which would be tight, because normally they were 12', and with traffic in both directions, tha� would be 16',•which would leave 15' for parking. Mr. Boardman said there will be two parking spaces provided for each unit. Mr. Berganan said that in �the entire North Innsbruck area, this site has been chosen for townhouses for people of lower income families, and it seemed to him that lower income people didn't get setbacks and did get narrow stree�ts. Mr. Scott asked if there was a difference in the tax structure for a detached and attached garage. Mr. Boardman said he couldn't answer that question. (Note: City Assessing offiee said that there was no difference in the �ax structure.) Mr. Farr said that he thought this townhouse development .incorporated as many good planning features as he had ever seen in a plan. He again quoted from the Metropolitan Council report. - " The Respect for Topography in;Shaping Development: �2'he housing , can be built around the natural land features, ecologically important bodies of water, marsh, woodlands, steep slopes, can remain in their natural state. In an area of gentle slopes, or terrace. townhouses may be built to.advantage. Narrow Curbed or Dead-end � Residential Streets: Planned Unit Developments can be flexible in their use of roadways unlike the conventional grid or..�urved - . _.__: ._ . . __ _ _ _ �..__._ _ . _}.._ �.. ._ - " _ - - �'� Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 28 linear street patterns in tradi�ional housi�� developments. r""1 Residential privacy and safe.ty may be enhanced by streets that are designed for minimum traffic and reduced speed. Narrow streets cover less valuable land as well as inhibiting heavy high speed traffic, as well as improve the appearance of_the neighborhood." Mr. Farr�said these units in this development were not closer together than the units in other townhouse additions. The fact that the setbacks were wrong because this was designed for lower income people was not correct because. the distance from garage to garage tQ street was closer in the other townhouse developments, where we were talking in a price range of $45,000 to $60,000. He said that if the public street was going to be a problem, then he guessed that they didn't need a public street. Mr. Harris said there were some things that went with a public street th�z� weren't requirements with a private street. • Mr. Peterson said this could eliminate some people from being able to purchase a townhouse in this area, if this went to a private street, because then this deveZopment wouldn't meet the F.HoA. requiremente Mr. Farr said they felt that it would eliminate F.H.A. financing. ° Mr. Farr said he would like to read one more paragraph from the Metropoli�an Council report. "Providing diversity of costs � within Planned Unit Develapments was perhaps one of the more �� important goals to be eventually meto Public attention should be directed to deve].op flexible public programs tha�_..��1� enable a varie�y of ho�sing types and costs to be 'increased within Planned Unit Developments. The Metropolitan Council will be watching the housing trends in this respect and will continue to explore various means by which the goal of increased diversity of housing costs �__ may be met in PUD's." Mr. Farr said he understood that the City had ordinances, and �hat they had to live with them. He said that he didn't believe in Metropolitan government, but he firmly believed that Metropolitan government was making tremendous inroads into local government, and this may be because of the inflexibility of some of the local ordinances. He said this may be far afield from what he was addressing here, but he said that ordinances were made by people, and people can change them, and he believed there should be more flexibility in local government. He said that all the considerations the Planning Commissian had brought out were valid. Someone who couldn't see around the carner, snow removal, street repair, emergency vehicles access, they were all very valid, and he appreciated all those concerns. Fie wasn't sure that this project as it was designed, did not provide for all these things. Mrs. Sporre said just to point out that we didn't live in � the dark ages in Fridley, the Environmental Quality Commission i had as a goal to fos��r and promote innovative designs and she �"� ', understood �r. Farr's attempt �o preserve the contours and retain as much as you can of a beautiful site. Mrs. Sporre said that �she couldn't make a motion, but she would like to have this ���� � � Planning Commission Meet�ng - March.l7g �1976 Page 29 r"'� sent to the Environmental Quality Commission to review the benefits � of the plan as far as environmental concerns, and it might help � in the final decision. Mr. Scott said that he agreed with Mr. Farr as to local government sometimes being inflexible. He said that he himSelf was a,n advocate of this. He said that as far as PUD developments he didn't feel that there was adequate basis to drawn conclusions from. He said that if the Metropolitan Council and HUD thought that they could sit in St. Paul and make these kind of decisions, they wouldn't be sending it to a small Commission such as the Human Resources Commission for part of the A-95 review. They have asked us to review these proposals to see if they were consistent with�what the intention of the program was. He said that both HUD and Metropolitan Council have said that.you don't concentrate low income people, because they have had disastrous results. He said that he felt with onlv a$6,000 difference in price range for these units, �hat �here cauld be serious problems. Mr. Scott said that what �hey were looking at he didn't feel wds a PUD. Mr. Farr said that was just part of the development, and the entire concept of Innsbruck was a PUD, even if that wasn't the term applied to it. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Farr if it would be possible to widen West Ha�=arian Pass to 36'? Mr. Farr said he didn't feel that � this ��:. necessaryo The regulations for F.H.A. only require a 30' s,_ �t, but if the City felt i� was necessary, it was probably � somet}: 3 that they could do. Mr. Harris said that curved s�reets were ���roblem, and he felt that this street should be 36' wide> Mr. Farr said that with the design of this development, a 36' stree�t might be to their advan�age. Mrs. Gabel asked how far back of the garages were the hom�� located. Mre Farr said it was about 30 feet. Mrs. Gabel asked if they couldn't be moved back farther from the street? Mro Farr said it was pretty hard to tell from a piece of paper, but the topography of the area makes it very difficult. He said that all the trees were located on the slopes. Chairman Harris asked everyone to look at the model, and maybe someone could come up with an idea for this site. Mr. Farr explained the topography and the placement of the units. He said that some of the units �ere designed all on one level, for what he called "empty nest" people, people who have raised their families and were again alone, and wanted a smaller place to take care of. Mr. Farr said he had put in more work on this site, than any of the other sites he had developed. He said they had been working on a plan for this site since August of.1975. Mr. Scott said he didn't see anywhere on this development where there was recreation provided for young people. Mr. Farr �'� said this land was adjacent to the City park to the North and there was a tot lot provided�.to the East by the Black Forest Apartment. He said they would be constructing two tennis courts in the City Park, and there was a tot lot adjacent to this site across North Innsbruck Drive. Mr. Scott said that small children Planning Commission Meeting - March ],7, 1976 '� Pacte �30 I would not walk two blocks to a park. He said that as this site � was expected to be attractive to young people, he didn't feel that there wer� adequate facilities for young people. Mr. Bergman asked Mre Farr if he would consider some of the elements in this proposed plat. His particular concerns werE the lack of setback and the street width, and parking, and he was wondering if Mr. Farr was willing to consider a compromise on the setback requirement. Mr. Farr said that any movement of the units would have an adverse effect on the wooded areas and he wondered what type of compromise he had in mind. Mr. Bergman said he would rather vary the setback from 35' to 20' rather than the 0'. He said this was his personal opinion, but due to the hardships of the site, he felt this was a resonable , compromise. Mr. Bergman said the other alternative was for Mr. Farr to request a r=ecommendation on the plat as it has been presented. Mr. Farr said that he could not economically reduce the density in this plat. He said he had a lot of money in this land. He said it was zoned and planned for a 251 unit apartment building. He said th�.t he really didn't want to build a 251 unit. apartment building and h� was not saying that if they didn't approve thi.s, he was going to build a 251 unit apartment building. He said that he felt this plan filled a needed gap in our housing mix in that part of the world, and he hones�ly believed that thiandlhe was � as well though� out as any plan he had•come across, q_i. saying that in all sincerity. Mr. Rumpsa and another property owner from the single family homes said they would. rather see a 251 unit apartment on this site. MOTTON by 5cott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Corr�mission close the Public Hearing on consiaeration of a pre- liminary p1at, P.S. #�76-02, Innsbruck Village, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporatione Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Pu.�lic Hear�r�'g closed at 12:55 P.M- MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Gabel, that the P.Zanning P.s• Commission recommend to Council denial of the proposed p.iat, #76-02, Innsbruck Village, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, being a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 92, gerierally located North of Nortl� Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the Black Forest Apart- � ment, primarily because of the lack of setback from the public street. � Mrs. Sporre asked why they had made a motion for denial. She felt it should have been tabled, and the problems resolved. Mr. Bergman said that his personal view was that this'wa� the '� proper.action at this time. Mrs. Sporre said that a motion for denial�closes the door. Mr. Scott said tha�t it closed the door on tYiis plan. Mr. Boardman said no, it closes the door for any plan for six months. Mrs. Sporre said she thought this plan should be studied in further depth. 5he said that the Environmental Planning Commission Meeti.ng - March 17, 1976 Page 31 Quality Commiss'ion hadn't even looked at this plan yet. She said ^ that M� Farr's claim.that they.had made an eloquent attempt to '' save, preserve and utilize the site to its fullest potential,_��d she realized they had used the•lowlands for the road, and have classified high lands as better, and she had some problems with that, but she felt that the Environmental Quality Commission could work with Mr. Farr and develop this into the kind of a�plan Mr. Farr would like to have, and she would like to see him have the opportunity. She said this plan was implementing one of the goals of her Commission which was to use innovative designs to utilize a site to its best potential. Mrs. Gabel said she was not aware that a motion for denial would mean that Mr. Farr could not come back with any plan for this site for six months when she seconded the motion. She said she would like to withdraw her second to the motion, because she would like Mr. Farr to have the opportunity to present a better plan. Mr. Scott questioned whether the second could be withdrawn. He said a motion to table would supercede the motion for denial and he would make such a mo'cion. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission table the consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #76-02, Innsbruck Village, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corpor- ation, beinq a replat of Outlot B, Innsbruck North Addition, along with Lot 49, except the Westerly 210 feet, Auditor'� � Subdivision No 92, generally Zocated North Of Norih Innsbruck Drive N.E. and West of the B1ack Forest Apartmen�t, because he felt that Mr. Farr had a good p1an, but there were problems that had to be worked out, and this should be reviewed by any member Commission who wished to review it, and it come back on the • PZanning Commission agenda as soon as possible. Upon a voice vote� a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by PeL-erson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission table the consideration of a townhouse development of I00 Units, T-#76-02, by Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation, for Innsbruck Village, until they reconsider the pZat. Upon a voice vote, Bergman, Harris, Peterson, Gabe1 voting aye, Scott nay, the motion carried. Mr. Boardman said that due to the lateness of the hour, the petitioner for the next request had left the meeting, but he had agreed to the stipulations that Mr. Boardman would be nee�ed on this request, but because there were still people waiting in the audience for the following item on the agenda; he asked if the order of the agenda could be changed. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the order of the agenda be suspended, to accommo'da�e the p�aple in the audience. Upon a•voice vote, a11 voting aye, the agenda was amendea. ,'� 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP # 76-04, BY HENNING NELSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: To permit the � construction of a duplex and or a double bungalow, in an R-1 District (single family dwelling areas), per Fridley City Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 32 Code, Section 14, 15 and 16, located South Road N.E. 205.051, 3, D, to be located on Lots 13, � Block 2, Riverwood Manor Addition, generally of 71st Way N.E. and West of East River No one was present to represent the petitioner. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-04, by Henning Nelson Construction Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairmari Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 1:05 A.M. Mr. Boardman said that since this request had been made, Lot 13 had been sold as a single family lot, and a building permit had already been issued, so this request will just be an Lots 14, 15 and 16. He said that in 1974 fihis petitioner had appeared before the Planning Commission ar�d Council to rezone this property to R-3, so they could build a 24 unit apartment complex on this property. This request was denied by the Planning Commission and Council. He said that this proper�y was still zoned R-1 and the petitioner was�requesting a special use permit to allow dauble bungalow�s or duplexes to be constructed on the se lo-cs . ' Mre Gerald Rossow, 6881 Washington Street N.E., said that he had just recently purchased Lot 13, and his new home was in the process of bein,g built. He said that at the time he purchased this lot from the Henning Nelson Company, no mention was made that they were going to request a Special Use Permit to build a double bungalow right next to his new home, so he didn'�c feel that they had operated in good faith. He said that if soneone from the City staff hadn't called him at 4:00 today (March 17th), he wouldn't have known anything about this proposal. He said that he felt that the petitioner hadn't made any effort to build single family homes on these lots. He said hz had negotiated with Henning Nelson a long time before he would agree to sell him the lot. He said that he had heard that other people were interested in these lots, arid they hadn't been able to purchase them either. He told the Planning Conunission that these lots should be'retained for R-1 developmerzt. � Mrs. Kermit Bender, 146 71st Way N.E., asked if this request was still valid when one of the lots had been sold. Mr. Harris said a request can always be reduced, but nothing could be added to it. Mrs. Bender said tha� no one from the Henning Nelson , Construction Company had�appeared at this meeting, and this company has done this before to this neighborhood at the time of the rezoning. She said they have all sat at this meeting for six hours'� and she thought the petitioner should have been here and presen'ted a plan. Mr. Harris said it was not spelled out in the ordinance that he had to have a plan. He probably wouldn't want to draw up any plans unless he knew the special use had been granted. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17,� 1976 Page 33 Mr. Boardman said that Mrs. Bender seemed to be asking if n the Planning Commission could act on this request when the °` petitioner hadn't come to the meeting. Chairman Harris said they could. He said they would only be making a recommendation to the City Council, and the petitioner could come to the City Council meeting. He said that before he could vote affirmatively on this request, he would want to see a plan. William May, 184 71st Way N.E., said that these three lots were the only empty lots in a completely residential area that was across from the school. He said he felt that unless the owner of a double bungalow lived �in one of the units, double bungalows were not maintained. He said that 4 single family homes had been sold,in the last 4 months in this area, so single family homes would sell in this area. He couldn't see double bungalows on these three lots. Mr. Gordon Sangster, 7159 Riverview Terrace, said he iust wanted to stress that most people who live in this area felt that,i vaas a single family area, and that building three double bt�ngaldws or duplexes at the entrance into this area would be an encroachment into this single family developmento He felt these lots should be develaped as single family homes. Mre Roger Claegens, 7130 Riverview Terrace, said they were ' the oldest residents.in this particular.neighborhood.. He said '� that he thought it was wrong for the Henning Nelson Construction Company to make this reqaest, and th�n not even have the courtesy to let anyone know that they wouldn't appear at this meeting. He.said that proposal was about the same as rezoning, and if it was approved, he thought it would destroy the concep� of a very nice neighborhood, or at least the entrance to a very nice neighborhood. Mr. Leonard Litzner, 180 71st Way N.E., said that if there had b�en mu.l�iple dwellings in this area before he boughi� his house, he would never have moved into this area. He said he liked this neighborhood the way it was, and he thought these ° double bungalows would lower t�he property�values in this area. Mr. W. J. Engelhardt, 7120 Riverview Terrace, said tha� he was one of the developers of this property, and at the time they came to the Planning Commission they were told that this had to be developed as an-R-1 project, and he felt it should be left that way. He thought there should still be majority rule, and -� all the property owners in this area wanted it to stay R-l. Cliairman Harris said that any property owner has the right to petition for rezoning or a special use permit, and they have the right to be heard. Mr. Litzner asked what was gaing to happen because the � petitoner wasn't at this meeting. Were the neighbors supposed to spend 5 or 6 hours at every Planning Commission meeting until he appeared, or could they make a motion for approval or deni:al on th�is request, or would they have to table it? Chairman Harris said that if the Planning Commission wished to do so, they could Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1865 Page 34 act on this request at this meeting. Mr. Rossow said he had met a lot of nice new neighbors at this meeting, but he did want to mention that his contractor had been at this meeting until 1:00 and then he had to leave. He said his contractor had just picked up the building permit for Mr. Rossow's home last Fridap (March 12th) and no one had told the contractor about this request to construct double bungalows next to his building site, so the contractor felt that he had been put in an unfair position also. Mr. EngeThardt said that he didn't think that Henning Nelson should be able.to keep making requests on this property that was against how the majority felt in this neighborhood. Mr. Harris said that if this request was denied, the petitioner would have to wait six months before he could make any other request for this property. �'1 Mrs. Gabel said she was disappointed that the petitioner did not appear at this meeting, because there were a couple of questions she would have liked to have asked. She said that she noticed in reviewing the minutes on the rezoning request, that he had left the neighbors in the lurch like this before. She said she could see their point when they come and sit at a meeting for six hours, and then the petitioner didn't show up. She felt this was rather inconsidera���.' � Mre Harris said that on page 84 and 85 of their agenda, ;� there were minutes of the rezoning request on this same property from May 22, 1974, and it listed the reasons why the rezoning request was deniede Mr. Scott said the problem he had with this reques� was because the peti�ioner was not here to develop his plan, but he did see multiple dwellings as a means of intergrating le�� fortunate me�bers of our society, and felt that you could build a dauble bungalow in a neighborhood without destroying the values of a neighborhoo�, as long as these were not co•ncentrated areas. He said he felt that a person had the right to do what the law allows him to do with his own property, and he felt this was a valid request. He said that we were going to have to understand that there were people in this country who couldn't afford the living standards that most of us enjoy. Somewhere along the line, these people have got to be 'integrated into our society and he thought multiple dwellings was a means of doing this as long as this was done on a limited basis. He said that because there was no plan presented at this meeting, he couldn't vote for this request, but he thought this was �a valid request. Mr. Sangster said he appreciated Mr. 5cott's comments, but if he been at the rezoning hearings, he would have heard Mr. Reinertson state that they had so much money invested in these lots that they could not afford to develop them as R-1 propesty, � and so the reasons for building multiple dwellings on these lots were not for helping to 'intergrate less fortunate people into our society, but for monetary reasons only. Mr. Scott said he Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 35 didn't know if he could approve of having three double bungalows � together, but if the petitioner had come to the meeting, he might have been in favor of a double bungalow on the first lot, i� th� �� petitioner had come in with a plan that was aesthetically pleasing. Mrs. Sporre said that on page 3 of the Planning Commission minutes of April 17th, 1974, Mr. Reinertson stated "..a complex of 12 to 16 units would be economically feasible to build, below this number of units it.would have to go to double bungalows and this would not enhance the neighborhood". Mr�. Sporre said that as the petitioner did not appear at this meeting, we have his opinion on double bungalows from these minutes. Bhe said they had listened to a great number of people from this neighbor- hood and their objections to this proposal. Mr. Jerry �ossow was living proof that there was a marke� for these R-1 lots for single family development, and if' people were willing to try as hard as he did, that it was possible to purchase these lots. M�. Eberhardt said he had approached this company about buying one lot, and was told that they wouldn't sell one lot. Mrs. Bender said they have heard of this prope�ty owner's right to petition for whatever he could lawfully do with his property. She wondered what her rights were as a property owner when what the property owner wanted to do was something that she did not want next door to her, until Jerry Rossow's house n was finished. Mr. Scott said her right was to come to this � meeting and state her opinion�of t�is request. He said the nurpose o� holding a Public Hearing was so that everyone could be heard, and after that to make a recommendation based on the testimony at the hearing. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Scott, that the PZanning Commission close the Pub�ic Nearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-04, by Henning Nelson Construction Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 1:40 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Gabe1, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council denial of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-04, by Henning Nelson Construction Company, to permit the construction of a duplex and/or a double bungalow in an R-1 District (single family dwelling areas) per Fridley City Code,Secti%on 205.05 1, 3, D, to be located on Lots 13, 14, 1S and I6, Block 2, Riverwood Manor Addition, generally located South of 71st Way N.E. and West of East River Road N.E. for the following reasons: 1. This proposal was not compa�ible with neighborhood. 2. The absenee• of �he petitioner from this hearing. �1 � 3: Ob 'ection of ad 'acent .J ) property owners to proposal 4. Due to petitioner's own statement in the PZanning Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 36 Minutes of Apr.i1 17, 1974, that double bungalows wovld not enhance this neighborhood.. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mot�on carried unanimously. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #76-03, BY LYNDALE TERMINAL COMPANY: To allow the location of a garden center in the Northeast corner of the parking 1ot of Holiday Village North, per Fridley Ci�y Code, Section 205..101, 3, N, lacated on Part of Lot 13, Auditor's Sub- division No. 155, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. MOTION by Pete�son, seconded by Gabel, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP�#76-03, by Lyndale Terminal Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing a� I:43 A.M. � Mro Boardman said that Brad Steinman from Lyndale Terminal Company and Roger Johnson, manager of Holiday Village North had been at this meeting, but they had to leave due to the lateness of the hour, but they did agree verbally before they left, to all the stipulations that the administration thought should be on this request. Mr. Boardman said that it was because of the rezoning of this property, that the administration felt that the garden cen�er should be under a Special Use Permit as was required � in the City Code, even though this garden center has been in - existence for many years. Mr. Boardman said that the administration would like to see the following stipu��ations on this special use permit: 1. That this Special Use Permit be granted for three years at the present location for a garden center, at which time, a d��ision be made by Holiday as . to the permanent location would have to be made, and then permanent landscaping and a permanent site improvement for this garden center be done at that time. . Mr. Boardman said the reason for this stipulation was because this garden center had been at this location for a number of years and it would be an undue hardship to cancel out this operation at this location, but during a certain time frame, because if Holiday lost this operation, they �rould be losing between $20,000 to $60,000, through operating time. He said the petitioner has agreed that this was a reasonable time in which'to determine where the permanent location should be. He said that at the present location, all of the s_tru�.tures that were presently on the site would be torn down, and there would be no outside storage on this site, other than the garden center, as was presently being done.' When the � garden season was over, there will be notYiing on this site. 'Mr. Peterson said that this should solve some of the problems �.hey had heard from the neighbors during the rezoning hearing. Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1976 Page 37_ Mr. Boardman said the landscaping that they agreed to with n the rezoning should all be done by this fall. Trees.will replace _ the low shrubs which tended to be a catch all for trash, so it should be much easier to keep �his parking lot clean. n � Mrs. Gabel.asked about the general housekeeping of this site. She said she has seen it when it was really bad. Mr. Boardman said he thought they were making a tremendous effort w�th their housekeeping. He said that Bradley 5teinman had said at the rezoning hearing that,any_ neighbor could call him direct with any complaints they had on the housekeeping of this site, and he thought the results were showing, and after the landscaping plan was completed, it would be bettera Mr. Harris asked with the two special use permits in the pa.rking lot, if there would still be enough parking stalls to meet the Code requirements� Mr. P�ardman said they would �ome pretty close to meeting the code requirements, and it would be hard to deny this special use permit, because the garden center has been in operation for many years. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman to check and see w���t require- ments had to be met to have a carnival operation in a parking lot for a retail establishment. He said they had this at Holiday and in the Holly Centero at certain times of the year. MOTION by 5cott, seconded b� Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-03, by L�ndale Terminal Compa-n�. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 1:55 A.M. Mr� Scot� asked f�or the staff recommendation. Mr. Boardman said they recommended that the garden center be allowed at its presen� location for three years, with a permanent site being decided at that time, with permanent landscaping and permanent site improveinent being done at that time. You could also add the stipulation that there be no outside storage of material at this location except during the garden center season, and that the present iocation be cleaned up. He said these stipulations had already been agreed to by the petitioner, but it would.be better to have them stated as stipulations. Mr. Peterson said he had a personal bias on both sides�on this request. MOTIDN by Peterson, seconded by Scott,• that the Planning Commission send that request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-03, by Lyndale Terminal Company, to.allow the location of a qarden center in the Northeast corner of the parking.lot of iloliday Village North, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, located on part of Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. on to Council without a recommenda- tion. ' . _ .. , , -_ . �:..- Planning Commission Meeting -• March �17, 1976 Page 38 ' , M.OTSON by Scott, seconded by GabeZ, that the PZdnning Commission was concerned with the frequency of Iitter present � in the parking 1ot at Holiday.Village North: - Mr. Boardman said that one of the biggest problems on this parking lot was the problem of paper litter. He said he felt that Holiday Village had taken some steps to eliminate this problem. Upon a voice vote, on the amended motion, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Upon a voice vote on the motion, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously., 8. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. �76-03, LEIGH TERRACE ADDITION, BY LEIGH INVESTA7ENTS, INC. (SAME PROPERTY AS�PROP05ED DQRSTAD ADDITION): Being a replat of Lot 39, Revised Auditor's 5ub�ivision Noo 77, (excepting parcel 5640} generally located on the West side of the intersection of Osborne Road and East River Road. MOTTON by Peterson, seconded by Scott, tha� the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on a consideration of a reliminary p1at, P.5. #76-03, Leigh Terrace Additi.on, by Leigh P A dition Investments, Inc., (same property as proposed Doxstad d J. _ being a repl�t of Lot 39, Revised Auditor's Subdivision PJo. 77, n,' (excepting pa.rcel 5640), generally Iocated on the West side of the intersec�ion of Osbor�le Road and East River Road at the �etitioner's request. Upon a voice vote, a11 vo�ing aye, the � motion carried unanimous.Zy. AL�JOURNN`lENT : MOTION by Peterson, seconded b� Gabe.I, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of March 17, 1976 adjourned ai 2:15 A.M. Respectfully submitted, i � ;' � .� � � .�� ��t��i .t Dorothy Eve son, Secretary ° � �